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: 32
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
So, then you have no evidence that Silverstein was talking about the firefighters when he said "pull it"? All you had to say to mirage was, "I have no proof that 'pull it' meant the firemen, it is just an theory that has no evidence supporting it."


OK, let me ask you this:

It makes perfect sense to you that "pull it" meant the building, even though it has never been done before ever?


Even though he clarified the statement later confirming it was the fireman he was talking about, you would rather assume his statement meant the building (again, something never done before ever)?

oooookay




posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


You still have not provided any evidence that "pull it" did or ever has meant firemen, as already stated ad nauseum, the firemen were already out well before Silverstein's aledged conversation with the fire commander. Maybe if you can find an interview with the fireman who actually spoke with Silverstein, although that may be tough since Silverstein would not say who he talked to.
Also, what do you mean it has never been done before? Plenty of buildings have been demolished in a controlled manner.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Even though he clarified the statement later confirming it was the fireman he was talking about, you would rather assume his statement meant the building (again, something never done before ever)?

1) Maybe you can explain why Larry Friggin' Silverstein would have anything to do with FDNY firefighting efforts?

2) FEMA and NIST say that due to a lack of water, there were NO manual firefighting efforts in WTC 7. So how could Larry Silverstein, who had no authority over FDNY firefighters, be referring to them when there were no firefighters to be pulled?

3) "Pull it" refers to an inanimate object like a building. It's also a well-known demolition term. Even if Silverstein had any authority in the FDNY, which he certainly didn't, and even if there were firefighters to be pulled, which there certainly weren't, why would he say "pull it" instead of "pull them"?

WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gives order to "pull" Building 7:




[edit on 5-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Also, what do you mean it has never been done before? Plenty of buildings have been demolished in a controlled manner.


Everyone has seen controlled building demolitions. They take weeks to set up, with lots of personel, setting charges, and so forth.

But you would like us to believe that a team went in to a burning 20+ story building, one the fire dept was pulled out of because it was unsafe, and plant charges/use thermite cutters, all within a couple of hours?

Gosh, have all those other teams done it wrong in taking weeks to set up a demo then?



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
1) Maybe you can explain why Larry Friggin' Silverstein would have anything to do with FDNY firefighting efforts?

Oh, but he would have something to do with demolitions?



3) "Pull it" refers to an inanimate object like a building. Even if Silverstein had any authority in the FDNY, which he certainly didn't, and even if there were firefighters to be pulled, which there certainly weren't, why would he say "pull it" instead of "pull them"?

IT can also refer to the operation itself. "Pull it" as in pull the rescue operation.

Also, as you said, he had no authority over the Fire Dept. So hypothetically he couldnt tell them to "pull it" (as in the building) anyway. He was just concerned for firefighter safety, after so many were already lost in the tower collapses.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 

OMG Gavron, that's the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard. It makes absolutely no sense that Silverstein, who had no authority over any aspect of the FDNY, would be referring to the rescue operation. That's not even what he claimed!

And yes, of course he would have something to do with the demolition. It's his building that he ordered demolished. Just like he demolished WTC 1 & 2 because it was gonna cost a billion dollars to remove the asbestos. The fire department didn't "pull" WTC 7, some company like Controlled Demolitions did.

Maybe it would be better if you went back to your lame "it's been explained over and over and over" diversion, because if that's the official explanation, you should be embarrassed. No, make that humiliated. You should be humiliated to be such an obvious shill in defending mass murder by your own government.

I couldn't do what you do for any amount of money.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Everyone has seen controlled building demolitions. They take weeks to set up, with lots of personel, setting charges, and so forth.

But you would like us to believe that a team went in to a burning 20+ story building, one the fire dept was pulled out of because it was unsafe, and plant charges/use thermite cutters, all within a couple of hours?

I am not trying to make you believe anything. It isn't my theory that the fire dept. set charges and took out WTC7, it is Ultima's. I was commenting on how you did not answer the question posed to you by mirage, but instead responded how you wanted to and then declared you are the winner.



Gosh, have all those other teams done it wrong in taking weeks to set up a demo then?

