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.

 

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11 *NEW INFO*

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Pull it means to bring down the building.
Pull it does not mean to evacuate the building. The OS believers want to believe that it means to evacuate. Silverstein, said, “because of such lost of lives,” meaning to pull it down.

Diesel fuel did not bring down WTC7, nor did it melt the steel. I just love the excuses and opinions that the OS believers dream up in defending their OS.

Too many credible sources, NYC Firemen, NYC police officers, first responders, saw & heard, WTC7 explode in its own footprint, and that is a proven fact.

These people were there that day, none of us were. The NIST report is a proven lie, so all we have left are the eyewitness and our sciences, which has proven there were explosives chemical ingredients found in the WTC dust, a chemical compound that shouldn’t have be there in there first place.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by impressme]




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


This is aonly an assumption, and it cuts to the crux of the issue:


And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building.


"IT" could have easily meant the "firefighting efforts". "IT"....are you going to do "IT"?


This is what is called "context". "Such a huge loss of life".

What did that mean? Why, the collapse of the Twin Towers, of course. He (Silverstein) was being warned by those on site of the danger that WTC 7, after its debris impact damage, and subsequent fires, could collapse.

They knew that many FFs were trapped inside the Tower that collapsed so unexpectedly. They didn't want any FFs near #7. They already knew that everyone was out. Fighting the fires became lass important than protecting, and preventing, any more deaths.


For all of the (and I expect this to come up, eventually) claims about "No steel building has ever collapsed"...etc. Ad nauseum.

I wonder what any construction and design engineers on ATS think about the oil rig off the coust of Louisiana. I heard this morning that it just sank.

Oil rigs. In the ocean. Built from steel, I would imagine? Yes?

Fire, uncontrolled, burning and fed by diesel products, and crude oil. WTC 7 fires fed by diesel fuel.

Oil rig, made of steel, 'collapses'...right? Why else would it sink?

I'd like to learn more about this conundrum.




Your joking right?? have you ever been on an offshore oil rig? I can tell by your post that you have not..... you are comparing a fire in landbased WTC 7 to an Offshore OilRig is ridiculous..... do you understand anything about bouyancy and rig stablity associated with a Platform compared to a shore based structure with deep ground based fixed piling? .... ignorance is a bliss....



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
On another note, the video shows the power that Larry (and probably the insurance companies) had/have.

By that I mean, if your house was burning, firefighters were trapped in your burning home, and some had already died,
how much say do you think you'd have in what actions the fire dept. took?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


This is aonly an assumption, and it cuts to the crux of the issue:


And for you debunkers that will attempt to say that Larry was talking about pulling out the firefighters, that's not what he said. He said pull "it". "IT" means the building.


"IT" could have easily meant the "firefighting efforts". "IT"....are you going to do "IT"?


This is what is called "context". "Such a huge loss of life".

What did that mean? Why, the collapse of the Twin Towers, of course. He (Silverstein) was being warned by those on site of the danger that WTC 7, after its debris impact damage, and subsequent fires, could collapse.

They knew that many FFs were trapped inside the Tower that collapsed so unexpectedly. They didn't want any FFs near #7. They already knew that everyone was out. Fighting the fires became lass important than protecting, and preventing, any more deaths.





So many lives... big loss.. blah blah blah. I'm sure this guy was thinking about family's and lives that day, its also a good thing he had a fresh insurance policy covering terrorist acts, how convenient and only 1 whole month before 9/11.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
i got a better theory on what happened on 9/11


Radical Muslims who hate the western world hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC, insane I know!

How about you simply ACCEPT the facts and stop clinging onto such frankly retarded and idiotic ideas.

You people honestly have no idea, how insane and simple minded you come off.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Well, Well, Well!


And who just happened to be the first ones at WTC building #7 (with their trucks) to clean up the debris after the #7 fell?!

www.controlled-demolition.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I'm sure most of you have seen this, maybe someone posted in this thread already


www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Even the direhard debunkers must be scratching their heads right now. I suggest that under the ever increasing weight against the Official story/myth/fairytale, supporters are now engaging in fullblown Orwellien Crimestop in order to protect their crumbling worldview.

crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

Come on guys, the jig is up. Join us on the truthy side, its much easier than forever swimming upstream against the forces of justice and humanity that are sure to overcome you soon. Protective stupidity is doubleplus ungood.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Vinveezy
 



Here is the video where Silverstein says he pulled building 7...


And, yet again, the misunderstanding is being repeated.

This seems to be a never-ending canard, and it keeps fooling people, BECAUSE of the garbage being spread and repeated by junk sites like "InfoWars".

Watch Silverstein over, and over...until it sinks in what he actually means, by the term "pull it".

(Hint: He's not tallking about controlled demolition).

"InfoWars" keeps doing this, taking snippents out of context, and some people keep falling for it.

Critical thinking, and a more thorough understanding of ALL events, in context, will lead to better comprehension.

Oh, and the "Dr." Steven Jones nonsense? One only has to peruse any of the many threads on that subject, right here at ATS.

Steven Jones' methods do not stand up to peer review scrutiny (but, of course, some websites with certain agendas don't want that knowledge revealed. They are VERY selective, and spin as needed...)


Forget Infowars, forget interpreting words like "pull it". Do you actually believe these 3 buildings could all have dropped at freefall speed? No multistory structure in man's history has fallen without friction at freefall speed unless they were detonated by demolition. If you look at the mesh grids that made up the WTC Towers you'd see there would have absolutely been friction in falling if damaged in any way. Even in a pancake collapse or melting due to fire. You used a big word - "canard" which means "a groundless rumor or belief". Sounds like you're the one holding onto your own never-ending canard. The belief that the law of physics doesn't apply to the buildings on 9/11.

At one time a majority of people had a belief that the world was flat and made some convincing arguments. But, the majority were wrong. The scientists won out on that, and the scientific evidence on 9/11 already points out that these towers fell, not from the planes, but by demolition. The majority of scientists and engineers studying the events of 9/11 believe the buildings fell to demolition despite the dissenting opinion getting more attention in the media.

Now who did this is still unnamed. Maybe the terrorists had installed the explosives beforehand, but these buildings fell due to explosives and you and many others have found it comforting to yourself to deny evidence and science.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by thepixelpusher]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
This is the 3rd thread on this subject in one day! I'm glad one of them finally made it to the front page!

Still so many are focused on the pull it comment. This is secondary to the never before revealed info that Silverstein was in contact with his insurance company requesting permission to demo the building!!!

The implications of this remark are profound. So many questions should be answered, preferably under oath. For instance..
-When were the explosives going to be placed in a building in danger of "imminent collapse"? or more likely...
-Was WTC 7 a controlled demolition? Were explosives pre-placed in the building as some sort of emergency self destruct plan?
-Who's version of events is true? Shapiro or Silverstein?? Silverstein denies any talk of demolition.
-If the building was pre-wired for demolition... By whom? What type of explosives? etc etc
-Who had authority to order the building be demolished?
-Were WTC 1 & 2 pre-wired for demolition also?

It is outrageous that Shapiro could make these seemingly contradictory comments alluding to foreknowledge of a demolition, then deny a controlled demoltion.


A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.


I wonder what Lucky Larry thinks about his article? An enterprising reporter should give Mr. Silverstein's office a call and ask.

Finally, if Shapiro simply lied to discredit Jesse Ventura he should be exposed.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I feel kinda sorry for all the debunkers...

...their world is collapsing in front of their very eyes, with mountains of evidence which just keep geting bigger and bigger, yet they still insist on clinging to their insane beliefs...!!

You really dont know how stupid you come off.....

As for defending the "pull it..." statement....
WOW!!

Is English not the Truthers First language??

Laughable ....and sad, given the thousands of innocent lives involved, and the families left behind.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by benoni]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"IT" could have easily meant the "firefighting efforts". "IT"....are you going to do "IT"?


That may be so, but what was John Kerry talking about in this video when asked about the intentions of Mr. Silverstein regarding making billions from the destruction of the building, and the fact that the building seemed to be demolished in a controlled fashion?




"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."


Very curious statement to make.

- Lee



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

For all of the (and I expect this to come up, eventually) claims about "No steel building has ever collapsed"...etc. Ad nauseum.

I wonder what any construction and design engineers on ATS think about the oil rig off the coust of Louisiana. I heard this morning that it just sank.

Oil rigs. In the ocean. Built from steel, I would imagine? Yes?

Fire, uncontrolled, burning and fed by diesel products, and crude oil. WTC 7 fires fed by diesel fuel.

