Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[bill smith]

So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC? and who had ever heard of the WT7 before 911? Off all the plausible terrorists targets in NYC or Wasjington, what would have been the rationale for attacking a relative nonentity?

Terrorists are supposedly attacking the WTC towers as they had before, a military target (the Pentagon) so with the 4th and last plane they are going to hit the WTC7????? Yep thats makes a convincing storyline [/QUOTE]

What flight number are you referring to ?

 

[excaza]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

 

[TexasJack]

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.

Since you dismiss the evidence, explain to us a more probable hypothesis. Please include a plausable motive, after all, it's your "smoking gun."

 

[JimBenArm]

93

Not "OU812"?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

First, you might want to take back your liar comment, unless you're too immature to do so.

I retract my liar comment. I got my truthers mixed up.

Secondly, the collapses of the towers were not primarily due to fire. It was the combination of fire and impact damage. Goodness, don't you even know the basics of this fairy tale?

Sure it was a combination. but without the fire they would not have fallen, and if there is a big uncontrolled fire in any steel framed tower I am in, I for one am not going to bet that fire alone would not bring it down, The Windsor tower fire showed that a steel frame is no guarantee of survival even without impact damage.

Even NIST admitted that WTC7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily due to fire.

And Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon..........so?

 

[excaza]

Not "OU812"?

I don't think Van Halen had any business in DC that day, though I could be wrong.

 

[bill smith]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

Now it's funny thing that you should say that...I have a meeting coming up but I will elaborate later.

 

[excaza]

I am just quaking in anticipation.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

93, which was heading for Washington DC, not NYC

Yeah buts thats a reasonable error for the NWO to make

Probably just brought up the wrong address on his Tom Tom GPS...........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Now it's funny thing that you should say that...I have a meeting coming up but I will elaborate later.

I'm sure it will be hilarious!

 

[excaza]

Yeah buts thats a reasonable error for the NWO to make

Probably just brought up the wrong address on his Tom Tom GPS...........

I'm guessing bill has some smoking gun about how it was actually headed for NYC and not DC, despite the flight path.

 

[Horatius]

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.

If you're expecting things from the truthers to make sense, you'll be disappointed. You'll also be disappointed if you expect much of anything in the way of a positive statement about what they do actually believe.

However, we do get statements like these:

Documents and Command Center Destroyed

At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy

You forgot about all the incriminating documentation which was also stored in WTC7... The most notorious and famous of which was the Enron scandal investigation.

Intelligence agencies were indeed stationed there. The ENRON investigation was effectively shut down because of the destruction of WTC 7. Also BCCI on the international front. Both being major players in the black ops of the spooks. If I were in charge, there is no way I would want to be that close to the carnage though. 7 was taken down to cover the trail, this is certain.

It was stated that the complete files from the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing were also all kept there.

As you can the government had many investments in this building including the CIA, DOD, the IRS, OEM, the Secret Service, and more.

This building had to be brought down. It is safe to say that this was most likely the 9/11 operations field office, and once the operation was complete, the building had to go. It was a classic coverup, where the criminals covered their tracks.

The motive is pretty clear to me. They managed to destroy all the files and traces of the insider tradings that went on that day (AA shares droping etc.) since the SEC was conveniently located there. Also they destroyed tons of documents on the ENRON and Worldcom cases that were stored there... + one more reason for Mr. Silverstein was the insurance of course. He even admitted that he called the insurance to check if bringing the building down with controlled demolitions to prevent further loss would invalidate his insurance... now you tell me how he could have wired a building to blow up in less than a day? This was planed long before!

[C]orporate media execs continue to withhold important stories about presidential foreknowledge of attacks, military stand-down, and evidence of controlled demolition of third WTC Building 7, containing critical Securities and Exchange Commission corporate fraud investigation documents.

Possible motives for demolishing the WTC 7, evidence of a cover-up, and who could have done it:

...

3) A secret CIA office was in the WTC 7 that engaged in counterterrorist and counterintelligence operations.


4) The Securities and Exchange Commission in the WTC 7 lost more critical documents than any other financial institution at the WTC, including hundreds of cases of files in which one executive whose company was under investigation mentioned that they got a “lucky break” when their case files were destroyed in the Seven’s collapse.


5) Other offices in the WTC 7 were occupied by the Department of Defense, IRS, Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt, and the U.S. Secret Service.


