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: 23
46
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Pointing out that I heard it DIRECTLY from the incident commander that day

Not from some idiotic websites posting insane conspiracy theories

The incident commander on the scene

Oh I forgot - he is one of them and in on the conspiracy.... Right ....? Thats how paranoids think.....




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Pointing out that I heard it DIRECTLY from the incident commander that day

Not from some idiotic websites posting insane conspiracy theories

The incident commander on the scene

Oh I forgot - he is one of them and in on the conspiracy.... Right ....? Thats how paranoids think.....


If you're approaching this topic with the prejudice that anyone who questions the official story is an insane, paranoid conspiracy theorist, who use "idiotic" websites as their primary source of information, I fail to see how you can expect to be engaged in a productive dialog. People, such as yourself, who do have first hand information are especially important to the discussion, and I think your perspective and points of view would be considerably more valuable if you found a way to approach the conversation with objectivity and without the belittling condescension & sarcasm.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

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


As none of the buildings completely collapsed into their own footprint what are you on about?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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





Yes you are correct, but I posted that article to show that to real firemen unstable building does not mean it will collapse completely.

You know I don't mind repeating myself over and over, but aren't you a fireman ? This is really not that hard to understand. Read thIs over and over until you get it..


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.


Or show me testimony which proves that a total collapse was expected and I will accept it, I don't believe the firemen would lie about it.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
As none of the buildings completely collapsed into their own footprint what are you on about?


Hello... WTC7 collapsed in on itself, rather than outward. This is what is meant by collapsing into it's own "footprint". It is an essential feature of controlled demolitions, because it prevents debris from damaging surrounding structures, and consolidates the debris into a predictable pile making clean-up more efficient.

If you check out www.youtube.com... you can see some really incredible examples of this controlled, inward collapse by the Controlled Demolitions, Inc. company.

This one, in particular, is a great example of a controlled demolition that demonstrates the blowing of the central support structure resulting in, what is referred to as "crimping" in the top-center of the structure, allowing the building to fall into it's own footprint. Pay attention to the center building in the first portion of the video (as they demo'd a cluster of buildings in this operation). youtu.be...
edit on 5/26/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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."


Yeah, again building wasnt safe any longer does not explain a total collapse of a 47-story skyscraper.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by spoor
As none of the buildings completely collapsed into their own footprint what are you on about?


Hello... WTC7 collapsed in on itself, rather than outward.


Why do you think a building should collapse outward?


When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.


So any claim that any WTC 1, 2 or 7 "collapsed into their own footprint" is nothing but truthers making silly stories up - now why do they do that?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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."


Look this building is not safe



Compare it to WTC 7

Do you think it will have a complete collapse any minute now?
edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath
 


Pointing out that I heard it DIRECTLY from the incident commander that day

Not from some idiotic websites posting insane conspiracy theories

The incident commander on the scene

Oh I forgot - he is one of them and in on the conspiracy.... Right ....? Thats how paranoids think.....


He is one of who?
You still don't get that this kind of talk doesn't work anymore.
He is one of the brothers.. And he never said that WTC 7 collapsed just like it was expected.

What fire department You work at?

edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Why do you think a building should collapse outward?


If a building collapses without the use of controlled demolitions, it will typically tip or lean out to one side as the weaker portions of the building give out first in an irregular manner determined by the variance of the structural integrity.




When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.


So any claim that any WTC 1, 2 or 7 "collapsed into their own footprint" is nothing but truthers making silly stories up - now why do they do that?


The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was completely different than WTC7, which is what we're discussing in this thread. Regardless of whether the demolition was controlled or not, damage is to be expected to structures within 100yards. If you look at the aerial photos of the aftermath of the WTC7 collapse, you'll see that WTC7 is completely demolished whereas the Verizon and Post Office buildings remain comparably unscathed. Those two buildings were only about 25-50yards away. Therefore, the consequential damage to those buildings cannot be used to negate the claim that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by spoor
As none of the buildings completely collapsed into their own footprint what are you on about?


Hello... WTC7 collapsed in on itself, rather than outward.


Why do you think a building should collapse outward?


When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[46] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[47][48] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.


So any claim that any WTC 1, 2 or 7 "collapsed into their own footprint" is nothing but truthers making silly stories up - now why do they do that?


I dont know if it was a controlled demolition, but buildings DO NOT collapse completely without some sort of demolition. That's why Explosives should have been the first thing investigated and ruled out.

As you know prophet Mark Walsh figured out that the towers collapsed mostly due to structural damage extreme heat on the very day of 9/11. And according to NIST he was correct. Why didn't they just take his word for it and not spent all that money on "investigation"?




