kx000
Valued Senior Member
Dr of what, .DR? Why is circular thinking a bad thing. I see it as this. If you have a small circle its bad, if you have a BIIGGGG circle its good. As long as you can color the circle in, maybe with zig zags.
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
Dr of what, .DR? Why is circular thinking a bad thing. I see it as this. If you have a small circle its bad, if you have a BIIGGGG circle its good. As long as you can color the circle in, maybe with zig zags.
That's the logical conclusion of most reasonable intelligent people that can think. Yeah. . .
I sometimes wonder if the people who believe the NIST report don't know what was housed in WTC 7, or if they know and they are just too obtuse to see the astounding coincidences of the whole god forsaken thing.
Reports come out on TV before it comes down.
The man who owned the building took out an insurance policy for terrorism on it six weeks before it collapses due, not from terrorism, but to office fires. And he gets paid anyhow.
There is no flaming inferno, but it collapsed at a near free fall speed as though it were purposefully demolished.
The people near the scene know with incredible accuracy when it is going to come down.
Bernard Kerik, now federal inmate number 84888-054, along with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, were directed away from WTC 7, where the mayor's emergency command bunker was located. Why?
And last, but of course, hardly least, it happens to be the NYC, New york state, eastern network hub for a nexus between every intelligence agency in the country and the business world.
hmmmm. . . . . .
Sure, whatever NIST says.
Well you obviously haven't taken the time to actually read the NIST reports, but your lack of any education in the matter still allows you to conclude that WTC 1 & 2 were apparently destroyed to cover up the destruction of WTC 7.
The mental machinations which it takes to make such a deduction are frankly amazing.
Arthur
Before you read something, isn't it first instructive to find a little something about the authors and their motivations?
All this thread proves is that there is no chance of a rational discussion with people who have made up their mind that it was a conspiracy.
Since they won't actually look at the science behind it there is no evidence which would ever convince them otherwise.
Arthur
Since they won't actually look at the science behind it there is no evidence which would ever convince them otherwise.
Arthur
Suddenly everyone is an architect or as a minimum, a demolition expert.
Since nobody answered my questions previously, let me repeat some concerning building 7:
1. If the purpose of bringing down building 7 was to hide/protect/disappear things held in the building, what was the attack against the Twin towers? Were they just accidental or planned? Or did they just use it as a cover/excuse?
2. How did they rig the building with explosives just in a few hours when it usually takes days to do such a job?
3. How did they know the building would be at least partially damaged, so they can demolish it with that cover story?
All I want to hear is a straight cover story that makes somehow sense, and logistically believable. Is there such? care to tell us??
The insurance thingy was about the Twin Towers if i recall, so let's not mix things up, this thread is about building 7.
Since nobody answered my questions previously, let me repeat some concerning building 7:
1. If the purpose of bringing down building 7 was to hide/protect/disappear things held in the building, what was the attack against the Twin towers? Were they just accidental or planned? Or did they just use it as a cover/excuse?
2. How did they rig the building with explosives just in a few hours when it usually takes days to do such a job?
3. How did they know the building would be at least partially damaged, so they can demolish it with that cover story?
All I want to hear is a straight cover story that makes somehow sense, and logistically believable. Is there such? care to tell us??
The insurance thingy was about the Twin Towers if i recall, so let's not mix things up, this thread is about building 7.
Oh, I don't know. It didn't seem to be that stupid. He seems to be doing all right.
There is no science behind it. If you look into the NIST report, you will find that all their modeling? It's classified. Why would that be? Should science be out in the open so others can try to reproduce their results? Or hidden?
OK, finally a storyline. You are saying the government was opportunist and quickly made a decission. Except :
1. The government doesn't act that fast. Ever...
2. Rigging the building with explosives takes days. Did I mention the building was burning?
3. It would take dozens of people knowing it and they would be seen putting the charges in place.
You are trying to make us believe that there are government employees who would go into a burning building and put explosive charges all over the place thus endangering themselves for government sake mind you secretly when helicopters and cameras are all over the place???
And the government didn't know what was coming, so better destroy everything??? Why not just quickly move the most important things out? takes less time then blowing a building up... Mind you, what was lost were the SEC files, hardly something the terrorist would have been interested to get....
You see your storyline doesn't make sense. Come back with a better story...
Last edited:
There is no science behind it. If you look into the NIST report, you will find that all their modeling? It's classified. Why would that be? Should science be out in the open so others can try to reproduce their results? Or hidden?
None of their modeling is classified.
You can get the structures database which the model runs on from NIST.
Most of the software used is commercial.
Oh, I don't know. It didn't seem to be that stupid. He seems to be doing all right.
He was doing all right before though.
In WTC 7 Silverstein Properties had a fully occupied nearly new 14 year old building with a $450 million mortgage.
Then after 9/11 they had to rebuild with the ~300 million left over from the Insurance settlement and again SP has a building and a mortgage.
You're the first I've heard claim that Bernie Madoff was "small fish".
Keep your reading and viewing pretty limited to government and corporate programming huh?
My apologies Arthur, you seem to be correct. I guess I just didn't look for them hard enough. Anyway, I guess I just interpret them differently. I think the modeling doesn't explain reality, sorry. We'll just agree to disagree.
Building 7 - NIST Model vs. Reality (2 min)
If it collapsed simply due to fire? Then there would be some resistance and at no time could it be dropped at nearly free fall speed. However that is how fast it was dropped.
Building 7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall - Part I (10 min)
Apparently the methodology should have been classified. Any rational educated adult can see the fairy tell they are trying to sell. My son acts just like those guys when he is trying to manipulate me.
I believe anyone who really believes that shtick, it's only because they want to so badly.They didn't even scan for explosive residue...the NIST report is a carefully constructed (6 years in preparation) sham.
ummm YA. Certainly is.
But why planes, neitzche? Wouldn't an ordinary fire have been easier to set up? Or a domestic bomb, come to that?
Another good question: if WTC7 was the target, why did they hit WTC1 and 2?
I don't pretend to know much beyond WTC7 being demo'd and a bit of speculation on the motive.
Hey, good questions aren't allowed in this thread!!! They ruin the conspiracy!!!
All I wanted for Christmas is a halfbaked story so they don't look like a complete idiot and all I got is this silly thread...