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.

 

*Proof of explosions in WTC 7!

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 



So are these people just imagining things?


Yeah, pretty much so. Or lying, or taken out of context or trying to get some attention.


Prove it.
second line.


Its been done. Ad nauseum. Over and over and over again. There is nothing new here. This is now just a game of attrition. Soon as the stuff gets posted and people are sick of raising the same obvious challenges then you get to declare them facts, thats all. There was nothing new in any of the original posts and all of it has gone nowhere because it is meaningless.




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
So wait a minute!

With ALL the news cameras centered in and around the WTC, with the thousands of people in and around the WTC area, with all the police and firefighters standing at the base all around the Twin Towers, and without a doubt in front of WTC7 as well, not a single soul noticed a huge KABOOOOOOMM!!!!!!!!! occur at the lobby floor of the WTC7 building ripping apart and shredding the ground floor lobby and blowing a chunk out of WTC7, throwing dead bodies everywhere?


Must have been those pesky hushabooms used all over the WTC that day.

People, PLEASE use some damn common sense and critical thinking. I know its so easy and so convienent to believe something so whacked out and unbelievable, but to suspend logic and critical thinking in order to try to make a fake story come true, defies logic.

Allegedly this powerful explosion is to have taken place before the first collapse of the WTC right? Ok.

So, (and I ask ALL believers of this rediculus idea to use their brain and think with logic on this) what we have is this: Two tall towers are burning furiously. You have thousands of eyewitnesses all looking towards the WTC. You have HUNDREDS of NYPD, NYFD, paramedics, Port Authority personell, workers evacuating surrounding buildings, all around the WTC complex. There are NUMEROUS news cameras and news people at the base or near the base of the WTC. Obviously this means that there will be quite a few of them next to, in front of, or just accross from the WTC7 building, correct? There were firetrucks located on Vesey Street in front of the WTC7 building, and surrounding the entire block around the WTC plaza. Which means there are a lot of people running around in front of Seven or standing around, or whatever. Now, to have a massive detonation inside WTC7, that was powerful enough to blast Barry up the stairwells, destroy a few stairwells, make the lobby look like Godzilla stomped on it and scattered dead bodies all over the lobby floor and outside, and NO ONE notices this happen outside? Not a soul? No one with a camera catches the sound of a massive blast BEFORE the Towers started to fall? Seriously? No one mentions a blast coming from the lobby area of Seven? No firefighters notice blast damage to the lobby prior to the collapses of WTC1+2? Come on now people, this is beyond ludicrous. but you know what, I do have one piece of evidence that counters any idea of bombs going off in the WTC7 prior to the collapses of the Twin Towers:



Now then folks, please explain how a massive bomb that destroys a lobby, a few staircases, leaves behind dead bodies in the lobby, leaves holes in the sides of the building for people to leave, all this before the collapse of WTC1+2, but in this video we see nothing and actually have people running around inside a deserted WTC7 with NO bodies on the floor, INTACT windows at the lobby, NO fires, NO smashed lobby, and only heavy dust and papers from the first towers collapse inside? Oh and why didny anyone notice any massive detonations of explosives inside WTC7?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Unfortunately, there are nast men sitting in some rooms planning out the worlds destruction, and how to enslave the common person. I thought we all knew this, its called governments. I just thought thats what they do, since they start clandestine operations to not look like war, then commence actual war. Not to mention the destroying our crops by modifying the genes, and destroying our oceans by not acting swiftly to clean up big oil messes. So people do sit in rooms who have control over the masses.

edit add: I read the article your signature came from, and well, you ever hear of a thing called flash paper? Plus, unless you are the author of the guardian news article, I'd say you are copyrighting.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Myendica]


Your sophomoric observations about governments are simplistic, and don't even answer the point. I'm suggesting that those who cleave to conspiracy theories do so because of a desire for some sort of narrative closure. The idea that there is some sort of secret cabal controlling things is ultimately comforting.

As for your last paragraph, what is copyrighting? I'm clearly in the presence of a lawyer, so perhaps you could tell me if quoting an anonymous comment from the internet without attribution is against the law. I'm terribly worried about it.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Here's a video that is relevant -



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


The buildings were getting old they would have had to of been taken down piece by piece because of the asbestos.That would have cost millions.Then to rebuild he would have had to take it out of his own pocket.This way insurance is covering it.It's your basic insurance scam and normally that would be motive to any normal investigator.

And to who ever said no firemen or nobody saw explosions at building 7 never saw this video.
www.youtube.com...

All the videos are on the first page that prove you either didn't watch them or you are lying.

Thank you for posting.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Why did he try to take out less insurance initially then? Silverstein had to be forced by his lenders into taking out a larger policy.

Odd behaviour for someone embarking on a scam.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Noone cares what people say later, retractions are always made for reasons, because someone told them it was a good idea.

You think that remembering something far later is gonna be more accurate, more truthful ?

Must be nice to live in your world of complete trust in official fabrication...however since you lot always start posting away, i do not think you know what trust is.


The logic of your post is that the first interview given by Barry Jennings must be the truthful one. That would actually be this one given in the street on 9/11 itself :-

www.youtube.com...

You will note that there was no reference to bodies in the lobby; something pretty dramatic you would have thought he would have mentioned. So the bodies were added later. He must have had a reason but evidently thought better of it later on. Perhaps because he realised he was in a minority of one and was looking rather foolish.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by roboe
 


Im telling you, that this is my opinion as to why they destroyed them. If I owned 7 buildings, and the tallest two were losing tennants and not making money, and I had to replace billions of dollars worth of stuff, and decided I wanted to demolish them, this is how I would have done it, exactly how they did. They saved a boat load of money. I'm telling you its my opinion, but I beleive that was part of the mindset. So yea, destroy the whole complex, that lot is worth more than the TOWERS BEING THERE>


Are you seriously saying that, as a matter of good business, you would murder 3000 innocent people ? !!!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein





posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


No the question you should be asking is why did Silverstein put a insurance policy that specifically covered terrorist acts on the towers just months before 9/11?Larry spent about 14 million and got over 4 billion back.You do the math.

Just another one of those weird 9/11 coincidences.It's a good thing Larry wasn't there on 9/11..he could have been killed.His daughter was also absent that day.

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.

Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft) American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft)

Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft)

The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.

Source-en.wikipedia.org...


You have to wonder what files were kept in that building.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Why have you accused me of lying for pointing out that Barry Jennings has not been consistent in his accounts of his experiences at WTC 7 on 9/11 ? Something you appear to agree with.

In any event, it is not just his damaged credibility that makes me disbelieve his bodies in the lobby story. There are substantial other reasons why it cannot be true :--

(a) According to Barry Jennings he found WTC 7 deserted and evacuated when he arrived on the morning of 9/11. He passed through the lobby in the normal way ( no bodies ) and went up to the OEM where he met Michael Hess. The only other soul in the building. So where did all these supposed bodies that he later stepped over in the lobby come from ?

(b) Not a single person has been recorded as having died at WTC 7.

(c) Michael Hess accompanied Barry Jennings throughout his escape from WTC 7 but has never mentioned bodies in the lobby.

(d) Not a single witness, other than Barry Jennings, has mentioned bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. What of the firefighters Jennings said helped Hess and himself through the lobby ?

(e) There is video of the damaged lobby of WTC 7 but not a body in sight.

You may prefer to believe the bodies in the lobby story, for reasons of your own, and I won't call you a liar for that ; just not logical.




[edit on 14-8-2010 by Alfie1]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Alfie1]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


But I'm not asking that question, am I? I'm asking one which makes your "theory" look ridiculous.

Which, I suppose, is why you've ignored it.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


That's when he first entered the building he said it was normal and noticed it was evacuated.He tried to leave and going down to the sixth floor "an explosion blew away the landing" he had to climb back up to the 8th floor where he was "trapped for several hours" before the firemen finally came and got him out and on the way back the lobby was destroyed and on the way out the firemen said "don't look down" because they were "stepping over people..you know when you're stepping over people" obviously dead people or why would the firemen say don't look down,and why would there be people on the ground?

You can try and spin it to however you want,but those are Barry's actual words.

Oh and "Where did those people come from"?

I have no idea.

Why do you suppose Barry went to the creators of Loose Change?

Where did those explosions Barry experienced come from?

Why was there no explanation from Nist for the explosions?

Too many unanswered questions.

I'm glad you have actual points though unlike some who resort to insults.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
The destruction of the WTC had to do with it being outdated, almost immediately after being built, due to the asbestos, and the costs for removing. This was the fastest, easiest, cheapest way, to bring them down. You would have had to close wall street for months, years, to tear them down manually. It would have cost a fortune. So instead of spending that forture, you create this disaster, solving a few problems, and then cashing in all that money you didn't spend, to take advantage of civil liberties, and fueling bogus wars, and throwing more countries into financial turmoil.

It was well played.


this in a nutshell is exactly what it was all about.

it was much cheaper to destory the buildings in an attack than it would have been to close down NYC for a long term removal of the buildings, throw on top of that, the benefits the government gained from war and enslaving the populance, and its a win/win for TPTB...



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


No the question you should be asking is why did Silverstein put a insurance policy that specifically covered terrorist acts on the towers just months before 9/11?Larry spent about 14 million and got over 4 billion back.You do the math.

Because he was required to by his lease contract? *shrug* And the reason he did that 'just months' before 9/11, was that he only took over the WTC site in late July 2001.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by Myendica
The destruction of the WTC had to do with it being outdated, almost immediately after being built, due to the asbestos, and the costs for removing. This was the fastest, easiest, cheapest way, to bring them down. You would have had to close wall street for months, years, to tear them down manually. It would have cost a fortune. So instead of spending that forture, you create this disaster, solving a few problems, and then cashing in all that money you didn't spend, to take advantage of civil liberties, and fueling bogus wars, and throwing more countries into financial turmoil.

It was well played.


this in a nutshell is exactly what it was all about.

it was much cheaper to destory the buildings in an attack than it would have been to close down NYC for a long term removal of the buildings, throw on top of that, the benefits the government gained from war and enslaving the populance, and its a win/win for TPTB...

At the risk of repeating myself:
1) The asbestos wasn't as big a problem as you're making it out to be. The PANYNJ estimated that it would cost slightly over $200 million to clear up, which sounds reasonable given that asbestos was only ever used on 40 floors in Tower 1.

2) As for the towers allegedly losing money: The towers held 98% occupancy in february of 2001, making it quite difficult to see how that would be possible.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Actually, I would suggest you need to re-examine your POV. The asbestos abatement, if required, would not have cost Mr. Silverstien anything. Silverstien was the lessee, not the owner. Capital improvements were the responsibility of the underlying owner of the building the Port Authority. Also, the asbestos in the building was of a non-friable type, there was no big push to get it done. Nobody wanted to demolish those buildings for economic reasons. They provided 200 acres of profitable office space in one of the highest valued real estate markets in the world.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 



So are these people just imagining things?


Yeah, pretty much so. Or lying, or taken out of context or trying to get some attention.


Hmm, why would the media do that? They reported that the NYPD was looking into a bombing that morning.

And if they would do that why would you ask me to believe them about the rest of the story?




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join