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.


Uncommon Video on WTC 7 Demolition: Can There Now Be Any Doubt?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by theBreadman

That's exactly what I think happened on 9/11. I believe the controls for the "demolition" of the 2 towers were in WTC7 (where the CIA/FBI/NSA had reinforced offices with upgraded blast proof windows). After those 2 towers were brought down, they had all day to "wrap up" their offices, removed what they needed (shred documents, dissolve equipment in acid), and then set the timer to bring down WTC7. They gave a heads up for people to clear the building/area, and down went HQ.

Clean job. The rest is history.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by harrytuttle]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by king9072

Uh oh, someone is not denying ignorance. Isn't that a TOS violation or something?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:43 AM
those windows went pop and exploded out roughly 1 second before the building started to collapse.
Omg something did go poof in that building ..on the side there.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by TheAmused

What you are seeing is the inner collapse of the building and the windows exploding outwards...

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:59 AM

ok i know this is not just about WTC7 but i'm about half way through and its really quite ineresting ...

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:10 PM
S+F to the OP.

Heres an interesting screencap off the video that is slowed down 50%. Now either WTC& was housing fireworks or dynamite, or, perhaps a propane tank got ejected, then was hit by another piece of debris travelling fast enough to makeit explode.... Well you get the point. Either something like that


It's a demo charge that got left behind which happens quite frequently, when a building comes down THAT fast I'd imagine.

View the original video in the OP this happens at 00:43, I didn't get that great of a screengrab of it, it looks even more impressive in the video, so just keep your eye at about where the top of the building used to be, just left of middle. Again at 43 sec, you'll see this Charge or Squib go off a little late. Or again someone was housing 4 inch mortar fireworks in building 7

Although, by my eye it does seem that the building begins to drop just a bit before the line of charges go off, but that could be more proof imo of Demolition. Because you'd wanna take out the bootom foundation and core, THE a split second later, fire off the demo charges, /squibs or what have you to cut the building in certain areas as its falling so it collapses in on itself. Either way, it's nice to see some new footage.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
It will be interesting to hear the plausible explanations of this -- which of course will need to change to spin reality based upon the video.

It's that magical "corner chunk" of the building that causes a building to slump in the middle and collapse exactly as if it was being imploded.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by Black Mambo

I am only 10 minutes into watching the video you posted and already there's some very interesting things being shown and said--by pretty much ordinary,everyday people.How can all these people be wrong?What would they gain by saying any of these things?

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:14 PM
Are we sure this is WTC 7 and not something from The Spy who Shagged Me?

This is too easy -- it must be a trap.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:15 PM
This is not building 7, nice try op....

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:17 PM
Fascinating thread. Yeah the recent new Nat.Geo. special on the 9/11 conspiracy did not even mention Tower 7 when it's the first emphasis of the "truthers." So something's fishy right there -- plus consider who controls Nat.Geo as I delved into with my "National Geographic is a CIA Stooge" thread at

On the technicalities -- certainly there was top-down control as per Tower 7 for the other two towers and let's face it, this has become an increasingly pander to authority -- follow commands -- don't look up kind of culture, like returning to the 1950s. At least until 911 happened.

But then Tower 7 isn't worth mentioning in the official 911 conspiracy Nat.Geo documentary. Just pretend that the fires on the other towers caused a pancake demolition while the fire and damage on Tower 7 caused a bottom-up collapse, preceded by explosions in the middle of the building. haha.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by drew hempel]

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by arcnaver
reply to post by reasonable

Can you qualify this statement by getting signed affidavits of all demolition experts please to the same.


I agree, this angle looks odd. Actually looks like an elevator shaft, which would make sense as to why you say that portion eject first. However, if it perchance were a controlled demolition. How come no one noticed all those pesky control wires, PETN and RDX ropes, Inititory Charges, Fuse Boxes, Kevlar Blankets and other shaped Charges to demolish the columns in just the right spot? Where they able to secretly place all this stuff inside the columns that I am sure were very visible to everyone who worked in that building. Maybe Nargals did it.

Once again, someone looks at an obvious DEMOLITION, and then questions how it is possible -- when nobody who wasn't involved has any proof.

Without this video, we wouldn't be enjoying the new "elevator shaft acting like squibs" theory. Thanks for that.

I think the elevators run through the core of the building -- so maybe this is a stair well.

