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.

 

USINFO.STATE.GOV .. This site sure straightened ME out

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
The first one was way too many illogical implications and assumptions.

The second one has way fewer implications and assumptions. It also has very good answers. Check Silverstein's insurance policies and their changes on WTC in 2000/2001




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Ok, although I disagree with your assessment of which theory is simpler, my goal is not to argue about occam's razor.

Let me ask you this question:

Was Silverstein one of the planners of 9/11 in your opinion?

If so, here's another question:

Who is Larry Silverstein to have a voice in a decision of that kind?

Because in my mind, if we are to accept that certain parties in the US Government were planning to stage a terrorist attack, why would they involve the owner of the target and provide him the oppurtunity to profit from it?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Yes he was.

Check insurance records, check what he did with insurance money. Why would silverstein care?

Well, he got all the money, %100 profit since the government did all the planning and taking out. Why would the government do this?

Iraq, Afghanistan, now Iran, restrictions of our freedoms, less free media, more control over the government, more control over the world, because homeland security is an oxymoron, for 2 reasons. 1. It controls the REST of the world, 2. It doesn't provide any security for our homeland.

But why? Oil, Money, Power.

All sides, except the people/citizens of America, benefit.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Yes he was.


So did he go to the government with the plan? Or did they come to him?

If they came to him, then why? Why would the government tell Silverstein about it? That doesn't make any sense to me.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I have no clue, don't care to speculate in fear that my grandchildren will laugh at me because I'm wrong, like I laugh at my grandparents because they think Oswald killed JFK.

However, I'd think they came to him.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
To me, the possible scenarios are (in an order I consider most likely)

1. Silverstein didn't know, because there's no reason to tell him.
2. Silverstein was part of the elite group that PLANNED the attack (as opposed to learning of it after planning)
3. He was told purposely, so that if the crap hits the fan, he will be an expendable fall guy.
4. He was told for some other reason.
5. Silverstein didn't know, because 9/11 was completely an Al-Queda operation.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.


Yup, "pull it" has already been beat to death....it is in FACT a term used by fire fighters to indicate that they're pulling back, pulling out, grab all the gear, get all the hoses and let's get the hell outta dodge.



As a volunteer firefighter, I have NEVER heard the phrase "Pull It" to mean get out. We hear either "Get Out!" or the horns from the trucks.

I don't know what Silverstein meant by saying "Pull It", but there is no doubt in my mind that something other than fires or damage brought WTC7 down.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
He meant it as the building, as in pull it (the building), but as he was talking to the fire chief one can use that to understand the context of the statement.

"There are firefighters in the building"

"Pull it"

NOT

"Explosives ready sir"

"Pull it"


And yet, there were NO firefighters in the building to pull? How many times do we have to rehash this stuff?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
When talking about a team or company of firefighters, one could say "pull it" as in pull the team, group, unit, company, etc.


So, you go around and call a group of people it? Is English your first language? A group of people whether they are firefighters or not would be called THEM. Furthermore, at the time he was talking with the fire chief...THERE WERE NO FIREFIGHTERS IN THE BUILDING.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
What on Earth was a fire commander in the middle of the biggest terrorist attack doing ringing the the lease holder of the building to ask to pull firefighters out, whats the matter aren't firefighter commanders not allowed to pull 'out' the firefighters when there is immediate danger or must they ask every building owner if they can pull out their firefighters?

Do you really know how unsafe and silly that sounds?

Think about it, if you were the fire commander would you really need to ask the lease holder to pull out your firefighters in the event that the building might collapse?

The simple and logical answer is an astounding NO you would not.

It defies belief that people actually believe Larry Silverstein was even speaking to the fire commander on the day of the worlds biggest terrorist attacks. :shk:

I have also heard on many occassions that there were no firefighters in the building anyway, so that begs the question. What was 'ol Larry talking about?


Nik'

[edit on 13/4/06 by Nikolaos2030]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
Yes he was.

Check insurance records, check what he did with insurance money. Why would silverstein care?

Well, he got all the money, %100 profit since the government did all the planning and taking out. Why would the government do this?

Iraq, Afghanistan, now Iran, restrictions of our freedoms, less free media, more control over the government, more control over the world, because homeland security is an oxymoron, for 2 reasons. 1. It controls the REST of the world, 2. It doesn't provide any security for our homeland.

But why? Oil, Money, Power.

All sides, except the people/citizens of America, benefit.


I agree 100% this was meant to happen by the government.
And to me given all the evidence that supports this theory is definettly
an accurate and simple conclusion that this was done by Bush or the Us gov.

In my opinion ANYONE who thinks that this was a terrorist attack by Terrorists (Not the US government or Bush...To me thats what they are.)
Should be or IS a member of BUSHES administration...and if people are on his administration then i wish him to be burried with his book about the goat.

Just my thoughts and i understand that everyone has there own opinion.
I agree with Vinci


Cheers Omega



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I have a proposition for the official story believers. Show me proof that there were indead firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said to "pull it". You guys keep asking us for proof of demolitions (which is impossible since the evidence was carted away so quickly) so, put your money were your mouth is and prove to me and the world that there were indead firefighters in WTC7 and what time they were "pulled" out. Thank you. If the official story is true then this shouldn't be too hard.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I have a proposition for the official story believers. Show me proof that there were indead firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said to "pull it". You guys keep asking us for proof of demolitions (which is impossible since the evidence was carted away so quickly) so, put your money were your mouth is and prove to me and the world that there were indead firefighters in WTC7 and what time they were "pulled" out. Thank you. If the official story is true then this shouldn't be too hard.


Absolutely and i totally respect your post , you are so correct about it .
now lets see what proof they come up with shall we ?


Omega



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nikolaos2030
What on Earth was a fire commander in the middle of the biggest terrorist attack doing ringing the the lease holder of the building to ask to pull firefighters out, whats the matter aren't firefighter commanders not allowed to pull 'out' the firefighters when there is immediate danger or must they ask every building owner if they can pull out their firefighters?


Again, as a firefighter, we do NOT ask the building owner if this or that is ok. In fact, we OWN that building when we go to it. WE dicide what to do next.

Also, again I say, "Pull It" is not anything we say.

I live an hour from the city, and most of the firefighters I have talked to from NY in private (not public statements) do NOT believe the official story.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant

I live an hour from the city, and most of the firefighters I have talked to from NY in private (not public statements) do NOT believe the official story.


This is also true with many structural engineers that I have spoken with. No one wants to loose their career over a conspiracy theory. Thank God for scholars for 9/11 truth.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
He meant it as the building, as in pull it (the building), but as he was talking to the fire chief one can use that to understand the context of the statement.

"There are firefighters in the building"

"Pull it"

NOT

"Explosives ready sir"

"Pull it"

The most amusing thing about the idea of it meaning anything else is the implication that this incredible Illuminati/etc guy managed to pull off this crime, cover everything up yet slip up on camera without realising, then not get all the footage and record of it destroyed.


What are you talking about? It was my understanding there were no Fire-fighters, or fire-fighter equiptment in the building at that time to be "Pulled". If there is anything "amusing" here, it's the fact that you have neglected to mention anything about this. You can't say "Oh, I didn't know", because you damn well should, by now, especially with the amount of 9/11 debates you've had. So what's the deal, Smith?



Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Pull it'

is known slang in the demo industry for pull down a building via a demo...


It is also a term used by fire fighters to indicate thatthey are pullingback, out of a fire.


Who was he talking to, a demo foreman, or the fire chief?



I consider it quite a terrible assumption to imply that just because he was talking to a Fire Chief, that automatically means he was talking about a Fire-fighter related issue. Furthermore, HowardRoark, perhaps you might like to review the two links (below), they are from the same sources which you cite as backing for your fictitious, inaccurate, and often arrogant diatribes.


2005 Popular Mechanics article

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7."


That was written by Dr. Shyam Sunder, of NIST...

2002 Fema Report - "No manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

So the question is, HowardRoark, and AgentSmith, why are you both lying? You have absolutely no excuse, either of you.



EDIT: Spelling.


[edit on 13-4-2006 by Code_Burger]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Code,

Thanks for answering my proposition. I didn't think that the official story believers would even touch it because they know full well that there were no firefighters in the building. BTW, isn't giving false information that you know is false an offense that has a punishment of banning?

Edit to add: I'm not calling for anyone to get banned...just stop the lies.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
Again, as a firefighter, we do NOT ask the building owner if this or that is ok. In fact, we OWN that building when we go to it. WE dicide what to do next.

Also, again I say, "Pull It" is not anything we say.

So as a firefighter, do you also demo buildings?
How many explosive experts do you have in your unit?

--
To suggest a bunch of fire fighters did in a few minutes what would take people who are experts in the field weeks or months is unrealistic.

Why hasn't that comment been confirmed by anyone? Why has no one else interviewed him on that comment?

Also, in that quote he said the fire cheif told him they weren't going to be able to contain the fires. Now wait a minute....according to everyone here there were no fires. Or no big ones. And of course the people here know more than the people who were actually there, so what gives?

I want to know when these explosives were placed in the buildings and how the went unnoticed. Also as all the videos clearly show, the south side of the building started collapsing first. The south side had the most damage and where the fires were most intense. So how did these explosives survive all that?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
griff watch this video

video.google.com...

if your pc isnt fast enough pause it and let it fully load. at the 52 marker there is a clip for about 1 to 2 minutes. ive seen a great deal of demolition tapes and some in live. if anyone wants to tell me they can watch that and explain it, be my guest because i have NEVER seen that before except in demolitions.
(what really got me was, not the flashes, but the explosions which came out of the windows before it was collapsed on a number of levels below.)



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

To suggest a bunch of fire fighters did in a few minutes what would take people who are experts in the field weeks or months is unrealistic.


Can you link to where people say the firefighters demoed the building? Answering the rest of your post would only be speculation on my part so I think I'll pass.

Oh, can you show me pictures or other source that shows the south side of WTC7 falling first and then the other parts?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join