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.
no that isn't the reason why I believe it was an inside job. I wasn't aware you are a mind reader!
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by kaya82
Because they feel it wasnt an inside job. Just as we feel it was. Their argument isnt less valid until one way is proven
The reason why you feel it was an inside job is specifically because a bunch of con artists running those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing all sorts of outrageously bad information and suckered you into believing there's an inside job.
.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by kurthall
the BBC said it went down before it did.
Can you name the buildings in brittons parlament?
Why would you expect them to know the ones in WTC? I didn't know there were that many.
All reporters were repeating things they heard that day. For all they knew it could have been a much smaller building below their field of view.
Somehow this error became a cornerstone of a conspiracy.
Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I said it was irrelevant if the reporter or the viewers new what building WTC7 was, it makes no difference.
The issue it they were told about it collapsing way before it collapsed.
Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I never said I knew of WTC7 at the time that BBC report went out, in fact I saw the video years later, but it make no difference, WTC7 had not collapsed when various reporters said it had. So whoever gave them the info, released that info too early!
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
They also reported car bombs in DC, car bombs on the bridges. Plane crash into the Sears Tower. Plane crashing into the Mall. Let me guess, all of those were suppose to happen but they forgot and acidentally reported all those reports too?
Originally posted by ANOK
Yes but WTC 7 actually did collapse, as reported. A huge 47 story building, visible behind the news caster.
You don't accidentally report something like that.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by samkent
There is no way that someone can predict that a steel framed building on fire is going to globally collapse into its footprint.
Why?
Originally posted by ANOK
Because there is no precedence for such an event, because steel framed building do not collapse that way from fire. They had nothing to base such a claim on.
Originally posted by ANOK
If they reported other buildings collapsed before they did, then whoever was in charge of press releases screwed up big time eh?
Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
Not entirely. Much debate about how bad those fires were. Plants don't have to be on every floor. Plus, smoother them with asbestos and I would assume they can withstand a paper fire on the same floor.
Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by bknapple32
But then you have to suspend belief that the demo charges were all magically fireproofed to withstand smoke and fire and heat, and impact.
But that's the point WTC7 was not impacted, yet fell as if it was a professional demolition job.
Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by GenRadek
I have no idea what would happen when planes crash. Although my logic feels me jet fuel didn't do anything structurally significant, as 90% of the fuel burned away in the initial fire ball
Originally posted by kaya82
What i don't get it this....
After 11 years the OS supporters are still here day after day desperately telling anyone who will listen that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Why? Why do you feel the need to do this?
Originally posted by kaya82
If the evidence is so clear cut like you keep saying. How about letting people do their own research and reach their own conclusion?
Originally posted by kaya82
To me its so blatantly obvious the OS is a massive lie. I find it hard to believe how anyone cant see this.
11 years of arguing over the internet seems pointless to me
Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh ANOK, care to show us the cables attached to WTC7 for the pull down? Thank you!
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers are unfamiliar with the 'fog of war' that pervades such happenings.
Truthers desperately want to believe that the television business is calm, cool and collected 24/7 and incapable of error. Fact is t'ain't so
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh ANOK, care to show us the cables attached to WTC7 for the pull down? Thank you!
Yes the term pull came from when they used to use cables. But what you fail to realise is old terms like that stick.
I guess you have never worked in any kind of industry, because it is full of terms that are no longer relevant to the process, but are still used.
Do you care to show us when the term 'pull it' is used to mean fire fighters?
But again everyone notice Gen does not attempt to discuss the more difficult points, like the sagging trusses myth, and keeps arguing the irrelevant. This is done to distract from the real evidence. It really doesn't matter what Larry said, the building was an implosion demolition, evidenced by the pattern of the rubble. The fact that Larry said they 'pulled it' is just more evidence of the facts we already know.
Keep batting at the irrelevant GenRadek, it ain't getting you anywhere.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers are unfamiliar with the 'fog of war' that pervades such happenings.
Rubbish, I am a combat vet.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Truthers desperately want to believe that the television business is calm, cool and collected 24/7 and incapable of error. Fact is t'ain't so
Obviously not, as we are the ones pointing out their mistake. Yes they made a mistake, and read a press release too early.
Originally posted by ANOK
The question is why was a press release saying WTC 7 collapsed released, or even written at all, before the collapse even happened? BBC get their news from the same sources everyone else does, and the BBC was not the only station to report the collapse before it happened.
So obviously Fox and the BBC got the press release from the same source. The BBC was not the ones who made the mistake, the original source of the press release did.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Oh goody; a truther combat vet. Truthfully, I doubt you are however that's neither here nor there.
What's with this "press release" junk? Businesses put out press releases about their latest widget; news organisations (like Reuters) put out wire stories. Significant difference. Remember what I said about the fog of war?
Because Reuter's screwed up trying to beat AP and UPI with a flash. But you know this. You've read it over and over again. You just choose not to believe it because a Scoody Doo-class mystery with an ultra-intricate plot being foiled by meddling kids seems somehow more believable to you than a news wire service screwing Benji.
Wish as you may like but the mundane reality is that someone put out incorrect information and a news outlet or two ran with it without verifying. Hate to break it to you but such things happen all the time, even in less-harried news cycles. It's pretty thin gruel to keep dining out on a decade plus after the fact.