|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:04 AM by impressme
|
reply to post by esdad71
An idiot....a five year....ignorant...why all of the hatred because some does not agree.
Really, esdad71 there is no hatred that is something that you assumed. However, understanding your position, of derailing the true and failing to
answers our questions doesn’t help you, or your creditability, now dose it.
That was not a government issued video and it was still photos that you never see published because they show the damage that was caused to
the buildings.
You are funny. Where are these still photos that ONLY YOU ARE ALOUD TO SEE? and no one else is, eh?
Now,how about a video with stills that shows the damage and the leaning that would have been caused. It even includes the same firefighter
remarks...you know, from people who were there.
LINK TO THE VIDEO
You just said the photos were not published and you give us this video from a disinfo web site which is it esdad71?
I did not see any still photos showing any allege gash, or anything else. Esdad71 your ship is almost sunk the only way to save yourself is to hop on
the truth.
Also, what those FDNY workers saw and did is fact.
And your firemen are the only one’s that is credible right? And all the other firemen are lairs, that saw something different that the government
story tellers do not want you to know, like these firemen are they lairs to?
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and
Explosions in the WTC
whatreallyhappened.com...
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of
2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that
they existed.
Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so.
Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration refused. So the
Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to
release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and
medical workers.1 (Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department.2) The Times then made these oral histories publicly
available.3
www.911truth.org...
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South
Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping
with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com
911review.org...
Explosive Testimony: Police & Firemen Report What Really Happened on 911
"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on
television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."
--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know
like when they demolish a building?"
--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
www.organicconsumers.org...
FIREFIGHTERS VS 911 COMMISSION
911lies.org...
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions
911review.com...
Explosions
Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories
The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on this page describe
perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where noted otherwise.
911research.wtc7.net...
Explosions Heard in the Twin Towers BEFORE They Collapsed
georgewashington.blogspot.com...
These are the FACT!of what these firemen saw and heard.
I do not understand where you information is that proves that those men were not in the building and did not hear it shifting or moving.
[edit on 6-6-2009 by impressme]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:11 AM by impressme
|
reply to post by esdad71
There is no information, but your imagination.
The FDNY in the WTC before they collapsed could here the creaking and movement in the minutes before they fell. One of those men who tell that
story survived the collapse.
Yes it is a story, is it true? We do not know that and neither do you.
THere is no urban myth...
No, there is only THE TRUTH!
Also, tezzajaw, why is the NIST report garbage except where it fits your story?
The fact is, tezzajaw is right, the NIST is garbage, full of lies, and pseudo science, and laughable assumptions. Also tezzajaw was using your NIST
disinfo that you used, right back at ya!
I am not talking about the NIST report; I posted a ideo that shows the damage that was done to the building during the collapse of the WTC 1
and 2.
The video in question dose NOT show any damage from WTC 1 & 2. You keep repeating yourself repeatedly about this video. What happen did you
fall off your stool and bump your head. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:29 AM by pteridine
|
reply to post by tezzajw
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 1, Pages 298 to 304 detail the witnesses comments regarding the damage to WTC7.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 03:34 AM by impressme
|
reply to post by pteridine
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 1, Pages 298 to 304 detail the witnesses comments regarding the damage to WTC7.
Pteridine, what about all those firemen, first responders, and police officers, that I just posted about and what they saw and heard are they all
lying? On the other hand, are the proven lies of NIST report more important than the truth? What do you have against the truth?
Why didn’t the NIST used the hundred of eyewitness that were there at the WTC who have gone on record saying they SAW explosions and they
SAW flashes go around the towers from the bottom up and they HEARD many explosions at all the WTC.
Seem to me NIST just cherry pick witness, which went along with their lie. Not everyone who saw and heard different things other than the OS is a
lair.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:31 AM by thedman
|
reply to post by Badgered1
Trason there was no water to fight fires in WTC 7 was that the collapse
of WTC 1 & 2 destroyed the water mains in the area - also the debris
strikes on WTC 7 smashed the internal standpipe system in the stairways
whjich deliver water to the floors. You have no water in the hydrants
because of the collapse of the towers, even if had water the internal
standpipes were damaged and could not deliver water to the floors on
fire.
