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.

 

"That building is going to come down Next" Wtc-7

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   



Here is a problem for those who supoort the official line on what happened. It just dawned on me as I watched this, yet another video where the knowledge of Wtc-7's demise was known in advance.

When you take the above statement in light of what Larry Silverstein said:






"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein


*for the sake of argument (I feel Larry is "pulling a fast one" -no pun) But for the sake of argument*

If Larry Silverstein's account and explanation is accurate, then there is an immediate question.

Why during this interview didn't Larry Silverstein talk about the "impending doom" of Bldg-7 that everyone else seemed to know about and knew was coming? His words, seem to only indicate that there was a terrible fire and it wouldn't be contained.

He also, doesn't indicate any frame of reference. He seem's to indicate that upon the 'pulling' there was a gathering point where everyone watched the building collapse.

Something doesn't quite add up here if you know what I mean.

Larry Silverstein never talks about "saving lives" because the buidling is "going to collapse" (again assuming his explanation)


There is an abdunance of information out there that the collapse of Wtc-7 was coming.


The problem with this is that not only did the building collapse, but it did so at near freefall speed. It is not just the collapse that is worrisome, but the 'manner' in which it did.

The fact, that people said "Wtc-7 is *next*" is even more cause for concern.


I think there is a strong circumstantial case to be made, that whomever planned this operation 'seeded' the idea of the buildings demise and mislead others into thinking it was purely the stucture itself that was damaged by the Towers and fire that was making the building unstable.


The fact that Silverstein never mentioned the foreknowledge about the buildings collapse in my mind means he indeed is hiding something.


I am starting to believe that Larry Silverstein was the "source of info" that told people the building was going to collapse.




[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


On that day they had watched two of the largest buildings in the world collapse and kill thousands of innocent people. It was established that there was no one in WTC 7 that needed to be rescued, the area had been evacuated except for professionals. The building had been struck and severly and overtly damaged by the falling towers, the fires had been burning for hours. There was one of two possibilites - the fires would burn out and the building would stand or the fires would eventually accumulate sufficient damage to the superstructure and would fail. They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse. There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.

What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do? It would have to be demolsihed eventually anyway, it could never be used again. The demolition of the building, if later, would be considered part and parcel of the terrorist attack, so the effect to insurance and cause would be the same. If there were nefarious secrets in the building they would be more likely uncovered in the event of an uncontolled collapse on 9/11 rather than a controlled deconstruction later.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Lets back up for a moment. Silverstein, never indicates in his interview that the building was unstable. But there is evidence on video that there was wide-spread knowledge that Bldg-7 was going to collapse. He never mentions this when he tells his story of the discussions he had with the FDNY.

That is very unusual. That Silverstein the owner of Bldg-7 leaves out of his story the knowledge of Bldg-7 and its "known" collapse in advance of the watching it happen, strikes me as very strange.


AS to the "why" Bldg-7's collapse or the motive, we can leave that aside for another thread, but I have my own ideas as to why that building came down and I will touch on those. Remember, there officies like the CIA that just happened to be in that building.

It is also, notewothy, that the building itself was the "Command Bunker" in events like terrorist attacks and the like.

It seems to me, that the reason or motive for the destruction of the building, was the create confusion and was to to create chaos by taking out the comamnd structure of the City in question.

Just, like the FBI and their specialists who were stuck in California:




It seems to me, that something was working against the defense sytem of the United States, whether in the Air, or on the ground, and I don't believe Al'Qaeda got that lucky.



[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


You have one video of the owner. He said what he thought was important or relevant in that interview. Maybe the collapse of the building was part of his decsion making process, considering what the world had just witnessed with the towers, I can't think it wasn't. There may have been other factors. Even if he didn't have direct knowledge at the moment he spoke with the commander of the buildings exact condition, the possibility was extremely real. Hell, I was watching it on TV and I was pretty damn sure it was going to come down. The only question would be what the consequences of that failure would be and could it possibly make a horrible situation even worse.

The building was essentialy a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
From what I've garnered from firefighter interviews was that atleast an hour before 7 fell there was speculation, atleast among some people, that it might.

I could take her statement as just feeding off the information she has available to her and comments made either to her, or ones she was able to hear.

I could see three deer who had been shot, after watching 2 die I wouldn't need a veternerian for me to say that deer is going to be the next one to die.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse. There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.

Can you provide some photographic evidence that showed the 7 leaning or bulging so bad that it made officials think the building might collapse?


What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do?

You do admit though that its collapsed looked exactly like a C.D.?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
EDIT: Wrong thread opps!