6) WTC 7 owner Larry Silverstein, who leased the rest of the WTC six weeks before 9/11 for $3.2 billion and sued his insurers of his complex for $7.2 billion and who’s life was spared at the WTC on 9/11 because he had a doctor’s appointment, received $861 million for the Seven’s collapse in which debt owed on it was only $383 million.


7) Some alleged 9/11 hijackers and their associated had accounts at a foreign branch of Standard Chartered Bank who occupied a large part of the WTC 7.


8) Demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc., who holds the world record for the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, was hired to help “clean up” at Ground Zero and have said the word “pull” in demolition terms mean pull it down.

And that's just from a brief Google search for "wtc 7 destroy documents". Our resident Truth weasels will insist that the "paper shredder" theory of WTC 7 is just a "red herring" we "debunkers" use to make them look stupid. What they'll never acknowledge is, it was their fellow truthers* who came up with, and continue to support, this notion.





*Cue Red Ibis denying he's associated with other truthers.

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.

See above. That's what they have to say about it. That it literally makes no sense to you is not the fault of the debunkers.

 

[JLord]

If you're expecting things from the truthers to make sense, you'll be disappointed. You'll also be disappointed if you expect much of anything in the way of a positive statement about what they do actually believe.

However, we do get statements like these:

Thanks for the post. That was informative for me. Although it seems like most of these theories are basically variations on the idea that the building was demolished in order to destroy documents and records. And I don't really see the sense in this. An out of control fire alone surely would have destroyed all the records without having to rig the whole building for demolition. Also, if the owner of the towers was involved in the conspiracy and for some reason he needed to demolish the building in order to destroy documents, then just store the documents you want destroyed in the building you aregoing to demolish, don't choose extra buildings to demolish based on where the documents are. You wouldn't go "where are those documents we want destroyed... oh right, then I guess we'll have demolish those buildings as well."

 

[Disbelief]

Thank you for providing a text book example of the strawman fallacy since I didn't mention CD.

So, it wasn't from fire and it wasn't a CD, so what is your take? Do you have a position, or will you continue your no-claim?

Nice attempted dodge at the other questions. Typical.

 

[carlitos]

Don't forget the homing beacons for the sharks with lasers remote-controlled cloaked missles planes!

Seriously, even in 2001, how ridiculous is the idea that you would destroy a building to get rid of some documents? Anything of consequence would likely have been on a server, backed up somewhere.

 

[JLord]

So obviously the perps couldn't permit people see the inside of the building after the plane failed to arrive. It had to go.

So the building was demolished to hide the fact that it was deliberately weakened in preparation of a third plane that never came. That explains why the demolition occured, but then the question would become "why did they plan to crash a third plane into WTC7?"

So it explains the demolition within the context of a failed plane attack on the building, but doesn't explain why the building was targetted within the context of a larger conspiracy. So I would still like to hear any possible theories as to why WTC7 might have been targetted for either demolition or a plane attack.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

Don't forget the homing beacons for the sharks with lasers remote-controlled cloaked missles planes!

Seriously, even in 2001, how ridiculous is the idea that you would destroy a building to get rid of some documents? Anything of consequence would likely have been on a server, backed up somewhere.

We're a health plan located out of Michigan. We're about 200 employees strong and even when we were only about 30-40 employees strong when we were just starting in early 1999/2000 we had off site back up servers for just about everything here. Even claims that we receive were sent off site in case of building fire. It's hard for me to believe that the CIA offices there or the other proposed ones didn't backup their files off site.

I laughed in the face of a troofer when he said this to me at a festival this year.

 

[carlitos]

It's worth noting that, since the Boeski fiasco killed Drexel Burnham Lambert and Salomon moved in, this was known as the Salomon Brothers Building. "WTC7" is largely a truther-only phenomenon, as noted in their "buildingwhat" nonsense.

 

[TexasJack]

So, it wasn't from fire and it wasn't a CD, so what is your take? Do you have a position, or will you continue your no-claim?

Nice attempted dodge at the other questions. Typical.

His silence indicates to me that fire is the most probable hypothesis. He may not like it, but until he can come up with a more probable one, it will remain that way.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't think Van Halen had any business in DC that day, though I could be wrong.

I heard from a friend whose sisters boyfriends barber said that he had heard from a bartender that Eddie Van Halen was going to be in NYC doing some "Shredding"...

If you know what I mean...