9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, may I ask how old you are?

 

[Joytown]

Question for someone who may have access to the transcripts of all the previously undisclosed emergency calls recently released on August 16th:

Is there any record of any of them saying anything along the lines of "holy crap, what is this detonator cord doing here" or "14 to base, we see thermite charges in the stairwell" or "what are these radio-controlled bombs doing here in the skylobby" or "we see exposed support beams wrapped with C4"?

Just wondering if there is any evidence at all in the recently released voice records of any of the emergency personnel in any of the towers running across any signs of preplanted explosives of any kind.

-Joytown

 

[Sentinel]

Oxy-moron

There is no such term as islamic extremism in regards to mass murder. True followers of islam no that its goes agianst ALLAHS LAW to murder innocent people.

There is a verse from both Jews and Muslims which states: "To murder 1 innocent person is equal to murdering the whole world"

There has to be truth before blame can be assigned.

1. OBL is not credited with 9-11 as can be seen on the FBI most wanted poster. Theres no mention of 9-11.

2. Why is the former spokesman for the Taliban attending Yale Universarty?

3 Why does the President keep flip flopping on the Iraq 9-11 connection?

4 Where is the WMD?

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

6 Why are there Firemen and Cops from 9-11 stating there were incidiary devises in the towers?

7 since when does kerosen burn through solid steel support beams when kerosen heaters in homes not melting.




GOD BLESS,

Sentinel

 

[Pardalis]

Sentinel, can you tell me where I put my remote?

 

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel; I will give you my opinion on your points...just my two cents...

there is no such term as islamic extremism in regards to mass murder. True followers of islam no that its goes agianst ALLAHS LAW to murder innocent people.

The Islamic extremists following Jihad, believe that killing of the "Kuffar" (all those not of Islam) is not murder, and that Martyrdom is the quickest path to heaven and Allah.


There is a verse from both Jews and Muslims which states: "To murder 1 innocent person is equal to murdering the whole world"

You are correct.

There has to be truth before blame can be assigned.

Once again, you are correct.

1. OBL is not credited with 9-11 as can be seen on the FBI most wanted poster. Theres no mention of 9-11.

I have gone to the site of the poster. The info was last updated June 1999, with the poster (the picture) updated in November 2001. Call it extreme lack of vigilence on the part of the FBI, but I doubt it means they at present, do not credit him with the 9/11 attacks.

2. Why is the former spokesman for the Taliban attending Yale Universarty?

Well most Universities are very left wing, and very much about freedom of speech, and avoiding prejudice. While I personally wouldn't have let him study there, it does not surprise me that the Uni did so...

3 Why does the President keep flip flopping on the Iraq 9-11 connection?

I think it is because the question is not as simple as a yes or no answer. I think he over stated the other day, when he flippently said "No" when asked the question, because we know that the position of his entire administration is that Iraq, while not "directly" involved in 9/11, is a country that had a leader that despised America, had WMD at some point, used them, and was a potential breeding ground for Terrorists. There platform has been about pre-emptively striking countries they see as threats, before the threat comes to fruition.

4 Where is the WMD?

There were some old ones found, but not many. The possibilities are (1) they are hidden in Syria, or (2) he never had the technology set up, (3) he dismantled the labs prior to the invasion, and had them destroyed.

Here is a question, related to this...

Given that finding Labs developing WMDs would have made the administrations time in Iraq so much easier from a public opinion pov, then why didn't they just plant some lab equipment and WMDs when they first invaded? If we are to believe that the USG is so evil as to kill 3000 of its own, and keep the entire conspiracy secret, then wouldn't planting some simple equipment and WMDs over in that big country be even easier to do.

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

Because they are best friends with the administration, and dignitaries from a foreign country. It is not a "Cool" thing for them to have done, but I imagine if Russias leader was here, they would have allowed him to leave as well.

6 Why are there Firemen and Cops from 9-11 stating there were incidiary devises in the towers?

I suspect it was due to (1) the chaos of the events of the day, combined with (2) multiple threats of bombs that came that day, and (3) all sorts of debris and items that, in a panic might have looked suspicious, and finally, (4) multiple explosions heard through out the timeline of the crashes and collapses...beyond that I have no answer...

7 since when does kerosen burn through solid steel support beams when kerosen heaters in homes not melting.

Kerosene, spraying out of the wings as they were ripped apart by the collision, set fire to the contents of the building, and also spilled down through the elevator shafts onto multiple floors, causing fires there. These fires, burning all sorts of other materials, produced much higher temperatures than Kerosene alone. Combined with the structural damage via the planes, and the weakened integrity of the steel caused by these very hot fires, and the tremendous weight atop the columns from the floors above, all combined to cause the tower collapse...

Just my 25 cents (I am long winded)...

TAM

 

[Hellbound]

4 Where is the WMD?

There were some old ones found, but not many. The possibilities are (1) they are hidden in Syria, or (2) he never had the technology set up, (3) he dismantled the labs prior to the invasion, and had them destroyed.

Just to add a bit to this...

