It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:47 AM
Maybe I am stupid but I can't find any evidence that it was not inside job.

I think all "terrorist" planes landed to secured location and passangers were eliminated. Auto-pilot planes hit WTC 1,2. Pentagon was hit by missile or something like that.

A Plane which was pulled down was only hero-story, America needed that! They only shot missile to the ground. All passangers were allready eliminated, phone calls were "morphed".

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Why destroy building 7? How about to claim the entire WTC complex as a total loss for insurance policies, which Silversiein did twice claiming two separate terrorist attacks.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:42 AM
What a bunch of crap!!!
The amount of inconsistencies is overwhelming.
The first clue i got, that this was an inside job, was when the news reported that they found a passport from an alleged terrorist, which had magically fallen from the sky. Straight away i was suspicious.

Why isn't the media bothered? Something needs to be done!!!!
Instead of going over and over the details, we need to come up with possible strategies...

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

My biggest hold back with all of this:

I see a government conspiracy going a little better planned.

Everything that has ever happened on a monumental scale has been a 'government conspiracy' that people 'so easily' can pick apart by reading news snippets from Regardless of never having been to the scene of the alleged event, and gathering evidence for themselves, they go off of what reporters tell them.

we all know how stupid and incomplete the media is, and always has been, so to use anything they give you as a catalyst to launch a conspiracy, is a little short winded (IMO)

IMO, if the government were to launch a "WTC attack" i see it going down more like "swordfish" style. Where its a group of elite guys who are hell-bent on their own forms of patriotism and they get funded secretly, etc etc. Except that someone GOOD ENOUGH to pull off an 'inside job' like this is not going to leave clues for a reporter to find.

they are not going to leave clues for an internet junkie to figure out by reading drudgereport

through 6 degree's of information you can prove ANYTHING.

Im not against the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.
But so far, i have to say, that not a single 'inside job conspiracy theory' i've read has anything reasonable to it what so ever.

Random things happen for random reasons. It's a constant in our universe. You can say its 'not random' all you want, but to imply randomness doesnt exist is to allude to a higher being, and that is a conversation for another thread.

"explosions" in the WTC sent them tumbling down? No kidding
a big jet flew into them.

And the jets were real, the entire planet watched the second one hit - LIVE

Im not so bold to conclude that you have to convince me to feel your life is complete.

But if someone wants me to believe 9/11 was an inside job, they're going to have to do better than this

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:08 AM
Well if a fire brings a skyscraper to collapse then no one should be working in one.....

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by estar

I dont know what brought down tower 7
i can guess

Maybe the 'vibrations' from those other two VERY LARGE towers falling had some impact on the structural integrity of the tower 7? Im sure the ground shook, violent shock waves, debris flying everywhere. Couple that with a strong fire, and i think you 'might' have a case

its certain a possibility

i mean -its not like the building was across town or anything

[edit on 7/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

If that was the case wouldn't you expect the tower to collapse sooner than what was it 5-7 hours after the attack?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by estar

it was 7 hours

and no, i wouldnt expect it to fall sooner.

It was not 'directly hit' by anything other than the aftermath of the towers collapsing.

It burned and burned and burned and burned and burned and burned

after suffering massive shock trauma, which i can only assume would be teeth rattling, mind shaking, and foundation breaking.

We had a earthquake here in illinois not too long ago - you might have seen it on the news
not a violent one, just a mild little thing - and it caused structural damage to a few buildings and put a crack in the wall above the door leading to my kitchen.

I was miles away from the center of the quake

Imagine that same trembling effects on the building right next to it.

All that aside, im not a 'building expert' - and with all due respect - neither are you.

Im throwing out possibilities and dealing in 'could bes' you seem to be dealing in absolutes as if you were unwilling to budge on this matter

if thats the case - well - fine - have fun with your opinions :shk:

but i think a "mission impossible 4" style attack carried out by bush and cheney, is a little too hollywood for my instincts not to pull the suspicion card.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Actually there is a long history of screwing up the "official story":

JFK and Bobby Kennedy

Oklahoma City bombing

Move in Philly (1985 March), Ok that one got by pretty slick.