I was thinking the same thing, actually. All demo teams need to do is start a couple of isolated fires and watch steel framed high rise buildings collapse in their footprint. Why waste time planning and setting charges when it was proven three times on 9/11 that fire can do just as good of a job?



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

OMG Gavron, that's the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard. It makes absolutely no sense that Silverstein, who had no authority over any aspect of the FDNY, would be referring to the rescue operation. That's not even what he claimed!

And yes, of course he would have something to do with the demolition. It's his building that he ordered demolished. Just like he demolished WTC 1 & 2 because it was gonna cost a billion dollars to remove the asbestos.


Wow, so he demolished WTC1 and 2 as well. I've seen the photos of the firemen going up the stairwells with some of the survivors coming down. Guess I missed the pictures of the demo teams going in and setting the charges to bring those buildings down too. Ninja demo teams? Led by Chuck Norris no doubt?

For a second there I thought you were serious. But your last post proves you arent. Thank you for playing





posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Guess I missed the pictures of the demo teams going in and setting the charges to bring those buildings down too.

It's obvious you've missed a lot of things, especially in the weeks prior to 9/11, during the unprecedented power-down of the WTC towers and removal of the bomb-sniffing dogs.

Seriously, at this point, you should just slither away and come back in a couple of weeks when everyone has forgotten your shameful and pathetic attempts to defend mass murder by the criminal BushCo neocon cabal.


[edit on 5-8-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


So are you going to give a complete answer to mirageofdeceit's question? If not, at least admit that you can't and then get back on the topic of this thread.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Actually, my post proves my side perfectly. ULTIMA1 said "pull it" meant the building and not the firefighters.


How does not posting any evidence that a steel building has never been demoed prove you side? Either you are very immature and live in a fantasy world or are very closed minded, which is it?

Oh, i have and can post buildings that have been demoed by firemen or demo crews becasue of fire.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh, i have and can post buildings that have been demoed by firemen or demo crews becasue of fire.


Actually you have not. Unless you mean the one that was knocked down by a wrecking ball. Please, ULTIMA1, show us the link to your post, that shows firefighters or demo crews bringing down a 20+ story burning building. I'd really be interested in seeing this link.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
show us the link to your post, that shows firefighters or demo crews bringing down a 20+ story burning building. I'd really be interested in seeing this link.


I would love to see you post 1 piece of evidnece to support your claim, but we all know that wont happen don't we?

But here is another link to a building at WTC that was brought down right after the collaspe and there were firemen inside (2 firemen died inside) and demo crews brought it down.

www.modbee.com...

The once 40-story building was abandoned after the attacks because of extensive damage from wreckage falling from the towers and contamination by toxic dust containing asbestos, dioxins, lead and other materials. It had been largely gutted by demolition crews and workers have been taking its steel skeleton apart in pieces.

The cause of the fire was unknown, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it might have been fueled by plywood, boxes and other flammable supplies related to the dismantling work.

A worker in the building discovered the fire on the 17th floor, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said.

More than five dozen fire vehicles, carrying more than 270 firefighters, were sent to the site as pieces of burning debris fell to the streets. Smoke was visible from midtown Manhattan and the New Jersey side of the Hudson River.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
May I remind you what this thread is about. Start your own 'pull it' thread Gavron. Stop derailing.

To recap ..

Upon viewing the crash site of flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, it has been proved that Flight 93 could not have made the crater for many reasons, here are some of them. covertoperations.blogspot.com...

covertoperations.blogspot.com...

covertoperations.blogspot.com...

covertoperations.blogspot.com...


government is telling a story where the plane was inverted before it impacted-- that the plane was upside-down or belly up as it hit the earth.

The tail-mark at the north part of the crater in the aerial picture above supports the upside-down story as well. A tail mark made by a plane going southwards can ONLY be produced at the north side of the crater if the plane was going upside-down when it impacts.

So what does it look like when the plane is going upside-down when it impacts? How would the plane FIT in the crater?

