This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

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

<< 1 2 3 4 >>

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 06:53 PM by rush969

Originally posted by cashlink
""""I have to believe that the WTC was built with explosive planted inside of the WTC.""""
""""I have to wonder if the real blue prints would have a mark where all the explosive where placed. """"
""""I also have to imagine, while building all the WTC, they already designed a way to bring them down when their life spans where finished""""
""""I am sure Silverstein was already rubbing elbows with the members of the Bush cabinets.""""

And this is the way you ONLY accept FACT and SCIENCE when dealing with 9/11 conspiracies.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by rush969]

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 08:19 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by rush969

So if it had to be taken down, though, how would they do it? They wouldn't have considered the option if they didn't have any means of being able to do it, right?

I'm trying to get you to consider how you could just bring down a 47 story skyscraper on a whim. There would have to be pre-planning involved.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:44 AM by rush969

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm trying to get you to consider how you could just bring down a 47 story skyscraper on a whim. There would have to be pre-planning involved.

No pre-planning needed. Buildings aren´t pre-planned to be demolished.
Buildings don´t have explosives instaled in them during construction "just in case". That´s preposterous.

What we have here is the statement made by a professional fireman who was present at building 7 on 9/11 and he says:
1.- The building did come down on it´s own because it was too badly damaged.
2.- It was going to be “taken down” if it didn´t collapse.

This point 2 is clearly obvious because the building was badly damaged and unstable. The building under these conditions was a hazard to everyone. How were they going to do it? They didn´t get to that point fortunately, because it collapsed. They most probably would have used explosives. The problem then would have been HOW to place them because of the risk inside the structure.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:50 AM by bsbray11

Originally posted by rush969
No pre-planning needed. Buildings aren´t pre-planned to be demolished.
Buildings don´t have explosives instaled in them during construction "just in case". That´s preposterous.

Ok, then how else could you have it "taken down"?

I'm aware of what the man said. We have already discussed this. He offered his opinion as to why the building fell but also stated that they were considering having the building "taken down" deliberately.

How were they going to do it? They didn´t get to that point fortunately, because it collapsed.

Now you're just assuming things as fact. The fireman didn't say that much, and I'm afraid I don't need you to render all the unspoken things that he never said.

Personally, I don't think anyone would have brought it up if it were out of the question. And bringing down a 47-story skyscraper that is still on fire, is completely out of the question without foreplanning. That's something I don't feel the need to argue. You can believe whatever you want, but keep your facts straight. I can't stand it when you guys just dream stuff up and don't even understand what you're doing isn't logical.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by bsbray11]

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 01:26 AM by cashlink

reply to post by rush969

That is why to me the most valuable thing about that interview is that it actually "debunks" the CD theory on WTC7.

Really! Please, explain just how dose his statement, debunks the control demolition theory? Where is ‘your’ science that he used to debunk CD?
Please show proof, and site your sources!
You make such ridiculous claim like that, now you need to BACK IT UP!

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 01:47 AM by cashlink

reply to post by rush969

And this is the way you ONLY accept FACT and SCIENCE when dealing with 9/11 conspiracies.

You are becoming deluded, if “you” really believe that! Frankly, I was only given an opinion, and if you cannot understand that, then maybe you should not be reading this stuff!
It seems you are having a hard time comprehending the reading material in this post.

Furthermore, the Fireman was only given his “opinion” about the WTC damage! Obviously, you have misunderstood the man as you have with other information.
The only thing interesting about his comment “was” there were plans to take down WTC 7. Just how do you supposed they where going to do that? I guess you are going to tell me, they where going to take the WTC down brick by brick.

you guys got a wheel barrel!

[edit on 12/31/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 12/31/2008 by cashlink]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:55 PM by rush969

Originally posted by cashlink
Really! Please, explain just how dose his statement, debunks the control demolition theory? Where is ‘your’ science that he used to debunk CD?
Please show proof, and site your sources!

It´s all in the interview. It´s been explained.
Same sources that you insist on not accepting. Plus the interview that you provided.
So, no point in discussing any further.
The fireman´s words speak for themselves.
Of course it´s just his opinion, but to me a very valuable one.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by rush969]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 01:31 PM by rush969

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ok, then how else could you have it "taken down"?
I'm aware of what the man said. We have already discussed this. He offered his opinion as to why the building fell but also stated that they were considering having the building "taken down" deliberately.

Personally, I don't think anyone would have brought it up if it were out of the question. And bringing down a 47-story skyscraper that is still on fire, is completely out of the question without foreplanning. That's something I don't feel the need to argue. You can believe whatever you want, but keep your facts straight. I can't stand it when you guys just dream stuff up and don't even understand what you're doing isn't logical.

Well, I´m no expert on this issue. However I believe explosives could be a good option. A few engineers would get together with demolition experts and decide probably in just a few hours how to carry out the demolition of the building.
I think that first of all, the fire would have to be out. No fire. That didn´t happen either so the demolition “mission” never got carried out.
The fireman is just saying what would have had to be done, had the fire subsided, then they would have had to take down the building. Very simple and very clear. Some people just want to see conspiracies everywhere.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 05:43 PM by cashlink

reply to post by rush969

It really amazes me, how gullible some people are, and how they take an “opinion” as a Fact. You know denil is a tool used, when people cannot deal with the truth.
Have a Happy New Years!

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 09:42 PM by rush969

reply to post by cashlink

......YOU ARE SO RIGHT CASHLINK. AMAZING......

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 05:44 PM by SPreston

YouTube Link

Seems like a FDNY Lieutenant would know if WTC7 could be taken down.

YouTube Link

From many other sources, we find out that yes indeed WTC7 was deliberately destroyed via demolition, and Lieutenant Rastuccio verifies that yes demolition charges were already preplanted. Since it would take more than a few hours tp plant the demolition, therefore the charges were planted prior to 9-11, and if they planted the charges in WTC7, then the same 9-11 perps planted the charges in the WTC Towers.

YouTube Link

FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that “You guys knew this was coming all day,” by stating, “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.”

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.

This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to “pull it,” which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.

This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that “pull it” simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.

Numerous other eyewitnesses have come forward to express their conviction that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be “brought down” and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

“After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage,” said Singh.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert Kevin McPadden also reported his conviction that a countdown preceded the collapse of the building.

“While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down,” said McPadden.

“We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.”

“But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience - he didn’t want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together,” said McPadden.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer also reported hearing bombs tear down WTC 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

Several TV news networks received advance knowledge that the building was likely to collapse, with both the BBC and CNN reporting at least 26 minutes in advance that the building had already collapsed when it still stood.

Rastuccio’s newly uncovered comments about a plan to demolish Building 7 are likely to provoke a firestorm of fresh suspicion surrounding the implosion of the structurally reinforced 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed in 7 seconds within its own footprint despite suffering relatively minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers.

link

reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 08:59 PM by rush969

Well folks, there you have it. Spreston has uncovered ALL THE FACTS, all the EVIDENCE.
"""Someone hears a radio transmission that sounds pulsed and WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE, BUT A COUNTDOWN!!"""
I mean It´s obvious isn´t it?
Thank you Spreston.
"""People were saying the building was badly damaged, and something was coming down."""
WHAT ELSE CAN THAT MEAN, BUT A DEMOLITION WITH EXPLOSIVES. It´s so obvious.
I can´t believe I hadn´t seen this.
Rastuccio saying "it would have to be taken down". Means:
"""The building is allready prepared with explosives and it´s going to be demolished.""" It doesn´t mean:
"""The building was badly damaged, it was a hazard and it was GOING TO HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN, sooner or later if it didn´t collapse on it´s own.""" NO, NO.
"""Firemen walking away from the area. Can´t be that they were “PULLED OUT”, NO. OF COURSE, THEY ARE GETTING AWAY FROM THE BOMBS!! WOW!!!!!!