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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

ok..that explains Silversteins quote. (if he did have it blown up...why would he admit it on TV? ) Why if it was SO obvious...wouldn't the insurance companies not investigate before giving this guy MILLIONS !


PULL does not mean to use explosives. WHY OH WHY do people still think that....

This is taken from the SAME documentary on PBS: America Rebuilds

www.911myths.com...

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... ... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

GEESH


files.abovetopsecret.com...

This is from building 6 ...notice the cables.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by CameronFox]




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^ BS. 'pull it' is a know demolition term. Maybe you need to read more.

Put his comment into context, it has nothing to do with evacuating firefighters.
And why would he have anything to do with 'cables to remove supports'? That makes no sense at all.



Exactly my point..! He was talking about the lives lost during the day!



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Hey Val...

Don't know if you've seen this or not, but if you go here, and scroll down to post 73 this guy has a rough draft blue print of the Towers...

www.wirednewyork.com...

Don't know if it will help in your quest...



Too cool. Thank you for the link!



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
If the Tower's were destroyed by a controled demolition don't you think atleast half of the 100 or so video's filmed that day would of recorded some sort of audible explosion's?The funny thing is that the only video that I've seen that has audible explosion's just happen's to be a conspiracy movie,"911 Eye Witness".

If you compare 911-Eye Witness to the many other video's,most of them were filmed alot closer then 911 Eye Witness you dont' hear any explosion?HMMMM?Considering how loud and low the frequencies of the explosion's were in "911 Eye Witness" everyone within a mile would of felt or heard them much like 4th of july firework's considering how loud they appear to be over a mile away in this Video.Low frequencies travel far and can be felt,the dubbed in fake explosion's in that video were like fireworks or some kid with 2 18 inch subwoofer's in his car,if the audio in this video were real there would be 100% no doubt that there were explosion's in the WTC,to bad these so called explosion's only exist on this guy's magic camera.

Unfortunately it's the only video with these so called explosion's and it also happens to be a conspiracy movie.

Controlled demo is LOUD.But I know,I know they used Thermite charge's


Controlled demo
video.google.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Exactly what's so funny about it? There were numerous first responders who reported hearing explosions. You weren't there and you weren't part of it, so you don't know what happened, do you? I have found no evidence to back the thermite theory, nor the controlled demolition theory, but I don't think some one who hasn't got a clue what happened that day ought to be laughing like Hee Haw's on at some one else's theory.

What happened in the towers?....and please provide evidence for your answer. Once you answer that question, (which you won't be able to do) then tell me what makes it okay for you to laugh about any idea concerning this.

[edit on 11-24-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Umm this is the USA we are allowed to laugh at conspiracy theories?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
That is exactly right! There is NOT ONE PERSON on this board that knows the truth about what happened. Nothing but OPINIONS, GOOFY NIST REPORTS, AND WEB LINKS. I would like to ask those of you that think all of this is the work of terrorists only - do you believe in any conspiracies? JFK?? Anything?? Or do you think the world goes round and that's about it??



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
Umm this is the USA we are allowed to laugh at conspiracy theories?


Yeah, I'm also allowed to bust your chops over it. God bless the USA.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Cameron earlier in the thread I posted a link that has a video with both the Guiliani & Silverstein quotes.

And if you research demolition history you will find the term "pull it" or "pull" originates when a buildings inner super structure is blown the building will be 'pulled' into its' center thus imploding. Pulling supports with cables or bracing with cables is also used in the industry to ensure a building topples a certain direction similar to felling a tree.

I actually watch an implosion of a 9 story railway station in my hometown in 2001 ....... before the 'pulled' the building a huge horn went off like 5 times and they announced a count down to 'pull' the building. I wish I had video taped it.

However the context of Silverstein's statement was definately related to demolition noting how he lamented they watch the building collapse immediately after it was 'pulled'.

There are many other videos on google & youtube etc. that also show firefighters stating that WTC is getting ready to blow it and they had better clear out, they even say watch that building its coming down.

All this info or prelim evidence is all that's needed to investigate the criminals responsible ......... start by torturing Guiliani & Silverstein and they will give up the rest.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

So tell me, when was the last time ever in human history has a HIGHRISE ever fell due to some fire..

So tell me, when was the last time a Boeing 767 hit a building at, what? 425knots?

When was the last time that a weakened structure without fire protection, had 90,850 litres of jet fuel burn in it?



Remember boys and girls, steel weakens at 2500+f not 500F or as jet fuels are concerned 600+

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF EASILY close enough to significantly weaken the already smashed structure.

Steel weakens to 50% at 1200°F

2500+ is close to the actual melting point of steel. You don't need to melt steel to weaken it.


Ever see how fast Steel melts with thermite?

Yep. But two questions:

1: Why is there only something that looks like thermite in like 2 places on the towers?

2: Why would thermite be on the outside of the building?




Also when anyone states that the fires were at 1200 F ... you must consider that does NOT indicate the steel was at that temp since the steel conducts the heat and the structure acts as a heat sink and disipates the heat and spreads it out through its' beams and members. So to claim the buildings steel lost 50% of its' strength is agin false and misleading.

True. However even if it was at a lower temperature and lost say, 25% of its strength, I'd say that's already enouph to make a already weakened structure colapse.


How about explaining this to me...

external image

That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?

I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.

Easy. A support beam on the left of that picture broke, tipping the tower to the left. The huge increase in load on the rest of the structure was enourmous causing the top floor to collapse. The collapsed top floor would create a domino effect.

Yeah yeah yeah, my theory is pretty cruddy



^ BS. 'pull it' is a knowN demolition term.

No it isn't, ask any demolition firm that and they'll say it isn't used.

Also, even if that was true, why would he say it? It makes no sence.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by quicknthedead


(Per Occam's Razor, the answer of explosions denotes conspiracy, and yes, this would mean controlled demolition).


No it wouldn't. Seriously, get a grip. Evidence of explosions going off before the collapse is evidence of explosions going off before the collapse. Not of controlled demolition. This is what makes a laughing stock of all who try to delve into this issue - wanton mental copulation.

Your ilk will be mentally masturbating over this a decade from now. Some of us others may actually get some where....don't worry - facts don't seem to detour you guys so you're well on your way to your hairy-palmed nirvana.


You are not answering the question (and by not doing so, I can't follow your logic).

You admit that explosions occurred before the plane hit.

So, what do you think could have possibly caused these explosions at such an "unusual" point in time in the history of man?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well, first of all, I don't see where I admitted anything happened before the planes hit. I also don't see where I denied same. So see how you jumped to conclusions? That's not a safe (nor is it an intelligent) thing to do.

Second, let's pretend I DID say explosions happened before the planes hit - or even after the planes hit - THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Open your mind - there's more than what you're obsessing on.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by ANOK
^ BS. 'pull it' is a know demolition term. Maybe you need to read more.

Put his comment into context, it has nothing to do with evacuating firefighters.
And why would he have anything to do with 'cables to remove supports'? That makes no sense at all.


Actually, if you take it context, it completely means something other than blowing the building. He said - there had all ready been such an enormous loss of life that day that he decided to tell them to pull it. That sounds like getting people out of harm's way, not blowing a building.


I disagree.

When you add 'and then we watched the building fall' it's pretty obviouse to me he's talking about 'blowing up a building'. Why add that if it wasn't the conclusion of 'we decided to pull it.'?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Because you're taking the statements as a literal temporal timeline. I'm sorry, but him following one statement with the other doesn't mean he said pull it and then the building fell. For God's sake, use some reasoning.

Read some of the first responder accounts - if you take them as literally as you're taking this man's interview then the first plane hit and the second building fell...just like that.

All I'm asking is for you to 1.) do a little research on your own and stop barfing up some one else's opinion, and 2.) use a little common sense.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Well Val I could say the same to you. You think your opinion is more valid than mine.

Sry but the way larry said his piece there was no time netween 'pull it' and we watched the building fall.

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Read that last part. It doesn't say 'And they made the decision to pull and we watched the fire crews evacuate' No it clearly says 'And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse'.

How does pulling the fire crews out cause the building to collapse? And when does the fire crew become an 'it'? The sentense only makes sense if he's talking about the building.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Well, he could have also added in - and I had to take a potty-break, and then we watched the building come down.

My response is whatever...because this is one instance where you are grabbing at straws. If you want to prove something, the way someone tells a story in an interview without filling in all the minutia in between the major points, is not the way to prove it. Like I said, read some of the first responder accounts and you'll see this is not sound ground to base a theory on.

And I never said I thought my opinion is more valid than yours...so blow that nonsense out your backside. That's poppy-cock talk to try to make me look bad for disagreeing with you. I'm telling you this - if you want to prove WTC 7 was blown, you should base it on more than how Silverstein told the story in a brief (and probably edited) interview.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, first of all, I don't see where I admitted anything happened before the planes hit. I also don't see where I denied same. So see how you jumped to conclusions? That's not a safe (nor is it an intelligent) thing to do.

Second, let's pretend I DID say explosions happened before the planes hit - or even after the planes hit - THAT DOES NOT EQUATE TO A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Open your mind - there's more than what you're obsessing on.


My mind is wide open. I thought you had said explosions happened before.
I know you said explosions happened.

I thought you had read this that I have posted numerous times at this forum and in this thread.

Please read it now and then we can continue. Thanks.
(And yes, there were explosions before the plane hit.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross, Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org...

The US Government, incriminated by its own facts, the perfect evidence—how ironic.
Summary:
News Tip: A real 9/11 smoking gun…that no one can debunk (these are facts, not theory).
Airplane “Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity

The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found an indisputable causal link:

One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual air crash at 8:46:40?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?

Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic time (which had been attributed in error by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as plane “impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the sub-basements before the plane crashed.

Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup, and thus implication of complicity.

Before it is too late, demand a new, truly independent, criminal investigation of 9/11, this time a real one.
Justice waits...[and there is no statute of time limitation on murder]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Sry but the way larry said his piece there was no time netween 'pull it' and we watched the building fall.

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

How does pulling the fire crews out cause the building to collapse? And when does the fire crew become an 'it'? The sentense only makes sense if he's talking about the building.


I've said a few times on this site that this line is crucial to the whole 911 deal:

"We've had such terrible loss of life ALREADY, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."
What is Lucky Larry saying here? He suggests that more lives could be lost but why? Also he suggests that this was his call since he states that this was his idea in the first place. He being the building's owner had the call to pull it. Seems logical but it also assumes conspiracy with the NYFD too doesn't it?

What does loss of life have to do with pulling a building anyways?

Maybe Larry is mentioning a veiled threat of some kind? But what and between who?

Also I strongly agree with your interpretation of his statements and I am confused on how they could be understood otherwise by anyone?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And I never said I thought my opinion is more valid than yours...so blow that nonsense out your backside. That's poppy-cock talk to try to make me look bad for disagreeing with you. I'm tel


No, but the tone of your post made it seem that way.
Well obviously my opinion is not based on just what larry said now is it?
There's lots of evidence that points to controlled demo, as you obviously know.
And telling me to blow it out of my backside is no way to have a discussion is it?

I'm not grabbing at straws he said what he said, you can make excuses for what he said all day it makes no difference, analyze his statement and the most obvious conclusion is he is talking about a building not a bunch of firefighters.
He didn't just throw in the 'we watched the building collapse', it's the conclusion to the rest of his statement.

Firefighters job is to put out fires, they don't give up and walk away if the fire is still raging. So either the fires weren't that big or they new it was going to be 'pulled'.
Either way it contradicts the 'raging fires' theory.

Sry but your version of larrys statement doesn't add up when you analyze it imo.

If it walks and quaks like a controlled demo, it is a controlled demo. A natural collapse looks nothing like a controlled demo. Never has, never will period.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Also I strongly agree with your interpretation of his statements and I am confused on how they could be understood otherwise by anyone?


Thanxs..

There's also the question of, if the statement was refering to bringing the fire fighters out of the building why would larry have anything to do with that decision?

If your house was on fire and you told the fire chief to stop putting it out he would laugh at you.

But if it was refering to demoing the building it makes sense because the owner would have a say in that. In fact larry made his fortune buying buildings, and knocking them down to build new complexes. He is very familiar with demolishing buildings and the terms used.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join