But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

These answers are a joke

---

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.

---

Ok, I'll answer.

Yes, obviously I believe it was wired to be demolished, which is why they were able to "pull it". After Silversteen, the new owner of the WTC, said that they gave the order to "pull it", "debunkers" claim he meant to pull people out of the area for safety. That's not what he said, though. He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.

So anyone claiming he didn't mean "pull it" are offering conjecture, not evidence or any "debunking". Explosions were heard and recorded from tower 7 throughout the day. If this was planned, as I believe it was, workers could have wired the building in the weeks before 9/11, at night and on weekends. Security guards and civilians would have no idea what the workers were doing.

snowdog90 said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Occam's Razor is just a lost concept on most conspiracy theorists.

---

Ah, the Occam's Razor post. How clever. Simplest answer is the most likely answer.

Tower 7

1. Fell almost straight down at very near freefall, like a controlled demolition.
2. Firemen and policemen warned people that the building was coming down.
3. Several reporters reported it had fallen before it fell.
4. Owner said months later that they had decided to "pull it" (tower 7).

Occam's Razor says controlled demolition.

---

But real world video says other wise. No audio of explosives going off for a controlled demolition...

He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.[citation needed]

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

These answers are a joke

---

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.

---

Ok, I'll answer.

Yes, obviously I believe it was wired to be demolished, which is why they were able to "pull it". After Silversteen, the new owner of the WTC, said that they gave the order to "pull it", "debunkers" claim he meant to pull people out of the area for safety. That's not what he said, though. He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.

So anyone claiming he didn't mean "pull it" are offering conjecture, not evidence or any "debunking". Explosions were heard and recorded from tower 7 throughout the day. If this was planned, as I believe it was, workers could have wired the building in the weeks before 9/11, at night and on weekends. Security guards and civilians would have no idea what the workers were doing.

---

Is "pull it" the official term? There is no dispute about that part for demolitions?

Okay, go back to what on page before:

Quote:

---

3. Owner of WTC said that because of loss of life on 9/11, they decided to "pull it" (Tower 7).

---

Is this in fact him saying because of the loss of life so far, they went ahead and knocked it down to not be a hazard? If that is true, why is that bad (for the public at large, not insurance or other people concerned with its value) ---- what about my question above. Is WTC 7 supposedly containing something?

JamesPShelley said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I tend to view people who believe conspiracy theories to be pretty much lacking in intelligence.

---

LOL.

You think we landed on the moon in 1969? We can't land on the moon and it's 2022.

---

We have gotten much dumber since 1969 as evidenced by the number of morons who believe in conspiracy theories.

New World Ag said:

---

Fair enough, sir. Not only are we both huge Rush fans, but we are both '90.

---

Ditto.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Fair enough, sir. Not only are we both huge Rush fans, but we are both '90.

---

Ditto.

---

Take it that means class of 1990 and not approaching the age of the late Queen.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And the miles of det cord and wiring? The detonators? The digging into the building to get the explosives into the structure and next to support columns?

Nobody noticed?

None of the workers talked?

---

They're in on it. Obviously.

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

And the miles of det cord and wiring? The detonators? The digging into the building to get the explosives into the structure and next to support columns?

Nobody noticed?

None of the workers talked?

---

Plus the lack of audio from explosions just before the building collapsed is another hole in the claim.

snowdog90,

When you get a chance, please answer this post query. Need it to avoid wrong foot on evaluating anything about WTC-7.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3321185/replies/63053037

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Just some Tower 7 facts.

1. BBC and others reported that Tower 7 had fallen about 20 minutes BEFORE it fell.
2. Videos showed cops and firemen warning people to get away because Tower 7 was coming down. I've seen the videos, but they're hard to find now.
3. Owner of WTC said that because of loss of life on 9/11, they decided to "pull it" (Tower 7).
4. Tower 7 was ignored in first NIST report. Over a year later, due to uproar, they added Tower 7 to the report, saying the tower collapsed due to office fires.

