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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 76
135
<< 73  74  75    77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


There is nothing there that suggest the pull down of buildings with demo explosions. You misread where he said pull in the walls. That is not pulling down a building.


No I did not misread anything.

I suppose 500 eyewitness misread the demolition at ground zero, and their eyes, ears, and the burns they received lied to them.
I suppose Larry misquoted PULL IT to.
I suppose all these demolition companies misread PULL IT and are all stupid to what PULL IT means.
I suppose millions of tons of steel exploding outwards, and reached 600 feet in every direction at 60 miles an hour, forgot to just fall straight down like a normal building Collapse does.

I suppose every ATS member debating the 911 events with you misread all the OS reports and do not understand 6th grade simple physic.

I suppose we are all to stupid, uneducated, and lack any critical, logical thinking skills.
I suppose you are the only expert on ATS that has all the answers to what happened on 911.
I suppose that you believe there is no conspiracy theory to the events of 911 and the government would never lie to the American people, nor would the News media.

I would love to live on your planet, how do I get there?
edit on 21-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I suppose 500 eyewitness misread the demolition at ground zero, and their eyes lied to them.


How many attributed the explosions they heard, to bombs? Let's not forget that New York City experiences 2100 explosions per year, so are you implying that 2100 bombs are detonated in New York City each year?



I suppose Larry misquoted PULL IT to. I suppose all these demolition companies misread PULL IT and are all stupid to what PULL IT means.


Well, let's take a look here.



"Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?

A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. 
–Capt. Chris Boyle

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –Firefighter Todd Fredrickson

When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. –EMT Joseph Fortis

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people.

sites.google.com...


In other words, the term; "Pull" referred to the pulling out of firefighters, not for the demolition of WTC 7.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




In other words, the term; "Pull" referred to the pulling out of firefighters, not for the demolition of WTC 7.


No it does not.

The fact is I gave you plenty of credible evidence to what demolition companies say's in every case they make it clear PULL IT mean to bring down by any means.

If you want to ignore what the real experts has to say's knock yourself out.

I am only here to get to the truth of the matter, I am not interested in you defending the OS which you have been doing all along.

The fact is every ATS member knows there are problems with the OS.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



No it does not.

The fact is I gave you plenty of credible evidence to what demolition companies say's in every case they make it clear PULL IT mean to bring down by any means.


Apparently, the demolition experts disagree with you and I am very sure you read their statements as well. Call any demolition company and ask them if you don't like the references I posted.

Now, let's take a look here.



An in-depth look at conspiracist claims about WTC 7

There are glaring flaws with the claims that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.

The building suffered severe structural damage from the debris from the north tower collapse. Firefighters described a gaping hole in the south face. We will see glimpses of south face damage through the smoke in photos below and will see clear images of the massive damage to the southwest corner.

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational explanation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. /n5xap

Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive information that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don’t want anyone to get their hands on, I always wire my building with explosives, set it on fire, and demolish it.

In addition, keep in mind that information was recovered from many computer hard drives found in the WTC rubble. /nmgmc Investigators were keen to have this information, to trace any transactions that may have indicated foreknowledge of the attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report details, these transactions turned out to not have suspicious origins. /k659n pg. 145-152

Fires raged uncontrolled on many floors for hours. Lack of hydrant pressure due to broken water mains left firemen nearly helpless to extinguish the blazes.

The building was visibly bulging and was making groaning noises: when a steel-framed building does that it’s in very serious trouble.

Demolitions experts who saw WTC 7 collapse from nearby neither saw nor heard anything indicat-ing an explosive demolition.

Nothing can be seen or heard in videos that resembles explosive charges going off before the collapse.

Seismic data from multiple sources indicates that, as with the Twin Towers, the collapse of WTC 7 began slowly, completely unlike an explosive demolition but consistent with internal failures leading to global collapse.

Seismograph of WTC 7 collapse from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Seismic Data

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument." –Brent Blanchard of Protec /z6zyc

Explosive demolitions would not be very controlled, or likely to work at all, if they involved slamming tons of skyscraper debris haphazardly through a building and then setting that building on fire for seven hours. Precision explosives, timers, and wiring don’t like that sort of treatment.

The fires in WTC 7 developed slowly. Had water pressure and manpower been available, those fires probably could have been extinguished. CTs: is it your contention that the "conspirators" would have blown up WTC 7 at 5:20 anyway, rather than risk discovery of their demolitions charges? If so, wouldn't such a demolition be far more suspicious than the collapse of a building that was fully involved with fire?

Conspiracist claims about WTC 7 are not supported by evidence or by logic.

sites.google.com...

edit on 21-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Apparently, the demolition experts disagree with you and I am very sure you read their statements as well. Call any demolition company and ask them if you don't like the references I posted.


Apparently the demolition experts disagree with you.

You just demonstrated that you completely ignored all my posts and credible evidence that I gave you.

If you wish to dismiss what the demolitions companies call PULL IT that's your business.

However don't try to convince me what a definition of PULL IT means, go look at a dictionary.

If you want to believe PULL IT means to remove people, by all means believe it. But don't expect everyone else on ATS to support your belief. Because I don't.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I'm not really interested in the "pull it" discussion because I don't need it to conclude wtc7 was a controlled demolition, however it seems to be a term that is used by demolition companies if you call them.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: drommelsboef

Thank you for such a concise and true statement!



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: drommelsboef

They will tell you that the term; "Pull" refers to the use of cables, not explosives. An example can be seen in the demolition video of WTC 6.

I have also provided references to statements of demolition experts as well as the WTC 6 video.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Apparently the demolition experts disagree with you.


Apparently, that won't work. You see, it is like this, I've contacted a company of demolition experts months ago. Now, let's do a review.



Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

edit on 22-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder

It is amazing how after all these years that 9.11 is still in question by so many.
The big problem is... there are no 'official' answers that fill ALL the voids.

What is there, for Americans who dare to ask questions, to do?

Of course, this falls in with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK... the war in the Nam, the invasions of Grenada and Panama and then our ongoing military efforts in the Middle East.

It is, right off the top, a very profitable enterprise. Eisenhower warned us of this...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

We were warned.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: Shadow Herder

It is amazing how after all these years that 9.11 is still in question by so many.
The big problem is... there are no 'official' answers that fill ALL the voids.

What is there, for Americans who dare to ask questions, to do?

Of course, this falls in with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK... the war in the Nam, the invasions of Grenada and Panama and then our ongoing military efforts in the Middle East.

It is, right off the top, a very profitable enterprise. Eisenhower warned us of this...
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

We were warned.

done in as confusing a way as possible just to make it hard to investigate. these people are good and have been studying military tactics for generations.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: redoubt




It is amazing how after all these years that 9.11 is still in question by so many.

Actually it's very few.
Just look at the activity on here.

AS to those other conspiracies you mentioned.
Proof is missing on them as well.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Except that you just admitted to follow another conspiracy theory:


Proof is missing on them as well.



Thanks for the honesty! Quite refreshing.


Actually it's very few.


I see something else, as other numbers suggested as well:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Besides from that many people don't take part in this discussions anymore, for obvious reasons. You just estabilished a common fallacy.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It is maybe an ancient term, but used as a tradition. If you drive an electric car what do you say when you want to speed up? More electricity or more gas ?



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: redoubt




It is amazing how after all these years that 9.11 is still in question by so many.

Actually it's very few.
Just look at the activity on here.

AS to those other conspiracies you mentioned.
Proof is missing on them as well.


Ahhaha, it is FEW, because out of the 250,000 + users, and all of the people we know, COMPLETELY destroyed every single argument, and in fact do not ever need to post more about it.

Only like 10 people on this entire site agree with you, and we all see that you use the same exact tactic to make it look like you even have a point on the topic.

It is glaringly obvious that anyone who has an open mind, is not going to be able to accept the narrative, and we are now prepared mentally in every way for the next shenanigans going on, and more.

Make no mistake about it, this issue will never die, we have already completely won here, and in the minds of almost everyone.

You seem unable to realize this fact...and it is sad yes, that you have almost no threads left to post in, did you think you would be fed forever ?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Is it unfeasible that certain beams can be cut, so that only one explosion is necessary?

It seems to keep being brought up that the single explosion verses a demo matters.

I moved from NYC to Denver, CO shortly after and can account for how many news sources removed talking about explosions EVER outside of the local NY news, where it almost seemed endless.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 73  74  75    77 >>

log in

join