WTC7: The Twoofer Epiphany.
- Thread starter Pardalis
- Start date
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
So true.
Remember, initially the claims were that the towers 1 and 2 fell in what looked like controlled demolition. There were plenty of quotes around where people said, "It was like when those buildings are demolished" and we had the "they fell in their own footprints" stuff.
Of course, when people started looking into it (video is available) it was shown that they in fact did NOT look like any CDs that had ever taken place (I remember back in the first thread on this when Dr Adequate posted a link to a page with 30 or so CDs, not a single one looked anything like the WTC towers falling) and that debris was spread all over the place, so they didn't fall "in their own footprint." In fact, that the towers falling was so bloody obvious that they retreated from "it looks like a CD" to "it was made to NOT look like a CD" (how's that for coming full circle?)
Upon initial glance, WTC7 at least looks like the buildings falling in the demolition videos, partially because all we have is remote video of the backside. Of course, analyzed more closely, we can see that it has characteristics atypical of a CD, both visually, and, more importantly, in the audio.
"No building has ever fallen from fires alone, therefore, we propose it was a CD using thermite. Of course, no controlled demolition has ever been carried out using thermite, either, and we have no explanation for how the thermite charges were planted, but our unprecedented situation requiring massive consipiracy makes more sense than the unprecedented idea that fire caused it, even though it really isn't unprecedented and there are examples of steel buildings collapsing because of fire damage."
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Open minded? That phrase may have a different meaning in your country. Here, "open minded" doesn't mean "immune to reason." Allow me to remind you of some of your first posts here.
einsteen being open minded about Twin Towers having demolitons explosives built in.
einsteen being open minded about his claim that a plume of smoke larger than WTC 7 rose in front of that building before the towers collapsed.
After being corrected about the plume for a second time, einsteen remains open minded.
einsteen being open minded about flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and what the Pentagon may have been made of.
einsteen keeping an open mind about the laws of physics, and about magic.
einsteen keeping an open mind about Larry Silverstein.
Last edited:
No, I had not seen those. Interesting, will study them later.
But Gravy. What is that channel running up the building? It looks too clean to be the 'hole' and too high.
I agree. What's that black gash? If it's a damage, how coult it have happened?
I thought it could a shadow but the smoke would have altered it for sure.
Other than that, and as far as we can see, the damage is limited. Actually, more limited than this one: bankers building
Of course, you'll say that numerous accounts mention the huge hole at the base of the building, the corner damage etc..
But nope, i'm still not convinced.
PS: can we get the source for that picture. getting the whole video might be VERY interesting for all of us!!!!!!
Last edited:
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Bush: Ok, we need to get rid of vague, but bad, records in WC7.
Rice: So we have people shred the documents and wipe any disks? Maybe 10-20 people, tops? Very quiet. Easy. We could get it done in a weekend maybe.
Cheney: No, that's just what they'd expect us to do.
Rice: Ooooh-kay. Well, then we have a break in and start a fire near the offices. Take away some of the bad files and make sure that the damage destroys the rest. Not as easy, but still maybe 10-20 people. May have some people hurt, of course, if the fire spreads.
Bush: Fire. Fire good.
Cheney: No, no. It's been done. The whole Reichstag thing.
Rice: Um. Hmm. Ok, we have a bomb planted in WC7. Same deal -- maybe 5 or 10 guys involved, in and out, takes out a floor or two and maybe starts a fire.
Bush: Fire pretty.
Cheney: We need more. Something BIG. And a bomb by itself wasn't enough in 1993.
Rice: That was a lot bigger, and we don't have to bring dow-
Cheney: No, I've got it! We can use the bomb idea, but We have muslim terrorist take over a plane, too. No, planes -- maybe 3 or 4.
Rice: . . .
Cheney: Yeah, that's it. It's perfect.
Rice: So you've got perfectly good bombs, but you want planes to ram the building?
Cheney: Don't be silly. These planes will ram other buildings nearby -- like WC1 or 2 -- so that when they collapse, we can use the excuse that the falling debris and flames caused WC7 to fall, too.
Bush: I think I found a quarter.
Rice: But planes hitting the buildings -- assuming that they can -- might not bring down WC1 and 2. It hasn't been done before, we can't be sure that would work -- wouldn't it be easier to jus-
Cheney: More explosives!!
