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.

 

WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by turbofan
Apparently a couple of you are overlooking the point and are too blind to acknowledge it.

Maybe someone can read the line about the reporter (Shapiro) stating
that he was told that Larry was going to pull the building by NYPD/Con Ed
workers.

"Pull it"

"He was talking about the firemen!"




"Pull it." or "PULL OUT" Which one did he say? Since "Pull it" has no meaning in that situation, I'm pretty sure it was "Pull out". Silverstein does have a bit of an accent in his voice.


ummm, theres a video that shows what he says. He specifically says 'Pull It'... I.E. demo the building.

Its not brain surgery...




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter

www.foxnews.com...

My investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends led me to interview both American and Israeli intelligence officials as well as representatives of the Afghan Northern Alliance, FBI, NYPD and sources within the Muslim community of New York City.

Although I found trace evidence that vague rumors circulated within the Arab-American community that “something was going to happen” in “lower downtown Manhattan” on Sept. 11, I found no evidence of any conspiracy other than the one hatched by Al Qaeda that was later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission.

Since Al Qaeda once operated out of the Alkifah Refugee Center on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn and had many low level operatives working in the NYC area, it did not surprise me that rumors of their plan had leaked within the Arab-American community of New York. Many similar rumors and reports occur frequently, however, and so I have never faulted the Arab-American community or our government for not acting upon them.

In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.

I was there.

I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks.



ummmmmm. How about two simple words.... ABLE DANGER


How about another 2 simple words..... DANCING MOSSAD



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   


A lot of fire fighters came forward and told the truth but all are under threat that they will loss pensions, jobs if they breath another word.

Internet lie.





Not true at all. I know personally 20-25 guys that were there that day, and responding, and say alot of other stuff than that which is reported or printed in the '9-11 Commission Report'.




[edit on 10-5-2010 by Goethe]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Goethe
 


How would "dancing mossad" implicate the United States government in the attacks of 9/11? Is it a racehorse, because it sounds like one?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Goethe
 


How would "dancing mossad" implicate the United States government in the attacks of 9/11? Is it a racehorse, because it sounds like one?


Not the US, but Isreal, and with so many dual/citizens in power in the US govtm and all the 'Warned Officials' that got warned not to fly, Id say theres plenty of evidence saying alot more than afew knew something was going on.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Goethe
 


Then I'd assume you have this evidence?

The "dancing Mossad", the first responders who implicate the US government, the warnings not to fly.

Or are they just internet rumours and speculation?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, I didnt miss it. I know that you are not going to rig a building for demolition in short order. I would suggest it is you (among others) who is trying to read way too much in what Mr Silverstein has said about that day.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goethe

Originally posted by iamcpc
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter

www.foxnews.com...

My investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends led me to interview both American and Israeli intelligence officials as well as representatives of the Afghan Northern Alliance, FBI, NYPD and sources within the Muslim community of New York City.

Although I found trace evidence that vague rumors circulated within the Arab-American community that “something was going to happen” in “lower downtown Manhattan” on Sept. 11, I found no evidence of any conspiracy other than the one hatched by Al Qaeda that was later confirmed by the 9/11 Commission.

Since Al Qaeda once operated out of the Alkifah Refugee Center on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn and had many low level operatives working in the NYC area, it did not surprise me that rumors of their plan had leaked within the Arab-American community of New York. Many similar rumors and reports occur frequently, however, and so I have never faulted the Arab-American community or our government for not acting upon them.

In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.

I was there.

I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks.



ummmmmm. How about two simple words.... ABLE DANGER


How about another 2 simple words..... DANCING MOSSAD



the title of this post is "WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News"

I copied and pasted the summary of the article and it does not look to me like a controlled demo admission by fox news.

Why on earth would someone say an article that says:

"In no instance did I ever once talk to one source who even hinted the American government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies."

is an admission of controlled demolition by Fox news?


