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 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   

WTC 7 Emergency Head Was Building Collapse Specialist


www.prisonplanet.com

The former New York City chief emergency manager Jerome Hauer, whose office was on the 23d floor of WTC 7, was also a building collapse specialist, according to a recently uncovered New York Times article. Hauer has attracted suspicion from the 9/11 truth movement because of his zeal to push the official story in the hours after the attack when details were still sketchy.

Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates - the company that provided security for the WTC complex on 9/11 - and he also betrayed advance knowledge of the anthrax attacks a week before they happened.
The article describes Building 7 for what it was, a structurally reinforced immovable object built for the express purpose of standing strong in a crisis situation, not the weakling tinderbox that allegedly became the first steel building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, according to debunkers like the BBC, the History Channel, Popular Mechanics and others.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
The "coincidences" just keep piling up in this.

The official story is so full of holes that any person who looks at it must believe that there is so much we haven't been told, but we will never have the true story of what happened that day - at least not from the authorities...


www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Now why wouldn't that surprise us?

Elephant in the living room (again).

Time to speak up and out to anyone that may be asleep. Just the facts will do too. Just the facts.

Love everything

Z



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
If facts were important to 911 conspiracy theorists, we wouldn't keep seeing these articles that claim there was no damage to WTC7. There was a huge hole something like 19 stories tall down one side of the building and all the rescue crews were worried the building would collapse for hours before it happened. Surveyors brought in confirmed the building was listing and moving and was unsafe for rescue crews to enter. Those are facts.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
yeah there are also fire fighters and rescue workers that say they they heard explosions and smelled thermite before the buildings came down. Those are facts. Honestly you popular mechanics believers hold on to that article for your life. Whats easier to do, deny every shred of evidence and believe your govt is all sweet and never lies, or actually asking REAL questions and demanding answers from your corrupt govt? You people take the easy way out.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by bringthelight]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
So because a firefighter heard a bang you think it's better to pretend there wasn't a huge gaping hole right down one side of the building. Right. I'm the one denying every shred of evidence...


And I know a little about Thermite because I worked on the railways where we used it to weld rails. Funny thing is, it doesn't explode. It's a slow burning powder, not an explosive.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Nothing i say and no evidence will cure your blind allegiance to the US govt and their "official" story. So im not going to bother, but i will clear up a few things. I never said thermite was the cause of the explosions heard by multiple witnesses, and a gaping hole and a few fires doesn't explain a building imploding on itself at free fall speed in a perfect footprint. Now go look in popular mechanics for some ore arguments.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
If facts were important to 911 conspiracy theorists, we wouldn't keep seeing these articles that claim there was no damage to WTC7. There was a huge hole something like 19 stories tall down one side of the building and all the rescue crews were worried the building would collapse for hours before it happened. Surveyors brought in confirmed the building was listing and moving and was unsafe for rescue crews to enter. Those are facts.


Ya wecomeinpeace did an article on ATS and So911 about the hole in WTC 7. According to photo evidence the hole isn't really that huge..

If you new people didn't see it here it is..

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

And a revised version on So911.

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

Altho its interesting BT had the same fate worse actually than WTC 7 and didn't fall then had a pretty good fire and didn't collapse.. Interesting that..

::EDIT::

You know something else.. They stated they let it burn out of control..

Why would they let 7 burn and not WTC 4 and 5 that had hoses on it and were just big piles of flames.. I dont understand that much either.

::END EDIT::

[edit on 7/11/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Sorry to disappoint you but I've never read Popular Mechanics. Just a little research on the events will reveal the true cause of the collapse (not an implosion), just like a little research would reveal that I'm the last person suffering from any blind allegiance to the US government.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
one day you will see the light my friend.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
All 3 buildings had holes in them. 2 holes created by airplane impact points and then the hole in WTC7 probably caused by large chunks from the towers hitting WTC7.
This is where physics destroys just about everything the debunkers say.

1. If holes are what caused the collapses..and hot fires melted (merely parts of the structures)...would it not be fair to say in scientific common sense that the buildings would topple over and not fall directly in their own footprints? You dont have to delude yourselves with mathematical symbols on a chalk board to make yourselves look intelligent. Ill still love ya if you dont show me your mathematical skills.

Go outside with a chainsaw or axe and begin cutting into a tree...see what happens

But be sure to say timber so the tree doesnt fall over on someone or at least they have a fighting chance to get out of the way


[edit on 7/11/2008 by prometheus1111]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Sorry to disappoint you but I've never read Popular Mechanics. Just a little research on the events will reveal the true cause of the collapse (not an implosion), just like a little research would reveal that I'm the last person suffering from any blind allegiance to the US government.


With all due respect;

You're having a laugh.. You most definitely are not on the same page as the majority here. Sorry, but exactly which publication of popular mechanics are you reading?

A little research..hhmmm..ok, how about the little bit of BBC live coverage of a reporter telling THE WORLD that WTC7 had collapsed when it was clearly seen standing in the background. How about the numerous firemen (not just one as you stated in a previous post above) heard several explosions.

How about good old Larry saying on TV that a decision was made to 'pull' the building...

Thermite/thermate is used to cut through steal. It doesn't have to explode. Seperate explosive charges would have to be set to do the actual collapsing.. And for all three buildings to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint defies all laws of any other building collapsing from fire damage alone.

Is that enough research or do you want a bit more?..oh tell you what..how about I just post you the latest link to the latest movie about the several thousand individuals who are all dying due to false information given to them about the quality of the air.
9/11 chronicles; Truth rising
I seriously hope you take some time out to watch this and maybe you might come out of it with a slightly different opinion.

I hope you do. i wouldn't mock you or flame you in any way if you were to actually come back and say you may be wrong on a few points..

Something is very wrong about the entire situation.. and we must ask questions..not for ourselves, but for those who were murdered and those who are slowly dying RIGHT NOW.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by prometheus1111
 


This post is so full of stink it isn't funny..

If this were the case why Didn't bankers trust fall??

Oh or didn't catch fire.. It was close to WTC 1 and 2 than 7 was, go a gaping gash and didnt fall..

For reference here are some images for you..









And so you know this gash was way worse than the one on WT7.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Precisely...so holes did not collapse the buildings in their footprints nor did fire...you even give perfect pics of a building charred by some fire and a big hole and there it stands.


I was countering folks that are using the hole and fire theory for the collapse of WTC7. That if indeed a gaping hole brought the building down...why did it fall perfectly? If indeed a hole brought the structure down it would have toppled and fell irregular..not perfectly in its footprints

[edit on 7/11/2008 by prometheus1111]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Hello Budski, I don't mean to divert your thread, but I would like to point-out another person who 'coincidentally' has some interesting affiliations, Dov Zakheim:

911research.wtc7.net...


"The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor."


Along with this,

winnipeg.indymedia.org...


"Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center."


And this,

archive.southcoasttoday.com...


"One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."


All just a 'coincidence'....?


[edit on 11-7-2008 by FewWorldOrder]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FewWorldOrder
 


Just to clear something up here before people make false assumptions - as far as most of the conspiracy theories go about 911, I am what you might call an interested skeptic. In other words I'm still on the fence.

What I DO believe is that there are too many unanswered questions for there NOT to be some sort of conspiracy - whether that relates to a cover up of real events, actual government (or other) complicity, or simply a conspiracy to keep the whole truth from the public I can't say, I'm just sure that we are not and will not be told 100% of the facts of that awfull day.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
And I know a little about Thermite because I worked on the railways where we used it to weld rails. Funny thing is, it doesn't explode. It's a slow burning powder, not an explosive.


Could it be conceivable... Possible... Likely, even...

That BOTH thermite and explosives were used to bring down the Towers and #7?

So if one heard explosions, and there were pools of molten iron, it would make sense.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
If facts were important to 911 conspiracy theorists, we wouldn't keep seeing these articles that claim there was no damage to WTC7. There was a huge hole something like 19 stories tall down one side of the building and all the rescue crews were worried the building would collapse for hours before it happened. Surveyors brought in confirmed the building was listing and moving and was unsafe for rescue crews to enter. Those are facts.


I 100% agree with you, it is very very very very rare to see a 9/11 conspiracy theorist pay attention to ALL of the facts. Instead they nitpick bits of information to fit their own theory...there maybe something fishy in the 9/11 general theory, and it may not take into account all of the facts, but that doesn't mean all of the true facts it presents are false. We can't throw out all of the conspiracy theory facts, but we can certainly throw out the theories that ignore the other facts...which pretty much 100% of all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories I've heard do in fact ignore.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Sorry to disappoint you but I've never read Popular Mechanics. Just a little research on the events will reveal the true cause of the collapse (not an implosion), just like a little research would reveal that I'm the last person suffering from any blind allegiance to the US government.


Research, dude? Really? I have done a fair amount of research myself, and conclude that the ONLY explanation that covers all the bases is Inside Job.

One has no need to scramble for outlandish explanations and improbabilities on the order of millions (or billions or trillions) to one.

It explains why within hours a scapegoat was being heralded as the perp - and not just tentatively, as in, "We think Bin Laden did it, but forensics, and sorting through other evidence will tell us for sure..." More as in, "Bin Laden DID IT!!!"

It explains why Cheney allowed an impact on the Pentagon, snapping at the guy who asked if orders still stood (they had been tracking the plane from at least 50 miles out), "Of course orders still stand! Have you heard anything differently?"

It explains the vehemence in avoiding an investigation. (14 months went by before anything resembling an official investigation did happen.)

It explains all the data NOT addressed in the final reports.

It explains the refusal of Bush and Cheney to go under oath. (Not to mention why they had to be questioned together...)

It explains the noise and dust coming from an "empty" floor.

It explains the explosions in the Tower basements BEFORE the first impact.

It explains why the bomb-sniffing dogs were caged and not out doing their jobs.

And on and on and on.

Sure, you can take each of these singly and come up with a theoretical "explanation," and if all one had was one lonely question, answered as an extreme long-shot occurrence. But over and over and over again???

Oh, either you are spook or you are willfully blind. My assessment.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
So now we discover that Jerome Hauer, staunch defender of the official story, former New York City chief emergency manager whose office was on the 23d floor of WTC 7 and Managing Director of the company that provided security for the WTC complex on 9/11 was also a building collapse specialist.

We already know that the Ground Zero cleanup operation was headed by another staunch defender of the official story, Mark Loizeaux who is also a controlled demolition expert.

In his own words he would know how to ensure that post demolition evidence was all accounted for: "At the site, we track very carefully the chain of custody, the ownership of debris, hazardous materials, things like that. We track everything from cradle to grave in writing." Washington Technology, 12/16/02

On his website he describes how they bring in engineers with seismic equipment to record the blast before and after.

In the BBC's recent hit piece, Deputy Fire Chief, Peter Hayden said there was a 'special engineer' with seismic equipment who told them around 12:00 that Building 7 would fall in 5 hours. At 5:21pm it did.

This raises the question - how is it that in all the chaos of the day a seismic engineer was on site with equipment monitoring the blasts and making accurate predictions from the data?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join