Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

[CHF]

One bright day, in the middle of the night,
Trustworthy traitors with explosive thermite
Put bombs in the basement for top-down collapse,
Then told thousands of Jews, "keep this plan under wraps."
They publicly flaunted their secretive ways
With a twelve-hour power-down that lasted two days.
Then innocent terrorists hijacked planes (four times),
Showing us how the U.S. is guilty of war crimes.
Then bomb-laden holograms flew in their place
(By the FBI, to throw themselves off the case)
Toward four helpless targets that planes couldn't harm.
NORAD defenders stood down in alarm
Then shot down one plane and to Cleveland flew it
To fool all the networks, who already knew it.
The fire chief said "pull it" and pushed towers down
Into their own footprints, for blocks all around.
These pre-taped events were all shown on TV live
(Just like when O'Brien told Winston to see five!)
As part of an idiot's ingenious plan
To fight the Iraqis in Afghanistan.
But because I know nothing, they couldn't deceive me.
I only tell lies to prove you should believe me.

Brilliant!

 

[bill smith]

Good one Myriad.lol

I eat peas with honey
I've done so all my life
It makes them taste quite funny
but it keeps them on the knife

 

[bill smith]

Hmmmm...

Contradict yourself much Bill?

What contradiction ? I said ' they flew the plane out over rural Pennsylvania ' I didn't say what happened then.

 

[Pardalis]

Then I thought 'perhaps an airliner was meant to hit WTC7 too ''- but for some reason it did not arrive so the perps lit some fires on various floors of the building in the hope that they would connect up and cause a big enough fire to allow the bilding to be demolished under cover of the blaze. Unfortunately the fire did not eally catch and they had to go ahead and demolish the building anyway at 5:20 in the afternoon.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wait, that's the second most stupid thing, the first is when you said that the new investigation should be a reality TV show with call ins.

 

[Pardalis]

After watching the extravaganza on 9/11 it's easy to see who was supposed to be ' shocked and awed '. I'm amazed that you are not all furious at being so cynically manipulated.

What's shocking and awing is the sheer stupidity of your theories.

 

[twinstead]

"allow the building to be demolished under cover of the blaze"?

Ouch.

ETA: Oh, Red, you can chime in any time now about how bill's theory is as good as the "official story" concerning WTC7.

 

[RedIbis]

"allow the building to be demolished under cover of the blaze"?

Ouch.

ETA: Oh, Red, you can chime in any time now about how bill's theory is as good as the "official story" concerning WTC7.

Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.

 

[Myriad]

Good one Myriad.lol

I'm surprised you weren't just bored by it, because I've posted it before, in a thread called What's your theory about 9/11?

I'm sure you must have seen it there, since you wouldn't ignore or overlook a chance to present your theory about 9/11. Right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[twinstead]

Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.

Why do I have do defend it? I'm not the expert. Ask the NIST. Their hypothesis is out there for all to see. Come up with one that fits the available evidence better, then you might have something. Otherwise, the NIST report stands as the most likely.

 

[dtugg]

Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.

Speaking of NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis, you've said that you have one that's better than NIST's and somehow column 79 is your best evidence. Please explain, you've avoided doing so for about a year.

 

[Pardalis]

Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.

Would you say that Bill's theory about WTC 7 is idiotic?

Could we at least agree on that?

 

[bill smith]

No, not quite, but I do agree on the general downward direction of the collapse.

No ? I think that this sounds pretty much like 100% agreement.

Parky176 wrote
yes. the collapse of wtc 7 "looks" like a controlled demolition.

 

[bill smith]

I'm surprised you weren't just bored by it, because I've posted it before, in a thread called What's your theory about 9/11?

I'm sure you must have seen it there, since you wouldn't ignore or overlook a chance to present your theory about 9/11. Right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

For that simple reason you can assume that I wasn't there surely ?

 

[lapman]

It's an hypothesis and a damn sight stronger one than Bazant's on WTC1.

Maybe in your fantasy world. But in the real word, evidence backs Bazant.

 

[WildCat]

What contrdiction ? I said ' they flew the plane out over rural Pennsylvania' I didn't say what happened then.

You said that "they" shot it down in Pennsylvania, or that "they" landed it in Cleveland. How is this compatible with your claim that it was meant to crash into WTC7?

 

[Pardalis]

BTW Bill, if the third plane had "showed up" and hit WTC7, what would have been the justification of the official story for the terrorists hitting a completely unknown building?

 

[bill smith]

You said that "they" shot it down in Pennsylvania, or that "they" landed it in Cleveland. How is this compatible with your claim that it was meant to crash into WTC7?

When flight 93 was held up by the fire on the runway (or whatever it was) at Logan for over an hour past it's scheduled take off time it missed the time-envelope in ehich it could be crashed into WTC7. So they flew it out over rural Pennsylvania and then diverted to Cleveland I suspect.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm 93 landed at Cleveland

 

[lapman]

When flight 93 was held up by the fire on the runway (or whatever it was) at Logan for over an hour past it's scheduled take off time it missed the time-envelope in ehich it could be crashed into WTC7. So they flew it out over rural Pennsylvania and then diverted to Cleveland I suspect.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm 93 landed at Cleveland

Um, flight 93 was a 757 and Delta 1989 was the 767 that landed in Cleveland.

 

[WildCat]

When flight 93 was held up by the fire on the runway (or whatever it was) at Logan for over an hour past it's scheduled take off time it missed the time-rnvelope in ehich it could be crashed into WTC7. So they flew it out over rural Pennsylvania and then diverted to Cleveland I suspect.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm 93 landed at Cleveland

What time envelope? WTC7 didn't collapse until nearly 5 in the afternoon

And your claim also has "them" faking the crash in Shanksville at a moment's notice.

None of your contentions make a bit of sense, and they contradict one another.

 

[bill smith]

BTW Bill, if the third plane had "showed up" and hit WTC7, what would have been the justification of the official story for the terrorists hitting a completely unknown building?

It wasn't unknown to Enron pr Worldcom or the SEC who were investigating the 63 billion dollar Enron fraud in California and the Worldcom scandal amongst several others. Apparently those investigations were extremely hampered by the loss of so many original documents.