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.

 

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

page: 6
109
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ocomeon!
 


Yes

there are witnesses that say all bomb sniffing dogs were removed 2 weeks before the event.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I have long had the same view about what happened on that day. I think that govt buildings are pre-wired (I mean, it would be foolish if they were not!) in case of an attack, enemies can't just waltz in and steal secret documents.

I believe WTC 7 was pulled for the same reasons you describe. In my mind, what happened to the twin towers is more unclear. Can't decide either way. But I doubt that the government would have planned the attacks, though it is somewhat plausible that they would have allowed them to happen if they knew. (because of the excuse to go after oil producing countries)

-rrr



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol

Originally posted by ocomeon!
reply to post by spines
 

Just to add my 2 peneth. Why would t's, who obvious goal would be to cause maximum death and destruction, attack first thing in the morning whilst the towers were only filling up with people. Why not leave the attack untill mid morning, when the buildings would be full and the potential for tens of thousands of casualties would be at it's maximum?

It would seem that who ever did this wasn't looking for maximum death and destruction. But just enough.


great post ... ye s... I am quoting so others see this ... you hit it


>> I think the FIRST consideration, would be acquiring a plane that had a short hop but full of fuel, and picking one with the least security issues. Next would be picking a time when TOURISTS would be least likely to be filming.

Speculating on how to explain EXACTLY what happened and why is a dead end and leaves us open for burying the truth in details.

Who had the ability to set the charges?
Who had the most to gain?
Who capitalized on 9.11 and how could two wars be started and an economic downturn be hidden without it?
Who covered up the evidence afterward? The single shooter at Deeley Plaza? -- sorry, too easy.

If 9/11 happened as the government said, we'd have a lot fewer coincidences and people wouldn't be destroying FAA tapes, now would they?

We don't have to prove every detail -- but THEY need to prove innocence.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tomfrusso
 


so what building is it then, and what buildings in the footage prey tell were collapsed right next to it . or did you not smoke and debris from that

Like right next to it

coincidentally in the same spot as where the wtc would have been..


nice try agent man



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

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?

Possible, yes. Probable, no. Why I don't think it is a viable theory is that the US government would have anticipated a terrorist attack like the one on 9/11, i.e. hijacked airplanes being flown into buildings in a suicide attack. But I don't think anybody thought it possible that something like that would ever happen, simply because it never happened before. Until 9/11 whenever planes were hijacked the terrorists had demands and entered negotiations about them. My point is that even if a bright CIA analyst, for example, ever thought of that possibility, his superiors would have shrugged it off, like: "Nah, it'll never happen!"



Such a wild, crazy idea, that Operation Northwoods was based on that very thing, and a security department had planes flying into buildings on their LOGO.

The WTC had to be redesigned in order to survive 3 simultaneous hits by large airplanes -- because just before it was built, the Empire State Building was hit by a large military aircraft (it didn't fall, even though mostly concrete).


>> No. People in security VERY MUCH consider planes flying into buildings. What was Cheney and NORAD doing at the time planes were flying into buildings? They were conducting a mock drill (three of them) of planes flying into buildings.

A ter'rist attack on England's subway, hit exactly every place and time they had on their drill, just before they were going to conduct the MOCK exercise.


--- Either the bad guys really do have God on their side and incredible luck, or the standard procedure for a False Flag, is to conduct a similar training exercise to confuse people who might stop it, and to create plausible deniability.

>> Look up the term "Castle Building." It is a time honored tradition of militaries and rulers to stage attacks so that they can get the peasants to support the King. Ancient Europe used to constantly ransom back Knights while the peons died and shouted for the glory of their flag. The money, then, would be shared between both rulers -- because it is an easier way to tax people when you are at war.


Are you getting what I'm saying? The US gov has been doing False Flags for years; Lusitania,... Vietnam. It's a bigger question if ANY wars we've been in were necessary since the war for Independence.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You think that a 47 story tall building is going to make a nice pile of debris right where it stood? Of course there's going to pieces of it go off in different directions. What makes you think it's going to go perfectly straight down and not damage any of its surroundings? That was a pretty big building.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I just want to know why these expert pilots didn't think to go after something that exemplifies our country a little more? I mean isn't there something that could be a bigger blow to the apple pie eating citizens of Murka than two ugly tombstones in Manhattan? Maybe something that would hurt those who hurt them, like a leader house, or something with a lot of history? It escapes me...



