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: 49
17
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by leepenny
a plane didnt hit building 7
so normal temperature office fires must have melted the steel??????????????EH???????????????
edit on 5-4-2012 by leepenny because: (no reason given)



That's right.
So let's all bow our heads and have a moment of silence and remember:








posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by leepenny
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


THERE YOU HAVE IT FRED DIBNAH STYLE


Is this someone we're all supposed to know?
The only Fred's I know are Astaire and Flintstone.
Kindly back up you accusation (or credit) with reference. Thanks

edit on 5-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by leepenny
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


THERE YOU HAVE IT FRED DIBNAH STYLE


Is this someone we're all supposed to know?
The only Fred's I know are Astaire and Flintstone.
Kindly back up you accusation (or credit) with reference. Thanks

edit on 5-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)


hi h.a.

It would be nice to see you use quotes instead of replies.
You know why??? Cause then you will proly answer at least some of your own queries.
The Fred you ask about is clearly explained in the posters post.
Let's hope this is not prelude to an attitude.
Have you read the thread and found it quite clear and that a landslide of members being in favor of the term PULL-IT being one of DEMOLITION???
Here's LOoKin atcha ljb



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Why do people keep using melted steel for a reason for a structural failure?

Why do they think they have a point?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Why do people keep using melted steel for a reason for a structural failure?

Why do they think they have a point?


Hi Ill,
Proly be good if you quote someone.
The thread is mostly about Building Number Seven
and why the owner had it demloished.
toodles ljb



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by leepenny
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


THERE YOU HAVE IT FRED DIBNAH STYLE


Is this someone we're all supposed to know?
The only Fred's I know are Astaire and Flintstone.
Kindly back up you accusation (or credit) with reference. Thanks

edit on 5-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)


google him he had loads going on ,videos ect,,tv programmes,,you may learn something


edit on 5-4-2012 by leepenny because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by leepenny
a plane didnt hit building 7
so normal temperature office fires must have melted the steel??????????????EH???????????????
edit on 5-4-2012 by leepenny because: (no reason given)


Really? So how is a regular office fire different from a plane fire? And who said normal fire temps melted steel? My my, another Truther woefully uninformed with regards to the behavior of steel during fires. Once again, it is necessary to right the wrongs the "Truth" Movement has sown on the uninformed and gullible.

Steel behavior in "regular" fires and fire resistance

A VERY interesting article regarding steel structures and fires here too:
THE DANGERS OF LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Note to ANOK: Notice, what is meant by "lightweight steel" construction.

Fire protection of steel structures

Firefighting strategies for steel frame construction

www.fpemag.com...

It would be prudent for you to start some real research with regards to fire and steel structures, before spouting off such ignorant nonsense.

However, I know how "Truthers" are, and this information will be ignored and covered up as quickly as possible, so that others may not have a chance to be educated and shown the follies of the "Truth" Movement religion.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by leepenny
a plane didnt hit building 7
so normal temperature office fires must have melted the steel??????????????EH???????????????
edit on 5-4-2012 by leepenny because: (no reason given)


Really? So how is a regular office fire different from a plane fire? And who said normal fire temps melted steel? My my, another Truther woefully uninformed with regards to the behavior of steel during fires. Once again, it is necessary to right the wrongs the "Truth" Movement has sown on the uninformed and gullible.

Steel behavior in "regular" fires and fire resistance

A VERY interesting article regarding steel structures and fires here too:
THE DANGERS OF LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Note to ANOK: Notice, what is meant by "lightweight steel" construction.

Fire protection of steel structures

Firefighting strategies for steel frame construction

www.fpemag.com...

It would be prudent for you to start some real research with regards to fire and steel structures, before spouting off such ignorant nonsense.

However, I know how "Truthers" are, and this information will be ignored and covered up as quickly as possible, so that others may not have a chance to be educated and shown the follies of the "Truth" Movement religion.

Nice try, but the odds of winning MegaMillions are infinitely better than to have all the beams melting and weakening at just the precise moments to initiate a near-free-fall collapse of Building 7 into its own footprint. This is actually the reason why controlled-demolition companies employ COMPUTER PROGRAMS to figure these things out.

Truthers may not have all their facts straight all the time but deceiving and misleading is definitely the name of YOUR game, not theirs.

Defending the OS is indefensible and makes YOU complicit to the crime.
edit on 6-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
i belive the two towers could possiby collapse how they did
because of the immense weight of the top sections, over where they were hit
and the intence fires,
they should have been designed to withstand a large fueled plane surely, what was the gauges of steel used
i havent researched any of the facts, and know very little,just common sence and logic

but what makes me suspicious is the building 7

i think what most people mean by melt the steel,is the steel was comprimised by the heat
not it turned into liquid

a jet fuel fire is considerably hotter than a office fire,and kept it burning feircly(thats the difference its common sence, isnt it)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Did i say that i dont believe any of the firefighters thought it would collapse ?

Maybe the firemen that thought it would collapse are not worth listening to , un experienced , you know , just like the arguement that every single pilot or engineer who disagrees with the origonal story is un worthy , and not even allowed to have an opinion.


edit on 5-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)


Inexperienced? The two senior firemen on the scene, Chiefs Hayden and Nigro, both thought it would collapse. at the time they had over sixty years experience between them. Nigro, incidentally, wrote the following in 2007:

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001 I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff)...

For these reasons I made the decision... to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.


He must be in on it if your theory is correct, as must Peter Hayden.

