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 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
Griff forgot to highlight all the correct words.


How about highlighting what Silverstein said? Not just "pull" but "pull it". You are really getting on my nerves with your ignoramous arguments. Sorry to be blunt.


Stop with the personal attacks to make up for your idiotic logic. He said IT because IT refers to the firefighting effort. It consists of more than just some men, but the whole effort. That means the whole process itself.

There's nothing wrong with being blunt, but it's important to get your facts right and not to use wild speculation.


Sorry for posting the whole quoted material but there is a point to it.

Notice how my "ignoramous arguments" are a personal attack to snoopy but him saying my "idiotic logic" isn't? This is the circular/hypocritical logic that we have to deal with around here.




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
And I personally have a deep resentment for people like you who are blaming the firefighters for the attacks. The very men who lost their lives and you blame them. Shame on you.


I personally have a deep resentment for people like you who have the gall to say they know everything even when proven wrong. Good day to you and you are being ignored from now on. I don't know why I even took you off the list. Thought that you might have something worthwhile to say. I guess not. back to ignore you go.


Forgetting that I never said or implied I know everything, I think maybe you SHOULD ignore people who prove you wrong so you can continue to go about pretending you prove others wrong by using incorrect information. With me on ignore, it means I don't have to continue these childish discussions with people who want to blame the firefighters for the terrorist attacks. Again, shame on you. And I am always happy to be ignored by anyone who tries to blame the attacks on the men who gave their lives trying to save people.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
Griff forgot to highlight all the correct words.


How about highlighting what Silverstein said? Not just "pull" but "pull it". You are really getting on my nerves with your ignoramous arguments. Sorry to be blunt.


Stop with the personal attacks to make up for your idiotic logic. He said IT because IT refers to the firefighting effort. It consists of more than just some men, but the whole effort. That means the whole process itself.

There's nothing wrong with being blunt, but it's important to get your facts right and not to use wild speculation.



Ah I se. SO I guess Griff's personal attack is justified because he can see the future and knew I would respond in a manner that was to give example of his attack. I see. So long as you can predict the future of how people will respond to your personal attacks it's OK to initiate personal attacks.

Goes right along with your proof of a CD being "It looks like one to me".

Sorry for posting the whole quoted material but there is a point to it.

Notice how my "ignoramous arguments" are a personal attack to snoopy but him saying my "idiotic logic" isn't? This is the circular/hypocritical logic that we have to deal with around here.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Thats just it, THousands of people were murdered. Thousands of innocent people continue to be slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan because of these lies.

DO NOT EVER THINK THAT WE WILL LET YOU GO. (this includes people paid to protect the terrorists with lies and coverup on conspiracy forums)

They will suffer for every drop of blood spilled for their actions.

We already WON. Be patient. We will see these people get what they deserve.

Oh ya.

No plnae crashed in Shanksville on 911. No flight 93. Mock plane crash exercise.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Building 7's Rubble Pile


Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building


What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net...




Great, we all agree that WTC 7 was controlled demoltions.

Anyone care to entertain us with their wild idiotic, tabloid type of conspiracy on how World trade center 7 was brought down with anything but CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Can anyone care to explain THEIR theory on how such a massive 50 story building came down without damaging the surrounding building and in a pile 2 stories tall?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



Originally posted by snoopy
Many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone


Are you serious? Please, pretty please, show us.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by snoopy
 



Originally posted by snoopy
Many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone


Are you serious? Please, pretty please, show us.


His silence is PROOF and admitance that he knows of nothing that he talks about and that WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 was brought down by Controlled Demolitions at 5pm on September 11th, 2001. 6 Hours after the controlled demoltions of World trade center One and Two.

Is that right snoopy? All your "evidence" is fraudulant and poorly researched.... But this is a conspiracy site and your wild baseless un corroberated theories shall be excepted. Oh ya an elvis lives.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The proof is in the puddin. If they were to collapse from fires or structural damage they wouldn't of fallen straight down and they wouldn't of fallen in one peice like a stack of cards. It would of been a much slower process with different peices falling in different ways. There really is no explanation of how they could've fallen into a controlled pile in one fluid drop other than C.D. To ask for physical evidence of evidence that has been destroyed is kinda lame. But to put all presumptions on lack of physical evidence is to ignore the Anecdotal Evidence, Testimonial Evidence, Statistical Evidence, and Analogical Evidence. Which add weight to the more important, Direct Evidence and Circumstancial evidence. To discount all types of evidence based on evidence that can not be obtained makes for a weak justice system.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sheeper]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Why would Larry Silverstein have any say over the actions of the FDNY? Since when does a fire department fight fire based on the say-so of a building owner? What fire-fighting effort was Silverstein referring to, if that is what he meant by saying "pull it"?


“Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].” -Fire Engineering, 9/2002



“the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.” -FEMA



“According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. -NIST



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Why would Larry Silverstein have any say over the actions of the FDNY?


He wouldn't. If you'll watch the video again you'll see he says "THEY made the decision to pull. The FDNY commander was just telling him that they had decided not to fight the fire in WTC7.


Originally posted by IvanZana
Can anyone care to explain THEIR theory on how such a massive 50 story building came down without damaging the surrounding building and in a pile 2 stories tall?


Are you asserting that the collapse of WTC7 did not damage surrounding buildings?


Originally posted by Sheeper
The proof is in the puddin. If they were to collapse from fires or structural damage they wouldn't of fallen straight down and they wouldn't of fallen in one peice like a stack of cards. It would of been a much slower process with different peices falling in different ways.
[edit on 8-4-2008 by Sheeper]


Source, please? Or is this just how you believe it should have happened.
How slow should it have fallen, and why?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 



He wouldn't. If you'll watch the video again you'll see he says "THEY made the decision to pull. The FDNY commander was just telling him that they had decided not to fight the fire in WTC7.


I still don't see why he would have been consulted.

More importantly, there was no firefighting effort to "pull" anyway.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


How slow?....hmmmm, much slower than that I'm sure of. Why?.....hmmmm, use a little commen sense and that isn't hard to figure out, the fires would cause certain areas to lose integrity causing the building to cave in certain areas first. Certainly the highest floor of the building wouldn't cave in like in the video. There is absolutely no way it would fall so fluidly from top to bottom.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Why would Larry Silverstein have any say over the actions of the FDNY? Since when does a fire department fight fire based on the say-so of a building owner? What fire-fighting effort was Silverstein referring to, if that is what he meant by saying "pull it"?


“Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].” -Fire Engineering, 9/2002



“the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.” -FEMA



“According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building. -NIST





All that is referring to inside of WTC 7. You see when a building collapses, the debris scatters all around it, not just inside of it. if a building is going to collapse, there is a collapse ZONE. This zone must be cleared to insure everyone's safety. This means evacuating all the firefighters, paramedics, civilians, demolition workers, engineers, and everyone else in the surrounding areas. They had to get everyone out of the area to prevent further loss of life.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 



They had to get everyone out of the area to prevent further loss of life.


Then I suggest that the term "pull back" might have been far more likely to be used, considering that all emergency-service efforts were not suspended that day after getting off the phone with "Chief" Silverstein.


[edit on 4/8/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox


Then I suggest that the term "pull back" might have been far more likely to be used, considering that all emergency-service efforts were not suspended that day after getting off the phone with "Chief" Silverstein.


[edit on 4/8/0808 by jackinthebox]


So instead of using the standard term they should have changed it to something else? And so that some conspiracy theorists might not get confused? But more importantly any way you slice it, you guys are making conjecture based on the syntax of a word.

And please don't put words in my mouth. No one said all emergency efforts were suspended. They were pulled form the collapse zone around WTC 7. You guys are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and it's somewhat dishonest. it shows that some people are trying to find only a conspiracy and nothing else. I don't think having a pre-determined conclusion is very honest research. Especially when those conclusions make no sense.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sheeper
reply to post by nicepants
 


How slow?....hmmmm, much slower than that I'm sure of. Why?.....hmmmm, use a little commen sense and that isn't hard to figure out, the fires would cause certain areas to lose integrity causing the building to cave in certain areas first. Certainly the highest floor of the building wouldn't cave in like in the video. There is absolutely no way it would fall so fluidly from top to bottom.


Slower? You're sure? How are you sure? "Common sense"?

Please explain, in detail, how it would have fallen, and the speed at which it would have fallen. If you don't know the answer to this question, then you have no credible reason to say that the collapse "didn't look like it was caused by damage/fire".

[edit on 8-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by nicepants
 



He wouldn't. If you'll watch the video again you'll see he says "THEY made the decision to pull. The FDNY commander was just telling him that they had decided not to fight the fire in WTC7.


I still don't see why he would have been consulted.

More importantly, there was no firefighting effort to "pull" anyway.



Perhaps he was consulted because he owned the building. If my house was on fire and the fire department was going to call off any operations, I'd certainly want to be made aware of that.

Regardless, if you're insinuating that by "pull" they meant "demolish the building", then you're blaming the FDNY for it, which is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Mabey the wtc 7 was prewired with demolition charges incase of an terrorist attack or major fire, the fire department or a terrorist dressed as a fireman could gain access to extremely sensitive information in the name of fire fighting so it would be prudent to pull it.






PULL IT! Demolition term for pulling the building down in a controlled fashion.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Mabey the wtc 7 was prewired with demolition charges incase of an terrorist attack or major fire, the fire department or a terrorist dressed as a fireman could gain access to extremely sensitive information in the name of fire fighting so it would be prudent to pull it.


So you think that the FDNY demolished it and are covering it up?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join