• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC7: The Twoofer Epiphany.

Pardalis

Banned
P
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,817
I was wondering why is the WTC7 collapse so important in the twoofer cult, from a psychological point of view.

I've noticed it is often the turning point for them, sort of their epiphany, the moment when they go from normal rational person to true believer.

When I went to a twoofer presentation at a University, the student ended his presentation with the WTC7 collapse, he even repeated it three times, to amplify it, as if it made any difference. It's like he wanted to create an impression on the audience, maybe the same impression he had when he himself first saw the collapse. The fact that he ended with this is telling, is this event the primordial "smoking gun" in his mind? I was baffled by the way he remained silent and contemplative during the times he repeated the video, how he looked at it with solemnity. Basically, he wanted to share his religious experience, he wanted to convert the audience.

Is it just about the visual stimuli of seeing the building collapse, the way it vaguely resembles what we've all seen of controlled demolitions? Sort of like when the Apostles saw the wounds on Christ, after his death?

Is it the surprise of finding out about WTC7 in the first place, which wasn't covered extensively by the media (since it was a peripheral event and not part of the attacks themselves)?

What is it about this very inconsequential event (in my opinion, as far as the attacks are concerned) that makes these people jump to conclusions and loose their marbles?

Any thoughts on this, from a psychological aspect? (so please twoofers, keep out!)
 
Last edited:
Twoofers use WTC 7 as a last resort for their controlled demoltion theory. They think it is one of the strongest points of evidence of an inside job.
 
Pardalis said:
I was wondering why is the WTC7 collapse so important in the twoofer cult, from a psychological point of view.

I've noticed it is often the turning point for them, sort of their epiphany, the moment when they go from normal rational person to true believer.

When I went to a twoofer presentation at a University, the student ended his presentation with the WTC7 collapse, he even repeated it three times, to amplify it, as if it made any difference. It's like he wanted to create an impression on the audience, maybe the same impression he had when he himself first saw the collapse. The fact that he ended with this is telling, is this event the primordial "smoking gun" in his mind? I was baffled by the way he remained silent and contemplative during the times he repeated the video, how he looked at it with solemnity. Basically, he wanted to share his religious experience, he wanted to convert the audience.

Is it just about the visual stimuli of seeing the building collapse, the way it vaguely resembles what we've all seen of controlled demolitions? Sort of like when the Apostles saw the wounds on Christ, after his death?

Is it the surprise of finding out about WTC7 in the first place, which wasn't covered extensively by the media (since it was a peripheral event and not part of the attacks themselves)?

What is it about this very inconsequential event (in my opinion, as far as the attacks are concerned) that makes these people jump to conclusions and loose their marbles?

Any thoughts on this, from a psychological aspect? (so please twoofers, keep out!)
Click to expand...
Not psychological, but WTC7 is a big deal because it wasn't hit by a plane. Remember, for the tin hatters, everything they know they learned from video. So they (some of them anyway), believe planes hit the towers and the damage was obvious, but there is no (or not enough for them) video of debris falling and hitting WTC7.

Of course we know the debris fell and had to hit something, but expecting them to extrapolate out the details is expecting way to much. One can't over simply the tin hatter brain, it's already simplified to it's lowest form.
 
Out of all the crap they have 7 is the most believeable. It is too obvious that the other stuff is bogus. If we had high quality pictures/videos of the damaged side of the building up to and during the collapse our job would be a whole lot easier. As it is there is enough 'mysetry' about 7 to barely hang a CT on.

eta

The video of it's collapse is psychologically effective for them. It's the 'good' side. It superficially resembles a CD. They keep telling themselves a perfectly good building shouldn't fall like that forgetting it wasn't perfectly good. That's the power of an image.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I think it's the opposite, it's often the first thing that makes them doubt the official account wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...

Anytime a twoofers begins a debate about CD, they usually start with WTC 1 & 2. After being disproved of their theory, they will grab on to WTC 7 collapse and say CD. That is what I ment by them using it as a last resort.

Yes, it is one of the first things that makes them doubt the 9/11 Commission Report. The same for the Pentagon.
 
I think, they think they have most smoking guns with WTC 7.

They have the infamous 'pull it' from Silverstein, they have a building not hit by a plane, they have some government offices in the building, they have a collapse that somewhat resembles a controlled demolition, they have north side photos which show only some flames.

