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.

 

I just saw "witness to 9/11"

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I just watched Witnes to 9/11 on the History channel here in Australia.
This show compiled a timeline of events as shot by dozens of home video recordings and countless audio feeds.
I have to say after watching this, I cannot comprehend how anyone could or would want to place anybody in this reality.
I was watching a city in shock, a city unbelieving. I myself knowing and seeing 7 years ago was still shaking my head in disbelief watching this show.
I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job or not, but one thing I can tell you after watching the reality of the attacks is that whatever or whoever is responsible is truely evil.




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by amicrazy
I can tell you after watching the reality of the attacks is that whatever or whoever is responsible is truely evil.

The saddest thing (if you believe that terrorists were involved) is that these people truly believed they were doing a good thing. They saw themselves as striking at the mighty heart of a corrupt and aggressive nation.

They were wrong in their actions, but I think a lot of people here would have a hard time condemning their intentions. One of my greatest fears is that some of the slightly less well adjusted truth members (see people who issue death threats etc) will carry out their threats. I'm sure that they believe they're doing good, but people can easily be fooled into committing evil acts.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I just saw most of it, also on the History channel here in Australia. As I suspected it is a disappointment for 9/11 truth. It avoids all of the dozens of interviews describing explosions and bombs in the building. It does take you back to the pain and suffering of that day, but why would you want that? If anything it serves to reinforce the psychological effect that the real, western perpetrators of this crime wanted to achieve.

The shots of the collapse are the far away ones not the closer-up one more clearly showing the sequence of top down explosions.

A few of interesting points, though:

There's a secret service guy in the lobby of building 7 saying: "I just evacuated everyone from the building. I'm the last one here. Apparently part of the building fell on to us." It was subsequently known that building 7 was virtually untouched.

A bunch of people on the street are spouting knee-jerk reactions saying: we've got to go to Arabia and kill them all and kill bin Laden. Of course, that was my reaction at the time too. We all got fooled. It was perfect for the perpetrators for about 5 years until people started waking up.

One reporter says of the twin towers that the fire is spreading not subsiding and he can't tell "if the building is leaning or not". That's not true; at no time did the fire spread, it only diminished with time and previous to that no steel building collapsed due to fire, so there's a bit of spin there.

A few minutes later in the doco another reporter says "I don't know about the structural integrity of the building." We know that media organisations are given "fact sheets" from official sources. Seems the good little reporters were "doing their job" and reading them.

One good thing: a lot of people don't use the term "it collapsed", they say "the World Trade Centre blew up". They all use the same term "blew up".

The best part of it is in footage from an apartment overlooking the scene. A girl (about 5 years) says: "the World Trade Centre sploded". Her younger brother says: "you mean like that?" as he brings his hands from close together to wide apart. And the sister says: "Yeah, it's not there anymore." Now, that's not spin, that's the unfettered observation of a child. It sure did 'splode'.

Aside from the lobby scene World Trade 7 is completely avoided – the collapse is not shown.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
There's a secret service guy in the lobby of building 7 saying: "I just evacuated everyone from the building. I'm the last one here. Apparently part of the building fell on to us." It was subsequently known that building 7 was virtually untouched.


Ahem. It was ALSO subsequently known that WTC 7 had tons of wreckage from the north tower fall on it that smashed it up heavily, which set off fires the NYFD wasn't able to control. WTC 7's neighbors were smashed up from falling wreckage, too (WTC 5 had a crater the size of a house in its roof) but WTC 7 took the brunt of it.

Either you've been horribly misled by these stupid conspiracy websites, or "virtually untouched" means something different here in the US than it does, down under.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Show your proof of these fires. Even at the second of collapse, you cannot
see any of these "massive" fires from three angles of WTC #7

Show me your proof of the damage. From the pictures available, the
damage was minor and assymetrical. Nothing to create a free fall,
straight down collapse.

NIST contradicts anything you just said; mainly debris from the Twins
was not a factor. They blamed it on fire


A few floors with a few small fires. That's all the video and photo proof
shown all day. Please review the collapse videos and point out the massive
fires?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Either you've been horribly misled by these stupid conspiracy websites, or "virtually untouched" means something different here in the US than it does, down under.


