WTC 7 plan

[triforcharity]

WTC7 was almost fully engulfed

Thank you MM. I appreciate you FINALLY admitting that there were HUGE fires in 7WTC. Only took you how long now?

 

[Miragememories]

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.

You just don't get it, do you Glenn?

This has nothing to do with reality.

It has everything to do with believability.

Before 9/11 few people would have remotely believed a 767 crashing into WTC Towers would have lead to their total collapse.

Show people the collapses occurring after aircraft crashes, have the mass media and the government support this as the cause, and the naive public gladly suck up a belief that the crashes could do what they previously thought impossible.

It is not a big leap to expect the public to accept the possibility that the collapse of the world's tallest building is going to result in the collapse of a nearby building less that half its size.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Thank you MM. I appreciate you FINALLY admitting that there were HUGE fires in 7WTC. Only took you how long now?

Lying is what you continue to be good at;

"...WTC7 was almost fully engulfed by the WTC1 dust cloud."

MM

 

[dafydd]

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.

Only misinformed truthers or trolls ask those questions,which have no relevance in the real world.

 

[LightningTeg]

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.

[qimg]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3698/gjswtc40rdu8.jpg[/qimg]

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

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.

They're coming out of the woodwork!

Planned collapse lol. Whats wrong with just crashing a few planes into buildings?

 

[triforcharity]

Lying is what you continue to be good at;
MM

It's not nice to be quotemined, is it MM?

So, maybe you should spread the word that if you wanna quote someone, quote the ENTIRE thing.

BTW, that was easy to do. I could have really butchered that post and made it like YOU were the one responsible.

I would need a little bit of your other comments from here, but that is easy with google.

 

[ProBonoShill]

<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.

You forgot the super secret control room, where all the days events were co- ordinated and executed, all the radar inputs, NEADS and NORAD,the plane controls and the remotes for the explosives. What a great time we had in there, that was a great day for the NWO.

 

[GlennB]

You just don't get it, do you Glenn?

This has nothing to do with reality.

It has everything to do with believability.

Quite so, and this is where your 'plan' falls flat on its face.

The following shows WTC7 just after, I believe, the final significant debris impact. Had it then fallen while covered in WTC1 dust then films and photos such as this would have drawn the attention of not just every building engineer and architect in the entire world, but probably every semi-literate Joe and Jane too. Goat-herders in Mongolia would be scratching their heads and saying WTF?

As far as 'believability' goes it wouldn't even get past the brainstorming phase, let alone actual planning.

It's telling, however, that you consider it believable.

 

[DGM]

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

If you embrace the generally excepted story-line, 9/11 was in no way a "massive operation". In fact it worked so well because it was quite simple and involved relatively few people. Only if you start using "truther" talking points does the operation balloon to enormous proportions both in people and complexities.

 

[Miragememories]

Quite so, and this is where your 'plan' falls flat on its face.

The following shows WTC7 just after, I believe, the final significant debris impact. Had it then fallen while covered in WTC1 dust then films and photos such as this would have drawn the attention of not just every building engineer and architect in the entire world, but probably every semi-literate Joe and Jane too. Goat-herders in Mongolia would be scratching their heads and saying WTF?

As far as 'believability' goes it wouldn't even get past the brainstorming phase, let alone actual planning.

It's telling, however, that you consider it believable.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7gettinghitcropped-1.jpg[/qimg]

Like I said Glenn, you don't, or choose not, to get it.

My pic is all that the media and disinfo agents such as yourself required to sell the idea to the unwary public.

You must have been shocked that the Twin Towers did not topple right away after each aircraft collision.

MM

 

[beachnut]

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?

The list becomes longer for those in on the crime. Who could believe the insane moronic claims of 911 truth, no one is that stupid.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Defiantly dumb and wrong is still just as dumb and just as wrong.

 

[GlennB]

Like I said Glenn, you don't, or choose not, to get it.

My pic is all that the media and disinfo agents such as yourself required to sell the idea to the unwary public.

The public, including many thousands of engineers and scientists, watched it live on TV. Some probably recorded it from TV. Many individuals around NYC filmed it and the perps could never hope to track down every video camera owned by any one of millions of people in the area.

Selling the idea that a huge building might spontaneously, but reasonably, collapse to the ground when hit by nothing but a few minor pieces of WTC1 is palpably laughable.

Then the big question remains. Why? Why take this insanely risky course? Remember how one disaffected insider led to the fall of Nixon and the jailing of several of his senior staff? Do you seriously propose that a cabal of the very highest-ranking Americans might risk life sentences (death?) based on the idea of "selling" this idea of yours to the public?

Your 'plan' is pathetic and you appear to be living in a fantasy world, but I almost admire your ability to avoid the substance of any 9/11 CT discussion while relentlessly slamming your own vague assertions on the table like some religious fundamentalist. God can just make it so just about sums up your approach.