The automatic fire sprinkler systems in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first line of defense. Water stored in the building from public sources or pumped
from fire apparatus was supplied through dedicated piping tothe area of the fire. Also present in the buildings were hoses, preconnected to a water
supply through standpipes located in the stairwells and other utility shafts. The standpipes provided hose connections at each floor for The Fire
Department of the City of New York (FDNY). In addition, standpipe preconnected hoses were installed for trained occupants to manually suppress
fires
FDNY Capt Chris Boyle No water pressure - standpipe system shot
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.
Lieutenant Rudy Weindler of Ladder Company 40
Styandpipes with no water
"we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put
out the fires, and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried
to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd
be on fool's mission.
As result of 9/11 FDNY ordered new Seagrave pumpers equipped with
extra hard suction hoses so can draft water from rivers (FUN FACT -
NYC (except Bronx) is built on islands surrounded by water )
In keeping with its policy of replacing engines every 10 years, the FDNY has received 70 news engines from Seagrave. The FDNY maintains 198 engines in
frontline service on a regular basis. The new Seagrave engines were designed by the FDNY to cope with lessons learned during 9/11. "After Sept. 11,
we decided we needed to have pumpers that can draft out of our surrounding rivers, if necessary, because we saw water mains disappear when the twin
towers collapsed," said FDNY Asst. Commissioner James Basile. "To do this, we made provisions for the apparatus to carry four lengths of flex
hard-suction on the driver side. We also have the capability of having a special intake on the officer's side of the apparatus to draft, as well as
an intake in the front bumper.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 10:27 AM by pteridine
|
reply to post by impressme
What about them? Someone made the comment that the NIST report did not refer to the damage and it does.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 11:11 AM by NIcon
|
reply to post by thedman
thedman, not sure if you've seen this, but they also will be getting two new ones of these:
www.nycfireboat.com...
One looks like it's only a few months away from being completed. Now hopefully someone has convinced the pencil-pushing, paper-sniffing bureaucratic
geeks that four just may be better than two. But budget, budget, budget.....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 11:36 AM by esdad71
|
NIST is garbage...why? Because all of you say so? The collective education of the NIST collaborative is, in fact, incredible. I will believe a nobel
prize winner before I will a web poster.
As far as the video, it is a video with STILL PICTURES in it? Did you watch it? It shows the pieces of the WTC falling into WTC 7 which is something
that is never shown in your conspiracy pieces.
My ship is sinking?
Do any of you know why the planes hit the towers the way they did? It was to finish what they tried in 93, which was to have them fall INTO one
another and come down. One hit from the north and the other from the south.
During the collapse, a large gash(stories high) was cut into the WTC 7. This is a factor in the collapse. There are numerous pictures that show this
but it will not be on a Truther site because it goes against your core belief that there was nano super hyper nuclear thermite in all the buildings.
I mean, if that was the case, why not use a 'truck bomb' again and worry about the logistics of crashing two planes???
The WTC 7 was set up as the rally point also for the rescue. This is not fallacy you just choose not to believe it. As I said before this is your
right to freethinking as well as coming to your own conclusion on what happened that day.
There is no urban myth, it is fact.
Here is some more reading for you to separate fact from fiction...
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the
benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the
FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's
Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the
building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact
proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the
failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or
"kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in
on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying
exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just
one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer
loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to
columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by
tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the
fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this
pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
The kink in the roof was visible for hours. Firefighters were told to evactuate and leave. Please give me the logic as to why anyone would wait 7
hours to collapse the building?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 11:46 AM by thedman
|
reply to post by NIcon
Thanks - usually see these profiled in magazines in firehouse
Hadn't seen anything about it ....
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 01:10 PM by bsbray11
|
Originally posted by esdad71
The kink in the roof was visible for hours.
Then can you show pictures of it from hours in advance? There are lots of time-stamped NIST photos and even video clips leading up to collapse.
These firefighters were no doubt looking at the damaged parts of the building. And we DON'T KNOW how bad that damage was. We know the SW corner
damage was only superficial. NIST claims ALL of the damage was superficial and didn't play any significant role in the collapse, that the building
would have collapsed anyway.