Oil rig, made of steel, 'collapses'...right? Why else would it sink?


Get your science correct before you choose to distort it.

Are you trying to say that the diesel generator on top of the building had enough fuel to create enough heat to cause a fire hot enough to weaken steel?

If so then lets look at some temperature charts used to gauge the flash point...


The flash point of a volatile liquid is the lowest temperature at which it can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air. Measuring a liquid's flash point requires an ignition source. At the flash point, the vapor may cease to burn when the source of ignition is removed.


and the fire point...



The fire point is the lowest temperature at which industrial greases produce sufficient vapors to form a mixture in air that continuously supports combustion after ignition.which then exhausts the gases.


OF DIESEL FUEL.

The flash point of diesel fuel is 143 degrees,

And the fire point, which is the important number to pay attention regarding your theory, because that is the temperature that a fire resulting from diesel fuel will continue to produce vapors for a prolonged fire.

And the fire point of diesel fuel is...



Fire point (about 10-15 deg higher) than the flash point.


Here is the link.

So from what I can gather, the hottest that a diesel fuel fire can burn over a prolonged period of time is MAX 250 to 450 degrees, and I am really pushing the envelope on this.

Get your science right before you distort facts.

Or at least provide some evidence of a steel structured building falling INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED.

I will even take some evidence of an oil derrick, even though that argument is like comparing apples and oranges.
The one referenced in your post exploded. It did not collapse into its own footprint.

Crude oil has completely different properties than its distillates and an oil derrick would have a sufficiently larger amount of "fuel" to burn than what would be at WTC 7.

Or riddle me this batman...

How can the top of a building fall with enough kinetic energy to demolish ITSELF when each resulting collapse would displace said kinetic energy?

By the time the top reached the bottom, all of the kinetic energy would have been displaced by the successive collapse.
None would be left to allow the top of the building to destroy itself.

Do you see the flaws in science that are rife throughout the "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

Please understand something. I am not saying the government did it.

I am not saying that anyone did it.

What I am saying is that the official storyline is pseudoscience and does not stand up to repeated experimentation.

And that does not include computer simulations.

[edit on 4/24/2010 by Josephus23]

[edit on 4/24/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Larry Silverstein la jaló

Espero que el me la jale

Jálatela , Larry.

Que pienso yo, del OS? Lo odio

La querría jalar antes! Aye, que puto!



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni

I retract my initial statement based on the new statement below by benoni.

[edit on 4/24/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I remember seeing this video from a free to copy DVD about 911 RIGHT AFTER it happened. Can't remember the name of it but they went over this, the Pentagon, and the "mysterious flash" that the plane made when it hit the building, yet in later clips, those "flashes were photoshoped out.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Sorry Josephus...I'm with you, but in my excitement to post i swopped "bunker with truther...

where was I appealing emotionally though??

My mistake changes nothing...it was PULLED!!



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
wow all i can say is WOW.....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I changed my previous statement.

Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The building was pulled anyone with a brain or not spreading dis information being part of the murdering crime knows silverstein knew before hand what was going to happen beyound a shadow of doubt. But I would like to inform you all that the aircraft that hit thoose buildings were made of aircraft grade aluminum that is 2 to 3 percent magnesium which burns at if I remember right 5400 degrees f . I used to make aluminum for aircraft , steel and titanium so I know enough to be used as a expert ,I ran the furnaces. When I first started in the steel mills we used 2 to 4 % aluminum brickets ( little disks of aluminum) to burn threw anything with the aid of oxygen lances. I personally burnt threw six feet of slag steel and rock for over 50 feet. I tapped steel at 2860 degrees f most of the time . refractorie was good to a rated 3100 degrees f. I always ran my aluminum at 3000 f to burn out the skulls in the ladles and give the pourers more time if they had trouble pouring the heat. Sometimes the aluminum would flare up because of the magnesium and it would light up even the shawdows anywhere in the area for maybe 300 feet so now you understand aircraft aluminun once if meet it's flash point as (I describe it )'there ain,t no steel that could withstand it except maybe cobalt steel very long. Thoose steel supports in thoose buildings would melt like wax with alittle wind for the oxygen source. Strange no one has mentioned this fact. I guess all the experts are book smart with no common sense. Let the people know the truth on ATS. this untold fact until now.



new topics




 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join