Why Destroy Building 7??

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


As I said in the OP I do not intend to get drawn into the wider debate as to whether or not WTC7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition. Rather all I am seeking is a logical motivation for doing so that thus far in this tread has not been forthcoming.

If you believe it what a controlled demolition then why would they bother doing that, it’s not just enough to say WTC 7 was a controlled demolition if you can’t tell me what their motivation was for doing so which should form part of the basis in my opinion of any “controlled demolition” conspiracy theory.

So if you can answer me the question I will discuss it with you, however if you want to discuss whether or not I think it was a controlled demolition please feel free to create a thread about that where we can debate.




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Do any of you realize that there were requests to the port authority to demo that building to use the property differently? The multiple building demo requests were denied because of the amounts of asbestos in the building. Apparently if you know the right people they will just pay you to let the building go down because, in turn, it helps them and their agenda as well.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 





people are just being dumb


You really should check all of your facts before making a statement like that, I can point out a number of inaccuracies in you recent posts on this thread I won’t go through them all as I want to keep on topic BUT…..



a man called Usama Bin Ladin killed 4000 people.


I think you will find that 2996 people died on 9/11, not 4000, even if you combine his previous attacks it’s still far off 4000.

I ask you, why would “they” specifically destroy building 7.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


HOLY SMOKES!! Someone actually put up the whole quote in proper context!!! Unbelievable!

So reading the entire part, where does $2.3 Trillion disappear? I never read anything about it. Just that they cannot track that many in sales and finances due to the crappy systems they are on.

How the hell do truthers turn that in "Trillions STOLEN!!!! OMFGWTF??!!! Conspiracy1!11!!!"



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 





How is this for logic? 2.3 trillion dollars was missing, Enron was in full swing with the current administration right in the middle of the accusations even though they had insider info which allowed them to get out before the stock crashed. There was no current war at the time and Bush and Cheney both had monumental connections with businesses that require war to make money. Iraq was ripe for the picking and the only thing needed was a reason to go to war. The trade center buildings were built with implosion devices installed (FACT) so the buildings could be brought down in their own footprint.


Both the Enron claim and the 2.3trillion claim have both been addressed so far in this thread and both have been discounted as a motivation for the alleged controlled demolition of WTC7. Further to this if you want to talk about “logical” if their motivation was to blame Iraq then why not fill the planes with 19 Iraqi’s and blame it on them. If it truly was their motivation to blame Iraq for the attacks why “make” the Iraq connection to Al-Qa’ida so weak. That is not logical.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I have to thank you, you are one of the only people who believes that “they” destroyed WTC7 who is attempting to give me a reasonable answer. While I may disagree with you because Enron executives were eventually sent to face a jury and as another member has pointed out they had other backups I do appreciate your responses so I thank you for that. I get the feeling you know what you are talking about



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by 4hero
 


As I said in the OP I do not intend to get drawn into the wider debate as to whether or not WTC7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition. Rather all I am seeking is a logical motivation for doing so that thus far in this tread has not been forthcoming.

If you believe it what a controlled demolition then why would they bother doing that, it’s not just enough to say WTC 7 was a controlled demolition if you can’t tell me what their motivation was for doing so which should form part of the basis in my opinion of any “controlled demolition” conspiracy theory.

So if you can answer me the question I will discuss it with you, however if you want to discuss whether or not I think it was a controlled demolition please feel free to create a thread about that where we can debate.


Oh I see, try and evade an important question you know you cannot answer! I thought you'd chicken out!

As mentioned before, unless I were part of the conspiracy then I have no way of knowing why. That is pretty obvious isn't it?! I can only speculate as to their motives, but I get the impression you do not think it was a demolition job, so I ask you again, why do you think WTC7 was not a controlled demolition. I know you cannot and will not answer this.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

So you use one conspiracy theory to prove another conspiracy theory?

Has the world ever produced $Quintillions?

History has shown us that once you get beyond a few billion in wealth you run out of toys to buy. They then tend to get philanthropic.

So can you show us any proof at all of anyone with wealth above the 50 billion or so to justify your belief in this super secret/super wealthy sub economy?



I guess you missed Wilcock's epic Magnum Opus on this subject...when you're too busy spending all your time "debunking" 911, you kind of miss out on the latest corruption being exposed that ties it all together.....

My guess is that you won't read this and will respond in less than 10 minutes saying its all bull.... I am sure that you have seen it before if you spend any time at all on this forum. If you're going to respond in your usual negative manner please have your point-by-point refutations in order, otherwise its just more burying your head in the sand.

www.divinecosmos.com...



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you are not a "truther", then why bother US with your ruminations???...right off the bat you demean us...and assume you are "talking " to like-minded boogie-man believers, at most....and tinfoil hat wearing nuts at least...so..stop insulting us and....go back to huffington post



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I must admit I am enjoying our conversation. It is nice to sit and discuss these things without all the name calling, the hatefulness, and all the other nonsense that comes from discussing anything related to 9/11. It is for those reason that generally, I do not participate in this forum very much anymore.

I liked your OP. I liked that you were willing to get away from the larger debate and focus solely on something quite simple. I also found it a refreshing way to discuss what really amounts to old material that has been debated and argued to death. As far as I am concerned, everyone has made up their minds regarding the events of 9/11. There is no one to convince anymore. It is done. People will believe what they wish to believe and we have reached a point that no matter what is said, proven, or shown, the chances of anyone changing their mind now is pretty remote.

I can understand your disagreement with Enron files being in the building. I question it now myself since I was unable to locate anything concrete. I am also not afraid to admit I am wrong and on the point of Enron it certainly appears that I am. However, the fact remains that there were 3000-4000 SEC Insider Trading files, as well as backups, being stored in WTC 7. Does that answer the "Why"? That is for you to decide and like every one else, we use common sense and our perception of reality as our guide. The only real interest I have in 9/11 is the Truth. Nothing more. I have no problem looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence, regardless of where it takes me.

Will I ever believe that 19 hijackers boarded 4 planes on the morning of September 11, 2001. Over took the passengers and crew and then crashed those planes into the WTC Towers, Pentagon, and that one plane crashed in a field in PA because some Terrorist Network hated us for our freedoms? Never in a million years.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by JizzyMcButter
 


I know you won’t like this but this link hear makes short work of the missing 2.3 trillion claim.

www.911myths.com...

also it was my understanding that the 2.3 trillion in accounting errors (lets say missing for arguments sake) was being investigated at the pentagon. And surly if it was just to destroy the evidence in that investigation they could have just said that the information was destroyed in the fires, or made a better job of covering up the “missing” 2.3 trillion by not having Rumsfelt announce it (wasn’t the first time it was mentioned though) the day before 9/11. That makes no sense and its not logical.

I want a logical answer.
edit on 14-5-2012 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)


So what has happened to this money? Who spent it? What did it get spent on? I cant believe that citizens just sit around and let this happen! It amazes me how oblivious folks are to these issues and where our money is being spent and where it goes.... Hell I am oblivious....but I care... Where is the accountability in this country?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by homervb
 


HOLY SMOKES!! Someone actually put up the whole quote in proper context!!! Unbelievable!

So reading the entire part, where does $2.3 Trillion disappear? I never read anything about it. Just that they cannot track that many in sales and finances due to the crappy systems they are on.

How the hell do truthers turn that in "Trillions STOLEN!!!! OMFGWTF??!!! Conspiracy1!11!!!"


lmao, I dunno man, I am a truther I will admit, but I'm going to present evidence properly. Rumsfeld says all the data is on different computers that are incompatible with each other. Sucks to know the financial aspect of the Pentagon was probably working with Windows 95 or even better Windows 3.1 lol

What's weird to me is how this 2.3 trillion went missing, meanwhile Rumsfeld was pushing for a HUGE advance in the Pentagon's budget




Rumsfeld to Seek $33 Billion Rise for Military, and Critics See Too Much and Too Little
By THOM SHANKER and JAMES DAO
Published: June 23, 2001

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will propose increasing the Pentagon's budget for next year to $329 billion, an increase of $33 billion over President Bill Clinton's last military budget, officials said today. Mr. Rumsfeld's figure was also $18.4 billion above the Pentagon budget proposed by President Bush in February. Still, the increase was immediately criticized by Republicans as insufficient and by Democrats as beyond reach because of the recent tax cut. Mr. Rumsfeld had originally asked the White House for substantially more money, and the final figure, which officials said would be presented to Congress next week, was certain to disappoint senior military officers who had thought President Bush's arrival at the White House would bring an even larger increase in military spending. The total proposed military budget of $329 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 represents a 7 percent increase, after adjusting for inflation, over the current $296 billion military budget, President Clinton's last. That would make it one of the largest increases in percentage since the military buildup of the 1980's under President Ronald Reagan.


He wanted a gigantic push in the budget, and there's no way he was getting it with 2.3 trillion already unaccounted for.




On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said. He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat. "In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said. Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten. Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending." More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million. "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records. "The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery. He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off. "They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job." The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the financial statements." Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.


The 2.3 trillion definitely fuels conspiracy theories but all views aside, that's A LOT of money to misplace
edit on 15-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You ask "Why destroy Building 7" then go on to list all the reasons you've heard up till now.

So why are you asking the question?

Do you think some new revelation has developed among ATSers?

You already said you believe the official story, so what difference does it make what answers people give you?

This is just a thread designed to instigate battles with people who believe in the conspiracy. There is a word for this kind of thread, but I shant utter it, lest I get another warning.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AtcGod
 





So what has happened to this money? Who spent it? What did it get spent on? I cant believe that citizens just sit around and let this happen!

If you bothered to type 2.3 trillion into Google you would find the answer quickly.
But alas you will just scan the pages of a conspiracy site and believe all the crap going around.

To save you the difficult time of googleing.

The 2.3 was simply the descrepancies between multiple accounting systems used by the military at the time. They were switching to a unified accounting system.

Also 2.3 trillion was the entire military budget for about 8 years. So if you believe the crap being handed out on here you would have to believe someone stole the entire Pentagon budget for the previous 8 years and no one missed it.

BS



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 





My guess is that you won't read this and will respond in less than 10 minutes saying its all bull....

You are right I didn't read it. But I did scan a few of the many many pages. BS.
What does someone ranting on about gold have to do with WTC7?



PLANS TO INVADE AND PLUNDER ASIA

Come on!
How do you even sleep at night?
Do you check under your bed before you turn off the lights?

I think you have a twisted view of the world.

So where is this $quintillions you talk about? When did the world ever generate that much?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


If there were 3-4,000 SEC insider trading files in WTC 7 it is not obvious to me why perps should need to destroy all of them rather than vanishing the pertinent ones. And so far as the paperwork is concerned would perps want those few pertinent files to end up on view like this ?

911research.wtc7.net...

Have you got anything to support your contention that SEC's back-up was also in WTC 7 ? Doesn't having your back-up in the same building pretty much negate the whole point ?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
You are right I didn't read it. But I did scan a few of the many many pages. BS.
What does someone ranting on about gold have to do with WTC7?



PLANS TO INVADE AND PLUNDER ASIA

Come on!
How do you even sleep at night?
Do you check under your bed before you turn off the lights?

I think you have a twisted view of the world.

So where is this $quintillions you talk about? When did the world ever generate that much?


It's all in the article. It's not my fault you have selective hearing and tunnel vision. You will never see the big picture because you're like a little child looking at a connect-the-dots and saying.... "Mommy, it's just a bunch of dots....I don't see anything but a bunch of dots....waaaahhhh can i go out and play now?"
edit on 15-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by samkent
You are right I didn't read it. But I did scan a few of the many many pages. BS.
What does someone ranting on about gold have to do with WTC7?



PLANS TO INVADE AND PLUNDER ASIA

Come on!
How do you even sleep at night?
Do you check under your bed before you turn off the lights?

I think you have a twisted view of the world.

So where is this $quintillions you talk about? When did the world ever generate that much?


It's all in the article. It's not my fault you have selective hearing and tunnel vision. You will never see the big picture because you're like a little child looking at a connect-the-dots and saying.... "Mommy, it's just a bunch of dots....I don't see anything but a bunch of dots....waaaahhhh can i go out and play now?"
edit on 15-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Yes and people through the ages have looked at the stars in the night sky and seen crabs, bears, ploughs etc but what they have really seen are random bodies at vast distances from each other. Since we have learned more we realise that.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by samkent
You are right I didn't read it. But I did scan a few of the many many pages. BS.
What does someone ranting on about gold have to do with WTC7?



PLANS TO INVADE AND PLUNDER ASIA

Come on!
How do you even sleep at night?
Do you check under your bed before you turn off the lights?

I think you have a twisted view of the world.

So where is this $quintillions you talk about? When did the world ever generate that much?


It's all in the article. It's not my fault you have selective hearing and tunnel vision. You will never see the big picture because you're like a little child looking at a connect-the-dots and saying.... "Mommy, it's just a bunch of dots....I don't see anything but a bunch of dots....waaaahhhh can i go out and play now?"
edit on 15-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Yes and people through the ages have looked at the stars in the night sky and seen crabs, bears, ploughs etc but what they have really seen are random bodies at vast distances from each other. Since we have learned more we realise that.


Oh I see.... so now we also know about your complete ignorance of astrology. No wonder you believe the OS.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Ah, so you believe in astrology; that could explain a lot.





new topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join