Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Counter-Conspiracy: World Trade Center 7

page: 1
35
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Just before 5PM on September 11, 2001, the British Broadcast Corporation reported that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed... but the building didn't fall until 26 minutes later! BBC Anchor Jane Standley made the report, while WTC7 stood INTACT behind her. How did this happen? In this #OffTheGrid clip, Jesse Ventura gives his own "Counter-Conspiracy" analysis. What do you think? Was it a controlled demolition? Or did fires bring it down like the 9/11 Commission Report alleges?



Jesse's full analysis of WTC 7 is available now on Ora.TV!




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
this was the first thing that brought me to ATS , i think the thread ended up being about 200 pages.

i was hooked from then on.

Don't come here much these days just drop in to see its still going strong.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

No other object has defied the Laws Of Physics than Building 7


edit on 1-5-2014 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Controlled demolition. It was another building that fell into its own footprint, uncharacteristic of collapsing buildings caused by damage or external forces.

Not too mention that you have the BBC newscaster announcing it before it ever collapsed. Even with prior knowledge of an imminent collapse could not explain this HUGE mistake in the official story.

It maddens me so much to know that we can never investigate the scene. We have to grasp at the dust left behind.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

It's my belief that flight 93, the plane that went down in Shanksfield, Penn, was intended to crash into WTC 7 and not the White House like the OS claims. They went ahead and brought down the WTC 7 later in the day because they had to bring it down as previously planned or else the explosive would have eventually been found.
Somehow, somewhere in the mix the BBC got the news and went ahead and released it prematurely. Maybe Silverstein told them they were "pulling" it soon.

edit on 1-5-2014 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
When the BBC looked into the cameras to see what the situation was with building 7 26 minutes prior, they didn't see it.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
That building was brought down with explosives.FireMen and Sliverman have said so themselves.NIST merely rubber stamped the offical conclusion just like the Zelikow-Kean Commission did.That's what most of these "investigative bodies."Are PR exercises.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If this was just a misunderstanding between information that "the building was GOING to fall" rather than "the building fell" then somehow they were able to determine that a collapse was imminent. If they can gauge these things then why didn't they warn the firefighters inside WTC 1 and 2 that collapse of THOSE buildings was imminent? That does not mesh. There was substantially more damage to 1 and 2 and they had no idea it was going to come down, yet they were able to guess correctly that 7 was?



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I DONT THINK THERE WAS ANY GUESSING INVOLVED....BLG 7 WAS SLATED TO GO DOWN THAT DAY....
The thing couldn't be left standing for the obvious reasons....besides there was a lot of other scamming covered up in the collapse besides the wtc conspiracy....Enron for one....
Nope I refuse to contemplate what was so obviously an explosives caused collapse could be a natural refutation of the laws of physics....



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Omg this is just like the jets! : The 3 F16s from Langley were supposed to be chasing 93 Far to the North East of DC as 77 approached the Pentagon from the South West,but 93 had been 41 minutes delayed departing & had not been hijacked yet when the diversion was needed.This forced the conspirators to come up with a different excuse to divert Langley's F16s North East: Phantom 11. However,NORAD had not yet figured out how to cover for 93 and made the mistake of making numerous & repeated statements about having scrambled Langley because of 93 (2nd public hearing 5/23/03) though 93 had not even been hijacked Yet! NORAD officials repeated the original plan even though things hadn't gone according to plan,an inadvertent confession:911 was an inside job.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OFFTHEGRID
Just before 5PM on September 11, 2001, the British Broadcast Corporation reported that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed... but the building didn't fall until 26 minutes later! BBC Anchor Jane Standley made the report, while WTC7 stood INTACT behind her. How did this happen? In this #OffTheGrid clip, Jesse Ventura gives his own "Counter-Conspiracy" analysis. What do you think? Was it a controlled demolition? Or did fires bring it down like the 9/11 Commission Report alleges?



Jesse's full analysis of WTC 7 is available now on Ora.TV!


The 9/11 commission didn't even mention building 7. Only years later did NIST conclude that it had been brought down by office fires.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostfacekilah00
And then change its story 3 years later

Pretty good video too, well except for the last 3 min or so, jesse didn't really answer the questions, he redirected most.
The boat thing is a something I never thought of, gonna go see if i can find anything on that.
edit on stThu, 01 May 2014 20:15:16 -0500America/Chicago520141680 by Sremmos80 because: eta



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BoovDawg
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Omg this is just like the jets! : The 3 F16s from Langley were supposed to be chasing 93 Far to the North East of DC as 77 approached the Pentagon from the South West,but 93 had been 41 minutes delayed departing & had not been hijacked yet when the diversion was needed.This forced the conspirators to come up with a different excuse to divert Langley's F16s North East: Phantom 11. However,NORAD had not yet figured out how to cover for 93 and made the mistake of making numerous & repeated statements about having scrambled Langley because of 93 (2nd public hearing 5/23/03) though 93 had not even been hijacked Yet! NORAD officials repeated the original plan even though things hadn't gone according to plan,an inadvertent confession:911 was an inside job.


Please give more exact information on timelines and sources please, I want to investigate further.

