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 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I hate to tell Mr. Firefighter, but I have way more than just internet degrees. I'd like to know what kind of education he has? Other than being a hose monkey?




Griff,

I have always respected your opinions based on your background and open mind. I was planning on responding to your most recent thread until I read the above.

I have to tell you that I am dissapointed that you would make a comment like this.

A hose monkey?

My family... Grandfather, Uncles, Father, and brother are (or were) hose monkeys.

They climbed the ranks, some made it as high as Chief. Some were/are Emergency Medical Technicians. I can't tell you how many lives my firefighting family has saved responding to the call.

As a firefighter, my brother had also volunteered as a grief counselor for the state of Massachusetts. He sat in the firestation in Worcester, Ma. after they lost 9 brothers to a fire. He would sit with State Police officers when one was killed, or when a search for a missing child ended with not so good results.

My brother while on his 2nd year as a firefighter pulled his friend out of a burning house they were fighting. His friend was dead. More than 10 years later the sights of his dead, burnt friend still haunt him at night.

He was also at ground zero. He was there while his brothers were still being pulled out of the rubble dead. He sat in firestations for hours upon hours trying to console his brothers that had all lost so many.

When I picked up my brother from the train station after his week at ground zero, his eyes were different. He was changed. Still, today he is not the same man he was before his eyes saw the war zone.

So, you see Griff although some firefighters may be in it for only the good pension, there are many more that are there to save people they never met.

My Mom had this hanging in our pantry:

A Fireman's Prayer:

When I am called to duty, God,
Whenever flames may rage;
Give me strength to save some life,
Whatever be its age.

Help me embrace a little child
Before it is too late
Or save an older person
From the horror of that fate.

Enable me to be alert
And hear the weakest shout,
And quickly and efficiently
To put the fire out.

I want to fill my calling
And to give the best in me
To guard my every neighbor
And protect his property.

And if, according to my fate,
I am to lose my life,
Please bless with your protecting
My children and my wife.


- Author Unknown




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm MASSIVE fires?

It's not building design it's physics, and WTC 7 defied the laws of physics by collapsing into the path of most resistance without any friction/resistance from undamaged building structure. For that to happen all columns would have to fail at the same time, otherwise you would end up with a steel burned out shell and a partial collapse.

There is only one way a building will fall straight down and that's if all the columns fail at the same time, and that doesn't happen unless it was controlled.


Who told you that, and why do you believe it? Don't buy it Anok.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Griff's "hose monkey" remark was a counter to the fireman's "self-appointed experts from the University of Google" put down.
I agree - it was disrespectful and disappointing.


reply to post by 911truthisalie
 
Your asinine one line comment is clearly just to up the link ranking of your website - the usual ad hominem fest that passes for debunking. It's a disgrace, not just to you but, more importantly, to the many who lost loves ones that day and are still crying out for a genuine investigation.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


That firefighter was not speaking of those like Griff who in fact have degrees. It was not ann attack on him and he knows it.

I am in meetings all day today... Thank you Evil for your contributions to this thread.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
As a firefighter, my brother had also volunteered as a grief counselor for the state of Massachusetts. He sat in the firestation in Worcester, Ma. after they lost 9 brothers to a fire. He would sit with State Police officers when one was killed, or when a search for a missing child ended with not so good results.

He was also at ground zero.


Who else claimed this recently? I believe it was Cameron Fox. Even the same state of Massachusetts.

Interesting.


Originally posted by CameronFox
My brother was a grief counselor at Ground Zero... so I am "connected?"


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by CameronFox
My brother was called to ground zero within a couple of days as a grief counselor. They confiscated his camera as soon as he approached the "check point". He was told they were not allowed. So Bsbray is 100% right.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, Cameron Fox, I was responding to the jab of "google degrees".



[edit on 6/26/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/26/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Origin-ally posted by 911truthisalie
Who told you that, and why do you believe it?


Nobody had to tell me that, I have enough education and experience to figure all that out for myself thanx.

Quit looking at 9-11 sites for your info, they're all biased. Go learn some basic physics, understand it and then apply it.

Think for yourself...



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Quit looking at 9-11 sites for your info, they're all biased. Go learn some basic physics, understand it and then apply it.


Now now there ANOK you know that isnt true..

I am only speaking of 1 site...

I agree the rest are biased and dont give the whole truth.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
You guys are forgetting to add in the massive structural damage (in conjunction with the fires) caused by WTC1 falling into WTC7. A gash was cut through the building from the top floor down more than 20 stories, which cut through major support beams and left the building leaning inward towards the gash.

Still no evidence of a controlled demo though. Also, nobody can provide any structural evidence that proves if the building fell from fire and structural damage, that it would collapse any different than it did.

WTC1 hitting WTC7:


Damage starting at the top:


The gash going down the center, covering over 20 stories. You can actually see the building leaning inward starting at the "NEW YORK CITY" graphic:


VIDEO OF THE DAMAGE (30 seconds in shows the gash WTC1 made). This building was now all over the news because firefighters reported it was going to fall and because of the severe damage that backed up their claims:


NIST diagram which depicts the damaged areas caused by WTC1:










[edit on 26-6-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Origin-ally posted by 911truthisalie
Who told you that, and why do you believe it?


Nobody had to tell me that, I have enough education and experience to figure all that out for myself thanx.


I pretty much gathered that. It shows. Your understanding of structural engineering, the design of WTC 7, and the fires is completely amateurish and a paraphrasing of 9/11 tutherism beliefs.


Quit looking at 9-11 sites for your info, they're all biased. Go learn some basic physics, understand it and then apply it.

Think for yourself...


Your distorted thinking is one of the reasons I created an advertising campaign. Just read what David Ray Griffin wants to con you into believing.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
The gash going down the center, covering over 20 stories. You can actually see the building leaning inward starting at the "NEW YORK CITY" graphic:


You can tell a building is "leaning" from a composite pic from a pixilated video off of youtube? Good eye there.

BTW, I see no columns destroyed or severed in that pixilated pic. But, I would be hypocritical if I claimed conclusively there weren't. If you get my drift?

But, back to the columns. They still had horizontal bracing from the other direction. If anything, the building would have fallen into itself towards the center of that hole. The path of least resistance. As stated by you, it was already "leaning" in that direction. What caused the building to implode instead?

Was the building that cheaply made that it couldn't resist some of it's interior partially collapsing?

Mud huts in Ethiopia are built better than that.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 911truthisalie
 


Dude I don't give a damn what you say, or about your web site that you keep plugging here on ATS. Which I believe is against T&C?

I could make a web site with wild claims with nothing to support it too.

If you had read any threads here you would see your 'hypothesis' has already been de-bunked many times. Sorry but I'm not going to re-hash it all over again, do some reading.

And go take some basic physics classes.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
You guys are forgetting to add in the massive structural damage


Please show me this massive structural damage to WTC7.

I have yet to see it, and trust me I've been looking for the last 5 years.

Also please explain how sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage can cause a complete global collapse into its own footprint.

And please don't quote the NIST report at me, as it is in question and nothing in it explains WTC 7, or the towers collapses.

Where is your research?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I agree that the amount of fire is not 100% certain. To determine the amount of fire, we look at video & photographic evidence. We also take into account witness statements. Together you draw your conclusion.


What conclusion? Even after you drill the fact that "there were fires," the fire still has to transfer enough heat to columns to cause sufficient deflection/buckling, because you know it isn't just going to melt, right? So where do you conclude there was anywhere enough heat to do that? No one has even been able to decide what structural elements are relevant to the theoretical mechanism, aside from columns ultimately failing somehow in an apparently telescoping motion...

In the towers they had an excuse: the relatively weak trusses and their connections. That was their scapegoat. There is a problem with Building 7. I hope you're not thinking the idea is supposed to be that the columns simply lost strength and gave way. If you've been paying attention then you already realize that both FEMA and NIST always stayed away from this idea, both with the Twin Towers and so far with WTC7. It's because the idea is completely ludicrous to anyone who knows anything about fire and steel. The trusses deforming/sagging from so much heat, which leads to additional stress elsewhere, is much more plausible (which isn't saying much) than column-failure theories involving simply overheating the columns. It's really not much more mature than thinking the columns actually melted.


I am not saying that fire ALONE caused the collapse. You are also correct, NIST has yet to determine the cause. I am clearly showing folks in here that there were massive fires. I am showing this by showing the evidence that has been available for 6 years.


Yes, and that's great evidence. Unfortunately, fire does not automatically negate the possibly of demolition. So I'm not sure what it's supposed to be evidence of.


I am not biased as I have yet to see any evidence to prove that this was a C.D.


Nor that it was a "natural" event, so really you are agnostic about the whole thing, right? Because there is really no hard evidence (in the sense you apparently demand) either way. Or are you a hypocrite, and really are biased? Come on, "twoofer" is probably on the tip of your tongue already. You have already been polarized into an "us and them" thinking. I hope you're just lying to me and not to yourself. Eh, Cameron?


Now, in regards to Craig Bartmer.


He is former NYPD and his testimony stands regardless of some nobody on a forum picking apart his every word. Get over it.


Does he know what a building sounds like as it is falling?


Being the genius that you are, I suppose you do? That it's just naturally supposed to sound like a series of bombs are going off, right? Then what's it supposed to sound like when there's actually bombs in there? Something different?


So, should I assume this man knows what size hole WOULD "Knock down a building?" What size hole did he see?


This is the same thought that crosses my mind every time you reference the "hose monkeys."

Sorry if it hurts your feelings but it's dead-on as far as I'm concerned. These people (the firefighters) are not experts on the subject, they had simply been through a traumatic day of two buildings being demolished over them already. Before 9/11, no skyscrapers had ever globally "collapsed," they weren't even expecting any to collapse after the impacts, yet two "collapses" later and these guys are now qualified experts that you will hinge your entire opinion upon? And you say you realize that there is no explanation on WTC7 yet? Which is it? What did the firefighters know, exactly, and how did they know it?

Just so you know, I'm of the opinion that a perimeter was cleared around WTC7 intentionally, and that while everybody was told it was going to be "coming down," no one was asking how or why. It was set up intentionally for the same reason Rudy Giuliani knew WTC2 was coming down before the firefighters did. For the same reason that he left his bunker in WTC7 shortly before WTC1 came down. It was people like him that knew WTC7 was going to be demolished, not the firefighters. They were just going off what little they actually saw/heard personally, which included orders to simply evacuate the area before the building came down. No explanation given by the people actually saying to clear out, other than "it's coming down." It's that simple. Come to the conclusions you'd like (you already have, of course). That's what the firefighters and police officers (and every other witness) did, too.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I've read through this thread...wow.

I'm new to this site. I hav'nt spent much time on the 911 issue here. I've done lots of research on it though. IMO when all apects and evidence of the days events are laid out in a logical manner, it is clear to me this is a well thought out plan to boost support for the war. To focus on the south side of WTC 7 and somehow equate it with the reason for the collapse and thereby proving that the whole affair was caused by the planes is flawed logic. I'm sorry that it's hard for people to admit the government is so insidious as to pull something like this, but the conspiracy lies in maintaining this was caused by the planes alone.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Chief Nigro had been communicating/taking orders all day from the OEM, FEMA, and officials from Rudy Giuliani's office, all watching the entire complex from WTC7's bunker until shortly before WTC1 collapsed.


oh?



Before I post testimony confirming where Chief Nigro was getting his orders, tell me would it even mean a damned thing to you if he was taking his orders from the bunker in WTC7, where Rudy, the OEM and FEMA set up their TRIPOD II command post the day before?

Why or why not?

[edit on 26-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Why so many windows blown out 'in a row' on the lowest level of the (West?) side?

Plus - I've seen home fires with larger plumes.

And when I say "screw them" I mean like the emergency service provider teams in the 9-11 buildings. When I say screw "it", i mean it.

-Pull-it.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Just found this bit of testimony hosted by the New York Times and thought it was extremely interesting.


This how firefighter command first got the idea that buildings were going to be falling, and look where they said it came from (it's the NYT's txt converted from pdf graphically, so bear with it) :


A. At that point I donít know exactly when the
Commissioner and Mayor had left. It was pretty soon after
they had left that Richie Zarillo, who works with EMS -- I
believe heís an OEM liaison --came running up to me. I was
not on the ramp at this time. I was like almost at the sidewalk location.

[...]

Richie Zarillo came up to me. [I'll] go back to that. He
said that these buildings are in imminent danger of co11apse~ T
went right up to the Chief because I was a few steps away. I said
Chief, these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. And he
said to me who would would tell you something like that?


And he looked at me and he had that determined -- [
have to say probably scared look on his face, who would tell you
something like that. I said Richi-e, come over here and tell the
Chief what you just told me. He got the words out of his mouth. I
think it was maybe 25, 30 seconds later, maybe, the building came
down.

Q. Did Zarillo ever say what he based that

opinion on?


A.

get that from? He said from OEM. We were trying to determine
exactly how he got it. In retrospect, how did he get it?
He was
walking towards us. Was he coming towards us anyway and he got it
over his radio? I think he told me he got it from Peruggia. There
was like a relay type of thing, which maybe we should have and
didnít have our OEM radios on at the location. There was a lot of
havoc going on.


www.nytimes.com... (emphasis mine)

This is just the first instance of this information seeming to waft vaguely out of WTC7's direction (before all the trauma of the collapses). Remember Rudy Giuliani said he somehow knew WTC2 was coming down beforehand, too.


Edit just to establish a little more information, from Captain Goldbach's testimony:


Before we got back to the command post, somebody told us that the Mayor's group had now gone to 7 World Trade Center to the OEM command post.


graphics8.nytimes.com...

[edit on 27-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Great, so those are pics/"rare CBS video" of the NORTH side of the building. The side with alleged massive damage and an alleged HUGE gash was the south side....of which we still have no good pics and video.

The massive amount of thick black smoke pouring out the west side of the building was rather interesting tho. Also interesting was the odd damage patter on north side. All the windows on certain floors are gone while the floors above and below have all windows intact.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by The Dispatcherator]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
My father was a blacksmith and welder/fabricator for many years. I spent a lot of time in my life watching him work steel as well as working steel myself. I can tell you for a fact that the low temps attained in theese fire will not get steel beams or girders hot enough to affect them in any way. You can try this yourself in a charcoal grill (much hotter than an office fire). Start the coals and wait till the are cherry red now through a peice of steel into the hottest part of the coals (not a thin peice of steel like a ceiling tile track but something closer to the thickness of a girder or beam) wait an hour or wait 12 hours. You wont even get it cherry red without a huge amout of fuel and forced air Rember the old blacksmiths with huge bellows and fire pits). Try an aceteline tourch you will still only be able to red up a small area at a time and you will still need a heavy hammer to form it or deform it. Another example is an oil heater or Natural gas heater for you home they burn so much hotter by using forced air than oil can burn on its own why dont they melt down or fall apart? Because steel dosent do that! Especially hardened steel and I cant even guess how thick the girders for a 40+ story building must be.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Dispatcherator
The massive amount of thick black smoke pouring out the west side of the building


...indicates relatively cool fire temperatures. Somebody that posts here (I want to say either ANOK or LoneGunman, apologies for not being able to remember off the top of my head) actually is a firefighter, and has explained before that cold fires can put off massive amounts of sooty smoke while hot (efficient) fires put off less smoke, and it's lighter in color. This has to do with the actual combustion of the particles, as in dark smoke indicates a poor chemical reaction (fire) while light smoke or not much smoke at all indicates an efficient reaction in which most of the fuel is being converted into heat energy. Soot is really just uncombusted particles floating away.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join