WTC Challenge

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
I have also contacted companies on the west coast just incase it was native to a particular area of the country and the reply is the same, an astounding no!

So please be a sport and tell me where you get your information.

Thanks.


I know 5 firefighters personally as well as 1 EMT/reserve fire-fighter. Not one has ever heard this term either...

Edit: Sorry, meant to say all West Coast too.


[edit on 5-7-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Hey Seol On Ice post them up I want to see them and I want you to show it to all those who are believing what the Gov said.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
HR, I didn't want it to appear that I am hijacking your NIST report thread so you can answer the question here where it is on topic.

Again, Thanks

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom



Originally posted by HowardRoark

Firemen use the term “pull” all the time. They don’t use it to mean the deliberate demolition of a building.




Please, please, please provide some evidence that firemen use the term all the time.

Not just your word but some evidence.
Thanks.


same here. any fireman i asked looked at me with a totally blank stare. if i elaborate, they STILL don't agree that pull IT is a term they use. pull OUT is a term i think we are all familiar with. i say 'pull out' and they go, 'oh yeah. we say that'.

see how silverstien puts it in one statement, "And they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse" it's a single thought describing a sequence of events. whoever transcribed the speech didn't think of writing it properly, which is with a comma, instead of a period, ie. "And they made that decision to pull it, then we watched the building collapse".

sentences don't start with 'then'. presumably a multimillionaire knows that.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   



see how silverstien puts it in one statement, "And they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse" it's a single thought describing a sequence of events. whoever transcribed the speech didn't think of writing it properly, which is with a comma, instead of a period, ie. "And they made that decision to pull it, then we watched the building collapse".

sentences don't start with 'then'. presumably a multimillionaire knows that.


Is it not possible that what was said was:

"and they made that decision to pull out, then we watched the building collapse"

I used to work in a position that required transcription and it isn't always easy. If you are using something that has auto correction of typos you will notice that the "o" and the "u" are both next to the "it"

possible explanations as to what was originally typed are:

ot
ut
it (erroneously)

Not saying that I believe any of the above was said, just offering further ideas.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
sounded very much like pull 'it' to me.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Is it not possible that what was said was:

"and they made that decision to pull out, then we watched the building collapse"

I used to work in a position that required transcription and it isn't always easy. If you are using something that has auto correction of typos you will notice that the "o" and the "u" are both next to the "it"

possible explanations as to what was originally typed are:

ot
ut
it (erroneously)

Not saying that I believe any of the above was said, just offering further ideas.


It's very clear what he said was, "pull it" i and o are two completely different vowels.

Have you watched the video and looked at his body language and his lips?

Here you go...

infowars.com...


dh

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It really is stupid to keep hammering this thing
Silverstein said "pull it" without a doubt and it means just that
Every Silverstein building came down eventually, the three main ones on the day in question
They were obvious demolitions
Why the hell are we arguing this - without the government lies everyone would be in agreement.
The government lies are the only counter-argument needing to be defended by fake scientific argument
Without them, and with the evidence held for forensic investigation, there would be no argument
The only people trying to find "scientific" arguments for the official story, or in the case of WTC7 , a supposition, are those in the employ of a lying government
Argument closed



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Jeff King, MIT Engineer / Research Scientist, believes that the WTC towers could not have come down spontaniously.

Take a look at what he has to say about the WTC towers;
Jeff King *.mov 67.3mb

[edit on 5/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Howard, where is the proof ur father is really ur biological father?

Your birth certificate isnt proof, Yout mother might not have told him that you are actually the milkmans son.
Only way to prove it would be be a DNA comparisen.
Oh God Howard i would want some proof if i were in your shoes....

Be nice to the milkman the next time you see him at your parents house, because stranger things have happend ;-)



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Uh, dude, the difference is that one is commonly found in a light duty machine shop such as would be present in the WTC basement, and the other would be found in high volume commercial machine shops where its high cost would be justified by its regular use, for production purposes, and not for the occaisonal repair of a pump bearing.

I’ll leave the reader to figure out which is which.



Oh of course your an expert on all commercial 50 ton presses and their usage in all scenarios.

I guess the reason it was so small and insignificant like you 'prove' is the same reason why the guy who was actually there tells a different story.

I mean, what does he know anyway, he just experienced it, i'm sure you have a quote or some circular logic to disprove what he witnessed or to discredit him.




Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro

"Mike’s assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.."

"There was nothing there but rubble", Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” "

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.

www.wealth4freedom.com...






[edit on 5-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
This has actually become another item of interest for my group and we are in pursuit and very close to an actual model number of the press in question. Maybe even an original purchase order from the manufacturer.

This will allow us to show what the size of the press really was.

We do have some photos of gentlemen in front of a press which is claimed to be at the WTC but has not yet been verified. This will be included in our final WTC file.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I guess I'll put it back in since someone already responded. I figured it was just rehash so I took it out.

A firefighter commander would never have a conversation with the landlord of a burning building about what to do with his firefighter crew. It's the commander's job to command. To consult with the landlord would be gross negligence on the part of the commander.

That's common sense to me. Sound valid?

Therefore, the definition of "pull" and any transcription errors are moot. There is only one thing Silverstein could've meant given the context and the fact that he wasn't the commander of the firefighters.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
A firefighter commander would never have a conversation with the landlord of a burning building about what to do with his firefighter crew. It's the commander's job to command. To consult with the landlord would be gross negligence on the part of the commander.

That's common sense to me. Sound valid?

