The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

Originally posted by REMISNE
Maybe you can explain why the demo truck was driving around the towers on 9/11.

I can. You must be talking about this truck:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49b34ab97ed2.jpg[/atsimg]


See that big ol' phone number on the side? I called that number way back when this truck was first discovered. They don't do explosive demolitions. They only do demolitions with large equipment like wrecking balls, bulldozers, etc. They also do clean-ups of demo and construction sites.

This is a trash truck. There is nothing nefarious about trash trucks driving around a city no matter what name is painted on the side. There are always construction projects at any given time on NYC. I also recall seeing a large crane in the air somewhere not too terribly far from the WTC.

Oh, and "Manhattan Demolition" was not one of the companies that was tasked to help clean up the WTC site.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

See that big ol' phone number on the side? I called that number way back when this truck was first discovered. They don't do explosive demolitions. They only do demolitions with large equipment like wrecking balls, bulldozers, etc. They also do clean-ups of demo and construction sites.

Ah yes the phone number - If it is Manhattan Demolition why do they
have number of the Queens/Brooklyn area code on the truck?

Sure our resident loons can blow that up into some nefarious conspiracy

Why the company calls itself Manhattan Demoliton, but it is not even in the same borough.....

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by evil incarnate


I am very confused here. You ask about dead bodies and such things as you saw in the ABC special.

Did you miss the part where ABC was the one making the claim that there was molten steel?

So ABC is telling the truth when it fits what you already believe but when they claim there was molten steel, they go back to being liars?

You are a little confused. This thread is regarding a video presented by A&E For 911 Truth. The video is attempting to take you through the moments leading up to the collapse of the South Tower. The narrator states that there is no melting metal witnessed. (not the exact words)

The discussion about molten metal in the debris pile is covered in many threads here at ATS.

I hope that helps.

So you refuse to address the fact that ABC claims there was molten steel that was melted only by jet fuel? I figured you would dance all around that.

Please forgive me for confusing the threads. I did forget this was not the ABC video, it was the one you commented on before you even watched it showing you are a liar and a shill. Thank you for reminding me but the points still stands. You seem to think the news is telling you the truth so I still want to know why you are all avoiding this ABC claim like a disease.

Then again, since you commented on that too, you probably did not watch that one either. Thanks for reminding me you are not interested in serious discussion because you call 11 minute videos bunks 2 minutes after it was posted.

[edit on 3/12/10 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by evil incarnate
So you refuse to address the fact that ABC claims there was molten steel that was melted only by jet fuel? I figured you would dance all around that.

I have not watched the video you are speaking of. Please give Bonez your respect by keeping this thread on topic.

Please forgive me for confusing the threads.

You're forgiven.

I did forget this was not the ABC video, it was the one you commented on before you even watched it showing you are a liar and a shill.

Yet another truther that will attack me and not respond to the video posted in the op that I have proven is a pack of lies. (NO, I am not speaking about the firefighters) The narrator is full of crap and you all know it.

Thanks for reminding me you are not interested in serious discussion because you call 11 minute videos bunks 2 minutes after it was posted.

Thanks for dodging the questions. No worries though...you are not alone.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Kind of like the reports of the EPA blaming radiation at the sites on DU carried by the planes.

Care to show this EPA report on radiation? No, I did not think so, just another "truther" lie!

Originally posted by ImAPepper

I have not watched the video you are speaking of. Please give Bonez your respect by keeping this thread on topic.

Then why are you commenting on it in the thread about it??????????

The question is still relevant as you are discussing the melted metal. ABC says that there was molten steel. How do you respond?

Yet another truther that will attack me and not respond to the video posted in the op that I have proven is a pack of lies. (NO, I am not speaking about the firefighters) The narrator is full of crap and you all know it.

I am asking you about molten steel. Video or not, you were talking about the different melted metals so tell me, was there molten steel or not?

Thanks for dodging the questions. No worries though...you are not alone.

What questions? You have to actually ask me a question in order for me to dodge it.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Then why are you commenting on it in the thread about it??????????

I commented about Cory Rowe being at the "Treason in America" function. It was from the Russian Today 8 minute clip. I have not watched the ABC show. If and when I do, I will be more than happy to comment on that thread.

I am asking you about molten steel. Video or not, you were talking about the different melted metals so tell me, was there molten steel or not?

There was molten materials at Ground Zero. There are several pictures that prove this. However, there was not any analysis completed on these molten materials to confirm what metals that were or were not contained.

Is is possible that there was molten steel? NIST thinks so and admits it is possible.

What questions? You have to actually ask me a question in order for me to dodge it.

Do you think the video posted in the OP is accurate?

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Is is possible that there was molten steel? NIST thinks so and admits it is possible.

Thank you. That is all I really wanted to hear. It is interesting to see so many OS defenders starting to have such very different stories.

I will get back to your question when my nephew stops talking to me while I try to type.

I guess maybe I need a more specific question. As a whole, it is mostly just firemen talking. As to the narrator, what are you questioning?

[edit on 3/12/10 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Do you think the video posted in the OP is accurate?

Other than disputing the use of the word "throughout" I do not see anything that is not accurate. Are there specific points from the video you mean?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Other than disputing the use of the word "throughout" I do not see anything that is not accurate. Are there specific points from the video you mean?

I listed many points several pages ago. Remember... the narrator is attempting to paint a picture of the condition of the South Tower just prior to collapse.

Were the stairwells all accessible?

Do you think there were only two small fires?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
See that big ol' phone number on the side? I called that number way back when this truck was first discovered. They don't do explosive demolitions. They only do demolitions with large equipment like wrecking balls, bulldozers, etc. They also do clean-ups of demo and construction sites.

Still waiting for an explanation of what it was doing there.

Nice new, clean truck for a garbage truck.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Still waiting for an explanation of what it was doing there.

How about you call that number on the side and ask them what they were doing there. You obviously didn't fully read my post or comprehend it. It was coming from or going to a construction site.

Manhattan Demolition is not listed as one of the companies that aided in the WTC cleanup, so this truck is unrelated to the WTC, plain and simple.




[edit on 13-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by dereks
Care to show this EPA report on radiation? No, I did not think so, just another "truther" lie!

Why would the EPA be stupid enough to blame radiation on DU from the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?

I have more then enough reports to support what i post.

www.mindfully.org...
The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 18,19 and that the crash site was contaminated. Residents of New York City detected radiation on hand held geiger counters at the WTC site. The EPA not only failed to protect emergency response personnel at both sites, but did not report or measure13 concentrations of very fine particles at any of the 9/11 plane crash locations. These are the most hazardous to health, and many personnel who worked at the crash sites are now very ill.

www.atlanticfreepress.com... -illegal-use-of-canadian-uranium-in-du-weapons-in-non-compliance-with-canadian-law.html
DU & 9/11

Leuren Moret reported similar elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) confirmed that the crash site rubble was radioactive and that it was probably Depleted Uranium (DU) contaminating the Pentagon crash site rubble. The entry and exit holes through the Pentagon crash site were the signature of a kinetic energy penetrator, such as a Cruise missile, and the term “punch-out hole” was written by crash site investigators over the exit hole. This is a military term used for kinetic energy penetrators. Major Doug Rokke, former Director of the Gulf War I DU Cleanup Team, reported that an email from the Pentagon 30 minutes after impact confirmed a Cruise missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Other than disputing the use of the word "throughout" I do not see anything that is not accurate. Are there specific points from the video you mean?

I listed many points several pages ago. Remember... the narrator is attempting to paint a picture of the condition of the South Tower just prior to collapse.

Were the stairwells all accessible?

Do you think there were only two small fires?

Yes. That is certainly what it sounds like to me.

Two? I did not hear two. I heard "small pockets of fire." I do believe there were small pockets of fire.

These are things you can hear from the firemen talking.

Do you think the firemen voices were faked or take from some other event and mixed in?

Originally posted by evil incarnate


Yes. That is certainly what it sounds like to me.

Two? I did not hear two. I heard "small pockets of fire." I do believe there were small pockets of fire.

These are things you can hear from the firemen talking.

Do you think the firemen voices were faked or take from some other event and mixed in?

Good Morning Evil...

First of all, I believe he said two:

"Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Now, can we take this a step at the time, please?