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Agent-ATS]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Here's the problem hooper. (not talking 7 for a moment)

The Dutch Prime Minister knew of the Collapse of the Tower's before Collapse, someone told him 10 minues before:




We also know Giuliani was warned in advance and knew of the collapse.





Then of course, we have people, knowing of Wtc-7's collapse. What are the odds that people would be informed of such, not In 1 case, but in 3 separate cases!

Now, in light of Silverstein's words, it is rather obvious that he on purpose left out the rumours of the Buildings 7 collapse when talking about the firefighters.

If He(Silverstein), knew how much the media picked up on the rumour, then I am sure his story would've changed to ''i was fearing for the firefighters lives due to the unstable nature of the building, so I said maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it!"

But, he never mentions the collapse or danger of such.
Barry Jennings, interview. Now granted, it is possible the time line is slightly confused, but Jennings was adamant that something was wrong with Bldg-7 collapsing and he was adamant that there were explosions "pre collapses of the Towers"


It seems a reasonable conjecture to me, considering the unsual melting of some steel at Wtc-7, that the damage and unstable nature of Bldg-7, was not due to the fire or collapses of the Towers, but bombs going off and that the fire and damage was but a "Smokescreen"








[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


But the deer dying is not unsual. A building that is not hit by a plane, and is the house of the "COMMAND BUNKER" and also houses the CIA, then it is strange.

It seems to me that the motive of Bldg-7's collapse, was to remove the Command and Control in New York City.



[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


interesting.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse. There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.

Can you provide some photographic evidence that showed the 7 leaning or bulging so bad that it made officials think the building might collapse?


What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do?

You do admit though that its collapsed looked exactly like a C.D.?


"so bad"? Think about it for one minute. How bad does a 50 story building have to be leaning or bulging to set off alarms? ANY variation from plumb or square is alarming. If a building or bridge or any major structure is found out of alignment beyond tolerance, even a little, it is alarming and the structure is put on death watch.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
It was established that there was no one in WTC 7 that needed to be rescued


Just how do you establish this without literally going through the building floor-by-floor?


The building had been struck and severly and overtly damaged by the falling towers, the fires had been burning for hours.


Exactly. Yet you state as fact that it was established that no one was left trapped inside.


They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse.


No. They decided to let WTC 7 burn and collapse. They saved WTC-5 and WTC-6. Two buildings that were far more damaged and had far worse fires. Why try and save these buildings and not WTC-7 when we learn from NIST that only 9 stories had sporadic fires?


There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.


Yet they are going to save WTC-6 that was almost completely bombarded with WTC debris that it wasn't even worth saving? Or the same with 5?

Why save 5 & 6 which have far worse damage and far worse fires and don't hold US government secrets? Wouldn't trying to save the less damaged, more important building be the logical thing to do?


What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do? It would have to be demolsihed eventually anyway, it could never be used again.


Do you mean exactly like 5 & 6? Also, a building as big as WTC-7 wouldn't be allowed to be demolished with explosives in NYC. It would have had to have been demolished piece by expensive piece.


If there were nefarious secrets in the building they would be more likely uncovered in the event of an uncontolled collapse on 9/11 rather than a controlled deconstruction later.


How does that happen when the whole area is cardoned off and becomes a military operational site?

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Hell, I was watching it on TV and I was pretty damn sure it was going to come down.


Because they kept telling you that it was going to come down. Hence the OP.


The building was essentialy a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life.


I think I've made my point with 5 & 6, but the same could be asked about these buildings. The buildings were essentially a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life?

Also, consider that WTC-7 had buildings next to it that might be saved, while 5 & 6, didn't. So why try and save 5 & 6 and not 7?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


That's a good excuse if it wasn't for buildings 5 & 6. Why weren't we being told all day that they were going to collapse too. They sure did look like they were at the time.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 





Can you provide some photographic evidence that showed the 7 leaning or bulging so bad that it made officials think the building might collapse?



FDNY had set up a surveyor transit to monitor WTC 7 - by early afternoon
could see that building was "moving" or the structure shifting because
of internal stress caused by the impact dmage and fires

By 3pm decision was made to set up collapse zone around WTC 7 and clear the area - this was impact rescue and recovery effect underway
at remains of WTC 1 & 2



Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...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.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...


As personal note heard Chief Hayden and several other FDNY commanders
on 9/11 speak about their experiences during a seminar 5 months after
(Feb 2002)

Was able to talk to Chief Hayden afterwards....

On 9/11 was in my firehouse in NJ listening to radio transmissions from
a neighboring city who had responded and were fighting fire in World
Financial Center across street from WTC 7. Heard orders to clear collapse
zone arounf WTC 7 being passed



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
It was established that there was no one in WTC 7 that needed to be rescued


Just how do you establish this without literally going through the building floor-by-floor?


