Could a demolition team bring down WTC 7?

MaGZ said:
Who made the call? My guess would be Dick Cheney. WTC 7 was the national security building for New York City. I think to bring it down would take a special national security team with the necessary explosives. Once the decision was made the fire department approached Silverstein and informed him of the plan. Silverstein agreed.
Click to expand...

Why did they ask him and what would they have done if he said no? you have some imagination.
 
chillzero said:
westprog, you need a smilie in there - some people might think I'm mean or something.
;)
Click to expand...

I prefer to think your interventions are motivated by general compassion. And strong principles of discipline.

ETA: Thank you. :)

ETA: and don't do it again.
Click to expand...

I certainly won't.

Meanwhile we are faced with the idea that Cheney could have ordered, using his well-known unlimited vice-presidential powers, that the building be destroyed, in order to get rid of incriminating papers.

The stupidity (can I say that) inherent in the idea is that if Cheney or whoever really had the power to blow up a building, and have the people sorting through the rubble hand any papers they found to the Men In Black for destruction, he had the power to order a man disguised as a janitor to go in and shred the stuff in secret. MagZ and Zlaya would never have known about it.

Secondly, fire is a better way to dispose of papers than demolition - though it's a long way from reliable. Why didn't they just let the fires burn?

But if the destruction of papers is a dumb reason to blow up the building, then what's left of their theory? Thousands of people died when 1 & 2 came down. Nobody died AFAIAA from the fall of 7. It was a very, very minor event that day. What was the point? It obviously wasn't to destroy papers, because that is a totally dumb idea.

As with so much in the CT world, it just evaporates when you look at it closely.
 
westprog said:
I prefer to think your interventions are motivated by general compassion. And strong principles of discipline.



I certainly won't.

Meanwhile we are faced with the idea that Cheney could have ordered, using his well-known unlimited vice-presidential powers, that the building be destroyed, in order to get rid of incriminating papers.

The stupidity (can I say that) inherent in the idea is that if Cheney or whoever really had the power to blow up a building, and have the people sorting through the rubble hand any papers they found to the Men In Black for destruction, he had the power to order a man disguised as a janitor to go in and shred the stuff in secret. MagZ and Zlaya would never have known about it.

Secondly, fire is a better way to dispose of papers than demolition - though it's a long way from reliable. Why didn't they just let the fires burn?

But if the destruction of papers is a dumb reason to blow up the building, then what's left of their theory? Thousands of people died when 1 & 2 came down. Nobody died AFAIAA from the fall of 7. It was a very, very minor event that day. What was the point? It obviously wasn't to destroy papers, because that is a totally dumb idea.

As with so much in the CT world, it just evaporates when you look at it closely.
Click to expand...
But there's nothing sinister and evil about that! You can't make blanket accusations based on nothing when there's nothing evil to infer! Come on, you want their paranoia to starve to death? Have you no heart? They need for this to continue, so there is someone evil they can point at and say "he's responsible for all the bad stuff in my life"! Otherwise, they have to acknowledge that they have totally screwed up their own lives and grow up, and realize there is no monster under the bed, no boogie-man in the closet, and no NWO messing with their heads.
But, not to worry. None of this makes a bit of difference to our paranoid losers, because in their world, it's just further proof that we just don't understand reality, we just don't see the man behind the curtain, the shadow people, the multi-generational slow motion plots that swirl all around us. But just wait, someday (oh, yes, someday!) we'll get our come-uppance, for being fools and sheeple. You'll see! Oh, yes, mark my words!
So, let them wallow in their paranoia. Nothing will pull them from it. They are the only ones being hurt by it, as the world continues to go about its business, not giving a damn about them. That has to be the cruelest cut of all, the fact that the world could not care less, and laughs at them in their foolishness.
But they do have one redeeming quality. Their absolute certainty in their positions and inability to ever concede any point, no matter how trivial, makes them a treasure trove of comedic moments that we can enjoy for generations to come!
 
Alferd_Packer said:
So that makes the entire building the "national Security Building" for New York?

Was that the only office location in New York for those agencies?

And what does Rudy's love bunker have to do with National Security?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out what a "National Security Building" means. WTC 7 was better known as the Salomon Bros Building, in its day.... Uh oh. Jews.

Wait a minute, Alferd, before you get back to dining ... Do you have evidence that Rudy used WTC 7 for his "love bunker"? I thought he favored the Hamptons and other suburban sites. Please provide documentation of your claims. Memos, pictures... Uhm, forget the pictures.
 
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...

Wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to do that if the building was still standing but off-limits to the public due to apparent structural damage? Besides that, I think there are numerous easier ways to dispose of sensitive material.
 
