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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 22
46
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 



why not put up.....show me please......once.....where a steel building has suffered a complete.....listen again COMPLETE global failure due to fires alone......yes ....building 7 apparently suffer some collateral damage.....but even that was not enough to cause....listen again......GLOBAL collapse.......do any one of you know the difference.

Here is more examples. but I don't think they will understand the difference anyway. Also note that when he describes how the collapse not what was happening inside before the collapse sounded. “i heard a loud roar” not explosions. What was happening inside the building was described as “definitely secondary explosions”. Could it be that firemen know the difference between explosions and fallen debris, or firecrackers?


We had some conversations at the North Tower operations post about the potential for localized collapse. As far as I'm aware, there was no discussion whatsoever about the possibility of a total collapse. I had no thoughts whatsoever that these massive high-rise buildings would fall. It was beyond comprehension, and there was no precedent for it.



Soon after, I met up with Chief Hayden on the corner of West and Vesey streets. I still didn't know it was a collapse. I don't know how long we were there, how long we were operating, and still I didn't know that the South Tower had collapsed. All I saw was dust or smoke; from our angle, we couldn't see the South Tower. Then somebody ran past us screaming, "The building is falling!" I heard a loud roar, so I ran, but you couldn't run too far in bunker gear. I heard this loud sound, and the street went from grayish dust to total black. I heard the steel falling. I was waiting to be crushed. The building was a quarter-mile high, and we were way too close. Then there was complete silence, like the first snowfall. And we got up, and there was all sorts of debris in our eyes, all that dust choking us. I think I had run west on Vesey Street. A foot here or there made a difference, as we know now.



Out in the street after leaving 1 World Trade Center, Chief Pfeifer recalled that he did not know the first tower [South Tower] had totally failed. "I knew we had a big collapse, but I had no idea. What people saw on TV I didn't see, and nobody told me that's what had occurred, and I didn't hear any radio communications of that, either."—Chief Joseph Pfeifer, "Before the Towers Fell, Fire Department Fought Chaos," Jim Sawyer, The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2002


Any way to the people who is refusing to admit that WTC 7 was reported to be at risk of collapse, but it's very different from what happened to building 7... READ this and THINK about it.


FIRST CHIEF ON THE SCENE
edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


And what about you'all Paid-OSers?


So you admit that you're spending your time discussing stuff with people you think are paid to waste your time. I'd say that was pathetic.


That's your opinion, and I respect that. But 6 years of derailing 911 threads that most of them introduce logical thinking,, is what I call pathetic. 6 years bro?? Enjoy your occupation. Have a great weekend.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
We have not only a firefighter but a firefighter officer standing right there at WTC 7 and he's saying the fires were causing massive structural damage to the point where they knew the building was going to collapse. Plus, notably, not a single one of any of these "firefighters that heard explosions" take these "secret controlled demolitions" claims seriously or else Alex Jones and Dylan Avery would be interviewing them left, right, up, and down. The question isn't up to me to "prove that secret explosives weren't in WTC 7". It's up to YOU to prove eyewitnesses like deputy chief Hayden are lying when they say it was the fires that brought the building down.


Can you explain how a firefighter and commanding officer can be considered experts in determining that WTC7 was going to collapse, given that prior to the collapse WTC1 and WTC2, there is no historical precedent for a steel skyscraper collapsing as a result of fire? And what of all the controlled-demolitions professionals who are convinced that #7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, explaining in detail the tell-tale "crimping" of the central support structure, and the sequential squib blow-outs that can be viewed just prior to and during the first few seconds of the collapse? I would think that the conclusions of trained, licensed experts in the field of controlled-demolitions would be given a bit more weight in this arena than firefighters (not to take anything away from the bravery and incredible dedication of the FDNY).

I also cannot understand why folks who cling to the official story use the term "truthers", as if seeking the truth in such an epic and important incident is a bad thing. Rather than look at the entirety of that day and wrap it all up into one neat package, I'm looking at the various individual events of that day in an objective, pragmatic way. Regardless of what the truth is or is not, there are so many questions that have either been inadequately explained, or flat-out ignored, that it makes the official story difficult to reconcile in a rational and logical light.

