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.

 

Eyewitnesses to Pre-collapse sub basement explosions

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Hello people:

This is my first post on this site. I have recently come across 911 Mysteries: Demolition. Before this I have always thought it was the hijacked planes that brought down the buildings and thought this other soccer dad (I too am a soccer dad) was a little to over board with conspiracy theories about the US government blowing up the towers. Then I saw the DVD, and it appeared convincing.

Then, I found this site and have been reading some comments on both sides of the conspiracy to see if the 911 Mysteries DVD could be debunked. So, far it "appears" that the conspiracy evidence is more convincing then then the "official" story and the debunkers evidence against the conspiracy theory around the collapse of the building.


But in this thread, I wanted to share something I haven't come across in the last few days here. And that is the eyewitness testimony to the pre-collapse sub-basement explosions. Is there hard evidence to contradict these eyewitnesses such as other eyewitness testimony that says there were no sub-basement explosions or that these witnesses were not really there or something else?Evidence was taken from 911 Mysteries video.

William Rodriguez (WTC employee 20+ years 9/11 last survivor). He felt explosion from under his feet which he suspected came from sub-levels P2 and P3. Then he claims there was a huge explosion from the top of the building referring to the plane crash came seconds after and was heard very far away. The basement explosion was heard seconds before and was loud and his feet moved with the floor. Walls cracked and split. Then, a Mr. David ran into office and said he heard sub basement explosions (yelling, "Explosion, explosion, explosion") and was injured (skin pulled from armpits and missing skin from his face) according to William Rodriguez. Narrator emphasizes explosions happened "before" plane crash 95 floors above.

Phillip More-ally (sounds like -- sp?) in sub-basement 4 North Tower when the first plane hit. He heard an explosion and was "blown to the floor". He ran towards a bathroom, and another "impact" happened and light fixtures and things fell down. He left the washroom and found walls down. He then ran to the parking lot. On the way, he saw lots of smoke and people screaming. He ran up the ramp and ran towards the South Tower. Then it happened all over again. He and others fell to the floor and walls begin to cave in. He knew people who were killed, and badly injured in the basement. He said some had to have reconstructive surgery because "walls" hit them in the face.

Mike Pec-a-roaro (sounds like -- sp?), Engineer, in the 6th sub-basement, found it and the machine shop reduced to rubble (Pre-collapse).

Explosion heard by Richard Siegel Blue Star Media Group. He was filming and heard an explosion at the base of the building as smoke was seen from the base.

Large energy source from the ground shakes video camera. 9 seconds later, the building falls.

Now, with this evidence, isn't common practice to weaken or destroy the base (foundation) of the building when it is to be demolished by explosions to help bring the building down?

Debunkers of the the explosives theory and supporters of this the explosives theory, please debate the best you can about these sub-basement explosions and convince me (the juror), that either explosives were used or were not used.

Thanks in advance, and it is nice to be here.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Well, first off, there certainly were some sort of explosions in the basements. Whether or not they were caused by pre-planted bombs, jet fuel, or something else entirely is a subject of contention.

To me, the bomb theory makes very little sense. It is obvious that if there were bombs in the basement, they had nothing to do with the collapse, as the collapses clearly started from where the planes impacted.

So while it is common practice in controlled demos for them to have bombs in the basement, it is not common practice for them to have bombs that dont do anything other than cause injury and panic.


Rick Speigel's video is the only one, out of hundreds of cameras to pick up these sounds. And as far as I can tell, no demolition has a 9 second delay between charges and collapse. In a demolition, the charges go off and the building collapses.

The smoke at the base is a burning vehicle.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This info is scattered around other threads if you look around. The guys you mention but wondered on the spelling were Morelli and Pecoraro. There were other witnesses, but those are the predominant ones because we actually have their testimony "on record" with video and/or mainstream news sources, as opposed to Rodriguez's many co-workers, that haven't been pursuing the issue as much as he has.


Originally posted by notsosmart
Is there hard evidence to contradict these eyewitnesses such as other eyewitness testimony that says there were no sub-basement explosions or that these witnesses were not really there or something else?


No.

There was the suggestion for a while that elevators were severed by the jet impact, and fell about a thousand feet into the basements and caused loud bangs, or were even accompanied by fuel-air explosions down the shaft (without blowing the drywall-covered shafts out, mind you
) and then caused huge explosions in the basement / lobby.

That theory died (except for some stubborn hard-heads) when we confirmed that only two elevators went from the impact floors to the basement: car 50 (the main freight), and car 6.

Car 6 only went to B1 (not far enough for the reported explosions), and car 50's operator survived after the safety brakes caught. He experienced no fireball or overpressures.

NYFD Lt. William Walsh also reported that the low-level elevators were blown out of their hinges when he arrived at WTC1. The lobby windows and marble panels were also blown out, light fixtures were dangling, etc.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Well Bsbray, you are almost right.

Looks like you'll have to update that paper again.



The obvious fallacy in what you keep repeating, is that you are assuming that it could not travel between shafts. You have yet to prove this.

To me, it only makes sense that it did travel shaft to shaft, otherwise how do you explain the fact that almost every single elevator was damaged in the impact.

It also fits the evidence of burning jet fuel shooting out of shafts to hit people.

Or is the new theory that the government planted fire bombs in all the elevators to cause panic?


www.911myths.com...

The obvious weakness with this argument is its attempt to say that, if an elevator doesn’t “serve all floors”, then the shaft could not provide a path for jet fuel to reach the basement. NIST tell us that Car #49, for instance, served basement floors 1-5, and floors 41-74. But then what? Is it safe to assume that a lift servicing no floors higher than 74 is effectively hermetically sealed at that point? Or could there still be a path the fuel might have taken?


[edit on 30-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Prove that a fireball went down the building jumping from shaft to shaft.


I could say that a fireball took an express elevator to the lobby, got out, walked across to another bank of elevators while blowing stuff up, and then went down into the basement levels and blew a machine shop, but I'm not going to entertain that because (a) it has no supporting evidence, and (b) it's NONSENSE.


An FAE with overpressures that can destroy a machine shop, steel doors and all, is not going to travel down shafts without blowing out their DRYWALL and expanding through the floors. Look up what an overpressure is and try to comprehend this. Also understand that the farther an overpressure travels, the weaker it is. And remember that the FAE at the impacted floors didn't even remove the aluminum cladding. Yet, apparently, it can blow out elevators and destroy machine shops in the basement, some 1000+ feet down.

Like I said, no one but hard-heads are clinging to this crap.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
If your theory was correct Bsbray, how do you explain that Rodriquez smelled kerosene in the basement?

Secondly, it is not enough to say, it couldn't be jet fuel, it has to be bombs.

You have to actually provide positive evidence for bombs being there, which no one has done.

You could find some bluprints and prove without a doubt that no jet fuel made it the basement, and you still would not be one step closer to proving that there were bombs.

You might as well say it can't be jet fuel, so it was fire breathing dragons.

Negative evidence will never prove bombs.



And no, the vast majority of people still think it was the fireball, they just don't happen to post here.

It makes the most sense for it to be the fireball, bacause it fits all the data, and we know that there was a fireball.

Bombs don't fit all the data, and there is no proof of their existence in the basement.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
He probably smelled kerosene because there was a parking lot right over his head. I would imagine it either had something to do with that, or else liquid jet fuel running down some shaft, which seems unlikely to me. But even if that's what it was, liquid jet fuel is evidence AGAINST an FAE, because the proportion of fuel to air is MUCH more air than fuel, around 1%-6% fuel to 94%-99% air, and it has to be PROPERLY MIXED AND DISTRIBUTED as an AEROSOL.

I'm not going to bother teaching you middle-school chemistry, because you'd try to debunk it, so I hope you intuitively grasp what that means.


If it wasn't a fireball from the impacts, which evidence suggests it was not (as evidence NEGATES this idea), then you have to go for a better theory. Fire-breathing dragons pale in comparison to bombs, at least in my mind, LeftBehind. The WTC was bombed once in '93. There was a fireball.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Right, and every time I'm in a parking lot it reeks of kerosene.


You can scream all you want about the proper mixture for an FAE, but the evidence that there was a fireball travelling through the shafts is overwhelming.



There is the fireball, which you are saying is so improbable. But look there it is despite what you are saying.

There are numerous stories of people getting burnt in elevators, and theres some of them that are burnt before the doors close by a fireball travelling down the shafts.

So it's a little silly for you to argue against the existence of a fireball that was so well documented.

In reality, the fireball is the most likely culprit for the damage. Even in cases like the machine shop, while the fireball may not have caused all the damage, there could of been things that were set off by it. Welding rigs and other things can explode if exposed to giant fireballs.

The fireball accounts for all of the available evidence better than bombs.


I'll ask you again, if it wasn't the fireball, how did most of the elevators get damaged?


Actually if you were honest with yourself Bsbray, the only difference between the dragon theory and the bomb theory, is that bombs actually exist.

There is no positive evidence for the presence of either one.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The parking lot was underground. Explosions went off -- underground. In Pecoraro's testimony, he goes upstairs, to the PARKING LOT, and there had been an explosion ON THAT FLOOR.


We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”, referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.




I'm also not saying there was no fireball. When you suggest I'm saying this, it's called a STRAW MAN. It's a disinfo tactic. You put words in my mouth, and misrepresent my argument. Why would you do this if what you're saying is as obvious as you keep boldly asserting it is?

