WTC 7 (Building 7)

[George B]

But the application of all of the above is tangential at best and, in the case of Northwoods, it never happened.

911 is political no matter how one slices the apple. . . it cannot be understood without the tangents . . . whether exactly like the Official Story or otherwise . .

 

[George B]

1) Could have doesn't mean should have. Hell, why didn't we ask Canada or maybe Zimbabwe to investigate? Because that duty and responsibility wasn't theirs. One of the duties and responsibilities of ANY government is to protect its citizens and defend its territory and institutions. It's not only a stretch to say that responsibility should be delegated to others but it's illogical to condemn the government for doing one of the things it exists to do.

2) If you look at it dispassionately just about every mass disaster could be construed to be a government plot. Take Boston. Substitute a few words, change the motivation and one could suggest many "logical" reasons that the present administration was behind this event and stood to "profit" from it.

1) Using extra governmental investigators as the lead does not preclude defending one's territory. . .no one is denying the right of any country to defend themselves. . .
2) Very observant. . . I always question. . . I never try to take anything at face value. . .



www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LDw7ppLK7w

 

[George B]

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LDw7ppLK7w[/video]

Video insert not working. . . .Hmmmmm

 

[hiper]

Two questions:

For someone who was twice of out of this thread and after that tried to shut it down completely you have taken a big turn....

1) Who else should have taken the lead? 9/11 was an attack on the country, arguably an act of war. Governments are tasked to respond to said acts. QED they had the duty to investigate the means, mechanism and motives.

That's the beauty of false flag operations with government involvement... the government itself has to conduct the investigation.
Any opposition is ridiculed (that's where you come in F4Jock) and stonewalled.

2) The implication here is that the government stood to profit by killing several thousand of its citizens and blaming the Taliban thus instigating a war. I earlier pointed out that the result of 9/11 was an attack on the Taliban and the overthrow of the Afghan government. Iraq came years later and for different reasons. Right or wrong, the attack on Iraq had little or nothing directly to do with 9/11. Unless you contend that the entire sequence of events including said attack was planned from the beginning, a linkage I haven't yet heard, what was the motive for going into Afghanistan?

Means, motive & opportunity.

Means and opportunity are obvious.

Motive :
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-speech-institute-petroleum-autumn-lunch-1999

"Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets.
Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities,
the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies..."

Dick Cheney
London Institute of petroleum 1999

The US is 1 person in 23 on the world scale yet uses 1/4 of the oil the majority imported.
Beginning to see the picture?

 

[F4Jock]

911 is political no matter how one slices the apple. . . it cannot be understood without the tangents . . . whether exactly like the Official Story or otherwise . .

Whether or not the events leading up to it were political the cause of the WTC buildings' collapse, whether or not it happened before and whether or not it ever happens again, was pure, logical and explainable physics. Even denying that, the impossibility of enough preparation to demolish even one of the buildings has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further:

"

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.​

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The Houseby Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.
Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."​

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

• It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
• They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other."

 

[George B]

Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."
So according to the world experts on building demolition:

• It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
• They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition."

Very interesting information you just shared. . . one reason to either believe the official story or believe technology was involved we simply don't understand. . . .

 

[F4Jock]

For someone who was twice of out of this thread and after that tried to shut it down completely you have taken a big turn....



That's the beauty of false flag operations with government involvement... the government itself has to conduct the investigation.
Any opposition is ridiculed (that's where you come in F4Jock) and stonewalled.



Means, motive & opportunity.

Means and opportunity are obvious.

Motive :
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-speech-institute-petroleum-autumn-lunch-1999

"Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets.
Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities,
the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies..."

Dick Cheney
London Institute of petroleum 1999

The US is 1 person in 23 on the world scale yet uses 1/4 of the oil the majority imported.
Beginning to see the picture?

The government being accused of a conspiracy because it performs its duty in the face of an attack is the epitome of a straw argument.

So how much oil is in Afghanistan?

Opportunity for controlled demolition is not at all present. Motive described does not go to the initial attacks. If you want to speculate about Iraq, oil and WMDs you have a much stronger case.

Stonewalling cuts both ways. I wonder what one of George B's impartial NGO observers and analyzers would conclude given the information presented in this thread? My opinion is that they'd say although there is an outside chance of government conspiracy, the facts overwhelmingly point to that not being the reality.

As to your initial sentence, I could give you some interesting reasons for both but then I might get a Red Card.

 

[F4Jock]

[/LIST]
Very interesting information you just shared. . . one reason to either believe the official story or believe technology was involved we simply don't understand. . . .

Please don't tell me you're gonna go with alien disintegration rays.......

 

[hiper]

Even denying that, the impossibility of enough preparation to demolish even one of the buildings has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You now admit that to take such buildings down it implies a lot of preparation... something a plane and fire could not have done.
I would stop talking if I were you.

Further:
"Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. "

Why would that be? Because it's the only way to orderly take down very large buildings.
If fire could do the same they would have experience with it to.

 

[George B]

Please don't tell me you're gonna go with alien disintegration rays.......

I have no idea what it could be . . . I think there could be pockets of advanced covert technology held by different entities on the planet including our own government . . . however, I think governmental omission or commission are much more likely than advanced technology . . .

 

[F4Jock]

You now admit that to take such buildings down it implies a lot of preparation... something a plane and fire could not have done.
I would stop talking if I were you.



Why would that be? Because it's the only way to orderly take down very large buildings.
If fire could do the same they would have experience with it to.

1) You conveniently leave out taking buildings down ".....by controlled demolition" requires a lot of preparation. This is a fact, not an admission. The conclusion that based on what I wrote this collapse could not have been caused by plane and fire was yours. You are parsing.

2) No because not only is there no reason to, but because building design would not dictate the same result every time and those fires could not be adequately controlled to guarantee such a result. In controlled demolition each structure has to be approached differently just for those reasons.

Once again, the fact that something never happened before doesn't mean it won't or didn't. History is full of examples.

 

[F4Jock]

I have no idea what it could be . . . I think there could be pockets of advanced covert technology held by different entities on the planet including our own government . . . however, I think governmental omission or commission are much more likely than advanced technology . . .

And it has to be governmental because.......?

 

[George B]

And it has to be governmental because.......?

Governmental is a broad term. . . usually an entity which has sufficient power, control and influence to dictate outcomes. . . could be a subunit or shadow entity. . . I don't personally think the US government as a unit could have been involved. . . that is impossible in my opinion. . .

 

[F4Jock]

Governmental is a broad term. . . usually an entity which has sufficient power, control and influence to dictate outcomes. . . could be a subunit or shadow entity. . . I don't personally think the US government as a unit could have been involved. . . that is impossible in my opinion. . .

And with all that said, politics and foreign policy as causative factors aside, there's no way that 9/11 could have gone down the way it has been put forth?

 

[George B]

And with all that said, politics and foreign policy as causative factors aside, there's no way that 9/11 could have gone down the way it has been put forth?

Of course! There are multiple theories put forth with an almost infinite number of variations they cannot all be true . . . that on its face does not argue against one being possible, any more than one Official Story meaning it is the only possible version that could be true. . .

 

[Mick West]

Of course! There are multiple theories put forth with an almost infinite number of variations they cannot all be true . . . that on its face does not argue against one being possible, any more than one Official Story meaning it is the only possible version that could be true. . .

Just the one that fits the facts the best. By far.

 

[George B]

Just the one that fits the facts the best. By far.

Yes, I will admit that . . if one restricts their review of the evidence to just the NIST, FEMA and 911 Commission Reports and evidence . . .

 

[Mick West]

Yes, I will admit that . . if one restricts their review of the evidence to just the NIST, FEMA and 911 Commission Reports and evidence . . .

Just evidence?

 

[hiper]

Whether or not the events leading up to it were political the cause of the WTC buildings' collapse, whether or not it happened before and whether or not it ever happens again, was pure, logical and explainable physics. Even denying that, the impossibility of enough preparation to demolish even one of the buildings has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is what you said.

You are saying it takes a lot of preparation time to take down a building with controlled demolition.
You are saying that with planes and fire one can do it in 56m for WTC2 and 102m for WTC1.

You are digging yourself into a hole.
Why even use the time consuming practice of controlled demolition when you can do the same with a plane and fire!!

 

[Mick West]

This is what you said.

You are saying it takes a lot of preparation time to take down a building with controlled demolition.
You are saying that with planes and fire one can do it in 56m for WTC2 and 102m for WTC1.

You are digging yourself into a hole.
Why even use the time consuming practice of controlled demolition when you can do the same with a plane and fire!!

A) Planes are very expensive
B) Extensive damage to surrounding buildings.
C) It might not work

 

[Cairenn]

And yet the folks that know controlled demolition and thus it should follow, what makes a building unstable, felt that the buildings would fall from JUST the plane crashes and fires. In his comment, that has they stood, that they would not have known how to drop them, I read that if the buildings STOOD up to the crashes and fires, that a controlled demolition would be difficult if not impossible. That makes a lot more sense that coming up with exotic ideas.

That is a big problem among CTers of any stripe. If you point out too many problems with one of their 'pet theories'. they come up another one. Over and over. ANYTHING so they can ignore the obvious

 

[hiper]

A) Planes are very expensive
B) Extensive damage to surrounding buildings.
C) It might not work

Of course it would never work with planes and fire.

 

[Mick West]

Of course it would never work with planes and fire.

Why not? There's a difference between something not being a good idea, and something not working. You could euthanize a dog by tying it to a tree and then running a truck into it at 100 mph. That does not mean people are going to do that instead of going to the vet.

 

[George B]

Just evidence?

I don't get your question?

 

[hiper]

You could euthanize a dog by tying it to a tree and then running a truck into it at 100 mph. That does not mean people are going to do that instead of going to the vet.