The Truther movement was not started as a whim by hippies or lunatics or meth addicts. It was started by family members of victims of 9/11 who were looking for answers and didn't believe the official story.

The government that told us what happened on 9/11 is the same government the gave us the covid response and the 2020 election.

You wonder why the Bush's and Cheney's are so anti-Trump? Trump is not in the Club and was a huge threat to the Club.

The Club is evil and has been for a long time, and it includes Democrats and Republicans.

---

Snowdog, have you taken the time to watch the video link posted earlier? Here's the first one of 7.

---

You and I have had many cordial conversations on Texags. We are both big Rush fans and even chose our usernames based on that.

I have spent countless hours researching 9/11. I've posted many opinions and videos on Texags and been called crazy and stupid and unpatriotic and emotional and many other things because of my opinion. My beliefs and opinions about 9/11 are not some whim or hastily gathered poorly-evidenced fantasy. They are based on evidence.

I might watch the video you posted, but I've probably already seen it. I've been on these 9/11 threads for years. I've started them, and most eventually got locked. Most, if not all, of the youtube videos I watched and shared on prior threads have been scrubbed from youtube and are now hard to find.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I doubt there is anything you could say that could change my mind. And that's okay. I just get irritated when otherwise logical, thoughtful people minimize "truthers" as crazy without actually doing the research.

What I believe is insane to most people. I know this. I mean, our own government is responsible for 9/11? That can't be possible!!

But then we see the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, Trump being investigated and harassed nonstop and impeached twice, Covid, the vaccines, a fraudulent election followed by an incredibly corrupt President who is crippling our country, and it becomes less and less unbelievable. It's the same people.

It's easy to dismiss 9/11 as some crazy conspiracy theary, but it's the same people who have killed scores of thousands in the last 2 years that were in charge when 9/11 happened. They are evil.

It's hard to rationalize how evil they are because it sounds so crazy to people like us who are just trying to live our lives and be happy.

It's not fun being called crazy, I don't enjoy it, and it's not normal for me on this board. But the ongoing current events and the blatant nonchalance of corruption and fraud at the highest levels, and the willingness to not even try to hide the corruption anymore, give credence to my beliefs.

I will respond again if I watch the video. I've already spent way more time on this thread than I planned.

---

You. Are. Crazy.

---

Lol coming from you.

I used to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They used to make me angry. I used to yell at people that they were making a mockery of a tragedy.

Then Trump became president and exposed the swamp. Then Covid happened and I realized how truely evil the powers that run this country are.

Anything is possible. The government may not have been behind 9/11, but I challenge anyone that says the government wouldn't orchestrate something like that if it would benefit The Party.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

These answers are a joke

---

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.

---

Ok, I'll answer.

Yes, obviously I believe it was wired to be demolished, which is why they were able to "pull it". After Silversteen, the new owner of the WTC, said that they gave the order to "pull it", "debunkers" claim he meant to pull people out of the area for safety. That's not what he said, though. He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.

So anyone claiming he didn't mean "pull it" are offering conjecture, not evidence or any "debunking". Explosions were heard and recorded from tower 7 throughout the day. If this was planned, as I believe it was, workers could have wired the building in the weeks before 9/11, at night and on weekends. Security guards and civilians would have no idea what the workers were doing.

---

The amount of prep and demolition that goes into imploding a building is impossible to do in secret. It takes weeks of destroying columns and drilling holes. There is a literal spider web of wires and detonator cables that are installed. To the point that you can't walk through them. It is not possible to do that without anyone noticing. You might as well try to replace I-10 through downtown Houston in secret and hope no one notices that you are doing it.
Such a stupid argument even be having.

