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.

 

NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11

page: 11
114
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




Its not public domain information,


So you cannot back it up. Thought so. Thanks for the demonstration.

So can you link me to the info you found that says that this investigation did in fact take place, that this information even exists, and that it is not public information?

Also, can you tell why this is not public information? Why is this supposed information being held from the public? Is there something to hide?


edit on 13-9-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




The majority of your post is utter hogwash,


Exactly. The parts that describe the official story.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Kapusta

You will have noticed that those buildings were not struck by largeaircraft and in some cases, their steel beams were encased in concrete, unlike the WTC buildings whose fire protection was dislodged from their steel structures.

For an example, the photo of the Windsor building you've posted, the outer steel structure of that building had fully collapsed due to fire and all that is left is the concrete structure of that building. That is why new changes were made in regard to fire protection and the new WTC buildings because fire protection of the WTC buildings failed due to impact damage which left their steel structure exposed the the temperatures of the fires which was well at the level needed to weaken steel to the point of collapse.



As much as I would like to accept what you are telling me , I simply cannot ...

WTC7 was not hit by a plane . And the way it collapsed ... It didn't slowly fall from being weaken , Wouldn't we see it start to slump to one side if the beams were being weaken by fire ? I mean this thing fell with no resistance ,that means that all the major columns had to have been "weaken" in the same spot in order for it to fall the way it did no ?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I know somebody who was so very "conditioned" by msm and so utterly respectful to authorities on the different official rapports concerning 911 that he had to literally vomit the moment he became aware that the towers went up in dust and a significant stink to the OS. For some people it is very... and I mean very hard to see and think for themselves first before believing what "authorities" tell them what they see and should think.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Can you please answer my Question about the BBC reporting the building had collapsed before it did?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Kapusta

You will have noticed that those buildings were not struck by largeaircraft and in some cases, their steel beams were encased in concrete, unlike the WTC buildings whose fire protection was dislodged from their steel structures.

.


Was WTC 7 hit by a large aircraft?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

FDNY did see WTC 7 slowly shifting. They set up a surveyors transit to keep track. Its one of the reasons they cleared a collapse zone around it.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Chemicalbrother

No, it was hit by a collapsing 110 story building. Much bigger than an aurliner.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

Why did ABC report Jim Brady had died in the aftermath of President Reagan being shot? The media screws up.....and they make BIG screw ups all the time on news days like 9/11. The BBC screwed up. FDNY was warning all afternoon that WTC 7 was going to collapse, along the way it became HAD collapsed.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

No , just the parts about Osama personally directing the attack with a cellphone.....that the air defenses of the United States were the most sophisticated,,,,,that it was strange that the Air Force had not instantly intercepted the jets....that no one knew about the 2.3 trillion issue at the Pentagon until Sept 10th...... You know the falsehoods that the Truth movement is based on.....



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
LOL




edit on 13-9-2015 by Nova937 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Kapusta

Why did ABC report Jim Brady had died in the aftermath of President Reagan being shot? The media screws up.....and they make BIG screw ups all the time on news days like 9/11. The BBC screwed up. FDNY was warning all afternoon that WTC 7 was going to collapse, along the way it became HAD collapsed.


Right when it was clearly standing in the background of the reporter , thats a big screw up .


can you provide me with evidence of firefighters warning all afternoon that the building 7 was going to collapse ?

Maybe I have missed it .



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Kapusta

FDNY did see WTC 7 slowly shifting. They set up a surveyors transit to keep track. Its one of the reasons they cleared a collapse zone around it.


Also please provide me with a source for this claim as well.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Kapusta

FDNY did see WTC 7 slowly shifting. They set up a surveyors transit to keep track. Its one of the reasons they cleared a collapse zone around it.


Was any official investigative material released on the collapse of WTC7?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Chemicalbrother

No, it was hit by a collapsing 110 story building. Much bigger than an aurliner.


Do you have an official investigative source that indicates the extent of the damage to WTC7?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

Interviews with members of the FDNY

www.firehouse.com...

Peter Hayden, FDNY

"Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. 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 collapse. 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."



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

FDNY does. Talk to them.

www.firehouse.com...

Captain Chris Boyle, FDNY

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. 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."


edit on 13-9-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave


Point out any claim that I should back up, and I will.

But you didn't.

I was specific.

And again your reply is,


…I use words like BS…



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I asked for an official investigation, not an eyewitness account.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Chemicalbrother

WTC7 was not struck by an aircraft, but WTC7 had suffered from massive impact damage from debris during the collapse of WTC1.

Let's take a look at this eyewitness account.



WTC7 Damage Description

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. 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.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

www.debunking911.com...


Here is a photo of the south wall of WTC7 where massive impact damage was observed, which also explains why WTC7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

Photo of WTC7 South Wall
edit on 13-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join