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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
If you have problems with official story, then you should strive to prove your alternate theory.

Please explain how the "south tower tilt" is evidence for bombs.




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please explain how the "south tower tilt" is evidence for bombs.


I'm not saying it's evidence for bombs, I'm saying that fires and the planes impacts couldn't have done that.

Show me how it could have done what it did without some kind of other force other than jet fuel etc...

I know you can't, that's why you keep going around in circles getting nowhere.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
No, we keep going around in circles because you have no evidence for bombs.

Since you can't prove your theory, you choose to attack the official story.

It doesn't really matter what the exact method of collapse was, but in the total lack of evidence for bombs, we can certainly rule them out.


Do you use bombs to explain every thing that you don't understand?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
^Dude where have I argued bombs? You're the one who keeps on insisting on bringing up bombs. Maybe it was aliens, or 'Alahs Great Foot Stomp', who the hell knows?

Just tell me how you explain the South Tower rotating and tilting then defying the laws of physics based on the official story, and without bringing up bombs. Again I know you can't!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No, we keep going around in circles because you have no evidence for bombs.

Since you can't prove your theory, you choose to attack the official story.

It doesn't really matter what the exact method of collapse was, but in the total lack of evidence for bombs, we can certainly rule them out.


Do you use bombs to explain every thing that you don't understand?


Why are you sooooo hung up on bombs? Because the evidence for bombs is a straw-man that you can debunk? Does debunking the use of BOMBS debunk the whole CD theory? NO!!!!!!! A CD is just a way to controll a demolition. In reality, plane impact and subsequent fire IS a CD theory. So, please, just because we can't give evidence of BOMBS, doesn't refute the CD theory.

BTW, did the NIST test the steel for BOMB residue? According to them, no.


Edit: I have to correct myself. Planes and fire are only a demolition theory. It wouldn't actually be controlled. But, you get my point.
[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Both of you have repeatedly brought up bombs in the past, especially you anok.

But hell, I'll play along.

What theory are you guys advocating now?

What bombless controlled demolition theory are you working on right now, thermite?

Theres no evidence for thermite either.

What evidence do you guys have for this new bombless controlled demolition theory?

Energy beams from sattelites perhaps?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Both of you have repeatedly brought up bombs in the past, especially you anok.


Since I don't really subscribe to the bombs in the building theory, I don't think you can claim this. I might ask questions concerning bombs but that is very different from saying "bombs brought the buildings down".


What theory are you guys advocating now?


The one I've always been advocating. Something other than plane impacts and fire brought the core down. In turn, this brought the entire building down from the weakest link (impact zone) to the base. This is very different than WTC 7. WTC 7 had interior columns, not a core.


What bombless controlled demolition theory are you working on right now, thermite?


Possibly.


Theres no evidence for thermite either.


Sulfates found in the dust? On steel columns. Yes, could have come from gypsum, but also could have come from thermate.


What evidence do you guys have for this new bombless controlled demolition theory?


That asymmetrical damage does not fell a building symmetrically. How hard is that to understand. Show me ONE instance (other than 9/11) where asymmetrical damage has felled a building globally (doesn't even have to be symmetrically) and I'll change my position.


Energy beams from sattelites perhaps?


Just as plausible as planes and fire asymmetrical damage being able to do it.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Both of you have repeatedly brought up bombs in the past, especially you anok.


Yes IN THE PAST, but only as an opinion, and mostly I have said 'some other energy source' because any one with a brain can see the impacts and jet fuel alone could not have bought the towers down. Again I ask you if it wasn't 'bombs' (as a generic term) then what was it?
You are running out of options aren't you? Your arguments are weak.

Like Griff said, you only want to discuss things you think you can refute.
Another page of discussing bombs, when you haven't even attempted to answer the irrefutable questions. How do you explain the South Tower defying physics without the use of some other energy source?

An btw, why the hell are we discussing this in a thread about silversteins 'pull it'?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No, we keep going around in circles because you have no evidence for bombs.



