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.

 

If the twin towers were demolished why haven't the firefighters said anything?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
If the twin towers were demolished why haven't the firefighters said anything?

This for me is an obvious question. According to Wikipedia 341 New York City Fire Department firefighters were killed when the towers collapsed. That's some death toll. Now, the people searching for weeks through the debris for bodies and body parts were, yes, you guessed it, New York firefighters. If the towers were demolished that would mean a hell of a lot of demolition explosives. A HELL of a lot. Plus all the detonators and wires and the rest. Yet firefighters, searching through the rubble for weeks, never once stumbled upon anything suspicious. Not a single tiny thing that aroused their suspicions. Makes you think doesn't it.

Now, before you start saying they were silenced, you have to remember who we're talking about. Firefighters who have lost 341 of their comrades. These people would not and could not be silenced. If one firefighter had found anything at all in the rubble that suggested explosives then the whole of the New York Fire Department would know about it in hours. And you couldn't threaten men who as part of their job are ready to risk their lives at any given moment.

If it was demolished then how come the silence from the firefighters?

Bananaman.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
There is a very compelling video in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are plenty of firemen who heard/felt explosions. [SNIP]

[edit on 9/14/07 by HaveSeen4Myself]



REMOVED - unecessary remark.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14-9-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
www.rense.com...
www.rense.com...
www.rense.com...

You can google the rest for yourself..



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
first of all,think about how many electrical wires there would be in buildings of that size.how could you differentiate between normal wire to supply electricity and wires that were specifically associated with imploding the building?furthermore,since the buildings were reduced to mostly dust and small debris,i could see not finding anything substantial enough as far as detonators to blow the whistle on anyone.they said they the biggest piece of office equipment they found was half a keyboard-think about that.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
There is a very compelling video in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are plenty of firemen who heard/felt explosions. Maybe you've been hiding under a rock?

[edit on 9/14/07 by HaveSeen4Myself]


No need to insult him. When someone asks a question answer him or her.

I think he meant Why are they not talking about it and making it public since 9-11.

Maybe they are under a gag order. But there is a video of firemen discussing the explosions.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bushwig
If the twin towers were demolished why haven't the firefighters said anything?


I think the towers were demolished. Was it a controled demolition? Thats the question right?

Well I believe aircraft hit the buildings. Was this enough to cause the resulting effect that was witnessed? Thats really the question right?

So ask yourself if you were trying to bring down the towers with airplanes as a distraction would you need to "wire the whole building" or just the inner core structure?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I admit I've not had a chance to view all the links posted in reply to my question, but I will. I've glanced at a few while I'm at work. The little I've seen doesn't really address my question. (I''m knackered, it's Friday and I've just got to my girlfriend's pc late at night).

I've seen the clips of firefighters immediately after escaping the buildings saying they heard things that sounded like explosions or bombs. You might be amused to know I believe these reports verify the official story. If supporting trusses and columns are snapping prior to the building collapsing and causing the travesty they would sound like what exactly?...you can guess.

Scarystuff's links are far more interesting and I'll investigate further, but I notice the dates are 2 years after the calamity.

What I'm driving at is that these people, having lost 341 of their comrades, never found anything in the rubble they could hold up and say, "hang on, what the hell is this?". Rich says the biggest bit of office equipment they found was half a keyboard! Well, in looking for evidence of demolition that's pretty blooming big in my book.

Bananaman.









[edit on 14-9-2007 by Bushwig]

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Bushwig]

[edit on 14-9-2007 by Bushwig]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
I think the towers were demolished. Was it a controled demolition? Thats the question right?

Well I believe aircraft hit the buildings. Was this enough to cause the resulting effect that was witnessed? Thats really the question right?

So ask yourself if you were trying to bring down the towers with airplanes as a distraction would you need to "wire the whole building" or just the inner core structure?


Planes did hit the towers but all reports state the towers withstood the planes impacts.

