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.

 

NEW FOIA Released WTC 7 Audio/Video Reveals Controlled Demoltion.

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
This video was released in the last few months by the Freedom of Information Act. It shows a good angle of wtc 7 but with audio. It seems like all these NIST videos that were being held has also been edited before release. Missing clips, sound and other anomalies.


Intersting is the penthouse collapse and the windows many floors below being blown out. As you can see there is no fire near the penthouse support. The building came down so controlled that many floors did not lose a window till the whole building hit the ground.

Here is an image to show you how immense this building was.


It was then reduced to this
*Notice how close WTC7 was to its neighbors. Notice how little damage they suffered and how small the 47 story skyscraper was reduced to.




edit on 28-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: Added images.

edit on 28-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Yes there were fires. It is only fair to show both sides.

Still without a doubt a controlled demolition. Sporadic fires would only contribute to an uneven, chaotic collapse which wasn't the case.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Sporadic fires would only contribute to an uneven, chaotic collapse....


How so? Is there a rule that says the outcome must compliment the cause? Also, please be advised that what you are stating are your word choices - no facts. Sporadic is your word choice. What is a sporadic fire?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It has amazes me how the goverment expects us to believe that wtc came down like it did because of fires its so unreal its totally out there



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Sporadic fires would only contribute to an uneven, chaotic collapse....


How so? Is there a rule that says the outcome must compliment the cause? Also, please be advised that what you are stating are your word choices - no facts. Sporadic is your word choice. What is a sporadic fire?

Definition: Recurring in scattered and irregular or unpredictable instances.

This Building called the Solomon Building also known as WTC 7 was demolished at 5PM September 11th,2001. It was 47 stories tall. The building fell in a controlled manner which is indicative of controlled demolitions being used to safely bring down the skyscraper over 6 hours after the collapse of WTC 1,2. Investigate the small debris pile and dont get swayed by resident debunkers here at AbovetopSecret.
Fight the good fight. We are winning.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Fire, specifically an office fire, burns it's fuel. So lets say building 7 gets hit with flaming debris from one of the tower hits. It can't get much fuel from the jets as most of that goes up in the initial fireball. So the debris ignites a fire at the point of impact. This is an office building so you've got (probably) fire 'resistant' cubical walls, desks, paper, plastic, and so on for fuel. As the fire burns it eats away at it's fuel source and moves to a new location, thus shifting the heat to that new location.

This is why traditionally (until 911) buildings that burn do so in an uneven matter. If fire were the cause of the collapse, not plane impacted WTC7, then the collapse would have to been uneven, ignoring the fact that an office fire can't burn hot enough to melt structural steel as indicated in every other steel framed building fire (pro tip, none of them collapsed)

The poster said sporadic fire, meaning the building was not completely engaged in the fire, pockets of fire were spread out. there is a video shot from I think below WTC7 showing people still inside and people out on the street. I can't tell you where it is, what time it was short, or who shot it, but it's on the various alternative news sites if you look for it. I've simply seen too many videos to be interested at this point, I've made my conclusion and most stuff that comes out fits in line with it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here is another angle of the demolition of WTC 7. What is disturbing is the most of the FOIA released 911 video are missing crucial frames and audio. A lot of 911 video have this done to them.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Video from inside WTC 7


Has the reason why the "sprinklers were off" been addressed yet? No fires anywhere near the core and base.


More amazing angles.

edit on 28-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Good job Herder S&F!
Like you said, "Keep fighting the good fight !"
We need to keep this stuff out in the open and in peoples faces. We can't let these crimes be swept under the rug. I've heard it said that you can't hold up a lie and you can't hold down the truth, I'd like to see the truth come out now, not 30 or 40 years from now.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jlv70
 
Watching 'the group' try to defend number seven's death by fire story is sad. This must be their hardest evidence to watch. The ONLY buildings in history to collapse due to fire. What on earth motivates someone to defend such an obvious lie?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Sporadic is a very apt term for the fires depicted in the video,
Also note that the amount of already burned out window frames was greater than the few burning ones.....My HO.
The hefty pause of several, count them, seconds after the penthouse drops, then the sudden and totally symetrical collapse of the other 47 stories, with absolutely minimal floor bickling or flexx, (just a series of dropped pancakes going down, FROM THE BOTTOM UP
The Lower floors, seemingly pulverising beneath the upper stories which just seem to melt into the dust, as if it too were made of it.....
I offer,a few other anomalous happenings which are seldom mentioned in relation to the whole mess.
The fires which presumably were burnng "out of control" because there was a lack of water with which to fight, Could have been easily quenched using the fireboats that lay alonside the complex,doing nothing.
The pumping power of just one boat could have supplied water needed.
The preparations required for the demolition of such a building,are not easily concealed, and it eould be reasonably simpe to draw some lines of possibility, if the facts were investigated.
None of the potential evidence for the prosecution of the masterminds of 9/11 has been investigated, because it is an "impossibility" that the OS is false or erroneous.
The whole controversey is moot when one considers that the OS was fleshed out in the hours after the event, and apeared almost too conveniently, and quickly, for any real or sound investigation to have been accomplished within such a short span.
The BBC announced the fall of building seven, about 20+ minutes BEFORE the actual event took place.
Wheres all the GOLD?
large amounts of gold ingots held in the basement complex for different large holders of the metal.
I believe that it is possible to know exactly how much gold, and anything else, was on deposit.
It is also possible to find out how much was recovered from the rubble.
Armed with these two figures we should ba able to get a rough idea whether there was any possibility of a major conspiracy in this direction.(I will not go into the tale of the abandoned convoy supposedly found under the rubble in a tunnel leading out from the towers either)
The last thing i wanted to bring up, was the PUT options taken by known idividuals, or groups, on the various aitlines and other stocks on or near 9/11
These are known names....but nobody is investigating....WHY?
It is obvious that those who pulled off 9/11 are still in a position to cover their tracks successfully.
Time is the limiting factor here, and the time will come when their power to erase the evience, or hide the facts, will wane.

The
.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Definition: Recurring in scattered and irregular or unpredictable instances.


So you're contending that the fires in Building 7 kept going out and starting bak up again? Instance is a reference to time. Sorry, not buying it. You've shown no proof that the fires extinguished before the building collapsed. And are you still maintaining that outcome must always compliment the cause?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



Watching 'the group' try to defend number seven's death by fire story is sad.

Nothing to "defend". Its ten years now and not one person has shown that the building collapse was a result of anything but the fire. Not even a valiant attempt. Lot of "oh it just can't be", but that does substitute for an engineering argument. Sorry.

This must be their hardest evidence to watch.

Yeah, its just unbearable.


The ONLY buildings in history to collapse due to fire.

You, of course, have a way to substantiate that statement, correct?

What on earth motivates someone to defend such an obvious lie?

What do you think?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   


The ONLY buildings in history to collapse due to fire. You, of course, have a way to substantiate that statement, correct?

Heres a link to a site that has a history, or lack thereof, of steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire.
stevex09.wordpress.com...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 



.The fires which presumably were burnng "out of control" because there was a lack of water with which to fight, Could have been easily quenched using the fireboats that lay alonside the complex,doing nothing.
The pumping power of just one boat could have supplied water needed.


So what fire fighting experience do you have....?

One the Hudson River is not right next to WTC 7 - which means you have to lay hose, lots of hose which takes
manpower and time . Friction loss in the hose would limit the amount of water could get to the scene
Would need multiple lines to bring sufficent water to scene

Once you get the water to the scene how do you get it on the fire?

The sprinklers and standpipe systems were damaged by the impact. Most of the fires in WTC 7 were above the
10th floor - aerial ladders dont reach above 9 floors.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


dillweed


What on earth motivates someone to defend such an obvious lie?


hooper


What do you think?


Balance of power. To be able to pull off and cover up such a crime does exhibit an extraordinary amount of power. You need to influence the media, government and military to pull off such a stunt. Mega dollars are involved and those behind the scenes do have an agenda for perpetual war, America has an economy based on it. Unfortunately such a stance is not sustainable, the economy is fracturing, the lie is getting exposed and people are getting tired of fighting and dying over crap. All over the world people can see past the twisted story that does not stand up to scrutiny. In America people can see past the lack of integrity that is destroying a nation. What I think is that people have been lost in their self interest instead of their responsibility. Tick Tock.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
That's just it, I don't know what could cause someone to put in question their honor. Only a liar or a complete idiot would defend the official story. Because I don't believe you are an idiot, don't you have any sense of self worth? Have you no honor, man?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Ok if I understand this right, WTC7 was damaged on the day of the attack when the other 2 towers fell?

So if this was the case I have 2 questions.

1) Did the building collapse because of structure damage?

2) Because of structural damage was it brought down by a controlled demolition?

Now I want to follow those 2 questions with another 2.

1) If the building collapsed from structural damage, why are there implosions heard and seen from lower levels and what kind of damage did it sustain to cause it to collapse?

2) If this building was brought down by a controlled demolition, when were the explosive devices inserted in the building and by who and when and is it normal practice to enter a damaged building like that knowing full well the dangers involved as it seems it was done very quickly indeed.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper
 
That's just it, I don't know what could cause someone to put in question their honor. Only a liar or a complete idiot would defend the official story. Because I don't believe you are an idiot, don't you have any sense of self worth? Have you no honor, man?


Well, actually I do consider myself quite honorable.
Now in your world anyone who holds that on Sept. 11, 2001 19 men, motiviate by religious and political zealotry hijacked 4 passenger planes and proceeded to suicidally crash them into the towers of the world trade center, the Pentagon and finally one in southwestern Pennsylvania and the susbsequent damage from those acts caused the collapse and destruction of many buildings is basically lacking any kind of honor. You realize, of course, that I am far from alone. You consider me an anamoly because I dare to speak back to you when you espouse fantasies that include, but are not limited to, secreted plantings of explosivves in multiple buildings, disappearing whole planes, faking passenger voices, etc. But I think you know that you- not I - are the exception. Which puts you in the position of either advocating the remainder of humanity has abandoned all honor, or that there is a more than substantial chance that you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I turned up my speakers 100%. Did Richard Gage wire this building with his own "Hush-A-Bombs?"

Where are the booms?

Compare the OP video to this one: (Again)




new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join