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.

 

WTC 7 proof positive no inside job

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangutang
reply to post by Alfie1
 


i have not the time to see if it has been mentioned properly already.

the BBC announced 20 minutes before the event that building 7 had collapsed.
that is undeniable historic proof that everything relating to the disasters on that day, ie the official explanation, is a total fabricated lie. anyone believing otherwise is not only gullible but brain dead.


Why? Why would they announce their crime?

Why not just let it fall and allow the media to report as normal? I just can't understand why a major conspiracy would bother to draw attention to its crime. What is in it for them?

And are you suggesting that the BBC newsroom was in on it?

Surely it's far more likely that they picked up on widespread reports from firefighters that the collapse was imminent and reported it erroneously.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by orangutang
 


Hehe yes brain dead you mean all that nice kosher food you have in usa coke pepsi all the food have a kosher sign on it macaroni pasta enything have a kosher sign ont it and the best aspartame nuclear waste fluoride everything in litle number but it is in everything and its kosher.


Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.

read more about aspartame
www.mercola.com...

OK now for the WTC 7 bbc ya here it is



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


You know, I'm going to also tell a little tale of some major news MIS-reporting. It happened during Hurricane Katrina. recall that time?

I recall hearing on the news for days, about how there were mass rape squads raping babies and girls in the Superdome. I remember hearing about how there were "death squads" roaming the area in and around the Superdome. I remember how the news reported rescue helicopters being shot at as if it were Fallujah, Iraq, and it got to the point where chopper pilots refused to go in for fear of their own safety. I remember seeing on the front page of some newspapers the headlines: "Bodies stacked like cordwood!!" in front of the Superdome. I also recall hearing about how people were being raped, then thrown off the upper stands of the Superdome to their deaths below. I can as clear as day remember all of these initial reports that lasted for nearly a week. By God I almost believed it all, the rape squads, death squads, bodies stacked like cordwood. I mean surely the reporters on the ground that were at the Superdome wouldnt have been able to miss all that right? Thats what they reported! Then what happened?? OOPPSSSS!! Sorry! There were no death squads, no rape squads raping babies, no bodies stacked like cordwood, no instance of a chopper getting shot at. It was all missreporting. Then what do I see a few months later? Awards given tot hese same news companies for a "fantastic job" of news reporting during Katrina.

So tell me, news agencies are not prone to making mistakes, misreports, etc, during the initial event that is still ocurring? Since when do they know EVERYTHING the moment something happens?

No offense, but you people gotta stop and think a second before jumping on this ridiculous bandwagon that some how, the BBC reported the collapse too early. I'm pretty sure that BBC persons there couldnt tell WTC7 from WTC3,4,5,6, and I'm pretty damn sure that they heard the words, "about to collapse" and misreported it as "already collapsed".

To think otherwise, that its some sort of script mistake, just goes to show the level of desperation of the TM that they have to grasp at such straws to make their crumbling views stronger. I saw right through their garbage and almost laughed my head off when i saw this garbage pulled by them. A script? Yeah, if you or anyone still believes that nonsense, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell ya. Real cheap too! Great veiw from it as well!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



ok i agree maybe a misreports but 23 minutes before cool .

If you thing that the news reporter can say enything he thinks on tv noono
dont make mastakes the news media is owned by jews food jews bank jews now you pay more for a bottle of water then a coke same size
food make you sick heyy only in america you got more cancer then other contry why, i mean at young age 26 36 years. media is a gouvernamental control tool thats all man there is no news only total control

good exemple



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


well again, what if they said it an hour earlier? Three hours earlier? Do you see what I mean? so it was 23 minutes before collapse, well heck, no one really did know when exactly it was going to fall, just, it was going to fall. When? Who knew.

And yeah the news is not always 100% correct, especially in first-reports where the news is still preliminary and all the facts are not in. Another good example I can turn you to, on 9/11. Recall how many times we heard reports there were car bombs exploding at the Capitol building? Car bombs in the tunnels. Car bombs on the DC Mall. A small plane hitting the WTCs. Honestly would you then think that it was all scripted and they goofed?
not poking fun at you, just giving you some examples of misreports on 9/11. They all were reported just like the mistake with WTC7's impending collapse turning into already collapsed.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
countdown reports at wtc7

heres a video detailing accounts by people who heard countdowns over emergency radios, giving personal accounts. oh yeah and a demolitions truck just happens to drive by.

heres 1 more...
www.youtube.com...

and another
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by trutherman]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by trutherman]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


BBC get the report from Reuters, who in turn were quoting "local news reports" as source. In the chaos of that day nobody stopped to confirm and simply went with what were hearing

I was listening to the radio transmissions ifrom the scene at my firehouse\
in New Jersey

Some of the rumors flying around were off the wall - ie one report being passed around was to watch for biologic agents in the debris...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Fireman on their two ways were saying ''they are going to ''Pull'' the building '',i didnt know you could just ''pull'' a building whenever you feel like it ,or maybe it got scared and just fell down on its own ? anyway you look at it mindless people will always believe the the Official BS story



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


All these excuses don't work.

For a press release to be read on a major news source there must have been a press release to begin with.

Why would there be a press release with so much detail about WTC 7 collapsing when it hadn't collapsed yet?

Both the BBC and Fox news reported the collapse early.

Yes they made a mistake, no one told them the collapse had been postponed for 30 minutes, so they read the press release at the scheduled time. We already know it was a controlled implosion demolition, so that is a more logical explanation than any other.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
The minute you or anyone can explain to me, how building 7 fell straight to the ground WITH NO RESISTANCE, i'll believe the original story.


Buildings tend to fall DOWN do they not ? Where do you get the no resistance from ?

Do you think the plan was to cd the building whatever ?


Um.. actually, no, they fall OVER, not DOWN, the only way they fall DOWN is if they are demolished professionally, thats the only way.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


This is all I found so far on the "pre-set explosives" There is the video here that contains the admission. I am having trouble with the plug in- to play it.




TextSilverstein admits that Building Seven was demolished by explosives, supposedly to save the lives of firefighters, a tactic one hopes will not find it's way to other communities. He then adds a bizarre twist: It was the firefighters themselves, and not Larry Silverstein, who blew up the building! In describing an alleged conversation with the fire department commander, he refers to the demolition with the building industry jargon, "pull". In other words, they agreed to "pull" the building.


www.ken-welch.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman
 


All these excuses don't work.

For a press release to be read on a major news source there must have been a press release to begin with.


It's highly unilkely that there would be a press release. Why couldn't it have come from a wire report?

You're betraying your lack of knowledge about how media organisations work. The BBC very rarely reports press releases. They're not a local paper. They have their own worldwide network of reporters and if they don't use those they'll rely mostly on the wires. The idea of a press release being read out on air unvarnished is fanciful.


Why would there be a press release with so much detail about WTC 7 collapsing when it hadn't collapsed yet?


What detail?


Both the BBC and Fox news reported the collapse early.

Yes they made a mistake, no one told them the collapse had been postponed for 30 minutes, so they read the press release at the scheduled time.


Why do this if you're the conspirator? Think critically for a moment. What would be the point of arranging such an announcement? Why not just let it fall and then allow it to be reported as normal? And then if you're timing the demo yourself what's the likelihood of your completely pointless announcement going out at the wrong time?

Let's review what your theory requires.

- A press release that is in no one's interest to put out

- The BBC suddenly magically deciding to read out any press release they receive

- At least some level of complicity from (fairly lowly) newsroom floor staff

- A mistake of enormous proportions; somebody "forgetting" to tell the news organisations that they had already (pointlessly) primed of your theoretical "delay"

- The "delay" itself. Why?



What does my theory require?

- Reuters staff picking up stories from firefighters about the imminent collapse and that being misreported, either by them or the channels.





Your idea is possible, but it's very, very unlikely. Mine is simple, and relatively speaking highly probable. There is pressure on news journalists to be first with the story and this is probably an example of that eagerness in action. It looks slightly odd until you consider it in any depth at all.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattias


Um.. actually, no, they fall OVER, not DOWN, the only way they fall DOWN is if they are demolished professionally, thats the only way.


Really?

Can you show me footage of a skyscraper falling over?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Tribble
 


I'll save you the bother. He says "pull" as in "pull out the firefighting operation". Her never admitted prewiring the building. That's a gloss you're being given by a website that wants to make you believe something.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
From a crass beginning, this is becoming a good thread. Personally, I don't think that there's any conspiracy about the BBC reporting WTC7'c collapse before it happened but they didn't do themselves any favours by losing all the back-up footage from the day; that's a schoolboy error. Also, out of all the WTC complex buildings, WTC7 was the least structurally damaged (WTC5 was battered beyond repair with huge fires but oddly no-one thought that was going to collapse), so I find it strange that out of all the buildings underneath the towers, WTC7 being the least structurally damaged out of all of them, everyone knew it was going to collapse. And didn't NIST in their report describe WTC7's collapse, as "unpredictable?" The fact that WTC7's collapse was reported before it happened, though, doesn't really prove anything; people need to stop bringing it up, it's odd, sure, but it doesn't qualify as evidence. The BBC said that due to the "confusing events of the day" they simply misreported it. They should have at least released their sources, though.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


How could it have been a mistake? For the BBC, and Fox, to have read a press release there had to have been a press release.

Why would there be a press release about WTC 7 collapsing before it collapsed?

