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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Wow. Very compelling SMR. Thanks for those links. I'll have to wait til later to look over the whole thing though.



SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
A little more.


In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "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."

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." This means that in direct contradiction to the official FEMA report, the goal of which was to find out why the building collapsed, the federal government had in fact demolished the building on the day of 9/11.

Many people have claimed that the diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded within building 7 but even the FEMA report admitted that these remained fully intact. The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
The report is available at www.fema.gov...

Before either of the twin towers collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters they had set up within Building 7.
"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

Despite this, Giuliani fled WTC 7 at least eight hours before it collapsed. How did he know that the twin towers were going to collapse if it was such an unprecedented occurance? Why didn't the firefighters on the ground get the same warning?

How Could The Explosives Have Been Placed Beforehand?
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was obviously the perfect opportunity to place those explosives.

TONS MORE HERE

[edit on 9-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
A little more.


In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "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."

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." This means that in direct contradiction to the official FEMA report, the goal of which was to find out why the building collapsed, the federal government had in fact demolished the building on the day of 9/11.

Many people have claimed that the diesel fuel and emergency generators exploded within building 7 but even the FEMA report admitted that these remained fully intact. The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
The report is available at www.fema.gov...

Before either of the twin towers collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters they had set up within Building 7.
"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

Despite this, Giuliani fled WTC 7 at least eight hours before it collapsed. How did he know that the twin towers were going to collapse if it was such an unprecedented occurance? Why didn't the firefighters on the ground get the same warning?

How Could The Explosives Have Been Placed Beforehand?
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was obviously the perfect opportunity to place those explosives.

TONS MORE HERE

[edit on 9-9-2004 by SMR]



Just a theory but do you think that maybe WTC was supposed to have been hit with a hi-jacked plane also and something happened that prevented that from taking place but it had already been ready for demolition and they (not sure who they is or even if there is a they at this point) knew that the firemen would find it and went ahead and brought it down to cover up the demolition job. I mean one can believe that WTC1 and 2 were so damaged from the planes structurally that they fell that way but WTC7 was I'm sure while damaged, fire should not have brought it down that way. I'm still struck by the fact that never before 911 had any steel building collapsed that way nor has one since, but yet we are all supposed to believe that on the morning of 911 three steel buildings collapsed from the heat, cell phones worked on planes at high altitude even though they don't for anyone else. There are too many unanswered questions to not think something is definitely wrong with the answers we are given.


SMR

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I think this info here may help you.All this terror was set to happen and the destruction was to happen one way or another.Be it by planes crashing and/or bombs to help aid the conditions of the buildings allowing them to fall.

Read the last few posts I made and then you be the judge.I cant tell anyone what to think,you have to decide that.

Here is so more info and you can make your thoughts upon this.

Not alot to add here tonight but wanted to give a link to a very good video with very VALID and FACTUAL points.
Let me know what you think.I am going to post this in the 'Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all' thread as well as it has EVIDENCE on both accounts.
Painful Deceptions: An Analysis of the September 11 Attack
This is a 40 minute segment of Eric Hufschmid's new video.
www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Not only was there a fire, but two buildings each on the order of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of tons a piece just fell down right next to building 7. Just the effects of that much mass crashing to the ground could have been well enough to damage nearby structures. It wouldn't surprise if I looked and found that several of the nearby buildings suffered structural damage and had to be repaired.

If I was a small building, and those two monsters fell right next to me, I'd probably fall down too.

My point is, sure the fire isn't the only factor that brought building 7 down, but something did. I think the simplest explanation is that it got broken. What I'm wondering is what the conclusion that people are trying to draw here? Is someone trying to say that it was our own government again, because that is paraniod and delusional, not to mention old and tired.


Ok, the fact that you don't think that the fire was the only factor is nice to hear. And your above post is an explanation that makes more sense. Those buildings falling down no doubt was a tremendous force, and could have weakened the structure. It most likely did. But I would not expect to see building 7 fall THE WAY it did if it were damaged. It imploded on itself. It came down pulverized, steel structure and all. It just smacks of detonations. If it came down because of the fall-out of 1 and 2, would it have come down in such a manner? I would think it would topple more, and the steel frame wouldn't just crumble apart. The other materials of the building may, but not the steel. This is one factor, among some others about building 7 which makes me question the validity of the story.

