WTC 7 - Why?

Originally posted by Gorman91
I really cannot believe that 911 was by the Government. This is because if they wanted to use it to bring down our rights, they would have done it by now. Sure they've come a long ways in destroying the Constitution, but they have no way in any form come close to something like Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR. We still can write here and not be arrested.

You are amazing dude!
First you said it wasn't a demolition because there was no visible exlosions on WTC7. I show you a video of a very loud explosion and I show you visible squibs on the side of the building.
And now you tell me that WTC7 was not demolished. And you know this why? Because we don't live in a Nazi state like the Germans did?

But i tell you something, if they turn the nation into a police state tomorrow, you will find some other excuse to claim WTC7 was brought down by fire.

The point is they could have never brought about the patriot act and the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war without 9/11.

Originally posted by Stiney

Originally posted by PepeLapew
No explosions? Really?
Listen to this: www.youtube.com...

That was several hours before the collapse.

And you know this how?
It was said that there was no explosion and I brought this out showing that there absolutely was some explosions but I can't be sure of the exact time this explosion occurred.
However, if you have a way of knowing exactly the time this explosion occurred, please enlighten us.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The point is they could have never brought about the patriot act and the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war without 9/11.

Sure THEY could have.

They could have planted five bombs in five malls around the country and had them go off at the same time.

It would have accomplished the EXACT same thing as the astoundingly complex operation that many believe was 9/11.

More to your point...the government could probably have put the country under marshal law on September 12th without anything but a contented sigh from most of the country.

If their goal was to rule us all with an iron fist, then why did they miss their largest window of opportunity (i.e., the days immediately following the attack)?

Essedarius


But the neo-cons were saying 'it was unlikely' outside a pearl harbour type event, (PNAC) so according to the neo-cons something had to happen which was more spectacular, causing national indignation.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by talisman]

Every source I have seen the video it is stated that it happened at around 10:15 in the morning. It's even in the comments section at the link you gave, multiple times. I'm getting my information from the same sources you are. Even if that can't be confirmed, you're still left with the fact that there was only one explosion. Are buildings demolished from one explosion? No. Did any witnesses who watched the collapse report hearing this as it happened or just seconds before? No. Do you have any evidence whatsoever indicating that this is related to WTC 7 or even happened at around the same time as its collapse? No. You haven't even given me evidence that the video itself is authentic. I have no doubt that it is, but the point is you are NOT the one who should be asking "and you know this how?"

Originally posted by talisman
...according to the neo-cons something had to happen which was more spectacular, causing national indignation.

So you're honestly saying that an unprecidented, coordinated bombing of 5 populated areas in the U.S. would not have caused the same level of indignation?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

"Upgrade" the bomb sites to elementary schools, and Bush could have driven tanks down Main street in every major city...with the population cheering the military on from their curfewed living rooms.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
You are amazing dude!
First you said it wasn't a demolition because there was no visible exlosions on WTC7. I show you a video of a very loud explosion and I show you visible squibs on the side of the building.
And now you tell me that WTC7 was not demolished. And you know this why? Because we don't live in a Nazi state like the Germans did?

Nope, I say it was probably brought down by demos, but not the twin towers themselves. I said earlier that if you were a fire chief who just lost half his men in the towers, would you risk the other half in wtc7 or just evac and blow it up. It's the media's fault for not saying anything. And for the argument that it takes weeks to plan a demo, then how does the army do it in civilian areas of Iraq. It's odd to compare it, but they bring down buildings with terrorists in them pretty quickly. They bring it down within hours with some nice shots from a Bradley tank. In any case, I know there were demos in wtc 7, but it wasn't anything but to save lives. When silverstern or whatever his name is heard this, he did like most Jews do and looked for the money in it. Once the building was evaced, they blew it up. In any case. America isn't making it through the next decade. It will be dissolved like the Roman empire of the past. Through corruption and stupidity, we have killed ourselves.

Ok, time for my personal thinking time.

My father works in the MTA in New York. For those who have not heard, there has been a recent spike in accidents and deaths. When this happens, they have a "stand down" (My father has a few days off now) The essential stop everything and asses the situation. So this could be what happened on 911. The FDNY more then likly did this, and let it burn in order to asses the problem.This is what I mean by letting a building go in certain situations

www.youtube.com...

So my thinking is that the wiser choice would be to abandon and let burn. I'm more or less starting to lean away from explosions in WTC7. And for the case that metal can't burn like that and all, then WTF happened here

www.youtube.com...

If WTC "couldn't burn hot enough" to bend the metal and buckle, then why did something so much lighter collapse from it? It's not a very good example, but it is something to think on.


finally, look here

Your video shows dust during that explosion:


Yet I find it funny that there is no smoke here during the collapse except for some background smkoe from the WTC towers:


And here there is no smoke at all:



Food for thought, I'm hungry, are you?


[edit on 30-4-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The point is they could have never brought about the patriot act and the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war without 9/11.

Sure THEY could have.

They could have planted five bombs in five malls around the country and had them go off at the same time.

Don't forget that they wanted the people to think right away that "muslim terrorists" were responsible. With the WTC having been bombed (allegedly) by Muslims a few years ahead, the people automatically deducted that OBL did it. The fake investigation was just a front for show, the people already "knew" it was him.

Furthermore 9/11 was a typical shock and awe operation with the sight if the towers collapsing, the sight of the planes going iin and all this, the people were literally in a "shock and awe" state.

It would have accomplished the EXACT same thing as the astoundingly complex operation that many believe was 9/11.

9/11 facilitated the implementation of the patriot act, which was already written BEFORE 9/11, that an other form of fake attack would have done the same thing is a mute point.

And the making of 9/11 wasn't as complex as you might think. Imagine one crew installing the wiring for the demolition over a 2-3 year period. But keeping a front as installing a new security system all over the whole WTC complex.

Then imagine an other crew installing remote control systems in the four airplanes. See here for more details: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course, those who installed these systems were killed so that would scare anyone else from saying anything.

Then of course, an other small crew supervising the whole thing from the bunker inside WTC7 and of course there people too could have been killed in the demolition of WTC7. Killing them would prevent them from speaking and also scare others from coming forward.

More to your point...the government could probably have put the country under marshal law on September 12th without anything but a contented sigh from most of the country.

Well, the patriot act (which was supposed to be only temporary BTW) was pretty close to that marshal law. But don't worry, virtually ever event that happens is an other excuse to remove more and more rights and freedoms from the people.

If their goal was to rule us all with an iron fist, then why did they miss their largest window of opportunity (i.e., the days immediately following the attack)?

Their goal was to bring out the patriot act and kill the constitution, that was done but somehow you don't believe it because they don't have a gun pointed at your head right now?
Their goal was to hide 2.3 trillion in 'missing' money and that was done .... did you even remember that news? I bet you didn't.
Their goal was to wage perpetual war around the globe and hey ...... what do you know, it's happening right now.
Their goal was to dramatically increase the military budget, and what do you know, it's being done right now.

But hey dude, if you want to stick with your fantasy of box cutter terrorists flying around the most controlled airspace in the world (the eastern seaboard) without a single fighter intercept for over 2 hours and 3 buildings collapsing completely at free fall speeds due to fire while this has never been done before ... be my guess. And I suppose that a Pentagon official buying put options against the airlines just before 9/11 is also a coincidence too?

Originally posted by Gorman91
Your video shows dust during that explosion:

Not during the explosion, the dust was already everywhere due to the two WTC towers collapse from earlier in that day.

Yet I find it funny that there is no smoke here during the collapse except for some background smkoe from the WTC towers:

And here there is no smoke at all:

Mmmmm .... funny, you are right, no smoke at all, yet you would have me believe fire was responsible for the collapse of that building? If fire brought down that building, then where os the fire? Where is the smoke from those fires?

But anyway, anyone who looks at WTC7 collapsing completely vertically down into it's own footprint and done all inside 7 seconds and still believe that fire did this is not wanting to know the truth.

Frankly, the only way you people will believe 9/11 was a false flag operation is if Bush comes on TV and says "I did it".

The videos of WTC7 demolition speak on their own, no need to debate it, no need to argue it. If you want to think fire brought that STEEL building down, then be my guess.

Have a look at the videos again here:
www.wtc7.net...

It's funny how I have been demanded to provide sources for everything I say, yet apparently all you have to do is look at some videos to know the truth. Should I just not bother researching, then? It seems that no amount of fact-checking will change your opinion because "common sense" tells you otherwise. Somehow you can know better than every demo expert and every engineer who has studied this. Someone please tell me that Lapew is not a good representative of this community. If he is I am wasting my time.

Originally posted by Stiney
It's funny how I have been demanded to provide sources for everything I say

If I write something you don't believe, ask me and I will provide the source for it.
However, I am the one who submitted the video showing the explosion. And you claimed the explosion happened "several hours before the collapse". When I asked how you knew this you said that "every source I have seen the video it is stated that it happened at around 10:15 in the morning but I checked and I could not find any place which revealed the time of the explosion.

The whole point is you made a false claim when you said that the explosion happened several hours before the collapse of WTC7. The point is you will not submit any sources for this info because you have none.

It is obvious you don't want to know the truth, it is obvious you just pull "facts" out of thin air to support your point of view. I can't have a discussion with someone who makes up "facts" as he goes along. Go ahead, believe what you want. WTC7 was really demolished by fire and the Tooth Fairy really does exist.

Excuse me? Read my post again. I said I have seen the time stated everywhere I saw the video posted. Including the one you showed. Seriously, this isn't very hard. I'll give you step-by-step instructions:

1. Go to the video you posted.
2. Scroll to the bottom of the page.
3. Click "view all comments".
4. Press Ctrl+F on your keyboard. This should bring up the search feature on your browser.
5. Type "10:15".

If I write something you don't believe, ask me and I will provide the source for it.

I already did. You said you don't need a source for it because it is "obvious" and "common sense". And yet you can't even get experts to agree with you.

I did not make a false claim and I do want to know the truth. You are assumptive and ignorant and don't believe in honest research.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
Excuse me? Read my post again. I said I have seen the time stated everywhere I saw the video posted. Including the one you showed. Seriously, this isn't very hard. I'll give you step-by-step instructions:

1. Go to the video you posted.
2. Scroll to the bottom of the page.
3. Click "view all comments".
4. Press Ctrl+F on your keyboard. This should bring up the search feature on your browser.
5. Type "10:15".

C'mon now! Let's be serious, I could go there right now and write in the comments area that it happened on Christmas day. Everyone is allowed to write whatever they want there. Just because some poster wrote that it was filmed at 10:15 certainly doesn't mean it was that it's the truth ...right?

To the best of my knowledge, the time of that footage has not been authenticated. But if you know for sure that it was taken at a specific time, please post something other then an anonymous post on a comments column as a valid proof.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

First let's look back at what you said:

When I asked how you knew this you said that "every source I have seen the video it is stated that it happened at around 10:15 in the morning but I checked and I could not find any place which revealed the time of the explosion.

You said that I made a false claim. I did not. The claim I made is what you bolded in your post. And it was true. I have not seen this video posted anywhere that claims it happened at any time other than 10:15, and wherever I have seen it, the time was given. You implied that I lied about this because you could not find the information yourself - but I didn't. I showed you where I saw it. In your link you will notice more than one person saying 10:15. Why don't you ask them where they got the time from? Do you even know what the original source of this video is?

Now let's look at what I said:

Even if that can't be confirmed, you're still left with the fact that there was only one explosion. Are buildings demolished from one explosion? No. Did any witnesses who watched the collapse report hearing this as it happened or just seconds before? No. Do you have any evidence whatsoever indicating that this is related to WTC 7 or even happened at around the same time as its collapse? No.

You are dodging the point that you have not given any evidence. You posted this video as if it was evidence that there were audible explosions in the collapse of WTC7. But you have not even come close to proving that it's related to, or more importantly, a cause of, the collapse. It's up to you to prove this. It's not up to me to prove that it happened at 10:15. I have no idea what time it happened. Neither do you. That's the point: There are too many unknowns, and, as I have pointed out in the above quote, from what we DO know, it does not appear that your video is at all substantial. Demo occurs from a series of explosions, not just one - and no witnesses heard this at the time of the collapse, nor can you hear it in the video of the collapse. Simple logic, my friend.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Don't forget that they wanted the people to think right away that "muslim terrorists" were responsible.

And 5 simultaneous bombs in different cities wouldn't do that?

(That's a rhetorical question. Yes. It would.)

Furthermore 9/11 was a typical shock and awe operation...

If by "typical" you mean "unprecedented in its complexity and scope" then I agree with you.

... with the sight if the towers collapsing, the sight of the planes going iin and all this, the people were literally in a "shock and awe" state.

Again, I agree with you. But you don't think the sight of a blown out elementary school wouldn't do the same thing? It would. Except it would throw on another layer of paranoia and fear...critical elements of manipulation.

9/11 facilitated the implementation of the patriot act, which was already written BEFORE 9/11, that an other form of fake attack would have done the same thing is a mute point.

If only...

And the making of 9/11 wasn't as complex as you might think.

(GAWK)

Imagine one crew installing the wiring for the demolition over a 2-3 year period. But keeping a front as installing a new security system all over the whole WTC complex.

Okay...how many office managers and custodians would they murder during this time period...? And the people who were actually responsible for security on the highest risk terrorist site in the world...what were they doing during this time?

Then imagine an other crew installing remote control systems in the four airplanes.

And who was the inside contact at the airlines who would coordinate the stealth removal of the planes, then re-introduce them into usage all on the same day while ensuring that they were used for the exact flights that the (fake) terrorists held tickets for?

Of course, those who installed these systems were killed so that would scare anyone else from saying anything.

Well naturally.

Then of course, an other small crew supervising the whole thing from the bunker inside WTC7 and of course there people too could have been killed in the demolition of WTC7. Killing them would prevent them from speaking and also scare others from coming forward.

So you trust them enough to be on the inside of this operation for the past 3 painstaking years, but don't think they can keep a lid on it once they've actually participated and can be implicated in mass murder?

Well, the patriot act (which was supposed to be only temporary BTW) was pretty close to that marshal law.

One of us is definitely operating under a really poor definition of marshal law. Under my definition, your above statement is highly inaccurate.

But don't worry, virtually ever event that happens is an other excuse to remove more and more rights and freedoms from the people.

Every event? Every event? I seriously think you are bestowing WAY too much power and intelligence onto our fair government.

Their goal was to bring out the patriot act and kill the constitution, that was done but somehow you don't believe it because they don't have a gun pointed at your head right now?

No...I don't believe it because I still have the 2nd amendment right to have a gun myself. If they were going to "kill" the constitution and enslave us all, don't you think they would have had a go at the part that says citizen's can ARM themselves? Not a peep on that front, huh? (Please don't just breeze over that last point...it stands in the FACE of your will-to-power theory and unless you have an explanation why the current administration hasn't made a PEEP toward gun control, then you simply need to drop the "kill the constitution" theory.)

Their goal was to hide 2.3 trillion in 'missing' money and that was done .... did you even remember that news? I bet you didn't.

Do you REALLY think our government needs exploding planes and buildings to jack a ton of money? I bet you don't.

Their goal was to wage perpetual war around the globe and hey ...... what do you know, it's happening right now.

George W. Bush. He strike you as somebody that needs a lot of public support before he makes a decision? The dude is such a bull-headed jackass...the idea that he needs an EXCUSE to do anything is a farce. If that was the case we would have had buildings and planes imploding all around us for the past three years.

Their goal was to dramatically increase the military budget, and what do you know, it's being done right now.

The country voted republican...whatcha gonna do?

But hey dude, if you want to stick with your fantasy...

You just described a 3 year coordinated effort between the CIA, FBI, NORAD, the Executive Office, WTC security, United Airlines, the FAA, and the Pentagon.

The only thing you're missing is a glass slipper and...well...midnight.

And I suppose that a Pentagon official buying put options against the airlines just before 9/11 is also a coincidence too?

Who? Please supply your source because it's the first thing you've said that actually interested me.

Essedarius,
I am not going to entertain your ridiculous "mall bombs' anymore. yes, mall bombs would have been easier ... so ask yourself why the 19 box cutter terrorists didn't do that instead of hijacking 4 planes and commandeer them all in the midle of the most controlled airspace in the world with extremely low piloting skills without a single freakin' fighter being scrambled.

We could go on and on with ridiculous "what if" theories without getting anywhere.

You think the most modern military power in the world could not pull off 9/11 because it was too complicated and I think that 19 cave dwelling box cutter terrorists could not pull if off because it was too complicated. Who's being a fool here?

If by "typical" you mean "unprecedented in its complexity and scope" then I agree with you.

Well, you believe the CIA, FBI, NIST, Mossad and White House could not pull off such a complex scam yet you want to believe 19 camel jockeys could?
Besides, it's not nearly as complex and impossible as you think.

Okay...how many office managers and custodians would they murder during this time period...? And the people who were actually responsible for security on the highest risk terrorist site in the world...what were they doing during this time?

I repeat, those who were supposed to be responsible for the security were in fact the ones installing the wiring - Securacom, which was also responsible for the security of the whole WTC complex as well as the two airports involved.
In a controlled demolition, the most work is in the planning, the installation of all the wiring and calibration of the different sections. The wiring is installed over several years. Just the wiring which can easily pass off as wiring for future bandwidth upgrades and future electrical upgrades and future security upgrades, it's just wires.
Than all that is left is to install the bombs at every second floor or so. this could be done in the last week before 9/11 and this would certainly explain why bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly pulled out in the last week and confined to their kennel in the basement. This would also explain the weird "power down" of the towers where the power was turned off for a whole week-end only two days before. During this time when the power is turned off a small crew could have access to the whole building without fears of getting caught on any security cams.

And who was the inside contact at the airlines who would coordinate the stealth removal of the planes, then re-introduce them into usage all on the same day while ensuring that they were used for the exact flights that the (fake) terrorists held tickets for?

Today's airliners are heavily computerized and in fact most take-offs and landings are done via auto-pilot, the crew is required to do a few manual landings and take-offs each month but the majority are done by auto-pilot. Installing the remote control technology would be as simple as upgrading some software any many cases. This could have been done weeks even months before 9/11.

Doesn't it bother you that at least 5 Raytheon employees involved with remote control tech and/or secretive work died aboard the airplanes on that day? See here for more details: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you trust them enough to be on the inside of this operation for the past 3 painstaking years, but don't think they can keep a lid on it once they've actually participated and can be implicated in mass murder?

I answered that already but if you find easier to accept that 9 of the 19 terrorists are still alive then be my guess.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Essedarius,
I am not going to entertain your ridiculous "mall bombs' anymore. yes, mall bombs would have been easier ... so ask yourself why the 19 box cutter terrorists didn't do that instead of hijacking 4 planes and commandeer them all in the midle of the most controlled airspace in the world with extremely low piloting skills without a single freakin' fighter being scrambled.

screwloosechange.xbehome.com...

Originally posted by PepeLapew
We could go on and on with ridiculous "what if" theories without getting anywhere.

You think the most modern military power in the world could not pull off 9/11 because it was too complicated and I think that 19 cave dwelling box cutter terrorists could not pull if off because it was too complicated. Who's being a fool here?

You're making the common mistake of equating the official story to the conspiracy theory while changing nothing except for who the criminals are. Your theory is very complex. It involves placing bombs all throughout each building without anyone noticing, and requires a huge amount of experts who otherwise have been very reliable and respected, to be fooled or dishonest on purpose. Your argument would make sense if our theory included anything of the sort. But it doesn't. The method and motive for both "theories" are totally different from each other. You are making an unfair comparison. For "box cutter terrorists", crashing planes into skyscrapers is a lot simpler than putting bombs in malls, let alone rigging thousands of explosives to bring down 110-story buildings.

Besides, it's not nearly as complex and impossible as you think.

How do you figure?!

Than all that is left is to install the bombs at every second floor or so. this could be done in the last week before 9/11 and this would certainly explain why bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly pulled out in the last week and confined to their kennel in the basement.

Here is the article the "abruptly pulled dogs" claim comes from:

www.newsday.com...
Notice it says heightened security had been lifted. That is far removed from "lack of security". The security was heightened because of threats over the phone.
This is proof that there were bomb-sniffing dogs were still working there on 9/11:
www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...
Heightened security means extra dogs. It doesn't mean there were no dogs prior to or following that.

This would also explain the weird "power down" of the towers where the power was turned off for a whole week-end only two days before.

The "weird" power down was reported only by ONE person. Isn't it funny how nobody else noticed that the entire friggin' building lost power??

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Stiney]

And I suppose that a Pentagon official buying put options against the airlines just before 9/11 is also a coincidence too?

Who? Please supply your source because it's the first thing you've said that actually interested me.

It's not that interesting after all.