If you, or anyone else is going to respond to this, all I ask is that you please don't include any unnecessary personal insults or condemnation, patronizing sarcasm, or off-topic rants. I'm not interested in getting involved in a "you're wrong, I'm right; I'm right, you're wrong" back and forth, and would really just like a calm, rational discussion about the specifics leaving egos and personal emotions out of it. On my end, I will act accordingly and show respect to anyone who has something of value to contribute, no matter where they stand on the issue. Conclusively determining what happened is unlikely, but I think that an objective discussion that focuses on examining the facts and evidence without the personal convictions will be a more productive way to tackle this high-strung topic. Thank you



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Pathologizing dissent is an Orwellian tactic of a totalitarian state used to demonize anyone who questions the "Official Story" as sold by Big Brother and his controlled media. Using ad hominum attacks rather than addressing specific arguments is a logical fallacy used to distract from the truth. It is much easier to call someone a "conspiracy theorist" or "tin-foil hat wearer" or "racist" or "homophobic" or "truther" etc., than to simply face the reality that we have been massively misled.

It is too much for many minds to consider. Those who were behind such atrocities have no conscience. Look up "ponerology" to see the pathology of the kind of mind who can conceive of such evil in the name of political expedience.

The implications of 9/11 being an inside job or a preventable atrocity are difficult to imagine. Highly recommend anyone really interested in this topic to watch the films, "Loose Change" and "In Plane Site" before presuming the official story (OS) is the full story. See: www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
We have not only a firefighter but a firefighter officer standing right there at WTC 7 and he's saying the fires were causing massive structural damage to the point where they knew the building was going to collapse.


Can you explain how a firefighter and commanding officer can be considered experts in determining that WTC7 was going to collapse, given that prior to the collapse WTC1 and WTC2, there is no historical precedent for a steel skyscraper collapsing as a result of fire? .


They used a surveyor's transit to measure visible distortion in the building... it was visibly bulging or leaning for hours leading up to the collapse. IIRC, they were aware that the sprinkler system was damaged by the prior collapses, and thus had no chance of putting out the fires. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure why you think they need to be experts to foresee the collapse.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Innerlight
 


i would have to agree with you...it seems to be the tactic mostly in use here...try to discredit the person to support your beliefs or make your beliefs more palatable. People often say why are there not more professionals speaking out....but if you see the back lash from the mainstream for voicing views that do not agree with the OS you can easily understand the reasons why one would choose not to come forth......It is like professional suicide.

When i use my background to state my position it amazes me the backlash......yet when they say they want a professional opinion and it is given....then they say what could he know.....so catch 22 isn't it.

now as i stated previously.....when you actually flatly lay out a fact and you want someone from the OS to just come forward to show that what your saying is wrong....because frankly I would like to be wrong in thinking someone associated with apparently being on the good side would have anything to do with 911.

I have my beliefs who was behind 911.....Mossad.....CIA......as they are two agencies who have the ability...the resources...the skills and know how to pull off such a feat...and not only have the motives for creating manufactured wars....it would be great to be proved absolutely wrong......but to this date ....it has not been proven.

now over the years there have been so many threads regarding this...it gets to be pointless to keep submitting points of views as they do not get debated......they get bashed.....I don't care if someone puts together something way out there.....It is just their opinion and they are entitled to it.....does not mean it is open territory for me to attack them personally.....
Sometimes i honestly it is a collective effort to derail threads so that the discussions ends or the mods are forced to come in and close the thread down.....and that is a shame.
do truthers talk amongst themselves and ask each other questions.....I know i do......and when i show people who really have not thought about the who done it....other than what the OS stated...many are amazed at the evidence against what the OS has put forward......we have three buildings that suffered global collapse.....yet we are to be made to feel this is ummmmmm.....normal....Steel building behave so badly in fires yet we keep on building them.....yup that makes perfect sense to me now.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
We have not only a firefighter but a firefighter officer standing right there at WTC 7 and he's saying the fires were causing massive structural damage to the point where they knew the building was going to collapse.


Can you explain how a firefighter and commanding officer can be considered experts in determining that WTC7 was going to collapse, given that prior to the collapse WTC1 and WTC2, there is no historical precedent for a steel skyscraper collapsing as a result of fire? .


They used a surveyor's transit to measure visible distortion in the building... it was visibly bulging or leaning for hours leading up to the collapse. IIRC they were aware that the sprinkler system was damaged by the prior collapses, and thus had no chance of putting out the fires. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure why you think they need to be experts to foresee the collapse.




"njslim 30th September 2010, 01:23 PM

Went to seminar 6 months after 9/11 to listen to FDNY incident commanders describe
operations that day.

One of them (Chief Hayden IIRC) told of setting up transit in early afternoon - transit is
positioned and locked on feature of the building such as a corner . In this case was
bulge in building on SW corner. Periodic observations were taken - by 2:30PM could see
building was creeping or moving out out plumb

This is what convinced commanders to order collapse zone around WTC 7 be set up at
3PM.

forums.randi.org...



What the hell is this? Are you using some kind of official OS'er handbook?
edit on 26-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Innerlight
 


i would have to agree with you...it seems to be the tactic mostly in use here...try to discredit the person to support your beliefs or make your beliefs more palatable. People often say why are there not more professionals speaking out....but if you see the back lash from the mainstream for voicing views that do not agree with the OS you can easily understand the reasons why one would choose not to come forth......It is like professional suicide.

When i use my background to state my position it amazes me the backlash......yet when they say they want a professional opinion and it is given....then they say what could he know.....so catch 22 isn't it.

now as i stated previously.....when you actually flatly lay out a fact and you want someone from the OS to just come forward to show that what your saying is wrong....because frankly I would like to be wrong in thinking someone associated with apparently being on the good side would have anything to do with 911.

I have my beliefs who was behind 911.....Mossad.....CIA......as they are two agencies who have the ability...the resources...the skills and know how to pull off such a feat...and not only have the motives for creating manufactured wars....it would be great to be proved absolutely wrong......but to this date ....it has not been proven.

now over the years there have been so many threads regarding this...it gets to be pointless to keep submitting points of views as they do not get debated......they get bashed.....I don't care if someone puts together something way out there.....It is just their opinion and they are entitled to it.....does not mean it is open territory for me to attack them personally.....
Sometimes i honestly it is a collective effort to derail threads so that the discussions ends or the mods are forced to come in and close the thread down.....and that is a shame.
do truthers talk amongst themselves and ask each other questions.....I know i do......and when i show people who really have not thought about the who done it....other than what the OS stated...many are amazed at the evidence against what the OS has put forward......we have three buildings that suffered global collapse.....yet we are to be made to feel this is ummmmmm.....normal....Steel building behave so badly in fires yet we keep on building them.....yup that makes perfect sense to me now.





Some things are true whether we want to believe them or not.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
They used a surveyor's transit to measure visible distortion in the building... it was visibly bulging or leaning for hours leading up to the collapse. IIRC, they were aware that the sprinkler system was damaged by the prior collapses, and thus had no chance of putting out the fires. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure why you think they need to be experts to foresee the collapse.


I've heard about the bulging and distortion you are talking about. However, that fact does nothing to explain the sequential squib detonation sequence, the initiation of the collapse by way of the blown-out center support structure, or the fact that the building came down symmetrically at near free-fall speed, falling in on itself. If this was a collapse as a result of fire creating structural instability, I believe the collapse would be asymmetrical, reflecting uneven damage to the structure, and only partial in nature.

Additionally, the pervasive belief that the fire just couldn't be contained and collapse was inevitable doesn't make any sense. This was a very modern, and newly renovated steel skyscraper. As I said before, the complete collapse of such a structure was previously unheard of and has no historical precedent. Past skyscraper fires that raged for much longer, while destroying the buildings, did not result in complete structural collapses even in the worst of cases. The fires in WTC7 were, in comparison, much less severe and encompassing. Even if one were to accept that WTC7 was brought down as a result of unmanageable fires, the question of why it collapsed in on itself symmetrically, with with virtually no resistance, still remains.
edit on 5/26/2012 by draco49 because: spelling fix




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
We have not only a firefighter but a firefighter officer standing right there at WTC 7 and he's saying the fires were causing massive structural damage to the point where they knew the building was going to collapse.


Can you explain how a firefighter and commanding officer can be considered experts in determining that WTC7 was going to collapse, given that prior to the collapse WTC1 and WTC2, there is no historical precedent for a steel skyscraper collapsing as a result of fire? .


They used a surveyor's transit to measure visible distortion in the building... it was visibly bulging or leaning for hours leading up to the collapse. IIRC, they were aware that the sprinkler system was damaged by the prior collapses, and thus had no chance of putting out the fires. Under these circumstances, I'm not sure why you think they need to be experts to foresee the collapse.


A transit is pointed to one spot and used to measure the shifting of that one spot over a period of time. Plus you need the blueprint of the structure to get a reliable measurement.
I am unaware that FDNY had the blueprints available or not.

Firemen use eyes and ears mostly to asses the scene. And regardless wether or not the transit was used. FDNY did not expect a complete collapse of any one of the buildings.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


ok sooo...did they also have these transits set up for monitoring wtc 5 and wtc 6......two buildings that took direct hits from the collapsing towers......suffered intense fires burning for hours.....whole sections tore away....yet...guess what......were still standing.....and did not suffer a complete global collapse.

did they?

come on Eugene.......speak up and be heard......

now the neat bit......building 6 suffered fire damage before the debris from wtc2 even had settle on the ground.....I know i am curious as to why?.

instead of just calling people for what they think.....why not step up with a reasonable explanation.

to me the building looks to be fully engulfed.....already damaged....and all the worse for wear.These are questions.....just try to acknowledge the question....why was building 6 in such a sorry state....I guess it might have felt sympathetic for it's companion building and decided to ignite itself.
Or could it be that the source of fires was from beneath the whole wtc complex....therefore affecting all buildings in the complex.....Oh no....i should not think such a things....IT might conjure up conspiracy theories on a conspiracy website.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Yep, you are right, they did not foresee the collapse of WTC 7. That's why they set up the collapse zone around it, they thought 7 was just fine.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Yep, you are right, they did not foresee the collapse of WTC 7. That's why they set up the collapse zone around it, they thought 7 was just fine.


Again you are missing a crucial word, complete.

That is the point we have been trying to get you to understand, there is a huge difference between thinking a building is going to collapse, and a building is going to completely collapse into its own footprint.

A complete collapse could not have been predicted as there was no precedence to base it on.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 



That is not a smoke cloud but pulverized concrete from WTC1 and 2 caught in a wind shear drawn by a corridor of sky scrapers.


I take back my earlier post - Your statement is the most idiotic I've heard....

Peruse these videos

Specific Clip 7

www.911myths.com...

Now what direction is smoke travelling ? Away from WTC 7

WTC 1 & 2 lie to south (to the right just offscreen) in the direction smoke cloud travelling

Now if was dust from WTC 1 & 2 why is it travelling away from WTC 7



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Yep, you are right, they did not foresee the collapse of WTC 7. That's why they set up the collapse zone around it, they thought 7 was just fine.


I'm pretty sure they feared the possibility of a collapse given what happened to WTC1 and WTC2 in the morning, the magnitude of the entirety of the disaster, and their diminishing resources. In consideration of this, it makes sense that they would proactively set up a 'collapse zone' around the perimeter of WTC7 as a precautionary measure. But the hard questions remain; the sequential squib explosions, the crimping of the top-center of the building at the commencement of the collapse, and the symmetrical global collapse of the building into its own footprint. Those are the questions that, as far as I know, have never been answered and are routinely ignored or waved-off by people who seem to exhibit an irrational cognitive dissonance and departure from logic in examining this topic.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Neither smoke, nor fire, can make a building completely collapse into its own footprint.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Yep, you are right, they did not foresee the collapse of WTC 7. That's why they set up the collapse zone around it, they thought 7 was just fine.


The use of transit confirms that they anticipated a collapse and pointed the transit in the area that was damaged. It cannot be used to assess the whole building. I could be wrong, show me testimony that would prove that I'm wrong.

I said it before and I am saying it now . I believe the firemen who were on scene. I could not find a single one that said a complete or total or global collapse whatever you want to call it was expected.
edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Get with the program....!

Chief Pfeiffer is describing operations in the North Tower (WTC 1) not WTC 7

One of the commanders on scene - Assistant Chief Joseph Callan who was in lobby of WTC directing operations
began to notice indications that WTC 1 was becoming unstable

Ordered men to begin evacuations - sadly because of communications problems few heard him in time to get out



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Here is Chief Callan (forgot to append to earlier post)



FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower."

Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30."



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I said it before and I am saying it now . I believe the firemen who were on scene. I could not find a single one that said a complete or total or global collapse whatever you want to call you was expected.


I agree. I was living and working in Manhattan at the time (at the Starrett-Lehigh building at 601 W 26th), and I know a lot of FDNY firefighters. From what I've been told, and the impression I am left with, is that the magnitude of the day's events was overwhelming to the brave men and women working the scene, and the working environment was complete and utter chaos. The few I know who are willing to discuss the topic consistently express that they were completely caught off guard by the total collapse of all 3 buildings, and still maintain an attitude of utter disbelief and amazement at what took place.
edit on 5/26/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join