|
reply posted on 19-9-2006 @ 02:02 PM by billybob
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
There's no evidence they DIDN'T except some tiny little gif images where you can't see the cables, because it was taken from god knows how far
away.
there's never any evidence that something didn't happen. that is a logical given.
cables need to be attached to something, presumably a winch, and the winch must be moored to something more massive than the weakest link in a
building.
something, like, say, some big cranes. do you see that?
Originally posted by Zaphod58But to use explosives they would have had to test blast, and do other things that there's no evidence they
did, or they would have risked doing.
listen to yourself, man! there's no evidence they DIDN'T! holy logical double standard, batman, get the irrationality repellent!
[edit on 19-9-2006 by billybob]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2006 @ 02:04 PM by Slap Nuts
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then why does EVERY CD company talk about cutting pillars and test blasting and all that.
Sources for EVERY CD company? You are shooting yourself in the foot.
You just have a problem using words like: ALWAYS, MUST, NEVER, etc...
It is obvious that it could be done without a test blast... OBVIOUS. Likely, maybe not, but as long as you continue to use all encompassing, exacting
language, I will continue to call you out for stating LIKELYHOODS as FACTS.
Been annoying knowing ya... have a nice life with your head in the sand.
[edit on 19-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-9-2006 @ 02:27 PM by Griff
|
I just sent this to CDI,
To whom it may concern,
I was wondering how the building 6 of the World Trade Center was demolished. I have been hearing conflicting versions. Can someone clear this up for
me. I am a structural engineer interested in demolition exercises. I know that part of the demolition was tricky because of the slurry wall. Thanks
in advance for your cooperation in answering my question.
Hopefully I will get a response. When I do, I'll post it.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-9-2006 @ 10:44 AM by Griff
|
I still haven't recieved a response from CDI. Wonder why? I'm going to e-mail them again. I used my real name and my company's e-mail, so they
shouldn't just think I'm a CTer. I'm trying again.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-9-2006 @ 10:50 AM by Griff
|
As I was typing the last post, I recieved my response. Here is what it said. I left out names.
This structure was demolished by, we think, a company named NACERIMA. We understand they used a combination of a crane with a heavy steel slab
to shear out column connections by dropping this slab next to columns and with demolition attachments like grapples and shears mounted on large
hydraulic excavators. We weren’t involved, but I think this was the technique used.
Regards,
Now, I'm going to contact NACERIMA and see what they say.
Edit: So far I can't find any NACERIMA demolition company. Any help?
[edit on 9/21/2006 by Griff]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-9-2006 @ 11:12 AM by Griff
|
So far all I can get info on them is this.
Nacirema Rubbish & Waste Removal
Call
Manhattan NY
Phone: 212-759-5994
I don't want to call because then I have no direct quote.
Edit: Well, I just called and got an e-mail address...I'll keep you guys posted.
[edit on 9/21/2006 by Griff]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 09:53 AM by Slap Nuts
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 10:11 AM by Griff
|
Can you give a time stamp for that. I'm at work and can't listen to it but would love to see this. Thanks for clearing this up also Slap Nuts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 10:30 AM by Slap Nuts
|
Originally posted by Griff
Can you give a time stamp for that. I'm at work and can't listen to it but would love to see this. Thanks for clearing this up also Slap Nuts.
I would give you the timestamp, however, for your own good, please watch the video in it's entirety when you can... 
I am now very sorry that Loose Change has been distributed as it may lead people to not take the time to watch this one.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 10:35 AM by Slap Nuts
|
OK,Griff, to be honest, LOL I can't find the spot... you will see it if you watch it though.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 10:35 AM by Griff
|
I've watched some of it. I just can't hear it at work. Maybe tonight. I just wanted to see the cables. I think I saw them but wasn't sure if it
was building 6 because I couldn't hear what they were saying. Is this video mpeg or avi file? If so, do you think it would be ok to convert it into
DVD format for distribution to friends? I hope I can...I have a program that converts mpegs and avis to DVD.....legally of course.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 11:03 AM by 2smooth4ya
|
Originally posted by Djarums
We're all understanding clearly that Silverstein is not a construction worker, firefighter, demolitions expert, or anything but a property owner...
right?
So his use of terminology is still subject of so much scrutiny?
Interesting.
Yes it is.
He stated the words" the best thing to do is pull IT".
Notice the word that I capatilize here. The word in question here is the word "IT". Who describe a group of individuals(the firemen in this case)
by the word IT?
IT
webster.com...
Main Entry: 1it
Pronunciation: 'it, &t
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hit -- more at HE
1 : that one -- used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually in reference to a lifeless thing
, a plant , a person or animal
whose sex is unknown or disregarded , a group of individuals or things, or an abstract entity -- compare HE, ITS, SHE, THEY
2 -- used as subject of an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent t is raining>
3 a -- used as anticipatory subject or object of a verb t is necessary to repeat the whole thing> -- often used to shift emphasis to a part of a
statement other than the subject t was in this city that the treaty was signed> b -- used with many verbs as a direct object with little or no meaning
ooted it back to camp>
4 -- used to refer to an explicit or implicit state of affairs or circumstances ow is it going>
5 : a crucial or climactic point
I know this might seen a bit silly to discuss(the word "it") but it's very crucial as to what Silverstein was referring to.
Just my two pennies...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-9-2006 @ 07:33 PM by ULTIMA1
|
Originally posted by Griff
As I was typing the last post, I recieved my response. Here is what it said. I left out names.
This structure was demolished by, we think, a company named NACERIMA. We understand they used a combination of a crane with a heavy steel slab
to shear out column connections by dropping this slab next to columns and with demolition attachments like grapples and shears mounted on large
hydraulic excavators. We weren’t involved, but I think this was the technique used.
Regards,
Here is a photo of equipment working the debri with the name of the company on them.
[edit on 22-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]
[edit on 22-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 23-9-2006 @ 10:32 AM by ULTIMA1
|
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Griff
As I was typing the last post, I recieved my response. Here is what it said. I left out names.
This structure was demolished by, we think, a company named NACERIMA. We understand they used a combination of a crane with a heavy steel slab
to shear out column connections by dropping this slab next to columns and with demolition attachments like grapples and shears mounted on large
hydraulic excavators. We weren’t involved, but I think this was the technique used.
Regards,
Sorry, please delete prvious posting.
Here are photos of equipment working the debri with the name of the company on them.
[edit on 23-9-2006 by ULTIMA1]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
