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.

 

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:
SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I fully agree with that Howard.I do.
All I can say about that issue though is all the video showing WTC 7 falling, has no audio.If there is a video showing that fall that has audio, I am not aware of it.
From what has been reportsed, peole did hear explosions.Were they from WTC 1, 2 or 7? We do know some said they heard it in the streets and from inside.
I personally cant say there was or wasnt explosions heard for WTC 7, because as I state above, all video of it falling have no audio.
If there is video of WTC 7 falling WITH audio, please direct me to it.




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Again, it wouldn't have just been one or two people in the immediate vicinity of the building that would have heard them, it would have been thousands of people. If there were explosives going off in the towers or WTC 7, the sounds would have carried a long distance.

The firemen would have heard them. The people in boats on the river would have heard them. The news crews would have heard them. etc. etc.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
We all heard the audio that day when the towers were attacked by the sob terrorists.

There were no explosions heard that i remember.


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by SMR
BTW, just so you know, I have friends that work in demolition and have been on site a few times.I dont need to be an expert to see with my own eyes what a controlled demo looks like.
............


Sorry kid, your arguments makes no sense, and i am certain you do not have the experience needed, nor the common sense and knowledge, to make an informed decision on this topic.


You are a joke.Your comment is retarded.
I have personally witnessed demolitions to buildings.I see what it used to demolish them.I see the effects of the demolition.It is common sense after seeing many demolishes what one looks like.

BTW, yes you can debunk someone.Just as you are trying to debunk witnesses that do not fit your thinking.
Geez,,, think before you type man


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
We all heard the audio that day when the towers were attacked by the sob terrorists.

There were no explosions heard that i remember.


We are talking about WTC 7 !! not the other towers.
Show me video with audio of WTC 7 falling.

BTW, again, you have still not posted a reply to my one post I made about the whole 'pull it' deal.Why is that?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
I have personally witnessed demolitions to buildings.I see what it used to demolish them.I see the effects of the demolition.It is common sense after seeing many demolishes what one looks like.

BTW, yes you can debunk someone.Just as you are trying to debunk witnesses that do not fit your thinking.
Geez,,, think before you type man


No....i was debunking their arguments...not the people....

BTW, you should follow your own advice and think before you post.


Here is a definition for you of what debunk is.


Definitions of debunk on the Web:

expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"


Excerpted from.
www.google.com...:debunk

You keep proving everything i am saying with every statement you make. good job.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I have personally witnessed numerous controlled demolitions. In every case, there was one very obvious indication that the charges were going off. THE SOUND.

Unless they used "hushaboom" on the towers or WTC 7, there would have been very distinct and audible bangs from the charges that would have been heard by everyone in Manhattan that day.

Debunk that!



howard, i thought YOU were the 'debunker'? haha!

'kay, first of all, TONS OF WITNESSES heard 'explosions'.
you, have been smugly informing us all along, that this is the enormous cacophony of falling towers, and these witnesses didn't know what they were hearing.
and, now, you are trying to deny that many people reported 'explosions', and 'secondary explosions'.
you can't have it both ways, old buddy.
people DID hear it. they did report it. maybe soon, even you will stop ignoring the witness testimony.

and, "hushaboom" is not an impossible(nor necessary) answer to your riddle.
an explosion is pretty much a loud white noise. it may be a little more pink, or whatever, but it is just noise.
a "hushaboom" solution would require an identical sound(as the explosion) to be broadcast from a sound system that would be surrounding the tower(this would be hard to hide. i'm not buying this far-fetched theory of mine. i'm just saying it's POSSIBLE). the broadcast sound would presumably be controlled by the same sequencer used to time the explosions. in other words, the phase reversed sound cancellation waves from the surrounding sound system would be perfectly timed to go off with the bombs, effectively muting each explosion.
that's too far out there even for me. but, it is POSSIBLE.

i think the shock and awe of the day, coupled with the fact that a falling building is going to make a great deal of noise all by itself, pretty much suggests to me, that explosions could have gone off without anyone consciously distinguishing the sound of a building collapse from the sound of an explosion. i mean, that IS the argument the official story apologists have been using all along. it MUST go both ways. the sound of crashes and the sound of explosions are very clearly different to my ear. it's all about that percussive spike at the beginning of a real explosion. crashes can sound indistinguishable from explosions, but only some crashes. it requires a heavy fast moving object to smash unimpeded into another object. otherwise, you get more of a scrunch than a crash.
presumably, falling buildings should make more of a scrunching sound, and less of an explosive sound.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR

We are talking about WTC 7 !! not the other towers.
Show me video with audio of WTC 7 falling.

