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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Now, the idea that Silverstein decided to "pull it" meaning "pull out the firefighters" looks kinda stupid because that alleged phone call took place in the afternoon according to Silverstein's spokeswoman, even if there had been any firefighters in there, they would have been evacuated in the morning, so how did Silverstein "pull them out" when there weren't there in the first place?

Sure would be nice if we had a single firefighter or a single radio recording showing that there had been any sort of a firefighting effort in WTC7.
When firefighters get involved, they always write a report or make notes (like cops do) but there are no records available of any firefights taking place in WTC7.


You know what...you make a real good point. This had not dawned on me prior to you pointing this out...I do not recall finding an account of a firefighter fighting the fires in WTC 7. In fact, in all the accounts I've read so far, it is stated that after WTC 1 it was just burning unabated.




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by Hal9000
Back to the collapse of WTC7, I was wondering if anyone has a timeline on when everyone was evacuated from the building.

I am only remembering this from memory but I think that Guliani testified at the 9/11 commission that WTC7 was evacuated around 10:30 in the morning. His testimony also revealed that FEMA did indeed set up camp in NY the day before.
Both of these comments would raise a lot of questions so you won't find Guiliani's testimony on the 9/11 Commission Report website, it's the only testimony that was removed, ask yourself why!

To this day, not a single firefighter has come out stating that he was involved in fighting the fires in WTC7.

Now, the idea that Silverstein decided to "pull it" meaning "pull out the firefighters" looks kinda stupid because that alleged phone call took place in the afternoon according to Silverstein's spokeswoman, even if there had been any firefighters in there, they would have been evacuated in the morning, so how did Silverstein "pull them out" when there weren't there in the first place?

Sure would be nice if we had a single firefighter or a single radio recording showing that there had been any sort of a firefighting effort in WTC7.
When firefighters get involved, they always write a report or make notes (like cops do) but there are no records available of any firefights taking place in WTC7.



Hope this helps.

www.firehouse.com...

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.


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


[edit on 27-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally from Quicknthedead
Wolfpack,

These are facts from the US Government that have not been refuted.

They indicate explosions before the plane hit at WTC1.

This is evidence good enough for a court, including the court of public opinion.

Think about.

THEN READ THE REPORT.

Then think about somemore. The light bulb will go off, I can guarantee it.
Then you can decide which side of the fence you're on.

The truth or the lie.


Quicknthedead,

I know that the towers were not brought down by the planes, so dont go ballistic on me.

My point in my post was that there are those out there that will never even consider anything other than the offical story.

The facts, the science, the common sense and anything else you present to the "Offical Story Believers" will not change their minds to even accept that there is reason to suspect that the "Offical Story" is not 100% true.

Therefore this argument will go on forever. Unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

If it can be proven that there were explosions just before the impact of the planes, don't you think it would be linked and prove a conspiracy? I mean what would be the odds of some janitor’s closet blowing up just before the plane hitting?

Come on, you are smarter than that.


The problem that i see is that everytime one of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 is shown to be false, the diehard believers that "only the government could have done it" will try to come up with something new, or change things in their theories to make them appear a bit more believable. It has been like this for years, ever since I have been a member here i have seen this tendency.

Sometimes you still get some ludicrous claims and theories, but what I see happening is a lie being polished slowly into a "shiny lie"....

Do you know what happens to a lie that gets polished over the years? It might look like it could be possible, but at the end is only a lie.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
What I have also noticed is that many of the claims and even groups that exist with theories and claims about 9/11, have mostly surfaced months or more later after the event. Most people tend to slowly forget things with time, even something as tragic as what happened in 9/11.

Most people also get confused over time as to exactly what happened, which is one of the reasons we never saw or heard most of the claims and theories that we have heard as of late, and when over the years such claims and theories are slowly polished, they start to appeal more and more to people who might be inclined to believe these theories and claims.

Have you ever heard the saying "tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth"? This is what I see happening.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by Hal9000
Back to the collapse of WTC7, I was wondering if anyone has a timeline on when everyone was evacuated from the building.

I am only remembering this from memory but I think that Guliani testified at the 9/11 commission that WTC7 was evacuated around 10:30 in the morning. His testimony also revealed that FEMA did indeed set up camp in NY the day before.
Both of these comments would raise a lot of questions so you won't find Guiliani's testimony on the 9/11 Commission Report website, it's the only testimony that was removed, ask yourself why!

Thanks, and I did find in the CR that civilians were evacuated earlier because they thought it might be hit by another plane and not because they feared the collapse of WTC1, so that answers my question.


OEM Response
After the South Tower was hit, OEM senior leadership decided to remain in its "bunker" and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7 WTC. At approximately 9:30, a senior OEM official ordered the evacuation of the facility, after a Secret Service agent in 7 WTC advised him that additional commercial planes were not accounted for. Prior to its evacuation, no outside agency liaisons had reached OEM. OEM field responders were stationed in each tower's lobby, at the FDNY overall command post, and, at least for some period of time, at the NYPD command post at Church and Vesey.155

www.9-11commission.gov...


Here was the first mention of the buildings were in danger of collapse from the report.

At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse.136


I found this report that says Giuliani was warned prior to the collapse, but likely from the same source.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

This must have been right before he was filmed in the video and just before the collapse. It would be nice if we knew the exact time the video was made.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Hal9000

If it can be proven that there were explosions just before the impact of the planes, don't you think it would be linked and prove a conspiracy? I mean what would be the odds of some janitor’s closet blowing up just before the plane hitting?

Come on, you are smarter than that.


The problem that i see is that everytime one of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 is shown to be false, the diehard believers that "only the government could have done it" will try to come up with something new, or change things in their theories to make them appear a bit more believable. It has been like this for years, ever since I have been a member here i have seen this tendency.

I know what your saying, I agree some theories get blow out of proportion, but I like to keep an open mind myself. I think you meant that the explosions after the planes hit could be anything, but the comment was about explosions before the plane hit.

Just keeping you honest.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The only reason I am posting to this is because I belive that it was a controled demolition.

The physics of a plane hitting the towers is not consitant of a non controled colapse of the building. I have seen footage that refutes the posibiltity of a non controled colapse. The footage shows only a select few windows below the colapse jutting out. In a non controled colapse the windows below the point of colapse would have blown out at the exact same time due to the exact same air presure being forced upon them.

This was a premeditated and controled colapse of the building



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The only reason I am posting to this is because I belive that it was a controled demolition.

The physics of a plane hitting the towers is not consitant of a non controled colapse of the building. I have seen footage that refutes the posibiltity of a non controled colapse. The footage shows only a select few windows below the colapse jutting out. In a non controled colapse the windows below the point of colapse would have blown out at the exact same time due to the exact same air presure being forced upon them.

This was a premeditated and controled colapse of the building


This is an example of what I am talking about. Apparently this person doesn't know that skyscrappers have shatter resistant windows....they do not have "regular windows", hence not every window below the impact should have exploded.

There could have been many different reasons why there were only a couple or so windows which shattered right below the impact of the planes, such as the possibility they were hit by debris, or they were a bit weaker than the rest of the windows due to possible flaws that were overlooked when they were installed, etc, etc.

But as i anticipate this fact is not going to change the mind of this member one bit, because he is certain and just wants to believe "it was a controlled demolition" nomatter what the facts are.

He is not the only one though, i have seen many other members doing the same thing, repeating theories and claims that really make no sense at all, but these people just want to believe it so much, and they repeat these claims over and over that after a while it makes sense to them, when in fact they make no sense at all.

But these people want to believe so much in their theories/claims that they will continue to believe in them nomatter what evidence is presented, and slowly these same people polish their own claims/theories, some without knowing, others knowing full well,

I have seen some of the people that have posted in this thread make claims in the past such as "they are very knowledgable about science" yet in the same sentence they claim things such as "a great part of the potential energy of the collapsing building was transformed into sound, hence it is impossible for the collapse of the towers to have such energy".... of course, it makes no sense and anyone that actually have some inkling of science would see what such "theories" are, but to these people they make perfect sense.

Some people would go so far as to post a theory which can be found to be false easily enough with evidence to prove they are wrong, yet these same people some months later post the same theory once again, sometimes with some changes trying to make it more believable.

Anyways, back to your question/statement, if there have been any explosive devices that detonated, strong enough to cause any weakening in the structures, before the crash of the planes, the seismic signatures of those explosions would have been picked up by all, or at least some of the many seismic stations which captured what happened that day.

Yet the only P wave seen is the one produced by the plane crashes, the rest of the wave signatures seen in the seismic readings are mostly S waves, with some love waves, and even some raleigh waves, but there are no other P waves present that i have seen.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Any significant explosions before the impact of the plane not only would have left a seismic signature, but the explosions would have been heard many blocks away by thousands of people, but then you get those people who claim the devices used did not make much sound, but then the account of those few people who want to claim they heard explosives go off is false.

See, there are so many theories that have been made up surrounding this event, that many of them contradict each other.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.firehouse.com...

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.


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.



You know what? I think this story is completely planted to back the farse of Silverstein. First of all, the guy makes sure to mention FOUR TIMES the word "pull" as to re-inforce Silverstein's comments but notice that he never said "pull it" but rather "pull xxx back".
Now what I find rather strange is that even if we believe the guy, that would be the first time in history that a steel building collapses due to fire. That would also be the first time in history that a building collapses due to fire in a 7 seconds collapse. And completely into it's own footprint at that. And now, suddenly the freakin firefighters somehow KNEW it was going to collapse just because it's been burning for 7 hours .... are you really buying this?

I mean come on guys! I'm giving up this thread, if you guys look at this picture below and still can imagine somehow, in some way that this building didn't collapse due to controlled demolition, than there is no point in even trying to talk with you.
www.911research.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
the explosions would have been heard many blocks away by thousands of people

Watch the following and let me know what you think.
www.youtube.com...
Controlled demolition explosions aren't as loud as most people think because they are IMploded, not exploded so the sound of the explosives is a bit muffled by the building itself.
Never the less, keep looking at this footage below and keep telling yourself that fire brought it down:
www.911research.com...

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Pepe Lapiu]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.firehouse.com...

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.


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7? did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.



You know what? I think this story is completely planted to back the farse of Silverstein. First of all, the guy makes sure to mention FOUR TIMES the word "pull" as to re-inforce Silverstein's comments but notice that he never said "pull it" but rather "pull xxx back".
Now what I find rather strange is that even if we believe the guy, that would be the first time in history that a steel building collapses due to fire. That would also be the first time in history that a building collapses due to fire in a 7 seconds collapse. And completely into it's own footprint at that. And now, suddenly the freakin firefighters somehow KNEW it was going to collapse just because it's been burning for 7 hours .... are you really buying this?

I mean come on guys! I'm giving up this thread, if you guys look at this picture below and still can imagine somehow, in some way that this building didn't collapse due to controlled demolition, than there is no point in even trying to talk with you.
www.911research.com...


You have to remeber this is before the call was made to Silverstein. The call was made to let Silverstien know what was going on with the building. Siverstien had no authority over what was going on with the firemen or his building.

The firemen were out of the builidng and out of the collapse zone hours before the building came down.

The incident commander does not need Silverstiens premission to bring down the building.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Although Silverstein would have been consulted if his building were to be imploded .. or Silverstein could have been trying to legitamizing his crime by tying in the FDNY.

Either way it was a CD ..... materials used unknown, but CD all the way.

RE: explosion sounds ... sound travels radially from the source, therefore most sounds would only be heard if the microphone was in the radial range... meaning the closer you are to the tower the high the microphone needs to be. Whereas the Eyewitness tape was far away, but in range, therefore the muffled and time delayed noises.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   


Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...
www.novareinna.com...


Bomb Sniffing Dog Sirius. Located in WTC2 and was there leading up to 9/11 and died in the attacks. Poor thing.

Didn't discover any bombs or explosives.

Not ALL dogs were removed.
The Permenantly stationed dogs remained and the extra dogs due to the heightened alert were removed when the security alert was lifted.

[edit on 28/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Explosions testimony

source


Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twentyfourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in an elevator but was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly, September 24, 2001)

Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”


There's more of the same at the source.

A report on the complete 9/11 timeline shows that several different witnesses reported the ground shaking before the collapse of each of the towers. Interesting.

And there's another report on the complete 9/11 timeline that

According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] However, a firefighter who arrived there after the second tower is hit is told that the building is being evacuated due to reports of a third plane, indicating that two planes have already crashed.


Interesting that the reference given is to Fort Detrick. Could this be the same Fort Detrick that was so heavily implicated in the subsequent anthrax attacks? The link now returns a 404 error. It would be nice to see a fuller report.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi


Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...
www.novareinna.com...


Bomb Sniffing Dog Sirius. Located in WTC2 and was there leading up to 9/11 and died in the attacks. Poor thing.

Didn't discover any bombs or explosives.

Not ALL dogs were removed.
The Permenantly stationed dogs remained and the extra dogs due to the heightened alert were removed when the security alert was lifted.

[edit on 28/11/2006 by doctorfungi]


even if the dogs were still there its quite likely they wouldn't detect it unless they were in close proximity to the explosive devices. And how many bomb sniffing dogs are trained to sniff out micro nukes?



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Actually,

Micronukes would require conventional explosives to detonate. I think you are underestimating the smell power of a K9 if you think they would need to be extremley close to pick anything up.




[edit on 28/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Re: Louie



Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

www.arcticbeacon.com...


And from a chat question session with Louie:



Guest_enjays asks: How much will it help the healing process once Osama is captured?

Guest Louis Cacchiolo says: It'll help the healing a little bit because maybe we'll know it won't happen again, but the hurt that these families are going through isn't going to help them much — they've already lost their loved ones, but it'll help to know they've got the bastard.

Guest_moocow asks: If you had the chance to say something to Osama bin Laden, what would you say?

Guest Louis Cacchiolo says: I'd probably love to grab a hold of him, I don't know, I'd probably go crazy because of what he did, but I'd have to ask him why? What made you do something like this and why are you training young kids to do this; it's not the right way to handle things. And then I'd probably go crazy, as I've got so much hate from all the hurt he's caused.

sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au...


It's quite clear from his answers that he fully accepts the official story. Did he just forget he heard "bombs" going off?

Or did "They" get to him first?




top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join