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 Debunk Discussion... Please Read

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

guess i must have but wow does that open up more questions for me.

IF this fire chief Haydan was concerned the building was going to collapse...what then made him fear said collapse?


As stated they were worried if some of the buidlings like buidling 7 feel on their own it would cause damage to other buldings and start more fires.

Please see the following site for more about Chief Hayden's statements
www.firehouse.com...




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As stated they were worried if some of the buidlings like buidling 7 feel on their own it would cause damage to other buldings and start more fires.

yes, you stated that. wasnt my question. WHY did they feel the building would collapse? if they felt it might collapse then doesnt it stand to reason that they had a reason to think it might collapse? if they thought it had a reason to collapse doesnt that add some credibility to the whole debate on whether it could collapse from the fire/damage?

ok, so he thought it could collapse and cause more fires and damage. so then what? did he get a demo team to go "pull it"? if so what SOP was he following and wheres it written down? i mean, an IC drops a building he better have a damn good reason for it and it had better be well documented in his reports.

also, it wouldnt be a secret.

but to do so would make NO sense, at all. the whole area is already damaged and on fire to some degree...why risk the lives of youre men to get them to go into an unstable building (they feared collapse remeber, thats why they want to blow it supposedly) to set demo charges on the fly when you can just clear out a collapse zone and watch it burn which risks no lives. if it does fall and hits other buildings and damages them or starts more fires you know what they'd do? they'd fight those fires as well unless those buildings too were unstable. there comes a time when you just sit back and watch it burn rather than risk lives to save a building thats not worth saving or is unsafe to be in. (beyond the inherent dangers of being in a burning building that is)

so, to recap, he feels the building is going to collapse and damage/ignite other buildings. against all common sense and SOP's he decided to "pull it" by imploding it. he didnt write it down nor will he to this day admit to it. none of the men of his command, including those that would have had to set charges in an unstable burning building mention this.

and this makes sense to some of you? if so, i challenge anyone to find me a case for us to all review of an IC imploding a building in an effort to prevent damage/fire to other builidings. (and they have to have gone in to set charges AFTER the decision was made)

how bout this? he felt it was unstable and could collapse, so he pulled his men out midafternoon on the 11th. later on, it did collapse.

makes more sense to me but that could jsut be me.

so, if someone can figure out WHY he felt the building could collapse i think we can solve the mystery of WTC7.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Here's some important evidence most conspiracy people choose to ignore: the seismographic evidence rules out the use of explosives on 9/11!



Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

—Brent Blanchard of Protec
www.implosionworld.com...

[edit on 1-7-2008 by BarryLogan]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by BarryLogan]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BarryLogan
 


does that link work for anyone else? i cant seem to open it.

ive done a thread on the seizmic stuff on 911 using other data as there seemed to be some questions about these guys data and methods so id like a chance to read their stuff...but i cant open the link.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


That makes sense to me as well considering the losses the firefighters had already incurred in collapses on that day. I also note that Ultima is providing evidence of the building being considered damaged sufficiently to be at serious risk of collapsing a relatively long time before it actually did. Explosive demolition is normally a lot faster than that.

One thing I'm not clear on is when they actually created a collapse zone around the building IE removed all personel from that area which is about 1.5 x the height of the building all around it. From what I've read it appears to be over an hour before it came down. Did that declaration coincide with the infamous 'pull it' decision?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by BarryLogan
 


does that link work for anyone else? i cant seem to open it.

ive done a thread on the seizmic stuff on 911 using other data as there seemed to be some questions about these guys data and methods so id like a chance to read their stuff...but i cant open the link.


No it doesn't work for me either
, but I have the link to the document he was referencing:

www.implosionworld.com...

It's a report done by members of implosionworld.com about the WTC's 1,2 and 7 collapse from a demolition standpoint. All of the authors have a lot of experience in the demolition field. I'm not sure where the specific references to the seismographs are in the report, but I know that they are in there. It's not too long, only like 12 pages. It's a good read though



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by fo694013
 



cool, maybe ill check it out sometime, ive done quite a few of my own analysis from a "demo guy" standpoint here on ATS so for the moment im kinda burned out on it all. (which is why my activity in the 911 forums in general has been down of late)

if youre interested ill u2u you some links (im in the non-cd crowd if you were confused lol)



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yes, you stated that. wasnt my question. WHY did they feel the building would collapse?


If you would have read the site i gave you, you would have found some answers to your question.

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: From that point, if you took a panoramic sweep, what could you see? There�s debris. There�s dust. How about the building at 90 West? Could you see that? Did it have a fire in there right away?
Hayden: We had a good fire in there. We had the equivalent of a fourth-alarm fire in there. We had fire in 50 and 7 World Trade Center. We had fire in 90 West. We had a smaller fire in one of the apartments in Battery Park City that we dispatched companies up there to put out. We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That�s what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days. Chief Mosier took the operations in 90 West. I gave him X amount of companies. I said just hold it, keep her from jumping the street. The Marriott Hotel was across the street. I said just don�t let it get out of the building here, just try to confine it, and he did a great job up there. They got some lines. They were able to hold it and contain it.

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. They had a big air shaft in there and he was able to get a line across the shaft and keep it in one wing of the building on the upper floors. And eventually it burned itself out. There was a good fire condition. It was pouring smoke and fire out of there. We were going to a fourth-alarm fire there. If you had to really address this fire, you would be trying to handle it as a fourth alarmer and he had nowhere near that, so he did a good job with that. We also were doing searches along all the debris in front of the Marriott and out on West Street, the void searches

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

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.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by BarryLogan
 


Most CT people are not ignoring the seizmic evidence, the Debunkers are. Have you read LabTOP's thesis on the subject? It is quit detailed and has as of yet not been debunked.
Check it out, makes for a good read:
www.studyof911.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



thanks for that excerpt ultima, i appreciate it. i can get a little lazy about reading links at times.

but, i found it intersting for several reasons.

first being that they never mention demoing the building to save anything else.

but most importantly it discusses how and why they felt the building was in imminent danger of collapse.

so, either he/they were right and it was showing signs of collapsing all day or he/they are lying to cover up a CD.

im personally not inclined to call them liars. but thats just my opinion and everyone is allowed their own right? (and im saying this to everyone not just ultima specifically)



[edit on 2-7-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but, i found it intersting for several reasons.

first being that they never mention demoing the building to save anything else.


Well it does give a good explination of why the incident command would have decided to bring down the building.

Also it supports that the firemen were out of the buidling BEFORE the call to Silverstien was made so that the fire commander and Silverstein COULD NOT have been talking about PULLING the firemen out but PULLING the building.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Hey Mate, i Mean, The Government is the shadiest, most secret, strong association which aims America. There are secret elites that nobody could know the existence. Elites that could make hush up about whoever who would like to see Them Fall. They control medial, entertainment, feeding, services. What can we make ? How are they going away with this?

There is so many proofs that you didn't mentionned in your reply. Why? Come on, do some reshearch. You'll see. I Think you just don't want to believe it because it's just *TOO HARD TO BELIEVE* or you want to follow the Mass of people who treat like ANTI-AMERICAN anyone who try to claim the truth.

Re-read my original post. Take a few minutes of your time to watch and listen some informations. Open your eyes.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BarryLogan
 
You really need to check out this link originally posted by ATS member Labtop on the seismic activity charts on 9/11.As far as I know it has never been debunked.Interpretation of seismic 9/11 charts.

Sorry PplVSNWO,missed your post.





[edit on 3-7-2008 by crowpruitt]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well it does give a good explination of why the incident command would have decided to bring down the building.

but, what youre suggesting is that they felt the building was going to fall, so they pulled everyone out, THEN decided to send men BACK into the building, with explosives. and then, they just forgot to document all of this, and wont admit to it during any subsequent interviews. sounds kind of absurd if you say it out loud doesnt it? if the IC made the decision to drop the building, it wouldnt be a secret and we wouldnt be debating the fate of WTC 7.


Also it supports that the firemen were out of the buidling BEFORE the call to Silverstien was made so that the fire commander and Silverstein COULD NOT have been talking about PULLING the firemen out but PULLING the building.

ill agree, but ive never been one to suggest that the men werent already out of the building by this time. im a supporter of the idea that silverstein was trying to make himself look like he was part of the decision making process on TV when he really wasnt.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
THEN decided to send men BACK into the building, with explosives. and then, they just forgot to document all of this, and wont admit to it during any subsequent interviews.


Who said anything about explosives? Also it would not have taken much to bring down the building if it was in bad condition. The fire rescue teams that were on scene would have had the equipment and knowledge for cutting beams or any demo teams.


im a supporter of the idea that silverstein was trying to make himself look like he was part of the decision making process on TV when he really wasnt.


Yes, you and i both know that Silverstein had no authority over anything going on that day.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
god i hate saying the same thing over and over again...but

Debunkers score 0
truthers score 100

We are the people and we want the truth..... we demand it......
we will not stop...........

ALL 3 BUILDINGS huh?...... NOT A CHANCE IN H

just how dumb do they think the people are?
We don`t buy into this BS.

N.W.O.........We want our world back....give it back......
you won`t like us when were angry....
so ya better fess up......



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Who said anything about explosives? Also it would not have taken much to bring down the building if it was in bad condition. The fire rescue teams that were on scene would have had the equipment and knowledge for cutting beams or any demo teams.

ok, ill go with this for a second...why the secrecy then? they would have no reason to hide their actions and there WOULD be documentation. right?



Yes, you and i both know that Silverstein had no authority over anything going on that day.

lol yeah we can add that to the list of things you and i DO agree on



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and there WOULD be documentation. right?


Well there could be documentation, but the way the agencies involved are refusing to release information we may not see it for a while if at all.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


i guess the point ive been trying to make, and apparently failing to do so is this: if the IC or anyone else from FDNY had decided to "pull" wtc 7 for any reason, why would it be a secret?

it wouldnt. they would have said right away "the building was unstable, we feared that if it collapsed it would do more damage to the surrounding buildings so we dropped it." end of conspiracy.

so, either FDNY had nothing to do with the collapse, or they were in on it and are lying to cover it.

ill go with FDNY having nothing to do with the collapse of the building, meaning either someone else "pulled" it and didnt tell the IC, or it just fell down.

but again, just my opinions



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
it wouldnt. they would have said right away "the building was unstable, we feared that if it collapsed it would do more damage to the surrounding buildings so we dropped it." end of conspiracy.


But that would have gone against what was already stated in the OFFICIAL MEDIA STORY.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join