Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I've always been curious as to what the official story
was concerning the announcement from BBC of a building that hadn't fallen yet?

Does anyone not see that every instance of 911 has anomalies ?

First steel buildings to fall from fire?, 2 planes knock down 3 buildings?
Witnesses saying bombs went off in the basements of Tower 1&2? Etc etc
Appreciable lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?
Lack of an entire plane at Shanksville? Come on.
What sites attacked on 911 weren't anomalies ?
Maybe we should start there.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Hold on. Here's the same clip but not inverted like Eddy Current says.


If people can quickly dismiss this as a hoax, then people should also dismiss Current. It wouldn't be any stretch to imagine that such a controversial subject with all it's safeguards to prevent the truth from being known, go to the extent of discrediting any evidence.

Sticking a ufo into the clip and text saying this "this is a hoax idiots" really seems fishy to me even more so. A ufo? It's a tried and proven technique to discredit by ridicule. It's psychologically effective when subliminally associating nutter ufo's with 911. Look what happened here in this thread already.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
I've always been curious as to what the official story
was concerning the announcement from BBC of a building that hadn't fallen yet?


There is no 'official story' of this, the BBC isn't even American. They repeated a Reuters report without sufficiently fact checking it. That's all there is to it.

Do you really think someone would be stupid enough to give out a script to a foreign media organisation telling them what to say before it happened? Could there be a more risky thing to do in such a conspiracy?

Do you really think someone would use two planes in new york, but then use two missiles elsewhere just for the fun of it? Occam's razor please!



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Thanks to RoScoLaz here, I did a little digging and uncovered a rat. Considering my own belief that 9/11 was an inside job, it's a little heartbreaking to reveal to the members of ATS that this video is a HOAX, designed to draw out the gullibility of 9/11 truthers.


You shouldn't feel bad, this video gets posted every month or two here and I gave you your only star for this post. People just don't want to hear the truth I'm afraid.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Yes, this is about the tenth time this video in various versions is posted. It's a little disheartening to see that it never ceases.
This thread belongs in the HOAX bin. That's all I have to say, really.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Seriously, it doesn't take much to shut people up. A few thousand dollars, the promise of a promotion, and the safety of your children and family members as well as your own security is more than enough to ensure silence on your part.

If you don't believe me, look at the Barry Jennings article posted in this thread.


You are using an unproven and unprovable accusation to "prove" another unproven and unprovable accusation. This isn't actually proving anything. It's just circular logic in that you're just repeating the same statement in different terms in an attempt to support itself.

There isn't anything sinister or mysterious about Barry Jennings' death. The only issue is that the family doesn't want to tell Dylan Avery, and the reason is obvious- he made the family into a laughing stock by peddling these conspiracy theories to make a fast buck and they want him to get lost and stay lost. The private investigator almost certainly dropped the case for the same reason- once he found out Dylan Avery was using him to promote his conspiracy mongoring to make a fast buck he told him to get lost and stay lost as well. You will notice that the entire bit about Barry Jennings' death being so spooky scary and being rebuffed by the private detective are all coming from- SURPRISE- Dylan Avery himself.

In the real world where whistle blowers leak all sorts of compromising things to Wikileaks and Anonymous can track down the POS who stalked a Canadian teenager into committing suicide, the odds that even more critically important coverups like this imagined 9/11 conspiracy can remain covered up is close to nonexistant.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Do you blame me? Considering what kind of lies people will tell for a laugh, or to vindicate their ridiculous opinions of other people or organizations, is it really that big of a stretch for me to think, "Wow, he looks legit."

In all actuality, it's easier to fake a video than make a real one. Know what I mean?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
It's far easier to spread a lie then it is to unveil the truth.

And that has been a huge problem with 9/11. People like this 'man' that faked this video. He has done nothing to further his views. The people out there spreading disinformation, fake theories, outright lies. It brings nothing to the table.

People can believe the official story if it is their prerogative. The question I have always posed to them is, what is the harm in further investigating the attacks? I never get a straight answer. I've heard everything from "you should trust the government" to "it is disrespectful to the dead". I don't see how trying to find the truth is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.

There are so many unanswered questions, and they are simply brushed to the side by those who believe the 9/11 Commission reports. The simple ties alone, between the commission and the Bush administration should have negated them from even participating. I believe we need completely unbiased review of all the evidence. Unfortunately, 11 years later, it just will not happen. And I believe that 9/11 will go down much like the JFK assassination. Oh.. maybe 50 or 60 years from now we might learn some new information. But as for now, the story has been so twisted and convoluted that its too far gone.

I do not believe the official story. It is so full of holes. However, I am also of the belief that it wasn't our government who was involved in it either. I do believe there were a select few who had a part in it (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc), but I really don't believe Bush had anything to do with it. I really believe completely that it was a Mossad operation, conducted to bring us into war in the middle east.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


what a strange little man the guy in the wife-beater is...


He didn't create the video to show off his fashion sense. He created the video to make a point, and he definitely made it.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 



Hold on. Here's the same clip but not inverted like Eddy Current says.


This isn't exactly rocket science. Current flipped the video, someone else flipped it back.

If you want to read a serious discussion of this video, go find one of the many threads about it in the 9/11 forum. This is old news.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
There is no 'official story' of this, the BBC isn't even American. They repeated a Reuters report without sufficiently fact checking it. That's all there is to it.


So why did Reuters send out a press release saying WTC7 had collapsed before it did?

Whether the BBC messed up, or Reuters, doesn't change the fact that WTC7 was reported as collapsed before it did, and then miraculously it does exactly what was predicted.

Obviously someone new WTC 7 was going to collapse. No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire before 911, so who could ever predict something that had never happened before? Steel framed building do not normally collapse from fire, so there was no precedence for such a claim.

You can make all the excuses you want, but you can't change the fact that an event that could not have been expected (unless someone knew) was reported before the event actually happened.

edit on 12/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
It's far easier to spread a lie then it is to unveil the truth.

And that has been a huge problem with 9/11. People like this 'man' that faked this video. He has done nothing to further his views. The people out there spreading disinformation, fake theories, outright lies. It brings nothing to the table.

The video served to prove that 'the truth movement' often doesn't investigate the provenance or detail of their evidence at all. The fact that it's been posted so many times shows that they don't even bother to check.


People can believe the official story if it is their prerogative. The question I have always posed to them is, what is the harm in further investigating the attacks? I never get a straight answer. I've heard everything from "you should trust the government" to "it is disrespectful to the dead". I don't see how trying to find the truth is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.

I'm interested where you heard these things, because I and many other 'debunkers' who post here don't have any particular opposition to more investigation but the cost. As long as I'm not paying then have at it!


There are so many unanswered questions, and they are simply brushed to the side by those who believe the 9/11 Commission reports. The simple ties alone, between the commission and the Bush administration should have negated them from even participating.

You won't find much argument from me on this point either, would anyone really be shocked if the government was caught covering up incompetence? It's a big gap though from 'incompetence' to 'pulled off 911 without leaving a single solid piece of evidence but just enough breadcrumbs for amateurs to find'.


I do not believe the official story. It is so full of holes. However, I am also of the belief that it wasn't our government who was involved in it either. I do believe there were a select few who had a part in it (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc), but I really don't believe Bush had anything to do with it. I really believe completely that it was a Mossad operation, conducted to bring us into war in the middle east.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Mossad knew something about the plot, but that's really here nor there, the vast majority of conspiracies put forward here relate to controlled demolition, or missiles at the pentagon, or no-plane in shanksville etc. All things which are undoubtedly false. If we could just manage to get people to stop focusing on this stuff then detecting and dealing with political corruption might be feasible!



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So why did Reuters send out a press release saying WTC7 had collapsed before it did?

I don't know, there are many plausible reasons. Before 4pm the building was viewed as unstable and likely to collapse. It doesn't take much to get 'has collapsed' from 'will collapse'.


Whether the BBC messed up, or Reuters, doesn't change the fact that WTC7 was reported as collapsed before it did, and then miraculously it does exactly what was predicted.

Obviously someone new WTC 7 was going to collapse.

'Obviously'? Based on what facts? I assume here you've negated coincidence or mistake somehow.


No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire before 911, so who could ever predict something that had never happened before? Steel framed building do not normally collapse from fire, so there was no precedence for such a claim.

No steel framed skyscraper. You keep forgetting this part. Steel's weakness in fire is well known and you should know by now that the building was observed creaking and moving and the firefighters on the ground considered it too big a risk. If they thought it would collapse, what is the problem?


You can make all the excuses you want, but you can't change the fact that an event that could not have been expected (unless someone knew) was reported before the even actually happened.

So the firefighters were 'in on it' if they thought it was going to collapse? Seems like you're poisoning the well a little here.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



You are using an unproven and unprovable accusation to "prove" another unproven and unprovable accusation. This isn't actually proving anything. It's just circular logic in that you're just repeating the same statement in different terms in an attempt to support itself.


Should I post those MIB videos, complete with testimony?