I'm going to use this picture, where the camera is looking down one of the wing scars, to the west. North is to the right and south is to the left. Thus, the plane would come from the right. Notice that the grass is not burnt and the wing scar lookes old and weatherd.
flight93hoax.blogspot.com...


Here is a diagram, with a plane superimposed onto the crater, using the picture above. (The tail end of the plane is cut off in this diagram because of size.)



Immediately, you should see there is a problem.

Even if the fuselage impacts at the very north part of the crater, THERE IS NO WAY THE WINGS CAN IMPACT THE GROUND TO PRODUCE THE WING SCARS.

The wings simply do not line up in the right place.

If you move the fuselage so that it impacts the ground further to the left (further southwards), the wing alignment problem is even worse.

Further, it is impossible for the plane to flip backwards as it impacts, to have the wings produce the side scars, particularly when the plane (officially) is going 563 mph.

If anything, the wings are going to slide further southwards as the plane breaks up, and make marks further south of the crater.

I submit this wing alignment problem as rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------

Curiously, the wings DO LINE UP with the side scars, if the plane is right side up, as shown below--
flight93hoax.blogspot.com...

However, if the plane was in fact right-side up as it impacted, why a) is the government lying about it, and b) what made the "tail" scar on the northern edge of the crater???

I don't know exactly what happened at this crash scene.

I strongly suspect the crater was made artificially, to make it LOOK as though an airplane crashed there, and then plane debris was strewn around the site. Perhaps a bomb or projectile of some sort was used to create the damage.

In any case, the important point is that: THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS A LIE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
flight93hoax.blogspot.com...


The official flight path by the NTSB www.ntsb.gov...


This next video is from an EYEWITNESS to the craft that crashed in Shanksville on 911.


These are some of the videos found on youtube of eyewitnesses and new reports. Some of the contradict eachother.




Mayor of Shanksville admiting there is no plane, amazing rare video




Secretive Organizations Coercing Shanksville MIB Style









Please stay on topic.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 5-8-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
IVAN,

Sorry, this will be last reply in this thread. Didnt see your message till this was posted




Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But here is another link to a building at WTC that was brought down right after the collaspe and there were firemen inside (2 firemen died inside) and demo crews brought it down.


Did you even read the link you posted???

Demo team had been dismantling the building, who knows how long. Building caught fire, and 2 firefighters killed while battling the blaze. This was in Aug 2007.

270 firefighters sent to the site....obviously not already there.


The once 40-story building was abandoned after the attacks because of extensive damage from wreckage falling from the towers and contamination by toxic dust containing asbestos, dioxins, lead and other materials. It had been largely gutted by demolition crews and workers have been taking its steel skeleton apart in pieces.


7 years....seems like a looong time for a demolition, and yet you believe on 9/11 they did it in 2 hours or so?



[edit on 5-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
7 years....seems like a looong time for a demolition, and yet you believe on 9/11 they did it in 2 hours or so?


You asked for evidence of a steel building being demoed and i have posted it.

END OF STORY, BACK TO TOPIC.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Solid work on this thread, man.

Concerning the aerial photos showing the hole where no plane crashed: Question - Why does it seem there are so few aerial photographs of the 'flight 93 crash site'?

A professional photographer in the air, or on the ground, will do what -

A) Take 3 or 4 shots of the scene and then say "Well, that should do it. Let's get lunch."

Or

B) Take rolls of photos; or, if the camera is digital, take hundreds of photos - long shots, medium shots, close ups, from every possible vantage point.

???

Where are all the photos?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by univac500
Concerning the aerial photos showing the hole where no plane crashed: Question - Why does it seem there are so few aerial photographs of the 'flight 93 crash site'?


Well just like at the Pentagon, the FBI confescated all photos and videos.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


I think we all can agree it took months to set up the charges.

Who said, it was all laid out in one day LOL.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
I think we all can agree it took months to set up the charges.

Who said, it was all laid out in one day LOL.


It would not take months if you are in an emergency situation. Which i beleive 9/11 was.

The only reason it takes moths to bring down a buidling if you take the time to worry about every little detail. On 9/11 they did not have the time to worry about that.



new topics




 
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join