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.

 

They are now saying that WTC 7

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Sorry, I forgot to mention:

If your theory of bombs taking down the buildings is based on loud booming noises I suggest the following.

Get off the computer and join a firefighting team. Volunteer, whatever. Go respond to a raging fire in an office building. When the fire reaches LAN rooms, computers, cleaning chemicals, HVAC systems, and a host of other interesting substances, let me know what happens. I believe Boom would describe some of it.

The first time I was ever at a fire and the fire spread to the janitors' closet I nearly crapped myself because it ignited a bunch of aerosol cans.

Just another FYI.



SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
It was caught on film of firefighters saying it sounded like bombs going off in a controlled manner.Are they lieing?They are firefighters so you would think they know what they are talking about.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Was building 7 on fire? From all the video I have seen it was not, not even smoke.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Yes because I'm sure someone was standing with a stopwatch timing the explosive sounds and analyzing it to conclude that it was in a "controlled manner".

Spare me the twists of overenthusiastic "they're all out to kill me" types. I was there also. Did anyone interview me for their stories? No. Why? Becuase I won't whore myself out so some lowlife can write book, make a film, or put up a website dragging a tragedy through the mud so they can blame it on anyone BUT the people who did it.

If it makes you happy to think it was all a grand charade, enjoy yourself.

I know I know. George W. Bush sat up in the sky in a UFO aiming cruise missiles at the pentagon and WTC so we could get more oil. We get it.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Lets think here, we have loads of ATS members, surely we can work this out right? My question is why would the goverment "plan" away to bring down the WTC? They were America's Economy!

The Government did intervene alot and kept hidden alot of unsolved answers. I know this has nothing to do with what is been said, but i was pritty amazed by that dollar trick, where you can see the trade centers, strange!


SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Yes because I'm sure someone was standing with a stopwatch timing the explosive sounds and analyzing it to conclude that it was in a "controlled manner".

Spare me the twists of overenthusiastic "they're all out to kill me" types. I was there also. Did anyone interview me for their stories? No. Why? Becuase I won't whore myself out so some lowlife can write book, make a film, or put up a website dragging a tragedy through the mud so they can blame it on anyone BUT the people who did it.

If it makes you happy to think it was all a grand charade, enjoy yourself.

I know I know. George W. Bush sat up in the sky in a UFO aiming cruise missiles at the pentagon and WTC so we could get more oil. We get it.


So you were asked to do an interview and you said no because you dont want to whore yourself out?
Open your eyes people.All you have to do is look and the answers are right there.So many people tell others that they are not proffesionals in the subjects,yet here they are acting like ones themselves.Your no better so stop trying to belittle thier opinions.
Its really funny how all these members are so stuburn and want to debunk everyones opinions like they are the experts.Please

A stop watch,,,,,,dont be silly.Your just mocking the whole thing now.George Bush in a UFO,,,,,go make fun of something else and not people opinions.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Sorry, I forgot to mention:

If your theory of bombs taking down the buildings is based on loud booming noises I suggest the following.

Get off the computer and join a firefighting team. Volunteer, whatever. Go respond to a raging fire in an office building. When the fire reaches LAN rooms, computers, cleaning chemicals, HVAC systems, and a host of other interesting substances, let me know what happens. I believe Boom would describe some of it.

The first time I was ever at a fire and the fire spread to the janitors' closet I nearly crapped myself because it ignited a bunch of aerosol cans.

Just another FYI.


You're missing the point. It's not that some firefighters were saying that they heard what SOUNDED like bombs.......they actually said that 'we think there are BOMBS IN the building.'

Now, of course in the average fire, certain things will erupt like chemicals and electrical stuff. I'm sure these firefighters are use to that. So why would they radio to their chief and say they think there were bombs in the building. Surely they would know the difference correct?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
SMR, Perhaps what gives me the right to talk about what went on there that day was the fact that I was physically there? Last time I checked that was a good reason to be able to describe things that happened there.

Secondly, if you would take a moment to read what I wrote you would say that I said i was NEVER asked to do an interview. Thanks for the correction of that.

Thirdly, if you think I'm making fun of people, that's really too bad. Disputing "facts" that were invented by people with an agenda is not making fun. It's called putting people in their place. I would NEVER argue with a cardiologist about heart surgery because I don't know a damn thing about it. I wouldn't argue with an accountant about tax numbers because I don't know much about that.

