WTC7, 9/11 first terror message, explained last - worldwide first by M

[MattMarriott]

In the 9/11 script, the Pentagon, was the first chapter of the terror agenda for the general public, by letting them see without any doubts that it was an inside job.
But for a small audience, it was WTC7 that was planned as the first chapter in the "terrorize the sheeple" agenda. That audience was the eyewitnesses of the mass slaughter in Lower Manhattan. That's why the footage of the WTC7 collapse was first kept away from the public by the Web of Disinformation.

But there are other reasons to pull WTC7 the classic way - see video "Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7".
The KEY reason is to help cover-up the core cover-up, i.e. that a h-bomb was used to pull the WTC towers.

The underlying mind control techniques are suggestion and dissociation:
- suggestion: the comparison between a classical demolition, with the visible explosion at the bottom, with what people saw before, the WTC towers with visible explosions at the top, suggests that "planes" caused the WTC collapse, since there was no plane involved in WTC7.
- dissociation: the web of disinformation soon started using massively WTC7, since the opposite images of WTC7 (classic demolition) vs. the WTC towers (unprecedented demolition) would prevent people from adding 1 + 1, i.e. that in both cases it was a demolition.

Finally WTC7 was used as part of the distraction agenda ("the dancing Israelis did it") and the "destruction of Israel" agenda ("Jews are evil"), by using the illuminati agent Larry Silverstein, playing the "evil Jew", divert from the basic cover-up (inside job) and suggesting 9/11 was about real estate, i.e. diverting from the goal of the 9/11 operation:
- collect cannon fodder for the ground operations of the Third World War;
- terrorize the sheep so that they keep quiet until they are slaughtered in the final showdown of the Third World War.
http:(2slsh)911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/

 

[veille]

What you say Matt is so interesting that I almost suspect that even you could be part of the disinfo web! (?)

No offense.

I really appreciate your work. But right now I (almost) believe that even the hard core truths of 911 are only given by disinfo artists. That's who Illuminati work: inform but still confuse even more, all at once.

Laura, Ark, wadaya think about Matt's explanations on 911? Do they fit with your findings? I didn't read Ultimate Truth.

Matt I think you should read Ultimate Truth on 911 (LKJ) and tell us more about what you agree with and what you don't agree with. We would get a VERY interesting debate over this ultra-important issue.


Best,

Veille

 

[veille]

I want more elements of proof concerning the CNN photo shop work on the twin towers.

I always thought it was guided fake-planes that hit the twin towers. There are many camera shots that took this. Now you make be aware of the possibility that there weren't any place at all, that it was a photo shop trucage. I have difficulty to explain this to people I know who believe that guided fake-planes hit the twin towers.

In brief: I need more solid elements of proof to be convinced. Show me.

BEst,

Veille

 

[anart]

Actually, Veille, all indications are that the 'no plane theory' is a red herring designed to make people who question the official version of events appear to be 'looney'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'guided fake planes' - but if you mean the planes' flight paths were controlled by remote control that has been presented as a probability due to the difficulty of actually aiming at and hitting the towers the way they hit the towers.

While I know that the C's did mention that mind control was used to get whoever did pilot the planes to do it, the information the C's give is generally used as indications or clues, rather than 'proof' of anything. With that said, I do not recall reading any transcript that says that the planes were not present at all. I'm sure others may have more to add on that , though.

 

[Ruth]

I want more elements of proof concerning the CNN photo shop work on the twin towers.

I always thought it was guided fake-planes that hit the twin towers. There are many camera shots that took this. Now you make be aware of the possibility that there weren't any place at all, that it was a photo shop trucage. I have difficulty to explain this to people I know who believe that guided fake-planes hit the twin towers.

In brief: I need more solid elements of proof to be convinced. Show me.

BEst,

Veille

Why does a person need to have 'guided fake-planes' hit the WTC when real ones will do quite nicely, especially if their presence is not that important anyway, except as a distraction? In fact why does a person need fake anything, unless its to cover up the truth? All this emphasis on 'fake' whatevers (take your pick, there's probably something for everyone out there) all points towards distraction and leading people away from some remarkably obvious truths.

The planes did not cause 3 buildings to collapse into their footprints. The planes did not cause fires so hot that they could cut through massive steel beams like butter. The planes did not cause fires to burn and metal to remain molten for three months in the ruins of the world trade center. Something other than planes did that. The planes are only a 'prop' to distract from what really happened. And they seem to work remarkably well, because people focus on them. I can't think why people would be so fond of 'hocus-pocus' when the truth is usually a lot more simple and a lot more evil.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

 

[veille]

You think they sent the real airliners in the WTC the first time and inserted a plane image in a screen shot of the second WTC? You think that no planes at all hit the WTC? I m confused, clarify please.

And for the Pentagon, don't tell me there was no missile-dressed-like-a-plane! People heard and saw the craft only they saw more of a disguised missile-like engine dressed like a plane... I mean, I heard...

 

[anart]

You think they sent the real airliners in the WTC the first time and inserted a plane image in a screen shot of the second WTC? You think that no planes at all hit the WTC? I m confused, clarify please.

And for the Pentagon, don't tell me there was no missile-dressed-like-a-plane! People heard and saw the craft only they saw more of a disguised missile-like engine dressed like a plane... I mean, I heard...

I could be mistaken, but I think that Ruth is simply saying that the collapse of the towers via controlled demolition is the more salient point concerning the attack on the towers.

