Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I wish I had this much time on my hands.

You took all that time just to regurgitate what has been said around here adnauseum?


well at least you had time to read it....

I know almost everything in this thread has been said before, but its not all been said in one thread, this thread is trying to look at the big picture of WTC-7 and not just looking at one detail or one perspective.




posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




It is entirely possible that tomorrow some new ground breaking evidence could come into the light that will radically challenge the content of this thread.


Kudos for putting in so much effort. It must have taken you a long time to put this together. I got one question for you... What kind of new evidence must come out for you to change your mind? Please understand that I am not asking you what would change your mind about the "truth movement" or anyone who you think is associated with them. I want to know what specific evidence would make you change your mind about the story that you believe today, not the story that you don't believe.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




To address the first issue, who exactly did Silverstein speak to? honestly nobody knows,


That's impossible. At lease two people must know. Why do you think the 9/11 Commission didn't find out? And why do you think the media didn't ask?



have read a number of firefighters who deny having spoke to him which actually casts doubt over weather he even did actually say what he said, remember he was speaking a year after the event.


Are you suggesting that somebody faked his voice in this video?





As to the second point, all I have is that link to provide evidence for that for now it was based on a report complied by a team of explosive demolition experts who claimed to have spoken to people there. Its possible they were based in or near New York and that is how they were able to get to WTC so early with out flights.


So you did not confirm if this report was compiled by a team of real explosive demolition experts? Did you check their backgrounds to make sure they are even qualified to compile such report?

I agree that it's possible that they were based in or near NY, But I'm a little disappointed that you didn't run a background check on these "experts" before presenting their report in such a detailed thread.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


let me address the three questions you have raised.




What kind of new evidence must come out for you to change your mind?


this i think is a really interesting question that I have spend some time myself thinking about. When i was writing this thread i did have in the back of my mind all the time "What would make me believe there was a cover up or subversive criminal element to WTC-7's demise?". I think firstly it would be some kind of high level admission of guilt with documented proof but i dont expect that to ever turn up. Secondly probably something that would suggest a controlled demolition however i have looked and i have not found anything. But really though just about anything, I spend a lot of time researching 9/11 and whenever i am presented with new information I always like to explore and examine it further. So if you have something i have not covered in the OP please do show me.




Why do you think the 9/11 Commission didn't find out? And why do you think the media didn't ask?


As i have said in the OP the demise of WTC-7 quite rightly did not fall with in the remit of the 9/11 commission which is probably why they never asked. As to why NIST never asked, I can only assume it is because they were happy with Silverstein's later statement on the issue.

Again like i said in the OP, I really dont see any merit to the claims that good o' Larry gave the FDNY the green light to blow up a building.




So you did not confirm if this report was compiled by a team of real explosive demolition experts? Did you check their backgrounds to make sure they are even qualified to compile such report?


the report has been published by explosive experts, if you take the time to read the report it goes into the background of the key individuals consulted on in writing the report and it was also published online by "implosionworld.com" in association with ProtecServices. The lead author of the paper is a Brent Blanchard who is a published expert in the field of demolition.

Where possible I always double check my sources.

I do believe i can recall also hearing a claim that demolition experts were at Ground Zero on 9/11 in one of the many documentaries i watched in researching this thread. I am not 100% sure but i think it might have been the PBS documentary American rebuilds. but like i say I can not be sure of this (I watched that many over the last few weeks)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


OP, those take a lot of time

I guess there are experts on both sides, this guy worked in the industry, if he questions it, so do I.




posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



I think firstly it would be some kind of high level admission of guilt with documented proof but i dont expect that to ever turn up.


I think you are right that a admission of guilt might never turn up. I'm interested to know why you think it won't turn up?



Secondly probably something that would suggest a controlled demolition however i have looked and i have not found anything.


This sound ridiculous, the most obvious explanation is some kind of deliberate demolition. There's no reason to look for it because it's the first thing that it reminds you when you see the building collapse. You do however need to look very hard for why it was not a controlled demolition. NIST has a theory but we can't check it.


But really though just about anything


That must be a joke. No way you actually believe what you wrote. There is about 3000 posts of yours that prove otherwise.



