911 WTC collapse, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 05:55 PM by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is nothing false about my statement. I am simply stating what I hear when I listen to that clip.

You hear what nobody else can hear
You must live in a different frequency - or is it me
Does anyone else hear the word "instead"
Please tell

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 06:19 PM by HowardRoark

What I hear are barely discernible sounds that are open to debate as to what they are.

Further more, no matter what he said, He was talking about the fire department actions. As it has been pointed out by numerous people, since when does the fire department blow up buildings?

Do you actually think that they ran into the building at the last minute and placed demolition charges?

Do you actually think that Siverstein blew up his own building and admitted it on TV?

Your view of reality is a strange one indeed.

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 06:41 PM by SMR

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What I hear are barely discernible sounds that are open to debate as to what they are.

Further more, no matter what he said, He was talking about the fire department actions. As it has been pointed out by numerous people, since when does the fire department blow up buildings?

Do you actually think that they ran into the building at the last minute and placed demolition charges?

Do you actually think that Siverstein blew up his own building and admitted it on TV?

Your view of reality is a strange one indeed.

I dont think anyone has suggested the fire dept. blew up the buildings.
I dont think any has suggested someone(s) ran into the building at the 'last minute' to install explosives.Is it not possible that they were set before hand or is that too far fetched?
Seeing how much money he recieved for it being 'demolished',you can bet I would let my building go down knowing what my insurence policy said

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 06:51 PM by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What I hear are barely discernible sounds that are open to debate as to what they are.

Further more, no matter what he said, He was talking about the fire department actions. As it has been pointed out by numerous people, since when does the fire department blow up buildings?

Do you actually think that they ran into the building at the last minute and placed demolition charges?

Do you actually think that Siverstein blew up his own building and admitted it on TV?

Your view of reality is a strange one indeed.

you are hearing the whisperings of 4th dimensional entities outside the perception of most of us
God knows why Silverstein should put his enterprise so at risk - perhaps it's ths exteriorize the agenda gambit - put it in your face and laugh as the majority wont and cant get it

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 07:04 PM by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR

Seeing how much money he recieved for it being 'demolished',you can bet I would let my building go down knowing what my insurence policy said

Actually, the money the insurance companies want to pay out is far less then the replacement value of the buildings that were lost.

Silverstien underinsured the buildings.

That is why he is fighting to have the attacks considered as two "occurrences" (one for each plane).

If the insurance companies thought that there was even the slightest possibility of fraud, do you think that they would pay out?

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 07:17 PM by Muaddib

Do i agree with the controlled demolition theory? No. Many times have we discussed this and evidence has ben presented that it was not a controlled demolition, and several times we have proven that it was planes that hit the towers and the pentagon.

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Muaddib]

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 07:19 PM by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR

Seeing how much money he recieved for it being 'demolished',you can bet I would let my building go down knowing what my insurence policy said

Actually, the money the insurance companies want to pay out is far less then the replacement value of the buildings that were lost.

Silverstien underinsured the buildings.

That is why he is fighting to have the attacks considered as two "occurrences" (one for each plane).

If the insurance companies thought that there was even the slightest possibility of fraud, do you think that they would pay out?

The insurance companies, being part and parcel of the scam, wont squeak against the official line
They wouldn't dare investigate - after all the evidence has been carted away
It's important to the insurance companies to stay in line

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 07:21 PM by HowardRoark

If they are part of the scam, then why are they in court trying to avoid paying out money?

since when has an insurance company ever been part aof a scam that involved paying out money?

Your view of reality needs adjustment.

reply posted on 14-5-2005 @ 07:50 PM by dh

The courts are part of it
It's a false scuttle in a friendly place
As long as the truth is covered up
Goes on all the time

[edit on 14-5-2005 by dh]

reply posted on 4-6-2005 @ 10:46 PM by JAK

I just found this and thought it might be of interest to some:

September 11, New York.

An absolutely huge satellite image of New York trade center area. Not sure when it was taken but relatively close to the event judging by the look if it.

Heads up - Image Properties:

Width: 9372px
Height: 9372px
Filesize: 13.6 mb

Jak

reply posted on 5-6-2005 @ 10:00 AM by troydayton

This thread is so full of misinformation, supposition, and faulty logic I can't stand it.

