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.

 

Chief Nigro FDNY, WTC7 Conspiracies "without merit"

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by scientist

you may find this hard to believe - but when you refer to the "murder of thousands" as though it were a terrorist (non-US terrorist to be specific) plot, I find that just as offensive, and just as much of a slap in the face of the american public, as you feel when someone says the opposite.


Wow, thats VERY sad. VERY VERY sad. To compare a FACT over a fantasy. Yikes


oh, my bleeding heart. spare your pity for the future, when reflecting upon your previous mindset. The FACT is, you just dismissed the entire concept by automatically calling it fantasy. This is not an argument, it is a retreat. No better than an ad hominem attack.

I am not trying to debate any particular theory right now, but trying to get you to acknowledge the fact that:


Originally posted by scientist

you may find this hard to believe - but when you refer to the "murder of thousands" as though it were a terrorist (non-US terrorist to be specific) plot, I find that just as offensive, and just as much of a slap in the face of the american public, as you feel when someone says the opposite.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by scientist

you may find this hard to believe - but when you refer to the "murder of thousands" as though it were a terrorist (non-US terrorist to be specific) plot, I find that just as offensive, and just as much of a slap in the face of the american public, as you feel when someone says the opposite.


Wow, thats VERY sad. VERY VERY sad. To compare a FACT over a fantasy. Yikes




I find it a slap in the face that people are still spreading the lies from the media and disrepecting the people that died that day.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

6 years and NIST can still not tell us how building 7 collapsed.


Yet scientists this day and age can calculate to put rovers on mars, tell what is on other planets that aren't in our solar system etc. Things that make you hmmm...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Lack of evidence does NOT prove a conspiracy theory. Where are your facts? oh wait... you have none.


The FACT that there was a "scoop and dump" of the evidence doesn't bother you in the least? There's one FACT that can go on record.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
The B25 did not carry 62,000 lbs of fuel. That was more than the B25 AND its bomb load.


Although correct, please show us where there was 62,000 lbs of fuel on those planes. Because I've heard 10,000 lbs. Which is it?


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

It is possible for aluminum to go further than just the outer shell of the WTC. On a show "Weaponology" they showed a weapon that was under 6 lbs in weight. Its only warhead was a sheet of copper. They used a explosive ( C4/Simtex). When the weapon exploded, it was able to send the copper sheet through 1" steel plate without difficulty, leaving a rather large hole. Copper is a softer metal than aluminum. So it is possible for aluminum with enough force, and mass, behind it to penetrate steel.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
They used a explosive ( C4/Simtex). When the weapon exploded, it was able to send the copper sheet through 1" steel plate without difficulty, leaving a rather large hole.



Think about how much force is achieved using "cutter charges" as opposed to an aluminum plane. I know it's not cutter charges, but C-4 is used in demolitions. Wonder why?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
It is possible for aluminum to go further than just the outer shell of the WTC. On a show "Weaponology" they showed a weapon that was under 6 lbs in weight. Its only warhead was a sheet of copper. They used a explosive ( C4/Simtex). When the weapon exploded, it was able to send the copper sheet through 1" steel plate without difficulty, leaving a rather large hole. Copper is a softer metal than aluminum. So it is possible for aluminum with enough force, and mass, behind it to penetrate steel.



Well your talking about very high velocity from using explosives to drive the sheet of copper. The planes were not traveling near that kind of velocity.

A group of terrerist used something similar to take out a armored limo, but it ws homemade.

They put a 5 pound block of copper in a satchel with 10 pounds of high explosives behind it to drive it into the limo.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Billbob,
I was going to reply to this typical recycled youtube garbage on your thread, but I will address it here.

Lets look at :

KEVIN MCPADDEN

The man that told Alex Jones he heard the pulsing on a radio that sounded like a countdown...

Read the thread on ATS where this was mentioned and watch the video:


We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden
(the bolded section of the quote is at 1:09 of the video)prisonplanet.com...

Now he states:


"He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one," said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."
www.prisonplanet.com...

So which is it Mr. McPadden ? Did he just give a look or did he tell them to run for thier lives?

Then he states this:


When McPadden attempted to report that secondary explosions were heard by numerous people, he was harshly ordered to "shut up" and "don't repeat it" by superiors.


Ok, the government, Silverstein...NWO, PNAC...pick one...ordered this building demolished...and the are keeping volunteers from talking about this by saying "shut up" and "don't repeat it?" Does this sound a little odd to ANYONE??

I will be more than happy to post the facts about Craig Bartmer and Barry Jennings here or on your thread Billybob.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
i hardly think eyewitnesses saying the exact opposite of what nigro says is "derailing".
it would be admissible in a court of law.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Ok, well this isn't court but i agree. I will edit my post.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ok, the government, Silverstein...NWO, PNAC...pick one...ordered this building demolished...and the are keeping volunteers from talking about this by saying "shut up" and "don't repeat it?" Does this sound a little odd to ANYONE??


Well Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to "PULL IT".

Now Chief Nigro stated he had evacuated the firemen 3 hours before the collapse without talking to anyone, so i am thinking that "PULL IT" did mean the building.

Also Chief Hayhden stated they were worried about if building 7 collapsed on its own it would cause more damage and spread more fires.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well Silverstein stated the fire commander decided to "PULL IT".


yes


Originally posted by ULTIMA1Now Chief Nigro stated he had evacuated the firemen 3 hours before the collapse without talking to anyone, so i am thinking that "PULL IT" did mean the building.


Do you know what time Silverstien claims he was speaking with Chief Nigro?


Originally posted by ULTIMA1Also Chief Hayhden stated they were worried about if building 7 collapsed on its own it would cause more damage and spread more fires.


Pretty smart of him considering the damage that the other two buildings caused.



By the way, Does your reply have anything to do with my preivous post?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Do you know what time Silverstien claims he was speaking with Chief Nigro?


Well i would say it was after CHief Nigro had evacuated the firemen. Chief Nigro called him to tell him they could not save the building.

Remeber the last sentence of Silversteins statement. "they decidede to PULL IT and we watched the building collapse"

So seeing that Chief Nigro evacuated the firemen 3 hours before the builidng collasped i would say the call was after the firemen were out of the building.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

You respond to the fire with the water being pumped from the Hudson River fireboats. There was water there to control the fires, (video footage from that day even shows it being used across the street from WTC 7) but Chief Nigro didn't use it.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by six
 


No, and here's why...

When two objects collide, regardless if only one was moving, the force exerted is the same on both objects.

Newtons 3rd law...


... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs...
Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction...
...Collisions are governed by Newton's laws. The law of action-reaction (Newton's third law) explains the nature of the forces between the two interacting objects. According to the law, the force exerted by object 1 upon object 2 is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force exerted by object 2 upon object 1...

Source

So you can see from Newton, that speed is irrelevant, both objects will still experience the same amount of force. So if steel and aluminium collide, which do you think would lose? Aluminium is about one third the strength of steel.

What do you think would happen if the 757 was stationary and the WTC was moving, at any speed you wish? Would the plane be smashed, or would it go through the building like butter?

Basic physics...Something that anyone can test for themselves if you don't understand the theory. Take a sheet of steel and a piece of thin sheet aluminium and see if you can get the aluminium to 'break' the steel. Do it anyway you can imagine.

I like this explanation...


I was going about 50 mph as I came over a hill and saw this big truck in my way. It was too late to steer around it. But I knew what to do! Using what I'd learned about physics on 9/11-forums recently, I knew if I hit my brakes I would still be going 25 mph at impact. My SUV would be wiped out in the collision with the huge truck, so instead I put the pedal to the metal and I must have been going 150 mph by the time I hit it. My quick thinking saved me. The stationary truck could not stand up to the massive kinetic energy of my Toyota. I sliced through that big truck and left a neat hole the exact shape of my Landcruiser (just like I always do). It was really cool how my Toyota and I remained perfectly intact.

Car Crash Physics

That also applies to the pentagoon, and proves a 757 did not hit that building.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Basic physics...Something that anyone can test for themselves if you don't understand the theory. Take a sheet of steel and a piece of thin sheet aluminium and see if you can get the aluminium to 'break' the steel. Do it anyway you can imagine.


How about shooting a lead bullet at a steel plate. By your definition the bullet could not penetrate the plate correct?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How about shooting a lead bullet at a steel plate. By your definition the bullet could not penetrate the plate correct?


Correct, a standard lead round will not penetrate 'construction' steel. It may go through very thin sheets of mild steel, because even though lead is softer it is more dense, and is less brittle than steel...

lead...11,340kg/11.3437 g/cm3
mild steel...7,861kg/7.85 Mg/m3
Aluminium is 1/3 the density of steel...2.72 Mg/m3

A standard lead round from a handgun will not even penetrate all the way through a car door, they tend to stop in the middle. If I could find the military police training vid I saw that shows that I'd post it.

But it's not my definition, it's Newtons. If you disagree with the definition then correct the definition with facts, not questions.

[edit on 29/9/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
So, could you please explain to us how someone in Martial Arts can break through a stack of cinder blocks (or wooden planks) with flesh and bone, yet not break that flesh or bone, BUT if you were to drop the same stack of cinder blocks on the stationary hand at the same velocity, it would break the hand.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join