The Final Minutes of the South Tower - The flaming inferno

reply to post by ImAPepper


Go and watch the video lazybones.

You're so sure of your convictions, yet you won't even study what your commenting on?! Blimey!

reply to post by _BoneZ_

If I remember correctly, William Rodriguez said that there was no gas or propane of any type allowed in the towers because they were Class-A buildings. Cooking was electric only.

Cooking for WINDOWS ON THE WORLD restuarant was done in Basement
of WTC 1 - gas lines were here. Food was sent up by elevator to the
restaurant

reply to post by weedwhacker


Think can help

There were no FF in WTC 2 (South tower) when UAL 175 struck - everyone was concentrating on the North tower at that time . Nobody
knew would be other aircraft.

Chief Orio Palmer who knew the building layout found one of the Freight
elevators was still operable - it ran from ground to 40th floor, hence references to 40th floor.

Palmer is Chief 7

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I couldn't find a bank to bring you up any highter. I'm on the 40th floor, what can I do for you?"

Battalion Nine Chief: "Orio, I'm going to try and get a couple of CFRD engines on the 40th floor so send any victims down here, I'll start up a staging area."

As FF approached 78th floor impact zone noticed walls being breached by impact, occupants evacuating down the stairs reported seeing fires from holes in the stairway walls

Report of occupants WTC 2

sites.google.com...

Stairways have to be lined with fire resistibve materials - at WTC was
ordinary sheet rock which was breached allowing fire/smoke into stairs or
dislodged and block the stairs

New WTC 7 used to high strenght concrete for this purpose - to protexct the stairways

Another driving force was safety. The owner wanted to go beyond the minimum building code requirements and create perhaps the safest building of its size from the standpoint of fire and terrorist hazards. The building's core consists of concrete shear walls as thick as 2 ft. 3 in., which surround the elevator shafts, stairways and transfer corridors. The walls will help to mitigate potential damage and injury in the event of an explosion. The robust shell enclosing the stairs also will help keep fire exits open in an evacuation.

Hello Everyone, I am new here and this is my first post.

I just can't help but smile when I read almost all of the posts in this thread (I read all up until the middle of the 4th page, then skimmed because it was repetitive. As I am sure you would do if you read "I will not chew gum in class" wrote over and over on the chalk board lol).

First let me say that if your reading my post, I would advise not to try and label me into ANY group. "Truther", "Conspiracy Nutjob", etc... These are all assumptions not facts, and you wouldn't like it if I labeled you into a group just because you see 'eye to eye' on certain aspects of the groups perspective.

let us not forget the golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

Also, truth and false are mere illusions. There is however perspective, and the more perspective you have on a subject, the better the understanding of that subject becomes. My favorite analogy for this is the rubiks cube, if you only see the red side then the cube is incredibly hard to solve. If you gain perspective of the cube and see how it really works, and all the sides involved, then you can master that toy with great ease.

I would not disregard anyone's perspective on a subject because you are disregarding one of the sides of the rubik's cube. Instead I chose to hold everyone's (including my greatest enemy) opinion as high as my own. I then try to prove it correct as if it were my own theory, and will not disregard it until I can not prove it right. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty...

Arguments are like rocking chairs, you can rock back and forth all day but you haven't left the spot you started in. The reason for this is obvious, both parties have an agenda, and neither party would be stupid enough to agree with something that hinders the agenda.
For instance you don't see pepper talk about the fact that the only three steel structured buildings in history to collapse due to fire damage as the cause, were all three on the same day at the same place. This is because it would be asinine to chalk that up to mere coincidence, and would cause quite a blow to the false ego if accepted as otherwise.

Do not go calling the kettle black just yet, because in light of the situation it is obvious to me that this video has a strong agenda. Due to this, I question (like another poster has already questioned) why the audio transmission ended so abruptly? For all those who take this video in without questioning the video at all, you are no better than pepper who (I assume, and apologize if this is incorrect) takes the official story from the American media without questioning it either.