In that same vein I don't think it is responsible for people to claim Silverstein destroyed WTC7 because those people are too STUPID to put 5 minutes of research into the term PULL. That's their fault not mine.

What else did those ill researched sites say? Silverstein's 99 year lease indicated he was involved? Commonplace on high profile commercial properties. What else? Large amounts of diesel? Generators? Heard of them? What else? CIA offices, Emergency Management offices? Commonplace. NYC has millions of people. There are more locations of such offices than I can list here.

Desperation sucks doesn't it. Continue bringing up outrageous claims about this and I'll continue to disprove each one of them using firsthand knowledge.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Simpletruth, thank you for the question as it certainly is a valid and well thought out one.

I can tell you from someone who was there, no one knew what the hell to think. No one knew what they were hearing or seeing at the moment either. I thought the creaking and shaking was something otherworldly before the first tower went down. You also should keep in mind that one of the WTC buildings (not 1 or 2) was a customs office and another one housed a secret service and cia office. There were indeed weapons in those buildings and all emergency responders knew that. It is difficult for me to assess what sounded like what. The whole thing sounded like hell.


oui

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

Originally posted by Djarums
Sorry, I forgot to mention:

If your theory of bombs taking down the buildings is based on loud booming noises I suggest the following.

Get off the computer and join a firefighting team. Volunteer, whatever. Go respond to a raging fire in an office building. When the fire reaches LAN rooms, computers, cleaning chemicals, HVAC systems, and a host of other interesting substances, let me know what happens. I believe Boom would describe some of it.

The first time I was ever at a fire and the fire spread to the janitors' closet I nearly crapped myself because it ignited a bunch of aerosol cans.

Just another FYI.


You're missing the point. It's not that some firefighters were saying that they heard what SOUNDED like bombs.......they actually said that 'we think there are BOMBS IN the building.'

Now, of course in the average fire, certain things will erupt like chemicals and electrical stuff. I'm sure these firefighters are use to that. So why would they radio to their chief and say they think there were bombs in the building. Surely they would know the difference correct?


I was off topic on my other post. (I thought this was yet another thread about the military planes, missiles, and whatnot), anyhow; please allow me to add to this one.

I think the firefighters were right to suspect bombs in the building. 9/11 was a terrorist attack, and the WTC's ground level was bombed in the past before by terrorist... taking those precautions would've saved lives had the building been rigged with explosives.

Now you may say... "The firefighters had no clue it was a terror attack though.", well if one plane hits the a tower... it may be an accident... perhaps a drunk pilot, glitch in the autopilot... but if both towers are struck by airplanes... I think New Yorks bravest have enough sense to figure "hey something is definitely up". Just what I think.


SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You were there.I dont dispute that.But you are saying that the 'bombs' they heard were not bombs.How do you know,You were NOT in the building!

As far as the making fun.You put in sentaence GWB in a UFO,,,,thats just mocking what people are saying.Then you are calling them stupid.
I dont feel like replying to your posts anymore and it is not because you are right or that I cant back anything up.It is because you think you know all the events that went down.You were there,but not in every place at the same time!



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Goose, as to your video: It is possible that the video you saw was filmed after the first collapse, but before the second.

The second tower to collapse (Tower 1) was 350 Feet from the edge of WTC7. At that point numerous holes were blown in the walls of number 7.

Numerous structural failures and numerous fires were reported throughout the course of the afternoon. At one point an order went out over emergency frequencies that a gas leak had occurred and we should all back off until it was evaluated by utilities.

Evidence of fires can be seen in many photos. Only one of which made it to "conspiracy" sites. But here's another.


Oui, you are correct, at first it was thought to have been an accident involving one plane and either an idiot, a drunk, or ill pilot. The second one clued most people that it was an attack. And NO, standard procedures at bomb incidents were NOT followed (ie radio silence). When bombs are suspected emergency responders don't use radios on the scene out of fear that secondary devices will be detonated by radio frequencies (a common tactic meant to hurt responders)

SMR, i don't know everything that happened that day but I sure as hell know a lot about what didn't happen. I'm not basing my attacks on such theories on knowing everything, I'm basing my attacks on such theories on the fact that the people writing them know nothing. The theories are filled with more holes than a swiss cheese sandwich and no one feels the need to explain or clarify them since they're just "doing the right thing exposing the government". I agree that investigations are good but you miss the point that accusing people of murder is not a joke. Either give solid proofs or identify your statements as hypothetical theories. Murder is not a charge to fling around without proof.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Djarums]


SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Let me ask this.
It was noted on film that orders were given to PULL #7
Now from what I have found on many sites about PULL is to create a controlled demolition.
It can be seen that building 7 fell as if it were pulled.It was even said it was pulled.
Now answer this.And I have FACT on this.How does one set up a controlled drop,or PULL in such a short amount of time?It cant be done!
A friend of ours in the family has been doing this since highschool with his fathers company.and a controlled PULL or any PULL for that matter can not be done in a matter of hours period!
They had 8 hours to install explosives on 47 floors.And not just set them on the ground.You have to bore holes and use different types depending on the material.
Here are some rulles to PULLING a building.


The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point.




In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.




Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material.




Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.


You may also notice on this page images of small fires due to explosives.In images of building 7,you see small fires.
How did they start?Debris from the two towers?
Also,the video that was shown ONCE of building 7 billowing smoke when nothing was going on.
Here you can learm of a PULL
science.howstuffworks.com...

And here is an interesting read.
www.truthtree.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
SMR, thank you for your notes on controlled demolitions. I was able to learn much about the subject that I was previously unaware of.

The only statement in your post that I dispute is the term "Pull".

I have worked numerous operations with firefighters and the term Pull (as I said above usually noted in radio transmissions as Pulling back) is issued when a fire is deemed too great a danger to justify sending further personnel into. At that point the orders are given to pull back and let the fire run its course. You'll most often hear that order given in wooden dwellings where the fire has spread to a point that the structural integrity of the building has been threatened and firefighters can be jeopardized by collapsing roofs etc. The order is almost never given when people are believed to be inside. It's a crappy order to give and is on par in my book with the order changing an operation from rescue to recovery because it indicates a giving up on things. In a wooden single family dwelling the fire will burn out when there's nothing left to burn. In an office tower it's clearly a different story. Not the best idea in hindsight? I don't know. But the orders to pull coming over the FDNY frequencies in no way whatsoever mean destroy the building using explosives. I can not begin to tell you where such a claim would originate from.

Smr, please just consider the context of Silverstein's statement:


I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse


They weren't sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire. We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do would be to get the fire personnel out of there and let the fire run its course. Then the building collapsed. Think for a moment how many lives would have been lost had firefighters been in there actively fighting the fire when it collapsed. Is that really such an outrageous thing for me to be saying?

Also, your link to "truthtree" quotes Silverstein as saying "gave the order to demolish building 7". None of the other sites attacking Silverstein and making those claims say he used such words. A little odd...

[edit on 9-8-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   

In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.


And of course all this planning and executing took place in a matter of hours, at a site filled with stories tall debris and unbearable heat with everyone in the area completely organized.




I'm also so glad that the energy released from the collapsed towers has been discussed already (equiv. to about 600 tons of TNT) and how 600 tons of TNT is no where near enough to destroy surrounding buildings. I mean you have all that energy and heat coming from the collapsed buildings, then you have tons of debris falling, as well as two minor quakes....nope, no way #7 should have fell after all that.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Its interesting how most conspiracies become reality isnt it, leys take for instance these ones.

JFK Consiracy - The governement killed jfk for some reason or another.
Reality - ITS TRUE They killed him because he wanted to abolish the federal reserve and wanted to dismantel the CIA.

Now lets talk about terrorism. Yes its quote impossible for our governement to do such a thing to us isnt it. Well no it isnt according to history it has been done again and again.

Nero burning rome and blamed christains
Hitler burning the ricetags and blaming it on the jews
Oklahoma City governement blew the buildings up and blamed it on one man but in actuallity there was governement connection the whole way. we can get into this part all day.

[edit on 5-9-2004 by ThichHeaded]

JFK.. Prove it... The evidence shows one man who decided to kill him (debatebly two or more men, but that's how it stands at the moment).
Hitler burning the ricetags? (It's called the Reichstag) there is no proof of this, they arrested a soviet arsonist at the scene..
Oklahoma City? Why would they want to do that?? Any evidence??


SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Djarums
I am glad that that info helped.
As for the 'pull' issue.The word alone I could understand.But it was not said,lets pull,to mean pull out.The words are 'pull' 'it'
The term 'pull it' is used in demolition talk if you will to bring down a building.
The words 'pull it' are used in the intreview,not just 'pull' as in to pull out.

