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: 24
46
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

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




This is good information to have, but I must point out that it's filled with hearsay and details that cannot be corroborated. I've emphasized and underlined the portions of Chief Peruggia's statement that constitute hearsay and unverifiable details.


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.


As the reader, I'm left wondering who "they" were. It's Chief Perrugia's POV, but in this statement he's basically relaying information that was provided to him by unknown persons. He "thinks" it was a representative from the Dept. of Buildings, but he's unsure. He also mentions "some engineer type person", again, unidentified. From an investigatory perspective, his statement is excellent anecdotal evidence, but since he's relaying and acting on information from persons unknown, the question becomes 'who are these shot-callers and engineers, and why haven't we heard direct statements from them'?




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Here I've finally found irrefutable VIDEO PROOF that al-Qaeda didn't have anything to do with the collapse of WTC7.



Case closed bitches!


Warning: If you didn't laugh a little at that, you're way too fired-up on this topic and should take a moment to enjoy life



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:54 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."


Sorry my friend ,but this off-site content says nothing about a fire. If anything it proves fire was not the culprit. but I could be wrong.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

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

blip.tv...


Oh, this is cool, that's a more comprehensive video than the one I just posted. I didn't know about this one.
It clarifies quite clearly again, that the explosions happened before the collapses, but in more detail.

There are a lot of eye witness reports of explosions at the towers & WTC7, coupled with Barry's experience, and the videos that have sound recordings of explosions, and videos of explosive flashes - NIST FOIA: WTC2 Collapse (Cynthia Weil) for example (on the left of WTC2, just above the impact zone as it collapses).

All this really confirms explosives were used, it seems NIST missed a hell of a lot of stuff. This youtube member cappucinokid100 has lots of good videos and many eye witness ones that all confirm explosions as well. The Paul Lemo extended video is quite concise, he talks about explosions on about 20 different floors of the towers, about some dubious architect briefing him!

Some good information amongst all this for those interested in 9/11.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 10:59 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?


Suggestion,,,,, try looking at an aerial photo of ground zero....



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

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.




NIST fabricated a story.

They determined a story.

NIST produced a story.

Models produced a story.

"Models similar to reality"? : How convenient

There is no factual and tested proof "the collapse" is caused by fire. Just stories and theories

Only Barry can justify what access he had. 2nd or 3rd person accounts about him is pointless

You blindly believe accounts as if it were faith based

What we have here is you preaching dogma and your deity is NIST

That pretty sums it up



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
NIST fabricated a story.

They determined a story.

NIST produced a story.

Models produced a story.

"Models similar to reality"? : How convenient

There is no factual and tested proof "the collapse" is caused by fire. Just stories and theories

Only Barry can justify what access he had. 2nd or 3rd person accounts about him is pointless

You blindly believe accounts as if it were faith based

What we have here is you preaching dogma and your deity is NIST

That pretty sums it up


Mind adding a citation? That would really help with making you sound more credible than being a guy who says, "I don't like their conclusion, so they're not just wrong, they're liars."

I believe the firefighters. They documented the fire and the damage, and they considered it enough to be too dangerous to keep firefighters within two or so blocks of the building.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


Let us not forget the unexplained, and conveniently-timed demise of Barry Jennings...

JenningsMystery.com


Summary of Case Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess. Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut.. However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC. The cause of Jennings' death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with his investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings' position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Mind adding a citation? That would really help with making you sound more credible than being a guy who says, "I don't like their conclusion, so they're not just wrong, they're liars."

I believe the firefighters. They documented the fire and the damage, and they considered it enough to be too dangerous to keep firefighters within two or so blocks of the building.


Hello... I don't think there's any doubt at all that there were several serious fires. But the question is, was it those fire that were responsible for the collapse? I'm not sure. The NIST report is suspect because it fails to suitably address a number of questions, and is at least partially refuted on record by an executive at Underwriters Laboratory (UL), Kevin Ryan, who originally certified the steel used in the buildings, and tested samples in the aftermath. There's more information on that here www.911truth.org...



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
NIST fabricated a story.

They determined a story.

NIST produced a story.

Models produced a story.

"Models similar to reality"? : How convenient

There is no factual and tested proof "the collapse" is caused by fire. Just stories and theories

Only Barry can justify what access he had. 2nd or 3rd person accounts about him is pointless

You blindly believe accounts as if it were faith based

What we have here is you preaching dogma and your deity is NIST

That pretty sums it up


Mind adding a citation? That would really help with making you sound more credible than being a guy who says, "I don't like their conclusion, so they're not just wrong, they're liars."

I believe the firefighters. They documented the fire and the damage, and they considered it enough to be too dangerous to keep firefighters within two or so blocks of the building.


