WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

TerryUK said:
I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23?)
Click to expand...

What you think and what you assume simply reinforces the case against you, but please carry on.
 
TerryUK said:
I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Click to expand...

I have lived in and around NYC for most of my adult life, though I was in the middle of a 5 year professional trip in southeast lower Michigan in 2001.

In any case, I think there is a lot of hindsight in this statement. What I recall, from my pre-2001 days in NYC, was that to most people, the World Trade Center consisted of the twin towers. Not "the three main buildings." I had no clear idea, after 9/11, of what "WTC7" referred to; I think it was commonly referred to as Salomon Brothers. (May be wrong. Forgive me.) So any claim that the plan was to destroy all of the WTC, or even its 3 main buildings, is strictly after-the-fact rationalization. New Yorkers did not think of the whole part of lower Manhattan as "WTC;" we thought of the two towers. And I do not believe that any out-of-towners, as we thought of them, would have thought of the "3 main buildings," either.
 
Alareth said:
There are no depths to low and repugnant for CT's.
Click to expand...

You are quite right about that. Here is an example I just stumbled across on the Loose Change Forum by a poster who goes by the wholly inapt name, "CriticalThinker" in a thread about cell phone use on airplanes:

"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"

LOL
Click to expand...


After another poster expressed his/her view that the post was offensive, and after a warning by admin IVXX, admonishing "CriticalThinker" "Don't let this or anything like it happen again," the ignoramus could not resist and followed up with this further post/tirade:


I'm so happy to have offended you !

You're name is OFFENSIVE to me!

Everything about you is offensive.
Love to box your eyes out you moron.

"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"
"Hi mom - its me ..you're son Dip **** ...you do believe me don't ya mom?"

Can you not see that this is FAKE! Who would call their mom up and call themselves by their first and LAST name? WHO? ITS FAKE FAKE FAKE!

UPDATE: Had it been a REAL PHONE call - I suspect it would have been whispered : "Call the FBI now - We're hijacked ...call call call".

Anyone who have the original PHONEY BALOGNI transcript here? Please post for our rememberance. Making fun of FICTICIOUS events is NOT A SIN. SORRY. IT'S FAKE.
Click to expand...

It appears that the culprit was suspended for posting the second comment after a warning not to do so, and was further admonished by IVXX, "Next time I see disrespect like this towards a victim or family of a victim it will be an instant ban."

Funny how the Loose Change admins are now reprimanding and banning people for mocking the same victims that Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas mocked so often in the past, and the very denial of Mark Bingham's call to his mother that Loose Change Second Edition promoted.

It's a definite improvement, of course, but I can't help but wonder if it is truly reflective of what they believe, or whether it is merely that they have learned that such repugnant mockery of the victims will cut into their profits and damage the potential popularity of their little video.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805

[/OT]
 
T.A.M. said:
yes, and the big bad govt just bet everything they had on the HUGE AIRPLANES not wiping out the PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES ON THE IMPACT FLOORS, when the collapse initiated.
Click to expand...

That would obviously be something that needed to be considered.

Also, regarding WTC 1 and WTC 2, knowing where the planes would hit - that would also be a problem...
 
LashL said:
Funny how the Loose Change admins are now reprimanding and banning people for mocking the same victims that Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas mocked so often in the past, and the very denial of Mark Bingham's call to his mother that Loose Change Second Edition promoted.

It's a definite improvement, of course, but I can't help but wonder if it is truly reflective of what they believe, or whether it is merely that they have learned that such repugnant mockery of the victims will cut into their profits and damage the potential popularity of their little video.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15805

[/OT]
Click to expand...

I suspect, it is as you have said, a realization that whether they believe the calls to be fake or not, they know it is a point that will bring more derision than praise, and will likely make them look worse in the long run...they are floating back to the "just asking questions" on almost all fronts now, for this very same reason.

TAM:)
 
TerryUK said:
That would obviously be something that needed to be considered.

Also, regarding WTC 1 and WTC 2, knowing where the planes would hit - that would also be a problem...
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty TerryUK.

TAM:)
 
1. Its FDNY. Not the NYFD.

2. If the goal was a war for oil, why bother crashing a plane into the Pentagon or into a field in PA. It seems the collpase of WTC 1 & 2 would have been more than enough. Few people knew about 7 because it happaned so late and was empty. Why would anyone be looking for evidence in WTC 7 anyway if the cover story of Islamic militants was to be believed?
 
Alareth said:
The most common answer to that one says that firefighters that died were the ones that wouldn't accept the bribes to stay quiet and had to be eliminated.
Click to expand...
So, what, they bribed them all as they arrived at the WTC so as to prevent anyone from phoning someone else and reporting the bribe attempt?

This is why, despite how much I enjoy reading about their exploits, I could never do what Randi, Gravy, or the many other debunkers out there do. I just can't tolerate that level of complete and willful stupidity.

--Patch
 
patchbunny said:
Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?
Click to expand...


The author of 9/11 Review offers this 'explanation':

Dissecting the official myth reveals a set of two memes:

* Islamic militants hijack jetliners with simple weapons.
* Jumbojet crashes cause buildings to collapse.

These memes function primarily on a subconscious level. They are reinforced through repetition, and bypass rational argument.

Memes spread through reinforcement. The first meme is reinforced by the repeated success of the alleged teams of hijackers in taking over the flights. The second meme is reinforced by the collapses of both of the towers hit by jetliners, and the collapse of a portion of the Pentagon above the crash zone. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but its collapse aids the second meme by making steel buildings seem prone to collapse. Repetition of unlikely events is even more unlikely in fact, but is favorable for the meme.

Memes can succeed in spite of the absence of precedent, and of contradictions to easily demonstrated facts. The fact that no steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fires, and the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed in a top-down manner, did not stand in the way of the second meme.
Click to expand...


h t t p://w w w.911review.com/myth/index.html

:boggled:
 
The author of 9/11 Review offers this 'explanation':


Quote:
Dissecting the official myth reveals a set of two memes:

* Islamic militants hijack jetliners with simple weapons.
* Jumbojet crashes cause buildings to collapse.

These memes function primarily on a subconscious level. They are reinforced through repetition, and bypass rational argument.

Memes spread through reinforcement. The first meme is reinforced by the repeated success of the alleged teams of hijackers in taking over the flights. The second meme is reinforced by the collapses of both of the towers hit by jetliners, and the collapse of a portion of the Pentagon above the crash zone. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but its collapse aids the second meme by making steel buildings seem prone to collapse. Repetition of unlikely events is even more unlikely in fact, but is favorable for the meme.

Memes can succeed in spite of the absence of precedent, and of contradictions to easily demonstrated facts. The fact that no steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fires, and the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed in a top-down manner, did not stand in the way of the second meme.



Soooo....does that mean that the author is saying a reinforced meme caused the collapses? And all this time I thought it was caused by 2 big dang airplanes!:rolleyes:
 
TerryUK said:
I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23? )
Click to expand...

Why would the government concoct a story in which terrorists hijacked a plane but chose to aim it at a totally unknown target which was extremely difficult to hit?

Nobody had heard of WTC7 before 9/11, it was not at all famous. It would instantly set alarm bells ringing if the terrorists supposedly flew into NYC and hit an unknown building, surrounded by taller buildings on 3 sides, instead of say the Empire State, U.N and dozens (or hundreds) of more likely targets in the area.
 
Alareth said:
I will agree that most arguments used by the truthers have become very bad memes
Click to expand...


Absolutely. While I'm no expert on memetics, I think that much is certainly clear and true.

[brief aside] At the risk of running this thread off course, does anyone know where the controlled demolition hypothesis originated? [/brief aside]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom