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.

 

Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

page: 14
202
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: SyxPak

Let me get this straight. 9/11..terrorist attack.....two towers just collapsed....hundreds dead....ENTIRE Manhattan one big pile of chaos & smoke....and you expect the news anchor showing big emotion because ANOTHER building fell down? (Where t was already clear for hours that the building was damaged).

What's that emotion supposed to be? "OMGZ people! You won't believe what just happened....but this really takes the cake....this building just collapsed!!!"

(Mind the fact that no one was actually in that building as far as I know.)

On the background of the entire events of 9/11 on that day, the collapse of WTC7 is (almost) TRIVIAL and sure not an event which would have warranted major emotions as you seem to think.


I've been giving this some more thought -- it's not so much the lack of emotion in the video that feels odd to me, but the lack of surprise.

Here's why: They just read, on air, the report that someone handed them saying that WTC 7 had collapsed within the last few minutes. They're looking at the skyline, and speculating that the large amount of smoke they're seeing is a result of that collapse. Then, as they're watching, WTC 7 actually collapses. The only logical assumption I can see them making in real time is that this is ANOTHER building collapsing, in addition to the one they just reported on. Instead, it seems like they immediately assume that this is the collapse they just reported, they just happened to report it a few seconds early.

Their responses: "Take a look at that. Right hand side of the screen. It's going down right now. There it goes."

Why wasn't their response the much more logical assumption: "Is that another building going down?"

And then of course he has to make me tighten up my tinfoil hat by following it up with "We are seeing video today that only Hollywood could have produced at another time."




posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
This is awesome! I've always kept an open mind about both sides of the 9/11 conspiracy fence. When people get that look of disgust on their face about entertaining the thought of an inside job I always ask them what their explanation for WTC7 is. Of course their eyes glaze over because they've never heard of it. It's the perfect opportunity for me to suggest that they haven't even researched a topic that they are debating since they don't know about the biggest argument used against the official story, and that they are relying on blind, ignorant faith. Without fail they immediately dash off to Google to watch the footage... which hopefully pulls them off of their high horse a bit.

I don't fault anyone for taking a stance but I can't stand for choices based on complete ignorance and conditioning.



edit on 12-9-2014 by CraftBuilder because: of typos.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I would love to see a poll/statistics of how many people know how many buildings collapsed.

I would argue its an injustice to the people that worked there and the owners, share holders etc.. and the business lost by not being able to work there for it to be forgotten.

Making it about the truth throws it in the conspiracy category. How about making it an untold story full of info regarding peoples jobs, businesses etc.. affected by that building going down. Use it as an example of construction that would require every other building in New York to be tested based on the fact that it has a huge structural flaw that made it the first steel building in history to collapse from fire. If you take the original story and run with what has been said, then it creates a much bigger problem as it highlights some terrible dangers to the whole of New York and other buildings of that era. Based on that alone the story would be printable and would make greater waves when the unsaid is made apparent about a 3rd building collapse that day.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
building 7 is a good way to get the message out there.

But the other 2 towers were just as obvious



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
This is the most important/powerful billboard ever created. So many people were shocked and didn't know what to believe. This will wake up so many people. I lost two friends from my elementary school on that day. Words almost fail me. The people responsible for this add are saints in my eyes. This is amazing. No more deceptions or lies. The true perpetrators will be brought to justice, finally.

I'm not hearing any response from the billboard.
I guess Richard Gage needed some sort of jolt to rebuild his income base.
You should hop over to his site and donate.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
The planes hit the top of the building, not the foundation. There is no logical reason (except thermite) that can explain why that steel is cut so precise. Those buildings (all three) were brought down in a controlled demolition.a reply to: samkent


You should really look beyond conspiracy sites for your information.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Has anyone gone onto facebook to see how people may be commenting on this?

I tried a specific page on fb's website, through a qrobe search and could only find sites relating the same story.

I'm curious to see the "social-trend" of this thing being how msm ain't squealing any of it?

I mean what are they going to report; The 'fringe' is gaining momentum?

wtc7 facbook comments billboard times square
edit on (9/12/1414 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: magicrat

I've been giving this some more thought -- it's not so much the lack of emotion in the video that feels odd to me, but the lack of surprise.

Here's why: They just read, on air, the report that someone handed them saying that WTC 7 had collapsed within the last few minutes. They're looking at the skyline, and speculating that the large amount of smoke they're seeing is a result of that collapse. Then, as they're watching, WTC 7 actually collapses. The only logical assumption I can see them making in real time is that this is ANOTHER building collapsing, in addition to the one they just reported on. Instead, it seems like they immediately assume that this is the collapse they just reported, they just happened to report it a few seconds early.