BTW, again, you have still not posted a reply to my one post I made about the whole 'pull it' deal.Why is that?


Isn't your whole argument that all the towers collapsed because of controlled demolition?

Are you changing your argument now?

About the pull it comment....do i really have to explain to you this?....

Did he not say "they made the decision to pull it"? he wasn't talking about himself, he was talking about others, and he was talking to the firefighter commander....so when he said "they" he included the firefighter commander.

He (Silverstein) might have made the comment that it was better to get everyone out, but the decision is only made by the firefighter chief/commander and any other people in charge of the first aid responders including FEMA.

BTW, if they would have decided to destroy WTC7 because it posed a threat, they wouldn't need to be hiding it. Have you thought about that?

If he was a bit confused it is understandable because of what was happening that day. Even I, being over 3,000 miles away was a bit confused that day, because I couldn't believe what was happening.

My girlfriend woke me up that day and she told me to look at the tv. I thought it was a movie and I asked her which movie it was. She told me it was not a movie and it was happening for real. I should have known by the tone of her voice and the way she was telling me that something was wrong, but I was half asleep. When I realized what was happening I couldn't believe it, i just stood for what appeared to be an eternity watching what was happening on tv.

If there were any explosions, it would have been registered in the seismic readings, and it would have been heard, distinctly from the noise of the tons of material collapsing.


---edited to clarify a comment----

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
OMG!!
What have we been talking about?! PULL IT and WTC 7 the entire time, with a few offbeat WTC 1&2 talks.The whole thing has primarly been about WTC 7 and PULL IT
Do you get lost easly? Is this a condition you have?

Now I want you to read this very carefully before replying so there are no excuses ok.....



"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it!' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building ........... collapse."

So, looks like it WASNT the fire commander who suggested it, but good ole' Larry himself! and then they granted that wish by Larry.

Little more info you...

How did everybody know the building was about to collapse since the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed—so why would the firefighters need to be pulled out when the firefighters were never in the building to fight the fires in the first place?

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)


So, he meant ( which we dont know since he declined to explain what he really meant ) PULL them out, even though they werent even in there in the first place to PULL OUT? How does that make sence.

Larry Silverstein - " Hey! get those guys outta there!"
Fire Commander - "Nobody is in there sir"
Larry Silverstein - " Get them out anyway!"



Originally posted by SMR
The thing is, it all go's back to 'pull it' being that it was going to be taken down.
Regardless if he knew what term to use, he did not mean to remove firefighters.How do we know this? Because as I posted above, there were no firefighters in the building to begin with.

Why would he mean to pull them out, if they arent in there in the first place?
We clearly see in his own words:


'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it!' Uh, and they made that decision to pull

So when he said "maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it" and they made that decision to pull" what did they 'PULL' ?
It couldnt have been firefighters since they werent there.What was pulled?



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
OMG!!
What have we been talking about?! PULL IT and WTC 7 the entire time, with a few offbeat WTC 1&2 talks.The whole thing has primarly been about WTC 7 and PULL IT
Do you get lost easly? Is this a condition you have?


Nope, one of the few around here with a mental condition seems to be other than myself.


Originally posted by SMR
Now I want you to read this very carefully before replying so there are no excuses ok.....


I already explained my opinion above.....


Originally posted by SMR
Little more info you...

How did everybody know the building was about to collapse since the fire commander ordered firefighters away from the WTC 7 at 11:30 am—seven hours before it collapsed—so why would the firefighters need to be pulled out when the firefighters were never in the building to fight the fires in the first place?

"...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)



No firefighters were inside WTC7...but what about all the firefighters, and first aid responders that were around?

That I remember there were many who died who were on the ground when the twin towers fell...there were probably more watching and making sure noone of the people seeing what was happening, and maybe who had families inside, got too close. Firefighters often stay behind to make sure everyone close to any burning building, or close, do not take any risks.

If it was true that they made the decision to destroy WTC7 because it was too much of a threat, there is no reason to hide this. Any structural building that poses a threat because it has been compromised is demolished, and there is no reason to hide this if that is what they did.




[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
And actually from what I read and heard, they pulled the firefighters from WTC 7 HOURS before the building collapsed. And there was quite a bit of damage to at least one corner of the building. It's very easy to find pics of it from the NYPD helo that was on site that day. Floors 8-20, 24, 25, and 39-46 in the southwest corner suffered damage, and the fires burned unattended for at least 7 hours after the fire department left the building. Yes some of that is from the FEMA report, but I've seen the pictures and posted links to them several times. There WAS quite a bit of damage to one corner of the building. By that point the fire that had started on one corner had spread to other floors and across the building. There was at least one water main break outside the building which could have caused the sprinklers to not function properly. And if you look at the smoke, it starts out a light color, and as the day goes on it darkens which is usually an indication of something else added to the fire, such as from a ruptured fuel tank in the building.

While I DO think the government knows a lot more than they'll ever tell us, I DON'T think they had anything to do wth 9/11. I think they were just overconfident, and stupid about thinking that Al Qaeda couldn't hit us here in the US.


SMR

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I dont know how anybody cant understand that the plaza had been CLEARED hours before Larry had that discussion with the fire commander.It's really simple, but I guess hard to understand for some.

For the first time since the controversial statements were made, Silverstein has commented on the issue of what he really meant by ‘pull it’ (or ‘pull’ if you prefer).An article in the NY post 9/11 Ad by Loon Tycoon written by Sam Smith, Silverstein told Smith, that he "meant something else" by the "pull it" comment but did not, and would not elaborate any further.
Riddle me this:
If he meant something else, why would he not say what he really meant? If there is nothing to hide or he wanted to clear the air on all the stories going around about the term, why not just say what he meant by it? Simple as that really.

See, he meant what he said.He knows we know what he meant.He has no room to back peddle and therefore wont comment on it because he would have nothing to say but the truth.A truth that he isnt to let out.

Fact is, I could care less if he had the building demolished.The fact is, he and others lied about how it fell.They say it fell by fire when they know they took it down.
There really is no shame in saying 'hey, we need to demo this building because it is beyond repair.No big deal at all.It is totally understandable.But no, they took it down by explosives and lied about it.
Why did they lie? Because they werent sure it would fall from the SMALL fires that were in WTC 7 and he wanted that insurance money.Well he got that money and that is FACT.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

It's about a big LIE and MONEY !



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Can you please provide excerpts and direct links to these interviews?

BTW, WTC7 did not fall just because of the fire, this is another reason why I say you don't understand what you are talking about.

The collapse from the twin towers were like an earthquake to the surrounding buildings, further weakening the structure, this plus the jet fuel and other burning debris which fell on WTC7, were more than enough for the building to collapse.



About the claim you make of the money, it could be possible, but we should see evidence, not claims.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Before either of the twin towers collapsed, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his associates were told to leave the headquarters they had set up within Building 7. Giuliani fled WTC 7 at least eight hours before it collapsed.

So once again, what or who did they need to pull if that is what Larry meant?
The entire area was clear of any persons.

As for his cash rewards, I could list many links, but instead, I'll let you choose what link you want to look at so you dont say Im picking some 9/11 conspiracy site.Silverstein Properties won $861 million Google search link.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
There was at least one water main break outside the building which could have caused the sprinklers to not function properly

If there was a water problem they could have decided to just let the fire burn itself out, and pulled away from the building in case anything happened. As was said in another debate about this, I'm not saying this IS what happened, just trying to get people to admit it's POSSIBLE.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
SMR...where is the evidence that they had already taken everyone out of that area, including firefighters and other firts aid responders?.... Firefighters died that day trying to go in into the wtc and save people....


Here, let me give you a report about WTC7, and not just claims from anybody. This is a report by NIST, (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in it you will see pictures that I have not seen anywhere else yet. Like damage in the SW section of WTC7, almost half of the SW corner was gone after the collapse from WTC1. i can't link the images because they are in pfd format.

A draft of the larger report, which is 10,000 pages long is supposed to be released on this month. I believe the draft is this document I am linking, but I could be wrong. The final report is to be released by September of this year.

one of the more interesting coments in this draft is the following.


NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.


Excerpted from.
wtc.nist.gov...

I am trying to find any documents, or anything from a reliable source that would tell me every firefighter and first aid responder was already gone from the area. Haven't had much luck yet. i shouldn't be doing this, since it is you who is claiming they were all already gone, you should be the one to corroborate your claim.

I think I found something that might interest you SMR....

If you go to page 18, in the following link i am going to give you, you can see a picture of ....surprise, surprise, firefighters right next to WTC7 after WTC2 had collapsed. You can see in another picture another firefighter apparently trying to put out a fire in one of the buildings.

This should put the firefighters at the scene still at around 1030. Later on that day, notice in other pictures of WTC7, we can actually see people around that area, and at least two firefighters in page 22. The other was either a firefighter or some other first aid responder.

The Fires at WTC7 started after the collapse of WTC1 at 10:29 AM, after that collapse we can see from the pictures that there were still firefighters there, and they were not trying to get out by what we see in the pictures, they were going towards the debris of the twin towers and WTC7.

Even when the fires were raging and were seen in floors 11th and 12th. We can see in those pictures that the firefighters were not leaving, and were in fact still surveying the area and the buildings to see what kind of damge there was in WTC7. The firefighters were still there despite the claim from that site you gave that at least all firefighters were gone from that area 7 hours before the collapse of WTC7.

www.fema.gov...


[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]


SMR

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
According to the FEMA911 analysis, there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7
The question you ask is somewhat, odd?
You see from the post and audio of Laryy Silverstein, that he talked to the fire commander.If they were going to PULL ( regardless what anyone thinks the term means ) would that not tell you right there that maybe, just maybe he alerted the others that they need to move away and get out of there?!
Your asking me to find you something that says they were all out of harms way, but what you seek is already posted in what Silverstein said.

Again, we are talking about WTC 7
You keep thinking I am talking about the other 2 towers and I am not.
I know 343 firefighters lost their lives on that day.But they lost those lives from towers 1 and 2.Not loss of life came from building 7 and that is fact in the FEMA report.At least they got that part right.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
................
Again, we are talking about WTC 7
You keep thinking I am talking about the other 2 towers and I am not.
I know 343 firefighters lost their lives on that day.But they lost those lives from towers 1 and 2.Not loss of life came from building 7 and that is fact in the FEMA report.At least they got that part right.


SMR...a couple of people were talking about the other towers too...and according to the original post in this thread, that politician said that the WTC, not WTC7....was "felled by controlled demolition". i am not going back to check who said what and who didn't, but even the name of this thread says what the claim is about....

BTW, did you look at the pictures from the link I gave?...i even gave you the page where you can find them...



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
There were no firefighting efforts on WTC 7 because of the water main break. They had water pressure problems. It makes sense that with the water main break, and the tower collapse, they would not try to do anything with 7, which was empty, and go into rescue efforts at 1 & 2. Especially since they had to have known that they just lost a lot of their brother firefighters. If the choice was to let a known empty building burn and concentrate on finding survivors of the massive tower collapse, or trying to fight a fire in a damaged building, when you're having water pressure problems I know that *I* certainly would have pulled them and concentrated on the main towers.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I think i found the "smoking gun" which debunks your claims SMR.

The facts are the following.


4:06 p.m.: California Gov. Gray Davis dispatches urban search-and-rescue teams to New York.

4:10 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex is reported on fire.


Excerpted from.
archives.cnn.com...

The report of the fires in WTC7 was at 4:10 pm. When those fires were seen by the firefighters, they were still in the area at that time as we can see in the pictures from the links i provided before.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join