Establishment's narrative on the WTC collapse set from day 2.

The OBL narrative wasnt the only one that was promoted that day.

I find it odd that the OS ("Official Story") changed very little from the narrative presented in the above video.

Some might call it incredible that the early speculation turned out to be the official "scientific" explanation. Others would say that it was all part of a preconceived plan.

There happened to be quite a few knowledgeable people on the scene that day who coincidentally made it on camera:


Of-course these explanations would only apply to WTCs 1 & 2. WTC 7 was conveniently forgotten about in the original 9/11 Omissions Report.

And then there are people like William Cooper, who on 6/28/01 knew exactly what TPTB were up to:


But William Cooper never made it on to mainstream media.

Instead he was killed by Sheriff's deputies shortly after 9/11.

reply to post by gladtobehere

WTC 7 was conveniently forgotten about in the original 9/11 Omissions Report.

It wasn't forgotten about the 9/11 comission report was a report into the attacks of 9/11 how and why it happened it was not a engineering report

WTC-7, was not hit by terrorists, it collapsed as a indirect result of the attacks, a engineering failure not a terrorist act.

the reason it's collapse is not mentioned in the report is because it did not fall with in the reports remit.

however WTC-7 is covered in depth in other reports (FEMA, NIST), the fact its not mentioned in the 9/11 comission report is no big deal.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thanks for your input though this thread is focusing on (some of) the official narratives which were being implanted from day one (and two).

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Engineering failure? Yeah right. You keep spouting that nonsense and you'll start to believe it.

Some anchors were spouting the official conspiracy theory, others were a little closer to the truth:

too many un-answered questions for the official report to be believed. but, I'm not a person of power or influence, who could force a new government investigation...the problem with that is....mistrust of those people with the power and influence will be their downfall. history is abundantly clear on that.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Within a few posts we have someone asserting that the msm was compliant with the false "official story " from day 1 but another poster asserts that the msm was proclaiming the unvarnished truth from the getgo.

Does that not rather destroy the idea, put forward frequently by conspiracy theorists , that the MSM has been complicit and covered up the truth ?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Theres quite a few videos like this.

I think theres another by Dan Rather where he says that the collapses look like controlled demolitions...

Originally posted by gladtobehere

I find it odd that the OS ("Official Story") changed very little from the narrative presented in the above video.

Sure. And you'll find about a hundred threads on ATS claiming that any initial speculations or reporting that turned out to be false are necessarily suspicious too. Everything is "suspicious" on ATS.

too many un-answered questions for the official report to be believed

Again, state your un-answered question supported by fact and not supposition. And secondly understand that statements not backed up with established facts is hearsay.

reply to post by DIDtm


ok then, simple way to to prove your assertions: Prove how thousands of engineers and actual professionals at NIST, FEMA, NYFD, NYPD, ASCE. etc etc etc all got it wrong?