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.

 

The revised WTC7 official story

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
September 11th, 2001.

10:00 EST Just before the collapse of one of the towers. The BBC interview an eyewitness who experienced explosions at the base of the towers.

BBC interview expolsion witness

WTC7, also known as the Salomon Brother’s Building, is showered with debris from the falling towers. The debris takes an 18 floor chunk off the corner of the 47 storey steel skyscraper and starts fires on a few of the floors. Other buildings in the area are also damaged. Deputy Firechief Peter Hayden was on the scene.


We had fire in 50 and 7 World Trade Center. We had fire in 90 West. We had a smaller fire in one of the apartments in Battery Park City


His concerns about further collapses grew:


By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.


14:00 EST Haydens colleagues, using a surveyor’s transit on the damaged SW corner, predict that WTC7 will collapse due to the damage:


Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


The Fire Commander called Larry Silverstein to say they might not be able to contain the fires. Silverstein, having seen enough death for one day, decides that the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it’.

Silverstein 'pull it' video

They gave up fighting the fires in the building and got everybody back. Hayden recalls:


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.





[edit on 3-3-2007 by Giordano Bruno]




posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
[Part 2]

Strange thing is, the emergency workers on the scene didn’t think that it was coming down because of assessed damage. They told people that it was going to ‘blow up’.
CNN reports:

CNN - 'It's gonna blow' video

16.15 EST the CNN reports that WTC7:

‘is on fire and either has either collapsed and is collapsing’, but then showed it standing and settled on ‘may collapse’

CNN reports WTC7 collapse over an hour early - video

16.54 EST the BBC report that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) has collapsed, explicitly stating that it was not the result of a ‘new attack’, but because the building had been ‘weakened’. BBC reporter on the scene, Jane Standley, reports that it was due to the ‘huge amount of falling debris’

It would be a strange moment in the life of Jane Standley, who also reports that the area is ‘completely closed off’ to all except ‘emergency workers’ (who would be the only close witnesses of what Jane was about to see)

BBC World reports WTC7 collapse 20 minutes early - video

16.54 EST, another of BBC’s channels, BBC News 24, reports that the ’huge’, ‘47 storey Salomon brothers building’, ‘situated very close’ to the twin towers has collapsed.

BBC NEWS 24 reports collapse of WTC7 20 minutes early - video

17:20 EST

A HBO video clearly recorded two explosions as WTC7 began (to the great surprise of Jane Standley!) to collapse. The next time HBO used this footage, they edited out the explosions.
HBO video recorded WTC7 explosions - video

WTC7 came straight down, all vertical supports rendered useless simultaneously, and collapsed neatly into its own footprint as if the ground had disappeared beneath it.

Forward to 2007. The videos of this intriguing event are made available on Youtube and Google, despite their initial effort to delete them from their servers.

Richard Porter editor at the BBC, when asked about the videos, claims to have ‘lost them’ though a ‘cock up’.
BBC 1st statement
…and later that they were the victim of the global news media equivalent of chinese whispers
BBC 2nd statement



[edit on 3-3-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
What should have happened with WTC7

www.youtube.com...

Granted, its not a 47 storey building but, i think the video speaks for itself.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Oh.... WTC7 Had a bad foundation? Thats why this apartment complex collapsed. Please show me where the debris from a skyscraper hit it...and the severe fires that were burning for hours.

And to the O.P. of this thread. You have posted all old videos that we have all seen countless times.

BUT... i do have to say... we can now add HBO to the ever growing list of those that are "in on it"... oh since HBO is owned by Time Warner...and Time Warner own quite a list of media outlets:
AOL
Home Box Office
New Line Cinema
Time Inc.
Time Warner Cable
Turner Broadcasting System
Warner Bros. Entertainment
Global Media Group

how large does that list get?? This is just the HBO executives:

Bill Nelson
Chief Operating Officer
Harold Akselrad
General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal, Business Affairs and Film Programming
David Baldwin
Executive Vice President, Program Planning
Colin Callender
President, HBO Films
Shelley Fischel
Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration
Michael Gabriel
Executive Vice President, Information Technology and CTO
Ross Greenburg
President, HBO Sports
Eric Kessler
President, Sales, Marketing and Business Development
Michael Lombardo
Executive Vice President, Business Affairs, Production and Programming Operations
Sheila Nevins
President, HBO Documentary Films
Richard Plepler
Executive Vice President
Robert Roth
Executive Vice President and CFO
Carolyn Strauss
President, HBO Entertainment
Simon Sutton
President, Programming Distribution and International
Robert Zitter
Executive Vice President, Technology and CIO

And dont forget the camera man.... poor guy was censored! ( but he wont tell)



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
A building, 47 stories tall, heavily damaged by falling debris and a 3 story 'buldge' on the southwest corner falls straight down.

Explain in mathematical terms exactly how that is possible.

It is the laws of science that proves, or disproves, the argument of demolition.

Simple facts based solely on scientific evidence, physics, math you know what they teach in school.

Find one physicist that explain how undamaged supports failed, and kept Wc7 from falling sideways, that would be impressive.

4 legged table, take 1 leg away and the table falls straight down?

I hate to oversimplify, but it seems neccessary for some.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Yeah I know Cameron, not trying to say things that have already been said. No intention of clogging the board. I was just trying to view the WTC7 incident through the videos I have recently become aware of.

If we disregard for one second the reports and recorded sounds of bombs, then we are left with one major new, somewhat refined question:

Was it possible to predict the fall of WTC7 using the surveyors transit (or other equipment and expertise available on the day)?

That HBO video seems to be pretty key evidence - I mean what else could have caused those sounds? They're way too big for gunfire, and too concentrated to be the sounds of building materials disentegrating.

I know you're more on the political than the black op conspiracy, and I try to avoid unevidenced outlandish claims, but I feel I've seen more evidence (eyewitness, videos, the collapses) of explosive use than can be ignored.

I was also trying to provide an easy access point for people who have maybe missed some of the recent 'discoveries'.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Yeah Cameron, your lists are pretty annoying. Not only because they're non-sequiturs that you couldn't back up to save your life, but I have a good feeling that you don't know half as much about black ops as you would have to to even get an IDEA of who would HAVE to know ANYTHING.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
i personally believe that thousands of people are 'in on it'. at first glance, this seems ludicrous, but if you can entertain the idea that the cabal has been around FOREVER, then it becomes a lot easier.

imagine being born(and i do mean born) with the proverbial golden spoon up yer chute. and 'they' tell you, you can live like a king, and no one in your family will ever want for anything, or alternatively, you can be turned into less than dirt(along with everything and everyone you hold dear). your choice.

would YOU be able to keep a secret under these conditions? i consider myself to be very empathetic, and a philanthropist, but i don't know that i could resist the powers that be, given those choices.

and that's why, it's up to people with nothing to lose to save the planet. the poor. the downtrodden. the insane. the misfits. the freaks. the fringe.

well. that's a rap. pack it up, and get into your cell.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh.... WTC7 Had a bad foundation? Thats why this apartment complex collapsed. Please show me where the debris from a skyscraper hit it...and the severe fires that were burning for hours.


Do you discount the 4 steel buildings i have posted that fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings put together and structural damage caused by the fires and did not collapse. Can you come with evidence that the fire department site is lieing or wrong ?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Click on '18 floor chunk' in the top post on this thread to see the extent of damage to WTC7.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Yeah I know Cameron, not trying to say things that have already been said. No intention of clogging the board. I was just trying to view the WTC7 incident through the videos I have recently become aware of.

If we disregard for one second the reports and recorded sounds of bombs, then we are left with one major new, somewhat refined question:

Was it possible to predict the fall of WTC7 using the surveyors transit (or other equipment and expertise available on the day)?

That HBO video seems to be pretty key evidence - I mean what else could have caused those sounds? They're way too big for gunfire, and too concentrated to be the sounds of building materials disentegrating.

I know you're more on the political than the black op conspiracy, and I try to avoid unevidenced outlandish claims, but I feel I've seen more evidence (eyewitness, videos, the collapses) of explosive use than can be ignored.

I was also trying to provide an easy access point for people who have maybe missed some of the recent 'discoveries'.




Giordano Bruno~

Sorry if i dogged your thread... I can not prove or disprove what the explosions are in any of the videos. This is true. But...and explosion does not mean a bomb. It would be interesting to find those firemen and ask them if they knew what the source was. Also... might I add...how soon after this clip with the firefighters did the WTC7 building fall?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh.... WTC7 Had a bad foundation? Thats why this apartment complex collapsed. Please show me where the debris from a skyscraper hit it...and the severe fires that were burning for hours.


Do you discount the 4 steel buildings i have posted that fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings put together and structural damage caused by the fires and did not collapse. Can you come with evidence that the fire department site is lieing or wrong ?
Bold lettering added by me

Yes I do discount them... their damage was from FIRE...not from an airplane or from the debris of a 110 story building that collapsed.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I agree, I'd like to know the time and location of that footage too. Also any other footage from the area that might collaborate the sounds.

Also, in the first video, I love how the BBC reporter says 'we don't know what caused it, we don't want to get into politics'. Typical "Don't mention the war' British behaviour!



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Yes I do discount them... their damage was from FIRE...not from an airplane or from the debris of a 110 story building that collapsed.


So i guess you have evidence that the fire department site is wrong or they are lying when they state that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage ? The structural damage to some of the buildings was just as bad or worse the WTC 7 and the fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings put together.

So why is the Empire State builidng still standing since it was hit by a plane, had fire and structural damage.



[edit on 4-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CameronFox
Yes I do discount them... their damage was from FIRE...not from an airplane or from the debris of a 110 story building that collapsed.


So i guess you have evidence that the fire department site is wrong or they are lying ?


I'm not sure who you are talking about Ultima? What I was saying was that the buildings that you showed.. you claimed the structural damage was from the FIRE. I don't deny that one bit. It's obvious that fire can and DOES cause structural damage. BUT....the damage done to the 3 WTC towers was caused by MORE than fire.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The official story does not conform to the observable evidence. PERIOD. End of discussion.

If you can explain how the 47 story building fell straight down; all supporting columns failing simultaneously, then do so. Otherwise, stop foisting your ridiculous strawman arguments on us.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm not sure who you are talking about Ultima? What I was saying was that the buildings that you showed.. you claimed the structural damage was from the FIRE. I don't deny that one bit. It's obvious that fire can and DOES cause structural damage. BUT....the damage done to the 3 WTC towers was caused by MORE than fire.


As this site states steel buildings do not collapse from fire. These buildings had as bad or worse structural damage then building 7 and the fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings combined. The site is a fire department site, so i would like to see proof that they are wrong or lying when they say no steel buildings have collapsed from fire.

NIST and FEMA stated the plane impacts did not cause the collapse of the towers so the only thing left is fire.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...


Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.



The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.




[edit on 4-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
You can't disprove the official story of WTC7's collapse by inference i.e. 'buildings x, y and z didn't collapse so WTC7 shouldn't have'.

That's like saying that Joe Jack and Mary didn't die from leukaemia so Steve can't possible have.

If we are to believe that the official story regarding the collapse is true then it presupposes the fact that there was something unique about the construction and/or the damage to WTC7 that caused it's rapid collapse.

The discoveries of people at the scene (FDNY Depupty Fire Chief Peter Hayden, and Larry Silverstein) knowing about the imminent collapse also presupposes the fact that this unique collapse was predictable using scientific methods, apparently by around 14:00 that day.

The closer timing of the media reports (and on the ground warnings to 'get back') of it's collapse to the actual event suggest either that it was predictable to within a short period of time, or that the building had showed new signs of imminent collapse.

Of course that still leaves the eyewitness reports of explosions, the statements of emergency workers that it 'is going to blow up', and the HBO recorded sounds of explosions unexplained.

So again we're left with these questions:

1) What was unique about the contruction/and or damage of WTC7 that caused its collapse?

2) Why was the collapse so complete and rapid?

3) Who predicted it?

4) How?

5) If it was with a surveyors transit, do they still have the data and is it available?

6) What were the cause of (recorded) explosive sounds that caused eyewitnesses to believe bombs had gone off at the base of the building?

Also to Smack - if posting on this site required the belief in the conspiracy theory as a prerequisite then you'd be participating in a cult, not discussion. And please don't use 'straw man' in the same way non-CT'ers use 'Tin foil hat'. I'm bending over backwards to try and believe the official story, only when that's been absolutely, comprehensively disproven can I start to look seriously into other possibilities.



[edit on 4-3-2007 by Giordano Bruno]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
There is a concerted effort by some; to make the evidence fit their story. The Official story would not convince any jury watching the multitude of video and eyewitness evidence; it has not convinced more than a third of Americans (Scripps Howard, Ohio University, Zogby), and it has not convinced an even greater percentage of the World population.

The official story does not conform to the observable evidence.

By virtue of the ridiculous nature of the myriad government sponsored studies, the 9/11 commission and various magazine and newspaper articles on the subject, the hasty clean up of the crime scenes, the destruction of physical evidence, and the absurd level of secrecy surrounding remaining evidence; one can only conclude that the Government is hiding something.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Lets not forget some other important facts.

John Gross a NIST engineer says fires in WTC buildings not hot enough to melt steel. Yet WTC 1,2 &7 all had molten steel down in the basements of the buildings weeks after 9-11.

So what caused the molten steel if the fires were not hot enough to melt steel?

WTC 1,2,and 7 all came down in a controlled demolition fashion and the fire was not hot enough to melt steel but there was molten steel in the basements of the buildings then you have to look for added explosives such as thermite-thermate to account for the molten steel.

video.google.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join