We did find some circumstancial things, but nothing definate. Such as warheads that could be used to deliver and distribute Sarin (but were empty). We also found "dual use" facilities...places that manufactured fertilizers, farm, or industrial chemicals that just happened to have many of the same components as various agents, and with equipment that could be easily and quickly retooled to make them. But there were legitimate uses, as well, so that's iffy. Sort of like if you're investigating a gunshot in the woods, and a mile or two away you find a hunter with a rifle. Did he fire the shot? Well, it's likely, but without more evidence...

So it's one of those "either way" type things.

 

[Polaris]

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

Because they are best friends with the administration, and dignitaries from a foreign country. It is not a "Cool" thing for them to have done, but I imagine if Russias leader was here, they would have allowed him to leave as well.

This never happened.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, according to the 9/11 Commission. I do believe the words of that report, but most who argue the point on the other side do not. My argument supposes that even if Bush et al let them fly, while it wasn't the best option, it was understandable, gien there position with the Saudi Royals, etc...

 

[Christopher7]

Is there any proof it collapsed due to anything else?

My question was not retorical. The purpose of debate is to hear other points of view and perhaps learn something. Reading the NIST report was very enlightining. Up to now i thought there was some proof wct7 collapsed due to debris and fire because so meny people have been stating with certanty that this was the case.

Evadently there is NO PROOF that wtc7 collapsed due to debris and fire damage or controlled demolition.

Like it or not, there are 2 theories on what brought wtc7 down. There are millions of people, like myself, who believe that, wtc7 was a CD.
For the last 3 months i have been reading publications, viewing videos and pictures, to see what evidence there is for both theories. I haven't seen any PROOF of either theory.

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.


Pardalis: I'm 63

 

[Gravy]

Evadently there is NO PROOF that wtc7 collapsed due to debris and fire damage or controlled demolition.

When experts believe that a building is about to collapse because of damage and fire, and then it does collapse, and plausible collapse scenarios and tests are done by experts who seek to explain the collapse mechanism, and no evidence of CD is reported by experts on the scene or afterward, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the CD theory is plausible, then which of the two causes do you think brought the building down, Chris?

The completely implausible one, or the one that's completely plausible and obvious?

 

[Mancman]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.

I don't believe it should be considered reasonable until somebody comes up with a valid motive for demolishing WTC7. Every motive I've heard (insurance scam, HQ for attack, contained CIA/FBI files) has been quite frankly, rubbish.

It's the equivalent of somebody being hit by a car and sustaining serious injuries, being taken to hospital and then passing away, and saying it is as reasonable to investigate the doctor for murder.

 

[Christopher7]

When experts believe that a building is about to collapse because of damage and fire, and then it does collapse, and plausible collapse scenarios and tests are done by experts who seek to explain the collapse mechanism, and no evidence of CD is reported by experts on the scene or afterward, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the CD theory is plausible, then which of the two causes do you think brought the building down, Chris?

The completely implausible one, or the one that's completely plausible and obvious?

What experts? The firemen, the the people from Controlled Demolition Inc.?
Were there any structural engineers saying the bldg. is about to collapse?
Rember, they had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they were looking at the front of the building.
Just because some people think the bldg. is going to collapse due to debris damage and fire and then it collapses, is by no stretch of the imagination proof, or even evidence.
Even if they were right, the result of debris damage and fire would look like the Fed. bldg. in Oklahoma City.
The experts who sought to explain the collapse coulden't even come close to confirming ther 'hypothesis' which BTW precluded the debris damage. Their conclusion was "Appears possible" (that's a double maby) so please stop using that as an arguement for debris-fire collapse.
The fact that other than 9-11 NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD and it's virtually impossible for a fire to burn so perfectly as to cause all the exterior support columns to fail at the same time, means that a CD is not only plausible but more likely.

 

[kookbreaker]

The fact that other than 9-11 NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD.

How many have been exposed to elements that would casue them to collapse?

I'll explain this since you seem to think in such limited terms:

There are 'X' numbers of highrise buildings in the world.

Of them, only a small fraction are considered 'steel framed'. Many more have concrete cores, concrete bases, etc.

Of those steel framed highrise buildings, only a fraction of have been on fire. (for that matter, not many non-steel framed ones have had big fires either)

Of those steel framed highrise buildings on fire, only a tiny, tiny fraction had the fires out of control burning for mulitple hours and exposing structural elements to danger.

What remains is a tiny sample, and what you have doesn't help your case:

1) Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia: Columns sagged from heat, even with the concrete covering the steel frame. Structural Engineers recommended abandoning the firefighting efforts. Water never stopped being pumped on the building. Building eventually destroyed due to fear of collapse.

2) Madrid Sheraton: Concrete core building with steel frame portion. Steel frame portion collapsed due to fire. Concrete portion survives due to it being, well, concrete.

That leaves WTC 1, 2 and 7. Which did not have the advantages of the above buildings.

So bouncing around saying that "NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD" implies that steel framed highrise buildings are in danger falling all over the place.

In short, you are being deceptive.

 

[Gravy]

What experts? The firemen, the the people from Controlled Demolition Inc.?
Were there any structural engineers saying the bldg. is about to collapse?

