• 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?

I can't ignore?
Wow. Must be a lot going on outside of here.
Funny how no one ever sees it. I never hear anything about it anywhere but here.
No wonder it's so hard to ignore...
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
He's like an intellectual train wreck though. It's difficult to turn away. ;)
Click to expand...
I understand, but somtimes with 3 or 5 people quoting him, it's like his posts have that gremliny-multiplier thing going on.
Horatius said:
I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.
Click to expand...
Now that is scary. To me, he seemed to change his arguments all the time, just to provoke. That must be a pretty flexible mindset. Or, more likely, my theory that it's 4 drunk university kids in Germany, with 4chan on one window, and this on the other.
 
Horatius said:
Who the **** is SOT?


Oh, and bill, for "The Readers", I'll note that, once again, you've avoided to issue of why they had to destroy WTC 7 at all.

We're not asking why they destroyed it at that time.

We're not asking you how they destroyed it.

We're not asking you how you know they destroyed it.


What we are asking you is, why did they target it in the first place? During the planning stages, when they were choosing targets, what was their motivation for including WTC 7 at all?

That you continue to avoid answering the real question, preferring to answer your fantasy questions instead, will be blatantly obvious to anyone reading this thread with an open mind. Do you really want to come off as that evasive?

Well, no you don't want to, but you have to, because you know that you have no good answer for our real question.


Cue bill's next avoidance.
Click to expand...

So you would like me to post the reason why WTC7 HAD to be demolished again ? You only have to say 'yes' and I will post it .
 
Yes, I think asking "Why did they target it in the first place" means he wants the reason why WT7 was targeted in the first place.
 
Horatius said:
I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.
Click to expand...

Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.
 
bill smith said:
It should be obvious considering that WTC7 was already pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries just ike the Twin Towers were that it was slated to become the target for a third plane.

Just think how much neater it all would have been to have three planes and three buildings instaed of two planes, three buildings, a highly suspicious controlled demolition and the pointless crashing of a plane in a field in rural Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, if this is the case it just changes my question from "Why did they pull it" to "Why was it slated for a third plane attack?"

Because it would difficult to explain why a conspiracy (or terrorists for that matter) would want to target three iconic structures that are widely known the world over, and then one unknown and relatively insignificant building.

(I also was of the impression that the fourth plane was heading towards D.C. so I don't know if there is reason to believe it was targeting WTC7 at all.)
 
bill smith said:
Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.
Click to expand...

For about the 5th time, the second pictures is days later, not seconds later. Why are you still lying when this has been shown to you?
 
So you still can't answer the question you were asked, huh?

Nice try at changing the subject.
 
bill smith said:
I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink
Click to expand...

That doesn't come even remotely close to answering the question. Why was WTC7 targeted in the first place? Why would you target 3 iconic structures (both towers and the pentagon) and then some rinkydink building people outside of NYC have probably never even heard of?
 
bill smith said:
I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink
Click to expand...

Why were there "weakening explosions" to start with?
Why were they attempting to bring down WTC7 to begin with?
Please pay attention to what you're actually being asked, not what you want to blather on about.
 
JLord said:
Like I said earlier, if this is the case it just changes my question from "Why did they pull it" to "Why was it slated for a third plane attack?"

Because it would difficult to explain why a conspiracy (or terrorists for that matter) would want to target three iconic structures that are widely known the world over, and then one unknown and relatively insignificant building.

(I also was of the impression that the fourth plane was heading towards D.C. so I don't know if there is reason to believe it was targeting WTC7 at all.)
Click to expand...

The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.
 
bill smith said:
The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten us about this "grand strategic plan".
Make sure to use actual words, not just think it in your head. We are skeptics. We don't read minds.
 
bill smith said:
Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6259565&postcount=55 hyperlink

What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.
Click to expand...

Now where's he gone......lol
 
JimBenArm said:
Please enlighten us about this "grand strategic plan".
Make sure to use actual words, not just think it in your head. We are skeptics. We don't read minds.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom