Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



I think the video was edited and is fake.

Plus theses a UFO that fly's over the building in the video of the OP




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kuroodo
 




Whats up with the UFO at 1:04 (above the building flying away quickly) (it's pretty faint, so you have to watch in full screen)

This just shows why this conspiracy keeps going in circles.

There's a YT vid in this thread where the guy admits to FAKING the vid! NO UFO NO BOOMS.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kuroodo
 


I think the video was edited and is fake.

I agree with you.

Star for that... (being alert and stating you mind)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Yes some idiot plays with the gullible folks surrounding the many 9/11 conspiracies, specifically building 7 which was hit by no plane.

He's doing their job for them, while those who believe in the official story can pat themselves on the back and scoff in unison at those who choose to question their government.

Brilliant... Moving on.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProperlyErrant

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


Nowhere is it written in stone that he was required to trust the government. The logic flaw being overlooked is that it isn't written in stone he's required to believe the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites either. Just because one side of the issue might be wrong it doesn't mean that the other side of the issue can't be wrong as well.

Here's a wild, crazy idea- what say we deduce the real reasons for the 9/11 attack based upon the actual evidence, not on what someone wants to believe is true?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


One of the problems people have when they don't understand basic physics, and how buildings are constructed and act when compromised, is they don't understand the significant difference between a 47 story building completely collapsing into it's own footprint and a partial collapse, or roof collapse.


The OTHER problem is that it is a bad assumption to claim the building fell in a symmetrical collapse simply from watching the north side. The NIST report speculates the south side (the opposite side of the building that we don't see in the video) actually crumpled inward, which I accept because it explains why the penthouse toppled over six seconds before the north side of the building did. Otherwise, we're led to believe sinister secret agents blew up the building with controlled demolitions from the inside out for no reason, which is as pointless as it gets.

Let's face it, this whole "symmetrical collapse" assumption is coming entirely from Richard Gage, and the only reason he's making the assumption is because he's making money off it. Little wonder why he snip off the penthouse collapse from every video he uses so the evidence will artificially suit his argument.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Sorry if someone else has mentioned this but this video is an old fake... there is even a UFO inserted into the shot.
Here is the guy who made the clip...




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


I did not read every post but I just want to say that I hope somebody noticed the penthouse is on the wrong side of the building in the OP video.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by foodstamp "many news agencies all said the same thing"


got some links to back this up? to the best of my knowledge, only the bbc made this schoolboy error.
edit on 7/12/12 by RoScoLaz because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/12/12 by RoScoLaz because: (no reason given)


If your serious. You can go back to page 4 of this thread and in two postings I provide three different links to three different news agencies. Or you can just Youtube search "WTC 7 reports before collapse".

You will find at least 3-5 independent news agencies all reporting the collapse too early.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This video even made a hard-core OSer like me sit back and scratch my head, then I watched the video that exploited OP’s video as a Hoax.

It leads me to wonder, why has this not yet been moved to the Hoax Bin.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

This video even made a hard-core OSer like me sit back and scratch my head, then I watched the video that exploited OP’s video as a Hoax.

It leads me to wonder, why has this not yet been moved to the Hoax Bin.


Good call

Prolly the most intelligent thing said here yet, as a matter of fact.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
These types of things muddy the waters for people trying to get at the truth of 9.11

It`s interesting that WTC7 is the target, now all video of this building collapsing is thrown into question.
WTC7 is what convinced me a few years after the event that what I had believed could not be correct.
People always bring WTC7 up as way to introduce the possibility that something is not right.
So really it comes as no surprise the disinformation agents would target this to terminate the doorway to truth.

I actually worked with one(disinformation agent he was paid by a foreign government) many years ago, he spread info that was in defiance of all that what known about a certain topic. A couple of years later when he got busted, then his insane rantings made perfect sense in retrospect. How many never get caught.

The bottom line, something is off about building 7, my favorite was that control demolition expert from Europe, who never knew about WTC7, he was shown a video of it collapsing and he wasn`t immediately told about the what and when. He called it a controlled demolition, then was told when and where and was shocked.
His conclusion, 100% sure it was controlled demolition, and he wasn`t a truther just an expert in his field.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 




my favorite was that control demolition expert from Europe, who never knew about WTC7

His co workers didn't come up to him and say . .
"Hey joe you gotta see this video?"
Or is he a one man demolition company?

