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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 09:54 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.


Easy. All of that smoke wasn't from WTC7. Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   


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?


The fire are inside the building behind the smoke. In the picture of the Madrid fire, it's nighttime, and the windows which appear to take up the whole side of the building are missing. AFAIK there are no pictures of the base, but in the video, which you appear to not have looked at, you can see the smoke coming from every floor.



How BIG were the fires? Come on, get with it.


Wow, not only do you not look at the evidence I present you then ask for it, amazing.



And once again:


You've never asked me these questions before.



What about the pulverized concrete?


What concrete?



What about the virtually free fall speed of the building itself?


Proof on freefall speeds? IF it failed at the bottom, it would fall quickly.




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.


I see you still haven't read the site I linked with the quotes.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   


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.


That's not the 'offical story', that's the best guess at the time, there wasn't any offical report until recently.



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


How do you know the evidence wasn't collected at the time, but no agency was contracted to study in until now?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Easy. All of that smoke wasn't from WTC7. Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.


I don't know why you keep insisting on this. Smoke does not magically cross streets and climb up the sides of buildings, only to appear like it's coming out of the upper floors of a building five times the size of the original, and then head towards the source.

The idea is ridiculous.

Watch this, second half. The smoke is obviously pouring from multiple floors of 7, I don't know why you choose to ignore this.

www.youtube.com...

And your right, burning produces smoke! how profound.

It's nice to see you actually admit that there were fires causing all that smoke at 7.


[edit on 14-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   


asy. All of that smoke wasn't from WTC7. Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.


That would require the smoke to make a sharp turn against the side of WTC7, not remotely possible.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I notice you haven't brought up the 'pull it' quote recently, doesn't that mean you concede that he never said to demolish the building?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
maybe he meant pull it and it meaning the rescue operations.....but who knows this may lead to a lot of people looking into the wtc for proof they might have ben bombed



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   


maybe he meant pull it and it meaning the rescue operations.....but who knows this may lead to a lot of people looking into the wtc for proof they might have ben bombed


That's what I've been saying, read the thread for the evidence i've shown, or go to
911myths.com...
www.debunking911.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I don't know why you keep insisting on this. Smoke does not magically cross streets and climb up the sides of buildings, only to appear like it's coming out of the upper floors of a building five times the size of the original, and then head towards the source.


Do you think air would have blown through WTC7, or went AROUND IT?

And again, WHERE DID ALL OF THIS SMOKE GO?



That building was RIGHT BEHIND WTC7. Did the smoke just disappear? Or did it rise into the air behind WTC7, before being exposed to the wind?

WTC7 was 47 stories. It would have acted as a big windshield as the smoke coming from WTC5 and 6 rose behind it. Stand behind your house while the wind is blowing from the opposite direction. You'll realize that air doesn't pass through opaque physical objects.

I don't understand where you think that smoke should have gone. Why don't you draw some more arrows for us?




Quit straw-manning the smoke that WAS coming from WTC7. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME SMOKE COMING FROM WTC7. Every time you assert this as if I don't believe it, you're just showing how weak your argument is, that you have to resort to such straw men.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
What straw man?

Here is the video.

www.youtube.com...

Here is a still from the video, the part you refuse to acknowledge.



There is no way that the smoke pouring out of multiple floors is coming from 5 or 6.

Weren't you the one to post about the no 757 being disinformation.

You might want to add the "small fires or no fires in WTC 7" to the same list.

If you want to call it a strawman, stop bringing it up and pretending that smoke can travel north, fly up the side of a building and appear to be coming from somewhere else, before heading south again.

I suppose this smoke is coming from a nearby building as well?




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind/IMG]
There is no way that the smoke pouring out of multiple floors is coming from 5 or 6.


I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS.

I'm saying that that big, general mass of smoke floating around WTC7 is not ALL coming from WTC7.

When you say, "Gee whiz, look at all that smoke, must have been massive fires!", especially when no one photographed any major fires in that building, despite all of the photo evidence available and even several videos of the collapse, you are being intellectually dishonest.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Right, I'm sorry, your saying "most of it".


Originally posted by Bsbray11

Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.



Now your saying that "not ALL" of it was.

IMO, the vast majority in that video is clearly coming from 7.

BTW, yelling at people to understand you, when you change your mind every couple posts is intellectually dishonest.

As is only demanding photo evidence, when plenty of eyewitness report the same objective facts. It is one thing for an eyewitness to describe a sound. It is quite another when multiple firefighters clearly identify fire, something they have experience with.

I suppose you guys can judge better than these firemen based on a few photos and videos, and claim that the proof is no one photoed it during the middle of the biggest disaster to hit NY city. I'm sorry that they were distracted by the buildings that just fell down.

Cheers!




[edit on 14-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Right, I'm sorry, your saying "most of it".


Originally posted by Bsbray11

Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.



Now your saying that "not ALL" of it was.


No, I've been saying that in every single one of these posts, and you just aren't thorough enough in your reading to see it. This happens ALL the time with you: you don't read through all of my posts and you assume things.


BTW, yelling at people to understand you, when you change your mind every couple posts is intellectually dishonest.


Show me where I have changed my mind.

Again, you do not read all of my posts. A few examples from my posts:

(From this page of this thread.)


Originally posted by bsbray11
Quit straw-manning the smoke that WAS coming from WTC7. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME SMOKE COMING FROM WTC7. Every time you assert this as if I don't believe it, you're just showing how weak your argument is, that you have to resort to such straw men.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Easy. All of that smoke wasn't from WTC7. Most of it was from the multiple buildings behind it still burning. Burning produces smoke.


(From this thread.)


Originally posted by bsbray11
I've already stated that I don't think ALL of that smoke is coming from WTC7. Building Seven did have SOME fire, and therefore there should have been smoke from those fires.


From page 3 of that thread:


Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, I'm not saying there was NO smoke coming from 7. Only that that mass of smoke hovering around it was NOT from 7.


From page 2 of that thread:


Originally posted by bsbray11
Some smoke coming from WTC7, yes, as there was some fire. The raging infernos we're told about, not so much. There are plenty of images -- of the fires -- that speak for themselves.



And you think I'm JUST NOW saying that SOME of it was from WTC7?

Do you realize how patient I have to be to put up with you?


I hope everyone here is looking at the above and realizing how much of these posts LeftBehind is actually absorbing. How many quotes are above, with LeftBehind just realizing what I have been saying this whole time?



As is only demanding photo evidence, when plenty of eyewitness report the same objective facts.


If this was objective fact then you wouldn't be resorting to a few witness testimonies. We have photographs. I believe the photos first.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


If this was objective fact then you wouldn't be resorting to a few witness testimonies. We have photographs. I believe the photos first.



I also believe the photographs. They clearly corroborate what the eyewitnesses were saying. You are the one who chooses to ignore the video which clearly shows that most of that smoke is pouring out of WTC 7.

Instead of seeing it, and realizing that it shows exactly what the eyewitnesses were talking about, you'd rather stick to your "small fires in WTC 7" fallacy and make up some nonsense about smoke going north across the street, flowing up the side of a building, and then going south again.

But then again, you also believe seem to believe any eyewitness saying "explosions" meant "bombs", but don't believe it when a firemen says "fire", and then lecture others on intellectual dishonesty.







[edit on 14-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
First of all, thanks for completely ignoring most of my last post.

Secondly, here are some images of the fires in WTC7:









Those are the enormous, super-infernos that allegedly caused the collapse of a steel skyscraper.

When you point only to the smoke, you are being dishonest for reasons outlined above.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
But then again, you also believe seem to believe any eyewitness saying "explosions" meant "bombs"




Firefighter: "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
First of all, thanks for completely ignoring most of my last post.


It had nothing to do with the topic.





Those are the enormous, super-infernos that allegedly caused the collapse of a steel skyscraper.

When you point only to the smoke, you are being dishonest for reasons outlined above.



No those are the fires that showed on the other side of the building that wasn't damaged by the fall of the towers.

Actually . . .

pointing out only those fires, while ignoring these fires,









www.youtube.com...

as well as ignoring testimony that the damage was so bad, that they stopped fighting the fires, and in fact expected it to collapse,

www.911myths.com...


is disingenous.

But nice try.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
LB, where exactly are the fires in the images you posted? I'm having trouble seeing flames. I'm also having trouble understanding why such massive amounts of smoke show no visible cause (flames jutting out of windows, etc.) anywhere on the building.

Btw, do you know what time any of those photos were taken?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Mr_Pointy, LeftBehind, you can make your claims and hope to gain ground but nevertheless the mystery still stands aground with World Trade Center 7.

Monitoring the fires from World Trade Center 7 and their progression/strength shows reasonability that there was no way they could of been that extensively spread while under containment of sprinkler systems/fire fighter control.

Furthermore, not to strain an ignorant mindset, but your photos of that side of the building yield nothing but smoke and in NO WAY produces the critical anaylsis of how bad the fires indeed were. Your photos provide smoke, that tells us there were fires, but from the angle of that picture, it doesn't seem all that out of control.

Did the fires seem to of saw fit to stay out of view from the rest of the public eye? Why concentrated in the center of the building at that point at an unviewable stance? Why are they not visible? Clearly with such a huge inferno as you are insisting, you would be noticing flames. Fires are not ordered substances, they follow a path of chaos, and as for that, if the fires were raging infernos, which they were not, they would of not simply stuck out of view, produced smoke, but pillowing out the sides as well. Especially considering that's on the rather smaller lengthed side of the building.

--------------------------------------------------------------

World Trade Center 7 was shown as evidence of a progressive collapse, yet the building gave out almost simultaneously, starting with the kink in its center.

This doesn't help matters for you, as it mimicks popular commercial demolitions styles, Now the whole building wasn't engulfed in flames, or that'd be self evident unless you have MORE pictures to provide for usefulness that I haven't already came across. But for it to collapse from the bottom up, at free fall speed, it wouldn't of had the pleasure of knocking out any resisting forces, giving it the free fall speed.

This topic has been debated many many times on this board, take a second, a minute, or to do yourself an hour and reflect back with search on the criteria covered with WTC 7. You simply can't win because it's a subject the NIST was never strong on.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You can continue to look at the non-important aspects, or ignore the real questions trying to be posed and blow them off as pure hootinany, which can only show your true agenda here, but that all aside.

The World Trade Center 7 issue is very mysterious, but dealt with properly.

It's still a wonder how the building managed to fall as it did, when fires were not rampant throughout the building and the fires could not of reached a critical temperature, and produce the heat needed to take the structure out, considering it was laced with concrete as well.

You're better off arguing that with World Trade Center 1 and 2.

But then again that's what we're arguing, isn't it.

Do you actually see what we're getting at, or pointing everything out to have a logical explaination in the realm of B.S.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Furthermore, my Officialites, as I'll now come to call you some interesting points are raised with the World Trade Center 7 collapse:

- Material was pulverized (concrete)
- Molten Steel found at WTC 7 following its collapse
- Intense hotspots found in the basement of WTC 7
- Traces of evaporated steel found
- Fires WERE NOT as I've stated, not consuming the whole base of the building, as there were was no pretense for such a simultaneous collapse of the building, and with that, how did it collapse as such with no evidence of fires described?
- WTC 7 was reinforced with concrete, provided more sturdy supports than WTC 1 and 2 when being consumed by flame
- WTC 7 had fireproofing and sprinkler systems, also hindering the spreading of fires
- WTC 7 fell at free fall speed - which, for those of you that don't follow 9/11 threads and seem to jump in casually, shows that there was no resistance in falling floors, as if they fell unhindered.

So how does the Official Story, which even FEMA quoted was least likely, seem to fit in to explain all what I've listed above.

Seriously, I really want to hear what you have to say


But just for fun, I'll take a bet with BSB, that your photo of the "Raging smoke" is going to appear pointlessly 3 more times in this thread.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Few other things of interest:









new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join