You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. That's just rude. I'd appreciate it if you'd start taking this subject seriously. You TOLD ME that you read the quotes I gave you from the experts on the scene. You also read the observations of controlled demolitions experts who were there.

I don't think you understood them at all, however. Read them again, and try not to act like a little boy any more. This is a serious subject.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Like it or not, there are 2 theories on what brought wtc7 down.

Like it or not, there are two theories of what the moon is made of: various minerals, and swiss cheese.

I hope you see my point.

There are millions of people, like myself, who believe that, wtc7 was a CD.

There are countless people who believe the Earth is flat.

I hope you see my point.

For the last 3 months i have been reading publications, viewing videos and pictures, to see what evidence there is for both theories. I haven't seen any PROOF of either theory.

If you say so.

By the way, ever chatted with a structural engineer? A fire analyst? Doesn't it strike you as funny that no experts in the related disciplines seem to consider this question a question?

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.

Only for perhaps a moment. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is something. (Remember our little flat Earth experiment?) For your controlled demolition to be true, you are going to have to provide physical evidence -- not just residual materials from the scene of the destruction, but also from during the planning stages (for instance: e-mails, memos, procurement orders), the installation stages (including materials transport, manpower involved, independent witness testimony), and the continuing cover-up (proof of one or more pay-offs, for example). Just a couple of these or similar items would help build a case. Simply saying you've studied videos for a couple months does not detective work make.

And by the way, what is it with people and the use of ALL CAPS? It doesn't strengthen an assertion in any way.

 

[Trifikas]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.

Unless those steel frame High-rises were hit by an aircraft, this comment is irrelavant. Whenever the "No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed" argument is trotted out, A few things are usually forgotten:

1) It assumes that the structure of the building was intact when the fire started. Not the case with WTC 1&2.

2) It assumes that all fire protection measures built into the building are still functioning. Also not the case with WTC 1&2, As the collision destroyed much of the fireproofing along the impatct area

3) It assumes a "Mundane" cause for the fire (Cigarette in bed, Electrical short, etc), and therefore started small. This is important, because while the fire spreads, it consumes the Fuel available. While the fire heats the Supporting Steel and weakens it, once the fuel available is exhausted, the fire in that location goes out and the steel can cool again. The fire may have spread to other places in the building, weakening the steel there, but never weakens enough steel (Assisted in this by the intact Fireproofing) all at once, and the building remains standing.

compare those to what happened:

The fires in WTC 1&2 started over a very large area all at once, due to the fuel igniting, mostly on the floors where the supporting structure was weakend by the impact, and where the fireproofing was knocked off by the Airplane.

And you can see how the "No Modern steel structures..." Argument doesn't apply.

 

[T.A.M.]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

You are not exactly correct. There have been others prior to 9/11.

 

[Sentinel]

Wtc 7

WTC 7 sustained damage from the north tower collapse. There was a twenty floor gash simular to the deutche bank on liberty st. The tower was listing south. If anything, the building had to be taken down for the safety of the first responders operating on the scene.

This is based on my personal observation hen I arrived 84.



Take care


Sentinel

 

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel:

thanks for backing up the point that we make to "Truthers" all the time wrt WTC7.

Also, I posted above some replies to your seven points. Don't take them personally, they were meant as my opinions and observations only.

Peace.

TAM

 

[Sentinel]

Acknowledged

Its just pissing me off to see that some of the so-called truthers keep spitting the same dis-info over and over again even when the pictures which they go by shows the fact.

They had to pull it because if they hadn't the would have had more people killed do to the un predictable fall.

There is something else that raises my suspicion regarding the WTC 7 the pentagon and the 7/7 event.

AMEC. They were connected to all the sites. They were the company that was working on the pentagon re-construction just prior to impact. They were also connected to the Blackstone Group at WTC 7 and they seem to come up at 7/7 which has been proven to be a drill being conducted by VIsor Inc at the same time using the same M.O.

Soemthing else on a side note: The wingtv article that keeps getting repeated "fireman states 9-11 was an inside job" is total Bullsh*t. I'm getting tired of seeing so-called scientist and high researchers repeating the BS already.

So I'm going to put something out there about the original authors of the slander. They are known DCS operatives connected to Tim White who is a known FBI informant out of Denver. It is a known fact that wingtv publishes kiddie porn along with other off the bell curve stuff. Tim White is also known to be involved with the kiddie porn stuff. Victor thorn aka scott has numerous time advocated violence towards other researchers. Thomas Hollbrook another inter spook is also pushing dis-info for wingtv even after hearing from Dylan Avery another "police informant" stating that last years anniversary event was a false write up, he still continues to print for them and being that hes now connected to revere radio which claims to be at war with Wingtv its just BS because holbrook as well as avery continue to operate with wingtv. Why else would he protect wingtv by not showing their activities at the memorial last year on the extra?

If anyone wishes to know what reall occured read the village voice article by sarah ferguson "conspiracy theorist invade Ground Zero" for the truth.

I don't advocate violence but there is a limit to the disrespect that will not be crossed.


Sentinel