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.

 

9/11 1st Responder Says WTC7 a Demolition (new video)

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Found this video which is new to me... apparently it was recorded on 8/9/09 by WeAreChange Boston.

This fellow seems credible to me. Hats off to him for being willing to go on the record. It takes a great deal of courage to tell the truth.






posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
There is a very good reason as to why these buildings were demolished and in the future be revealed that they had every reason under national security to demolish the buildings.

These buildings held information that was considered by the world to be extremely top secret. A small fire would render most high level security officers moot as they would have to leave under the command of firemen. A ordinary fireman can then have access to the whole building. This is unacceptable. The best coarse of action is to demolish or self destruct the building.

After the 93 bombings it was planned that if an event such as the bombing of the wtc, there was much risk that the towers will topple over and firemen could also access top secret areas usually reserved for very high ranking officials.

In theory, a 'terrorist' or spy can join a firehouse, rig a fire and gain access to very private areas. It would be prudent to not allow firemen in and demolish the building instead. One day this will be revealed but right now the emotions are really high and the question would beg who decided to kill thousands of people over paper work and evidence to what?


[edit on 9-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Dang...I never noticed the part at top left on Bdg7 that goes at the initiation of the collapse as shewn in the vid.

As to the secrets being kept as per poster above,by destruction,I say,don't they keep that stuff in a safe like what (vice)President Cheney had carted around?Locking file cabinets might have self destruct mechanisms to do the same.Not disagreeing,tho'.

Those charges musta been in place.So it's a natural to ask if the same is the case with the Towers.And other bldg's,eh?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger

Those charges musta been in place.So it's a natural to ask if the same is the case with the Towers.And other bldg's,eh?


Of coarse they were in place and also maintained. There is a law written that allows this to occur in secret. The reason will be revealed in the future.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

Shadow Herder - Do you have any links to support these claims that there is a law which allows bldgs to be rigged for self destruction? Also any supporting evidence for your claim that truth will be revealed soon? Thanks in advance!



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
No name...no title...

He deployed as a DART member, he was with the Red Cross, HE deployed the Army Corps of Engineers, he built buildings......

He sounds credible? On what planet?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Now were talkin'. Now some people who will remain nameless, but have posted right above me will tell you that your wrong, and that the towers were not demo'd but fell according to some new laws of physics that only existed on one day in history. I like your idea, seems plausible. Kudos to you for bringing something new to the table.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The witness appears extremely credible. He has excellent knowledge of emergency protocol, provides what appears to be detailed and accurate information, is familiar with the loss location (Lower Manhattan) and obviously does not appear to have an agenda. Throw him in front of a jury and any normal person can see the guy is the real deal.

With regards to his statement, he claims the New York City Mayor's Office failed to disseminate information as to the integrity of the WTC structures which remained standing after the Twins' collapse. He states Building 7 was not in danger of collapse and the Mayor of the Year failed to disseminate information about the stable condition of the remaining buildings.

Now why would the Mayor's Office knowingly perform such a serious omission, which apparently goes beyond gross negligence and may even be criminal in nature?

1) As the witness states, to keep the rescue personnel jumpy and delay their actions. By keeping the rescuers on edge, this would DELAY the rescue of any potential witnesses to the occurrence. It would also DELAY fireman from rummaging through the buildings and witnessing something incriminating.

2) If the Mayor's Office had advanced notice of Building 7's planned demise, there was no way the Mayor of the Year could disseminate information about the building being sound without hanging himself out to dry. Such a proclamation would raise some serious red flags and directly connect his office to the event.

WTC Building 7 had some high profile tenants like the DOD, CIA and IRS. It is highly unlikely this operation went down under the noses of those three well heeled agencies, without any one of them getting any wind of it.

In 1989, Building 7 underwent extensive renovation to accommodate new tenant Salomon Brothers. It is not unlikely a portion of the building could have also been modified to act as a command centre for 9/11 which does not require any manpower with everything being pre-programmed.

"There is a very good reason as to why these buildings were demolished and in the future be revealed that they had every reason under national security to demolish the buildings."

Yep. The most important reason was to eliminate the evidence which would point toward the perpetrators. Disposing of such incriminating evidence would be motive enough to deep six the structures.

With regards to sensitive information, I really do not see firemen going through hard copy files or hacking into computer systems. I highly doubt in 2001 these high end agencies were using hard copy for classified documents.

"Do you have any links to support these claims that there is a law which allows bldgs to be rigged for self destruction?"

The Government is the LAW.





posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Now were talkin'. Now some people who will remain nameless, but have posted right above me will tell you that your wrong, and that the towers were not demo'd but fell according to some new laws of physics that only existed on one day in history. I like your idea, seems plausible. Kudos to you for bringing something new to the table.


Thank you. In time i believe it will be revealed that they not only had the buildings rigged before 911 but actually demolished them in the name of national security. Of course there were other benefits worked into the plan.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I am glad to keep seeing average people that were eye witnesses continue to come forward with their stories and questions. This witness added another piece to the puzzle...the army corp of engineers were there with equipment to monitor the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings.

Excellent information...I wonder if those reports have been requested under FOIA requests?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


(Gets out another nail, and hammers it in the Coffin of the OS )

(mutters to himself, "this thing is almost finished")



[edit on 16-2-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 

Shadow Herder - Do you have any links to support these claims that there is a law which allows bldgs to be rigged for self destruction? Also any supporting evidence for your claim that truth will be revealed soon? Thanks in advance!



To do that would put the links and such information in jeopardy. It is prudent to let the informtion you request to remain seated and anonymous at this present juncture .



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Holy Imagination Batman! And you think the OS is fairytale? Boy, don't even know where to begin with this kind of stuff.

So the government keeps top secrets, I would assume carved into the stone on the walls, in its NYC office that are sooooooo sensitive that they pre-rig the building for demolition so that there is no chance a fireman putting out a fire would ever chance to see them. And of course it makes perfect sense that if you have verrrrry sensitive material you, of course, would store these records in rented office space rather than the millions of millions of square feet of government owned property on secure government facilities.

Damn thing is if the building is blown up, all these top secrets go flying helter skelter all over Manhattan. Top notch plan there chief.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And of course it makes perfect sense that if you have verrrrry sensitive material you, of course, would store these records in rented office space rather than the millions of millions of square feet of government owned property on secure government facilities.


Thanks again for showing that you do not know what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Thanks for responding! Shows you are very good at taking quotes out of context!

And yes, I don't think the government would store material that was so sensitive that they were willing to blow up a whole building in lower Manhattan rather than risk having a fireman see it in rented office space.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Thanks for responding! Shows you are very good at taking quotes out of context!


No i am just stating the fact that you do not know about the government renting and leasing office space.




top topics



 
8

log in

join