As to why NIST never asked, I can only assume it is because they were happy with Silverstein's later statement on the issue.


That's not the only thing you have to assume when it comes to the official story.



Again like i said in the OP, I really dont see any merit to the claims that good o' Larry gave the FDNY the green light to blow up a building.


Then what do you assume the reason is that Larry would say something like that on TV? Are you not concerned that he felt the need to lie about something like that? What else is he lying about?



The lead author of the paper is a Brent Blanchard who is a published expert in the field of demolition.


I'm curious if you read Jim Hoffman's reply to Brent Blanchard, and what do you think about it?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 





I think you are right that a admission of guilt might never turn up. I'm interested to know why you think it won't turn up?


I think that the biggest and most obvious answer to that question is simply that it does not exist, in other words there is no big grand government false flag conspiracy so there is nobody also to admit the guilt of such a conspiracy.




This sound ridiculous, the most obvious explanation is some kind of deliberate demolition


Well to the lay person it looks like a controlled demolition upon first inspection, truthers seem to have taken the attitude of "well it looks like a controlled demolition so it must be one, now lets find actual evidence", to me this is a backwards attitude. Like i have said in the OP there is no evidence presented so far that supports the idea of a controlled demolition, none.




That must be a joke. No way you actually believe what you wrote. There is about 3000 posts of yours that prove otherwise.


sigh....

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call me a name i suppose it could be a lot worse than "you must be a joke".

I did say just about everything, it would be impossible really for anyone to claim to have heard every theory regarding 9/11 because there are so many. This thread however was looking at the most widely believed conspiracy of WTC-7 in the context of the events that happened that day.




Then what do you assume the reason is that Larry would say something like that on TV? Are you not concerned that he felt the need to lie about something like that? What else is he lying about?


the "pull it" quote i have addressed in the OP and in my answers on this thread so far.

so let me instead ask you a question

When Larry said:


"I remember getting a call from the 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."


Do you believe he was telling the FDNY to pull out of the building or demolish the building?

Finally,

the reply to Bert Blanchard

yes I did read it, in fact for every link I used i tried to read something that might refute it and i found the same thing time and time again.

There is this strange belief that truthers have that they have all the answers yet at the same time none of the answers to just about everything to do with 9/11. I have read these same kind of retorts to NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 commission none of them to my mind hold any real substance. But to focus specifically on what Jim Hoffman has to say about WTC-7, not very much... really he actually has very little to say about what the report has to say on WTC-7. So to answer your question, what do i think of his findings?

not very much.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Actually, Blanchard's report is a load of condescending crap. It reads like a propaganda piece more akin to popular mechanics than anything vaguely scientific, and I think Hoffman does a good job of demonstrating this.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


And I suppose that Jim Hoffman is totally on the money when it comes to 9/11

That report makes up a tiny part of my OP yet it seems to be the one issue people are jumping on despite the fact that its a fairly robust report.

for you to say that.



Blanchard's report is a load of condescending crap


Does not in anyway make his and his colleagues findings less credible.

edit on 7-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I think that the biggest and most obvious answer to that question is simply that it does not exist, in other words there is no big grand government false flag conspiracy so there is nobody also to admit the guilt of such a conspiracy.


I think that it is silly to expect anyone who is capable of being willingly involved in something so horrific to all of a sudden have a change of heart and confess. Although it does happen sometimes.




Well to the lay person it looks like a controlled demolition upon first inspection, truthers seem to have taken the attitude of "well it looks like a controlled demolition so it must be one, now lets find actual evidence", to me this is a backwards attitude. Like i have said in the OP there is no evidence presented so far that supports the idea of a controlled demolition, none.


I have a different view of backwards attitude. It goest something like this... It looks like a controlled demolition, but the government said it was something else, they just can't prove it to us because it's too dangerous. So lets assume the government is telling the truth and dismiss the most obvious thing that can be seen by everyone who has functioning eyes, and believe what can only be seen in a model which is a secret. That's backwards.




I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call me a name i suppose it could be a lot worse than "you must be a joke".


