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.

 

Audio:FDNY;"we're bringing it (WTC7) down"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Here is an audio of a woman claiming she was a rescue worker on 9-11 and was informed by FDNY at noon that WTC 7 getting demoed:


www.zshare.net...




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
That's Indira Singh. I posted on her here, so there's more info on her.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
So I guess this clears up the whole "pull it" debate as well? Or is this woman going to be discredited in some way?

/waits for the usual suspects to turn up and debunk



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
She says a lot more than that. One of the things she mentions that I haven't heard anywhere else, is in regards to the illnesses associated with those working at Ground Zero, as part of the clean-up, well after the collapses. Cancers, hair just falling right out, and other such symptoms of exposure to a certain unconventional explosive. Singh doesn't suggest this explosive, or even tower demolitions, but the symptoms she describes of the illnesses do.

An MP3 format of a radio interview with her can be found at reprehensor.gnn.tv... .



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Just to clarify, from all the hundreds of workers helping at the time she is the only one to have come forward about having knowledge about this event?

I would expect more people to have come forward about cancers and hair falling out from such a large event, despite what people say about people following the government blindly, I believe everyone loves a good conspiracy and everyone woul be spouting about that they saw. The fact that this woman is speaking out disprooves the whole 'government silencing' theory.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I distinctly remember one of the WTCs falling long after the event, but that it was purposely demoed because of instability and danger to the recovery effort.

I suspect that this is merely a case of mistaken memory, ala the old "pass the secret" game...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Actually, I remember reading about many, many others who's health has been compromised by the WTC events. This is something that has been suppressed. Both the EPA and the gov't. are not paying attention to the problems these folks are experiencing. A good question would be "Why WOULDN'T alot of people be experiencing health problems? we all saw the soot, etc. floating in the air, and saw people who couldn't see past their hand due to the amount of soot, particles, debris, etc. in the air.

I have read this lady's testimony; she's a risk architect for heaven's sake, she should know something about this and I believe her testimony, she doesn't sound like a flake.

-Forestlady



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I distinctly remember one of the WTCs falling long after the event,


How long after do you mean? Hours? Days?



I suspect that this is merely a case of mistaken memory, ala the old "pass the secret" game...


Pass the secret? She's not repeating something she heard. She's recalling personal experience. She's talking about events ON 9/11. She said "building 7" about 6 times.

What do you think this 'mistaken memory' could be about? Another building? You think she's misremembering what she heard?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by soulforge
I distinctly remember one of the WTCs falling long after the event,


How long after do you mean? Hours? Days?



I suspect that this is merely a case of mistaken memory, ala the old "pass the secret" game...


Pass the secret? She's not repeating something she heard. She's recalling personal experience. She's talking about events ON 9/11. She said "building 7" about 6 times.

What do you think this 'mistaken memory' could be about? Another building? You think she's misremembering what she heard?


I remember it later in the day, after I got home, which was around 1pm.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I distinctly remember one of the WTCs falling long after the event, but that it was purposely demoed because of instability and danger to the recovery effort.
....
I remember it later in the day, after I got home, which was around 1pm.


Building 7 came down at 5:20 PM.

Do you think they planted the necessary explosives in building 7 to 'demo' it while it was unstable and dangerous and on the day of 9/11?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
I distinctly remember one of the WTCs falling long after the event, but that it was purposely demoed because of instability and danger to the recovery effort.



I remember hearing about it on the radio while going to take a nap after my classes, which was sometime after 2 pm. but I don't recall them giving a reason, they made it sound like it fell because of damage to the building.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
A good question would be "Why WOULDN'T alot of people be experiencing health problems? we all saw the soot, etc. floating in the air, and saw people who couldn't see past their hand due to the amount of soot, particles, debris, etc. in the air.


Yeah, and especially with all the asbestos in the buildings you could've expected a lot of illness to result. But what you probably wouldn't expect is some of the stuff Indira Singh is reporting: hair falling out, and cancers (if I'm not mistaken) totally unrelated to the lungs. There were various odd sores, etc., even that she herself experienced, but I can't remember everything she reported. Hair falling out alone is very telling, because so far as I know, asbestos won't do that, and neither will concrete or gypsum or anything else in those buildings. Radiation is what makes hair come out.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Look for Jimmy Walter´s Confronting The Evidence, which has more on the hazerdous materials issue.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
To me she didn't sound too convinced by her own story. I don't know if anyone else picked up on the part where she was talking about the specifics of what the fire department told her, but to me she sounded like she was at the very least stretching the truth.

