CBS Reporter Suggests Use of Explosives On 9/11 New Ground Z Video must SEE!

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

www.youtube.com...

youtu.be...
I apologize if this has been posted somewhere, I'm not a demolition expert here but the above video may very well be used as part of some proof that the towers fell due to an explosion unrelated to the hijacked planes that hit it.
The video was taken just before the tower collapsed, the camera man zooms in on the lower floors that are still burning and you can clearly see the burnt cars and debris at ground zero.

Skip to about 5:00 to hear the reporter, remember it's CBS that said it.


Here is another video that could help solve this puzzle.



edit on 20-9-2011 by hotbread because: utube link




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
You might want to edit the first video code, but to stay on topic

Explosives is what brought the wtc buildings down. there were bombs preplanted inside the buildings. the question everyone is trying to figure out is who exactly put them there.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DemonicUFO
 


Haha. What if they were put there when they were built?!?
What company built the Towers?
edit on 20-9-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


I found this though
WTC withstand plane impacts
edit on 20-9-2011 by DemonicUFO because: (no reason given)


Found the video
edit on 20-9-2011 by DemonicUFO because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-9-2011 by DemonicUFO because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
documentary on how the wtc was built


building the world trade centers



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Did you see that piece of glass flying from WTC 7 at the seven minute mark? No doubt, a tell tale sign that it was getting ready to collapse.


By the way, where is the three story buckle, the twenty story hole and the massive leaning of WTC 7? Why doesn't the reporter mention any of these things? Why was the reporter allowed so close to WTC 7 thirty minutes prior to collapse, since everyone was expecting the building to collapse?

The reporter also states that WTC was 30-some stories tall (it was 47 stories). Where did the reporter get this information from, the BBC?

Also, the anchor Ernie Anastos mentions something about anthrax. I wonder where he received that informaton from?
edit on 20-9-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


you didnt watch the part of the video where he clarifies he didnt know what the building was at the time, did you? thats one of the main reasons they were so intent on the cars. the building was kind of a focus, but not major. estimating 30 stories on a 45 story building is kinda close, so id cut the reporter a bit of slack. he still had brass balls to be there, but i dont think he even thought it would collapse. i could be wrong, and he may have thought it possible (right before deciding to book it to safety)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbread
 


Can you send this post to the owners of liverpool fc as they are investigating one of their players for tweeting that sept 11 wasnt terrorists,



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I've seen the cars with windows blown out before but I don't think I ever seen this version of the video, so I'll give you a S&F. It is rather suspicious that the car windows would be blown. Sure, maybe the collapse of the building would cause other building's window to blow out but cars on the street too?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DemonicUFO
 





Explosives is what brought the wtc buildings down. there were bombs preplanted inside the buildings. the question everyone is trying to figure out is who exactly put them there.


Wrong on two counts.

Explosives were not what brought the buildings down and almost no one is trying to find out who put them there.

Welcome to the boards. It may take you a while to get up to speed on the real facts.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Very good video !

1. it s very obvious that these rather small fires can't be the cause of the collapse. If a fire like this would be able to collapse a steel building i would never ever set a foot again in a building higher than 2 floors.

2. They mention biological weapons and even specifically Anthrax on 9/11 !! This is another smoking gun, since the anthrax attacks started after 9/11



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
I've seen the cars with windows blown out before but I don't think I ever seen this version of the video, so I'll give you a S&F. It is rather suspicious that the car windows would be blown. Sure, maybe the collapse of the building would cause other building's window to blow out but cars on the street too?


sure windows blown out yeah, but did you also happen to notice the door handles had come off? how the hell did that happen? metal would have to melt, i doubt that a typical fire would melt door handles off, you also notice alot of the gas tank lids on those cars were still in place? if the car caught fire the gas tank would ignite and theres no way the lids would stay shut, lots of those cars showed melted metal, when the camera man stuck his camera inside that one car and it looked totally ravaged you could see much of the metal holding the dash in place had gone,

typical fire doesnt explain this,

what does?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Guess you never seen a real car fire....?

