To avoid all the derails in threads which have nothing to do with this subject this thread is intended as a depository for all discussions regarding 7 World Trade - the 9/11 Truth Movements Alamo. Here is your chance to address issues such as:
1. If you believe 7 was brought down through malicious human intervention (MHI) of some sort rather than the victim of fires started by the collapse of the North Tower why do you suppose this nondescript, unimportant, ordinary office tower which nobody who did not work or live in the immediate area had heard of have to come down? What is the motive?
How does the destruction of an unknown and unimportant building further the plot when all the other alleged targets were famous symbols of American economic, political and military power?
2. How (very specifically) was it done? What kind of devices, how many, placed where and by whom?
3. Why wait 7 hours after the collapse of the North Tower? Why take that risk? Why not bring it down in sync with the collapse of the North Tower when no one would even see it. Heck, why not bring 7 down before it was evacuated in order to cause maximum casualties?
4. If 7 was the real target off the attacks, why then target the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and an innocent disused gravel pit in Pennsylvania? Why not a simple fertilizer bomb in the back of a panel truck? That would take at most 2 guys to pull off, not hundreds or even thousands like any CD scenario ever put forward.
5. How do you account for the obvious signs of imminent collapse 7 displayed in the hours before it finally came down as reported by emergency personnel and city engineers?
6. If you do think the collapse of 7 was a case of MHI but you have not asked yourself the above questions before, then ask yourself why not? They are fundamental.
OR
If you don't buy into the MHI scenario and are convinced 7 World Trade collapsed as a result of damage it suffered in the collapse of the North Tower by all means share your conclusions here.
I'm a slight small group "lihopper". Not convinced but suspiscious.
The collapses in the footprint have always troubled me a bit.
My loose theory is that it could have been purely logistical. Better to have it all come down at once than deal with the long term problems of dismantling all those buildings surgically in a city plagued by gridlock. Long term psychology of ruined buildings looming for what could be years.
Fair enough. But why do you think any of the towers (1, 2 & 7) collapsed in their own footprint? I ask because the North Tower for example caused considerable damage to 7 WTC when it collapsed and 7 was what, 350 feet away with another building in between. When 7 collapsed it did considerable damage to the Verizon building and destroyed Fiterman Hall on the opposite side of a 4-lane street.
Even if they had fallen in their own footprints, why is this suspicious?
Fair enough again but,... what about say the Bankers Trust building and Fiterman Hall? Those had to be dismantled which took years. Why not just pop them too? Why stop within the WTC complex?
I'm not really seeing solutions here, just more questions.
I've wondered if it was the owner. That he found out about what was going to happen and rigged them to minimize problems with his investment.
TBH, i try not to think about it too much. Every time i looked for a while it made me MORE suspiscious.
So Larry Silverstein Properties Inc. found out there was going to be a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and rather than report this information (how would they even know?) they chose to wire their own building (7) for demolition?!?!?!?
It would depend on how they (he) found out.
The idea that a handful of people wouldn't cynically allow thousands to die to further an agenda is belied by human history. Some people are amorally ****ty, and our system biases a bit towards bastards, causing our upper echelons to contain a disproportionate percentage of bastards.
Counting on decency or humanity from the ruling class is a fools game.
So you are saying Larry Silverstein Properties Inc, a real estate development firm in NYC has its own secret intelligence service that uncovered a terror plot even the CIA and FBI couldn't expose. This plot was directed at buildings Silverstein Properties held the lease on and represented a substantial portion of the companies revenues. So, rather than report this information from their secret intelligence network to foil the plot and save the company from potentially dangerous financial losses this real estate firm hired contractors to wire 7 WTC with super-secret silent hush-a-boom explosives which were then set off 7 hours after the North Tower fell, even though 7 was already going to collapse due to the damage and fires it had sustained.
Do I have that right?
Does that make sense to you?
There was a big new insurance policy. And same day demolition gets the rebuilding started MUCH faster.
I don't have a dog in the fight on this.
My point is that evil ****heads clearly exist and tend to accumulate at the top.
