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.

 

CNN News Reports WTC Building 7 collapse Minutes before it collapses

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911fnord
its important when delving into these kinda "branches" of the main conspiracy to take a mental step back and once again look at the bigger picture.

-don bueno


I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this, but can't seem to. Care to expand on your thought?




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
i guess what i mean is that there are certain aspects to the story that yeah i would agree on with the debunkers and vice versa but whenever i look at the whole story the official story i should say i am immediately convinced that some angry men from the middle east wanted our precious towers on fire is not the foundation for that days events.

-don bueno



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So, anyone have any evidence that explosives were used, and that they were planted by firefighters?


As soon as the scrap yards in China and India send back the steel that was shipped to them, we can answer your question.


And of course nobody has ever argued that anything was planted by firefighters. That's just another one of your ridiculous and transparent straw man arguments that you trot out on just about every post.




Speaking of fantasy . . .

How exactly is he making profits from this again?




Maybe you should actually read the articles that you cite. From the same NY Post article by Nicole Gelinas:

"Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, "

That notwithstanding, you missed the point entirely.

1) Silverstein was in line to make hundreds of millions in profit after 9/11. See above refernced quote by Bloomberg. Nevermind, here it is:




2) He has already received billions in insurance payouts, and he's already making money from the new WTC7 he built.

3) The politicians involved are in effect extorting Silverstein by threatening to withhold the Liberty Bond financing if he doesn't do what they want.

And the bigger picture is that neither you, nor I, nor Lizzie, nor bloggers cutting and pasting news articles can say definitivley how much or how little Silverstein made from 9/11.

Apparently the author of the article you cited thinks he stands to make $300 to $400 million per year. Of course this is all just speculation at this point. Or can you run the numbers for me and tell me how much he's made or lost on the deal so far?

And to clarify, I wasn't claiming that Silverstein has made some sort of a windfall from 9/11. I was merely pointing out to Lizzie that there is also no factual basis at this point to conclude with any certainty that he's not going to make a bundle from the deal, especially based on the superficial analysis done on the website she referenced.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261


And of course nobody has ever argued that anything was planted by firefighters. That's just another one of your ridiculous and transparent straw man arguments that you trot out on just about every post.


Then by all means explain how the "pull it" comment means anything if the firefighters and chiefs were not involved.

Since people believe that Silverstein ordered a Fire Chief to demolish his building, I'd like to hear your scenario where no Fire Chief is involved and yet the "pull it" comment means to blow up his building.

It is not a strawman, it is exactly what people imply when they claim "pull it" as evidence.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Since people believe that Silverstein ordered a Fire Chief to demolish his building, I'd like to hear your scenario where no Fire Chief is involved and yet the "pull it" comment means to blow up his building.

It is not a strawman, it is exactly what people imply when they claim "pull it" as evidence.


True. As long as Silverstein was actually talking to the fire chief to begin with. Which, you know my theory about that whole quote.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by nick7261




Then by all means explain how the "pull it" comment means anything if the firefighters and chiefs were not involved.

Since people believe that Silverstein ordered a Fire Chief to demolish his building, I'd like to hear your scenario where no Fire Chief is involved and yet the "pull it" comment means to blow up his building.

It is not a strawman, it is exactly what people imply when they claim "pull it" as evidence.


If your point is that the 'pull it" comment doesn't mean much, I agree 100%.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but I really don't see any kind of disconnect here. The building is clearly smoking in the background and the reporter is reporting that the building is on fire and may collapse or be collapsing.
Say he's talking to someone that's close to the site - it could be very easy to surmise that the building would be in trouble.
The news loves to dramatize events - they do it all the time.
This is hardly a smoking gun.
Also, and I may be wrong here, I seem to remember that the building was intentionally demolished to save the surrounding buildings.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by angst18
Also, and I may be wrong here, I seem to remember that the building was intentionally demolished to save the surrounding buildings.


That would be totally against what the official report is and is basically what we are trying to say. The building was demolished controllably. Whether you believe before, during or after the attacks is irrelevant at this point. We have to establish that it was indead a controlled demolition and not just a random failure due to structural damage and fires.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
lizzie and everyone, you're right and wrong.

He did profit. He's a businessman. look at the timing: he leases the WTC, a big guly complex that was losing money, for 99 years! maxes it out - six weeks before 9/11. now with the settlement he gets to build the Freedom Tower all to spec. For another 94 years now. Was he really just leasing the Freedom tower in '01? It may ultimately constitiute fraud, but he feels pretty safe - to prove that would be to prove the whole gov't liars and other things would follow.

On the other hand, he did NOT admit to pulling the building on PBS. Why would he? It was a "slip." He had to know how it would sound. He was talking to fire chief becuase he was ordering the fire effort pulled. No one ever claims the firefighters planted the bombs, but the implication in the (most prominent) CT take is that he was ordering the chief to flip the switch on the pre-placed explosives. It may have been standard at the time, people thot - everyone's out, just pull it - and only later were Larry and the chief told "don't mention that." Then he slipped. I think that's the theory as it made sense to me. But it's almost certainly wrong.

Which isn't to say any of the building's WEREN'T pulled. The demo evidence is still strong but I'm skeptical and that's another story. But "pull it" is no longer good evidence. Cause I say so.




WHAT demo evidence??? I have seen zero so far. I'm pretty sure "letting it slip" is about the same as admitting it on tv. So. He sucessfully demolished his own building, let it slip on tv, and still has not been questioned by any insurance companys. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
WHAT demo evidence??? I have seen zero so far. I'm pretty sure "letting it slip" is about the same as admitting it on tv. So. He sucessfully demolished his own building, let it slip on tv, and still has not been questioned by any insurance companys. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?


No evidence? No proof is one thing, but how on Earth can a reasonable person not have seen some EVIDENCE of demolitions? Free-fall speed, symmetry, etc. You haven't heard?
And you totally misunderstood what I was saying. It was a "slip," emphasis on the quotes. It was no slip. Informationally the sentence means pull the fire effort, grammatically it say pull the buildig. He MAY have been sewing disinfo here, letting "us" get in a tizzy about his "admission" before pulling the rug out, saying "what I meant was..." Or he just had weird grammar constrution and we all jumped to a dumb conclusion on our own with that. I'd buy either explanation. I don't really care.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
"That would be totally against what the official report is and is basically what we are trying to say. The building was demolished controllably. Whether you believe before, during or after the attacks is irrelevant at this point. We have to establish that it was indead a controlled demolition and not just a random failure due to structural damage and fires."

Ok, sure, but I don't see any kind of oddity in the reporter's dramatization of building 7's imminent collapse. So what? The prompter (for what ever reason) assumed the building would fall. It fell. big deal. There is plenty of much stronger evidence for conspiracy than this inanity.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Then by all means explain how the "pull it" comment means anything if the firefighters and chiefs were not involved.

Since people believe that Silverstein ordered a Fire Chief to demolish his building, I'd like to hear your scenario where no Fire Chief is involved and yet the "pull it" comment means to blow up his building.

It is not a strawman, it is exactly what people imply when they claim "pull it" as evidence.


I claim "Pull it" as evidence, because I think I've done more than enough in showing you that in Chapter 5 of the FEMA Report regarding WTC7, there are numerous instances where they clearly say manual firefighting operations were discontinued early in the day.

We are both asking the same 'question' to one another because there is clear cause for belief that what we have been told regarding WTC7 didn't happen that way.

No one is implying FDNY was behind explosives within the building. What we are asking is what on earth Larry Silverstein meant by "pull it" because, as I've rebuttled now two of your posts, he did infact mean getting firefighters out of the building.

And, if he did mean that, and we can see from the FEMA report that manual firefighting operations were discontinued fairly early in that day, and the building fell in the early evening, then what on earth did Silverstein refer to when he was talking of "pulling"?

Your "side" of the argument is asking the same question as we are, except you're implying that we all believe FDNY was behind the truth movement's "explosive devices" theory of that day.

All I want to know is what he meant by pulling because he couldn't have meant firefighters - and I dont want to bring the evidence back up again LeftBehind, so just backtrack through this post and you will see both of my responses to your inaccuracies.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
SMALL FIRES??? Guys... watch the video!!! Look at the smoke POURING out of the building! yeah small fires.....


Uhh isn't that smoke from the two collapsed towers?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
No. That is smoke pouring from the fires on almost every floor of WTC 7.

/f3tvd

/zg4un

Please read this .pdf it explains it at length.

www.911myths.com...


I claim "Pull it" as evidence, because I think I've done more than enough in showing you that in Chapter 5 of the FEMA Report regarding WTC7, there are numerous instances where they clearly say manual firefighting operations were discontinued early in the day.


While manual firefighting operations were discontinued, there were still personell around the building up until the time of the collapse doing search and rescue.


www.911myths.com...

The company to the south of us was -- it was a double digit -- I don't know if it was 14. I'm just stabbing at numbers now. It was just so much debris between cars, it was hard to see what was good and bad, stuff like that. But that was our main position right there. I would say from approximately about at least an hour, hour and a half between 4 and 5. They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down. The Chief and myself went down to that area where we they wanted us to work. Seeing what we would need; torches, air bags, anything else like that to operate at that bridge. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down.
–Captain Robert Sohmer
graphics8.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.
So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.
–Lieutenant William Ryan
graphics8.nytimes.com...


There were personell to pull from the area.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
While manual firefighting operations were discontinued, there were still personell around the building up until the time of the collapse doing search and rescue.

There were personell to pull from the area.



Oh Left Behind, lol. I told you to go look this thread before you made a reply to what I said - but I'll repeat it for you.

Larry Silverstein did NOT refer to pulling people away from the building at all. In his official words... ah, just take a look:



"Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."


SOURCE

So, the U.S. state Department is a pretty legit source in comparison to, oh, 911myths.com? No type of bias or anything.

And once again, LeftBehind, I ask you.
1.) Where is your source that Silverstein meant the firefighters from the area?
2.) What did Silverstein mean by "pulling" because it is clear from Chapter 5 of the FEMA report that manual firefighting operations ended fairly early in the day, and the decision to "pull" the firefighters was apparently made in the late afternoon.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
Dude, I've seen the movie (it's called 9|11, google it), i've heard them fall to the ground. It didn't sound like a huge giant explosion, but in my opinion they could've easily been mistaken for small bombs. I'm not even going to comment on your little boohoo pity me story.


Sorry, don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth people hitting the ground don't sound like bombs.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekerMP


Larry Silverstein did NOT refer to pulling people away from the building at all. In his official words... ah, just take a look:


Are you serious?

You just debunked yourself in your own post.


The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001."


Or are you just attempting to split hairs? In the area, includes peole inside the building, friend.




1.) Where is your source that Silverstein meant the firefighters from the area?


In your above quote for one.


Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.


Did you even read what you posted?


2.) What did Silverstein mean by "pulling" because it is clear from Chapter 5 of the FEMA report that manual firefighting operations ended fairly early in the day, and the decision to "pull" the firefighters was apparently made in the late afternoon.



Yeah, you just answered yourself. Are you trying to give us the impression that Silverstein ordered anything? Because it is clear from your sources and mine that the fire chiefs made the decisions to stop fighting the fires in 7, and later in the day made the decision to pull all personel out from around the building.

Again, Silverstein does not give orders to fire chiefs, and the NYFD did not set bombs in, and then demolish building 7 on his order.


Please why don't you outline how you think it happened, with the NYFD blowing buildings up with bombs and being complicit in insurance fraud at the orders of someone who has no authority over them.

I can't wait to hear your explanation.

I'm sure it will be backed up with evidence and everything.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
First off - take a look through any post posted by myself in this thread. None draw any "conclusion" of what I think happened, so you accusing me of "debunking myself" is not doing anything for your side of the argument. I have rebuttled your posts within this thread with evidence from the U.S State Department's website, as well as Chapter 5 of the FEMA report.

