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.

 

Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

page: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


They didn't.

It was simply an obvious mistake. The possible explanation is the press release was already sent to the media and it was on the schedule to be read at the time it was, building 7 should have already been demolished but it was obviously late for some reason and the press was not told to hold on the reading of the press release. A small overlook at the time, but in hindsight a pretty big mistake if you want people to believe WTC 7 fell of it's own accord.

You ask all these questions that really can only be speculated on, but do you ever actually try to answer them for yourself, or do you really think there is no answer and you'll baffle us 'truthers' with your logic? Because with a little thought most of these questions can have a logical answer that doesn't have to point to the OS being the correct choice. Just askin'....




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sorry, I'm just asking questions. If that discomfits you then you're quite at liberty not to answer them.

Why prepare a "press release" at all? Why not just let the building fall down and then allow reporters to relay the information as normal? Was there a similar "press release" for WTC 1 and 2? It seems to me highly unusual to tell the media that you've demolished a tower when you could just let it happen.

To me it seems just as - in fact far more - logical that the reason the erroneous report occurred was because of responders' warnings about the impending collapse. These are a matter of record.

It's fine to hold the view that this was a demolition, but you can't ignore the connotations of that. The Truth Movement likes to assay various theories, but when confronted with the inescapable implications of those ideas, back away and proclaim that events just are as they are. That may be enough for some, but I don't personally find it a very satisfying approach.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


"They" are the people who, in your opinion, did this.

Your answer is that they made a "massive" mistake by informing the media of the impending demolition of Building Seven. I don't find that particularly persuasive, sorry.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
And that, good sir, is your prerogative..

But you perhaps misunderstood...

I believe the MASSIVE MISTAKE was made by the media...

This is clear, and I dont find your angle persuasive at all....

To re-cap, the BBC and Fox were not pointing out that it was ABOUT to collapse, but rather it HAD collapsed.... when nothing of the sort had occured...until 20 minutes later....

How do you explain this away....??

See the difference???

No one mentioned an "impending" anything....they spoke in the past tense, not the future tense....they told us it had collapsed...yet it only collapsed 20 minutes later....

And to clarify again, good Sir, theres no theory....its all fact.

The WTC7 fell 20 minutes after the announcement


As a matter of interest, how do you explain the fuzzy picture which then disconnected during theBBC broadcast, or the Fox Channel making the exact mistake, telling us it had collapsed when, in fact, it only happened 20minutes later...

I'm not a Truther good Sir.....just someone of rational thought....please dont throw that pathetic blanket "label" my way.
Nor am I trying to persuade you....I do not know you, nor care what you think, sorry.
Now theres a few Q's for you...feel free to answer or ignore if you find them awkward or discomforting....




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I understand what you're getting at, there's no need to continue explaining it. I'm asking why the people who blew up the building would inform the media of the fact that it was about to come down.

Your response is that they made "a mistake". I don't understand why you think that likely. It seems preposterous to me - one doesn't generally hear of conspirators who commit enormous and necessarily top-secret crimes accidentally informing TV networks about them.

Doesn't it seem more likely to you that the BBC and Fox heard the responders reports (which you can find elsewhere easily) that the building was likely to fall and reported it erroneously? It does to me.

As for your observations about both networks reporting it, I don't find that odd either. Presumably they used the same source. This is common in broadcasting.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


The implication of what you seem to be suggesting is that the ingenious but evil perps, who went to immense lengths to fake all manner of things in order to place the blame for 9/11 elsewhere, thought it was a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script or timetable so that they could keep up to speed with the planned events. If you believe that, you seriously will believe anything.

Even assuming the perps, with their lives on the line, were ready to do such an insane thing how would it have been possible to prepare a script or timetable beforehand ? The whole timeline that day depended in the first instance on when planes got off the ground. How often do planes leave at their departure time to the minute.