How did a STEEL building collapse from fire? (something that has NEVER happened!) Something that has never happened? EVER? You're so far out on a limb you'll say anything huh?

How did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC? He didn't. He misspoke because he's a moron with an IQ of about 85.

That metal was designed the withhold that kind of fire, yet, mysteriously failed. There is no skyscraper in the world built with metal capable of withstanding a fire fed by jet fuel. Crash two jets into the Petronas towers, the same thing is gonna happen. The same goes for the Sears Tower, Taipei 101 and all the others.

I believe there is PROOF somewhere that the FBI/CIA knew something about 9.11.01 PRIOR to the attacks, yet, don't stop it. Suspicious if you ask me. On top of it, there is a cover-up of a no investigation policy. I'll never be able to relate to those of you who think the US Government is this evil. Have they done bad things? Yes. But would they honestly allow all those people to die for some cloaked military or political purpose? No they wouldn't. Now, if in reference to the FBI, you're talking about the vague foreknowledge that something was going on, that I believe. But to think they knew exactly what was gonna happen, and they let it happen... no.

How was it possible for the World Trade Center?s two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition... Did not hit it directly? WTF? What are you talking about???? And you don't need scientific evidence... go out and do the experiment yourself. Take some iron girders and burn them in jet fuel for 45 minutes and see what's left. Furthermore, all you have to do is closely examine the video of the towers as they burned and you can actually see the top of the tower starting to lean as the fire ten stories below starts to erode away the strength of the supporting beams. It was a slow, gradual slide to the breaking point, and once it broke, it went down. No Presidential conspiracy. No FBI Conspiracy. No CIA conspiracy.

[edit on 6/6/05 by JAK]

reply posted on 5-6-2005 @ 12:16 PM by 8mmmauser

That may be true, but the fact is that despite the actual truth(which we don't know), and even if this is false(which I have no opinion), you still have to look at why some are thinking that it WAS deliberate.
When the PEOPLE are left with dought, albeit maybe a small percentage, then we have to wonder why this is.
And what the gov. has done to create dought in the public mind, because whether true or not, the PEOPLE are the government(or are supposed to be anyway), and as this dought increases, so to will fear, and eventually, sad to say, possible uprising.
This is nothing new.
If the feds want us to trust them, then they should let the PEOPLE in on their facts instead of covering them up.
If this mentality towards the people escalates, then I fear we have only seen the slightest sparks that will eventually light a fire of emmense proportions.
True or not, there CANNOT be these deep-seated divisions.
No-one in 1941 DOUGHTED that the Japanese were the ones who flew into Pearl Harbor.
Think about it.

reply posted on 5-6-2005 @ 12:25 PM by billybob

Originally posted by HowardRoark
CPYKOmega, perhaps you missed the thread where the definition of the term pull was discussed as it is used by fire fighters. I'm not going to dig it up again, so . . .

Like many occupations, fire fighters have a distinct and definite language that they use to communicate with each other. Since they are involved in a deadly occupation it is imperative that they all share the same definition for commonly used terms.

To the NYFD, the term pull is just a shorthand for pulling back and letting a fire burn.

This is a fairly common term among fire fighters. Here are some typical examples of its use:

Source

pull back.

Source

pull back.

Source

pull back. ....Pull back.

Source

pull back.

Some slightly different terminology used here:
Source

pull back.

Source

pull back.

Source

pull back.

Source

pull back.

Source

pull back..

And on, and on, and on. . . .

i notice NONE of them say "pull it". notice, also, that the infamous quote is from silverstien, who is recalling his conversation with the fire chief.

so, once again, why was silverstien directing the firefight, and why does he speak in fireman jargon?
it is easier for me to believe he has decided now is the time to blow it up, and is informing the (illuminati) firechief.

a little of the NASA-developed, copper-encased explosive, 'RDX', can go a long way. it 'slices' metal at 27, 000 ft. per second? OUCH!

reply posted on 5-6-2005 @ 12:48 PM by billybob

and for all you REAL tinfoil hatters out there(my space-brothers and sisters), CHECK THIS OUT!!!.....

Howard Roark(the name of the architect guy who blew up his own buildings in a AYN RAND novel), has informed us on another thread, that in RL he is a hazmat cleanup guy.
HowardRoark
Member
Registered: 16-11-2003
posted on 16-11-2003 at 16:11

this is howard's first thread. look at all the upside down and backwards 911s!

reply posted on 5-6-2005 @ 11:19 PM by aelphaeis_mangarae

but the weakening of beams from intense heat

There were no intense fires, check the witness reports, look at the holes in the towers.

911physics.co.nr...

Has a decent analysis of the WTC collapse.

Are any of you aware that the WTC North Tower fell faster than the rate of freefall in a total vaccuum ?

reply posted on 21-6-2005 @ 05:24 PM by fj_eng

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

but the weakening of beams from intense heat

There were no intense fires, check the witness reports, look at the holes in the towers.

911physics.co.nr...

Has a decent analysis of the WTC collapse.

Are any of you aware that the WTC North Tower fell faster than the rate of freefall in a total vaccuum ?

Here are a few comments of the junk science being portrayed on this forum: (which are mostly exaggerated comments or over-simplified analysis)

Very first and easiest correction:
It is physically impossible for something to fall(accelerate) faster than the rate of free fall in a vaccuum (9.81 m/s^2). That is unless the government invented a gravity device to up the force of gravity in that one specific area at that specific point in time, or if it was being yanked to the ground by some other force. (This point alone discredits what you are saying, and the source you obtained it from) This is basic knowledge gained in grade 11 physics.

Second, the temperate does not have to get anywhere near the melting point of steel before it begins to soften. (read any introduction to engineering materials science text) All it takes is a high enough temperature at a reasonable length of time (800*C for an hour would be near that requirement although that is just a ballpark figure, so dont quote me on it). I am just trying to say steel is not invincible and can be significantly weakend without melting.

Third - The structure of the world trade center was significantly different than most other steel buildings, so comparing this building to others that have had fires + stuctural weakening due to impacts, is like comparing apples to oranges

Fourth - The comparison of wind loads to plane impacts is not a valid comparison. Impacts have a completely different nature, of which I will not go into any detail here. Read any Engineering mechanics text if you want to indulge your curiosity.

Fifth - I do believe the the WTC is much more than the media portrays, but throwing out elaborate junk science facts is only making your opionion look flawed and wrong

reply posted on 22-6-2005 @ 07:25 PM by Zaphod58

As far as the interview with Silverstein (sp?) you're both right. I listened to it twice, and heard him say "pullit" AND "instead". The "instead" was said a little quieter but I distinctly heard him say "..and we watched in collapse instead." on that recording. And that is my one and only comment on this thread as I'm already having a wonderful debate in another thread.

reply posted on 22-6-2005 @ 07:35 PM by Zaphod58

Ok, I'm going to post two responses, but this is absolutely my last one.

www.republicanandproud.com...

reply posted on 22-6-2005 @ 09:25 PM by billybob

an article written by Rodger Herbst; BAAE, ME

html version

or, a pdf, septembereleventh.org....

Jim Hoffman notes that Corus

Construction performed extensive tests subjecting uninsulated steel-frame carparcks to prolonged

hydrocarbon-fuled fires. The highest

recorded steel temperatures were 360 deg C.

[911research.wtc.net...] This is substantiated by Jim McMichael,

who wrote that the maximum temperature achieved in fire testing of unprotected steel supports [in the

U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), a long way from the first critical

threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). Heat from the Tower beams was continuously

conducted from the heated portions to the cooler portions below, suggesting an even lower maximum

temperature. ["Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics,"www.Public-Action.com/911/mcmichael.html]

Charles Clifton is a technical expert in determining the effects of severe fire and earthquake on steel

framed buildings. He believed that fire could not possibly have caused the towers to collapse. [Painful

Questions]

this link rebutts all the official whitewash.

[Trimmed link - JAK]

[edit on 4/7/05 by JAK]

reply posted on 6-7-2005 @ 09:06 AM by Lanotom

Pull back. Is that what Silverstein said? No!

He said "pull it" and then we watched the building collapse.

We are looking for the term "pull it". It and back are two different words.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
CPYKOmega, perhaps you missed the thread where the definition of the term pull was discussed as it is used by fire fighters. I'm not going to dig it up again, so . . .