[Flieteewell]

This is not another conspiracy thread about what happened on 9:11, but it is very legitimate concern I met yet another American today who was surprised when I mentioned building 7 talking about 9:11 attacks. the people who know all the details about muslim mullahs, quran and the promisse of 72 virgins, what kind of movies Saddam liked, and many other details. WTC7 was a 42 story building that collapsed on that same day of 9:11 without being hit by planes, and it collapsed straight down. and people do not know it because the media never talks about it. WHY, is a very big mystery to me: two main towers that were hit by planes then collapsed were shown without commercials for months on the media, but WTC7 was barely mentioned as if it was not part of the program, not part of the plan. that is why people do not know about it. using plain logic if we care about the buildings that collapsed because the planes hit them, we should care just as much about the collapsed building that was not hit by planes, unless there was some secret plot to put emphasis on the buildings destroyed by planes.

[Cersdog]

[BoBoMasterDesign]

This is not even worth discussion as the conspiracy theory behind building 7 was dismissed with plenty of evidence long ago, all you have is yet another failed attempt at outright deception in trying to keep this BS alive.

[UriyVlasov]

This is not another conspiracy thread about what happened on 9:11, but it is very legitimate concern I met yet another American today who was surprised when I mentioned building 7 talking about 9:11 attacks. the people who know all the details about muslim mullahs, quran and the promisse of 72 virgins, what kind of movies Saddam liked, and many other details. WTC7 was a 42 story building that collapsed on that same day of 9:11 without being hit by planes, and it collapsed straight down. and people do not know it because the media never talks about it. WHY, is a very big mystery to me: two main towers that were hit by planes then collapsed were shown without commercials for months on the media, but WTC7 was barely mentioned as if it was not part of the program, not part of the plan. that is why people do not know about it. using plain logic if we care about the buildings that collapsed because the planes hit them, we should care just as much about the collapsed building that was not hit by planes, unless there was some secret plot to put emphasis on the buildings destroyed by planes.

It sounds like a thinly disguised (hell, g-string thin to be frank) attempt to start a Truther conspiracy thread by how you framed it, though.

It's worth one post to me to answer your question in a non-Truther conspiracy fostering fashion just in case you genuinely aren't intending it. I'll offer at least four reasonable differences for explaining the status difference in public mindsets IMO:

1) WTC7 finally collapsed in the evening long after the attacks were over. Therefore the initial shock of remembrance isn't as strong in one's mindset as the actual attack events and sites such as WTC1 and WTC2.

2) WTC7 was collateral damage to the actual intended targets at the site, namely WTC1 and WTC2. That's the same thing regarding all the other WTC complex buildings given all of them were destroyed given the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Other non-WTC buildings were also destroyed with another requiring deconstruction (the Deutsche Bank tower).

3) Nobody was killed at WTC7 unlike WTC1 and WTC2 given anyone in it had long evacuated the building. To the contrary, the WTC1 and WTC2 attacks caused massive loss of civilian life in the towers and planes and city employee lives who assisted in the rescue, fire and other emergency response attempts.

4) WTC7 did not have an iconic place in national and international imagery. To the contrary, like the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building in Midtown, the WTC1 and WTC2 very much had that effect as core defining buildings to NYC's modern appearance and skyline and its economic vibrancy and importance. If anything, the city looks sadly 'smaller' since the loss of the Twin Towers as they shaped and balanced out the Manhattan skyline so well in conjunction with the downtown financial district and the Midtown business superstructures.

[fuesquemill]

Holy shit.

Let's see if we can figure out which story would be highlighted:

1. The twin towers are attacked and collapse, killing more than 2,800 people.

2. The evacuated WTC7, heavily damaged by the collapse of the twin towers and having burned for hours, collapsed - killing nobody because it had long ago been evacuated.

Now, let's think very hard and see if, perhaps, one story there is more "newsworthy" and important than the other. Hmmmm. Which one could it possibly be? This is such a difficult question.....