Are you basically saying 93 wasn't highjacked when the airforce scrambled jets to intercept it. 93 first reported a mayday at 9:28. Langley scrambled 3 jets at 9:24, is that what your referring to and where can I find information that they responded specifically for 93 and specifically north east that you said? What that about it being away from flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37?

Could you elaborate more please, cheers.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

WTC #7 is the blatant proof and it shows how f#@king blatantly stupid and weak people can be.

There is no other better way that I can state it because it pisses me off to high hell.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1Providence1
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

WTC #7 is the blatant proof and it shows how f#@king blatantly stupid and weak people can be.

There is no other better way that I can state it because it pisses me off to high hell.


Couldn't agree more! It's infuriating to hear people's denial of blatant truths and more infuriating to think the US government have actually gotten away with it.

As long as we let these people continue to run our countries, our lives are not our own. We are at their disposal.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Pull it

Controlled demolition.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Yes that was there excuse for letting a silent plane fly around for an hour and ingoring the pentagon "plane" little did they know the other was 40 min delayed I to believe like the poster above the fighter jets were supposed to be chasing 93 to wt7 were they probly would of fired missiles at the last second causing evan more damage and hiding the building's collapsing in the midst of it had it all gone to plan...

I should add this is a reply to DOCGREEN 15

www.globalresearch.ca...

911research.wtc7.net...

whatreallyhappened.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 2-5-2014 by BoovDawg because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2014 by BoovDawg because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Tbh I think its crazy how many slip ups and blatantly stupid cock ups and lies there is about the whole thing I think I could of organised it better myself its basically like their just sat there laughing in our faces like a fat kid in a police interview watching himself commit his crime on cctv and saying you got nuffin on me!



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Interesting to have Mr Ventura's take on this.

This thread is about the BBC report by Jane Stadley on 9/11 so rather than go off on some tangent about the winder saga of WTC-7 I am going to try to stay focused on the BBC Report.

However first several errors that Mr Ventura has made need to be cleared up. The BBC is not the “British Broadcasting Company” rather it is the British Broadcasting Corporation A simple mistake that can be forgiven however his other errors cannot be so easily forgiven. Jane Stadley report went out at 16:54 not 16:50 secondly he incorrectly says WTC-7 fell in 7 seconds, when in reality it took almost double this time for the entire building to fall. He also makes a big deal out of the fact that the 9/11 commission report failed to make mention of the collapse of WTC-7, this is true but they only done so because it was no in their remit. Simply put the 9/11 commission was set up to look at the terrorist events of that day not to explore any kind of engineering failure, that job fell to FEMA and NIST who both explored the collapse of WTC-7. The fact that the 9/11 commission did not discuss WTC-7 in any depth is not proof of any kind of cover up. Finally Mr. Ventura makes another error by not actually showing us the BBC report, in the original report the reporter does not talk about WTC-7 but rather the Solomon Brothers Building quite a minor point but all the same a error on his part.

These multitude of seemingly small errors worry me when looked at as a collective, they show that Mr. Ventura like all other “celebrity” truthers either does not have any idea what he is talking about or, as I suspect is more likely, he is over cooking the truth to make it much more palatable to his audience. That is to say he is deliberately saying the building fell in 7 seconds to make his “conspiracy” more powerful and acceptable to those who already believe in the grand 9/11 false flag even though he knows this is total rubbish.

But to move on to the BBC report.

This for those of you who have never seen it is the original report.



There are a number of things that have to be put into context when watching this video, principally that on that day the BBC where reporting what was a very confusing day. It is entirely possible that they where reporting that WTC-7 had collapsed based on the information they where getting at the time especially when one views this video broadcast at 1610 (over 40 minutes before the BBC report).



Actually there where a number of reports that day that suggested that WTC-7 was either collapsing or had collapsed, including one by routers that incorrectly said the building had collapsed prematurly but was then withdrawn. If you follow through the story of WTC-7 that day, it becomes obvious that the fire-fighters on the day where concerned that it was going to collapse and that seems to be the source of these stories.

It is in no way far fetched to believe that the BBC mistakenly broadcast the collapse of WTC-7 prematurely based on other broadcasts and news sources during what was a very confusing day.

This is backed up by the BBC who released a statement on the report once the conspiracy became more widespread. They stated that:


We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.


Furthermore even Jane Stadley has commented herself on that report in this video bellow.



From a logical stand point I can find no reason that whoever was behind any conspiracy to blow up WTC-7 would bother informing the BBC and other media outlets of this before it actually happened. It just doesn’t add up. Why would they inform reporters of this before they actually blew up the building there is no need for it. Why not just have the building blow up and let the reporters just pick up the story then and run with it.

Jesse Ventura is way off on this one.

Basically, there where reports it was "going to collapse" and along the way on a very confusing day this got confused with "WTC-7 has collapsed" and the BBC picked up on that report.

PS:

I am also rather concerned with Mr Ventura's defence of Dr. Judy wood.
edit on 2-5-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Exactly, i see nothing but beating a dead horse with "wrong info" and a "profesional investigator" shouldn't be allowed to post wrong info on ATS as he should know about this if he is really investgating, it's clearly missleading and very unprofesional IMO.





new topics




 
35
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join