---

The buildings were in fact undergoing maintenance around the elevator shaft for a very long time preceding 9/11. The company in charge was changed from a public company to a private one. There were many weekends where certain areas of the building were restricted and closed off from access. You would not need extensive wires or detonator cables. Much of the crew could be completely oblivious to what they were actually doing, given that thermite residue was found in the dust, the application of which could have been under the guise of building enhancements or improvements rather than something sinister.

ChemAg15 said:

---

I used to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They used to make me angry. I used to yell at people that they were making a mockery of a tragedy.

Then Trump became president and exposed the swamp. Then Covid happened and I realized how truely evil the powers that run this country are.

Anything is possible. The government may not have been behind 9/11, but I challenge anyone that says the government wouldn't orchestrate something like that if it would benefit The Party.

---

The follow-up is incoherent enough in some ways that would not 100% rule out a "let it happen" scenario, which is alot different from doing it. But that is only because of what have seen since the Obama admin and especially now. Still really doesn't add up.

For example, the old claim the war was to take oil clearly didn't pan out. Nor was the attack used to scapegoat Islamist movements (as it probably should have been) but instead almost the opposite. Where under W there was even talk of a mosque near the WTC ruins site.

Too much speculation about 9/11 doesn't start with answering the `Why'? imo before going into how this or that could have been `engineered'. WTC-7 is a good example.

I've been in the camp that WTC1, 2, and 7 were a controlled demolition for a very long time. The totality of the collapse at free fall speed is unexplainable to me by any other cause. A progressive collapse would meet significant resistance to the core structures below it, slowing its speed, partially toppling over, and not ejecting enormous amounts of pulverized dust in its wake as it progresses downward. The pancaking collapse theory is completely untenable to me. Molten spheres of iron are found in abundance in the dust, there's video footage of molten iron streaming out of the building moments before collapse, all of this completely unexplained by jet fuel fires, not to mention numerous "squibs" located during the collapse. And WTC7 takes an otherwise head scratching situation for WTC 1 and 2 over the fence to "this is completely suspect" territory.

I don't really care for the emotional arguments that delve into how "logistically crazy" something like this would (or wouldn't) have to be. It's irrelevant to answering the specific question of what happened physically to the buildings. But I do not believe that the number of people involved would need to be that many that were true knowing participants. Military operations are extremely compartmentalized, and during that day there were numerous "drills" going on adding to the confusion.

Occam's razor is often used, but this should be applied to the physical situation itself - what is the most likely cause of WTC7? It would be the first building in history not hit by a plane, with some fairly benign fires, to completely collapse on its own footprint for no reason whatsoever. Buildings don't just do that. They are designed extremely conservatively to handle significant fire damage.

As with any forensic crime, once you know that it has occurred, you reconstruct the physical possibility of how it occurred, and then also follow up on the money trail and motive. Larry Silverstein must have been the most fortunate man in the world to not only buy the WTC complex in the months leading up to 9/11, but also take out an extremely large insurance policy covering terrorism. How many insurance claims have been proven to be fraudulent in a similar manner when murder is actually involved? The wake of 9/11 caused unprecedented government expansion through the creation of the Homeland Security departments, wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a police state surveillance program.

The PNAC group even stated in the years prior to 9/11 that they would need a "New Pearl Harbor" to catalyze these objectives. Again, they must be the most fortunate think tank in the world to have that land on their lap if extreme expansion of government power is their primary goal. They got it.

And twenty years later we have COVID which has accomplished similar objectives. Even if you don't believe that this was an inside job, I don't see how anyone could be called crazy for suggesting the possibility given the number of glaring issues with what physically transpired that day.

"The jew did it, to claim the insurance policy!"

Quote:

---

As with any forensic crime, once you know that it has occurred, you reconstruct the physical possibility of how it occurred, and then also follow up on the money trail and motive. Larry Silverstein must have been the most fortunate man in the world to not only buy the WTC complex in the months leading up to 9/11, but also take out an extremely large insurance policy covering terrorism. How many insurance claims have been proven to be fraudulent in a similar manner when murder is actually involved? The wake of 9/11 caused unprecedented government expansion through the creation of the Homeland Security departments, wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a police state surveillance program.

---

Wait a minute. Are you saying it was a grandiose variant of the old "insurance / lightning strike" joke about fires staged by owners to defraud?

Quote:

---

The PNAC group even stated in the years prior to 9/11 that they would need a "New Pearl Harbor" to catalyze these objectives. Again, they must be the most fortunate think tank in the world to have that land on their lap if extreme expansion of government power is their primary goal. They got it.

---

But that doesn't well fit with how poorly W used the 9/11 War. We could have ended up really on top, radical Islam swept away, West and even Russian united with us --- if you don't have the tomfoolery in 2003 and after.

So if some kind of "Pearl Harbor" grand result was the goal---why was it squandered?

Incidentally, WTC 7 actually is your outlier. Other than the ownership angle, have not heard a reason the building was "dropped" if it was. It didn't add to the psychological impact that day because so few even knew it occured.

JJxvi said:

---

He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.[citation needed]

---

When I started researching 911 10 years ago or so, "pull it" was widely known as a demolition term to bring the building down. The term's definition cannot be found on google now, and when you look up "pull it demolition", lots of debunking 911 stories come up. Among them is Snopes, of course.

Luckily, this link was among the links. It is a phone call to a demolition company asking what the term means. I first heard this recording 10 years ago or so.

https://m.soundcloud.com/****esandfriends/what-does-pull-it-mean

In the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh, "words mean things".

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

As with any forensic crime, once you know that it has occurred, you reconstruct the physical possibility of how it occurred, and then also follow up on the money trail and motive. Larry Silverstein must have been the most fortunate man in the world to not only buy the WTC complex in the months leading up to 9/11, but also take out an extremely large insurance policy covering terrorism. How many insurance claims have been proven to be fraudulent in a similar manner when murder is actually involved? The wake of 9/11 caused unprecedented government expansion through the creation of the Homeland Security departments, wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a police state surveillance program.

---

Wait a minute. Are you saying it was a grandiose variant of the old "insurance / lightning strike" joke about fires staged by owners to defraud?

Quote:

---

The PNAC group even stated in the years prior to 9/11 that they would need a "New Pearl Harbor" to catalyze these objectives. Again, they must be the most fortunate think tank in the world to have that land on their lap if extreme expansion of government power is their primary goal. They got it.

---

But that doesn't well fit with how poorly W used the 9/11 War. We could have ended up really on top, radical Islam swept away, West and even Russian united with us --- if you don't have the tomfoolery in 2003 and after.

So if some kind of "Pearl Harbor" grand result was the goal---why was it squandered?

Incidentally, WTC 7 actually is your outlier. Other than the ownership angle, have not heard a reason the building was "dropped" if it was. It didn't add to the psychological impact that day because so few even knew it occured.

---

I don't really see how we could have been in some utopia with Russia in an alternate reality where the post-9/11 response went better. The expansion of military action in the middle east was a primary goal, no matter how messy it ended up being.

As for WTC 7 being an outlier, it's possible that it was intended as a third target which never met its destination. They couldn't just leave the building up after having it rigged with demolition, knowing that the post-9/11 immediate area would be thoroughly inspected for damage. Whatever the reason, it doesn't take away from the fact that it did happen.

Frankly, if that's the case, it's amazing that they were able to pull this off despite numerous glaring impossibilities visible in plain sight. The sheer Hollywood style spectacle of the event has clouded any bit of better judgment. Their media control is extremely powerful.

snowdog90 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.[citation needed]

---

When I started researching 911 10 years ago or so, "pull it" was widely known as a demolition term to bring the building down. The term's definition cannot be found on google now, and when you look up "pull it demolition", lots of debunking 911 stories come up. Among them is Snopes, of course.

Luckily, this link was among the links. It is a phone call to a demolition company asking what the term means. I first heard this recording 10 years ago or so.

https://m.soundcloud.com/****esandfriends/what-does-pull-it-mean

In the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh, "words mean things".

---

From what I've read, there was nobody in the building to pull. So the context of its use is certainly peculiar.

War makes politicians rich. Any time the government spends money theres 10% for the big guy. The expanded powers of government was another positive outcome for The Party

titan said:

---

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

---

There's many theories about this, I can't remember most of them, but I remember one. Rumsfeld had reported on 9/10 that $2.3 billion was missing... just... missing. The information about the missing money was theorized to be in tower 7. I don't know.

Of course, when 9/11 happened, the Rumsfeld statement was ignored for years because we had been attacked.

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

---

There's many theories about this, I can't remember most of them, but I remember one. Rumsfeld had reported on 9/10 that $2.3 billion was missing... just... missing. The information about the missing money was theorized to be in tower 7. I don't know.

Of course, when 9/11 happened, the Rumsfeld statement was ignored for years because we had been attacked.

---

I see. Very interesting. Especially since Rumsfeld is in the wing of the Pentagon hit by the impact, and was a close call. Kind of an interesting overlap. And on my other question, which version are you inclining toward?

A) WTC-7 was engineered/arranged

B) Or all three WTC- towers were engineere/arranged?

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

---

There's many theories about this, I can't remember most of them, but I remember one. Rumsfeld had reported on 9/10 that $2.3 billion was missing... just... missing. The information about the missing money was theorized to be in tower 7. I don't know.

Of course, when 9/11 happened, the Rumsfeld statement was ignored for years because we had been attacked.

---

$2.3 Trillion!

jthonen said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

---

There's many theories about this, I can't remember most of them, but I remember one. Rumsfeld had reported on 9/10 that $2.3 billion was missing... just... missing. The information about the missing money was theorized to be in tower 7. I don't know.

Of course, when 9/11 happened, the Rumsfeld statement was ignored for years because we had been attacked.

---

$2.3 Trillion!

---

What?! Did you really mean to correct that to say, No, not a billion, but 2.3 Triilion?!

Isn't that close to what the final Iraq War cost itself came out to?

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

***** Into the rabbit hole again. Look, I believe 911 was a false flag used to start a 20-year "war on terror". Look up Aaron Russo. He tells about Nick Rockefeller basically telling him what was going to happen and laughing about it.

How they did it all, I don't know, I don't claim to know all the answers, but the holes in the official story are almost infinite, and large enough to drive a truck through (or fly a plane through).

And someone on this thread said Bin Laden admitted he did it. This is not true, and one of many falsehoods often repeated. Here's a link with stories saying Bin Laden DENIED doing 911.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=osama+bin+laden+denies+911&t=h_&ia=web

titan said:

---

jthonen said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

The root query about all this is what was in WTC 7 that supposedly rated such need to destroy or eliminate? What is even the premise?

Notice how given the general media neglect and how few were still filming live to catch it at 5pm going down also shows you the toppling of it had no "added story value" ---- it didn't add to the impact of 9/11, so it can't be for reasons like that.

So why was it being destroyed if you are believer it was? Is it come kind of ownership/insurance defrauding that was already in place? What's the presumed motive.

---

There's many theories about this, I can't remember most of them, but I remember one. Rumsfeld had reported on 9/10 that $2.3 billion was missing... just... missing. The information about the missing money was theorized to be in tower 7. I don't know.

Of course, when 9/11 happened, the Rumsfeld statement was ignored for years because we had been attacked.

---

$2.3 Trillion!

---

What?! Did you really mean to correct that to say, No, not a billion, but 2.3 Triilion?!

Isn't that close to what the final Iraq War cost itself came out to?

---

I couldn't remember if it was billion or trillion. Trillion sounds crazy, but the video of Rumsfeld reporting this is out there. I'll look for it.