Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[The God Emperor]

 

 

As for the world being "chaotic and rudderless" , I really really doubt that .   

 

there are groups who are in positions of power who try to reign in the chaos but they ultimately fail. look at the prohibition of drugs, there's still plenty of people taking them, the pope tells his priests they cant have sex so they just stick it in the altar boy, government creates a state monopoly on currency so people invented crypto-currency.

there are some successful attempts of control, our government is an example. create poverty so that there is a reason for big government and bureaucracy to exist and continuously expand but I dont think this is consciously plotted, its more instinctive behaviour of state and bureaucracy. even with this success they do fail in multiple other attempts at control 

[danny.]

I cant comment on the mechanics on wether the impact could have caused the building to collapse in this way. But I just cant see what the US government had to gain from blowing up to WTC. they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with no formal declaration of war anyway so I doubt they would go to these extreme lengths to get the go ahead from the UN if they where just going to attack whoever they wanted anyway.

on top of that I dont give the ruling classes that much credit and doubt they could pull something like this off without a hitch. no offence to people like zing who seems a clever chap but I think alot of this conspiracy stuff is like the comfort of religion. they like to feel the powers that be control everything and keep it all in order, the reality that the world is chaotic and rudderless is alot less comforting.

 

An awful lot of people thought the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions were related to 911 - and therefore supported them.

 

The USA was quite happy to plan false flag attacks in the past - why do you think they wouldn't/aren't doing now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[Zingari]

An awful lot of people thought the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions were related to 911 - and therefore supported them.

 

The USA was quite happy to plan false flag attacks in the past - why do you think they wouldn't/aren't doing now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Stuff like Northwoods and Gulf of Tonkin only happens in history . It can't possibly be happening now because we can't be fooled like the old duffers of the past  :xmassmile:

[James.]

An awful lot of people thought the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions were related to 911 - and therefore supported them.

 

The USA was quite happy to plan false flag attacks in the past - why do you think they wouldn't/aren't doing now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

Nothing in that article is anywhere near the scale of 9/11. Absolutely nowhere near.

 

I'm pretty open minded but I fail to see how referring back to an operation which was ultimately rejected by the President and recommended tactics that ultimately would lead to minimal (if any) loss of life is in any way meant to show that the US government could or would execute a plan on the scale and with the resultant loss of life as 9/11.

[Captain...]

 

I don't really want to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again because there really are too many misleading directions to go. But regarding what the warmongers gained out of the attack was "A New Pearl Harbour" effect . 

This galvanised public opinion to go to war in the same way as the original. The vast majority of the population are always against war , but the effect of being ( or believing to be ) under direct threat makes it much easier to motivate the masses and pass declarations of war and also get the government to spend more on the military. Its quite simple actually.

 

The Project for the New American Century(PNAC)  lamented that "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force ( the US )the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

 

The 911 attacks,if they are indeed a surprise attack,  have had the effect of being the very event that PNAC had spoken  about to increase the speed at which the US would be able to gain more power with the will of the people.

 

I'm not saying that what happened was planned by the US,   but  that it was very very convenient for the hawks in government to get what they wanted after the attacks . I doubt if the masses would have been so easy to persuade and keep on board  if 911 hadn't happened.

 

As for the world being "chaotic and rudderless" , I really really doubt that .   

 

 

The false flag attacks I get, certainly not an impossibility and something I could well believe, in that they knew about it and let it happen. But why would they plant explosives for a controlled demolition? Surely the flying of planes into the WTC towers and the pentagon would be enough of a threat to gain public support without having to completely demolish the towers and kill hundreds more people? Why would they demolish WTC 7 for no reason when everyone had been evacuated? That makes no sense.

[lavrentis]

 

Good video.

[Zingari]

The false flag attacks I get, certainly not an impossibility and something I could well believe, in that they knew about it and let it happen. But why would they plant explosives for a controlled demolition? Surely the flying of planes into the WTC towers and the pentagon would be enough of a threat to gain public support without having to completely demolish the towers and kill hundreds more people? Why would they demolish WTC 7 for no reason when everyone had been evacuated? That makes no sense.

There are plenty of theories regarding why wtc 7 was demolished but that's all they are and you can go on and on and round and round talking about them .

 

We can't make full sense of it if we don't know all the facts,. but just because it makes no sense to us , that doesn't mean it makes no sense to the people that did it.

 

The Solomon building didn't come down because of damage and fire , it was purposely destroyed, this is blatantly obvious to me , and if they are lying about that , in all probability they are lying about it for a very good reason.

And therefore, they're lying about much more , it doesn't make any sense to me to lie about anything without good reason or to cover something up

 

I don't know what that reason is , but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept that the building just collapsed due to fire and random damage because I can't prove why it was destroyed or make sense of it. 

 

It is a lie,  a fookin big lie ,  and there must be a reason why they are lying. :xmassmile: 

[danny.]

 

Good video.

 

That's brilliant. I'm sure there are completely rational explanations for all of those points though!

[fleckneymike]

These threads never cease to depress.

 

If one were to give any credence to the 'false flag scenario' we have to allow two contradictory conspiracy narratives to co exist.

 

1. The government is run by evil forces who can coordinate highly complex conspiracies which fool millions of people.

 

2. The government is run by evil forces who are incompetent.

 

 

 

The 'false flag' scenario requires us to believe they orchestrated an attack on the WTC to force an invasion of Iraq and Afganistan by faking attacks by people who came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt. Now these two things are counter intuitive. We are supposed to believe the government were capable of bringing down both WTC (with planes AND/OR explosives) but were not capable of framing terrorists from the countries they actually wished to attack but rather from 3 countries which are actually US allies.

[Zingari]

These threads never cease to depress.

 

If one were to give any credence to the 'false flag scenario' we have to allow two contradictory conspiracy narratives to co exist.

 

1. The government is run by evil forces who can coordinate highly complex conspiracies which fool millions of people.

 

2. The government is run by evil forces who are incompetent.

 

 

 

The 'false flag' scenario requires us to believe they orchestrated an attack on the WTC to force an invasion of Iraq and Afganistan by faking attacks by people who came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt. Now these two things are counter intuitive. We are supposed to believe the government were capable of bringing down both WTC (with planes AND/OR explosives) but were not capable of framing terrorists from the countries they actually wished to attack but rather from 3 countries which are actually US allies.

Thats odd , because to believe the official story one has to do exactly the same thing .

You have to believe a government and its military is so incompetent as to allow a rag bag assortment of 19 terrorists can hijack 4 planes , beat the most sophisticated multi trillion dollar  air defence system in the world ,with  not one of these planes being intercepted and 3 out of 4 hitting targets that are in the most heavily defended part of the area .You also have to believe the sophisticated might and supreme efficiency of the same forces  have been capable of protecting the US from a massive Russian military threat with the same multi trillion dollar defence system .  

You have to believe it was a suprise attack and totally unpredictable, but you also have to believe they were doing excersises on the same day mimicing similar attacks that were so unpredictable 

 .You have to believe everything the CIA and military   say about who did it and why because they are so so very intelligent and can't posibly be wrong about anything apart from a complete  failure to know of the attacks  in the first place.

 

It seems the US  needs to be both totally incompetent and highly intelligent in both scenarios

[separator]

 

Thats odd , because to believe the official story one has to do exactly the same thing .

You have to believe a government and its military is so incompetent as to allow a rag bag assortment of 19 terrorists can hijack 4 planes , beat the most sophisticated multi trillion dollar  air defence system in the world ,with  not one of these planes being intercepted and 3 out of 4 hitting targets that are in the most heavily defended part of the area .You also have to believe the sophisticated might and supreme efficiency of the same forces  have been capable of protecting the US from a massive Russian military threat with the same multi trillion dollar defence system .  

You have to believe it was a suprise attack and totally unpredictable, but you also have to believe they were doing excersises on the same day mimicing similar attacks that were so unpredictable 

 .You have to believe everything the CIA and military   say about who did it and why because they are so so very intelligent and can't posibly be wrong about anything apart from a complete  failure to know of the attacks  in the first place.

 

It seems the US  needs to be both totally incompetent and highly intelligent in both scenarios

 

Firstly I must say I haven't read all of this debate, but having flown within the US before 2001 i'm not surprised at all a 'rag bag' assortment were allowed to board flights. From my experience in LAX you could just walk in and out just by flashing your passport. With regards to WTC7 I thought it collapsed due to debris from the north WTC tower. Modern sky scrapers are built around a concrete core, none of the WTC buildings were, making them a lot weaker in the event of a collapse. The fact that a large amount of debris fell onto WTC7 would have increased its chances of collapse. All these tales of conspiracies are rubbish in my eyes.

[fleckneymike]

 

Thats odd , because to believe the official story one has to do exactly the same thing .

You have to believe a government and its military is so incompetent as to allow a rag bag assortment of 19 terrorists can hijack 4 planes , beat the most sophisticated multi trillion dollar  air defence system in the world ,with  not one of these planes being intercepted and 3 out of 4 hitting targets that are in the most heavily defended part of the area .You also have to believe the sophisticated might and supreme efficiency of the same forces  have been capable of protecting the US from a massive Russian military threat with the same multi trillion dollar defence system .  

You have to believe it was a suprise attack and totally unpredictable, but you also have to believe they were doing excersises on the same day mimicing similar attacks that were so unpredictable 

 .You have to believe everything the CIA and military   say about who did it and why because they are so so very intelligent and can't posibly be wrong about anything apart from a complete  failure to know of the attacks  in the first place.

 

It seems the US  needs to be both totally incompetent and highly intelligent in both scenarios

 

 

In order to believe the government story surely we have to do neither?

 

As with most conspiracy theories straw man logic debating is dominant. Why frame men from the wrong countries? Why not simply frame Iraqi's and Afganistani's? Seems like a curious oversight.

[Zingari]

In order to believe the government story surely we have to do neither?

 

As with most conspiracy theories straw man logic debating is dominant. Why frame men from the wrong countries? Why not simply frame Iraqi's and Afganistani's? Seems like a curious oversight.

It doesn't really matter what "nationality" the terrorists were supposed to be,  it is a complete irrelevance as it was immediately claimed they were " linked to  Al-Qaeda" which is supposedly based in Afghanistan, it's not an oversight at all .

Its like asking if Hitler was Austrian  why did we declare war on Germany.

I really can't see why you are making any issue out of this at all  because regardless of who was behind the 9 11 attacks they were used as a galvanizing effect to gain popular  support for wars in the middle east

[Zingari]

Firstly I must say I haven't read all of this debate, but having flown within the US before 2001 i'm not surprised at all a 'rag bag' assortment were allowed to board flights. From my experience in LAX you could just walk in and out just by flashing your passport. With regards to WTC7 I thought it collapsed due to debris from the north WTC tower. Modern sky scrapers are built around a concrete core, none of the WTC buildings were, making them a lot weaker in the event of a collapse. The fact that a large amount of debris fell onto WTC7 would have increased its chances of collapse. All these tales of conspiracies are rubbish in my eyes.

The difference between "being allowed to board planes" and hijacking them , taking control , flying them with out aid , avoiding the military jets that are supposed to intercept them , locating targets with expert aviation skills  is immense .Boarding them may be relatively easy , the rest certainly isn't

 

And no steel framed building has ever totally collapsed due to fire and damage  before 9 11 and will almost certainly never do so again unless it is planned

[separator]

 

The difference between "being allowed to board planes" and hijacking them , taking control , flying them with out aid , avoiding the military jets that are supposed to intercept them , locating targets with expert aviation skills  is immense .Boarding them may be relatively easy , the rest certainly isn't 

 

And no steel framed building has ever totally collapsed due to fire and damage  before 9 11 and will almost certainly never do so again unless it is planned

 

These aircraft took off from airports within the USA north east so weren't far from Manhattan. There wasn't a massive amount of time for the USAF being advised about hijacked aircraft. I would say also that the US were very slack about this too, hence being caught out of guard. Steel frame buildings are gonna melt if a nearly fully fuelled jet is gonna fly into it. Timothy McVey did a good job of destroying the Oklahoma City building

[fleckneymike]

 

It doesn't really matter what "nationality" the terrorists were supposed to be,  it is a complete irrelevance as it was immediately claimed they were " linked to  Al-Qaeda" which is supposedly based in Afghanistan, it's not an oversight at all .

Its like asking if Hitler was Austrian  why did we declare war on Germany.

I really can't see why you are making any issue out of this at all  because regardless of who was behind the 9 11 attacks they were used as a galvanizing effect to gain popular  support for wars in the middle east

 

 

It is nothing like that at all.

[Zingari]

These aircraft took off from airports within the USA north east so weren't far from Manhattan. There wasn't a massive amount of time for the USAF being advised about hijacked aircraft. I would say also that the US were very slack about this too, hence being caught out of guard. Steel frame buildings are gonna melt if a nearly fully fuelled jet is gonna fly into it. Timothy McVey did a good job of destroying the Oklahoma City building

Good lord no,

Jet fuel fires or any other type of fire   really isn't going to "melt steel " , its a complete fallacy.

i'm sure even fleckney mike isn't going to claim this is possible unless he's a complete idiot.

 

Steel requires about 1500 c to melt it  and  there  is about a thousand  degrees missing between fires that can be attained  by jet fuel burning normally in an open fire  and the temperature required to melt steel . 

That is allowing for temperatures that can be attained in a perfect mixture of fuel and air , and that doesn't happen in dirty fires. 

but you can carry on believing it if you like :xmassmile:

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

[Zingari]

It is nothing like that at all.

why not ? it was you who claimed the nationality of the hijackers actually had any relevance , not me 

[separator]

Good lord no,

Jet fuel fires or any other type of fire   really isn't going to "melt steel " , its a complete fallacy.

i'm sure even fleckney mike isn't going to claim this is possible unless he's a complete idiot.

 

Steel requires about 1500 c to melt it  and  there  is about a thousand  degrees missing between fires that can be attained  by jet fuel burning normally in an open fire  and the temperature required to melt steel . 

That is allowing for temperatures that can be attained in a perfect mixture of fuel and air , and that doesn't happen in dirty fires. 

but you can carry on believing it if you like :xmassmile:

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.h

OK perhaps melt is the wrong word. Weaken a structure is most definitely possible though.

[fleckneymike]

why not ? it was you who claimed the nationality of the hijackers actually had any relevance , not me 

 

Seriously?

 

Once again we are in straw man territory. 

 

Just to clarify, the conspiracy involving the flying of planes and the secret planting of explosives (and maybe mysterious chemicals) in the WTC in order to orchestrate a series of attacks on Iraq and Afganistan didn't cover ensuring the nationality of the terrorists matched the countries they wished to attack?

[Finnaldo]

Seriously?

Once again we are in straw man territory.

Just to clarify, the conspiracy involving the flying of planes and the secret planting of explosives (and maybe mysterious chemicals) in the WTC in order to orchestrate a series of attacks on Iraq and Afganistan didn't cover ensuring the nationality of the terrorists matched the countries they wished to attack?

Did you not read what he just posted?

Al Qaeda= based in Afghanistan.

Why would you attack the country they're from when they are linked to a terrorist group in a different country?

I think because he's offering a different explanation he's being shunned immediately. A lot of what he's saying makes a lot of sense but you're purposely avoiding the facts and responding with "that doesn't make sense".

[OzFox]

 

 Cynic.

 

It does read like a novel I must admit, but it's still an awful lot more believable than a conspiracist Youtube video

[Zingari]

OK perhaps melt is the wrong word. Weaken a structure is most definitely possible though.

Yes melt is completely the wrong word but it does  demonstrate how people have continually fallen for this stupid lie for so long .  Because they still think things this.

So many people are still labouring under the belief that jets flew into the building and melted the steel. You are not alone by any means in still thinking things like this so i'm not being insulting here and please don't be offended.

 

Not only is jet fuel incapable of melting steel but there wasn't any in WTC 7 because no plane crashed into it. So even if we believe that jet fuel can cause total collapse by weakening, we are still left with a building that is supposed to have collapsed due to normal office fires ( and damage from falling debris) . Now , how is this possible ? ordinary fires cannot in any way cause a steel framed building to totally collapse into itself symmetrically at a rapid rate, the collapse is totally consistent with controlled demolition , because that's what is was. 

if it were possible to bring down steel framed buildings like that don't you think that's how they would be demolished? why bother with complicated cutter charges and explosives etc

[Zingari]

 Cynic.

 

It does read like a novel I must admit, but it's still an awful lot more believable than a conspiracist Youtube video

Now try reading David Ray Griffin's excellent tome questioning the report , i'm sure you'd enjoy it 

 

edit;

How did they explain the collapse of WTC 7 in that 911 report book ? Did it give a good explanation of the reason for the collapse ?

Were you convinced by the explanation?

or did it actually say anything about it at all ? :xmassmile:

[fleckneymike]

Did you not read what he just posted?

Al Qaeda= based in Afghanistan.

Why would you attack the country they're from when they are linked to a terrorist group in a different country?

I think because he's offering a different explanation he's being shunned immediately. A lot of what he's saying makes a lot of sense but you're purposely avoiding the facts and responding with "that doesn't make sense".

I did read what he had posted. He has posted and amalgamated many 'theories', one of which is based around a false flag and a new Pearl Harbour. He had also claimed the US brought their own buildings down and that they didn't bring their own buildings down so it is somewhat difficult to discuss with someone whose position changes to suit their narrative.

As I have said, are we supposed to believe the attacks and collapse were orchestrated by sinister forces in order to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan yet also supposed to believe that in spite of all the complex planning that would require in order to make it look like a terrorist attack they couldn't be bothered to make closer links between the attackers and the nations they actually wished to attack because it wasn't necessary?

What you'll notice happens with all conspiracy theorist is that as soon as they are challenged on one point, rather than refute the point they'll change the question thus ensuring their conspiracy lives on.