The "wind shear" accidents and planes breaking apart on runways just prior to the Move getting "smoked"

Jones Town


These people really don't care if the lies are believed by everyone they just want a cover good enough that the seep do not stampede.

The only sheep stampede I've seen since 9-11 is our kids going to Iraq to get blown apart by IE's that wouldn't be there if the US had destroyed the stock pile at An Numaniyah. Oh yeah that was a pretty slick cover up too.

9-11 took out the laundry (drugs and slave trade) that would have shown a money trail to very prominent government aristocracies. Oh it got the poppies growing in Afghanistan, worth billions of dollars and jumped the price of oil through the roof as well as all those millions from war profiteering . Wake up and smell the coffee , while you can still afford a cup.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:00 AM
So let me guess this straight......

When tower 7 fell, most people said it was controlled demolitions.

Skeptics, truth deniers, and govenrment officials stated that there is no mystery why Building 7 came down and that truthers are conspiracy kooks. Now six years later, they have solved this 'non-mystery'?

Whats there to solve? I thought it was already solved.

So all those debunkers were using bogus evidence for the collapse of WTC 7 and the truthers were correct in asking these questions?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Comforter

So then, they've screwed up every government cover-up ever conceived?

They never got a single one right, and left 'smoking gun' clues everywhere for all the internet detectives to find.

sounds too far-fetched to me.

Im not denying hte government hasnt done anything to decieve us, or any of the 'conspiracies' arent true

i am saying this one seems untrue to me

there's been explanation after explanation
its proven to be a hoax
its proven to be real
its proven to be a hoax
and now its real again

too much back and forth
its almost political

Did WTC7 collapse?

What caused it?
We will never know, 100% for sure.
So why come on so strong and say "its the government" EVERY SINGLE TIME something happens?

Do you really believe that people outside of the government of the united states are not capable of carrying out any of these attacks?


if you do, then i can only assume that you have so much faith in your government as to keep the attackers away

if you have that much faith that they are powerful enough to keep them away

then why is that faith become a double standard when it comes to their intelligence to cover their own tracks?

Double standards typically never reveal anything other than ignorance.

Atleast, as it goes, in my experiences.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:52 AM
A few questions for the "truthers" on WTC7.

First off, lets review who was Larry talking to?
The FDNY commander. So lets use some logic here.
Larry is talking to the FDNY commander, and tells him that they have had
such a tremendous amount of life lost, and that it would be best to "pull it".
Now, lets use our thinking caps people: LS is talking to FDNY Commander. Tells him loss of life too great. What would be a good option to save lives?
A) Pull the firefighting effort away from WTC7, which it is known it will collapse soon from damage, to save the lives of the firefighters?
B) blow it up to save lives by rushing more people into the building to rig it with explosives?
Which sounds more plausible?

Now second:
WTC7 is burning on multiple floors. FDNY reports it is tilting, creaking, large gash down its face that got hit by WTC North. It is in danger of falling over. So now, how does a demo team go in there and set up charges so fast when it usually takes days and weeks to rig up a real CD on a much smaller building? You mean to tell me it only took a few hours to set up demo charges in a burning, tilting, 47 story building? Must be a new record! (not to mention the hazard pay for whoever did it)

Preplanted explosives? How can that be? If that was the case, and Larry knew about them, why the hell would the FDNY Commander call him, and then have Larry tell the fire commander to blow it up? Look, if it was meant to be blown up, with prior knowledge from LS, what is the point of calling him and asking him what to do, and why blow it up 7 freaking hours later? Not to mention the risk of the charges going off early from the fires and/or the impact of the North Tower's debris? Seriously.

Fire fighters that actually were in and around WTC7 all said WTC7 was severely damaged. One even points it out on a youtube video.
(see "Firefighter comments on WTC 7 on 9/11" on youtube)
They then all said they got "pulled" in one way or another from WTC7 by the fire commander because it was going to collapse.
Now, are they all lying? If so, why? The just lost a few hundred of their fellow brothers to the first collapses. Why would they lie about getting pulled and pointing out the damage done to WTC7?

And finally, where were the sounds of detonation of the charges prior to collapse? The video of the woman getting interviewed right when WTC7 collapses behind them, we dont hear a darn thing. Arent demo charges loud? And why doesnt ANYONE mention they heard a series of charges going prior to collapse? Every FDNY account of WTC7 collapsing doesnt mention anything about bombs going off prior to collapse. Just comments like "We were standing there and looked over, and WTC7 just fell down." No mentions of detonations anywhere.

