Skeptic Project

^ I've asked that on other forums... but I never can get a response. One person did tell me that it was to destroy CIA evidence. Though, I must imagine the CIA has higher standards for destroying evidence than just blowing up a building and hoping for the best.

Good GOD...

Bill wrote:

Someone showed me something of it being a legit planned demolition from someone who looked to be a banker. I personally have no clue if it's true or not but he said it was a spur of the moment demolition for safety reasons the building needed to be taken down now then later.

Haha, that "banker" you're talking about is probably the lease holder Larry Silverstein.

I took a look at domokato's stuff in the video I watched it sounded like a spur of the moment but planned demolition to such an extent that fire fighters knew about it and were blocking paths on the street for this to happen. I do remember debris being the reason building 7 collapsed but of course it must be a demolition.

Absolute nonsense Bill.

The firefighters knew Building 7 would collapse, but they thought it was going to collapse from fire and damage it sustained. We have dozens and dozens and dozens of them all on record talking about it and absolutely none of them have expressed a single dissenting opinion in all these years. Not a single 911 firefighter has said anything that can back up anything truthers claim about WTC7, there is a reason truthers never quote any of them.

WTC7's fire was left to burn unfought for over 7 hours. It had a huge gash in the south side and was "fully involved" with fire. It was observed leaning, bulging, groaning, creaking and things were cracking and falling. Early on the firefighters thought it was at risk of a collapse and moved everyone back and created a collapse zone around the building. When it collapsed they were literally waiting around for it to happen.

Domokato wrote:

So it sounds like it wasn't "planned" as in rigged up prior to 9/11. But it was "planned" as in it was purposefully demolished to ensure the building fell correctly or something, because it was going to anyway from the damage.

I am shocked you have managed to believe this for so long.

That is 100% wrong. No buildings on 911 were demolished.

Sky wrote:

Yes, building 6 had to be destroyed by pulling it over with cables because it was unsafe. Building 7 collapsed on it's own from the damage. But also there is an interview where Larry Silverstein says something like "we decided to pull it" when he is talking about building 7. Conspiracy theorist's claim that he was talking about demolishing the building, but he was actually talking about pulling the firefighters out of the building.

Silverstein never said "we decided to pull", he said THEY decided to pull WE watched the building collapse. Truthers cant even get the quote right and thats obviously even confused you! :D

I guess its worth saying considering "pull it" is not a demolition term to put explosives in buildings to demolish them. Why would Silverstein admit this in a pre-recorded TV show? But that's just another problem with their silly fables, Truthers have never once been able to find any evidence of "pull it" being a demolition term and have to resort to out right lying about it by taking the America Rebuilds documentary out of context where a clean up worker says "we're getting ready to pull building 6" but chops out the next line which shows they were literally pulling it down with cables and earlier they said that it was too dangerous to perform an explosive demolition with those buildings. Many truthers especially on the Zeitgeist movement claim its obviously a demolition term, such as Voice of Reason and Thunder. Thunder claimed he knows someone he is a demolition expert and says it is a real term and Voice of Reason claims he saw some quotes from someone somewhere that prove it is. Yet in nearly a decade and we still have no evidence that demolition companies use this term/ There's even a youtube video where a truther calls up demolition companies and gets told it isnt a demolition term and doesnt even realise it!

"Pull" however is used over and over again to refer to "the firefighting/rescue operation". Silverstein likely got a courtesy call from one of the fire department Commanders (there's not just one) saying they couldn't contain the fire and were worried about the buildings stability and would have to pull the rescue operation. Silverstein is just repeating the words the guy who called him used. But this is just way too simple for truthers.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3850/indexfinger.jpg" />

Pull it.

I am shocked you have managed to believe this for so long.

Like I explained, I just got building 6 and 7 mixed up. Apparently, it hasn't been "so long" since I haven't really been paying much attention to 9/11 truth at all :P

That is 100% wrong. No buildings on 911 were demolished.

What about 6? That article I linked says they pulled it down with cables to prevent damage to surrounding structures.

What about 6? That article I linked says they pulled it down with cables to prevent damage to surrounding structures.

During the clean up, not on 911. What made you think it was?

Also, they demolished 4,5 and 6 with cables because it was too dangerous for workers to place charges.

I don't know if you know this...but I'm not supporting 9/11 truth in any way. I'm just trying to understand what was written in the debunking article I linked! lol..

Okay, during cleanup, whatever. Point is, truthers are freaking out over nothing.

You guys are too combative lol

Okay, during cleanup, whatever. Point is, truthers are freaking out over nothing.

Just as long as we got that sorted out :)

Poop throwing Fridays!

According to PJ we constantly in fight over here, must be true, you guys are going crazy.

If you don't calm down, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

I always figured there was plenty of motive to let Building 7 burn down because it was the planning headquarters for the inside job.

what about the claim they make about broadcasters announcing that building 7 collapsed before it did. Sounds like complete crap, and makes little sense in terms of reason, but i don't recall hearing the counter argument?

well its nice to have some ammo when u hear a specific claim made...isn't there a screen pull on another thread showing the breakng news of building 7 collapsing with images of the building intact in background?

>> what about the claim they make about broadcasters announcing that building 7 collapsed before it did. Sounds like complete crap, and makes little sense in terms of reason, but i don't recall hearing the counter argument?

The funny thing with that is, it means that literally everyone at the BBC and NBC (or was it CBS?) was involved, from the reporter to the producer, etc. This is just an example of how their conspiracy theories widen and include more and more people.

It was simply a mistake one station made and then another station picked up on it and ran with it. It was probably a different building that collapsed, or a misreporting all together, or most likely the report that it was probably going to collapse was misheard/misread that it has collapsed.

A great counter example: Australian news reported that Jeff Goldblum (famous actor) had been killed. Guess what, he wasn't dead at all. Following CT logic, when Jeff finally does die, does that mean Australian news reporters accidentally let the news go too quickly, and were therefore in on a vast conspiracy to kill Jeff Goldblum? You can find tons of examples of things like this, it doesn't mean anything. Oh wait I forgot "AUSTRALIAN NEWS PREDICTS JEFF GOLDBLUM'S DEATH 30 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED!" is simply "predictive programming" making more people involved.

It's by far their worst piece of evidence, it's something like the "pull it" thing to fall back on. But how does that logic work? If I've disproved everything you've said so far, what could two news stations mentioning the collapse of a building before it happened prove? There was no other evidence at all it was demolished on purpose. It only works as a gateway to make you then stop critically thinking about other things.

The WTC 7 now is used by truthers as a way to avoid the WTC 1/2 topics, but as soon as you believe the 7 topics, damn straight they'll bring up the same completely debunked 1/2 topics again. I see that shit all the time.

Just ask how many people do they think would have to be involved, and lay their tasks out, how many people to do the planes, wire up the buildings or paint them with magical non-existent [nano]therm[i|a]te, get the news to report things in a certain order that they can easily fuck up -- instead of logically letting the news simply report things as they happen --, make bin laden videos, destroy WTC 7, crash a plane in Shanksville, do all the stuff at the Pentagon, fake phone calls, etc. without anyone ever coming forward, telling a friend, figuring it out, connecting the dots?

They say "people can do things and not realize the bigger picture" believe me, if you're painting thermite on a building and then 9/11 happens, you're going to make a connection. Oh no, they were all paid off, we know people who are bribed never come forward, ever, it never happens, and there aren't people who can't be bribed. I guess that's why Pablo Escobar is still alive and in control of the whole of Columbia then.

So false-flags are detailed to the news before they happen? Why? Why not just blow up WTC 7 and then the news can report it, why make things more complicated? Oh I forgot, they're masterminds that never make mistakes except for those guys on YouTube with googling skills and fat, radio show hosts can figure out.

If we go Alex Jones style Ed, we end up with: there WAS a car bomb and it did land safely in Cleveland!