I have never personally read nor seen any evidence of any kind that would indicate that any sort of image was inserted anywhere during the wtc attack - so, yes, planes of some sort hit the towers, according to all available evidence. (the idea that no planes hit the towers is likely something designed to divert attention from the controlled demolition)

The towers were hit by airplanes, at least all evidence points to that. The towers were then brought down via pre-planned controlled demolition - at least all evidence points to that.

The pentagon was not hit by flight 77 (nor any commercial airliner) - at least all evidence points to that - and it very may well have been hit by a military drone plane.

Laura's book on 911 '911 the Ultimate Truth' is a good source of information, if you're interested - it goes into detail about the most probable 'hows' and 'whys'.

 

[veille]

Acording to Mariott:
-no planes hit the WTC, it was inserted by zionist controlled medias, thus implanting this fallacy in people's mind by suggestion.
-h-bombs (unprecedented demolition) were used to pulverise the buildings (ecept WTC7 that is clearly classical demolition)
-a missile hit the pentagon.
-no plane debris found at Shanksville.

waddaya think? Am I right Matt? did I fairly describe your thesis?

 

[anart]

veille please read this thread - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3205

If, however, you have already read it and are still promoting Matt's theory, then, that may be the entire reason you are here on this forum - to promote Matt's theory.

Please try not to underestimate the intelligence of the members of this forum.

 

[Azur]

The KEY reason is to help cover-up the core cover-up, i.e. that a h-bomb was used to pull the WTC towers.

I have a hard time taking you seriously after reading your assertion here.

Please feel free to explain how an H-Bomb could have been used to bring down the WTC towers, in the manner they were shown to come down.


Thanks.

 

[veille]

I'm not here for any other purpose than to share info et get the point of view of others.

I happen to have read MMatriott yesterday evening and I found it intriguing.

Actually I think it is a possibility that there were planes or there weren't, but it's not the most important point. The most important point is that it is unrelated to what really caused the collapse of the twin towers buildings. WTC7 is classic demolition. But the twin towers were pulverised and it MAY BE a hint of fusion explosives. There is a picture on MAttMariott,s website that shows the resemblance between hiroshima and the explosions on top of the twin towers.
here: www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

Also according to MMariott's website, there would be at least 24 evidences of advanced fusion devices at the WTC:
http:(2slsh)verdade.no.sapo.pt/destruction/finnish_military_expert_hydrogen_bomb.htm

I am perplexed. I don't buy any theory before I can be absolutely sure and problem is I am absolutely sure of nothing in the 911 affair. there may be no nuke after all, yet the explosions are from a different source than what was seen as liquid metal flowing from thermite use.

Bye,

Veille

 

[anart]

I'm not here for any other purpose than to share info et get the point of view of others.

I happen to have read MMatriott yesterday evening and I found it intriguing.

Yes, your being intrigued is obvious

Actually I think it is a possibility that there were planes or there weren't, but it's not the most important point. The most important point is that it is unrelated to what really caused the collapse of the twin towers buildings. WTC7 is classic demolition. But the twin towers were pulverised and it MAY BE a hint of fusion explosives. There is a picture on MAttMariott,s website that shows the resemblance between hiroshima and the explosions on top of the twin towers.
here: www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

Please seriously think about this for a moment - picture the images you may have seen from Hiroshima and then picture images you have seen from 911. This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. I will admit, however, that the exact mechanism and source of energy used to bring down those towers the way they were brough down is very likely exotic - as in not conventional or usual; as in 'cutting edge technology' - but the idea that it was an H bomb is just silly, imo.

Also according to MMariott's website, there would be at least 24 evidences of advanced fusion devices at the WTC:
http:(2slsh)verdade.no.sapo.pt/destruction/finnish_military_expert_hydrogen_bomb.htm

Yes, Matt's theories have been discussed elsewhere on this site - to which you have been previously directed. All available evidence points clearly to the fact that many, if not most of them, are disinformation.

I am perplexed. I don't buy any theory before I can be absolutely sure and problem is I am absolutely sure of nothing in the 911 affair. there may be no nuke after all, yet the explosions are from a different source than what was seen as liquid metal flowing from thermite use.

Bye,

Veille

Interesting, since you seem to be 'buying' Matt's theory rather easily, using it as reason to pose these questions. I get the general feeling that you are not 'perplexed' at all - but just trying to appear so to encourage discussion on this rather ridiculous topic - or so it seems to me and I could certainly be mistaken.

 

[veille]

Yes i encourage discussion o this because I want to understand.
i am not buy his theory but considering it. Maybe tomorrow I will be throwing it in the garbage can like you did!

 

[veille]

Please dont give bad intentions to others, it makes you sound paranoid.

;)

 

[domi]

I'm not here for any other purpose than to share info et get the point of view of others.

I happen to have read MMatriott yesterday evening and I found it intriguing.

Actually I think it is a possibility that there were planes or there weren't, but it's not the most important point. The most important point is that it is unrelated to what really caused the collapse of the twin towers buildings. WTC7 is classic demolition. But the twin towers were pulverised and it MAY BE a hint of fusion explosives. There is a picture on MAttMariott,s website that shows the resemblance between hiroshima and the explosions on top of the twin towers.
here: www(dot)saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

So this picture compares an explosion ejecting matter upwards with a building collapsing downwards. That is a disconnect.

Dominique.