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.
Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
1. Ignorance
Originally posted by FlySolo
How can OS proponents have any doubt?
2. Denial
3. Shilling
Pick one.
edit on 6/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by foodstamp
For what it's worth you are wrong here. She really did report it collapsing before it did, but that's because for several hours beforehand they were clearing the collapse zone and this was widespread knowledge at the site.
They interviewed both newsreaders for a conspiracy documentary some years later that's probably available on youtube.
Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by FlySolo
Flysolo, This video has been doctored from an original video that does NOT have explosions flashes OR sounds of mini explosions. This is total dis info..
Originally posted by FlySolo
Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by FlySolo
Flysolo, This video has been doctored from an original video that does NOT have explosions flashes OR sounds of mini explosions. This is total dis info..
I came to the same conclusion a few hours ago. So for the sake of my integrity, or lack of thereof, I admit to being duped.
I have to ask if this is even WT7, or just a building being demo'ed. I've watched the video, and it doesn't lookm like WT7 to me. I think it might be that hotel in Vegas that got imploded.
Originally posted by Pilot
I wonder where that footage came from, why was a camera pointed at that building at that time? Wow!! I guess people can attempt to come up with a rationalization for why that building came down that fits in with the OS, but I can't! Good find!edit on 6-12-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by foodstamp
You have no proof whatsoever. There's a dozen or so news agencies that ALL did the same thing!
You Just have a claim by a woman.
Originally posted by samkent
Why would explosions on the 1st floor blow out windows on the 40th?
Why would explosions on the 40th floor only blow out a few windows on one side and not the entire floor?
Why have explosives on the 40th floor and not the 35th or the 30th?
The building was failing internally at the time the windows cracked and blew out.
Why didn't engineering experts from enemy countries cry foul?
Iran would love to stick a finger in the eye of Bush.
North Korea would love to paint the US government with the stain of a engineering cover up.
But both remained silent. Why is that?
Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
1. Ignorance
Originally posted by FlySolo
How can OS proponents have any doubt?
2. Denial
3. Shilling
Pick one.
edit on 6/12/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by foodstamp
Dude, this is the most retarded evidence ever. And it's been explained away time and time again.
For those of you that seemed to have missed REALITY, here goes. The News channels are well known for using looped TV backdrops for almost ALL breaking news. You can clearly tell that this woman is not literally sitting in New york sooooo, the background is a looped recording. So now, when WTC 7 collapses, the new reporters report it. With WTC 7 still in the background video. You will also find that this news agency is one of MANY that had WTC 7 in the background when they reported WTC 7 having collapsed. Because it's a common occurance to use looped background videos. Unless your suggesting that 20+ news agencies both national and local all got inside info before the building collapsed.
Originally posted by samkent
Why would explosions on the 1st floor blow out windows on the 40th?
Why would explosions on the 40th floor only blow out a few windows on one side and not the entire floor?
Why have explosives on the 40th floor and not the 35th or the 30th?
The building was failing internally at the time the windows cracked and blew out.
Why didn't engineering experts from enemy countries cry foul?
Iran would love to stick a finger in the eye of Bush.
North Korea would love to paint the US government with the stain of a engineering cover up.
But both remained silent. Why is that?
Originally posted by iwilliam
Originally posted by foodstamp
Dude, this is the most retarded evidence ever. And it's been explained away time and time again.
For those of you that seemed to have missed REALITY, here goes. The News channels are well known for using looped TV backdrops for almost ALL breaking news. You can clearly tell that this woman is not literally sitting in New york sooooo, the background is a looped recording. So now, when WTC 7 collapses, the new reporters report it. With WTC 7 still in the background video. You will also find that this news agency is one of MANY that had WTC 7 in the background when they reported WTC 7 having collapsed. Because it's a common occurance to use looped background videos. Unless your suggesting that 20+ news agencies both national and local all got inside info before the building collapsed.
Whether she was standing in front of a greenscreen or not (and I don't believe she was) this does not negate the fact that she reported the collapse of WTC7 over 20 minutes before it fell.
The "denial" by the BBC does not mention a green screen or looped video at all. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but I believe it's incorrect-- The official response from the BBC actually says the reporter seen in this picture was, indeed, in New York when reporting on this.
www.bbc.co.uk...
She reported the collapse between 4:54 - 4:57 and the actual collapse happened at 5:20. What you said, even if it were actually true (which I've seen no indication of) does not negate the fact that they reported the collapse over twenty minutes before it actually happened.edit on 6-12-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by foodstamp
You have no proof whatsoever. There's a dozen or so news agencies that ALL did the same thing!
You Just have a claim by a woman.
The BBC admit it directly and explain it directly. Please just find and watch the documentary before telling me that I'm wrong. Thanks.