Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by Xei

-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's a widely available document for goodness sakes, it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", you're suggesting that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is totally illogical.

Completely my fault. I admittedly worded that badly. I'm pretty sure you could understand that in place of 'called for', I meant that they expressed that it would be a likely prerequisite for that sort of transformation to occur. I didn't quite mean the expression in the way that you apparently think I did.

With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.

So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is.

You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?

[Edit: Oh, wait...I get it. You're talking about the actual bombs going of? THAT being the loud thing you meant? Well, there are countless eyewitnesses who have testified about multiple 'bombs' / explosions going off before the towers went down. I mean, those are all over. I will find some, if you like, but I'd be really surprised if you haven't heard those testimonies yet. ]

Originally Posted by Xei

Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?

I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?