The point I have been making in this thread is quite clear. The narrator was attempting to show that the conditions at the South Tower were not that bad. What he fails to do, is offer ANY other information besides what is reported by the firefighters that are below the more effected floors. Again, The 78th floor of the south tower was struck by the outer left wing of the plane. It was the lowest floor that sustained direct damage from the aircraft.
The 78th floor of the south tower was a Sky Lobby which consisted largely of elevator banks, escalators, marble, glass, and steel.

Here is what the South Tower looked like two floors above:

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Good Morning Evil...

First of all, I believe he said two:

Now, can we take this a step at the time, please?

Well good morning. You are correct. There is another part where someone says "Ahhhh we've got isolated pockets of fire up here." I guess that was what I was thinking of but I did hear two. I did not think that "two" was referring to the entire building though but where that firefighter was. It was the lack of any report of anything other than small pockets of fire that struck me as the entirety of it is apparently a few small pockets of fire.

The point I have been making in this thread is quite clear. The narrator was attempting to show that the conditions at the South Tower were not that bad. What he fails to do, is offer ANY other information besides what is reported by the firefighters that are below the more effected floors. Again, The 78th floor of the south tower was struck by the outer left wing of the plane. It was the lowest floor that sustained direct damage from the aircraft.
The 78th floor of the south tower was a Sky Lobby which consisted largely of elevator banks, escalators, marble, glass, and steel.

Here is what the South Tower looked like two floors above:

I guess I am still not seeing an proof that things were raging fires out of control either. Even in the picture. Alone, sure it looks like fire. Compared to pictures of other building fires it looks rather tame to me.

I will give you that the video apparently does not cover the floor you like and as far as that point goes, I guess you have it. Do you have anything that does show just how bad things were on 78 then? Aside from a picture? I mean do you have any firemen statements or quotes that would help fix this?

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I guess I am still not seeing an proof that things were raging fires out of control either. Even in the picture. Alone, sure it looks like fire. Compared to pictures of other building fires it looks rather tame to me.

I will give you that the video apparently does not cover the floor you like and as far as that point goes, I guess you have it. Do you have anything that does show just how bad things were on 78 then? Aside from a picture? I mean do you have any firemen statements or quotes that would help fix this?

Firemen did not make it above 79. There would not be any statements from them. There are very few survivors from the above the 79th floor, so obviously there are few statements from those areas.

We can discuss if the fires were hot enough, if there was thermite, etc. That's not what I wanted to get into. My main point was that A&E For 911 Truth were not completely honest with their narration of this video.

Originally posted by theyareoutthere
You have to ask yourself why Tower 2 collapses first, don't you? Tower 2 was hit second, "burned" for less time than Tower 1 and yet it collapsed first.

Could it be that someone was listening in on these firefighter conversations and said something like, "Hell we can't let them get up to the 78th floor! It will expose everything! Time to detonate the building!"

The timing of the implosion does seem suspect if you ask me.

Now also consider that all radio traffic in tower 2 ceased just prior to the implosion.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Firemen did not make it above 79. There would not be any statements from them. There are very few survivors from the above the 79th floor, so obviously there are few statements from those areas.

I fully understand that. If something I said made you believe otherwise then my bad.

We can discuss if the fires were hot enough, if there was thermite, etc. That's not what I wanted to get into. My main point was that A&E For 911 Truth were not completely honest with their narration of this video.

Do not worry. I have no desire to get into those things at the moment. The only reason I even asked about the molten steel is because melted metal is what you were all discussing and I want to know what OSers have to say about that.

I was not looking to derail what you are asking about. I thought that I answered your question as to the narration in the video. Perhaps not well enough? What else are you asking? I still think that other than arguing the word "throughout" it seems fine to me.

Do you have any evidence that shows otherwise? I mean, is there a reason that I should believe that the fires were far worse than this video makes them out to be? Photographs are not doing it. I am more than willing to look at whatever you have. If I dodged something, it was not intentional so please just point it out to me.

Had to use the ignore button on "ImAPepper", look at his post and thread history, his singular purpose on ATS is to attack 9/11 truth. Those are the type of people ATS could do without. Plus his Avatar irritated me, now I don't have to look at it.

That picture of the lady standing in the crash zone with no fire or smoke endangering her life is very telling. It confirms what the fireman said, yes there was fire, but they had the ability to knock them down.







[edit on 13-3-2010 by Blue_Jay33]