Aint nothin like blind faith



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Aint nothin like blind faith


Asking for evidence and trusting public workers who were there = blind faith

Assuming engineers are lying and saying firefighters were wrong = cold hard truth finder

Something is wrong with this line of logic.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Aint nothin like blind faith


Asking for evidence and trusting public workers who were there = blind faith

Assuming engineers are lying and saying firefighters were wrong = cold hard truth finder

Something is wrong with this line of logic.


That's the problem with you OSers. You have to ASK for evidence. No need to ask my friend, the evidence is in all of us, its called logic. I don't care about engineers, firefighters, government employees, affiliates, photos,videos or articles. I need no one nor anything to see actuality. Only need human logic.


For every type of source you provide ,I'll can equal it. Which is a pointless-pissing match. But exposing the lack of logic is where fabrication reigns.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It's quite convenient how firefighters are an impeccable source of info/evidence....until they start reporting explosions/molten steel.......then they're confused/mistaken.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

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."


Sorry my friend ,but this off-site content says nothing about a fire. If anything it proves fire was not the culprit. but I could be wrong.


Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.

But in order for you to learn something, I'd read up on what "creep" means and how it applies to what happened in the WTCs. FYI: NIST does mention this quite a few times. But then, you should have known that by now if you'd read any of it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I meant no disrespect, honestly. I was only making an observation.
The story I posted is very relevant because it involves professional scientists, doctors and Federal Government engaging in unethical, immoral and illegal activities in secrecy for many years which caused pain and suffering to other human-beings. To them it seemed like it was done with good intentions.

You don't think there's a pretty significant difference between the two? There are no racial or ethnic motivators here, there's not even any possible pretense of ethical behaviour.


But you dismiss it as irrelevant as if engineers are held to higher standards than scientist and doctors. Because otherwise it would contradict your personal beliefs that engineers would never do such a thing.

It's not that engineers are held to higher standards, it's that I expect people to have learned from history. The last people I would try and convince to murder in cold blood would be those who have willingly signed an ethical agreement to protect life.


I was never put in such position, so I don't know if it would convince me. I know you are not American but I'm sure you are familiar with American politics at least a little. How did the Government convinced the people that Iraq had WND's, and that it was in out National Security interests to invade that country?

They lied! We know they lied because it took almost no time at all for their lies to become public and be made clear. Can you name a single whistleblower that presented evidence that say CTBUH is part of a cover up?

It would be the most foolish plan in the world, having to convince a bunch of engineering companies not to criticise the NIST report. Far better to ensure that the report is plausible and that its conclusions are acceptable, than to make it as poor as some truthers would have you believe.


Lately the FBI had a lot of success stopping terrorist attacks by going undercover and getting these people to try an attack with fake devises and stuff. I will assume that you are familiar with what I’m talking about. If not just Google it.

Would you consider a possibility that 9/11 was just like that? Based on the information we have available to us today, the hijackers were known to the intelligence agencies,the Bush Administration had many warnings about a planned attack within the US. What if it was a covert operation that went very wrong. Something happened and they were unable to stop it in time?

Oh sure, I have no problem with this whatsoever. My feelings are that the evidence for controlled demolition is flimsy at best, and you can't even get a group of 10 conspiracy theorists to agree even on the most generic details. If it comes to a LIHOP or an incompetence scenario then of course I'd be fully willing to believe this. The US government is hilariously incompetent. That's why a malicious super efficient conspiracy seems so laughable to me.


What if 9/11 was just like that?

The only way to prove it would be to find some evidence. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think it is impossible



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
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)

This made me chuckle. Of course there's a handbook, it's called the oral histories. If you want evidence that fire was damaging a building then what better evidence than a first person account of a device explicitly for this purpose being set up and used.

People in this thread and elsewhere have claimed that it is simply not possible for fire to even damage a building like this, but the movement of a transit measurement shows that this is not the case. A slow progressive deformation is agreed to be a sign of fire damage by all sides.



Originally posted by maxella1
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.

The oral histories disagree here. Once WTC2 collapsed then a collapse was immediately anticipated for WTC1. In fact there were indications in WTC2 prior to collapse, we can go through these if really needed. If you haven't checked out the oral histories they are worth a look because there definitely was an anticipation of serious or total collapse.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Oh i guess you did not pay attention to the debunkers modis operandi

Classic

oh right they are all in on the conspiracy......Sorry that was so blantant that i could not resist it.....

I guess if you were there that day you were in on it too.....LOL!

your statement was almost valued and i was going to inquire about your discussion with said person....but your snide truther dig and generalization at the end makes all your statements yet again non debatabe......your brush off of intellectual discussion makes your staement complete and utter bs.....your obviously not here to discuss....your only here to cuss.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Sorry M8 yes they do mention creep and the buildings movement.....but that is not confirmed by other than people in the chaos of the day....they guess what.....used witness testimony to draw these conclusions...you see for a lot of truthers and many professionals....if a process of determination is faulty then the report has to be faulty...You see gen you have always and keep on using the very report that is and always has been in question to back up your statements for what happen on the day....

I will put it this way.....THE NIST REPORT IS THE MAIN REPORT THAT IS IN QUESTIONED

the second being BAZANT

now as i say and will say again and again...If MOSSAD was behind the attacks.......then guess who did the NIST report....this is where i get called anti Semite......now if you check dates i wrote about this in my signature thread before even this was written.......

9/11 Commission: Zionist controlled





Philip Zelikow. 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow (Dual Citizen US / Israel) - 9/11 Commission Gatekeeper

Zelikow was appointed the executive director of the 9/11 commission - the most powerful position of the committee. This Zionist Jew is responsible for concocting the contrived fiction that was presented as the 9/11 Commission Report - official narrative. The report contains hundreds of glaring anomalies, contradictions, omissions and downright falsehoods. It even manages to omit any reference at all to the collapse of Building 7 at 5:20 pm.

Initially Henry Kissenger was appointed as executive director but surrendered the post after enormous protest. This paved the way for Zionist operative Zelikow to take the helm. Zelikow has numerous conflicts of interest that clearly inhibited his ability to tell the truth to the American people about the 9/11 terror attacks.


Zelikow was a Bush Admin insider, having been on the transition team in early 2000. In 1989-91 Zelikow worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council for the Bush Sr. Administration. In 1995, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. From 1996-98 Zelikow is director of the Aspen Strategy Group which also included people such as Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz as fellow members. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other Administration task forces and commissions. Zelikow position on the Commission made him its 'Gatekeeper" enabling him to decide which topics would or would not be investigated. He was also secretly in contact with one of Bush's close advisors - Karl Rove - throughout the gestation of the Commission Report.


the people behind the report are the same people connected with the perps.

Do i mind making these inferences .....nope....because it is the truth......you value a report put forward by the same criminals who did the crime itself

sorry you have been officially duped......

so when you quote NIST you are lying because NIST report is full of lies.....
edit on 033131p://f53Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Now since i did mention Bazant and there is a perfect example of his complete and utter failure here we will use it.



ok Bazant said in the WTC1 and WTC2 it was a progressive collapse scenario.....he came up with all these ridiculous and convoluted equations to baffle with BS

he describes two phases...and keeping in mind he is even trying to use this method in a much stronger method of building material than concrete...STEEL.

so he states the phases as crush down and crush up

where if say a section of floor is immediately removed, the upper block accelerates due to gravity....ok all logical.
the upper block impacts the lower block initiating the CRUSH DOWN phase....where the INTACT upper block impacts the lower block crushing down the lower block till it is no longer....then and only then....the CRUSH UP phase begins....where the upper block then sustains a crushing up effect and turns to rubble.



so in the vid above does this occur at all just like the WTC floor section is removed.....so one expects a crush up to happen .....as i am sure the people who were taking this structure down thought would occur....or it was a mistke and the upper explosives failed.....in either case...the Bazant model should hold true here.....but guess what......FAILS.....miserably and completely fails.....So please....when the OS try's to use this as the mechanism behind the WTC 1&2 collapse just point out this utterly complete failure of his model.

so right here...BAZANTS paper can be disregarded as the mechanism for the complete collapse of the twin towers themselves.

now what should occur without all the mathematical BS that Bazant presents is what the laws of conservation of energy says.....the loss of energy would be transferred to the lower block, therefore it would never....ever....lead to complete collapse.

as the structure uses energy in the destruction of the lower and upper blocks simultaneously the collapse would fail to progress.....



This is what the laws of physics dictates.....now in the vid above the upper blocks hits...the energy is transferred into the ground and guess what.....there is now a energy deficit.....the upper block cannot collapse....weird how physics works every other day of the year except on 911.



and this is of course what we see here in the collapse of the towers...an intact upper block impacting the lower block.....what the hell was he thinking when he did this paper....did he even look at the reality.....did he see the upper block disintegrate...therefore how could crush down proceed.....I have written to him....he does not reply...and he seems to have disappeared from any public view.....wonder if it was worth throwing away his career.....how much did he get paid for these lies.

so people who believe the NIST report....or the Bazant papers with out questioning things are the same people who would blindly believe the official story of what occurred on the day.





edit on 043131p://f47Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043131p://f49Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Outstanding analysis.


9/11 was an inside job and the criminals that did it are getting away with it.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join