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.

 

Larry Silverstein question

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   


"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


Things to note:
1. He was talking to the Fire Department commander.
2. He never made the decision, it was the Fire Department.
3. Neither Silverstien or the Fire Department demolish buildings.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Do you admit the coincidence between their decision and the building collapsing shortly there after? What are chances? And what's the loss of life reference to? World Trade Center 1 and 2 deaths? Or just in World Trade Center 7? because the World Trade Center 7 fires weren't raging infernos. Interesting.

What happened to the sprinkler systems that day? Weren't they created to hold down office fires? Did they not provide some aide to fire fighters?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   


Do you admit the coincidence between their decision and the building collapsing shortly there after?


No, that's WHY they decided to 'pull it'.




And what's the loss of life reference to? World Trade Center 1 and 2 deaths? Or just in World Trade Center 7?


Don't know, he didn't say.



because the World Trade Center 7 fires weren't raging infernos.


I already addressed this, you ignored it last time




'm going to guess your never seen the video that shows smoke poring out of the entire building, or all the quotes from firemen saying they knew it was going to come down because it was so heavily damaged from the fire and debris.





"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


www.nytimes.com...

More quotes here:
www.debunking911.com...



I'd like to point out that you haven't provide 1 bit of evidence for your assertions that 'pull it' refers to demolishing WTC 7 or that the fires were small.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
No, that's WHY they decided to 'pull it'.


So you're saying that the fire fighters had advance knowledge the building was going to collapse, if so.. then how?



I already addressed this, you ignored it last time


That's smoke my friend, I don't see any pictures of raging fires that threatened the majority of the building. Nothing more than an office fires at that point, so how were they raging? I'm honestly trying to see fires through those windows but I see none, all I see is smoke, but I'm assuming the windows are broken if smoke is coming out.

Could it be some debris hit the building, so smoke is just pouring out of other areas?



'm going to guess your never seen the video that shows smoke poring out of the entire building, or all the quotes from firemen saying they knew it was going to come down because it was so heavily damaged from the fire and debris.


To this date I haven't seen a single picture of major damage caused by the debris from the World Trade Center 1 or 2, and even if it did, it would contribute to the upper portion of the building, how does that contribute it to falling from that ground up, THATS JUST to say IF it was hit by substantial amount of debris, like chunks of the building gone, broken glass and minor global structural damage isn't going to cause that.





"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


Lower floors fires are major? Even with sprinkler systems, with easier access with fire fightering equipment, they were unmanageable. I don't even understand how the lower corner could be taken out? Was it that unaccessible? Where are these pictures of huge amounts of damage caused by fire? And since the fire wasn't as significant as the World Trade Center fire, how'd it manage to take down the building simultaneously? You had the center give out and then the outer edges, like a conventional demolition. Not to mention at free fall speed.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Oh and Skippy, small fires, I was referencing to being created by debris from the building, as I still see HOW they fires were created by falling debris, but since somehow they did happen, it wasn't a burst or an explosion --> Sprinklers can't take care of that.

My reference was debris creating small fires and then having them eventually expand, that was my context, comprende?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Lets look at some more angles:

- The Official Story, which was created by FEMA for what happened to WTC 7 and why it collapsed, was claimed to have a "low probability of occurence".

- The fact they decided to pull out when there were no major signs of fires in the building.



"7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there"

- Assistant Chief Frank Fellini to Deputy Chief Nick Visconti


How can that even be surmised with the building as large as it is? I don't see a large inferno raging globally across the building.

- Concrete from WTC 7 was pulverized, how?

- It fell at free fall, how?

EDIT: How do you manage to have building 7, with minor fires on a global scale, collapse as compared to buildings 5 and 6, with rather large fires, and not collapse.

EDIT: FURTHERMORE, How did Larry Silverstein and the Chief Firefighters assume the building was going to fall down? They didn't construct the building, they're not knowledgeable on its specifications. Still want to see photos that show it being that compromised.

WTC 1 and 2 are more believable as the fires engulfed the building, WTC 7 is different.

[edit on 8/14/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It could also be because the idea that "pull it" automatically means it was a controlled demoltion would not stand up in a grand jury. Especially since Silverstein has explained that he meant pull the firefighters not the building.


Since when do fireman take orders (about their men) from building owners? Wouldn't that be the chief assessment?

Cheif: "Hey, the building is too far gone, we're bringing our men out."

Silvertein: "I got an Idea, pull it."

Cheif: "Pull what?"

Silverstein: "It means get your guys out of there."

"That's what I just said."

Are we really buying this conversation?

AAC



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
That was a fast reply, did you look at both sites I linked too?



So you're saying that the fire fighters had advance knowledge the building was going to collapse, if so.. then how?


Read the quotes from the 2nd link, has a lot of quotes about the massive fires and damage to the building.



That's smoke my friend, I don't see any pictures of raging fires that threatened the majority of the building. Nothing more than an office fires at that point, so how were they raging? I'm honestly trying to see fires through those windows but I see none, all I see is smoke, but I'm assuming the windows are broken if smoke is coming out.

So, you see a massive amount smoke, and deny the fires creating it are large, because you can't see the fires because of the smoke it's creating.



To this date I haven't seen a single picture of major damage caused by the debris from the World Trade Center 1 or 2, and even if it did, it would contribute to the upper portion of the building, how does that contribute it to falling from that ground up, THATS JUST to say IF it was hit by substantial amount of debris, like chunks of the building gone, broken glass and minor global structural damage isn't going to cause that.


www.debunking911.com...

That's the bottom of the building BTW.



