Could a demolition team bring down WTC 7?

If explosives brought down WTC7, then how come there's no recordings of the very loud BOOMS those explosives would have made?
 
If explosives brought down WTC7, then how come there's no recordings of the very loud BOOMS those explosives would have made?
Click to expand...

Rational people know the answer.

Because there was no controlled demolition of WTC7. There were no explosives. Period.

Now watch the Troofers start pretending at you. They're so cute.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
so how does a demolition maintain security? it would just scatter national secrets across the streets of new york

if the building is standing, and in one piece, they can make sure no one approaches it
Click to expand...

Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
 
Zlaya said:
Anyways, regarding the OP, WTC 7 was clearly a CD, and regardless of how much damage you claim was caused to one side, and regardless of how many fires you claim were burning away (uninterupted), that building should still be standing right now.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the many "regardless" in your post for the moment, could you please enlighten us what the motive for the supposed demolition of WTC 7 was? What's the purpose? Did evil Chaney[sic] insist on it for the fun of watching a Rube Goldberg machineWP go off?

This is the real world, not Austin Powers.
 
MaGZ said:
Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
Click to expand...

I would think it would be obvious that the task of removing sensitive documents from a building is made much harder by destroying the building.

But then, I think it would be obvious that:
  • No missiles were used on 9/11;
  • The Jews aren't plotting world domination;
  • White people should be able to socialise and have sexual relationsips with people of any race.
 
Last edited:
MaGZ said:
Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
Click to expand...

And I think it was likely the remains of the building were used to make fluffy clouds and pink unicorns. The hard drives were softened and used to make pillows for babys, and the documents used to make memo pads.

Of the two scenarios, which one sounds more far-fetched? Kinda hard to pick, isn't it? Both are based on equal amounts of evidence and reality, so toss a coin.
 
MaGZ said:
Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you missed the question, mein herr. What conceivable purpose was served by demolishing this building seven hours after the jihadist attacks?
 
MaGZ said:
Yes
Click to expand...

I just want to pause here a second and say thank you. Even though I completely disagree with you and all evidence points to you being wrong, you have actually admitted a concrete claim, which gives you more credit than other truthers who frequent these boards.
 
MaGZ said:
GStan suggested a new thread could be started concerning the possibility of a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Below is his post from another thread.
Click to expand...
Have you even read a single one of the first responders' archived oral histories at the New York Times web site? I have almost read all of them and I can't find anything to support your idle speculations.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

There's enough there to keep you busy for a year. Tell us which ones you think support the idea that secret demolition teams were inserted in broad daylight and in front of hundreds of witnesses.

I started reading them due to their deployment by David Ray Griffin in his books. I doubt even Dr Griffin has spent the time to read all of them; otherwise he would never have arrived at the conclusions he did that use them as sources.
 
MaGZ said:
Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
Click to expand...
Great side-step, MaGZ.

The canard about WTC7 being "pulled" had nothing at all to do with the CIA. If you go back to your rense.com resources, you will find that the original idea behind Larry "Pull It" Silverstein was because of some sort of effort to destroy Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, etc., files held by the SEC inside the building. All the charges were going to be dropped--remember? "Pull It" Silverstein had ordered the FDNY to help destroy all the files. In the meantime, of course, those speculations were covered up by your conspiracist friends. Why? Because the collapse of WTC7 didn't impede the investigations whatsoever. People were sent to prison because the SEC files were not kept there after all. Ooops!!

So then rense.com moved on to--"light bulb"--the CIA.

In other words, your conspiracist sources sought to deceive and cover up their own speculations about only copies of business fraud cases by simply claiming that they didn't exist. As long as Silverstein had a Jewish-sounding surname, it didn't matter what sort of thing they made up, as long as the conspiracist sheeple went along with it.

Glad to see you didn't disappoint.
 
Hmmmmm....I hear crickets...or hushabooms...they all sound the same....
WTC7 has been debunked, explained and documented so thoroughly the only image that comes to mind is: (forgive me for using it twice tonight)


19757476a02ac45cdc.jpg
 
pomeroo said:
So what? Connect this observation to your imaginary conspiracy's plan to conquer the world for Halliburton, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes, pomeroo, its all just a big long set of coincidences...

Thats it right there. Boooooy, look at that inferno that brought down WTC 7.

What an inferno!
 
MaGZ said:
Once the building was pulled in on itself, the National Guard was brought in to secure the remains of WTC 7. All of the national security material in WTC 7 would have to be retrieved. I think it is likely the remains of WTC 7 was taken to a military base where documents and hard drives related to national security were removed.
Click to expand...

1. Why in the hell would you blow up the building in the first place?

2. How could you be sure you got ALL of the national-security related material? Wouldn't the collapse of the building spill secrets all over Lower Manhattan?

3. Are you claiming that the WTC7 debris WASN'T sold to the Chinese? Are you giving up that point?
 
Last edited:
danielk said:
Ignoring the many "regardless" in your post for the moment, could you please enlighten us what the motive for the supposed demolition of WTC 7 was? What's the purpose? Did evil Chaney[sic] insist on it for the fun of watching a Rube Goldberg machineWP go off?

This is the real world, not Austin Powers.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what the motive was for the accidental fire near WH that accidentally burned down all those documents just today?

Tell me daniel, what is the motive for that?
 
jhunter1163 said:
1. Why in the hell would you blow up the building in the first place?
Click to expand...

What if, and this is just a big IF - a plane was supposed to crash into it, like into towers 1 and 2, but somehow flight 93 crashed somewhere else? Since there was no plane coming, they had to destroy the building, since it would have been difficult to explain the explosive destruction in the lobby, and lower levels of the building. This also explains the BBC, CNN and Channel 24 confusion.

Obviously this is just a theory. Some may even call it a 'conspiracy theory'.

Ooooooooo....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom