WTC building 7 intentionally demolished?

[ILL34GL3]

When you get 20 minutes to spare watch this film clip:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

Do you guys think bldg.7 was intentionally demo'd on 9/11? Any flaws in this guy's information or arguements? If it was intentionally demo'd, how the hell did they get it rigged so fast?

[BillUCF]

It was intentionally demolished, by the terrorists on the airplanes.

[Jurollo]

Buy "Abuse Your Illusions" by the Disinformation Co. It is an anthology has an interesting one about 9/11, including stuff about bldg 7.
~Justin

[zaxx19]

It was....the Jews....

in cahoots with....the neo-cons...

Now, does your world feel better?

[ILL34GL3]

[ QUOTE ]
It was intentionally demolished, by the terrorists on the airplanes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Watch the clip. No plane hit bldg 7. The film clip shows part of a PBS documentary where the WTC owner says "we pulled it" which supposedly is a construction term for demolishing a bldg.

[QuadsOverQuads]

What do I think?

Well, let's see:

I think this "controlled demolition" garbage is another in a series of ginned-up pieces of deliberate disinformation, designed to undermine the credibility of people who are asking legitimate questions about Bush & Co's behavior on and around 9/11/01.

Or, to put it another way: it's part of a propaganda strategy designed to short-circuit dialogue that is threatening to Republican Party interests.

That's what I think.


q/q

[ILL34GL3]

[ QUOTE ]

What do I think?

Well, let's see:

I think this "controlled demolition" garbage is another in a series of ginned-up pieces of deliberate disinformation, designed to undermine the credibility of people who are asking legitimate questions about Bush & Co's behavior on and around 9/11/01.

Or, to put it another way: it's part of a propaganda strategy designed to short-circuit dialogue that is threatening to Republican Party interests.

That's what I think.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, so can you tell us where the arguements presented in the film clip are wrong?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so can you tell us where the arguements presented in the film clip are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I suppose I could do that.

At which point, of course, you'd immediately post a 500-line dissertation explaining why my refutation shouldn't be listened to.

Then you'd demand that I debunk that, as well.

And then the back-and-forth begins: on and on, ad infinitum.

And here's the point:

That is how this propaganda strategy works: you take a legitimate issue (9/11 and Bush's blatant inaction) and you try and force dialogue on that issue to focus entirely on the obscure, the paranoid and the ridiculous. And if anyone calls you on it, you even use that as a means of further generating "debate" on whatever disinformation and distraction-points you are pushing -- further hijacking reasonable dialogue and driving it straight into the ditch.

And when all is said and done -- voila!, the real issues have completely disappeared beneath a fog of cultivated disinformation, paranoia and absurdity.

So, am I going to take the bait and help you out on this process?

No, I am not.

Go bother someone else with this nonsense.


q/q

[ILL34GL3]

If you can't refute any of the evidence presented in the film just admit it. You probably didn't even watch it.

[bobman0330]

This is so dumb man... It doesn't even make any sense.

Here's a thing about conspiracies. You need a motive. Why did these people destroy building 7? For insurance money? What? The policy was for $3.5 billion per event, 9/11 being counted as two events (2 planes), for a total of $7B. Buildings 1 and 2 were almost certainly worth that total amount. And if they weren't, don't you think the insurance company with a multi-million dollar fraud department would be bringing this out, not this moron with a computer?

I quit watching this after about 10 minutes... Apparently Buildings 1 and 2 were also felled by explosives? Gimme a break. Oh yeah, and sophisticated conspirators generally don't blurt out evidence of their crimes on national TV in prepared interviews. Use your head.

(If this comes off a bit sharp, it's because i'm pissed that you got me to waste 10 minutes watching that crap)

[TransientR]

I tend to agree, this kind of fringe conspiracy stuff does distract from more legitimate questions about how 9/11 happened and how it has been used by the neocons to press their agenda.

By the way, I saw this video a long time ago, along with examining web sites that purport to prove that no plane struck the pentagon, etc.; I just didn't find much of it credible.

Frank

[ILL34GL3]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so dumb man... It doesn't even make any sense.

Here's a thing about conspiracies. You need a motive. Why did these people destroy building 7? For insurance money? What? The policy was for $3.5 billion per event, 9/11 being counted as two events (2 planes), for a total of $7B. Buildings 1 and 2 were almost certainly worth that total amount. And if they weren't, don't you think the insurance company with a multi-million dollar fraud department would be bringing this out, not this moron with a computer?

I quit watching this after about 10 minutes... Apparently Buildings 1 and 2 were also felled by explosives? Gimme a break. Oh yeah, and sophisticated conspirators generally don't blurt out evidence of their crimes on national TV in prepared interviews. Use your head.

(If this comes off a bit sharp, it's because i'm pissed that you got me to waste 10 minutes watching that crap)

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's another one giving up on refuting the evidence presented in the clip. So if the WTC owner wasn't talking about demolishing the building, what was he talking about when he said ..."we pulled it?"

As for motive, this is only part of the film. And what he hell do you know about determining real estate values? Well it doesn't matter because no one in the film clip questioned the value of the towers. Way to make up subjects to argue about.

[zaxx19]

I tend to agree, this kind of fringe conspiracy stuff does distract from more legitimate questions about how 9/11 happened and how it has been used by the neocons to press their agenda.


Are you suggesting that 9-11 wasnt brought about by a multi millionaire Yemenite playboy and his band of Islamonazis in order to further rupture relations between Arabs-Muslims and the West and further polarize the world?

[Edge34]

Asking quads to say anything other than "its a Republican conspiracy" is just like banging your head against the wall. Over, and over, and over, and over.....

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another one giving up on refuting the evidence presented in the clip. So if the WTC owner wasn't talking about demolishing the building, what was he talking about when he said ..."we pulled it?"

As for motive, this is only part of the film. And what he hell do you know about determining real estate values? Well it doesn't matter because no one in the film clip questioned the value of the towers. Way to make up subjects to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know anything about construction/demolition/emergency firefighting practice, so i have no idea about the possible meanings of "pulling" a building. That, so far as i can tell, is the only piece of evidence that the film presents. What you really need to think about is, if it's so obvious, why did the insurance company pay up the aforementioned 7 billion dollars?

And it's not making up topics of argument to point out the gaping holes in that argument...

[ILL34GL3]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree, this kind of fringe conspiracy stuff does distract from more legitimate questions about how 9/11 happened and how it has been used by the neocons to press their agenda.

By the way, I saw this video a long time ago, along with examining web sites that purport to prove that no plane struck the pentagon, etc.; I just didn't find much of it credible.

Frank

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, you saw this a long time ago? It was just released in the last two weeks.

[ILL34GL3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's another one giving up on refuting the evidence presented in the clip. So if the WTC owner wasn't talking about demolishing the building, what was he talking about when he said ..."we pulled it?"

As for motive, this is only part of the film. And what he hell do you know about determining real estate values? Well it doesn't matter because no one in the film clip questioned the value of the towers. Way to make up subjects to argue about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know anything about construction/demolition/emergency firefighting practice, so i have no idea about the possible meanings of "pulling" a building. That, so far as i can tell, is the only piece of evidence that the film presents. What you really need to think about is, if it's so obvious, why did the insurance company pay up the aforementioned 7 billion dollars?

And it's not making up topics of argument to point out the gaping holes in that argument...

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't even watch the whole clip. That isn't the only evidence it presented. Like i said, this is only 20 min. of a 2 1/2+ hour film.

[stealyourface]

ILL34GL3 sure loves his conspiracy movie. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that 9-11 wasnt brought about by a multi millionaire Yemenite playboy and his band of Islamonazis in order to further rupture relations between Arabs-Muslims and the West and further polarize the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh like you don't know it was the jews fault. Now could you please put something decent on tv since you control the media.

Melch

[zaxx19]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Remember thats OUR little secret.

[TransientR]

Who are you kidding? This notion that WTC Building 7 was deliberately brought down has been kicking around for a long time, with this far from conclusive video evidence online for far longer than 2 weeks.

Frank

[ILL34GL3]

I'm not trying to kid anyone but this film was just released in the last two weeks.