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.

 

NEW: WTC7 and North Tower Collapse Video

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


What 9 seconds ???
9 seconds after the charges were initiated the WTC7 lay in a pulverised heap....exploded windows et al......so yeah....



First of all, welcome to ATS !

The video in the OP that I posted the link to starts approximately 9 seconds into the collapse.

IF you are new, perhaps you have not been had the opportunity to watch the entire collapse of WTC-7. I did post it above. The Penthouse collapses 6- 9 seconds prior to the progressive collapse of the rest fo the building. Almost all truther videos of the collapse never show the penthouse collapse.

Watch them both and then tell me how long into the collapse did the windows break.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Cash, I have proved that the windows breaking were NOT the result of bombs. The broke about 10 seconds into the collapse. That's not an opinion.



Thank you



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Well since I guess it was a little hard for you to figure it all out here you go:
From FDNY Hayden:

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.


Now then since you OBVIOUSLY didn't even bother looking at the video:
The fireifghter from the video I posted which you ignored.

"You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond..."


No gash? Check your eyesight please, or at least get your glasses on and cleaned:


Now, I'm no engineer or nothing but isn't THIS how WTC7 is suppose to look like?


Now can you tell what is wrong with the first picture of WTC7? Yeah, I don't recall that thing in the middle as part of the original design. Huh. Do you see it? Or are your truther blinders on?



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
thanks throatyoghurt for your welcome....


Do you happen to have a better picture of the "gash" you reffered too??
I ask because, in all fairness, smoke is obscuring it....ty....

On a side note.....
Why do you think the Commission chose to ignore wtc7 in its enquiry????

Im interested to hear your thoughts....



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


The 9/11 Commission Report, formally named Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is the official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is not an engineering report. NIST was hired to handle that task. There were MANY buildings damaged on 911, some had to be demolished. This is not mentioned in the report either.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


Do you happen to have a better picture of the "gash" you reffered too??
I ask because, in all fairness, smoke is obscuring it....ty....



I wasn't speaking about the gash. The video I was referring to what the TOTAL collapse of WTC-7. As I stated above, there were a good 6-9 seconds before the windows broke. This is clearly seen as a result from the building collapse and not that of any detonation charges. Watch the video again. I assure you, there are no bombs going off there.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I posted a picture of this earlier.



I hope this shows a little bit more clearly the area affected. As you can see, this is clearly not a part of the original structure. It would appear a partial collapse has occurred.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Actually before 7 fell there was a very unusual pattern of damage (busted windows) which were not picked up by the majority of video cameras. I am referring to the singular column on the (west) facade. One single column has a window blown out on every floor, yet no damage inbetween. It looks far more like the result of a row of explosives rather than random fires and falling debris. Check it out, I always thought these busted out windows were pretty suspect:



So please explain to us why would there be a singular window busted out over atleast 10-12 floors in one column only with no visible damage either side? Thermal expansion? Sure, whatever you say NIST.



[edit on 6-11-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   


You want us to believe that your friends were:
- watching WTC7 from up the block.
- across the street in the WFC buildings fighting fires.
- searching buildings all afternoon.



Sorry for confusion - actually did all three

Building had to be searched for victims and stragglers - refer to
jennings/Hess in WTC 7 who had to be rescued after collapse of North
Tower. This can be done at same time other fire fighting operations are carried

Had to fight the fires started by debris which struck building


later were pulled away from building in anticipation of WTC 7 coming down

Damage report




7.2.2 WFC 3, American Express Building

The 50-story WFC 3 building has a plan area of approximately 200 feet by 250 feet. Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 (Figure 7-2) and on the setback roof and against the east face of the Winter Garden (Figures 7-3 and 7-4). The impact of exterior column trees caused structural damage in both structures. Building faces not directly oriented toward the WTC site suffered minimal damage, even at the close proximity of several hundred yards.

The glazing and facade damage in the building was similar to that found in WFC 1 and WFC 2, which also had extensive cracking and breakage of glazing and granite panels. Debris from WTC 1 caused a collapse of the top 8 stories of the 10-story octagonal extension located at the southeast side of the building. The main WFC 3 building suffered damage from floors 17 to 26. A three-story section of exterior column trees from WTC 1 hung from the base of the collapsed area at floor 20, as shown in Figure 7-2, with approximately 25 feet of the column hanging outside the building. At floors 17 through 26, the corner column had been removed by the impact of debris, and the floors cantilevered from adjacent columns to the north and west. Smaller column debris penetrated floor 17. The damage did not extend past the corner bay, which had to be shored and was later demolished.