You create a straw man argument, that Squibs have to be WIRED. I've heard of radio being used on occasion -- and MAYBE, they didn't want everyone to see.

If you go in any office building, there is at least 4 feet of space in the ceilings. If a work crew is there -- all you would hear is footsteps occasionally. We never see the people who work on our building and it's only 4 stories.

At the WTC, you could easily move semi trucks around all day and nobody would notice. The idea that SOMEONE would see something -- is the most bogus straw man.

What you WITNESSED was a demolition on that building -- so ergo, THEY must have found a way to pull it off.

Operation Northwoods was planned over 40 years ago, so our wonderful military does plan these sorts of things. And I think they've had time to refine the idea. I know this was excused as "contingency planning" as if this happens all the time. Then why did JFK hit the roof when he found out about it?

>> We don't need to prove HOW they did it -- the Bush Crime Family needs to prove innocence.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM

Originally posted by tomfrusso
This is not building 7, nice try op....

How do you know this isn't Building 7? I'd really like to get verification one way or another, because this is "dynamite" so to speak, if it is.

I would say that there is no other explanation than this is a demolition of SOME building. But I cannot pick out WTC 7 out of a line up.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by WalterRatlos

Do you really believe that people who learnt to fly planes expertly, who were able to navigate over US airspace, somehow avoid fighter cover, pin point the towers and hit them both almost square on. The same people who were able to plan, fund and execute this perfectly performed attack, who were also able to build the numbers 911 into the propaganda equation. Do you really think these same people wouldn't have thought about the optimum time to hit their target? It's not secret information that the best time to get people in an office is morning, probably 10-12, any morning. I just can't see people with this kind of precision not waiting two more hours to kill as many as they can when they can. Sorry!

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by theBreadman

Do you think it is possible that our government would secretly pre position explosive charges in skyscrapers, so the buildings could be dropped if needed, to prevent its falling outward onto other buildings? Remember the first attack on the twin towers was in the parking garage. if the attack caused a building to fall over, how many other buildings would be destroyed? Could the resulting fires get out of hand and engulf the city?



Dude, if they were planning ahead this much, do you think they'd WIRE every potential skyscraper with explosives "just in case" or would they have spent the $700 on locking the airplane pilot's cabin on commercial airlines? I mean, they had 70 warnings we know of.

You'd think someone might have a policy of sending out an F16 when a plane was hijacked.

What you've outlined is what someone might call "a stretch." It's that tenuous hold on a belief system that inspires great creativity.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:40 PM
I am glad to see further incriminating proof but honestly, it's still an empty victory until we start prosecuting the people responsible.

I was persecuted all year that year for being INDIAN (so not middle eastern) because I was in a military school at the time. I have 9/11 grievances that could only be resolved by proving it wasn't a bunch of "Islamic extremists"

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

END OF STORY, closer to the end for the perpetrators!

I'm not a demolitions expert, but wouldn't the charges have to be placed horizontally and vertically throughout the building?
And why is it that all videos that are intended to prove that WTC 7 fell due to demolition always show the building from a certain angle where the facade of building looks rather unaffected from destruction, wheras if one were to show the opposite site of the building one would see a rather large area of the building destructed by falling debris from the other towers?
End of story? I think not.

>> Well, perhaps when the Conspiracy Theorists, planned ahead to propose a demolition, they very craftily set up their cameras to film an angle that would look like a Demolition, in a fire that started from a building with another in-between it and the one that is hit.

>> I think it's incredible we even had this video. It's very rare that ANY videos would be pointing at a building that wasn't really damaged -- when a big airplane hit the North and South towers. It's rare that a video captures ANY surprise event.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:41 PM
No matter how much evidence you come up with, despite the obvious, people, some of them, will never believe the truth, er, conspiracy. If we could break belief with truth, the world would be a bit better.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by TheAmused

What you are seeing is the inner collapse of the building and the windows exploding outwards...

Let me ask esdad: What then was holding the facade up for that second while the internal structure was collapsing?

BTW, you can't have it both ways.

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by calstorm

So Buildings always collapse at freefall speed and the elevator shaft always plume debris before the building collapses.....that's just silly

notice the line of dust that shoots out outlining the elevator shafts as the floors begin to drop

and then look at video footage of demolitions compared to every other building collapse in history.

Like Good Christians we substitute faith for fact.

oh wait I'm not a Christian, i don't have that problem

are people just that excepting of there government that they believe words over there own eyes?


new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in