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: 29
17
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Well yeah... after the first two collapsed it was kind of a no brainer that the other one might... If by impacted he meant blown up I can see his point too. Where's the quotes of them thinking that the first one was going to collapse? Now that I think about it, weren't all the diagrams of the buildings collapsing from the sagging fire in the middle also requiring the pins on the ends to be heated enough to snap? I just sort of remember seeing an illustration of a fire in the middle making them buckle and fall in. How did the pins fail? Did they get heated up too? Why didn't the firemen get heated up. Are them suits they were wearing that good? What about all the people they were rescuing? How come they weren't burned up? How did the fire know to simultaneously heat up all of the beams and pins in just the right places and leave the firemen and people in the building pretty much alone right up till that first building collapsed? And what about that central core?




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


You do realize that firefighters are trained to notice structural deformation and structural instability in fires of all buildings? Its been posted before from firefighter training books and publications here on ATS, and the checklists give a good indication of possible collapse. WTC7 was showing many signs of instability from which they deduced correctly a collapse was imminent. I will try to find the links to show you how they came to that conclusion.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


You do realize that firefighters are trained to notice structural deformation and structural instability in fires of all buildings? Its been posted before from firefighter training books and publications here on ATS, and the checklists give a good indication of possible collapse. WTC7 was showing many signs of instability from which they deduced correctly a collapse was imminent. I will try to find the links to show you how they came to that conclusion.

I think you didn't catch my sarcasm. I'm asking--what are the chances, if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that the firefighters just happened to surmise it was going to collapse anyway, and evacuated the area?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I think you didn't catch my sarcasm. I'm asking--what are the chances, if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that the firefighters just happened to surmise it was going to collapse anyway, and evacuated the area?


Because those at the top new, and made the order to evacuate?

Why is that so unbelievable?

They had to have known it was going to be a controlled collapse, because there is not precedence in history for any fire fighter to claim the building was going to completely collapse from fire. It has never happened before.

What could they have seen that would make them think an event that has never happened before would happen? There has been hundreds of high rise fires in NY.


edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I think you didn't catch my sarcasm. I'm asking--what are the chances, if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that the firefighters just happened to surmise it was going to collapse anyway, and evacuated the area?


Because those at the top new, and made the order to evacuate?

Why is that so unbelievable?

They had to have known it was going to be a controlled collapse, because there is not precedence in history for any fire fighter to claim the building was going to completely collapse from fire. It has never happened before.

What could they have seen that would make them think an event that has never happened before would happen? There has been hundreds of high rise fires in NY.


edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

So these fire officers ordering the evacuation, the men who testified they determined the building was in grave danger of collapse because structural and fire damage, were actually in on the conspiracy? They were lying? Did they know about the CD of the twin towers? If so why did they not evacuate those men also? Why would they even bother evacuating WTC7? Wouldn't it be smarter to murder those witnesses also, rather than "pulling" them which allowed them to witness first hand the suspicious demolition by explosives?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by surfstev
 


According to NIST (and all video evidence) the collapse of the towers initiated at the impact area, right where the majority of the damage and fires were, and not at the roof as you seem to think. I get the impression you know very little about the subject, am I right? I am not trying to attack you, but it seems you have been fed with misinformation.

As for Quintiere, you can just Google it. He has the only substantial critique on the NIST report that I know of.
edit on 25-3-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Trying to be sarcastic

Apparently all the "truthers" believe FDNY was in Silverstein pocket and helped him "puul" the building



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfstev
The NIST report is a pack of lies. There are 1000's of architects that say it is impossible.

Thousands? Even Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth only has 261 US architects on their list.* It goes up to 353 if we include the unlicensed "architectural professionals." That's out of about 141,000 architects working in the US. So it seems there are not thousands of architects who will publicly say the NIST report is impossible, and even if there were, it would still be a miniscule percentage of the total working architects in the US.

If you have some other source for these thousands of architects, I'd love to see it. Gage has spent years going after that niche, and I'd be surprised if there were a large reservoir of gullible architects out there he had not yet tapped.

*I couldn't be bothered to count the non-US architects because Gage mixes them up with engineers and the various degreed-only persons. I suspect non-US architects who have studied the NIST report agree with it at the same rate as US architects, if not higher. Especially if the 9/1 Truth industry is not actively selling DVDs and pamphlets in their country.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Two enormous buildings really nearby had just collapsed for a large part because of fire. Why is it so unbelievable that they thought WTC7 would also collapse? As for why your conspiracy is so unlikely, people that are colleagues for decades suddenly start to mass murder each other? No idea why that is unlikely
Or do you think those firemen predicting collapse were brain controlled? Or maybe clones? Robots? I actually have no idea what crazy fantasies you believe in. Maybe I should not ask it either.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Two enormous buildings really nearby had just collapsed for a large part because of fire. Why is it so unbelievable that they thought WTC7 would also collapse? As for why your conspiracy is so unlikely, people that are colleagues for decades suddenly start to mass murder each other? No idea why that is unlikely
Or do you think those firemen predicting collapse were brain controlled? Or maybe clones? Robots? I actually have no idea what crazy fantasies you believe in. Maybe I should not ask it either.