Maybe there is no evidence for bombs because the government removed (and destroyed) all the evidence from the site before anybody could examine it. Just a thought...

It's sort of pointless, imo, to continue to use lack of evidence to argue anything when the government, whose motives are in question, controlled, destroyed, and continues to withhold evidence.

Of course I understand that they are withholding the evidence for our own good, right?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
you guys see the new Steve Jones web site he is on?

stj911.org...

Lots of excellent pieces of information there, check out this.


stj911.org...
Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:




The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.




Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
--City in the Sky, p 133




THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
--City in the Sky, p 134-6



This is something to ponder, if anything it should make someone doubt the official story.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 30/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I see, so your stances are.

It wasn't bombs, but it's not the official story either.

Great, nice cop out. It's always easier to attack a theory when none of your own have to be held up to scrutiny.

Sorry, but there were fires and there were planes. Makes it kinda easy to believe that things actually present in the buildings caused their collapse.

Neither of you have ever proven your claims of impossibility nor shown a shred of evidence that accounts for an alternate theory.

As to pull it.

He didn't mean the building, stop calling the firefighters liars.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.


Is there any way of getting ahold of this analysis? I searched for a second but didn't find a link. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I see, so your stances are.

It wasn't bombs, but it's not the official story either.


Yup. Why is that so hard to understand? Unless you are trying to confuse.


Great, nice cop out. It's always easier to attack a theory when none of your own have to be held up to scrutiny.


How is it a cop out to question the official story? The official story is what we are being fed. If it doesn't pan out physically, then there HAS to be something else. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Unless you are trying to confuse.


Sorry, but there were fires and there were planes. Makes it kinda easy to believe that things actually present in the buildings caused their collapse.


How so. PROVE IT!!!!!!!! I see you never entered my thread about proving the official story correct. How telling. Funny, because I started that thread basically so you would have your chance to prove the official story with some mathematics.

What's also funny is you keep telling us our theories are bunk because we can't prove them, but adhere to the official UNPROVEN story. Again, how telling.


Neither of you have ever proven your claims of impossibility nor shown a shred of evidence that accounts for an alternate theory.


Try holding the official story up to the same scrutiny you hold us to. You might change your mind. I doubt it...I have my reasons.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Now you are just being silly.

If the NIST report is not good enough for you, why would you listen to me?

The vast majority of experts on demolitions and engineering agree with the official story.

That's not enough for you guys, but you have nothing better.

Your extraordinary claims of impossibility require extraordinary evidence.

You'd rather dodge all the questions and scream "Nuh-uh, you prove it."

Fine, read the NIST report, or read the many papers written about how such collapses are possible.

But if your going to claim things, at least try to back them up, otherwise you just look silly.

But this thread is about pull it.

And pull it meant the firefighters.

If someone has some evidence that WTC 7 was bombed, as the OP would have us believe, then please post it. Otherwise stop wasting our time with unproven nonsense about impossibility.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If the NIST report is not good enough for you, why would you listen to me?


Because maybe you have some evidence that the NIST doesn't. Because they are hard pressed to prove their own theory. Why doesn't this strike you as odd?


The vast majority of experts on demolitions and engineering agree with the official story.


The vast majority of demolitions experts are family owned businesses (Controlled Demolitions). Which of coarse work hand in hand with the government. You really think they are going to speak out against their employer? let's see if someone (even with a civil engineering degree) can find employment with them. Here's what they have to say.


Though there are no formal education/training requirements for entrance into the explosives demolition industry, the industry is an incredibly small one, and the few companies that do exist are fairly small and family-run, like ours. Our employee turnover is virtually nonexistent and our company, alone, receives about two employment inquiries a day.



Unfortunately, getting into the business is often dependent on who you know, rather than what you know, and to be honest, our employees consist of either family members or individuals with whom we’ve worked with on previous demolition projects.



Because our employees come from such varied degree backgrounds, it is hard for me to tell you where to start. A background in conventional demolition, rock blasting, construction, or engineering can be helpful; however, your real limitation is that only 1% of total demolition is comprised of explosives demolition and there just aren't many positions available.



I cannot speak for other companies, however, and would suggest contacting the following entities, as they may provide you with additional information or possible employment contacts:



International Society of Explosives Engineers: www.isee.org

The National Demolition Association: www.demolitionassociation.com...

Construction Jobs www.constructionjobs.com...



Best of luck in your endeavors.



======================



Stacey S. Loizeaux

The Loizeaux Group, LLC

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

2737 Merryman's Mill Road

Phoenix, Maryland 21131 USA

+1-410-667-6610

+1-410-667-6624 fax



Please Visit CDI's Web Site !! ===> www.controlled-demolition.com...


That is an e-mail I recieved when I asked about getting into the CD business.


That's not enough for you guys, but you have nothing better.


Well then, show us something better.


Your extraordinary claims of impossibility require extraordinary evidence.


Why? All I ask is proof of the official story. Why is that soooo hard to prove?


You'd rather dodge all the questions and scream "Nuh-uh, you prove it."


What questions? "Show us proof of bombs"? Is that what you mean? I'm just trying to get some proof of the official theory. Of which you have supplied none.


Fine, read the NIST report, or read the many papers written about how such collapses are possible.


That is what I'm asking for. Show me these reports that have done a structural analysis that shows how such collapses are possible. BTW, do these reports show ANY calculations? Or are they just written reports?


But if your going to claim things, at least try to back them up, otherwise you just look silly.


Same applies to the offial reports.


But this thread is about pull it.

And pull it meant the firefighters.


One thing we agree upon.


If someone has some evidence that WTC 7 was bombed, as the OP would have us believe, then please post it. Otherwise stop wasting our time with unproven nonsense about impossibility.


Unproven nonsense? You mean the NIST report?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Griff

The place I found it was here,

stj911.org...

Which is the new group that Steven Jones has attached himself to, and Kevin Ryan.

You might want to email them directly to see where you can obtain it.

They have a number of experts writing articles at present.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I just e-mailed them. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
As to pull it.

He didn't mean the building, stop calling the firefighters liars.


Show me where the firefighters talk about Silverstein meaning to pull them out. They were already out of building 7 before the call was made, unless your stating that the fire chief left his men in an unsafe building while he called to get permission from Silverstien to pull them out.

And why does PULL IT mean to bring down a building in the case of building 6 but can not mean it for building 7 ?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Show me where the firefighters talk about Silverstein meaning to pull them out.


Silverstein meant to pull them out? He didn't make any decisions about pulling, I think you haven't read the quote correctly.



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


They, meaning of course, the fire cheifs. The ones who actually tell the firemen on the ground what to do. It was a courtesy call, not an a query for orders.



They were already out of building 7 before the call was made, unless your stating that the fire chief left his men in an unsafe building while he called to get permission from Silverstien to pull them out.


Actually wrong again.

First of all "they" made the decision, they were not asking permission to pull their men out.

Secondly, even though preliminary reports gave a time of 11:30 for firefighters leaving the area, later reports show that there were still men around well into the afternoon, some conducting rescue operations nearby, and all of them were pulled.


www.nytimes.com...

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...

This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that ís when 7 collapsed.


Are you saying this man is liar? Or in on it?


www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


So, there were firefighters in the area until later in the day, after Silversteins phone call. Not that it really matters, as "they" made the decision, not Silverstein.




And why does PULL IT mean to bring down a building in the case of building 6 but can not mean it for building 7 ?


Show me the cables attached to building 7 that they used to pull it down with. Pull is a very specific term in demolition, meaning to literaly pull a building down with cables, not bombs.


web.archive.org...://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."


Or are you claiming that this is what happened to 7?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
LeftBehind,

I actually agree with everything you posted in regards to the "pull it" comment. See, we can come to a happy medium conclusion sometimes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join