Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[Horatius]

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.

I'll predict that you'll never get a straight answer from bill about what he believes the motive for attacking WTC 7 was. He's said on several occasions that he sees his role here as propaganda for the truth movement, and providing clear statements that can be analysed in a rational manner are anathema to that goal.

However, we debunkers love making such statements! For quite some time now, I've viewed trying to understand the mindset of truthers as being far more interesting than actually engaging them on the specifics of their beliefs. Quite some time ago, I wrote the following:

A few people have alluded to the same idea, and it's one I wrote a post on a long time ago - that you can't be a little bit MIHOP. For your pre-wired WTC7 (or 6, or whatever one you want to discuss) demolition to look anywhere believable as a "natural" event, it has to have suffered some sort of damage. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would accept it just falling down. So we absolutely, with no ifs ands or buts, need it to be damaged.

To get that damage, we absolutely need one of the towers to fall on it. Where else can we get the damage from? So we need at least one of the towers to fall. Of course, we can't simply rely on the plane to do the job; one might miss, or just barely hit, or might even be re-taken by the passengers, or crashed prematurely like flight 93. So to be absolutely sure that the towers fall, we have to wire them too, and we have to make absolutely sure that the planes hit the towers, and hit them squarely enough that the collapses again look "natural". So now we're into full on woo territory, with some invisible hand wiring all the buildings, while also guiding the planes to their impact, all to make it possible to hide the demo of WTC7. Lose any one element of the plan, and the whole house of cards falls, and everyone watching goes, "WTF?!? Why did that just happen?", and you lose everything you worked so hard for.

You can't be a little bit MIHOP. It's all or nothing.

Your question leads me to a mirror image thought. The really interesting question isn't, "What rational reason do the truthers suggest for destroying WTC 7?" As you begin to see, there is no good answer to that, there's just various flavours of bad answers. It's much more interesting to ask, "Why do the Truthers feel WTC 7 had to have been specifically targeted on 9/11?" It's clear from all their talk of the collapse of WTC 7 being the "smoking gun", and being "physically impossible", that they do believe it was deliberately targeted, singled out from other buildings around that area.

I think the answer goes back to my above post, about being "A Little bit MIHOP". I propose that many Truthers, consciously or not, believe that the events of 9/11 can't be "A little bit Natural". Either they were completely natural (a possibility they discount automatically), or they were completely unnatural.

Why must it be completely unnatural? Well, we've seen the answer to that right here: the "first time in history" argument. Were any Truthers to admit the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed due sole to the damage and fires, they would have to accept the possibility that the same happened in the case of the Twin Towers. Were they to simply ignore WTC 7, or allow as to how it fell without assistance of the Conspiracy, that would open a hole in their argument that anyone with any brains at all could point out.

Thus, in their propaganda war, they must insist on the collapse of WTC 7 being a deliberate action on the part of the conspiracy, and the fact that that makes absolutely no sense will continue to be swept under the rug by our local truthers.

 

[JLord]

Your question leads me to a mirror image thought. The really interesting question isn't, "What rational reason do the truthers suggest for destroying WTC 7?" As you begin to see, there is no good answer to that, there's just various flavours of bad answers. It's much more interesting to ask, "Why do the Truthers feel WTC 7 had to have been specifically targeted on 9/11?" It's clear from all their talk of the collapse of WTC 7 being the "smoking gun", and being "physically impossible", that they do believe it was deliberately targeted, singled out from other buildings around that area.

Nice post. Although I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building and building seven was damaged and destroyed accidentally. But you are correct in that the reason for my question was the fact that the truth movement seems to universally regard the destruction of building seven as being a key event, or smoking gun. Definitely part of the deliberate attack.

But if you work through the physics and determine that it had to have been a deliberate demolition I think you still have to ask yourself how that would make sense.

 

[Sabretooth]

It's really lucky that we have a mechanical engineer like you around to make sure we know the Truth. lol

You don't need to be an engineer. I'm a fireman. I've heard a lot of loud bangs and explosions in a variety of fires in a variety of structures. All of which were bomb-free.