Therefore, the definition of "pull" and any transcription errors are moot. There is only one thing Silverstein could've meant given the context and the fact that he wasn't the commander of the firefighters.


There's also a video of the clean up crews saying they are ready to 'pull' building 6 i think it was and then it came down. That building was obviously brought down because it had to come down, couldn't be rebuilt and this was after the events had occured. There's no confusion there.

I always thought Silversteen was trying to sound like Pulling down WTC7 was the 'right' thing to do rather than risking more Firefighters being killed by trying to put the fires out, that was his intention in that comment i believe.

I've always thought the WTC buildings were preset with explosives and Silversteen's comment always sounded like a 'humanitarian justification' for WTC7 being deliberatly brought down and since then the Howard types have been trying to spin his comment back on track because obviously the building wasn't damaged enough plus it contained A LOT of information that would be better as dust for Wallstreet and the government.

I don't think it would take long to wire these buildings up. I wouldn't be surprised if they took the plans of the buildings, made CAD models on the computer and worked out where they needed to place the explosives, making it pretty easy to place them. I wouldn't be surprised if the building blueprints had areas already marked out for best result in a controlled demolition in case it ever HAD to be done.

We know there was atleast a 1 week window before 9/11 in which bombs could of been placed. 1 week can be plenty of time if you've already spent weeks or months pre-determining where those charges have to go without even needing to step into the building, it didn't have to be perfect remember, it just had to happen with a good success rate.

It's interesting to note that FEMA have been caught out using wrong WTC plans for earlier justification of the pancake theory i think it was. I remember this being mentioned in 'Crossing the Rubicon', not sure if they continued their assessment with these plans or if they were forced to use others thou? It was something about the FEMA plans being edited from the original building plans and FEMA were using their edits rather than the originals.
(must read that book again.)



[edit on 6-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
HR, why don't you be a man and argue your case yourself instead of sending me to sift through 392 pages that won't even finish loading on my computer?

You're avoiding addressing my posts directly. If you've read the report yourself, and it successfully rebutts what I'm saying, then you would have no problem showing me this yourself. So have at it. I'm not wasting my time reading 392 pages of bs if you can't debate it yourself.


Well that was the whole point of this thread. If you have a comment to the NIST report, then let's see them.

Too bad it's taking so long, but then ahain, Webtv sucks don't it.

So what are you saying that you have made up your mind and any facts or data that contradict your point of view is B.S. and you won't even look at it?


Why won't you read it?

Scared?

Chicken


Bluck, Bluck, Bluck.




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Uh, dude, the difference is that one is commonly found in a light duty machine shop such as would be present in the WTC basement, and the other would be found in high volume commercial machine shops where its high cost would be justified by its regular use, for production purposes, and not for the occaisonal repair of a pump bearing.

I’ll leave the reader to figure out which is which.



Oh of course your an expert on all commercial 50 ton presses and their usage in all scenarios.


Of course not, but I have been in the machine shops of several high rise buildings, which is more than you have and I have a pretty good idea of what kind of equipment that they use.


I guess the reason it was so small and insignificant like you 'prove' is the same reason why the guy who was actually there tells a different story.

I mean, what does he know anyway, he just experienced it, i'm sure you have a quote or some circular logic to disprove what he witnessed or to discredit him.




Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro

"Mike’s assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use.."

"There was nothing there but rubble", Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” "

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.

www.wealth4freedom.com...




Rather then quote the editied version from your conspiracy site, why don't you check out the original article?

www.chiefengineer.org...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Oops, wrong thread.


[edit on 6-7-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
I've always thought the WTC buildings were preset with explosives and Silversteen's comment always sounded like a 'humanitarian justification' for WTC7 being deliberatly brought down and since then the Howard types have been trying to spin his comment back on track because obviously the building wasn't damaged enough plus it contained A LOT of information that would be better as dust for Wallstreet and the government.

I don't think it would take long to wire these buildings up. I wouldn't be surprised if they took the plans of the buildings, made CAD models on the computer and worked out where they needed to place the explosives, making it pretty easy to place them. I wouldn't be surprised if the building blueprints had areas already marked out for best result in a controlled demolition in case it ever HAD to be done.

We know there was atleast a 1 week window before 9/11 in which bombs could of been placed. 1 week can be plenty of time if you've already spent weeks or months pre-determining where those charges have to go without even needing to step into the building, it didn't have to be perfect remember, it just had to happen with a good success rate.

It's interesting to note that FEMA have been caught out using wrong WTC plans for earlier justification of the pancake theory i think it was. I remember this being mentioned in 'Crossing the Rubicon', not sure if they continued their assessment with these plans or if they were forced to use others thou? It was something about the FEMA plans being edited from the original building plans and FEMA were using their edits rather than the originals.
(must read that book again.)



[edit on 6-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]


Spoken like someone who has never worked construction in a large high-rise.

Admit it you are just pulling this out of your but and you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Jeff King, MIT Engineer / Research Scientist, believes that the WTC towers could not have come down spontaniously.

Take a look at what he has to say about the WTC towers;
Jeff King *.mov 67.3mb

[edit on 5/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]


well, I'm sure that as an electrical engineer, Jeff King can tell us the details of the power distribution in the building before it collapsed, but as a structural engineer, I think his credentials are somewat weak.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Roark, you can't even answer questions directed to you in a civil manner in a thread you started. You flat out ignore all the ones that are interesting. Then you just run around screaming insults. That NIST link you posted doesn't even open. Then you call the person chicken when he says it can't even download.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join