And yet you seem to know more than anyone else from reading the goverment BS, don't be a hypocrite and start accusing people of being mislead from conspiracy sites because at the same time you are mislead with the OS, either you were there or you weren't and even if you were there you got no proof, you know that everything you say can be true stories that you made up like the goverment has.


[edit on 19-6-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Show me your proof of the damage. From the pictures available, the
damage was minor and assymetrical. Nothing to create a free fall,
straight down collapse.


The proof I use is actually coming from the truthers themselves. For the damage, they posted the account of Barry Jennings who was still within the WTC 7 when the north tower collapsed on it. They attempt to use this to insinuate WTC 7 was blown up by demolitions *before* the collapse, which the timeline really doesn't agree with. Nonetheless they do acknowledge the fact that Barry Jennings stated that whole chunks of the building were gone.

As for the fires, they likewise posted a quote from Larry Silverstein essentially saying that the NYFD told him that the fires were out of control, and he told them to "pull it", which is being used to insinuate he ordered the controlled demolitions, which isn't logical becuase the NYFD doesn't do demolitions. Nonetheless they do acknowledge the fact that the NYFD reported there were out of control fires in WTC 7, and the NYFD would definitely know what an out of control fire is.

Therefore, if *my* material is incorrect, then *your* material is incorrect...and you say that I don't listen to you...



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
And yet you seem to know more than anyone else from reading the goverment BS, don't be a hypocrite and start accusing people of being mislead from conspiracy sites because at the same time you are mislead with the OS, either you were there or you weren't and even if you were there you got no proof, you know that everything you say can be true stories that you made up like the goverment has.


I absolutely agree with you, 100%. If we weren't there personally, then all we know is from what we're told. This is why I went out to actually listen to the people who WERE there, and I was lucky enough to talk to several- via email with one woman who worked in the towers and was there durign the attack, and directly with one NYC fireman at an open house session on the 4th anniversary of the 9/11 attack, who lost a bunch of his mates there. I forget the station number, but it's the one with the granite memorial by the front door. They specifically tell me these conspiracy stories are rubbish.

When they tell me these conspiracy stories are rubbish, I'm going to believe them over those college kids/T-shirt salesmen that made that "Loose Change" flick in their dorm room, and who never even stepped foot in NYC. So the question is, why are YOU accepting the word of college kids who made an internet flick in their dorm room and never stepped foot in NYC over the word of actual eyewitnesses?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, I myself have been at the WTC, before the attack (I bought a gorgeous Japanese wall decoration from the sales girl at the gift shop, under the table. I still have it) and after the attack (on the 4th anniversary, when it was still a big hole in the ground).
I'll be the first to admit this doesn't make me an expert in anything, but knowing what the place actually looked like at least gives me a foundation for understanding whether your conspiracy stories are practical or not...and they aren't.

Tell me, have *you* ever been there?

[edit on 19-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC.
In my opinion, two of the planes that hit the WTC were military Boeing 767 painted in United and American airlines colors. The other two targets were never hit by any planes; there was never any proof to scientifically prove it.
The OS is nothing but a fairytale and a proven cover-up.
One only needs to look who benefited from 911, and it sure was not 19 invisible hijackers.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Try looking at these clips from Steve Spak "DAY OF DISASTER"



"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak


www.911myths.com...

Or can go to the FDNY members on the scene

Daniel Nigro - Chief of FDNY




- Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired) Source





Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.





We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco





All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes





Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy


Could go on, but doubt you would believe it....



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The proof I use is actually coming from the truthers themselves. For the damage, they posted the account of Barry Jennings who was still within the WTC 7 when the north tower collapsed on it.


Why don’t you tell the truth! Where did Barry Jennings say the North Tower collapsed on it. Show me proof he said that? He said the floor he was on # 8 floor exploded right out under him!



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Get it right Dave. Play the video and listen to what Jennings really said. You constantly twist and spin information and confuse fact and fiction to make a point that you cannot prove. Your emotionally based statements have no place in a forum where people want to learn the truth about one of the most tragic events in our recent history.

You are misleading people with your poorly thought out stories and it is getting old. You sound like a broken record when it comes to 911. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are evil but to accept the OS one would have to be totally ignorant of the simplist ideas of physics and lacking the most elementary concepts of logic.

LISTEN TO JENNINGS..
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Obviously you like to take the word of firefighters. Maybe instead of pulling quotes from another conspiracy site, why don't you go see what the firefighter at this site have to say:

firefightersfor911truth.org...