I'm saying the fireball didn't go down the elevators some 1000+ feet into the basement to blow stuff up down there. And there is no evidence that it did. You keep saying there is, but you never offer up. People burned can go both ways. As I said, there was a fireball in the 1993 bombing, and there was no fireball down the elevator shafts then, either.


You also keep failing to address how an FAE can destroy a machine shop and etc. in the basement while not even being able to remove aluminum cladding at the impact level or blow out drywall from the shafts themselves and expand onto other floors within the building.


And, the elevators that were damaged, were the lower-level elevators that serviced the lowest floors and basement, according to Walsh's testimony.


I'm about to stop responding again, just so you know. And don't flatter yourself. It's more because you keep putting words in my mouth and making illogical statements every time we correspond than anything else, and so it's a waste of time trying to have a discussion with you. You don't think. It's the same crap as when you refuse to understand that soot is unused energy, or when you ask why no one has brought a court case against the government, and then just harrass us on how they haven't gone forward once you learn that there have been. It would be so nice if you didn't constantly fudge your posts and dodge corrections.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Your replys have been great so far guys. Thanks.

LeftBehind: There would be no evidence of explosives even if there were explosives. They blow up and would be completely gone. If they were planted by explosive experts in a way that no one was to know about, then they would make sure there would be no remaining evidence.

I just your last post. That fireball appears to be exploding outward away from the building. That fireball disappeared fast. How is that pic evidence that a fireball travels down through a "MAZE" of steel and concrete and hit sub basement levels 4 and 6.

Also I thought William Rodriguez heard and felt explosions below him (referring to P2 and P3) just prior to the one above. If it was a fireball, how did he hear and feel explosions below first then above him.

bsbray: Thanks for your responses. They appear convincing. I would love to be convinced that it was just the planes themselves and the fire it caused that brought down the buildings. But, I am sure that building was very tough and would not have crumbled as it did without some other help.



[edit on 30-11-2006 by notsosmart]

[edit on 30-11-2006 by notsosmart]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
NotsoSmart ~

What most people forget is that there were FULL TIME bombsniffing dogs at the WTC . On 911, Sirius the dog was actually working...sniffing out trucks and unattended baggage at the South Tower.


Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11.

After the buildings were struck by hijacked jetliners, Lim left Sirius in the Port Authority's kennel in the basement of the South Tower while he assisted with the rescue efforts. He promised the dog he would soon return to get him. After the towers collapsed, Lim's fellow officers and firefighters had to restrain him from trying to return to the 4-year-old dog

www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...

This is one of many things that lean me toward the global collapse theroy that has be release by NIST .

Good luck in your research.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Hello CameronFox:

1. I thought the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the job according to 911 Mysteries DVD.

2. The external source talks about the poor dogs death and doesn't confirm if he was actually sniffing for hidden and or well placed explosives prior to the planes hitting the building.

Thanks for your input CameronFox





bsbray: do you have anything to say about dog sniffing dogs?

[edit on 30-11-2006 by notsosmart]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yeah: they don't always work.


A dog trainer was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison Monday for providing
defective bomb-sniffing dogs to the government after the 11 Sep 2001
attacks and lying about their credentials. Russell Lee Ebersole,
convicted in June 2003 on 27 counts of fraud, insisted his dogs were
competent and blamed his conviction on jealous competitors. ...
Ebersole's Detector Dogs Against Drugs and Explosives, of Stephenson, Va.,
provided bomb-sniffing dogs to several federal agencies in the months
after the 9/11 attacks. The agencies paid Ebersole $700,000 from Sep 2001
to May 2002. Ebersole's contracts were canceled after his dogs failed
independent tests on five different occasions. On one test, dogs were
unable to detect 50 pounds of dynamite and 15 pounds of C-4 plastic
explosives hidden at the Federal Reserve parking garage in Washington.


www.newsday.com...


Ok, and I'm not even bringing up the fact that we don't even know what KIND of explosive was used or if these dogs were trained to detect them even IF they could smell them from wherever the hell they were in the building. It just isn't reliable information to have, or in any way conclusive of anything. Those were big buildings.

PS -- Does anyone know if the WTC had bomb-sniffing dogs employed during the 1993 bombing?

[edit on 30-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah: they don't always work.


A dog trainer was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison Monday for providing
defective bomb-sniffing dogs to the government after the 11 Sep 2001
attacks and lying about their credentials. Russell Lee Ebersole,
convicted in June 2003 on 27 counts of fraud, insisted his dogs were
competent and blamed his conviction on jealous competitors. ...
Ebersole's Detector Dogs Against Drugs and Explosives, of Stephenson, Va.,
provided bomb-sniffing dogs to several federal agencies in the months
after the 9/11 attacks. The agencies paid Ebersole $700,000 from Sep 2001
to May 2002. Ebersole's contracts were canceled after his dogs failed
independent tests on five different occasions. On one test, dogs were
unable to detect 50 pounds of dynamite and 15 pounds of C-4 plastic
explosives hidden at the Federal Reserve parking garage in Washington.


www.newsday.com...


Ok, and I'm not even bringing up the fact that we don't even know what KIND of explosive was used or if these dogs were trained to detect them even IF they could smell them from wherever the hell they were in the building. It just isn't reliable information to have, or in any way conclusive of anything. Those were big buildings.

PS -- Does anyone know if the WTC had bomb-sniffing dogs employed during the 1993 bombing?

[edit on 30-11-2006 by bsbray11]


The 1993 bombing was the reason why the dogs were brought in.

BsBray. If you read the interview with the dog's handler, you will see that he hears an explosion . Somewhat contradicting the story of the janitors story. ( However i am not sure if they were both in the south tower)


Hello CameronFox:

1. I thought the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the job according to 911 Mysteries DVD.

2. The external source talks about the poor dogs death and doesn't confirm if he was actually sniffing for hidden and or well placed explosives prior to the planes hitting the building.

Thanks for your input CameronFox


Hey NotSo... There are lots of 1/2 truths and lies in the so called "Truth Movement"

1. In the weeks leading up to 911 there were several phone threats. EXTRA security was added for a couple weeks. 5 days prior to 911 the EXTRA security was removed. This does not mean that there wasn't any secuirty. Security levels were at their typical levels. This INCLUDES bomb sniffing dogs that actually had KENNELS in the basement of the towers.

2. If you read the article, you will see.....

Police K9 Sirius was a bomb detection dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. He and his handler, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center, where they often searched hundreds of trucks and vehicles each day, as part of America's "War on Terrorism." Sirius was the only police dog killed by the terrorists on September 11th and, perhaps, the only American police dog ever killed by international terrorists.


On the morning of September 11th, Officer Lim and Sirius were at the Port Authority police station located in the basement of the World Trade Center's north tower. Officer Lim heard the sound of an explosion and thought that a bomb had gone off inside the building. Lim commented to Sirius, "...one must have gotten by us." Of course, that was not the case because the explosion Lim heard was caused not by a surreptitiously placed bomb, but by one of the hijacked planes crashing into the building.




www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...




[edit on 30-11-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
BsBray. If you read the interview with the dog's handler, you will see that he hears an explosion . Somewhat contradicting the story of the janitors story. ( However i am not sure if they were both in the south tower)


They were both in the North Tower, and I'm not sure how experiencing an explosion in the basement contradicts Rodriguez's testimony. The plane hitting, according to Rodriguez, only caused oscillations in the building, rather than an explosion, and the oscillations came AFTER the explosion.

It's interesting that the first thing that popped into his head was,


"...one must have gotten by us."


even if they were later told that it was the plane.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
True about the North Tower... my bad.....

You know I was hesitant about posting that quote. YET... I am not like other "Truthers" or "Deniers" that omit facts to support their agenda.

There is no doubt in my mind that the explosions that were heard that day sounded like bombs. What else would someone think? I am also a licensed electrican and I have heard transfromers explode that have caused me to dive and take cover!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well why couldn't they be bombs, Cameron? Why couldn't it be a bomb that destroyed a machine shop and lower-level elevators, opposed to anything else? If people can believe a fireball flew down various elevator shafts to somehow do it, what makes a bomb less probable here?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
how's a bomb-sniffing dog supposed to find bombs when he is locked in a kennel?
can a bomb=sniffing dog smell the entire contents of the tower all with one whiff?

there were (suspiciously handy)white vans taking out gold from underneath the towers. one of them could have been loaded with suitcase nukes and death rays from outerspace for all we know.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why couldn't it be a bomb that destroyed a machine shop and lower-level elevators, opposed to anything else? If people can believe a fireball flew down various elevator shafts to somehow do it, what makes a bomb less probable here?



Why should it be a bomb? You have yet to make any case for this.

People believe the fireball theory because there was a fireball.

There is no denying that the fireball travelled down some of the shafts.


The evidence in favor of the existence of a fireball is indisputable.


There is nothing in favor of bombs, other than some hard headed theorists who want to insist that any unexplained phenomena is bombs planted by the government.


I have listed positive evidence for a fireball, and why I think it's the most likely explanation.


Now, without disussing whether or not the fireball could reach the basements, please present all the positive evidence for the use of pre planted bombs.


If your theory was sound it wouldn't matter if the fireball made it there or not.

So please, lay out your evidence for a bomb.

Disproving a fireball does not make it automatically a bomb.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsosmart


LeftBehind: There would be no evidence of explosives even if there were explosives. They blow up and would be completely gone. If they were planted by explosive experts in a way that no one was to know about, then they would make sure there would be no remaining evidence.


Great, so what exactly would lead you to believe it was bombs if there is no evidence for them?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join