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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

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

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.

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.


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



Why would Silverstein mean to pull them out when they were already out of the building. The only reason the fire chief called Silverstein was to tell him they could not save the building. It was not about pulling out the firemen.

PULL IT means to bring a building down, there are lots of ways to bring a building down, specailly if it has damage and the floors are gutted by fire it would be very easy to bring down.

The fire rescue teams have the knowledge and equipment to cut beams, also the demo and excavation crews that were there know how to bring buildings down.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Does anyone know which Fire Dept Commander Silverstein said this to, do we have a name? Or are they under a 'gag' order?
Becauase if the official side is true and fears nothing, wouldnt' they have brought forth the Fire Dept Commander by now to confirm Silverstein's account?


One thing I find highly suspect and very strange in all of this is I don't hear Silverstein talk about the LUCK of himself somehow feeling the firefighters should 'pull' out of the bldg, *IF* he didn't say this then more firefigters would have been killed?

I don't hear the Fire Dept thanking Silverstein for the suggestion, usually when tragedy happens you try and point to the positives, this would have been one, a great saving of lives.

Oddly, no-one mentions this, its almost as if they didn't just 'watch the bldg' collapse, but that 'watched it collapse' because they *KNEW* it would collapse.








[edit on 2-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Ok, Ultima, I'll play along.

I'm sure you have proof that the firemen went in to the building to demolish it. Right?

I have never seen any firemen claim this. What exactly are you basing your theory on other than wild fantasy?


Why do you think the firefighters are in on it?

Talisman, if you would just do some basic research, you would be able to find out that information.

Try a google search for Daniel Nigro, that's who Silverstein was talking to, and he was one of the "they" that decided to pull the rescue operations and firefighters away from building seven.

Also, please read the thread. Silverstein was being informed that they were pulling out. He does not have any authority over the fire chiefs, they made the decision, not Silverstein.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
LeftBehind


And you have no problem seeing a 47-story building collapse in 6 seconds.

Lets compare it to the The Sampoong Department store in Seoul, South Korea, it collapsed from a faulty building design, actually if anything the design of the Sampoong store would/should lend itself to a much quicker collapse when compared to a redundant Steel Structure.


www.answers.com...


Flat slab construction," which consists of strengthening concrete columns supporting the building with steel bars, and floor slabs with more steel. However, blueprints of the building showed that the concrete columns were only 60cm in diameter, below the required 80cm. Worse still, the number of bars reinforcing the concrete is 8, half of the required 16, giving the building only half the strength needed. Steel slabs that strengthen the floor were also unsatisfactory: They were 10cm from the top of the floor when they should have been 5cm, decreasing the structure's strength by about another 20%.



blogs.nationalgeographic.com...


So you have no problem seeing a 47 story building collapse in 6 seconds, when a *5* Story dept story that actually pancaked took 20 seconds?

So 5 story's took 20 seconds in a very poorly designed building.

So what is the excuse for bldg 7? Did it have no redundancy built in?

How come no-one is getting sued over the collapse? The danger it imposed?

Is there a committee investigating why fire and damage took down a steel structure in Free-Fall time, there might be a lot of buildings with this danger then.

For myself, I don't buy any of it. The building collapsed far too fast for it to be anything but controlled.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ok, Ultima, I'll play along.

I'm sure you have proof that the firemen went in to the building to demolish it. Right?

I have never seen any firemen claim this. What exactly are you basing your theory on other than wild fantasy?


Why do you think the firefighters are in on it?
[edit on 2-2-2007 by LeftBehind]


Well for 1 i never said the firefighters were in on anything. I am just stating a fact that the fire rescue teams have the knowledge and eqipment to cut beams.

Also remember thier were demo and excavation teams there too.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

So you have no problem seeing a 47 story building collapse in 6 seconds, when a *5* Story dept story that actually pancaked took 20 seconds?

So 5 story's took 20 seconds in a very poorly designed building.



Well, first of all the penthouse of the building collapsed first, so saying it only took six seconds is misleading at best.

Secondly, that five story building was not hit by a 110 story building.

Here read this, it answers many of the questions you have.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Secondly, that five story building was not hit by a 110 story building.

Here read this, it answers many of the questions you have.

www.911myths.com...


I am still waiting for you to show any other steel buildings before or after 911 that completly collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.

I have shown steel buildings that burned for several hours and had structural damage that did not collapse.

Also remember the fire in the North tower back in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and caused no damage to steel beams.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Ultima, why are you waiting for it from me, and what difference does it make?

The events on 9-11 were unique events, and all three collapsed building also had structrural damage before the fires, you know the planes and then the towers falling onto 7.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because it never happened that it never can happen.

Also, here is a steel building that collapsed from fire.

www.ilo.org...

I'm sure you will move the goal posts now that I've shown you what you asked for.



Now that I've followed through on your request, I have one of my own.

Why don't you show me a steel frame building at least 45 stories tall, that suffered severe structural damage which also damaged or destroyed the fire protection on the steel, which then had uncontrolled fires on multiple floors, that did not collapse.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
LeftBehind


Well, first of all the penthouse of the building collapsed first, so saying it only took six seconds is misleading at best.

Secondly, that five story building was not hit by a 110 story building.

Here read this, it answers many of the questions you have.



First of all if your going to count things like the penthouse, then I can count other things that were collapsing and breaking through the day in the dept Store and say it took hours before the building hit the floor.

I am not doing that, I am taking it from when the *COMPLETE FAILURE* occured, the mass of the building etc.

It doesn't answer why a *5* story building took 20 seconds collapse, and the WTC 7 took 6 seconds which is over 40 story's.

As for the impact from the WTC, I don't think that can cause a *6* second collapse, furthermore there were other buildings damaged that didn't collapse.

The design of the Sampoong lends itself to a quick collapse, I don't understand how a building, a Steel Structure that had redundancy built in collapsed so fast.


If that is the case or if what your saying is true then there are many buildings that have extremely faulty designs, and that in and of itself should lead us to study this.

Consider.

The Empire State Bldg hit by a plane and caught a large fire, but no global collapse...

Following two images are of the Empire State Bldg









So I see no good reason for the collapse of Bldg 7, I see no reason for a 6 second collapse. I see no good reason at all.

If I compare the Empire State Bldg to Bldg 7 then there is NO GOOD reason for a collapse of Bldg 7,

And again, if there is a *GOOD* reason, then heck there should be immediate study of this, since many bldgs with similar designs are ready for global collapses from fires.





[edit on 3-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   


Also remember the fire in the North tower back in 1975 that burned for over 3 hours and caused no damage to steel beams.


You mean the fire that occured on the lower floors that still had asbestos as a fire retardant and that hadnt been knocked from parts of the trusses by the force of an airliners impact? Or did you forget that above the 60th floor (I think it was 60) they had to switch to a less durable flame retardant? Or that the man whose company had been supplying the asbestos coating stated in an interview that without asbestos, the top part of the building could be in danger of collapse as a result of a major fire?



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Ultima, why are you waiting for it from me, and what difference does it make?

The events on 9-11 were unique events, and all three collapsed building also had structrural damage before the fires, you know the planes and then the towers falling onto 7.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because it never happened that it never can happen.

Also, here is a steel building that collapsed from fire.

www.ilo.org...

I'm sure you will move the goal posts now that I've shown you what you asked for.



Now that I've followed through on your request, I have one of my own.

Why don't you show me a steel frame building at least 45 stories tall, that suffered severe structural damage which also damaged or destroyed the fire protection on the steel, which then had uncontrolled fires on multiple floors, that did not collapse.


Well for 1 the building you posted was not a permanent structure and was not built up to building codes.

I have shown 4 steel buildings that had major fires and suffered major structural damage that did not collapse.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You mean the fire that occured on the lower floors that still had asbestos as a fire retardant and that hadnt been knocked from parts of the trusses by the force of an airliners impact? Or did you forget that above the 60th floor (I think it was 60) they had to switch to a less durable flame retardant? Or that the man whose company had been supplying the asbestos coating stated in an interview that without asbestos, the top part of the building could be in danger of collapse as a result of a major fire?


But The 1975 fires burned long enough to burn through the fire proofing, the fire proofing on the WTC towers were only rated to last for a fire burning for 2 hours. You might want to do some more research on the the fire proofing.

So you are still going to state that a fire buring for 3 hours and causing no damage is compared to isolated fires burning less than an hour and causing lots of steel beams to loose structural integrety ?

[edit on 4-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I am still waiting for you to show any other steel buildings before or after 911 that completly collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.



That's what you asked for, that's what I showed you. If you are going to move the goalposts everytime, theres no reason to even respond.

Again, what you are implying is a logical fallacy.

Just because something never happened before, does not make it impossible.

By your logic the planes never hit the buildings, because no commercial airliner had ever been used as a weapon before.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
It has never been shown that the force of the jetliner could have caused oscillations that knocked off all the fireproofing from all the trusses on the affected floors. This was assumed to have happened for the steel to have failed!

The only test NIST did for this, was when they fired a shotgun at fireproofing on a steel beam and concluded that if the shotgun blast could remove it (which it really did a bad job at), then so could a jet impact. They did this without knowing exactly how much vibration or etc. the impact caused, or even comparing a direct shot gun blast with such movement.

Seriously, a shot gun blast. And you some of you guys won't even compare fires that occurred in the same building.


The impacts obviously messed up whatever was directly impacted, but otherwise the energy from this apparently dissipated pretty quickly, because there was no damage reported anywhere else in the building from the impacts (disregarding everything that blew up in the basements), or even people knocked down by the impacts. And at the very least there is absolutely no evidence that so much fireproofing could be so easily knocked off. It was just a federal-backed assumption that has been present from the start.

And if you want to carry this even further, bare naked steel was also tested, not like its fire-resistant properties weren't already known. Even un-fireproofed truss assemblies lasted longer than 2 hours in severe lab tests conducted by NIST or UL for the NIST report.

And to go even one further, it must also be shown that even if the trusses did sag, they could pull the exterior columns inward despite the spandrel plates.

And if we can get that far, then all of the buckling must be shown in photos, along with safety factor information, to show that there really was enough failure to get anything even started.

Is any of that unreasonable for a scientific investigation of $16 million? Why don't we have any of it? If I was in charge, I certainly would have had that information made available, so competent people could understand what happened, instead of having even more questions than before.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The conspiracy is our government got caught with there pants down that day..It should have never happened..Our government failed us that day..Theres your conspiracy



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Silverstein says two words and everyone goes into a tizzy! Admission! Recall what happened with Rumsfeld's Oct. 01 "missile admission." Just a misunderstanding that took years to clear up. frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfelds-missile-admission.html

Silverstein had to know his sentence was grammatically wrong and would be "misinterpreted." Possible evidence of his involvement in feeding the movement useless distracting leads. The building was or was not pulled but he would not admit it. They don't bring senile people in on these things.

Please people waste not one more keystroke on this.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


I am still waiting for you to show any other steel buildings before or after 911 that completly collapsed due to fire and or structural damage.



That's what you asked for, that's what I showed you. If you are going to move the goalposts everytime, theres no reason to even respond.

Again, what you are implying is a logical fallacy.

Just because something never happened before, does not make it impossible.

By your logic the planes never hit the buildings, because no commercial airliner had ever been used as a weapon before.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by LeftBehind]


No, you did not show a steel building that collapsed. The bulidng you posted was not a complete steel building, it was not a permanent structure and it was not built to a normal builidng code.

The Empire State builidng was hit by a B-25 had a fire and structural damage but did not collapse.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

You mean the fire that occured on the lower floors that still had asbestos as a fire retardant and that hadnt been knocked from parts of the trusses by the force of an airliners impact?


You might want to do some more research on the fireproofing on the builidng in 1975.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Just before midnight on February 13, 1975, an arson fire was started at the World Trade Center inside a closet filled with telephone switching equipment, cabinets filled with paper and alcohol-based fluid for mimeograph machines. This, combined with the insufficient fireproofing was enough to cause a fire to get out of control quickly. It would take 132 firefighters three hours to finally put it out. Fire Commissioner O’Hagan stated, “Had the building been [fully] occupied, and given the stack action that exists in this 110-story building the rescue problem would have been tremendous.” Although it was night, everyone in the building, maintenance, cleaners, security, etc. had to evacuate. There were other smaller fires set in May 1975. Pressure was applied and the Port Authority made some concessions. They installed more walls and doors on open floors, improved alarms and communications, installed more smoke detectors. Yet, the one sure thing to help control a fire was ignored. Water! The automated sprinklers were too costly to install!



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If you hear "Pull it" , it would be from another phone not him. He would be under too much scrutiny to be the one.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
if the building was "pulled" at around 12:00 pm and fell at 5:30 pm... then wouldnt the cable riggers bein hooking the cables up for hours before it fell?

"pull it" couldnt have meant evacuate the building, because he said "we decided to pull it" "so we pulled it and watched the building fall"


so after 5 hours of "pulling" its weird that ZERO cable riggers were killed...

either way, wtc7 was demo'd no question about it.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE DECIDER
"pull it" couldnt have meant evacuate the building, because he said "we decided to pull it" "so we pulled it and watched the building fall"
either way, wtc7 was demo'd no question about it.


The only reason for the fire chief to call Silverstein was to inform him that they could not save the building, (this was after the firefighters were out and away form the building) because Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters.

So PULL IT could have only meant the building and not the firefighters.



new topics




 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join