Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 




Do you have a link for proof of that statement?

I haven´t heard that before, but I'm open for the truth.


Hows that?




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by RationalDespair
 




Do you have a link for proof of that statement?

I haven´t heard that before, but I'm open for the truth.


Hows that?



Ironically the last time I saw someone posting this video, it was by a conspiracy theorist claiming the fire department had foreknowledge of WTC 7 being destroyed by controlled demolitions. It's damned if they knew it was going to collapse and damned if they didn't.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Omg
Yes the last part of that vid has a fake sound track. No it doesn't disprove the fact that NO SMOKE IS COMING FROM WTC 7. when it collapses.


want to Really try debunking something? Try the spires .

I am currently posting in the thread " what about the spires" you can find the link in my profile.

2 spires. No trace. Want a real challenge debunkers? Ill see you there.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 

Maybe this will help?
Link here



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I have believed 911 was an inside job for years. I think most of us know it was. Some people just have blinders on, and that is just what the government wants.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 




I think most of us know it was.

If your only proof exists in cyberspace is that wise?

Suppose you were on trial for something. And the only proof came from YT and other websites. How long do you thing it would take your lawyer to get the case dismissed?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
No they don't. They outright deny it completely!

www.bbc.co.uk...

There's the BBC statements written by BBC right there at that link.


Yeah and you didn't even bother to look properly:

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kurthall
I have believed 911 was an inside job for years. I think most of us know it was. Some people just have blinders on, and that is just what the government wants.


You have to know you're admitting this is faith based logic. You want to believe something is true. Therefore, it must be true.

How is this any different from any of the other faith based logic being thrown at us? Someone believes guns are at the root of crime, ergo, it must be true that passing gun restrictions against law abiding citizens will make criminals spontaneously behave themselves. Someone believes that some fourth dimension invisible guy is living up in the clouds, ergo, it must be true that humans were created by magic out of a clump of dirt. And so on and so forth.

So who is it that's really wearing the blinders, here?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kurthall
 




I think most of us know it was.

If your only proof exists in cyberspace is that wise?

Suppose you were on trial for something. And the only proof came from YT and other websites. How long do you thing it would take your lawyer to get the case dismissed?



What's happened to legal processes (not only in the US but the UK too) since 911? Indefinite detainment without trial - without telling you what the charges against you are - without the right to even see a lawyer let alone have one defend your interests. I wonder how many lawyers, given the chance, could have these cases dismissed?

Such conduct by the state was unimaginable just a few short years ago and is now regarded as being quite normal - that's not incremental steps to dismantling peoples' rights and privacy - that's a sledgehammer. And to protect us from the 'war on terror' we'll say, 'It's ok. Do anything you like big bruv...just keep us safe.' Uuurgh I wonder what life will be like for my grand children.

The dismantling of human rights in the name of the 'war on terror' is a travesty. Btw - in the UK the term 'war on terror' has been banned for politicians of all persuasions ever since the final Blair administration.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 




Indefinite detainment without trial - without telling you what the charges against you are - without the right to even see a lawyer let alone have one defend your interests.

But you would be one of the first to complain if a person was detained for 24 hrs then released only to have that person plant another bomb on the subway.

Regular soldiers are not tried in a court of law. They are sent to POW camps. How is this any different?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You would be talking about pow camps in time of WAR - a real, legally defined war between at least two nation states?

Is that what we're living with now? I don't think so. The truth is that the US is, metaphorically speaking, the dude wearing the black cowboy hat in an old movie. The bad guy. Pre-emptive war? What the hey is that? It's an invasion - the invader is the aggressor not the defender. The tables have been turned - the US can no longer claim to hold the moral high ground in world affairs (if indeed it ever could).

Bear in mind pls, that as I'm from the UK, we did experience REAL terrorism (funded partly by misguided US citizens) that included blowing up the hotel where the whole of Margaret Thatcher's government were staying - and various bombs over Ireland and and mainland UK. The last biggie being the blowing up of Manchester city centre in 1996.

They tried detention without trial for a short period in Northern Ireland but it was unacceptable to the British public - highlighted by Bobby Sands - who starved himself to death during his detention.

