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.

 

Video of WTC 7 Burning! A Must See

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
alright, alright, im only going on the little information that i have seen ...... can you point me to something that tells me what he actually meant by his comment. you can't deny that the words "we made the decision to pull it"- (alright, may not be a direct quote, but its on film anyway) came out of his mouth.... whats he talking about? i am no longer arguing, i would just like to know, cos clearly you do know a lot more about this than i do. what is the explanation that you agree with for this statement?

[edit on 18-2-2007 by purplecoral]




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
In construction/ demolition the term "pull-it" means to take a cable and wrap around a partially demolished building. Then attach the cable to a bulldozer or heavy truck...and "Pull IT" over

This is done usually to the core structure of much shorter buildings...

I never saw a cable wrapped around WTC 7 .. and a bunch of bulldozers "Pulling IT" (/sarcasm for effect)

The Quote was clearly taken out of context by people trying to profit off of the 9/11 disasters.

Silverstein meant to pull all attempts to stop the fires. IOW there was such a large loss of life that day.. Silverstein didn't want anyone more firefighters to get killed so he decided to pull it. The Operation ... Of firefighter putting out the fires...Pull them out...get it?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
i get that. obviously i am so dumb that i couldnt grasp the notion that there might be more than one explanation.... but isnt that what all of this is about?

[edit on 18-2-2007 by purplecoral]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplecoral
alright, alright, im only going on the little information that i have seen ...... can you point me to something that tells me what he actually meant by his comment. you can't deny that the words "we made the decision to pull it"- (alright, may not be a direct quote, but its on film anyway) came out of his mouth.... whats he talking about? i am no longer arguing, i would just like to know, cos clearly you do know a lot more about this than i do. what is the explanation that you agree with for this statement?

[edit on 18-2-2007 by purplecoral]


Purple... thanks for your honesty. The quote is often posted or repeated wrong. Similar to how you posted it. it was not "we" it was "they". "They decided to pull it"...... Meaning the FDNY Chief Nigro who was in charge. Silverstein was not at ground zero on 911, he was with his wife and watched the building collapse with her at home on tv. ...."and then we watched the building collapse"

Silverstein said: "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
hehe i think im one of the people that wants to believe... the way its presented "they said this... and then we watched the building fall" makes it seem, in context like he might be suggesting something else. ANYWAY... im still not sure, but im looking to find out the closest to the truth that i can, not just someone to blame... i dont even know why... anyway, im gonna keep questioning stuff, cos otherwise i'll never know, right?...



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Can someone answer this question in a short and clear answer.

Why do the anti-CT people refuse to admit that there are some real questions that have not been answered 100 % correctly.

Is there no reason to question why or how these buildings fell so perfectly.

Do we not have a right to have real scientific, with no BS, studies into the collapse of the buildings.

I am one on those that believe without a doubt that all three of these buildings fell with the help of explosives.

I also can be enlightened by facts that are undeniably true.

There has not been a argument on this site nor anywhere else that answers the questions in a understandable way of why the buildings fell.

Common sense tells most that view the buildings demise that something helped them fall, the images look like controled demolitions that we see on television.

It is also true that our government has a history of doing unimaginalbe things throughout our history, so what is to stop us from raising the question; could the government have been involved or have knowledge they do not share with the masses of the real reasons the buildings collapsed?

Is there an answer to why we should not challenge our government for a real investigation into 9/11 And should'nt we all seek the truth and expect the truth?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
Can someone answer this question in a short and clear answer....



Is there an answer to why we should not challenge our government for a real investigation into 9/11 And should'nt we all seek the truth and expect the truth?



short and clear answer: there is no reason... and yes we should expect the truth.
i'm guessing everyone on this thread believes that there is a conspiracy, or they wouldn't be here? i think its actually quite healthy to have these debates over the finer details, because obviously not everything in the theories is actual fact, and i for one didn't really question much of it until i really thought about it... yes, its should be the responsibility of the government to tell the truth, but it simply isn't going to happen. they have spent decades covering stuff up... to admit lies would defeat everything they stand for so far. i wish there was a way everyone could see these videos, but they don't want to....
people who are "anti-CT" are people who will not open their minds. i don't think anyone could honestly admit to have heard every piece of evidence for all conspiracy theories, and not come away doubting something of official stories.

ok that wasn't short and concise, was more of a rant, but hey..



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
WOLF... I am here to learn. I watched so many 911 Videos ...and I was able to find resonable explinations to all of them. All but Who Killed John O'Neil. That was my favorite. I came here looking for information ....and really no one knew much about it.

I questioned EVERYTHING about 911 and got some answers...I have yet to see one shred of evidence that supports the CD theory.

IF you care... i listed my top 5 conspiracy theories on this open thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Look guys... How many times does this have to be said. It was NOT JUST a fire. We all know ... for the love of God its all we here time and time again... No steel building... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... we KNOW !!!!


So what! The impact damages were puny too! You can't even SEE any of it except for the SW corner damage, which is ridiculously superficial in itself. And the ultimate point is that that building either burned down or exploded down, because it definitely was NOT knocked down by WTC1's collapse or anywhere even NEAR it.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CameronFox
Look guys... How many times does this have to be said. It was NOT JUST a fire. We all know ... for the love of God its all we here time and time again... No steel building... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... we KNOW !!!!


So what! The impact damages were puny too! You can't even SEE any of it except for the SW corner damage, which is ridiculously superficial in itself. And the ultimate point is that that building either burned down or exploded down, because it definitely was NOT knocked down by WTC1's collapse or anywhere even NEAR it.


Do countless eyewitnesses mean anything? Do the words of MANY firemen and EMS workers mean anything? Bsbray..i respect what you bring to this forum, but saying the building EITHER fell because of one way or another in not being honest... it IS possible...and probable that the combination of BOTH the debris... and the fires caused the building to collapse.

Honestly, i think your upset that a video came out that disproved the "small fires" theory that so many were grasping.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I questioned EVERYTHING about 911 and got some answers...I have yet to see one shred of evidence that supports the CD theory.



i have definitely seen something that shows exposed steel beams at the bottom of the WTC, sliced across diagonally, exactly as experts would use explosives to weaken the bottom of a building for demolition... also, people inside the building reported that there were explosions in the basement before the buildings collapsed, and the glass was blown out of the windows on the ground floor, about the same time as (but not at the same time) that the plane hit (i think it was the north tower), ok this isnt evidence since i could have just made it up, but it seemed pretty convincing to me and a couple of cynical friends, it was on one of the videos on www.alluc.org... (go to movies, then documentaries, there are 3 9/11 based docs)...

in one of alex jones' videos, people working in the WTC reported strange behaviour, and a lot of activity on floors that had been mysteriously cleared of staff, and there was dust from this on lower floors, as if something major was going on (planting detonators??)...

finally, because i have to ask, if it was even slightly possible that the buildings would collapse, were people told to stay inside buildings after the planes had gone in? maybe i should do some more reasearch, but people here have the answers! what i mean is, surely firefighters etc. could have guessed what was likely to cause a collapse, wouldnt they have taken everyone out of the area??? if we are to accept that the world trade centre collapsed due to the fires, why are (presuambly trained) firefighters on tape saying that they think they can put out the fires? surely they could see that the buildings would collapse? if not, surely there is a shred of evidence here that something other than fire caused the WTC to collapse?

[edit on 18-2-2007 by purplecoral]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
No, I'm frustrated at how you think those fires are capable of bringing and entire building down symmetrically, accelerating at free-fall. I have actually seen that video before, and others like it. It's not new to me, and I still think the fires were puny. Once again, it's not a matter of looking at it and being impressed, but comparing it to other fires and then comparing the DAMAGES inflicted upon similar structures by those other skyscraper fires (which are ALWAYS much more intense, do you see that?).


And even if that part of the building was totally messed up, just as we were saying before, that does not solve your problems in the least, because this



isn't going to fall symmetrically, if it falls at all. It's going to tip in the direction of least resistance, where columns are missing, rather than this:



The above is what happens when you demolish a building. Not set it on fire and pummel it with falling debris on one side only. Jesus Christ.


