Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[OzFox]

I’ve watched footage of the WTC7 collapse a few more times since this thread started and it still looks like it was a controlled demolition to me.

I suggest everyone does this and with the sound off if necessary to make your own judgement of what you are actually witnessing.

And no amount of, “Why would they do it?” or “How could they do it?” or petty insults has changed my opinion of what I am witnessing .

It walks like a duck and it quacks like one. Steel buildings do not collapse into themselves.

They never have before or since, because they can’t .

So all those people who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon were deceived by their own eyes, but you on the other hand are in a position to make a "factual" statement about WTC7 based on a video?

On the subject of insults, have you ever thought how insulting tenuous conspiracy theories are to the friends and families of the people that died?

[l444ry]

[Rincewind]

Because it 'looks' like a controlled explosion does not mean it was. Images on videos can be deceiving.

Just watched that other film. Explains a lot.

[@mrtonycox]

Forgive my ignorance I'd never heard of WTC7, only the twin towers and pentagon attack etc.

Why has this never been in the news before or during the attack.?

[Houdini Logic]

I'm guessing noone watched the conspiracy programme on TV the other night.

Pretty much summed up my feelings that all conspiracy theories on 9/11 were nonsense

[@mrtonycox]

I'm guessing noone watched the conspiracy programme on TV the other night.

Pretty much summed up my feelings that all conspiracy theories on 9/11 were nonsense

No I didn't what channel was it on..?? Would like to see if there's a repeat.

[Houdini Logic]

No I didn't what channel was it on..?? Would like to see if there's a repeat.

Here you go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148yz5/The_Conspiracy_Files_9_11_Ten_Years_On/

[@mrtonycox]

Here you go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148yz5/The_Conspiracy_Files_9_11_Ten_Years_On/

Nice, thanks.

[Webbo]

There's a programme on BBC 3 on Thursday about the conspiracy theorists.

[@mrtonycox]

For those that might want to see it.

Thursday 8 September•The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten...BBC 2 England Thu 8 Sep, 11:20pm

Friday 9 September•The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten...BBC HD Fri 9 Sep, 1:30am

[Houdini Logic]

There's a programme on BBC 3 on Thursday about the conspiracy theorists.

Could be worth a watch.

I always hope these programmes are going to spark some interest in me, but to be fair as soon as you see a somewhat balanced programme you realise most theories have no substance. It's easy to put across an idea on an internet forum/youtube video/etc... but as soon as you put them in any real context they lack credability.

Of course, conspiracy theorists will believe these programmes are all a conspiracy...

[OzFox]

Could be worth a watch.

I always hope these programmes are going to spark some interest in me, but to be fair as soon as you see a somewhat balanced programme you realise most theories have no substance. It's easy to put across an idea on an internet forum/youtube video/etc... but as soon as you put them in any real context they lack credability.

Of course, conspiracy theorists will believe these programmes are all a conspiracy...

Of course. They are just part of the state sponsored disinformation designed to mislead people like you and me.

[OzFox]

That was supposed to be sarcastic by the way, in case anyone takes it seriously...

[21st Century Fox]

http://www.shortlist.com/cool-stuff/design/conspiracy-theory-model-kits

[shen]

I'm guessing noone watched the conspiracy programme on TV the other night.

Pretty much summed up my feelings that all conspiracy theories on 9/11 were nonsense

All or just the ones that focus on 9/11 being a coordinated inside job?

[jonno24]

I can understand if all the video footage , interviews , reports had the same direction or view but there are too many Inconvenient bits that crop up.

Like the lease holder of WTC7 telling a reporter that he told or heard someone that the decision was made to 'Pull it' in reference to The WTC7 not his cock btw.

Then there are the pictures of the second plane with an added bit on the undercarriage that isnt normal on 757's

Then the way the WTC7 collapsed surely it would collapse in the direction of the great big Fecking hole it had in the side of it ?

The documents that were said to be from Passengers of the flight that crashed into the pentagon who werent even listed on the flight manifests ?

Even 7 of the proposed Hijackers are still alive even tho they were named as Hijackers in the press release by the FBI on the 27 september 2001

Which is why this needs to be debated

[Rincewind]

what puts me off the truthists is when a question like 'how were the explosives planted with emergancy services aolll around? or who planted the explosives? or when were the planted? or how was calculations done as to where to plant explosives in a half demolished building? the reply is if it looks like an orange them its an orange/ Try peeling the orange and you will find segmants which do not look like the outer skin.

[Zingari]

So all those people who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon were deceived by their own eyes, but you on the other hand are in a position to make a "factual" statement about WTC7 based on a video?

On the subject of insults, have you ever thought how insulting tenuous conspiracy theories are to the friends and families of the people that died?

I am talking about the collapse of WTC7 and as far as I am aware there were no casualties and so no grieving families to upset if there was a reinvestigation of it’s unusual ( to say the least ) collapse .

And grieving families , I’m sure would agree , that the truth is still the most important factor .and many 911 families are at the forefront for 911 truth .

The Guildford 4 , Birmingham 6 , Maguires etc etc etc , would still be languishing in prison if the people cannot keep questioning inconsistencies of the official versions of events and how evidence is presented , so please don’t use that ridiculous emotive claptrap. it is plain wrong to even suggest such nonsense .

Do you really believe that anyone questioning the official version in any of these situations is doing so to upset family and relatives of the deceased ?

Re Pentagon witnesses

Eyewitnesses to the pentagon didn't have the benefit of watching what they saw over and over , unlike the footage of WTC7 collapse , so it really is not a good comparison .

You keep going on about the witnesses to the pentagon crash as though they must be infallible , some of them even claimed to have seen the AA logo

Take a step back and try to imagine an airliner appearing out of the blue in a power dive at 530 mph ( official FDR figures), and really ask yourself if you could possibly be able to tell what it was , let alone pick out logos . it could not have been anything but a blur to any onlooker , at that speed .

Alternatively , If I am to believe the witnesses who did see the logos etc , then I am not inclined to believe that what they saw was travelling at 530 mph . If they recognised logos etc, it must have been travelling at a much slower speed and therefore would not be capable of the enormous puncturing damage, because as we have clearly witnessed so often, airliners break up very easily on contact and do not penetrate concrete walls.

I’ll either believe the eyewitnesses saw what they saw if the plane was travelling at a much much slower speed, or I think they are mistaken and only saying what they think they saw , not both .

[fleckneymike]

I can understand if all the video footage , interviews , reports had the same direction or view but there are too many Inconvenient bits that crop up.

Like the lease holder of WTC7 telling a reporter that he told or heard someone that the decision was made to 'Pull it' in reference to The WTC7 not his cock btw.

Then there are the pictures of the second plane with an added bit on the undercarriage that isnt normal on 757's

Then the way the WTC7 collapsed surely it would collapse in the direction of the great big Fecking hole it had in the side of it ?

The documents that were said to be from Passengers of the flight that crashed into the pentagon who werent even listed on the flight manifests ?

Even 7 of the proposed Hijackers are still alive even tho they were named as Hijackers in the press release by the FBI on the 27 september 2001

Which is why this needs to be debated

In the words of Sen. Joseph N. Welch "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

[fleckneymike]

Take a step back and try to imagine an airliner appearing out of the blue in a power dive at 530 mph ( official FDR figures), and really ask yourself if you could possibly be able to tell what it was , let alone pick out logos . it could not have been anything but a blur to any onlooker , at that speed .

Lots of people managed to know what hit the second tower and that was travelling faster. You're embarrassing yoursleves now.

[Zingari]

Lots of people managed to know what hit the second tower and that was travelling faster. You're embarrassing yoursleves now.

really ?

these eyewitnesses clearly stating it wasn't an american airliner must be correct then

[Rincewind]

Who? When How?

[fleckneymike]

really ?

these must be correct then

I think your definition of lots and mine are quite a way apart. Yours seems to constitute a man with milk bottles for glasses, a man phoning up the TV and a fireman talking about something completely different. Mine involves a few more than that.

[l444ry]

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of farking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

Rolling Stone Parody

[Zingari]

I think your definition of lots and mine are quite a way apart. Yours seems to constitute a man with milk bottles for glasses, a man phoning up the TV and a fireman talking about something completely different. Mine involves a few more than that.

The man you describe as "just phoning up" is fox reporter Mark Burnback

And i didn't compile the video , I'm just trying to show that many eyewitnesses saw something that "didn't look like an american airliner "