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 

this was their practice , for what to use lol

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If this doesn't show proof of the demolition that was WTC 7, I don't know what does! Clearly you can see in this more recently released video a line of demo charges going off vertically on the right middle of the building. Note the charges start going off and only then does the building start to collapse with them. And I say this to any who will insist that the "structural failure" caused these effects. Nuh uh, no way in hell.

Something went off inside that building, in a line, just like demo charges!

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


Ever tried to hold a sheet of cardboard horisontally over a table covered with flour? What do you think happens to the air underneath the board if you let it go? Will it get pushed out to the sides? Like - say - when a large segment of ceiling collapses in connection with a stairwell?

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

The U.S. Government is part of a conspiracy to demonstrate the laws of nature - right there in my kitchen.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReturnOfGoukilock
reply to post by ocomeon!
 


Yes

there are witnesses that say all bomb sniffing dogs were removed 2 weeks before the event.



I'm sorry mate, which post is this a reply to?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


looks to me that there were explosives in that building, but the towers did not fall down they just went away. let me explain. according to a Dr Judy wood who studied the towers there should have been 12 stories of steel after they came down, but there was not. just dust. her conclusion is that the towers were hit by some kind of weapon that causes molecular dis-association which turned the building to dust and it just blew away. sounds really out there, but it really explains a lot of that day and I don't see anybody else explaining where those buildings went.
if you want to explore this idea you can go to drjudywood.com

this is based on real physics, not junk science like the gov comes out with.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by reassor
 


nice try, you want to explain how they found 6 of those terrorist alive after 9/11



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Maybe the fact that it is a building built upon an existing structure. It collapsed basically from the inside out ( kink in the upper floor and the elevator shaft disappearing that are not shown in the video prior to collapse). It was declared lost hours earlier. I mean, why not set it off during one of the other collapses and it could then immediately be blamed on debris.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by HolgerTheDane



Ever tried to hold a sheet of cardboard horisontally over a table covered with flour? What do you think happens to the air underneath the board if you let it go? Will it get pushed out to the sides? Like - say - when a large segment of ceiling collapses in connection with a stairwell?

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

The U.S. Government is part of a conspiracy to demonstrate the laws of nature - right there in my kitchen.



Ever built a card pyramid?, as you build it there are obvious weak spots in various places, when it collapses does it collapse completely symmetrical each tier in unison with each other, or a random sporadic collapse, or the weakest links in the chain collapse and it ceases to collapse when the weak spots have failed?.

Buildings that are designed to shift load bearings do so to avoid a collapse, you don`t get one part running at 10% so the other 9 parts running at 100% donate 10% each to the 10% part, and then it collapses.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It is surprising how many people I talk to don't know about building 7. It's always baffled me as to why it just sort of blew up without having a plane fly into it first.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by antithesis.]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
this isn't even new york city....come on op....come up with a better one.....



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
One thing I'm curious about. How they get demolitions planted in all the towers and building 7 completely unnoticed?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomfrusso
this isn't even new york city....come on op....come up with a better one.....


So what city is it?

The Government did not plan the attacks per se...they were paid off, let it happen, got the tip...etc..Did nothing about it. Money talks, and it sure as hell did on September 11th, 2001.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Don't ask me what city it is, ask the op...he/she started this. I'm New York City born, raised and still live here.

THIS IS NOT NYC.......

Come on op,,,,,,try again.......



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It takes months to wire a building for demolition. They have to strip all the structural beams of their outer layers, remove all the debris, pre weaken and cut the beams. Install and wire the building.

This all happened without anyone noticing? This happened with zero evidence of explosives left in the rubble, no blasting caps? no det cord? Nothing? What about the crew of workers? No one talked?

Besides i thought it was "nano-super-thermite" that brought the buildings down? Now its just normal explosives?

[edit on 18-9-2009 by drock905]



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join