This question is for truthers... What was the conspirators' "plan" for wtc 7? In other words, for the towers one might say that the plan was to crash planes into the towers and then destroy the towers with a CD and blame it on the planes/fires. Assuming you believe wtc 7 was a CD, what was supposed to be the "cause" of the collapse of wtc 7? What was the conspirators' plan going into the day?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
<I'm not a truther but>
All of the super secret documents were stored in that building. As everyone knows a paper shredder is of no use so the building had to be destroyed. Along with that the most evil Jew (Silverstein) would not agree to the whole plan unless he "made out like a bandit". Down comes WTC 7, no charge.
Telltale Tom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 384
It was supposed to look like a controlled demolition, and was perhaps too subtle for many to recognize. That way it would give rise to a group who would question the power, evil, corruption within government itself, as well as showing the masterminds, genius and resources the government has at their disposal. This awareness would increase the level of fear and distrust across the community, which would reinforce the need for a strong government.
You know its the truth.!
I know what you're getting at and it's a question I've also put to Truthers here and there. What is the 'cover story', the plausible excuse for the collapse?
Miragememories, in this forum, reckoned WTC7 was scheduled to fall while covered in clouds of dust during the WTC1 collapse. That doesn't work as the debris hitting WTC7 was clearly visible in a host of films and photos, and was obviously insufficient to bring the building down there and then (even then, the one major hit took a freakish ejection from WTC1). In fact no substantial WTC1 debris could be guaranteed to hit 7 at all and even significant fires couldn't be guaranteed. CD-led collapse would then have been totally inexplicable. No cover-story.
A lot of other Truthers couldn't even understand the question
Last edited:
This is a question I am very interested in... In fact, I am very interested in how the entire "conspiracy" would fit together.
I don't know if I should start another thread for this topic, but, would any of the truthers here like to put forward their view of what the official "plan" (the entire plan for 9/11; not just wtc 7) was that the conspirators attempted to carry out?
I mean, the best I can think of (assuming CD at wtc 7) would be that maybe a truck bomb was supposed to hit wtc 7 and that would cover for the CD... Or that flight 93 was supposed to hit it... That's the speculation that I am looking for... I'm not even asking anyone to prove their theory; just what they think possibly could have happened.
Truthers, put all the pieces together and explain what you think happened/was supposed to happen that day. In other words, what was the conspirators' plan going into 9/11; the entire plan. Speculate on the parts that you don't have evidence for...
I don't know if I should start another thread for this topic, but, would any of the truthers here like to put forward their view of what the official "plan" (the entire plan for 9/11; not just wtc 7) was that the conspirators attempted to carry out?
I mean, the best I can think of (assuming CD at wtc 7) would be that maybe a truck bomb was supposed to hit wtc 7 and that would cover for the CD... Or that flight 93 was supposed to hit it... That's the speculation that I am looking for... I'm not even asking anyone to prove their theory; just what they think possibly could have happened.
Truthers, put all the pieces together and explain what you think happened/was supposed to happen that day. In other words, what was the conspirators' plan going into 9/11; the entire plan. Speculate on the parts that you don't have evidence for...
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Actually there is a poster here (bill smith) who has stated repeatedly he believes flight 93 was supposed to strike wtc7 in full view of the cameras to futher enflame the anger of the US....
I am reminded of this video
It fully explains the conspiracy.... really.
I am reminded of this video
It fully explains the conspiracy.... really.
Say someone believes that the planes were remote controlled... How does flight 93 fit into this?
Did the conspirators plan to remote control it into the ground?
What about the phone calls and cockpit recordings? Are BOTH fake?
Were "terrorists" onboard the planes?
WHEN (meaning at what point in the flight) did the remote control takeover occur?
Did the conspirators plan to remote control it into the ground?
What about the phone calls and cockpit recordings? Are BOTH fake?
Were "terrorists" onboard the planes?
WHEN (meaning at what point in the flight) did the remote control takeover occur?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I still don't understand why the NWO didn't use real planes instead of holograms. It would've been simpler than faking all the wreckage.....
And why did they wait until 5:20pm to demo 7? It would've been way cooler to blow it up at the same time as the towers.
These are the questions I want answered at the new investigation!!
And why did they wait until 5:20pm to demo 7? It would've been way cooler to blow it up at the same time as the towers.
These are the questions I want answered at the new investigation!!
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
ps just recently I've decided to accept both the no-planer arguments and the Mehmetin arguments, as they both must be correct, therefore:
They were remote-controlled holograms filled with poison gas. There is no other rational conclusion!!
They were remote-controlled holograms filled with poison gas. There is no other rational conclusion!!
LightningTeg
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 101
Last edited:
please don't enable the Truthers' pathetic habit of trading evidence for speculation & imagination.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
I still don't understand why the NWO didn't use real planes instead of holograms. It would've been simpler than faking all the wreckage.....
And why did they wait until 5:20pm to demo 7? It would've been way cooler to blow it up at the same time as the towers.
These are the questions I want answered at the new investigation!!
Don't forget about the major screw up that left "them" with a warehouse full of Global hawk and Tomahawk parts the weekend prior.
Miragememories
Banned
I know what you're getting at and it's a question I've also put to Truthers here and there. What is the 'cover story', the plausible excuse for the collapse?
Miragememories, in this forum, reckoned WTC7 was scheduled to fall while covered in clouds of dust during the WTC1 collapse. That doesn't work as the debris hitting WTC7 was clearly visible in a host of films and photos, and was obviously insufficient to bring the building down there and then (even then, the one major hit took a freakish ejection from WTC1). In fact no substantial WTC1 debris could be guaranteed to hit 7 at all and even significant fires couldn't be guaranteed. CD-led collapse would then have been totally inexplicable. No cover-story.
A lot of other Truthers couldn't even understand the question
This is quite funny.
You guys are willing to argue that WTC7 received major structural damage from WTC1 debris, but when it suits your purpose, you claim that no, insufficient debris from WTC1 struck WTC7 to factor into a collapse.
Given WTC1's proximity to WTC7, it was unavoidable that the two would interact during WTC1's planned collapse.
All I conjectured was that the plan was probably to use the WTC1 collapse as a plausible explanation for WTC7's collapse. Plans do not always follow the intentions of the planners. WTC7 was almost fully engulfed by the WTC1 dust cloud and given the public acceptance of the WTC Towers Collapse Story, little argument was required to persuade the public that WTC7's collapse was a logical progression.
But I am still perplexed as to why there is so much simplistic unwillingness on the part of JREFers who support the Official Story, to question the belief that all the terrorists were in the planes?
You do not have to embrace what you consider to be abhorrent truther dogma in order to question the strong likelihood that an operation as massive as 9/11 involved some people on the ground.
MM
My bolding. Weasel words noted.
"Factor into" <> "Able to cause straight away while the dust lingers".
Miragememories
Banned
Say I believed wtc 7 was a CD...
I certainly would not buy the idea that the conspirators planned to use the collapse/debris/dust cloud of the towers as the cause of the collapse of wtc 7.
Miragememories
Banned
Then let me spell it out for you.
For WTC7 to collapse immediately as a result of WTC1 collapse, the debris impact would have needed to be monumental. It wasn't. Not even close. Neither could it even remotely have been expected to be.
Proposing WTC1 collapse as a 'cover' for WTC7's cd is asinine.
Telltale Tom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 384
Yes perhaps it should have been demolished under cover of the WTC 1 and 2 demolition. And perhaps the radio detonators failed and perhaps it took them 8 hrs to fix since conditions were difficult with the fire and everything. Or perhaps they had to wait until Silverstein said pull it.
Thats why we need a new investigation, to answer important questions like these.
Thats why we need a new investigation, to answer important questions like these.