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.

 

Anyone see this yet??????

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   


First time I've seen it...very very odd.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Where'd you find this picture?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
you're first learning that #7 collapsed or was brought down (depending on which conspiracy theorist you talk to)?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
This is the first I've heard/seen anything about it. Could someone provide more information?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
This is the first I've heard/seen anything about it. Could someone provide more information?


It was brought down via demolitions. And no, that's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact. The owner of the building (S-something, forgot his name) said that they decided the building had to be "pulled". Which means demolished.

So the building was taken down via explosives. Now consider this: It takes up to 2 weeks to plan such demolitions, the only way they could demolish it is put tons of explosives in it and hope it falls in a way that doesn't harm anyone.

But as you can clearly see, it's a very proper demolition. And if you think they planned the demolition, went into the burning building and planted the explosions within, oh..4 to 5 hours at the most...Don't you think they would be sued? Bringing down a building so hastely? That building could of killed about 500 more people!

But as that gif shows, it's obviously a planned demolition.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
WTC 7 was brought down by implosion, period. A controlled demolition technique that is commonly used in the industry for bringing down large/tall buildings in a safe way that will make no damage in the surroundings, or almost. The same was made with the two towers, with the only difference of planes crashing in it just to make the people believe in a different explanation.

No structure such as this one could have just collapsed on its own without any explosives, and it was only slightly damaged by debris from the two towers collapse. To believe that it was due directly to the two towers is totally irrational and preposterous.

If you look at a view from above the WTC, you'll notice that WTC 7 was the farthest builing from the two towers, and there were even unrelated buildings which were closer but did'nt collapsed. Neither the government or the 9-11 Commission said anything about the collapse of WTC 7, and this is an undeniable sign that the current administration has something to do with 9-11.

And does anybody know that the owner of the WTO had so much debts before 9-11 that he was about to go bankrupt? What a great deal the neocons arranged for him!


[edit on 5/1/06 by Echtelion]

[edit on 5/1/06 by Echtelion]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I remember Linn Samuels on Sirius Left talking about Building 7 being Rudy Gulianni's self sufficient bomb shelter to be used in case of emergency and that it was loaded full of gasoline and other such things to power generators etc.

I think she was reading a report, not making it up or anything.

No, its not the first I've heard about building 7, but its the first I've seen a clean video of the building falling..



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges
Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building

Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006

After nearly two years of steadfast silence, Silverstein Properties have finally responded to questions about what Larry Silverstein meant when he told a PBS documentary that WTC Building 7 was "pulled" in the late afternoon of September 11 2001.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
WTC 7 was brought down by implosion, period. A controlled demolition technique that is commonly used in the industry for bringing down large/tall buildings in a safe way that will make no damage in the surroundings, or almost. The same was made with the two towers, with the only difference of planes crashing in it just to make the people believe in a different explanation.

No structure such as this one could have just collapsed on its own without any explosives, and it was only slightly damaged by debris from the two towers collapse. To believe that it was due directly to the two towers is totally irrational and preposterous.

If you look at a view from above the WTC, you'll notice that WTC 7 was the farthest builing from the two towers, and there were even unrelated buildings which were closer but did'nt collapsed. Neither the government or the 9-11 Commission said anything about the collapse of WTC 7, and this is an undeniable sign that the current administration has something to do with 9-11.

And does anybody know that the owner of the WTO had so much debts before 9-11 that he was about to go bankrupt? What a great deal the neocons arranged for him!


[edit on 5/1/06 by Echtelion]

[edit on 5/1/06 by Echtelion]


Very well put. But he asked about WTC7, not the whole conspiracy. However I'll add on.

So, Why would the government do such things? Why would the government bring down it's own people? Well, what has almost every war (other than the Israeli and Palestine) been about? Money. Money money money.

It just so happens that a couple months before 9/11 the owner of the WTC complex got a new insurance contract. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS BANKRPUT. Now, this contract included those special exceptions as always, and I'm not %100 sure on this one but I've read that one of those exceptions included Terrorism or something of that mindset. That trippled the money.

So let's say he put 3 billion dollars on the whole complex, seems like a plausible amount to me. 9/11 would of had him get 9 billion dollars. So what? Why would the government help him get the money? He didn't keep it all for himself of course. Oh, that and the government needed an excuse to start this war.


I might of made some minor mistakes up above, I don't have any documents and whatnot infront of me, but that's the situation in retrospect. And please, that plane that "fell" out of the sky...It was shot down. Noone cares in America because humankind thrives on tragedy, but IT WAS SHOW DOWN BY A MILITARY JET. The pilot came out and said it.

Also since I'm already pasting about 9/11: Did anyone consider the fact the WTC planes both flew by cleveland before going to NYC? That might be an answer as to what they did with the planes that took off at the airports. Land the planes in Cleveland, kill the passengers, fly the remote control, missle-armed planes into the WTC Towers. Not a strong theory but still might ring a tiny bit of truth.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Uh ok... So any new's article's about this?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Ok so pull it here means to bring it down on purpose.

Ok, and "pull it" when it came to the other buildings meant something else.
I cant get over the lies.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well as EVERYONE knows Silverstein is a schzophrenic! Oh, and he consumes '___' everyday! And as it's known, '___' enhances Schizophrenia! And so he really did mean to "pull" those figherfighters, the explination is they were IMAGINARY and he THOUGHT they existed because he's schizphrenic! But he by NO MEAN s did not use "pull" as everyone does when referring to a building, what are you? A conspiracy theorist???



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Didn't the WTC towers sort of collapse like that?
So doesn't that support the claim that controlled explosives were used in the towers?


Why is this thread in this topic anyway?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mashup


Why is this thread in this topic anyway?


because some time in the next few pages of posts rehashing and re-arguing the same nonsense that has piled up over 125 pages in the bombs in the buildings conspiracy page, someone is going to say this was all done by GWB and his illuminati NWO friends. They planned it after they failed in 96, aliens guided the forefathers the plan started 300 years ago is about to come to fruition. or some other similar nonsense



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
Didn't the WTC towers sort of collapse like that?
So doesn't that support the claim that controlled explosives were used in the towers?

Yeah but he asked about WTC7. Users on ATS might not be the best resource seeing as there are beyond many website dealing with the tower collapse. Yes, I personally believe the WTC Towers had explosives, but you can read that for yourself with evidence and such on:

www. letsroll911.org
www.reopen911.org

Here is a good documentary: novakeo.com...
And you can google "9/11 Truth" or "9/11 Conspiracy Theory" or something along those lines.

I recently read a good report which I'll edit on later since I'm at school, but it had to deal with the towers' falling very scientifically. The author was on CNN I believe, so he's not some pseudo-intelligent imposter.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
If it was a controlled demolition, wouldn't Industrial Risk Insurers have something to say about it? Wouldn't they do their own investigation before handing over $861 million?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The only way our country would even consider allowing us to attack Iraq was to instill either fear or anger the American Public first.

Just like, was it Operation Norwood, or Greenwood, the operation to setup a fake Cuban attack on US soil to justify attacking Cuba, we aided in the destruction of the trade center so we could attack Iraq.

Think about it, if Bin Laden was actually responsible for the attack, do you honestly think Bush, now years later would have given up on the search for Bin Laden and told the public he doesnt much care anymore where he is?

Come on..I know some people are still blinded by their desire to believe our country is ran by people with our best interest at heart, but the sad truth is, to the ruling elite that run this country, the American public is little more than a pawn and a tool for them to use as they seem fit and are merely wiped away if one gets unruly.

Our country isn't ran by the people nor for the people. We are an ignorant and lazy bunch too bent on sucking down tasty cheeseburgers while watching reality shows, getting fat and staying in the dark because the reality of the world around us is just too much to take in or handle.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I saw some show on the history channel last night about 9/11. The show said building 7 collapsed because a fire raged out of control for 7 hours unchecked or something like that; because the towers had fallen everyone was concentrating on them and didn't get to bldg 7 until it was too late. I don't know what to believe, but I find it very odd that Silverstein or whatever the guy who owned #7s name is tried to take out something like a 5 billion dollar insurance policy a few months prior to 9/11!!! but the insurance company basically said he was out of his mind and settled on something like 2 billion of coverage
I also find it odd that the building housed all kinds of govt offices but they were all evacuated, how it came n so clean, and the comment about "pulling" it.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Okay, please, for anyone stupid enough to believe FIRE was the cause of all the fallen towers, PLEASE GOOGLE TOWER FIRES OTHER THAN WTC, IF YOUR NOT STUPID ENOUGH. NO BUILDING BEFORE WTC EVER FELL FROM A DAMN FIRE! *ahem* Something along those lines.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

From a google search that's one of the closest things I found to a building collapsing from a fire. It was after 7 hours or so, and it was only a portion of the building. WTC7 totally collapsed, and in a demolition-like manner.


Oh, and also. Even if you could find a building 100% destroyed from a fire with no explosions, look at the WTC7 fall. Please use logic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join