ThatsJustWeird
It is not being said that anyone set up a demo in the 8 hours.There is no way to do that.What I am saying is,that this demo was already set up days before.
It was a controlled drop,we can see it was,and it is said it was.No buildings of that size or the material made from have ever collapsed from small fires.Many buildings have been on fire.Bigger,more fire,burned longer,and have not fell like that.Its like adding 2+2
8 hours of small fires are not going to bring down a building like that in that matter.
Just lasy year I was involved in the So. Cal fires.My neighborhood was reduced to nothing.I watched many homes and building burn to the ground.I have seen big fires in action.It took almost 2 days for the neighbors house to finally collapes and it was just a small 2 story home.

Building 7 as well as the 2 large towers had explosives in them.This is my opinion,but others do agree.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well, the whole controversy on what larry meant when he said 'pull it' is interesting, but really, it's a moot point.

As Djarums said, it could have very well meant that the context was that the firemen pulled out/away from it to let it burn down. IMO, we cannot for sure conclude that pull it meant to demolish it, or that it meant to pull away from it. Not based just on that one clip of good ole larry. So why is the point moot? Because EITHER way, something doesn't add up.

If pull it meant to demolish it, then I think we all can figure out what's wrong with that. You can't just go into burning buildings and set up explosions spur of the moment and take it down. The job takes weeks. So larry was either lying, or the explosives were there, but that they had been set up PRIOR to 9/11, which indicates someone knew that 9/11 was going to happen. And then you can take the implications from there.

If pull it meant to pull away, it STILL doesn't make sense. Because, in that scenario, that means that the fire by itself took the building down. What's even weirder, is that in this scenario, they decide they can't contain the fire.....(which is strange, because it's only on a few floors), and so back off and let it go, and were expecting it to come down. Why would they expect it to come down? It was steel, and like many of us have said already, steel buildings haven't collapsed due to fire ever before. So, from their prior knowledge, they should have suspected that it wouldn't fall down at all. And the firemen shouldn't have had too much problem with the size of fire in that building. Heck, in transcripts of the audio of firemen talking within the towers before they collapsed, they comment on how they got the fire down to two isolated pockets. So why couldn't they handle 7? And again, why would they expect the tower to come down. And again, why DID it come down from just the fire?

So both scenarios have problems. So this is one factor of many that indicates to me that there were other reasons on why building 7 collapsed as it did. And the official story itself has been changed a few times about this building, which doesn't help at all.


SMR

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Ok,after a bit of reading and alot of it,I have the following information.


"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse."

AUDIO of this in MP3


In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six."

AUDIO of this in MP3
VIDEO of interview

Pull it means pull it.Not pull out.I think it is getting misinterprated because he says 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull'
By using 'pull it' and then 'pull',I think I can understand why the confusion.PULL IT being 'take it down' and PULL being 'pull people out'
I think he just doesnt finish the whole wording and leaves out 'it'
It's like saying 'lets play ball' and saying again,'let's play'
'Let's play ball' is a given,but then hearing 'let's play' you would ask 'play what'? Play checkers?Play dominos?

WTC 7, Larry Silverstein,
and the WTC Demolition

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
On there is the bogus,contradicting FEMA report.DIRECT LINK TO FEMA REPORT

Just a quick note:
The interview from Larry contradicts what the FEMA report says.


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


The link www.whatreallyhappened.com... has some pretty good findings as well as images and video.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JD_Fisha
Lets think here, we have loads of ATS members, surely we can work this out right? My question is why would the goverment "plan" away to bring down the WTC? They were America's Economy!


Ok, first, I am not really into the WTC conspiracy and have not really studied it. I am just replying to give an answer to this question. If investigating, you need to look at every angle. You say that it was America`s Economy. Was it? America still have the strongest economy now. Next, why would someone want to do it? Well..... Get rid of the Taliban? Go into Iraq? Get bills that infringed on personal rights passed quickly? Get world support for anything deemed terrorist or terrorist in general?

Just a few ideas that spring up off the top of my head. Like I said, I am not really into the conspiracy issue on this whole issue, all I know is that enough innocent people have died already on both sides of the fence. But, you did ask the question.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by JCMinJapan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join