They have deliberately built this topic their biggest asset with all this false evidence.
 
I've come to believe that which conspirationist arguments are "kept alive" over the years and which aren't is a pretty random process.

The reason why CT believers are talking about the WTC7 now is because other believers talked about it before. The whole movement has huge trouble "packaging" a case and eliminating disproven arguments from its narrative; so they are left running in circle with the same claims over and over again.

Silverstein jewish origins and "pull it" quote started it up. Afterward, other believers added claims and "proofs" (the CIA documents, the billions in gold, etc.). Quickly, the original claim gained critical mass and couldn't be retracted anymore; it has a life of its own. Had Silverstein STFU to begin with nobody would be talking about WTC7 today.

Same thing happened with the whole "controlled demolition" mess. A reporter naively said that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition". Soon afterward, new "evidences" were found to support the original theory. But would CT believers have come up with all these insanities about free fall speed and squibs had the original claim about CD never been made? Of course not.
 
Pardalis said:
I think it's the opposite, it's often the first thing that makes them doubt the official account wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...

I dunno. I sometimes wonder if the obsession with WTC7 is born out of their frustration with having the towers explained to them.

You see, when I first encountered the 911 ct it was (or seemed) all about how the towers couldn't have collapsed because the fire couldn't melt the steel.

Over time it has been pointed out to them (and may even have got through to some) that the steel didn't melt, it weakened, and that the structural damage from the plane impacts was a major factor.

So, this then leaves them with one building which though on fire, was not hit by any planes.

The lack of good hard evidence for the extent of the fires and the structural damage caused by the collapse of the adjacent tower has given them something to cling on to.

Add to this the paranoid misinterpretation of Silversteins comments and the comments by Jowenko and the 'truthers' have seen a possibility to reclaim the CT from the doldrums.

It will be interesting to see how the NIST final report impacts on these CT fantasies. No doubt a large number will disbelieve the findings but, just as with the towers, the reality of the mechanism for collapse will slowly seep into their conciousness and we will hear less and less about WTC7.
 
DavidJames said:
Not psychological, but WTC7 is a big deal because it wasn't hit by a plane. Remember, for the tin hatters, everything they know they learned from video. So they (some of them anyway), believe planes hit the towers and the damage was obvious, but there is no (or not enough for them) video of debris falling and hitting WTC7.

Of course we know the debris fell and had to hit something, but expecting them to extrapolate out the details is expecting way to much. One can't over simply the tin hatter brain, it's already simplified to it's lowest form.
Click to expand...

And another thoughtless insulting post from DavidJames.

The collapse of WTC7 doesn't require a great deal of thought before anyone of average intelligence and an open mind can appreciate it's significance in conjunction with all of the events of 9/11.

Those like myself who believe that there was insufficient probability for the existing debris damage and fires to account for the observed WTC7 collapse event, conclude that a 3rd factor, human intervention was involved.

This would require advanced preparation, and being part of the WTC Complex and occuring on 9/11 would link it to the other events of 9/11.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
And another thoughtless insulting post from DavidJames.

The collapse of WTC7 doesn't require a great deal of thought before anyone of average intelligence and an open mind can appreciate it's significance in conjunction with all of the events of 9/11.

Those like myself who believe that there was insufficient probability for the existing debris damage and fires to account for the observed WTC7 collapse event, conclude that a 3rd factor, human intervention was involved.

This would require advanced preparation, and being part of the WTC Complex and occuring on 9/11 would link it to the other events of 9/11.

MM
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm interesting that.

Doesn't it ever worry you that you base your view of these events on personal incredulity?

Why do you think that a building which was in close proximity to a massive chaotic collapse of a huge tower, and is then witnessed to be on fire, could not have itself failed by any means other than CD?

What is the impetus for that belief?

Do you deny that WTC7 was completely unaffected by the collapse of the adjacent tower?

Do you deny that there was fire inside WTC7?

Do you deny that structural damage could have occured to WTC7?

If you don't deny these things, then why do you automatically assume that some other mechanism was required to bring WTC7 down?

If you accept that WTC7 was not in pristine condition, why can't you accept that the damage could have been much much worse than you imagine?
 
Miragememories said:
This would require advanced preparation, and being part of the WTC Complex and occuring on 9/11 would link it to the other events of 9/11.
Click to expand...

