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.

 

History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

page: 15
10
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by snoopy
Thank you, but that's completely untrue. The company doesn't simply go around demolishing buildings, and Larry has no expertise what so ever in building demolition....
....And please tell me what people am I defending?...


Lol you need to read some bud. Larry's company is a real estate developer.


A real estate developer (American English) or property developer (British English) makes improvements of some kind to real property, thereby increasing its value....
....Building developers acquire raw land, improved land, and/or redevelopable property in order to construct building projects.


They might not have demolished every building they acquired, but to say they don't is complete ignorance. Of course he would be familiar with building demolition.
And he didn't used an incorrect term for building demolition. If he was talking about firefighters then it would have been an incorrect term. We all know what 'pull it' means and I have proven it means to demolish a building.

No one is saying the fire fighters were 'in on it', you seem to only read what you want to hear. We're talking about silverstein not fire fighters.
You are defending those that planned and carried out these attacks, and who allowed it to happen for personal gain.

And pls stop with the psychological attacks, you are the one who should feel ashamed spreading lies to cover up a crime. Only people with no argument left stoop to such low levels...


[edit on 6/9/2007 by ANOK]



You have just pointed out that I obviously HAVE read. being a developer is not the same as being a demolitionist. And the implication that Larry should be a demolition expert because he has a development company? That's outright absurd and even you have to admit that. It's complete ignorance to say he would be an expert in demolition.

And you are now claiming that he didn't use an inccorect demolition term????

Do you know what "pull" means in demolition terms? it means to attach cables and "PULL" the building to the side. Did they attach cables and pull the building to the side? They didn't did they? So what's your explanation for him using a correct demolition term?

And no it would NOT be an incorrect term in reference to the fire fighters. it refers to the contingency and the whole operation which entails more than simply men, but the whole effort and everything involved. And if you would read the transcripts from before that cherry picked quote, you would see that they continually use the term pull in the context of getting men out. Over and over. Yet suddenly you expect us to believe that they stopped using it to mean what they had meant throughout the day and instead use it for a demolition manuver that was not used? Seriously? How do you explain this claim??

No one is saying the firefighters were in on it???? Larry was talking to the fire chief. You are saying that Larry was telling the fire chief to demolish the building or being told they were demolishing the building. In what way are you NOT accusing the firefighters of being in on it? Because you JUST DID make that accusation.

I am defending the people who planned and carried it out? Please list the names of those people and the crime committed by each of them.

You should be ashamed for trying to drag down the firefighters into your conspiracy. Those people put their lives on the line and many of them died trying to save people. To saty they were demolishing the building is just completely innappropriate and sickening.




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
The structural engineers disagree with the guy who studies optics.


Please show me a non governmental structural engineer who does. I want name, PE number, state they work in etc. And I want an exact quote. Thanks.

Edit: I'm in the wrong thread. I thought I was in the "hand waving" physics thread. Although, this still may apply.

[edit on 9/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
You should be ashamed for trying to drag down the firefighters into your conspiracy. Those people put their lives on the line and many of them died trying to save people. To saty they were demolishing the building is just completely innappropriate and sickening.


Why do emotions always get in the way of reading comprehension? ANOK clearly stated that he wasn't saying the firemen had anything to do with it. So, why do we need to go back to the knee jerk reaction of "how dare you say this and that" when it hasn't even been said?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Griff,Anok, if you want to believe that Silverstein was in on it..then you HAVE to in FACT have to agree that the FDNY had a roll in the destruction of WTC7. Who was Silverstein talking to? Yes, the Chief of the FDNY. "And "they" decided to pull it." Who is they? He was talking to the FDNY. So, like it or not...to believe that a billionaire admitted on a documentary based on 911 that he had a building destroyed...you are also implicating the FDNY.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
So, like it or not...to believe that a billionaire admitted on a documentary based on 911 that he had a building destroyed...you are also implicating the FDNY.


Not neccessarily. My feelings are he was talking himself up in the documentary to begin with.

As far as implicating the FDNY, so what? It's not like anyone died in WTC 7. So, the whole argument of "how dare you call the FDNY killers" is moot to begin with.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   


Yes, the Chief of the FDNY


Who? If we knew, wouldn't there be a lot of questions that people
would want to ask him.

Perhaps it was not the Chief but part of the Conspiracy, making
sure the last part of the 'job' was done.

If the men were not ready to put out another fire, wouldn't they have to
let it burn on out.. how in heavens name can you pull out the beams
and make it fall on a days notice.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... I can't disagree with you on his quote and the reason for it....

Remember that there were several hours that rescue operations had haulted around the collaspe zone. How many could have possibly been resuced alive if the rescue operation were allowed to continue?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


Yes, the Chief of the FDNY


Who? If we knew, wouldn't there be a lot of questions that people
would want to ask him.

Perhaps it was not the Chief but part of the Conspiracy, making
sure the last part of the 'job' was done.

If the men were not ready to put out another fire, wouldn't they have to
let it burn on out.. how in heavens name can you pull out the beams
and make it fall on a days notice.


Who ? 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower.

I don't understand your last paragraph? Beams were not pulled out.


EDIT TO ADD:



Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]




[edit on 7-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SimiusDei
 


Thanks SimiusDei for the review.. I stay away from anti CT propaganda that
is token for the UK and US Intelligence on the History Channel.

By the time one studies History in undergrad work you find the dirty topics
are the ones studied. So there should be a lot for generations to come.



reply to post by snoopy
 


What you say does fit the situation.
The PH CT was just another anti government concoction most likely in the 50s to enlist some kind of
support or disillusionment.

Sort of what the government does now.
Seems the table has turned.

Just who is in the drivers seat now.
You seem to know the facts.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Well there are plenty of people who doubt that a fire official would think
a building would collapse at all.

It seems nonsense.

What was so special about WTC 7 that would make it collapse.
Is it obvious to you.

Especially if a beam can not be pulled. You dis concurred with my reason
for the WTC 7 collapse. OK, WTC 7 fell down without any beam
collapsing. Lets tell every one and the Chief too.

A magic collapse.. well I do not believe you on that one.
Civil Engineering 101.. beams hold up buildings... if it all burns down
the steel beams remain.

The Chief had to know that. So what did he know about the building
collapsing.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
A magic collapse.. well I do not believe you on that one.
Civil Engineering 101.. beams hold up buildings... if it all burns down
the steel beams remain.


I hope you mean columns? Semantics, but.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Well there are plenty of people who doubt that a fire official would think
a building would collapse at all.

It seems nonsense.


There were engineers and other officals there along with the FDNY...do some research outside of Alex Jones...Geeesh...the building was actually leaning according to reports...go find them! What is nonsence is to think a billionaire would admit in the middle of a documentary that he ordered the destruction of his skyscraper.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to as it deals with nothing but jibber jabber and unfounded accusations.

Please go to this site and read up on the FACTS of WTC-7:
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I am not accusing any one.

I am discounting the fact that when building falls ....it is not like WTC 7.

The Chief and Silverstein or anybodies words do not take down a building.

A tilting building can still remain tilted.

Did the architect build a special building to fall like that, he should know.

Stay away from buildings built like WTC 7.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Just to "but in" my two cents. I can't find any reports of the solomon building leaning. The north and south towers yes but nothing about wtc7 leaning.

I always thought that "pull it" in the PBS context used meant to Demolish the building. When Larry Silverstien mentions the Fire Chief...I don't think the fire dept was in on anything, I think Larry Is lying.

Wtc7 was an average controled demolition. The problem is that you can not execute a controled demolition with in a few hours in the middle of a burning building. It takes time to expose the bare columns under the plaster and surface fascia. Then you gotta know percisely where to plant the charges because if you get it wrong the building may fall into other buildings. You don't wanna plant explosive charges in a building on fire because you yourself may blow up. And at 47 stories your not gonna be able to wreck the building by tieing steel rope around the columns (which would still need to be exposed) and the bumpers of fire trucks and getting them to all drive off at the same time.

Lastly, Why on earth would the new chief ,in the middle of the biggest crisis of his life, even be talking to the building owner / civilian. If he even saw the man I think SOP would be to tell him to "GET BACK" then call the cops to force him back. So the idea of Larry Silverstien giveing the Fire chief suggestions is far fetched in my opinion. But he said as much on PBS.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

I am discounting the fact that when building falls ....it is not like WTC 7.


How many skyscraper have you seen collapse due to sections of a skyscraper cascading debris on top of it causing severe damage..then burning out of control for hours.


Originally posted by TeslaandLyneThe Chief and Silverstein or anybodies words do not take down a building.

So, you are saying that it wasnt a controlled demolition?



Originally posted by TeslaandLyneA tilting building can still remain tilted.

Um, one that have massive damage, and is burning for many hours?


Originally posted by TeslaandLyneDid the architect build a special building to fall like that, he should know.

Stay away from buildings built like WTC 7.

Hmmm.interesting points here...go watch the video America Rebuilds where it explains the NEW construction of WTC7.. the NEW WTC is constrcuted differently than the original... (they use MUCH more concrete)



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Just for Captin obvious in case he has not seen it for himself.




For everyone else I would point out that when you watch the last seconds not the left side pink and right side blue. That september clue video has really opened my eyes in a way I wish wasn't true....but the truth is what it is and nothing can be done to change it.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
Just to "but in" my two cents. I can't find any reports of the solomon building leaning. The north and south towers yes but nothing about wtc7 leaning.


There were several firefighters that stated this...see the link i provided above. There were also engineers on site that had a device on the side of the building that was measuring it..... let me find the info on it.


Originally posted by titoriteI always thought that "pull it" in the PBS context used meant to Demolish the building. When Larry Silverstien mentions the Fire Chief...I don't think the fire dept was in on anything, I think Larry Is lying.

Lastly, Why on earth would the new chief ,in the middle of the biggest crisis of his life, even be talking to the building owner / civilian. If he even saw the man I think SOP would be to tell him to "GET BACK" then call the cops to force him back. So the idea of Larry Silverstien giveing the Fire chief suggestions is far fetched in my opinion. But he said as much on PBS.


Larry didn't make it up. (although he may have embelished his roll) Daniel Nigro did in fact CALL him on the phone to discuss the condition of his skyscraper. When Silverstein was talking and said..."then we watched the building fall".... he was talking about his wife who he was home with. HE was NOT at ground zero.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
One more thing I just noticed?...For being 47 stories that WTC7 sure did look on equal footing with the Empire State Building...Of course I don't know exactly how tall that building is but I thought it was above 63 stories tall.. And we see tons of smoke in the last few seconds of that video yet in other WTC7 videos we don't..You know the one I mean the close up ground shot of the collapse?...More media manipulation I'm telling ya.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 



What am I watching here? I have seen it many times and I typically have to correct people that say the Silverstein decided to pull it... "THEY" decided to pull.

What TV fakery is going on in here Killtown?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite
More media manipulation I'm telling ya.


This HAS to be Killtown or one of his croonies. Great job!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join