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 Victim Gartenberg Live On ABC

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I am replying to those who believe that un-ignited, let alone ignited, jet fuel could drop all the way to the street level lobby and sub-basements of the towers, where, it is claimed that elevators exploded. That's a very, very long way, and the seals, that prevent the elevator shafts from becoming chimneys, would prevent anything from going down as well.
I believe that the only mis-information Mr Gartenberg unknowingly gave us was that everything was OK, that all danger had passed. The central core, vital to the integrity of the tower, was "blown out," "collapsed." More explosions are heard and recorded by firefighters that day, as the structural steel of the buildings is systematically cut. As the collapses ensue, bright demolition charges can be seen on the exteriors of the towers. How could explosives be pre-planted on the other, load-bearing, perimeter beams? Easily, if someone posed as window washers on scaffolding on the exterior (only a guess on my part).
Again, it's hard to say if the lack of attention to Mr Gartenberg's valuable viewpoint is a sinister sign of media censorship. He continues to talk, but the newscasters talk over him...in hindsight that looks suspicious. It would imply though that someone there knew that the towers would fall, and that Mr Gartenberg's testimony would reveal more than just damage from a plane on the floors of impact.




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   


I've heard many FDNY members describe many many explosions well after any fuel would have burned off. Just the size of the explosion tells me that most of the fuel was consumed in the initial explosions, leaving very little to fall to the basement, and hardly enough to cause large explosions. The black smoke was also a sign that the fire was oxygen starved, unless you, like some here believe there were tires, tar paper, and shingles in those buildings, slightly kidding there, but there just wasn't enough of the materials in those buildings to cause that much black smoke, some stuff? sure, but burning paper doesn't cause black smoke.

To me, seeing people waving towels out of the sides of the buildings is evidence enough that the fires at that time were not near hot enough to weaken steel, let alone melt it, yet we all saw red hot steel, weeks after the buildings came down. Doesn't make sense to me.



There were many other reasons for the so called "explosions".
Unfortunately "explosion" has become a catch word for any loud sudden
noise - whether it was caused by explosives or not. Internal structural
collapses are probably the most common - with floor trusses begining
to buckle anything there would begin to slide or fall. Ever hear a file
cabinet or other heavy piece of equipment or furniture fall? Case in point
recently had vehicle fire on interstate when tires exploded from fire -
made quite a noise. Startled me for moment even though knew what it
was. Also there were oxygen tanks for crew and oxygen generators
for passengers involved in the fires.

The black smoke is not indicative of oxygen starved fires. Materials rich
in hydrocarbons (petroleum, rubber) create heavy black smoke even
when free burning. You said there was no shingles or tar paper to burn
and create the smoke. There was plastics, thousands of tons of plastics,
almost all the furnishings were made of plastic. Cubicle dividers, seat
cushions, carpeting are all plastic in one form or other. Plastics are also
made from petroleum. Ever see bunch of plastic burn? Create lot of
dense black smoke.

As for people waving towels out windows - most were on lower edge of
impact zone near or just below impact hole. Also were on windward
side of building - wind blew fire away from them. Have to remember
that picture taken at one point of time is not indicative of intensity of
fires. Many of those in pictures hanging out windows were forced to jump
minutes later as fires and smoke became too intense to bear



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Again, I am just going from recollections of highschool and college physics, but if there was a large volume of aerosolised fuel that ignited enough to cause significant structural damage, as I understand it, a lot of oxygen would have been used in the combustion causing an implosion, and the shattering inwards of glass due to the vacuum, and not an explosion. Is this accurate?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 
Thousands of tons of plastics? dozens of tons, perhaps hundreds of tons, those pesky plastic file cabinets. but those things burn quickly. Hard plastics will burn longer, but there was hardly thousands of tons of hard plastics there.

Do we know for a fact that the people who jumped, jumped because of heat? We just assume that. Where did the wind go, that you said was there to allow for those that were waving white towels? Did it just die down?
Those that were waving white towels, were indeed upwind of the fire and smoke, but they weren't going to be seen on the other side of they building were they? I'm going to assume those that were waving the towels were doing so, so that rescuers would know they were there, and needed help, but the fires were almost out by then.


The wind had to be blowing pretty hard (alot harder than it was) for them to escape the heat, if it was indeed hot enough to melt steel. but since you are a firefighter you should know that.

We heard a brave FDNY say that they could knock down the fire with 2 lines, and as a retired firefighter, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess, that the 2 lines would be 1 1/2" lines. If the fires could be handled with 2 lines, there couldn't possibly be that much fire left. You would know that as a firefighter too.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
There were many other reasons for the so called "explosions".
Unfortunately "explosion" has become a catch word for any loud sudden noise...


You are just completely guessing here. Don't you think professional fire fighters would know the sounds of a building on fire?

Do filing cabinets go bang, bang, bang, bang, or poch, poch etc.. as described by firefighters who were there?...


Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'



September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building...


READ more...

www.flcv.com...

Tires lol? Sry but I was standing next to an F-14 when a main tire blew, sounded nothing like an explosion. If you don't know the difference, professionals do...

Lox tanks in the planes would not have survived in the initial fire-ball, much like all that fuel you want so badly to pour down sealed elevator shafts.

Furniture? You are really reaching bud.

www.youtube.com...

And look at the related vids list, you'll find lot's more on explosions heard in the towers.

As far as the smoke. Smoke turning from a light to dark color is an indication of a fire dying from lack of oxygen or fuel. No hydrocarbons were added to change the color.

What about the people who escaped from floors ABOVE the impact points? How did they get through all that raging fire you claim?

The lady in the hole, how did she get there in the first place? She obviously wasn't there when the plane impacted.

Also your note that the wind was blowing the fire away from that side totally contradicts your, 'the fire cause the collapse hypothesis'. If that side was cool how did that side of the building not give resistance and the building fall towards the weaker side?

People don't jump just because of heat, smoke usually kills people before the fire does. Also just because it was too hot for people, doesn't mean it's hot enough to collapse a steel framed building.

Sorry, but no matter how you try to spin everything, it doesn't add up. Maybe you should try some actual research instead of using 9/11myths etc...



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by almighty bob
 


Fuel doesn't explode the same way a bomb does. It doesn't implode, but it doesn't have the blast wave a bomb creates, unless it was under pressure.

Fuel ignited in open air doesn't explode, and it wouldn't have been atomised. That takes a careful process of mixing oxygen and fuel in a controlled system and sprayed into fine jets, i.e. fuel injectors.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Fuel doesn't explode the same way a bomb does. It doesn't implode, but it doesn't have the blast wave a bomb creates, unless it was under pressure.


If you are claiming blast waves were produced due to explosives at the WTC, where is the evidence for them? You produced a firefighter quote where they use a simile, where are the audio recordings of blast waves?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
But apparently they were ordered to drop him off the interview.


Have any evidence of this? Or is it just your "sleuthing" skills at work again? You a television news/production executive? You have the secret tape from the producer's booth? You have a Deep Throat from the network? Do share your intellect as to why you can claim they were "apparently...ordered to drop him off the interview".

You see, it is that sort of BS speculation and guessing and supposition and flat out making crap up that bug sthe hell out of me. When a Troofer hears something they a) don't understand or b) don't like, oh what to do! I know! Make something up! They all do it - Craig, Captain Bob, Preston, Alpo...they all do it.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Where is the proof that the 757 did any structural damage to the central columns?
Where is the proof that columns got hot enough to fail?
What physics explains the lack of resistance from the undamaged lower buildings structure?

I don't need to hear explosions, when the evidence and witnesses point to that conclusion.

But to humour you here's a start, there's many more...

www.metacafe.com...

But I guess that's just furniture exploding?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Where is the proof that the 757 did any structural damage to the central columns?

Three seperate analyses have shown that it did. Do you have any evidence to suggest these are wrong?


Where is the proof that columns got hot enough to fail?

There are videos of the bowing and subsequent failure, clearly showing a progressive collapse: www.youtube.com...


What physics explains the lack of resistance from the undamaged lower buildings structure?

There was not a lack of resistance: /bazant-greening


I don't need to hear explosions, when the evidence and witnesses point to that conclusion.

But to humour you here's a start, there's many more...

www.metacafe.com...

But I guess that's just furniture exploding?

These are hardly blast waves. Here are blast waves: /real-detonations

Not exactly comparable are they?

edit: In fact the video you linked may have even been faked, or at least substantially altered. I knew i'd seen it somewhere before with very different audio, and here it is: 911myths.com...

Care to explain why two radically different versions exist?

[edit on 3-10-2008 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   



posted by Game_Over
LOOK at the initial fireball on tower impact.

Go ahead do it.

THINK about the amount of fuel left behind after the initial fireball.

LAUGH when you are told that the remaining fuel traveled to other floors through the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby.

Core was blown from the inside out

Trapped on the 86th floor of WTC1 by blocked fire doors, Mr James M Gartenberg (age - 36) was just 8 floors below where the aircraft struck. Mr Gartenberg was on the east side of the North Tower facing the East River and the aircraft struck on the northeast side of the North Tower.

The core must have blown towards Mr Gartenberg else how could he have seen it? The inner glass was blown out on the 86th floor, but not the outer glass according to Mr Gartenberg. Therefore the heavy core blowing out was almost at right angle to the direction of the aircraft inertia. Eight floors lower and the heavy core blowing out can only be explained by planted demolition charges. Jet fuel burning could not possibly exert that much force 8 floors below the impact zone.



Original video

Thank you James M Gartenberg for your last words to us. Here is the proof of what you phoned us about, even though the Mainstream News Media prostitutes and their 9-11 controllers you were talking to did not want us to hear your words. We will remember you and those who were deliberately murdered with you by the traitors in our midst.

Blowing the Core Columns of the North Tower


North Tower Exploding

A clip of the North Tower shows abundant evidence of explosive demolition that is not adequately explained by the official narrative.


by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics



Original video

Damning evidence of demolition - Yes we see now James Gartenberg.



From the Jim Gartenberg video

Jim: . . . . part of the core of the building is blown out . . .

. . . . . . .

Female anchor: What time did you get to work?

Jim: I got to work around 8 o'clock this morning, and . . I think this happened about 8:45.

Female anchor: It did. Describe what you felt.

Jim: I felt .. eh .. I felt . . just the whole build .. I heard a noise, felt the building shake, saw glass blown out.
The glass on my floor was blown out from the inside of the building out; rather than the exterior windows being blown out.

Female anchor: What were you

Jim: the glass fully shattered with the core of the building .. ehh .. and the interior core, ehh part of the building collapsed.

Female anchor: SILENCE
Male anchor: SILENCE

Jim: hello

Anchors: Nothing but silence

Ignore this important caller from WTC 1, the North Tower

Censor the information from the American public - Isn't that what the MSM is good for?

Propaganda - Drama - Censorship - Disinformation - Absolute Control?



[edit on 11/2/08 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Three separate analyses have shown that it did. Do you have any evidence to suggest these are wrong?


I'm suggesting they said what they needed to say to fit the official version of the events they wanted to portray to the public. Just because an 'official' of some kind said something do you automatically believe it?
There is no way they could know what damage was done to the central columns, please explain how they could know this. For their hypothesis to work they had to make some massive assumptions as to the damage caused by the planes. No proof, no evidence, just convenience.

Oh and btw your official analysis says the plane that hit WTC2 didn’t even impact the central columns, yet it caused the same result as WTC1? And how do you explain the tilt of the top of WTC2? www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have NO question about this? You are really satisfied with what the official sources are telling you? Do you consider them smarter and more knowledgeable than yourself, and wouldn’t even think to question them? Do you think they wouldn’t lie?


There are videos of the bowing and subsequent failure, clearly showing a progressive collapse: www.youtube.com...


OK so how is that video proof of columns failing from office fires? Seriously that vid shows no central columns, let alone central columns failing from heat. There is no way those columns could have got hot enough from office fires to start to fail, this has already been proved, please go read up on some basic physics such as Newtons laws, and how fires spread heat.

The central columns were taken out leaving only the outer columns/facade holding the vertical weight, which is wasn't designed to do. What would you expect to happen? Would those outer columns start to fail? Just like you see in your vid? You see fire is not the only answer to what you're observing, you're letting the 'official story' dictate your own conclusions.

How did columns way bellow the fires even get warm, let alone get hot enough to completely give up their resistance? Learn a little about heat transformation and how inefficient it is in open air. Go visit a steel foundry and see how they heat steel up in controlled environments to get it hot enough to be malleable. Why would they bother with that if a simple uncontrolled open air fire will do it? Why would professional demolition companies go to all the trouble they do if a simple open air fire would do the job, and very efficiently if you believe the government and their hired liars.


There was not a lack of resistance:


LOL greenings paper is a joke and was debunked years ago. Like all official story supporters he had to ignore evidence, and make massive assumptions to make his hypothesis fit. If there was resistance from undamaged columns the building would not have collapsed at almost free-fall speed to it’s basement, that is the definition of a lack of resistance. Again simple Newtonian physics explains this, go read about it.

Again take a good look at WTC2 and the way the top is resisted when it starts to tilt, that is until the building under it collapsed, there is no way you can claim that top did the collapsing. It’s physically impossible, and that’s why the professional debunkers run for the hills whenever it’s mentioned. Lets all focus on holograms and no planes while the obvious evidence is ignored, debate 9-11 long enough and the patterns becomes very obvious and transparent.



These are hardly blast waves. Here are blast waves: /real-detonations
Not exactly comparable are they?


You’re missing the point. Something had to cause the resistance from columns and braces, bolted and welded together, to be lost instantly and symmetrically, and sorry but it wasn’t office fires. What else could it be? You don’t need to hear someone get murdered when you have the body and video of the murder taking place to know it wasn’t suicide. So no you don’t have to hear explosions to hypothesise they were used. Maybe they didn’t even use conventional explosives. Does thermate create a blast wave? Your argument is weak.


Care to explain why two radically different versions exist?


I have no idea and really don’t care, there are many more vids that show explosives, and as I explained above you don’t have to have any visual or audio evidence when the physical evidence points that way. It was just the first vid I found at the time.

Care to explain all the unanswered questions we have about the governments’ official version of events? A few professionals have some questions…
www.abc.net.au...

How come you don’t?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If you are claiming blast waves were produced due to explosives at the WTC, where is the evidence for them? You produced a firefighter quote where they use a simile, where are the audio recordings of blast waves?


I'm not making any CLAIMS, just showing you there is evidence of explosives being heard.

Sorry if you don't like what people who were actually there are saying, I can't help that. I wasn't there, you weren't there, they were and they are explaining what they heard. Simple isn't it?

But like I said in my last post above you don't need to see evidence for explosives when the results point in that direction.
How else do you explain a complete to basement asymmetrical collapse of 3 buildings within seconds of free-fall speed? None of you debunkers have managed to even come close to explaining it without hand-waving and hollyweird physics...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   


Trapped on the 86th floor of WTC1 by blocked fire doors, Mr James M Gartenberg (age - 36) was just 8 floors below where the aircraft struck. Interesting the way the anchors become silent at 1:46 right after he said that portions of the core had collapsed -- as if something else was going on.







(0:31 in the video)
Jim: . . . . part of the core of the building is blown out . . .

. . . . . . . (1:16 in the video)

Female anchor: What time did you get to work?

Jim: I got to work around 8 o'clock this morning, and . . I think this happened about 8:45.

Female anchor: It did. Describe what you felt.

Jim: I felt .. eh .. I felt . . just the whole build .. I heard a noise, felt the building shake, saw glass blown out.

The glass on my floor was blown out from the inside of the building out; rather than the exterior windows being blown out.

Female anchor: What were you . . .

Jim: the glass fully shattered with the core of the building .. ehh .. and the interior core, ehh part of the building collapsed.

