• 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.

Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

bill smith said:
Like I said .This is a strong hypothesis but obviously I do not have access to all the details and so cannot give detailed answers.
Click to expand...
Sure you can, after all you're just making all of this up. Fill in the details Billy boy!
 
bill smith said:
No problem. We only have this guys word for this, Apart from that I can believe that the electronic data would mostly have been on other computers but perhaps not some of the hard socumentation. They could 'lose' any critical document they liked after a mess like this.
Click to expand...
So Enron is still in business? Please, list all cases that were thrown out because of missing evidence from WTC 7.
 
Pardalis said:
You would have found it by now if you were genuinely interested.

Just follow the red arrows. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Maybe I had trouble finding it since you misrepresented his position. He said:

WTC1 and WTC2 had explosives/incendiaries buit in. So did WTC7.
Click to expand...

You said:

they had to devise a plan to rig the building for controlled demolition on the spot.
Click to expand...

See the difference?
 
lapman said:
So Enron is still in business? Please, list all cases that were thrown out because of missing evidence from WTC 7.
Click to expand...

How would we know what cases never came to light through the destruction of documentation and discs and so on. By definition they would never have come to light ecause the evidence had been destroyed.
 
Anyway...

Bill Smith said:
Then I thought 'perhaps an airliner was meant to hit WTC7 too ''- but for some reason it did not arrive so the perps lit some fires on various floors of the building in the hope that they would connect up and cause a big enough fire to allow the bilding to be demolished under cover of the blaze. Unfortunately the fire did not eally catch and they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20 in the afternoon.
Click to expand...
Tell me this isn't a bunch of horse manure.
 
bill smith said:
How would we know what cases never came to light through the destruction of documentation and discs and so on. By definition they would never have come to light ecause the evidence had been destroyed.
Click to expand...
Nice copout. Try again. What cases were thrown out of court due to the destruction of evidence in WTC7? This would be of public knowledge.
 
What's taking you so long to respond Red? Obviously you know of Bill Smith's theory, since you corrected me. You knew all along what theory I was talking about.

RedIbis said:
Which post? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to find it.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, it takes you an hour to answer a simple question about a theory you already were familiar with. Don't lie Red, you're not good at it.

Are you seriously considering his theory as being remotely possible?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Sure you can, after all you're just making all of this up. Fill in the details Billy boy!
Click to expand...

I saw a twoofer video where somebody off camera had to correct the speaker on what type of plane were circling and dropping plane parts on the Pentagon lawn.
His key phrase were
"We don't do theories, we deal in facts"

So don't get your hopes up on a coherent theory from BS.:)
 
Pardalis said:
What's taking you so long to respond Red? Obviously you know of Bill Smith's theory, since you corrected me. You knew all along what theory I was talking about.



Yeah right, it takes you an hour to answer a simple question about a theory you already were familiar with. Don't lie Red, you're not good at it.

Are you seriously considering his theory as being remotely possible?
Click to expand...

Uh, post #124.
 
RedIbis said:
Uh, post #124.
Click to expand...

Whatever! That they had controlled demolition charges or thermite planted beforehand only adds another level of stupidity, it doesn't help.

Could you answer my question now? It's only been two hours.
 
You don't need to consider my feelings Red. Just be honest. (You better put him out of his misery anyway)
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You don't need to consider my feelings Red. Just be honest. (You better put him out of his misery anyway)
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my question as to how the Official Story would have justified the attack on WTC 7 into their narrative, if it had worked according to plan.
 
Pardalis said:
You still haven't answered my question as to how the Official Story would have justified the attack on WTC 7 into their narrative, if it had worked according to plan.
Click to expand...

why would they hit 7
id say the empire state or or even the citibank building would have been a lot more symbolic to try to target

next to the towers 7 was pretty insignificant (in world view)

to not not even consider the chaos 300 feet away of a collapsed 110 story building is just stupid
 
To make Red Ibis admit that this is indeed stupid is almost impossible.

Either he is truly insane and thinks it's a valid theory, or is just dumb and can't tell his ass from his elbow and just can't understand how the real world works (both of which I doubt very much, Red isn't crazy nor a cretin), or he is entirely conscious of how stupid Bill's theory is but cannot bring himself to admit it, because the alternative would be that the Official Story is alot more plausible, which is to him an unacceptable position.

So by his refusal to answer he shows how far an intelligent man is willing to go to accept pretty much anything except admit the truth.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
To make Red Ibis admit that this is indeed stupid is almost impossible.

Either he is truly insane and thinks it's a valid theory, or is just dumb and can't tell his ass from his elbow and just can't understand how the real world works (both of which I doubt very much, Red isn't crazy nor a cretin), or he is entirely conscious of how stupid Bill's theory is but cannot bring himself to admit it, because the alternative would be that the Official Story is alot more plausible, which is to him an unacceptable position.

So by his refusal to answer he shows how far an intelligent man is willing to go to accept pretty much anything except admit the truth.
Click to expand...

My refusal to answer? This is an internet forum. People have jobs. There's time to sign on and post, there are other times when that is not possible. Chill out.

I do not think that the idea Flight 93 was intended to be flown into WTC 7 is very plausible.

Now Pardalis, are you willing to admit you misrepresented Bill's position? This is the jref where even the slightest shades of meaning are excuses for accusations of mendacity. Yours was blatent and intended to exaggerate his position, unnecessarily.

A simple mea culpa will do and we can go back to how there's no physical evidence to back up NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom