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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boniman
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'.


No.

He doesn't say immediatley after. He just says that they watched it happen after and he doesn't give a time frame.



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.


They never say that the buildings are about to be blown. That's just a lie on your part and you should be ashamed mate.

They say the buildings about to come down. Why? Because THEY were there and saw the structural failures and thought the building would come down. YOU weren't there. Guilliani was told WTC1 and WTC2 would be coming down via a message from the Police Chief after the police in the helicopter near the WTC's reported severe structural damage and said it looked like the building would come down.

You've just suggested that the hundreds of brave firefighters who helped save lives on 9/11 were in on the plot. Yet 500 of them died? Not one of them has come out to say they were told the building was about to be demolished. Not one.

Sorry if I got a bit harsh there.




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Looking at 9/11 from outside the box brings the obvious into light.

1. Do you really think those 19 arabs just 'got lucky' that 9/11 just happened to have multiple war games involving hijacked aircraft with fake blips added to FAA radar which totally confused and mislead any possible intercepts from the U.S. airforce ?????

2. Even if both WTC 1 & 2's fires and damage had gotten hot enough to melt all the steel on those floors Do you really think the top portion of the building could globaly collapse the netire structure ?????

3. Even if WTC 7 had a massive hole in it's middle and massive steel melting fires Is it possible for ALL the structural supports to magically fail ALL at the same time ?????

4. We had Cheney ordering a stand down with Norm Minetta as a witness, Guiliani admitting on Live TV that he was warned the WTC towers were going to collapse before they did and Silverstein admitting they 'pulled' WTC 7 and then watched it fall. Like HELLO do you not think these guys know more than they are telling about ?

Nobody in the Truth community needs to prove poo ... that is up to a grand jury and prosecutor. All we need to have done is get a special grand jury convinced of reasonable grounds to indict the above 3 for investigation of conspiracy to aid & abet in mass murder.

Anyone who trolls the official version by demanding proof from the truth community is nothing more than a useless a criminal shill.

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

[edit on 25/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
2- People often say in here "it looked like a controlled demolition". Well, controlled demolitions require to concentrate their efforts to the lowest floors of a structure. Yes you do place charges on upper floors to facilitate breakage, maximizing control as the structure collapses...EVERY implosion ever performed follows the same rule of thumb. Take out the structural supports from the bottom floors. This "Gets the structure moving".

Here you just described with great details how WTC7 was "pulled".
I highly suggest you see the second movie in my sig for more details on this.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Drfungus,

Silverstein staed they watched them collapse in the same contextual sentence of when he said they decided to pull it ... there is know other way to interpret his sentence of admitting guilt.

And regarding the firefighters referring to the building about to blow ... I meant WTC 7 and I'll dig up the clip I was referring to.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The pulled comment again?...

Giulliani never said "we should pull down the tower"... he said "we decided to pull" which he was probably referring getting the rest of the firefighters out of the area...not to demolish the buildings.

Some people will never want to admit they are wrong, they just want to believe no matter what that "it was a government job" for whatever political motives such people might have...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boniman
Drfungus,

Silverstein staed they watched them collapse in the same contextual sentence of when he said they decided to pull it ... there is know other way to interpret his sentence of admitting guilt.



Really?

Could you please post a direct link to this?... and I mean a link where it has Silverstein say "pull" and then the building came down....

People do know by now that firefighters use the term "let's pull" to mean let's get out of here right?....

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
OK this again...

First off he didn't say 'pull' he said 'pull it'...it being a building not a group of people.

The last part of his admitance was.."And we watched the building collapse"...That was the conclusion of his statement. He didn't say "And we watched the firemen come out of the building". It's obvious he's talking about the buidling, not the firemen.

You guys have just found an easy to fool youself with excuse to not believe the truth in front of you.

It's called denial.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Here is the rescue workers statement re: WTC 7 about to blow.

video.google.ca... w+it

And the video with Giuliani & Silverstein's statements of incrimination.

video.google.ca... uliani+silverstein

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Boniman]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Could you pelase post the entire sentences he said when referring to that comment?

Proof please...

Giulliani is no firefighter, so he might ahve heard the chief firefighter say something about pulling out and he used the term wrong...but i guess that's not possible either...it is undeniable proof that it was a government job....

Please don't talk about denial when you are so close minded you can't see the trees in the forest in front of you.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
To CameronFOxm and whoever else here who still believes that 110 stories towers can be brought down at almost free-fall speed, and their concrete structure be reduced to dust, only with being hit by planes at their upper floors and having no more than 10% percent of the building on flames, I gave to say one thing that resumes what most people on ATS, and what now most AMERICANS think about this:

THIS. IS. CRAP.

Wether you are an undercover psyops troll or just very naive person who has blind faith into whatever officials and the mainstream media will tell him, just stop trying. No, no one's gonna end the "controlled demolition theory". It's there and it will remain as long, at least, as no formal public investigation will be made on the events.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Quick ...

you accused me of being a government shill... i was making light of it by telling you what i was doing.... you know... REAL LIFE STUFF! Geesh dude...relax...


No, I did not accuse you. I wrote: "Maybe you are a shill."



Now, there is ZERO proof of BOMBS going off PRIOR to impact. You can claim that seismic activity was several seconds off from the FAA Loss of radar contact. My thought is that it took those several seconds for the transponder to be destroyed... I heard that flight 11 had their transponder shut off... how was it being tracked? I will do some research...and get back to you. For now... I will concede that I havent an answer to time laps between seismic activity and the FAA loss of radar contact.


You must provide evidence that the times from the 9/11 Commission and NIST are in error. Until then, THERE IS EVIDENCE OF BOMBS GOING OFF PRIOR TO IMPACT. It's in the report.



Please show me the proof that there were mini nukes... nano thermite..and also please show me some seismic proof.


I dont' agree with the first two, but here is more information:

In this report, NTSB Recorded Radar Data Study of Feb. 15, 2002,
www.911myths.com...
the last sentence in “C. SUMMARY” is:
[Quote] “Time synchronized ground tracks of the hijacked aircraft are presented.”

The FAA had primary radar return data for all the aircraft data (they had secondary radar returns as well). Primary returns do not give altitude and can have some error in position (depending upon how far away the station is to the aircraft), but they do provide precise times. For each station there was a radar track of the flight by position with accompanying timestamps. Each track was aligned to the 84th RADES as the benchmark (it had radar data for all flights from beginning to end). Once aligned, they adjusted the times as necessary so that all the data from all the stations was consistent and in agreement to UTC.

The NTSB took the data from the Feb. 15, 2002 Recorded Radar Data Study and incorporated all the data, including times, into the flight path studies the NTSB issued on Feb. 19, 2002 for all the flights of 9/11.

AA Flt 11 had its transponder turned off by the hijackers when they took control of the plane. This meant it could only be tracked by primary radar. So forget about altitude and position as this only concerns time. Here is the NTSB flight path study for AA Flt 11. Looking at Fig. 2 graph from the study,
www.gwu.edu...
notice all the radar returns are primary [that were estimated to altitude]. These represent accurate times for all the returns. The last one, sitting at zero altitude (which means nothing because it is a primary), is 8:46:40. This 8:46:40 final primary radar return for AA Flt 11 can easily be seen in the “blow-up” presented in the paper.

You should read some NTSB accident reports. The final radar return is always of particular interest. The 8:46:40 is an actual return. It is listed as "approximate" in the flight path study because of the radar-refresh aspect of the antenna turning as it goes through its “sweep”; i.e., "approximate" is stated because it could have been:
8:46:41, or
8:46:42, or
8:46:43, etc...
But this also means it could not have been earlier than 8:46:40, only later. And if it were later, that would make the time differential between seismic and radar even greater, so this is a non-issue.

Regarding seismic time, NIST contracted with LDEO to reanalyze the times from 2001. This effort ended with NIST accepting revised times, as found in their section entitled: "ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY". The time for WTC1 plane "impact" was 8:46:29. Regarding the NIST “ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY”, read 3.5 and 3.6 from Chapter 3: wtc.nist.gov...

All times were synchronized to UTC.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Sorry Echtelion but it has been proven several times in here that the buildings never fell at "nearly freefall speed"....and there is no such thing as "nearly freefall speed"....

If anyone is naive is all the people who have to claim "oh you must be a government agent" when the facts are presented.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Muadibb,

You are confusing Giuliani with Silverstein.

Silverstein said the 'pull it' sentence.

Giuliani said he was warned by someone from OEM that WTC 1 or 2 were going to collapse before they did.

And anyone that says a Police Helicopter visually determined the towers were buckling and about to collapse is a LIAR ....... the Police and Firemen would have been warned long before Giuliani.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boniman
Here is the rescue workers statement re: WTC 7 about to blow.


Oh wow, now rescue workers were also in on it?... And over 500 hundred people, including rescue workers and firefighters died that day yet they were in on it?...

C'mon.....now that is BS...

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Muadibb,

Common laws of physics re: momentum have PROVEN that both WTC 1 & 2's undamaged lower structure would have resisted the above collapse and a time estimate based of gravity, momentum & mass determined a global collapse time SHOULD have been 90 seconds or more if pancake theory was accurate.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

damn right! I understand there are problems with withdrawing the troops but perhaps there are other ways, and the very act of withdrawal may help. Still if you believe the news there were Iraqis that wanted and needed our support and soliders there to protect and police them (which isn't really their job, but perhaps it should be) but when they keep making mistakes and breaking rules which is hard not to do in such a difficult situation we can loose some of the actual good and hard work and progess achieved. One step forward and two steps back will not work. I believe there are many good soliders out there doing a fine job, representing the US, winning the hearts and minds of the people and protecting their best interests but it can be soured easily by a small handful of troops messing it all up and mistakes being made. Such a complex situation.. I am going to leave it there for now but I am in two minds generally about getting them home.


I agree with you. It is very sad.
But there is no other way out...but to get out.
This is Vietnam all over again, to the tee...and this insanity must end now.

We had no right going in there in the first place.
And I am 100% behind our service personnel. We must get them out now.
Anything else is criminal on top of criminal.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Nooo....Valhall, who happens to be one of the few engineers around here, gave us equations and explained at what speed the buildings fell ect....and she has said that the buildings never fell at "freefall speed" nor "nearly freefall speed"...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Muadibb you are a *snip*. pull your head out *snip* and watch the videos of the buildings collapse ......... if you can't surmize that they were CD's of some type especially WTC 7 *ADDITIONAL SNIP*.


And re: WTC 7 about to blow ... this was 8 hours after it was evacuated. Being informed that WTC 7 was about to blow doesn't make all rescue workers complicit.

Due to compartmentalization ....... most involved in 9/11 didn't even know ... most thought they part of the various drills going on that day.

The Mossad was definately involved and the U.S. should be at war with Israel over their involvement.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Additional Mod Edit: More Of The Same.


[edit on 25/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
[quote of entire previous post removed]



Keep your insults for whenever you go back to high school kid...

You can't claim that the rescue worker and firefighters were in on it when hundreds of their comrades died that day...

And you are going to have "one rescue worker" who according to you knew it was going to be demolished and he yells this in a video in front of dozens of people?....


[edit on 11/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
No kid here ... I'm much older than you think.




This video shows a bunch of Ground Zero rescuers hearing an explosion and commenting about the ... all » WTC 7:

Rescuer 1: “It’s blowin’ boy. Did you hear that?” Rescuer 2: “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon.” Rescuer 3: “The building is about to blow up. Move it back!” Rescuer 4: “Move it back here. Alright guys? Sorry.” Rescuer 3: “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. (Inaudible), debris coming down.”



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join