Wherefore WTC7's 767?

Two points, for discussion/heckling/etc.

1. Missing 767?
The (almost belated) implosion of WTC7 makes me wonder if a 767 should have been inserted into it, following the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 but - for some reason - the mission failed.

It could even have been done before the implosion of 1&2, assuming a vertical insertion.

Seems odd to leave such an obvious smoking gun.


2. Smoking Gun Au-Go-Go
I read somewhere about a very creepy Philip K Dick story where some bodysnatching alien army leaves obviously-murdered people in plain sight in order to tell which humans haven't been doppelganger'd. (They tend to scream and carry on, you see...)

the idea was that the blatent fact of WTC7 is a similar device intended to expose anyone with two braincells still functioning and a spart of morality to shoot between them. "Ah," I imagine the 911 planners saying, "the 'WTC7 Smoking Gun' list is building nicely. Let's make sure we build enough FEMA camps for all of those stupid eggheads..."

Ive always thought that WTC7 was going to be hit be a third airliner. It makes absolutely no sense why they should rig up the building, and demolish it in plain view of everyone, unless something happened at the last moment...such as rebelling generals ordering Flight 93 to be shot down, after losing patience with Cheney, who was holding back the order to intercept.

Flight 93 has never been properly explained. Everyone knows it can't have crashed into that tiny hole, and that it was blatently shot out the air, as Rumsfeld implied by accident on one occasion.

I do think that Flight 93 was destined to hit WTC 7, and that after it got shot down, they had no choice but to pull the building anyway...otherwise people mite find the device/s planted inside of it, and that of course would have blown the case wide open, revealing who was really responsible..

Can you imagine the suprise if someone went back into WTC 7 and found some explosives rigged up? WTC 7 is a government building for all purposes, and the only people who could have rigged it would have had to have help from the very top/inside/intelligence services...

Hey shrunkensimon, you raise some interesting points.

I find the list of assumed-to-be-involved aircraft of 9/11 to be one of the most confusing - and probably important - factors of the macroevent, especially given the revelations of the declassified Operation Northwoods. Substitute airplanes, perhaps repainted, containing no passengers, or incapacitated passengers, etc.

It's difficult to tell, therefore, what the operation 'should' have looked like, assuming every single first-tier element was executed according to plan. (I think we can assume backup, upon backup elements which would serve as failover/fallbacks, which would include a belated implosion of WTC7, I suggest.)

Would anyone like to briefly create an accounting of a '100% successful, according-to-plan' 9/11 black-operation? Would it include a hit on the White House, or is that a leaked meme (viral ideation) intended to cover-up a posited failure of an aircraft insertion into WTC7?

Let's think like the criminals, to catch the criminals, as was suggested by A. C. Doyle and A. Christie.

For myself, I would suggest:

- radio-controlled explosive devices throughout WTC1, 2 & 7, with encrypted, band-hopping channels, installed via maintenance sweeps in the weeks preceeding the event.

- nerve-gas introduced into the air-conditioning of the passenger jets, coupled with hardened radio-controlled avionics/autopilot systems. (Why have even one conscious human aboard a plane when they might throw a literal spanner in the works?)

- unusual explosive or disintegration technologies, perhaps based upon resonance, allowing one to resonate the buildings to dust (a la cracked wineglasses, or bridges brought down by platoons in lockstep) and allow specific destruction of insured assets.

- truly exotic explosive technologies, including microscopic black-hole(s?) generation (implosion by removing a demarcated sphere of spacetime) aligned along the internal spine of the buildings. (Unlikely, I agree.)

- explosive drone aircraft or cruise-type missile sent into the Pentagon, perhaps 'shuttled' by a larger aircraft (intentionally?) resembling a passenger aircraft, confusing witnesses.

Anyone else into these more out-of-the-box ideas?

I think you all are operating off the probably wrong assumption that the executors of 9/11 (whom I do believe WERE NOT "the terrorists") actually care what you think.

Interesting angle, uberanarchist.

I actually think, however, that you're the first person to use the word 'terrorists' on this thread. (Who said anything about terrorists?)

Let's keep this focussed upon the idea of crime. We can agree that a great crime was done to the community, and - I'd suggest - the job of any cogent, moral member of that community is to examine the facts to allow an appropriate response, if any. (We may even agree that the post-9/11 response of the U.S. has been problematic, or disasterous.)

