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.

 

what made building 7 collapse?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well thats why i had e-mailed contractors and companies that were there at ground zero to get some answers.

Too bad you and others to not care enough about the truth to e-mail people.


9 years later, and they haven't replied to your email? You might want to change ISPs


That doesn't change the fact that no demo teams/companies have come forward to say they helped pull off a miraculous demo of a 40+ story burning building....a feat never done before ever.

Why cover up that fact? Those teams would be heroes!




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Gee, you cannot tell the difference between fires burning out and fires being out?

There were still some fire. I mean that what Chief Hayden's stated his worry was.



So fires that could spread to other buildings...those had to be quite large, don't you think? I mean, if Chief Hayden was worried about them, as you stated, they could not have been small.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by gavron]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Well if you knew more about what was going on that day would you know that they were running out of water to fight fires.



Oh please, you've pointed out before that they were stringing lines from the fireboats.

And since you characterized the fires as going out, it therefore makes zero logical sense to proclaim that anyone would drop 7 to prevent the fires from spreading.

Your thoughts are at odds.

You have zero clear reasoning in place.

Please take a step back and come up with a sensible, coherent, series of events....



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
9 years later, and they haven't replied to your email? You might want to change ISPs


Yes they have replied and i have shown you the reply. Do not be dishonest because i am sure i can still show the post to you.

I can show eveyone how dishonest you can be.





[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Oh please, you've pointed out before that they were stringing lines from the fireboats.


Yes but that was not enough. You really should read and learn what was going on before responding to a post.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Yes, and then there is a video of hard hat workers inside that collaspe zone stating the building is comming down now, or it will blow up.



Where is your source proving that these guys had anything at all with planting explosives?

Or had knowledge of them being planted?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Or had knowledge of them being planted?


GEE, maybe it was when they stated "THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BLOW UP."



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Yes they have replied and i have shown you the reply. Do not be dishonest because i am sure i can still show the post to you.


So, show us the post from the demo company then, where they take credit and say they went into the still burning WTC7 building, rigged charges or devices to bring the building down.

Please, Roger, show us this miraculous information.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Oh please, you've pointed out before that they were stringing lines from the fireboats.


Yes but that was not enough.


Yes, but by stringing lines from the fireboats, are they improving the water supply, or not.

Your statement is that they were running out of water. But by acknowledging that they were stringing out new lines, you have now shot yourself in the foot by using this as a point of argument.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Or had knowledge of them being planted?


GEE, maybe it was when they stated "THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BLOW UP."



You call that proof?

You have some pretty low standards there hoss....



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


who said these teams were not trained to do other things but plant explosives, a lot of demolition contractor companies do more than the explosives thing.

for example site cleanups, risk assessments, waste management, removal of infrastructure and such, all which could have been useful or have a reason for being there.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


Yeah, I gotta disagree with the video. That's fine that it makes sense to other people, but It just looks too deliberate to me.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes, but by stringing lines from the fireboats, are they improving the water supply, or not.

Your statement is that they were running out of water. But by acknowledging that they were stringing out new lines, you have now shot yourself in the foot by using this as a point of argument.


Please read posts carefully before responding.

I will try it again, more facts about what was going on that day.

graphics8.nytimes.com...
At t h e same time we were informed t h a t t h e r e
was no water i n t h e hydrant system and what engine
companies we had t h a t were s t i l l remaining, they were
back towards t h e west end of Liberty S t r e e t t h e r e , I
guess sometimes c a l l e d t h e South End Avenue or South
End S t r e e t , were r e p o r t i n g they had no water.

At that point a member of the Fire
Department, in a blue uniform, informed me that the fire
boat Harvey was on the scene. I stopped in
disbelief, half knowing that the Harvey was sold a
while ago, but he said it was here, had no equipment
and an hour's worth of fuel, so OEM attempted to get
fuel but apparently the fire boat flagged down a
passing oiler and got fuel.
We were able to get a couple of engine
companies back in service and they stretched from the
fire boat. That was our only source of water at that
point.
For
some reason, 15 truck was still in service, but without
water. When the boat finally got the water going, we
hooked up the water to the tower ladder. We stretched
several hand lines, proceeded to search the pile in
even more detail.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 



So fires that could spread to other buildings...those had to be quite large, don't you think?


Snap! And a good catch there, gavron!

Why didn't I see that? Shows the inconsistency of the "Truth Movement" claims, doesn't it?

One hand, "Building shouldn't collapse, fires too small."

Other hand, "Building had to be demo'd because fires too big, might jump to nearby buildings."

Not sure how else to say it....



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
One hand, "Building shouldn't collapse, fires too small."

Other hand, "Building had to be demo'd because fires too big, might jump to nearby buildings."....


I gues its to much for people with closed minds to understand.

Whats so hard to understand about Chief Haydens statement that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings because they were running out of water?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Whats so hard to understand about Chief Haydens statement that he was worried about fire jumping to other buildings because they were running out of water?


...but you also said the fires were burning out. Which is it? The fires were growing and out of control, requiring the building be demo'd, or they were burning out?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...but you also said the fires were burning out. Which is it? The fires were growing and out of control, requiring the building be demo'd, or they were burning out?


Gee. you do understand that fire is still fire?

You do understand that they were running out of water to fight the fires?

Why does it seem like its really getting hard to get basic information through to peope like you?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Gee. you do understand that fire is still fire?


Well, you seem to be confused about this. One one hand you say the fires were burning out, then you say they were large enough to spread to other structures (which would mean they were NOT burning out).

Perhaps you need to take a moment, decide whether these fires were burning out or not, then let us know how you feel....because right now, you seem to be playing on both sides of the fence.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Well, you seem to be confused about this. One one hand you say the fires were burning out, then you say they were large enough to spread to other structures (which would mean they were NOT burning out).


No, i am not confused, i am making and proving basic points of fact.

I beleive its you who is confues about the fact that fire can jump to building (no matter the size) and they were running out of water.



[edit on 9-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

No, i am not confused, i am making and proving basic points of fact.

I beleive its you who is confues about the fact that fire can jump to building (no matter the size) and they were running out of water.


So small fires that were burning out (your words), can now jump to buildings? Which is it, Roger? Small fires, or larger fires capable of jumping to adjacent buildings?




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join