So what do you think brought it down?
Okay, and I'm sure you are aware you're on a conspiracy theory forum, you seem to be trying to hint that something else occurred with building 7 whilst at the same time claiming you agree with the investigations as to how it fell.
As mentioned before, conspiracy theorists play with hints, semantics, etc to hint at stuff whilst not committing to it because they know they are simply talking shite.
It's somewhat arrogant and presumptuous of you to think that you know how far everyone's comfort zone extends 🙂
Let me stick to absolutes -
The explanation for the towers falling was that intense heat from the burning aviation fuel caused steel to weaken
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
A person here says that Larry Silverstein did not say "a decision was made to pull it" on the day of 9/11
The same person concedes though, that Larry Silverstein himself said he said it
I apologise for there being 3 syllables in "Silverstein" and 4 in "apologise" - dats languidge 4 ya King Mob !!!!
One of the veterans of this theory suggested a half dozen people could have done it over a couple weeks.
So you think it was secretly rigged for a controlled demolition prior to Sep 11 and nobody noticed?
The fig rolls is award winning
And just a reminder, you've dodged several questions all because they make you uncomfortable.
We are all aware of the "clues" you presented and got wrong. You haven't presented anything outside of anyone's comfort zone.
But then you're also telling the reader to stop thinking at a certain point.
You're telling them to ignore the fact your initial claim was false.
You're telling them not to actually look into the context around the quote.
You're telling them not to think too hard about how the conspiracy would actually work.
Like all conspiracy theories, to believe this one you have to shut off your brain at the surface level factoid you've presented (and was wrong about.)
You can use as many big words as you like, bit you aren't actually applying that much thought to the conspiracy.
Nor are you using any of your big words to make any statements of substance. You now appear to be backing away from your initial stance, but it's hard to tell because you don't seem to have the courage to actually state things directly.
It all smacks of theater. Like a kid pretending to be smart.
I watched a documentary once (YouTube) which put forward the theory that one of the agents in the car behind, stood up after the first shot and drew a rifle. The car accelerated and he accidentally discharged the gun. The presentation was very compelling. The evidence seemed to tie-in the agent's shot with the other shots.
Case closed 🙂
The only really serious conspiracy that I bough into was that Bush Senior arranged the hit on JFK and was rewarded with the Presidency. Quite a bit to this CT and this little snipit was what convinced me in the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE
Conspiracy theorists are deliberately obtuse and vague in order to hide the fact that they have nothing to say.
In this case it seems there is some innuendo from you, but no conspiracy, so I don't think anything to discuss.
If the clues lie outside of your comfort zone, you are unlikely to notice them.
You misunderstand me, there may have been compelling reasons to publish a particular conclusion.
Ergo, they might recognise, as I do, the peculiarity of structural failure of a non-combustible structure due to, ahem, combustion.
I apologise for being too subtle in my previous posts. Again, I wish only to picque the interest of the subjective reader.
Because you more than hint at it in the below post
What makes you think that my opinion might differ from that of the investigators ???
Right, back to the question, you have suggested "controlled demolition", what are the details of that controlled demolition?
As mentioned the investigations concluded fire, what do you know that they don't?
Perhaps curiousity isn't related to a numeric evaluation of IQ in a linear fashion, religious belief isn't.
Lots of buildings fell down in the Great Fire of London
That's why all modern buildings are built by "The Three Little Pigs Ltd."
There have been investigations into building 7, including insurance investigations, they concluded it fell due to fire.
If you know something they don't, what is it?
Again, with the big words and zero actual content.
What do you think is going to happen when people do look into building 7 and see that first of all, your initial claim was false?
What happens when they realise that the conspiracy doesn't make any sense and see that you've not actually provided any answers. In fact, you've done nothing but dodge very simple questions about your theory? (A very common thread for conspiracy theorists).
Do you expect people will be convinced that there's something to your claims by all of this?
Do you really think people are that stupid?
Honestly, if anyone is actually convinced Curious's posts, please speak up. Would love to hear the thought process there.
My brief communiqués to you are intended, primarily, for the casual, bi-partisan reader who may be interested in further investigating the circumstances surrounding Building 7. That was the obvious intention of my initial post.
Lol more big words to make no actual point and to avoid a very simple question.
You prove my point.
You can't answer my questions because you haven't actually thought about your conspiracy theory. You can't provide a reasonable explanation for why Larry Silverstien would say what he said. You can't provide one because it makes no sense. Because the conspiracy theory is very dumb when you think about it for more than five seconds.
You, on top of simply being wrong about factual things like when and where the quote was made, did not think about it.
According to you, there was a giant conspiracy to secretly plant explosives throughout building 7 and on the day, the guy in charge of the building decided to randomly and for no reason tell the world that he did this.
That doesn't make any sense my dude. That's a really silly thing to claim.
Why are you holding up as a "reasonable" conspiracy theory. It's the opposite.
Russian hackers
I was extolling the virtues of having an imagination (on a collective human scale of course).
I doubt that my linguistic ability exceeds yours.
Lol. I like when you guys use big vague words to pretend you're making a point.
However I'm highlighting the fact that you can't actually explain what your thoughts are here. Because like all conspiracy theories there isn't any depth to your claim here.
You can't answer my questions.
Why not?
In which case, you needn't concern yourself with my thoughts (thoughts as opposed to proven facts).
Ideas tend, by their very nature, to be the forerunners of experiential verification.
Yes. He said the words "pull it". What's your point?
You didn't address any of my questions. Why not?
And yes, people should google it. They will see that your initial claim that he said it on the day on live tv was false.
And if they look into it beyond the simple one line feed to people by conspiracy theory grifters, they will see the context for what he said.
They will also see that you weren't able to answer my questions at all.
You can't explain why he would say that. You can't explain why he would say so on live tv the day of.
You can't explain how it makes sense in context of a conspiracy.
Because what your suggesting isn't reasonable. It's ridiculous the second you look at it and actually spend any thought on it.
And it's clear you haven't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)