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

[TokenMac]

A plausible motive? To remove all traces of the command centre, maybe?

We could ask the CIA about it, but they would just say no, but that is the same thing they would say if it was true, so it is likely to be true, and if that is true than they must of had proof in WTC7 so they blow it up. How do I know that? Well because OBL had ties to the CIA. How do I know that? Well because they blow up WTC7. duh

Am I close or do I need some more fallacies?

 

[BigAl]

Because if the firefighters had been able to save the building, evidence of some complicity might have been easier to find.

How were they to do that? There was no water for firefighting.

 

[dtugg]

Because if the firefighters had been able to save the building, evidence of some complicity might have been easier to find.

Yes. Because destroying an entire skyscraper is much easier and less supsicious than destroying that evidence beforehand.

 

[Ragnarok]

How were they to do that? There was no water for firefighting.

So, one of the most important buildings in NY, has a building fall on one end of it, and the entire sprinkler system is wiped out? That sounds as convenient as all the fire-proofing falling off in towers 1 and 2.

 

[Toke]

So, one of the most important buildings in NY, has a building fall on one end of it, and the entire sprinkler system is wiped out? That sounds as convenient as all the fire-proofing falling off in towers 1 and 2.

You are spewing BS all over the map.
Guess you have never considered how your initial claim of coorporation would change the attack.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, one of the most important buildings in NY, has a building fall on one end of it, and the entire sprinkler system is wiped out? That sounds as convenient as all the fire-proofing falling off in towers 1 and 2.

If you start by assuming that the destruction of WTC7 (which was hardly "one of the most important buildings in NY, BTW) was planned, then every event leading up to it can be characterised as "convenient", and the fact that it led to the destruction put forward as evidence that the destruction was planned. However, it's a circular argument, because your identification of prior events as evidence of planned destruction is itself contingent on the acceptance of the assumption that the destruction was planned. If you start out without the assumption that the destruction was planned, there's nothing a priori suspicious in isolation about the fact that a specific event or condition contributed to the collapse.

Dave

 

[Ragnarok]

If you start by assuming that the destruction of WTC7 (which was hardly "one of the most important buildings in NY, BTW)

Dave

Oh, not very important then? http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Have you seen the list of tenants?

IRS Regional Council 90,430 24, 25 Government

U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government

C.I.A. N/A N/A Government

 

[nicepants]

So, one of the most important buildings in NY, has a building fall on one end of it, and the entire sprinkler system is wiped out? That sounds as convenient as all the fire-proofing falling off in towers 1 and 2.

What makes wtc7 "one of the most important buildings in NY?".

What other buildings are on that list?

ETA: Are the fire sprinkler systems in the "most important buildings in NY" built to a different set of standards than those which aren't on the list of "most important buildings"?

It's interesting how truthers have to make up facts like this in an attempt make certain claims sound more suspicious.

 

[Ragnarok]

See my previous post.

 

[nicepants]

See my previous post.

What other buildings are on that list?

Who maintains the list?

Are the fire sprinkler systems in the "most important buildings in NY" built to a different set of standards than those which aren't on the list of "most important buildings"?

 

[TokenMac]

Oh, not very important then? http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Have you seen the list of tenants?

Great now the rest of the post.

...was planned, then every event leading up to it can be characterised as "convenient", and the fact that it led to the destruction put forward as evidence that the destruction was planned. However, it's a circular argument, because your identification of prior events as evidence of planned destruction is itself contingent on the acceptance of the assumption that the destruction was planned. If you start out without the assumption that the destruction was planned, there's nothing a priori suspicious in isolation about the fact that a specific event or condition contributed to the collapse.

 

[Ragnarok]

Great now the rest of the post.

Means nothing to me if he can be so wrong about it not being important.

 

[TokenMac]

Means nothing to me if he can be so wrong about it not being important.

BS, answer the quetion, stop running.

...was planned, then every event leading up to it can be characterised as "convenient", and the fact that it led to the destruction put forward as evidence that the destruction was planned. However, it's a circular argument, because your identification of prior events as evidence of planned destruction is itself contingent on the acceptance of the assumption that the destruction was planned. If you start out without the assumption that the destruction was planned, there's nothing a priori suspicious in isolation about the fact that a specific event or condition contributed to the collapse.

 

[Ragnarok]

BS, answer the quetion, stop running.

Who's running? I'm just saying it is meaningless waffle.

 

[TokenMac]

Who's running? I'm just saying it is meaningless waffle.

Is it now well what is meaningless about it.

....was planned, then every event leading up to it can be characterised as "convenient", and the fact that it led to the destruction put forward as evidence that the destruction was planned. However, it's a circular argument, because your identification of prior events as evidence of planned destruction is itself contingent on the acceptance of the assumption that the destruction was planned. If you start out without the assumption that the destruction was planned, there's nothing a priori suspicious in isolation about the fact that a specific event or condition contributed to the collapse.

 

[lapman]

Satisfaction of personal curiosity would be enough reason for most people, and if they'd suspected the **** storm that was to follow, at least there would have been credible reports for the doubters to argue against.

So they would go to the expense of testing for something that there was no inkling of proof existed to appease a small fringe group that has zero influential power. Delusions of grandeur much?

 

[Ragnarok]

Is it now well what is meaningless about it.

I'll tell you what, you parse what he is actually saying for me, and I'll try and give an answer.

 

[HawksFan]

Might have. I think. Could have.

Yeah, you know what else "could have" happened? The Black Widows biker gang from Any Which Way but Loose "could have" been hunting down that damned Philo Beddoe and found him in WTC7. The ensuing fight between the gang and Clyde the orangutan was so violent that they caused several large fires and Clyde "right turned" a few crucial columns and suddenly WHAMMO! Down comes the building.

Yeah, that "could have" happened too.

 

[nicepants]

Means nothing to me if he can be so wrong about it not being important.

What other buildings in NY are on the list of "most important buildings"?

Where do we find this elusive list?

 

[Ragnarok]

So they would go to the expense of testing for something that there was no inkling of proof existed

Three buildings fell as a result of 2 planes crashing into 2 of them and you think there are no suspicious circumstances? But you are quite prepared to accept the explanation that dislodged fireproofing and lack of water supply for sprinklers is a valid reason for their collapse?