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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsosmart
I was talking to a friends father. He thinks that if there were extreme explosives to weaken the basement, then there wouldn't have been many survivors that came from the basement.


"Extreme explosives?"

I'd say the bomb used in 1993 was pretty damned extreme (major damage from at least B2 to B5 or so), and comparatively few deaths resulted from its detonation.





posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by notsosmart
I was talking to a friends father. He thinks that if there were extreme explosives to weaken the basement, then there wouldn't have been many survivors that came from the basement.


"Extreme explosives?"

I'd say the bomb used in 1993 was pretty damned extreme (major damage from at least B2 to B5 or so), and comparatively few deaths resulted from its detonation.



Good point bsbray. And thanks for the response.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by CameronFox
His EXACT Quote "...and I said We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Sounds like Lucky Larry gave the order to me? He suggested it and then they did it... of course he couldn't say it that way.

Yes he did have the NYFD in his back pocket.



There we have it.... someone now saying the FDNY was PAID OFF !!!! WOO HOOO yes thats a GREAT IDEA! Lets watch hundreds of our fellow firefighters burn, suffocate, get crushed so we can get some money from a rich guy that doesnt want to pay for asbestos removal!!!! WOW I just may vote for you for the Way Above Top Secret.

You need to back up your last sentance with a SHRED of evidence. I will bet my house that you have NOTHING. Your last comment is nothing short of DISGUSTING and I'm sure you will be hard pressed to to find one person in here to agree with you.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I'm sorry but this makes more sense to me!.


Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


the elevators crashing down is the only explanation as to why we saw spoke on the bottom of the twin towers.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hrm...boiler explosion due to massive impact...or massive government conspiracy?
I wonder...


[edit on 8-12-2006 by thatguyoverthere]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thatguyoverthere
Hrm...boiler explosion due to massive impact...or massive government conspiracy?
I wonder...


A boiler wouldn't just explode because the walls/columns moved a little in the basement. I'm afraid the whole affair is a little more complicated than you make it out.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by CameronFox
His EXACT Quote "...and I said We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Sounds like Lucky Larry gave the order to me? He suggested it and then they did it... of course he couldn't say it that way.

Yes he did have the NYFD in his back pocket.



There we have it.... someone now saying the FDNY was PAID OFF !!!! WOO HOOO yes thats a GREAT IDEA! Lets watch hundreds of our fellow firefighters burn, suffocate, get crushed so we can get some money from a rich guy that doesnt want to pay for asbestos removal!!!! WOW I just may vote for you for the Way Above Top Secret.

You need to back up your last sentance with a SHRED of evidence. I will bet my house that you have NOTHING. Your last comment is nothing short of DISGUSTING and I'm sure you will be hard pressed to to find one person in here to agree with you.


Not to argue or debate about who said what, but when at all did that quote say anything about paid off? It says he has FDNY in his back pocket. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were paid off. It could just be the fact that he has say in the FDNY's activities and as a result, could have manipulated command into believing something wasn't going on that actually was.

He's not directly saying FDNY was involved - FDNY could be just another pawn in this whole game. And for us to sit here and argue about miniscule things such as he said, she said - is absurd. Let's focus on what we know about both sides of this argument and leave it at that.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by CameronFox
His EXACT Quote "...and I said We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Sounds like Lucky Larry gave the order to me? He suggested it and then they did it... of course he couldn't say it that way.

Yes he did have the NYFD in his back pocket.



There we have it.... someone now saying the FDNY was PAID OFF !!!! WOO HOOO yes thats a GREAT IDEA! Lets watch hundreds of our fellow firefighters burn, suffocate, get crushed so we can get some money from a rich guy that doesnt want to pay for asbestos removal!!!! WOW I just may vote for you for the Way Above Top Secret.

You need to back up your last sentance with a SHRED of evidence. I will bet my house that you have NOTHING. Your last comment is nothing short of DISGUSTING and I'm sure you will be hard pressed to to find one person in here to agree with you.


Not to argue or debate about who said what, but when at all did that quote say anything about paid off? It says he has FDNY in his back pocket. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were paid off. It could just be the fact that he has say in the FDNY's activities and as a result, could have manipulated command into believing something wasn't going on that actually was.

He's not directly saying FDNY was involved - FDNY could be just another pawn in this whole game. And for us to sit here and argue about miniscule things such as he said, she said - is absurd. Let's focus on what we know about both sides of this argument and leave it at that.


I recommend you read the thread and the point he brings up. Lucky Larry? How was he lucky? When you say someone had their hands in your pocket...it means they are paying you off. At least thats what I always assumed.

The point is...when attempting to get to the bottom of the Conspiracy...you need to know who the players were and what their roll was. For someone to blame the FDNY is garbage!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by CameronFox
His EXACT Quote "...and I said We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[edit on 1-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Sounds like Lucky Larry gave the order to me? He suggested it and then they did it... of course he couldn't say it that way.

Yes he did have the NYFD in his back pocket.



There we have it.... someone now saying the FDNY was PAID OFF !!!! WOO HOOO yes thats a GREAT IDEA! Lets watch hundreds of our fellow firefighters burn, suffocate, get crushed so we can get some money from a rich guy that doesnt want to pay for asbestos removal!!!! WOW I just may vote for you for the Way Above Top Secret.

You need to back up your last sentance with a SHRED of evidence. I will bet my house that you have NOTHING. Your last comment is nothing short of DISGUSTING and I'm sure you will be hard pressed to to find one person in here to agree with you.


Not to argue or debate about who said what, but when at all did that quote say anything about paid off? It says he has FDNY in his back pocket. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were paid off. It could just be the fact that he has say in the FDNY's activities and as a result, could have manipulated command into believing something wasn't going on that actually was.

He's not directly saying FDNY was involved - FDNY could be just another pawn in this whole game. And for us to sit here and argue about miniscule things such as he said, she said - is absurd. Let's focus on what we know about both sides of this argument and leave it at that.


I recommend you read the thread and the point he brings up. Lucky Larry? How was he lucky? When you say someone had their hands in your pocket...it means they are paying you off. At least thats what I always assumed.

The point is...when attempting to get to the bottom of the Conspiracy...you need to know who the players were and what their roll was. For someone to blame the FDNY is garbage!


Here's where you're wrong. I've not seen a single post that says FDNY is to blame. I think you are far advanced in your investigating yourself to know how Corporate America is. Being a double major in Business, I understand how easy it is to run people being high on the corporate ladder. This does not mean that people HAVE to be paid off.

No one who I side with theory-wise on this board has ever directly blamed the FDNY for what has gone on on 9|11. There are lots of unanswered questions about the FDNY's finest and the things they said on that day, the commands that were taken on that day, etcetera.


FEMA says FDNY never set up manual firefighting operations in WTC7 to begin with.
Am I blaming the FDNY when I say this for WTC7 falling? Not at all.

Were they a player in the collapse of the building? Of Course.
Were they to blame? Hell No!
Are they all heroes in my eyes? More than you'll ever know.


Let's just end this discussion and debate within other threads now.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Here's where you're wrong. I've not seen a single post that says FDNY is to blame. I think you are far advanced in your investigating yourself to know how Corporate America is. Being a double major in Business, I understand how easy it is to run people being high on the corporate ladder. This does not mean that people HAVE to be paid off.

No one who I side with theory-wise on this board has ever directly blamed the FDNY for what has gone on on 9|11. There are lots of unanswered questions about the FDNY's finest and the things they said on that day, the commands that were taken on that day, etcetera.


I have had at least 3 in here (not this thread) Saying they were in on it.



FEMA says FDNY never set up manual firefighting operations in WTC7 to begin with.
Am I blaming the FDNY when I say this for WTC7 falling? Not at all.

Were they a player in the collapse of the building? Of Course.
Were they to blame? Hell No!
Are they all heroes in my eyes? More than you'll ever know.


Let's just end this discussion and debate within other threads now.
I agree



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
See this line gives away the timming of the collpase after the firemen were pulled out and then the incident commander decided to PULL the building.

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."



[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
No it really doesnt give any time line at all. Thik of what your saying. ok...

1. Silverstein was not at Ground Zero. He was at home with his wife.

2. Do you think Silverstein wanted to list his events after speaking with Chief Nigro? They made the decision to pull, I went to the bathroom, took a dump. I then called my daughter and we talked about what was going on. Then I got a call from my sister in Florida asking if I was ok. My dog was scratching at the back door... ....See where Im going with this? Silverstein was talking about relevent things that happened that day.

3. Chief Nigro gave the order to pull it? You are now saying that Nigro gave the order to demolish WTC7. Now...this would mean Nigro was in on this whole plot. WHY? Nigro was NOT the original commander. The only reason why he was in command was Chief of Department Peter Ganci died in the collapse of the North Tower. So we have to assume that Peter Ganci was in on it as well. This makes NO SENCE at all.

4. Look at the words he used prior to saying "pull it"
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, ....
So this would make sence to you....“We’ve had such terrible loss of life.... that the best thing would do is to demolish my building." Does this make ANY sence at all to you???

5. Since WHEN does the fire department in ANY city or town... do planned demolitions?? Please let me know where and when a fire department decides to Detonate Explosives to down a building?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

3. Chief Nigro gave the order to pull it? You are now saying that Nigro gave the order to demolish WTC7. Now...this would mean Nigro was in on this whole plot. WHY? Nigro was NOT the original commander. The only reason why he was in command was Chief of Department Peter Ganci died in the collapse of the North Tower. So we have to assume that Peter Ganci was in on it as well. This makes NO SENCE at all.

4. Look at the words he used prior to saying "pull it"
“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, ....
So this would make sence to you....“We’ve had such terrible loss of life.... that the best thing would do is to demolish my building." Does this make ANY sence at all to you???

5. Since WHEN does the fire department in ANY city or town... do planned demolitions?? Please let me know where and when a fire department decides to Detonate Explosives to down a building?

Thanks


What plot ? Its normal for a incident commander to bring down a builidng he thinks is in danger of collapse and may cause damage or fire to spread to other builindgs.

Silverstein had no authority to say what or when firmemen should be moved, so he did not mean pull out the firemen. Also the fire chief called to tell him the builidng was beyond saving.

"Why do you keep saying that explosives were used, do you have proof that explosives were used?"

Firemen on the special rescue units have the tools, equipment and knowledge to cut collums they do not need explosives. Also we do not know for sure yet who actullay brought the building down.

But some firemen are trained in explosives, like the ones that fight forest fires.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
What plot ? Its normal for a incident commander to bring down a builidng he thinks is in danger of collapse and may cause damage or fire to spread to other builindgs.


Are you serious? The FDNY Fire commander had the authority to "bring down" a building???


Silverstein had no authority to say what or when firmemen should be moved, so he did not mean pull out the firemen. Also the fire chief called to tell him the builidng was beyond saving.

Your saying Siverstein he had no authority...your right. Not to move out firemen OR to order a DEMOLITION of the property.


"Why do you keep saying that explosives were used, do you have proof that explosives were used?"


I am not claiming that....I dont support the explsoives theory at all.


Firemen on the special rescue units have the tools, equipment and knowledge to cut collums they do not need explosives. Also we do not know for sure yet who actullay brought the building down.


So, you are telling me...that AFTER they evacuated the area around wtc7 at 2:30 pm...Special Rescue Units MAY have gone BACK into WTC7 and started cutting out columns...and done what ever is necessary to make sure the building collapsed in fear that it may casue other building to catch on fire?




But some firemen are trained in explosives, like the ones that fight forest fires.

