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 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 33
10
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The quotes I provided by Chief Hayden and Chief Nigro actually both confirm Silversteins quote....


How could Silverstein and the fire commander be talking on the phone about pulling the firemen when the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call was made?

Chief Nigro stated that he had EVACUATED the firemen without talking to anyone (that means BEFORE the phone call)

I REPEAT THE FIREMEN WERE OUT OF THE BUILDING BEFORE THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE AS STATED BY CHIEF NIGRO.

HE STATED HE EVACUATED THE FIREMEN WIHOUT TALKING TO ANYONE, SO THAT MEANS IT WAS BEFORE THE PHONE CALL.



[edit on 27-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Lets examine what SIlverstein actually said:


"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein


"They" made that decision to pull.

He did not say "I" made the decision to pull.

"They made the decision to pull"...they as in the chiefs at the WTC location. They informed him of their decision to pull the men back to a safe distance..."and then we watched the building collapse".

If the fire dept could not contain the fire, and didnt want to risk any more lives...why would they send in civilian demolitions teams in with explosives, to those very same buildings? He didnt want to risk any lives...but you could kill a few dozen demolition people if it happens to collapse on em.

does that even make sense?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Lets examine what SIlverstein actually said:

"They" made that decision to pull.


The "THEY" was the incident command. They decided to PULL the building to keep it from causing more damage and spreading more fires and to stop anymore loss of life.

Please explain how "they" could have meant the firemen when the firemen were already out of the building before the phone call was made?


[edit on 27-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I'm curious why the fire dept, which stated the were unable to contain the fire, and feared more deaths, would send in people with explosives. Too dangerous for firemen in protective suits, but safe for people to go in with explosives and plant charges?

No witnesses that saw people entering the building with hundreds of pounds of explosives? Able to set up everything in a building with an uncontainable fire?

Sounds more like a hollywood movie than reality. Chuck Norris?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why the fire dept, which stated the were unable to contain the fire, and feared more deaths, would send in people with explosives. Too dangerous for firemen in protective suits, but safe for people to go in with explosives and plant charges?


The fire commander (who is no longer a fire chief but in charge of all units there) and the incident command (please study emergency incident command) decided to bring down the building.

From the statemnt from the EPA, that since they recovered all the fuel from the Silverstein tanks there must not have been any fire on the ground floor.

Also fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for the rescue of people. It would not have taken much to bring down a building that was already damaged.

We also ahve the video of the hard hat workers coming out of the evacuated zone stating the buidling is coming down, the police are also telling people to get back.

Then there are the reports of first responders hearing the countdown over thier radios.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
We have the accounts of firefighters on the scene who reported the 20 story gash in the WTC7 building, uncontrolled fires on several floors and the building 'creaking', bulging & leaning with small pieces of the structure falling inside that gash. It makes perfect sense to me that the effort to save the building was 'pulled' and all rescue workers including any sightseers were 'pulled' back from the danger zone (note that is a far larger zone than just the inside of the building). It was an excellent call when you consider how many casualties occurred in that collapse IE none that I know of.

There is still no evidence of explosives doing their thing (exploding) to cause that collapse and what kind of explosive causes a building to bulge and lean for hours before it falls? In fact there's really no evidence of any structure destroying type explosions in any of the buildings. The only evidence of a controlled demolition is it looked a bit like one which isn't much at all.

It's good to see that the current NIST study of the WTC7 collapse has an outside team studying hypotheses involving thermite as part of the report yet to be finalised so perhaps that issue will finallly be sorted out (not to everyone's satisfaction no doubt).

On the subject of fuel: Salomon Brothers had the bulk of generation in WTC7 (9 MG sets) and their fuel tanks were found damaged and empty after the collapse. Those tanks (2 x 6000 gallons from memory) were maintained full at all times but evidence of the fuel having leaked into the clay they were buried in was notably lacking so it appears that most of the 12000 gallons of fuel went somewhere else like pumped into a fire prior to the tanks being damaged by the collapsing building.

We're still stretching to find any proof of conspiracy beyond the official conspiracy involving suicidal hijackers.





[edit on 27/3/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Well it sounds debunked to me. I also saw an interview with silverstein and in it he stated what he meant by pull it. What he said supports what disclosed posted.


Controlled Demo
Controlled demolitions start at the base of the structure. The WTC's starting falling at the top, the exact opposite way a CD occurs.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why the fire dept, which stated the were unable to contain the fire, and feared more deaths, would send in people with explosives. Too dangerous for firemen in protective suits, but safe for people to go in with explosives and plant charges?


