WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

Aside from the complete unnecessariness (is that a word?) of bringing down WTC7, the other thing about the whole CD/inside job scenario that I can't fathom, is why it would even be necessary to bring down the twin towers. If the goal was to create terror and crystalize public opinion to allow an invasion in the Middle-East, wouldn't it have been enough to simply fly the planes into the twin towers? Wasn't that horrible enough? I recall feeling quite terrorized at the time, just after the 2nd plane hit. That was enough to bring home the realization that NYC was being attacked by terrorists.
 
Oh my, just watching the CNN coverage at archive.org

Around 4:10 pm, reports that "Building 7 at World Trade CTR on fire, may collapse"

Disinfo!
 
Everyone has it backwards....We find our villians at the secret meeting place of the Bohemian Grove.

GWB: "Dickster we really need to get rid of the documents in WTC7."

Cheney: "Well we could call that CIA asset Obama, errr Moosama, ahhh Chaka Khan, oh **** whatever his name is." We can get him to make another one of those car bombs and take it out."

GWB: "Heck no, it's been done." "We need something with a little more flare, ya know so we can beat the war drums after."

Larry S comes out from behind the little umbrella in his drink. "Yeesh guys, I could use something like that for the Towers. See I'm losing money and I need to clear the asbestos in the Towers." "Too bad we can't do something that would do everything at once".

Dickster and GW look at each other at the sametime as the collective lightbulb goes off.
 
Having watched some of the NBC footage of that day, I can recall seeing a reporter saying something about some firefighter or other first responder mentioning "secondary devices"; my GUESS is that this is what started the concept percolating in people's minds, and the more paranoid they are, the more likely they were to run with it. Rational people would realize, after watching these clips later, that there was so much wrong and misquoted information being reported that day that almost NOTHING from it was really usable. It's not until several weeks later that we really received accurate information, something the twoofers fail to recognize.
 
Is that some sort of safety mask you're using as the back of your Crow ..... robot thingy?


Didn't someone propose some sort of humanitarian reason for bringing down 7WTC? Aiding the rescue efforts or something like that.
 
TerryUK said:
I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Click to expand...


Because bringing down the twin towers wasn't enough? :confused: Anyway doesn't that contradict the point often made by twoofers that most people are unaware that a third building collapsed?


Non - the FFNY didn't destroy WTC. Also "pull it" was obviously not referring to any demolition, but rather pull the remaining FF operation.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup: Someone give Terry a gold star!
 
Sabrina said:
Having watched some of the NBC footage of that day, I can recall seeing a reporter saying something about some firefighter or other first responder mentioning "secondary devices"; my GUESS is that this is what started the concept percolating in people's minds, and the more paranoid they are, the more likely they were to run with it. Rational people would realize, after watching these clips later, that there was so much wrong and misquoted information being reported that day that almost NOTHING from it was really usable. It's not until several weeks later that we really received accurate information, something the twoofers fail to recognize.
Click to expand...

Well, from the truthers' point of view only the first reports are credible, because every piece of information that came later is either screened or written by the all-powerful conspirators.

This is just one of the many crossroads where rational thinkers and truthers part ways. To them everything they hear or read is true if it conforms with their world view. They know what is true... facts are irrelevant.
 
Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
2.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
5. That pesky command bunker.
6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???
 
Swing Dangler said:
Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
2.

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
5. That pesky command bunker.
6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???
Click to expand...


Reason to hide controlled demolition of WTC7 for purpose in your first statement (prevent further loss of life etc..) ????

TAM:)
 
Swing Dangler said:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
Click to expand...
Considering both the particular cases you mention did go to trial and produce verdicts, these would not seem to lend weight to your assertion.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Reasons to blow it up:

Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
Click to expand...

yes, let's blow up a building to add to the chaos, and more debris, and covering up MORE people under already 30 feet of rubble.

That makes a whole lot of sense.



1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
Click to expand...

Yet, of course, said company's holding the information for Enron and World Com, wouldn't have kept copies ELSEWHERE. In this electronic and digital age, they wouldn't make copies and save it to disc, and have it stored elsewhere.

