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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I just remembered...

I came up with a nice solution to this problem a while back. It's pretty simple; Larry Silverstein is a mutant from the Marvel Universe. Now, his powers are unclear, but, the fact that he has mutant powers explains everything.

Some people still hold that firefighters were actually in the building when he said pull it. In this case, his power is super x-ray vision. He was watching the firemen with his x-ray vision when he got the call. That's why he said there's been too many lives lost, so pull the firemen in the building. Problem solved.

Others have got hip and switched it to the "it" being the firefighters around the building. In that case, his power is precognition. He can see into the future, but not like Nostradamus or something; hell, even Raven seems to have him beat here. It seems he has a limited precognitive ability in this case. But, this was enough; while he was on the phone, he got a vision of the firemen dying, so he said pull it, then they watched the building come down.

Still, others say this was a term for the umbrella of firemen operations, so the it was either the men in the building, the men around the building, or both. In this case, he has a combo power; he has limited precognition and x-ray vision.

As for the other side, who says there were no firefighters to be pulled, he has another power for that. He has invisi-vision; he can see things invisible to everyone else. Thus, there were firefighters invisible to the chief, so he thought none were in there when there were firemen in there. Now, maybe they were actually valiant ghost firemen from the past coming back to help. In this case, Silverstein's invisi-vision was clouded (probably from him being distracted thinking of what he would buy with all that insurance money
) and he thought these were invisible firemen instead of ghosts.

So, either way you slice it, Silverstein is a mutant, and that solves every problem with WTC 7 and pull it.






posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.


1) The fire department commander called Silverstein, not the other way round.

2) The fire department commander said (when this call was made obviously, whatever time that was) they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. Implying they were thinking about or still attempting to fight it.

3) Silverstein then comments (oh the hero) that due to the loss of life it's best to pull it - to the fire department commander.

4) We have testimonies from fire fighters saying they were told to pull back prior to the collapse of the building

5) As Silverstein says they (as in the Fire Department) made the decision to pull. The FIRE DEPARTMENT not Silverstein himself in his original words.

Since when does the fire department organise demolitions, let alone illegal ones? Let's face it, it's not poor old Silverstein who organised it, going by his own words, it's the Fire Department..
Personally, I think the only thing they organised is the pulling back of their men as stated in the testimonies and as one would deduce from the context of the conversation.

But if it's not, when are you going to start investigating the fire department, as they are the culprits 'by his own admission'...

[edit on 17-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Okay, lets all assume Silverstein meant to pull out the firemen.

....is Silverstein a fireman? ....is Silverstein working at any governmental police department?

Why the HELL would fire chiefs and such take orders and recommendations from SILVERSTEIN???

It's so completely illogical. However...

....does Silverstein control the building? (Yes) ....is Silverstein the owner of the building? (Yes)

So it'd be more logical to assume that he is telling the fire people to blow up the demos, rather than have fire chiefs follow orders of Silverstein.

So horribly worded, forgive me



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
If he ordered the firemen to blow the building, then you have all these firemen "in on it". I really don't think that would have happened. My theory is, and this is only my theory, that Silverstein was either contacted by someone else than the fire department and they disscussed the demolition of the building. Or, that the fire department didn't even contact him but it was a little story that he wanted to tell on TV.

I go with the first scenario myself. In the interview, he was talking about the events of the day. He says...I was contacted by the ...er...like he was going to say something else but thought about it when he was speaking and changed his mind. Usually when people say things like that, it means they are thinking when they are speaking. So, my question is who actually called him....even if it's the fire department, I'd like to know who called him and what that person's side of the story is.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Or the fire chief called him to essentially say “hey, we are not going to try to put out the fires in your building.”

As the building owner, he was entitled to that notification.

I’m also pretty sure that the fire chief did not get to be the fire chief without learning how to deal with building owners.

Silverstein may have though that it was a collaborative decision, but I doubt that. I think that he chief basically told him that they were not going to fight the fires in the building. If Silverstein chose to believe that he was part of the decision process than that either speaks for the fire chief’s tact in dealing with him, or to Silverstein’s ego. (imagine if it were Donald Trump, instead.
)



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein’s comment is irrefutable proof that he and Smith were in fact skeet shooting on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I told y'all...

Silverstein used his mutant powers that day. However you want it, that fits your ideas on what happened that day.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
So it'd be more logical to assume that he is telling the fire people to blow up the demos, rather than have fire chiefs follow orders of Silverstein.

So horribly worded, forgive me

Even "more logical" is not very logical...
Since when do fire people demo buildings?
Who told Silverstein there were demos in the building?
etc.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Look at this...


www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.


What the hell does he mean, "That's why it stood for so long" anyway? I thought no Steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire? What made this one so different? I'm starting to question the word of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden a little.

Hayden sais there was not a "heavy body of fire" straight away, and "that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop." but then sais he didn't want to fight it because it was a heavy body of fire, even though it wasn't for at least a "while". So why the hell didn't they put it out while they could? Now, people may think "So, so what? They must have had a lot else to do that day", but wait a minute, look at this quote from the same article;


I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. But you could see the fires burning in 4, 5 and 6. They became fully involved. We had fire on the 15th floor of one of the high-rises. I gave a battalion chief two companies. I said go up there, put this fire out. I told him, don’t call for any help, don’t give any signals, just put the fire out and come back and tell me when the fire’s out. This is all you’re getting, put it out.


Why was building 7 not put out also, before it had developed into a "large body of fire"? Were not buildings 4, 5, and 6 also struck with some burning debris, and set on fire, just like building 7? Why did building 7 fall, yet buildings 4, 5, and 6 did not? Why would he be concerned about building 7 falling from fire, but not 4, 5, or 6? He couldn't even properly see the extent of the damage to the latter 3 buildings, because by his own admission he was "boxed in" because of the collapse of the south tower. Hayden even said they were only expecting partial collapses of the towers, so why would he expect building 7 just totally come down in a symmetrical collapse on its own even though it hadn't been hit with a plane? More Importantly, HOW would building 7 just totally come down from fire on it's own in a totally symmetrical, perfect, collapse?

EXPLOSIVES!

I'm not fully implicating this guy as being involved, because somebody here might point out information that could explain all of these inconsistencies, but his story sure doesn't make any sense to me



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

I thought no Steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire? What made this one so different?


Perhaps it was different because a 767 also crashed into it?

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed from a fire" ...

How many steel framed buildings have also had commercial airliners fly into them?

When El-Al flight 1862 (a 747, struggling along with flaps extended and only 2 engines) crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in Amsterdam, the floors above the impact collapsed immediately.

Why does no one ever draw comparison to that? Because the aircart was larger? It was flying much more slowly? The building was not as large?

How is it any more valid to draw comparison to structural fires where no heavy aircraft had flown into the building at high speed?


[edit on 18-4-2006 by vor75]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
We're talking about building 7 at the moment which was not hit directly by an airliner (though a sizeable chunk was taken out by debris).

Codeburger -do you think writing things in over size fonts makes it true? It doesn't....

[edit on 18-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

I thought no Steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire? What made this one so different?


Perhaps it was different because a 767 also crashed into it?

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed from a fire" ...

How many steel framed buildings have also had commercial airliners fly into them?


BUILDING 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER!

Agent Smith - What's that you were saying?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
You might like to note that we encourage an adult environment in which to discuss these issues, we don't really like promoting the feeling of being in a kindergarten and acting as such only succeeds in discrediting us.. Is that what you are attempting to do? Discredit any reasonable discussion to any onlookers?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You might like to note that we encourage an adult environment in which to discuss these issues, we don't really like promoting the feeling of being in a kindergarten and acting as such only succeeds in discrediting us.. Is that what you are attempting to do? Discredit any reasonable discussion to any onlookers?


