Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[bill smith]

Man, I do hope that someday our Bill Smith isn't trapped in a collapsed building where the odds of survival were slim and that he ends up with a scene commander that thinks like he does. Because that would really suck to be lying there for a long time, thirsty and in pain thinking that somebody is looking for him and then realizing that nobody is.

We need professionals who will take the tough calculated decisions without hesitation SAm. That's one of thr reasons that we don't hire schoolgirls as fire commanders.

No survivors could have been expected and I'm happy to put up the Chandler collapse analysis of WTC1 up to demonstate why if you want. So it would have been seen as quite useless for hundreds of firemen to go trawling for survivors through the rubble of a completely collapsed quarter-mile high skyscraper.

Regardless that 10 or 15 survivors were eventually rescued from a surviving stairwell stump.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We need professionals who will take the tough calculated decisions without hesitation SAm.

We've had the privilege of having some of those professionals participate in the discussions here in 9/11 CTs, and they have all, without exception, been saying that you are full of @#$%.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

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.

Gage takes this approach often when he's interviewed. The person doing the interview will ask him to put together a coherent theory on why WTC7 would have been demo'd and he will just go back to pointing out anomalies and inc inconsistencies of the story. It's brain numbing.

 

[Sabrina]

I know this is a very stupid question, but why do they use shredders at a cost of several thousand dollars to get rid of sensitive documents when they can just, you know, burn them?

Are industrial-grade matches several thousand dollars a box, too?

(I have a feeling it's got to do with emissions or something?)

There are five accepted methods of destroying sensitive documents, according to DoD regulations. Burning, shredding, pulping, pulverizing, or chemical decomposition. Due to the regulations, there are specific guidelines for each of those methods, however; the shredders, for instance, have to shred the document down to remnants that are no larger than a certain size so as to prevent potential reconstruction. Same goes for the other methods, and yes, due to the regulations regarding pollution, incinerators used to destroy government documents have to meet defined standards as well. You can't just toss everything in a burn barrel and light a match to it. Burning IS the preferred method, but only in small amounts; i.e. the amount of paperwork that would normally need to be destroyed in most government agencies is likely much too immense to burn and ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that the documents are obliterated beyond any hope of recovery.

 

[Horatius]

Gage takes this approach often when he's interviewed. The person doing the interview will ask him to put together a coherent theory on why WTC7 would have been demo'd and he will just go back to pointing out anomalies and inc inconsistencies of the story. It's brain numbing.

Here's the really funny thing: They go on and on about how WTC 7 is the smoking gun that "proves the conspiracy", but what they don't realize is that WTC 7 is also the Achilles Heel of the truth movement: it's the one part of the "False Flag Attack" that simply makes no sense at all.

 

[bill smith]

Here's the really funny thing: They go on and on about how WTC 7 is the smoking gun that "proves the conspiracy", but what they don't realize is that WTC 7 is also the Achilles Heel of the truth movement: it's the one part of the "False Flag Attack" that simply makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

 

[excaza]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

I like how fire works in your world.

 

[Sabretooth]

Any level headed fire commander could immediately see that the chance of suvivors in the WTC collapses was close to nil. Apart from that you don't want all these big firemen walking around on top of the rubble and possibly squashing those potential but highly unlikely survivors.

So the fire commender at tWTC7 should have ordered that those small fires be extinguished by hand using hundreds of fire extinguishers requisitioned from srrounding buildings.

So the big-bad, moms-basement-dwelling troll thinks he knows how to fight fires and save lives better than the professionals?

I formally invite you to come down to my firehall and have that discussion with us. Bring your friends if you wish. Bellevue Volunteer Fire Dept in Cheektowaga, NY (a suburb of Buffalo). We are there every Wednesday night after 7:00pm. Hell, I'll even make sure I'm there at any time you feel it is convenient for you.

This isn't a joke. I seriously want you to pay us a visit. If you need directions or other details, please let me know whether it be in private or on the board.

This is also an open invitation to anyone else who believes Bill has a point or is in any way correct in his thinking delusions.

I, personally, am sick and tired of your totally arrogant and ignorant banter here. And I'm quite positive you don't have the nerve to even entertain the idea of saying this garbage to a firefighter's face.

 

[JimBenArm]

Why did they pull it?

Because if you PUSH something hard enough, it will fall over.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

Firefighters saw massive fires raging throughout the building, smoke was observed and recorded pouring from every floor. WTC7 was quite probably the largest office building fire in history.

But that's neither here nor there. You haven't tried to answer why did the phantom "they" feel the need to bring it down.

That they couldn't find a plug in for the paper shredder or that Silverstein wanted to lose billions in lost income from the WTC complex are non-starters. There is no remaining motive that makes the slightest shred of sense.

 

[Sabretooth]

Man, I do hope that someday our Bill Smith isn't trapped in a collapsed building where the odds of survival were slim and that he ends up with a scene commander that thinks like he does. Because that would really suck to be lying there for a long time, thirsty and in pain thinking that somebody is looking for him and then realizing that nobody is.

That comment he made...the one about keeping the eye on the prize or the goal or whatever...he's making it sound like saving lives is a friggin sport

I can't even imagine how these CTer's would have reacted if the FDNY followed Bill's SOP's.

"...well, everyone, we expended a few more bodies and potentially killed a few more people and our brothers...and we didn't bother trying to rescue anyone because, well, just because...but we put out the fires in WTC7! Too bad it's gonna have to be demolished anyway..."

Bill is a troll...I wholeheartedly believe his sole existance here is to try and get a rise out of people. Based on the intelligence level I've seen from him, I can't say I'm surprised, seeing that's all he really has to offer.

 

[Horatius]

It makes perfect sense SOT. The perps HAD to bring it down and before any more light was lost.. When the building fell there were no great gouts of fire and sparks being belched out of the collapsing building as the air was compressed out the windows. If it had been any darker that fact would have made the lack of fire even more painfully obvious.

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.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Who the **** is SOT?

Me.

Billy doesn't even read the names on the posts he is responding to. It's why his posts come out sounding so stupid.

 

[excaza]

To be honest I didn't even know there were buildings other than the two towers in the WTC complex. Granted, I was 13, but still. If The Man was trying to shock the US even more, why not pick something more iconic? Chrysler Building? Empire State Building? Seriously, who even cared about WT7? It wasn't symbolic in any way.

 

[carlitos]

Bill is a troll...I wholeheartedly believe his sole existance here is to try and get a rise out of people. Based on the intelligence level I've seen from him, I can't say I'm surprised, seeing that's all he really has to offer.

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

He's like an intellectual train wreck though. It's difficult to turn away.

 

[Miragememories]

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.

You can run but you can't ignore.

MM

 

[Horatius]

Correct. Using the 'ignore' feature on bill cleans up most of these threads, although some people do feel they have to quote him for some annoying reason.

I've PMed him a few times, and the sad part is, I think he thinks he's being sincere.

 

[DGM]

You can run but you can't ignore.

MM

Who's running? You guys come to us.

Too funny!!!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You can run but you can't ignore.

MM

Maybe you can explain for us, MM, why the NWO blows up half-billion dollar skyscrapers in place of deploying a ten thousand dollar paper shredder?

From our position, the NWO (or the people who made it up) look pretty stupid.