Please someone answer that question for me.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Goethe
 


Then I'd assume you have this evidence?

The "dancing Mossad", the first responders who implicate the US government, the warnings not to fly.

Or are they just internet rumours and speculation?



How about you do some of your own research my friend... You seem able to type no problem, so why not google any of the things I mentioned...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The crucial point about this article is being missed here. The very fact that Silverstein could apparently have been considering having his property blown up (to save life, of course!:lol
merely confirms what many people in the 9/11 truth movement have inferred from his infamous remark "Pull it", namely, that the technology was in place to demolish WTC7 not in a few weeks but in a few hours. This means that the SAME technology could have been used to blow up WTC1 & WTC2 - a highly significant implication.

No wonder Silverstein later denied that his infamous gaffe referred to fire fighters. He could hardly admit to having given the order to blow up his property, yet claim the insurance on a building officially damaged by an act of terrorism. That would be criminal fraud on his part. Yet there were no fire fighters to "pull" out of the building because, according to FEMA's report, a lack of water had brought fighting of fires in WTC7 to an end before midday - 31/2 hours before he received that telephone call! Now no doubt, in a desperate attempt to keep the cover-up credible, he will lie and deny that he phoned his insurance company, just as Giuliani lied when he denied that he had received a warning about the immanent collapse of the WTC tower he was in.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by micpsi]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
No, I didnt miss it. I know that you are not going to rig a building for demolition in short order. I would suggest it is you (among others) who is trying to read way too much in what Mr Silverstein has said about that day.


According to the Fox article it was Mr. Silverstein who wanted the building demolished. I'm not saying that, the Fox article is.

And he wasn't just thinking it over to himself, he was telling this to other people, so that people on the ground even knew and apparently believed it was a serious possibility.

I'm sure it means nothing at all to you, but the same building was also occupied by DoD, CIA, and Secret Service offices, along with IRS, SEC, and financial and banking tenants. It's safe to assume there was a sensitive information in that building (actually it's a confirmed fact that there was at least sensitive SEC information related to several ongoing investigations, such as Enron) and Mr. Silverstein would have to take that into account if he were considering demolishing this building.


First Silverstein said that he said the smartest thing to do would be to "pull it" that day, and they made that decision to "pull it" and then watched the building collapse. And people said, oh, he never meant demolish it, that would be impossible. Now someone admits yes, Silverstein was seriously considering demolishing the building that day. But oh, no big deal, that doesn't mean anything.
What if next they admit, yes, WTC7 was demolished, to protect sensitive information inside, and it was safely and legally pre-rigged and if it had come down any other way it would have resulted in a lot more damage? Once again you would no doubt say, "Oh, ok. Well still nothing to see here, move along!" We really have a sharp crowd here.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
the technology was in place to demolish WTC7 not in a few weeks but in a few hours. This means that the SAME technology could have been used to blow up WTC1 & WTC2 - a highly significant implication.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by micpsi]



1. What technology was in place to demolish WTC?

2. Do you have a source that says that WTC7 was prepped for demolition in a few hours?

3. In a few hours people capped well, water, sewer and septic lines, Disconnected electrical service, removed matericals such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall were removed, beams cut and charges placed and wired and the areas with explosives were covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris?



SOURCE:
Stacey Loizeaux, twenty-six years old, has worked for Controlled Demolition, an international explosives engineering firm, since the age of fifteen. She learned the fine art of demolition from her father, Mark Loizeaux, and her uncle, Doug Loizeaux—president and vice-president of the company.

www.pbs.org...

I would LOVE to find a credible source that will tell you that you can prep a skyscraper for demolition in a few hours!!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
It's funny that Larry's video testimony to "pull it" didn't seal the deal for
the government loyalists.

I mean come on...when does "pull it" mean firemen? When does that
entire verbal account reflect pulling a team of firemen and then suddenly
triggering a building to fall straight down in 6.5 seconds?

Those firemen must of ran so fast in a group that it caused a major pressure
depression on the first floor allowing the atmospheric pressure to push
the entire building directly down into it's own footprint!




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And he wasn't just thinking it over to himself, he was telling this to other people, so that people on the ground even knew and apparently believed it was a serious possibility.

I'm sure it means nothing at all to you, but the same building was also occupied by DoD, CIA, and Secret Service offices, along with IRS, SEC, and financial and banking tenants. It's safe to assume there was a sensitive information in that building (actually it's a confirmed fact that there was at least sensitive SEC information related to several ongoing investigations, such as Enron) and Mr. Silverstein would have to take that into account if he were considering demolishing this building.


First Silverstein said that he said the smartest thing to do would be to "pull it" that day, and they made that decision to "pull it" and then watched the building collapse. And people said, oh, he never meant demolish it, that would be impossible. Now someone admits yes, Silverstein was seriously considering demolishing the building that day. But oh, no big deal, that doesn't mean anything.
What if next they admit, yes, WTC7 was demolished, to protect sensitive information inside, and it was safely and legally pre-rigged and if it had come down any other way it would have resulted in a lot more damage? Once again you would no doubt say, "Oh, ok. Well still nothing to see here, move along!" We really have a sharp crowd here.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by bsbray11]



And again, reading way too much into it and assigning motive.

Standing there, looking at the damage, the unchecked fires..yeah, I would be thinking that the building is going to have to come down and yeah, I would be calling the insurance company to talk about the options.

Then you bring up the government records boogeyman. Tell me, did they stop the prosecution of the Enron folks? Nope.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And again, reading way too much into it and assigning motive.


I didn't assign any motives. But how can you say I'm reading too much into it? I just simply stated some facts, that these were tenants, and there was sensitive information in the building. You can't tell me they aren't significant because they were never investigated.


Standing there, looking at the damage, the unchecked fires..yeah, I would be thinking that the building is going to have to come down and yeah, I would be calling the insurance company to talk about the options.


And you aren't qualified for or experienced with any professional positions where you would be able to make those kinds of decisions. From everything I've seen, the building should have never collapsed.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
New York city is under "attack", the US is under "attack", there is hell breaking
loose on the streets and Larry gets on the phone with his insurance company?

Never mind the #1 priority of the day...Larry needs to figure out his options
for his building which MUST be dealt with during a 'terror' attack on that day.

I've read lesser theories I guess...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Are you saying he probably didn't call his insurers?

I'm not sure where the line of argument in this thread is going. Indeed I'm not sure there is an argument as such. The premise seems to be that because Silverstein investigated the possibility of the building being demolished, then the building might have been demolished. This is sourced from an article that describes the truth movement as "intellectually dishonest and nonsensical", and for which there seems to be no corroborating evidence.

Pretty thin gruel.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
There is no argument really.

Larry was involved in the destruction of his building. They decided to
demo the building after they demo'd the other towers.

His video testimony incriminates him. The video of the building is clearly
a controlled demo.

1200 A&E's agree. Explosive residue agrees.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You're not addressing the point, which is that this "evidence" is very weak. Instead you're backtracking - a typical TM tactic - and offering vague assertions that aren't really grounded in any type of fact.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Evidence is weak? Let's see what I have off the top of my head:

- The collapse looks and acts like a controlled demo falling into the foundation
- Sounds on video of explosions
- Witness testimony of explosions
- Scientific evidence of residue found in dust samples
- Fire has never destroyed a steel building
- Free fall admitted by NIST for at least 2 seconds; rapid destruction of 6.5 seconds for 47 stories
- Barry's video testimony of explosions trapping him in the stairwell
- Larry's "pull it" statement
- Lack of fire capable of the historically impossible from any video prior to, and during collapse of WTC 7
- Pyroclastic flow
- 1200 A&E's questioning collapse

Sorry, what was your "strong" evidence again?

ETA - Another point

[edit on 11-5-2010 by turbofan]




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join