You specifically said in a previous post in this thread:


Originally posted by LeftBehind
They did not pull people from the building. They pulled everyone back from the aread around the building.

Please read my last post.

Or even better read the thread where this is being discussed.

Pull It

Or perhaps a this .pdf file that exposes most of the lies some of you are espousing.

www.911myths.com...


And I rebuttled that with exactly what Larry Silverstein's people said - that he meant people from WITHIN the building. And this is also why I made the comment in my previous post of your constant praise to 911myths.com.

That is why I posed the question to you as to where you are sourcing your information from that he said they were not pulled from the building, rather from the area. Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine.

From the evidence we are given from Chapter 5 of the FEMA report and what Larry Silverstein's camp said - it does not add up as to what he was "pulling" when he made the comment.

Don't sit here and accuse me of what I believe and me debunking it because from anything I've posted within this thread, you my friend have no idea what I do believe. The only thing I continue to do is ask the same question to you and everyone else. You trying to bash me with your sarcasm makes your argument less contageous to the ATS readers.

And, when did I ever say Silverstein gave orders to FDNY? When did I ever say the FDNY planted explosives? When did I ever say FDNY was complicit with insurance fraud? and when did I ever say Silverstein had the authority to do anything regarding FDNY? Oh, that's right. I didn't.


And, I do wish I could draw out this long thought out hypothesis about WTC7, but guess what? I can't. But what I can do is continue to question the official story and demand for a new investigation for one, because the original investigation did not even include WTC7, and second of all, there are enough questions left unanswered and simple arguments that do not add up for enough evidence to arise that a new investigation needs to take place.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by lizziex3
WHAT demo evidence??? I have seen zero so far. I'm pretty sure "letting it slip" is about the same as admitting it on tv. So. He sucessfully demolished his own building, let it slip on tv, and still has not been questioned by any insurance companys. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?


No evidence? No proof is one thing, but how on Earth can a reasonable person not have seen some EVIDENCE of demolitions? Free-fall speed, symmetry, etc. You haven't heard?
And you totally misunderstood what I was saying. It was a "slip," emphasis on the quotes. It was no slip. Informationally the sentence means pull the fire effort, grammatically it say pull the buildig. He MAY have been sewing disinfo here, letting "us" get in a tizzy about his "admission" before pulling the rug out, saying "what I meant was..." Or he just had weird grammar constrution and we all jumped to a dumb conclusion on our own with that. I'd buy either explanation. I don't really care.


Don't waste your time with her. No matter what evidence or proof you throw at her she'll just continue to say "there's no evidence" or "show me proof." Even if you had a video tape of silverstein confessing himself, that dumb bitch lizzi will still continue to say "there's no evidence." Thank god she' not a judge or something, otherwise no murderer would ever get convicted.

Just ignore that imbecile like a lot of us have.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
No. That is smoke pouring from the fires on almost every floor of WTC 7.

/f3tvd

/zg4un

Please read this .pdf it explains it at length.

www.911myths.com...


I claim "Pull it" as evidence, because I think I've done more than enough in showing you that in Chapter 5 of the FEMA Report regarding WTC7, there are numerous instances where they clearly say manual firefighting operations were discontinued early in the day.


While manual firefighting operations were discontinued, there were still personell around the building up until the time of the collapse doing search and rescue.


www.911myths.com...

The company to the south of us was -- it was a double digit -- I don't know if it was 14. I'm just stabbing at numbers now. It was just so much debris between cars, it was hard to see what was good and bad, stuff like that. But that was our main position right there. I would say from approximately about at least an hour, hour and a half between 4 and 5. They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down. The Chief and myself went down to that area where we they wanted us to work. Seeing what we would need; torches, air bags, anything else like that to operate at that bridge. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down.
–Captain Robert Sohmer
graphics8.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.
So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.
–Lieutenant William Ryan
graphics8.nytimes.com...


There were personell to pull from the area.



None of those links work. And if that was smoke from WTC7. Where was the smoke from the two collapsed towers?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join