What Did He Really Say? - a survey

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

I also wonder why all the radios and cell phones went dead about the same time the explosions were reported, and just before the collapses...


Because every cellular phone company that services the NYC area had their main repeaters set up on top of one of the towers? They were the highest point in Manhattan if you recall, and with 8 million customers to service it only makes sense.

Do you also consider it suspicious that anyone who didn't have cable couldn't watch tv? Or do you realize that it was because all the networks (except MAYBE the wb) had their primary towers on the same building.

After a hit from a plane it is highly possible that the devices themselves, or perhaps their power supplies were not functional.

I'll give you a brief summary of the problem that a friend of mine at OEM told me. "Cell phone networks were operating at over 100 times normal capacity due mainly to people calling relatives to see if they were alright, at the same time, the main repeaters for Manhattan were busted." Figure out why everyone got "system busy" yet?




posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

You have voted twitchy for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

I could not have said it better and you only mentioned a few things, there is so much more to prove government collusion..



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Because every cellular phone company that services the NYC area had their main repeaters set up on top of one of the towers? They were the highest point in Manhattan if you recall, and with 8 million customers to service it only makes sense.

CB Radio and Cell Phones go through the same towers eh?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Couldn't tell you about Citizen Band radios. Last I checked they were more Unit to Unit type things used by truck drivers to keep from falling asleep. I wasn't aware of stationary repeaters being used for those.

If you meant the radios used for Emergency frequencies, yes, there were repeaters for the Emergency frequencies up there as well. And in numerous other places too. The problem with those radios was too many people talking at the same time, and the fact that it was a crappy outdated system.

Not sure what the sarcasm was all about there buddy... no one said they run through the same towers, (radio stations, broadcast television, public and private radio transmissions, cell phones, etc all had antennas on that roof) I was discussing the cell phones specifically. Being that I've responded to all of your issues with respect and taking you seriously, I will expect that you'll do the same and not invent things I didn't say.

Note: For those who need the clarification... FDNY's emergency radio transmissions are broadcast over a VHF (very high frequency) channel. Each area has its own channel for normal operations, manhattan, brooklyn, queens, Bronx/Staten Island share one, and there's some citywide channels as well. NYPD uses UHF (ultra high frequency) channels instead, with generally two or three precincts per channel and numerous specialty channels. These are in NO WAY related to Citizen Band radio. Throughout the city there are repeaters, generally atop large buildings that assist in increasing the range of transmission to include the whole city instead of 4 city blocks as it would be without them. When a repeater goes down, you lose range in that specific area.


[edit on 5-15-2005 by Djarums]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I didn't mean to sound sarcastic, my apologies. There is acutally three things I know of that could have disrupted such a broad range of communications, overloading, which is unlikely considering that CB's and cell phones, in the immediate area, were affected all at the same moment, a massive RF signal which is used to detonate explosives, and the EMP of a nuclear detonation. The Seismic signature recorded by Pallisades prior to each collapse is consistient with large underground explosives, explosives which would explain the MOMENTARY loss of telecommunications and CB's.

Also another oddity, the roof hatches on the WTC tower complex were locked that day.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Also another oddity, the roof hatches on the WTC tower complex were locked that day.


Two reasons I can think of for that.

One tower had an observation deck. The deck was not open to the public that early on that morning until 9:30AM(Thank goodness or the casualties would've been worse).

The other tower which had the antennas etc on it, would only be accessed by the proper staff members. Being that it all went down before 9AM, only someone up there for an off hours repair would have known if access to those areas was locked.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

Umm.. Silverstein owned the world trade center.


And therefore what?
Since when does the FDNY take orders from people who own the property where there's a fire?


Beats me. But isn't that what this entire thread is about? Silverstein's quote saying that he talked to an FD commander and they decided to let the building fall?



And, to anyone following "real" news on this matter, you'll find that Larry is not getting even half the cash he wanted, so consider the humor in the fact that your saying this guy was involved in the biggest setup in world history yet he can't get arbitrators to side with him on insurance claims. That's actually hysterical to even consider.


That's right. And that's what I said in my post.

(3.5 billion dollar terrorist policy. He's been fighting to recieve twice that, claiming that seperate planes equal two seperate terrorist attacks.)


And also, I never said anybody was involved in anything.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Don't quite see what the issue is - he says 'pull it' to my ears but so what?

It looks like a demolition to me and most who've seen it. If it's not a deliberate demolition then it's truly a bizarre bit of construction that allows a building to stand for x years and then collapse like that.

BUT if it was part of a big plot why wait till 5pm (?) to do it. Even if it was a control centre for remote flying of airliners why not do it right after the second WTC plane hit? If it was the overall control centre surely in the wide,wide USofA they could find a better, less conspicuous location?

I think this is chasing shadows of paper tigers. Where is this guy now? Has he said nothing since? Presumably some journo has asked about this in the last 4 years?

I'm confused, still suspicious but not convinced by this angle.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
It looks like a demolition to me and most who've seen it.


Not to structural engineers. They recognize an uncontrolled, runaway failure when they see one.


If it's not a deliberate demolition then it's truly a bizarre bit of construction that allows a building to stand for x years and then collapse like that.


During the "x years" the building was no on fire. In addition, the building structure was damaged by the collapse of the adjacent WTC tower. Contrary to popular belief, the towers did not "collapse into their own footprints," they scattered debris all over, which damaged many of the adjacent buildings. In addition, the water supply to the sprinklers in WTC 7 was lost when the towers collapsed. The buildings were designed to resist fire with the sprinkler system. without it, the building was doomed.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Thanks, I didn't know about the sprinklers and bow to your knowledge about building failures.