And, I'm concerned about your statement that suspecting our government of these things is paranoid and delusional. I beg to differ. Do you think that our government, not even one or a few parts or people, are above or incapable of corruption? Do you think that the lessons that history tells us of people with power and governments who oppress ceases to exist and doesn't apply when it comes to our nation?

You should read some of Jefferson's writings, in addition to other founding fathers. They come right out and say that revolution every so often is required to keep the government from turning into something that we don't want. Even with the framework of THIS special government, they still expected that subsequent generations would have to deal with a corrupted government, and restore it back to the way it was. And then do it again after so much time passes. Were our founding fathers paranoid? Or were they not naive? Were they delusional, or observant of how the world works? Was Eisenhower delusional when he warned the people in his farewell address about the military industrial complex and that we must do something about some of the things that were happening within our government?

On a last not, I urge you to read something called The Northwoods document. If you do read it, maybe you won't think the government is so above acts of evil or deception. Maybe you won't think any longer that people who are suspicious and distrustful of our government are paranoid. Thanks.


THANK YOU!!! You are so right! Just because you're American!! Doesn't mean your bloody government is flawless. We're Americans! We're the greatest people in all the world! Oh Goody!!! I mean, okay, maybe the government didn't have anything to do with this. Maybe they made a little mistake in explaining things, and rather than admitting the truth, they tried to cover it all up. Maybe it really was terrorists, but it seems reasonable to think that the planes alone did not collapse those buildings without some other help. So, perhaps the terrorists also planted bombs within the buildings to insure that they collapsed.
But wait! Let's think this over a bit...if terrorists did it, do you think they would care much if the people knew it was them? Not likely. So, if they were able to plant the bombs, get everything set up perfectly, why then did they feel it was necessary to use planes as well? To take more lives? Not likely. If they wanted to take more lives, they could have planted more bombs all down the street, and saved themselves some trouble. Also, The buildings collapsed rather perfectly, right? Not falling onto other buildings, which would have created more damage, and loss of life...hmmm...I thought terrorists like to destroy and kill...so why would they take care that the buildings collapsed on the spot rather than toppling over??? Terrorists would waste no opportunity to cause extra destruction. But the government is a different story all together. The government wouldn't want to destroy everything surrounding the WTC, but only the specified buildings. Why? Because they only want to destroy the specified buildings to get their point across. But what is their point or motive? They want the chance to unleash a war upon the middle east...maybe for oil, maybe other reasons as well. But they wanted that war, desperately, and a desperate person will do anything, whatever it takes to get what he wants. So, they destroy the WTC, blame Bin Laden, then they launch their little war on terrorism. This sets the foundation for their ultimate goal..to invade Iraq, and who knows who's next. So, they've got the American people in the mood for violence and "revenge". Now they come up with fraudulent evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and harbours terrorists and funds these terrorists. Where's the proof, and why were the United Nations, whom Americans have never had a problem with before, suddenly disagreeing with what the American government is intending to do: to invade Iraq...? The united nations, and the European Union are not supporting terrorism, and they want it to be put to a stop also, but you don'T see them rushing off to war, now do you? Why?? Because that is not the solution.
The American government is corrupt, and the Bush administration is perhaps one of the biggest reasons.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."


After speaking to 3 individuals who worked out of that office including one who helped design it the following is the conclusion I made of the happenings there.

It was selected initially due to its close proximity to City Hall, the perceived power and strength of the WTC complex itself (though it was important to planners to keep the command center out of the towers), and various other reasons of locale and logistics.

When the first plane crashed many emergency procedures were enacted including the Mayor arriving there. When the damages to the towers was assessed the evacuation order was given because of the proximity of Number 7 to the towers (350 feet at certain points.) The order to evacuate Number 7 was given not due to imminent (or in your eyes expected) collapse of Number 7 but rather due to imminent or exepcted collapse of the two 110 story buildings across the street. The first Tower did indeed collapse before the Mayor's entourage was able to make it out of the building.

All I can tell you is if you do believe that some government entity was responsible for 9/11 no one told Rudy, or the other two people I know from that office. And that, I can tell you for a fact.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Rudy and Kerik WERE stuck in the building for a little while...it was all over the police and fire depts. radios...FACE IT...we didnt know it was going to happen...and it happened due to TERRORISTS....not our own govt...sometimes this board becomes a bit ridiculious with its mis-information....