The fire commander (who is no longer a fire chief but in charge of all units there) and the incident command (please study emergency incident command) decided to bring down the building.

From the statemnt from the EPA, that since they recovered all the fuel from the Silverstein tanks there must not have been any fire on the ground floor.

Also fire rescue have the equipment and knowledge to cut beams for the rescue of people. It would not have taken much to bring down a building that was already damaged.

We also ahve the video of the hard hat workers coming out of the evacuated zone stating the buidling is coming down, the police are also telling people to get back.

Then there are the reports of first responders hearing the countdown over thier radios.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


How exactly are you claiming they brought down the building?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
We have the accounts of firefighters on the scene who reported the 20 story gash in the WTC7 building, uncontrolled fires on several floors and the building 'creaking', bulging & leaning with small pieces of the structure falling inside that gash.

There is still no evidence of explosives doing their thing (exploding) to cause that collapse and what kind of explosive causes a building to bulge and lean for hours before it falls?

It's good to see that the current NIST study of the WTC7 collapse has an outside team studying hypotheses involving thermite as part of the report yet to be finalised so perhaps that issue will finallly be sorted out (not to everyone's satisfaction no doubt).

On the subject of fuel: Salomon Brothers had the bulk of generation in WTC7 (9 MG sets) and their fuel tanks were found damaged and empty after the collapse.


1. According to the FEMA reprot, firemen in building 7 reported damge to 10 floors (floors 8-18 on the south side of the buidling.

www.wtc7.net...

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.



2. NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing of explosives or chemicals.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.



3. The EPA recovered all the fuel in the main tanks so there must not have been any fires on the ground floor.

www.wtc7.net...

To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.



[edit on 28-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1

Is there a valid reason for discounting the firefighter reports of more extensive damage and fires?

FEMA recovered steel from WTC7 and produced that report on their findings of high temperature corrosion being evident. Of course there's no way to determine whether that damage happened pre or post-collapse.

From the testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Acting Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory:


The Salomon Brothers pressurized system is different. If the supply or return pipes were fractured along with the containment pipe and the generators started, the fuel pipes would be continuously pressurized, and any leak would continue until the storage tanks were empty as long as any one generator was running.

NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor (Langan 2002) hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and to mitigate any environmental damage from the Salomon Brothers tanks. The Salomon Brothers tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty, “Neither the UST’s (underground storage tanks) nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either UST.”

The tanks were installed on a concrete slab over existing silty sand. A layer of bedding gravel on the slab provided a foundation for the tank. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Also, the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus, it is likely that a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination in this soil.


That indicates that all the building's fuel was not recovered and at least 12000 gallons of it was available to fuel pre-collapse fires.

From NIST NCSTAR 1-1:


Salomon Brothers had a contract with a fuel delivery service who always
maintained the tanks full. Therefore, both tanks likely contained 6,000 gal of fuel on September 11, 2001.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
what kind of explosive causes a building to bulge and lean for hours before it falls?


The entire building was not leaning. The firefighter reports you must have in mind were only reported by some firefighters, while others there, like NYPD officer Craig Bartmer, went all around WTC7 and said there was only localized damage and not enough to cause the entire building to just up and crush itself into the ground.

What pictures do we have? Pictures of localized facade damage only.

That's the only thing there is evidence of, at WTC7. Superficial facade damage to the SW corner, and a gouge the width of a couple of windows on the South face, also facade damage. The minor SW corner damage that we can plainly see spans something like 20 floors downwards (I think it's actually 18, not sure), like at least one firefighter reported, but if anyone would like to explain to me how that caused the entire building to collapse, I have clear photos of that damage to serve as aids in your explanation.



In fact there's really no evidence of any structure destroying type explosions in any of the buildings.


You don't remember the man in the news a little while back for being in WTC7 on 9/11 and experiencing numerous explosions near the ground floor? You don't remember reporters on the day of 9/11, after the towers had already fallen, saying there were "subsequent explosions" every 15-20 minutes, or the FEMA seismic diagrams that show significant seismic events about every 15-20 minutes after the towers fell? Or the controversial sounds that people keep asserting was the wind blowing on microphones, when in reality that would just create noise that would be present across all frequencies and not just a low-frequency boom? Craig Bartmer (the NYPD officer) even said when WTC7 started "collapsing," the lowermost floors exploded outwards over his head as if bombs were going off. The man was right there when it happened.