Rice: Wha-? Do you know how BIG those buildings are? You'll need hundreds of people and weeks of prep-
Cheney: Yes, just to be sure, we'll add even more explosives to WC1 and 2, so that when the planes hit, we can trigger the explosives and guarantee the buildings come down.
Rice: Then why do we need the planes at all?
Cheney: Women. you just don't understand these things.
Bush: Yeah.
--------------------
Oh yes, that makes perfect sense.
I have a picture showing the huge gash started at the top of the building and went downward: might have been a huge piece of the falling tower going deep and straight down in WTC7, taking the outerwall with it.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/news_wtc7_1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/news_wtc7_1.jpg
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
I agree with Demon. I think twoofers approach the 9/11 thing with a desperate a priori need to believe, because it gives them a false sense of significance and belonging. They eventually fasten onto WTC7 because it's the least ridiculous of their theories -- not because there's even a scintilla of truth to it, but because more attention has been paid to WTC1 and 2 and the Pentagon. It's the same reason Killtown is so obsessed with Shanksville. There's absolutely nothing to his nonsense of course, but compared to other aspects of 9/11, Shanksville has gotten somewhat less attention, so the mountain of evidence isn't quite as high.
If WTC7 never existed, the same people would probably still find some other reason to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. It's the belief itself that's important, not the evidence for it. That probably says something about people in general, but I don't like to dwell on it for too long...
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
This is what bothers me about WTC 7. I watched 911 live on the day and I am sure at some stage I would have seen it collapse. I honestly cannot recall. The events of this day were so massive that the collapse of an unoccupied building after all else that went one was not really that troublesome.
Looked at the collapse of WTC 7, yes it does look like a controlled demolition. This is what the twoothers build their entire case upon. They look for further things to reinforce the already predetermined notion that just because it looked like a controlled demolition it was in fact a controlled demolition. Although how on earth a building that fell to the ground after it suffered catastrophic structural failure is supposed to look like if not like a controlled demo beats me.
So when Silverstone said in an interview “they decided to pull it". It is, in their minds the building. It could not be the operation, despite the fact that it has been said over and over again this is actually what he was referring it. Added then is the fact that no plane hit, yes no plane hit it but two very large buildings at the side of it collapsed. The damage that this alone caused to WTC 7 is still being investigated. This in its self is then added to the conspiracy. The very fact that a thorough investigation is going on it to it asserting why the building collapse. In twoofy land this is further proof that "they” are covering it all up. The very point to the investigation is lost on them. It is to offer up recommendations to ensure that it never happens again. When the damage and fires cause a 47 story building to collapse people want to know why, people want to know how safe are the rest of the planets tall buildings. People want to know what can be done to improve safety inside these buildings to ensure that other building doesn’t collapse. Ah but the troothers say “ No steel frame building as ever collapsed due to fire before” exactly, that is why it is so important to find out exactly why it did ( there have actually but that is beside the point)
WTC 7, in my opinion a gathering together of as yet unexplained events and mixing them with wishful thinking. Simply blurring it all into one desperate theory whereby nasty death squads secretly ran the 911 operation from within this building, and to cover their tracks they had to blow it up. It is simply absurd that anybody could run a mass murder plot from a building right next to two buildings that they knew were going to collapse. Or the other theories are that it had to be destroyed to destroy precious files stored inside it. What? Why not just take the things out beforehand? Why not just let the fires destroy them? How could they be so certain that demolishing a building would destroy them?
And what of the firemen who heard it groaning, saw it leaning over, saw the massive full on fires? Oh well according to twoothy land there are no clear photographs, nothing on youtube showing this, so it didn’t happen.
And the greatest mistake of all that was made was that they actually allowed it all to be filmed. They waited until the dust settled, cleared the area, and actually told the world’s media to film it and broadcast it live to the entire planet.
It takes a special person to concoct such an extraordinarily stupid plan, one that relies totally on so many unknowns. Unknown amount of damage from the collapsing towers, unknown amount of damage from the fires, unknown amount of people seeing and filming it all. It relies totally on whatever explosives were inside this building surviving, it relies totally on the firemen believing it was about to collapse. It relies totally on the entire planets media broadcasting it live and not one of the shouting “Hey did you hear all them explosive charges going off”
Wow, what a super duper plan, who on earth authorised it?
Looked at the collapse of WTC 7, yes it does look like a controlled demolition. This is what the twoothers build their entire case upon. They look for further things to reinforce the already predetermined notion that just because it looked like a controlled demolition it was in fact a controlled demolition. Although how on earth a building that fell to the ground after it suffered catastrophic structural failure is supposed to look like if not like a controlled demo beats me.
So when Silverstone said in an interview “they decided to pull it". It is, in their minds the building. It could not be the operation, despite the fact that it has been said over and over again this is actually what he was referring it. Added then is the fact that no plane hit, yes no plane hit it but two very large buildings at the side of it collapsed. The damage that this alone caused to WTC 7 is still being investigated. This in its self is then added to the conspiracy. The very fact that a thorough investigation is going on it to it asserting why the building collapse. In twoofy land this is further proof that "they” are covering it all up. The very point to the investigation is lost on them. It is to offer up recommendations to ensure that it never happens again. When the damage and fires cause a 47 story building to collapse people want to know why, people want to know how safe are the rest of the planets tall buildings. People want to know what can be done to improve safety inside these buildings to ensure that other building doesn’t collapse. Ah but the troothers say “ No steel frame building as ever collapsed due to fire before” exactly, that is why it is so important to find out exactly why it did ( there have actually but that is beside the point)
WTC 7, in my opinion a gathering together of as yet unexplained events and mixing them with wishful thinking. Simply blurring it all into one desperate theory whereby nasty death squads secretly ran the 911 operation from within this building, and to cover their tracks they had to blow it up. It is simply absurd that anybody could run a mass murder plot from a building right next to two buildings that they knew were going to collapse. Or the other theories are that it had to be destroyed to destroy precious files stored inside it. What? Why not just take the things out beforehand? Why not just let the fires destroy them? How could they be so certain that demolishing a building would destroy them?
And what of the firemen who heard it groaning, saw it leaning over, saw the massive full on fires? Oh well according to twoothy land there are no clear photographs, nothing on youtube showing this, so it didn’t happen.
And the greatest mistake of all that was made was that they actually allowed it all to be filmed. They waited until the dust settled, cleared the area, and actually told the world’s media to film it and broadcast it live to the entire planet.
It takes a special person to concoct such an extraordinarily stupid plan, one that relies totally on so many unknowns. Unknown amount of damage from the collapsing towers, unknown amount of damage from the fires, unknown amount of people seeing and filming it all. It relies totally on whatever explosives were inside this building surviving, it relies totally on the firemen believing it was about to collapse. It relies totally on the entire planets media broadcasting it live and not one of the shouting “Hey did you hear all them explosive charges going off”
Wow, what a super duper plan, who on earth authorised it?
Miragememories
Banned
Oh give it up dave.
To listen to you a fart would have brought down WTC7.
Let's face it. You made up your friggin mind and you have no intention of listening to anything that contradicts your belief.
That's fine. I hope your right because if your wrong I expect you will make a fast exit from JREF because you don't strike me as man enough to face up to your own mistakes in judgement!
MM
Miragememories
Banned
Pardalis what there was, was a trolling for a known response.
You asked a question that you already knew the answer to but decided to play the agent provocateur.
You aren't on a mission of intelligent inquiry, you just want to provoke for the sheer joy of it.
Typical smug JREF response knowing the herd will leap in to join the monkey pile.
MM
Miragememories
Banned
Gravy..Mark Roberts..Bozo the Clown..whatever handle you like, you see smoke and quotes and you've commited yourself to a belief that your supreme ego as defacto leader of the JREF 'yes crowd' will not let you see any other point of view.
I'd like to hear the xpert opinion of the rest of the NYC tour guides for a change. I'm tired of your 'cut & paste' arguments.
I see smoke and you blow smoke...9/11 has become your life..some day you'll have to redefine yourself because you can't cannabilize 9/11 forever.
MM
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
This makes no sense.
Now now...stop attacking the messenger. You truthers were calling for us to be more civil, to stop the name calling and attacks...then what do you go and do...tsk tsk tsk.
TAM
