Building 7 Discussion Continued Here

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

BTW; Bush didn't lie regarding WMDs in Iraq.

Yes he did. He and his administration told 900 lies leading up to the invasion.

When the administration began saber rattling, I actually didn't believe we would invade. I didn't believe we'd invade up until we actually did. And I NEVER believed there were WMD's

Back to the subject, I'd never heard of Building 7. I the thinking that the Administration destroyed the building a function of thinking that the Administration orchestrated the attacks? That they chose to make the matters worse by bringing down another building? I don't understand the context or the relevance 11 years later. Is there something in the news about it?

[Whirlaway]

I am curious what your definition of "lie" is.

Bush probably lied about things, but Iraq having WMDs was not one of them.

Here's my definition:

A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth.

[dearhunter]

I already confessed to this one

[boardman]

Since we're talking conspiracies is it ok to bring up Arpaio's birther evidence? Roswell?
Chappaquiddick? The Warren Commission? The Moon Landing? Princess Diana? IJA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since you are one of those who are certain that the Bush administration was one of the worst in history, as am I, and believe that he lied about WMD's

Cannot persuade you otherwise about WTC7 with the evidence at hand, but regarding the "Bush lied about WMD" you are also wrong.

Did Bush fuck up. Yes!

But he -- and everyone who had anything to do with sending troops to Iraq -- believed Saddam had WMD. As Whirlyaway points out, Slick Wille used the same intel to launch his own assault, Operation Desert Fox, against Saddam just prior to leaving office: and for the same reasons Bush also went to war against Saddam.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I also believe Bush was one of the worse Presidents in our history; but I don't believe he lied about WMDs in Iraq....I think Clinton (both bill and hillary), Kerry, Al Gore, Harry Reid, and hosts of others also believed the intelliegnece reports, the UN stuides, and other info that said SH had WMDs.

And your arguement for a Building 7 controlled demoliton depends on you making Bush to be a liar ?

+1

Ockham's Razor!!!

Besides, dearhunter already admitted to bringing down WTC7 and being the man on the grassy knoll . . . probably had himself one of Jack Ruby's girls doing a little undercover bush work.

[JD Barleycorn]

To address this I am going to have to make certain assumptions since you have yet to provide the answers.
Lets first look at the logistics; it takes hundreds of pounds of high explosives carefully placed to bring down a moderately sized building. I can only imagine that it would take thousands of pounds of similiar explosives to bring down the World Trade Center (one of those assumptions; since you believe building 7 was brought down I assume...). Those explosives would have to be painstakingly places and metal columns would have to be cut torches to faciliatate this. All this would be going on while the building were occupied and open for business. It would also take hundreds of trained people to place the explosives because time would be important. You don't want somebody to come across them in the day to day business.
So no you have hundreds of people involved who would have to keep their mouths shut forever. Of course you say kill them. How do you kill that many people in one profession and no one misses them? You think the media would miss this? Maybe give them all tickets to the planes that day? It is nearly a statistical impossibility for this to work. I say nearly because in some universe it could happen but you would have a better change of winning the lottery.

Motivation: Why bring down the towers? Bush already had executive orders in place from Clinton giving him the authority of go after OBL or Hussein. He wanted to rally the American people? All Bush had to do with complete a thorough investigation of the Cole bombing, the Embassy bombings, or the Riyardh bombings and he had the smoking gun. If Bush truly wanted to do a "false flag" operation why would he choose something that would cause so much damage to our economy when he could taken down the Golden Gate bridge, the Washington Monument, or the Pentagon. The economic damage would be limited, the PR value immense, and the loss of life would be far less.

I am tired of hearing that Bush was a big liar. Clinton and Obama are liars. The media has said so repeatedly. They are the standard of excellence. Bush listened to his advisors who, along with the CIA, MI-5, Mossad, the Russians, Clinton/Gore, said that Iraq was building WMDs. Even captured Iraqi generals admitted to them and said they were shipped to Syria by plane. Empty canisters were found with marking revealing that they held chemcial weapons. Some troops had to treated for exposure. The media had their story and only if we found a movie set example of WMDs were they going to admit that they were wrong. Bush didn't lie about that.

What happend to all of the people on the planes? Wife of the Solicitor General and author Barbara Olsen who was talking to her husband when her plane struck the Pentagon. What about the writer on the "Frasier" show? Do you think that all the FBI agents could be forced to cover up something like this?

You live is some sort of warped fantasy world with cloaks and daggers. Tom Cruise does not really swing around high buildings and Martin Landau, though a good actor, is not a master of disguise.

[CuteOldGuy]

IB, it's Occam's Razor, but I digress. All I want to know is how the building collapsed into its own footprint by accident. Why is that a crime? Why all the hate? It's a legitimate question. You people are the nuts, with your wild-eyed support of the government line with no independent verification.

So call me whatever you want. Say whatever you want. The fact is, I know of no other building, ever, to collapse like Building 7 did by accident. If you do, please let me know, and leave Elvis and the UFO's out of it. They are the usual strawmen used when you have nothing to back up your story.

And I'm not making an assertion, so I can't provide evidence. I am asking a question. The reasons I have given for the collapse of the building are speculations. I don't know if they are true, so I don't see a need to support them. If I decide one of them is true, I will support it, but as of now, I DON'T KNOW! That's why I'm asking the question.

Maybe Bush did it. Maybe aliens from Saturn did it. Maybe the Incredible Hulk was in the building and got angry. Maybe Donald Trump combed his hair in the vicinity. MAYBE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! Maybe Elvis was tuning his guitar. Maybe Bin Laden was just THAT DAMN GOOD. The point is, I don't know, and I wondered if anyone else did. Obviously, I asked in the wrong place.

BTW, I am the ONLY one I know of on this board who has EVER changed his opinion on something based on what I learned here. I have done it at least three times, maybe four. I changed my opinion on the Sarah Palin/Paul Revere flap. I changed my opinion on the Trayvon Martin shooting. I'm reconsidering my opinion on the relationship of the supply of oil to its effect on the price of gasoline, so don't confuse me with those other "I'm always right so STFU" idiots we have on here. I actually consider what you tell me if it makes sense. None of you have. Some I expected that from some of you, but I really thought IB and WW would be more mature in their responses. I was wrong, they distort what I say as badly as the libs do.

So, I'll find the answer elsewhere, somewhere mature people discuss things. When I find the answer, I may tell you. Until then, good night, and good luck.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by boardman

Since we're talking conspiracies is it ok to bring up Arpaio's birther evidence? Roswell?
Chappaquiddick? The Warren Commission? The Moon Landing? Princess Diana? IJA

Hey boardman, I hear that the Progressives and Liberals want the History books to be revised to include......"The Chappaquidick incident was an automobile accident where Edward Moore (Ted) Kennedy saved the life of a United States Senator".

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

IB, it's Occam's Razor, but I digress. All I want to know is how the building collapsed into its own footprint by accident. Why is that a crime? Why all the hate? It's a legitimate question. You people are the nuts, with your wild-eyed support of the government line with no independent verification.

So call me whatever you want. Say whatever you want. The fact is, I know of no other building, ever, to collapse like Building 7 did by accident. If you do, please let me know, and leave Elvis and the UFO's out of it. They are the usual strawmen used when you have nothing to back up your story.

And I'm not making an assertion, so I can't provide evidence. I am asking a question. The reasons I have given for the collapse of the building are speculations. I don't know if they are true, so I don't see a need to support them. If I decide one of them is true, I will support it, but as of now, I DON'T KNOW! That's why I'm asking the question.

Maybe Bush did it. Maybe aliens from Saturn did it. Maybe the Incredible Hulk was in the building and got angry. Maybe Donald Trump combed his hair in the vicinity. MAYBE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! Maybe Elvis was tuning his guitar. Maybe Bin Laden was just THAT DAMN GOOD. The point is, I don't know, and I wondered if anyone else did. Obviously, I asked in the wrong place.

BTW, I am the ONLY one I know of on this board who has EVER changed his opinion on something based on what I learned here. I have done it at least three times, maybe four. I changed my opinion on the Sarah Palin/Paul Revere flap. I changed my opinion on the Trayvon Martin shooting. I'm reconsidering my opinion on the relationship of the supply of oil to its effect on the price of gasoline, so don't confuse me with those other "I'm always right so STFU" idiots we have on here. I actually consider what you tell me if it makes sense. None of you have. Some I expected that from some of you, but I really thought IB and WW would be more mature in their responses. I was wrong, they distort what I say as badly as the libs do.

So, I'll find the answer elsewhere, somewhere mature people discuss things. When I find the answer, I may tell you. Until then, good night, and good luck.

1) It has multiple spellings: 'Ockham' looks a tad more edgy IMO. 2) Tried explaining WTC7 using government findings, that's the best I can do -- just saying I'm not going to argue or debate with you on that issue anymore. You won't accept their findings; I do (lacking a better explanation) - how is that not 'mature'? (The thing about DH was just a joke, ijs.)

Most of my previous comment was in regards to Bush. If you really examine how he, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Franks, foreign informers (all of them; not just that lying sack of shit 'Curveball'), proceeded with the build up to war, you'd see Bush, et al., honestly believed Saddam had WMD and weren't lying when they made such claims.

With the advantage of hindsight, it's evident they were very 'wrong', but they weren't lying about their belief that Saddam had WMD. Now 'that', I will debate . . . but that's an issue for another thread.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

IB, it's Occam's Razor, but I digress. All I want to know is how the building collapsed into its own footprint by accident. Why is that a crime? Why all the hate? It's a legitimate question. You people are the nuts, with your wild-eyed support of the government line with no independent verification.

So call me whatever you want. Say whatever you want. The fact is, I know of no other building, ever, to collapse like Building 7 did by accident. If you do, please let me know, and leave Elvis and the UFO's out of it. They are the usual strawmen used when you have nothing to back up your story.

You will probably never get a satisfactory answer. It is probably not possible to get complete and total exact proof of the process. A good theory that is viable and more likely to be correct than any other alternative is probably the best available and also the only thing worth paying for.

I agree with JD that the number of people and the logistics, that would be necessary for this to be a conspiracy, make that option unrealistic. The government can't keep important legitimate things secret. Something illegal like this would never be kept secret.

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah, the conspiracy would have to huge. I understand that, which I why I can't buy into that. But the other doesn't make sense either, is all I'm saying.

And I agree, the discussion of whether Bush lied about WMD's or not is fuel for another thread. I'm not starting that one.

[WTF]

Would somebody please blow up COG computer! Just think how annoying COG would be at A David Copperfield show!

[Whirlaway]

You act like your the reasonable man asking the reasonable questions; when reality is your the the one holding the entrenched conspiracy laden suspecions based on your false and generalized opinion that Bush lied about WMDs.

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, just because JD posted a reasonable response, something which is foreign to you, WTF, don't get upset at me.

[Whirlaway]

And your a phony because if you were "showed" (an impossible standard) a building collapsing similar to Building 7; you would rearrange the argument to Bush Lied.....