WTC 7 - Why?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
How many of you here believe that WTC 7's collapse was planned? This seems to be presented by many people as the greatest piece of evidence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Indeed, if there were explosives in that building, that would very, very strongly indicate an "inside job".

Assuming there were explosives inside it, or anything else that would have brought it down - deliberately - who caused it, and why? I hope everyone will agree that it's completely irrational to believe that something like this would happen without a very good reason. The gain of carrying it out would have to be great enough that those responsible would feel it was worth the risk of being caught.

In this thread I would like to focus on motive to decide whether this is a reasonable assumption... so I'll start out with the basic question - Why? What is the motive and how is it sufficient?




posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
I hope everyone will agree that it's completely irrational to believe that something like this would happen without a very good reason.


It's also irrational to believe that we would know all of the reasons leading to its demolition, seeing as how this information wasn't exactly released in a convenient little memo for all of us to read.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's also irrational to believe that we would know all of the reasons leading to its demolition...


Are you joking? People talk about the reasons for WTC7 like they are SURE FIRE fact...all the time!

Remember?

* Enron file destruction.
* SEC file destruction.
* Something having to do with the CIA.
* Something having to do with Larry Silverstein.

Suddenly now you're going to have a bout of conscience and stop speculating??

That's no fun!



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Are you joking? People talk about the reasons for WTC7 like they are SURE FIRE fact...all the time! [...] Suddenly now you're going to have a bout of conscience and stop speculating??


Wowee gee! Maybe you should stop being a smart ass and talk to those people, huh?

All of the things you mention probably strengthened the decision, but you can't expect us to read the minds of people we don't even know to pick out which reasons predominated or why things weren't carried out differently. That would be a joke.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
One idea that has been put forth by some people, is they believe that Flight 93 was intended to hit WTC 7, but did not reach its target because it was shotdown.

The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers. It was already pre-rigged but since flight 93 never hit it's target they decided to bring it down anyways.

I don't fully buy into this idea, but I truly think it is an interesting idea, and really gets you thinking.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what you come up with to debunk the conspiracy. They'll just come up w/ more BS for example, wtc 7 contain infomation about the plan 911 conspiracy, so at the last minute the decided to blow it up too, so no "evidence" will ever be found.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers.


I'm not so sure they would've accomplished that goal, then, since nearly all of the tenants were either financial or federal in Building 7. I also doubt the majority of Americans would even think that far into it.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Wowee gee! Maybe you should stop being a smart ass and talk to those people, huh?


Do me a favor, would you? I'm having a hard time defining this one.

Re-read your first post.
Now is you calling me a smart ass irony, or hypocrisy?

I would tend to go with irony, since you didn't really make a value judgement.



...you can't expect us to read the minds of people we don't even know to pick out which reasons predominated or why things weren't carried out differently.


You just described what prosecuting attorneys do every day.

If you're cool be-bopping around conspiracy forums, then you're good to go. But if the Truth Movement ever wants to move into a legitimate courtroom (including that of public opinion), it will need to give more than a fleeting thought to motive at some point.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
One idea that has been put forth by some people, is they believe that Flight 93 was intended to hit WTC 7, but did not reach its target because it was shotdown.

The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers. It was already pre-rigged but since flight 93 never hit it's target they decided to bring it down anyways.


Who knows..maybe the conspirators calculated that the North Tower would help take it down instead of an airplane. One thing that disturb me is the flight path of 93 where it was heading southeast instead of northeast to New York. The path it was heading was towards Washington D.C. But we will never know.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinadetta
One idea that has been put forth by some people, is they believe that Flight 93 was intended to hit WTC 7, but did not reach its target because it was shotdown.

The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers. It was already pre-rigged but since flight 93 never hit it's target they decided to bring it down anyways.

I don't fully buy into this idea, but I truly think it is an interesting idea, and really gets you thinking.


But if it was a attack against NYC, don't you think the Empire State Building would have been more of a target than WTC7? I mean really, the ESB has been a landmark for many years, and like the towers, it sticks out.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
It doesn't matter what you come up with to debunk the conspiracy. They'll just come up w/ more BS for example, wtc 7 contain infomation about the plan 911 conspiracy, so at the last minute the decided to blow it up too, so no "evidence" will ever be found.


Its just too bad that people that still believe the official story can not come up with any real evidence to support the official story. Thats ok NIST still can not tell us why building 7 collapsed either.

At least poeple looking for the truth have done the research to find out what actually happened.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Now is you calling me a smart ass irony, or hypocrisy?

I would tend to go with irony, since you didn't really make a value judgement.


We're in the same boat, man. Enjoy the company.

I think you just can't keep me straight with everybody else.



...you can't expect us to read the minds of people we don't even know to pick out which reasons predominated or why things weren't carried out differently.


You just described what prosecuting attorneys do every day.


Jesus, you want me to defend everyone on the planet but me!

If I ever go to law school and become an attorney, I'll worry about it for you. But I have to tell you, odds aren't good. I don't really like the legal system.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
If it really was a controlled demo, I think wtc7 was where all the equipment, setup, firering panels and so forth were.

Rather than risk being seen carting all that stuff out, they figured they could kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Destroy the evidence of a govenment planned OP,
and remove the Enron scandal evidence.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Jesus, you want me to defend everyone on the planet but me!


According to the Bible, yes, Jesus does want that from you.


I don't really like the legal system.


Something else we agree on.
I think we may have been separated at birth, you and I.

ON TOPIC:

If WTC7 was rigged to go down, why didn't they just hit the button when it was completely consumed by dust when Tower 1 dropped?

It would have been much cleaner. Why do you think they waited to implode the building until the smoke cleared and TV cameras could record the entire thing?

(This question is for everyone but bsbray11.)



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
If WTC7 was rigged to go down, why didn't they just hit the button when it was completely consumed by dust when Tower 1 dropped?

It would have been much cleaner. Why do you think they waited to implode the building until the smoke cleared and TV cameras could record the entire thing?

(This question is for everyone but bsbray11.)


Consider for a brief moment that WTC7 actually was demolished.

Who posts here that would definitively know the answer to your question?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I saw a docu, with demolition experts about 911, it was a real skeptic docu, really.. but these guys said, the two towers collapsed due to the planes, but wtc7 was demolished, and demolishing such a building takes weeks, so if that right, then thats prove that there is something wrong right? I will search for the docu online, if i find it, ill post the link here..



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who posts here that would definitively know the answer to your question?


Probably the same people that post in Did Cho Seung Hui View A UFO?, Einstein was right: space and time bend, and Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.


If you would like to push a rule banning speculation on ATS, then you should go to the Board Business and Questions forum.


(Just between you and me, I see the point you’re trying to make about the Official Storyers falling back on the “Why would they do that?” questions. But surely you understand that this is a natural byproduct of outlandish conspiracy theories…and could be ended by simply providing even a mildly realistic answer.)



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Stiney
I hope everyone will agree that it's completely irrational to believe that something like this would happen without a very good reason.


It's also irrational to believe that we would know all of the reasons leading to its demolition, seeing as how this information wasn't exactly released in a convenient little memo for all of us to read.

...

Who posts here that would definitively know the answer to your question?


That's true - but I never asked if you "knew", let alone "definitively" knew, the reason. I'm saying you need to at least have a reasonable hypothesis of what the motive could be... otherwise, believing the government is behind it is not rational - my point stands...

I'm aiming this thread at people who believe that this is evidence. I don't know how many people are on this forum who believe that, but I know that there are a lot out there. It's not really strong evidence without a motive...

I've also thought of the same point Essedarius mentioned: If it was meant to be a secret, why did they wait 7 hours to set it off? Earlier, the building itself was completely obscured by the dust cloud. Assuming the two towers collapsing was also planned (after all it wouldn't make much sense to say that the towers weren't planned whereas building 7 was), it would follow that every detail of the demolition was predetermined or "part of the plan" (hence controlled demolition), including the huge dust cloud. Why create the dust cloud and not take advantage of it?



Anyway, I was hoping to focus on just the one question first and then move from there... I think my question is the best starting point for an honest debate on this.

There have really only been two real answers to the question so far:


1. "The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers. It was already pre-rigged but since flight 93 never hit it's target they decided to bring it down anyways."

Now, this isn't exactly a motive for why they would want it to come down in the first place. It's just a "Plan B" since "Plan A" somehow failed. What's the motive for Plan A? To make it look like a broad attack? Still, it doesn't address why they would choose WTC7 as the third building. I think there would have been better candidates - WTC7 wasn't really a widely recognizable landmark was it? Besides, it still looks like a centralized attack, since it was also part of the WTC complex. If they wanted it to look like an attack on the city itself, why not go for another skyscraper outside the whole trade center area?


2. "Destroy the evidence of a govenment planned OP, and remove the Enron scandal evidence."

Okay, I think this one is very ignorant, but it also seems to be the most common. The reason I find it so ignorant is because of the fact that we are living in the digital age; all of our important information is in digital form, and we have something called "disaster recovery" which basically means that even if any large organization's "base of operations" is completely destroyed, they can be back in business in a relatively short period of time because all their data is backed up on fileservers in another building, or perhaps even another city.
I know the government is pretty ignorant when it comes to technology, but I find it hard to believe that they could plan something this huge and totally miss the fact that their "victims" would have off-site backups. Destroying a building is an utter waste of resources.
And if this is truly an "inside" job then this information could be destroyed in much more subtle ways, from the inside, could it not?


So... are these really the best hypotheses out there?

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Stiney]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stiney
I'm saying you need to at least have a reasonable hypothesis of what the motive could be... otherwise, believing the government is behind it is not rational - my point stands...


I seriously doubt a separate group pulled WTC7. That is to say, I find it extremely unlikely that one group pulled off everything on 9/11 and then a totally unrelated group pull WTC7 for unrelated reasons.

FEMA was in WTC7 on Sept. 10th, allegedly preparing for "TRIPOD II". Instead, as Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission, it served as an extremely convenient headquarters for a lot of what went on at the WTC complex on the next day.

Are red flags not going up here? FEMA was in WTC7 the day before 9/11, in a bunker, with a grand view of the whole complex.


The reason I find it so ignorant is because of the fact that we are living in the digital age; all of our important information is in digital form, and we have something called "disaster recovery" which basically means that even if any large organization's "base of operations" is completely destroyed, they can be back in business in a relatively short period of time because all their data is backed up on fileservers in another building, or perhaps even another city.


The papers in question that were destroyed were not things you would back up. They were evidences of fraud and corruption in financial institutions that were going to be brought up before a court. Even digital records of such things tend to go "missing".



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
(Just between you and me, I see the point you’re trying to make about the Official Storyers falling back on the “Why would they do that?” questions. But surely you understand that this is a natural byproduct of outlandish conspiracy theories…and could be ended by simply providing even a mildly realistic answer.)


Just between you and me, "why" doesn't really interest me. That's the sort of information one would expect a proper and thorough investigation to expose. "One with teeth," as they say. Apparently being physically inclined, the actual behavior of the building says enough to me. Also apparently, this isn't cold and hard enough for everyone.

You also say these ideas are "outlandish", and ask for "a mildly realistic answer." Who defines realistic? Your reality isn't David Rockefeller's reality, or a Rothschild's reality, and I certainly would hope that it isn't the reality of the politicians and business owners who prostitute children and engage in abusive pedophilia themselves, or the reality of those that intentionally give African Americans syphilis just to see what it does to them, or that would allow thousands of innocents to become physically ill or even die to increase their corporate profits. There are people in positions of power that would do things you would never dream of. This world is their kind of reality, not yours.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join