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.

 

First Responder States CD Countdown before WTC 7 Collapsed

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
And the only point we all have questioned was the fact that you have no evidence stating it has been done before. it is only your opinion that it has been done before.


So you do admit that it is only your opinion that it has never been done before?

Also i have shown that i am doing research on the subject, you have not posted anything to show you have been doing research to support your opinion.




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So what is better evidence? Should we look at fire ordinances from some town in Ohio to try and prove a point, or should we examine the FDNY's actual actions on that day?

They tried to evacuate 1 after 2 collapsed, meaning that they were prudently not interested in foolishly risking their lives over a lost cause.

They did the same thing when they believed that 7 would collapse.

This is evidence that directly points to their policies and frame of mind that day. It is very clear for those that choose to pay attention to it.

Now, if they are forced to retreat from 1, where there may still be lives to be saved.... what in the world makes you think that they would go BACK into 7, or allow others into 7, and put their lives in serious jeopardy.... all in the interest of reducing property damage?



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So what is better evidence? Should we look at fire ordinances from some town in Ohio to try and prove a point, or should we examine the FDNY's actual actions on that day?


Well from the research i have done shows infomration that most states have a regulation about fire chiefs being able to demo a building. If i run across the New York one you will be the first to get it.

You should know by now that there is not much infomration released by the investigating agencies, so there are no incident command records released about what really happened.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you do admit that it is only your opinion that it has never been done before?


It is a fact. Face it, ULTIMA1. Your theory has been busted wide open. Never in history has a fire dept or demo team gone into a 20+ story burning building, and used thermite cutters and charges to bring it down.

Plus the links of veteran firefighters saying the "pull it" has nothing to do with demolitions is the nail in the coffin.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
It is a fact. Face it, ULTIMA1. Your theory has been busted wide open.


NO it has not, in fact i wll prove it just like i have proven that it was the EPA that asked for the AVRIS.

Still waiting for your evidence to suport your theory.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO it has not, in fact i wll prove it just like i have proven that it was the EPA that asked for the AVRIS.

Still waiting for your evidence to suport your theory.


Actually, it was the USGS that made the request, a FACT that I have proven with a NASA source on another thread. Please dont change the subject, ULTIMA1. Just because you have lost this debate doesnt mean you should derail this thread.

How long should we all wait for you to post your "proof" that fire depts or demo teams have gone into burning 20+ story buildings, and used thermite cutters or charges to bring it down? Will you have an answer before the 10th annoversary of 9/11? The 20th?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well from the research i have done shows infomration that most states have a regulation about fire chiefs being able to demo a building. If i run across the New York one you will be the first to get it.

You should know by now that there is not much infomration released by the investigating agencies, so there are no incident command records released about what really happened.


Really, there's no need to find those regs, that's not the question that you're missing. I agree that they can demo buildings, or in the case of the forest service, bulldoze fire breaks across private property and public lands in order to protect lives and property.

The point you're missing is that they would NOT go back into a building that they believed is coming down, since they would have no idea exactly when. That would be recklessly endangering their lives and they don't do that, especially to save property when no lives are in danger.

Again, my evidence for this is to examine what the FDNY did in fact do that day. They went into 1 and 2 to save lives and property. When 2 fell, they tried to evacuate 1 because they believed that to stay would recklessly endanger their lives. Do you agree that this is the reason that they evacuated?

They also evacuated 7 when they formed the opinion that 7 would fall because to stay would recklessly endanger their lives. Do you agree that this is the reason that they evacuated?

This is what your theory hinges on dude - they or they allowed someone BACK into the buildings to demo 7, recklessly endangering those who were doing the demo.

And then, even though we agree that this would be witin their scope of duties, and in my opinion would not be suspicious at all due to the lack of water and fear of fire spreading, they haven't said anything at all that would indicate this. And sorry, but the whole "because it wouldn't fit the official story" canard is illogical as well. If this was the case, telling the truth about the FDNY/whoever demoing the building is palatable, and if anything, would make them even bigger heroes than they already are.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Actually, it was the USGS that made the request, a FACT that I have proven with a NASA source on another thread.