In the real world where whistle blowers leak all sorts of compromising things to Wikileaks and Anonymous can track down the POS who stalked a Canadian teenager into committing suicide, the odds that even more critically important coverups like this imagined 9/11 conspiracy can remain covered up is close to nonexistant.


I'm not surprised nothing really significant has cropped up. The United States isn't that stupid, which is what has me suspicious in the first place. A bunch of mean with wire cutters managed to hijack an airplane and send it straight into a business district without any kind of interference. Doesn't sound like a cut-and-clean deal to me.

You would think a super power would learn from Pearl Harbor. All that huffing and puffing about military might, but a bunch of bearded men with less technology than a Japanese fighter plane managed to launch a successful attack despite plenty of warnings from inside the Pentagon and White House? We had all the time in the world to prevent it. We could have blown that plane out of the sky. And yet, we failed. That doesn't sound like America.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
People can believe the official story if it is their prerogative. The question I have always posed to them is, what is the harm in further investigating the attacks? I never get a straight answer. I've heard everything from "you should trust the government" to "it is disrespectful to the dead". I don't see how trying to find the truth is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.


With all due respects, I say you are lying. I have never, not once, not here or anywhere else in my entire life, ever met anyone who ever said "you should trust the government". In fact every single person I've ever come across believes politicians are all professionaly paid liars. Let's prove it right now- who here on ATS seriously believes we should trust the government, raise your hands. Anyone?

Here's the straight answer you've been looking for- go ahead and investigate the attack. In fact have all the investigations you want. It's a critical moment in our nation's history and it should be documented as much as possible. My position is that we need to look at ALL the facts, not just those carefully selected cherry picked tidbits that happens to look as if it supports what you're saying. Brushing off information as being "gov't disinformation" and "planted by sinister secret agents" simply because you don't want to believe it isn't research. It's making up your own evidence as you go along to prove what you yourself want to believe, and it's the same faith based logic Bible thumpers use to "prove" some invisible dude lives up in the clouds and can magically make humans out of clods of dirt.
edit on 6-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
It was nothing. It was a terrorist in a plane that crashed into the twin towers that were responsible for this. What nonsense.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



You are using an unproven and unprovable accusation to "prove" another unproven and unprovable accusation. This isn't actually proving anything. It's just circular logic in that you're just repeating the same statement in different terms in an attempt to support itself.


Should I post those MIB videos, complete with testimony?


I'm not sure what "MIB videos" are, but I've seen the Barry Jennings video, numerous times. By his own timeline, the time when he encountered this "mysterious explosion" was the exact same time when the north tower collapsed, so it's obvious that the impact from the falling wreckage is what Jennings felt.


I'm not surprised nothing really significant has cropped up. The United States isn't that stupid, which is what has me suspicious in the first place. A bunch of mean with wire cutters managed to hijack an airplane and send it straight into a business district without any kind of interference. Doesn't sound like a cut-and-clean deal to me.


OR, it's really the case nothing new has cropped up because Dylan Avery's conspiracy claims are rubbish and there was never anything to crop up to begin with. Have you ever considered that?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I'm kind of confused as to why this would be controversial. I was under the impression that the official story was that WTC7 was, indeed, brought down by a controlled blast. Why would evidence of that be anything shocking?

I do however find the picture below amusing. Yesterday i was watching a video posted here of Jesse Ventura debating some twit (forget twit's name) who made a big show of sounding shocked when Ventura mentioned that the BBC reported WTC7 falling before it had actually happened.

The guy responded in a tone that almost seemed to say "how dare you accuse the BBC" and he even said something to that effect.... ."You mean to tell me that the BBC, one of the most respected news agencies... blah blah... I don't believe it." That is, of course, paraphrased.

And here, of course, is what every 9/11 conspiracy theorist already knew, that this twit denied out of ignorance.




Originally posted by AdamsMurmur


edit on 6/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



I almost wish I had the twit's email, so I could send this to him.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
I'm kind of confused as to why this would be controversial. I was under the impression that the official story was that WTC7 was, indeed, brought down by a controlled blast. Why would evidence of that be anything shocking?

Because that is not the 'official' story. WTC7 was not taken down in a controlled demolition, it collapsed due to fire.


And here, of course, is what every 9/11 conspiracy theorist already knew, that this twit denied out of ignorance.

I almost wish I had the twit's email, so I could send this to him.

You'd only look the fool, as there's no suggestion the BBC was complicit. This was a mistake by Reuters.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Getting reports of the collapse of building 7 in the MSM was one of the most important aspects of the success of the 911 inside job, so it is very understandable that the conspirators made sure that all news agencies got the memo. How could the news agencies else have found out if it weren't for the memo from the conspirators? Its all very logical.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join