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.

 

Pull IT

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
On the internet, claims made, hold little weight; without some sort of verifiable information. I caught the word you chose in your opening post, 'faithfully'; perhaps Grif did not.

I would like to hear your thoughts as to why you believe what you do—regardless of what qualifications you have. In this case, your claimed qualifications makes me very interested.
Especially if you have an opinion to Anok's question.




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo


Just because this statement by Silerstein doesn't prove anything, you can't automatically just say "There was no conspiracy and the buildings were not brought down by controlled demolition. " That's a big leap in my mind.


Ok, I'll give you that one for free. However, my qualification as a structural engineer and backround in chemistry does allow me to state faithfully that it was not a controlled demo. Even the Loizeaux family has said that the WTC was not a controlled demo.


But wasn't it the Loizeaux family that also stated they found molten steel in the basements of buildings ?

[edit on 15-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Dble post...

[edit on 15/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
Even the Loizeaux family has said that the WTC was not a controlled demo.


I wonder why they would say that? Maybe because they were the ones who did the demolition, maybe?

Controlled Demolition Inc. is owned by the Loizeaux family...


The company is headed by Mark Loizeaux out of Baltimore. In February 2000, a Federal Jury Indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking members and employees to donate to the campaign of Elijah E Cummings, a Democrat Representative for Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998, but the Loizeaux brothers and the company were acquitted in September 2000. Controlled Demolition have been awarded Federal Contracts worth billions of dollars. One such contract was for the demolition and removal of the remains of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma that had been previously hit by a terrorist bomb. The rubble of this building was carried away to a landfill site operated by BFI Waste.


Source

Government contracts are very lucrative, we pay for them basically, so the government pays top dollar. Companies will do anything to secure government contracts.

[edit on 15/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
MooneyBravo, unless you answer the questions Anok posed, your argument amounts to little more than saying "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.............. R.I.P.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MooneyBravo
Umm...ok...

Are you an engineer? I've been reading your posts for quite some and you exhibit nothing that is indicative of knowledge of engineering. Are you going to tell me that your understanding of the collapse rivals mine or any other engineer that that disagrees with controlled demo theory? What the hell did I spend nearly 7 years studying for if you know as much as I and the thousands of engineers across the country that have looked into these events due to professional curiosity. I suppose I should perform computational dynamics analysis and have you review it for your "professional" opinion. Better yet, since my family owns an engineering firm, we could send all of our work to you so you can review it and correct all of our mistakes...since we know nothing more (or perhaps less) than you.

You believe in 911 conspiracy theories, including controlled demo, simply because you want to and by golly you will not stand to allow professional opinion or facts that do not agree with your preconceived notions to get in the way of your ill logic.


I guess you've made up your mind then? I am curious of your structural calcs. because I like most on here are trying to find truth. If you have the proof, then that's what I'm looking for. I asked for your calcs. because not even NIST has prooved how WTC 7 collapsed. They have the money, construction docs, man hours etc, and yet they haven't prooved it yet. If you and your family has prooven it, then I'd say you guys should get all that money and not NIST. If you want to get into a pissing match, then that's your perogative. I ask a simple question, and you get on the defensive. So be it.

Please show me and the rest of us my ill logic then. Instead of just claiming it. I have not seen ONE structural engineer that has done the neccessary calcs. show me or anyone else how my logic is ill. If you can do that, I will change my stance. I am not married to the CD theory like you claim. If you've been reading my posts, then you'd know that.

BTW, yes, I have a bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering with an emphisis on structural. If you've been reading my posts, then you probably saw where I posted my transcripts I suppose? Exhibit nothing that is indicative of knowledge of engineering huh? I guess you've missed some posts then?



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hi Everyone, I have been reading ATS for a long time. This one I had to reply to.
Has anyone ever asked a fireman about this term? I have had my fire chief use it before. Pull it simply means to pack up and get out. "Pull it" basically means your pulling the operation; the operation is the attempt to put out the fire.

Not meaning to fan any flames

As for reference I am an ex fireman.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
So, Mooney Bravo. Got those structural calculations yet? I'm still interested in seeing them. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sturme
Hi Everyone, I have been reading ATS for a long time. This one I had to reply to.
Has anyone ever asked a fireman about this term? I have had my fire chief use it before. Pull it simply means to pack up and get out. "Pull it" basically means your pulling the operation; the operation is the attempt to put out the fire.

Not meaning to fan any flames

As for reference I am an ex fireman.



Well Larry Silverstien is not a fireman, so why would he use the term "pull it"? Larry Silverstien is the owner of Silverstein Properties, a real estate development group. He deals with demolishing and rebuilding properties 24/7, and has a lot of experience with CD crews. He knew what "pull it" meant in the CD industry.

Here is more facts, that nobody is taking into consideration. It is documented that the firefighters that were in WTC7 were evacuated at 12:00am and earlyer. The building "collapsed" at 5:20pm.

So, why did Silverstien fit all of this into one sentence;

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

...as if there was no 5 hour delay.

Something tells me he wasn't talking about firefighters, because they were out of the building way before the "collapse".

-edit-
After further reading, it turns out, Larry said "pull it" AFTER the firefighters were already out of the building.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

[edit on 22-1-2007 by 1150111]

[edit on 22-1-2007 by 1150111]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   


But wasn't it the Loizeaux family that also stated they found molten steel in the basements of buildings ?


No. On more than one forum it has been mentioned that Mr. Loizeaux has stated that someone had told him that they had seen molten METAL at the site, but that he personally had not seen it.

In other words, as with every person ever named in conjunction with the molten metal, his sister's, boyfriend's cousin told him that their buddy saw the metal.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
^So you're saying there wasn't any molten metal?

So what's this then?




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Got those structural calculations yet?



Do you have the ones that prove it was a demolition? Please post them.

Do any of you have any hard evidence that Building 7 was a demolition?

So far it seems that the following is "evidence":

It looked similar to a building being blown up.

Someone said something that could be taken as meaning that they told the firecheif on the scene to set off bombs and bring down the building.

There were government documents in the building.

__________


So, other than more of the same "looks like" or motivation "evidence", does anyone have any real positive evidence of a controlled demolition at Building 7. If this is your smoking gun, it is based on very thin grounds.

Any explosive residue found?

Does anyone have a video of the collapse with audio?

If we don't hear bombs going off, I think it's safe to say that there weren't any bombs.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If we don't hear bombs going off, I think it's safe to say that there weren't any bombs.


So you're saying cause you can't hear explosives it cannot have been a planned demolition?

We've been over this a million times, but can you show me a building that fell like WTC7 did without explosives?

I betcha can't!! But I bet I can show you buildings that have had bombs explode in them and have had raging fires for hours that did not fall vertically into their own footprints. Why? because when a building is damaged unevenly there is nothing that will cause it to fall evenly to it's foundation. It would be very convenient for demolition experts if it did now wouldn't it...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Christ man we already gone through this. Sometimes I even ask the person knocking the door "who is it"? Sometimes people just use it or them. Not to mention when does the fire department became demolition experts? He tells the fire commander to blow the building?



and also he know's damn well it's a fire chief and not a fire commander. The guy was nervous and blew up the real criminals spot.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I figured Silverstein only recieved the news from the fire dept. that wtc7 was on fire, then he told someone else to 'pull it' (demolish).

Regardless, whenever has a terrorist attack NOT involved bombs? It is their favourite toy.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you have the ones that prove it was a demolition? Please post them.


The burdon of proof is on the "official" reports which do not include these much needed calculations. How can I do any calculations without knowing the true construction of the buildings? Get me the construction documents and then we'll talk calculations.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I see.

So none of you have any positive evidence then?

Lack of proof of the official version does not add any credence to any bomb theories. It doesn't matter if the official version is wrong, if you want people to believe your demolition theories it is up to you to prove them right, not to prove the official story wrong.


So please, anyone have any positive evidence that bombs were used?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In other words, as with every person ever named in conjunction with the molten metal, his sister's, boyfriend's cousin told him that their buddy saw the metal.


So you think this is all just an urban legend?



NEW YORK -- Towering floodlights filled Ground Zero with an electric glow last Friday as Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, descended into the 16-acre pit for his overnight shift.
[...]
O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.


911research.wtc7.net...



“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.


www.gcn.com...



When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.


www.recordonline.com...


Whatever keeps you happy, man. CameronFox has talked to guys that were at Ground Zero, too. You may be able to ask him what they said as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
sorry bout sidetracking, but those who saw the NatGeo documentary on the Loizeaus (spelling? the CDI people) maybe remember them saying that they can make a CD look whatever way they want (big bang, bo bang..). Don't forget these people have done several CDs for movies, where they blew up huge buildings just for dramatic effect...

2cts
mr J.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join