Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

You and yours routinely claim that WTC7 was destroyed because of sensitive information in CIA, SEC and other government offices inside the building.

This means that at some point, your mythical ninjews decided that blowing up a half billion dollar skyscraper was preferable to sending in a dozen agents and a couple of ten thousand dollar Whitaker Brothers "Datastroyer" paper shredders.

Blowing up a building because they couldn't find a plug-in the shredder is an accurate, if facetious, description of your cockadoodle theories.

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.

I feed upon your desperate, petulant whining.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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

Truthers own words make it easy to make themselves the butt of jokes. When one of the "Possible" motives include destroying documents as a viable reason to destroy an entire building is held by some of the group and not openly and actively disdained by the rest of the group, jokes are sure to be at least one of the expected outcomes.

 

[TexasJack]

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

Why don't you tell us a plausible reason why it would be demo'd? Or is that too uncomfortable for you?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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 much bigger building just across the street was damaged, on fire and in danger of collapse.

Corrected free of charge.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But I am curious, is there any possible scenario where building seven would have had to be destroyed as part of a conspiracy?

Its where the records of the JFK case and moon "landings were kept along with the real holocaust, vaccinations and area 51 papers (including the UFO and the captured aliens (yes they were still alive in 2001)

The assorted CTers were getting too close to the truth so they used the giant DEW space weapon to project holograph planes and dustify the buildings cunning making it look like actual impact damage and fire that caused it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

They were not as funny as every truther fantasy I've heard.......I'm a professional Mech Eng and am not the least bit uncomfortable about the collapse of WTC7

 

[fourtoe]

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.

Jack already asked before me but come on Red, don't start playing Truther 20 Questions and tell what you think the motive was behind blowing up WTC7.

This means that at some point, your mythical ninjews decided that blowing up a half billion dollar skyscraper was preferable to sending in a dozen agents and a couple of ten thousand dollar Whitaker Brothers "Datastroyer" paper shredders.

8,575$ for that?! And it only shreds "up to 16 pages"?! That is ridiculous! If you ask me, the ninJews went with the right decision.

I remember in Gravy's debate with Fetzer on Hardfire Fetzer was asked if he knew of any investigation that was stifled due to WTC7 being blown up and either Fetzer was too busy talking over Gravy or he just dodged the question.

Attempting to end/hinder investigations that the CIA and the other agencies were doing is a stretch for justifying the the CD of the building but I think it is probably the best one Truthers' are going with AFAIK. Is there any merit to this?

I also recall the 'white elephants' argument, does that one also include WTC7?

 

[jhunter1163]

Industrial paper shredder: $10,000 (includes tax and shipping)
WTC7: $700 million to rebuild

Yep, sounds like a government operation to me.

 

[Fizzard]

Possibility #1: WTC7 harbored incriminating evidence -- and as everyone knows, the simplest and stealthiest way to dispose of evidence in a building is to execute a "classic controlled demolition" in broad daylight while the whole world is watching.

Possibility #2: The government thought that destroying WTC1+2, wreaking havoc on the Pentagon and slaughtering 3000 people wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing a relatively unknown, fully evacuated building in a suspicious way was well worth the risk.

Possibility #3: The gov't goons thought lining Silverstein's pockets with insurance money was more important than protecting themselves against suspicion, so they graciously let Larry "pull" the building as long as he agreed not to do anything stupid such as spilling the beans on national TV.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

[qimg]http://www.whitakerbrothers.com/img_products/1_145_large.gif[/qimg]
8,575$ for that?! And it only shreds "up to 16 pages"?! That is ridiculous! If you ask me, the ninJews went with the right decision.

Poke around that site more. They have huge ones that you can mount on a truck that would turn a hundred phone books back into pulp in 60 seconds.

 

[JimBenArm]

Hey, everyone knows there's a lack of parking space in Manhattan. So the property was worth more as empty space for parking than as income-generating office space.
Plus the C-4 coated rebar and invisithermite, along with the lucite destructo-cables (hey, can't have them visible, would blow the whole operation) made it easy to bring it all down once the holographic projectors were in place.
The paper destruction was just a side benefit. They were going to do it with a shredder, but a paper clip got stuck in it and they didn't have replacement funds.

 

[George 152]

Possibility #1: WTC7 harbored incriminating evidence -- and as everyone knows, the simplest and stealthiest way to dispose of evidence in a building is to execute a "classic controlled demolition" in broad daylight while the whole world is watching.

Possibility #2: The government thought that destroying WTC1+2, wreaking havoc on the Pentagon and slaughtering 3000 people wasn't quite enough "shock+awe" for one day and that demolishing a relatively unknown, fully evacuated building in a suspicious way was well worth the risk.

Possibility #3: The gov't goons thought lining Silverstein's pockets with insurance money was more important than protecting themselves against suspicion, so they graciously let Larry "pull" the building as long as he agreed not to do anything stupid such as spilling the beans on national TV.

Seems reasonable.

Of course all that paper floating round after 911 wouldn't have come from WTC7 and so reveal the dastardly plot.....

 

[T.A.M.]

No no...they shredded the documents first, then beat up the hard drives with sledge hammers, then , just for good measure, decided to bring the building down.

TAM

 

[Justin39640]

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.

That's clear evidence that "the **** has hit the fan".

 

[njslim]

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.

Problem with trying to destroy WTC 7 was Verizon Telephone Building at 140
West St - this building supported voice/data circuits for Southern Manhattan
including financial firms and the stock exchange on Wall ST. Verizon was so close - just across narrow alleyway that when WTC 7 collapsed debris from it heavily damaged Verizon - it was only the heavy concrete construction that prevented it from was collapse. Now if want to destroy WTC 7 you very
likely damage//destroy Verizon and with it the communication backbone for
Manhattan.

The collapse of WTC 7 damaged 30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall) across
Barclay St so badly that it is being dismantled.

Explosive demolition is banned in Manhattan for just this reason - buildings are
too close and chance of collateral damage is high.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Your whole movement is a cheap joke.Not so much a movement,more like squirming.

 

[twinstead]

Not so much a movement,more like squirming.

Oh, it's a "movement" all right...

 

[MRC_Hans]

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 ?

This is funny! In which possible scenario would anybody calmly finish their sandwiches and coffee after two buildings across the street have been hit by airliners and are on fire? ... I bet there was about a ton of unfinished sandwiches and coffee in lower Manhattan on that day.

Hans

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh, it's a "movement" all right...

Problem is it won't flush.

 

[bill smith]

This is funny! In which possible scenario would anybody calmly finish their sandwiches and coffee after two buildings across the street have been hit by airliners and are on fire? ... I bet there was about a ton of unfinished sandwiches and coffee in lower Manhattan on that day.

Hans

But why did you delete the Barry Jennings video from my quoted text? ( Readers can find it in my last post above)