And who else is noticing the progression of most of these arguments? When it gets into actual science, the topic moves away from how bad the fires were or this or that sensationalism, and instead focuses on how *impossible* it would be to rig WTC7 in situation x, which is of course defined by ridiculous parameters from the start by the would-be debunker. Maybe it's just me but I'd go with what actual physics imply about the energy and balance in the system than try to guess the abilities of our military intelligence groups.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
...by the way, i do realise that we were talking about building7 and i have moved onto the other buildings as well, but hey, they are all connected. AND i just thought of something else... we clearly see the top of the tower (the one with the spike) begin to fall as the building collapses, but it simply becomes dust as it is falling.... what the?!

i don't think you can explain the fires and debris and chunks of plane and building could make ALL THREE buildings collapse in the astonishing speeds that they did, and so carefully into their foundations.... no other buildings fell over/collapsed that day, did they? oh and for more evidence on the controlled demolitions, look up the stuff about thermite...



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
We should mention in this that they cleared out the aftermath of Bldg 7 pretty quickly.

I think considering what was in the building(CIA), how the building fell, the speed of the fall, the fact no skyscraper has done anything like that...

It does lead someone to doubt the official story. Again, I see no good reason for Bldg 7 and its collapse other then some kind of controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
having looked into it, one other building was destroyed that day, which was a church directly crushed by the WTC collapse.. there were many other buildings in the area with damage similar to that of building 7 which didnt collapse, just think we should be open minded enough to accept that there's something suspicious about why silverstein's buildings collapsed while practically nothing else did. this is only speculation, but that does, to me, point to controlled demolition.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
In 1996 Nova on PBS did a show on Controlled Demolitions:

They interviewed Stacey Loizeaux, a demolition expert, about her trade. I am going to take a couple of excerpts from the transcript.

NOVA: What kind of analysis goes into figuring out how to demolish a building?

SL: Well, we've got what we refer to as our historic database, which is largely in my father and my uncle's brain. Ninety-five percent of our knowledge has come from hands-on experience—learning, watching different structures, watching the way they move. A lot of times my father and my uncle will walk in a building and they'll say, "Oh, this is just like the such and such building. This is what we're going to do." So, there really isn't a class you can take. There's no book you can read that's going to teach you how to do this. It's really a practical physical understanding of how buildings work. You know, just because an engineer designed a building to work one way, it doesn't mean that, when they built it, that that's actually how it's working. We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not—what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on.

NOVA: Do you tend to look at blueprints?

SL: Well, 90 percent of the time we don't have them. A lot of times those plans have been misplaced or have disintegrated into dust. But when we do have them, yeah, we use them but we don't rely on them. There's a difference between 'as drawn' and 'as built'. And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?

SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.

NOVA: How did they describe it?

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams. The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper. But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies right up until days before we actually brought down the building. My uncle and my father worked quite a bit in Mexico City in '85 following the earthquake and they had helped pull bodies out there. So, it's not like it's ever old hat, but they'd been there before.

I encourage EVERYONE to go read this whole article. It was from 1996 so we don't have to think it was anyway biased by 9/11 stuff.

LINK: www.pbs.org...



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Great Find !

You have voted GwionX for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Bsbray,

Do we know how deep into the buildings the fires were? You are saying that the fires were "puny" yet I have posted on different threads several...MANY eyewitnesses from the scene that go against what you are saying. Bsbray... who told you the fires were "puny?" Who told you the damage from the debris was minimal? Please tell me your sources. We all know the about of photographic and video evidence is minimal at best. Id loke to know WHERE you are getting your information as to the amount of fires, the intensity of the fires, the amount of structural damage from the debris... etc...



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Nobody has to tell me how big the fires were. I've seen the photos and the video. You say it's "minimal at best", but I don't think that's the problem, Cameron.

To me, this is like you showing me video of a bucket and telling me there's a horse hiding behind it, but the coverage wasn't extensive enough so I can't see the horse. There would have to be MASSIVE fires to collapse WTC7 globally like that, you would SEE THOSE. I don't care what people said about it. One guy said it was "fully involved". Fully involved my ass, I'm not blind.

And this is still ignoring the impossibility of a straight vertical drop of the whole damned building without blowing out columns simultaneously near the base.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The fall of the building (WTC7) straight down is the most damning piece of evidence.

Some have argued for some of it falling outside of the *Debri Field*
this is nonsense. Imagine a person falling straight down and people arguing that the person really didn't fall straight down if their hair and earings fell laterally!

We all saw how that building fell. It went straight down in a 6.5 second collapse.

*IF* a random chaotic event caused that, then why the hell are their people trained in Controlled Demolition?

I still have yet to see anyone offer a *GOOD* reason for Building 7 to have done that.









[edit on 18-2-2007 by talisman]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join