9/11: Firefighters Describe Controlled Demolitions (10 min. VIDEO)

Listen to the dozens of accounts of explosives in the buildings. These are official accounts -- oral histories -- taken by the NYC Fire Dept. At first Bloomberg refused to have these oral histories released to the public (gee, I wonder why). After much pressure from the victims' families, the city was ordered by the Court of Appeals to release these oral histories to the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moDr8eON2Hk&mode=related&search=

Here are just a few you will hear:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” --Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” -- Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." --Paramedic Daniel Rivera

 

We already have a thread going about this.

(edit: this thread has since been moved from the politics room to the conspiracy room)

.

 

I'd say you're more of the conspiracy theorist, since you claim to have all the facts yet weren't even there. I actually meant to post this in the America Attacks forum to go along with the thread in there. I haven't posted a single thread about 9/11 in months, so what makes this single thread "spam."

 

You already have a conspiracy thread in the Attacks forum. Why start up another thread in there on the same topic?

BTW, whoever made that youtube clip selectively omitted other remarks that were made by the firefighters that don't support the demolitionist theories.

.

 

Maybe it would be good to have a 911 room since it was such an epic event. All the posts could be funneled there, whatever the theories.

.

 

I just find it very hard to believe that the New York Fire Department and the New York Police Department both know that 9/11 was an inside job, but they are unwilling to say it publicly. In fact, if they all know it, but are unwilling to talk about it, then how do we know they believe that? I just don't buy it.

 

It's true that Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” --

Just after that he also said:

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

The 911 'truthers' omit parts like that to deceive the public. It's the same deceptive approach Bush used to garner support for his agenda.

.

 

That's not saying much, Shaggie.

The point of that video was to highlight what people saw, and how many of them reported seeing and hearing the same thing. It wasn't to highlight their own interpretations of what they saw. Even the fire commissioner said he didn't know exactly what it was, but the fact he and others compared it to a controlled demoliton is telling in itself. This was just one of several people who saw these flashes coupled with explosions. Yeah, it could have been anything, but in light of the other evidence of controlled demoltion, it provides even further proof for this. It's the debunkers who are being deceptive and avoiding what was seen by placing emphasis instead on what people interpreted it as being. Again, another diversion.

 

As opposed to them comparing it to the other 110 story buildings that they've seen collapse before their very eyes? Do you think the fact that the only buildings that most people have ever seen collapse were due to a controlled demolition?

 

Nope. The point of that 'truther' site was to quote mine and be deceptive, just like Bush. Some of the 'truther' groups have perfected that approach to a high degree. The rest of us don't have time to debunk every one of them.

Thousands of people have said that tornadoes sound like a freight train. So 'truthers' will now conclude that there's a conspiracy by the government that wrecked people's houses with freight trains.

.

 

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF TRAINS IN THE WTC
They Heard Those Trains A' Comin'

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.​

These damning accounts come from the oral histories of 9/11. Lawsuits were required to bring this information to light, and you can obviously see why the government wanted them hidden. They challenge the official narrative that airplanes hit the buildings and give actual proof that the towers were actually brought down by trains. The last quote is the most damning, and naturally the least widely publicized by the mainstream media. "I saw it (the train) coming down". We have at least one witness on record saying that he saw the actual train involved.



The government, using the CIA, conspired with the Freemasons and Amtrak to kill thousands of Americans to increase the profit of railway companies. They used holographic planes to fool the world not just to hide the truth, THEY DID IT TO SCARE PEOPLE AWAY FROM AIR TRAVEL SO THAT THEY WOULD RIDE MORE TRAINS.

 

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/34911.htm

The conversations between subway worker’s came to light after avid 9/11 researcher and former auxiliary fireman perused through transit authority records after listening to the same conversations he taped himself on the morning of 9/11.



“I m an emergency communications buff and have kept many tapes of what what was going on the morning of 9/11,” said Paul Isaac this week in a conversation from his home in Brooklyn. “I have on tape the motormen talking to the dispatchers about a heavy smoke condition between building 5 and 6 right next to the North Tower.




“It’s a massive cover-up. We all know it,” added Isaac.




There it is from an Auxillary fireman who is close with the NYPD and the fire department, they all know, but only a few of them want to say anything, what's the point, they don't know for sure if it was an inside job, so why are they going to risk their jobs and their necks to come out and say some things were shady that day.

 

You make it sound so dangerous to come out. People come out on CNN, they form groups, they march and protest, they stand outside ground zero every day. They have radio shows, websites, conferences, form groups, publish books, make movies, whatever. There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of risk to being a troofer. And its not like you need to come out publicly to reveal the smoking guns, you can leak it to someone. But its still not happening. Time to stop making excuses.

 

"There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of risk to being a troofer"

Wow you're funny, and so mature. Atleast those people get behind something, all you do is hide behind your computer screen and insult people. You are the lowest of pathetic...

Maybe you should tell that to Michael Zebuhr, a Scholar for 9/11 truth who was shot dead in the street in front of his family in very suspicious circumstances. But after this, I don't think I'm going to ever bother replying to you, you just aren't worth my time and you are such a pathetic excuse for a human being.

 

Pepik is an instigator. There is no need getting angry over what he says, because it's all bullshit. He's nothing more than a propagandist for the neocons. I honestly would not be surprised if he's working for them. He denies everything with his mouth that the Elite do with their hands. In his mind, the Patriot Act is a good thing, and so is unlimited, unchecked power in the hands of the Executive Branch. Oh, also according to him, there is no such thing as a North American Union. Whatever is best for big corporate interests and the global elite is best for everybody, according to Pepik.

War=Peace. Freedom=Slavery. Ignorance=Strength. Well, at least in the mind of Pepik (AKA Pointbreak (banned)). Mindless, bootlicking drones like Pepik, who grovel to authority, would make for the perfect citizen in Orwell's 1984.

As far as people speaking out on 9/11... you cannot silence everyone. You can only try to discredit them, which the media (and those who believe everything the media tells them) has spent much time and effort trying to do. There are, however, laws yet to be enacted that can make somebody an "enemy combatant" simply for not having a politically correct view about government. This is what we have to look forward to once the shit hits the fan, as they say.

It seems like anytime Pepik cannot support one of his arguments, he resorts to attacking the messenger, or relies on mockery to divert from the topic altogether. Hearing something resembling the sound of a freight train is to be expected with the collapse of a building as large as the Twin Towers. Hearing explosions prior to and during the collapse is not, so it's really quite a silly and desperate argument. Let's keep in mind that explosions were not only heard by people in the streets outside of the towers, but were also witnessed firsthand by people inside the towers, some of whom mentioned explosions in the sub-levels before the first plane even hit.

To all the people who want to spout their bullshit about WTC-7 collapsing due to some alleged gouge on the south face of the building that none of us have seen, they're going to have to explain why, in all the reports, NOTHING is mentioned about structural damage. Fire was listed as the cause of WTC-7's collapse. Yet, when we look at the building just two hours before the collapse, we only see small fires on a couple of the floors.

Also, the debunkers need to explain how WTC-7 fell the way it did. If the building collapsed due to structural damage on one side, the building would have toppled. How do you explain the fact that WTC-7 fell straight down, into its own footprint, which would have required all supporting columns to have been cut at the exact same location, at the exact same time?

 

Which one is it?

How do you know the building would have toppled? Throwing out physics and engineering like you suggest, how would you know in what manner it would collapse, much less topple? Without physics and engineering, how can you explain how stress is going to be distributed through a structure when an area of support is removed?

First of all, the "in its own footprint" argument has been adressed. "In its own footprint" suggests that all debris would have fallen within the area or "footprint" of the building. It did not. There was damage to 3 out of 4 surrounding buildings. Second, why do you consistantly ignore a debated point and continue to make presumptions on that point? All the support columns had to be cut and the same location at the exact same time? How do arrive at this conclusion?

 

For the third time this week, building which fall into their own footprint don't damage three neighboring buildings in three directions across three streets.

Why do you repeat this lie over and over? Do think that if you lie enough, eventually the lie becomes the truth? Hilariously, you even admitted it was a lie, and then went on to repeat it the next day? WTF!

I mean I really don't get it. You think the case for CD is iron-clad, beyond debate, absolutely rock solid. Yet you constantly lie. You repeat lies immediately after they are exposed. You distort quotes, knowingly mislead, pretend to be mystified by questions which have been answered over and over again.

Why? Why do you need to lie so much?

Says Rat, as he attacks the messenger. This is a classic lie. You constantly use racists, anti-semites, extreme right wing loons, and random nutjobs as your sources. Yet if anyone points that out, they are 'cointelpro'. Why? If your arguments are so solid, why can't you find sources other than these clowns?

 

It is common sense that a building that suffers most of its damage on one side, is not going to fall straight down, as was the case with WTC-7.

The footprint argument wasn't addressed, other than for people here stating "it didn't collapse into its own footprint." Some damage to other buildings is to be expected in such a close area as debris does spread out as it hits the ground at high speeds. However, all one needs to do is LOOK at the pictures of Building 7 following the collapse to see that 95% of the building fell into its footprint, with the outer walls of the building neatly covering the pile. WTC-7 fell even more neatly than most controlled demolitions I have seen. To deny this is to deny what's obvious.

 

Once again, here are two shots of WTC-7 (post collapse):

Aerial View:



Ground View:

 

7WTC was unusual in that the building was essentially suspended over the ConEd electrical substation. The substation is seen at the ground level before WTC7 was built. Space is scarce in Manhattan, so people are willing to build such structures.

The columns of 7WTC didn't go all the way down to the ground level directly because transformers of the substation were in the way. The area of the 5th to 7th had three trusses and a string of transfer girders to transfer the column loads to other locations on the ground. The building couldn't stand without those structures.

Fires burned much of the day in the 5th to 7th floor area. That area was billowing smoke in the hours before the collapse. It was likely a diesel fire with diesel being fed from the 7WTC power backup system. Ordinary office fires would have burned themselves out in an hour or two in a particular area. The fires probably damaged the trusses or girders in that region. That explains why the building fell from bottom to top.

A bottom to top collapse will occur at close to freefall rate since all the mass of the building is falling from the start. 7WTC also tilted toward the south side the first couple seconds of collapse, which was the damaged side.

There weren't any flashes or explosive sounds in the seconds preceeding the collapse of WTC7 as there are in a CD. Demolition charges can be heard miles away. It went down quietly, which is what would be expected in a collapse resulting from structural damage caused by debris impact from the 1WTC and fires.



.