People are quick to point out odd things from 911. But doesn't it seem odd that one man, from one company in Europe said CD? Did they even say which country was he from? Was he the only one that wasn't paid off by the US government? They managed to get bribe checks to every other CD expert on the planet. But missed this one guy?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

This video even made a hard-core OSer like me sit back and scratch my head, then I watched the video that exploited OP’s video as a Hoax.

It leads me to wonder, why has this not yet been moved to the Hoax Bin.


Because he's making a valuable point that's relevent to any other 9/11 discussion. It should be self evident by now that the huge majority of the evidence...if not all the evidence...showing conspiracy is coming from one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites, and when they have such a restricted outlet of information these web sites can produce anything they want to get people to believe whatever they want them to believe. You might scoff, but this is literally why all these far fetched claims of "the planes were holograms", "the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space", "the towers were fake buildings" and so on, are floating around. Noone, but noone, watched what was going on during 9/11 and spontaneously thought the towers were brought down by nukes. Someone came along after the fact and put the idea into their heads.

This guy wanted to prove the point that he could put screwball ideas into people's heads solely through the efforts of a fake Youtube video and he did it. The lesson shouldn't be lost on us.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The bottom line, something is off about building 7, my favorite was that control demolition expert from Europe, who never knew about WTC7, he was shown a video of it collapsing and he wasn`t immediately told about the what and when. He called it a controlled demolition, then was told when and where and was shocked.
His conclusion, 100% sure it was controlled demolition, and he wasn`t a truther just an expert in his field.


If you're referring to the same person I think you're referring to, this very same person insists the twin towers were NOT brought down by controlled demolitions, but actually fell from fire induced structural collapse as the NIST report speculates. What I find interesting is how the conspiracy theorists flaunt his opinion all over creation about WTC 7 but when it comes to a different opinion he has they put their fingers in their hear and yell "I can't hear you!".

From their own actions it's self evident the conspiracy theoriists are simply looking for excuses to believe what they themselves want to believe, and are not above saying one source of information is credible and another source is suspect entirely upon that agenda...even when it's the exact same source.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
So Dave are you saying you would consider the possibility that WTC7 was CD but the twin towers were not ?
edit on 21-12-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
This is my explanation.....those things on the video are demolition charges...secuence are designed according to structure and blueprints.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by davjan4
The fact that those 3 building came down as a result of controlled demolition is so obvious as to be laughable. If they came down due to fire, all the building demo companies would be out of business. Want a building to come down perfectly? Just light up some jet fuel. Your building will come down in it's footprint no matter where the fire is.

An inside job. Undeniable. The only question is who did it and why? Who was probably a combonation of the US and some other entity. The why would be a reason to put the police state in high gear in the US and justification to get into the Middle East.

I do love my country. But I now fear my government. What's next...? A littel nuke? EMP? Hoover Dam? Or just a slow (but every increasing) economic collapse.

edit on 6-12-2012 by davjan4 because: removed last line. Too off topic.


Ha thats so true you nailed it. Yeah why not just burn buildings down? BECAUSE IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY but these stubborn ostriches with there head in the sand are the ones that are allowing these bastards to kill their fellow men and women AND defending the very people that did it by denial. To those out there that cannot see what is in front of their eyes I say to you that this is all made possible because they know that you will be there defending your fragile realities to the death.As human beings you disgust me.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Looks like the original video was mirrorred and then zooming and panning with a software cam was done. Think about it, he would have had to know in advance where the explosions would take place. However in the original video the windows were still blown out. I dont quite get the purpose of this fake.



1:20 You can see windows being blown out just before the floors where the windows are gone move down toward the ground. I guess the only thing the fake video did was to mirror the footage to make it look new and added some flashes, which would only be visible if the charges would be behind the windows.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Merinda
 





1:20 You can see windows being blown out just before the floors where the windows are gone move down toward the ground.

No you see the windows breaking due to the frame/walls are being racked and torqued. You don't see anything being ejected as you would with an explosion or floors pancaking.






top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join