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.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 20
0
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Did either of you two bother to read the begining of this thread where the use of the term "pull" by firefighters was discussed.

It has nothing to do with the intentional demolition of a building.




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did either of you two bother to read the begining of this thread where the use of the term "pull" by firefighters was discussed.

It has nothing to do with the intentional demolition of a building.



Sorry, no because I used my post right above to start my own thread (i searched and didn't see a thread already on this subject) and then Valhall showed me this thread, but merged it so that's why it's on there. And I'm new to this thread, so I'm going to have to catch up on the tons of pages.


LL1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did either of you two bother to read the begining of this thread where the use of the term "pull" by firefighters was discussed.

It has nothing to do with the intentional demolition of a building.



Did you bother to view the videos from the link?

It does discuss: pull vs intentional demo by the media, engineers and the landlord of the leased property.
Another side, other than the firefighters, maybe others than yourself would like to view them....
Why not view what the landlord had to say.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
If you watch the video of building 7 you see the center rise slightly then collapse prior to the exterior walls. I believe this is done in demolitions so the exterior walls sort of keep the debris together in a neater pile.

NOW watch the collapse of the North tower, you will see the television tower rise up first and collapse just prior to the exterior walls. Exactly like the neat collapse of building 7. The wtc towers were essentially an outer tube of columns with an inner core, to maximize free floor space in the design. The central core was a 3D matrix of reinforcing cross tension, the exterior walls would have been much flimsier. Yet inspite of that the stronger central core neatly collapses first anyway. The exterior walls if the floor truses were failing as has been described should have become a limp tube subject to twisting, bending and torquing long prior to the central core failing.
.


LL1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did either of you two bother to read the begining of this thread where the use of the term "pull" by firefighters was discussed.

It has nothing to do with the intentional demolition of a building.



Sorry, no because I used my post right above to start my own thread (i searched and didn't see a thread already on this subject) and then Valhall showed me this thread, but merged it so that's why it's on there. And I'm new to this thread, so I'm going to have to catch up on the tons of pages.

Don't let that bully intimidate you...
View his mood: "Sneaky".... What does that tell you....
Read HowardRoark replies to others... bully that's all.

You enjoy posting, and ignore those that attempt to show ownership on threads by trying to turn them yellow (pissing on them/others)...
Now back to the topic....



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LL1

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did either of you two bother to read the begining of this thread where the use of the term "pull" by firefighters was discussed.

It has nothing to do with the intentional demolition of a building.



Did you bother to view the videos from the link?

It does discuss: pull vs intentional demo by the media, engineers and the landlord of the leased property.
Another side, other than the firefighters, maybe others than yourself would like to view them....
Why not view what the landlord had to say.


I watched the ones that would play. I didn't see anything unusual.

The use of the term "pull" by a firefighter has the specific meaning to pull the firefighters off of the fire. Silverstein reported what the firefighter said to him.

The building was damaged early on from falling debris. It was on fire. You can clearly see that in the pictures. If you can see two floors of the building on fire, then it is a good bet that more floor s are on fire where you can not see them from the outside. The collapse of the towers damaged the water mains and the power systems so that the sprinkler system was not funtional.

Do you really think that the NYPD would risk sending men into that building to do selective demo to expose the structural members, plant and wire the buildings with exactly the right amount of explosives to bring it down, but not to much to send debris flying out of the building or even to be heard by anyone watching. especially after loosing over 300 men just a few hours earlier?

I see a number of people in the foreground of the video. Having personally witneses the intentional implosion of over 7 separate buildings, I can assure you that they would have heard any explosives quite clearly from that distance. Why can't we hear it on the video?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LL1
Don't let that bully intimidate you...
View his mood: "Sneaky".... What does that tell you....
Read HowardRoark replies to others... bully that's all.

You enjoy posting, and ignore those that attempt to show ownership on threads by trying to turn them yellow (pissing on them/others)...
Now back to the topic....



Call me a bully if you want, but I am just pointing out that this subject has been discussed for over 20 pages. I do not see the point is rehashing it.

And if you make a post with a questionable claim, expect it to be questioned.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
If you watch the video of building 7 you see the center rise slightly then collapse prior to the exterior walls. I believe this is done in demolitions so the exterior walls sort of keep the debris together in a neater pile.

NOW watch the collapse of the North tower, you will see the television tower rise up first and collapse just prior to the exterior walls. Exactly like the neat collapse of building 7. The wtc towers were essentially an outer tube of columns with an inner core, to maximize free floor space in the design. The central core was a 3D matrix of reinforcing cross tension, the exterior walls would have been much flimsier. Yet inspite of that the stronger central core neatly collapses first anyway. The exterior walls if the floor truses were failing as has been described should have become a limp tube subject to twisting, bending and torquing long prior to the central core failing.
.


The first plane struck the north tower fairly square, unlike the second plane which sliced the side of the south tower.

The first plane passed though the outer walls and damaged the interior core.

Either way, the struture depends on all of its components to work. When one (core or perimeter) fails, the whole structure fails. At that point is it just gravity and inertia, with nowhere to go but straight down.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
roxdog: That doesn't look like a bird to me, too big from that distance..it would have to be maybe a teryadactle (sp?) or something man lol..

-wD


LL1

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
My bag, you're not a Bully, you're argumentative!

This is all I posted for those whom may want to see the videos:

Video Clips Of WTC 7

Here's a video on the subject of "pull-it" for WTC 7:

www.prisonplanet.com...

You found that "questionable"???? hmmm... Where? How?
You state you could not see the video, so what exactly are you questioning in my post?

No wonder you have 20,000+ post...



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I've seen them before elsewhere.

Not all of the videos on that page play for me now.

What I find questionable is your distortion of the facts to fit your veiwpoint.

What Silverstein said was perfectly accceptable in the context. To a firefighter the term "Pull" has a totally different meaning than it would to a demolitions expert. That is a fact. No matter how you wish it were so, they are not talking about the intentional demolition of the building, they are talking about pulling the fire crews off the fire and letting the building burn.


edit: btw, what's wrong with being argumenative?



[edit on 16-8-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
building 7:
After hours of having debris randomly dropped on it, instead of collapsing first on the side where more debris and damage has been done, It neatly crumbles in the middle and collapses neatly as in a controlled demolition.

The experts say it wasn't debris that collapsed the building but fire. When has fire EVER collapsed a steel and concrete building before?
They used the same argument on the twin towers, but there they could rationalize intense heat from all the jet fuel.
BUILDING 7 HAD NO JET FUEL DUMPED IN IT.

Notice how it drops from the bottom first, the top half of the building stays intact all the way down. It does not pancake down floor by floor but is somehow UNDERCUT. Undercut by what? And undercut perfectly symetrically all around the way around the building. Not favoring the side with the twin towers.
Wouldn't any fire from the twin towers have been deposited on top of and on the outside perimeter around building 7? Wouldn't those parts have therefore failed first?
.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The building was structurally damaged by the collapse of the towers. There was a visible "kink" in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. If burned for SEVEN hours. very few buildings have burned that long and survived.

If the structural failure started in a core area, then yes, the collapse would have been just as it was.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES!!!!!

Explosives powerful enough to cut the steel make noise. a lot of noise. As I posted earlier, I have witnesses intentional implosions. You not only hear the explosives, you feel them in your chest. Even as far away as the video cameras that depicted the collapse of 7, they would have heard the explosions. they would be on the tape. but they did not. Why, BECAUSE TRHERE WERE NONE.

No matter how hard you try to twist what you think "should have happened" to fit your theory, you can not escape the fact that there is one piece of evidence lacking, The sound of the explosives.

Hushaboom anyone?



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
To anyone:
What if you weaken the structually manually first. For example drill holes in the main structural supports. It seems to me that it would take a much smaller explosive charge to critically fracture a structural support of a building.

In a controlled demolition safety is a major concern. You want the structure strong and intact enough while your crew sets the explosives. Then using a VERY powerful blast you fracture the structure at critical points using ONLY explosives.

But if on the other hand you have pre-weakened the structure it would only take much smaller explosive charges to take the building down. It would not be done from a maximum safety perspective but a minimal explosive standpoint.

Since the entire area was at that point evacuated smaller explosive charges may not have been noticeable.

thoughts?

am i devious or what? (joke sort of)

Another thought. What if the building were designed to have structural weak points? Easy to demolish weak points for people who knew where they were.
.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
To anyone:
What if you weaken the structually manually first. For example drill holes in the main structural supports. It seems to me that it would take a much smaller explosive charge to critically fracture a structural support of a building.



Kind of reaching aren't we?






Another thought. What if the building were designed to have structural weak points? Easy to demolish weak points for people who knew where they were.
.


I'd like to meet the engineer that designed that.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
.
You must admit it is possible. Add people greedy, desperate and/or driven enough, and they will do just about anything.

You have no problem believing that 19 hijackers SACRIFICED their OWN LIVES to create all this destruction, but can't imagine that someone, WHO GETS TO LIVE, would do this to someone else for actual tangible money and politics.

Isn't it much easier to imagine people doing something to someone else for tangible gain, rather than someone sacrificing themselves for some imagined heavenly reward?

Recipe: Take nasty unethical people, add need/desire, give them time for lots of skullduggery, give them the ability, the means, and presto you have an engineered 'event'.

Footnote: Did you know the art of designing a bridge is building it to be just strong enough to handle all predicted events. Overbuilding is an expensive waste of time, materials and money.
.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank

What if you weaken the structually manually first. For example drill holes in the main structural supports. It seems to me that it would take a much smaller explosive charge to critically fracture a structural support of a building.

.



You just summed up controlled demolitions with that statement.
However I assure you this is not a one day job, even on the smaller demolition jobs. It takes weeks and even months of very noticable work to accomplish this task. The is no way to sneak a crew in and do the job in a matter of hours. Have you ever tried drilling a hole in concrete that is big enough to put explosives in, its not like drilling a 1/4 inch hole in a piece of 2x4. Even by weakening the building it takes a shi*load of explosives to bring it down,your talking about exposing the structural supports and then wrapping many of them with specialized explosives



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was structurally damaged by the collapse of the towers. There was a visible "kink" in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. If burned for SEVEN hours. very few buildings have burned that long and survived.

If the structural failure started in a core area, then yes, the collapse would have been just as it was.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES!!!!!

Explosives powerful enough to cut the steel make noise. a lot of noise. As I posted earlier, I have witnesses intentional implosions. You not only hear the explosives, you feel them in your chest. Even as far away as the video cameras that depicted the collapse of 7, they would have heard the explosions. they would be on the tape. but they did not. Why, BECAUSE TRHERE WERE NONE.

No matter how hard you try to twist what you think "should have happened" to fit your theory, you can not escape the fact that there is one piece of evidence lacking, The sound of the explosives.

Hushaboom anyone?


Who's disputing that there were no sounds? By the way, just finished catching up on this thread, and let me tell you, I have never laughed so hard in my life. Especially on pages 6-8 I think it was. This is a funny thread, but I've also seen really good points on both sides. (However, not the THIRD side about the bird alien)

Also, I admire you Howard for actually staying with this for so long, and the few others who have as well.

Anyway, you're completely right that IF there were explosives, then there would be a tremendous sound no doubt.
Question: Did that video of the collapse of 7 have audio on it? If it did, I must have had my volume down when I watched it.

There are some good points of evidence that some have brought up in this thread that I'm not sure you've yet addressed though. I'd like to maybe touch on some of those.

However, it's very late, and I will come back tomorrow. Until then.......

Good debate everyone.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Isn't it much easier to imagine people doing something to someone else for tangible gain, rather than someone sacrificing themselves for some imagined heavenly reward?

It IS easier to imagine people doing something for tangible gain rather than imagined reward, but that doesn't make it truth. Look no further for an example of this than right here. Imagine someone that likes people and doing new and creative things because they can. The heavenly reward? Maybe recognition by others that you did something great or even just you knowing you did it.

There is really a lot of people here like this:
Simon Gray = making ATS
Valhall = spending lots time and working very hard on news articles.
KingLizard = avatars for various members.
Asala = greeting everybody. I mean everybody.
Springer = investing $$ to keep this place in good shape for all of us
Myself = avatars for me (yeah, I know) and other people, cartoons, various artwork, and news.
Every Admin, SuperMod, & Mod = spending personal time to keep this place running well.

and of course SkepticOverlord (who you might know) = doing more for this place than you could possibly imagine.

Not one person I mentioned (and lots more I probably didn't mention) is after tangible gain. Without all of these people, you would even be here...so yeah, I can imagine it...



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
What are objective points that counter a possible argument that the building was mechanically/manually physically weakened or designed to have physical weak points either of which would make for a more minimum amount of explosives to demolish building 7? [aside from any personal animosity you may feel towards me]

In terms of human nastyness you might keep in mind these points. Setting aside the fact thay you know and work with a lot of good and caring people.

You might keep in perspective that the US Congress and President pass legislation that disallows the free market purchase of pharmaceuticals from Canada, claiming you can't trust the quality, while you can purchase bogus pharms from people inside the US? It is a bill written by the large pharmaceutical Co.s for the large pharmaceutical co.s. Forcing US customers to pay full price, barring the US gov from collective negotiations for drug prices.

The US government outlawed states regulating tow truck drivers making it a power of the federal government, then eliminated all the federal regulations on tow truck drivers.

The US congress made it illegal for individual investors to sue accounting firms when they were involved with corporate accounting malfeasance, over Clinton's veto, which paved the way for Enron, World Comm, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc.

The money laundering provision of the 'Patriot' act was watered down when tobacco companies objected because they were making too much money from illegal drug dealers buying cigarettes and smuggling them into their home countries as a way of laundering their profits.

The Vice president talked with a man [Ken Lay], currently facing criminal charges about Enron, about outlining the energy policy of the US but is afraid light and sunshine on their discussions will have a chilling effect. Chilling on what, corrupt corporate welfare policies that degrade the enviornment of us all for the profits of a few?

Do I need to add more examples of our government's collusion in corporate corruption?

Now keep in mind this is the government which is much more open than what goes on behind the closed doors of corporate America.

Did you know Coke a Cola in India pumped all the ground water out of the ground drying up local wells that local people use, then pumped toxic waste back into the ground and wells, just so they could make a bigger profit?

You do realize there are evil, evil people out there that will and do stop at nothing to gain profit or further their own political agendas?

I don't know what drives these people, but they are sick in my opinion. And more importantly they are real and exist in goodly numbers.
.




top topics



 
0
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join