Why did they "pull" tower seven?

[JimBenArm]

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.

Dodge noted.
So you don't have any idea, hmm?
Why not just say so, instead of the tap-dancing and innuendo?

I don't need to be softened up. I need straight answers from a mature, intelligent adult. Know where I can find one? Sure isn't one on the other end of this internet connection.

 

[bill smith]

Dodge noted.
So you don't have any idea, hmm?
Why not just say so, instead of the tap-dancing and innuendo?

I don't need to be softened up. I need straight answers from a mature, intelligent adult. Know where I can find one? Sure isn't one on the other end of this internet connection.

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?

 

[Horatius]

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.

So you would like me to post the reason why WTC7 HAD to be demolished again ? You only have to say 'yes' and I will post it .

Yes.

I can't find the actual ost but it flows directly out of the one in the hyperlink. I just need to add that the perps absolutely HAD to get rid of the extensive evidence of these weakening explosions they had carried out in wTC7. The building had to go.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6260349&postcount=79 hyperlink

Sigh. Let's look at that link......

that's true...so ?

Sigh.....I guess I'll have to guide you a little..


Remember the Barry Jennings video ? Remember Barry was talking about how the inside of WTC7 had explosions going on all over it ? This was to pre-weaken the building in anticipation of the plane crashing into it and the ensuing demolition some time later. Just like the Twin Towers really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q Barry Jennings

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, Dear Readers*, here we have it. bill has literally gone about in a circle, back to one of his first non-answers to the question that was being asked.








*And can I just say,it's incredibly cute how bill seems to think that, not only are there great numbers of anonymous "Readers" out there following our every word, but that they're also all on his side.

Now Readers we will pull Horatius's tail just a little bit. He talks about me ' thinking I am sincere ' ( which I fully maintain that I am for 100% )) I further maintain that Horatius is not sincere.

Of course you don't think I'm sincere; that would require you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and we know that you'll never do that.



So, let's see what you're doing to my tail.....

So I am going to show him two picturess in a hyperlink

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


What I want to know is this.

1. Do these photos show a natural collapse without human intervention ?

Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

The second one doesn't, as it's a pile of rubble, not a "collapse".

2. Does it look like the results of a controlled demolition

You Readers know by know how to mesure these guys by their answers.

Third verse, same as the first: Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

As for the second one, (and here's where he'll claim I'm not "sincere"), I'll concede a superficial resemblance. But in fact it doesn't look like the results of controlled demolition, as there's a ******** of debris lying outside the footprint of the building, and in fact, lying all over adjacent properties.

 

[JimBenArm]

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?

Nothing to me.

Just shows your "readers" that you're an intellectual coward and poser.

Not that there was ever any serious doubt about that.

 

[Horatius]

Now where's he gone......lol

Well now, don't you feel stupid?

The first 'why' was merely a tactical neccessity. The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

I don't know if you are ready for that yet Jim. I'll have to soften you guys up a bit more first.

Later Jim. It's been years already. What's another while ?

And there he goes again, and again, and again. I'm getting dizzy!

 

[bill smith]

Sigh. Let's look at that link......







So, Dear Readers*, here we have it. bill has literally gone about in a circle, back to one of his first non-answers to the question that was being asked.








*And can I just say,it's incredibly cute how bill seems to think that, not only are there great numbers of anonymous "Readers" out there following our every word, but that they're also all on his side?








Of course you don't think I'm sincere; that would require you to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and we know that you'll never do that.



So, let's see what you're doing to my tail.....






Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

The second one doesn't, as it's a pile of rubble, not a "collapse".






Third verse, same as the first: Well, the first one certainly doesn't, as it's a standing building.

As for the second one, (and here's where he'll claim I'm not "sincere"), I'll concede a superficial resemblance. But in fact it doesn't look like the results of controlled demolition, as there's a ******** of debris lying outside the footprint of the building, and in fact, lying all over adjacent properties.

About your tail....I'm doing a Silverstein on it. lol

Well I'll just have to let the Readers make yop their own minds. I know how it reads. Most enjoyably in fact.

 

[Horatius]

About you tail....I think I'll do a Silverstein on it. lol

Just make sure you never actually answer the question.


Wouldn't want to spoil your perfect record.

 

[JLord]

The second 'why' is because it was part of a grand strategic plan.

This is I guess what I should have been asking all along. I am willing to accept that the tower was demolished and I should have made this clear in my original post.

I also accept that the had to do to hide evidence of the failed plane attack. I didn't realize this when I first posted so I asked the wrong question.

Knowing what I now know, I will ask again a different way:

What possible conspiracy theory (or grand strategic plan) can you think of in which it would make sense to have WTC7 as a target?

 

[bill smith]

Nothing to me.

Just shows your "readers" that you're an intellectual coward and poser.

Not that there was ever any serious doubt about that.

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I would like to know why the building had to be a target. I can't think of any sane reason.

On the fighting of the fire in WTC7.
I am a trained firefighter, I did 3 courses at the RN Firefighting School while I was in the Navy. I was trained to fight aircraft fires ammunition fires and fires on and between decks on a Warship. To even think that in anything but a life and death sutuation I would be asked to enter somewhere to tackle an already established fire with hand extinguishers is madness, double madness high up in a hirise building.

 

[Sabretooth]

WOW.

Ladies and gentlemen...step right up! Please draw your attention to Bill Smith's posts! You never again find a more perfect example of arrogance, ignorance, lack of evidence, and evading the question in the world!

C'mon! See the show!

 

[JimBenArm]

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.

Something's getting full.
Or is it someone who's already full. Of something.

 

[Sabretooth]

I would like to know why the building had to be a target. I can't think of any sane reason.

On the fighting of the fire in WTC7.
I am a trained firefighter, I did 3 courses at the RN Firefighting School while I was in the Navy. I was trained to fight aircraft fires ammunition fires and fires on and between decks on a Warship. To even think that in anything but a life and death sutuation I would be asked to enter somewhere to tackle an already established fire with hand extinguishers is madness, double madness high up in a hirise building.

According to Bill, materials come before life. What's a few more bodies when we have office desks to save?!

 

[bill smith]

WOW.

Ladies and gentlemen...step right up! Please draw your attention to Bill Smith's posts! You never again find a more perfect example of arrogance, ignorance, lack of evidence, and evading the question in the world!

C'mon! See the show!

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

 

[HyJinX]

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

 

[Disbelief]

I shouldn't even waste the time to answer a question like this.

Why, it is a blatant lie to say it in seconds after the collapse when it is two days afterward.

Two days after the event the collapsed pile would have looked exactly the same.

You can not know this. How do you know what was done looking for survivors?

 

[bill smith]

Why, it is a blatant lie to say it in seconds after the collapse when it is two days afterward.



You can not know this. How do you know what was done looking for survivors?

They said that there was nobody in WTC7 at collapse.

 

[Horatius]

Ah well, we will see in the fullness of time.

No, we really won't.

At the appropriate juncture Sabretooth all will be made clear.

No, it really won't.

 

[bill smith]

No, we really won't.







No, it really won't.

In due course my dear Horatius....in due course

 

[Disbelief]

They said that there was nobody in WTC7 at collapse.

So, you admit that it was a lie to say seconds afterward then.

You also think that they did no verification that everyone was out? Of course they did.