But I'm guessing my quailifcations, service, and training aren't good enough for you because I don't support your obtuse and ludicrous rhetoric.

 

[Horatius]

Nice post. Although I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building and building seven was damaged and destroyed accidentally. But you are correct in that the reason for my question was the fact that the truth movement seems to universally regard the destruction of building seven as being a key event, or smoking gun. Definitely part of the deliberate attack.

"I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building..."


That would be a more reasonable position to take, depending on exactly what you mean by "take down the building". A conspiracy to crash the planes, and then let the chips fall where they may, would not require any convoluted justifications for WTC 7; as you say, its collapse would be an accidental by-product of the main attack. The problem for the truthers is this part:

But if you work through the physics and determine that it had to have been a deliberate demolition I think you still have to ask yourself how that would make sense.

...most of them got into the truth movement by noting the "evidence" of "controlled demolition" that we've been arguing about all these years. For them to toss out all that "evidence" now is to admit they've been promoting nonsense all this time. And if they try to toss out only the collapse of WTC 7, they run into the problem I mentioned earlier: The natural collapse of WTC 7 proves that such a collapse is possible, calling into question all their evidence about the Towers.

So they're stuck; they either acknowledge the possibility they've been wrong about almost everything, or they keep pushing the same theories, despite their nonsensical aspects.

 

[bill smith]

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.

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.

 

[Horatius]

I'll predict that you'll never get a straight answer from bill about what he believes the motive for attacking WTC 7 was.

.....


Thus, in their propaganda war, they must insist on the collapse of WTC 7 being a deliberate action on the part of the conspiracy, and the fact that that makes absolutely no sense will continue to be swept under the rug by our local truthers.

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.

Damn I'm good.

 

[bill smith]

"I do think that someone could take the view that the conspiracy consisted of crashing the planes to take down the main building..."


That would be a more reasonable position to take, depending on exactly what you mean by "take down the building". A conspiracy to crash the planes, and then let the chips fall where they may, would not require any convoluted justifications for WTC 7; as you say, its collapse would be an accidental by-product of the main attack. The problem for the truthers is this part:






...most of them got into the truth movement by noting the "evidence" of "controlled demolition" that we've been arguing about all these years. For them to toss out all that "evidence" now is to admit they've been promoting nonsense all this time. And if they try to toss out only the collapse of WTC 7, they run into the problem I mentioned earlier: The natural collapse of WTC 7 proves that such a collapse is possible, calling into question all their evidence about the Towers.

So they're stuck; they either acknowledge the possibility they've been wrong about almost everything, or they keep pushing the same theories, despite their nonsensical aspects.

It's you who is wrong as usual Horatius. I invite the Readers to assess your interpretation of a '' natural collapse of WTC7 '' in the photos in the attached hyperlink.

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

 

[bill smith]

You don't need to be an engineer. I'm a fireman. I've heard a lot of loud bangs and explosions in a variety of fires in a variety of structures. All of which were bomb-free.

But I'm guessing my quailifcations, service, and training aren't good enough for you because I don't support your obtuse and ludicrous rhetoric.

Just as a matter of interest Sabretooth- why couldn't the obviously small initial fires in WTC7 have been put out with hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from nearby skyscrapers ?

 

[Sabretooth]

Just as a matter of interest Sabretooth- why couldn't the obviously small initial fires in WTC7 have been put out with hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from nearby skyscrapers ?

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

 

[The Platypus]

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.

What's suspicious is how do you know WTC 1,2 & 7 were pre-rigged with explosives and that 7 was the target for a third plane???

In order to know that you must have been in on it!!!

 

[jhunter1163]

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.

One little tidbit that isn't mentioned in this quote: Silverstein had to pay $700 million to have WTC7 rebuilt. So, Silverstein actually lost $222 million on WTC7.

