• 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?

excaza said:
Because it didn't happen before, it never can? How would anything happen in the first place then? If fire can't bring down a building, what's the point of including fireproofing into the building code?
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT. I wish people could understand this. It was also the first time in history that part of it's face was gouged out by steal beams from a sky scraper that fell on top if it. But that's not the point. Your point is well put. Even life is a first, There's a 14 year old sailing around the world, she'll be the first girl to sail solo at that age ever, but by CT logic, she can't do it, ever, because it's not possible if it didn't happen before.
 
bill smith said:
No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire.
Click to expand...

If we use that line of logic you may as well just go away and stop posting here because no one has ever taken you seriously or not thought you are a buffoon before, therefore it will never happen.
 
Scott Jurgenson said:
EXCELLENT. I wish people could understand this. It was also the first time in history that part of it's face was gouged out by steal beams from a sky scraper that fell on top if it. But that's not the point. Your point is well put. Even life is a first, There's a 14 year old sailing around the world, she'll be the first girl to sail solo at that age ever, but by CT logic, she can't do it, ever, because it's not possible if it didn't happen before.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen. The point is and will always be that if you make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.

Neither NIST nor any of these esteemed so called "debunkers" have such evidence to explain the sudden and complete collapse of WTC 7.
 
The evidence is there. You're just not able to understand it, so you dismiss it.

Not our fault.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen. The point is and will always be that if you make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.

Neither NIST nor any of these esteemed so called "debunkers" have such evidence to explain the sudden and complete collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Yet you and your TM buddies have produced ZERO evidence of any type of CD, while there is a published report about what happened at WTC7.

What kind of collapse would you envision from fire, Red? Since you are amazed by the suddenness, does that mean you are expecting a gradual sagging? Why?
 
Thanks for all the replies, but it seems as though there is no speculation coming from the truther camp. I may be wrong because I am not familiar with everyone here but I thought from other threads that there were some truth people who post here regularly.

The idea that the building would be destroyed in order to destroy documents or evidence of the conspiracy obviously makes no sense. If evidence had to be destroyed, the conspirators would not risk doing so in a building demolition. That just isn't an effective way of doing it because you don't maintain control over the things you are trying to destroy, plus it would rely on the conspirators hoping that enough debris would happen to fall on that particular building and start fires and cause enough damage to make a collapse seem plausible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the truth movement actually thinks this is possible. It sounds to me more like skeptics have jumped all over something to make the truther look bad.

The insurance angle also makes no sense to me. Surely nobody would suggest that the conspiracy was solely an insurance fraud scheme. And if it was something bigger then it would make no sense to tack on insurance fraud just for the heck of it. As if some major political conspiracy would potentially expose itself because they wanted to do a little insurance scam on the side? It doesn't seem realistic at all.

I would still like to see what the truth movement has to say about this because I keep hearing that building seven is the key or the smoking gun or what have you. But it seems to me like the conspiracy theories I have heard are incompatible with a deliberate demolition of building seven.

(also, I'm not really interested in a debate here over whether it was a controlled demolition or not. That is an interesting debate but I know for a fact there are other threads devoted to that topic. So please try to keep comments here constrained to possible conspiracy theories that fit up with a controlled demolition of WTC7)
 
Last edited:
JLord said:
Thanks for all the replies, but it seems as though there is no speculation coming from the truther camp. I may be wrong because I am not familiar with everyone here but I thought from other threads that there were some truth people who post here regularly.

The idea that the building would be destroyed in order to destroy documents or evidence of the conspiracy obviously makes no sense. If evidence had to be destroyed, the conspirators would not risk doing so in a building demolition. That just isn't an effective way of doing it because you don't maintain control over the things you are trying to destroy, plus it would rely on the conspirators hoping that enough debris would happen to fall on that particular building and start fires and cause enough damage to make a collapse seem plausible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the truth movement actually thinks this is possible. It sounds to me more like skeptics have jumped all over something to make the truther look bad.

The insurance angle also makes no sense to me. Surely nobody would suggest that the conspiracy was solely an insurance fraud scheme. And if it was something bigger then it would make no sense to tack on insurance fraud just for the heck of it. As if some major political conspiracy would potentially expose itself because they wanted to do a little insurance scam on the side? It doesn't seem realistic at all.

I would still like to see what the truth movement has to say about this because I keep hearing that building seven is the key or the smoking gun or what have you. But it seems to me like the conspiracy theories I have heard are incompatible with a deliberate demolition of building seven.

(also, I'm not really interested in a debate here over whether it was a controlled demolition or not. That is an interesting debate but I know for a fact there are other threads devoted to that topic. So please try to keep comments here constrained to possible conspiracy theories that fit up with a controlled demolition of WTC7)
Click to expand...

You are quite right that all those theories you mention are simply red herrings.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Even debunkers should be able to come up with seeveral excellent reasons for why they had to bring down WTC7.
Click to expand...

It's your preposterous theory that they CDd the building, so you should have some explanation. Why would any of us do your work for you?
 
bill smith said:
You are quite right that all those theories aryou mention are simply red herrings.
Click to expand...

So then what theories are there that make sense? This isn't some kind of trap where I'm going to ask for evidence that you don't have or something. I am just wondering if there is any concievable way that the demolition of WTC makes sense within the scope a larger conspiracy theory.

bill smith said:
Even debunkers should be able to come up with seeveral excellent reasons for why they had to bring down WTC7.
Click to expand...

But you have dismissed those reasons provided by the debunkers as red herrings. So...
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
Yet you and your TM buddies have produced ZERO evidence of any type of CD, while there is a published report about what happened at WTC7.

What kind of collapse would you envision from fire, Red? Since you are amazed by the suddenness, does that mean you are expecting a gradual sagging? Why?
Click to expand...

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.
 
bill smith said:
Are you sure that yu are not projecting a little there Sheeples ? I mean you are a professional Mechanical Engineer and yet you say that these pictures attached represent a natural fire-driven collapse of a massive steel framed structure. No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 seconds later
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the WTC and WTC collapses then......in fact ALL steel frame buildings that have suffered heavy damage followed by uncontrolled fires have collapsed..........3 out of 3.
Given all prior examples of uncontrolled fire in heavily damaged steel frame buildings, it would have been weird if the WTC7 has done any other than collapse!

So it looked like a CD? so what?......what would you have expected it to look like??? Please list all assumptions made and show working.
 
JLord said:
So then what theories are there that make sense? This isn't some kind of trap where I'm going to ask for evidence that you don't have or something. I am just wondering if there is any concievable way that the demolition of WTC makes sense within the scope a larger conspiracy theory.



But you have dismissed those reasons provided by the debunkers as red herrings. So...
Click to expand...

that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.
 
RedIbis said:
Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.
Click to expand...

Liar, you said just that in a post to me.

No other steel-framed highrise building in the recorded history of the planet Earth has been brought down by fire. In fact the only way one has been cleanly brought down like in the picture is by explosive controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom