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.

 

What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
OK...

I'll ask it this way. What were those funny little puffy things that ran up the building right before it started to collapse?



I dont know the technical term for that but its not squibs, squibs are a type of explosive not the effect. You wouldnt be incorrect just calling them " little puffy things " then your describing the effect not the type of explosive.

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, if THEY made the decision to pull, why did THEY need HIM to say maybe the smartest thing to do is pull? Are fire chiefs dumb? Is Silverstein a super genius? Are firefighters and chiefs not capable of making these kinds of decisions without the owner of a building suggesting it?

See, it would make more sense if the FIRE CHIEF had said that would be the smart thing to do. It would make sense that he would consult the guy whose building was being destroyed, NOT the other way around. It would also make more sense if Silverstein came out and clarified himself. :


This wasnt a transcript of their conversation it was Silverstein remarks on it later. Silverstein never suggested they asked his permission and He never said he made the call either. Unlike some people are trying to suggest.

The firefighters just didnt pull out of the building they stopped fighting the fire all together. That not something firefighter tend to like to do run away from a fire. Even though they can't control a blaze they still fight it , but after how many people they lost and hearing the building's owner say pretty much forget about the building you lost enough people he decided to stop trying to fight it.




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
I can see where you're coming from ShadowXIX


Well thank you for that much. Just to let you know Im not anti-9/11 conspiracies either I personally think flight Flight 93 could very well have been shot down by a military fighter jet.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

I dont know the technical term for that but its not squibs, squibs are a type of explosive not the effect. You wouldnt be incorrect just calling them " little puffy things " then your describing the effect not the type of explosive.

This wasnt a transcript of their conversation it was Silverstein remarks on it later. Silverstein never suggested they asked his permission and He never said he made the call either. Unlike some people are trying to suggest.

The firefighters just didnt pull out of the building they stopped fighting the fire all together. That not something firefighter tend to like to do run away from a fire. Even though they can't control a blaze they still fight it , but after how many people they lost and hearing the building's owner say pretty much forget about the building you lost enough people he decided to stop trying to fight it.



But, you still didn't answer my question. Don't worry, neither could FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission.


But, you still are missing something huge here. Even if, EVEN IF this "pull it" means "pull out the men" (who are referenced as "it" instead of "them" because it makes more sense
, especially in the heat of the moment on such a tragic day), Silverstein was high because he saw IMAGINARY firefighters battling the blaze! How can I say this?

Because even FEMA AND NIST admit that there was no firefighting going on at the time of the collapse or shortly before it! Depending on which report you look at, there was no firefighting at all or they stopped early that morning. Either way, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to be pulled at the time Silverstein made his comment.

Nice try playa.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


I dont know the technical term for that but its not squibs, squibs are a type of explosive not the effect. You wouldnt be incorrect just calling them " little puffy things " then your describing the effect not the type of explosive.



• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings

In the terminology of demolition, 'squibs' are puffs or jets of smoke and dust that emerge from the facade of a building as demolition charges shatter the structure. Apparently this usage of the term 'squibs' was popularized after the attack. A search of literature not relating to the attack indicates a different meaning, typified by: "an electroexplosive device useful in igniting various explosive compositions in many different applications."



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The Links how about some links for where you got that

Websters


Squib
Noun
1. Firework consisting of a tube filled with powder (as a broken firecracker) that burns with a fizzing noise.

www.websters-online-dictionary.org...

Wikipedia



A squib otherwise referred to as an electric match is a small explosive device which is used in pyrotechnics and display fireworks,A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to larger, more spectacular ones which can be 1/2 inch or larger


en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)

Dictionary.com



squib

-A small firecracker.
-A broken firecracker that burns but does not explode.
-A brief satirical or witty writing or speech, such as a lampoon.
-A short, sometimes humorous piece in a newspaper or magazine, usually used as a filler.



dictionary.reference.com...

None have any reference to any smoke effect just the explosive itself.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka


Because even FEMA AND NIST admit that there was no firefighting going on at the time of the collapse or shortly before it! Depending on which report you look at, there was no firefighting at all or they stopped early that morning. Either way, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to be pulled at the time Silverstein made his comment.

Nice try playa.


Nice try?

But that just shows a lack of understanding of firefighting procedures. They will not actually fight the fire until they are sure nobody is left in the building. Firefighters just dont rush in and start spraying water when people could be inside. During 9-11 firefighter the ones that died were in the process of clearing out the buildings not using water to fight the fire. Thats what they do first.

When they say "Pull it" they can be talking about the whole effort not just people in the building . Pre 9-11 when firefighter would day that often the fire was out and their job was done since it means "get out" or "leave".


This is because Firefighters dont often quit while a building is still burning. But thats exactly what they did at WTC7 though.

Or are you saying there were no firefighter doing anything around or in the WTC7 when that call was made?

BTW please spare my the "playa"


[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
the firefighters were pulled out at three thirty.
silverstien's statment doesn't make much sense, because it is one sentence, 'and they decided to pull it, and then we watched the building fall.', and that happened at 5:20.
a steel framed building does not just instantly go into freefall as if it were held up by not much more than air.

an asymmetrically damaged building does not fall down with all four corners going down in a synchronised nearly perfectly straight line.

tower seven was demolished.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Spiderman2 was just a random example that would have no bias either way concerning 9-11 were you can see a firefighter use the term.
They say the exact line "Pull it" and that is about a hundred times less baised of a source then the one you link too ANOK.


No, Spiderman is NOT unbiased. Remember the first movie was delayed because they had to reshoot the frames that had the WTC in it? Remember at thye end when the guy says "you mess with one New Yorker, you mess with us all"? This was right after 9/11. So, no the Spiderman movies are NOT unbiased.


I said first ask a firefighter they will tell you. I know a few firefighter and have heard them say this many times. They honestly laugh when their hear people talked about that concerning 9-11


Nice to hear that they are laughing at the deaths of thousands of their brothers in arms.





[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
No its not semantics hes using the word completely wrong. Anyone that has ever worked with squibs is going to laugh if they hear you say you saw squibs used in bringing the WTC down


So, why don't you tell us what the correct terminology is for the puffs of dust/smoke/etc that we normally see in regular demolitions.


After you suggested secret clean mini nukes could have been used I wasnt going to waste my time.


So, you're saying that this technology is not there? After 60 years of the first nuke? Boy, scientists must really be dumb huh?

Check this site out. www.archerusa.com...

I know it's not used for steel per say, but don't you think the government has much better things to use?

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
To those who think that WTC 7 fell only due to fire and damage suffered from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 - what were your initial impressions when you first saw WTC 7 fall? Did you think 'hey that looks like a controlled demolition' (like every newscaster broadcasting that day) or did you think something else?

This is an honest question. In today's world of scientists, experts and politicians we are expected to do less and less of our own thinking. Initial reactions are important because in most cases it's our only insight into what our 'common sense', our 'gut reaction' tells us.

Personally I thought that it fell awfully fast and that it looked like a controlled demolition. I didn't react strongly at the time due mostly to a state of shock, I think.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
It is the idiots who don't believe anything happened who make us wait, and wait, and wait to get anything done. Anger....rising!!! GOD I HATE IDIOTS. Why don't they think anything happened? Because they're idiots, and if the moderators don't believe anything happened then why the hell are they moderating this site?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   





1
The buildings marked with red are closer very close and none of them colapsed

2
Some buidings marked with blue are closer to wtc and none of them colapsed.

3
When the towers colapse there is no indication of big objects flying
in the direction of building 7, when I say big I mean big like half or plane

Building 7 colapsed from controled demolition.




[edit on 28-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by truthseeka


Because even FEMA AND NIST admit that there was no firefighting going on at the time of the collapse or shortly before it! Depending on which report you look at, there was no firefighting at all or they stopped early that morning. Either way, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to be pulled at the time Silverstein made his comment.

Nice try playa.


Nice try?

But that just shows a lack of understanding of firefighting procedures. They will not actually fight the fire until they are sure nobody is left in the building. Firefighters just dont rush in and start spraying water when people could be inside. During 9-11 firefighter the ones that died were in the process of clearing out the buildings not using water to fight the fire. Thats what they do first.

When they say "Pull it" they can be talking about the whole effort not just people in the building . Pre 9-11 when firefighter would day that often the fire was out and their job was done since it means "get out" or "leave".


This is because Firefighters dont often quit while a building is still burning. But thats exactly what they did at WTC7 though.

Or are you saying there were no firefighter doing anything around or in the WTC7 when that call was made?

BTW please spare my the "playa"


[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]


First of all, playa is a positive term. Maybe if I'd had called you a busta, a simp, or a mark, you would've been happier.
Or maybe you don't like the particular flavor of slang this word comes from; how about "pal," or "buddy," or "dude."
Get off it.

Please stop dancing around my question. I could do the same thing and split hairs on grammar. I could point out that the "it" in Silverstein's sentence connects much more closely with the building than with the firefighters (read invisible, disobedient firefighters
). "It" is a pronoun in the sentence that really only connects with "building" in that sentence. "It" is a pronoun that is most often used to refer to an inanimate object. Animate objects, especially people, are usually referred to with "he," "she," "they," and other variants on this such as "them."

Of course, you're gonna split hairs once again and say that a group or team can be referred to as "it." I'll agree in advance, but I'll add this...



When the Spurs won the championship last year, did the headlines say "it won?" When we (Longhorns) won the championship, did they say "it won?" When the crew on the shuttle Columbia died, did they say "it died?" Please, take that stuff to someone who is actually a fool and stop playing me for a fool.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
how dare you ?

speaking the truth to those in denial

will usually get you ignored...




what I'd like to know is ,

how does one snap them out of it ?

they are like

snug as a bug in a rug with it

[ their denial ] and won't let it go !

eh ?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Because even FEMA AND NIST admit that there was no firefighting going on at the time of the collapse or shortly before it! Depending on which report you look at, there was no firefighting at all or they stopped early that morning. Either way, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to be pulled at the time Silverstein made his comment-truthseeka

Yo playa,
give me a link that states this. You see, WTC 7was bieng evacuated out of fear of another inbound aircraft to NYC which turned out to be the F-16's that "were never scrambled because of the stand down".

Prior to the WTC collpase, WTC 7's lobby was used as a staging area for rescue operations in the other 2 towers. Firefighters did not fight the blaze, but rather let itself burn since it was evacuated and there was a greater rescue effort in finding survivors from WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed at 5:20.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Because even FEMA AND NIST admit that there was no firefighting going on at the time of the collapse or shortly before it! Depending on which report you look at, there was no firefighting at all or they stopped early that morning. Either way, there were NO FIREFIGHTERS to be pulled at the time Silverstein made his comment-truthseeka

Yo playa,
give me a link that states this. You see, WTC 7was bieng evacuated out of fear of another inbound aircraft to NYC which turned out to be the F-16's that "were never scrambled because of the stand down".

Prior to the WTC collpase, WTC 7's lobby was used as a staging area for rescue operations in the other 2 towers. Firefighters did not fight the blaze, but rather let itself burn since it was evacuated and there was a greater rescue effort in finding survivors from WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed at 5:20.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by esdad71]


If you would have checked out the link to my "pull it" thread that I posted when you initially brought up pull it, you would have seen said "link." I'm sure you did do that
, but you must have overlooked it. I guess I'll have to dig in the forum and post their quotes...brb.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Aight...

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

Source

FEMA says it here:

"no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

This is another source, which agrees:

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

No way you can overlook that this time, right?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


No, Spiderman is NOT unbiased. Remember the first movie was delayed because they had to reshoot the frames that had the WTC in it? Remember at thye end when the guy says "you mess with one New Yorker, you mess with us all"? This was right after 9/11. So, no the Spiderman movies are NOT unbiased.


Oh yes now the makers of the Spiderman movies are on on the 9-11 plot too
yes they clearly have a motive in it.


Originally posted by Griff
Nice to hear that they are laughing at the deaths of thousands of their brothers in arms.


First of all atleast get the number right nowhere even close to thousands of firefighters died on 9-11. They also werent laughing about the deaths just people that use of the term "pull it" in reference to firefighters as evidence that the WTC7 was a demo.

and yes they find that laughable pathetic, Just like experts on demolition if you ask them. I linked to a forum that deals just with demolitions please go there and ask them about it. Theres alot of people in the staff that know a great deal about the subject.

Just dont mad if their responses arent what you want to hear.




so your saying that this technology is not there? After 60 years of the first nuke? Buy these scientist must be dumb huh?


You have got to be kidding with the mini-nukes and magic clean ones could have been used stuff. This is just so absurd its funny.

And you link to information on DEXPAN as evidence LOL this is classic do you even know how this stuff works? I think its clear you dont.

DEXPAN is a liquid you pour into holes or cracks that slowly expands and cracks rocks as it expands. Its pretty much the same concept as water getting into a crack and then expanding as it freezes.

So even suggest that this stuff or anything like that was used in WTC7 or that secret mini nukes with no raidiation where used is just asinine



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Were did I ever state that Dexpan was used in the towers?

So, three thousand people doesn't equate to thousands? Just because I said brothers in arms doesn't mean I ment just the firefighters.

Hmm...also there is a quote around here that has a DEMOLITIONS EXPERT saying that they are getting ready to "pull" building 6. Laughable indeed.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Oh yes now the makers of the Spiderman movies are on on the 9-11 plot too
yes they clearly have a motive in it.


I also never said that they were in on it. Just that they had 9/11 on their minds while making the films....which is obvious by what I posted earlier.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join