Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Third Tower

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   






"Keep your eye on that building, that thing is coming down."

"It's about to blow up, move it back!"

"We are walking back because the building... about to blow up."

Emergency worker, first year medical student:
"We heard this sound like a clap of thunder... we turned around and were shocked to see that the building was ah, looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out.. You know, horrifying and then a second later, the bottom floor caved out and ah, and the building followed after that and uhm, we saw the building crash all the way to the ground"

"You have to stay behind this line because they are thinking about bringing the building down."


This is an excellent video and I reccomend everyone watch it, to include trusters and truthers alike. The quotes above are only the first few and they were captured during or directly after the event so conspiracy theories were not influencing their statements. These were just the first quotes, the video has many, many more.

Also, I want to include the site map for the WTC complex so that we can actually see just how far away building 7 was from towers 1 and 2, across the street even. It's also important to note that the buildings which were directly underneath and around towers 1 and 2, did not collapse, in spite of the fact that they took the full brunt of the debris. They were completely destroyed, but they didn't collapse..



Building 7 is the smoking gun and the key to the truth. Spread the word because when people actually find out about building 7, they open their minds to reality. We don't need to push any theories and instead, we simply need to inform people about building 7. You would be surprised at just how many people are completely ignorant that a third skyscraper fell that day.

Have a nice day!


--airspoon
edit on 22-11-2010 by airspoon because: video part two/2




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Wasn't it caught on video that someone or a couple of people said by mistake the building was 'pulled'?
I am an architect and in the industry this usually means demolished by force among other things. I don't remember when or where I heard it but this was pretty strange for me to hear because you can't setup a building to be demolished with charges in the amount of time that was given. So my only conclusion after seeing the video of it's collapse was that it fell the way they said it did or they had the building already set up with charges to fall before hand.

Interesting I will go look now. . .


Larry Silverstein's (Building owner) Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
edit on 11/22/2010 by AnteBellum because: Larry quote



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


Yes, that was Larry Silverstein himself. In an interview, he says something to the affect of, "I said you know we have has such terrible loss of life already, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it and they made that descision to pull and then we watched the building come down." He would later claim that he was talking about pulling the firefighters.

Watch:




--airspoon



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Your, "approximate collapse plume" is false. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5 from where a large piece of wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it. This crater is the same distance from WTC 1 as WTC 7 was.



Fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 destroyed the water supplies to teh fire suppression systems in WTC 7. They also reported that the fires were burning out of control and were causing three story tall bulges in the structure. This necessarily gives the NIST report at least some measure of credibility, and necessarily means you conspiracy people are resorting to grasping at some pretty far fetched straws to keep your conspiracy stories alive.
edit on 22-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
What I now find really funny is that I can't find the other guy that said this also. I remember there were two people and one was in the military at a briefing. This is what made me remember the situation, for two individuals said it unrelated, in different contexts. I always found that a bit odd and now find it even odder that I see no trace to this other interview, if you can find it please share.
But even so I don't think the twin towers fell victim in the same way. It was two planes, and it was a catastrophic failure of steel due to fire caused by fuel. There is no data to compare this to because it never happened on this scale before then. 2 other steel frame buildings have fallen in recent history due to fire but it takes a lot more time and they are partial collapses. But then again they didn't have the open plan layouts that the WTC had which contributed to the collapse causing the pancake effect.
I am not arguing the conspiracy hype on this though because anyone with enough power could get someone to do this for them whether it was the military, the PTB, Islamic terrorists, whatever!
edit on 11/22/2010 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


That is the approx. main collapse plume. I don't think anyone is denying that building 7 was struck by debris, though we are saying that it didn;t, nor should it have been struck by so much debris that a complete collapse would ensue, especially the way that it did. This is even in spite of the fact that the buildings under the two towers didn;t collapse and they took the full brunt of the plume.

The whole truster or official conspiracy theory is based on falseghoods and the word of certain individuals who not only have extreme conflicts of interests, but who have also been caught lying on numerous accounts before.

The entire official conspiracy theory is based on the non-sensical word of those who have repeatedly lied and it requires all reason and logic to be thrown out of the _

At least the truther or official conspiracy theory non-believers require at least a little evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Case in point, check out this truster, and his completely falsified "facts". This truster is indicative of the whole truster movement.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Really, this is the truster argument?

At least we base our arguments on facts, reason and logic.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
That is the approx. main collapse plume. I don't think anyone is denying that building 7 was struck by debris, though we are saying that it didn;t,


If this is your standard truster logic then it's little wonder why you subscribe to these conspiracy claims. "Noone is denying that WTC 7 was struck by debris though you're saying it didn't" is a contradiction. Either you acknowledge WTC 7 was struck by debris or it wasn't.


nor should it have been struck by so much debris that a complete collapse would ensue, especially the way that it did. This is even in spite of the fact that the buildings under the two towers didn;t collapse and they took the full brunt of the plume.


This is a disingenuous statement. WTC 7 was five times the size of the "buildings under the two towers" I.E. WTC 6, so the support columns in WTC 7 were under 5 times the stress and therefore would cause 5 times the damage if they failed. WTC 6 was also built around an open air arena and was essentially hollow (which is why there was a large crater in WTC 6), so the columns in WTC 7 technically were under 10X the stress.

Chopping down a 47 story tall tree is going to cause more to come crashing down than an 8 story tall tree. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.



The whole truster or official conspiracy theory is based on falseghoods and the word of certain individuals who not only have extreme conflicts of interests, but who have also been caught lying on numerous accounts before.


I agree that the trusters are subscribing to everything those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out, as they seem to explicitly trust everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones says regardless of how often they've been caught lying red handed. Why are you arguing in favor of them and their preposterous conspiracies, then?


At least the truther or official conspiracy theory non-believers require at least a little evidence before coming to a conclusion.


I have yet to find a single conspiracy truster who wasn't relying on incorrect information that dishonestly enhanced their conspiracy claims. WTC 7 is a sterling case in point- fire fighters on the scene specifically reported that the fires were burning out of control in WTC and were causing the support columns to bulge outward, which to me, gives the fire induced collapse scenario at least some credibility. What do the conspiracy trusters say in response to this? They either pretend they never heard this, or they accuse the fire fighters of being secret agents in collusion with the conspirators. Sheesh, little children behave in this way.


Really, this is the truster argument?


No, the truster argument is that some sinister secret force integrated throughout society is incessantly plotting to murder us all for no reason...though the jury is still out on who it is exactly, becuase the conspiracy trusters are getting into fist fights amongst themselves over what this "blatantly a conspiracy" even is. The trusters really need to go off to the side and hash it out amongst themselves whether 9/11 was the work of the gov't, the Jews, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, or whatever, and then get back to us.

You'll need to forgive me as there are more "blatantly a conspiracy" scenarios than there are grains of sand on the beach and I've lost track. Are you a "controlled demeolitions" truster, a "nukes in the basement" truster or a "no planes" truster?


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


wow so many words and yet you say nothing.

if the ignore button wasn't so close to the word ignorance I would use it for you, but alas I am here to deny ignorance.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Good post airspoon, your are 100% correct WTC 7 is the smoking gun.

symmetrical collapse of a building that's main structure was sound with localized outer damage and fire, I am not buying it.

there have been many argument where a friend called me out on not agreeing with the Gov and NIST report.
in the end the Gov truster always gets heated and starts using insults not logic thats when I say I am done arguing I wanted to have a discussion, google WTC 7 and do 30min of research then get back to me.

I get responses like what world trade center 7, and I just laugh.
never fails to shut em up.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


nice thread.

In the first video about 1:20 into the video you can see those "raging" fires that where in the WTC 7


the more evidence we get through FOIA the more the official story gets ridicoulus. At some point even blind and deaf people wont believe any of the OS...

edit on 22-11-2010 by TrueFalse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well we have known since it happened that the whole entire thing was staged but by who? Given the gravity of the situation I would say the only agency who has the balls and the resources is the C.I.A !!!! They have started this and have it covered pretty well considering the last two Presidents have worked for them. The only solution is a complete disillusion of government. Then hunt them down and try them for crimes against humanity.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Well we have known since it happened that the whole entire thing was staged but by who? Given the gravity of the situation I would say the only agency who has the balls and the resources is the C.I.A !!!! They have started this and have it covered pretty well considering the last two Presidents have worked for them. The only solution is a complete disillusion of government. Then hunt them down and try them for crimes against humanity.


