• 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

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

Where do we find this elusive list?
Click to expand...

How many other NY buildings had branches of the CIA, the IRS AND the Secret Service in them? They'll be on the list of "most important buildings"!

Oh, and Guilliani's waste of money "emergency bunker"!
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
Oh, not very important then? http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Have you seen the list of tenants?
Click to expand...

Ragnarok, let me explain something about comparatives. They describe a property of an object relative to the extent to which other objects possess the same property. Therefore, if you want to discuss a comparative property, such as "one of the most important buildings in NY", then you need to compare the building you're talking about with other buildings. Simply quoting statistics about WTC7 does not, and cannot, yield any information whatsoever about how important it is relative to other buildings in NYC. To support your point, you would have to carry out the following three steps:

1. Establish an objective and widely agreed scale of importance.
2. Rank a significant proportion of the buildings in NY on that scale.
3. Demonstrate that WTC7 was high up that scale.

You're still a long way short of part 1.

Dave
 
Ragnarok said:
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?
Click to expand...

Based on knowledge of the physics of materials and fire, absolutely.

Based on the reports of hundreds of eyewitnesses consistent with the above, and the absence of any reports consistent with of any alternative theory, absolutely.

Based on the conclusions of computer modeling based on all of the above and more, absolutely.

Based on the absence of any alternative theory consistent with the eyewitnesses, evidence, and modeling, absolutely.
 
Ragnarok said:
Not the US govt. Factions within it.
Click to expand...

So, different factions in the government using the attacks for different purposes? One allowed the planes to hit, while another needed WTC7 to be destroyed because the shredder was broken?
 
If you are going to contest whether WTC7 was an 'important building', it's pointless communicating with you any further.
 
Ragnarok said:
Three buildings fell as a result of 2 planes crashing into 2 of them and you think there are no suspicious circumstances?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some extremely suspicious circumstances. They lead me to suspect that the whole thing was a monstrous crime of deliberate mass murder, and an attack on the freedoms and the safety of the US populace. Just the sort of thing you might expect - for example - from a middle Eastern, anti-American terrorist organisation. I suspect that one of those may have had something to do with it all.

Dave
 
Ragnarok said:
If you are going to contest whether WTC7 was an 'important building', it's pointless communicating with you any further.
Click to expand...

Whether it's in any way "important" is irrelevant to the analysis and understanding of all the evidence and eyewitness statements.
 
Ragnarok said:
How many other NY buildings had branches of the CIA, the IRS AND the Secret Service in them? They'll be on the list of "most important buildings"!

Oh, and Guilliani's waste of money "emergency bunker"!
Click to expand...
So it has some government offices in them. That does not make it important. The OEM may rise it on the list, but it still does not put it on the "Most Important" list. If they were vital to the running of the city, state or country, then you would be correct.
 
Ragnarok said:
I'll tell you what, you parse what he is actually saying for me, and I'll try and give an answer.
Click to expand...

OK to do that lets look back at your posts.

Ragnarok said:
Erm, the fact that he was good mates with the CIA and other dubious personalities, maybe?
Click to expand...
You stated that OBL had ties to the CIA. Which you your self said you have no proof of.
Ragnarok said:
It's called fighting fire with fire. You raise a query that has no conclusive answer, and I do the same.
Click to expand...
So then you treat your speculation a proof that WTC7 was blown up to cover up that proof held within WTC7 among other things.
Ragnarok said:
A plausible motive? To remove all traces of the command centre, maybe?
Click to expand...
So now to this.
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.
Click to expand...
What this is saying is that you are working backwards for a conclusion you have already made up (that WTC7 was a demo). So now everything that happen before, after and during the events was planed to happen in that exact way by the USG, and your proof for that is nothing more than your own speculation (circular logic).

So basically it says you think the CIA planed 9/11 and your proof is that there was an CIA office in WTC7, which they destroyed in order to cover up that they planed 9/11.
 
Ragnarok said:
Three buildings fell as a result of 2 planes crashing into 2 of them and you think there are no suspicious circumstances?
Click to expand...
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?[/QUOTE]Since you do have the 2 planes, massive fires and the fact that fire does weaken steel. Yes. Especially the fact that the massive BOOM BOOM BOOM is missing from 100% of all audio recordings points to the fact that there is absolutely no reason to even suspect that explosives were used.
 
Why are we arguing talking about how important WTC7 was? This is irrelevant to how it fell.
 
lapman said:
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?Since you do have the 2 planes, massive fires and the fact that fire does weaken steel. Yes. Especially the fact that the massive BOOM BOOM BOOM is missing from 100% of all audio recordings points to the fact that there is absolutely no reason to even suspect that explosives were used.
Click to expand...

And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?
 
Ragnarok said:
And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?
Click to expand...

It's impossible to make silent explosives. I know this because I am educated.
 
Ragnarok said:
And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?
Click to expand...
Another dodge. No such technology exists that can mask the sound of high explosives. No such need for such technology exists either. On a small scale, say to be able to enter a building, yes. But to hide the sound of the massive amounts of explosives that would have been needed, no.
 
dtugg said:
It's impossible to make silent explosives. I know this because I am educated.
Click to expand...

You don't need explosives; you just need heat, apparently. Lest we forget, the plane's impacts, other than providing the heat source, had nothing to do with the collapses.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
And yes, you obviously are aware of all developments in the explosive and destruction industry, and Black Budget Projects, because of what?
Click to expand...

There isn't even a plausible physical principle being advanced as to how silent explosives might work. If you're allowed to violate the laws of physics in your demands for negative proof, then I can argue with just as much authority that the Twin Towers were destroyed by Lucius Malfoy using his well-documented magical powers; this is literally no less plausible than your implication that silent explosives were responsible.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom