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.

 

WTC 7 revisited...

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Have 20 years experience in fire fighting


Even if I took your claim at face value (which I won't), what level of expertise does this prove? I know of several firefighters within such a bracket of experience who insist that spontaneous human combustion was a cause of a number of common house fires and fatalities.

Employment does not guarantee knowledge.




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Don't worry it seems as we slam them wit proof this is a CD or whatever..

They sit there and blow over it like at least 4 of my posts on this area...

Right Captain Obvious and thedman.

Where I literally caught CO contradicting himself, he hasn't stated anything about it. He has hasn't made a point about any of the videos and paper from WCIP i added up here.

But then again we cant expect people to think for themselves, and when you put them in the corner with proof they cant bring no more to the table.

I guess they will believe the tooth fairy, fire , act of god or something took it down, as time and time again we have proven CD.

I really don't even know why this forum is still open. If you go over all the threads on this particular area, you will notice nothing the official story rings true.

From the planes took the towers down. From fire taking WTC 7 down, to a plane hitting the pentagon all the way to the so called hero story with Flight 93. They shot that plane down and everyone knows it.

If you wanna debate this come with facts, not some fairy take NIST and FEMA came up with. We have millions of yrs of history to go on.. BRING THE PROOF or STFU.. Simple as that..

I will take the warn for my actions its well worth it.. cause most of these people on here still defending the official story are paid informants..

[edit on 7/31/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon
The only difference this video shows is that one corner of the penthouse collapsed locally


Exactly...

And that is a classic controlled demolition effect. Take out the central columns first, which is why the penthouse seems to collapse first, to make sure the outside walls fall inwards not outwards.

That doesn't happen in a natural collapse, period. All this stuff the de-bunkers claim proves it wasn't a demo actually prove it was, ironic huh?

Some great replies in here, the evidence for CD is overwhelming to say the least.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Where I literally caught CO contradicting himself, he hasn't stated anything about it. He has hasn't made a point about any of the videos and paper from WCIP i added up here.


Sorry, I havent had much time to answer all the U2U's and posts. I actually have somewhat of a REAL life outside of this screen and box that is sitting in from of me. Thich.. I will be more than happy to answer your posts. If I missed some, please feel free to point them out.





Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Ohh so a 500 degree fire cause that building to fall?
WTF you think we are stupid?
It takes 2400f at least for steel to weaken and 3000f for it to melt....


Well, considering you are off by literally HUNDREDS of degrees, I will let you answer your own questions about your possible stupidity. Most people in here know the temperatures of steel when it melts and when it weakens. Do a quick Google search if your not 100% sure. But seeing you had steel thrown down your throat...I would assume you know all of this.

a little hint... you are over 500 F OFF on the weakening of steel




Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Jprophet... look at :
1. the condition of the buildings
2. the fire in the buildings


Hmm Is this a contradiction on your part??


If one could read..they would read both 1&2. Yes fires were a component in the collapse of WTC7. So was the condition of the building after it was hit by tons of debris. So is there a contadiction on my part? NO... there is a lack of understanding on yours.

You then posted a link to a Wecomeinpeace paper at study of 911. All I had to do was look at the very first cropped picture of WTC7 to know what I was dealing with. Why not show the entire TV screen shot of WTC7? Well...we are in luck, I have the footage from ABC that shows the gouge on WTC7.


Google Video Link



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
This is the original ABC 7, Washington, D.C. footage, stretching 41:41 minutes, archived at Archive.org and accessible in streaming format.
ABC , 1:23 pm - 2:04 pm (September 11, 2001).

www.archive.org...

They zoomed in at the south facade of WTC 7 several times during their 9/11 coverage :

00:20 - 00:45
24:20 - 25:10
31:10 - 32:10 (the above Google-video piece linked)
36:50 - 37:25

The hardcore researcher can download this rare WTC 7 south facade video here :
www.archive.org...
Warning, very slow download at about 35Kb/sec. It's about 82 MB !

EDIT : free FLV player :
applian.com...
Only this player does not show the black band on the facade as clear as the Google video.
The streaming video from archive.org does show it, however.

EDIT2 :
Seems there is no deep damage cut into the south facade :
Late morning picture of WTC 7 south facade.



Comes from this Italian website which is dedicated to WTC 7 :
www.attivissimo.net...

[edit on 6/8/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
LaBtop...

Thanks....this is a VERY long download....

I need to find where this video originated from to see whats the deal here...give me a few more minutes to download all of this.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Why not show the entire TV screen shot of WTC7? Well...we are in luck, I have the footage from ABC that shows the gouge on WTC7.


And how does a gouge in the facade (that didn't harm the columns...since the gouge is a straight line between columns) actually lessen structural integrity? Please answer that one for me.

Oh no....the building's going to fall. There's no facade.




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
And as previously discussed in this thread. 130 Liberty St. got showered with tons of debris from WTC 2 collapse & had a huge gouge in it. Yet it didn't catch on fire & fall to the ground.



They took it apart piece by piece. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
This seems to be a good starting point to listen to what NIST had to say in their preliminary report in 2004 :

wtc.nist.gov...

Start reading at their pdf page L-17 and go on to page L-26, for damage reports after collapse of WTC 2 and 1.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Some good material in here. I've not seen any good pictures yet showing extensive fires in WTC7. Until I do I see no reason to believe that fire brought down that building not that it would anyways.

It is good to see that the 'system-players' are still on duty and working hard to keep us in ignorance.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
This seems to be a good starting point to listen to what NIST had to say in their preliminary report in 2004 :


I think the key here is "Preliminary."
Although I'm NOT holding my breath on the release of the final report. I will not use a preliminary report as gospel.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I think the key here is "Preliminary."
Although I'm NOT holding my breath on the release of the final report. I will not use a preliminary report as gospel.


This seems to be an admission that there is no official story... so, then I must ask... what story DO you believe regarding this issue?

Where are the final reports?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I think the key here is "Preliminary."


It's been "preliminary" for years, and it's way past due.


Unless they're going to change their story on how much damage there was again, I don't know what else they could do. It's not like they're using actual references when they talk about steel buildings falling.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
There are a few oddities to consider regarding events at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Source :

The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7, sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.”


So there seemed to be a fire condition 1 minute and 48 seconds after the first collapse of a WTC Tower (09:59:04), which was the furthest away from WTC 7, and WTC 1 and 5 and 6 were still standing and thus blocking the possible paths of most of the lighter and heavy WTC 2 debris.

An electrical overload in the ConEd powerstation under WTC 7, caused by the WTC 2 collapse? Unlikely, since we have lots of reports all over the day that the lower WTC 7 floors had no fires at all.

Then some impatient arsonist not willing to wait for the second tower collapse perhaps? Eagerly willing to destroy a few very damning files in one of those government offices, and promised a lot of money for doing so.
Just a thought.

Because it seems quite far fetched to suspect some burning paper or plastic being able to float against the wind, which came from northerly directions that day, flying through some open window and ignite an office fire.
Open windows are btw a no-no in high rises, because of unwanted wind loads inside the building.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Regarding the "preliminary" reaction :

I don't think we have to doubt that the witnesses that were interviewed by the NIST reporters will massively change their stories after all these years.
I doubt that even one of them will come forward to edit his interview in one of those preliminary NIST reports.
This kind of NIST data will stay consistently the same.

Their INTERPRETATION however, of non-human factors will probably change, as it did quite a lot over the years already, which is a good thing to observe, since an honest researcher will be willing to change his reports when confronted with new evidence or theories, which can be proved in practise.

I expect NIST to withhold their final WTC 7 report until after a new President and Congress is voted in.
Perhaps then they will be able to look neutrally at the facts, instead of being forced into fitting the facts into the wanted outcome by top echelons of the present US government.

A new government will perhaps feel the need to clean up shop; miracles happen sometime.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Source :

In an ABC live broadcast with Peter Jennings, Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he was across the street from the WTC 7 in their make-shift command center and then says he was told the WTC was "going to collapse."

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

-snip-

And then we went into Barkley Street, 75 Barkley Street, I think it was, and we were there when the building collapsed. And it collapsed in part on 75 Barkley Street. So we were trapped in the building for maybe 10 or 15 minutes trying to get out different exits. We finally went through a basement and came out 100 Park Place.

Q: Mr. Mayor, you mentioned you were on Barkley Street. What's the radius of damage that's been affected? How many of the side streets around the World Center --
MAYOR GIULIANI: I don't think we know yet. The whole area of lower Manhattan has been very much affected by it."


Giuliani abandoned the OEM bunker, at the 2 reinforced WTC 7 floors, already in the earliest stage of the attack.
If you read the NIST reports, you will not be able to find written or oral testimony of much of a sort of commanding structure coming out of that makeshift command center at 75 Barkley Street.
Remember, he had the top honcho's from OEM (Office of Emergency Management) there with him, the police commissioner, the fire commissioner and the head of emergency management.
One should expect these guys to take the reign. Not so.
Most NYFD and NYPD captains were still trying to contact the WTC 7 OEM and even dispatching men there to try to establish contact.

Now what I find most disturbing is the fact that Giuliani tries to become part of the heroism of many rescue workers of that day.
Where the hell, does he get the notion that WTC 2 fell PARTLY on 75 Barkley Street, his hide-out after he cowardly left prematurely his own OEM command center in WTC 7 ?
Is he crazy? Nothing even remotely weighting substantially anything ended on that building, originating from the WTC 2 collapse.

That street is at the north facade side of WTC 7, and he fled his hide-out there to that building's north side, to 100 Park Place.
Map

The only mildly disturbing thing which overcame him, was the dust cloud walsing through the streets after the collapse of WTC 2, the FIRST collapse, far away from his hide-out inside that building.

And this guy has the balls to try to become president?
The same guy who declared the air in Manhattan clean after 3 days?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
There are a few oddities to consider regarding events at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Source :

The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7, sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.”


So there seemed to be a fire condition 1 minute and 48 seconds after the first collapse of a WTC Tower (09:59:04), which was the furthest away from WTC 7, and WTC 1 and 5 and 6 were still standing and thus blocking the possible paths of most of the lighter and heavy WTC 2 debris.

An electrical overload in the ConEd powerstation under WTC 7, caused by the WTC 2 collapse? Unlikely, since we have lots of reports all over the day that the lower WTC 7 floors had no fires at all.

Then some impatient arsonist not willing to wait for the second tower collapse perhaps? Eagerly willing to destroy a few very damning files in one of those government offices, and promised a lot of money for doing so.
Just a thought.

Because it seems quite far fetched to suspect some burning paper or plastic being able to float against the wind, which came from northerly directions that day, flying through some open window and ignite an office fire.
Open windows are btw a no-no in high rises, because of unwanted wind loads inside the building.


Some really good questions LaBTop-

Any fire system in a complex such as this would have been much more advanced than one step above a smoke detector! They've been in use for decades.

" AREA 51 ON FIRE "

2PacSade-



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Source

Captain Chris Boyle - "And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

So we got water to 22, but then that’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down." - Firehouse Magazine (08/02)

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti - "At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there.

I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out?

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down." - Firehouse Magazine (08/02)


I am still thinking that such an important building as WTC 7, with so many influential inhabitants, should have got more attention from firefighter chiefs, and their bosses. But it seems as if already very early after both collapses, SOMEONE in a high enough position, ordered all water away from WTC 7, and let it aim needlessly at 5 and 6, which were full ablaze and were obviously lost.

And as we can see from that morning photo I posted above, at that time, circa half an hour after the WTC 1 collapse, the second collapse, there was very little fire or smoke at the south facade of WTC 7, the side facing the collapsing WTC 1.
And there were fire boats mored at the Hudson river kay, with a lot of pumping power, and lots of hoses.

In my opinion, that order could only come from Giuliani, or one of the 3 commissioners with him. These were the only high enough persons at the scene, to push through such an illogical act and convince firefighter chiefs and captains to follow through, whatever illogical it sounded.


And that order has been given at a highly suspicious EARLY time already.

WTC 7 could have been easily saved from the few fires reported in the hour after the WTC 1 collapse.
But some people didn't want it saved, it had to go down!



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
If this is not a perfect description of a controlled demolition, what else is?
Same source as above.


9/11 - A NYU medical student was watching the WTC 7 that was on fire and hears a clap of thunder, sees a shockwave rippling through the building, saw windows from it bust out, then sees the bottom floor cave out followed by the rest of the building.

Reporter: "I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl."
Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... We were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."
- 1010 WINS NYC (09/11/01) @ 1:22 into the video



www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
This seems to be an admission that there is no official story... so, then I must ask... what story DO you believe regarding this issue?

Where are the final reports?


First of all ask NIST where the report is.

Oh...hmmm...which story am I going to believe?

1. The story from hundreds of Engineers that have exhausted many hypothisis's, looked at many possibilities...(and continue to do so) including blast hypothisis. Who ALSO will not release a report until they have looked at EVERY possible scenario.

or

2. The hypothisis from paranoid Google and Youtube jockeys who claim that because the building "looked like a controlled demolition," it was in fact one. This conclusion was made even though:

a. No reports of explosions just prior to collapse.
b. No seismic data to support the theory.
c. Hundreds of firemen were standing around for hours (after the copllaspe zone was initiated)and not one claimed to have heard explosions.
d. Ct'ers refusal to believe the MANY eyewitness accounts to those that WERE on the scene and saw the building leaning, heard it groaning, and were witness to the many fires and severe damage that was done to the building.
e. Although holding strong to their CD theory, have yet to provide ANY proof at all to support the claim.
f. With the CD theory, not one resonable explanation as to how this building was configured to have a controlled demolition.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join