First, I said "that must be a joke", that means that what you said must be a joke.
Second, I don't understand why or how that can be referred to as calling you any name?



I did say just about everything


With every response from you, I get more and more disappointed.

You said "But really though just about anything".

Do you know that "everything and anything" have two different meanings?




the "pull it" quote i have addressed in the OP and in my answers on this thread so far.


You are not paying attention. I said nothing about the "pull it" quote.

Who was the fireman that called Silverstien?
If he does not exist, why did Silverstein lie about it?
If he did make this up for some reason, what else is he lying about?

You made it very clear in another thread that character is very important to you when it comes to the ae911truth, but you don't seem to care about the character of this man. Why is that?



Do you believe he was telling the FDNY to pull out of the building or demolish the building?


First we need to establish if this conversation even took place.
But, if what he said is true, I cannot imagine any FDNY chief being concerned with what the building owner thought about what the fire department was doing that day. Any other day maybe, but on 9/11, I don't think so.

But if I'm right, then why would Silverstein say that?

My opinion is that if he did talk to the chief about the safety of firefighters, it was most likely to tell them that the building is going to be collapsed. This is why no chief in his right mind would admit to having this conversation if he cared about his and his family's future. As far as I'm concerned the fact that no firefighter was killed in building 7 is because of this chief, and I'm ok with him keeping his mouth shut.



But to focus specifically on what Jim Hoffman has to say about WTC-7, not very much


I didn't ask what Jim Hoffman said about WTC7. What do you think about what he said about the Brent Blanchards report?

Specifically this

Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition." Showcasing his specialized knowledge of demolition and repeatedly referring to evidence unavailable to the public


More specifically the bold text.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


You are really starting to nick pick at what I say and i refuse to be draw into a argument of semantics




Who was the fireman that called Silverstien?


It is doubtful anyone did actually call him, Silverstien was recalling events a year after the happened but it is entirly possible and its just that whoever phoned him has yet to come forward




If he does not exist, why did Silverstein lie about it?


probably because he was recalling events a year after they happened




If he did make this up for some reason, what else is he lying about?


I think Silverstien is a slug of a man, he is scum, he probably lies about a lot of things, but i dont think he is lying about having ordered WTC-7 demolished.




My opinion is that if he did talk to the chief about the safety of firefighters, it was most likely to tell them that the building is going to be collapsed. This is why no chief in his right mind would admit to having this conversation if he cared about his and his family's future.


yeah.... only in hollywood




I didn't ask what Jim Hoffman said about WTC7. What do you think about what he said about the Brent Blanchards report?


I have made my views on that report clear already, this is a thread about WTC-7 i am not going to get dragged down into a debate about matters not pertaining to WTC-7.

I believe that Blanchards reports is accurate if you do not then that is fine, like i said in the OP i am not out to convince anyone.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




You are really starting to nick pick at what I say and i refuse to be draw into a argument of semantics


That's not my intention. I will do what I can to avoid "nick picking" from now on.



It is doubtful anyone did actually call him, Silverstien was recalling events a year after the happened but it is entirly possible and its just that whoever phoned him has yet to come forward

probably because he was recalling events a year after they happened


My personal opinion is that the period of time between 9/11 and the filming of that documentary is irrelevant for two reasons.

1) it was not a live broadcast of the film. He had plenty of time to correct his mistake before it was aired on PBS during the editing stage.

2) He did attempt to correct it, but it wasn't the part of having a conversation with FDNY chief, it was about what he meant by the "pull it" phrase.

So according to him that conversation did take place. The strange part is why no one came forward, and why no one from the media or the investigators try to comfirm it?



I think Silverstien is a slug of a man, he is scum, he probably lies about a lot of things, but i dont think he is lying about having ordered WTC-7 demolished.


It is my opinion that because he is a "slug of a man, scum, and probably lies about a lot of things", Something that you admit to believe he is. It is backwards to also believe that he is not lying about the building not being demolished on purpose. Your own opinion about his moral character leaves no room for giving him the benefit of the doubt. Everything this type of person says must be verified because he would be the first person interviewed in the investigation of possible foul play.


yeah.... only in hollywood


On September 10, 2001 most people (including myself) would say the same thing about the NSA activities revealed by Smowden. So I obviously disagree with that statement completely.



