It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did al-Qaeda Blow Up WTC7 and the Government Cover It Up?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Ive always considered the possibility that WTC7 was the 3rd target, and that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was destined for WTC7...

What y'all think?

It would explain why WTC7 was rigged up with demo charges like WTC 1 and 2.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrinking man
Ive always considered the possibility that WTC7 was the 3rd target, and that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was destined for WTC7...

What y'all think?

It would explain why WTC7 was rigged up with demo charges like WTC 1 and 2.


How many people even knew there was a WTC #7 before 9/11? It just doesn't fit AQ profile of a "high value" target. Most probably, flight 93 was headed for somewhere in Washington, either the Capitol or the White House. The only other target of that much importance would have been to hit Wall street but that would have been a hard one to hit considering all the skyscrapers there. The Wtc's because of their height and location, were in relation, much easier to hit.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Are you disputing that AQ in general, does not claim responsibility for the attacks they carry out?


No, I already agreed to this premise.




Relatively soon after Sept. 11 there surfaced the tapes of Bin Laden talking about the attacks, which I'm sure you will dispute their origin.


I don't dispute their origin. I just don't know their origin. What if the attacks were funded and orchestrated by Saddam or Iran, and they wanted to make it look like AQ just so the U.S. wouldn't wipe them off the map?

What I do dispute is that the video of bin Laden taking credit for 9/11 is conclusive proof that a) it was actually bin Laden, or b) that even if it was bin Laden, that his "confession" proves AQ did it.



Tell me once where a major attack attributed to AQ, has not been claimed eventually by AQ.


The TWA Flight 800 "accident" could very possibly have been an AQ bombing that was covered up by the FBI for political reasons.

In any case, it's a flimsy argument to say that if a building is blown up, or a plane is blown up, and AQ does *not* claim responsibility, then it must be true that AQ didn't do it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Ive always considered the possibility that WTC7 was the 3rd target, and that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was destined for WTC7...

What y'all think?

It would explain why WTC7 was rigged up with demo charges like WTC 1 and 2.


I don't think that makes any sense. If WTC7 was rigged up with charges, why waste a hijacked plane on taking out WTC7? Why not take out something else?

This is my main argument against WTC1 and WTC2 being a CD. If there were explosives already in the building powerful enough to take down both buildings, why crash planes into them?

PS.... how do you manage to get *negative* ATS points????



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
PS.... how do you manage to get *negative* ATS points????


You get them deducted from your totals for "buying" things on ATS (as with me) or for being bad on ATS I do believe.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
How many people even knew there was a WTC #7 before 9/11? It just doesn't fit AQ profile of a "high value" target.


From what I understand, WTC7 was the headquarters for NY's FBI and CIA anti-terrorism units. While not high value in terms of PR, WTC7 could have been high value in other ways.

Suppose there were certain FBI and/or AQ agents working together. Or suppose the story is true that the FBI was working with AQ during the 1993 bombing, and then double-crossed AQ agents. Then WTC7 could have been a revenge attack to get even with the FBI, or to eliminate the FBI's NY anti-terror office.

Maybe there were pending cases coming up in NY against AQ agents.

Yes, this is all speculation. But every theory starts with speculation. Maybe this will trigger somebody else here to post information that may be relevant.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Either that, or the CIA and FBI would be too embarrassed to admit that al-Qaeda blew up their own building. Or maybe for "security" reasons, the FBI and CIA wouldn't want the details of the CD at WTC7 to become publicly known.

In any case, it makes more sense to me that al-Qaeda blew WTC7, and the government is covering it up, than to believe that the government blew WTC7.

After all, with WTC1 and WTC2 already going down, and the Pentagon being hit, what reason would the government have for taking down WTC7? If the government conspired to pull off 9/11, what reason would they have for risking the demolition of WTC7 when the theatrics of WTC1, WTC2, and the Pentagon were already more than sufficient to achieve their goals?


Well, a hypothetical reason why those agencies would want WTC7 to come down is because that was where the control room was for operating the remote control planes that hit the two towers. The WTC7 building falling down would completely destroy all the evidence of this remote control operation. If WTC7 did not come down, well when inspectors came through the building after the fact to inspect for structural damage, etc, they may have found something "irregular". So better to be safe than sorry, destroy all the evidence, and "Pull It!".



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
We blew up WTC7. Al-Qaeda could lace their sandals fast enough to do this too



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg


Well, a hypothetical reason why those agencies would want WTC7 to come down is because that was where the control room was for operating the remote control planes that hit the two towers. The WTC7 building falling down would completely destroy all the evidence of this remote control operation. If WTC7 did not come down, well when inspectors came through the building after the fact to inspect for structural damage, etc, they may have found something "irregular". So better to be safe than sorry, destroy all the evidence, and "Pull It!".


All good points!

The problem I have with most CTs is that they preclude *any* al-Qaeda involvement. I'm starting to think that this is more of a gray area, with a likely scenario involving al-Qaeda with the help of some key people in the FBI and/or FAA.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I wish you well in this thread, I give up trying to sway you to more reasonable explanations. You keep Rube Goldberging it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Did Al Qaeda blow up WTC7 and the government cover it up


NO, The Government blew up WTC7 and the Government covered it up. You didn't really believe that 9/11 was caused by an arab living in a cave in central asia !!!
Did you also believe Iraq had WMD's???



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I wish you well in this thread, I give up trying to sway you to more reasonable explanations. You keep Rube Goldberging it.


I'm not sure what the more reasonable explanation is?

WTC7 simply fell because of the fires and damage?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I wish you well in this thread, I give up trying to sway you to more reasonable explanations. You keep Rube Goldberging it.


Are you f'ing kidding me??!?

Just so I have this straight, which story do you think is more plausible:

1) Terrorists managed to infiltrate three buildings in New York and place bombs that brought the buildings down. They also managed to hijack several planes to up the "shock and awe" value of the attack. In classic panicked "cover-your-ass" form, many reports from government agencies later prove to be innacurate.

or

2) The Executive Office of the U.S. Government, in a joint operation with the CIA, FBI, NORAD, a couple branches of the military, and a commercial real estate investor infiltrate three buildings in New York and rig them with explosives while simultaneously manufacturing the illusion that four jetliners were hijacked when in fact they are empty and be controlled remotely from one of the buildings that will eventually be demolished. They did this because the individuals at the very top of this massive conspiracy org chart wanted more money (even though they are already filthy rich), more power (even though they already have pretty much unlimited influence), and because they couldn't find any easier way to get the attention of the American public.


I swear, if I hear one more CTer take a cut at someone asking simple questions I will...well...I don't know. Maybe I'll organize a massively complicated and statistically improbable attack on myself...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius


1) Terrorists managed to infiltrate three buildings in New York and place bombs that brought the buildings down. They also managed to hijack several planes to up the "shock and awe" value of the attack. In classic panicked "cover-your-ass" form, many reports from government agencies later prove to be innacurate.



Or, option 1a).... same as above but with strategic help from within key agencies, e.g., FBI, FAA, etc.


To me it's much more plausible that the terror plot was al-Qaeda + limited insiders than to think this was an entire top down, governmnet black ops.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
To me it's much more plausible that the terror plot was al-Qaeda + limited insiders than to think this was an entire top down, governmnet black ops.


Agreed. But I can't even get fully on board with a collection of government insiders...and NOT because I don't think things went down a little fishy on 9/11.

There's just too little to gain for any government agency to stick their head out that far.

When you're writing a screenplay, an intricate conspiracy like that is awe-some. In reality, it doesn't make sense. The reward doesn't outweigh the overwhelming risk involved with taking that COLOSSAL of a dump in your own backyard.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Agreed. But I can't even get fully on board with a collection of government insiders...and NOT because I don't think things went down a little fishy on 9/11.

There's just too little to gain for any government agency to stick their head out that far.

When you're writing a screenplay, an intricate conspiracy like that is awe-some. In reality, it doesn't make sense. The reward doesn't outweigh the overwhelming risk involved with taking that COLOSSAL of a dump in your own backyard.



Maybe not much to gain for a government agency, but there could be a lot to gain for certain operations or individuals within an agency.

Say for example that an FBI operation was working with an al-Qaeda informant who the they later found out compromised national security by double-crossing the FBI. This may have led to certain people within the FBI covering up Flight 800, for example.

And the orders to cover up Flight 800 may have come from very close to the top of the food chain.

All this leads to plausible sceanrios in which certain compromised individuals could have had incentive to look the other way pre-9/11, especially if part of the plan was that all the records kept in WTC7 were destroyed in the process. AQ gets what they want with the big PR hit on WTCs and Pentagon, and FBI insiders (or others) get what they want with WTC7 being taken out in the process under the cover of the AQ attack.

Imo, this is more plausible that WTC7 simply self-destructing spontaneously due to the damage and fires it suffered.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join