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
If a building collapses without the use of controlled demolitions, it will typically tip or lean out to one side as the weaker portions of the building give out first in an irregular manner determined by the variance of the structural integrity.


Care to show us a 47+ story building that collapses the way you think it should?


The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was completely different than WTC7,


You stating that does not make it true... care to show us exactly how they were different?


Therefore, the consequential damage to those buildings cannot be used to negate the claim that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.


Except that there is zero evidence any building was bought down by controlled demolition. What would have happened if the collapse of the north tower did not severely damage WTC7? - or do you think that they ran in and placed the tonnes of explosives needed to demolish WTC7 after it was severely damaged?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





You stating that does not make it true... care to show us exactly how they were different?


lol... you didn't notice the difference?

See people that is how you know that they got nothing left.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 





Except that there is zero evidence any building was bought down by controlled demolition. What would have happened if the collapse of the north tower did not severely damage WTC7? - or do you think that they ran in and placed the tonnes of explosives needed to demolish WTC7 after it was severely damaged?


Judging by your posts....that wouldn't stop you from trying to prove that it was severely damaged anyway.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
See my post on this page about NIST Page 39.

NIST (Page 39) say only fires brought WTC7 down, and debris from the collapsing tower's had nothing to do with the WTC7 collapse, yep, NIST said that!

They said debris from the tower's collapsing started the fires, but they were burning BEFORE the towers collapsed.

Barry Jennings (RIP) experienced explosions BEFORE the towers collapsed, so please tell me how the debris supposedly started the fires if there were explosions & fires in WTC7 BEFORE the tower collapsed?!


First off, sorry for not getting to you. I was helping my uncle paint his house.

As for your point, it's technically correct, but basically wrong.

Let me explain:

NIST determined that fire was what INITIALIZED the collapse. They determined that the damage didn't INITIALIZE the collapse. The damage is what allowed for the complete collapse, however. It's what allowed for the appearance of the collapse, and this idea is bolstered by the models which NIST produced, in which they modeled the internal collapse of the building both with and without the damage.

With the damage factored in, the model behaved much more similarly to reality. This is the kind of point I've been making all along. The collapse you see is caused by both fire AND damage. The damage plays a key part in the way the building comes down.

As for the Barry Jennings thing, that has been proven time and time again to be a timing problem. Barry had no access to windows for basically the entire time he was in WTC 7 until the "explosions." The explosions match up perfectly with the collapse of WTC 1, since the reason he took so long to get out after he found the building abandoned was due to the POWER GOING OUT. The power didn't go out until WTC 2 had collapsed, so that right there throws his misstatement about the towers being standing as false.

He had interpreted the firefighters' comings and goings when he found a window to be the collapses, but his companion's testimony revealed the environment to be very post-tower-collapse as soon as they found a window.

Really, this is old news. It's unfortunate that it must be repeated ad nauseam.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
Care to show us a 47+ story building that collapses the way you think it should?


Go to YouTube and search for "controlled demolitions" and you'll find enough proper and successful building demolitions to keep you busy all day. There's one from implosionworld.com that's about 17min and features I think 100 controlled demolitions.


You stating that does not make it true... care to show us exactly how they were different?


There's no need to be antagonistic. We're just chattin'
If you compare the collapse of WTC1&2 to WTC7, I think there are distinct differences. You're welcome to disagree, but I think it's visually apparent to anyone who watches the videos. If you think the collapses of all thee buildings were the same, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how you've come to that conclusion.

WTC7 begins its decent with a blow-out of its central vertical support column. This is evident by the crimping at the top-center of WTC7 as it begins its decent. Following the blow-out of that central support column, smaller secondary supports in the interior are blown out in a rising, sequential manner, as the building falls straight down with virtually no bias or resistance. In the case of WTC1&2, which were nearly identical in their respective collapses, the collapse was characterized by pulverized debris being ejected up and outward as they fell or, more accurately, dissolved into a giant pyroclastic cloud.



Except that there is zero evidence any building was bought down by controlled demolition. What would have happened if the collapse of the north tower did not severely damage WTC7? - or do you think that they ran in and placed the tonnes of explosives needed to demolish WTC7 after it was severely damaged?


Again, I ask you to refrain from the patronizing and condescending attitude. It's not necessary; we're just having a discussion. If you read my first post in this thread, I acknowledge that conclusively proving anything without a reasonable doubt is unlikely. I don't have an agenda, nor have I come to any conclusions. I'm just here engaging in a discussion on the topic. Really, there's no reason to be hostile.

I'm not going to speculate on hypothetical scenarios. I'm just dealing with the available evidence and information we've all got access to. As for evidence support the hypothesis that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, the audio/video and corroborating statements by several witnesses equates to fairly strong circumstantial evidence. I don't know of any physical evidence, with the exception of the videos. As I'm sure you know, the debris has all been removed and shipped to China for disposal. I don't know what other evidence I can provide. If you have a suggestion on that, I'd be interested in hearing it.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Again describing operations at WTC 1 not WTC 7

FDNY EMS Division Chief John Peruggia - WTC 1 Approx 10 AM


I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.



I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately
to the command post where Chief Ganci was located.
Told him where it was across the street from number 1
World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci
and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information
that the building integrity is severely compromised and
they believe the building is in danger of imminent
collapse." So, he left off in that direction.

Q. They felt that just the one building or both
of them?

A. The information we got at that time was that
they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
but they felt that the north tower, which was the first
one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of
collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you
could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
significant structural damage to the exterior of the
building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



I was helping my uncle paint his house.


I hope you're better at painting houses than you are at debunking 9/11.



The damage is what allowed for the complete collapse


So now you understand that there's a difference between an unstable building being in danger of collapsing and a building completely collapsing.. That makes me happy. But what made you finally understand this. The reason I'm asking is because a few pages back it didn't make any sense to you.


This continues to make no sense to me. They expected a collapse for hours before the building came down. Your argument is that you want to have the word "complete" prefacing their expectation? What kind of bullcrap is that?
What made you change your mind? and where did you get this idea of "damage is what allowed for the complete collapse"?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



As for the Barry Jennings thing, that has been proven time and time again to be a timing problem. Barry had no access to windows for basically the entire time he was in WTC 7 until the "explosions." The explosions match up perfectly with the collapse of WTC 1, since the reason he took so long to get out after he found the building abandoned was due to the POWER GOING OUT. The power didn't go out until WTC 2 had collapsed, so that right there throws his misstatement about the towers being standing as false.


What do you think Berry Jennings had to be stepping over when being rescued by the firemen?

blip.tv...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

As for the Barry Jennings thing, that has been proven time and time again to be a timing problem. Barry had no access to windows for basically the entire time he was in WTC 7 until the "explosions." The explosions match up perfectly with the collapse of WTC 1, since the reason he took so long to get out after he found the building abandoned was due to the POWER GOING OUT. The power didn't go out until WTC 2 had collapsed, so that right there throws his misstatement about the towers being standing as false.

He had interpreted the firefighters' comings and goings when he found a window to be the collapses, but his companion's testimony revealed the environment to be very post-tower-collapse as soon as they found a window.

Really, this is old news. It's unfortunate that it must be repeated ad nauseam.



May I answer this. I have looked into Barry Jennings' account and he said he went into WTC7 straight after the planes hit, and pretty much straight after entering WTC7 he had a quick look around the building, and then there was an explosion.

At this point the towers were still standing because not enough time had passed for them to collapse. He also confirms on video that they were still standing, but the time-frame alone is enough to confirm they were still standing. He was very adamant in all his interviews.

Then there were further explosions and he was trapped inside until after the towers collapsed. Luckily for him he got out of WTC7 before that came down.

Let's just hypothetically say he did enter the building just before the towers collapsed, and soon after there was an explosion, then how could the external debris make his landing inside collapse, and how could the debris cause an explosion inside where he was? Anyway, this hypothetical paragraph doesn't matter because the explosion he encountered inside WTC7 happened not long after the planes hit, and well before the towers collapsed.

Not sure if you have seen this before but it will help you clarify things. Barry starts at 2:55.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by maxella1
 


Again describing operations at WTC 1 not WTC 7

FDNY EMS Division Chief John Peruggia - WTC 1 Approx 10 AM


I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.



I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately
to the command post where Chief Ganci was located.
Told him where it was across the street from number 1
World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci
and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information
that the building integrity is severely compromised and
they believe the building is in danger of imminent
collapse." So, he left off in that direction.

Q. They felt that just the one building or both
of them?

A. The information we got at that time was that
they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
but they felt that the north tower, which was the first
one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of
collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you
could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
significant structural damage to the exterior of the
building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.




Assuming you are a firemen and working a fire in this building.. do you see the possibility of significant structural damage? would you establish a collapse zone? And do you think this building is in danger of compete collapse?

And now show me where they are stating that the towers were in imminent danger of a complete, total, or global collapse?

Just a reminder of what the firemen was saying...


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.

edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join