• 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.

Why did they "pull" tower seven?

JLord

Critical Thinker
J
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
426
I am a bit of a newby when it comes to the 911 truth arguments and this question is mainly for 911 truthers although someone else might be able to answer as the question calls for a bit of speculation...

It stems from the Coast to Coast AM debate that took place last weekend. I just listened to it today and as usual there was a lot of talk about building seven, and its apparent deliberate demolition. This question was raised but the "truthers" on show did not offer an answer, instead just saying they weren't going to speculate and they just wanted an investigation and so on. And the point was dropped.

But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy? The main buildings were already hit and already destroyed. Surely the damage had already been done and the point had been made, so what difference would the destruction of building seven make?

I can't think of any reason but I'm sure there are people who have. So I am curious what plausible reasons could there be. Feel free to make wild speculations to try to craft any scenario where the deliberate destruction of building seven fits into any sort of conspiracy that you can think up. I'm just trying to sort through what types of conspiracy theories are still plausible if building seven was destroyed as part of the conspiracy.
 
The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder.

I am not kidding. It's what they actually believe.
 
A better way of putting the question might be ' why did they have to pull WTC7 ''
 
Last edited:
There were CIA and other super-secret offices in the building, so they had to blow it up to hide the paperwork involved with blowing up the other towers. Apparently, using a shredder or wiping hard drives would have been insufficient. Also, building 7 is where "they" kept the homing beacon that the planes used to find the towers, because they were really hard to see from a plane otherwise.
 
"The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder."
>>>

Statement, without a link or a quote? Why?
 
carlitos said:
There were CIA and other super-secret offices in the building, so they had to blow it up to hide the paperwork involved with blowing up the other towers. Apparently, using a shredder or wiping hard drives would have been insufficient. Also, building 7 is where "they" kept the homing beacon that the planes used to find the towers, because they were really hard to see from a plane otherwise.
Click to expand...

Red herrings all..
 
JLord said:
But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy? The main buildings were already hit and already destroyed. Surely the damage had already been done and the point had been made, so what difference would the destruction of building seven make?
Click to expand...

Hi JLord :)

Some say #7 contained incriminating documentary evidence of horrible financial fraudstering and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say it contained the command+control bunker for the WTC1+2 CD and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say that Silverstein was a 9/11 CT insider and spotted the chance for a quick insurance payout on #7 and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Some say that the destruction of WTC1+2 wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing the building was the way to go.

Er ... that's it.

It's all a load of bollocks really.

eta: lack of parking spaces in south Manhattan has been mentioned, but I don't give that theory much credence.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The main twoofer claim regarding the motive for destroying building seven is that they could not find a power outlet for the paper shredder.

I am not kidding. It's what they actually believe.
Click to expand...

Now that's quote mining. It was actually a Super-Double-Duper Model 108 shredder, the top of the line model at the time.
 
as there is no physical evidence that WTC 7 was demolished, the question is pointless.
 
Why did they 'pull' WTC 7

Short answer is none one, including 'they' pulled WTC 7.

Silverstein used the word 'pull' in the context of pulling the fire fighting effort in WTC 7 in order to ensure no more lives were lost while trying to fight a fire without sufficient water pressure or personnel to do so.

'Pull' , when used in a controlled demolitions sense, means litterally to cable the structure and use heavy machinery to pull it over.
 
DGM said:
And that would be? Come on Bill, this has gotten olod!
Click to expand...

Well first you would have to ask yourself how many buildings in New York were pre-fitted with explosives/incendiaries on 9/11 ?

Surely not more than WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 ?

So what other similarities did WTC7 have with the Twin Towers ?

The Twins were hit by planes but where was the plane for WTC7 ?

Was there a hitch somewhere ?
 
Last edited:
Only when Truthers know who pulled Building 7 will they figure out why.

Only when Truthers know how they pulled Building 7 will they figure out who.

Only when Truthers know why they pulled Building 7 will they figure out how.

So, basically they're screwed. :D

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
bill smith said:
Well first you would have to ask yourself how many buildings in New York were pre-fitted with explosives/incendiaries on 9/11 ?
Click to expand...

None, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

So what other similarities did WTC7 have with the Twin Towers ?
Click to expand...

All three were subjected to physical stresses and massive fires for which they were not designed.

The Twins were hit by planes but where was the plane for WTC7 ?
Click to expand...

WTC7 was hit by thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling from the north tower.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
None, zero, zip, zilch, nada.



All three were subjected to physical stresses and massive fires for which they were not designed.



WTC7 was hit by thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling from the north tower.
Click to expand...

Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?

Jeez....it was almost as if someone had said that a plane was about to hit the building or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You and your fellow tin-foilers.
Click to expand...

So I think that WTC 7 was demo'd because "they" could not find a power outlet?

The fact that you have to make cheap unfunny "jokes" is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It remains the single most devastating blow to the official fantasy.
 
bill smith said:
Hey...remember when Barry Jennings and Michael Hess said that when they got to the OEM on the 23rd floor of WTC7 the place was unexpectedly empty but that there were half-eaten sandwiches and steaming coffee on the desks ?
Click to expand...

The New York Department of Sanitation had offices at OEM.

The New York Department of Parks & Recreation had offices at OEM.

are you suggesting that DSNY and DPR are "in on it" or have knowledge about 9-11 that must be investigated?

:p:p:p:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom