Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Who's the 'they'? You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one. Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? I'm well aware they hit the buildings, I also think they brought the buildings down. Naive of me, I know when you have internet evidence to prove otherwise You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected?If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? The planes and the explosives are now unrelated? A horrible coincidence though, don't you think? Or are you saying that a member of "they" just happened to be eating pancakes across from the towers when the planes hit, and was given the message to go and dump some explosives in the basement? Explosives which he'd taken to breakfast with him. As for "You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there", there are lots of things that can't be refuted, Parky, but that doesn't make them a plausible argument ffs. For simpletons......The people who laid the charges might have been totally unconnected to the hijackers..Is that rocket science in your book? Not rocket science, no, but bordering on science fiction. Why? I think the onus is on you to supply the info behind this theory tbh Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47087 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Who's the 'they'? You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one. Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? I'm well aware they hit the buildings, I also think they brought the buildings down. Naive of me, I know when you have internet evidence to prove otherwise You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected?If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? The planes and the explosives are now unrelated? A horrible coincidence though, don't you think? Or are you saying that a member of "they" just happened to be eating pancakes across from the towers when the planes hit, and was given the message to go and dump some explosives in the basement? Explosives which he'd taken to breakfast with him. As for "You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there", there are lots of things that can't be refuted, Parky, but that doesn't make them a plausible argument ffs. For simpletons......The people who laid the charges might have been totally unconnected to the hijackers..Is that rocket science in your book? Not rocket science, no, but bordering on science fiction. Why? I think the onus is on you to supply the info behind this theory tbh Parky That's not Parky's job tbf. He offers up the crazy theories then stands incredulous when we laugh at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh. Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC? I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it"). Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed? WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf. EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job. I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7. Funny, you never mentioned you were a structural engineer. So who organised the rigging and detonation of these explosives then? Why wasn't the area adequately evacuated? I'm sorry, but that is a conspiracy and is utterly implausible imo. But if true, we should expect the Sears tower to be rigged in the same way, yes? And the Empire state? Should be a piece of piss to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Aye, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47087 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Re the pre-rigging of a building with explosives - what if you have a fire? And who's going to insure a building pre-rigged with explosives? Edited February 21, 2007 by Gemmill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Et tu Brute!? I must stop laughing at the regurgitation of nonsense with little grasp of any understanding of the events. You're all right (well Renton and SSH) Arabs did it....It was a total failiure of U.S. intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Aye, I agree. Howay, they're providing much amusement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? Oops, did I say Penthouse in this thread? That's my credibility in shreds then. All of the above is pure speculation CG, you haven't really shown a shred of evidence to back it up. Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely that any American authorities had fore knowledge of what was to come. You can speculate all you like, but leave me out of it. Alright touchy, just thought it was an amusing mistake. We all make them and i didnt mean it to sound like i was dis-crediting what you were saying. I was in fact trying to steer things away from the crackpot stuff into the topics in the post above. You're right, i have no shred of evidence other than the Russia thing and the all the stories on wikipedias false flag terrorism page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Re the pre-rigging of a building with explosives - what if you have a fire? And who's going to insure a building pre-rigged with explosives? Seriously, how does anyone believe this rubbish is believable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Regardless of the differing theories on how it actually came about, I just cannot believe that anyone thought that the slaughter of over 3000 innocents and destruction of three of the World's most prominent buildings would be an acceptable way of furthering ones plans. Apart from the terrorists. Of course, that means i'm a gullible sucker for the official story... Edited February 21, 2007 by nufc4ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? Oops, did I say Penthouse in this thread? That's my credibility in shreds then. All of the above is pure speculation CG, you haven't really shown a shred of evidence to back it up. Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely that any American authorities had fore knowledge of what was to come. You can speculate all you like, but leave me out of it. Alright touchy, just thought it was an amusing mistake. We all make them and i didnt mean it to sound like i was dis-crediting what you were saying. I was in fact trying to steer things away from the crackpot stuff into the topics in the post above. You're right, i have no shred of evidence other than the Russia thing and the all the stories on wikipedias false flag terrorism page. I wasn't talking about the Russian stuff, to be honest it doesn't really interest me and I don't see the relevance to this thread. I'm not being touchy btw, I'm economical with my smilies. Just like you were when you called SSH numb nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen? Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story? Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously. Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut? I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Et tu Brute!? I must stop laughing at the regurgitation of nonsense with little grasp of any understanding of the events. You're all right (well Renton and SSH) Arabs did it....It was a total failiure of U.S. intelligence. Seems Gemmill was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh. Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC? I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it"). Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed? WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf. EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job. I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7. Funny, you never mentioned you were a structural engineer. So who organised the rigging and detonation of these explosives then? Why wasn't the area adequately evacuated? I'm sorry, but that is a conspiracy and is utterly implausible imo. But if true, we should expect the Sears tower to be rigged in the same way, yes? And the Empire state? Should be a piece of piss to prove. Ive got nae idea but that building was pulled - Silverstein is on tape saying "we pulled it" - its the only plausible explanation isnt it? If it was "pulled" it had to be pre-rigged. Why does that need a conspiracy? Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? Edited February 21, 2007 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. I would concede there is a possibility a decision was made to demolish WTC7 for economic reason, after it was a burning hulk. BUT I personally think it collapsed due to poor structural design. I really don't see the need for a cover up on this scale if the demolition was deemed necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47087 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh. Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC? I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it"). Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed? WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf. EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job. I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7. Funny, you never mentioned you were a structural engineer. So who organised the rigging and detonation of these explosives then? Why wasn't the area adequately evacuated? I'm sorry, but that is a conspiracy and is utterly implausible imo. But if true, we should expect the Sears tower to be rigged in the same way, yes? And the Empire state? Should be a piece of piss to prove. Ive got nae idea but that building was pulled - Silverstein is on tape saying "we pulled it" - its the only plausible explanation isnt it? If it was "pulled" it had pre-rigged. Why does that need a conspiracy? Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? If it was pre-rigged, there was a conspiracy surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. I would concede there is a possibility a decision was made to demolish WTC7 for economic reason, after it was a burning hulk. BUT I personally think it collapsed due to poor structural design. I really don't see the need for a cover up on this scale if the demolition was deemed necessary. Yes exactly there is no need for a cover up is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. What a ridiculous argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. ....way over his head....HE is an expert after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22410 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. I would concede there is a possibility a decision was made to demolish WTC7 for economic reason, after it was a burning hulk. BUT I personally think it collapsed due to poor structural design. I really don't see the need for a cover up on this scale if the demolition was deemed necessary. Yes exactly there is no need for a cover up is there? Not really, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now