You know, that is a really good observation and I really agreed with you, when I read your post.

But!

When I clicked the link and watched the video I noticed to my surprise that I had seen it before. I have never questioned it. I have always assumed that their producer had just found the part where WTC 7 collapsed. The hosts probably believed that too.

Even if the video in the background had been running continuously it does not mean that they would now it was live - Likely the hosts has little to no attention towards that video but rather on cameras and the constant voices their ear-buds.

And honestly, before the collapse of WTC it was a really really boring stream.


So to me it is a much more simple and plausible explanation that they thought they saw was taped.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I would like to say that for me, Building 7 didnt came down by the "fire" , how many examples of fires in buildings can we mention that never went down like building 7??? thousands, the one I remember was the MGM hotel fire at las vegas in 1980 , 85 people were killed and the building never crash down! ever! today its the Bally's hotel! How can bulding 7 with less fire came down ???, you can see clearly just smoke and very few flames if they are seen, you never see actuall fire like in big buildings fire from the windows (in most fires you can see the flames breaking windows trying to get oxigen) if you see the videos you only see some smoke, thats it!

Fire alone cant melt steel colums that big and massive, yes you can melt small pieces but a robust colum of steel no way! People can say it was fire or it was terrorist but images and video speaks for themselves, the only idea i can come up that this was done by highly well done Black Ops operation, and i dont mean normal blacks, this one whould be above Top secret level!.

Let assume for one second this is what happen, dont you think that using termite would be their best choice? any intellegent people would know that using termite of course would make a trail back to this group, this will leed to follow easy the trail, for me they use other type of compound more advance than thermite, maybe a compound that its not so easy to detect, dont you think that if this attack was pull off by Black Ops they surely have better weapons and equipment than normal controll demolition experts and comercial companies? of course they would use a more highly and more advance type of compound, that not even people who works on this job would have a clue or an idea of how it was done or what is it.

The truth is that in my mind just terrorist alone with what they have today could not pull off this type of attack, surely they can get a plane and smash it and make terrible casualties, but bringing down 3 buildings at free fall should make you question if terrorist have better technology that your own USA Army including black ops!

Just look what ISIS is doing today, using human shields (reporters) to make their demans, why not attack like 9/11???? if they are so experts to pull it off and have better "equipment" that the USA army they should surely win this easy! why they dont use this same tactics if it worked the first time? because they dont have the technology to pull that off! only BLACK OPS CAN!

Period.





edit on 12-9-2014 by AlexDJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Okay, I can accept that as a plausible interpretation. I just watched the clip again with that in mind and it's totally valid.

I do think they assume they're watching a live feed in the first part of the clip -- she does ask her producers to correct her if she's wrong in assuming it's a live feed, and when it does collapse she clearly and definitively describes it in the present tense: "It's going down right now."

So I'm still struggling to shake the weirdness of it, but thanks for giving me a different way to make sense of it.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




You should really look beyond conspiracy sites for your information.


Why? The only site anyone needs is open eyes.
I drew my conclusion that the towers were demoed from
the first time I seen the video footage. Never changed my mind once
never will.

You need to learn how to think for yourself.
edit on Rpm91214v19201400000002 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AlexDJ



I remember was the MGM hotel fire at las vegas in 1980 , 85 people were killed and the building never crash down! ever! today its the Bally's hotel! How can bulding 7 with less fire came down ???, you can see clearly just smoke and very few flames if they are seen, you never see actuall fire like in big buildings fire from the windows (in most fires you can see the flames breaking windows trying to get oxigen) if you see the videos you only see some smoke, thats it!

Na That's not fire. They are just roasting weinies.

Jump to the 4 minute mark.
Then tell us how those are not windows breaking and falling to the ground.
Tell us how the wind is not blowing through the building raising the temps.

This is what happens when you get your information from conspiracy sites.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
This is awesome! I've always kept an open mind about both sides of the 9/11 conspiracy fence. When people get that look of disgust on their face about entertaining the thought of an inside job I always ask them what their explanation for WTC7 is. Of course their eyes glaze over because they've never heard of it. It's the perfect opportunity for me to suggest that they haven't even researched a topic that they are debating since they don't know about the biggest argument used against the official story, and that they are relying on blind, ignorant faith. Without fail they immediately dash off to Google to watch the footage... which hopefully pulls them off of their high horse a bit.