All this is just a friendly reminder to do YOUR OWN RESEARCH! Never take anyone's word for granted, without asking why that person's word is being spoken in the first place. I would tie this into the majority of the American media (cnn, cnbc, and all the other goofy little abbreviations for you to choose from) because the majority of the media is owned by a "pocket" sized group of people who's agenda is monetary value, not truth. Which is why you see bill o reilly telling kids to shut up when they don't believe the official story.

Fear guides the false ego to shun what is not understood, love and embrace what is not understood.

Have a great day everyone!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thanks for posting this _BoneZ_, a real eye opener (not that mine have been shut).

Those poor, brave blokes.

Listening to their voices like that, and seeing the countdown to their murder, was a hard thing to watch.

I was filled with pity and sorrow for them and the others in those buildings.

They really were heroes.

reply to post by spikey


spikey, nice sentiments. Heartfelt.

Now, in honour of their memories, will you do us the favour of watching that same video again, with a critically jaundiced eye?

Pay particular attention to implication, innuendo in the narrative. Note how many things are suggested, based solely on hyperbole. Would help to examine the "geographical" arrangement of the building as you listen. Visual aids may be of assistance.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

Go and watch the video lazybones.

You're so sure of your convictions, yet you won't even study what your commenting on?! Blimey!

Interesting. Another truther with reading comprehension problems. I watched the video... twice. As posted previously, I took notes and posted the facts pertaining to this video. (three times now) During my posts, i referenced times during the video. This should give you a slight hint that I did watch/listen to it.


So, lets narrow it down to one question at a time.

Were the stairwells compromised in the south tower?

This is a simple yes or no question.

I don't know about being any more to the tape, here's the last of the transcript.
There were also calls made by trapped individuals who reported, fl104/105 collapse, fl106 collapsing, and fl105/106 crumbling. Edit: made before the collapse of building 2.

9:57
"Division 3 ... lobby command, to the Fieldcom command post."
B7: "Operations Tower i to floor above Battalion 9.''
"Battalion 9 to Command post."
"Battalion 7 Operations Tower 1 to Battalion 9, need you on floor above 79. We have
access stairs going up to 79, k."
B9: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
"15 OV to 15."
1 5: "Go ahead 1 50V, Battalion 7 Operations Tower 1 ."
150V: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft, you're going to have to
get a different elevator. We're chopping through the wall to get out."
B7: "Radio lobby command with that Tower 1 ."
9:58
"Battalion 7 to Ladder 15."
[End of tape, approximately 30 seconds after last transmission.]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by redgy]

I listened to the recordings of Manhatten dispatch (Available here) then I croped a new recording just before the very first reports of the south tower collapse, in the Manhatten dispatch recordings.


media.abovetopsecret.com...


You can hear the reports, of the south tower exploding, for yourself.

The recording ends with, "SEND IN THE ARMY. WE NEED THE ARMY IN MANHATTEN."

Command is destroyed and/or in complete shambles at this point.

Dispatch is asking who is in command?



[edit on 8-3-2010 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Sorry for the delay I'm working as well as ranting.No I meant even,meaning that the fuel and kinetic energy being dispersed evenly as the plane hit.Sure there were exterior beams and the clear span where no beams,then the core,I got that.More referring to the floors as they were pretty even and containing of the fuel,especially at first.

Intresting story and vid, I am not on any boat here truther or whatever, when this incident happened, I diden't even take the time to watch the newsreports on it. But now that I have some time on my hands I got to say the whole os is fishy to say the least, fire melting steel and high grade steal ment to support a whole building is dam fishy, the way the building's fell and crumpuled to dust is just not how it would happen. Everything abouth it is vague even the date 911 how convineant a perfect day to fly a plane into a building, or someones sick joke. As for the vid with the firefighters can anyone confirm that its real, what do the families of the firefighters have to say on it ect. I try not to bellive the people who make it a habit to lie to me. And I can see why the government would lie abouth it. After all never in the history of the world has a government existed that did not lie if it suited its intrest's and there never will be. If it's true that some on the top of the pyramid did this they are a cancer and it needs to be removed or it will continue to grow, and bring everyone down rich or poor, educated or uneducated it wont matter.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Every thread about 911, asking questions or questioning something about the official story is not garbage. You should question new theories or evidence. and debunk or post evidence to the contrary if you have it, but please don't call every question about 911 garbage. That's insulting.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by amazing]

This thread is awesome, iampepper and his boys are getting slaughtered! Seriously, how can you repeatedly get owned in every single thread after every single comment and continue to deny what is obvious and defend what is fictitious?

Hang on...I think I actually have it here. These fellas are not OS supporters at all! They come here to have us repeat ourselves time and time again so that the facts become second nature to us all. Practice does make perfect, right? Bravo to you after all iampepper, swampfox, dman, alftard, hooper, and the rest of your crew....thank you for your support.

Serious question from me here. Is there broad agreement on how the WTC was taken down if we assume out the planes? As I understand this part of the conspiracy theory, the planes are basically a distraction because they could not have pulled down the towers. So my question is what did, and specifically, how did it get there. This is not a baiting question, I am curious. To my mind, this is the key if fault is to be placed with others than the hijackers for pulling down the buildings. I assume that this would be an extraordinarily complex operation that would require a lot of planning and some James Bond style gear. Again, this is a serious question on my part. I am interested in the how questions more than the why questions.

Originally posted by Sibilance

As I understand this part of the conspiracy theory, the planes are basically a distraction because they could not have pulled down the towers. So my question is what did, and specifically, how did it get there.

... I assume that this would be an extraordinarily complex operation that would require a lot of planning and some James Bond style gear.

Most people accept the government story or really just don't care one way or another.

A few people people believe that something else besides planes caused the only three structural steel buildings in history to collapse on the same day, two of which were designed to withstand multiple 707 jet impacts. Two buildings hit, three fall down.

Fewer still believe what I believe.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by In nothing we trust]

During my posts, i referenced times during the video. This should give you a slight hint that I did watch/listen to it.


So, lets narrow it down to one question at a time.

Were the stairwells compromised in the south tower?

This is a simple yes or no question.

If you watched the video then why don't you know the answer to that question?
8:18-Joseph Leavey reports fire in stairwell 78B
9:18-Chief Palmer reports having access to stairs going up to 79
(both times are youtube video time frame)
I believe Chief Palmer is in stairwell A

As you can see this is not as simple a question as you ask it, but to answer the question; the stairwells were not compromised until the 78th B, and the 79th A.

Since I have answered your question, I hope you might answer some questions I have for you.

1. What is your opinion of the events that took place that day?
If you can't answer fully please elaborate specifically on:
-the cause for the collapse of WTC buildings 1,2, and 7
2. What is your point in asking the question about the structural integrity of the stairwells?

I agree with budaruskie - it is basically good that these facts and arguments and evidence are being scrutinized.

Please forgive the psychological hostility of these people - they do everything to help the cause of establishing the various facets of what happened, even if they are opposed to the very idea of finding out "the truth" because they look down on "truthers."

This event is important historically to the entire Earth, and like the Kennedy assassination, the official version sold to the masses is obviously lacking. I am not very well versed in the subject, but there are many other details, not the subject of this thread - e.g. the confession of the officer reporting to the VP who kept on saying something to the effect of "stand down" during the minutes preceding the first impact - referring to the defense forces; the lack of the black box, then a fireman finding it but alleging official threats; the confession of a security guard who was aware of blasts before the impact of the plane etc. The Israelis arrested who were dancing hora near the event a little while later etc. At the minimum, a lot of people coming forward with evidence or purported evidence were ignored by the 911 commission. I have to state the obvious.

I personally think either someone wanted many people to think of at least sixty different types of conspiracy in creating or allowing this event, or some of those conspiracies were actually happening.

Now, they would not be conspiracies if we could simply trust our government, but they (the Bushists particularly) have proved to us time and again that they were liars in many other respects - Iraq, the economy, the first "election" of GWB etc. Why would they tell us the truth about the raison d'etre of their Middle Eastern wars, 911?

So I think a sentiment that the government may not be telling the truth is quite justified in today's America in general. Anti-truthers can choose to understand this sentiment - even if they stick to their less dramatic version of 911.

Just how much we will find out in time. A dark comparison that constantly comes to mind is the burning down of the German Parliament building, the Reichstag, for which the Nazis were blaming foreign Communists, and they staged a lengthy court trial accusing a Bulgarian Communist called Dimitrov. This was part of their strategy of seizing power. So history may have precedents. Now I grant the Bushists may not be as openly evil as the Nazis were, but to my mind they are not far. (At least not with the depleted uranium compared to the concentration camps.)

911 is less easy than the Reichstag was, the Nazis basically lost the case in court. Goering was fuming. (I hope one day Cheney will too.)
I am inclined to believe that "truthers" are after some real conspiracy. Just how much - opinions differ. But there is something at the level of engineering already.

I admit I am personally not interested in calculating every detail, but contrasting to this level of argument here, but I know a lot of people who simply accept the Bushist version as the truth - with incredible details. If all that were to be true, and if we should ignore all the non-official evidence and refuse to answer questions - a certain percentage of which is doubtlessly paranoid or off the wall - we would be Polyanna.

I challenge the anti-truthers here to state here what they think has really happened on 911. Do they all simply support the news media version and the 911 Commission Report, in that it was the sole work (without any assitance - passive or active on the part of the US government or any other governments) of 19 Islamic terrorists, masterminded by a couple of weirdos in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia?
Or do they allow some degrees of difference from the official version?
Soem people here sound like they studied the subject in great detail. Are they sure everything happened as suggested in the media and the 911 investigation?

I am really curious.
It is a great thread.

BTW who is the person who made this video?
One anti-truther kept on mentioning a name, but others did not agree that that person was the creator.
Any evidence that he/she made the video? Or that it is a different person?
I take it that that person is a well-known 911 "truther."

Are these firefighter soundtracks avaliable to the general public?
Where exactly?

First off, I will say that I have my feelings on this topic like everyone else. I am not neutral. But my opinion on 9-11 has nothing to do with this post.

I can't help but wonder why both sides of this debate don't simply agree to post in a separate forums.

Let those who have decided that the govt is telling the truth post why they believe the way do in a separate forum. No posts that suggested that govt story was anything less than honest would be allowed. They could post anything they wish that they feel supports their point of view.

Likewise, those who believe 9-11 was an inside job could have their own forum as well. They would be free to post anything that they feel supports their point of view without anyone disparaging it.

And if either side feels the need to hurl insults, fine. Just leave the names of other posters out of it, ie, once again, the truthers/trusters have been completely been discredited, as opposed to (insert name here) has been completely discredited.

Does anyone from either side really think that they are going to change anyone's mind on the opposing side at this point?

All of the bickering is totally understandable. I am not above engaging in such exchanges myself. This is an emotional topic and whatever side one may be on, the very nature of either position casts a good deal of mistrust and suspicion on the other. This topic is guaranteed to produce bad feelings.

So why not agree to go our separate ways to separate forums? Then everyone can post their thoughts on 9-11 without being attacked or feeling the need to engage in a harsh and in my opinion, meaningless and non-productive debate.

reply to post by _BoneZ_
s & f

That brought it all back to me. How shocking it is to listen to those brave voices, knowing that they are dead. Knowing that they were murdered. Knowing that they would have extinguished the fires and saved many lives that day if they had been given a chance to do so.

Equally shocking, and totally unexpected, was the very first reply to this thread by ImAPepper. How disgraceful can you be? Soulless creature, where on earth is your dignity? Calling the voices of those firefighters crap? Those voices, in my opinion, end the discussion of whether or not those fires were so hot that they melted the steel core.

If you can't understand the significance of this elementary evidence. Well, you have no business engaging in discourse regarding this subject matter.