What was the point of blowing up WTC7

[stateofgrace]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

So let me get this straight.

You want everybody to speculate that an explosive device was set off, for no reason, inside a building that was packed with explosives, before a plane that was remotely controlled, didn’t hit it, right?

In your strange speculative world why would somebody set off an explosive device before your remotely controlled plane had hit it? And then wait another 6 hours before demolishing the entire building?

Oh, incidentally, your hero, Jones as had published some seven books on the subject of 911, any idea how many people he has personally interviewed and have contributed to his books who were actually there?

 

[Baylor]

A few days ago I believe I heard DRG saying that the first explosions in WTC7 took place before the first tower fell.

Speculation: there was a plane destined to remote control crash into WTC7 as well but that something went wrong with the remote control. And there was WTC7, stuffed with explosives for the whole world to see.

Can't have that, therefore push the button anyway and invent 'we decided to pull' and 'thermal expansion' afterwards.

What an incredible lack of imagination. If you want to steal someone's "arguments", make sure one of his "arguments" isn't "the twin towers fell faster than free-fall speed through the air."

 

[KreeL]

So let me get this straight.

You want everybody to speculate that an explosive device was set off, for no reason, inside a building that was packed with explosives, before a plane that was remotely controlled, didn’t hit it, right?

In your strange speculative world why would somebody set off an explosive device before your remotely controlled plane had hit it? And then wait another 6 hours before demolishing the entire building?

Oh, incidentally, your hero, Jones as had published some seven books on the subject of 911, any idea how many people he has personally interviewed and have contributed to his books who were actually there?

^Here is a prime example of a non-toof poster with zero imagination.^

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan. Simple to understand if you just look at it. Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful. The lobby probably blew out but the rest of the demolition got knocked offline/went south - perhaps because they didn't expect a huge piece of cladding from the north tower taking out 20 floors. I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing. Hence a scramble to get it back online for a demo in the afternoon (plan B). Silverstein's stupid 'pull it' comment simply played right into their hands, whether on purpose or not.

 

[stateofgrace]

^Here is a prime example of a non-toof poster with zero imagination.^

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan. Simple to understand if you just look at it. Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful. The lobby probably blew out but the rest of the demolition got knocked offline/went south - perhaps because they didn't expect a huge piece of cladding from the north tower taking out 20 floors. I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing. Hence a scramble to get it back online for a demo in the afternoon (plan B). Silverstein's stupid 'pull it' comment simply played right into their hands, whether on purpose or not.

And here is a prime example of a twoofie poster with an over active imagination and zero evidence to back up a single word he as posted.

 

[KreeL]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

 

[T.A.M.]

And here is a prime example of a twoofie poster with an over active imagination and zero evidence to back up a single word he as posted.

oh noes. Deh gotz eveeedence. I means, da building cowapzed instead of tipping wike a quistmas twee...didiinit?

Kreel, either unable to contribute anything to the new "moderated" thread on the topic that brought him back, or not having the patience for it, has now decided to come trolling in other threads...

I suspect HI will be here any day now to do the same.

TAM

 

[KreeL]

I am simply helping a clueless non-toofer out. You know, the one that started this thread. Now if he really didn't want to know, then why did he ask such a stupid question?

Think for a change, TAM.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am simply helping a clueless non-toofer out. You know, the one that started this thread. Now if he really didn't want to know, then why did he ask such a stupid question?

Think for a change, TAM.

alwight, I'll give dat tinking ting a twy.

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

Stop babbling, back this up with evidence.

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan.

And this

Whether it was imploded as Plan A is highly doubtful

And this

I believe that after the demolition of the north tower, they were as surprised as hell to see WTC7 still standing.

And the rest of your nonsense. Got any evidence at all to back up your babbling speculation or are you just going to post more meaningless words?

 

[A W Smith]

It was part of the plan. maaaan!

The tower 7 was imploded because it was already a part of the plan.

And what plan was that? to re-open Greenwich street between Barclay and Vesey??

 

[johnny karate]

Zero evidence? Bahahahaha...WTC7 came down -- did it not? Fire brought it down? Isn't that what they told you to say? ROFL

The FDNY are part of the "they" you imply are covering up the truth behind the destruction of WTC7. Why do you think the FDNY would lie to the world?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh no! They must have found one of our secret govment playbooks! Oh I hope they don't discover that it was really Elvis in a flying saucer that brought down the towers! It looks like our conspiracy to erase the meal of dinner is about to be uncovered...oops..I gave it away.........

 

[KreeL]

The FDNY are part of the "they" you imply are covering up the truth behind the destruction of WTC7. Why do you think the FDNY would lie to the world?

I never said they were. Can't you read?

 

[johnny karate]

I never said they were. Can't you read?

Can't you see the implications of your theories?

The FDNY is on record stating WTC7 collapsed due to reasons in accordance with the official version of events.

Not a member of the FDNY has come forward to refute this position.

How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

 

[KreeL]

Can't you see the implications of your theories?

The FDNY is on record stating WTC7 collapsed due to reasons in accordance with the official version of events.

Not a member of the FDNY has come forward to refute this position.

How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

You better get your head screwed on a bit tighter.

 

[dtugg]

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

You better get your head screwed on a bit tighter.

Explain this, twoofer:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

 

[johnny karate]

The FDNY is on record stating they didn't want an arson investigation? Isn't crime scene examination for accelerants and thermite part of the NY fire code?

This has nothing to do with what I asked you.

I'll repeat the question you dodged:
How do you account for several hundred experienced fire and building safety professionals witnessing a controlled demolition firsthand, and then denying to the world it took place?

 

[KreeL]

What do they have to deny? I know that many of them were incredulous at the rapid destruction of a crime scene. That many of them wondered why protocols weren't followed. That many of them witnessed explosions and heard explosions.

What did NIST say again regarding WTC7? Oh yeah, they had no evidence of explosions within the tower. Eyewitness testimony isn't evidence enough for them apparently?

Enough firefighters searching for answers joined together to form firefightersfor911truth.com that you should see what they have to say. That is... if you really care to find out.

 

[johnny karate]

What do they have to deny?

That a 47-story building was imploded right in front of them. Truthers claim you can obviously tell WTC7 was a controlled demolition by watching a video clip of the collapse. Hundreds of FDNY firefighters witnessed this event firsthand. Not one of them has expressed a belief it was a controlled demolition.

I know that many of them were incredulous at the rapid destruction of a crime scene.

Who are they and what did they say? Please link to sources.

That many of them wondered why protocols weren't followed.

Who are they and what did they say? Please link to sources.

That many of them witnessed explosions and heard explosions.

And exactly none of them attributed these explosions to anything other than what would normally be experienced in a burning, collapsing building.

What did NIST say again regarding WTC7? Oh yeah, they had no evidence of explosions within the tower. Eyewitness testimony isn't evidence enough for them apparently?

We're not discussing NIST. Please try and stay focused.

Enough firefighters searching for answers joined together to form firefightersfor911truth.com that you should see what they have to say. That is... if you really care to find out.

That website is a joke. Please provide the name of one FDNY firefighter who is a verified member.

 

[KreeL]

Self-pwnage much?

You claimed none doubt the official story. A website where they say the opposite has been created. I didn't create it. Firefighters did.

Go cry in your beer with your backslapping buds.