So putting all these firefighters' hearsay aside, since we have no idea what they were looking at or talking about, can you show actual
pictures of the leaning hours in advance or a kink hours in advance of the collapse?
Because if you can't, then no one is going to believe the whole freaking building was leaning or had a kink in it. It didn't. Those ideas ARE
myths.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:05 PM by _BoneZ_
|
Originally posted by esdad71
During the collapse, a large gash(stories high) was cut into the WTC 7.
Here's the gash in the middle of the building:
A thin gash going down the middle of the building, but the rest of the building is intact. Here's another building with a gash stories high:
Explain why that building is still standing.
Originally posted by esdad71
This is a factor in the collapse.
The gash was not a factor in the collapse. For one, another building with a similar gash is still standing. For two, did you even read the
first post in this thread? NIST even says:
the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.
Your first lines in the above post say how incredible NIST is, but then you stray from the NIST report. Since WTC1 had little effect on initiating the
collapse of WTC7, we're left with just fire. Fire cannot do this:
If fires could do the above, controlled demo companies would be using fire instead of precisely placed explosives. They don't use fire because fire
doesn't bring down steel-structured high-rises. Never has, never will.
Originally posted by esdad71
The kink in the roof was visible for hours.
Please show us all the kink in the roof:
Roof looks perfectly straight and level on all sides to me.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:27 PM by exponent
|
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Explain why that building is still standing.
Why? You know perfectly well why. Fire.
Fire cannot do this:
Prove it.
[edit on 6-6-2009 by exponent]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 02:29 PM by bsbray11
|
Originally posted by exponent
Why? You know perfectly well why. Fire.
Actually that building also caught on fire, while it was being torn down, and it burned for over 2 hours, was a major fire and 2 firefighters died.
Didn't collapse, no danger of collapse.
[edit on 6-6-2009 by bsbray11]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 03:25 PM by _BoneZ_
|
Originally posted by exponent
Fire cannot do this:
Prove it.
History has already proven it. 
If you think fires can bring down steel structured high-rises, 1.) find one for me, and 2.) start travelling around the world teaching demo companies
how to do it because they would love to know this secret.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 03:44 PM by exponent
|
Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually that building also caught on fire, while it was being torn down, and it burned for over 2 hours, was a major fire and 2 firefighters died.
Didn't collapse, no danger of collapse.
Were the fires comparable? Have you left out any pertinent details perhaps?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 03:46 PM by exponent
|
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
History has already proven it.
So if I were to travel back in time to the 1940s, I could proclaim that no nuclear bomb was possible, because history had proven it?
If you think fires can bring down steel structured high-rises, 1.) find one for me, and 2.) start travelling around the world teaching demo
companies how to do it because they would love to know this secret.
1. WTC7
2. They already know how fire works, they also know that it's much cheaper and more efficient to use cutter charges. Do you really think this is an
intelligent line of discussion? Do you honestly believe demolition companies don't set the buildings on fire only because fire is
somehow incapable of bringing structures down?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:10 PM by bsbray11
|
reply to post by exponent
Why don't you look it up yourself. You'd probably just claim the structures themselves weren't comparable, but without saying in what regards.
WTC7 could have been (and probably was) stronger than the smaller BT for all you know, which was a smaller building not required to support as much
weight. Carrying higher loads translates practically to using more steel, and bigger columns, which isn't make it easier on any fire.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the building was structurally sound and not in danger of collapsing. He also said preliminary air-quality tests
showed an increase in particulate matter but no hazardous contaminants, though he warned that results of more complete tests would not be available
until this morning.
...
Workers told officials they had been stripping asbestos from beams, and the fire spread quickly through gaps and holes in the structure.
The blaze spread through spots on 10 different floors through those pockets and voids. It went as high as the 26th story, which is now the top floor
of the building.
Demolition of the building, which once stood at 41 stories, had been delayed for years because of environmental concerns, labor and contract disputes,
and to accommodate the search for human remains from the terrorist attacks. The chief medical examiner’s office said in February that 766 body parts
had been found in the building. Most were fragments less than four inches long.
Demolition finally began in February, but because of the hazardous materials inside, the building had to be taken apart piece by piece, all of the
work closely monitored by environmental officials. Workers had dismantled about 15 floors as of Tuesday.
www.nytimes.com...
The Mayor said this:
He elaborated on the structural integrity of the skyscraper: “We’ve had the Buildings Department in there, they’ve looked at every floor and
they are totally satisfied that there is no danger whatsoever. The fire was not that hot. The aluminum decking may melt, but the basic structure of
the building, our Buildings Department has said quite explicitly, is secure.”
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...
No evidence that this fire was any hotter than any other skyscraper fire in the history of the world, and no other skyscrapers (including WTC1 in the
1970s) have ever done anything except slightly deform (sag, etc.) in the absolute worst cases, ever. And there have been much, much worse fires on
steel than the ones that occurred in WTC7, there is no doubt about that. There are even controlled scientific studies (ie the tests at
Cardigan) that have show this deformation to be the extent of damage ever caused to any steel frame in a fire. Fire does not make steel start
breaking apart. Nor would the columns have lost significant yield strength, as even NIST will tell you.
Compare to WTC7:
[edit on 6-6-2009 by bsbray11]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:12 PM by bsbray11
|
Originally posted by exponent
If you think fires can bring down steel structured high-rises, 1.) find one for me, and 2.) start travelling around the world teaching demo
companies how to do it because they would love to know this secret.
1. WTC7
Is that a joke or are you being serious? WTC7 is the building you are debating -- remember?!? To use it as an example of another
steel-framed building that has collapsed from fire alone is ignorant.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:16 PM by Foxy Nutz
|
Originally posted by esdad71
Do any of you know why the planes hit the towers the way they did? It was to finish what they tried in 93, which was to have them fall INTO one
another and come down. One hit from the north and the other from the south.
Do you know this for a fact or are you just spouting what you've heard.
Let's see. The towers were called the North Tower (WTC 1) and the South Tower (WTC 2).
Now, think about it. How could they hit both from the north when one of the towers would be in the way? Same as a south approach.
So, they had to hit the north tower from the north (because the south tower would be in the way for a south approach) and they had to hit the south
tower from the south (because the north tower would be in the way of a northern approach).
People need to start thinking and not just except what they have been told. 
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take
out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes
down."
First, that's a poor design if true. Second, it's amazing that we can't verify this information for ourselves, huh?
[edit on 6-6-2009 by Foxy Nutz]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 04:29 PM by exponent
|
Originally posted by bsbray11
Why don't you look it up yourself. You'd probably just claim the structures themselves weren't comparable
Indeed I might, but I find it telling that you fail to note that
1. The fuel load was massively lowered, being only sheets of plastic designed to protect areas against asbestos
2. The building at the time was nearly half its original height, and nearly one third of WTC7s height
3. That the fire started and burned within a few floors of the top of the building.
4. The fire was fought despite its difficulty
edit: I just checked and #3 might actually be wrong, there is still a point to be made considering the Deutsche Bank Building's size but I am leaving
it here to show that I make mistakes and apologise for them 
The fact that you've ignored these 4 elements is telling as you clearly know that these were factors. I find it hard to believe that you ignored them
simply because you think they weren't relevant.
I also find it funny that you slip up slightly with some of the rhetoric, for example:
There are even controlled scientific studies (ie the tests at Cardigan) that have show this deformation to be the extent of damage ever
caused to any steel frame in a fire.
What you meant to say is "steel frame high-rise", because we both know that without that qualifier I can show you endless examples of steel
structures failing. High rises are typically more resilient, because for life safety purposes they are required to be.
You also say this, which makes no sense:
Fire does not make steel start breaking apart. Nor would the columns have lost significant yield strength, as even NIST will tell
you.
Really? Could you tell me what caused the internal collapse of WTC5? Or perhaps what proportion the yield strength will be reduced by at the
temperatures seen in the Cardington test?
You know that I know the answers to these, and I am quite sure that you do too, so why you don't present them plainly should be obvious for everyone
to see. You resort to pictures in order to make a claim that they look similar and therefore are similar. This may convince someone not well versed in
the facts surrounding 911, but please don't patronise me so much.
[edit on 6-6-2009 by exponent]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
|
|
|
