The Easiest Way to Understand 9/11 Was a Demolition: Free-Fall

Nekoda

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2012
752
33
✟1,096.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I can imagine the meeting...

Guy1: "We got all these documents that we need to destroy. We really don't want the public to see them"
Guy2: "Ok, I'll just have Steve the intern shred them"
Guy3: "Oh I got a better idea! Lets [pretend to] crash two airliners into the buildings next door, implode them, and then blow up THIS building."
Guy2:"What?! That's insane. That would kill thousands, and involve thousands of people each of whom would have to keep their mouths shut".
Guy1: "BRILLIANT!"

Even if they needed to come up with some convenient excuse as to why the documents got destroyed, there are much less convoluted ways to do so. For example: "Oh no! All those documents we were transporting on that train burned up when it derailed. I don't know why they were being transported along with very flammable and volatile chemicals contained in thin, brittle tanks. Must have been a mix up at the train yard".

No offense, but this is ridiculous mockery. The question asked was "why WTC 7 as well?" - I, nor anyone else I'm aware of, is making the claim that 911 was an inside job *expressly* to do away with WTC7 - but that WTC 7 was just an added bonus to all the "benefits" certain people, corporations, banks and military gained from the public's outrage that let all the ensuing wars, police state technology and associated legislation take place in the USA and other countries.
 
Upvote 0

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm going to go with Nekoda. People are unable to argue the physics, so they punt and try to argue the motive instead. The fact of the matter is, it was not struck by an airplane and yet somehow it fell. And it fell 20 minutes AFTER the BBC reported it fell. Just completely ignore the obvious E.S.P. the BBC has and change the subject instead.
 
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And it fell 20 minutes AFTER the BBC reported it fell. Just completely ignore the obvious E.S.P. the BBC has and change the subject instead.

Because it had suffered from the collapse of other buildings and had been on fire all day. Firefighting operations were suspended hours earlier because they were worried about losing more firefighters, and the building had become structurally unsound. Again, the BBC thing is much more likely to be a case of someone saying "that building is definitely going to collapse" being reported, again amongst the confusion that reigned during the day, as "that building has collapsed". The idea that, had there been some sort of inside job on WTC-7, they would have given out prepared press statements AT ALL regarding the collapse of the building is just ludicrous. Just let the news of the collapse come out naturally.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,939
17,417
Finger Lakes
✟7,530.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm going to go with Nekoda. People are unable to argue the physics, so they punt and try to argue the motive instead. The fact of the matter is, it was not struck by an airplane and yet somehow it fell. And it fell 20 minutes AFTER the BBC reported it fell. Just completely ignore the obvious E.S.P. the BBC has and change the subject instead.
It's not that unusual for buildings in New York City to fall without being hit by an airplane or imploded with explosives. It generally happens when the next door building is being worked on to the point that the foundation gives way. It seems to happen every few years.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No offense, but this is ridiculous mockery. The question asked was "why WTC 7 as well?" - I, nor anyone else I'm aware of, is making the claim that 911 was an inside job *expressly* to do away with WTC7 - but that WTC 7 was just an added bonus to all the "benefits" certain people, corporations, banks and military gained from the public's outrage that let all the ensuing wars, police state technology and associated legislation take place in the USA and other countries.

Ok, I will try to keep my mockery of your ridiculous theories more serious. Can't speak for others .....
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm going to go with Nekoda. People are unable to argue the physics

The official investigation argues all the physics we ought to need, but that's still insufficient for you truthers. Instead, you guys come up with nonsense.

-Dan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Trainlady

Newbie
Feb 18, 2011
70
13
United States
✟7,851.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The news clip right there, on the ticker,, plain as day: "Solomon Brothers building collapses". And yet the building remains standing, right there behind the reporter. It even collapses right there on the TV screen after the ticker has already reported it!!

And the crowd goes silent.... It's just a hmmm...well....

She's being fed the information to say by the studio. It's not as if it was some kind of surprise that the building was going to fall--the engineers and firefighters on site determined hours before that the building was unsalvageable and would likely collapse and they kept on saying that over and over on all the other channels. I was watching one of them. They kept saying it was going to collapse and they had the cameras trained on it, then they'd go somewhere else and come back to it, and finally it DID collapse, on live television. Somehow "the Solomon Brothers building is about to collapse" got fed to this newswoman as "has collapsed". I don't see what the big mystery is here.

And it's very telling that you kids who love to post this particular BBC clip NEVER EVER also post the link from BBC addressing the story. Much more exciting this way, eh.
 
Upvote 0

Trainlady

Newbie
Feb 18, 2011
70
13
United States
✟7,851.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Here are a few:

Insurance $$
$$ to remove and replace lots of Asbestos from these old buildings no longer needed.

Thousands of documents related to criminal and SEC suits destroyed (of which Enron and Worldcom formed a part)

WTC 7 had offices for:

CIA
DOD
IRS
SEC
Secret Service
Various Banks

Pentagon not able to account for 2.3 TRILLION (as of Sept 10,2001) missing that was being investigated at the time

Lots of "coherent" reasons if you bother to look rather than mock.

You have bad information. Allow me to give you some better information.

Asbestos removal had been going on at the World Trade Center since the late 1980's. I don't know how much you know about asbestos, but basically, it's safe as long as it's not in the open air and being breathed in. Therefore, you only remove the asbestos if it's being disturbed because of further construction. Obviously, tenant alteration work was always being performed in the WTC due to tenants moving in and out, leases ending, companies wanting to renovate, etc. One of the things that had to be considered on a tenant alteration application was whether asbestos-containing material (ACM) had to be removed. If it did, an on-site contractor who had a contract with the Port Authority, owner of the buildings, came in and did their thing with all the encapsulation and the licensing and the proper disposal and manifests and whatnot. And this on-site contractor kept his offices at the WTC because there was always tenant alteration work in process and there was always ACM removal work in process. Tens of millions of dollars were spent on asbestos removal in the decade prior to 9/11, particularly because the buildings had become attractive as a downtown address and higher-class firms were moving in. The buildings, as you probably know, were at 95% occupancy at the time of the attacks, virtually full in the commercial real estate world. To say that the PA knocked down their biggest asset and took on a century of lawsuits because they didn't want to spend the relatively miniscule amount of money to remove any more asbestos is, frankly, an ignorant thing to say. I don't know how else to put it. It boggles my mind that someone would actually think that.

Now as to the silly insurance thing, I've no doubt that people who believe that the buildings were knocked down to gain some phantom insurance profit are the same types of people who drive their pickup trucks into the local creek and then collect a check from GEICO. But in the commercial real estate world of the largest city in this nation, it just doesn't work like that. Simple basic facts: The net lease REQUIRED the net lessee SPI (Silverstein Properties, Inc.) to have insurance in case the buildings were destroyed. This destruction could have happened by earthquake, by hurricane, by terrorism. It WAS a known terrorist target, as anyone with half a brain was aware, and had been hit once with supporters of the first attacks swearing they would come back and finish the job. So, of course the net lessee is required to have this insurance. That is a no-brainer.

And of course, the insurance underwriters are going to include language that any insurance payouts in the event of a destruction are going to have to go toward rebuilding. Another no-brainer. So, after court battles with the 11 underwriters, SPI gets a payout of $4.6 billion TO REBUILD AN $11 BILLION PROJECT. I don't get the lack of arithmetic skills that are making everyone so confused about this. The numbers are very simple. There are just a lot more zeroes.

Under the Master Agreement with the PA in 2005, Silverstein had to turn over part of the insurance to the PA because the PA could issue bonds to get One World Trade Center's building started. Silverstein started to rebuild his portion at the site, but then the economy took a nosedive. Now, if you've been paying the most cursory attention to what's going on at the site at all, you would know that while SPI has Four WTC almost built, the foundations of Two and Three are all that exists, because he can't get financing due to not being able to guarantee that he'll have any tenants in this economy. This is all very public information, easy enough to find on the Internet.

There are a whole lot of REALLY SMART PEOPLE in the New York City commercial real estate industry, and they aren't running around thinking that the PA and/or SPI demolished their own buildings for asbestos or insurance or any other lame reason that people living in the boonies with wild imaginations and YouTube videos think. I suspect that most of the people who come up with these tales live in places where the biggest building in town is four stories high. There is nothing wrong with living in places like that, but there is something very wrong with choosing not to be informed.
 
Upvote 0