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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 28
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 

I believe the term pull, in demolition terms came and gone long ago when they used a plunger as a detonation and that "pull it" refers to pulling the plunger and not the pulling of cables. As I tried to illustrate before, giving the order to pull a building could have even been an order to demolish the building by some sort of satellite weapon from outer space. The term "pull it" could have also originated in the old days of firefighting, before they had radios and meant to pull on a fire fighters hose to get him out. Either way I believe Silverstein was using the term metaphorically. The term "pull it" also means to masturbate. Isn't that what you would be doing if you were just about to cash in on a huge insurance policy like Larry was?




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
ah yes
we will just ignore the squib vids too
www.youtube.com...
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


who am i gonna believe?
your silly snide desperate insinuations
or my lying eyes?
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I love how truthers use words the wrong way, from pyroclastic clouds to squibs.

Squibs are used in movies, they are a little bit bigger than firecrackers, it would take billions of them to bring down a building.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
 


if your presupposition is that it was CD, then I guess one way or another it has to be CD.

If you want to confuse common sense with presupposition than I can not debate you. All I'm saying is that anyone with any degree of common sense pretty much understands that those three buildings did not collapse as a result of being hit by those two air planes.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev
If you want to confuse common sense with presupposition than I can not debate you. All I'm saying is that anyone with any degree of common sense pretty much understands that those three buildings did not collapse as a result of being hit by those two air planes.


Likewise, if you confuse physics with your common sense, then I can not debate you.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Apparently. They predicted those buildings could collapse after visual inspection, and they did. Unless of course you think that the NYFD was in on your conspiracy and had foreknowledge of the collapse.
edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Apparently? You're the one saying that the NFYD predicted the collapse. You could quite easily call that "foreknowledge". I never suggested that they were responsible for the collapse. So I ask you again. How did they predict the failure at column 79? Or are you saying that NIST got it wrong?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Danbones
ah yes
we will just ignore the squib vids too
www.youtube.com...
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


who am i gonna believe?
your silly snide desperate insinuations
or my lying eyes?
edit on 25-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I love how truthers use words the wrong way, from pyroclastic clouds to squibs.

Squibs are used in movies, they are a little bit bigger than firecrackers, it would take billions of them to bring down a building.

I love how liars take everything out of context. Who cares what you call them. There are videos of stuff blowing out of the building and stuff flying everywhere and it couldn't have been caused by air planes.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Wow Lunar guess whole FDNY was involved in it - right ....?


Yes, seems obvious, but they were apparently all involved in pulling out and establishing a collapse zone due to a fear of an impending collapse. What's your point?
edit on 25-3-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


You are tiring. I already showed how your argument is a logical fallacy. If you don't get it, too bad. Your argument that you require to know the exact cause of collapse in order to be able to predict collapse is absurd.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


It was a top down collapse.

The "squibs" you think you are seeing are windows being blown out by the pressure of the upper floors compressing the air in the lower floors. And the blast you think you are seeing is just debris coming out with the air.

Where do you think the air went?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 



And yet the challenge remains to the debunkers!


CHALLENGE TO DEBUNKERS- Show me footage or any proof from a witness or fireman, which shows ANYONE installing cables to "pull" down WTC 7????



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by surfstev
If you want to confuse common sense with presupposition than I can not debate you. All I'm saying is that anyone with any degree of common sense pretty much understands that those three buildings did not collapse as a result of being hit by those two air planes.


Likewise, if you confuse physics with your common sense, then I can not debate you.

I am using common sense to relate physics and my knowledge of construction to the official story and the only conclusion is that it is a lie. Honestly; if you have anything believable that shows it is the truth I would really love to see it!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


You are tiring. I already showed how your argument is a logical fallacy. If you don't get it, too bad. Your argument that you require to know the exact cause of collapse in order to be able to predict collapse is absurd.


You haven't shown me anything other than a reluctance to answer my questions. Here's another for you. Why is it that witnesses are reliable ONLY when they support the OS ?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


For starters, the NIST report. (Don't handwave, if you have issues with it, explain which they are. Don't post a link to some truther site).

Do you have anything believable that shows it is not the truth? Something that shows, using physics, that it is wrong? Can you come with some kind of alternative explanation for for example the observed inward bowing of the external columns of the towers?

I expect you don't have anything to show as I have asked this to numerous of truthers. If this is the case either just admit it or don't bother replying. If you do, then show me! It can be a link to a PDF.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Your question is a false dichotomy. Not either the NYFD is correct or NIST is correct. You made that up for no reason. The NYFD was correct in their prediction, and NIST gave the best explanation to date. I am not qualified to judge if they are correct. But the enormous black hole of alternative explanations and papers debunking them makes me believe they are. If you have anything that shows NIST is wrong, please share. (and with anything I don't mean your common sense, but more something like the physics).