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Rudy and Kerik WERE stuck in the building for a little while...it was all over the police and fire depts. radios...FACE IT...we didnt know it was going to happen...and it happened due to TERRORISTS....not our own govt...sometimes this board becomes a bit ridiculious with its mis-information....

We didnt know it was going to happen............hmmm
Maybe people should read more and dig to find the facts.People not knowing all the details is what I find ridiculious.
People were TOLD not to go to work that day.This has been stated many times.Many of which worked at WTC.
If you read posts and transcripts,at the time of the attacks,the building should have had around 30,000 people yet only had around a few thousand.

The September 12th San Francisco Chronicle reported that city mayor Willie Brown was notified by the federal government and HIS airport security NOT to fly September 11th.

Quick edit I just thought of:
Someone had said the water was off ...... why are there survivors on TV saying that the water pipes in the twin towers where spilling water because they had been busted.The water is shut off,but it spills out in the towers.

Another edit:
An unlicensed plumber Hammad who had a work pass for the WTC days before 9-11.Hammad said he was there working on the sprinkler system for a non existent company called Denko Mechanical. Interestingly, the FEMA report explaining why the towers collapsed concluded a major factor was that the sprinkler systems were disabled.

So who is the lier here?The person who got wet,or the people that were not in the buildings?

[edit on 10-9-2004 by SMR]



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Here is one that is hard to explain away, somebody made a boatload of money off of the tragedy that came on 9/11/01. The boatload of money could have only been made with knowledge that this was going to happen, somebody out there knew and still has a lot of answers why have we not went after these people?


A transparent and thorough investigation of suspicious trades before Sept. 11 could expose the masterminds behind the attacks by revealing who knew and profited from advance knowledge--if only the government wanted to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCLUSIVE TO AMERICAN FREE PRESS
By Christopher Bollyn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manipulators with inside information made huge profits on sophisticated trades as the stocks of the airline and insurance companies plummeted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 disaster. The inside information was so precise that experts have concluded that it could have only come from those who masterminded the terror attacks.
This money trail is the closest investigators have come to "a smoking gun" and could lead directly to those who planned the attacks. But with the notable exception of Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.), Congress has yet to demand a thorough and open investigation.

In the days following the terror attacks, suspicious and unusual stock trading activity indicated that people used inside information to make huge profits. The money made from the trades done with apparent inside information has been estimated at up to $15 billion worldwide.

complete article can be found at www.heartbone.com...


SMR

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Who else you ask?
Why Larry Silverstein!



In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
So I guess it all boils down to the money trail and who did know and who had the most to gain by the attacks. 15 Billion dollars is a lot of money and thats just off the stock transactions. Whether you believe the official story or doubt it, the one thing that everyone should wonder is who had those stock options on the two airlines that were used in the attacks, these options were timed options and someone knew the dates, someone knew and did not do anything to prevent the attacks someone knew and made money off of the tragedy. So that must lead one to wonder no matter who you believe to be responsible, why is the government not going after these people, at least to get information? C'mon we declared war and went after Bin Laden but yet here is without a doubt proof that someone knew and sought to profit from that knowledge, who? Someone received a check, who? It should not be hard for the US government to find out who but yet we have done nothing.


SMR

posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I guess $500 million isnt enough for good ole' Larry
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The man who leased the World Trade Center just months before it was destroyed has sued al Qaeda members, Saudi financial institutions and charities "that allegedly supported the conspiracy" to launch the attacks, Larry Silverstein's spokesman said on Saturday.

The lawsuit is in addition to others filed before a statute-of-limitations deadline three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon outside Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network carried out the attacks in which two hijacked jets rammed into the twin towers. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi citizens.

Gerald McKelvey, the developer's spokesman, noted that the suit excludes the government of Saudi Arabia.

READ MORE....

So he gets $500million in profit from the destruction of building 7,now wants to sue for more.....
and some say this isnt about money



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Read the URL- the building owner says he "pulled" #7

No conspiracy there.

The FEMA report is where the conspiracy is.


This is correct, you can watch several 911 videos, look up the owner of the world trade center, i think his last name was silverstein, he was that he wanted to go ahead and "pull" building 7. In fact here is Larry Silverstein saying it, go to 53:00 and watch for a couple minutes, you can hear him say "We made the decision to go ahead and pull it."