I don't fault anyone for taking a stance but I can't stand for choices based on complete ignorance and conditioning.




Ummm I'm not sure how many people you've asked but every time someone asks ME I tell the the truth- wreckage from the north tower fell on it and smashed it up, just like it fell on the Deutschebank building right next to it and smashed IT up. The Deutshebank building was in fact so damaged that it was condemned.

What happened to the building after wreckage fell on WTC 7 smashed it up we may never definitively know, but it is not for debate that WTC 7 stood for almost 30 years without incident...until the north tower fell and smashed it up, and then and only then did it fall. Knowing what happened to girder A as it applied to what was happening to girder B is interesting, but largely academic.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: gazzerman
I would love to see a poll/statistics of how many people know how many buildings collapsed.

I would argue its an injustice to the people that worked there and the owners, share holders etc.. and the business lost by not being able to work there for it to be forgotten.



I for one would like to see a poll of how many people know who Mohammed Atta is. I've asked several people myself and they didn't know what the significance the name has. To most people in the west, if it's a muslim name it might as well be some gibberish sound we make with our mouths when we're bored, as far as for anyone wanting to remember it is concerned..



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GoodOlDave

Isn't Mohammed Atta what they say in that Muppets song?

(Kidding. I'm well aware of who Mohammed Atta is and his significance. But your gibberish comment made the song jump into my head. And now it's in yours -- you're welcome! And I agree, I bet far too many people wouldn't recognize his name.)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

That's no fire.

Compared to these.



And just think, the one in China was made of bamboo!



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoodOlDave

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
This is awesome! I've always kept an open mind about both sides of the 9/11 conspiracy fence. When people get that look of disgust on their face about entertaining the thought of an inside job I always ask them what their explanation for WTC7 is. Of course their eyes glaze over because they've never heard of it. It's the perfect opportunity for me to suggest that they haven't even researched a topic that they are debating since they don't know about the biggest argument used against the official story, and that they are relying on blind, ignorant faith. Without fail they immediately dash off to Google to watch the footage... which hopefully pulls them off of their high horse a bit.

I don't fault anyone for taking a stance but I can't stand for choices based on complete ignorance and conditioning.




Ummm I'm not sure how many people you've asked but every time someone asks ME I tell the the truth- wreckage from the north tower fell on it and smashed it up, just like it fell on the Deutschebank building right next to it and smashed IT up. The Deutshebank building was in fact so damaged that it was condemned.

What happened to the building after wreckage fell on WTC 7 smashed it up we may never definitively know, but it is not for debate that WTC 7 stood for almost 30 years without incident...until the north tower fell and smashed it up, and then and only then did it fall. Knowing what happened to girder A as it applied to what was happening to girder B is interesting, but largely academic.



I find it odd that you call your unproven conjecture truth (wreckage from the north tower fell on it and smashed it up) and then in the very next line claim the same information as Not for debate (until the north tower fell and smashed it up, and then and only then did it fall)

You should be more truthful and say something Like

My theory is ............

There was not enough damage from debris to cause a building to fall in its own footprint.

But lets do a thought experiment to be sure.

Lets conjecture this;Your claim is that the debris from the trade center fell on building 7 in the perfect way as to make it fall in its own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition?

Some how I seem to remember someone once saying that the simpler of the options is usually the correct one.

So our options are

1. A building had debris fall on it in the perfect way so as to make it fall in its own footprint. (something that has never happened except in a controlled demo ever in the history of written records)

or

2. A human had it rigged and "pulled it" in order to make 4 billion dollars in insurance fraud.


Hmm I wonder which one it was?
edit on 12-9-2014 by AmenStop because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoodOlDave

originally posted by: gazzerman
I would love to see a poll/statistics of how many people know how many buildings collapsed.

I would argue its an injustice to the people that worked there and the owners, share holders etc.. and the business lost by not being able to work there for it to be forgotten.



I for one would like to see a poll of how many people know who Mohammed Atta is. I've asked several people myself and they didn't know what the significance the name has. To most people in the west, if it's a muslim name it might as well be some gibberish sound we make with our mouths when we're bored, as far as for anyone wanting to remember it is concerned..


I think that's more like your friends in the west, I know a lot of people who know who that is. I mean it was all over the news for years.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs



That's no fire.

Once again with the conspiracy site stuff.

But if you must.
Different construction compaired to WTC 1 2 3.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrnotobc
Looking at some of the responses on this thread makes it obvious that this website is buggy with operatives. They're working a little too hard trying to prove a turd tastes good.



That there is funny, true but funny.




top topics



 
202
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join