More and more first responders are speaking out against the official story.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
IMHO there should have been a sizable debris field. The pics I saw today lead me to believe they were vaporised to dust and sand. The only thing that could accomplish this feat would be some kind of outrageous weaponry. Again in my humble opinion . I know this subject is a powder keg for obvious reasons.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I am reminded of the Nostradamus quatrain relating to an attack upon the new city. There are so many obvious anomalomies in this entire diasaster it is really hard to break it down into objective pieces.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
after reading the lawsuit thats currently filed in a u s district court in new york,i understand now why there were no explosive residual found.its called "psy ops" for short or psychological operations whereby they create the illusion of planes hitting the towers.i repeat-NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS-THEY WERE DESTROYED BY HIGH ENERGY WEAPONRY AND LASERS!I URGE YOU TO READ THE LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED!!!!!WHEW-THANK GOODNESS!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I'm sorry Rich, I just don't concur. Non AA planes with funny appendages did hit the towers. But I believe it was a ruse to blow them into oblivion with weapons that are not in mainstream understanding. That's just my objective conclusion.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Can anybody give me a reply to my question?

Why no evidence from firefighters, seriously upset, saying 'it was demolished'.?

Bananaman



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bushwig
You might be amused to know I believe these reports verify the official story. If supporting trusses and columns are snapping prior to the building collapsing and causing the travesty they would sound like what exactly?...you can guess.


I understand where you are coming from, however a great deal of firefighter's first hand accounts state they heard (and some were actually there to feel) explosions in the basement before the plane hit. What would have caused that?

Another point the firefighters brought up was the pools of molten steel, that were literally 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel is capable of reaching.

If you are looking for more media coverage regarding this, it was out all over at the time, but since all those stories have been suppressed and retracted. Check out the movie Zeitgeist for a comprehensive collection of firefighters giving their own accounts, before anyone else got to them, to persuade them into one theory or another.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Maybe the fact that the firemen were warned not to talk about it lest they lose their jobs made them be careful about what they said. The FACTS remain: MANY firemen stated that they heard EXPLOSIONS . not popping and cracking as ' beams ' snap apart. Exposions are different than any other sound, it does not imitate the sounds of breaking supports made of steel.

There is a wealth of info out there yet you are demanding that we provide you with a specific quote from a specific profession and that is not only lazy and shallow but disingenuous as well. Just because some fireman does not spell it out for you, and risk being fired, does NOT mean anything at all. MANY firefighters reported massive explosions; one can assume that they know the difference between explosions and buildings popping. Stell buildings do NOT make the same sounds that wood and concrete frame ones do.

If you read and study and look at all of the reports, you CANNOT come away believing the offocial story, not unless you are starting with a preconceived notion from the beginning. The Towers were felled by a combination of conventional explosives and high energy directed energhy weapons, most likley space based. That will acount for all of the effects seen and heard that day. The offocial story is not even CLOSE to being likley or believable, and yet there are still those out there that swallow the story hook, line and sinker because they CANNOT face up to a horrendous truth: We have been attacked from WITHIN by TRAITORS to the Constitution, and these perps are still free and playing us for fools every day: We know who they are and basically what parts they played; but the media will not tell the people what the facts are, the coverup is almost total.

Do some due diligence and quit demanding that others produce evidence for you; find contrary evidence that has the same likleihood and weight of facts and then we will listen. You have a lot of learning to do about the subject, and even your questions show that you are stepping into this unprepared and not able to keep up with the proofs already presented.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1




Planes did hit the towers but all reports state the towers withstood the planes impacts.




Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. Did you mean 'it appears that planes hit the towers?'

I know there is a lot of videos and eywitnesses to what appeared to be planes hitting the towers but there are a lot of eyewitnesses to illusions and magic acts particularly here in Vegas. 911 was no different.

As there was no shred of evidence that any planes actually hit the towers in the form of debris, (engines, engines cores, wing planks, centersections, spars, jeps, actuators, ogygen cylinders, landing gear forgings, things that can't possibly burn up in the short time and temperatures of the WTC fire) I would respectfully suggest that you qualify your statement, "Planes did hit the towers" with "It appears from eyewitness reports and videos that planes hit the tower."

That way people wouldn't get the impression that you were making a statement without the slightest bit of evidence................ < ahem> as I have often been accused.


Thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

thats one of the better videos, you can do a youtube of google search for other eyewitness first resonder accounts.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. Did you mean 'it appears that planes hit the towers?'

I know there is a lot of videos and eywitnesses to what appeared to be planes hitting the towers but there are a lot of eyewitnesses to illusions and magic acts particularly here in Vegas. 911 was no different.

As there was no shred of evidence that any planes actually hit the towers in the form of debris, (engines, engines cores, wing planks, centersections, spars, jeps, actuators, ogygen cylinders, landing gear forgings, things that can't possibly burn up in the short time and temperatures of the WTC fire) I would respectfully suggest that you qualify your statement, "Planes did hit the towers" with "It appears from eyewitness reports and videos that planes hit the tower."

That way people wouldn't get the impression that you were making a statement without the slightest bit of evidence................ < ahem> as I have often been accused.


Thanks for the post.


Well i for 1 i was just in a debate with others on another forum about what caused the towers to collapse.

Both the NIST and FEMA reports state planes hit the towers, but they state the buildings withstood the impacts. Also we have plenty of facts and evidence that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse.

Problem is we have no FBI or NTSB crime scene reports so we do not have any real evidence of what happened at the towers. Also i have problem with why the FBI only worked on the crime scene at the Pentagon for 5 days after stating it would take 30 days.

If you want to discuss anything about 9/11 i have been doing a lot of research and i have a background in aviation and federal law enforcement, and still work for the government.

I know that you have a very respected background in aviation and also do a lot of UFO research, which i also like to do.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1




Both the NIST and FEMA reports state planes hit the towers, but they state the buildings withstood the impacts. Also we have plenty of facts and evidence that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse.



Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. Let me respectfully suggest that you read Morgan Reynolds QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff/Relator Dr. Morgan Reynolds on behalf of the United State of America vs.numerous defendants and the NATURE OF ACTION allegations No. 1 through 15, II. Jurisdiction (allegations) 16, III. VENUE (allegation) 17. IV. PARTIES (allegations) 18-42,V. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT (allegations) 43(a)(b) VI.THE NIST WTC INVESTIGATION (allegations) 44-49, VII. THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME (allegations(50-53, VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FLASE STATEMENTS TO NIST (allegations 54-58 (and I refer specifically to 55.(d)(i)(ii)), IX. DAMAGES (allegations) 59 and the subsequent 7 (seven) CAUSES OF ACTION and PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

I suggest this because without having knowledge of the allegations therein any speculation about 911 is lacking in key information.

Thanks again for your post.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. Let me respectfully suggest that you read Morgan Reynolds QUI TAM COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Docket No. May 31, 2007 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff/Relator Dr. Morgan Reynolds on behalf of the United State of America vs.numerous defendants and the NATURE OF ACTION allegations No. 1 through 15, II. Jurisdiction (allegations) 16, III. VENUE (allegation) 17. IV. PARTIES (allegations) 18-42,V. THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT (allegations) 43(a)(b) VI.THE NIST WTC INVESTIGATION (allegations) 44-49, VII. THE DEFENDANTS' SCHEME (allegations(50-53, VIII. FALSE CLAIMS AND FLASE STATEMENTS TO NIST (allegations 54-58 (and I refer specifically to 55.(d)(i)(ii)), IX. DAMAGES (allegations) 59 and the subsequent 7 (seven) CAUSES OF ACTION and PRAYER FOR RELIEF.

I suggest this because without having knowledge of the allegations therein any speculation about 911 is lacking in key information.

Thanks again for your post.




John,

I have looked over the complaint. I am not sure what facts and evidence he has to support his complaint. I have been doing a lot of research to find out what happend that day. So far i have come up with more questions then answers.

I have a theory of what happened to the towers from government and professional research sites (no hard evidence to suppot it YET)

" The 911 attacks used unconventional high explosives (commercial jet fuel), unconventional delivery systems (aluminum aircraft, associated metals and oxides) to create high explosive blasts, extreme temperatures and thermite reactions that caused the collapse of the twin towers. "

We have a lot of reports that i have not seen any investigations into, such as the police report of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building at the towers. I have seen a photo of some damage done to the roof of the Woolworth building.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join