A couple of fire fighters saying the buildings was unstable does not warrant a press release to be written ahead of the event that nobody new when or how it would happen. No one could have predicted a complete collapse.

The people reading the news don't write the news, it comes from press releases from various sources, government releases there own. How would the BBC, and Fox, know to report a collapsed building that hadn't collapsed yet?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Why would there be a press release about WTC 7 collapsing before it collapsed? The people reading the news don't write the news.

Obviously not, but the BBC doesn't claim to have received press releases. Here's what the BBC says: "Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening." Basically, the BBC claim that they misreported the events, and that was all, they never received any press releases (according to them anyway). It was just a muddle-up. I don't personally believe it was a muddle-up, and after the muddle-up, WTC7 just conveniently happened to collapse, but given the fact we don't have any substantial evidence the best we can do is throw around half-baked speculation which is why these discussions never lead anywhere.

Link: www.bbc.co.uk...


No one could have predicted a complete collapse.

The BBC didn't specifically say that WTC7 suffered a "complete" collapse, they simply said that the building collapsed. That could mean partially or globally, they didn't clarify. Nevertheless, whatever the BBC claim, I can't say I trust them much. I go to ITV for my news nowadays.

EDIT: Fixed link.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Ah yes so when a newscaster says, "we are just getting some news the Soloman Brothers Building has just collapsed," then that meant there was a press release first? ANOK, how long have you been watching news stories or breaking news events? Especially a breaking news story. They recieve a report and they report it. A plane crash, a shooting, terrorist action, whatever, they get a breaking news report from a newscaster on scene or from a source, and they report it. Its called a preliminary report. There is no press release all nice and set up prior, its happening now.

Also, would you be able to spot the Solomon Brothers Building? Do you know which one it was if I were to have dropped you into NYC on Sept. 10? I doubt it. Would the newscaster from BBC know which building is that one?

Oh by the way, there were also many reports of carbombs at the Capitol Building, at the Mall, in Richmond, in the Tunnels of NYC. Were they also script glitches?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


This is a video of fire fighter telling people the bulding will blow out not collapse again a mistake.



[edit on 3-9-2010 by knowneedtoknow]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by trutherman
 


I don't know why I do this , over and over , because it will be brushed aside by you guys anyway . But , here goes ...

From your first video :

For starters , there is a banner in the background that reads " 911 Was an inside job ".

This right here shows that the account is going to be given from a 'truther' . It also shows that the account is not 'fresh' after the events .

The first guy : " ...Red Cross representative pacing back and forth holding his hand over the radio ... and I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT IT WAS SAYING (BUT) , IT WAS LIKE it was pulsed , WHATEVER the speech was that was on there , it was pulsed and THAT MEANS TO ME it was most likely a countdown ... but he took his hand off the last three seconds and he gave this like heartfelt look ... like just run for your life ... "

Second guy : " ... he came back over with his hand over the radio and what SOUNDED LIKE a countdown and at the last few seconds he took his hand off and you heard three , two , one ...and he was saying just run for your life ... "

Third guy " ... people inside 7 ...at nine in the morning ... witnessed massive explosions that killed large numbers of people ... ".

Okay , the first guy admits he couldn't hear what was being said on the radio , and that what he DIDN'T hear , meant a countdown to him .

He also says the Red Cross rep took his hand off the radio in the last three seconds . NOTE that he did not say that he heard 3,2,1 after the RC rep removed his hand . He says the RC rep gave him a look as if to say 'run for your life' , but note that the RC guy didn't actually say this .

Now , here we have guy #2 saying the RC guy had his hand over the radio . So far , the stories match . Guy #2 says it SOUNDED like a countdown on the radio that was covered by a hand . He didn't say it was a countdown , he said it sounded like one , muffled by a hand . Implication being , that he couldn't be sure .

Now , here's the kicker , Guy #2 says he actually heard 3,2,1, once the hand was removed . Why is it that guy #1 didn't mention hearing 3,2,1 ?
Guy #2 also says that the RC guy said " just run for your life " . Now , why do you suppose that guy #1 said that the RC guy just gave him a look as if to say 'run for your life' ?

My opinion ? One , or both , are lying .

Third guy said people inside witnessed massive explosions at nine in the morning . What type of controlled demolition gets initiated at 9am but doesn't cause a collapse until 5pm ?
And how many people were killed in WTC7 ?

As for the red truck ... it was a TRASH truck , owned and operated by Manhattan Demolition , INC. Nothing sinister about a trash truck rolling around Manhattan at 9am on a Tuesday morning , now is there ?



Trash truck : Can't get it to load properly . Google Manhattan Demolition for picture of red trash truck .

[edit on 3-9-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by okbmd]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join