Google Video Link


[edit on 26-1-2007 by capsitan]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I have yet to see any HARD evidence (apart from circumstantial evidence, which unfortunately is not HARD evidence) that 9/11 was pulled off by the US government.

However, I find it likely that the US government would allow this to happen, as a) its easier to get someone else to do the dirty for u and b) it gives u the green card to do what the hell u want in the name of "WoT".

I think analysing 9/11 is a waste of time. Assuming it was "let happen", its just one of many instances which are a display of institutional corruption of the highest order, something that isn't unique to the US.

U worry about 9/11 being an inside job, yet u have a 2 party system that not only somehow represents the views of ur 300,000,000 citizens but also only seem to serve themselves and their wealthy cronies, with token, meaningless (in the grand scheme of things) gestures "for the people"
Just like democracy all around the world



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
This thread is supposed to be about building 7 isnt it?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Oh Lord..



"Big building falls on small building, small buidling fall:"

"I'm so sick of these cters.. blah blah blah.."

Horky dorky borky.. droool.. .DUhhh!!


Got news for you dudes.. We who question the official story are NOT going away. in fact, we are growing in numbers. I see people waking up all the time, it would blow your mind.


Building 7 was brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

If you don't like the fact that I just stated that here TOUGH. Now, instead of
wasting your time bleating useless diatribe and mindless dribble why don't you add something constructive and positive.


NO building fell on "top" of building 7.

The "damage" building 7 sustained is debatable based on what evidence/pictures we have to go by but question: WHY didn't the buildings CLOSER (including 6) collapse???? I mean.. building 6 was GUTTED and still didn't collapse. Did THOSE building have the hotspots under them like buildings 1,2 and 7??

Why were the buildings that collapsed that day the only ones that had "hot spots" underneath them?


Well.. that's because 'whatever' caused these hotspots also caused these buildings to collapse.. really simple logic if you think about it. I'll bet my bottom dollar that fires didn't cause these hot spots.






[edit on 27-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Concerning the thermal hotspots where buildings 1 2 and 7 were.. look here:


pubs.usgs.gov...



I would probably save this website.

Notice where the hotspots are? Pay close attention.

BTW, just to clarify.. Building 7 WAS NOT across the street from WTC 1 and 2.

QUIZ.. Which buildings were between buildings 1,2 and 7?

Really simple questions.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

NO building fell on "top" of building 7.


Really.




The "damage" building 7 sustained is debatable based on what evidence/pictures we have to go by


Why? Do you just ignore the pictures you don't like?










posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Nice try LeftBehind, but you fail again. Those picture are just bad angles that you choose to use, because it supports your theory.

Here are the better angles...


media.popularmechanics.com...

WTC7 is nearly two blocks away from WTC1 and 2. WTC 1 and 2 did NOT fall on top of WTC7. WTC1 and 2 fell on top of WTC6, yet WTC6 was STILL STANDING. They had to C.D. WTC6, even though it took about 90% percent more damamge than WTC7.

LeftBehind you are showing pictures of DUST hitting WTC7. F.Y.I. that DUST crossed the entire island! So I could probably find 1000's of pictures like you posted for even the empire state building, and lie and say WTC1 and 2 fell on it.

Geez the ignornace is killing me.

Lets put into perspective how far away WTC7 is from WTC 1 and 2...

www.3dphoto.net...

WTC1 and 2 came down symmetricaly.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 27/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
This is the east side of WTC7, the side that supposidley collapsed first due to damage.. wow, I don't see any structural damamge, heck I don't even see cosmetic damamge.

www.pastpeak.com...

Wow, look a picture of the south face of WTC7 before the dust hits it.



Looks so untouched...

Here, is the east penthouse collapsing WAY before the rest of the penthouse collapses with the building.

killtown.911review.org...

This is a view I haven't seen till recently, that convinced me of CD because, how did the penthouse fall first, and a few seconds the rest of the building? That would mean there had to be some type of structural damage to east penthouse, or even fire, but I dont think there is.

www.debunking911.com...

So very clean.

When a huge truck/car hits a building, it may damage the outer cosmetic walls, but there is no way it can damage a 6 inch thick 22x38 steel beam. Especialy steel columns that are reinfoced by the rest of the building. Heck I don't even think falling concrete from 110 storys high could damage a steel beam/column like that. The only thing I can think of that could break a 6inch think steel beam with only brute force is a bomb or shape charge or thermite, of some sort.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join