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: 15
114
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS


Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

NYC firefighter stated there was a "bomb in the building ... start clearing out"

Dying heroes, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the "find" function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

Another firefighter stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)

Paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

Police officer noted "People were saying, 'There’s another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . ." (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."


www.911proof.com...

All these people went on record. And it does not support the OS. When are you going to realize that you have been duped.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Let's take a look at two of your reference.


* NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings


Looking like there were bombs is not evidence since there was no further evidence to backup their claim.



* NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"


Thinking that bombs were in the bombing is not evidence without anyting to back up that claim.

Check it out.



What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.


We can now go here.



Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...


Now, where is your evidence that demo explosives were used at ground zero?


edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Looking like there were bombs is not evidence since there was no further evidence to backup their claim.


You where not there! I will take their word over yours any day.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
For the record, all 7 World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed that day. The fact that figure isn't often taken into official account is suspicious unto itself...



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Other Testimony of Explosions Below the Impact Zone


Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."

NYC firefighter stated “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

Firefighter said "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

Firefighter stated "my lieutenant said he looked down at the first floor, and he could see the first floor of the south tower like exploding out"

Firefighter said "I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake . . . It appeared somewhere below [the area where the plane had hit]. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane" (pages 3 & 4)

Similarly, employee of an insurance company in south tower heard an explosion from BELOW the impact of the airplane, an "exploding sound" shook the building, a tornado of hot air, smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell, and the wall split from the bottom UP

A fire department batallion chief stated "it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see (redacted) I could see two sides of it and the other side, it just looked like that floor blew out" (what was in the redacted portion?)

CBS News reporter stated "All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame...". (same reporter stated "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar" (pages 119 & 239))

An eyewitness reported a large explosion at ground level right before the collapse of the North Tower

Police Officer described events which occurred inside Tower One after the second plane hit and well before that tower collapsed: "We went back up to the sixth floor . . . . Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge . . . by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying." (pages 94 & 95, which is page 2 & 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

BBC reporter stated "Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower [well below the plane impact]. I don't know what on earth caused that".

Firefighter describes elevators "blown off the hinges" which only went to lower floors (page 7)(Note: this statement about the elevators still needs to be verified)

A janitor witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A carpenter witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, described how the hallway began to shudder as a "terrible deafening roar" swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed

Firefighters discovered that the lobby of one of the twin towers suffered explosive damage with blown-out windows
Firefighter stated "the Maydays started coming in to vacate the north tower . . . we started going down. At that point, we proceeded down . . . Made it down to the lobby. There were about maybe 30 firefighters that were with us. Made it to the lobby, and the lobby was like a war zone. All the windows were blown out, and the command post wasn't there. We made it to the corner of West and Vesey when the building came down." (pages 5 & 6) A WTC survivor said "We get to the 8th floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor." Another survivor experienced an explosion in the mezzanine of the tower Another survivor experienced an explosion in the lobby World trade center employee stated "the bottom of our building was blown out"

Paramedic "heard ground level explosions"


www.911proof.com...

Are you going to call all these credible people lairs to?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You where not there!


I did not need to be there because I know what would have been involved to properly preparing steel frame buildings for explosive demolition and I know as a facrt that it would have been impossible to place demo explosives properly in order to bring down the WTC buildings and not attract a lot of attention.

Just the pre-weakening process would have generated tons of waste debris, lots of noise and a very hazardous and dusty environment that would not have been tolerated in an occupied building.

Demo experts who were there, have said they heard no demo explosions.



Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Lets take a look at the evidence that debunks your OS theories shell we.


Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11


There were explosions in Building 7 heard by many witnesses throughout the day. One such explosion is recorded in a video clip where several fire fighters are gathered around a pay phone calling home to assure their families they are alright. Suddenly they are startled by a very loud, unmistakable explosion. This is one of the Building 7 explosions that occurred long before it fell.

Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way. NIST (the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses) attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column. But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were "taken out" simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse. One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.

NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell. The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell. They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them. (Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period. At the onset of collapse you can see in the videos that the building suddenly goes limp, like a dying person giving up the ghost. The limpness of the freefalling structure highlights by contrast the earlier rigidity.

Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into the streets following the final collapse of the building. If what we saw was only the collapse of the facade, why was the pyroclastic flow not triggered earlier when NIST claims the collapse of the much more voluminous interior occurred? And why did the west penthouse remain to fall with the visible exterior of the building? Its supporting structure clearly remained to the very end and was "taken out" along with the rest of the building support all at once. NIST is scrambling to find a plausible scenario that will allow it to escape the consequences of what is plainly visible. (If you have not seen the collapse of Building 7, find it on YouTube and watch for yourself. For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. If you have never seen the collapse of Building 7 you might also stop and ask yourself why the mainstream media did not repeatedly show you this most bizarre event as it did the Twin Towers.)



Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill. Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than "freefall time." They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points:


www1.ae911truth.org...


edit on 14-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.


Why do these photos prove that the WTC building was not falling at free fall speed? You will notice that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are actually outpacing the collapse of the WTC building itself.

Photo 1: Proof WTC Buildng not Falling at Free Fall Speed

Photo 2: Proof WTC Building not Falling at Free Fall Speed

Now,, let's take a look here.





edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Why does this photo prove that the WTC building was not falling at free fall speed? You will notice that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are actually outpacing the collapse of the WTC building itself.


Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

My post was on WTC 7!

Not WTC 1&2. Nice try my friend.

You just proved to me that you did not even read the post.
You saw the word FREE FALL and had a knee jerk reaction.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Then, take ALL of their words. Not just the odd sentence here and there that gives a false picture of what they said.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


Then, take ALL of their words. Not just the odd sentence here and there that gives a false picture of what they said.


No it does not. You know that to, sorry if all their statements do not support the OS conspiracy theory.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It took WTC7 17 seconds to collapse and that is not free fall speed. Add to the fact that WTC7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse, which indicates massive destruction of its steel structure that was incurred during the collapse of WTC1.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


It took WTC7 17 seconds to collapse and that is not free fall speed. Add to the fact that WTC7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse, which indicates massive destruction of its steel structure that was incurred during the collapse of WTC1.


Actually WTC 7 fell a little faster than free fall, in fact it fell 2 seconds faster and yet you deny this huge fact.

NIST had to retract their false narratives and had to add this fact in their pseudo report and was force to by A&E. This is another fact that blows the OS to pieces.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Actually WTC 7 fell a little faster than free fall, in fact it fell 2 seconds faster and yet you deny this huge fact.



That's false because the total time for the collapse was 17 seconds



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


That's false because the total time for the collapse was 17 seconds


False.

You did not read my above post on the evidence. Yet you continue to make claims that are not true. What is it that you do not understand?


Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11


I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official "requests for correction" in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed "three phase collapse sequence" that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.

The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction. Anyone with any experience in laboratory measurement would have expected some amount of uncertainty between the prediction and the measurement. They would have been doing extremely well to come up with a computer model that would predict the collapse time within 10%. But no...their measurement exactly matched the prediction to the tenth of a second. Keep in mind that their computer model was constructed in the absence of the actual steel, which had long since been hauled away and destroyed. According to NIST's records, none of the steel from Building 7 remains. (Pause and ponder that fact for a moment. Anyone who has watched CSI knows the importance of preserving the physical evidence in a crime scene. Destroying a crime scene is in itself a crime, yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, and it happened over the loud protests of the firefighters and others who had a stake in really finding out the truth.) Back to our story. NIST's computer model predicted 5.4 seconds for the building to collapse down to the level of the 29th floor. John Gross and his team found the time the roofline reached the 29th floor, then picked a start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier to give a measurement that matched the model to the nearest tenth of a second. They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.

So, NIST now acknowledges that freefall did occur. How do they explain that? They don't. They simply state, without elaboration, that their three-phase collapse analysis is consistent with their fire induced collapse hypothesis. The only thing about the three-phase analysis that is consistent with their collapse hypothesis is the 5.4 second total duration, measuring from their artificially chosen starting time. In other words, they make no attempt to explain the 2.25 second period of freefall. They just walked away from it without further comment.

The fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.


www1.ae911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The freefall of Building 7 is one of the clearest of many "smoking guns" that proves explosives were planted in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11, 2001.


Your information is false and here is the proof.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Your information is false and here is the proof.


Your silly video proves nothing.

Scientist, Engineers, architects, have put science to these videos and have proven you wrong.

Why are you still kicking a dead horse.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Scientist, Engineers, architects, have put science to these videos and have proven you wrong.


That is false because scientist and engineers were those who have said the molten metal of aluminum.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



That is false because scientist and engineers were those who have said the molten metal of aluminum.


Who the scientist on 911 Myths?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Let's take a look at the rest of the story that has nothing to do with 9/11myth.



ASCE-FEMA investigation

A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4

Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggestthat the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.


William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."


Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

www.taipeitimes.com...

edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join