No, no, no, you guys have it all wrong. The reason WTC7 was demo'd is because Doug Neidermeyer was bonking Mandy and Greg Marmalard was on to them. So, since all the pictures and letters were stored in Doug's secret office in building 7, he hired Bluto, D-Day, and the rest of Delta house to come in and have a toga party, therefore insuring the complete destruction of the building and the incriminating evidence.

Now it all makes sense, right? Right?
 
einsteen said:
Because all videos around are after the collapse initiation. And there are testimonies of booms.
Click to expand...

Hold on here a moment. Isn't the duration of the collapse of building 7 the main "smoking gun" of the truth movement? And, do they not get that from those YouTube videos? Skeptics have often held that those videos didn't show the beginning of the collapse, because the east and west penthouses fell before the video started. (They also don't show the end of the collapse, but that's another matter)

But now, we have a conspiracy theorist (and one of the more intelligible ones in Einsteen) using that as his argument for why there's no noises to go with the explosions! The conspiracy theorists cropped it out of the video!

However, I seem to recall that I've seen video showing the entire collapse sequence (or as much of it as would be needed to hear explosives detonating) which has not been edited by the truth movement. Does anyone have that?
 
HawksFan said:
No, no, no, you guys have it all wrong. The reason WTC7 was demo'd is because Doug Neidermeyer was bonking Mandy and Greg Marmalard was on to them. So, since all the pictures and letters were stored in Doug's secret office in building 7, he hired Bluto, D-Day, and the rest of Delta house to come in and have a toga party, therefore insuring the complete destruction of the building and the incriminating evidence.

Now it all makes sense, right? Right?
Click to expand...
At least as much sense as anything else proposed here.
 
PLEASE don't tell me the nuts are still spouting that garbage about WTC7 being demolished to destroy the papers and information contained therein.

Do I need to go find the DoD regulations regarding the destruction of classified material AGAIN?
 
Sabrina said:
PLEASE don't tell me the nuts are still spouting that garbage about WTC7 being demolished to destroy the papers and information contained therein.

Do I need to go find the DoD regulations regarding the destruction of classified material AGAIN?
Click to expand...

Hey, this was Super Secret Black Ops! DoD regulations? We don't need no stinkin' DoD regulations...
 
Well, Sabrina, I don't want to harsh your mellow...

(I heard that for the first time recently, and I am just tickled to have a chance to use it!)
 
twinstead said:
Hey, this was Super Secret Black Ops! DoD regulations? We don't need no stinkin' DoD regulations...
Click to expand...

Erm, Super Secret Black Ops would need to follow the regs more than any other area, or they don't stay secret, now do they? :p

SDC: *cracks up laughing*
 
einsteen said:
Why not, if fireman can reach all floors below the fire zone?
Click to expand...

Tell me this, Einsteen: Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the firefighters' oral testimonies and the photographs are a reasonable estimate of the state of WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11. The building has a 20+ storey gash in the South face, the SW corner is visibly damaged, there are other holes low down on the South face, the building is bulging and leaning visibly, a transit has been applied to measure its structural movement, most of the floors above floor 5 are fully involved in fire, the lobby is badly damaged and contains large amounts of rubble, and the building is believed to be liable to collapse. Would you volunteer to go into that building carrying demolition explosives, strip away the fireproofing and internal walling to get access to the support columns, attach those explosive charges, attach detonators, attach wires to those detonators and run those wires back through the building? Would you go into a burning building, carrying explosives, knowing that your work in that building might require you to be there for a matter of hours, during which time the building might collapse anyway? Would you expect anyone to volunteer to do that?

The supposed rationale for demolishing WTC7, in this particular scenario, is so as to allow search and rescue to resume within the collapse perimeter. Wouldn't it be safer just to use the same people that would have carried out the demolition to carry on the search and rescue instead, which doesn't involve actually going inside the building, and doesn't involve taking explosives either?

How insane does this scenario require the fire department to be?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
<snip> Would you volunteer to go into that building carrying demolition explosives, strip away the fireproofing and internal walling to get access to the support columns, attach those explosive charges, attach detonators, attach wires to those detonators and run those wires back through the building? Would you go into a burning building, carrying explosives, knowing that your work in that building might require you to be there for a matter of hours, during which time the building might collapse anyway? Would you expect anyone to volunteer to do that?
<snip>
How insane does this scenario require the fire department to be?

Dave
Click to expand...

Why even ask these questions? These questions are totally lost on truthers, as they believe that it is common sense that there is no way a building can collapse from the damage you described. Therefore, the conspirators also know the buildings can't collapse, so there is no reason to fear going in to plant the charges. Rather convenient logic isn't it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom