FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7! , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 02:23 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Thank you for your reply. Your huffing, puffing, name calling and general lack of stability makes my point better than I ever could.

For the rest of you; consider the behavior you have seen here. This is an accurate representation of a typical truther.

EDIT: I take that back, not typical of a larger population. Typical for this one poster. Cashlink and I have disagreed on many things but he has never, ever said the kind of hateful nonsense of this guy. So, I was wrong, and stand corrected.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 02:31 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by Jkd Up

I didn't say that. My post is in response to Cashlinks OP. If you have some other aspect of 9-11 you want to talk about, start a thread, make sure I know about it, and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

I regards to this topic, no I haven't seen anything that indicated WTC 7 was demolished. Have you? Tell me what you think is clear evidence concerning a demolition of WTC 7 and we can kick it around.

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 02:42 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by alaskan

The main "thermite" claim is born of sulfur residue found in the rubble of the various buildings. Is it true sulfur was found in the rubble? Yep. Is it true sulfur is a component of thermite? Yep again.

First, what 9-11 CT'ers don't tell you is there were tons of sulfur in the rubble mainly from the thousands of tons of dry wall contained within the wreckage. Secondly, thermite is a burning agent, typically found in military grenades to burn a hole through an engine block, thereby rendering the vehicle useless. This hole is typically about the size of a dime, or quarter. Been there, done that, trained with them, used them. The amount of thermite needed to bring down a skyscraper would be immense. As in very obvious (even to lay people) devices weighing hundreds of pounds each.

It's your choice really. You can believe whatever you want. Don't take my word for it. Research for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

For a more through explanation check THIS out.

EDIT: can you tell me a little more about the your problem with my question around explosions (noise)? I don't understand what your getting at. If you provide a little more information, I will do my best to answer completely and honestly.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 03:17 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 05:13 PM by cashlink

Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

I have to believe that FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio is telling the truth why would such a man want to jeopardize his profession and his reputation. David Rastuccio knows a lot more than he is telling, however I am thrilled he has let the cat out of the bag.

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I find this very interesting; I have to wonder if it is truth that many high risers are being built with demotions charges already installed just waiting for that final day.
My other question is, why did WTC 7 need to come down in the first place, if plans where in place before 911, this raises a good question since the building was sound in top knot condition.

[edit on 12/24/2008 by cashlink]

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 05:58 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

If they decided to bring the building down like the firefighter was saying, how do you think they could/would have done it, SAP?

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 06:49 PM by Gonenuts

one day, a man from the bin laden company came and asked him what the best places to place demolition charges in the building were.
he said to the bin laden man, 'it's a piece of paper, there is no building!'(it wasn't up yet), and was shocked by the question. however, he thought it over, and pointed, 'here, and here, and over here', and then said the man went on and questioned the other designers with the same question.
apparently, it was becoming COMMON PRACTICE at the time to pre-plan the building's demolition. in las vegas, for example, moving a building over a few INCHES could mean millions more in revenue, so(i'm not sure which of the next two options he meant by this...) they planned to take them down easily with either pre-planned explosives, or at least pre-planned positions for explosives.

now, i want to make it clear that this man is not a 'conspiracy theorist'. he believes the towers fell the way they did because THEY WERE DESIGNED TO fall that way. telelscope(columns) and accordion(x-braces) down. basically, he says, that's exactly what happened. AND, he says, the bin ladens knew EXACTLY how to do it, because THEY BUILT IT and PLANNED THE DEMOLITION AT INCEPTION.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I bet this is what the firemen was talking about who know.

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 09:10 PM by truthquest

reply to post by cashlink

I suspect that the demolition was completed mostly with a combination of explosives and thermate, but then finished off with Tesla's "earthquake device". I believe explosives were involved because I remember seeing video where extremely loud (130 decibel+) explosions can be heard. But because thermite residue was found, I believe they also use thermite. I don't recall that sulfur had anything to do with it. I was thinking Dr. Jones found a solid match with thermate in particular, with a match for components such as magnesium and oxygen. Lastly since the Tesla "earthquake device" would work even better on an already damaged building while reducing the need for explosives I suppose they would have wanted to use that as well.

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 09:26 PM by Anonymous ATS

Was #7 the building of the emergency command center? Is it possible that is was already pre-rigged in case of certain circumstances (not 911 type) to keep sensitive information secret (possibly like 911)?

Then again, I know that sounds crazy, it's just an idea, would security be tight enough that no intruders would be allowed inside in case they find that it's already rigged?

I know it sounds ridiculous and it was probably an inside job, but it's just an idea.

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 10:20 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by truthquest

And there it is.Telsa was in on it!

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 10:25 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by bsbray11

Again, it is your burden to prove. If this is your belief - awesome. More power to you. Why don't you research your question and get back to us?

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 10:30 PM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 11:23 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

I'm confused. So you think the firefighter is lying?

His exact words:

“We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own.”

So... If they had decided to 'take it down', how do you think they would have been able to do it?

It isn't my job to prove what the firefighter said. He said it. His words are plain as day. They were considering having the building "taken down." So, how do you think this would be possible?

Or are you just calling this man a liar, and leaving it at that?

Btw, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 11:32 PM by Sargo

Ok, so if I follow the "logic" there should be no plan to take down the hazardous building if it didn't come down as a result of the terrorist attack.

Of course there would be a plan to take it down!! What are they to do? Just leave it sit there falling apart endangering the public?

This is the kind of stuff I hate to see here. The quote was there was a plan if it didn't come down itself, followed by the quote that it did in fact come down itself. Somehow that means there's some conspiracy to take down the building? What *SNIP*

No logic, no evidence and a misrepresented quote by a fireman. Please, give us a little something. This isn't even a stretch here, it's a blatant misrepresentation of the quote to enable some feeble minded conspiracy nut to form some kind of baseless theory.

WEAK!!! I'd give negative stars if I could. Maybe take up knitting, at least your time would result in something worthwhile.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/26/2008 by Hal9000]

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 11:39 PM by csulli456

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by alaskan
I never understand how people who still ask about explosives and loud explosions can act like they know so much about this argument.

I heard there's discussion about some kind of vermiculite or thermike or something like that.

Cabbage runoff squirrel stream trick family oprah tree never car car doghouse.

I can just say random crap too. What are you getting at?

That is a classic.
I give you stars for that one all day.

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 11:45 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by Sargo

Why so hostile?

If you mean to suggest they would eventually have to deconstruct the building, as that would be the legal way of bringing it down (also extremely expensive), then they would still have to put the fires out first, would they not? You can't just deconstruct a building while it's on fire. Yet this firefighter is talking as if this is the action they are going to take to control what is still ongoing in the building.

The question of how they would have brought it down is still unanswered, and still very relevant to the issues we are discussing here.

You don't just "take down" a skyscraper.

Yet, several people were told just that. The civilian medic Indira Singh was another person who was told they were considering bringing WTC7 down and that she had to move her triage further from that building. So with her case you even have a certain immediacy that is implied.

So we know someone was out there telling first responders that WTC7 might have to be "taken down" (unless, all these people are liars

). But how would this be possible without foreplanning?

And speaking of planning ahead, how many of you remember that FEMA was in that same building on September 10th, by Rudy Giuliani's own admission to the Kean Commission, that they were setting up for a "bio-terror exercise" that was scheduled for Sept. 12?

Are you guys really that naive, that you believe that excuse? What are the odds that FEMA and the OEM are going to be setting up with a bird's eye view of the WTC complex the evening before all this happens? Not good, I'll tell you. Are you all naive?

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 12:03 AM by Jezus

Why would "pull it"refer to the people in the building when at the time he said it their were no people in the building?

Why would they evacuate the building if they didn't know it was going to come down?

And how would they know it was going to come down?

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 12:09 AM by SlightlyAbovePar

reply to post by bsbray11

Are we looking at different quotes here?

IF they "took it down"? Do you have any evidence, anything at all, besides quote-mined statements, that "they" actually did bring WTC 7 down?

Again, I am dealing in reality, not in supposition, allegations and wild speculation. It's that simple.

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 12:13 AM by mmiichael

I don't live in the US, but am a citizen of a very liberal and open-minded country. If we were attacked and thousands of people were killed, and then some people went to great efforts to spread unsubstantiated stories that our own government had planned and executed the attack, it would be considered an act of sedition.

Has it been suggested yet that the Truthers plant explosives in the White House as an act of retribution?

This incessant picking away at details of the record hunting for anything questionable has moved from an interesting exercise to a more disturbing dimension.

Mike F

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 12:24 AM by Gonenuts

reply to post by bsbray11

Bsbray11, I agree with you on this one and something really stinks

Are you guys really that naive, that you believe that excuse? What are the odds that FEMA and the OEM are going to be setting up with a bird's eye view of the WTC complex the evening before all this happens? Not good, I'll tell you. Are you all naive?

You are right! This is a well plan operation just like their stupid war games this is the lie that we were told, (bio-terror exercise) SUCKERS! You all fell for it to.

If you all are looking to see who committed 911 you need to not look any further than the Bush regime. As long as Bush and his cohorts, are still aloud to walk around free, raking in a vast fortune. If Bush is not held accountable for murders of the people in New York then the United States is finish, it over, because that is not what this Country stands for.

Those buildings where blown to pieces to piss off Americans and to demand revenge and Bush got what he wanted. The Iraq war was already on the drawing board before 911 happened.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^