The last 2 where working for the CIA? For all we know EVERY Preident worked for the CIA since it has been created. Kennedy was the only one who wanted to "scatter the CIA into thousand pieces" after the bay of pigs disaster. Well what happend to him we all know.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I guess you missed the massive documentary explaining how bad they lied about the Pentagon too? Many police and Pentagon security personnel seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, bank and fly away as the building exploded. The air liner did a fake bombing run and even the dam cab driver admitted that he was in on the deal. His wife worked for the FBI. He spilled his guts when they were trying to get him to tell them where his car was after he claimed it was not on the bridge that morning with the pole damaging it. He thought the camera wasn't recording.

Busted!!!! Everything about that day was set up to fool you and I. Hell the end of the first video proves it was staged.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


omg dave again.

Show me please one report of a fire fighter that talks about the 3 story bulge that the WTC 7 supposedly had. We have videos and pictures form all sides of the WTC and still i havent found ANY evidence to your "knowledge" of the bulge.

Your arguments are just ridicoulus. I could also say that Aliens from the Moon highjacked the planes and destroyed the WTCs and it would make as much sense as your story...



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueFalse
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


omg dave again.

Show me please one report of a fire fighter that talks about the 3 story bulge that the WTC 7 supposedly had. We have videos and pictures form all sides of the WTC and still i havent found ANY evidence to your "knowledge" of the bulge.


Absolutely. The following is from an interview with Deputy NYFD chief Peter Hayden, who was physically there at WTC 7 tryign to get the fires under control:

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but 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.


The full interview can be found here. Give the page time to load.

www.firehouse.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">FIREHOUSE.COM Interview


Your arguments are just ridicoulus. I could also say that Aliens from the Moon highjacked the planes and destroyed the WTCs and it would make as much sense as your story...


You are being intellectually lazy here. The conspiracy people, almost to a man, never actually investigate what the people who were there actually said, or did, or saw. They rely entirely upon prepackaged second or third hand information rations from these damned fool conspiracy web sites that are telling them only what they want them to know. I, on the other hand, am literally quoting the people who were there as they'd necessarily be the best sources to find out what was going on there. Deputy Chief Hayden was there. You and I were not.

I will believe him over your friend Dylan Avery who does nothing but make internet videos in his dorm room, if you don't mind.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I guess you missed the massive documentary explaining how bad they lied about the Pentagon too? Many police and Pentagon security personnel seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, bank and fly away as the building exploded. The air liner did a fake bombing run and even the dam cab driver admitted that he was in on the deal. His wife worked for the FBI. He spilled his guts when they were trying to get him to tell them where his car was after he claimed it was not on the bridge that morning with the pole damaging it. He thought the camera wasn't recording.


Give me even *one* eyewitness account saying the Pentagon exploded as the plane flew over the Pentagon, bank, and fly away". You're making that up and we both know it. I myself am going by the huge numbers of people who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

Whatever fantasia it is you want to push out with these claims of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever, it was still Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Whatever fantasia it is you want to push out with these claims of controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever, it was still Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.

Again with the lasers from space??? I haven't seen any mention of that anywhere in this thread...
Why is it YOU that brings these things up all the time? BTW, did you forget to mention rge holograms?

What I do find strange is the comment that the firemen new the building was goung to collapse. Strange because no other building before or since has collapsed due to fire, and yes I know it had some damage also,



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave

What I do find strange is the comment that the firemen new the building was goung to collapse. Strange because no other building before or since has collapsed due to fire, and yes I know it had some damage also,


Why is this strange? Deputy chief Hayden was there and specifically saw what condition the building was in. WTC 7 was severely damaged by falling wreckage from WTC 7, there were fires burning out of control, and there was a huge bulge in the side of the structure. Plus, it's a given there were amny other signs which he isn't mentioning. It seems pretty easy how he'd be able to determine that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

What *I* find strange is that there's all this evidence ugly things were going on in WTC 7...and yet the conspiracy people still won't give up their "controlled demolitions", claims. At this point it's tantamount to conspiracy mongoring entirely for conspiracy mongoring sake.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


now that you've trolled on over to the pentagon like a Lazy fisherman.


and to get back on track with bulding 7

Google Video Link



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

It's strange because I doubt any of these firemen have ever seen a skyscaper collapse before.
So I find it strange that they thought this one would.
I haven't seen any pics of this huge damage to WTC7, the bulging walls or the massive fires.
Could you please share them with us?






top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join