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.

 

BBC News Reports Building 7 collapse 23 Minutes before it collapses.

page: 56
101
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illuminze
think about it; if they'd waited a few days to bring down WTC7 there was always the chance someone might have discovered it was rigged for demolition. It had to come down on that day.


Who? Who was going to find out?

No one found out ahead of time it was rigged before 9/11. Those explosives must have been pretty well hidden.

The area was blocked off. As we know the police and fire department must have been in on it already anyway to know it was going to be demolished.

So who else would find out it was rigged?

Who would be going into a "small fires" burning building to check it out?



And then that leaves the question why not just go right ahead and demolish it on 9/11 and say they demolished it? Fire fighters were in that building earlier in the day. The could say they planted the explosives once the transit was set up and they knew the buidling was failing. They could even say they didn't have to do much demolition because it was already damaged from the same reasons they gave in the report.

I still don't see why they had to do it when they did and then lie about it?




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
yeah the key with any crime is speed, so you get away with it before the sun comes up, before the records have been checked, before the forensic team has arrived and so on. Also if it was (as many believe) the command centre for the events of the day then it had to be done quick before rescue workers found anything suspicious.

'This terrorist command centre will self destruct in 5...'

Is there any evidence that there was activity (emergency relief) going on throughout WTC7 before it came down? Were people allowed unrestricted access? Or were people only allowed out? Perhaps the individual fires were started in areas people wanted others kept out of.

An interesting question is how debris could cause the fires. I mean there was the SW base crack and a few smashed windows, but you know the triangle - fuel heat and oxygen. Where did the heat come from to start the fires? Can anyone see flaming debris in the collapse videos? Were fuel pipes broken?

So many questions, so few answers, but then, that's why most of us are here right? (Unless you're the brave patriotic censor riding his noble steed, 'Shutup', and accompanied by his three plucky little squires 'Straw Man', 'Snitch' and 'Tar Brush'.)

I just hope this isnt a threat...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Okay but all that doesn't explain the lie?

If we are to believe that it was brought down by demolition to cover some control center then we have to believe that before 9 am someone got into that building and planted explosives for the demolition?

Usually that takes days. So they must have gotten a crack team in there and they did it overnight other wise they were risking several sun ups before 9/11 could take place. At anytime anyone could have discovered the explosives during that time.

So if they got a crack team in there over night then why wouldn't they have just gotten that crack team in at 9, dressed as fire fighters and police, clear out teh buidling for safety and then sat back and waited until enough outsiders thought that building looked unsafe and then say hey we gotta help it down folks? Pretend to go put a few explosives around the base. Say they looked at the transit and it wasn't stable to begin with. Then at least when the explosives went off and was heard (As some claim) they could point and say, "Yes sir, you heard correct because as we explained it had to be brought down for the safety of everyone in this area!"

Now how did debris cause fires. There are a thousand pics that day of burning debris up and down the streets of lower manhattan. fires aren't actually that difficult to start, especially when hot debris is raining down onto office supplies etc.... Ask anyone who threw out a cigarette into a waste paper basket.

I think the questions are valid since they point to the reasoning behind the theories. It doesn't matter what side you take on a theory. You need to have a reason why you took it and then a reason why those who did it did what they did.

Does that make sense?

If I were planning this day I wouldn't have subjected myself to more questions when I didn't have to.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Yeah good point with the preperation time, but at least that was before anyone's eyes were peeled, I mean once the first plane had hit, everyone started taking a whole lot more notice of what was going on in NY. So It woul be easier to get away with something before the grand finale than afterwards.

I think it may have been a case of minmizing exposure. If it was a demolition and they did let slip that it was coming down because they had planned it all along then they got surprisingly sloppy. To draw more attention to it and say 'we are going to bring it down' may have itself brought the awkward question of 'how, in such a short space of time with only partial access?'. Better to let/make people think it fell down.

The scant reporting of WTC7 in the years following was such that most people outside of the 'loose change'' audience still don't know it ever existed. Maybe a little overconfidence in their abilities to control the media (Or judging on how little mainstream exposure the video being discussed in this thread is getting, a justifiable level of confidence!).



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
John Gross a NIST engineer admitted in this video that NIST is looking at the possibility of a controlled demolition for an explanation as to why WTC 7 collapsed.

It starts at 2:40 on the video


video.google.com...

[edit on 2-3-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
But what eyes would be peeled after 9/11.

There are only two scenarios that I can see.

1)Explosives were planted before 9/11 and various uninvolved employees and visitors to the building came and went before during and after these explosives were planted.

2) Explosives were planted the day of 9/11, after the building was evacuated and only those involved came and went so the exposure to detection was far less.