 

[bill smith]

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

 

[Alareth]

So why was the plane flying towards Washington and not NYC?

Yes, why? There is nothing notable in the nation's capital that could be a worthy target.

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?

Nobody. In fact it the truthers didn't rant about it ad nauseum most of the world still would never have heard of it.

As for the rationale, there is none because building 7 WAS NEVER ATTACKED. A much larger and well known architectural landmark that was attacked FELL ON IT.

 

[Sabretooth]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

NO. You are DEAD wrong. Period.

Absolutely NO firefighter puts possessions or property before LIFE. EVER.

And, in the case of 9/11, that statement applies ten-fold. Those fire departments had just lost a hundred of their brothers. They would not, and could not, be taken away from saving the survivors.

...and this pile of horse**** you had the nerve to even type:

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens.

...shows me you don't know the first thing about firefighting or what it means to the men and women who do it day in and out. LIFE comes first. PERIOD. NO Fire Scene Commander would ever...EVER...choose to put his men in harms way to save ANYTHING that wasn't essential. Especially when there are LIVES to save from the first two buildings.

Yeah...I'd like to see you explain that one to a family that just lost a dad, mom, son, sister..."I'm sorry we couldn't save your dad from being buried under a bunch of bricks, but we saved the heck outta that Beamer across the street!"...

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

.

Either you are really that pompous and bold to assume you know anything about firefighters, or you are just pushing me to put you on ignore so you can blather on without having to worry about one less person questioning your retarded opinions.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't see anyone saying that because something has not happened it can't happen.

Red, seriously... why do you say things like this? You know it's not true. You know that we know it's not true. That because it has never happened before (according to your limited knowledge) it therefore cannot happen is exactly what you and your fellow truthers have been saying since 9/12/2001. And you've been discussing this topic here long enough to know this.

When those of us familiar with your history see comments like this, we're just going to think to ourselves "RedIbis is a frakking liar". You are not winning friends this way. Not only that, you are saying to us that you feel the only way forward for you is to lie to us. Even when you know that lie will fall flat on its face.

I can't think of any rational explanation for why you do this, Red.

The fact that you have to to tell such blatant obvious lies is evidence that the topic of WTC 7's collapse is uncomfortable for you.

It one of numerous devastating blows to your absurd fantasies.

 

[Horatius]

It's you who is wrong as usual Horatius. I invite the Readers to assess your interpretation of a '' natural collapse of WTC7 '' in the photos in the attached hyperlink.

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

And I invite "The Readers" to consider how, exactly as I predicted, you have avoided the point yet again.


I see others have addressed your other posts with the vehemence they deserve, so I shall forbear further comment.

 

[triforcharity]

Well, considering much of the remaining (ie: not dead or injured) manpower went into S&R operations immediately after 1 & 2 had collapsed, I can't imagine much thought was put into a building that had since been evacuated. By the time it had gotten attention on anyone's radar, the building was already lost.

If I was scene commander, my focus would have been entirely on the S&R of my brothers. Life comes first, not property.

He has been explained this many times over. I have explained this to him, others have too.

He doesn't understand that concept.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I do not know of any sane person that would describe the collapse of WTC as "highly suspicious" Please explain exactly what it should have looked like and why, list all assumptions and show working.

 

[beachnut]

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.

The Insanity of 911 truth; when will you figure it out? lol

8 years of no evidence, idiotic delusions, and pure stupidity - 911 truth

Not a thing you can about it.
The joke is, that is basically the 911 truth CT.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, professionals remain professional. Otherwise they are not professionals. Do you umderstand ?

A professionaiol fire commander wil not take his eye off the ball whatever happens. It was a simple matter to save some muti-million dolllar real estate by pulling a few dozen firemen off the pile and to extinguish those small initial fires in WTC7.

Lets see, they have just lost hundreds of their colleagues fighting fires in tall buildings.........and you really expect them to risk dozens more for the sake of the WTC7?????
You really can't be this dumb, or can you?