The building had been struck and severly and overtly damaged by the falling towers, the fires had been burning for hours.


Exactly. Yet you state as fact that it was established that no one was left trapped inside.


They decided to let the buildings burn and probably collapse.


No. They decided to let WTC 7 burn and collapse. They saved WTC-5 and WTC-6. Two buildings that were far more damaged and had far worse fires. Why try and save these buildings and not WTC-7 when we learn from NIST that only 9 stories had sporadic fires?


There may have been evidence from the ground (leaning, bulging, the sound of sections failing) that strongly suggested the latter possibility.


Yet they are going to save WTC-6 that was almost completely bombarded with WTC debris that it wasn't even worth saving? Or the same with 5?

Why save 5 & 6 which have far worse damage and far worse fires and don't hold US government secrets? Wouldn't trying to save the less damaged, more important building be the logical thing to do?


What good would demolishing the WTC7 structure do? It would have to be demolsihed eventually anyway, it could never be used again.


Do you mean exactly like 5 & 6? Also, a building as big as WTC-7 wouldn't be allowed to be demolished with explosives in NYC. It would have had to have been demolished piece by expensive piece.


If there were nefarious secrets in the building they would be more likely uncovered in the event of an uncontolled collapse on 9/11 rather than a controlled deconstruction later.


How does that happen when the whole area is cardoned off and becomes a military operational site?

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Nutter]


Read the interviews with the firefighters. The describe building 7 as "free burning" does that sound like a few localized fires? They did conduct floor to floor and establish that the building was empty. The whole area was never a military operational site. That is just B.S. there were hundreds of workers and firefighters and volunteers down there. Didn't you watch Oliver Stone's movie? Two former Marines simply put on there old uniforms and walked right in, and don't tell me that was just a movie.

Better check your facts on 5 & 6.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
Hell, I was watching it on TV and I was pretty damn sure it was going to come down.


Because they kept telling you that it was going to come down. Hence the OP.


The building was essentialy a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life.


I think I've made my point with 5 & 6, but the same could be asked about these buildings. The buildings were essentially a total loss at that point, why compound material loss with further loss of life?

That day I was at a remote construction site and the only TV we had could get a grainy video but no sound. So I wasn't reacting to anyhing I heard. All you had to do was see that building so well involved in the fire and there wasn't much doubt.

Also, consider that WTC-7 had buildings next to it that might be saved, while 5 & 6, didn't. So why try and save 5 & 6 and not 7?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Read the interviews with the firefighters. The describe building 7 as "free burning" does that sound like a few localized fires?


Read the NIST report.


Better check your facts on 5 & 6.


What's wrong with my facts on 5 & 6? Please be more specific.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
That day I was at a remote construction site and the only TV we had could get a grainy video but no sound.


So, through a grainy video with no sound, you were concluding that the building was fully engulfed and ready to collapse? And I have a bridge in Brooklyn real cheap for ya.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


It is the problem of fighting a fire(s) in a high raise building

At WTC 7 the fires were out of reach of ground based fire apparatus
WTC 4,5 & 6 were low raise buildings (WTC 4 /5 - 9 story, WTC 6 - 8 story) withing range of ground based aerial ladders,

In this video can see FDNY fighting fire at WTC 6 using an master stream
from engine to pour water on fires

Clip 8

www.911myths.com...


Fires in WTC 7 were on upper floors out of reach - only way to fight them
would be from inside. The standpipes in the staireays which delivered water had been damaged - no way to pump water up the floors on fire
With no water, with all the impact damage to the building and concerns
about building stability decision made to abandon WTC 7 and let fires
burn.

Interior operations at high raise are very manpower intensive and exhausting. Considering the casultiers suffered by FDNY and destruction
of dozens of fire apparatus and danger to men decided to write building
off.

During First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles (1988) it took nearly 400
FF to control and extinguish the fire. This was was on fire which was
confined to 4 floors, WTC 7 was buring over 12




On May 4 and 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to an extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the City's history. The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure. It was the high-rise fire that "you can't put out."

It took a total of 383 Department members to do the job. They fought the blaze for 3 hours and 39 minutes to knock it down. In the process, they flowed one-half million gallons of water through 10,000 feet of fire hose and literally fought their way onto the fire floors from the hot, crowded, smokey stairwells.

In addition, during the course of the First Interstate Fire, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to 87 other incidents which included 74 emergency medical service responses, eight of which were heart attacks; three structure fires; three fires outside of a structure; five false alarms; a lock out' and a natural gas leak.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join