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.

 

9/11 EMT claims she saw explosions in WTC 6, exploding aircraft in distance

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I saw this linked from Newsvine. This blog got an interview with EMT Patricia Ondrovic, who took part in the rescue operations on 9/11. She says that as she was escaping from the collapse of the first tower, she saw flashes in the lobby of Building 6 and popping noises.

Article link


I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

killtown.blogspot.com...


I did some basic research into her and she seems to be a legitimate EMT. NYT has an interview with her on their site that appears to be taken by the Fire Department. Interview link (pdf)

The facts between these interviews, after quick skimming, do appear to be the same (e.g. where she parked her ambulance and so on).

Therefore, my conclusion is that this interview is indeed from her and that she likely saw what she says she saw. However, there may or may not be other explanations for the things she saw. I don't personally have a conclusive opinion on the issue of demolion in the buildings, so I post this just as additional claims on the subject and open it for discussion. I searched for other posts about this interview, but couldn't find any, so I posted it.

Also, read that second interview all the way through, it's quite interesting. She appears to have seen an airplane blow up in midair way off in the distance. Never heard of that report before. Could she have seen Flight 93 from that far away?


As I was running north in this park, and then I could start seeing again a little bit, and I just kept looking in the sky. Cause the captain was saying there's another plane heading in our direction, I was looking for another plane. I saw something, in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


And there are censored parts on that PDF. Why? Information that she saw a plane blow up in midair in the distance is uncensored, but large blocks of something else are censored.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by LoganCale]




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Five hours and no replies? There are at least three interesting points, two of which I was unable to find any evidence of previous discussion for here. Did I do a bad search and this stuff has all be discussed? I'll start some discussion by asking questions.

1. What are the implications of her claim that she saw explosions inside the lobby of WTC 6?
This is as WTC 2 was collapsing, could debris from that collapse be causing flashes to occur inside the lobby of WTC 6? It was 7 stories high. Here's a picture of it after the twin towers collapses took place.



So WTC 6 did not fully collapse, obviously, leading me to believe that there were no demolition charges inside that building.

2. What are the implications of her claim that she saw an airplane explode a long distance away?
Obviously, the immediate thought is Flight 93, but Flight 93 crashed near Somerset, Pennsylvania. Somerset is nearly 300 miles away from New York City and I'm fairly certain that couldn't be seen. Or could it?

Google Maps link showing driving distance between New York City and Somerset

3. Why are there censored portions?
Was she discussing personal information? Bad language? Why was the information about the exploding airplane left in but other things censored? I don't see why it would be censored unless she saw things they really didn't want made public.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Interesting. It could be very possible that it happened just the way she claimed it did, but what good does it do for her or anyone else to try and tell what happened, the naysayers will try to tear her story apart. I for one beleive that there was a government cover-up and will always beleive that.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by nanna_of_6]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Most likely she was seeing the strobe lights that are part of the fire alarm system in the building. They are tied into the fire alarm system in a line and flash in sequence as she described.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Most likely she was seeing the strobe lights that are part of the fire alarm system in the building. They are tied into the fire alarm system in a line and flash in sequence as she described.


Also, when you look at the damage the building sustained you can see why they did not want anyone seeking refuge in it, as they would be in a lot of danger still.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I agree that the "federal police" had a very legitimate reason to be keeping people out of that building and any others in the area, though I do wonder why they were not running for their lives as well. However, WTC 6 did not fully collapse so perhaps they were not killed.

Now, what about the other two items of note? The exploding aircraft, which I found far more interesting than the demolition claims, and the censorship.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I've only got to the first line but what's amused me already is the guy who's conducting the interview - Christopher Eccleston.

There is a well known actor here in the UK, his more recent work being 28 Days Later, The Second COming and of course starring as 'The Doctor' in Doctor Who!

Christopher Eccleston

I'm sure it's just someone else with the same name, but amusing none the less.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
Now, what about the other two items of note? The exploding aircraft, which I found far more interesting than the demolition claims, and the censorship.


Regarding the exploding airplane... I put that in the same department as the "witnesses" who originally claimed it was a small commuter plane that hit tower 2. They were proven wrong later when the Gamma Press video turned up, and when thousands of other witnesses said it was a big plane. It didn't happen.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
It didn't happen as in, they didn't see anything and made it up... or... They were mistaken in the mad rush of chaos?

[edit on 13-2-2006 by LoganCale]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
It didn't happen as in, they didn't see anything and made it up... or... They were mistaken in the mad rush of chaos?

[edit on 13-2-2006 by LoganCale]


They were mistaken in the mad rush of chaos. I am a private investigator and do a lot of work for insurance companies. I am always amazed by how I can interview 10 people that were all present for an accident or event and get 5 different versions of what happened, and then a surveillance video will show something COMPLETELY different from what all the witnesses reported they saw.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I can understand that. I wouldn't say it's 100% conclusive, but it's a likely explanation. Any opinions on the censored information in the official interviews?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
Any opinions on the censored information in the official interviews?


Several opinions. It is possible the blocked out portions make reference to statements that could be considered libel or slanderous to others, contain graphic or gory details, divulge personal information about others, or divulge classified information about FDNY operations or procedures.

Of course, it is also possible the blacked-out statements provide concrete proof that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and it was censored by the NSA.

The important question is who made the black marks; the NY Times, FDNY, US Govt.? I will try to find this persons interview in the unedited documents that are available of all the FDNY interviews. They are not cataloged, so it will take some time.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Most likely she was seeing the strobe lights that are part of the fire alarm system in the building. They are tied into the fire alarm system in a line and flash in sequence as she described.


I would go along with this explaination if she wasn't an EMT. You don't think that an EMT would know what the strobbing fire lights are? Especially working in NYC where fire alarms go off everyday? And yes, ambulances are sent out even if it's a false alarm...at least here in DC they do.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
She said there were no lights where she saw the popping.



new topics




 
0

log in

join