Apart from that - do you know how our rights were impinged in the face of ACTUAL terrorism? In no way at all (apart from no litter bins in train stations) because to do so would have been a victory to the terrorists. And do you know how they resolved this Irish terrorist issue? They talked to them - and compromised (both sides)....genius.

But hey - as long as you feel 'safe' eh? You may well feel quite happy to empower your current government with additional authority right now - but your assumption is that government is always good.....and we all know that's hocum. You let them put in the framework to impinge on everyone's civil liberties now and who knows what the next government, or the one after that, will do with that power.

Who is the US at war with anyway?
edit on 7-12-2012 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Painfully obvious demolition.

That's my 1 Trillion Million Cents.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kurthall
I have believed 911 was an inside job for years. I think most of us know it was. Some people just have blinders on, and that is just what the government wants.


You have to know you're admitting this is faith based logic. You want to believe something is true. Therefore, it must be true.

How is this any different from any of the other faith based logic being thrown at us? Someone believes guns are at the root of crime, ergo, it must be true that passing gun restrictions against law abiding citizens will make criminals spontaneously behave themselves. Someone believes that some fourth dimension invisible guy is living up in the clouds, ergo, it must be true that humans were created by magic out of a clump of dirt. And so on and so forth.

So who is it that's really wearing the blinders, here?





Either that or he has an issue with trusting the government's word:


trust
/trəst/
Noun
Firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.




Truth seems to be an important thing for people to trust someone/something, of which the goverment has made a mockery of, under the guise of "National security".



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

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)


Good question. And there is only one comment in the YT site. Bizarre. I guess this clip is too hard to dispute.


Quite easily:


The speed of sound is the distance travelled during a unit of time by a sound wave propagating through an elastic medium. In dry air at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second (1,126 ft/s). This is 1,236 kilometres per hour (768 mph), or about one kilometer in three seconds or approximately one mile in five seconds.



Read the above and then watch the video again and then you will come to the conclusion that it was faked.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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.


.

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.

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


Because that is not true:



The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.






Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen





Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out

www.debunking911.com...

That's the problem with basing a premise on the illogical stance of "it couldn't have happened because I beleive that it is impossible."



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Did wtc 7 collapse due to fire?

Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is no smoke.....



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Did wtc 7 collapse due to fire?

Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is no smoke.....


Where there is no smoke, there is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist claiming there was no smoke and no fire.

edit on 7-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I already know it was faked and I acknowledged it a few pages ago. However...


the speed of sound is 343.2 meters per second (1,126 ft/s).


only proves the video was taken 343 meters away because 1 sec was the length of time before the initial flash. (for the sake of argument)


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire.
.


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991


Part of a floor is not the same as a whole steel-frame building. I don't believe structural integrity can be used as an excuse either w/fires because those buildings were designed to take damage similar to a pencil poking through a mesh screen. wtc1 & 2 specifically. Can't say the same for wtc7. But still.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I already know it was faked and I acknowledged it a few pages ago. However...


the speed of sound is 343.2 meters per second (1,126 ft/s).


only proves the video was taken 343 meters away because 1 sec was the length of time before the initial flash. (for the sake of argument)


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire.
.


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991


Part of a floor is not the same as a whole steel-frame building. I don't believe structural integrity can be used as an excuse either w/fires because those buildings were designed to take damage similar to a pencil poking through a mesh screen. wtc1 & 2 specifically. Can't say the same for wtc7. But still.



SHrug. If the premise is that it is impossible for a steel framed building to collapse due to a fire because it has never happened, then those incidents clearly indicate that is quite possible.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo
Part of a floor is not the same as a whole steel-frame building. I don't believe structural integrity can be used as an excuse either w/fires because those buildings were designed to take damage similar to a pencil poking through a mesh screen. wtc1 & 2 specifically. Can't say the same for wtc7. But still.


With respect, this paragraph indicates that you don't really know what the 'official' story is. This is fairly common if you've been convinced by various documentaries or websites.

I recommend that you at least read the Executive Summary of the reports. You'll learn a lot and it might change your opinion on what the plane did which might be responsible for collapse.

edit: Might as well add a link: www.nist.gov...

There's more detail on every section in the sub-reports if you want to 'drill down'.
edit on 7/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join