Why cant people can use their critical thinking skills and some common sense (which I know nowadays is really hard to come by) before jumping to crazy conclusions?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:03 PM
If the BBC says this,well then,it must be true.

Afterall the people at the BBC are all knowing.
Like how they reported a steel building was going to collapse due to fire before it even happened.

Even though,its never happened in the history of steel buildings.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

My biggest hold back with all of this:

I see a government conspiracy going a little better planned.

Well I think it was well planned as 7 years down the line most people still believe them!

Oh and they've invaded 2 countries, laying claim to a load of oil and heroin growing poppies in the process. A good term's work for those with vested interests.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
LOL, renegade.....someone had too much caffeine today

my question is

If 9/11 was an inside job

wtf is the point of collapsing THIS tower (seven is it?)


Also -if they are so clever and powerful and intelligent to coordinate this attack, do you really think they'd be so dumb to screw it up so badly in this little area?

Excellent question! Just why would they screw this up so badly, I mean just look at the unrest caused by this "screw up". Why would anyone want to cause "unrest" in America? What possible reason would they have for that? Hmm....?

[edit on 5-7-2008 by KMFNWO]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

have you ever considered that larry might be mixing truth with bullcrap because its easier to lie like that?
Even if he meant "pull them", dont you think that its something he would say to distract everyone, make everyone think that he cares?
If fire was the cause, why did it collapse?
Normally you would see a charred, burnt skeleton of a building.
And are you forgetting that this was WTC7?
The headquarters of numerous government agencies, and apparently, millions were spent on renovating to make this more solid than the average building.

Can i ask you "untruthers" something?

Why would you take everything the government tells you as gospel?
Wouldn't you like to find out for yourself?
Dont it sound fishy that only NOW, have BBC scraped up an investigation together? after all this time?
Where is YOUR proof that building collapsed because of fire?
Did you see it collapse?
Have you seen a demolition before?
Any similarities?
Why didn't buildings that were closer collapse?
Can you see why "truthers" have this opinion?

Now, this is just about WTC7, put together all the inconsistencies of 9/11 and something definately stinks!!

Its not like this was a botched up operation, in fact its anything but. "They" are actually getting away with it...

Theres no need for conspirators to put together these "crazy" ideas, its blatantly in your face!!!

If you cant see it then you must have your head up Bush's backside!! keep inhaling...

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
I've never been convinced by the whole "pull it" thing, it always sounded to me in context like he's saying 'pull the firefighters out of the building and let it burn till it comes down,

the problem with this scenario is that there weren't any firefighters in the building when he said it, so how can the pull out firemen that aren't there?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by justyc

Originally posted by xmotex
I've never been convinced by the whole "pull it" thing, it always sounded to me in context like he's saying 'pull the firefighters out of the building and let it burn till it comes down,

the problem with this scenario is that there weren't any firefighters in the building when he said it, so how can the pull out firemen that aren't there?

Well, we all know that "Pull It" actually means to attach cables to the building and then "Pull It" down. I mean I know there are countless experts that say "Pull It" means demo but Brent Blanchard knows best so lets not muddy the water with these other "numerous" experts, lets just believe Mr. Blanchard.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:28 PM
With all due respect. Due you mean to actually tell me 'pull it' means to attach cables to a 47 story steel and concrete constuction and literally pull it?!
All the fire engines in NY couldn't muster that if hooked inline.


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
my question is

If 9/11 was an inside job

wtf is the point of collapsing THIS tower (seven is it?)


Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system. One of these cases was a sexual harassment charge filed on Sept. 10 against Morgan Stanley, one of the prime corporate victims of the World Trade Center disaster.

Tower 7 also contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud corporate, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.

I can't find the other links I want to, but the evidence for the investigations into Enron and Worldcom, among many others, were housed in that building, as well as much of the computer backups.

I would say that the point of collapsing WTC7 would be to destroy the evidence housed in the building for ongoing investigations looking into some of the perpetrator's biggest donors. That is if '911 is an inside job'....

Which it is/was...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in