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.

 

FEMA Showed Up On 9-10-2001 For WTC Demolition

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
FEMA, Giuliani, Lucky Larry, and others expected WTC destruction



Classic implosion crimp during Building Seven demolition









posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Great work! I was hoping someone would post something about that detail. I hadn't researched much of it but am glad you did.

I wonder how long until you get the hate posts or those that are eager to attack your views. Hang in there!



s/f



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


All this nonsense has been thoroughly discredited. Try something new.

FEMA confused Monday and Tuesday with Tuesday and Wednesday

Guilliani was advised that the buildings may collapse as many others thought they would (including me).

"Pull It" is not a term used in demolition.

Done.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 


All this nonsense has been thoroughly discredited. Try something new.

FEMA confused Monday and Tuesday with Tuesday and Wednesday

Guilliani was advised that the buildings may collapse as many others thought they would (including me).

"Pull It" is not a term used in demolition.

Done.



Right.... And the rare event of a skyscraper falling in free fall that was not even hit by a plane but housed some very sensitive organizations like the CIA.....Just So Happened.....

Have you ever asked why NIST has sat on photo's of WTC-7 south-side without releasing them for so long if there was nothing to hide??

I am sure when they do release all their photo's they will be carefully "edited."



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Guilliani was advised that the buildings may collapse as many others thought they would (including me).

Yes because they fall down all the time from fires.
According to your logic, demo teams don't need to pay so much money to buy explosives and pay a large team to prep a building and set those explosives. They just need a couple people to run around and set some fires and then we get this:






Anyone who thought those buildings would collapse hasn't the slightest clue about structural engineering or simple physics. Especially when the twin towers were built and designed for just such a scenario.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   


Correct, no plane hit that building, but ENORMOUS chunks of some of the biggest skyscrapers you could ever imagine GUTTED out the entire lobby and first few floors. How exactly is a building like that going to support itself when the bottom is completely gutted out by mountains of concrete falling from next-door skyscrapers?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Actually, skyscrapers falling are a rare event. Free fall? What else would you expect? Once it starts to fall it is going to free fall. An object in motion....etc. Remember?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by talisman
 


Actually, skyscrapers falling are a rare event. Free fall? What else would you expect? Once it starts to fall it is going to free fall. An object in motion....etc. Remember?



Only if mass underneath is moved out of the way.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


Dude, wtc 7 was a fairly good distance away (I do not know the
exact distance) from the twin towers and the damage to it was
rather minimal which you can see in some of the videos of it.
The fire dept. said that the fire weres limited but then they and
others got the word to evacuate beacause the building was going
to collapse. Since before 9/11 no other steel framed skyscrapers
had ever collapsed due to fire - how would anyone know it would be
coming down?
WTC7 was probably the most overdesigned skyscraper in the world
with redundant support features. Why? Because it was home to the
emergency communications for NYC, there were offices for the CIA,
FBI, SEC ( oh look, look we lost all the enron and worldcom
documents! darn!) and a number of other gov't alphabet soup agencies.
If the collapse of wtc7 doesn't seem fishy in some way to you then
you need to look into it a little deeper. 2+2 still equals 4.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat



Correct, no plane hit that building, but ENORMOUS chunks of some of the biggest skyscrapers you could ever imagine GUTTED out the entire lobby and first few floors. How exactly is a building like that going to support itself when the bottom is completely gutted out by mountains of concrete falling from next-door skyscrapers?



Well if NIST has nothing to hide, let them show the photos. Actually, it has been universally agreed that the damage is not what caused the collapse.

IF anything, it should've fallen toward the damaged part.

Also, don't forget that many other buildings were damaged far worse that day and had horrible fires. Yet they didn't do the free fall shuffle to the ground!

Of course, they didn't have those very sensitive offices in them either.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I never saw or heard of any buildings damaged from the collapsing twin towers more than WTC 7. Can you please show me examples?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


Only if mass underneath is moved out of the way.