And seeing that the cases went to court and people were already convicted, what would "destroying" that evidence provide?

2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
Click to expand...

In stead of using shredders and high powered magnets to erase computer data.

3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.
Click to expand...

seeing as that was the main HQ of the CIA, why would they keep anything in that building?

4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
Click to expand...

gee, you think that spending 4 billion to rebuild would have been cheaper than to not destroy it?

5. That pesky command bunker.
Click to expand...

absurd claim, without proof. of course.

6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???
Click to expand...

tells us how. cause the buliding was shorter than the WTC tower (oh thos damn pesky towers).
 
patchbunny said:
As you can tell from my avatar (that is, assuming you've heard of the show) I'm a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I'm working on my Crow T. Robot puppet and I'm making his eyes. They're ping pong balls painted a fluorescent yellow, but for some reason the paint is coming out patchwork yellow and orange.

For those who are interested, you can see the work in progress here.

--Patch
Click to expand...

I thought maybe you were in an enclosed, unventilated space, with cans of spray paint, and decided to start believing conspiracy theories. Does it matter that when you stated that you were spray painting ping pong balls, I immediately thought of someone chasing ping pong balls across their workbench with a can of spray paint, cursing out the balls as they rolled away with the spray?

But yes, there was no reason to blow up WTC7. And even if so... why wait til everyone was out when you just "blew up" 2 towers that employed upwards of 50,000 people on a daily basis?

The JAQers never like to be asked questions. Come to think of it, they don't like being told answers either.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
Click to expand...

OK, so why the need for secrecy and a cover-up?

2.
Click to expand...
Ok

Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
Click to expand...
If that was the reason, they failed.

2. Some think the entire operation may have been run out of the building, so there would be a need to destroy it.
Click to expand...
That could work in a Hollywood science fiction movie, but in real life people are smarter than that. You really think V for Vendetta is a smart movie do you? :eek:

3. Who knows what the CIA had in the building that may have needed a good cleansing probably the lizard overlords in the basement.;)
Click to expand...
OK, still, demolishing the building is not the intelligent way to go about it.

4. Cost: Anticipated repairs may have been more than insurance and rebuilding cost.
Click to expand...
Let's see your numbers.

5. That pesky command bunker.
Click to expand...
It's a shame they couldn't use it that day.

6. A plane that should have hit it did not.???
Click to expand...
So they planned to crash a plane in it but the plan aborted, so they decided to go ahead with the CD anyway? :boggled:

Brilliant. Got anymore?
 
Arus808 said:
absurd claim, without proof. of course.
Click to expand...

Claim? It is all speculation. DUH!

If WTC 7 was CD'ed, as it appears it was, the only way to prove the 'why' as the original poster asked is in a court of law or speculation.

Not too many bulbs on today.
Case for good reasons:
1. To prevent further loss of life and property from another global collapse into other buildings and people.
OK, so why the need for secrecy and a cover-up?
Click to expand...

For the insurance claim? You tell me.
Case for bad reasons:
1. To hamper, stall, or eliminate corporate cases involving Enron and World Com among others.
If that was the reason, they failed.
Click to expand...
I guess humans aren't perfect at everything, including conspiracies.
That could work in a Hollywood science fiction movie, but in real life people are smarter than that.
Click to expand...
George Bush...nuff said! ;)

Let's see your numbers.
Click to expand...
Again, may have been.

So they planned to crash a plane in it but the plan aborted, so they decided to go ahead with the CD anyway?
Click to expand...
Lets Roll.
 
Swing Dangler said:
For the insurance claim? You tell me.
Click to expand...

So they decided to CD the building to avoid further loss of life, but they hid it because they didn't want to get sued?

Read it out loud to yourself and try not to laugh.

I guess humans aren't perfect at everything, including conspiracies.
Click to expand...
And speculating.

George Bush...nuff said!
Click to expand...
You've just debunked yourself.

Again, may have been.
Click to expand...
You got to have some idea of what you are talking about.

Lets Roll.
Click to expand...
?
 
OK Swing, now that you've had your laugh, do you really believe any of these speculations ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom