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.

 

Video, Keep your eye on that building

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
1 Experts on the scene - as shown in your video - looked at the building and surmised it was about to collapse. This information filtered out and led to the early reporting


Actually since they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings, as stated by Chief Hayden the incident (fire) commander decided to bring down the building.

It is possiable the plan to bring it down leaked out and lead to the media making a early reporting.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


Actually since they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings, as stated by Chief Hayden the incident (fire) commander decided to bring down the building.



Where does Hayden say this?


It is possiable the plan to bring it down leaked out and lead to the media making a early reporting.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]


But rather more likely that its imminent collapse was reported early.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Anyone remember "All in The Family?" I loved Archie Bunker, and he loved conspiracy theories (look it up on YouTube). He also hated his liberal, politically correct son whom he affectionately referred to as "Meathead." People were told Archie was crazy, a racist, an anti-Semite, and maybe more. They were against him more than his ideas. They were "De-Bunkers."

And you are meatheads (you know who you are)



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I used to love Allo Allo. Rene was an absolute scream!

Just in case you were wondering.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where does Hayden say this?


In a statement to Firehouse Magazine.

You can look it up.




[edit on 8-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I did so. As far as I can see he says nothing of the sort. I can find your quote above

"We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."


But absolutely nothing about bringing the building down.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But absolutely nothing about bringing the building down.


Thats not what i was saying.

Chief Hayden made a statement to Firehouse Magazine that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

One reason why the incident commander decided to bring down the building.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But absolutely nothing about bringing the building down.


Thats not what i was saying.

Chief Hayden made a statement to Firehouse Magazine that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

One reason why the incident commander decided to bring down the building.



It's what you said, but I see now what you mean. Where is your evidence that the incident commander decided to bring down the building. Hayden et al do not agree with you on this, so I note you're willing to believe their testimony about some things and not about others.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where is your evidence that the incident commander decided to bring down the building. Hayden et al do not agree with you on this, so I note you're willing to believe their testimony about some things and not about others.


Well according to the official story, Silverstein made the statement that the fire commander decided to PULL IT, which could only mean the building since the firemen were out of the building before the call was made.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Where is your evidence that the incident commander decided to bring down the building. Hayden et al do not agree with you on this, so I note you're willing to believe their testimony about some things and not about others.


Well according to the official story, Silverstein made the statement that the fire commander decided to PULL IT, which could only mean the building since the firemen were out of the building before the call was made.


Or Silverstein is mistaken or lying, perhaps trying to inflate his role in proceedings. Besides, you've ducked the point. Why are you so keen to believe Hayden et al when they agree with you, yet unwilling to take into account their statements that refute your version?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Or Silverstein is mistaken or lying, perhaps trying to inflate his role in proceedings.


So you agree the official story has a lot of problems and thats why research has to be done to find the truth.


yet unwilling to take into account their statements that refute your version?


Please show me the statments that refute the firemen being out of the building before the call was made.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


So you agree the official story has a lot of problems and thats why research has to be done to find the truth.


I've answered this above. But to be honest I think there are more important things to think about than that.




Please show me the statments that refute the firemen being out of the building before the call was made.



What's that got to do with what I asked? Hayden's interview - the one you pointed me to - rejects the idea of demolition. Why do you believe him about one thing but not another?



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's that got to do with what I asked? Hayden's interview - the one you pointed me to - rejects the idea of demolition. Why do you believe him about one thing but not another?


How does it reject the idea of demoltion? To begin with i never stated he said anything about demolition, only when the firemen were evacuated from the building and that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's that got to do with what I asked? Hayden's interview - the one you pointed me to - rejects the idea of demolition. Why do you believe him about one thing but not another?


How does it reject the idea of demoltion? To begin with i never stated he said anything about demolition, only when the firemen were evacuated from the building and that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings.



Read it. He specifically says that the building collapsed and that by 2pm he and others in the FD were pretty sure it was going to.

I'm increasingly uncertain that you understand how to use primary evidence. You seem to trust tiny bits of sources that concur with your preformed ideas and then wave away huge parts that disagree with you.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Read it. He specifically says that the building collapsed and that by 2pm he and others in the FD were pretty sure it was going to.


Well "was going to" does not give a specific time or that it will.

Also you might think about why several demo teams were called in and were on scene by 3PM.


I'm increasingly uncertain that you understand how to use primary evidence.


Sorry but i understand a lot more about evidence then most people on here since i was a federal police officer and have testified in court.

Also i use several sources of evidence to back up what i post, i do more research then most people on here combined.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


You've ducked my question.

Why do you believe Hayden on the issue of Silverstein's involvement but choose not to believe him when, mere sentences later, he completely refutes your version of events?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by REMISNE


So you agree the official story has a lot of problems and thats why research has to be done to find the truth.


I've answered this above. But to be honest I think there are more important things to think about than that.



This kind of BS sentiment is getting really old on these 9/11 threads. Debunkers, why is it that when you agree with a truther you always fall back on "But there are better things to worry about" or "That is not the most important thing to worry about anymore" or even "More important things to think about than that?" You agree that the official story does not add up but there are more important things to worry about. OK, so why are any of you in these threads at all?

You have the time and energy to argue on the side of the government but when real concerns pop up, it is not important. Am I the only one that finds people stating they have other things to worry about confusing when they are still here worrying about it?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why do you believe Hayden on the issue of Silverstein's involvement but choose not to believe him when, mere sentences later, he completely refutes your version of events?


What involvement by Silverstein?

Lets look at the facts once again of what happened that day.

1. The fire commander called Sivlerstein to tell him what was going on wht his building. Silverstein had no authority of what was going on.

2. The fire commander decided to bring down the building and Silverstein agreed since it would save more live and damage.

3. Chief Haden DID NOT refute the fact that the fire commader made the call to bring down the building.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

This kind of BS sentiment is getting really old on these 9/11 threads. Debunkers, why is it that when you agree with a truther you always fall back on "But there are better things to worry about" or "That is not the most important thing to worry about anymore" or even "More important things to think about than that?" You agree that the official story does not add up but there are more important things to worry about. OK, so why are any of you in these threads at all?


What's it got to do with you?


You have the time and energy to argue on the side of the government but when real concerns pop up, it is not important. Am I the only one that finds people stating they have other things to worry about confusing when they are still here worrying about it?


Remisne's remark above is not indicative of having "won" the argument, nor is mine in any way a veiled agreement with him. He's merely backpedalling to a platitude because I've proved him incorrect on a detail. Furthermore you don't know what I think, so don't assume you can speak about it with authority.

Remisne is suggesting that because I think there's some inconsistency between what Hayden and Silverstein's reports suggest, then that is grounds for some sort of far-reaching investigation. I disagree.




(Also, loving your work on the other thread where you're getting all sanctimonious at someone for "lying". Have you had a look at this forum recently? Noticed a bit of hologram/DEW/vicsim activity?)



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


What involvement by Silverstein?


The lack of involvement by Silverstein that you are positing. You believe him on the issue of Silverstein's involvement (or non-involvement).

Do you see how the phrase "the issue of Silverstein's involvement" does not imply that I'm suggesting you think Silverstein was involved?


Lets look at the facts once again of what happened that day.

1. The fire commander called Sivlerstein to tell him what was going on wht his building. Silverstein had no authority of what was going on.

2. The fire commander decided to bring down the building and Silverstein agreed since it would save more live and damage.



How are these "facts"? Where is your evidence for this beyond conjecture?

You can't simply retreat to a summary position of "let's establish the facts" because you can't answer specific questions or problems with your ropey conclusions.


3. Chief Haden DID NOT refute the fact that the fire commader made the call to bring down the building.



He does so in the very article you directed me to. The same article you use to bolster other parts of your outlandish fantasy.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join