Firefighther heard WTC-7 would come down or be taken down.

WTC-7

Note FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio’s comment at 1:20 that the building had been allowed to fall on it’s own but also mentioning a plan that, “it would be taken down”. I’ve heard others such as Alex Jones mention he had heard similiar statements in the newsmedia that day, thought I’d share this one I found.

Well, the word indeed was about that day that the building was unstable, but also the word that the building would be "taken down". Obviously, David Rastuccio heard this. When you factor in Silverstein's "pull it" comment, then you are driven to conclude something sinister was happening.

It would also seem that an unnatural "focus" on WTC-7 is suspect as well. Why, when other buildings were damaged and burning far worse was all this attention on this one building?

It would seem from David Rastuccio's comments, that either the building would fall on its own or that it would be taken down. Now, judging by the way it fell, it was obviously "taken down".

Here is the thing in this. How would anyone really know when a Skyscraper would fall? This has not happened before. The reason people were thinking this was because they had the idea implanted earlier this day by watching two buildings fall.

I mean, the other thing to factor in here is that the collapse of building 7 was known in advance, which makes this purely unbelievable. The BBC report is obviously one item as well as CNN and their report of the demise of the building in advance of its collapse, and of course the close approx time of these reports to the actual collapse!

A good counter to this is the building in Spain (Windsor Tower), that building also was judged to be unstable and ready to fall. Yet it didn't. Just the fact that people think a building would fall, should not in no way alter our opinion on what we saw.

As NIST danced around the questions posed to them regarding WTC-7, it is obvious from the nature of the collapse that the building was "Taken Down" and we need to look no further then what was in that building, CIA etc.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman

I'll star and flag
Its 911...anything to figure the mess out sounds good to me.
Good luck,they might rip you a new sphincter.

The civilian medic Indira Singh also testified to being told that WTC7 was going to be brought down. She said at the time, given the stress of the whole situation and after everything else that had already happened that day, it didn't sound unreasonable to her at the time and she just did as she was told. Specifically, she was told by some official or another to move her triage to a location further from Building 7, because they were considering bringing it down.

Her testimony is online. She did an interview with "Guns and Butter" if I'm not mistaken.

There's also a video online of unidentified men walking away from WTC7 with hard hats, bolt cutters, and medical type masks over their mouths and noses, and as you hear explosions in the background one says something along the lines of, "Do you hear that? That building will be coming down soon." Lots of speculation about that one but it's certainly very suggestive for a number of reasons.

Originally posted by talisman

First of all. There were many stories floating around all day. Now, think for a minute. The man had "heard" that it would be coming down on it's own or get brought down.

Ok...in the middle of a massive fire, they decided to wire and detonate a 47 story building?

Oh... that's right it was pre-wired by secret black op's agents prior to 911!

More importantly... instead of watching the video posted... listen to it. How many explosions do you hear? Yeah I didn't hear anything either. Therm*te? Yeah the special black ops guys did a massive covert operation planting thousands of pounds of it. Good thing none of the fire or debris from the towers didn't set off the therm*te prematurely.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by talisman


A good counter to this is the building in Spain (Windsor Tower), that building also was judged to be unstable and ready to fall. Yet it didn't. Just the fact that people think a building would fall, should not in no way alter our opinion on what we saw.

All of the unprotected steel at the Windsor Tower did in fact fail and collapse. The concrete sections survived.

reply to post by CameronFox


That is because those black Ops guys deleted the explosion out of the videos.
Oh, that’s right! The building fell faster than a normal building falls when collapsing.
Nevertheless, you seem to have all the answers please tell us what happened.

reply to post by Gonenuts


What would you like to know? I don't have all the answers.... but please find one video where you can hear demolition charges going off. (on any of the three buildings)

reply to post by CameronFox

but please find one video where you can hear demolition charges going off. (on any of the three buildings)

I guess you will deni this is not real to.

Explosions on 911

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Gonenuts


I was just complaining about the stupidity of these people in another thread but of course the point was completely lost once again. It never sinks in on these people.

People ask for explosions, you give them explosions. Then they will speculate all day about what it was -- anything BUT explosives, of course -- and somehow become convinced that they have "debunked" you.

Speculation on top of speculation is not debunking, sorry.

