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.

 

NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Following our reports this week about three different ground zero rescue workers who all testified that they were told Building 7 was to be brought down, yet more revealing testimony has come to light - this time from a former NYPD officer and first responder, who states that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.



BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."



Interesting,

More and more people are coming forward from reputable positions claiming things that could TEAR 911 apart.




posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Agit8dChop, this is very interesting.


Do you have a link for those sources? It appears you have forgotten to post it..



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Ahh apologies.

www.infowars.com...

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]


It is important to stress that everywhere we turn there are statements from firemen, NYPD officials, EMT's and others who were involved in the rescue efforts attesting to the fact that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that bombs were heard in all three buildings. During the five year anniversary protests at ground zero, a plethora of firemen and police echoed similar sentiments but few are prepared to go on the record. However, the fact that they and many of their friends are now dying in large numbers as a result of government deception is encouraging more to come forward.





[edit on 12-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Why should this guy 'know an explosion when he hears it'? How many skyscrapers has he stood next to while they were collapsing? How many explosions that he heard were fuel and generators inside the building blowing up?


Here is his myspace page, btw/
www.myspace.com...

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why should this guy 'know an explosion when he hears it'?


In Police Academy they learn to use grenades, flash grenades, smoke grenades, tear gas launchers, and other types of devices that gerneraly create a type of explosion. I also bet he has witnessed a bomb squad remotly detonate a unidentified device believed to be a bomb. As a police officer, I'm sure he has herd multiple types of explosions. Thought that was common sense?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How many explosions that he heard were fuel and generators inside the building blowing up?


He said "boom, boom, boom, boom". Not, "boom...............boom".

He was trying to explain the "sequential explosions", and not "random secondaries".



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I don't know if it is just me, but something about his testimony seems scripted?

I believe that Bldg 7 was demolished with bombs, I believe that.

I just find this guy and the way he spoke almost like an act. It could be just me, but he really wasn't only there to talk about his experience but to talk about 9/11 on a wider scale.

The interview felt scripted.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."


He did mentioned a hole, how big, he never said.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

He did mentioned a hole, how big, he never said.


Yes but most likely it is just a cosmetic damage type of hole. A steel building has 100's of holes... look at this picture below:



...these "holes" are later covered with concrete or other materials, and they are then called walls, and windows. If debris, or any other object were to crash into this building above, the first thing that would damage are the "holes" where the steel does not cross. This then would be called "cosmetic damage".

Do you get what I'm saying?

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Connected]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Yes I know what you are saying, but remember that he only says a hole. Didn't say many holes or one big giant hole. And there is a picture where fires were burning on many floors where windows were destroyed. And then theres the video and pictures of the other face of the building where a big large gash in the front. He could mention any of that.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yes I know what you are saying, but remember that he only says a hole. Didn't say many holes or one big giant hole.



BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though.."


That's not a good enough description of the hole for you? Would you have liked him to get a latter and tape measure while dodging debris? Honestly, some of you need to put yourself in the shoes of these people a little more instead of staying in your own shoes trying to figure out why he didn't do this or why he didn't say that.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yes I know what you are saying, but remember that he only says a hole. Didn't say many holes or one big giant hole. And there is a picture where fires were burning on many floors where windows were destroyed. And then theres the video and pictures of the other face of the building where a big large gash in the front. He could mention any of that.


He said:


I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though.



This statement alone tells us that any holes or damage he saw, was all cosmetic. I'm pretty sure if he saw a hole with a giant steel beam broken or cut, he would have said it WAS bad enough to knock down a building.


Anyway, holes or not... he herd "boom, boom, boom, boom". Which to me would indicate controlled demolition. If it were "gas tanks" or any other type of explosion, they most probably wouldn't be in sequence. They would be more random. Also, he would have heard a distinct variation of the booms, meaning one would be louder than the other, instead of them all being the identical. I would think he would mention something like, "big boom, small boom".



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenVisage



BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though.."


That's not a good enough description of the hole for you? Would you have liked him to get a latter and tape measure while dodging debris? Honestly, some of you need to put yourself in the shoes of these people a little more instead of staying in your own shoes trying to figure out why he didn't do this or why he didn't say that.


O yeah, so we are basing on the visual inspection of the hole from where he was standing. "It don't look too bad, we can still live and work in it."




posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   


I love this video. They just show you this side but they don't show you the other side of the building.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Something that people do not understand is the force needed to break or damage a steal beam with brute force. The entire outside of the WTC 7 building was cased in concrete, and other material. In order for debris to hit a steel beam hard enough to break it, the debris would first have to bust through the cosmetic concrete and material, and still have enough force to break the beam, which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Especially if you watch the collapse of WTC 7, and find out which column first gets demolished.

According to video, a core column inside the building, practically in the middle of the building was the culprit to the "global collapse". That would mean the debris would have had to bust through many walls and objects, and still have enough force to damage the steel..

just doesn't seem plausible.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
DEltaboy, good finds, that second video says 'look at the pile for building 7, its small, how did a big building fall into a small pile', which is interesting.

A lot of people seem to think that that means that there was a controlled demolition. They've seen tv footage of controlled demolition, and hte building crumbles, then they see 911, and think 'the building crubmled, therefore, it was a controlled demolition' Which is nonsense. People have suggested that the towers, or even apparently building 7, should've toppled over, like a falling tree that's been chopped down. Why?
What possible force would've knocked them over? THey're giant buildings. THe onyl forces involved are pulling straight down. OF course it'd collapse into a small space and not careen over.


originally posted by Connected
As a police officer, I'm sure he has herd multiple types of explosions. Thought that was common sense?

THey regularly hear massive explosions that bring down buildings? No, thats not common sense.
Also, why didn't any of the other officers on teh scene recognize it as explosions? And how does he know the difference between, say, a generator exploding and a demolition charge exploding?

He was trying to explain the "sequential explosions", and not "random secondaries".

But what I mean is, surely some of the booms were the crashing of the building, explosions of generators, and, if there were charges, the charges.

This statement alone tells us that any holes or damage he saw, was all cosmetic.

Why?
He said it didn't look like it could bring down a building. But so what, he's not an engineer, he's a cop. You are saying that it was cosmetic, that it was not any of the steel that was broken, and that the hole was contained within the bounds of a single floor.

he herd "boom, boom, boom, boom". Which to me would indicate controlled demolition

Or collapsing material hitting the floor.

I don't think we can read too much into his statements. He says 'boom boom boom', that doesn't mean a regular succession, it just means a bunch of booms. Just because he doesn't tell us how loud each one was, doesn't mean that they were all the same either. All we really have here is a guy saying that he was there and thinks it was a controlled demolition. Other people were there, and don't think it was a controlled demolition. If all we have is stories, then we'd've to go with it not being controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

People have suggested that the towers, or even apparently building 7, should've toppled over, like a falling tree that's been chopped down. Why?
What possible force would've knocked them over? THey're giant buildings. THe onyl forces involved are pulling straight down. OF course it'd collapse into a small space and not careen over.


People believe building seven should have toppled over because it had asymetrical damage. One side (north side) of the building was unharmed from debri. Supposidly the other side (south) was the only side with damage. The building should have fallen like a tree would when you take a chunk out of the side. Why? Because one side has resistance and the other side doesn't. Meaning the objects will move to the side with less resistance. That is basic physics. It doesn't matter how heavy the building was, it should have had more resistance on the north side, making it lean to the south. If you watch the video of WTC 7 it actually falls symetricaly. It should have at least fell towards the side that had damage. This tells us that ALL of the supports failed at the same time, which is impossible without controlled demolition. Even if they DID all fail at the same time, the steel would have still slowed down the rate of the collapse, which was at free fall speed.

So there is two things wrong..

1: it didn't topple over according to the laws of physics.

2: it fell with zero resistance, at free fall.

Those alone are 100% visible in the video, and do not take a rocket scientist to understand.


Originally posted by Nygdan
THey regularly hear massive explosions that bring down buildings? No, thats not common sense.


Explosions period are common sense things to know about if yo uhave been around them. Explosions have way more force than a falling object hitting another object. There is an invinsible "shock wave" that explosions emit. There is also an absolute difference in the way the explosion starts and ends. It is near instant, and ends quickly. A falling object on the other hand, once it hits the other object, it still "resonates" and "vibrates" for a while after, making the sound die out over time, and not end instantly.

There are a few more ways to tell an explosion from a brute force hit.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, why didn't any of the other officers on teh scene recognize it as explosions?


Who says they didn't? Who says they haven't come forward yet? What about the 100's of other witnessess that herd explosions? What about the videos that picked up the explosions? What about the firefighters that herd explosions? Did you forget about all this?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
And how does he know the difference between, say, a generator exploding and a demolition charge exploding?


Generators don't explode. Their gas tanks do.. but I recall there only being 2 generators, and they found the tanks intact, but no gas. I'll try to find the source of that.



Originally posted by Nygdan
But what I mean is, surely some of the booms were the crashing of the building, explosions of generators, and, if there were charges, the charges.


No there is a DEFINITE difference between "crashing of the building" and "explosions". As I explained, explosions have shock waves, that move way faster than any type of sound from a brute force hit of objects. You FEEL explosions, you don't just hear them. There is a great difference.

Also about the generators, gas tanks dont tend to blow up like you see in "hollywood" movies. They just dont. They leak and catch on fire. They only really explode if they are under pressure and ignited.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Why?
He said it didn't look like it could bring down a building. But so what, he's not an engineer, he's a cop. You are saying that it was cosmetic, that it was not any of the steel that was broken, and that the hole was contained within the bounds of a single floor.


I didn't say anything about a single floor, I said that it was only the cosmetic outer skin of the building that could have been damaged. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see when a building is structuraly damaged, or just cosmeticaly damaged. Really...

Look at this picture, tell me, does the house look like it was structuraly damaged?



In order for the WTC 7 building to look structuraly damaged, he would have to see giant steel beams broken or cut. If you don't see that, then its not structuraly damaged. It really does not take a engineer to see that.. and don't pretend that it does. Its a STEEL BUILDING for crying out loud.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Or collapsing material hitting the floor.

I don't think we can read too much into his statements. He says 'boom boom boom', that doesn't mean a regular succession, it just means a bunch of booms. Just because he doesn't tell us how loud each one was, doesn't mean that they were all the same either. All we really have here is a guy saying that he was there and thinks it was a controlled demolition. Other people were there, and don't think it was a controlled demolition. If all we have is stories, then we'd've to go with it not being controlled demolition.


First off, I have already said, explosions will never sound like "material hitting the floor", there are major difference's. Second.. boom, boom, boom, would mean start-stop start-stop start-stop loud noises. I have had the privelage to watch a CD in real life, and ill tell you, collapsing material is one long rumble. You would deffinetly hear explosions over the rumble, they are that different.

Also, I almost garantee 100% that there are more people that think WTC 7 was a CD than not. The ones that don't think it was a CD have not done their homework, or even opened their mind.

--the above statements I have made are based on the fact that I have grown up around fire arms. I can tell the difference between a gunshot (explosion) and a loud brute force kenetic energy hit. I can tell th difference between a popping car tire, and a makeshift bomb made from gunpowder found in common fireworks.--



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
some people are just not ready to handle the truth

they will think of any other explanation when confronted to evidence to the contrary, basic psychology that professional liars know all to well



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join