History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007, page 16

privacy

Pages: << 13 14 15 16 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 01:40 PM by titorite

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Ok Ok So I watch it again for clarity...the fire department commander called larry. Larry suggested they pull the building. And the fire deparment pulls the building.

So....is it SOP for fire departments to be trained in commercial building demolition or is it something only New Yorkers train for? Yeah that was a bit snide but I don't see how else to make the point... Firemen put fires. They don't bring down buildings...Even IF they wanted to bring this one down AND they wanted to try and do it by "tugging" on the columns first they woulda had to of spent all day breaking down the walls to expose the columns...and even then that would require 50 to a hundred people to fit the time frame. Next they gotta tie the steel ropes. Then they gotta find enough open road in the middle of all the debres to get the spped they need to YANK the columns...then David Blain needs to wave a magic wand so that the columns actully pop out rather then the firetruck bumper geting ripped off. Then you need to say a prayer and hope the building falls strait down because if it falls into another building you got another structure fire to deal with.

NO sir I don't like it. WTC7 was a controled demolition and that insists on premeditation and pre planning.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by titorite]

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 01:48 PM by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by titorite

Ok Ok So I watch it again for clarity...the fire department commander called larry. Larry suggested they pull the building. And the fire deparment pulls the building................

Blah blah blah

........I don't like it. WTC7 was a controled demolition and that insists on premeditation and pre planning.

Please tell me what you think....was Larry in on it? was the firedepartment part of it ?

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 02:00 PM by titorite

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Ummmmm I don't think any of my thoughts are going to affect you captain. I think I could explain why the idea of "tugging" on a column is crazy all day but never get through to you. I could ask you how long did it take for the firemen to expose the bare columns for demolition but I don't think I would ever get an answer. I could show you youtube video where independent researchers show the wtc7 collapse to other controled demolition experts that have never seen the building and thier reactions as they are told it is WTC7....I could go tit for tat all day long till I was blue in the face with you....But I'd rather not. If you wanna believe Fire and auxillary structure damage brought the building down, well then thats your bussiness. If you wanna argue the point your just trying to pass the time over a morbid issue.

On a final note. Larry had already lost 6 buildings that day in the WTC complex. What made being on the verge of loseing one more building so special that it earned a curtousy call? That fireman didn't have a more pressing job to do? Calling the building owner to let him know the fire is out of control was the best use of his time? Unrealistic. I have two firemen in my family. Neither one believes the officaly story.

Like I said originaly, Fire Fighters aren't trained to demolish buildings.

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 03:04 PM by CaptainObvious

reply to post by titorite

Nothing you have posted has made any sence. It's all good though. Have a great day.

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 06:37 PM by snoopy

Originally posted by Griff

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?

Because He DID say that. Several times. he just wants to make the claim, but not be held accountable for it.

He said that The conversation to pull it was about demolishing the building. if he is talking to the fire chief, then that means he is saying the fire dept is in on it. THAT is claiming that the firemen were responsible.

IT's not a knee jerk reaction (!!). It HAS been said and there is absolutely NO way you can contest it. Unless of course he would like to retract his claim that they were talking about demolishing the building.

And in response to your other question, Dr Greening is a perfect example. he would be more than happy to point out the many many fatal flaws made in the waiving the hands claims including the absurd 2000% claim which shows he CLEARLY does not understand the ratio between live weight and dead weight. Sure it sounds great to a forum of people who don't understand engineering, but the reason the guy as well as the whole engineers for truth movement can't get anything peer reviewed is because these claims simply don't hold up. They are simply designed to impress those of us without the proper background to know any better.

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 06:56 PM by titorite

I have no clue how any forum person would find any facet of strucral engenreeing "easy" to understand. What IS easy to understand is TV fakery, multiple flight approach angles, Poor graphics, The sounds of multiple explosions. I have nothing to gain by speaking about this. It does not entertain I am not paid I do not like dealing with those that insist it must be true because they saw it happen on TV. I saw alien autopsy on TV that doesn't mean I believe it. Thier are incredible serious issues with what was reported once and never shown again by the media that day.

I never heard of killtown or september clues till four days ago. Now that I have seen it I can't put the genie back. I know what is and isn't thier. I'd suggest you suspend you certianty for a moment and check it out on youtube.

reply posted on 7-9-2007 @ 09:02 PM by snoopy

What about those of us who were there?

reply posted on 8-9-2007 @ 05:23 AM by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
What about those of us who were there?

Maybe they should put the emotions aside at look at things more critically? Just a suggestion.

reply posted on 8-9-2007 @ 12:27 PM by anti72

hey, how can I see that on the internet?
I´m not american, is there a possibility to watch this as an online stream ?
or can somebody record this and put it online as a MPG or so?

pleeeze.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by anti72]

reply posted on 8-9-2007 @ 04:53 PM by snoopy

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
What about those of us who were there?

Maybe they should put the emotions aside at look at things more critically? Just a suggestion.

How about looking at the post I was responding to which was implying the airplanes were faked by using TV special effects (*giggle*). Just a suggestion since my response was to show the poster that all the people who were there and saw it in person were no way fooled by TV trickery.

:-)

EDIT: I guess me not quoting could have made it misleading, but being as I often get fined for quoting by the admins, I try to avoid it if I am posting directly underneath another post.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by snoopy]

reply posted on 8-9-2007 @ 11:50 PM by Sublime620

Hasn't anyone pointed out that there is video evidence of a demolition crew saying a building is about to be pulled?

That ends that debate.

reply posted on 27-9-2008 @ 11:27 PM by pavil

Originally posted by Sublime620
Hasn't anyone pointed out that there is video evidence of a demolition crew saying a building is about to be pulled?

That ends that debate.

C'mon Sublime, you know better than that. If you are going to say something like that, why not just post the video along with it.

Document your claim.

Pages: << 13 14 15 16 >> ^^TOP^^