I was going to say the same thing!

Chief Nigro made the decision to clear a collapse zone! He watched two buildings collapse killing his friends. He was not going to let that happen again. Because Nigro made this decision, no one was killed during the WTC-7 collapse.

Some interesting quotes:

"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 compromised. 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."

-Chief Frank Cruthers
(i fail to see where any members of the NWO were mention in the meeting of staff chiefs.)


"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 [b]pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain."

-Chief Daniel Nigro

"Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse."
-Joseph Pfeifer


edit on 25-3-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12



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????


WTF are you talking about? Where does anyone claim that firefighters used cables to pull down WTC7? I don't think truther ever said that either.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


ah, my humblest sincere apologies!
Its been a long week and I cannot catch up on subtle things today!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I think you didn't catch my sarcasm. I'm asking--what are the chances, if WTC7 was brought down by CD, that the firefighters just happened to surmise it was going to collapse anyway, and evacuated the area?


Because those at the top new, and made the order to evacuate?

Why is that so unbelievable?

They had to have known it was going to be a controlled collapse, because there is not precedence in history for any fire fighter to claim the building was going to completely collapse from fire. It has never happened before.

What could they have seen that would make them think an event that has never happened before would happen? There has been hundreds of high rise fires in NY.


edit on 3/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


So if they were already in on it, and knew it was rigged, along with Larry, then why did they call him and ask for permission, but then they made the decision themselves? It really makes zero sense. Must be some sort of "Truther" way of thinking. if it makes zero sense, it must be right.

Also, why is it that in firefighting training, they are trained to read a building's behavior during a fire, and watch for signs of impending collapse or structural failure, and when they observed WTC7, it showed all the signs of impending failure?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by freedom12



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????


WTF are you talking about? Where does anyone claim that firefighters used cables to pull down WTC7? I don't think truther ever said that either.


Nice try!

I'll explain it real slow so you can understand. Some debunkers claim that "pull it" referred to Silverstein saying the NYFD decided to bring down the building for "safety issues", so it was bought down using cables or other such means and not explosives. Hope that helps.

The challenge still remains!!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12



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????


SO are you admitting Silverstein wasn't referring to demolitions when he said "pull it"? It's you truthers, after all, who keep insisting Silverstein ordered the fire fighters to pull down WTC 7 with cables, not anyone else. Heck, you're the only ones who keep insisting fire fighters even demolish buildings to begin with.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
Nice try!

I'll explain it real slow so you can understand. Some debunkers claim that "pull it" referred to Silverstein saying the NYFD decided to bring down the building for "safety issues", so it was bought down using cables or other such means and not explosives. Hope that helps.

The challenge still remains!!


Nice try!

I'll explain it real slow so you can understand. Some truthers claim Silverstein was referring to demolitions when he told the New York Fire Department "pull it". It's been irrefutably shown that "pull it" refers to pulling down with cables. Ergo, either the truthers are claiming the New York fire department pulled the WTC 7 building down with cables, or Silverstein wasn't referring to demolitions to begin with. So, which is it?

The challenge still remains.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
 


Well it looks as if the thedman is preoccupied.
Anyother OSer want to tackle some truth???
PLB,???? DAVE???? Tricks???


I have a better question- are you so desperate to back up your claims of conspiracy that you now have to resort to arguing over the precise time when Silverstein said "pull it"? I mean, really?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


Ok i dont think you fully realize what you are talking about. Truthers claim WTC7 was "pulled" by means of explosives. "Debunkers" point out that the only time any "pulling" was done was at WTC6 with actual cables and that was the only time pulling was actually used with demoing a building. As Dave pointed out, truthers have no idea whats going on.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by freedom12
Nice try!

I'll explain it real slow so you can understand. Some debunkers claim that "pull it" referred to Silverstein saying the NYFD decided to bring down the building for "safety issues", so it was bought down using cables or other such means and not explosives. Hope that helps.

The challenge still remains!!


Nice try!

I'll explain it real slow so you can understand. Some truthers claim Silverstein was referring to demolitions when he told the New York Fire Department "pull it". It's been irrefutably shown that "pull it" refers to pulling down with cables. Ergo, either the truthers are claiming the New York fire department pulled the WTC 7 building down with cables, or Silverstein wasn't referring to demolitions to begin with. So, which is it?

The challenge still remains.


An attempt at humor?

Deflection, another debunker tactic.




It is known NYFD was out around noon or before, IF they were ever even fighting the fires in WTC 7.




"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


Obviously, this is NOT referring to firemen, but rather a building because the firemen were out for hours and civilains, a few hours before that, when this quote was made.

So using a debunkers arguement that the BUILDING was pulled, why is the no evidence of such preparations being done by the NYFD or other agency that would be tasked with this mission that had been decided on?

Answering a challenge, by trying to change the question at hand, is not answering. It is a cheap, day 2 salesman's technique, or simply a sophomoric attempt at debate.

So, the Challenge still remains!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 


You've got something backwards in your brain.

There are no debunkers who believe that building 7 was demolished by means of cables. Asking them to provide evidence for this is a waste of time.

You should probably re-read the thread, or ask questions, instead of making challenges that make no sense.




top topics



 
17
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join