Explain this? WT7 explosions in the windows.

I've not seen that video previously, has it been confirmed as genuine, and especially the soundtrack?

What struck me from the soundtrack was the regular paced "crack...crack...crack" sounds, which sounded just like a controlled explosions. If a building was collapsing due to the fuel than you wouldn't expect it to collapse with noises in a regular pattern, there would be a randomness to the sounds, but in this video it's regular spaced noises such as you get with controlled demolition.

Before the attacks on the building, from whatever source, was there work being carried out on WTC7 that would allow crews in to plant demolition charges?

I was reading this article today How do you demolish a skyscraper, in light of 9/11 surely the approved method nowadays would be to flood it with jet fuel and set light to it. That would seem much easier than stripping the building, planting dangerous explosives, and then blow it to hell. Instead food it with jet fuel, say 6500 US Gal, about a 737 worth, set fire to it, step back and wait an hour or two and down it will come into it's own footprint.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Originally posted by FlySolo

How can OS proponents have any doubt?

1. Ignorance
2. Denial
3. Shilling

Pick one.

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

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.

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..

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 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.

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.

I know the BBC clips have been used as evidence as well. But not one of those BBC videos shows the actual time when they report the WTC 7 collapsed.

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.

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.

Hey, It takes a bigger man to do that....

The video proves fire for the lack of explosions (AGAIN) but what do I know other than some friends that were there.

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)

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.

Odd that the video image is the opposite of what the stock footage looked like. If the camera was in the location that it appears to be in, it would have been damaged beyond viewing.

There is just too many odd questions as to how and where this video came from, and was shot from.

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.

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?

I think it's a telling sign that no "enemy" government has said anything. But I think it is because 9/11 wasn't just a message to the u.s. But to the world.

It was a show of black tech ment to tell everyone in the know that the real rulers of this planet are far beyond what we think .

9/11 was a demonstration of this power and a message to all countries.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Originally posted by FlySolo

How can OS proponents have any doubt?

1. Ignorance
2. Denial
3. Shilling

Pick one.

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

It's not like you had to circle the building or anything, right. Cause obviously the building that will fall shortly is the one completely engulfed in flames?? Why, that's funny, if you didn't tell me, I would never have guessed there was a fire in that building, at all! Hey, wait just a minute...there isn't even any smoke.

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.

It was just a geese OP.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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?

Ask yourself what you would believe more.

The truth coming from your "enemy". Or a country slowly realizing that they've been had?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


afterinfinity.
WTC7 was not, repeat not hit by a plane, hence no jet fuel.

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)

Yes she was in New York. In a studio! sheeesh...

The "report" that she reported at 4:54 is here say. Not one person has showed a BBC clip from that day with the time and date stamp in the lower right because it doesn't exist and there's no way for you to verify this claim is correct. None whatsoever.

And why are you quoting the BBS response to allegations of a Conspiracy Theory. It only reinforces what i've said. You have No proof..And in the absense of proof, you choose to believe whatever story is told to you...

"1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

Since your into linking stuff. Do a Youtube search of WTC 7 reported before fall and like I said earlier, You will find at least a dozen stations that have all got WTC 7 in the background while reporting the collapse. That evidence DIRECTLY supports the claim the it's a greenscreen.

Untill you can pprove BBC reported at 4:54 then you have no case.

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.

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.

reply to post by foodstamp


Then they lie anyways. Their "live" broadcast with the reporter being in Manhattan, was a lie. You would think that if she was indeed "live in Manhattan" they wouldn't need a green screen.

Either way the BBC lost a lot of credibility.

Edit: Pretty vague and wishy washy denial on their behalf from your link as well. If they were involved I would expect nothing less, not even taking into account that they "lost the original 9/11 coverage".