To me this is nothing more than the phrase "pull it".

It makes no sense for the fire department to know, because this adds one hell of alot of people to the *keep quiet* list. Even if they were told it is even less logical that they would then go around spraying the information around to the other people arround the place. Why not just say they thought their was a high probability of the building collapsing? This gets the people moved and keeps the secret.

It just doesn't add up...



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta
To me she didn't sound too convinced by her own story. I don't know if anyone else picked up on the part where she was talking about the specifics of what the fire department told her, but to me she sounded like she was at the very least stretching the truth.

To me this is nothing more than the phrase "pull it".

It makes no sense for the fire department to know, because this adds one hell of alot of people to the *keep quiet* list. Even if they were told it is even less logical that they would then go around spraying the information around to the other people arround the place. Why not just say they thought their was a high probability of the building collapsing? This gets the people moved and keeps the secret.

It just doesn't add up...


You are right.....the official story does not add up.

That is what they said........they (the fire department) were told by the federal authorities to get everyone away from the building because they (FEMA or whatever) were going to bring it down.

FDNY was just doing what they were told.

They don't know anything about controlled demo.


It is not a secret that this was told in advanced.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

That is what they said........they (the fire department) were told by the federal authorities to get everyone away from the building because they (FEMA or whatever) were going to bring it down.

FDNY was just doing what they were told.



What did the NYFD actualy say, im confused.

Was it just telling everyone to get away from the building or was it get away from the building because it is about to be demolished?

I think it is more probably the first because it is atleast plausable that the fire department would try to evacualte people if they thought it was about to collapse.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

That is what they said........they (the fire department) were told by the federal authorities to get everyone away from the building because they (FEMA or whatever) were going to bring it down.

FDNY was just doing what they were told.



What did the NYFD actualy say, im confused.

Was it just telling everyone to get away from the building or was it get away from the building because it is about to be demolished?

I think it is more probably the first because it is atleast plausable that the fire department would try to evacualte people if they thought it was about to collapse.



there is no way they could have "known" it was going to collapse otherwise because it was not hit by plane and this had never happened to any building ever before in the history of the world.


As early as 1:00pm they told the rescue workers to clear the area because they were going to "bring it down".

It was even broadcast over the live news channels.

the owner of the building even said so in an interview afterwards.

there is no question it was controlled demolition but this doesn't fit into the official lie and so it has been officially IGNORED.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   



Many Believe Toxic Ground Zero Site Responsible for Growing Number of Deaths among Cleanup Workers

Last week we reported on the death of James Zadroga, a 34-year-old homicide detective who was believed to be the first New York City police officer to die from a respiratory disease caused by exposure to dust and toxic debris during his hundreds of hours of rescue and cleanup efforts at ground zero.

Now, however, the New York Daily News is reporting that 22 other relatively young men may also have died from respiratory-related illnesses caused or accelerated by their exposure to the same toxic environment while aiding in the post-9/11 cleanup.

Like Zadroga most of the 22 men were only in their 30s and 40s. According to their families, they have died as a result of the deadly mixture of chemicals they were exposed to as they searched for survivors in the ruins of the World Trade Center or aided in the clean-up efforts in the days and weeks following the terrorist attack.

While the attack was immediately responsible for killing almost 3,000 innocent victims who were in and around the WTC, it now appears 9/11 has had, and will continue to have, far reaching effects on possibly thousands of other individuals who responded to the catastrophe that day and in the weeks that followed as part of the massive rescue, recovery, and cleanup efforts, without any regard to their own personal safety.



This article was published last month. They also comment on the cancer angle.

It's hard to imagine there was "all that toxicity" from a few office buildings, when at the same time, we are being asked to believe that New Orleans- an ENTIRE CITY- is safe.

Will someone explain that to me?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
What I find to be a little shady is the almost unanimous vote
to ban public smoking in NYC in 2002. Was this a ploy to decrease
smoking so as to prevent a sharp rise in lung cancer victims
in NYC, which would have led to an investigation into the toxic air
quality at ground zero? Or was Bloomburg just protecting public
health?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero
What I find to be a little shady is the almost unanimous vote
to ban public smoking in NYC in 2002. Was this a ploy to decrease
smoking so as to prevent a sharp rise in lung cancer victims
in NYC, which would have led to an investigation into the toxic air
quality at ground zero? Or was Bloomburg just protecting public
health?


it depends. when they said to ban public smoking, do they mean specifically inside only buildings or on the street also.

Here in California smoking is already banned inside of public buildings.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join