Now even less convinced about WTC 7.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
here is a pdf of the NIST report on WTC 7

The status of the sprinkler systems is the focus of a NIST investigation not all of the findings have been released. however it has been reported that the tower collapses damaged the water mains and power systems, both of which are necessary for a properly operating sprinkler system.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

You're quoting this guy like he means anything. Maybe it's because you're not involved in emergency services. Rudy Giuliani was god in 2001. He appointed his buddies to the top posts of FDNY and NYPD remember? No civilian, no matter who he is was giving any orders, nor was any civilian having input on any orders. Rudy set up a system in which his boys called the shots and everyone else was a bystander. Analyze Larry all you want, you're wasting your own time.


of course, when instituting a police state, it is important to have an inner circle of power. this statement is more fuel for the conspiracy fire. giuliani was obviously key in the cover-up(and execution, for that matter), as were the upper echelons of the nypd and fypd. silverstien, however is an NWO 'owner' and therefore, at the top of the food chain, and the chain of command.

there is no legit reason that silverstien should have been saying 'pull'. he is not a fireman. therefore, it can only be in relation to the demolishing of his building.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

It seems like people are fighting over the term 'pull' which means 'leave a building' and also means 'demolish a building', depending on who your talking to.


You are the first person who seems to comprehend this point. However, you should also try to comprehend the fact that in FDNY terminology (which is indeed the frequency the transmission in question went over) the first definition is the proper one.

They simply do not use the term in your latter definition. Facts are facts.

The statement in question was by FDNY staff. They do NOT use the term to refer to demolition, they use it to refer to clearing the scene.


That's true and i'm the first person to admit that he's probably meaning this term towards the fire fighters on the video and not admitting he had the building brought down.

But, i still think they 'pulled' the building in the other scense just from other anomalties surrounding why and how that building came down. The video just happens to be referencing the same termonology used in bringing down a building

I seem to be the only person that thinks it's possible there would be deliberate implosion devices in the WTC towers for worst case scenario saftey measures, ie. not having the buildings topple over NY. I think they could always bring those buildings down but on the day, that ability was used wrongly. The towers fell in the wrong order and they fell to early. WTC 7 was wired to come down also as it was used on the day and probably in the leadup. If there's evidence in that building then it's easier to bring it down than try to secure it. It had less damage than other NON-Silverstein owned buildings that still stand today, it had no reason to come down to begin with and comparing it with similar buildings in a controlled demolition, it looks virtually identical.

I know thats only considered speculation but it's really only a small piece in a huge puzzle anyway. It doesn't have to hold 100% to void any other links spanning the last 30 years that have us where we are today.

I'm open for better reasons but there's no doubt this government was working hard on 9/11 to get their 'new perl habor event'.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
ShroudOfMemphis, I like the way youre thinking on this. thats the first time I have seen this theory posed. I dont see why it would have been too early though. if they did have it wired for a worst case scenario like what happened then wouldnt it make sense to blow it asap. if they waited too long fire could have damaged some of the devices and they would have had an uneven demo, causing the building to fall over like it would if they did nothing.

any way you look at it something stinks! if it looks like bull plop, smells like bull plop then its probably bull plop. I dont care how many experts tell you its chocolate pudding!



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The idea that any building is "pre-wired" with ecplosives just for the heck of it is basically dumb.

There are hundresd of tall buildings around. Are they "pre-wired" also?

How come no one seems to know about this.

What happens if an ordinary office fire that would normally be put out by the fire sprinklers happened to set one or more of the charges off?

Explosives are by their very nature unstable. That is why they explode. They don't age well. There is nothing more dangerous than 30 year old explosives. Old dynamite sweats pure nitroglycerin.



THis is one of the funniest WTC theories yet.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Besides, the idea that the towers collapsed into their own footprints is just plane wrong. Debris was scattered all over the place. All of the buildings adjacent to the towers were damaged to some degree or other.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Besides, the idea that the towers collapsed into their own footprints is just plane wrong. Debris was scattered all over the place. All of the buildings adjacent to the towers were damaged to some degree or other.



Exactly! Anyone who went anywhere near ground zero after the attacks, and for months afetwards, knows that they came nowhere near to collapsing in their footprints. When you watch the footage you loose your perspective for how massive those buildings were and what looks like debris falling in a contained area is spread out well over a thousand feet. There was damage from large portions of debris for several blocks around the entire complex. As someone who knew a large number of the firemen and the FDNY administration and was able to view ground zero myself I can tell you this was absolutely not, in any form, a controlled collapse.


dh

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Perhaps Philip Berg's RICO complaint will gain some results:
www.911forthetruth.com...
See contents of pdf

Or perhaps we might be helped by learned journals

mparent7777.blog-city.com...

"DID BUSH KNOW ABOUT 9/11 IN ADVANCE?
Get the current Special Issue of The Journal of Psychohistory on what Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, with explosive evidence from seven new books showing how the FAA was told to ignore all the appeals from air controllers to intercept the hijacked planes, how audio tapes and photos were destroyed that pointed to collusion by the Bush team, how Rumsfeld has said 9/11 was "a blessing in disguise", and much more. Just email your postal address to psychhst@tiac.net and you'll get a full year (4 issues) of the Journal at half price ($29), starting with this special 9/11 issue. "


[edit on 17-5-2005 by dh]

[edit on 17-5-2005 by dh]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join