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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
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?


If you were a cop (which i am beginning to doubt)you should know that Silverstein would have no authority to tell the incident commander to pull the firemen.

The only reason for the incident commander to call Silverstein was to tell him that they could not save his builidng. The firmen had aleready been pulled out of the builidng so when they were discussing "TO PULL IT" meant the building.




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by GwionX
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?


If you were a cop (which i am beginning to doubt)you should know that Silverstein would have no authority to tell the incident commander to pull the firemen.

The only reason for the incident commander to call Silverstein was to tell him that they could not save his builidng. The firmen had aleready been pulled out of the builidng so when they were discussing "TO PULL IT" meant the building.


Your BOTH wrong. Gwion... Silverstien did NOT give the order .. CHIEF NIGRO did.

Ultima.. you know better!! The term PULL is NOT a term from a CD using explosives. IT means to use CABLES!
Also Ultima...you claim Silverstein has no authoirty to pull firemen out of a building... YET you seem to think he has the authority to tell the Chief to Blow it up ????

WAKE UP!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Man this place gets so tedious ..you really cannot phrase anything wrong.

Sorry if I was misleading with my little intranet message.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
You know I find it hard to believe that the term 'pull' was never used in conjunction with a demoliton (not talking about cables)

In the interview in 1996 Stacey Loizeaux had this to say:
www.pbs.org...


There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.


I mean, it seems simple enought that such a term would become slang. She even points out that the building is being 'pulled', and BTW she isn't talking about CALBLES HERE!

Since the Demolition world is so closed, and since CDI has Gov contracts, were responsible for removing classified documents in another incident,

and since we are relying ON THEM to tell US ABOUT THE TERM---*PULL*

I simply don't belive them.

Sure, there were cables that *PULLED* bldg 6. But judging by the way STacey PRE-911 described the *PULL*, to say it never became slang sounds more like *BULL*.


When you think about what she said, HOW THE BUILDING IS BEING 'PULLED', then when you think about Silverstein and then when you think about the Bld coming straight down.

Its kind of obvious.



[edit on 18-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ultima.. you know better!! The term PULL is NOT a term from a CD using explosives. IT means to use CABLES!
Also Ultima...you claim Silverstein has no authoirty to pull firemen out of a building... YET you seem to think he has the authority to tell the Chief to Blow it up ????

WAKE UP!!!


First off "PULL" is slang term meaning to bring down a building, there are several ways to bring down a building.

Secondly i did not say Silverstein had the authority to tell the chief to pull the building (Silverstein had no authority). I stated the only reason for the chief to call Silverstein was to tell him that they could not save his building, they discussed pulling it and the chief decided to "PULL IT"

Now unless you can show me proof that the firemen were still in the building when the call was made then they could have only been talking about pulling the building.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
here is another CDI pre-911 describing a demolition

seattlepi.nwsource.com...



"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward," said Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Maryland-based company whose handiwork brought down the Dome.


"The demolition went perfectly,"



When you compare it with what Stacey said in '96 side by side

Stacey


It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.


and now Mark Loizeaux


we needed to pull the columns inward


Can we say that it is pretty logical that the term "PULL" became slang? Isn't that believable since the Buidling is doing just that~!

If you watch carefully, Bldg7 did just that.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Perhaps it did Tailsman.

But to be an objective "truth seeker" you must then take into account:

"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."

and this:

"SL: We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out."



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
So, Silverstein is a demolitions industry insider who knows demo-expert slang? Let's say he is. You expect me to believe that Silverstein made a booboo in releasing this comment while the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals necessary to pull* off this supposed staged terrorist act have managed to keep their lips sealed for the last six years? Why, logically, would fire fighters help Silverstein blow up his building to prevent loss of life? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Note: The * indicates the word "pull" being used in, believe it or not, context that doesn't refer to blowing something up.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
the hundreds or even thousands of other individuals necessary to pull* off this supposed staged terrorist act have managed to keep their lips sealed for the last six years?


Why would it take hundreds or thousands to pull it off. Your saying that our well trained and experienced black ops groups could not pull off 911 but 19 people with very little training and experience could.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
One word-- Probably mispelled-- Mogadishu

No.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
GwionX

Which is all the more reason why a *RANDOM* event would have less chance of success of a straight down collapse. She did mention in that interview that they did demolish the Oklahoma City Federal Building , they just had to be careful.

But that building(Oklahoma City Federal Building) was far more damaged then WTC7. In fact, the Oklahoma City Federal Building looked far more damaged then even the Towers.
But, it needed 'explosives' to finish it. That to me makes the Building 7 collapse by a random event ludicrous.

It is the same thing, it needed 'explosives' to finish the job. They did before, so people like them can do it again.

We can all agree that this building was far more damaged then bldg 7






Yet we are expected to believe that Building7 that had a *bunker* just fell straight down from some damage and fire.



[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why would it take hundreds or thousands to pull it off. Your saying that our well trained and experienced black ops groups could not pull off 911 but 19 people with very little training and experience could.


Well, let's break it down, from top to bottom. Numerous individuals in the upper echelons of American politics would have had to have been aware. Then, by your account, you have "black ops" teams, which include their superiors/squad leaders. Then, on to the staged part. You have the high-jackers (i'm assuming you believe those are special forces/"black ops" personnel as well). Then you get to the really quirky part. Fire-fighters, EMT's, and fat rich chumps like good old Mr. Silverstein. That's quite a few people. Definitely into the hundreds.

What happened is, we got punched in the throat for being complacent. Clinton botched the job, just like Bush. It's easy to spot an islamo-fascist navy cruising into the Hudson. What isn't so easy to spot are 19 well trained terrorists using a diabolically innovative method of terrorism in a politically correct, overtly relaxed free country. No one could have predicted what happened to the towers that day; hindsight is twenty-twenty, and with hindsight comes the leisure of cynicism.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
There is no way they could have KNOWN BEFOREHAND where the damage *Might* be in WTC7.

In OKC they approached and assessed a PAST EVENT. The damage had already been done in OKC.

Look, if you want to think our Government did this, fine...I suppose we are all much more safe than if my hypothosis is true.

Your claim: Our government is able to pull off incredible, elaborate covert-ops on their own people just to fuel their global personal agendas. Just think what else this super-machine is capable of!!!!

My claim: The Government was unprepared, sloppy, incompetent, unorganized, and stiffled due to bureaucracies within our system lacking the ability to communicate. Eeww..not so good.

Cool! I would rather run with a "Bad-ass" than run with a "Dumb-ass"

Thanks for clearing this whole thing up for me!



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
GwionX



There is no way they could have KNOWN BEFOREHAND where the damage *Might* be in WTC7.



Look at the picture again, there is NO way they are going to know all the damage to the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

The building is far too unstable. There is no first hand way of looking at each floor, each support. They would be in the dark as much as anything as the damage is so widespread.

As for the Gov pulling things off, well if you look at Operation Northwoods, they didn't flinch about thinking about killing people in terrorism before. The Joint Chiefs sat down and planed *evil* things, so it doesn't suprise anyone.

Also, I don't think it was done for a 'pretext' for war, rather it is similar to the NATIONAL SECURITY act thing now the PATRIOT ACT, it is a way to justify curbing freedoms for another agenda.

The NATIONAL SECURITY ACT led to the CIA.


If you trust your Gov or the CIA take a look at what the HIGHEST ranking member of the CIA to defect had to say about what the Gov is doing.
www.youtube.com...








[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Again I see no-one offer a *GOOD REASON* why Building 7 fell the way it did other then a controlled demo.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by talisman]



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Your claim: Our government is able to pull off incredible, elaborate covert-ops on their own people just to fuel their global personal agendas. Just think what else this super-machine is capable of!!!!

My claim: The Government was unprepared, sloppy, incompetent, unorganized, and stiffled due to bureaucracies within our system lacking the ability to communicate. Eeww..not so good.


Our government has pulled of other black op operations before. Oh maybe you forgot or don't know about things like Iran-Contra. Also if the government would let Pearl Harbor happen i do not think letting a few planes fly into some buildings would bother them much.

If the agencies responsable were so incompetent why was no one fired, in fact most of the people who were involved at NORAD got promotions.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Maybe this could be how? This idea does not fit your agenda however, so I fully expect no credence to be lent to the obvious physical proof that lies in the pictures.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
GwionX



There is no way they could have KNOWN BEFOREHAND where the damage *Might* be in WTC7.



Look at the picture again, there is NO way they are going to know all the damage to the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

The building is far too unstable. There is no first hand way of looking at each floor, each support. They would be in the dark as much as anything as the damage is so widespread.

As for the Gov pulling things off, well if you look at Operation Northwoods, they didn't flinch about thinking about killing people in terrorism before. The Joint Chiefs sat down and planed *evil* things, so it doesn't suprise anyone.

Also, I don't think it was done for a 'pretext' for war, rather it is similar to the NATIONAL SECURITY act thing now the PATRIOT ACT, it is a way to justify curbing freedoms for another agenda.

The NATIONAL SECURITY ACT led to the CIA.


If you trust your Gov or the CIA take a look at what the HIGHEST ranking member of the CIA to defect had to say about what the Gov is doing.
www.youtube.com...


OOOOHh...I watched your "Quick Doc"... and let me just say...Chilling

Ok on to something I just realized! And get this ..it's GOOD for a change.

Folks we are in a win- win situation.

If I am right: Our government isn't evil, never killed its own people, and is taking steps to rectify what went wrong on 9/11..as slow as that might be. Kinda like the American pie ideal.

If you are right about our Government being this Terrible, highly efficent machine of doom and plunder, with skills and planning beyond any common man's imagination. Then we are covered when all of this WORLD WIDE WEB propaganda starts embedding itself in the minds of people who really want to see the USA fail, and all fat cat American pigs die. And they decide to come after us.

We can kill them before they knew what hit em..thus we are safe. Whew! THAT's a releif!

WAIT! What if I am right about our ..government..being..inefficent..and.. incapable of staging 9/11.

but the WORLD WIDE WEB is still filled with extremely ANTI-AMERICAN "Quick Doc" PROPAGANDA. ..... Um, wait...explain to me how THAT would be good? for America.

Is it terrorist infiltrators attempting to start a civil war? Al Queda operatives cranking out unverified "Quick Doc's" that people just assume are accurate!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Our government has pulled of other black op operations before. Oh maybe you forgot or don't know about things like Iran-Contra.


You mean a black op that was exposed and thusly tried? Right. So Bush and his ilk decide to murder a couple thousand people so they can make some cash and institute a slave-like police state in America? I'm sure the democrats who are wailing and beating their fists against their chests to make him look like even more of an idiot than he already does wouldn't expose him if there was any reason to do so.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
You mean a black op that was exposed and thusly tried? Right. So Bush and his ilk decide to murder a couple thousand people so they can make some cash and institute a slave-like police state in America? I'm sure the democrats who are wailing and beating their fists against their chests to make him look like even more of an idiot than he already does wouldn't expose him if there was any reason to do so.


You mean the black ops that was made into a show trial, that no one really got in trouble anway. Also have you ever heard of G. Gordon Liddy, do you know what he did for the government.

So your trying to say that someone like our navy seals could not pull off 911 but 19 people with barely enough training to fly a small plane could pull off 911.

[edit on 19-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join