As to the question of whether the criminal 'cares' about the thinking of their victims, or those who are associated with the victims, I would agree wholeheartedly that it is fairly unlikely that the sociopathic-type of psychology, capable of executing this event, would accord any importance to those affected by the actions. (As mentioned before, you think like a thief to catch a thief, while not actually becoming a thief.)

However, if 9/11 was - in fact - a primarily a mass psychological operation, as opposed to a mass-murder, then what 'we' think is actually of paramount importance.

As is what we don't think.

And, I think you may agree, much of the media-driven discussion and thought of the 21C has been about the management of the repercussions of our post-traumatic, fear-based culture.

Lastly, there has been even been evidence to show that aligned, intention-oriented group-thinking can affect various types of measurable events in the wider social world, (e.g. the murder rates in D.C., recovery from disease, economic cycles, etc.)

So, don't sell your, or my, mindshare short.

Next, do you feel like discussing any of the points I raised, specifically?

No actual discussion, then?

Well, let me expand on one of the elements I've raised here: potential for the resonant destruction of buildings (or, I'd suggest, building-sections).

Apparently Nikola Tesla developed a pocket vibrator (ahem) which could resonate a steel-framed building to pieces, assuming the device could find the resonant frequency of the structure. (See www.excludedmiddle.com... for more on this.)

For the musical out there, you can find the resonant frequency of your bathroom by stepping inside, singing a note and moving it up and down until you hear the note being reinforced by the reflective surfaces. Most people singing in showers probably make use of this fact, either to avoid or exploit the resonant frequency.

Let's return to the problem of the WTC1&2 collapses, specifically the fact that the top section of each building did not manage to arrive at the street-level intact. According to the pancake theory, one might expect the floors beneath the plane-impact cavities to disintegrate into small pieces, but the fact that the top of each building did not emerge from the collapse to fall into nearby buildings in a large section (or group of large segments), or that each pile of rubble was not surmounted with an identifiable roof+upper floor section is puzzling. (Check out the pre-'poof' stage of the very large schematic at - of all places - randi.org via forums.randi.org...)

Remember the firemen's report that they found very little in the way of identifiable office equipment in the rubble? Only a section of a phone keypad, by one report.

Let's consider, then, the idea of sequenced resonators, tied to sections of buildings WTC1&2, to account for the top-down disintegration of the entire structure. In concert with explosive charges, this might allow sections of the building to be resonated to small pieces during the collapse.

Additionally, the characteristics of the Tesla-style resonator seems to be more earthquake-style in nature, rather than explosive, so it would perhaps allow fewer identifiable 'bangs' to be heard during the operation. A self-reinforcing shockwave being propagated through the structure of the building, allowing near-freefall speeds to check the lateral slide of debris and allow for a contained rubble footprint.

Another plus for such a black op would be zero radioactivity, which - I think - would be noticed.

Thoughts?


[edit on 18-5-2007 by maxszabo]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Ive always thought that WTC7 was going to be hit be a third airliner. It makes absolutely no sense why they should rig up the building, and demolish it in plain view of everyone

Because there would be no reason for it to collapse, I presume. Could they not however say that it fell from structural damage after being pummelled by WTC1 debris (as they have said)? Why waste a third plane in NY when two and the collapses would seem plausible enough (if they even care what we think, which they do to some extent.) Also the attack went in twos: two Uniteds, two Americans (to Unite Americans!), two 757s and two 767s, two seen crashing, two not, two in NY.. two in DC? Also, the planes hit the towers at about the 80th and 100th floors - could a plane have realisticaly tried to hit WTC7, whose roof is only 47 stories high, without hitting buildings next door? I thinks it was just to short to hit from the air and far from necessary.

It's an interseting theory, tho.

Sorry, I don't get the "third plane for wtc7" theory. Caustic is correct in saying that are too many buildings to avoid in order to hit WTC7.

So... Lets hit the twin towers with two planes after we plant explosives in all three skyscrapers. After the planes hit, we detonate the explosives...then cross our fingers that during this controlled demolition, enough debris hit WTC7 causing the building to receive structural damage, and catch on fire on several floors so it will somewhat justify the building to collaspe..... THEN we activate the explosives we planted! Yeah yeah .. it will work! (sorry for the sarcasm & the old argument)

Question: What if the collapse of the twin towers only caused very minimal damage and no fire accured? Would they have had to abort the demolition of WTC7?

edit...because i can't spell to save my life

[edit on 18-5-2007 by CameronFox]

Hey Caustic Logic, thanks for joining the discussion.

Only problem is, WTC7 is not the closest building to 1&2, and the perps didn't (AFAIK) wire up any of those closer buildings to implode.

Remember, everyone from Rosie to David Lynch to the geek at the office watercooler is saying that "three buildings came down on 9/11, but only two were hit by airplanes".

Hey Cameron Fox, thanks for your input.

As it happens, a third plane into WTC7 would have eliminated the biggest smoking gun of the event - far surpassing the Pentagon anomalies - which was the symmetric implosion of the cosmetically-damaged WTC7 which happened to house a plethora of assets which would logically be 'cleaned' if this was in fact an 'inside job'.

You may not have noticed, but I suggest above that a vertical insertion of a third plane would not only remove the smoking gun, but would also bolster the official collapse story of WTC1&2. (Remember, that WTC7 had a different construction to 1&2, and would help spread the footprint of the 'heat-weakened steel' argument.

What's a vertical insertion? It's actually a very accurate way to suicide-bomb using a piloted plane: you dive down at a high angle into the target, increasing your kinetic energy and destructive potential.

Keep in mind also that, depending upon the amout of dwell-time which could be offered to the operation via NORAD confusion during the multiple wargames being played out, such a third airplane may have been scheduled to follow the collapse of one (or both) of the twin towers in the mid-to-late morning.

Lastly, the argument that diesel tanks in WTC7 'destroyed' the building (not raised here until now) is also spurious: one of the reasons for the use of diesel in many warfighting vehicles is it's tolerance to explosions, heat, small-arms fire, etc.)

Its possible WTC7 was a dud. If there was no plane scheduled to hit it I believe they would of taken it down during the second collapse when smoke was mostly obscuring it - but for some reason the detonation failed (possibly some remote reciever or similiar detonation system was unexpectedly knocked out in the collapse of the twin towers). So they had to spend the next several hours bring the detonation system back online. I think they didn't have much choice but to get rid off the building there and then. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was the case.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Thanks Insalubrious,

Thing is, you haven't considered the possibility that the WTC1&2 implosions were coordinated from within WTC7.

If so, there would have to be some kind of delay between the fall of 1 and 2 before 7 was 'pulled.'

Of course, whether or not the human plunger-pushers were physically inside the building is moot, given current technology. The communications and technical infrastructure, based at that location as an on-site HQ, would be ideal, and be an excellent site for any wired or wireless signaling associated with explosive charges. Line of sight, south to the towers.

Consider (for a start) Giuliani's much-touted (and aptly-named?) 'Emergency Command Center' facility within a hardened portion of WTC7? (The indications that several other layers of the operation made use of computing resources within WTC7 is covered in 'Loose Change' and elsewhere.)

A late-to-the-party plane insertion, near-vertically into WTC would be just the thing to clean the final on-site evidence of the op. In fact, with the safe removal of WTC1&2, the WTC7 insertion could be done from the south with a relatively shallow angle of attack.

Again, I argue that the late and very obviously plane-less WTC7 implosion is a key indicator, and that we can work backward from it to not only bolster 911 Truth, but to allow an examination of the redundant layers of this black-op, including some that were invoked by its failures.


[edit on 29-5-2007 by maxszabo]

Originally posted by CameronFox
Question: What if the collapse of the twin towers only caused very minimal damage and no fire accured? Would they have had to abort the demolition of WTC7?

I've heard this before. What would stop them from placing a few well placed detonations to go off when WTC1 falls, causing the damage needed? If they are going to think about explosives to begin with, what's a few more that would be masked by the fall of the tower?

Originally posted by CameronFox
Sorry, I don't get the "third plane for wtc7" theory. Caustic is correct in saying that are too many buildings to avoid in order to hit WTC7.

Well the guy who piloted the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon managed to pull of a set of stunts that even the plane could not handle, let alone the best pilots in the world..

Hitting the target is not a problem, especially if it does not actually hit the target. Think about what i've just said.

Fact is, WTC7 was rigged up. It makes absolutely no sense to do this, and pull it in full view of everyone, unless something had not gone to plan. They still had to demolish it, you can't leave evidence lying around.. ie explosives set in the building, especially given the nature of the explosives themselves, IMO not your ordinary RDX or demolition type explosive.

Unless of course WTC 7 was delibrately done in full view in order to mislead people seeking the truth (smoke and mirrors), which is still a possibility.