How does none of that constitute evidence? The answer is because you're biased. You refuse to see any of that evidence, and instead you will actively seek to discredit it in your own mind, and in your posts, rather than actually sit and soak in the information and think about the situation. That's why you never see any evidence. That NYPD officer is no less credible of a witness than any FDNY member, and neither is the other man who came forward some weeks/months ago about WTC7. Not even counting all the other witnesses who provide testimonies to all other bizarre events that the 19 hijackers couldn't have been responsible for, at the towers and elsewhere in and around the complex.


The only evidence of a controlled demolition is it looked a bit like one which isn't much at all.


The towers didn't look like conventional demolitions at all. WTC7 did, because it pretty much was. It's roof line accelerated at free-fall. 9.8m/s^2. Period. End of discussion, no contest, that is a controlled demolition by the simple fact that the building's inertia did not slow it at all. That people cannot come to grips with this is not my problem, but the free-fall acceleration had me sold the instant I saw that building collapse, because I intuitively understand what the problem really is here. I don't need anyone else to tell me what I am looking at. I don't need to know why engineers still can't explain it.




It's good to see that the current NIST study of the WTC7 collapse has an outside team studying hypotheses involving thermite as part of the report yet to be finalised so perhaps that issue will finallly be sorted out (not to everyone's satisfaction no doubt).


Maybe you've seen this already?

Associated Press: ASCE accused of covering up 9/11, Katrina issues, by fellow engineers


Seed accused the engineering society and the Army Corps of collusion, writing an Oct. 20 letter alleging that the two organizations worked together "to promulgate misleading studies and statements, to subvert appropriate independent investigations ... to literally attempt to change some of the critical apparent answers regarding lessons to be learned."

[...]

In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.

But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

[...]

Corley said the society's study was peer-reviewed and its credibility was upheld by follow-up studies, including one by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

"I hope someone looks into the people making the accusations," Corley said. "That's a sordid tale."



You wouldn't need the AP to report this to you if you actually thought about the same things these engineers actually consider, on the same level. Faith is dangerous.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
FEMA recovered steel from WTC7 and produced that report on their findings of high temperature corrosion being evident.


Which raises the question if FEMA thought it was important enough to recover steel from building 7 and do testing for explosives and chemicals why didn't NIST?

The explanation FEMA gives sounds very close to thermite.

911research.wtc7.net...

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.



911research.wtc7.net...

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.




[edit on 28-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 





The only evidence of a controlled demolition is it looked a bit like one which isn't much at all.



Completely disagree with your assertion.

#1. It looked more then a "bit" like a controlled demolition.
#2. It is strong evidence, since you can't point to any skyscraper doing that previous!
#3. Other buildings such as the Empire State Building were actually hit by a plane and didn't suffer collapse.


..the way it collapsed --also EMP saying "THE BUILDING IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP".

Its one thing to collapse looking like a demolition and being a skyscraper, but its entirely another matter when you have people predicting the collapse almost to the minute!!!

Please show me COMPLELTE building collapses(toward their own footprint) that people can predict almost to the minute that are NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS??






[edit on 28-3-2008 by talisman]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 28-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Completely disagree with your assertion.


Yes we have the video of the hard hat workers coming out of the evacuatio zone stating the buidling is going to come down and the cops starting to move people back.

We also have reports of first responders hearing the countdown over their radios.

But most important, no steel buidling has ever collapsed due to fire.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



But most important, no steel buidling has ever collapsed due to fire.


Because all buildings designed the same and have had the exact same damage.
*snickers*



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because all buildings designed the same and have had the exact same damage.


But what about buildings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then building 7 and still did not collaspe?

What about buidlings at the WTC that had longer fires and worse damage then buidling 7 and still did not collaspe?

I will state again since you have a hard time with it.

NO STEEL BUIDLING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 



Hey Wraoth, read this:



In 2002, the society's report on the World Trade Center praised the buildings for remaining standing long enough to allow tens thousands of people to flee.

But, the report said, skyscrapers are not typically designed to withstand airplane impacts. Instead of hardening buildings against such impacts, it recommended improving aviation security and fire protection.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.


ASCE Accused of 911 Cover-Up


When was the last time the National Science Foundation ever gave you money, friend?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. According to the FEMA reprot, firemen in building 7 reported damge to 10 floors (floors 8-18 on the south side of the buidling.


Quote from Captain Chris Boyle:
www.firehouse.com...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.


So are you saying that the firemen that were actually in the building lied about there only being damage to 10 floors?


According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree.




[edit on 28-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join