The collapse of WTC 7 hardly came out of the blue. It was gashed, bulging, creaking and had been on fire for hours. Firefighters had been pulled back and a collapse zone set up long before. Nobody needed to be psychic to anticipate the collapse.

There are some very whacky truther theories out there but I think I would nominate this one for a lifetime achievement award.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I find it incredible you need a source for what the path of least resistance is, or my use of it in context.


I find it incredible that you make up things about what the path of least resistance is to support whatever theories you have.



This is why I question your ability to understand the physics, you keep showing constantly you don't understand this simple physics principle, along with your constant need for a source for it and your constant appeal to authority, your 'professor'.


I have a need for a source because you're, on many occasions, you're telling me that 1+1=3. Something that you outright are making up.



I don't give a damn if you believe ANYTHING I say, that's your loss not mine. You are obviously not here to learn anything just argue with everything.




Scroll up. You said something that I didn't argue with. Again you're making things up when you say i'm here to argue with everything.



How hard would it be for you to go learn what 'path of least resistance' means instead of writing long irrelevant posts asking for sources every time I used the principle?


Not hard at all. I did learn what the path of least resistance is. Unfortunately you have not done that yet.



your constant need for some authority does not help your credibility to be able to argue my points whatsoever.


your constant need to make things up does not help your credibility to be able to argue your points whatsoever



What gives you the authority to claim I'm making things up when I keep proving you don't even understand the basics of the argument?


When I present very strong evidence that you're making things up and that you don't even understand the basics of the argument.

When I ask physics professors about the claims that you're making and they say you don't understand physics.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Even so that is simply damage to the facade, how does that even start to effect the load bearing columns at the interior of the building?


Read and learn.


Outer columns are there to hold up the facade and house the windows and doors, they are not critical to the buildings ability to keep standing.


They hold up the floors too.

The floors also serve to brace both the core AND exterior columns.

Removing a floor results in a reduction by 9x, IIRC, of the load carying capacity of the columns.

So yes, the ext columns are critical.


Need a source for that iamcpc?


Why the tease?

We all know you ain't got one....




Decided this needs to be bumped for ANOK, since he has missed this.

Ran away from it is more likely though, since it's plainly obvious that his statement of,

"Outer columns are there to hold up the facade and house the windows and doors, they are not critical to the buildings ability to keep standing"

is complete and utter rubbish.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
"The implication of what you seem to be suggesting is that the ingenious but evil perps, who went to immense lengths to fake all manner of things in order to place the blame for 9/11 elsewhere, thought it was a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script or timetable so that they could keep up to speed with the planned events. If you believe that, you seriously will believe anything."

If you don't believe that the scummy and disreputable mainstream media WOULD NOT lie and be complicit in such a huge money making and policy changing scheme like 9/11, then you're more than a little naive. In follow up, the media lied about two wars, war on terrorism, anthrax attacks, SARS, swine flu, fake riots, fake war on drugs and anything else they put their dirty slimy hands on. But since there haven't been any death bed confessions, this cannot possibly be true.


"Even assuming the perps, with their lives on the line, were ready to do such an insane thing how would it have been possible to prepare a script or timetable beforehand ? The whole timeline that day depended in the first instance on when planes got off the ground. How often do planes leave at their departure time to the minute."

Yeah sure, absolutely no way to prepare the OFFICIAL SCRIPT months in advance, when the entire operation was being planned. Keep watching your TV news and believing that their real job is to uncover the truth and keep 'em honest. What was that you were saying about believing anything? Still waiting for that death bed confession though, from someone in the media who has a conscience.


"The collapse of WTC 7 hardly came out of the blue. It was gashed, bulging, creaking and had been on fire for hours. Firefighters had been pulled back and a collapse zone set up long before. There are some very whacky truther theories out there but I think I would nominate this one for a lifetime achievement award."

Actually your theory about an alleged gashed, bulging, creaking and small fires in a 47 story building collapsing symmetrically into its own footprint is about as WHACKY as it gets. Of course, this is assuming that your preposterous allegations of Building 7 being gashed, creaking and bulging are correct. By the way, what would cause a 47 story skyscraper to bulge? I thought you were dead set against the alien beams from out of space theory?


"Nobody needed to be psychic to anticipate the collapse."

Of course not, you just had to be kept in the loop, like all the mainstream media networks were on that day. Now, if all the media outlets were not all on side and started giving different versions and straying from the Official BS Version, too much suspicion would have been aroused and the massive brainwashing operation would have been compromised.

The media knew everything which was about to transpire or was supposed to transpire on that day well in advance. BBC and FOX screwing up and jumping the gun on Building 7 is verification of this. No media outlets doing any investigation into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 also confirms media complicity.

The entire 9/11 operation hinged on most people being stupid enough to believe every lie they were told on that day. Are you really surprised that the dubunkers suck up to these disreputable characters and continue to parrot their nonsense? After all, birds of feather flock together.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Ah, just as I thought. They're all in on it.

I know several people who work at the BBC. They're doing a very good job of pretending not to be secret NWO shills


Anyway, you've produced a lot of sound and fury, and you haven't even managed to answer the criticisms above. Why would the perps inform the BBC? And even if the BBC were in on it (which is insane, but let's pretend for a moment) why would they go ahead and report it? What possible advantage is there for the conspirators in doing so?

The whole thing doesn't add up. It just looks odd to someone who isn't prepared to think about it for more than about a second.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



To re-cap, the BBC and Fox were not pointing out that it was ABOUT to collapse, but rather it HAD collapsed.... when nothing of the sort had occured...until 20 minutes later....

How do you explain this away....??


The same way its been explained over and over and over and over. Until 9/11 not everybody was familiar with the numeration of the buildings at the World Trade Center complex. Be honest, until 9/11 did you which building was number 6 or 5 or 7 or 3? No, of course not, unless you happened to work there everyday. A number of buildings, including the towers had collapsed and/or were in danger of collpasing. They made a mistake.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Please tell me WHY the perps would give out insider information regarding the plot to the news media ? What was to be gained ?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I agree with most of this post



Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

If you don't believe that the scummy and disreputable mainstream media WOULD NOT lie and be complicit in such a huge money making and policy changing scheme like 9/11, then you're more than a little naive.


Not ALL of the mainstream media are scummy and disreputable. The mainstream media employees thousands of people. I think that it's safe to assume that maybe 100 or even 200 of them would NOT be cool with covering up the murder of 2000 innocent people.



Actually your theory about an alleged gashed, bulging, creaking and small fires in a 47 story building collapsing symmetrically into its own footprint is about as WHACKY as it gets. Of course, this is assuming that your preposterous allegations of Building 7 being gashed, creaking and bulging are correct. By the way, what would cause a 47 story skyscraper to bulge? I thought you were dead set against the alien beams from out of space theory?



The building was damaged and on fire. How much damage is unclear. How much fire is unclear. The building didn't look like a building i would want to go near anytime soon. I don't know if it bulged or not but definetly the death star tractor beam can make a building bulge. Yet more evidence it was the death star!




Of course not, you just had to be kept in the loop, like all the mainstream media networks were on that day. Now, if all the media outlets were not all on side and started giving different versions and straying from the Official BS Version, too much suspicion would have been aroused and the massive brainwashing operation would have been compromised.

The media knew everything which was about to transpire or was supposed to transpire on that day well in advance. BBC and FOX screwing up and jumping the gun on Building 7 is verification of this. No media outlets doing any investigation into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 also confirms media complicity.


There is a phrase. Three can keep a secret if two are dead. The more people that have to be involved with the coverup of the murder of 2000 innocent people the less likey they are involved. To say that all of the media outlets were involved is highly improbable. If 92875 were involved in the coverup of the murder of 2000 innocent people then ONE of them would have come forward. Maybe a few people in the media were involved but not the ENTIRE media.

