| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
 |
|
It is generally accepted that the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosive charges prior to 9/11
So why did they not have an additional plane (bogus or real) crash into building 7 to enable the perps to say that planes brought down all 3? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | It is generally accepted that the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosive charges prior to 9/11
So why did they not have an additional plane (bogus or real) crash into building 7 to enable the perps to say that planes brought down all 3? |
Because there's no need to make things more complicated than they need to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
|
|
| JimB wrote: | | THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | It is generally accepted that the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosive charges prior to 9/11
So why did they not have an additional plane (bogus or real) crash into building 7 to enable the perps to say that planes brought down all 3? |
Because there's no need to make things more complicated than they need to be. |
Do you just say the first thing that comes into your head Jim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Do you just say the first thing that comes into your head Jim? |
One more plane would mean much more effort and a lot more scope for things to go wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zlocke
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because people are STUPID, and the people behind 9/11 are so arrogant.
What was it Hitler said:
"The bigger the lie, the more the will believe it" (something like that anyways)
Government really do see us as Sheeple, stupid, stupid sheeple.
Thats why they thought they could get away with just blowing up a 3rd building that day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's interesting Jim
More things to go wrong? - having a building go down for no particular reason that's a huge blunder to make in broad daylight for an operation that must have taken years to plan.
Why do you think the perps planned it that way?
If they wanted to cover their trail - they could have blown it up at night - but they didn't?
I think something went wrong with their plans - the question is what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | That's interesting Jim
More things to go wrong? - having a building go down for no particular reason that's a huge blunder to make in broad daylight for an operation that must have taken years to plan. |
I believe the claim is that it collapsed due to structural damage. That's not the same thing as falling for no particular reason.
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | Why do you think the perps planned it that way? |
Sorry, I can't speak on their behalf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarrenUK
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 12
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1 plane crashed..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | It is generally accepted that the twin towers and building 7 were rigged with explosive charges prior to 9/11
So why did they not have an additional plane (bogus or real) crash into building 7 to enable the perps to say that planes brought down all 3? |
WTC7 was considerably shorter than its much larger siblings. Looking at it in profile and in relation to the other surrounding buildings, it would be a much more difficult target to hit with a fast flying aircraft. Assuming the plan went as expected and the twin towers were hit and the charges worked to level them, the collateral damage would be as expected. Attempting to hit WTC7 with its much lower profile added far too many wild cards to an already difficult hand.
Of course, it is fairly safe to assume that WTC7 already had charges in place, maybe that was 'plan B' in the event of events going pear shaped. I am speculating here naturally.
The only real and obvious answer as to why WTC7 was levelled, was simply that it contained something that was not for public consumption. This is somewhat strange seeing as how the building hardly was 'open to the public' and could obviously be securely contained.
Possibly it was the control centre for the entire operation (or at least the NYC part) and it was inadvertantly set on fire by falling debris or an accident in the kitchen. Either way, it suffered more damage than was planned for.
Possibly an explosion of WTC7 was unwanted as it could spread all kinds of incriminating evidence all over the shop. This could range from printed plans to the home porn movies of Condoleeza Rice.
Anyway, I will be spending the rest of the evening listening to Barry Manilow. That will be after I have fed the weasels in my garage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimB
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: A QUESTION ON BUILDING 7 |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Possibly an explosion of WTC7 was unwanted as it could spread all kinds of incriminating evidence all over the shop. This could range from printed plans to the home porn movies of Condoleeza Rice.
Anyway, I will be spending the rest of the evening listening to Barry Manilow. That will be after I have fed the weasels in my garage. |
And had a quick view of your secret Condi Rice vids  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
optimus79
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the simple reason that WTC7 carries no real social significance. The Twin Towers are emblematic of so called American dominance so where the perfect stage.
If they started crashing planes in to a building that noone outside of NY had probably ever heard of then that would only create more questions.
Thought it was obvious myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarrenUK wrote: | | 1 plane crashed..... |
My own (groundless for obvious reasons) theory is also that there were
meant to be 3 aircraft hits in NYC that morning.
There were reportedly a few fire damaged floors in WTC7 in a building of 47 storeys. The fires observed were smoke heavy and reddish and not hot enough to even break many windows on the north side. The Madrid fire was far hotter and more energetic and burned about 20 hours if I recall correctly without collapsing.
A 20 story gash was seen on one of WTC7's south corners, but that would in no way account for the close-to free-all speed of a perfectly symettrical demolition - it makes it less likely if anything.
After the time to get more manpower and resources to gain some control of the main WTC site - days if not weeks, eventually the NY Fire Dept. would have had to thoroughly inspect the damaged building and assess its condition.
The set charges would have been easily discovered by the Fire Inspectors who would be checking the exact same key structural areas that a demolition team would choose to place charges.
Obviously, that could not be allowed to happen.
The building had to go, even if not quite as planned.
Entirely speculative, and seems fairly logical to me (one plane was lost), but not very helpful in terms of moving the case forward.
Another aspect that complicates things is that in parallel with the political plot of destroying the towers, was what walks, acts and quacks very like an insurance scam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WTC7 seems to present great problems to all sides of the argument.
For the official story, the main problem is that it was only slightly damaged by debris and there is no obvious reason why it should catch fire. The fires in it appear to be minor in nature and in part only of the building, yet it fell as symmetrically as the towers, to which it was different in construction. NIST are clearly desperately struggling with this one, withdrew WTC7 from the original study, thought about it for a long time, issued a very vague interim report and have yet to issue a final one.
From the other side, what could be achieved by destroying a building no one had heard of, in what way could it possibly add to the impact of the twin towers? As mentioned, without the excuse of a plane hitting it, destroying it was even more obviously controlled demolition, and leaving demolition charges in a burning building for seven hours is taking an enormous risk. Blowing it up to destroy evidence seems an unnecessary complication when a shredder would be more reliable. Any WTC insurance scam argument is dubious when Silverstein's insurance was so flakey that he has been in the courts ever since.
It is all so strange that I think the suggestion that something went wrong with the plot is a good one. Perhaps the towers were not actually meant to fall down as straight as they did, after all that is what first made so many people think controlled demolition, and one was actually meant to collapse on to the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We agree on something at last Bushwacker - so why haven't you answered my question on the other thread about no planes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: | | We agree on something at last Bushwacker - so why haven't you answered my question on the other thread about no planes? |
Because I was posting here!
I have now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Danner
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 55
Location: Hagerstown,Maryland
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: Building Seven Manhattan New York |
|
|
Building seven:
I meant to reply to the Chap about Building seven but I think I will adress the board. There is 1 point I am going to float around. Alot of people thik that Building 7 was an error of sequence. It should have been Pulled and went down with the Towers. But something went wrong with the timing. Also the use of the comand Bunker to watch and orchastrate everything could have come from that very Building. Just think about that. It had Bullet proof windows on 1 floor that FEMA used and the CIA was in there. They pull off the Job and got everybody out and then pulled that building. That Building fell straight into it,s own foot print nice a straight. Now that is something to think about. It did not just fall down due to a fire. Horse Hockey!!!
Sam  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