I'm sure you'll dismiss all of them as liars right? Because State of the Art skyscrapers (as WTC are considered) can easily and symmetrically collapse from fires right? The quotes you posted can be scripted as easily as the whole story.

Leave the conspiracy site, spare us your quotes, and post some pictures of the building engulfed in flames. you said the NIST report has photo evidence right? Let's see it.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


I posted link to Steve Spak video - taken by him on 9/11 of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Shows extensive fires in WTC 7

As I said doubt you will view it - will find some nutbar excuse



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Touche. That's a pretty convincing video, so I owe you one.

What I'd ask next, is how did falling debris, which we know came from the towers, start all those fires?

I didnt see any fireballs, or flames, or anything in any video or photo going onto WTC 7.

I'd still like to know what YOU think of the folks at FF 911 Truth as well.

[edit on 19/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


All it took was one fire kindled by burning debris from WTC 1 - fires
could then spread to rest of building.

Fires spread (known as extension in fire service) by variety of means

We learned in fire school the 4 methods of fire spread - 1 conduction
2 convection 3 radiation 4 direct flame

In WTC 7 the sprinklers were knocked out by collapse of the towers
which severed water mains in area. With no water FDNY was forced
to abandon WTC 7 allowing fires to apread.

If you look at clip 10 of Spak video can see fires on one floor, below can
see broken smoke stained windows - this is called auto exposure where
flames outside cause windows above them to break admitting fire and
spreading the fire vertically

Look at clip 11 can see windows failing from fires

The Meridian Plaza fire (1990) in Philadephia spread by this means



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You seem to be pretty educated in fire. Do you have extensive knowledge? Just wondering.

Okay, so lets say SOMETHING from the towers was ignited, it went through a window on WTC 7, starting a fire that spread all over the place, corner to corner, multiple floors as well.

Now we have a building with fires that are out of control, no sprinkler system to assist, and everyone who can be evacuated has been.

The next thing I don't understand, is how did this building fall in near PERFECT symmetry (sp?) . Steel can be weakened by office fires. In order for this building to have collapsed in the fashion it did would require that the fires on EVERY floor weakened ALL the steel in an IDENTICAL fashion.

Every floor, from corner to corner, would have to have been weakened the same way, because this building did not pancake collapse, and it didn't fall over to one side, correct? I just don't see how office fires made a skyscraper collapse in perfect symmetry.



[edit on 19/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ahem. It was ALSO subsequently known that WTC 7 had tons of wreckage from the north tower fall on it that smashed it up heavily, which set off fires the NYFD wasn't able to control.

If by 'smashed it up heavily' you mean that only seven columns were lost and that the building still stood intact, then sure... no worries.



Either you've been horribly misled by these stupid conspiracy websites, or "virtually untouched" means something different here in the US than it does, down under.

Perhaps you're the one who has been misled, Dave. Remember the NIST report on WTC 7?

Here's a couple of quotes from it:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.


Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.


Try your spin somewhere else, Dave. It won't work here.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


It is not necessary for every part of the structure to fail in order to bring
building down - collapse of WTC 7 is what known as progressive collapse
where one section of structure fails. Stress is transmitted to adjacent
sections which in turn fail, which in turn cause additional sections to fail
until entire structure collapses.

Can see this in WTC 7 - kink forms in building as column fails, rooftop
penthouse falls into building as that part of structure fails. Remainder
of structure begns to fail until entire building is pulled down as section
after section collapses.

Think of it as row of dominoes - one domino topples knocking down
adjacent domino which knocks over another until entire row falls down

WTC 7 had unusual structural configuration - was built over Con Ed
substation. Originally was designed for much smaller building, some 25 stories. Building was expanded to 47 stories - to handle extra dimensions
required a cantilever truss system to transfer loads into building supports

Each column was then required to carry very heavy loads to support the building




The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]





its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[3][40] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[41] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][42]

The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[3][39][43]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Think of it as row of dominoes - one domino topples knocking down
adjacent domino which knocks over another until entire row falls down

Except that WTC 7 didn't fall like dominoes.

It fell almost symmetrically and early in the collapse sequence it fell for 2.25 seconds with freefall acceleration.

Just as well you're a fireman, thedman and not an engineer.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join