As for witnesses, I don't think they are reliable in any case.
edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by surfstev
 


It was a top down collapse.

The "squibs" you think you are seeing are windows being blown out by the pressure of the upper floors compressing the air in the lower floors. And the blast you think you are seeing is just debris coming out with the air.

Where do you think the air went?

Of course it was a top down collapse. Please show me how an air plane hitting in the middle can cause a top down collapse? Please explain the lack of evidence to support your theory and that there isn't any sort of model or demonstration you can produce. Only silly illustrations.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
 


For starters, the NIST report. (Don't handwave, if you have issues with it, explain which they are. Don't post a link to some truther site).

Do you have anything believable that shows it is not the truth? Something that shows, using physics, that it is wrong? Can you come with some kind of alternative explanation for for example the observed inward bowing of the external columns of the towers?

I expect you don't have anything to show as I have asked this to numerous of truthers. If this is the case either just admit it or don't bother replying. If you do, then show me! It can be a link to a PDF.

The NIST report is a pack of lies. There are 1000's of architects that say it is impossible. It defies logic, common sense and physics and you can't show me one video to support it that doesn't rely on fake diagrams. It also refuses to look at people's testimony and a great deal of evidence. All of these things and simple experiments I can do at home indicate to me that the NIST report is a pack of lies. Show me one good reason I should believe it?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by surfstev
 


It was a top down collapse.

The "squibs" you think you are seeing are windows being blown out by the pressure of the upper floors compressing the air in the lower floors. And the blast you think you are seeing is just debris coming out with the air.

Where do you think the air went?

Of course it was a top down collapse. Please show me how an air plane hitting in the middle can cause a top down collapse? Please explain the lack of evidence to support your theory and that there isn't any sort of model or demonstration you can produce. Only silly illustrations.


The middle floors, where the planes hit, were weakened structurally from both the impact of 300,000 pounds of airliner hitting it at 500 mph and 100,000 gallons of JetA burning along with carpet, furniture, paper, woodwork, cleaning chemicals, etc....

These big buildings use what are called support columns, and they carry not only their own weight but also the weight of the floors above.

When those support columns are weakened they can no longer carry the weight and you have a collapse.

Would pictures help?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


For starters, you should believe it because of the tens of thousands of engineers (the people who actually are educated to know this stuff, unlike architects) that are supporting it. You can look up the organizations that were involved with the NIST report on Wikipedia.

But I see that you don't really have any actual objection, just the usual "I read on a conspiracy site it was junk and I choose to believe that". By the way, there actually are some credible objections. For example the ones by Quintire. He actually made a scale model of a WTC floor and set it on fire. He concluded that NIST was wrong in saying that the fire protection required to be dislodged for the collapse to initiate. Of course this is all not much in favor of the truther position so you probably never heard of it.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 

Given the witness accounts by firefighting officers (quoted below), it seems an incredibly fortunate coincidence that they had surmised an imminent collapse of WTC7 due to structural and fire damage and therefore evacuated the area, establishing a collapse zone--all done without knowing the building was in fact NOT in danger of collapse (an impossibility according to physics), but had been secretly rigged in advance with explosives for the purpose of demolishing the building that very afternoon. What are the chances?

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

5) Fire Engineering magazine: "FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire--the other two had collapsed earlier that day." ("World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by surfstev
 


For starters, you should believe it because of the tens of thousands of engineers (the people who actually are educated to know this stuff, unlike architects) that are supporting it. You can look up the organizations that were involved with the NIST report on Wikipedia.

But I see that you don't really have any actual objection, just the usual "I read on a conspiracy site it was junk and I choose to believe that". By the way, there actually are some credible objections. For example the ones by Quintire. He actually made a scale model of a WTC floor and set it on fire. He concluded that NIST was wrong in saying that the fire protection required to be dislodged for the collapse to initiate. Of course this is all not much in favor of the truther position so you probably never heard of it.


Hey you're right I never heard of Quintire. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me. Seems like there isn't anything other than NIST that supports the top down theory. I heard people produced models that say if it were heated to something like 1500 degrees that the floors could collapse but that the report never addressed the fact that the central column would still be left standing. Does he explain that? How did the heat from the fire know to travel to the top first and not right above where the jet crashed? Did it rise up in that gigantic fireball right after the crash? Please enlighten me.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join