How were the WTC buildings rigged with explosives?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 01:22 AM by Swampfox46_1999
You are making the false assumption that pulling referred to controlled demolition, it does not. What they were speaking of was the fire company that was making preliminary steps into WTC 7. Pull it, meant pull the fire company out of the building. Nothing more, nothing less.

WTC 7 was a mess, widespread fires on multiple floors, not to mention the 20 story chunk that was taken out of it by the collapse of the tower. But dont believe me...believe them...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ... 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.
www.firehouse.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

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.

www.firehouse.com...

"at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years


reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 01:52 AM by goose
I recall reading online somewhere that an employee (it gave his name) of the WTC reported that for several months prior to 911 sections of the building were closed off and no one was allowed to go on them, they were told it was for maintenance. He reported he did not think too much of it at the time until after 911. Sorry I can't find the website now but I do recall reading that.

Also you might want to take into account that many firefighters reported hearing and seeing explosions just before the towers came down

Here is someone who has done his research on 911 and gives you all the reasons why the official story is a lie.


www.mindfully.org...

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. 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'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)



reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 02:11 AM by ANOK
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are making the false assumption that pulling referred to controlled demolition, it does not. What they were speaking of was the fire company that was making preliminary steps into WTC 7. Pull it, meant pull the fire company out of the building. Nothing more, nothing less.


You have proof of this? Because if you do you are the only one who has.
It's not nothing more, nothing less, it's just your opinion.

I know it's only my, and many others, opinion but "pull it' and the context it was said in makes more sense to mean demo the building.

Theres were no fire fighters in the building for hours before the collapse, so who did they 'pull'?
There was an FBI agent in the building when it fell, did he miss the order to 'pull it', or was that what he was doing at the time, making him miss the order?
Since when does the owner of a building make decisions for the fire department?
Since when does the fire dept get referred to as 'it'?
To 'pull' is industry jargon for taking down a building.
The word 'pull' was used in the PBS documentary referring to the taking down of WTC 6. "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." A construction worker.

Take all that into consideration, along with the obvious squibs seen, the perfect symmetrical collapse into it's own footprint at near free-fall speed, and to me it's seems pretty obvious 'pull it' meant the building, not the fire fighters.

Also do you have proof of this 20 story hole in the building? Another one no has been able to prove. The fires were not as big as claimed either, where are the pics of these huge fires?
Building 6 had more damage than 7, it didn't fall.

[edit on 23/7/2006 by ANOK]


reply posted on 23-7-2006 @ 03:21 AM by ANOK
Originally posted by PapaHomer
ANOK, if you had read Swampfox's post you would see that he posted links to his proof (being the eyewitness accounts of the firefighters at the scene).


Most of what I said don't really need links, it's pretty common knowledge on ATS, the info is on this site, and I'm trying not to repeat what we already have but....

And no I won't take what 2 fire chiefs say without seeing some photographic proof.
There are plenty of pics of WTC 7 and none of them show a 20 story hole or raging fires.

But regardless, buildings don't fall symmetrically in their own footprints from damage to part of its structure. That should have caused a partial, or chaotic collapse if any. For a building to fall as WTC 7 did all the supporting columns would have to fail at the same time. Simple physics proves this.
The fires could not have of played a significant part in the collapse, they couldn't get hot enough with just office furniture as the fuel.

Most of the diesel fuel, who some claim to have fueled the fires, was recovered...

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

www.wtc7.net...

So the fires couldn't have been that bad if the diesel wan't even effected.

The NIST report only suggests fires were the cause, they offer no proof and didn't really even investigate beyond this.

WTC 7 was bult in a way to stop the spread of fire using compartmentalization, are you suggesting this failed to work and allowed fire to spread to all part of the building and all floors? Again no photo is consistant with that theory.

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.

www.wtc7.net...

Anyway enough, I didn't want to get off topic but you forced me to
This has been discussed ad nauseam, the search feature is your friend.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 9 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 1 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 5 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags