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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   


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.


No matter how much you repeat this it will not be true, you have fail to show any evidence at all.




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.


I now have proof you never look at the evidence I linked you, I've been refering to the VIDEO, not the screencap from the video. The video clearly shows smoke poring out of the entire side of the building, clearly not controlable. The video plus the quotes from the firemen who were inside the building,which you seem to be ignoring, show that the fires were 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.


The fire are inside a building, and obscured by the massive amounts of smoke they create, why would you expect to be able to see them from as far any as where the pictures were taken? The sides of the building are not just glass, they appear to be solid walls with windows set in them, further blocking the fire from view. The walls don't appear to be flammable so they wouldn't catch fire and produce the visible flames like the madrid fire.






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.


Not only was there the masive fires, shown by the video and the quotes, but there was a 20 story gash in it, cause by debris from WTC1&2.
www.debunking911.com...




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.


It's also a subject that they didn't cover until recently.




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.


Name 1 issue I've blown off, I can name several you have:
1. That 'pull it' could have refered to the firefighting operations
2. He was talking to a firefighter
3. The video showing the massive amounts of smoke poring out
4. That the firefighters described a raging inferno inside the building
Should I go on?




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   


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 have yet to provide evidence of this, or anything at all.



- Material was pulverized (concrete)


I asked you for proof of this before, at this pooint i'm going to presume you don't have any. Even if true, this wouldn't show anything at all, except that concrete gets broken when it's inside a collapsing building.



- Molten Steel found at WTC 7 following its collapse


I've heard this claim a lot, yet I've never seen any proof.



- Intense hotspots found in the basement of WTC 7


Need I point out the massive fires again, it's not like it would just go out when the building collapsed either.



- Traces of evaporated steel found


Considering that I've never seen any proof of even molten steel, I'm going to call BS.



- 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?


Then explain how smoke was poring out the entire side of the building.



- WTC 7 was reinforced with concrete, provided more sturdy supports than WTC 1 and 2 when being consumed by flame


Evidence of the supports, and you have to show they were core columns, otherwise they wouldn't do much for fire protection.



- WTC 7 had fireproofing and sprinkler systems, also hindering the spreading of fires


Which obviouly weren't enough, given the massive fires we know to have existed, fireproofing is only rated to last 4 hours.



- 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.


Given that you haven't shown this to be true, and that the fires would have weakened floors from top to bottem, this is not much of an issue.



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.


Given that you haven't posted any evidence for anything your said, and that most of the list isn't true, and that NIST never said it was least likely, they don't have to explain anything more than they already have.



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.


Given that i've been refering to a video, not likely, you still haven't explain were all the smoke came from, if not a fire.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Was there a point to the animations, or are they supposed to mean something?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Well I guess that's the battle isn't it Mr_Pointy, you can hold onto your opinions and I'll choose to hold onto mine, whether you choose to believe them or not. I feel that in part there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, on enough levels to make me disgusted. You continue to shoot out," Masisoar I need evidence Masisoar, you can't prove that", and indeed there are some things I cannot prove but I make assumptions off reasonablility.

For WTC 7, I don't feel the building should of came down, in fact, I know it shouldn't of came down as it did, as there is no proof of extensive fires produced around the base of the building, do you see what I'm getting at? Your photo provides there were fires up that area of the building, contained in areas, because they cannot be seen, but nevertheless they were not rampant across the base, which is what is needed to gradually heat the the columns and unhopefully cause the collapse.

The 20 story gash you talk about is phantom to me until I see a photo of it, because if you can, by all means, I'd love to see it. You can have quotes but what's justice without a photo. I see the corner damaged as seen on the website provided but where's the massive gash? And even if provided doesn't change the story on how it fell bottom to top. Not.. top to bottom.

The important aspects I was refering to though were the circumstances in which the building fell, and the questionability of why it fell.

But proof, you want proof of my statement:



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.


When it's clearly evident there weren't extreme fires around the base of the building, if you use the photo of WTC 7 being smoky, why? It doesn't support why it fell though, but that there were fires, not that I submit to you and say there were massive fires.

On my comment about concrete, pulverized, not just broken.

Haha but now I see the ignorance in your argument, HOT spots, molten material, want to know your ignorance? Because the fires wouldn't and shouldn't of gotten that hot, there was no way an office fire or a hydrocarbon fire can do that, or cause traces of evaporated steel.

But as I've said, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

Now here's my feature presentation for you:




Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

[American Free Press]




A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. [New York Times]


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Videos of the Collapse:

911research.wtc7.net...

Critical Review of the WTC FEMA report:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

------------------------
Side note, the videos/clips I showed in my thread before were in support of my reason for a controlled demolition, how could the squibs themselves be produced? Odd...
------------------------

Read Professor Jones's Opinion on WTC 7

www.physics.byu.edu...



Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)


As Steven Jones has asked, how could the temperatures reach that hot? Now the burden of proof is on you. By the way, the fires would of been greater than that due to heat sinks and heat distribution, just to help you out.



The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)


Again I quote this, why? Because their conclusion is that debris/fire was low probability of bringing it down, but if that's the case, HOW did the building fall then.

