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.

 

Debunkers Claim WTC 7 “Hit By A 757″

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Before i start, yes i know this is from prison planet and yes i know this is commenting on a post from another site "Drudge Report", but it is reflecting on a serious (regarding their whereabouts in the past 8 years and understanding of the events) claim relating to the actual cause of damage to WTC 7 by uneducated "debunkers".

prisonplanet

Seriously tho, if some people are going to make this outrageous claim now!, then what will people be saying in a few more years time?



Similar points were made in response to a Breitbart.tv video story about the Beijing fire, which was prominently linked from the ever-popular Drudge Report website.

In response, debunkers argued against WTC 7 being a controlled demolition by claiming that the building collapsed because it had been “hit by a 757″.


Ive seen people here on ATS use the excuse of jet fuel for WTC 7 damage which is another bit of boloney but these guys are taking it too far...



Of course, as anyone with an iota of knowledge understands, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane on 9/11.

After a respondent named BIll raises the issue of WTC 7, ‘JackieO’ responds, “Bill, your a stupid idiot leftwing scumbag. WTC7 was hit by a 757 you inbred idiot!”

Later in the thread, another respondent, ‘JefoRW’ states, “Bill, you my friend, and retarded. wtc7 was struck by a plane you fool. Go back to your cave.”



Anyone got the link to druge report or anything places of people making such bogus, pathetic, uneducated claims, its interesting to see the difference of speculating what actually happend and having a debate about to just spurting absolute nonsense...

Edited for clarity.

[edit on 14/2/2009 by phushion]




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by phushion
Before i start, yes i know this is from prison planet, but it is commenting on a serious claim by uneducated "debunkers" and also its commenting on matter from another site "Drudge Report


You made a thread about an anonymous person that blogged on the Drudge Report post that was noticed by someone at Prison Planet and they made an article about it?

What "People" made this claim? There was one poster.





Anyone got the link to druge report or anything places making such bogus, pathetic, uneducated claims...


ATS is filled with pathetic,bogus, uneducated claims:

Holograms

CGI

Voice Morphing

Flyovers

Falsified FDR reports

Doctored videos

Therm*te

Bombs




[edit on 14-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Why is there an article because some random people on the internet said something stupid? They were probably trolling anyway.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Sorry did you miss the statement i was trying to make, i guess you fall into the category of not reading the post correctly, i've edited it just for you perhaps it might be a bit clearer this time.

[edit on 14/2/2009 by phushion]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


There are 2 more websites that I've visited since the Mandarin Hotel fire that have the same debunkers claiming a plane hit WTC 7. This claim is not only by the debunkers though. A woman that does not frequent the conspiracy board on another site started to scold everyone opposing the debunkers she said something like this --> "a plane hit that building (WTC 7) that's why it came down but reality doesn't matter "



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
And how often do you read that marvin bush spent september the 10th catching dogs?

Uninformed? yes. But it should be easily remedied by pointing out that 1 or 2 != 7.

Of course if you do that with a truther you get silence at best.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by phushion

Sorry did you miss the statement i was trying to make, i guess you fall into the category of not reading the post correctly, i've edited it just for you


There are not many debunkers that say WTC7 was hit by a plane. You have shown 1. We don't know if this person is actually a debunker. We don't know if it's a truther. (truthers do a GREAT job acting dumb)

I have never seen a debunker claim that jet fuel was the cause of the collapse of WTC7. (here at ATS)

This thread serves Zero purpose, so I will not be posting here again.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


Thats it tho, theres enough people out there who obviously dont know what actually happend as far as the "official" story goes who are adamant (typo?) about a plane hitting WTC 7, seriously, soon enough, and im talking 5 years, i dare say we will be facing a large number of the worlds population that will believe a plane hit 7 and no amount of presented facts on the matter will change their view.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


You obviously havent looked hard enough.




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by phushion
 


I did see some people on here post that a plane hit the WTC. And yes the thread was talking about WTC7, it is also possible the person posting this thought they were talking about WTC1 or 2. They did not specifically state "well a plane crashed into WTC7." Their post were more along the lines of "two planes didnt crash into the beijing hotel." When confronted by other posters stating they were talking about wtc7, they changed what they were saying to the "the hotel didnt have a huge whole ripped into it from WTC falling into it." Phusion was actually a part of this whole thread, so he knows. But I have never seen a "debunker" say or think that a 757 hit WTC7.

Following the devastating fire in the 44-story building that housed the Mandarin Oriental hotel, a blaze that consumed every floor of the structure but failed to bring the building down, we made the comparison to WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just 8 floors on 9/11 and yet collapsed into its own footprint within 7 seconds


Wow, prison planet. You mean 12.5 seconds. Everyone knows that the total collapse took longer then 7 seconds. Everyone with an iota of knowledge knows that.
Guess prison planet doesnt have an iota of knowledge.


[edit on 14-2-2009 by tide88]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


It's stated somewhere in this thread, roughly from page 3/4 onwards

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
History will change before our eyes and the facts will disappear and new facts will emerge that will prove previously disproved theories.

If you check on some of the conspiracy threads from the beginning of the board you will see this is happening.

Then you have people who rave that we're all crazy because we think something is going on behind all the secrecy. Ya, like if the pentagon actually released their whole video then it would be too dangerous for national security.

Too dangerous for their reputation. Who would believe someone who is constantly caught in a lie? Lots of ATSrs would...

Not me...

I see what you are getting at with your OP. this is the beginning... AJs site will only help it spread too...



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by phushion
reply to post by tide88
 


It's stated somewhere in this thread, roughly from page 3/4 onwards

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing


Yes, but at first glace you think he is comparing it any of the WTC buildings. I know he compares it to WTC7 after the article, but I am, as well as many people on this board are guilty sometimes of just reading the headlines, or scanning articles quickly. I originally thought he was talking about the main WTC buildings. I specifically state

You act like planes crashing into a building is no big deal. Or that huge chucks of a building collapsing onto wtc7 wouldnt have a huge effect on the building structure[
It is obvious that I am stating that WTC had damage from the other WTC buildings collapsing on it. You cant honestly believe that I think two planes crashed into WTC7. That is a rediculous assumption, and if you and other "truthers" really believe that, it just goes to show has much you all misinterpret things in writing. Go back and read any of my post on WTC7 and you will quickly learn I am well aware no plane ever crashed into it. Yet here you are claiming I think that. You do realize that words written sometimes dont translate as well as words spoken.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Not sure if anyone heard it on coast to coast the other night but I happened to be in the car and flippin thru the channels when I stopped at C2C when I heard his guest spouting off all kinds of totally completely false statements regarding 9/11. One that sticks out the most to me was one he made about f77 he said something to the effect "If f77 was really a missile then how do you explain the forty or so people that made calls from the plane". Of course there were not forty people who called from the plane but the gentleman sure said it like it was unquestionably true.

My point, is I think the majority of most people you come across have no clue about most of the details regarding the events of 9/11.

Can you blame them



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Both sides like to exaggerate or streatch truths. The point is there were 2 calls from the plane. Overall there were more then 20 for all the flights. That person could have been driving and not had info the proper info in front of him or he might be exaggerating to make a point. Regardless both sides often stretch truths or omit facts to prove points. I do agree however, that most do not know not know all of exactly went on that day. There are some people on both sides who know alot on this board. However this board is filled with people who agree that there was a conspiracy who know absolutly nothing, but yet agree with whatever "truthers" post. You can tell by the lack of discussion in the 9/11 threads and the amount of stars and post they give those threads. It seems to me there are only a handful of people who contribute to the 9/11 threads, yet there are 100's that blindly agree with all the theories, whether they be missile, holograms, ufos, etc...



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
It is hard to believe WTC 7 did not collapse without being hit by a plane or having significant structural damage from WTC 1,2 it makes more sense than just fire alone. 9/11 reality is you don't have to mention a plane or damage to WTC 7 because it did not fall due to external damage, just fire. So Compare fires.


www.serendipity.li...







[edit on 15-2-2009 by Aubryish]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join