If you have one third of a massive concrete building falling down onto the other two thirds I really doubt you would need to "move mass out of the way." The millions of tons of weight falling down onto the rest of the structure probably did that job just fine.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Diplomat
 


Dude, wtc 7 was a fairly good distance away (I do not know the
exact distance) from the twin towers and the damage to it was
rather minimal which you can see in some of the videos of it.
The fire dept. said that the fire weres limited but then they and
others got the word to evacuate beacause the building was going
to collapse. Since before 9/11 no other steel framed skyscrapers
had ever collapsed due to fire - how would anyone know it would be
coming down?
WTC7 was probably the most overdesigned skyscraper in the world
with redundant support features. Why? Because it was home to the
emergency communications for NYC, there were offices for the CIA,
FBI, SEC ( oh look, look we lost all the enron and worldcom
documents! darn!) and a number of other gov't alphabet soup agencies.
If the collapse of wtc7 doesn't seem fishy in some way to you then
you need to look into it a little deeper. 2+2 still equals 4.


You must have seen different videos and pictures than I've seen, because the ones I have seen show a pretty destroyed bottom part of WTC 7.

Why do people always say that no building has ever collapsed from fire, as if it were fire alone that made WTC 7 collapse? HUGE chunks of the twin towers litterally gutted out the bottom floors of WTC 7, it wasn't just "fire" it was the actual LOSS OF SUPPORT for the upper floors of the building because support columns and actual pieces of the building were completely destroyed from the falling debris, that part had nothing to do with "fire."

So what if it was overdesigned? What kind of building could possibly withstand two extremely MASSIVE skyscrapers literally crumbling right down on top of it and inside of it?? I thought these types of concepts were common sense but I guess not.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


I find this Link rather illuminating.

Rather than arguing online, here, about stuff that range from "intuition" to outright disinformation, how's about a clear, intelligent examination instead??



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 





Dude, wtc 7 was a fairly good distance away (I do not know the
exact distance) from the twin towers and the damage to it was
rather minimal which you can see in some of the videos of it.
The fire dept. said that the fire weres limited but then they and
others got the word to evacuate beacause the building was going
to collapse. Since before 9/11 no other steel framed skyscrapers
had ever collapsed due to fire - how would anyone know it would be
coming down?
WTC7 was probably the most overdesigned skyscraper in the world
with redundant support features. Why? Because it was home to the
emergency communications for NYC, there were offices for the CIA,
FBI, SEC ( oh look, look we lost all the enron and worldcom
documents! darn!) and a number of other gov't alphabet soup agencies.
If the collapse of wtc7 doesn't seem fishy in some way to you then
you need to look into it a little deeper. 2+2 still equals 4.


WTC 7 was about 350 ft north of Tower 1 (north Tower) aka 1 football field

As for mimimal damage maybe should consider FDNY members reporting
enormous gash in south side (side facing tower 1) - estimated at over 10
stories .



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 hose line 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 Brandeis 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 Magazine: 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 through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably 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. – Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp





At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY




Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.


As for fires - there were numerous floors fully involved in fire. With no
water (collapse of towers cut the mains and internal standpipes were
damaged)

Look atthis video by Steve Spak which shows smoke pouring out of south
side from numerous fires

www.911myths.com...

As for redundant support features - nobody has been able to find them

WTC 7 was built over Con ED power station - it fact original plans had building of 25 stories slated for area. WTC 7 was redesigned as 47 stories
which requiring system of cantilever trusses to support extra size

The trusses and support columns were under enormous strain to support
the unusal configuration



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

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


The NYC OEM did not occupy WTC7 until over 10 years after it was built



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 

All this nonsense has been thoroughly discredited. Try something new.

FEMA confused Monday and Tuesday with Tuesday and Wednesday



Really? Deliberately lying again?

September 2001 Calendar

According to this September 2001 calendar, Monday was the 10th, Tuesday the 11th, and Wednesday the 12th. So what did FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney say on the video in the OP to Dan Rather on Wednesday the 12th?



Tom Kenney "To be honest with you, we arrived uh, on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning, and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site" . . .

There are three days mentioned aren't there? Night, morning, and then today. So you claim FEMA showed up Tuesday night the 11th and did not get started until Wednesday morning the 12th. That makes no sense at all. Devy Kidd claims FEMA was activated the afternoon of the 11th; but Tom Kenney says night or morning not afternoon.

So I will go with FEMA showed up the night of the 10th, with somebody in the FEMA planning knowing that an attack on the WTC would occur the next morning. This fits well with all the other warnings encouraging insiders and special people not to fly on the 11th.

It explains why the commanding officer of the Pentagon Naval Command Center took off leaving a junior lieutenant in charge. It explains why April Gallop's boss took off ordering her to bring her son into the Pentagon danger area when he belonged in childcare. It explains why General Richard Meyers ACJCS was AWOL during 9-11. Of course General Myers was later promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in spite of his dereliction of duty and criminal negligence on the morning of 9-11.

Cross-dresser Giuliani also had foreknowledge of 9-11, which is why all the police and firemen and 1st responders hate him with such gusto. It explains why pResident Dubya was hiding out in Brother Jeb's martial law Florida.

I'm not really satisfied with all the mainstream media damage control artists such as Devy Kidd and WorldNetDaily desperately scrambling to salvage FEMA.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 


All this nonsense has been thoroughly discredited. Try something new.

FEMA confused Monday and Tuesday with Tuesday and Wednesday

Guilliani was advised that the buildings may collapse as many others thought they would (including me).

"Pull It" is not a term used in demolition.

Done.


Can you back up any of what you say to refute the OP.
I am of the opinion that you are as confused as FEMA
How often do you use the term PULL IT daily once a week?
Does it make you feel better?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


See the little picture posted above with marker Controlled Demolition, Inc.? I was the owner's Project Engineer on that little demo. One of 254 I did, everything from that size to little storage sheds, not once did someone say "pull it" unless they were sticking out there finger.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


DIP

I am guessing you are new to the 911 arena here on ATS. Me too.
Can you post any links to all that damage to WTC building seven.
I haven't seen them yet. Are they before or after the bombs are detonated?



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


First let me mention that the original 9-11 commission report didn't
even bother to include wtc7. According to witness Barry Jennings
there were bodies that they had to step over to get out of the
building. Anyways, I found some pictures that may shed some light.
First is the map of wtc complex, note that wtc7 is behind 2 other
buildings -wtc 5 and wtc 6.

[atsimg]http://media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/Asktheanimals/
&action=view&id=39866[/atsimg]

For debris from the north tower to have hit wtc7 it would also have
hit wtc 5 and wtc 6. The next picture from near the site of the north
tower shows wtc 7 behind 5&6. Examine the damage to each.

[atsimg]http://media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/Asktheanimals/&
action=view&id=39865[/atsimg]

Why didn't 5 & 6 collapse? No doubt they took a substantially harder
hit that #7. Finally here's another picture of wtc7 early in the afternoon.

[atsimg]http://media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/Asktheanimals/&action=view&id=39868[/atsimg]

Though we cannot see the right or SE corner there is no other
damage visible. Yes, the SE corner did get hit, basically knocking
off the exterior wall for several stories. This does not necessarily
imply real structural damage to the support structure. There are
reports from firemen stating that the building looked "tilted". With
some of the corner missing yes it would look tilted, not only that
but the building design was not rectangular and given the distortion
of looking up at a tall building it easy to see why they might have
thought what they did look tilted.
If that damage were the primary cause of collapse then the
building should have collapsed TOWARDS the damaged side. It
didn't, it came straight down. Something only possible though
controlled demolition.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Asktheanimals]

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Asktheanimals]

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Asktheanimals]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join