I have made my views on that report clear already, this is a thread about WTC-7 i am not going to get dragged down into a debate about matters not pertaining to WTC-7.


Okay, I have one question then. If its not about WTC7 why is it in your OP?



I believe that Blanchards reports is accurate if you do not then that is fine, like i said in the OP i am not out to convince anyone.


That's good and I even appreciate that you are not out to convince anyone. Especially because you are not very convincing.

Do you know who Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is and what he stated in the article he published on foxnews.com titled Shame On Jesse Ventura? Particularly this


I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.


Do you think he is telling the truth? If yes, then how come this information never made it into any of the official reports and Silverstein never said anything about it?

Do you think his insurance did not authorize the controlled demolition and that's why the building collapsed by itself and by coincidence looked exactly like most controlled demolitions look like?



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Amongst its other occupants included the New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OME) located on the 23rd floor which scanned the emergency frequencies of New York 24/7 ready to respond to any emergency that might present.


You forgot to mention that Its walls were reinforced to withstand wind gusts of up to 160 miles per hour and it was bulletproof and bomb-resistant. I think that's important to know.



this must mean either Jenning’s is lying or mistaken.


I just want to say something about Mr. Jennings.
He clearly said that when he was trapped, the firefighters had to leave the area twice before they were able to get him out. Once when the first tower collapsed and then when the second tower collapsed. This man gave a very detailed interview. Clearly stated that nobody really cared what he had to say when he gave his testimony to the commission. Later he went on camera to change his story a little bit regarding stepping over people (not bodies) on the way out of the building, he appeared very distressed in that second video. Three days before the NIST report came out he suddenly dies, his family is nowhere to be found, and not a word of what he said made it into the final report. Any logically thinking person understands that stepping over people in a very damaged lobby of a building means the same thing as stepping over bodies.

His story is very disturbing when you realize that he did a poor job convincing anybody that he was not stepping over dead people, as the official story states that noone died in WTC7. After watching his interviews and contemplating about what he said and what happened to him, a huge red flag was raised for me. Maybe if he had the same story as Mr. Hess or at least sounded convincing enough in his revised story, he would be here today.



What is also worth noting is that there are no bodies as Jennings testimony to Loose Change implies.


You should also mention that this clip in the lobby does not fit the description of the lobby Jennings described. WTC 7 was a very large building with a very large lobby. This clip is simply showing a different part of that lobby.



Yet If the truthers are to be believed on this one then Larry ordered the FDNY to bring down the building, which automatically assumes that the FDNY were in on this whole conspiracy in some way, which of course they deny.


If you believe that he was referring to the firemen when he said "pull IT" then you believe that he ordered the fire chief to evacuate the building which was already evacuated anyway. This Larry Silverstein must be pretty high up on the chain of commend at FDNY.



The image shows that there were at least some 10 or 12 inferno's burning throughout the day in WTC-7 on multiple floors and this was in addition to the structural damage the building had sustained.


According to NIST there were absolutely nothing special about the fires or the damage in the WTC 7. They even present fires in other skyscrapers around the world that burned longer and hotter but did not collapse.



Yet even with the BBC’s explanation of this the conspiracies continue.


That's because their explanation doesn't explain anything. Predicting that a skyscraper would collapse without any historical instances of it happening is nothing short of a supernatural psychic ability.



The Fire-Fighters and engineers on the ground were reporting that it was looking like it could collapse so they put up the exclusion zone and it’s instability was being reported elsewhere in the media which all points to this just being a mistake by the BBC.


Every other building in the area was looking like it was going to collapse a lot more than building 7, yet none of them did and nobody made a mistake about them. A lot of the firefighters did not want to evacuate the area because they didn't think it was in danger of a major collapse. Here's what Deputy Chief Nick Visconti said firemen on the ground were saying.

The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




In addition to this another Report into the events of 9/11 looking at claims made by 9/11 truthers by a group of demolition experts had this to say about Silverstein's "pull it" comment.

We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.



The term "pull it" is used to describe a "conventional" demolition. It is not used to describe pulling people out of anywhere. Maybe Silverstein doesn't know the exact terms used in the demolition field, but he definitely speaks fluent English.



So if you think about what he is saying it would seem to make much more sense to assume that he was talking about the fire-fighters rather than pulling the building because the idea that the FDNY would be in on Silverstein demolishing WTC-7 just doesn't seem to add up.


This idea that FDNY would be in on anything is ridiculous and I only hear this idea from people who support the official story.

If this conversation took place, here's an idea for you... Silverstein told the fire chief that he's trying to get approval from the insurance company to pull the building anyway, so there's no need to have any firemen try to put out the fires in it. And the chief probably said ok they weren't gonna do anything to it anyway. Then told the deputy chief to make sure nobody working in that area get hurt from it. Does that sound like the FDNY was in on it?



There are always going to be some who think that Larry actually ordered the FDNY to blow up WTC-7, but I honestly just don’t quite get this claim.


Maybe,but more likely, there are always going to be people claiming that there are people thinking that Larry was in the position to order the FDNY to blow up the building or to do anything else. Larry could not and did not order anybody in FDNY to do anything on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




So what can we draw from these observations, well firstly we can say with out doubt that the collapse of the building was not symmetrical first we have the collapse of the east penthouse, then there is the visible "kink" in the building and as it falls it appears to by falling at a backwards angle. So its defiantly not a symmetrical collapse.


I can't even find words to respond to this. Take another look at Building 7 imploding and a controlled demolition side by side. It speaks for itself.
And now look at a building collapsing.




For example there were many eyewitness News anchors who said it "looked like a contorted demolition". This statement was then backed up by European demolition expert Danny Jowenko when speaking about WTC-7 he had this to say.


He had an unfortunate accident with a tree on the way from church. Probably got distracted by the dog that he took with him to church.



So explosive demolition experts who witnessed the fate of WTC-7 for themselves have dismissed the notion of controlled demolition.


Correction.... Anonymous demolition experts.



Now we already know that the building did not fall at free fall speed but did it collapse in its own foot print? well for it to do so then it would have to have fell perfectly into its own perimeter, so did it?


Free fall is not speed, it's acceleration, and it is a fact admitted by NIST.

Where did you get the idea that it must fall perfectly into its own perimeter?



And again this picture above shows parts of WTC-7 up against another building, this wouldn't have happened if it had collapsed into its own footprint.


Have you seen another building of that size being imploded perfectly into its own perimeter? If you did I would like to see it.

This is the reason tall buildings like that are taken apart manually. Like this 40-story building in Tokyo. No?






So we can say that the collapse was not symmetrical, we can also safely say that it did not fall at gravitational free fall (well other than those 2.25 seconds), we can also say that eyewitness explosive experts did not see any evidence of contorted demolition and we can now also say it did not collapse into its own footprint .


Actually we can only say one thing out of all that. It was in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds during the collapse. Which is pretty much impossible without something taking out the support structure. NIST has a theory, but we can't check it.



But the big question at the very heart of this article is how did it collapse, what actually caused this building to crumble to the ground the way that it did, based the observations made so far we can rule out conventional controlled demolition


I disagree. Based on what you wrote we cannot rule out a controlled demolition. We can pretend to rule it out if you want.



Because of his theories after a very long year Jones’s employers at Brigham Young University (BYU) put him on paid administrative leave in October of 2006.


Could have been worse. I mean he could have decided to take his dog to church one Sunday morning.



In addition to Jones claiming that Thermite had been used to demolish the towers on 9/11 his other "speculative" work included a paper about how Jesus Christ had visited ancient America.


I take it you're an atheist. And his faith and/or interest in ancient art has something to do with 9/11, WTC7, or thermite. I'm sure you are trying to make some king of point.



Another interesting point to raise about these findings is that after he published this paper he then had a accompanying documentary “Hypothesis ” throughout this documentary Jones repeats statements saying he didn’t know what to expect when he looked at the results of the dust samples. But in 2005 he said he believed there was thremite used, then in 2007 he starts testing them and finds his thermite but all way through this documentary he is saying “i didn’t know what to expect”... hmmmm.....


I am not defending Steven Jones or his hypothesis. I expect the taxpayer funded investigations to explain what took place, but as of today they failed to do so as far as I'm concerned. I understand what made you go hmmm.

Here's what make me go hhmmm..
NY Times published a article on November 29, 2001 titled Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center. It tells us what the experts speculate regarding the source of extreme heat in WTC7. No investigation took place yet. They are suspecting many things except the one that people said it looked like. And that makes me go hhmmm.[
edit on 7-9-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




And on top of that following the publication of Jones et al publication in the journal the editor of “the open chemical physics journal” quit over it because she had not been informed of its publication and disapproved of it.


What a strange thing to do.



The whole point of the thermite would be to undergo a reaction and melt through the steel, well that what Jones would have us believe, yet at the same time also seems to argue that loads of it didn’t react?. He expects us to believe that loads of this extremely highly reactive thermite did not ignite?


Personally I have no idea what he expects us to believe because I don't expect him to explain what happened. We hired and paid for government agencies to explain. But why are you so shocked?



In another inconsistency he argues that this super “nano-thermite” would be in a gel form, so it was a gel yet he has all these solid little red/grey chips with unreacted nano-thermite?


I think I lost you here. Isn't it possible for gel to dry up?



In yet another inconsistency Jones received 5 samples but only tested 4, the reason he cites for this is because the owner of the fifth sample didn’t want o be named, so rather than calling him Mr. X, Jones just omitted this sample completely form the paper.


I don't get it. Why is this important?



This is consistent with other research looking at assessing the dust from the destruction of the world trade center’s also did not find any evidence of thermite or other explosives such as the US Geological Survey who were called in shortly after 9/11 to analyse the dust. They found lots of similar chemical elements as Jones did but they don’t seem all that shocked to find them, Sulphur is used in building materials for example.


And we were also told that the air was clean. What did they say about the visible red molten material dripping out of the buildings and was still red hot for weeks in the rubble?



Additionally there is no evidence in the photographic history as we cannot see any of these huge flashes that thermate and thermite both create nor is any explanation given as to how they could control this incredibly volatile substance.


These are about the towers.

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

edit on 7-9-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were.
PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.


edit on 7-9-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I must pass along congratulations on a well done work. I wonder where people find the time however you most assuredly used yours wisely.

I'm sure you know that in the grand scheme of things anomalies at ground zero are somewhat meaningless when compared to the flawless timeline of events, backed up by the ones who did it and the ones who were chasing them.

The most attention is focused on the retrial of Ahmed Ressam for his role in the millennium plot, and his capture by an alert agent on a ferry from Canada to the US. Ressam confessed to Ali Soufan however a bright defense attorney clam-ed him up and got a plea deal for 22 years. The government fells the sentence was too lenient and wants to retry him. The legal ramifications of this are endless.

Also, Abu Hajer al-Iraqi his real name is Mamdouh Mahnud Salem a former Iraq intelligence officer who originated the first fatwa is set to be released from prison for stabbing a guard with a sharpened comb. The government wants him sent to Guantanamo.

As if he didn't have many other things to worry about President Obama will most likely decide it.

Interesting cases that will no doubt have interesting conclusions.

Again a great post on time well spent.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Sorry for not getting back to you quicker,

its clear you have put a lot of time into those posts.

Now other than us getting bogged down debating all of these issues in one go could you perhaps highlight to me your main points and then we will move on.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Sorry for not getting back to you quicker,

its clear you have put a lot of time into those posts.

Now other than us getting bogged down debating all of these issues in one go could you perhaps highlight to me your main points and then we will move on.


We don't have to debate this my friend. Just like you, I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything, I find this topic very interesting and enjoy sharing opinions with others.

I obviously disagree with most of your views about WTC7 and probably 9/11 in general. If you want, you can try to point out what I'm wrong about and why. But understand that this can go back and forth forever, and at some point we will have to agree to disagree, I'm ready to do so now.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join