You might like to note there was nothing in my posts to "Discredit any reasonable discussion to any onlookers", anywhere, whatsoever. In fact, if anyone digressed from reasonable discussion, it is you, Agent Smith.


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Codeburger -do you think writing things in over size fonts makes it true? It doesn't....

[edit on 18-4-2006 by AgentSmith]


That's all you had to contribute. Now, who did you say was promoting the feeling of being in a Kindergarten again? If you go back and read my other posts in this thread you will find they are legible, and ask legitimate, on topic, questions.

Thank you for your concern though, Agent Smith.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
How many steel framed buildings have also had commercial airliners fly into them?


According to government reports, the aircraft impacts knocked out about 11%-13% of the perimeter columns in each tower (the FEMA Report, sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, have the more precise figures if I'm not mistaken), and likely a similar or smaller amount of core columns, seeing as how they were deeper within the buildings and much thicker, whereas 767s are mostly constructed of thin aluminum (heavy doesn't fly without much more $$$). The engines would've been the only real problems for the core columns, if they managed to strike a core column each.

NIST has provided the information for you to figure out how many columns, on average, would have to fail to get a floor to collapse. That figure is, with a proportionate average between the perimeter/core columns on the affected (upper) floors of WTC1, 75%. If we have had less than 15% failure from the impacts, we would need more than 60% failure from the fires, or something equivalent with the "buckling" columns (meaning an integrity loss from buckling equivalent to an additional 60% of all the columns on a floor, perimeter and core, being knocked out).

So while other skyscrapers may not have been hit by airliners, I don't think you're going to be able to find any steel skyscraper that's had 60% of its columns compromised on any given floor from fire alone.

Unless you can find such a skyscraper, the comment that no skyscraper has ever fallen from fire is still a legitimate argument despite the airliner impacts. The impacts did not contribute enough damage to the buildings to give the fires any more precedence in bringing down steel skyscrapers. The fires still would've had to have done over 4x the work of the impacts.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

I thought no Steel frame building had ever collapsed from fire? What made this one so different?


Perhaps it was different because a 767 also crashed into it?

"No steel frame building has ever collapsed from a fire" ...

How many steel framed buildings have also had commercial airliners fly into them?

When El-Al flight 1862 (a 747, struggling along with flaps extended and only 2 engines) crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in Amsterdam, the floors above the impact collapsed immediately.

Why does no one ever draw comparison to that? Because the aircart was larger? It was flying much more slowly? The building was not as large?

How is it any more valid to draw comparison to structural fires where no heavy aircraft had flown into the building at high speed?


[edit on 18-4-2006 by vor75]


Do I even have to clown you here?

I seem to miss the airliner that hit bldg 7.
As for other buildings hit by planes, the Empire State Building was hit by a plane a few decades back. Wow, didn't collapse on itself, though.


The plane was smaller than the 767, but, like YOU said, a SMALLER plane caused floors on another buidling to collapse. And, did you even read your own stuff? It collapsed IMMEDIATELY! Funny how that didn't happen on 9/11.




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Apologies ... the quoted article went back and forth. I thought the subject had shifted.


the Empire State Building was hit by a plane a few decades back. Wow, didn't collapse on itself, though.


Yeah - wow, look at the size of a B-25 bomber:

upload.wikimedia.org...


but, like YOU said, a SMALLER plane caused floors on another buidling to collapse.


... no a larger plane, a 747 is actually larger than a 767.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
To wrench the thread back to 'sites that straighten me out'... not that I think I'll really succeed in doing this, but I just found something that interested me...

Some people on this board link to 911 myths so I thought I'd have a look. There's a section that is intended to debunk the idea that one of the hijackers' passports couldn't have survived the crash and been found on the street... well, maybe it could have. But at the end of all the argument, they give an account of how this passport actually turned up here:



The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.


This is actually from the official enquiry and here's the link they give on the myths page.

So it was just given to a detective by an unidentified male in his thirties.

WHEW! That's that myth thoroughly debunked, then.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join