Interior damage is shown in Figure 7-5. Inspection of the interior determined that steel framing members that sustained direct impact from large debris had significant portions of the cementitious fireproofing material knocked off. The fireproofing was intact on adjacent steel members that had not been directly hit.

The localized nature of the damage, given the size of projectiles that impacted the building, is notable. Observations noted small welds between column end bearing plates at exterior and interior columns, indicating the columns near the damage zone were designed for gravity loads, and tension loads from wind were not a critical design parameter. This type of connection between columns may have allowed a column member to be knocked out of place without causing substantial displacement or damage to connecting framing.


Fires were quickly contained and extinguished - unlike WTC 7 where
standpipes/sprinklers were knocked out of commission


Mod edit to add source:

911research.wtc7.net...

Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if that information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency Management, that had earlier informed the department that one of the towers was going to collapse. And we have it on good authority that it did. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-76). [78]
But that answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions, beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in advance that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did they know this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a real investigation, which has yet to begin.

This part I love because it is the TRUTH!


It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.
The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.
There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:
The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness. [79]

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.



I like to add NIST and FEMA didn’t have much to say about your lousy 20 story gash!
Furthermore they know it did not bring WTC7 down.

www.911review.com...


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 




Why did NIST cover up the long, straight gash in the south face of WTC7?

Because NIST needed the testimony of Capt. Chris Boyle to create the false story that WTC7 had suffered a huge hole in its south face, one that would help to explain for unthinking sheeple why this building fell down. Here is Boyle's testimony, as reported in the August, 2002 issue of Firehouse Magazine:

"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

[link to www.firehouse.com]

There was NO huge, gaping hole. Instead, there was a long, vertical, superficial gash, no doubt caused by floors of offices adjutting the south face dropping down on top of one another (yes - a REAL pancake!) as a result of debris from the North Tower crashing into the WTC7 near its top. This chain-reaction collapse of floors plausibly explains the vertical nature of the gash and its sharp edges, although this should remain a matter for debate. See the photo at 911Blogger.com (linked at the end of this article) of the 23-storey British tower block called 'Ronan Point', whose floors and walls collapsed in this progressive manner in May, 1968. The damage at the end of the vertical gash caused by impact of falling debris is clearly visible through the smoke (though only briefly) in the ABC News footage at:
[link to www.youtube.com]

NIST has thousands of 9/11 photos that it has never released, so there is no reason to suppose that it never actually knew of this gash and had had to depend upon Boyle's verbal account. Instead, NIST no doubt exploited Capt. Boyle's exaggerated description of the size and depth of the gash because it helped to make credible the scenario that WTC7 had fallen because of fire and damage caused by falling debris - something which even NIST admitted in its report it could not explain satisfactorily. If NIST had released photos of the actual damage to the south face, which was too superficial to explain WTC7's collapse (it can be seen in the video linked to above), it would have made the collapse of WTC7 even more problematic than it already was! That's why you cannot find on the internet government photos of the complete, south face of WTC7 after the North Tower fell.


www.godlikeproductions.com...


All I can say it “could” be a shadow on the building or it “could” be a gash however if it is a gash what blew those entire window outward and what would cause a perfect straight line straight down the building. I will note that there is “no” building debris on the roof of WTC7. Also in the photos, the so call gash starts at the top of the building. So were is the debris on the roof from the other WTC?


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 




9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".
Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.
In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.

Watch the video.

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."
"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.
McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.
McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.
The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."
Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?
We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe , or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.
This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

www.infowars.com...


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Now I ask you a question first Sir!


WTC7 was falling apart all day.

Really! And what part of WTC7 was falling all day?

Like you said in another thread you just wait and pounce!

Please show proof and sources of WTC7 falling all day?

Do not respond to me with a question “you” answer this one please.



You still have not answer my question.

What was falling all day on WTC7 all day?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition




Here ya go Cashlink:


Kevin McPadden in his own words

In this video, Kevin claims that the Red Cross rep said "They are thinking about bringing the building down". Now this is different from his statement here stating that he was thinking or being told the building was likely to come down due to structural damage.


In the following video he states that he heard "pulsed speech". No mention of 3..2..1.., you he said... "that means to me it was most likely a countdown".




What I found more interesting is that there is audio of McPadden from September 2006 on Guns & Butter, and he does not mention of any Red Cross personnel with a radio, of him hearing anything on any radio, of any "countdown", of any Red Cross worker "giving him a look", of any Red Cross worker yelling, "Run for your lives", etc.

In fact, his story in September 2006 was vastly different than his most recent versions of events. He does tell other stories, though, and frankly, I have a hard time believing almost all of them. Michael Bloomberg accosted him and said, "you think you look cool with that cigarette in your mouth, but you look like a dirtbag"? Um, I somehow doubt it.

He fought with security guards at St. Vincent's Hospital and pinned someone up against a wall while attempting to obtain medical supplies even though he claims that they unnecessary because there was nobody to save? Um, I doubt that, too.

Anyway, the story he was telling last year is available at the following link.

kpfa.org...

(from the 46 minute mark to the 55 minute mark)

Here is another video from last October:
mp3.wtprn.com...


Very interesting guy.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


According to firefighters and structural engineers on site, the whole building was failing. And yes I did answer it many times already. It was tilting, leaning, burning, creaking, does this sound like a stable building to you? A partial collapse was observed and photographed, and video taped. One fighter on camera said it was in very bad shape. All this points to a building who's structural integrity has been severely compromised and is failing, (Falling apart), NOT a building that was "demoed" with explosives.

Now that I have answered your question, answer mine. Why did fire fighters put a transit on WTC7?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


If you paid close attention to the initial impact of the North Tower on WTC7, you wll see a large chunk of the exterior columns fall and impact WTC7 about midway and lower. Afterwards the gash that was later photographed shows a partial collapse right down the south face, which would affirm the severe damage and instability. Fire burned on numerous floors on the south side and some migrated to the north side. There is nothing there that would create a "shadow" that straight and narrow especially since the sun would have been almost directly on it. The WTCs were already gone and nothing else could have blocked the sun to create any shadow. Neither the clouds or dust. This was proof of severe structural damage. Add to that firefighter accounts of the stability in question, the leaning, twisting and observing how the building was slowly falling apart, it all adds up to structural failure brought on by fires and damage.
Now, for fun, if you could maybe show us proof where firefighters or someone saw a crew of 40+ people with heavy equipment, explosives, wires, etc. ran into wtc7 and managed to rig it all without anyone noticing, as the building was burning, leaning, and everything, and rig it all up in less then 3-5 hours.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

posted by ThroatYogurt

Warning: This is a screen shot compliments of ThroatYogurt and not a video




ThroatYogurt once again I must say thank you for posting TRUTH. I accidentally went to one of your threads and lo and behold; this TRUTH was staring me in the face.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
It was tilting, leaning,



All this points to a building who's structural integrity has been severely compromised and is failing, (Falling apart), NOT a building that was "demoed" with explosives.


But, then why does NIST say that one column caused the collapse? Shouldn't they state in their report and in their computer model that the entire building was tilting, leaning and partially collapsing all day? Hell, I'd believe that over thermal expansion any day.

So, why do the experts contradict this?



Now that I have answered your question, answer mine. Why did fire fighters put a transit on WTC7?


I'm man enough to admit that I don't know the answer to this question. But, can you tell me if they put a transit on other buildings in the area as well?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Actually before 7 fell there was a very unusual pattern of damage (busted windows) which were not picked up by the majority of video cameras. I am referring to the singular column on the (west) facade. One single column has a window blown out on every floor, yet no damage inbetween. It looks far more like the result of a row of explosives rather than random fires and falling debris. Check it out, I always thought these busted out windows were pretty suspect:



So please explain to us why would there be a singular window busted out over atleast 10-12 floors in one column only with no visible damage either side? Thermal expansion? Sure, whatever you say NIST.



[edit on 6-11-2008 by Insolubrious]


That my friend is the Easiest Explanation ever. Those aren't windows those are Vents like the ones in the eves of your home except on a large scale



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
This was proof of severe structural damage.


Define severe please. Because all I see is partial floor collapse between columns. Columns are what hold buildings up. Not floors.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join