Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[fleckneymike]

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!

Thank you for putting this in terms that some of these idiots will understand.

[Zingari]

Thank you for putting this in terms that some of these idiots will understand.

do give him too much credit , l444ry only ever copies and pastes stuff

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f48/conspiracy-theories-do-you-believe-true-1799831/index5.html

[shen]

BUSH-CHENEY-RUMSFELD convo

And love the effort.

edit: plagiarist!

[shen]

Thank you for putting this in terms that some of these idiots will understand.

Idiots rarely understand sarcasm

[marko]

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 "

Maybe it was travelling too fast for those folks

Edit: or perhaps these people have listened to too many conspiracy theories and it's influenced their memory!!!

[Houdini Logic]

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

All I've heard about 9/11 to be fair.

I'm happy to be swayed, but nothing has so far

[Rincewind]

So much worse than searching websites for anything that goes against the norm and suggests ideas of conspiracies.

I was referring to

do give him too much credit , l444ry only ever copies and pastes stuff

[jonno24]

Thank you for putting this in terms that some of these idiots will understand.

Ha yeah in the same way the American people were duped into believing that the Gulf Of Tonkin happened then the American Government saying 40 years later ' Oh well maybe it didnt happen exactly as we said' But hey only 58'000 american troops and 1.1 million vietnamese army died.

Dont EVER assume you know the whole truth

Because in 40 years time it could be you being called the idiot

[Zingari]

And love the effort.

edit: plagiarist!

have you never noticed how often he does that ?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=218081

[shen]

All I've heard about 9/11 to be fair.

I'm happy to be swayed, but nothing has so far

Well my conspiracy theory isn't about it being an inside job, but rather about authorities covering up their own inadequacies and incompetence that allowed such an attack to happen in the first place and then have such disastrous consequences. All on the previous page...

[Zingari]

Well my conspiracy theory isn't about it being an inside job, but rather about authorities covering up their own inadequacies and incompetence that allowed such an attack to happen in the first place and then have such disastrous consequences. All on the previous page...

i respect this view , but incompetence would not make WTC7 collapse the way it did

[fleckneymike]

Well my conspiracy theory isn't about it being an inside job, but rather about authorities covering up their own inadequacies and incompetence that allowed such an attack to happen in the first place and then have such disastrous consequences. All on the previous page...

And sadly that incompetence gets overlooked because the entire debate has been hijacked (no pun intended) by twats who have a tenuous grasp of science, semantics and politics.

[shen]

have you never noticed how often he does that ?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=218081

No, I haven't looked his stuff up. Doesn't matter all that much I suppose. I found the convos entertaining anyway

[fleckneymike]

i respect this view , but incompetence would not make WTC7 collapse the way it did

No but a fire raging for eight hours unchecked coupled with fatal damage to supporting struts by the collapsing WTC would explain it. Sadly you're not interested in that.

[jonno24]

And sadly that incompetence gets overlooked because the entire debate has been hijacked (no pun intended) by twats who have a tenuous grasp of how to debate in an adult fashion.

Agreed

[shen]

No but a fire raging for eight hours unchecked coupled with fatal damage to supporting struts by the collapsing WTC would explain it. Sadly you're not interested in that.

You're not interested in hearing that the 'support struts' were NOT fatally damaged by the collapsing towers either though. Unless you're of the opinion that the official report was incorrect

[Zingari]

No but a fire raging for eight hours unchecked coupled with fatal damage to supporting struts by the collapsing WTC would explain it. Sadly you're not interested in that.

i'd be interested and possibly believe in that explanation if there was some historical precedent but it's the first time in history that a steel building has collapsed due to fire , and many have endured far worse and remained standing.

if the damage to the opposite side of the building was so great , the building would have keeled to one side , it obviously didn't , it fell straight down into it's own footprint .

couple this with many reports of explosions and the undue haste of the removal of the evidence i think anyone has the right to say " hold on a minute , let's look again "

Sadly you're not interested in that.

[jonno24]

i'd be interested and possibly believe in that explanation if there was some historical precedent but it's the first time in history that a steel building has collapsed due to fire , and many have endured far worse and remained standing.

if the damage to the opposite side of the building was so great , the building would have keeled to one side , it obviously didn't , it fell straight down into it's own footprint .

couple this with many reports of explosions and the undue haste of the removal of the evidence i think anyone has the right to say " hold on a minute , let's look again "

Sadly you're not interested in that.

Plus the 'LETS PULL IT' quote from the lease holder of WTC7

[marko]

i'd be interested and possibly believe in that explanation if there was some historical precedent but it's the first time in history that a steel building has collapsed due to fire , and many have endured far worse and remained standing.

if the damage to the opposite side of the building was so great , the building would have keeled to one side , it obviously didn't , it fell straight down into it's own footprint .

couple this with many reports of explosions and the undue haste of the removal of the evidence i think anyone has the right to say " hold on a minute , let's look again "

Sadly you're not interested in that.

It quite clearly didn't fall into its own footprint. There was substantial debris on top of buildings across the road from WTC 7 and other falling debris damaged buildings some distance away.

[jonno24]

It quite clearly didn't fall into its own footprint. There was substantial debris on top of buildings across the road from WTC 7 and other falling debris damaged buildings some distance away.

Just a question

Have you seen a video of that tower collapsing ?

[Zingari]

Plus the 'LETS PULL IT' quote from the lease holder of WTC7

I'm sure Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling the firemen out of the building when he said that

Yeah right !!!

He obviously ( like Bush) forgot the old truism that liars need fookin good memories before they open their gobs

[marko]

Plus the 'LETS PULL IT' quote from the lease holder of WTC7

Wrong. The term is never used in controlled demolitions.

"Pull it" referred to the withdrawal of emergency services.

[marko]

Just a question

Have you seen a video of that tower collapsing ?

Yes thanks. Have you ever considered the fact that the video is shot from a considerable distance with no 3-d perspective?

Have you ever seen a close up from after the collapse of WTC 7 that shows it strewn across roofs over the road?

[Zingari]

Just a question

Have you seen a video of that tower collapsing ?

agreed johnno ;

i really don't know which videos people are watching that say that sort of stuff

it's quite fookin obvious that it's falling into itself and not keeling over towards a damaged side .

do people really understand what the story of the emperors new clothes is really about ?

[fleckneymike]

i'd be interested and possibly believe in that explanation if there was some historical precedent but it's the first time in history that a steel building has collapsed due to fire , and many have endured far worse and remained standing.

if the damage to the opposite side of the building was so great , the building would have keeled to one side , it obviously didn't , it fell straight down into it's own footprint .

couple this with many reports of explosions and the undue haste of the removal of the evidence i think anyone has the right to say " hold on a minute , let's look again "

Sadly you're not interested in that.

The reason its the first time in history is because never before have two commercial passenger jets flown into a sky scraper.