Don't forget the internet is part of the mainstream media. Google is as mainstream as the media gets! Don't forget that Google owns a large chunk of the internet.



The entire 9/11 operation hinged on most people being stupid enough to believe every lie they were told on that day. Are you really surprised that the dubunkers suck up to these disreputable characters and continue to parrot their nonsense? After all, birds of feather flock together.


Do you really think that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are all disreputable charachters??

sources cited here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not even a debunker. I believe that it's possible that something in addition to building damage/airplane impacts, and fire damage could have assisted in the collapse of the WTC towers. But even I am able to say that there are sound, reputable experts, and independant investigations that support the OS theories.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by benoni
 

Doesn't it seem more likely to you that the BBC and Fox heard the responders reports (which you can find elsewhere easily) that the building was likely to fall and reported it erroneously? It does to me.

As per BBC Conspiracy Files: The 3rd Tower (available both on YouTube and Google Video), the BBC was reporting the fall of WTC7 based on a news bulletin from Reuters.

I haven't watched it recently, but there's an interview with the BBC reporter who was in New York at the time, and according to her, the first she heard of it was when the news anchor in the studio asked her what information she had. She then spent a couple of minutes waffling about sketchy details etc.

More details, courtesy of the evildoers themselves (
) www.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 29-6-2010 by roboe]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by roboe]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
The implication of what you seem to be suggesting is that the ingenious but evil perps, who went to immense lengths to fake all manner of things in order to place the blame for 9/11 elsewhere, thought it was a good idea to give a foreign news outlet a script or timetable so that they could keep up to speed with the planned events. If you believe that, you seriously will believe anything.

(Emphasis added by Thermo Klein)

Do you just enjoy anxiety and discord?? Why would you even go to the trouble to write all this if you're just going to TWIST THE WORDS AROUND. Obviously NO ONE ever said it was "a good idea" but you cause trouble and numerous extra posts by ruining someone's meaning for your own ends... I don't know if you just like to argue, are a sociopath, or honestly see things backwards in you own mind - whichever it's a waste of all our time.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Please tell me WHY the perps would give out insider information regarding the plot to the news media ? What was to be gained ?


Here's my opinion (please understand this is MY OPINION, if you'd like to share your opinion please feel free; in other words "don't taze me bro!" I don't care what you think of my opinion.)

Much of the media is owned by the same people (mostly people associated with Bilderberg and Council on Foreign Relations). These people benefit, make huge amounts of money by having the best, most entertaining, shocking news. Whomever it was associated with the destruction of these buildings let someone at BBC know the building was going to collapse so they'd be sure and get "the money shot" (pun intended). There was a slight miscommunication or misunderstanding because the high up at BBC thought the building had already collapsed and passed on the news, even though the message was just intended to be a heads-up for a very small audience of in-the-know Bilderberg types.

It was an obvious mistake.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


So the crime of the century was accidentally leaked so that it could be reported live on air?

If that's your idea of a minor mistake then I'd hate to see what you considered a major screw up!

It's just not really plausible, is it?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I didn't bring up this insane proposal that the BBC, amongst other news organizations, was given a script as to how 9/11 was due to progress.

This was benoni's idea, backed up by SphinxMontreal. Perhaps you could spell out where you stand ?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


So the crime of the century was accidentally leaked so that it could be reported live on air?

If that's your idea of a minor mistake then I'd hate to see what you considered a major screw up!

It's just not really plausible, is it?


So you think the crime of the century was purposefully leaked??
wow... just wow!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
To repond to both of you last two at once... whether you or I believe in a small worldwide cabal of elite leaders (who share certain information with each other) has nothing to do with an expert's opinion that Building 7 was purposefully imploded.

Whichever way you look at it the announcement by the BBC that Bldg 7 fell was a mistake, simply by definition - the building was still standing, they said it fell, end of story. Mistake. Discuss it on another thread.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join