By your analogy...yes the dog would be dead but the twin towers would still be standing.

 

[Oxymoron]

=Cairenn;39105 In his comment, that has they stood, that they would not have known how to drop them, I read that if the buildings STOOD up to the crashes and fires, that a controlled demolition would be difficult if not impossible.

It is never difficult, let alone impossible to demolish something. The difficulty lays in doing as little damage to surrounding buildings as possible.

The insurance money was finite, (even though it was increased dramatically a few months prior to the attack and there was a double claim because there was two planes), I'm not quite sure how that worked because only one plane hit each building and no planes hit 7.

However, I heard that the insurance still did not cover the damage but I am unsure if that is true.

It is well known that the towers were 'White Elephants', which needed billions in renovations to bring them up to scratch. So no disrespect to the victims intended, someone benefited financially to a very high degree and the 'problem was removed'. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps not.

 

[Jazzy]

Haha.

 

[Mick West]

By your analogy...yes the dog would be dead but the twin towers would still be standing.

The dog dies from careful vet injection, or from tree and truck crushing.

The towers fall from month long preparation then controlled demolition, or from plane impact plus fires.

The point is that asking "Why even use the time consuming practice of controlled demolition when you can do the same with a plane and fire!!" is disingenuous and does not help your argument at all.

 

[hiper]

Just the one that fits the facts the best. By far.

Convenient and yet again what a coincidence. On 9/11 coincidences are coincidental so to speak.

The dog dies from careful vet injection, or from tree and truck crushing.

The towers fall from month long preparation then controlled demolition, or from plane impact plus fires.

You really said that.

Here we have Kenny letting us know his FEMA agenda.
He says he arrived monday night 10/09/2001.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

​

 

[F4Jock]

Of course! There are multiple theories put forth with an almost infinite number of variations they cannot all be true . . . that on its face does not argue against one being possible, any more than one Official Story meaning it is the only possible version that could be true. . .

Agreed. But somewhere along the line practicality and reality dictate that the questions have to be considered as answered to the greatest extent they are going to be and despite more questions one has to draw a conclusion based on information available. In other words after a certain point having more questions may not yield results.

 

[Cairenn]

Did anyone notice another 'reason' getting thrown out? Where they demolished because they needed renovations.

Folks pick a theory and STICK with it.

 

[F4Jock]

This is what you said.

You are saying it takes a lot of preparation time to take down a building with controlled demolition.
You are saying that with planes and fire one can do it in 56m for WTC2 and 102m for WTC1.

You are digging yourself into a hole.
Why even use the time consuming practice of controlled demolition when you can do the same with a plane and fire!!

Asked and answered above.

 

[hiper]

But somewhere along the line practicality and reality dictate that the questions have to be considered as answered to the greatest extent

Yeah let's move on folks nothing more to see here.
What are you still looking at the events of 9/11? But why? you must be a tinfoil baby eater.

Asked and answered above.

I am going to call you mr Teflon.

 

[F4Jock]

Of course it would never work with planes and fire.

Except that it did.

 

[George B]

Agreed. But somewhere along the line practicality and reality dictate that the questions have to be considered as answered to the greatest extent they are going to be and despite more questions one has to draw a conclusion based on information available. In other words after a certain point having more questions may not yield results.

I do not deny that. . . when I feel my questions are sufficiently answered I may conclude I agree with the Official Story . . . however, I am no where near that point yet. . . .

 

[Jazzy]

Convenient and yet again what a coincidence. On 9/11 coincidences are coincidental so to speak.

No.

On 9/11 coincidences stopped being coincidental until the incident was finished. Then they went back to being just their usual coincidences, eh?

You really said that.

You really implied that.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

That's because it wasn't the day of 9/11, no?

 

[F4Jock]

It is never difficult, let alone impossible to demolish something. The difficulty lays in doing as little damage to surrounding buildings as possible.

The insurance money was finite, (even though it was increased dramatically a few months prior to the attack and there was a double claim because there was two planes), I'm not quite sure how that worked because only one plane hit each building and no planes hit 7.

However, I heard that the insurance still did not cover the damage but I am unsure if that is true.

It is well known that the towers were 'White Elephants', which needed billions in renovations to bring them up to scratch. So no disrespect to the victims intended, someone benefited financially to a very high degree and the 'problem was removed'. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps not.

So now either the Port Authority or the lessee did it?

 

[hiper]

Except that it did.

Yeah like this... looks very 'gravity driven'.

 

[F4Jock]

I do not deny that. . . when I feel my questions are sufficiently answered I may conclude I agree with the Official Story . . . however, I am no where near that point yet. . . .

Point I was trying to make is that I'm pretty sure they never will be. Thus you either have to make a decision based on available information or keep asking questions that stand a way better than average chance of never being answered

 

[George B]

So now either the Port Authority or the lessee did it?

That is one of the first proposals I heard years ago. . .the person insuring the building that is. . . they are always considered in insurance fraud investigations. . . .