Lower floors fires are major? Even with sprinkler systems, with easier access with fire fightering equipment, they were unmanageable. I don't even understand how the lower corner could be taken out? Was it that unaccessible? Where are these pictures of huge amounts of damage caused by fire? And since the fire wasn't as significant as the World Trade Center fire, how'd it manage to take down the building simultaneously? You had the center give out and then the outer edges, like a conventional demolition. Not to mention at free fall speed.


Lower fires are more likely to bring down a building than higher fires, the bottom is supporting the most weight. The fires last for 7 hours unfought, no other building has
unlike any other building before it. You keep saying the fires were small, without providing 1 bit of evidence, i've shown you video and pictures of the massive amount of smoke coming out of the building, and quotes from the firefighter on the scene.

PS, I remember reading about how the water pressure was really low and the fire hoses weren't spraying across the street.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   


Since when do fireman take orders (about their men) from building owners? Wouldn't that be the chief assessment?


You're forgetting that Silverstien, never gave the order, read the tread before posting.



And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   


- The Official Story, which was created by FEMA for what happened to WTC 7 and why it collapsed, was claimed to have a "low probability of occurence".


Is that from the recently released report, or the quote from before they studied the collapse in depth?



- The fact they decided to pull out when there were no major signs of fires in the building.


There was, i already showed you the evidence.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
A frigging building does not frigging implode straight
down in a few seconds because of a a couple of fires.. not even if it were a
raging inferno.

No other explanation other than explosives and/or
thermite whatever is possible for the entire structure to FAIL at the SAME freaking
moment and drop down as if it were a piece of foam lit up from the bottom melting
it down rapidly...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Read the quotes from the 2nd link, has a lot of quotes about the massive fires and damage to the building.


Quotes help an investigation, photos do the justice.



So, you see a massive amount smoke, and deny the fires creating it are large, because you can't see the fires because of the smoke it's creating.


Where are the fires if they're that threatening? Hidden in a small pocket of the building no one can see? Fires are luminous, I can't see any flames through any part of that smoke, atleast not the major amount that seems to be contributing. Hmmm.




www.debunking911.com...

That's the bottom of the building BTW.


That's weird, white smoke, wouldn't you expect darker smoke? But aside from that, look at the size of the "possible debris hole size" Do you think that really has a HUGE contributing factor to downing the rest of the building? Because as the collapse videos show, it doesn't give out on the corners.




Lower fires are more likely to bring down a building than higher fires, the bottom is supporting the most weight. The fires last for 7 hours unfought, no other building has
unlike any other building before it. You keep saying the fires were small, without providing 1 bit of evidence, i've shown you video and pictures of the massive amount of smoke coming out of the building, and quotes from the firefighter on the scene.

PS, I remember reading about how the water pressure was really low and the fire hoses weren't spraying across the street.


The fires lasted 7 hours unfought, so why do you need to pull firefighters, am I getting what you are saying? That's the thing pointy SMOKE and FIRES are different matters.
You show smoke but no fires, like I said above, are they hiding somewhere where we can't see them?

Again I'll clarify - small fires, from the initiating fires from "debris", should of been put out by sprinklers, yet they "somehow" continue to grow but no majorly.

But when you're talking on the global scale, the fires weren't obtrusively large and wide spread. Your picture of the smoke proves one thing, there was a lot of smoke.

But I'm not going to be ignorant and stand by and say "there were no fires because you simply can not see them" that's just sort of deductive logic. However, for the building to fall from the top up, you have the most easiest to access fires of the whole building.

But back to the smoke issue, if the infernos are that bad, why can't you see them? There is a huge mass of smoke, debris hit the windows, so you have ways for smoke to leak out of.

But aside from that -

What about the pulverized concrete?
What about the virtually free fall speed of the building itself?
And under what expertise did they know what WTC 7 was going to collapse soon and it was worthless to fight the fires any further? WTC 7 isn't your average HOUSE fire where such a thing is easy to decide.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 14/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

Is that from the recently released report, or the quote from before they studied the collapse in depth?



That's when FEMA made their best assumption within time after the collapse, and their opinion of it, and what the official story sticks by.

I don't see how they create a recently created study when the evidence has been gone for quite some time now.

EDIT: Uno step further:

As brought up, NUMEROUS TIMES, the Madrid Fire:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

That's what I call engulfed in flame, and not just smoke Skippy, and that
building managed to stay erect! Whada know


[edit on 8/14/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Read the quotes from the page i provided. From the 1 a quoted:



I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
For those of you claiming it is "just smoke", I would like your ideas on what creates that much smoke from a 50 story building.

Smoke bombs perhaps?

Sparklers?

Or massive fires?

I know which one makes more sense to me.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Madrid had a concrete core, which was credited with being the only reason it was still standing, the steel section collapsed early on, long before the fire reached it's maximum temperature.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
For those of you claiming it is "just smoke", I would like your ideas on what creates that much smoke from a 50 story building.

Smoke bombs perhaps?

Sparklers?

Or massive fires?

I know which one makes more sense to me.


Fires, but if there were massive fires, how come the flames can't be seen that clearly, if the FIRES were as BIG as you're making them out to be.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Madrid had a concrete core, which was credited with being the only reason it was still standing, the steel section collapsed early on, long before the fire reached it's maximum temperature.


Yes aside from my smart remark, that's what I call a raging inferno, which wasn't even noticed in WTC 7. Which another point I'm trying to get at, if there are no self evident pictures yet testimonials of fires, and photos tell a lot, then where are the massive fires around the base? Because from the one shot you continue to use for defense reveals fires one area of that side of the building, but how much more than that? How BIG were the fires? Come on, get with it.

And once again:

What about the pulverized concrete?
What about the virtually free fall speed of the building itself?
And under what expertise did they know what WTC 7 was going to collapse soon and it was worthless to fight the fires any further? WTC 7 isn't your average HOUSE fire where such a thing is easy to decide.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It's alright man
I like it, gives me something to do =)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join