WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[patchbunny]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch

 

[Arus808]

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

 

[pomeroo]

Whilst painting ping pong balls in my garage, my mind drifted to the CT's varied arguments on how WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolitions. Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I can't understand why it would have been blown up?

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch

I will treat your post as a serious question. You seem to be arguing that there was no motive for anyone to blow up WTC 7. You are completely correct: the fantasists' imaginary conspiracy certainly had no motive to conduct an operation the only conceivable purpose of which was to leave clues for extremely dumb guys who hate America. The FDNY is not in the business of blowing up buildings.

The quotation marks you thoughtfully placed around the word "pulled" hints at the answer. Nobody in the demolition industry--NOBODY--swallows the falsehood invented out of whole cloth by conspiracy liars that "pull it" means "blow up the building." Larry Silverstein was requesting that a contingent of rescue workers be pulled out. He made this request because WTC 7 had been assessed as dangerously unstable and liable to collapse. Your statement that it was "in no danger of collapse" is simply wrong. Firefighters on the scene expected WTC 7 to come down. This minor detail is routinely ignored by the conspiracy liars.

 

[Horatius]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i recall a stundie quote (or perhaps predating the stundies) that was essentially "we dont know why WTC7 was imploded, but it was imploded, so they must have had a reason"

 

[DGM]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?

I was wondering the same thing. Although it gave me a good idea for a cub scout activity tomorrow. Thanks for that.

 

[patchbunny]

I will treat your post as a serious question.

I hope you would. It was a serious question. I can't recall seeing it stated before. Please note I am not a conspiracy theorist. Just wondered about the mysterious motive.

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

Which makes me wonder why the CTs think the FDNY would be involved in such a conspiracy, given they lost some 300(?) of their own that day.

Thanks for the answers folks.

--Patch

 

[patchbunny]

The real question is, why were you painting ping pong balls?

And were you giving them each an individual look, or were you doing a really boring still-life?

As you can tell from my avatar (that is, assuming you've heard of the show) I'm a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I'm working on my Crow T. Robot puppet and I'm making his eyes. They're ping pong balls painted a fluorescent yellow, but for some reason the paint is coming out patchwork yellow and orange.

For those who are interested, you can see the work in progress here.

--Patch

 

[patchbunny]

I was wondering the same thing. Although it gave me a good idea for a cub scout activity tomorrow. Thanks for that.

I found glow-in-the-dark spray paint at a Orchard Supply Hardware the other day. Or grab the specialist texture spray paint and make granite ping pong balls. It could be a fun project indeed.

--Patch

 

[stateofgrace]

This is a very good question and one that is rarely answered by the cters. It is simply assumed it was blown up because, well because it was. This in itself gives reason to come up with no end of speculation. This speculation ranges from a plane actually being targetted at WTC 7 to a missile being fired at it from a fighter jet.

Of course there are many follow on question from the OP that the cters rarely address, like why on earth did they wait for some six hours and allow it all to be filmed by the gathering worlds media?
or
Why on earth did they simply not blow it up under cover of the cloud dust?
or
Why did the explosives make no sound when they blow it up ?
or
How did they know this building would survive the collapse of the towers?
or
How did they know it would survive the fires for six hours?
or
How did the explosives survive all this ?
or
why did the firefighters clear the area hours before hand?

Basically,why go to all this bother to demolish an empty building and then all the bother of trying to cover it all up ?

The questions go on and on , if one was to really apply oneselfs to it but in ct land it is best to stick to " It looked like a CD , therefore it was" and as for my questions, well thats why a new investigation is needed.

 

[Pardalis]

It always makes me laugh when truthers like mjd, Zensmack or MaGZ push for LIHOP and pretend they are not MIHOP, but still think WTC7 was a controlled demolition...

I mean, "They" had to be involved in the attacks if they wanted to demolish WTC7 inconspicuously. "They" had to know the precise date the attacks would occur and how the planes would hit the towers, and "They" had to know of any problems that would occur that might have delayed the attacks (unless you believe demolition charges can be set in a few hours in a burning building.).

The 9/11 Al qaeda plot and the WTC7 demolition plots are too precise and complicated to be simultaneously be going on without any of the two parties explicitly knowing of one an other.

But try and tell that to the truthers...

 

[patchbunny]

Basically,why go to all this bother to demolish an empty building and then all the bother of trying to cover it all up ?

Yup. I think few people would have been troubled if the FDNY had stated, "WTC7 is burning out of control and beyond hope. The FDNY has taken horrendous casualties today and we're not risking any more lives. To protect adjacent structures from the spread of the blaze we've asked the government for specialists to bring the building down."

Why a demolition would have needed to be secret is beyond me.

--Patch

 

[DarkMagician]

because it had offices for several govt agencies, and instead of using "shredders" or highly powerful magnets ( to erase hard drives ), they rather blow up the building to "hide" all the proof/evidence that 911 was planned.

Of course, it didn't occur to them that they could do those things before blowing up the building, as a large bunch of the evidence could easily be repaired.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course, it didn't occur to them that they could do those things before blowing up the building, as a large bunch of the evidence could easily be repaired.

Clearly they were too stupid to think of such things because we can't be expected to believe they are stupid enough to have ignored intelligence or foreseen such a thing which has never happened before.

 

[1337m4n]

I believe I have a plausible answer to all of your questions.

When, inevitably, some basement-dweller uncovers evidence from grainy photographs and quotes taken out of context that 9/11 was the work of the NWO, shills like ourselves can dismiss it by saying, "But why demolish WTC7? It's completely pointless and therefore couldn't have been a demolition conspiracy".

 

[Alareth]

Which makes me wonder why the CTs think the FDNY would be involved in such a conspiracy, given they lost some 300(?) of their own that day.

The most common answer to that one says that firefighters that died were the ones that wouldn't accept the bribes to stay quiet and had to be eliminated.

There are no depths to low and repugnant for CT's.

 

[TerryUK]

So why would it have been necessary to blow it up?

--Patch

I think it would make sense that those responsible for planning 9/11 wanted to get maximum effect.
Therefor, they would likely want to flatten the whole WTC...
So, on this assumption, the three main buildings would be targets.
First, the terrorists would crash the planes, one into each of the three buildings. Then later, pre-planted devices would be detonated to make sure all three buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 would have been pre-rigged with some sort of devices to bring it down, as would WTC 1 and WTC 2.
The plane that would have crashed into WTC 7 didn't get there because it crashed (flight 93 ) or never took off ( flight 23? )

What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

Non - the FFNY didn't destroy WTC. Also "pull it" was obviously not referring to any demolition, but rather pull the remaining FF operation.

 

[Bell]

I've seen claims that 9/11 was an inside job because the Muslims could not have blown op WTC7. Circulair reasoning much?

 

[OldTigerCub]

The primary argument by the CTs is how "steel frame buildings have never collapsed due to fire alone," which is why the two towers must have been blown up. But if steel frame buildings don't collapse, why are they stating the fire departments ordered WTC 7 "pulled", ie, blwon up? It surely was in no danger of collapse, as it's a steel frame building. So why would it have been necessary to blow it up? What's the motive for its destruction by the NYFD?

--Patch

Since troothers never seem to get the facts straight, they always overlook other collapses of steel frame buildings involved in fires. Overlooking the fears that the FDNY had that Bldg 7 was in danger of collapsing is another convenient omission. A video shot from one angle, while ignoring other video records is the strongest evidence troothers have, so they stick to it and "just ask questions". Of course, if someone brings forth a bunch of det-cord or blasting cap residue...my first guess would be that it was left over from a demolition of LC videos.
Troothers are silly.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes, and the big bad govt just bet everything they had on the HUGE AIRPLANES not wiping out the PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES ON THE IMPACT FLOORS, when the collapse initiated.

JHC here we go again.

TAM