It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have to say reading that article form the dailymail is like reading any other conspiracy theory post on any forum, I wouldn't be surprised to read it on ATS rather than the DailyMail. It's just a complete rehash of everything that 9/11 truthers have been saying for years with zero new information. Most of the claims are just the usual rubbish about the BBC report and how fast it fell all stuff that has been debunked.

I used to write quite extensively on this forum regarding 9/11 and the many false claims about what happened that day. WTC-7 was always floated as the smoking gun of the Truther community. There has always been one simple question however that utterly destroys any claims about WTC-7 without really having to do any research or have any understanding of how the building collapsed.

WHY???

Why do it, lets suppose it is this grand false flag and as part of that the perpetrators behind it rig up WTC-7 with explosives to bring it down....why would they do that?

I have never seen a single reasonable answer to this question and I don't expect after all these years to see one now its important because with out any clear motivation for bringing down that building nothing else makes sense.



Here is the reason: The PNAC Document




posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: openedeyesandears

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have to say reading that article form the dailymail is like reading any other conspiracy theory post on any forum, I wouldn't be surprised to read it on ATS rather than the DailyMail. It's just a complete rehash of everything that 9/11 truthers have been saying for years with zero new information. Most of the claims are just the usual rubbish about the BBC report and how fast it fell all stuff that has been debunked.

I used to write quite extensively on this forum regarding 9/11 and the many false claims about what happened that day. WTC-7 was always floated as the smoking gun of the Truther community. There has always been one simple question however that utterly destroys any claims about WTC-7 without really having to do any research or have any understanding of how the building collapsed.

WHY???

Why do it, lets suppose it is this grand false flag and as part of that the perpetrators behind it rig up WTC-7 with explosives to bring it down....why would they do that?

I have never seen a single reasonable answer to this question and I don't expect after all these years to see one now its important because with out any clear motivation for bringing down that building nothing else makes sense.



Here is the reason: The PNAC Document




Well. That was a well structured and developed argument based on many cited sources and and extensive evidence? But still seems disparaging, based on nothing but biased innuendo, and not at all convincing.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I'm not trying to convince you as you already have your propaganda going... waste of time



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: openedeyesandears

So. Anything specific about “WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?”



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Bigburgh

The “pull it” statement is a false argument. Especially when it’s referring to pulling firefighters from a burning building.



Late reply, but your point is pure and obviously biased speculation.

"Pull it" ? We here on earth don't refer to our neighbors as "it's" . We would say "Pull them out".

Unless you are referring to a dead body, because that would be an "it" EXCEPT they would still be referred to as a "him" or a "her" even if they were already dead.

So your conclusion is total bunk. Even worse than bunk. If you're going to make up something to make a point, you will have to be more creative.
You have to be smarter than the lies you tell. (And lies, a smart person doesn't make.)



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: openedeyesandears

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have to say reading that article form the dailymail is like reading any other conspiracy theory post on any forum, I wouldn't be surprised to read it on ATS rather than the DailyMail. It's just a complete rehash of everything that 9/11 truthers have been saying for years with zero new information. Most of the claims are just the usual rubbish about the BBC report and how fast it fell all stuff that has been debunked.

I used to write quite extensively on this forum regarding 9/11 and the many false claims about what happened that day. WTC-7 was always floated as the smoking gun of the Truther community. There has always been one simple question however that utterly destroys any claims about WTC-7 without really having to do any research or have any understanding of how the building collapsed.

WHY???

Why do it, lets suppose it is this grand false flag and as part of that the perpetrators behind it rig up WTC-7 with explosives to bring it down....why would they do that?

I have never seen a single reasonable answer to this question and I don't expect after all these years to see one now its important because with out any clear motivation for bringing down that building nothing else makes sense.



Here is the reason: The PNAC Document




What was the shredder broken, couldn't burn the copies?



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So what's the alternative the firefighters were in on it?



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So what's the alternative the firefighters were in on it?


Irrelevant. If someone goes on TV and says "Pull it" It doesn't mean "pull the firefighters out of the building". That is hilarious.

You can't defend a lie like that. It's a child's move.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So what's the alternative the firefighters were in on it?


Irrelevant. If someone goes on TV and says "Pull it" It doesn't mean "pull the firefighters out of the building". That is hilarious.

You can't defend a lie like that. It's a child's move.


Well if he said to the firefighters to "pull it" as a order to blow up the building that then implies that at least some of the the fire-fighters were in on it as it was them he said to "pull it".

Am just trying to establish if you're claiming that the FDNY who lost hundreds of members that day where also in on it or if you've just not thought this through.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
No I'm not implying that. Usually with demolition there would never be firefighters INSIDE a building or anyone else.

That TV statement doesn't even prove the building was "pulled" deliberately by demolition efforts. But it does make that suggestion.

Was it a careless slip? I don't know. What I DO know is that someone using a demolition term like "pull it" cannot translate into "pulling the firemen out of that building". Because that is ludicrous. Having made this point, we still have people trying to say that is what he meant, and that is BS pure and simple.

edit on 15-9-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Was it a careless slip?


So what's more likely he blow up his own building for unspecified reasons, secretly, as part of a government cover up or it was a slip of the tongue?



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Was it a careless slip?


So what's more likely he blow up his own building for unspecified reasons, secretly, as part of a government cover up or it was a slip of the tongue?


I don't think anyone can truly know for sure without interviewing Larry Silverstein. Make him talk, and then report back.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Pulling is not an implosion term. It is a manual demolition term that is not dependent on charges.

You think “pull it” really means implosion by explosives, then provide proof from the video, audio, or seismic data.

“Pull it” is a term that has nothing to do with actual physical evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns. Innuendo is not evidence, and that is all you have. Shrugs.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Was it a careless slip?


So what's more likely he blow up his own building for unspecified reasons, secretly, as part of a government cover up or it was a slip of the tongue?


I don't think anyone can truly know for sure without interviewing Larry Silverstein. Make him talk, and then report back.




In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.


There you go!



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The fire ground commander is in charge , he can order the removal of anyone interfering with operations, including the building owner(s)

What you have here is the Fire commander, Daniel Nigro, who succeeded command when Fire Chief Peter Ganci was killed by collapse of South Tower (WTC 2)

The decision had already been taken, Nigro was calling Silverstein to inform him of what was done. Silverstein had no
input in the decision



.For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)


www.metabunk.org...

Unfortunately conspiracy loons like to take Silverstein words out of context and twist them around to make it sound like
Silverstein is ordering building demolished




Make him talk, and then report back.


How do you propose to do this ? Take him to Gitmo and water board him ……??????

Typical sick conspiracy fantasy ……...




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join