Why collapse WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11 ... when they didn't have to?
All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth.
George Orwell
It's all about the fo-cus, the fo-cus, the fo-cus, the fo-cus
George Orwell
It's all about the fo-cus, the fo-cus, the fo-cus, the fo-cus
The focus has always been on what brought WTC-7 down although nothing could be more Emperor's-New-Clothes-like than its collapse by perfect implosion. The question, "Why collapse WTC-7 on 9/11?", however, has never been explored and yet there are good reasons to do so.
They needed the twin towers to come down in dramatic fashion for their terror story but they didn't need WTC-7 to. In fact, if you go by seemingly logical thinking you really have to scratch your head and ask why they would offer us its beautifully graceful collapse on a platter. What could be more incriminating?
WTC-7 ... the building not hit by a plane yet it came down in 6.5 seconds in perfect symmetry! My, what a smoking gun!
Did it contain the control centre for the operation? Is that the reason? Even if it had surely they could have managed that circumstance without showcasing its perfect implosion on the day. Surely, they didn't have to bring down WTC-7 on 9/11 any more than they had to bring down WTCs 3, 4, 5 and 6 which came down later as WTC-7 could have too. And did they showcase it! The Free Fallin' video above includes footage taken from seven vantage points (see images from each vantage point).
The advertised! "smoking gun" and the move away from the more revealing planes
Perhaps it wasn't a case of having to ... it was a case of wanting to.
I can only guess but this is what I suggest.
If you consider that the pivotal truth of 9/11 is that death and injury were staged (with the implication that 9/11 was neither a terrorist attack or "inside job" per se but a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real) and that we can identify significant propaganda targeted at truthers to suppress that truth then bringing down WTC-7 in a perfect implosion when it played no role in the terror story and the fact of its perfect implosion being more incriminating rather than less must surely mean it had a role in the significant propaganda campaign designed to suppress the pivotal truth of staged death and injury.
Grab the truthers' heads and focus them on WTC-7, on pure, in-your-face controlled demolition to keep them away from the more revealing faked planes which immediately put a big hole in the 3,000 dead claim (allegedly 265 in planes) and might lead us to wonder if perhaps deaths other than those in the alleged planes were also faked. There's no need to spend a second on analysing how the buildings came down on 9/11 if we prove (and it's very easy to do) that the planes were faked. If planes were faked then obviously the buildings came down by a controlled means - the propagandists have the truthers focused on the buildings while gradually moving focus away from the planes all to divert from the staged death and injury. WTC-7's collapse is extra to those of the twin towers, the perfect implosion, the magnificent smoking gun, that keeps the focus exactly where it's wanted - on the buildings.
In support of the deliberate moving of focus away from the more revealing planes are the following facts:
--- 60 aerospace engineers have signed onto Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to speak about how planes don't bring down buildings. Why aren't they simply saying there were no planes? Non-existent planes certainly cannot bring down buildings.
--- The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website is going gangbusters while the link for the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website at URL http://pilotsfor911truth.org goes to a page that says "This site has stepped out for a bit - If you are the site owner ... " which is perhaps an indication that it is now completely dead. You can see a recent version of the website on the Wayback machine here: Webarchive 12/01/2021 - Pilots for 9/11 Truth. As you can tell from the recent version, the site was looking moribund. The only 9/11 pilots website I can find now is this one: https://911pilots.org/ set up by Captain Dan Hanley and the indications are it's a controlled opposition website. Dan Hanley contends that HE, as an experienced pilot, couldn't have flown the 9/11 airliners but what he doesn't spell out is that there were no planes. He suggests that the planes were remote-controlled when, very obviously, they were faked - see Four Faked Plane Crashes. There were a number of experts speaking out about the planes including expert pilot and son of the Lear Jet company, John Lear, and others. Where have they disappeared to? I contacted John Lear via Messenger but he didn't respond. Is John Lear a controlled opposition agent whose job was to jump up and down for a period about the planes and then ... just vanish?
WTC-7 is a massive distraction to aid in suppressing the pivotal truth of staged death and injury. There's much more to it than that I"m sure but it certainly is at least that.
Why do they incriminate themselves so obviously with WTC-7?
Two reasons:
--- because they can
--- the anticipated disbelievers won't suspect the collapse being deliberate because it seems counterintuitive that they would deliberately incriminate themselves and so they can use it as they please to propagandise them
What needs to be kept in mind, however, are two things:
1. In reality, we might consider the whole of the 9/11 narrative a "smoking gun". The perps simply give themselves away at every turn. There is no good explanation for:
--- terrorists armed with boxcutters succeeding in overcoming four planesworth of crew and passengers
--- no pilots of the four planes squawking
--- none of the four planes being intercepted
--- an airliner managing to penetrate Defence HQ! - here they really push the envelope
--- a single one of the three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing due to fire
2. As stated by pioneering 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren:
"The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep one's intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works."
Gerard Holmgren, A Theory
They humiliate us with their nonsense, they don't aim for convincingness in their psyops, that is not part of the MO.
How well the 'WTC-7 is the "smoking gun"' propaganda has worked
When I mention to other disbelievers of the 9/11 story how WTC-7 isn't really any more of a smoking gun than the planes they tell me I'm undermining the truth movement - according to other disbelievers we must all align on WTC-7 as the "smoking gun" because there is lack of clarity on other aspects. However, we all know that 200-ton airliners don't melt into 500,000-ton steel frame buildings, that a plane would never be allowed to penetrate Defence HQ ... in fact, any plane going off course would not be allowed to travel far without interception. The whole 9/11 narrative from start to finish is completely preposterous and the notion that we should single out WTC-7 as the "smoking gun" is a form of inappropriate focus propaganda. As George Orwell says, "All propaganda is lies, even when it is telling the truth."
Journalists - candid or scripted?
Much is made of the allusion made by journalists to controlled demolition on the day of 9/11. I thought it remarkable myself but after I learnt how they always give us the clues and especially after I figured out staged death and injury the pennies started to drop. What is vital in a psyop is control of the story and if we consider that 9/11 was a psyop in the true sense of the term (not a half-hearted semi-psyop where the US government callously allowed 3,000 people to be killed for no good reason) aka a massive Full-Scale Exercise comprising many smaller exercises and drills ... that the media would have been scripted makes a lot of sense. This fantastic video, using the music of the song Free Fallin' by Tom Petty, produced by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who, astoundingly enough, are a front group, showcases the journalists on the day.
The journalists "telling" us in their allusions to controlled demolition performs two functions:
--- it "gives us the clues" which is part of the MO
--- they avoid "implicating themselves" by speaking of fire. If they had spoken of "fire" bringing down the building then truthers would begin to suspect that they were "in the know" and this would start to crumble the real death and injury myth. Truthers would start to think, surely, all these journalists couldn't be in on the callous murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens.
This is what some of them said:
Vince DeMentri, WCBS reporter
"It was almost as if it were a planned implosion. It just pancaked."
Note his smile as he says the word "pancaked".
Al Jones, 1010 WINS reporter
"And I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion. It looked like it had been done by a demolition crew, the whole thing just collapsing down on itself."
Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."
Brian Williams and David Restuccio
Exchange between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
We absolutely know that Brian Williams and David Restuccio are scripted from their extremely specific words. So they were scripted and the others not? I don't think so.
Other examples of the journalists telling us so very clearly about the events of 9/11
9 11 01 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You
9/11 News Coverage: How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11 - Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter
They needed the twin towers to come down in dramatic fashion for their terror story but they didn't need WTC-7 to. In fact, if you go by seemingly logical thinking you really have to scratch your head and ask why they would offer us its beautifully graceful collapse on a platter. What could be more incriminating?
WTC-7 ... the building not hit by a plane yet it came down in 6.5 seconds in perfect symmetry! My, what a smoking gun!
Did it contain the control centre for the operation? Is that the reason? Even if it had surely they could have managed that circumstance without showcasing its perfect implosion on the day. Surely, they didn't have to bring down WTC-7 on 9/11 any more than they had to bring down WTCs 3, 4, 5 and 6 which came down later as WTC-7 could have too. And did they showcase it! The Free Fallin' video above includes footage taken from seven vantage points (see images from each vantage point).
The advertised! "smoking gun" and the move away from the more revealing planes
Perhaps it wasn't a case of having to ... it was a case of wanting to.
I can only guess but this is what I suggest.
If you consider that the pivotal truth of 9/11 is that death and injury were staged (with the implication that 9/11 was neither a terrorist attack or "inside job" per se but a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real) and that we can identify significant propaganda targeted at truthers to suppress that truth then bringing down WTC-7 in a perfect implosion when it played no role in the terror story and the fact of its perfect implosion being more incriminating rather than less must surely mean it had a role in the significant propaganda campaign designed to suppress the pivotal truth of staged death and injury.
Grab the truthers' heads and focus them on WTC-7, on pure, in-your-face controlled demolition to keep them away from the more revealing faked planes which immediately put a big hole in the 3,000 dead claim (allegedly 265 in planes) and might lead us to wonder if perhaps deaths other than those in the alleged planes were also faked. There's no need to spend a second on analysing how the buildings came down on 9/11 if we prove (and it's very easy to do) that the planes were faked. If planes were faked then obviously the buildings came down by a controlled means - the propagandists have the truthers focused on the buildings while gradually moving focus away from the planes all to divert from the staged death and injury. WTC-7's collapse is extra to those of the twin towers, the perfect implosion, the magnificent smoking gun, that keeps the focus exactly where it's wanted - on the buildings.
In support of the deliberate moving of focus away from the more revealing planes are the following facts:
--- 60 aerospace engineers have signed onto Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to speak about how planes don't bring down buildings. Why aren't they simply saying there were no planes? Non-existent planes certainly cannot bring down buildings.
--- The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website is going gangbusters while the link for the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website at URL http://pilotsfor911truth.org goes to a page that says "This site has stepped out for a bit - If you are the site owner ... " which is perhaps an indication that it is now completely dead. You can see a recent version of the website on the Wayback machine here: Webarchive 12/01/2021 - Pilots for 9/11 Truth. As you can tell from the recent version, the site was looking moribund. The only 9/11 pilots website I can find now is this one: https://911pilots.org/ set up by Captain Dan Hanley and the indications are it's a controlled opposition website. Dan Hanley contends that HE, as an experienced pilot, couldn't have flown the 9/11 airliners but what he doesn't spell out is that there were no planes. He suggests that the planes were remote-controlled when, very obviously, they were faked - see Four Faked Plane Crashes. There were a number of experts speaking out about the planes including expert pilot and son of the Lear Jet company, John Lear, and others. Where have they disappeared to? I contacted John Lear via Messenger but he didn't respond. Is John Lear a controlled opposition agent whose job was to jump up and down for a period about the planes and then ... just vanish?
WTC-7 is a massive distraction to aid in suppressing the pivotal truth of staged death and injury. There's much more to it than that I"m sure but it certainly is at least that.
Why do they incriminate themselves so obviously with WTC-7?
Two reasons:
--- because they can
--- the anticipated disbelievers won't suspect the collapse being deliberate because it seems counterintuitive that they would deliberately incriminate themselves and so they can use it as they please to propagandise them
What needs to be kept in mind, however, are two things:
1. In reality, we might consider the whole of the 9/11 narrative a "smoking gun". The perps simply give themselves away at every turn. There is no good explanation for:
--- terrorists armed with boxcutters succeeding in overcoming four planesworth of crew and passengers
--- no pilots of the four planes squawking
--- none of the four planes being intercepted
--- an airliner managing to penetrate Defence HQ! - here they really push the envelope
--- a single one of the three steel frame skyscrapers collapsing due to fire
2. As stated by pioneering 9/11 researcher, Gerard Holmgren:
"The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep one's intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works."
Gerard Holmgren, A Theory
They humiliate us with their nonsense, they don't aim for convincingness in their psyops, that is not part of the MO.
How well the 'WTC-7 is the "smoking gun"' propaganda has worked
When I mention to other disbelievers of the 9/11 story how WTC-7 isn't really any more of a smoking gun than the planes they tell me I'm undermining the truth movement - according to other disbelievers we must all align on WTC-7 as the "smoking gun" because there is lack of clarity on other aspects. However, we all know that 200-ton airliners don't melt into 500,000-ton steel frame buildings, that a plane would never be allowed to penetrate Defence HQ ... in fact, any plane going off course would not be allowed to travel far without interception. The whole 9/11 narrative from start to finish is completely preposterous and the notion that we should single out WTC-7 as the "smoking gun" is a form of inappropriate focus propaganda. As George Orwell says, "All propaganda is lies, even when it is telling the truth."
Journalists - candid or scripted?
Much is made of the allusion made by journalists to controlled demolition on the day of 9/11. I thought it remarkable myself but after I learnt how they always give us the clues and especially after I figured out staged death and injury the pennies started to drop. What is vital in a psyop is control of the story and if we consider that 9/11 was a psyop in the true sense of the term (not a half-hearted semi-psyop where the US government callously allowed 3,000 people to be killed for no good reason) aka a massive Full-Scale Exercise comprising many smaller exercises and drills ... that the media would have been scripted makes a lot of sense. This fantastic video, using the music of the song Free Fallin' by Tom Petty, produced by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who, astoundingly enough, are a front group, showcases the journalists on the day.
The journalists "telling" us in their allusions to controlled demolition performs two functions:
--- it "gives us the clues" which is part of the MO
--- they avoid "implicating themselves" by speaking of fire. If they had spoken of "fire" bringing down the building then truthers would begin to suspect that they were "in the know" and this would start to crumble the real death and injury myth. Truthers would start to think, surely, all these journalists couldn't be in on the callous murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens.
This is what some of them said:
Vince DeMentri, WCBS reporter
"It was almost as if it were a planned implosion. It just pancaked."
Note his smile as he says the word "pancaked".
Al Jones, 1010 WINS reporter
"And I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion. It looked like it had been done by a demolition crew, the whole thing just collapsing down on itself."
Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."
Brian Williams and David Restuccio
Exchange between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant:
"Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?" ["Went in" is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
"Yes, sir."
"And you guys knew this was comin' all day."
"We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down."
We absolutely know that Brian Williams and David Restuccio are scripted from their extremely specific words. So they were scripted and the others not? I don't think so.
Other examples of the journalists telling us so very clearly about the events of 9/11
9 11 01 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You
9/11 News Coverage: How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11 - Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter
Widget is loading comments...
Proudly powered by Weebly