• 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.

Merged "Pull It" (Stop yawning people!)

Pardalis said:
First of all 7 World Trade Center was not built in a time of war, and there hasn't been a war fought in New York for centuries.

Second, it may have been New York's emergency command center, but why would they need for it to be destroyed in an emergency? What was there that needed to be destroyed?

ETA: also, wouldn't the "emergency center" be the last place you'd want to be destroyed in an emergency?

Third, WTC 7 was also a civilian building with lots of tenants, especially banks and financial institutions, which brings the point again of why on earth would anyone want to have their offices in an explosives-packed building for?
Click to expand...


its the last place you want to give up. but in a case of an invasion and the loose the battle in NY, im sure they dont want to leave behind a command center. i guess, in such a command center there are instalations you dont want to leave behind so the enemy can use it.
and im not so sure if the US government, especially reagan, was so convinced about Gorbatschow and his plans :)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
its the last place you want to give up. but in a case of an invasion and the loose the battle in NY, im sure they dont want to leave behind a command center. i guess, in such a command center there are instalations you dont want to leave behind so the enemy can use it.
and im not so sure if the US government, especially reagan, was so convinced about Gorbatschow and his plans :)
Click to expand...

Well New York wasn't invaded on 9/11, and pretty much everything was over before noon, so there was no reason to blow up the emergency center at 5.

Maybe you're going to contend that the debris from the collapse had initiated the self-destruct sequence and nobody could stop it, but this leaves again the question of the usefulness of having an explosives-packed building in downtown Manhattan, when any office fire could trigger it.

Or maybe you'd like to contend that they decided to make it self-destruct because of the damage, and that they cover this up because they don't want to alarm the population by letting them know that most of the buildings in major US cities are rigged to explode?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Or maybe you'd like to contend that they decided to make it self-destruct because of the damage, and that they cover this up because they don't want to alarm the population by letting them know that most of the buildings in major US cities are rigged to explode?
Click to expand...

Yeah what the hell,let's go with that one.
 
Pardalis said:
Well New York wasn't invaded on 9/11, and pretty much everything was over before noon, so there was no reason to blow up the emergency center at 5.

Maybe you're going to contend that the debris from the collapse had initiated the self-destruct sequence and nobody could stop it, but this leaves again the question of the usefulness of having an explosives-packed building in downtown Manhattan, when any office fire could trigger it.

Or maybe you'd like to contend that they decided to make it self-destruct because of the damage, and that they cover this up because they don't want to alarm the population by letting them know that most of the buildings in major US cities are rigged to explode?
Click to expand...

interesting, most of the buildings? also interesting that you asume they would do it in a way every office fire could set them off....

officialy its claimed that non of the explosives went of during the fires, also called infernos by the media. with "molten cars" (not DEW evidence ;) )
 
Pardalis said:
That's because there weren't any.
Click to expand...

http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner...mp.fcgi/2001/1030/allgemeines/0034/index.html

Zum Beispiel auch durch mehrere hundert Kilogramm Sprengstoff: Sie waren beim Bau des Tunnels in den Fels eingegossen worden - im Kriegsfall hätte damit der Tunnel gesprengt werden sollen. "Allerdings sind keine Zünder mit eingebaut gewesen - also keine Gefahr", sagt Militärsprecher Urs Caduff.
Click to expand...

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,165101,00.html

http://www.bielertagblatt.ch/Dossier//?serien_id=255&id=8425&job=7008261&kap=dos&dos=article

there was several 100 kg of explosives that was built into the tunnel.
in case of war the tunnel would be demolitioned.
but there was no danger because the fuse is not built in.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I thought you were talking about WTC 7.

Je ne parle pas l'Allemand en passant.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
its the last place you want to give up. but in a case of an invasion and the loose the battle in NY, im sure they dont want to leave behind a command center. i guess, in such a command center there are instalations you dont want to leave behind so the enemy can use it.
and im not so sure if the US government, especially reagan, was so convinced about Gorbatschow and his plans :)
Click to expand...
This wasn't something to be used in case of an invasion - it was simply a command post to coordinate fire, police, hospitals etc in case of a natural disaster, large terrorist attack, or riots. There was certainly nothing in it that would need to be destroyed...
 
WildCat said:
This wasn't something to be used in case of an invasion - it was simply a command post to coordinate fire, police, hospitals etc in case of a natural disaster, large terrorist attack, or riots. There was certainly nothing in it that would need to be destroyed...
Click to expand...

for me thats contradicting itself. would be a nice place to coordinate the atacks on the surounding region for the commys. considered its infrastructure.
 
Anyways, at 5 PM there was no invasion to worry about, not even at 2:30 when the decision was made to stop fighting the fires.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Anyways, at 5 PM there was no invasion to worry about, not even at 2:30 when the decision was made to stop fighting the fires.
Click to expand...

i took that example for a possible reason to build in explosives while they build that building, or when they upgraded the "bunker".
i just wanted to show that it is not so farfetched to assume there could have been explosives in the building prior 2001.
i never claimed or assumed an invasion was the reason to "pull it"
btw i also did make clear that even "pull it" is not evidence, i think it is a weak indication at max. but i wonder really why there are lies about it missquotes and strange counter theorys, and this time not from the loose change kids :eye-poppi

PS: even when WTC7 was CDed, that would not necessarily mean Inside Job i think. depends on the reason they CDed it.
 
Last edited:
Oy...

DC, there are TONS of better places to coordinate a defense of this nation than the middle of a humongous city that would essentially have a gigantic bullseye painted on it simply because it is a center of infrastructure.

You need to learn more about military level tactics before you start spouting off about things you don't understand, mmmkay?
 
Sabrina said:
Oy...

DC, there are TONS of better places to coordinate a defense of this nation than the middle of a humongous city that would essentially have a gigantic bullseye painted on it simply because it is a center of infrastructure.

You need to learn more about military level tactics before you start spouting off about things you don't understand, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

indeed as a fan of Mahatma Ghandi, im not really qualified to express my oppinion about war tactics :eek:

on the other hand, i never claimed it was the center of the US defence, it was a command center for NY afaik. and afaik its location was already in debate because of its location. but in 2001 it(WTC7) still contained the NY emergency bunker.

and it was about how handy it would be for your enemys, in a worst case scenario of invasion and loosing battle in NY. your enemys sure did not depent on it, but it would sure be a nice to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom