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, Let's Disassociate it from 9/11?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
All good lies need an element of truth. I believe the official story of 9/11 is mostly correct, but let's take one issue out of the mix, let's remove building 7 entirely from the debate. It's not part of the 9/11 narrative but rather its own event.

WTC 7 Poll: building7.weebly.com...

Why do this? It's become clear Building 7 was purposefully taken down not by the terrorists. The hijacked planes hit the Twin Towers, and not enough scattered or falling debris can attribute for WTC 7 collapsing. (I think we're all mostly in agreement with that statement).

WTC 7 needs its own separate discussion not involved with 9/11, not involved with the emotions of 9/11, and not involved with everyone's perception that terrorists known or unknown caused its fall.

I started a simple poll (link posted above and below), please vote to let the ATS community know where we stand and if it's time to start looking at building 7 with fresh eyes and without the many other conspiracy theories about that terrible day.

Poll: building7.weebly.com...

My hope is once the emotions and vested interest in being "right or wrong" are removed from the table, we can look at building 7 as separate event and try to discover why it was destroyed. Of course 9/11 and Twin Towers play heavily into this, but I think the TPTB want it that way... let's start over and re-review WTC 7 in a new context.

I'll share the poll results in full in a few days, when we start to see significant numbers. And side note, the website I'm asking you to visit was created only for this poll and no other reason (re: I'm not a jerk trying to make money on page clicks).
edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I thought we understood why it had to be destroyed. The same reason a particular office in the pentagon had to be.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Sure go ahead, investigate building 7, you'll find out the exact same truth in the end...



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You have a point, in that 7 happened well after the smoke cleared from 9/11, even though it happened on the same day. I'm not sure though if dividing it will do anything, as most people who don't know about 7 have already "divided" it out of their mind, or rather I should say the media divided it out of their mind for them. The first NIST report also left 7 out of the mix, further indication that 7 is not associated with 9/11. I don't think of it so much as having to physically separate 7 from 9/11, but rather do what you are doing right now and showing how 7 IS different from 9/11, and that was from the government and media's cue. 7 was not shown on television as much as the two towers, so the government from the very beginning tried to distance itself from building 7 and even NIST wouldn't touch it at first.
edit on 24-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
And I thought common sense had broken out.....


You cannot separate WTC7 from the events of 9/11. Because, like it or not, the building fell as a direct result of the events initiated when WTC1 collapsed and hit WTC7.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 





I believe the official story of 9/11 is mostly correct...


You had me until there.

What should have happened to WTC7 if reports were accurate of it's damage...






This one needed to be brought down professionally despite it's damage...



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
You have a point, in that 7 happened well after the smoke cleared from 9/11, even though it happened on the same day. I'm not sure though if dividing it will do anything, as most people who don't know about 7 have already "divided" it out of their mind, or rather I should say the media divided it out of their mind for them. The first NIST report also left 7 out of the mix, further indication that 7 is not associated with 9/11. I don't think of it so much as having to physically separate 7 from 9/11, but rather do what you are doing right now and showing how 7 IS different from 9/11, and that was from the government and media's cue. 7 was not shown on television as much as the two towers, so the government from the very beginning tried to distance itself from building 7 and even NIST wouldn't touch it at first.
edit on 24-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



Well after the smoke cleared?? On what planet??


WTC 7 collapsed in the early evening of Sept 11.....and was shown on all the networks and was mentioned in every remembrance show I watched when they discussed timelines. The reason why it did not get as much coverage was because it had been evacuated long before its collapse



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


That's the point. Without rehashing all the emotions and arguments found on ATS about Building 7, let's treat these as two events - the terrorist attacks in one corner, and the WTC 7 collapse in another corner. Not tied together.

reply to post by filosophia
 


Those are excellent points in support of treating these as two different events. One as an attack, the other, WTC 7, is something else.

reply to post by Ghandi
 


Without all the details as most of us know them who frequent ATS, what is that truth? Why Building 7 and should it be treated differently?

reply to post by ludshed
 


OK, but do you agree or not that we need to look at differently from what the planes actually hit.

And side note, I was in NYC that day, and I have nothing but the utmost love and respect for all those effected by this tragedy.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Sorry I lost you so quickly. As to the official details, I think they are mostly true (the good lie premise), but there are glaring problems as well. One problem is WTC 7. I'd like to see not tied to those events so that we can focus on it better and get the emotional and vested interests out of the debate. Maybe one day, if the collapse of Building 7 is ever solved, we take that knowledge and apply it to 9/11 as a whole to see what we believe and don't.

Thanks for the videos, very informative.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


The second paragraph in the OP is exactly why I posted. While WTC7 was not the primary target, it did fall as a direct result of the terrorist attack.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


You're right, the smoke didn't really clear until mid-December. The news did cover it, but more as a secondary event, which is why I believe we need to go back to the drawing board and take WTC 7 out of the Twin Tower narrative.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


To be clear, you are tying the Twin Tower collapse directly to the WTC 7 collapse and ruling out any nefarious activity as to the origins of the WTC 7 collapse.

Please vote at the poll. I think ATS can use some hard member data on how to treat these events.


edit on 24-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 





All good lies need an element of truth. I believe the official story of 9/11 is mostly correct, but let's take one issue out of the mix, let's remove building 7 entirely from the debate. It's not part of the 9/11 narrative but rather its own event. WTC 7 Poll: building7.weebly.com... Why do this? It's become clear Building 7 was purposefully taken down not by the terrorists. The hijacked planes hit the Twin Towers, and not enough scattered or falling debris can attribute for WTC 7 collapsing. (I think we're all mostly in agreement with that statement).


Well, being that you are a self-proclaimed believer in the O.S., I can see how it would be more preferable to you to pluck Building 7 out of the big picture, as Building 7 is the biggest threat to the official story that exists. I guess you thought the rest of us would overlook that part of the whole scenario you have proposed here.

If Building 7 came down in a controlled demolition, the entire attack points to U.S. government involvement....

And, incidentally, Building 7 has been discussed a multitude of times already. Why do you think it's necessary to start yet another new discussion of it?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   




It is also what should have happened to the towers above the damaged area if the steel HAD given out because they were magically melted by fires.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by Jason88
 





All good lies need an element of truth. I believe the official story of 9/11 is mostly correct, but let's take one issue out of the mix, let's remove building 7 entirely from the debate. It's not part of the 9/11 narrative but rather its own event. WTC 7 Poll: building7.weebly.com... Why do this? It's become clear Building 7 was purposefully taken down not by the terrorists. The hijacked planes hit the Twin Towers, and not enough scattered or falling debris can attribute for WTC 7 collapsing. (I think we're all mostly in agreement with that statement).


Well, being that you are a self-proclaimed believer in the O.S., I can see how it would be more preferable to you to pluck Building 7 out of the big picture, as Building 7 is the biggest threat to the official story that exists. I guess you thought the rest of us would overlook that part of the whole scenario you have proposed here.

If Building 7 came down in a controlled demolition, the entire attack points to U.S. government involvement....

And, incidentally, Building 7 has been discussed a multitude of times already. Why do you think it's necessary to start yet another new discussion of it?


I take this from the bottom up. It's necessary to start this discussion because I think building 7 holds the key to understanding that entire day (part of the official lie). Remove the Twin Towers, Remove Flight 93, Remove the Pentagon, and just study this event.

Again, all good lies have truth in them. I feel most certain of all events that day that Building 7 is most definitely one of the lies. I'd like to get to the heart of that lie first, as I think it's the most obvious, then use that knowledge to apply to other events in an effort to locate all the lies.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


The story that WTC 7 collapsed for any reason OTHER than the severe damage/unchecked fires it suffered that day is horse manure. That should be clear enough.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I agree. Though as the planes hit those buildings, and whether it's a lie or not, the government has that aspect of the story covered. WTC 7 has no such story, so therefor collateral damage caused it to go down? I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Exactly. Those smothered fires also melted a lot cars too.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You can remove all the other aspects of that day except, in my opinion, flight 93. I believe flight 93 was headed to WTC 7 and since it didn't make it's mark they where forced to continue bringing WTC 7 down. Who "they" are I don't claim to know.
edit on 24-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jason88
 


I'm hoping I'm not off topic here.

I don't see how dissassociating one of the events of 911 from 911 is even a rational approach.
Jason, my young man, how is it you can buy the OS as being the truth ? You sure seem to be a savy youngster.
This is not a plea for you to change your mind in anyway, it's just that I've been impressed with your intelligence
on a number of different issues in the past and. Well, it seems your ability of discernment has failed you demonstrably on these events ie. You believe something to be truth coming from people who I'm positive you know to be constant psychopathic liars. Or perhaps I'm wrong about that. Even in the face of massive evidence that they are lying. How is this to be unconflicting and uncontradicting for me in my limited understanding of you ? Lil help here?
edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join