There's a logical fallacy here: circular reasoning, denying of the antecedent?

Arkan, where art thou?
 
I agree with the OP. WTC 7 is definitely epiphanic for many. The superficial oddities surrounding it, along with all the dot-connecting by other truthers, plus the fact that the true reasons for its collapse are not obvious, make for a wonderfully specious demolition myth.

Building 7 was the only element about 9/11 that ever gave me a WTF? pause. I can see how this pause could cause someone's imagination to kick into overdrive trying to understand it, and eventually concluding that there had to have been explosives involved. Once they've crossed that bridge, their imagination has to come up with a way for the explosives to have been placed and detonated. They start to "realize" how clever the perps must have been, which opens up new "plausible" possibilities, which they need because unless the timing of building 7 was a coincidence, the people who took it down had to have had a hand in towers 1 & 2, which means they had a hand in the whole operation, etc....

edit-- A perfectly illustrative case in point:
Miragememories said:
The collapse of WTC7 doesn't require a great deal of thought before anyone of average intelligence and an open mind can appreciate it's significance in conjunction with all of the events of 9/11.

Those like myself who believe that there was insufficient probability for the existing debris damage and fires to account for the observed WTC7 collapse event, conclude that a 3rd factor, human intervention was involved.

This would require advanced preparation, and being part of the WTC Complex and occuring on 9/11 would link it to the other events of 9/11.

MM
Click to expand...
Thanks, MM!
 
Last edited:
Remember that what they are looking for to convert people with is something that will make them say, "Woo!" WTC 7 offers several opportunities for this:

a) Most people are unaware that a third very large building collapsed that day. Thus Truther Recruiters can provide a surprise that is actually true and verifiable.
b) They can point to Jowenko's claim that it was taken down by controlled demolition, and in part looks like a controlled demolition. This and Silverstein's "Pull it" comment are available in video which is much more powerful than a written/oral summary.
c) They can use it to highlight their "only three highrise steel buildings in history collapsed as a result of fire" claims, casting new doubt on the collapses of the towers.
d) It appears to offer an opportunity to highlight something where you're not blaming victims, since nobody apparently died as a result of WTC-7's collapse. Of course, it really does require active denial of the firefighters' testimonies.
e) Because the collapse study by NIST has taken so long, they can highlight that aspect.
 
I know I shouldnt be answering, but i'll do it anyway.

I think WTC7 collapse has not been explained. There are elements pointing at both direction.

We have to wait for the official report. Until then, the "bizarre design" and the "huge damage" still can't explain the collpase that furiously looks like a CD.

B
 
Pardalis said:
There's a logical fallacy here: circular reasoning, denying of the antecedent?

Arkan, where art thou?
Click to expand...
The biggest point of failure in that argument is that even if we assume that WTC 7 was CD, for the sake of argument, extending that to WTC 1 & 2 just because of how and when they occurred is a non sequitur.

Let me give an example that highlights why this is the case:
There is a pile-up on a foggy highway. In the front of the pile-up is a semi-truck, now sideways across the highway. Crashed into the semi-truck is a red card. Crashed into the red car is a blue car. The police determine that the blue car crashed into the red car because they were following too closely (driver error of the car). The police then claim that because that was the cause of the blue car crashing in to the red car; that the red car must have been following too close to the semi-truck (also driver error of the car). In actuality, the semi-truck driver cut off the driver in the red car, causing the accident (driver error of the semi-truck).
 
I was a OCT supporter (and even supported that moron Bush) but wtc7 was the biggest reason to convert. It is absolutely the cleanest collapse I've ever seen, if you look at official CD videos you see parts from the left or right going first, probably that has to do with the fact that nothing has been removed from the building and the forces just balance during the collapse. I'm very open minded but cannot simply accept this. What I think is that they imploded wtc7 for insurance purposes. Who on earth (and involved) will admit that ? And there is the other point that when a CD becomes the official explanation one might made a link with the twin towers and that is too painfull. 9/11 is too big. And as I said before Jowenko's online interviews are the biggest friends of the official explanation, because if you are a corrupt scumbag you don't have to be a mass killer. Although if you look at a strict LIHOP scenario you are also responsible and evil as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Videla and Pinochet combined.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom