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.

 

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown(Video added)

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Just a question...IF you are somehow implying that the workers that were inside of the collapse zone are "in on it" ... why would they tall anyone on their way out?


Well someone either told the media or they found out because both the BBC and CNN stated that building 7 had collapsed well before it actually collapsed.

Also the firechiefs on the scene were worried about builindg 7 collapsiing and causing more damage and spreading more fires.

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: The building just south of that was the Marriott.
Hayden: Across the street. That�s what I was concerned about, that the fire would jump the streets. We had exposure problems, so Bobby�s function was just to contain the fire there.



Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, 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.


My question is what were workers doing inside a safety zone that had been evacuated by the firechiefs, everyone should have been evacuated out of this area.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It was known for hours that the building may very well collaspe. (thats why there was a collapse zone) The media was aware of this...and even Peter Jennings ( i believe) stated something like.... What we have feared all day has happened. I will have to find the archive and post it.

What were the workers in there doing? I can't tell you. Do you have a source so that I may look into it? One thing I can assure you is that they would not be planting explosives then walking out saying that there were going to come down.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What were the workers in there doing? I can't tell you. Do you have a source so that I may look into it? One thing I can assure you is that they would not be planting explosives then walking out saying that there were going to come down.


I use several websites, professional and government.

It would not have taken much to bring the building down since it had some damage and some floors burned out. Also as stated by the EPA their must not have been any fires on the ground floor becasue they recovered all the fuel in the ground floor tanks.

If the building would have collapsed on its own it should have fallen over to the side that was damaged and not straight down.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm not doubting your claims about the workers. I was just looking to see what they were doing there. However, suggesting that there were explosives placed in a severly damaged burning building is not the theory i would go with. ( imo )


[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I'm not doubting your claims about the workers. I was just looking to see what they were doing there. However, suggesting that there were explosives placed in a severly damaged burning building is not the theory i would go with. ( imo )


Do you have a better explanation of how the building fell straight down even with damage to several floors on one side?

Also we have the conversation between the fire commander and Silverstein. The only reson for the fire commander to call Silverstein is to tell him they can not save the building and are worried about it causing more damage. Silverstein states that their has been enough lives lost and does not want anymore. So the fire commander decided to PULL the building (PULL means to bring a building down, just like it meant for building 6)

Also no other steel building has collapsed due to fires, even though they had longler lasting fires and more structural damage.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I just wanted to add something here. Just because people *FELT* the building might collapse in no way means it *SHOULD* have collapsed, and I don't think anyone that day thought it would collapse in the manner it did. Straight down in at a very high rate of speed.

There are many times that people *FEEL* something is going to collapse, the firefighters thought the Madrid buidling, The Windsor Bldg was going to collapse. It didn't.

Then when we add what was in Building 7 the case moves to suspicious and highly circumstantial.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima,

I really dont want to talk about that god forsaken Silverstein remark. Pull it is a term used to literally PULL a building down via cables. NOT explosives. This has been discussed so many times my head is spinning.

Building 6 was demolished via cables ...because they feared using explosives would cause more damage to the area.

I don't recall any witnesses stating that they saw massive cables being run out of the building. I also don't recall witnesses stating that they saw men carrying explosives into a burning building.

If you are suggesting that the building was PULLED via cables, there is not one tiny shred or proof, evidence, witneeses statements...etc.. that back it up. Again, if you think a CD via explosives in a damaged burning building is possible....um... you should just rethink that.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Talisman,

The building was reported to be leaning, and there were reports that the building was "moaning". Engineers feared it was coming down and there was also a test that i heard was done to confirm the lean of the building. I will need to find that source though. Either way, Chief Nigro ordered the collapse zone and it was followed through.

As far as "high rate of speed". Can you please tell me how long it should have taken for that building to collapse?

And the Madrid tower. The steel in the upper floors did fail and did collapse.









posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm not doubting your claims about the workers. I was just looking to see what they were doing there. However, suggesting that there were explosives placed in a severly damaged burning building is not the theory i would go with. ( imo )

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

would you believe that the exoplosives were already there? just wondering because on this very forum i saw a video where a doctor of law satses that he has an 'inside source' that claims 22 US cities are pre wired with nukes.

i know, it sounds crazy and all. however, credentials are one of the main ponts the OCT'ers make, yet every time someone with credentials says something against the grain, they are labeled 'kook'.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


JP, I have heard very little about the pre-wired nukes. Most of that stuff honestly I dismiss as nonsence. If you have a source, I would like to read it and then give you a fair opinion.

Thanks



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima,

I really dont want to talk about that god forsaken Silverstein remark. Pull it is a term used to literally PULL a building down via cables. NOT explosives. This has been discussed so many times my head is spinning.

Building 6 was demolished via cables ...because they feared using explosives would cause more damage to the area.

If you are suggesting that the building was PULLED via cables, there is not one tiny shred or proof, evidence, witneeses statements...etc.. that back it up. Again, if you think a CD via explosives in a damaged burning building is possible....um... you should just rethink that.


There are more ways to bring a building down other then using cables. Also Silverstein had no authority over what was going on, the fire commader decided to bring the building down for reasons explained by Chief Hayden.

Again, do you have any other evidence of why a builidng that had damage to one side would collapse straight down.

Also no other steel builidngs have collasped from fires and structural damage.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


NIST has not released their findings as far as the collapse. May I be so forward as to ask you what proof you have that shows this was a CD. (besides "it looked like one" )

I provided the photos showing the collapse of steel on the Madrid Tower.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I provided the photos showing the collapse of steel on the Madrid Tower.


Its been 6 years and NIST can still tell us what casued building 7 to collapse. Not that it matters, the FBI is the main investigating agency.

You should do a little more research. The Windsor building in Madrid was not a steel builidng.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel.


www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

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.




[edit on 16-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Quote by Captain Obvious:

"As noted by many in the area around WTC7 that the building was in jeopardy. Firefighters, EMS, police, engineers..etc. Not only "workers" that were inside the safe zone. The media was told that the building was in rough shape.

Just a question...IF you are somehow implying that the workers that were inside of the collapse zone are "in on it" ... why would they tall anyone on their way out?"



They weren't "in on it"--like so many other Americans in this new regime, they were told to do what they were supposed to do, and they did it. They knew it was coming down, but they were just accidental but necessary accessories to the event/crime.

All to show what a sloppy mess taking down WTC 7 was.


[edit on 16-9-2007 by gottago]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Redge777
 



You didn't read any more of my posts Redge, The man stated at approx. 1:05 of the video that he was working with a "Domain of Red Cross" people. This was not one guy with a Red Cross uniform. If this in deed was a "Back Op" person dressed as a Red Cross employee, why would he feel the need to look upset and tip off people that were around there?


I read all the posts, I just don't see it as impossible for someone in the know to be also working with a "Domain of Red Cross" or at least apearing to considering what must have been a hasty operation set up for the Red Cross.

The part about the guy covering the radio and him hearing a pulsing message does not sound like the kind of story one makes up, if he was making it up he would not have said it sounded like, he also would not have added the bit about the lady hitting him.

He might look upset because he was under the stress of being part of what was happening.

And anyone who does not believe that the agency that handles our blood supply does not have some monitoring if not active NSA contacts is not thinking it through, strickly for bio protection and the fact red cross has so much overseas access makes them a prime location for intel assets.

Red Cross is first one in to inspect prisoners if international community demans it. It is an American organization. It is in many world hot spots. ect..

Please don't make the argument The Red Cross would not want to hurt its neutrally by allowing assets, the management would not have to know, and it would not be writen of in the news.

I am actually astounded people are not thinking, guess who is on the board of governers currently at the red cross. Michael Chertoff Secretary
US Department of Homeland Security.

www.redcross.org...

This World government is intertwined with many large organizations. They not only got away with 9/11 they knew they would even when it is obvious. They got the media they got the corporations, and yes they got influence even in the red cross.
[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by six

If they whole purpose was to inflame the public at large....Why inform them to move at all? The bigger the death toll....the madder the populace Counter productive the the "black op" that is being run dont you think?



This is really reaching the point of I don't know let me try and guess a reason, it could go either way. My point is wearing or being with a group of red cross, does not exclude him from being part of something.

Why would red cross be handling crowd controll at all, maybe he instinctually did what he had been trained to do in that situation from his military/law enforcement background.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
To me, WTC 7 just simply does not add up at all, and I've come to the conclusion it was an afterthought, done on the fly.

First, if it was to have been part of the original plan, then it would have been brought down shortly after the north tower fell.



Maybe it was the target of the 4th plane, or maybe there was a 5th that failed we never heard of because it failed early, lots of maybees.

But the reason they waited is they knew it was messed up, no plane hit it, but they had to take it down. So they wait till everyone is paying attention to other things, and make sure no one dies so it gets as little coverage as possible, it is only one more element they messed up and their attempt to follow through with original plan tipped us all off and got us asking questions.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Pull it is a term used to literally PULL a building down via cables. NOT explosives.


I'm getting so sick of this argument it's rediculus. To "pull" a building means to demolish it. Using cables or explosives, it doesn't matter. The act of "pulling" the building is that they "pull" out the resistance and let gravity bring the building down. Pull it can just as easily mean with explosives as with cables. Look it up.


NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.


Source: www.pbs.org...

But, I guess you'll call Stacey Loizeaux a liar also.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
And the Madrid tower. The steel in the upper floors did fail and did collapse.




Yes, but notice how it did not have a global runaway collapse that lasted 6 1/2 seconds. There's a huge difference there.


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Redge777
 


There is a International Red Cross and a American Red Cross. Two different agencies. I am not sure..But I dont think the International Red Cross is American. I think they are based in Switzerland.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join