I mean, it's completely impossible that people are more concerned about 2,800 people dying than they are about the buildings. It must be a conspiracy!

[Jon Woodgate]

About 100 hundred people contributed to the "Popular Mechanics" story about why WTC7 went down. This information came out almost a decade ago now.

WTC7 was a poorly constructed building; it's footprint was twice as big as it was supposed to be because the weight of the building was anchored at the top of the building, not the bottom, because it sat atop an electrical substation. Debris from the other buildings caused it to catch fire, but the fire dep't decided not to even go in since it had been successfully evacuated, on top of the fact that many firefighters had already lost their lives in the other two buildings.

Now can we please come back to 2011?

[PerfectCreditForYou]

We now live in a world where both truthers and birthers exist. Why, God? Why?

As for WTC7, if you're still "in the dark" about how/why it collapsed even after nearly ten years, the only thing I can think of is that you're remaining willfully ignorant. Here's a small hint to get you started: two of the largest buildings in New York collapsed right next to it. Thank me later.

[xsexymasterix]

This is not another conspiracy thread about what happened on 9:11, but it is very legitimate concern I met yet another American today who was surprised when I mentioned building 7 talking about 9:11 attacks. the people who know all the details about muslim mullahs, quran and the promisse of 72 virgins, what kind of movies Saddam liked, and many other details. WTC7 was a 42 story building that collapsed on that same day of 9:11 without being hit by planes, and it collapsed straight down. and people do not know it because the media never talks about it. WHY, is a very big mystery to me: two main towers that were hit by planes then collapsed were shown without commercials for months on the media, but WTC7 was barely mentioned as if it was not part of the program, not part of the plan. that is why people do not know about it. using plain logic if we care about the buildings that collapsed because the planes hit them, we should care just as much about the collapsed building that was not hit by planes, unless there was some secret plot to put emphasis on the buildings destroyed by planes.

Tell us again how your post isn't another ridiculous conspiracy theory...

[chuecafressds]

Actually, I think I finally get it....WTC7 was the intended target!!!! Nobody says anything because it's so obvious that WTC7 plus the 2 towers.....7 and 2....72....as in 72 virgins!!!!

Holy Moses I think you may be on to something!

[RBJamez]

I most enjoy how "using logic" he goes from "I don't know how it fell" right into "it must have been a secret plot..."

Seems quite logical to me...

There wasn't snow on my car last night, but there is this morning?! Secret plot!

[MondayBlues]

Actually, I think I finally get it....WTC7 was the intended target!!!! Nobody says anything because it's so obvious that WTC7 plus the 2 towers.....7 and 2....72....as in 72 virgins!!!!

Holy Moses I think you may be on to something!

Wow. . . What a great deduction!

[MaraReenece]

We now live in a world where both truthers and birthers exist. Why, God? Why?

As for WTC7, if you're still "in the dark" about how/why it collapsed even after nearly ten years, the only thing I can think of is that you're remaining willfully ignorant. Here's a small hint to get you started: two of the largest buildings in New York collapsed right next to it. Thank me later.

I am not really into the matter.
But I guess the question is not so much WHY it collapsed, but how it did.

Consider thesevideos:
Controlled Demolition gone wrong in UK

Controlled Demolition in Turkey gone wrong

Controlled Demoliton in China gone wrong

Considering those videos I think it is understandable that the uncontrolled collapse of WTC7 due to falling debrie and fires damageing the structrue of the building DOES look abit suspicous.

Well I am not saying that it's big conspiracy, but I can understand why people are wondering.
If it was a controlled demolition, it was a great job though

[Orefsmisits]

I am not really into the matter.
But I guess the question is not so much WHY it collapsed, but how it did.

Consider thesevideos:
Controlled Demolition gone wrong in UK

Controlled Demolition in Turkey gone wrong

Controlled Demoliton in China gone wrong

Considering those videos I think it is understandable that the uncontrolled collapse of WTC7 due to falling debrie and fires damageing the structrue of the building DOES look abit suspicous.

Well I am not saying that it's big conspiracy, but I can understand why people are wondering.
If it was a controlled demolition, it was a great job though

There has been extensive studying on the collapse of WTC7 and it's all explainable. A good start for anyone interested would be:
NIST and the World Trade Center

Also, do any of these look familiar? No explosives required...

YouTube - Building Demolition - Top Down

YouTube - Top-Down building collapse 2

[mashabox]

There has been extensive studying on the collapse of WTC7 and it's all explainable. A good start for anyone interested would be:
NIST and the World Trade Center

Also, do any of these look familiar? No explosives required...

YouTube - Building Demolition - Top Down

YouTube - Top-Down building collapse 2

I just said that I can understand the confusion
I didn't spend alot of time reading about this... and I am in no position to make an educated judgement.

Besides I really don't care that much...
The whole justification for the Iraq war was so much more of an conspiracy that was even presented in front of the entire world.
After the Bush Admin successfully managed to convince the American public that wars of aggression with no casus beli what so ever is the way to win the war on terror...it became pretty obvious to me that the American public would be willing to belive almost anything they are being fed... so why not this? I mean if it would be a conspiracy.

About the two videos.
The first is a great example to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers.
But both videos showed controlled demolitions, and eventhough no explosives were used, the structure of the building in the second video was previously professionally weakend in a way that would lead to the perfect collapse. So I doubt this will convice a "true believer"

[formobilagsw]

I just said that I can understand the confusion
I didn't spend alot of time reading about this... and I am in no position to make an educated judgement.

Besides I really don't care that much...
The whole justification for the Iraq war was so much more of an conspiracy that was even presented in front of the entire world. After the Bush Admin successfully managed to convince the American public that wars of aggression with no casus beli what so ever is the way to win the war on terror...it became pretty obvious to me that the American public would be willing to belive almost anything they are being fed... so why not this? I mean if it would be a conspiracy.

About the two videos.
The first is a great example to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers.
But both videos showed controlled demolitions, and eventhough no explosives were used, the structure of the building in the second video was previously professionally weakend in a way that would lead to the perfect collapse. So I doubt this will convice a "true believer"

That is it right there.

[Anydayhybeall]

I just said that I can understand the confusion
I didn't spend alot of time reading about this... and I am in no position to make an educated judgement.

Oh, certainly, didn't mean to imply that you were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or anything.
Besides I really don't care that much...
The whole justification for the Iraq war was so much more of an conspiracy that was even presented in front of the entire world.
After the Bush Admin successfully managed to convince the American public that wars of aggression with no casus beli what so ever is the way to win the war on terror...it became pretty obvious to me that the American public would be willing to belive almost anything they are being fed... so why not this? I mean if it would be a conspiracy. I certainly agree that the Bush administration took advantage of public fear after 9/11 to get away with some things it normally couldn't. They had their sights on Iraq before the events of 9/11 even took place and it probably would have been a pretty hard sell to the public to just randomly start a war with them.

However, there's just no evidence to show they had anything to do with the attacks. There's no evidence to show that anything happened that day except for what everyone saw.

The only 9/11 conspiracy that would have any merit would be that the Bush admin allowed it to happen, which while certainly possible, I don't think is very probable.

About the two videos.
The first is a great example to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers.
But both videos showed controlled demolitions, and eventhough no explosives were used, the structure of the building in the second video was previously professionally weakend in a way that would lead to the perfect collapse. So I doubt this will convice a "true believer" Yes, but one of the big conspiracy claims is that a top down, pancake style collapse would have been impossible and that the buildings should have naturally fallen sideways (which doesn't make much sense, but hey). The videos, while of course being controlled demolitions, essentially use the same method that naturally occurred in the WTC buildings. Weaken the integrity of one floor, causing the floors above it to collapse downward, destroying the building.

Man, after all these birther threads, I almost miss the truther threads. Almost.

[Hlennisal]

Actually, I think I finally get it....WTC7 was the intended target!!!! Nobody says anything because it's so obvious that WTC7 plus the 2 towers.....7 and 2....72....as in 72 virgins!!!!

Holy Moses I think you may be on to something!

You people always try to blame this shit on Muslims.

The real fault lies with the Bush family.

1972 is sometimes refered to a George W. Bush's "lost year".

It's the year he was "hiding out" in Alabama, partying and "doing drugs" rather than training with his National Guard unit or serving in Vietnam.

Clearly by taking down #7 and the 2 Towers Bush was both thumbing his nose at the 39,587 troops who died in Vietnam in 1972 while his privilidged ass was partying AND forming the basis for his excuse to wage a "war for oil" that he would later blame on innocent Muslim freedom fighters.

Incidentally, 1972 was also thhe year that Prescott Sheldon Bush, "Nazi sympathiser and financier", died.

Coincidence?

I don't think so!

[agrismhig]

You people always try to blame this shit on Muslims.

The real fault lies with the Bush family.

1972 is sometimes refered to a George W. Bush's "lost year".

It's the year he was "hiding out" in Alabama, partying and "doing drugs" rather than training with his National Guard unit or serving in Vietnam.

Clearly by taking down #7 and the 2 Towers Bush was both thumbing his nose at the 39,587 troops who died in Vietnam in 1972 while his privilidged ass was partying AND forming the basis for his excuse to wage a "war for oil" that he would later blame on innocent Muslim freedom fighters.

Incidentally, 1972 was also thhe year that Prescott Sheldon Bush, "Nazi sympathiser and financier", died.

Coincidence?

I don't think so!

Well, I suppose that Bush could have been involved....but that would leave Sarah Palin out of the equation so I'm pretty sure that you're still missing part of the picture.

[arraxylap]

Oh, certainly, didn't mean to imply that you were a 9/11 conspiracy I certainly agree that the Bush administration took advantage of public fear after 9/11 to get away with some things it normally couldn't. They had their sights on Iraq before the events of 9/11 even took place and it probably would have been a pretty hard sell to the public to just randomly start a war with them.

Not my perception at all. I wasn't afraid; nor do I even know anyone that was. My chief concern was that people would get killed in Iraq and that has unfortunately been realized.

There must be a lot of chickens in Virginia.

The only 9/11 conspiracy that would have any merit would be that the Bush admin allowed it to happen, which while certainly possible, I don't think is very probable.

You believe such a theory would have merit? Good Lord ...

[Kimeoffessyr]

WTC7 is not right next to 1 and 2. There was an entire building between them.

The initial investigation into WTC7 stated that its collapse warranted further investigation, there wasn't a clear explanation of why it collapsed. Eventually that investigation was done by NIST. The NIST report, while answering some questions and offering some scenarios, was far from conclusive, imo. (by the way, the popular mechanics 'debunking' was one of the worst debunking jobs I've ever seen, they should be embarrassed by the lack of engineering and science they presented).

There are plenty of reasons to still remain suspicious about the collapse of WTC7, not the least of which is that it housed critical information for the SEC, the FBI and the CIA.

To my knowledge, absolutely NO investigation has ever targeted Marvin Bush (pres bush's brother), even though:
Marvin headed the security company for WTC7, 1, and 2.
Marvin sat on the board of the insurance company for WTC1and2
Marvin did not disclose his potential conflict of interest (of running the security for the complex) when he filed his paperwork to be on the insurance company board.
Marvin co-owned the airport security screening company at Dulles Airport ... with a Kuwaiti owner.

Ignoring that circumstantial evidence goes beyond incompetence. If a person with that many ties to a murder victim was never investigated, the detective ignoring that evidence would be fired.

So no, its not proof that WTC7 was intentionally destroyed, or that the bush family was involved with 9/11, but it certainly leaves a big question mark as to why a proper investigation of the biggest mass murder in US history wasn't performed. At the very least that level of incompetence should have been grounds for impeaching bush who, after all, was responsible for the safety and security of the people of the United States.

By the way, the total number of times that Marvin Bush's name comes up in the 'official 911 report'?

Zero.