Wrong again i have proven that the EPA made the request through the USGS. Unless your stating that the USGS site lied when it stated that the EPA requested the AVIRIS?


How long should we all wait for you to post your "proof" that fire depts or demo teams have gone into burning 20+ story buildings.


Well i can tell you i will post evindece of it happening before you post evindece that it did not.


[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The point you're missing is that they would NOT go back into a building that they believed is coming down, since they would have no idea exactly when. That would be recklessly endangering their lives and they don't do that, especially


Well you seem to miss the point that there is no evindece of the lower floors being on fire so there would have been little danger.

Also you must have missed the workers coming out of the safety zone stating the building is coming down. How did they know the buidling was coming down right at that time?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What floors are considered "lower" to you?

Thank you



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have found MORE to suport the COUNTDOWN......




The surface of this, truth exposure!!!

[edit on youtube links 25-7-2008 by theability]

[edit on 25-7-2008 by theability]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Wrong again i have proven that the EPA made the request through the USGS. Unless your stating that the USGS site lied when it stated that the EPA requested the AVIRIS?

So, I am correct that the USGS contacted NASA for the AVIRIS flyovers. Thank you for proving me right.
Perhaps you should discuss that in the other thread, and not derail this thread. Its better to prove you wrong there, than prove you wrong on both issues here.



Well i can tell you i will post evindece of it happening before you post evindece that it did not.

You talk a whole lot, but have yet to post your evidence. Talk talk talk.

You post a factless, evidenceless claim, then cry that WE have to prove your chilidish claims wrong? Why not be mature enough to back your claims first.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by gavron]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, I am correct that the USGS contacted NASA for the AVIRIS flyovers.


You are only half corret, the USGS contacted NASA AFTER THE EPA REQUESTED THE AVIRIS. As stated by the USGS site.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What floors are considered "lower" to you?


First 3-5 floors.

Remember the EPA had recovered all the fuel from the ground floor tanks so it would be safe to say there was no fires on the ground floor.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Go back several pages. There are videos and statements where he changes his story a few times.

The man is a joke.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



I have to agree with you about some of the "eye" witness and the inability for them to remain consistant with their "testimony!"

For me though I really try my best to be impartial and let evidence speak without my emotions running the show.

Unfortunately Eye witnesses can have falliable recollections of the events transpired. With the case here, the countdown was done by the red cross and that sparks my interest enough to continue to dig deeper with this particular mystery.

What do you think about this?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


i do agree with you.......

....but...

Mr. McPadden does not speak of a countdown back in 2006 (i think thats the year) This came about a year later.

Then he changes "A look in his face" to..

"He said"....

That is different from saying... the car was dark blue to: the car was black.

He is not a reliable witness. (IMO)



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You are only half corret, the USGS contacted NASA AFTER THE EPA REQUESTED THE AVIRIS. As stated by the USGS site.


I am 100% correct. Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA to request the flyover due to concern with asbestos contamination at the WTC location. A fact proven by NASA, and shown on the other thread.

No need to embarrass yourself on this thread too, ULTIMA1. Please keep on topic here.

You are just trying to avoid posting proof of fireman or demo teams going into a burining 20+ story building, and using thermite cutters or charges to bring it down in a controlled manner.

Why must you change the subject, ULTIMA1? Afraid of the truth?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA to request the flyover due to concern with asbestos contamination at the WTC location.


Why can't you read that the EPA requested the AVIRIS? Everyone else on here can read and see that the EPA requested the AVIRIS as it states on the USGS site.

Lets look at the fact as stated by the USGS site.

In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS


Why can't you be adult enough to admit that the EPA requested the AVIRIS?



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well you seem to miss the point that there is no evindece of the lower floors being on fire so there would have been little danger.



So why did they evacuate in the first place then?

If there was no danger, why?




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join