Everything you said is wrong

As someone who has been a member of Fire Department for 25 years seen enough car fires

Most car today are built mostly of plastic - which burns. Non structural members are either plastic or white
metal which has a low melting point or burn

Gas tanks typically do not burn unless damaged in some way - not like Hollywood

Many parts in engine compartment are plastic/rubber - hence burn , Radiators fins are often aluminium which
melt in fire

Only rhing left after a car fire is metal shell



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by filosophia
I've seen the cars with windows blown out before but I don't think I ever seen this version of the video, so I'll give you a S&F. It is rather suspicious that the car windows would be blown. Sure, maybe the collapse of the building would cause other building's window to blow out but cars on the street too?


sure windows blown out yeah, but did you also happen to notice the door handles had come off? how the hell did that happen? metal would have to melt, i doubt that a typical fire would melt door handles off, you also notice alot of the gas tank lids on those cars were still in place? if the car caught fire the gas tank would ignite and theres no way the lids would stay shut, lots of those cars showed melted metal, when the camera man stuck his camera inside that one car and it looked totally ravaged you could see much of the metal holding the dash in place had gone,

typical fire doesnt explain this,

what does?


If burning debris hit on or near the cars, it would explain this. Most door handles are actually plastic coated in a thin layer of chrome, so that's why they would be gone. A minor fire would remove door handles.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbread
I apologize if this has been posted somewhere, I'm not a demolition expert here but the above video may very well be used as part of some proof that the towers fell due to an explosion unrelated to the hijacked planes that hit it.


Yes, it's been posted before, many, many times, although in different guises, and I'm sure this will be posted many, many times again in different guises for the simple reason that the conspiracy people want the idea of "secretly planted explosives brought down the towers" to be true so they're repeat these videos as nauseum in the hopes of finding that magic number of iterations that spontaneously makes a falsehood into the truth.

The answer is always going to be the same: flight AA175 hit the south tower literally one floor above a very large mechanical floor dedicated to housing all the electrical transformers, electrical motors, electrical generators, pressurized pipes, etc that make a building function, and they're all things that will go BOOM when on fire.

List of occupants in the south tower by floor

The plane dumped thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel directly into this floor so of course there will be explosions, and we know this is what the explosions were because the explosions were randomly going off as the fires reached each flammable object in turn, rather than synchronized as demolitions always are. If even ONE explosion we heard was from one of the flammable objects that were documented to have been in the building, then we necessarily need to acknowledge that ALL the explosions we heard were from flammable objects that were documented to have been in the building.

There are plenty of reasonable explanations for what we saw that day. The problem is that these damned fool conspiracy websites forbid you from knowing what they are so they can get you to believe in the goofy explanations. Of COURSE people are going to believe there were bombs in the building when we have snake oil peddlers like Richard Gage getting people to swallow the nonsense that the towers were really just empty cardboard boxes.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by hotbread
I apologize if this has been posted somewhere, I'm not a demolition expert here but the above video may very well be used as part of some proof that the towers fell due to an explosion unrelated to the hijacked planes that hit it.




The answer is always going to be the same: flight AA175 hit the south tower literally one floor above a very large mechanical floor dedicated to housing all the electrical transformers, electrical motors, electrical generators, pressurized pipes, etc that make a building function, and they're all things that will go BOOM when on fire.

List of occupants in the south tower by floor

The plane dumped thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel directly into this floor so of course there will be explosions, and we know this is what the explosions were because the explosions were randomly going off as the fires reached each flammable object in turn, rather than synchronized as demolitions always are. If even ONE explosion we heard was from one of the flammable objects that were documented to have been in the building, then we necessarily need to acknowledge that ALL the explosions we heard were from flammable objects that were documented to have been in the building.




Hello,
The building in the video is WTC 7, and the only raging fire I can see is coming from one floor.
I think the reporter goes into the building at 1:18 in the video and there is nothing burning on the ground floor. Yes, there were small explosions and intense fire coming from what appears to some highly flammable material but whether it was enough to collapse a building or not is what need to be investigated.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbreadYes, there were small explosions and intense fire coming from what appears to some highly flammable material but whether it was enough to collapse a building or not is what need to be investigated.

Uhm, it WAS investigated? The report on that investigation came out 3 years ago





new topics
top topics
 
7

log in

join