Advertisement

NY Fire fighter predicts WTC 7 Collapse - ON VIDEO!

topic posted Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:28 PM by  Jeff
Share/Save/Bookmark
posted by:
Jeff
Portland
Advertisement
  • NYPD says "the building's about to blow up"... "the whole thing's about to blow up"... "there's a building about to blow up"... ON VIDEO!
    youtube.com/watch

    NYPD Craig Bartmer recounts the explosions in WTC7 as it collapsed... ON VIDEO!
    video.google.com/videoplay

    Ground Zero first responder Indira Singh recounts how she and others were told that WTC7 "would have to be brought down."... ON AUDIO!
    gunsandbutter.net/archives.php

    She also tells the story of her termination from JP Morgan after her investigations into terror-connected company, Ptech.
    gunsandbutter.net/archives.php
    • First off, do you care to comment on the video I presented? Or do you just ignore the core of this thread?

      <<NYPD says "the building's about to blow up"... "the whole thing's about to blow up"... "there's a building about to blow up"... ON VIDEO

      So, are you saying that this police office had insider information and was in on 9-11 too? The building was clearly on fire, had extensive structural damage AND fire fighters said it was leaning AND was structurally damaged AND was on the verge of collapse. We KNOW fire fighters reported this, so just because the police officer that was helping used the word "explode" rather than "collapse", it is then your conclusion that the officer and the fire fighters were in on 9-11 and that the cop made the mistake of spilling the beans?
      Please tell me what you are asserting.

      The simple fact is that the cop got his information second hand from the fire fighters, the fire fighter information is first hand knowledge, eye witness on the scene. This cop does not have firsthand knowledge of bombs.

      Hearing explosions as a building that is on fire, that has burning diesel lines and tanks inside of it is collapsing does nothing to convince me that it was demolished.

      <<Ground Zero first responder Indira Singh recounts how she and others were told that WTC7 "would have to be brought down."... ON AUDIO!

      Yes, it would have had to of been brought down for safety reasons, this is nothing new. They knew it had to be brought down because they could see this 47 story building tipping toward the SE, they could see it was structurally compromised AND on fire. How is this evidence?
      • What's the "core of this thread"? That people thinking it will collapse somehow defines the nature of the collapse? Because that's what you're insinuating. I addressed the "core" just fine, by offering addititional information that you would rather dismiss.

        >>So, are you saying that this police office had insider information and was in on 9-11 too? The building was clearly on fire, had extensive structural damage AND fire fighters said it was leaning AND was structurally damaged AND was on the verge of collapse. We KNOW fire fighters reported this, so just because the police officer that was helping used the word "explode" rather than "collapse", it is then your conclusion that the officer and the fire fighters were in on 9-11 and that the cop made the mistake of spilling the beans?

        And the simplistic assumed conclusions ensue...

        They do not need to be "in on it." All it takes is one individual, properly positioned, not necessarily a cop or FDNY (remember that the CIA, DIA, Secret Service and others occupied the building, and the SS was even present in the OEM bunker), to say it will be demolished, and it can spread from there.

        >>The simple fact is that the cop got his information second hand from the fire fighters, the fire fighter information is first hand knowledge, eye witness on the scene. This cop does not have firsthand knowledge of bombs.

        Ah... more of the "I know more than the people who were there, and I know when they're right or mistaken."

        >>Yes, it would have had to of been brought down for safety reasons, this is nothing new. They knew it had to be brought down because they could see this 47 story building tipping toward the SE, they could see it was structurally compromised AND on fire. How is this evidence?

        Wait wait wait wait wait wait... so now "it would have had to of been brought down for safety reasons"? Indira was being told about it being "brought down" as they were being told to move their triage siteand clear the area. It's not like they were saying "it would have to be brought down soon if it doesn't collapse."

        By everyone's admission, demolition set-up takes time, and WTC7 could not be "brought down for safety reasons" on the day of 9/11 without prior preparation.
        • Not thinking it was going to collapse, KNOWING it was going to collapse... based on their visual observations. You completely ignored it. Why? Because their on the site live visual observations of it leaning, being structurally compromised, and on the verge of collapse destroys the theory that the govt,. demolished WTC 7.

          <<I addressed the "core" just fine, by offering addititional information that you would rather dismiss.

          Umm... unlike you, I actually responded to your "information".

          <<And the simplistic assumed conclusions ensue...

          The above video is not assumed.

          <<All it takes is one individual, not necessarily a cop or FDNY (remember that the CIA, DIA, Secret Service and others occupied the building, and the SS was even present in the OEM bunker), to say it will be demolished, and it can spread from there.

          And the simplistic assumed conclusions ensue.... Works both ways does it not?

          <<Ah... more of the "I know more than the people who were there, and I know when they're right or mistaken."

          It is simple deduction. They are in the process of evacuating the building, you can see the people leaving it, the fire fighters indicated they were evacuating it because it was on the verge of collapse... MULTIPLE fire fighters indicate this in subsequent interviews, it is on the fire dispatch recorded, a fire fighter is live indicating that it is so. We also know that fire fighters enlist the help of police officers in clearing and keeping people away from the building.... Thus, my deduction that they heard it from a fire fighter is much more logical and plausible than your assertion that the CIA told him.

          <<"it would have had to of been brought down for safety reason"

          Of course. Do you think it is in the interest of public safety to leave a leaning building standing?

          <<Indira was being told about it being "brought down"

          This is a very misleading statment. Lets look at the quote in context.

          SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was COMING down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely POSIBLE - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I HEARD that they were going to bring it down BECAUSE IT WAS UNSTABLE BECAUSE OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE. That I DON'T KNOW I CAN'T ATTEST TO THE VALIDITY of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down "