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

You should find information in that if you choose to look Mr_Pointy. World Trade Center 7 shouldn't of collapsed, and that's obvious beause the building's based, where it was accused of being weak, wasn't engulfed in massive fires, so how could you get weakening?

Oh and the hot spot issue:

images.google.com...://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif&imgrefurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-0 1-0429/thermal.r09.html&h=648&w=582&sz=249&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=i3gpBN9C7meQWM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2Bhotspots%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US
fficial_s%26sa%3DN

I'll put the burden of proof on you, how do you get temperatures that hot? For them to get that hot you need a fire to produce the energy or heat, or SOMETHING to produce the energy and heat to cause those temperatures.

But you choose to ask: Where's your evidence that WTC 7 feel at free fall, that's been spread across the internet like a wild fire if you would of chose to find it but here:


wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...


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


Personally though at this point, I know your stance, and I know you'll fight this til you gain whatever it is you seem to looking for. An ego trip, proof of your ignorance, whatever it may choose to be, I say good luck to you in your endeavor, but for your information, you haven't yielded any proof to change my mind, and that's not a statement of ignorance, but a statement of reasonability and proof.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy



- Molten Steel found at WTC 7 following its collapse


I've heard this claim a lot, yet I've never seen any proof.


I'm going to chime in here for a second. I'm working on something right now and hopefully post it by the end of the day (if I get time.....we've become very busy lately at work). Anyway, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy in this (I know, we on the other side can be hypocritical also, so this isn't really a jab at you personally Mr_pointy).

OK, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the molten steel found at WTC7. Now, I'm not sure about photos. So, you guys say that eyewitness accounts are better than photos when it comes to the "fires" of WTC7...correct? Well, how about eyewitness accounts of engineers (who would know the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum) seeing molten steel. Molten aluminum doesn't glow in daylight...molten steel does. See the hypocrisy?

On topic. I believe that Silverstein has delusions of granduer.

First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?

Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?

My only conclusion that I have come up with is that Silverstein lied in the interview about that conversation. I don't think the words "pull it" ever came out of Larry's mouth on the day of 9/11. I'm even suspect of him ever having this conversation in the first place. IMO, no side of this part of the arguement makes sense.


MMP

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?

This is a great question. I personally do not have answer other then the chief was involved in shady dealings with Silverstein.


Originally posted by Griff
Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?

Silverstein got roughly 5 billion (tell me if that amount is wrong) in insurance money which can go a long way to pay people off. Everyone has their price.


Originally posted by Griff
My only conclusion that I have come up with is that Silverstein lied in the interview about that conversation. I don't think the words "pull it" ever came out of Larry's mouth on the day of 9/11. I'm even suspect of him ever having this conversation in the first place. IMO, no side of this part of the arguement makes sense.

This is a fair estimation. I am not aware of anyone coming forward (like the fire chief) to refute his comment. Don't you think they would?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMP
This is a great question. I personally do not have answer other then the chief was involved in shady dealings with Silverstein.


If I was the chief in question and I were involved, I'd be pretty upset with Larry for outing me on television.



Silverstein got roughly 5 billion (tell me if that amount is wrong) in insurance money which can go a long way to pay people off. Everyone has their price.


Good point. I'd still be a little miffed at Larry for telling the whole world what I (the fire chief) did.



This is a fair estimation. I am not aware of anyone coming forward (like the fire chief) to refute his comment. Don't you think they would?


Since Larry doesn't say exactly what fire chief he talked to (there were more than one units there), I'd say all the fire chiefs probably think he's talking about someone else.

This is all speculation on my part. Plus, Larry is trying to tell a story from a year prior. I can't remember exactly what I said 2 hours ago...let along a year. Also, if Larry had nothing to do with it, he would have been having a VERY stressful day that day. No-one and I mean no-one has a clear recollection of what happened and what was said while under extreme stress. So, IMO Larry wanted to make himself look like a bigshot on the PBS interview and fouled up the language of his so called conversation. If I'm wrong that he doesn't say specifically who the fire chief was that he spoke with, please correct me.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   


OK, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the molten steel found at WTC7. Now, I'm not sure about photos. So, you guys say that eyewitness accounts are better than photos when it comes to the "fires" of WTC7...correct? Well, how about eyewitness accounts of engineers (who would know the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum) seeing molten steel. Molten aluminum doesn't glow in daylight...molten steel does. See the hypocrisy?


Except we don't know that they can identify molten steel on sight, we know the can identify fires.



First, why would a fire chief ask the building owner to pull his men out (or even contact him for that matter)?


He didn't, he was on the phone with Silverstien, and he suggested it.



Second, why would Silverstein tell the fire chief to demolish the building? If this was a government/Silverstein conspiracy, why would Silverstein now involve the fire department's chief with critical information that could potentially ruin him (Silverstein)?


It's obvious from the quotes that he suggested they pull back and let it burn, not demolish it.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Mr_Pointy, nice asanine assumption. They're building engineers, they'd know structural steel from anything else. What else would it be? Molten Concrete? Molten desk wood? Molten air molecules?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Silverstein got roughly 5 billion (tell me if that amount is wrong) in insurance money which can go a long way to pay people off. Everyone has their price.


That still doesn't even cover the cost of rebuilding the WTC towers, which he is legally required to do, per his contract.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   


Mr_Pointy, nice asanine assumption. They're building engineers, they'd know structural steel from anything else. What else would it be? Molten Concrete? Molten desk wood? Molten air molecules?


Molten aluminum, or another metal, building engineers don't work with molten metals, only solid ones.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


It's obvious from the quotes that he suggested they pull back and let it burn, not demolish it.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]


That still is up to interpretation at this point and is on the side of the matter of which of your opinions are based. If you're more pro-official, then you tend to believe he said "pull it" referring to the operation (But still even firefighters and Silverstein himself couldn't of predicted that the building was going to collapse soon, how could they of, we've already discussed the fire issue and there weren't raging infernos across the building's base area to initiate heavy destruction)

Or if you're more pro-conspiracy, it leans toward the pull it, referring to a demolition type of slang to bring down the building, which sort of seems more realistic, but as I said, it's still up to interpretation, to claim it's obvious on such an opinionated matter is silly.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   


That still is up to interpretation at this point and is on the side of the matter of which of your opinions are based. If you're more pro-official, then you tend to believe he said "pull it" referring to the operation (But still even firefighters and Silverstein himself couldn't of predicted that the building was going to collapse soon, how could they of, we've already discussed the fire issue and there weren't raging infernos across the building's base area to initiate heavy destruction)


Still ignoring the video and quotes, how intellectially dishonest.



Or if you're more pro-conspiracy, it leans toward the pull it, referring to a demolition type of slang to bring down the building, which sort of seems more realistic, but as I said, it's still up to interpretation, to claim it's obvious on such an opinionated matter is silly.


It's not slang, it's refering to literally pulling it down, with cables and heavy machinery.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


Molten aluminum, or another metal, building engineers don't work with molten metals, only solid ones.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]


I hope my post, further above, was enough for you. Molten aluminum varies in color from that of steel. Molten aluminum, in day light, doesn't have very luminous properties as steel, especially at the reported temperatures, its known to give off more of a metallic silver.

I think it's a bit more distinguishable.

What "other metals" could pool together to form the molten plumes?

By the way, where would you get copious amount of molten aluminum anyway to get so concentrated, it's not like the WTC where they had planes crash into them, with that as a source for some aluminum.

Pictures of molten aluminum:




Also furthermore, to even support that there was molten material present, such as steel, is assisted by the hot spots and eye witness/picture accounts. Then the question is posed to you Mr_Pointy, indeed how did the fires get to those temperatures when it's out of their capability?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
www.thewebfairy.com...
www.thewebfairy.com...

These are some interesting links, don't you think?

Mr_Pointy, put whatever twist and opinion you want over it, you can't draw anything conclusive, I find it suspicious though that right after he made the decision that they "they should pull it" he makes quick reference to the building comming down, and from that, by saying "pull it" is a support statement for the following statement of him saying "then they watched the building fall"



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I suppose one of lifes mysteries will be What did Silverstein say directly after the words "Pull it"

Was it "Pull it, Get your men outta there"

or

"Pull It, Pull the bloody damm thing down"

I believe in the conspiracy side of 911 but can see that "Pull It" could have variable meanings depending on the context it was said in.

That i suppose we will never know which means this debate could go on forever.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar




This is a great picture....thanks Massisoar.

Notice that the metal casing/crucible/cup is glowing a bright yellow/white while the aluminum inside is still a silvery color.

Do you people think that intellegent people would see a silvery molten metal and call it steel? Maybe mercury but definately not steel.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   


I hope my post, further above, was enough for you. Molten aluminum varies in color from that of steel. Molten aluminum, in day light, doesn't have very luminous properties as steel, especially at the reported temperatures, its known to give off more of a metallic silver.


Where do they say the molten metal was at WTC7, and there are more sources of aluminum that just the planes at WTC1&2, such as the panels covering the building. You have to show the metal refered to is from WTC7, and that there are no other sources of metal.



Iictures of molten aluminum:


More pictures, you can see a lot of them with the glow shown in other pictures
images.google.com...

You are making the mistake of thinking the metal is pure, when at 9/11 it could have been mixed with different materials.



Also furthermore, to even support that there was molten material present, such as steel, is assisted by the hot spots and eye witness/picture accounts. Then the question is posed to you Mr_Pointy, indeed how did the fires get to those temperatures when it's out of their capability?


The hot spots are hot enough for molten aluminum, not steel, the eyewitnesses can't be expected to be able to identify what metals are which when they're molten. As I've said before, the fires wouldn't have gone out just because the building collapsed.
www.offroaders.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   


These are some interesting links, don't you think?


The audio clearly shows what I've been saying the entire time.

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.
4. Pulling a building means to attach cables and pull it down, no explosives



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   


911myths.com...


You still haven't commented on the fact that the water pressure was low, meaning the sprinklers and hoses couldn't be used effectively to put out the fires.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join