Yes becasue there are lots of forests in New York City ! Please back up your claims that some members of the FDNY are trained in explosive.... with ENOUGH training to know how to enter a burning 49 story sky scraper and demolish it in UNDER 3 hours!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

So, you are telling me...that AFTER they evacuated the area around wtc7 at 2:30 pm...Special Rescue Units MAY have gone BACK into WTC7 and started cutting out columns...and done what ever is necessary to make sure the building collapsed in fear that it may casue other building to catch on fire?




But some firemen are trained in explosives, like the ones that fight forest fires.

Yes becasue there are lots of forests in New York City ! Please back up your claims that some members of the FDNY are trained in explosive.... with ENOUGH training to know how to enter a burning 49 story sky scraper and demolish it in UNDER 3 hours!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 10-12-2006 by CameronFox]


I did not say they went back in, i am just stating a point that if they wanted to they have the tools and knowledge. But thier were engineers in thier for a while because the saved the fuel out of the ground floor tanks.

www.wtc7.net...

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.



Well yes there are forests in New York, not in the city but thier are forest.

As i stated before it would not take much to bring down builidng 7 due to damage and fires gutting several floors. it probly would not have taken but a few well cut collums or beams or maybe some cables pulling on some collums to bring it down. I will know more when i get e-mail back from the demo companies.

[edit on 10-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I did not say they went back in, i am just stating a point that if they wanted to they have the tools and knowledge. But thier were engineers in thier for a while because the saved the fuel out of the ground floor tanks.

www.wtc7.net...

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.



Well yes there are forests in New York, not in the city but thier are forest.

As i stated before it would not take much to bring down builidng 7 due to damage and fires gutting several floors. it probly would not have taken but a few well cut collums or beams or maybe some cables pulling on some collums to bring it down. I will know more when i get e-mail back from the demo companies.


Did you read your post from FEMA?? Show me on that post where it says the RESCUED the oil tanks! It was RECOVERED AFTER the collapse.

You seem to state something then retract it...your claming it wouldnt "take much"... and that maybe some cable pulling on columns....well... to do that you would have RE ENTER the building.... ! That DID NOT HAPPEN.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I did not say they went back in, i am just stating a point that if they wanted to they have the tools and knowledge. But thier were engineers in thier for a while because the saved the fuel out of the ground floor tanks.

www.wtc7.net...

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.



Well yes there are forests in New York, not in the city but thier are forest.

As i stated before it would not take much to bring down builidng 7 due to damage and fires gutting several floors. it probly would not have taken but a few well cut collums or beams or maybe some cables pulling on some collums to bring it down. I will know more when i get e-mail back from the demo companies.


Did you read your post from FEMA?? Show me on that post where it says the RESCUED the oil tanks! It was RECOVERED AFTER the collapse.

You seem to state something then retract it...your claming it wouldnt "take much"... and that maybe some cable pulling on columns....well... to do that you would have RE ENTER the building.... ! That DID NOT HAPPEN.


So your trying to say they waited untill the builidng collapsed and crushed the tanks to pump out the fuel?

So i said i do not know if the did re-enter the building, i do not know for sure i was not there i am going by evidence and what has been stated.



[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.


Ultima...look at the key words there.... SURVIVED..and that we can surmise there was not fire on the ground floor.

Get it? No one walked into a Burning Unstable building to retrieve 12.000 gallon TANKS !






[edit on 11-12-2006 by CameronFox]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.


Ultima...look at the key words there.... SURVIVED..and that we can surmise there was not fire on the ground floor.

Get it? No one walked into a Burning Unstable building to retrieve 12.000 gallon TANKS !





[edit on 11-12-2006 by CameronFox]


Well actually the key words thier are "we can surmise there was no fire on the ground floor."

Which means someons could have gone back in if thier was not fire on the ground floor.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
But you would not have to go back into the building their are things they could have done from the outside to cause the builidng to collapse.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 11-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join