Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

[tontoz]

Let me ask you a very simple question. Why were the firemen ordered to pull out of the building?

[gts]

Because there was so much information flying around? How come the BBC was only one that got this prior knowledge? The scene was utter chaos. How did this info get to the BBC?

bbc got the info from the Reuters news service, it was actually retracted before the building comes down.. go to the BBC and search for the rebroadcast.

ask yourself this why would anyone with such a grand plan tell the BBC the plan to blow up the building? why would they tell a foreign news service of the conspiracy, what good would that serve...

why why why?

[Bladers]

WTC 7 was evacuated after the second plane hit.
They evacuated it because another plane might hit 7.
Here is WC7 right after the first tower came down.
Everyone was already gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy-zY1r9zzU#t=6m41s
You can see the amount of damage.

continued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIPF6rjT9Tg

[Sarcastic]

It's weird that engineers were able to predict that WTC 7 would come down, but no one could predict that either WTC 1 nor 2 would come down. If they did, they could have "pulled" out the firemen in them, and saved their lives.

[niko]

bbc got the info from the Reuters news service, it was actually retracted before the building comes down.. go to the BBC and search for the rebroadcast.

ask yourself this why would anyone with such a grand plan tell the BBC the plan to blow up the building? why would they tell a foreign news service of the conspiracy, what good would that serve...

why why why?

i bought a radio walkman as i walked downtown to listen to the news. they reported a lot of shit that was untrue. People were scared, and the news was reporting rumors as fact. My in-laws in Japan were getting news reports about US retaliation, many more planes than the 4, etc. People need to stop saying the news reported X then changed their mind, a lot of what was reported was fraudulent simply because the news was fluid and the sources were bad. And you are implying that somehow they told the BBC the building would fall. How does that help?

Remember, you are implying a conspiracy. A conspiracy to achieve some sort of logical goal. Knocking down WTC 7 is bizarre - it accomplishes nothing useful for the conspirators. Telling the BBC it is going to be knocked down not only is bizarre, it puts into jeapordy their "grand plan".

People tend to behave in ways that achieve their goals. The problem with most of the WTC conspiracy is that it doesn't seem to help those goals get achieved.

[tontoz]

It's weird that engineers were able to predict that WTC 7 would come down, but no one could predict that either WTC 1 nor 2 would come down. If they did, they could have "pulled" out the firemen in them, and saved their lives.

You didn't answer the question.

Why were they pulled out of WTC7 since, according to you, it is a "fact" that there was only superficial damage to the building and small fires?

[Ghettobird]

Scary shit

[Bladers]

It's weird that engineers were able to predict that WTC 7 would come down, but no one could predict that either WTC 1 nor 2 would come down. If they did, they could have "pulled" out the firemen in them, and saved their lives.

You keep rambling on, you have to put things in context.
No one predicted ANY building would fall till the first WTC fell.

[niko]

It's weird that engineers were able to predict that WTC 7 would come down, but no one could predict that either WTC 1 nor 2 would come down. If they did, they could have "pulled" out the firemen in them, and saved their lives.

They were in the building to try to save the people inside in a highly chaotic situation. You think someone was looking at the plans of the building in order to determine the effect the fire would have structual integrity, and then would be able to flow this information down to rescue, who would give up on all the possible people inside?

Your logic gaps are enormous. People are in danger, Firemen run into building to save them. PERIOD. That's their job.

[sawyersauce]

I'm genuinly curious about the BBC's early report.

To those of you citing it... What are you claiming it is evidence of? What exactly are it's implications regarding 9/11 being an inside job?

And on the matter of curiosity... Lets assume it was an inside job, then what was the purpose of bringing down WTC 7? It seems like a waste of infrastructure and resources to me. I'd have thought they'd want to minimize the damage and casualties but maintain the spectacle. WTC 7 going down is the sort of thing I would expect NOT to happen if it was a carefully planned inside job. But the sort of thing to be expected in a chaotic terrorist attack designed to inflict as much damage as possible.

I'm not arguing either side here, I'm just curious about it. If there is a common answer to those questions I'd like to know it.

[Sarcastic]

You keep rambling on, you have to put things in context.
No one predicted ANY building would fall till the first WTC fell.

EXACTLY.

No building had ever fallen due to fire.

EVER.

[niko]

EXACTLY.

No building had ever fallen due to fire.

EVER.

[niko]

I'm genuinly curious about the BBC's early report.

To those of you citing it... What are you claiming it is evidence of? What exactly are it's implications regarding 9/11 being an inside job?

And on the matter of curiosity... Lets assume it was an inside job, then what was the purpose of bringing down WTC 7? It seems like a waste of infrastructure and resources to me. I'd have thought they'd want to minimize the damage and casualties but maintain the spectacle. WTC 7 going down is the sort of thing I would expect NOT to happen if it was a carefully planned inside job. But the sort of thing to be expected in a chaotic terrorist attack designed to inflict as much damage as possible.

I'm not arguing either side here, I'm just curious about it. If there is a common answer to those questions I'd like to know it.

No one will answer. I've asked a million times. it does make no sense at all. the best i got was it was a 2nd conspiracy by the people who owned it taking advantage of the situation. No one even knew what WTC7 was except it fell down. i think most people assumed there was 1 and 2.

[tontoz]

EXACTLY.

No building had ever fallen due to fire.

EVER.

No other buildings got hit by huge passenger planes, EVER.

No other buildings ever had buildings the size of WTC1 and 2 collapse into them, EVER.

[Sarcastic]