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.

 

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

page: 30
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


"yawn"

If you are too lazy to search these very forums, then who does your research for you? I was giving you the benefit of a doubt that you could actually do research. Perhaps I was wrong.

Maybe you should open a "pull it" thread then, to find your precious answers, rather than clutter up this thread discussing flight 93.

Hold on tight folks. Looks like we're about to re-hash 7 years of discussions for GoldenFleece.




posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Gavron: "It's been proven wrong over and over... and over... and did I mention over?"

Facts? Explanations? Proof? Bah, I'm beyond it all -- just trust in my omniscience!"



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Gavron,

Mr. Golden Fleece was caught making some false statements. I called him on them. He is now ignoring me.

Please feel free to use this information in regards to Mr. Silverstein. I too can not believe this is still discussed here. The owner of this very web site claimed a few years ago that it was bunk.

Anyway:

-Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

- Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

-Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

- why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

- and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

-and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

- and why would Silverstein admit this on television?


Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

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.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

usinfo.state.gov...


Originally Posted by Chief Nigro

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.


This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7.

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Thanks again ThroatYogurt,

Once again, you come thru with very informative and detailed information.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

As has been demonstrated numerous times, WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the ONLY high rise buildings to have ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage.

There must be something special about "damage from impact".

Architects and engineers with far more knowledge and expertise in this area are asking questions about WTC 1, 2 and 7. Hundreds of them.

www.ae911truth.org...

418 architectural and engineering professionals
and 2084 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

We will post your name after verifying your A&E credentials —
and other info for non-A&E's.


In this very thread someone posted that NTSB and FBI information on Flight 93 etc.. was being withheld because the investigation was still on going. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but what the hell was the 9/11 Commission Report then, if it wasn't *the* investigation into 9/11?

There is a fatal flaw in some comments made regarding the aircraft impacts and the core of the building. Some people are ignorant of the fact that one aircraft clearly didn't go through the center of the building. If you look closely at its angle of impact, it actually misses the corner of the core, and flies out the far corner of the building.

The worst the core would have sustained is impact with the wing. Given the fact the wing would have gone through several floor structures, it wouldn't have remained intact for long. Remembering an annoying piece of physics ( KE = 1/2 * m * V^2 ), given that the wing would have lost substantial energy, and would no longer be in one piece, the KE involved with any subsequent impact would be many factors less than if it had had the mass of the whole aircraft, over the areaof the core exposed to the wing itself. Please debunk the physics.

Based on these two facts alone, it is very clear that the core would hardly be damaged at all (and certainly not to the extent that the designers said was the most it could sustain and still stand - that being 50% of the core removed).

If you need to see the design of the floor affected, see the link above - it has all the structural drawings you could want.

Please stick to verifiable facts.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Mirage,

What would YOU have done if you were Chief Nigro?

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I'm still just looking for a picture of the crashed flight 93 that looks like a plane crash.

I don’t know if our government orchestrated 9-11 but I can’t find a single picture of a plane crash that even looks remotely like flight 93.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
This statment by Chief Nigro Shows that the firemen were out of the building before the call to Silverstein.


For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.


So PULL IT could not have been talking about the firemen but the building.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Mirage,

What would YOU have done if you were Chief Nigro?

Thank you.

I would have tried to save the building. It goes against the very thing firefighters train for - fighting fires and saving property/building as far as they can.

I know here in the UK we've had disasters where firefighters have spent several days constantly battling fire to put it out. They don't back off because it might be dangerous.

For these guys to back off a couple of hours after getting there, when the fire is clearly over a couple of floors (and not even the whole floor) just doesn't tally. Firefighters don't run away that easily.

If the building was simply unsafe structurally, that call to Silverstein would have simply been to say "we can't continue as the building is unsafe and looks like it might collapse". There would be nothing to discuss as gravity would take over. They certainly wouldn't be discussing the feasibility of "pulling it", even less predicting the future.

* Waits for the debunkers to suggest you can predict a buliding collapse to within a couple of minutes (23, based on the BBC reports) *


[edit on 4-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So PULL IT could not have been talking about the firemen but the building.


Oh really? Please give us an example of where the fire dept or demo team has "pulled" a burning 20+ story building? What about those other examples you show of burning buildings that did not collapse. Why did they let those burn, but "pulled" this one?

Please show us an example of ANY burning 20+ store building that was pulled before, either by a fire dept or demo team.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
[ Please show us an example of ANY burning 20+ store building that was pulled before, either by a fire dept or demo team.


How about this one?



This video always separates the skeptics/undecided from the professional debunkers.

If you're still skeptical after watching it, then congrats -- you're a professional!





[edit on 4-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How about this one?


But of course you cannot interview any of the firemen that pulled it, or anyone from the demo team.

Typical CTer, making bold claims without evidence to back them up.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
How about this one?


But of course you cannot interview any of the firemen that pulled it, or anyone from the demo team.

Nope, you can just hear the bombs going off in the background and listen to anchors, reporters, firefighters, government agents, rescue workers, WTC employees and eyewitnesses talk about the numerous "secondary explosions." Again and again and again.

Is that enough evidence for you? Of course not! But it is for most people.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF....I have seen some videos, heard on the audio what you claim to be secondary explosions....but, what is missing is a timeline, from those videos. Ya know, a few fighters passing overhead, going supersonic, would leave the 'booms' that were heard on tapes.

The rules about flying Supersonic over land were lifted, on that day.

Do you realize the iconic 'sonic boom' is a double boom? That's just from one aircraft....it is a boom - boom. Sounds very similar to a bomb blast....of course, we aren't even discussing possible echo effects, depending on the recording source, and the surrounding buildings, are we???



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Is that enough evidence for you? Of course not! But it is for most people.


You said it was brought down by the fire dept or a demo team, so I was just asking where any member of those teams was interviewed or identified. Nobody saw them? Don't want a silly fact like that stand in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
What about those other examples you show of burning buildings that did not collapse.


As proven the firechief evacuated the firemen BEFORE the call to Silverstein, so when the fire commander made the PULL IT statement he could only have been talking about the building.

As proven no steel building has ever collapsed from fire and or structural damage in the US. no matter how severe.



[edit on 4-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Typical CTer, making bold claims without evidence to back them up.


Thats so funny since no believer has ever paoted 1 piece of evidence to support thier claims or the official story.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....pot calling kettle black.....neither have you psted anything to support YOUR 'claims'. All you do is ask 'others' to provide proof.

Might work in defense, on the stand in a courtroom....doesn't fly here on ATS. You can dance, but we ain't buyin'



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....pot calling kettle black.....neither have you psted anything to support YOUR 'claims'. All you do is ask 'others' to provide proof.


But thats where you are wrong, i have posted facts and evidnece that show reasonable doubt to the official story. But most believers do not want to accept anything that does not go along with what they have been told.



[edit on 4-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join