Maybe the explosions weren't explosives, but the point is, if you say they weren't, you're speculating 100% as much as someone who says they were. I never even said you could hear explosives. I said explosions. Let's leave it at that. If you can't accept the evidence as is, you have problems.

Btw, here is the video I was talking about:



Not the same as the one above, but also has explosions in it.

(What's exploding? You don't know! Speculate to yourself, because I've heard it all already.)

[edit on 22-12-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by talisman


A good counter to this is the building in Spain (Windsor Tower), that building also was judged to be unstable and ready to fall. Yet it didn't. Just the fact that people think a building would fall, should not in no way alter our opinion on what we saw.

All of the unprotected steel at the Windsor Tower did in fact fail and collapse. The concrete sections survived.

That is a poor argument. For starters as I mentioned there were other buildings that were made of steel and burned from top to bottom that day without collapse.

The steel you refer to in the Windsor bldg was not on par with the steel in the buildings on 9/11 that did not collapse as a result of fire and damage.




[edit on 22-12-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by bsbray11


Interesting choice of words that were used in the video. "The building is about to blow up" as opposed to....

...." the building is about to collapse"

I think I also hear someone say "its blowing" and of course "keep your eye on that building".

[edit on 22-12-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by CameronFox
All of the unprotected steel at the Windsor Tower did in fact fail and collapse. The concrete sections survived.

Nice that you mention the unprotected steel. What happened to the protected steel? Unless you want to tell me that this outer shell is made of concrete?

en.wikipedia.org...

That protected steel at the bottom 2/3 of the building arrested a global pancaking collapse of the thinner unprotected steel above. Something that most of us think should have happened in the towers.

BTW, the only reason it was unprotected was because it was still under construction if memory serves me correct.

Not only is the Windsor a good comparison for the steel in the lower 2/3 of the building holding up in fire, it's a good comparison to show that a building can indeed halt a global collapse due to gravity. Just my opinion of course.

So let me get this straight.

You're suggesting that Bush and Cheney clued selected people in on their dastardly plan to knock these buildings over.

One of those carefully selected few was a FDNY lieutenant who allowed his own men to die in the collapse of the buildings.

I mean, do you people ever look beyond these random statements you attach so much credence to, and actually think about the completely illogical nature of what you are suggesting.

Originally posted by Retseh
One of those carefully selected few was a FDNY lieutenant who allowed his own men to die in the collapse of the buildings.

I wasn't aware of the firemen who died in WTC 7. Can you name them?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Retseh
One of those carefully selected few was a FDNY lieutenant who allowed his own men to die in the collapse of the buildings.

I wasn't aware of the firemen who died in WTC 7. Can you name them?

Nobody died during the collapse of WTC7, at least not as an immediate result of the collapse

-rrr

Look at the exterior columns of the Windsor Tower here:







I would ask if any of the "debunkers" (if there are any left besides Mr. Neener) see any difference whatsoever between those steel columns (which are about the same dimensions as plumbing pipe) and these from the WTC Towers:





Any measurable difference, you think?

Simultaneously I'll ask which of those actual fires was more intense?


(Hint: The WTC columns were stronger and had more mass to them to heat, and the Windsor Tower was more involved in fire.)

[edit on 23-12-2008 by bsbray11]

The Windsor Fire was far worse then the fire in buidling 7, the fire burned longer, the building never fully collapsed. Bld-6 was damaged far worse then building 7 and had a raging fire. Yet another building that resisted collapse.

Not only was it that Building 7 collapsed and looked like a demolition, but that people knew in advance of its demise!

Originally posted by talisman
Not only was it that Building 7 collapsed and looked like a demolition, but that people knew in advance of its demise!

Not only "knew of it" in advance, even firefighters knew that there was an option on the table, that they could/would have the building "taken down."

Of course they would know it was going to collapse, if the people that were going to do it were talking about it with first responders beforehand.

id est Windsor Tower fire

posted by bsbray11

I would ask if any of the "debunkers" (if there are any left besides Mr. Neener) see any difference whatsoever between those steel columns (which are about the same dimensions as plumbing pipe) and these from the WTC Towers:

Each exterior wall section weighed 8000 pounds and the entire steel framework of each tower was bolted and welded into a gigantic heat sink which would absorb all excessive heat and conduct it away from its source.





[edit on 12/25/08 by SPreston]