My musings are more towards WHY there might have been motive to pre-rig the buildings.
I don't take it seriously.
But if insurance can only be used for rebuilding at the same site where is the profit? What about the years of lost revenue when the towers are out of commission? Wouldn't it be more worthwhile - given the costs of running a private international espionage outfit that can infiltrate terrorist groups - to expose the plot and take the positive PR?
The country's psyche would never survive the discovery that members of its own government allowed the deaths of thousands of people to satisfy a questionable agenda.
And hastening the destruction of the existing buildings all at once on the day of the event would shorten the "downtime" to a fraction of what dismantling two skyscrapers with planes stuck in them piece by piece would take.
What, nothing else? We seem to have had a drive-by Truthing
Is in not a given that a properly planned and executed controlled demolition can take down a structure?
Where is the supporting evidence that WTC7 was taken down by CD?
I think that is the real problem Mark....I know its weird since this is at least 2 levels above normal Truther thinking but like I said, I'm just trying to give them a gentle nudge forward. Maybe then they could answer the big questions like what do you think really happened on 9/11.
In the interest of asking a question our resident Truthers should have asked but apparently haven't thought of (because they are too busy with fantasies of "retained its shape" and "free-fall"),..
and make pre-cuts
I think that is the real problem Mark.
It NEEDS thinking "at least 2 levels above normal Truther thinking" BUT "they" cannot do it. And it is near universal. I cannot recall a truther who has ever 'thinked' at that 2 levels higher. They cannot line up and join the dots. That is one reason why they play "reversed burden of proof" - it gets debunkers doing the thinking and SOME debunkers can do it plus the debunker side arguments are mostly correct so even if the responding debunker is a "parrot" the response will be near enough rational and correct.
No such luxury for the truthers who cannot think. The truther party lines are mostly wrong so "parroting" a leading truther guarantees that the truther parrot is wrong.
ADD to that unlevel playing field of both thinking skill and need for thinking ANOTHER massive barrier.
It is this: Since the main claims of 9/11 truth are false [in your opinion] it is well nigh impossible if not totally impossible to coherently "line up and join the dots" for a truth side argument. [sure it is but you always try to control the debate] Dunno about you but I tried it on two occasions allying with two separate truthers to see if I could help them and thats the first problem formulate an hypothesis. IIRC it was about 2008-9. They were both old style "genuine truthers" who appreciated the co-operation BUT the exercise doomed to fail. There is no coherent argument for the main truther claims. Oh come on, truthers dont claim the paint job stood while the building fell for gods sake, or that it fell faster than freefall] The facts are against it happening 'coz the dots wont line up. There was no CD at WTC [and you wonder why you cant get a debate going LMAO] - etc Pentagon/Shanksville.
Finally, remember that people who cannot mange your "2 levels above normal truther" will not comprehend what I have written - because it is 3 levels higher - an additional "meta-process" level ABOVE the 2 levels needed by the problem. Let's see if we get proof of that "meta-process" claim. :roll:
I really doubt that.
the idea a real estate developer operates his own private anti-terrorism task force.
1) Oh? Why is that, exactly?
2) Well, John P. O'Neill, a former F.B.I. special agent and counter-terrorism expert who investigated the '93 WTC bombing, the Khobar tower bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was the head of security for the WTC on 9/11. Billionaires and large multinational corporations employ all sorts of individuals who, among other things, maintain security and gather useful information (intelligence) that will benefit their employer. Besides, if a person or corporation is wealthy enough, there is no telling the depth of their connections with such entities as an intelligence agency or the military or the police or politicians. The idiom "every man has his price" comes into play with billionaires and the people they have solicited for things like information or access.
John P O'Neil did not work for Larry Silverstein Properties and he was not a one-man counter terror intelligence apparatus with agents infiltrating Al Queada. He was a retired law enforcement official who took up a lucrative private security career post retirement. He was also killed in the attacks - so much for foreknowledge.
The lengths Truthers will go to in order to justify their personal brands of reality-distortion boggle the mind.
I really doubt that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?