It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Destroy Building 7??

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:02 PM
In my opinion and I stress "my opinion" I think the Shanksfield Pennsylvania plane (Flight 93) was intended to hit WTC7 and not the White House like the OS claims. It was shot down by the US military once they realized the first 3 planes had hit their target. Once the plane was taken out of the plan "they" had to continue to bring the WTC7 down because once insurance agencies started sifting through the damaged building they would discover the truth.

Do I have proof? Of course I don't or we wouldn't be arguing this as a theory but as fact instead.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

So why if they were heading for WTC 7 in New York were the hijackers dialing up VOR radio beacon at
Reagan National in Washington DC....?

Also why fly half way across the country to hit WTC 7 when Newark airport is right across the Hudson river.....?

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by thedman

1. None of the flights went straight to their targets.

2. If you where headed to crash a plane into a building, would you give them a heads up you were coming, or would you try and throw them off by requesting a different place?
edit on 14-5-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

First off, I'm not claiming I know what happened with building 7, nor do I claim to know what exactly transpired on that tragic day. However, I absolutely do not believe the official story. I cannot trust the same presidential administration who made over 900 false statements pertaining to Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq.

Credibility on anything shelled out by such individuals is highly suspect, in my opinion. So, I'm in a bit of a quandary when it comes to the 9/11 debate. The logical explanation for me then, in regards to building 7 and the research I've personally done, would be a cover up.

So, simple answer to your question is: Criminal evidence needed to be destroyed. Problem is, I don't think anyone can say, with 100% confidence, they know exactly what that criminal evidence might be. That evidence could have encompassed a whole plethora of dirty deeds. Am I speculating with the given information? Yes. Do I know exactly what those dirty deeds were? No. I do have some ideas, though.

“All the evidence that was stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran -- the number three guy in that office. "We lost our network, we lost all our computers, we lost all the equipment that we use as Secret Service Agents. Everything from machine guns to our shotguns to our electronic equipment that we use." A lot of cases had to be closed as a result of losing that building.”

One of the more in depth articles I've read and the source of the above quote is located here:

Collateral Damage

For anyone wanting to rebuke my findings, and my OPINION, all I ask is that you please do so in a positive, informative and constructive way. I truly believe the majority of us here just want straight answers, not ridicule for questioning the events of 9/11.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:48 PM
Building 7 had to come down because it held all the files showing insider trading that wall street and the bankers were doing. Remember right after it came down almost 50k agents were transferred out of the treasury dept and investigations into what wall street and the banks were doing stopped.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

building 7 = smoking gun? You are mistaken. It is, of course, the little things. The israeli anti-hijacking agent being the first killed.. To lack of video at the pentocon.. To the large amounts of put options placed by Buzzy.. But after you ignore all that.. Yes.. Building 7.. It came down because of the fact it was the last building in the complex.. And all the others were destroyed.. And because it housed alot of information that would have been useful in the wake of this event, for an investigation. Same with the pentogon. Its a no brainer. But thats asking for too much these days.. So its sorta of.. You need a spine, not just the absence of a brain to figure it out.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Because we can!

Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha....

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:17 PM
I am not sure what it is like to commit and be associated with trillions of dollars of fraud, but if I was I would not want any loose ends in covering my trail. Not everyone associated with these government and accounting agencies is a bad guy and saying 'a fire destroyed all the evidence' can have its problems in cleaning up the mess. On the scale of things, the cost of building 7 is a minor expense compared to what was being accounted within it.

From some comments, it sounded like the plan was to pull building 7 when the larger towers fell to help mask and cover up this event. But for some reason it did not all go to plan like flight 93.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:43 PM
The New World Order must destroy the remnants of the "old world order" and the WTC complex was built to the same layout as the pyramids of Giza which were built based on the stars in the constellation of Orion's Belt. The insurance claims aside there were FBI and CIA files that needed to be destroyed.

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

the insurance was little more then a bonus most likely.

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MrWendal

Well the first two were the most common ones that showed up when I looked into this, I used to be a “truther” and these where the types of things I was reading about. With regard to insider trading as one member has already pointed out ENRON continued on after 9/11.

Ok, so I decided to go back and start looking into exactly what was stored (in regards to records) in WTC 7. Let me start off by saying, even attempting to look into it now, I still have not seen your first two examples from the OP. Now I am not saying you are lying or you are making anything up. I am simply saying, I still haven't seen it. One thing to remember is that you can find just about any silly theory in regards to the events of 9/11 coming from those who claim to be "truthers". A perfect example of this is the "no plane" or "hologram" theories. Which neither of those theories is something I subscribe to, but they are theories that are married to the word "truther".

Now going back to ENRON, the scandal broke in October of 2001. By November of 2001 the SEC made a public statement about opening an Investigation. I was unable, today 10-11 years later, to find anything in regards to ENRON being stored in WTC 7. That being said, ENRON is not the only scandal of the time. What I was able to verify is that roughly 3000-4000 active cases from the SEC regarding insider trading on Wall Street was housed in WTC 7. Weather or not this includes anything on ENRON, I was unable to verify today, but regardless of weather or not ENRON was part of these records is a bit irrelevant. What matters most is that 3000-4000 case records and their backups were lost. This is verified through the SEC and their response to a Freedom of Information Act request, which you can find at the following link.

FOIA request response.

I will be the first to admit, the source I linked sucks. I am not a fan. That being said, the document is scanned and posted here. We can argue the source, but either the document post is real or fake. The source in this aspect is neither here nor there.

I must comment you however for admitting that you can only speculate, its somewhat of a novelty to come across a “truther” who does not claim to have all the answers, neither to i.

Let's be honest about it... speculation is all we can do. It actually makes no difference if you are for or against a conspiracy to the events of 9/11. It's still speculation. No one, not even the Government, has answered all the questions surrounding the event. The 9/11 commission even refused to look at who financed the operation because it was of, "little to no significance". In my mind this was an important statement that was made. When a person offers an opinion without looking into the specifics and having no evidence to show for the basis of that opinion, that is speculation. So with that in mind, by having the Government tells us Bin Laden bankrolled the whole Operation, but admitting they failed to investigate that aspect, then the opinion is pure speculation at best, and is really no different than what "truthers" have done themselves.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Truth movement has done itself a HUGE disservice by attempting to explain what did happen. The Truth is, if you question ANY aspect of the Government story of 9/11, than you are a truther. If you have any questions at all about the Official story, you are a truther. If you believe the full story has not been told, you are a truther.

It is not the job of a "truther" to explain what happened. The only job a "truther" has is to show that the Official story is incomplete. The whole point of the truth movement was to launch a new, independent investigation and get questioned answered. Not prove what happened, how it happened, or who done it.

When it comes to Building 7 only one real thing stands out in my mind, and it is something that no one, even here on ATS, has ever been able to explain to me. I like to let common sense be my guide in just about everything I do and when I look at the aerial photos of Ground Zero, it sticks out to me like the big elephant in the room. ....

continued in next post

edit on 15-5-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Here is an aerial photo of Ground Zero.

Now looking at this photo, starting at dead center and to the left a bit, you can see a building with a huge gaping hole in the top. Now move left a bit more and you will see a pile of rubble stacked up between 2 buildings that appear to be fully intact and suffer very little damage. That pile of rubble is Building 7.

Now according to the Official Story, when towers one and two came crashing down they damaged building 7 causing fires that burned so out of control that it weakened the structural integrity of the building causing collapse.

Now look at that picture again.

Common sense tells me if this scenario were true, we would see more damage and even possible collapse from that building with the great big hole in the top. Not only that, but what of the two buildings on either side of Building 7? They appear to be in pretty good shape, all things considered, so how is it possible that two 110 story towers would fall in such an exact direction to not destroy the buildings directly next to it, but to cross the street and damage just one building causing collapse and still not effecting either building on each side? For me.... that just doesn't pass the common sense test. Really? What are the odds?

Here is another view of WTC 7, which may help explain my line of thinking.

In this photo you can clearly see the buildings on each side of WTC 7.
edit on 15-5-2012 by MrWendal because: additional building 7 photo

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Probably thats where the data center was. Consider "world trade center", its where all the world biggest trading/finance files and papers are located. Imagine how many corporations and bussines people went into bankruptcy after that event?

The whole plot was to manage the world market cake, back onto the hands of the few dudes who want to monopolize world economics. Rothschild and Rockefeller, anyone? They were trying to kill the common and honest bussines people/companies, outside their circle/cartel.

Its about world monopoly of the economics. Does this sound as a plausibility to you?
edit on 15-5-2012 by coyote66 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:53 AM
You can see here some of the blizzard of paper resulting from the destruction of the WTC buildings. Any of it could have been picked up by anyone in the vicinity. Is this really the way to hide stuff ?

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:54 AM
Theft of highly valuable data.

Physical access to a server is the best way to compromise the security system and access the data.

Evacuating the building would give the thief the best chance at reaching the objective.

The demolition was designed to cover up the theft.

What data you ask? There are many possibilities. I'm sure a more well versed researcher could name some off the top of their head.

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Building 7 was not too profitable office building at that time. Tenants were moving out and the whole Downtown office business market was harmed with surplus of available space, which lowered leasing prices. This was proved when Building 7 tenants, right after the attacks, relocated themselves with no difficulty to readily available office premises.

I guess that Larry got a whiff about a becoming attack with would be accompanied with major political changes. He knew that there would be an official investigation, but as politically motivated, the investigation would reveal nothing. A sure opportunity with no risk of getting caught! So Building 7 became a gate-crasher project to the Twin Towers. But Seven was different as there must not be and was no casualties.

I also guess that in some phase later there was some reluctance in the monetary compensation, and that is the reason for Larry´s shrouded threatening phrasing, the "pull it".

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:54 AM

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by 4hero

So it was an afterthought, proves absolutely nothing. After the 1993 trade centre bombings (you should look it up) it would have made perfect sense to have added it, I would be suspicious if he didn’t have it. Insuring a building like WTC7 isn’t like insuring your home, I would imagine that its all custom and “terrorism” may not be a default. And I am not distorting any facts what makes you think that I am? What am I making up, that there was a attack on the WTC in 1993 and the threat of terrorism increased throughout the 1990’s. Then that he received 4.5 billion in insurance money but actually wanted over 7 billion because they are actual facts. You have yet to present any facts or explain how I am “distorting” facts.

You mentioned in your earlier post that I was distorting facts, and I had replied top someone prior to you to say they were distorting facts, because they were saying he only made a small amount from the insurance. I assumed that it was you who had made that initial post because you replied to say i was distorting facts, and i didn't check back to see who had made that initial post, and cannot be bothered to check now either.

I guess there would be less confusion if you didn't jump in on someone else's reply and make false claims about me distorting facts, when the distorting facts comment related to someone else's post. I cannot remember every daft username. Whoever it was who initially said he only made a small amount from insurance was the person distorting facts..

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:57 AM
OP, you didn't answer my earlier question, here goes again.....

Do you personally think it did not look like a controlled demolition?

If so, why do you think it did not look like a controlled demolition?

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Alfie1

You can see here some of the blizzard of paper resulting from the destruction of the WTC buildings. Any of it could have been picked up by anyone in the vicinity. Is this really the way to hide stuff ?

No one was in the vicinity! The area was evacuated.

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
So does anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why “they” would bother to blow up the building or is this just a monumental hole in the whole 9/11 truth movement. Seems to me like it is

I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's just some shill fantasy that people who do not believe the OS are part of some 'truth movement' most people are individuals going about their research on their own, and are not part of any organisation or movement! Are you really so dumb as to not know this? Or are you paid to say that continually?

As mentioned before in this thread (PAY ATTENTION!!) people can only speculate as to why, if people knew then they would be in on it too! This question should be directed at Larry or the US government, they have all the answers!

So no, the fact no one knows why is not a monumental hole at all, that is just your silly opinion, anyone with any logic could answer your own question!

However, the monumental hole in the OS is why was this building taken down in a controlled demolition?
If you do not think it was a controlled demolition then please do state why you think it wasn't, this is far more relevant that why they took it down.

We cannot know why at them moment, but we can definitely say they deliberated brought the building down.

Awaiting your concise answer, but I expect you wont have any valid explanations!

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in