Female anchor: SILENCE

Male anchor: SILENCE

Jim: hello


Complete loss of interest by the male and female anchors even though Jim can still be heard faintly talking in the background. The bastards must have turned the sound down. They could have had a nice long interview with him until either his cell phone died or the building fell 53 minutes later. But they didn't give a damn did they? A whole bunch of information about the building and the fires and possible explosions might have been learned, but I guess they wanted no part of any of that. Two people trapped on the 86th floor would at least have had caring human support, but these two asshole ABC anchors apparently just did not give a darn did they?

Or a 9-11 perp OVERSEER shut them down before any more compromising info was leaked.



My guess is there were "directors" in all or most of the control rooms monitoring the broadcasts. Without giving any explanation what so ever, they can give the 'direction' to move on to another subject or caller or another reporter. This direction might come as a mild shock to the anchors (assuming they were clueless) who would naturally view the direction to 'move on' as odd. Why disengage from someone directly experiencing an emergency? But, for them, 'orders are orders'. I'm just guessing here, of course, but that is what it sounds like to me. At about 2:00, after the silence as the male anchor begins talking about bridge closures, you can hear Mr Gartenberg is still talking to someone in the background. His voice comes a bit more to the foreground to the point where he says the elevators have been blown out and then they totally cut away.

This is just about as close to a "smoking gun" as you can get showing media manipulation and strongly countering the official "fire did it" OCT.






I'm stuck on the 85th floor, unh
(0:28) a fire door has trapped us, and the core of the building is blown out.


To you firemen here, what could he possibly mean by "a fire door has trapped us"? Could fire doors in the WTC Towers be remotely locked from say the security center, so they could not be opened? Or was the fire door simply jammed by the explosions in the core or blocked by heavily damaged core sections?

I really wish the interview could have gone on much longer and we could have learned a good deal more. But that is exactly why it was cut short isn't it?





[edit on 12/8/08 by SPreston]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Much of the fuel cascaded down openings -
stairs, elevator shafts being dispersed into aerosol as it traveled.

Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for that. Please quantify exactly how much 'much of the fuel' is.

NIST provide a computer estimate for the spread of the alleged fuel across the floors. I don't see where they stated that 'much' of the fuel 'cascaded' down openings.



Fuel reached the lobby and basement via the elevator shafts killing
or burning people there. The fuel/air mix exploded as it travelled
through the building.

How much of the alleged fuel did this? Which elevator shafts did this alleged fuel travel down? Please supply a model that proves this claim. Please supply a model that shows how the alleged jet fuel can blow out the columns, as described by the witnesses.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
LAUGH when you are told that the remaining fuel traveled to other floors through the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby.


...and then caused a more powerful explosion than the fireball itself did.

Yes, it's laughable, but only when you actually think about it.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


posted by Game_Over
LAUGH when you are told that the remaining fuel traveled to other floors through the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby.


posted by bsbray11
...and then caused a more powerful explosion than the fireball itself did.

Yes, it's laughable, but only when you actually think about it.



So is it settled that internal planted explosives of some nature accomplished the major damage to the core columns? So who planted them; mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his whiz kids from the Middle East or a covert military demolition team? Was it a US team or an Israeli team or combined forces?



Jim Gartenberg did describe damage to the core columns 8 floors below the Flt 11 crash area, and jet fuel did not create the explosive damage down in the basement levels, did it? Something destroyed those massive core columns and it sure was not jet fuel.



I think the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY has been exposed as the lie that it is, and it is time to hang the perpetrators and get on with justice. Anybody disagree?




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


As someone who was there that day I can say that any talk of what happened and how it happened is discouraged.

What I experienced has always led me to believe that we are being lied to.
Now since I don’t want to end up dead like many other 9/11 witnesses I end my reply.

By the way ask the jet fuelers, what happened to the slurry walls?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Regarding the jet fuel and lower explosions, see my posts here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Dont worry buddy, anyone with common sense knows what the blasts were.

I find it sadly comical that some still cling to "fire" as the reason.

Most don't know or remember what was said the first day and more importantly how quickly it changed the next.

The newscaster pushing the fire explanation sounded like used car salesmen trying to sell you a junker.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join