It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fire breaks out at Vegas' Monte Carlo - Will it collapse?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Ok,ok here we go again with,no plane hit the building,and no jet fuel,blah blah frickin blah......
Ok now that being said,well what happened to WTC 7 then?
Last I checked,no plane and no jet fuel.

Very good point.


No Plane.

No 100,000 pounds of fuel.

No 500 MPH Impact to weaken the structure

So in this case in WTC 7 it was complete void of the variables from the other towers, but yet it still collapsed in the same manner?

People comparing the Casino fire/WTC 7 have every right to compare the two because they are very similar.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Realtruth]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:37 AM
people seem to forget that WTC7 has already been covered:

Here is an explanation from an old thread:

The truth movement is a fat lie, so people like Alex Jones can profit from writing books and moves for gullible people like you.

"So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.

Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:

“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?

Here’s why:

Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.

We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”

Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and it's leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorists let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.

The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department"

The Thread can be located here:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by ferretman2

Did you even read that thread? PM got slam debunked.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2
people seem to forget that WTC7 has already been covered:

Here is an explanation from an old thread:

You are correct. That subjective opinion has been covered ad nauseum. It is not been proved true. However, it is definitely a fact, that specific subjective opinion has been covered ad nauseum, in far too many of these discussions.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2

"Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges."

Exactly how does that scientifically equate to the way WTC 7 was dropped? Yes, I do expect an exact same comparison of buildings the scientific way, not pseudo-scientific way.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in