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 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years



firehouse: From that point, if you took a panoramic sweep, what could you see? There's debris. There's dust. How about the building at 90 West? Could you see that? Did it have a fire in there right away?
Hayden: We had a good fire in there. We had the equivalent of a fourth-alarm fire in there. We had fire in 50 and 7 World Trade Center. We had fire in 90 West. We had a smaller fire in one of the apartments in Battery Park City that we dispatched companies up there to put out. We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That's what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days. Chief Mosier took the operations in 90 West. I gave him X amount of companies. I said just hold it, keep her from jumping the street. The Marriott Hotel was across the street. I said just don't let it get out of the building here, just try to confine it, and he did a great job up there. They got some lines. They were able to hold it and contain it.

Firehouse: The building just south of that was the Marriott.
Hayden: Across the street. That's what I was concerned about, that the fire would jump the streets. We had exposure problems, so Bobby's function was just to contain the fire there. They had a big air shaft in there and he was able to get a line across the shaft and keep it in one wing of the building on the upper floors. And eventually it burned itself out. There was a good fire condition. It was pouring smoke and fire out of there. We were going to a fourth-alarm fire there. If you had to really address this fire, you would be trying to handle it as a fourth alarmer and he had nowhere near that, so he did a good job with that. We also were doing searches along all the debris in front of the Marriott and out on West Street, the void searches.

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
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.

Firehouse: 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.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by HowardRoark]




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
"The smoke obscured the scene."

That's a silly thing to state - Scroll back up this page here a little bit to Christophera's post at 03:00 PM and note the short video .gif.

The footage from that side of the WTC7 looks clear enough to me. What don't you see, or rather, what do you see?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
That afternoon



A couple more shots from late afternoon

www.artsforge.com...

www.ijamming.net...



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger
While the other side is quoting fire fighters, can you please share a few of their other pieces of information that they also speak of along the lines of: 'Bombs going off'...'The fires are almost out'...'Small pockets of controllable fire' etc. etc.?

But first before doing that, I'm still very very excited to see images or video of the '20 story high' hole in the WTC7 building you must have.

Have you got any links to images or video to this physical evidence please?


You really should research some of these things for yourself.. They've been gone over ad nauseum.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The mystery of WTC 7 falling like a controlled demolition more than anything else still remains, I don't even know why supporters of the NIST report even care to defend this.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Here is a still picture taken from screw loose change showing smoke pouring out of the south side.



With all that smoke it's hard to see anything, but it's easy to see that the building has been horrendously damaged.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
First, two images just to give you an idea of what happened to that building:

Before:



After:



"Where's Flight 77?" More like, "where's Building 7?".

But I can't understand how anyone can think that this was the result of anything but fire and damage from falling beams of steel hitting it. It's a pretty open and shut case. This happens all the time. The building caught on fire, and then fell straight down really fast a few hours later.

And Howard's right: you couldn't see the building after the Tower collapses. Any observations on how it was doing are pretty void considering that.

Some images to illustrate:



Building 7 is the building directly ahead there, that has the pitiful fires in a few places, and that you can't see from this distance.



Building 7 is the tallest building in the background in this image. Note its grave shape, as if it's about to implode at any moment. Also note that you can't properly see it.



You couldn't see the building at this distance, either.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   


Nice selective use of images.

Did you miss the pic right before you posted.



The entire south side is engulfed in smoke. Please stop pretending that the first pic is in any way representative of the fires in building 7. Even the collapse pics show more smoke than that.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Thank you for the fuzzy photo LeftBehind. What did you mean by "horrendously damaged"?

Apart from the smoke, and from what we can see, it seems intact to me.

What time was your fuzzy photo taken, do you know?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The photo's bsbray11 posted show a lot of people still in the area after 1 and 2 came down - People were still there taking photographs even after the twin towers came down.

Although someone on this board told me here earlier today that nobody had the "time" to take photo's.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Watch the Screw loose change video, kissinger. They show the video footage. You can see smoke pouring out of the building.

Please, watch the video, or fast forward to the part that shows it, don't take my word for it.

Showing one window on fire and claiming that wtc 7 had minor damage is disingenous at best and outright decieving at worst.

And what do you mean apart from the smoke it looks intact? Are you kidding?

The entire side of the building is pouring out smoke, we have firemen telling us there was a twenty story hole in the building, and you think it looks intact?

What do you think is causing the smoke? Fireworks?

[edit on 29-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
"we have firemen telling us there was a twenty story hole in the building"

We also have fireman talking about "bombs going off", and the "small pockets of fire" almost put out.

Who's fire fighters should we take on board - yours or mine?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Care to source those quotes? I got mine from HR's quote in this thread.

The fire that was almost out, was at the very bottom of the burning floors. Please show me a pic that shows the fires almost being out. Quotes about explosions being heard are subjective.

Seeing a twenty story hole is not really that open to interpretation.

So why again do you think that other than the smoke it looks intact?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oppp's, I should have quoted the source for my fire fighter guys that suggest something wrong was afoot on 9-11 www.prisonplanet.com...

We I'm off for the day, thanks for the debate - But please, anyone that can get me a clear photo or video of the "20 story hole" in the WTC7 building, that took place on the most photographed day in American history, please post a link here.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Here, watch it.

www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

You can watch the video where that still came from.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sure it would have fallen straight down.

Gravity It's not just a good idea, It's the LAW!


Any demolition engineer will tell you how much planning and skill it takes to bring a building down within its own footprint, and yet you can still come out with a facetious comment like this? Ludicrous. If there had been a "20 story hole" in one side of the building, it would have collapsed towards that side, and the area around the hole would have gone first.

Collapse as even and fast as we see on the video is simply not plausible. Your consistent hyping of the official story, which has gone on for months, is rather suspicious.

Oh, and for reallynobody: just a minor point about the passport being found in the WTC debris: actually, the passport was handed to a police officer in the street by an anonymous man in a business suit. You can look this up - it's even in the "9/11 myths exposed" website, offered as proof that passports can survive an aircrash, when it is obviously nothing of the sort. We don't know who this person was, and therefore we cannot even get testimony that he found the passport in the street. It is therefore entirely possible - and imo overwhelmingly likely - that the passport was planted evidence.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I've been researching a lot about 911 for a couple of years as well. To those who think that a government is not capable of and would never commit an act of atrocity against their own people, I would strongly suggest that you people familiarize yourselves with the USS Liberty incident that happened on June 8 1967.

Two sources on google video Loss of Liberty which details the incident and USS Liberty where the survivors are interviewed.

Watch it - be more informed.

aob



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Taurus feces, Howard.

Gravity is a REALLY weak force, compared to the other forces. So, your explanation to Rasobasi was pretty lame. But, don't stop with your spiel...


Reallynobody, what are you doing? You present some of the most booty conspiracy theories, then lump the valid ones along with them and dismiss them all. Now, I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I have read, that's precisely what you're doing.

Does it bother you that the hijackers were govt agents or that our govt KNEW not only that the attack was coming, but the nature of the attack?


Well it aint MY government. But yes that would be bothering me if I thought it was true. I still don't really see evidence for it, but that would definately be worrying.

But concerns me at this point the most however, is how people made the conspiracy theories into something far less believable than what you mentioned, and get angry when someone disagrees.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulcanelli
The crucial deciding factor in this discussion in my opinion is building 7.

Not to flog a dead horse but I point out that this building was NOT hit by a plane and spontaneously imploded neatly into its own footprint with several characteristics of its collapse strongly indicating controlled demolition (to say nothing of Larry Silverstein's "confession" on PBS). This collapse, we are told by those in authority and proponents of the official line, was due to some moderate fires.

This is to say nothing of the problem of the hundreds of tonnes of concrete and other materials that made up the remainder of the support structure of the building...

Just from watching the collapse in the masses of video footage taken on the day, it is clear that the SPONTANEOUS collapse, even if caused by the thermal weakening of the steel, would ALSO have required the SPONTANEOUS removal of the supportive characteristics of these other structural materials materials (ie. one moment ALL the concrete supporting the building along with the steel must have been sound in terms of its support characteristics, the next it provided LITTLE OR NO RESISTANCE to gravity). This removal would have had to have itself been SPONTANEOUS and SYMMETRICAL with respect to vertical planes of symmetry through the centre of the building, since the collapse appears to me to be at near freefall and initiates spontaneously with very little visible evidence of prior crumbling or weakening - and this is the biggest indication that explosives or high temperature shaped incendiary devices were used,

The theory that fires alone were the cause of this collapse to me seems simply untenable unless there was an ENORMOUS AND IMMEDIATE EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY to cause these spontaneous phenomena (explainable by the two kinds of devices mentioned at the end of the last paragraph), and in my estimation this would have to be of a magnitude that dwarfed the heat generated by fires in a few disparate and ASYMMETRICALLY DISTRIBUTED locations within the building


Yes, building 7 was mentioned before. It collapsed without any planes hitting it and limited fire. I could give arguments of my own, but why would you believe me? Instead, here is an excerpt from Popular Mechanics:

-
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Oh, and for reallynobody: just a minor point about the passport being found in the WTC debris: actually, the passport was handed to a police officer in the street by an anonymous man in a business suit. You can look this up - it's even in the "9/11 myths exposed" website, offered as proof that passports can survive an aircrash, when it is obviously nothing of the sort. We don't know who this person was, and therefore we cannot even get testimony that he found the passport in the street. It is therefore entirely possible - and imo overwhelmingly likely - that the passport was planted evidence.


Without any statements from that suit it is going to be difficult to be certain, so I guess it could even be a set-up. But if the passport wasn't onboard, you are automatically assuming that the terrorist wasn't either, and that the hijacking occured by government agents. (unless it was a duplicate passport?)

Even if you could find agents that where murderous enough to commit such an atrocity, why would they commit suicide? They certainly didn't survive such a crash.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join