Danish Press: WTC 7 "had to be destroyed" on 9/11

[rman]

Danish Press: WTC 7 "had to be destroyed" on 9/11

Full Translation of Ekstra Bladet article (from prisonplanet.com):
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article199529.ece

The 52 floor high skyscraper World Trade Center nr. 7 has been reconstructed.

The first rebuild skyscraper at Ground Zero in New York opened Tuesday to the sound of rock musician Lou Reed and Suzanna Vega, writes AP.

The 52 floor skyscraper World Trade Center nr. 7 was so badly damaged from the terror attack in 2001, that it had to be destroyed. Now it is again ready to have people move in, and the contractor, Larry Silverstein, expects that all offices in the building will be rented out in 2007.

- we have come along way, but we are still missing a lot, says Silverstein, who also was the man behind the construction of the building almost 20 years ago.

The construction of the 541 meter high Freedom tower, that will rise at the place where World Trade Center´s Twin towers stood until the terror attack September 11. 2001, begun a month ago.

[Tobias]

1. prisonplanet is LYING; they did a COMPLETE WRONG TRANSLATION!

Danish Press (Ekstra Bladet):
"Den 52 etager høje skyskraber 'World Trade Center nr. 7' var den tredje skyskraper, der kollapsede efter terrorangrebet i 2001."

That means in english:
"The 52 floor skyscraper 'World Trade Center nr. 7' was the third skyscraper, which collapsed after the terrorattack of 2001"

prisonplanet:
"The 52 floor skyscraper World Trade Center nr. 7 was so badly damaged from the terror attack in 2001, that it had to be destroyed."


Buuuh...!

I´m still amazed how unscrupulous the CTlers like prisonplanet are FAKING and LYING.

[Americus]

2. What does "CTlers" mean? n/t

n/t

[Tobias]

3. sorry...: CT = Conspiracy Theory (= most people in this forum...) NT

[Americus]

5. Thanks. It's unfortunate that some DUmembers aren't CTRs.

Most posters here seem to be CTResearchers, but there also seems to be a very vocal contingent of
OCTSDs here, too! OCTSDs = Official Conspiracy Theory Spin Doctors.

[LARED]

4. Thank you for the correct translation

Prison planet is a revisionist web site that is generally waist deep in doo-doo.

[Americus]

6. While you're at it, explain this one:

"Oil Empire". What kind of web site would you say IT is? Do most DU members consider it to be an
objective resource for serious researchers?

[LARED]

7. Got a link? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

8. It's my link, LARED

Oil Empire

It's the best explanation of how large the Pentagon hole actually was - it has a few of Sarah Robert's pics there.

What Americus would like to do is have one of us sign off on the whole site. It's a CT place, but they've caught hold of reality concerning what hit the Pentagon.

[Americus]

9. Is this the Sarah Roberts you are referring to?

911dossier notes:

This page is put up by the leading debunker of the Pentagon hit, who goes under various pseudonyms but has been identified as Sarah Roberts of Stanford University. It seems to us that what it offers in apparent detail it lacks in coherence. It seems designed to persuade visiting journalists in a hurry rather than serious investigators. For instance, the alleged wing marks seem to be the same as other marks which are evenly spaced vertically on the columns and cannot therefore be caused by the plane.

Roberts and the debunkers fail to answer these points:

There is no wreckage

The hole is too small

There are no reports of the plane's second engine

Passenger jets cannot travel at ground level

[Bolo Boffin]

11. How nicely you cut and paste!

However, all of those points have been answered. What wing marks are you refering to, sweet peaceful Americus?

[Americus]

12. Unaltered photos show only a small hole & 1 engine (of dubious origin)

Has Ms. Roberts also manufactured/built a composite photo showing more than one engine?

Do you have independent verification of the serial number on the one small engine that was found? That would be proof, not just prima facie evidence, of the aircraft origin of at least that one engine.

Maybe you can put in a call to Ms. Roberts and get back to us on what she has to say about those two questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Nuh-uh.

I don't know Sarah other than her posts here from way back in the original DU forums. Remember those, Americus? Good times.

Have you seen Vincent's post below? Of course you have, many times. It's a utterly clear accounting of how big the hole actually is, and it can't honestly be described as small.

And I believe all of this talk about the engine is "changing the subject". Let's stick to the matter at hand, which is...

...oh, wait. This thread is actually about WTC 7. And yet, you've managed to turn it into first a discussion of Oil Empire, then the Pentagon hole, and now you're angling for an engine discussion. Let's get back to a WTC 7 discussion, okay? This whirlwind changing of subjects on your part is counterproductive to an actual discussion or debate of the issues. You do agree, don't you, that an actual discussion is what we need to have here?

[Americus]

17. Pretty pictures, but they certainly don't prove anything.

Have you heard the questions about the missing engine and the serial number on the one that was allegedly found & photographed? Of course you have, many times.

I believe all of this refusal to answer a reasonable question about the missing jet engine and the issues with regard to matching the serial number on the one small engine with the airplane it had to have come from...shows bad faith and a lack of confidence in the OCT.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Determined to change the subject, aren't you? n/t

WTC 7, Americus, focus.

[Americus]

19. Is there some particular reason why you won't answer simple questions?

You really DON'T have much confidence in the Official Conspiracy Theory, do you? THAT'S the real reason, isn't it? Can't say I don't blame you!

Havaniceday.

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. I agree as far as this goes...

[LARED]

14. What kind of web page?

Seems to consist of > 80 tinfoil.

Do I consider it objective?

Unless the definition of the word objective has been redefined it's hard to see how anyone could consider it objective.

http://www.answers.com/objective&r=67

[k-robjoe]

15. Mistake

Apparently they first wrote that it had to be destroyed, and then changed it after realizing the mistake.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506_b_building7.htm

So this was just an innocent mistake. ( Maybe mixing up with wtc6 or something. )

And Watson wasn´t lying or faking, just jumping the conclusions.

[KJF]

16. Good catch (n/t)