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.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong... (WTC 7)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
lmfao....That why I enjoy "debating" with you.... Your at least honest !

Let me know what you think about the article.




posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   


My question is, why were all these firemen and firechiefs expecting a collapse when no other steel skyscraper had collapsed due to fire before that day? Where they psychic?


Umm....They had already watched two, onfire, heavily damaged buildings collapsed.....wouldnt you have viewed WTC 7 in the same light?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Thanks for providing a link to this report. However there are some rather passonete responses in there that lacks a professional edge you would expect from a report like this.

Why wasn't the "bow" in wtc7 addressed? or did I miss that?

also the 911weknow video referenced a different colored smoke coming from the base of the towers. (thermite)

I"m pretty sure they also said the opposite about the seismic spikes!

Once again though, good info that everyone should read either for or against demolition.

Does anyone else smell disinfo on this one?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Most of your quotes from firemen say that the building was ablaze and imminent collapse was probable or foretold by the fire chiefs. My question is, why were all these firemen and firechiefs expecting a collapse when no other steel skyscraper had collapsed due to fire before that day? Where they psychic?


The men felt it was going to collapse because they have seen the tell tale signs of a building collapse, such as the building beginning to buckle. It has nothing to do with steel really. Aside from the fact that the size or it being a skyscraper has no bearing on how steel acts, many things happened for the first time that day as well. One could argue that no planes could have hit the buildings because that had never happened before either. One could argue that Pearl Harbor was not bombed because Pearl Harbor had never been bombed before.

For the first time in history, 3 buildings were severely damaged AND suffered from fire. And unlike most buildings this one burned for 7 hours with no aid.

So the moral of the story is that no skyscraper in history had suffered the damage these buildings had before and thus making it even more likely they could be in danger of collapsing, especially after 2 had already collapsed.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoknew
Thanks for providing a link to this report. However there are some rather passonete responses in there that lacks a professional edge you would expect from a report like this.

Why wasn't the "bow" in wtc7 addressed? or did I miss that?

also the 911weknow video referenced a different colored smoke coming from the base of the towers. (thermite)

I"m pretty sure they also said the opposite about the seismic spikes!

Once again though, good info that everyone should read either for or against demolition.

Does anyone else smell disinfo on this one?


Professional Edge? Did you read it? The author states at the beginning he wrote it in simplified terms so that most people could understand it. Mind you, this is the "opinion" of a group of CD experts. No one said it was "Gospel"

Do I smell Disinfo? Well.. in order to want to spred it... you must have a motive to do so... what would his be? Oh... Demolition World and Protech must have an "in" with Bush & co?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Actually I'm fairly sure there have been a few cases where buildings have burned for more than 7 hours and not completely collapsed, go look it up.

Take for instance the Windsor Tower in Madrid en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure someone will come and argue the case that they were built differently and there wasn't "thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside
" but once again, the WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, so supposedly falling debris somehow caused raging fires inside WTC 7 (even though only small ones are visible in most photos/videos) that were somehow hot enough to reach 2000 plus degrees ,and caused it to completely collapse at free-fall speed into it's own footprint?

Sorry I don't buy that, WTC 7 is the smoking gun, watch the video and compare with controlled demolitions.



[edit on 1/12/2007 by JKersteJr]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   


Professional Edge? Did you read it? The author states at the beginning he wrote it in simplified terms so that most people could understand it. Mind you, this is the "opinion" of a group of CD experts. No one said it was "Gospel"


Let me rephrase to emotional, yes i did read it. The use of please in assertion #7 seems abnormal to address the reader. You may be right. This change in factual info may have been hard to absorb. however, while reading it I felt like it was more of a arguement from a defensive stance. That made it hard to take as seriously.

BtW the "gospel" commnet was uncalled for. No one mentioned that.

Lastly there are still questions left unanwsered like, why the buildings fell faster then physics would allow?

Do remember that I said this is valid reading for all. I'm not out right discounting it by any means. As implied in my pervious post that I titled "confused." Not disinfo. It was just a question.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.
...Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)


It wasn't miss-quoted, and no most 'CTers' have not abandoned this claim.
Pls stop spreading dis-info and presenting your opinions as facts. Thanx.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Ok, thank you for all your replies even though I must say very little light has been shed. I still feel confused and lost about this issue. There has been not enough conclusive evidence from the CT's point of view but the other side of the story is still full of holes... But if I would to be rational about it I would say that since it seems to be something funky about the whole deal, and no official report is 100% covering and debunking ALL exsisting theories, there has to be something wierd going on. Just like the rest of you I am on the hunt for some truth. The best thing (and also most impossible) were to rebuild WTC 1, 2 and 7 and recreate the whole incident and see what happens.

I have been reading alot of the sceptics explanations and some of them makes more sense than some of the 'crazy' ideas promoted by CT-ers (yes, Loose Change was a good one but also very much the work of a layman). Still, there are some things that the sceptics just keeps avoiding to explain because there are no credible ways of explaining... We are all kept in eternal dawn, never reaching full enlightement which is quite frustrating I'd say.


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.
...Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)


It wasn't miss-quoted, and no most 'CTers' have not abandoned this claim.
Pls stop spreading dis-info and presenting your opinions as facts. Thanx.


Hmm, I think I'll dismiss it though. Even if it is supposed to be some sort of "evidence" it's by far the weakest one. Lots of other things are more interresting than that quote. I'll go with you Cameron, or it seems like you're going with me...dunno.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CameronFox
Good Grief ... here we go again with the pull it quote this is so often MISS quoted.
...Most CT'ers have abandoned this claim. (at least the ones with common sence)


It wasn't miss-quoted, and no most 'CTers' have not abandoned this claim.
Pls stop spreading dis-info and presenting your opinions as facts. Thanx.


Anok, I am spreading FACTS.... TWICE in THE SAME DAY it has already been posted in this forum INCORRECTLY. Typically to fit an agenda that a real-estate tycoon had a Freudian Slip and confessed to telling to NYFD to blow up his building. Or it is picked up by a liar like Alex Jones who often used it with his own words.

Here are two MIS- quotes from yesterday ALONE. Give me a year, Im sure I can find it a few hundred more times.


Originally posted by Capsitan posted on 12-1-2007 at 11:36 AM (post id: 2873261) - single - this post REPLYQUOTE
Do you guys remember that interview with the owner of WTC 7?? I will try to paraphrase what he said. "there had already been so many deaths that i decided the best thing to do was pull it". I think that speaks for itself.
I almost think that it might have been a freudian slip on his part.




Originally posted by Griff posted on 11-1-2007 at 07:57 PM (post id: 2871986) Silverstein says that he said to the fire chief that "we've lost enough life that the best thing to do would be to pull it." That in my mind means that Silverstein is the one to suggest pulling, not the fire department. The fire department made the decision to pull AFTER Silverstein suggested it. So, yes, it WAS Silversteins decision to pull, not Nigro's.

Edit: Here's the quote:
External Source
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, 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 we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein


As you see this was one day on two different posts by two different people.
Griff actually corrercted himself by posting the TRUE quote.

I am sick and tired of you trying to discredit me in almost EVERY response to my posts. Your accusations mean NOTHING, thats why you are the ONLY one that complains about my posts. People see right through you and are seeing YOUR agenda trying to discredit me by posting LIES ...ie: saying I am spreading disinfo...etc.

Is it my opinion that Silverstein had nothing to do with the destruction of WTC7? NO...it is a FACT. It is a fact based on information that has been available since the PBS interview. Are there people that still believe the "pull it" theory... Sure...But from all the CT'ers that I speak with...the VAST majority realize that this does not support the CD theory of WTC7.

Remeber....the burden of proof is on you to provide since it is YOUR opinion ( I assume) that Silverstein told the Fire Department to blow up his building.

Anok...can you provide me with ONE C.D. company that uses the term "Pull it" it demolish a building with explosives? Another request that you will most likely decline or ignore.







edited for italics



[edit on 13-1-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by 11Bravo
BTW, not to be a Cheney, but if you are going to make a statement like
"Truth is, all firefighters...." You need to either show some evidence, or not use the phrase 'Truth is'.


I agree thats why I rephrased it. Here are several links to different interviews:

Firefighter Richard Banaciski :
graphics8.nytimes.com...


We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building
with fire on nearly all floors.



Well Cam, I finally found some time to start checking out the links you were kind enough to provide for me.
Interesting stuff.
I ran into a problem though.......
the very first quote you give me is not accurate....not at all.
Perhaps my research is faulty, but the only reference Mr Banaciski seems to say specifically about WTC 7 is that

"You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone"

He goes on to state ..

"We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on

Emphasis mine.
Is he refering to WTC 7 or 'smaller buildings'?
Either way, the words that you attributed to him in the above quote are not his, according to the link you provided.

Should I check the rest of the quotes you provided?

I would like to get this straight, and if by chance you simply posted the wrong quote for Mr Banaciski then by all means direct me to the correct one, but as it stands now I am not sure I will believe the rest of your quotes.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
Ok, thank you for all your replies even though I must say very little light has been shed. I still feel confused and lost about this issue. There has been not enough conclusive evidence from the CT's point of view but the other side of the story is still full of holes... But if I would to be rational about it I would say that since it seems to be something funky about the whole deal, and no official report is 100% covering and debunking ALL exsisting theories, there has to be something wierd going on. Just like the rest of you I am on the hunt for some truth. The best thing (and also most impossible) were to rebuild WTC 1, 2 and 7 and recreate the whole incident and see what happens.


Here is some information about the fuel tanks in building 7.

www.wtc7.net...

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Bravo ... Let me re-check my post... I can assure you that these interviews are legit.

Ultima..Most of us are aware of the tanks being intact. There was a question weather or not any was leaked out from the lines that supplied the Generators. I would assume NO...unless NIST comes out with some solid evidence.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Now that is EXACTLY what I am talking about! It is something fishy about those diesel fuel tanks! At one point, they caused the building to collapse, at the other the tanks were intact.

So far non of the sceptics has stepped forward and debunked any of this. Should I take that as some sort of proof that I am on the right track?



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The problem with the quote is this.... the first firefighter I listed, I did not put a quote above his link.

The first quote I posted was for the second firefighter... Thanks for pointing it out though.

Please feel free to look into all the other interviews...And point out any discrepancies.

Thanks again

EDIT for further explination: I posted this:
( PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT POST A QUOTE FOR RICHARD BANACISKI)

Firefighter Richard Banaciski :
graphics8.nytimes.com...

(THIS QUOTE IS FOR ROBERT LAROCCA)
quote: We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building
with fire on nearly all floors.

–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Again, sorry...I should have posted a quote for the first Fireman.



[edit on 13-1-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
Now that is EXACTLY what I am talking about! It is something fishy about those diesel fuel tanks! At one point, they caused the building to collapse, at the other the tanks were intact.

So far non of the sceptics has stepped forward and debunked any of this. Should I take that as some sort of proof that I am on the right track?


Raud...not in ANY reports did anyone say that was THE CAUSE. What I believe the FEMA report stated was it was "possible" that fuel had leaked from the supply lines that would have aided the fire.

There is no "debunking" needed. "Debunkers" debunk disinformation..not facts.

Bottom line...the official report does not offer the EXACT reason why WTC7 collapsed..just hypothisis. NIST ( although not very popular in here) will (or should) have a final report available some time this spring.

In the mean time, I will go with the people that were there..and what THEY SAW..and heard. "Large Fires", "the building was creaking", ..etc..etc..

IMO, I don't think we will ever fully understand the physics behind the collaspe, but also I don't beleive this supports a controlled demolition.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Aah, I see.

Well, I guess we all just have to sit around and wait for the final verdict then.

Thanks for a great debate, I will rest my case until the report is out.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by Raud
Now that is EXACTLY what I am talking about! It is something fishy about those diesel fuel tanks! At one point, they caused the building to collapse, at the other the tanks were intact.

So far non of the sceptics has stepped forward and debunked any of this. Should I take that as some sort of proof that I am on the right track?


Raud...not in ANY reports did anyone say that was THE CAUSE. What I believe the FEMA report stated was it was "possible" that fuel had leaked from the supply lines that would have aided the fire.

There is no "debunking" needed. "Debunkers" debunk disinformation..not facts.

Bottom line...the official report does not offer the EXACT reason why WTC7 collapsed..just hypothisis. NIST ( although not very popular in here) will (or should) have a final report available some time this spring.

In the mean time, I will go with the people that were there..and what THEY SAW..and heard. "Large Fires", "the building was creaking", ..etc..etc..

IMO, I don't think we will ever fully understand the physics behind the collaspe, but also I don't beleive this supports a controlled demolition.


Problem is thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for several hours even over a day and did not collapse even with the fire causing structural damage to the building.

Kind of interesting how the official story says that tower 1 caused severe damage to builidng 7 to help it collapse when builidng 6 was in front of builidng 7 and sustained more damage but did not collapse, it was pulled later. Building 7 was at the very peremeter of tower 1s reach.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Problem is thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for several hours even over a day and did not collapse even with the fire causing structural damage to the building.

Kind of interesting how the official story says that tower 1 caused severe damage to builidng 7 to help it collapse when builidng 6 was in front of builidng 7 and sustained more damage but did not collapse, it was pulled later. Building 7 was at the very peremeter of tower 1s reach.


> This steel building that burned for hours...and over a day, did it have debris from a 100 story skyscraper tear into it?
> Was it built over an electrical substation?
> How was building 6 constructed?Have you ever seen the damage that building 6 took? It was massive, but true...it did not collapse. There was a MASSIVE hole in the middle of the building...any info on if there was a partial collapse?
> There was in fact extensive damage to WTC7.. I have posted numerous eyewitness reports from Firefighters, Policemen, EMT's, and Journalists confirming this.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Problem is thier have been other steel buildings that have burned for several hours even over a day and did not collapse even with the fire causing structural damage to the building.

Kind of interesting how the official story says that tower 1 caused severe damage to builidng 7 to help it collapse when builidng 6 was in front of builidng 7 and sustained more damage but did not collapse, it was pulled later. Building 7 was at the very peremeter of tower 1s reach.


wait, let me guess. Don't tell me... *******drum roll*******

The Madrid Windsor???

The building like many other used as examples are actually concrete buildings with parts that are steel. And in the case of that building, the steel parts DID collapse. And that building suffered no structural damage at all. it also did not lose its fire protection, and it did not lose its sprinkler system. It was also being fought the entire time. Maybe WTC 7 could have lasted 26 hours if firefighters were trying to put the fires out.

And you know what? A lot of things happened for the first time that day. That alone doesn't make it not possible. By that logic nothing could exist since everything must happen for a first time at some point.

And of course there were many firefighters and demolition experts who were there and new hours before that the building was going to collapse. With all the fire, the damage from the collapse, and the building was beginning to buckle.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join