So if you are going with Scenario number 1. Then how many days before 9/11 were these explosives planted? And if you were willing to risk even one day where employees could detect something was up then wouldn't you have hid them pretty well or been confident that no one was goign to find them prior? And then if you did that wouldn't even less people who weren't in on the demolition be likely to be going into that building after 9/11? So you would have far far less reason to think anyone not in on the plan would notice anything. Cameras from 100 yards away aren't going to notice that you aren't in fact setting up explosives. You could have sat back for weeks and got the story straight about why it was demolished. No need to quickly do it on 9/11 when no one was going to be going into that building again after that day anyway. Not anyone that wasn't connected to this prior.

And if you are going with scenario number 2 then that falls back on why do it then if you have such a crack team that can do it in hours? Just tell the world you are demolishing it and why and then do it at your own speed. Whether that be 5:20 or a day later.

I still don't see why the lie was needed at all in any scenario when the easier lie would been why it needed to be demolished.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
John Gross a NIST engineer admitted in this video that NIST is looking at the possibility of a controlled demolition for an explanation as to why WTC 7 collapsed.

It starts at 2:40 on the video


video.google.com...

[edit on 2-3-2007 by etshrtslr]


Yes in a good investigation they will always look at all the possibilities of how a building could have come down. That doesn't mean they will find evidence to all the possibilities tho.

Just as with a plane accident. They don't just assume the first thing that pops into the investigators mind upon reaching the scene. They will systematically explore all posibilities until evidence rules them out.

The world is interested how WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because it will help us understand how to build better and safer buildings.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Based on what i've read I dont think its possible to do it that quick, and would have to have been set up in advance. Either a crack team went in on the sly, or it would have been done under the guise of maintenance work. Most likely at night, and security would have had to have been duped, in on it, or paid/threatened off.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Based on what i've read I dont think its possible to do it that quick, and would have to have been set up in advance. Either a crack team went in on the sly, or it would have been done under the guise of maintenance work. Most likely at night, and security would have had to have been duped, in on it, or paid/threatened off.



Okay I will go with that. So now we have the very real possibility that anyone going into that building after they have set up the explosives would have blown the entire thing.

We get to 9/11 and no one has figured out that the building is rigged or at least no one that is still alive to tell. :-)

The team has no reason to believe the plan was discovered and they can be pretty confident that no "unauthorized" individuals will have access to the building after 9/11.

Why would they think it would be discovered after 5:20 on 9/11 if it hadn't been discovered prior? Why then lie and say the "building just collapsed" when they could much easier lie about putting in after the fact explosives to help a damaged and dangerous building?

Why open themselves up to the potential that someone would notice explosives going off? Or that someone would hear explosives? Or that some other proof would come out that there were explosives involved.

Why not just always admit there were explosives and then the only lie would be when they were set up (which is easy to fake, easier than anything else on 9/11) and why they had to set them up and take down the building?

Because clearly they always planned on taking that building down if explosives were indeed planted. They wouldn't be planning all this and not have a good way to cover the explosion while still staying as close to the truth as possible.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
And let's not forget that we now have them sending out a press release to early about this lie? It makes no sense. Why send out a press release at all if you don't want even more people to pay attention to what might be exposed as explosions rather than just a collapse?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

If we are to believe that it was brought down by demolition to cover some control center then we have to believe that before 9 am someone got into that building and planted explosives for the demolition?

Usually that takes days. So they must have gotten a crack team in there and they did it overnight other wise they were risking several sun ups before 9/11 could take place. At anytime anyone could have discovered the explosives during that time.


the J.L. Hudson buiding in Detroit Michigan took 12 people about 24 days to rig with explosives for a controlled demolition. It was 439ft tall (26 stories) WTC7 was 570ft tall (47 stories) These words are from the mouth of James Santoro (Controlled Demolitions Inc.)

edit: Added a link to a CDI web page that explains the work done on the J.L. Hudson building. The part about the "loading crew" is in the 10th paragraph. The quote from James Santoro did not come from a CDI web page, was using a different source for that one - digg.com.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

[edit on 3/2/07 by savage99]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   


Yes in a good investigation they will always look at all the possibilities of how a building could have come down. That doesn't mean they will find evidence to all the possibilities tho.


It also admits they dont know how WTC 7 came down. The first report had a theory but they could not make the theory fit the facts.

So they now have to do another investigation that includes all possible scenarios....including a controlled demolition. And the reason they are doing this is that so many facts point to a controlled demolition.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
So then if there were explosives in WTC 7 we are looking at days and maybe weeks under the best circumstances for it to have been placed?

So we had all those days of people coming and going from that building and no one noticed a thing. Then 9/11 came and no one not "authorized" was going into that building anymore yet they were suddenly so scared of detection now that they had to blow the building right then and lie about it?
they didn't feel confident with waiting and setting up a better lie. One where explosives could be explained?



Thanks for the info!



[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
And if they don't know HOW it came down, how could anyone have predicted that it is 'collapsing or about to collapse'?

FEMA DIRECTOR: "OK everyone, we need to clear the area, this building is coming down!"

WITNESS: "But all I see is a few mysterious fires, why would it collapse?"

FEMA DIRECTOR: "We don't know why, all we know is its coming down"

compartmentalization



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I don't come to that conclusion based on what that video said, based on what I see in the reports and based on how an investigation is conducted.

Short of finding actual detonation charges or specific explosive residue or cut beams a demolition will look like a structural failure since all demolition is is damaging certain areas of a structure to cause a structural failure.

So saying that so many facts point to a demolition would mean they have found little else but certain cut beams and residue, etc....



[edit on 2-3-2007 by Identified]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty
And if they don't know HOW it came down, how could anyone have predicted that it is 'collapsing or about to collapse'?

FEMA DIRECTOR: "OK everyone, we need to clear the area, this building is coming down!"

WITNESS: "But all I see is a few mysterious fires, why would it collapse?"

FEMA DIRECTOR: "We don't know why, all we know is its coming down"

compartmentalization


What is this in reference to? The BBC Video, my scenarios, or what?

I can't answer without knowing as it would take all day to hit every angle.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I agree, it doesn't SEEM to make any sense. But then, remember that we're talking about an inside job on an unprecedented scale, there were bound to be some mistakes made. Granted, this would seem to be more than just a "mistake"... I've asked myself the same question (mainly coz no-one else wanted to talk about it; I'm sure you've come across that attitude!); why not just wait a day or so, pretend to rig the building for demolition and then say "we had to bring it down because it was so badly damaged". Then no-one would ever have been any the wiser.

My own personal view is that they couldn't take the chance. Yes, it would seem that there was no way anyone could get into WTC7 to see that it had been rigged - but they just couldn't take that chance! Remember the stakes - we're talking ultimately about the very foundations of democracy here. If/when it comes out that it most definitely WAS an inside job (as anyone with any sense now knows it was), then that is going to have a profound effect on the world - an even more far reaching and profound effect than the attacks themselves had. I don't know if you people have thought that all the way through, but ultimately we're talking potential worldwide political revolution; at the very least the minimum we should hope for should be the abolition of all the privately owned central banks and the very concept of fractional reserve banking, coupled with a total overhaul of representative democracy as we know it. So the stakes for the perpetrators, as you can see, could not be higher. So as I say, I think they just could not take the chance.

There's also the chance that if it waited for any length of time, SOMEONE (don't ask me who, here, just someone!! ;-) ) could have said "the damage ain't that bad, there's no reason to demolish it! Remember, a lot of the supposed early reports of how badly damaged it was reported it was leaning over, and ready to tip. What would have happened if left for a few days, and the world's media realised that in fact there was nothing wrong with it that a few buckets of water wouldn't remedy?!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Illuminze,

Fair enough. So you are basically saying that this was a stupid mistake made by some insiders on a day of events on an unprecidented scale?

Okay. I can go with that. Couldn't the BBC tape be the same thing? LOL

Anyway okay so they made a mistake. They panicked. whatever. I would have thought with all the planning that had to go into 9/11 that this scenario would have been played out in a million different ways with all the fixes planned as well. But it could have been a mistake. Wow to think that a simple logical thought process by anyone that day could have saved them all the grief.

As for them thinking someone would have thought the damage isn't that bad. IF they were willing to demolish a building and lie about it they could have much easier have planted more damage and lied about that.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identified
And let's not forget that we now have them sending out a press release to early about this lie? It makes no sense. Why send out a press release at all if you don't want even more people to pay attention to what might be exposed as explosions rather than just a collapse?


Maybe the truth coming out was always part of the plan. Because they would know then within 7 years the unrest about the events that occurred that day would create the civil rift we now face in this country, IE US civil war!!

Trust me when the market collapses in the next few months (prediction) when people are competing over food and water, that rift will divide this country into to distinct sides. Those who know who did this to them and want justice, and those who defend them due to blind trust and allegiance.

Hmmmmmmmm, just a thought



[edit on 2-3-2007 by Chicagofreedomfighter]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chicagofreedomfighter

Originally posted by Identified
And let's not forget that we now have them sending out a press release to early about this lie? It makes no sense. Why send out a press release at all if you don't want even more people to pay attention to what might be exposed as explosions rather than just a collapse?


Maybe the truth coming out was always part of the plan. Because they would know then within 7 years the unrest about the events that occurred that day would create the civil right we now face in this country, IE US civil war!!

Hmmmmmmmm, just a thought




Maybe. Or maybe they did all this just to keep us focused on one little building for 7 years so that we weren't paying attention to all the other nefarious things they are doing or had done?

Or maybe it did just collapse? ;-)



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join