I must say, it takes an extraordinary effort of denial to be shown that firefighters thought the building would collpase, and then suggest that they must know less than you or whichever Truther source on the internet you're relying on.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX




Do you really believe what you wrote there?
If you do, then you're thinking is, not just messy, insane!




Show me one thing in what I wrote that isn't factual.

You've been misled by charlatans.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Again thinking a building is going to collapse, and one collapsing into its own footprint are two different things.

Also you have to think where they got the idea it was going to collapse from, not experience, because steel framed building do not normally collapse from fire, in fact had never done before 911, so how the hell could they make a claim that's never happened before? Were they psychic?

No someone who knew it was going to be demolished must have leaked that information, or someone overhearing that information, and the rumour started and spread. Unless you want to claim they were psychic.


More denialism, designed to preserve a worldview that you find comforting, I suppose.

We know that you think the building collapsed into its own footprint (except the bit that didn't - you strangely go quiet when asked how much of the mass landed outside the area) and you've made your shoddy and misleading drawings to try to prove it. That's not the issue here.

Your second paragraph is illogical. They could of course surmise that the building would collapse because even though steel-framed it may have exhibited symptoms that other types of structure show when in danger. Steel buildings are not in a class of their own - unless you're claiming they could never fall from fire, which again contravenes the firemen's testimony - and the relatively few antecedents is unsurprising given the tiny number of comparable ones that have caught fire.

Your idea that "a rumour" got out is laughable. Chiefs Nigro and Hayden's testimony explicitly refutes the notion. They say - Nigro in particular - that his certainty that it would come down stemmed from a detailed visual examination and the creaking and leaning, the damage and the unfought fires. Neither of them mentions your invented "rumour". Nigro, as I mention above, took time in 2007 to pour cold water on your ideas.

Some advice: if you have to ignore this much direct evidence in order to cram your theory into some kind of workable model then it's probably wrong.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Nice try, but the odds of winning MegaMillions are infinitely better than to have all the beams melting and weakening at just the precise moments to initiate a near-free-fall collapse of Building 7 into its own footprint.


Good god, do you really think anyone is saying that's what happened?

Before you decide unilaterally that "The OS" is wrong you might at least want to acquaint yourself with its contents.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Nice try, but the odds of winning MegaMillions are infinitely better than to have all the beams melting and weakening at just the precise moments to initiate a near-free-fall collapse of Building 7 into its own footprint.


Good god, do you really think anyone is saying that's what happened?

Before you decide unilaterally that "The OS" is wrong you might at least want to acquaint yourself with its contents.


What, has it changed from the amazingly placed "diesel tanks" that initiated the collapse?

Either way, I'm not sure which building you're talking about, but if we're talking about building 7, for it to come straight down required for dozens of steel beams to have failed in a very specifically co-ordinated sequence. The charges can be seen going off in sequence from bottom to top along the right side of the building.

Co-Incidence Theorists are one fascinating species.....
edit on 6-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

if we're talking about building 7, for it to come straight down required for dozens of steel beams to have failed in a very specifically co-ordinated sequence.


Er, no. Have you read the account of the collapse in NIST's report?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

if we're talking about building 7, for it to come straight down required for dozens of steel beams to have failed in a very specifically co-ordinated sequence.


Er, no. Have you read the account of the collapse in NIST's report?


NIST?? You're kidding, right? Wasn't that the same bunch of shills who originally denied the WTC had an immense steel core?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

if we're talking about building 7, for it to come straight down required for dozens of steel beams to have failed in a very specifically co-ordinated sequence.


Er, no. Have you read the account of the collapse in NIST's report?


NIST?? You're kidding, right? Wasn't that the same bunch of shills who originally denied the WTC had an immense steel core?





Try to keep up. You claimed earlier that the traditional view of 9/11 requires that all the beams "melted" at the same time. I pointed out that the OS doesn't say this, nor require it. Presumably you think that the NIST report is a component of the OS?

And you obviously haven't read it, since NIST did not deny that the WTC had a steel core.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
hi h.a.

It would be nice to see you use quotes instead of replies.


I can't reply? I must use other people's quotes? Is that what you're suggesting?
When did this turn into a bibliography thread?

Besides, I used quotes.
Take a look-see:



Originally posted by leepenny
THERE YOU HAVE IT FRED DIBNAH STYLE




And then you added this useless line:




Originally posted by longjohnbritches
The Fred you ask about is clearly explained in the posters post.


Forgive me but I never graduated from 'reading between the lines' class.... so maybe you can learn me something.





Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Let's hope this is not prelude to an attitude.


Let's hope all new-comers such as yourself aren't as arrogant, rude and disrespectful towards other members as some, seem to be.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Did i say that i dont believe any of the firefighters thought it would collapse ?

Maybe the firemen that thought it would collapse are not worth listening to , un experienced , you know , just like the arguement that every single pilot or engineer who disagrees with the origonal story is un worthy , and not even allowed to have an opinion.


edit on 5-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)


The two senior firemen on the scene, Chiefs Hayden and Nigro, both thought it would collapse.
For these reasons I made the decision... to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

He must be in on it .....

I must say, it takes an extraordinary effort of denial to be shown that firefighters thought the building would collpase...


Here in your own words proves you are a fireman basher. STOP
All you try to do is put words that are negitive about firemen in the mouths of others.
You have never once quoted anyone accusing a fireman being complicit.
"Your he must be in on it" is what YOU say, basher.
Futhermore YOU state that the two leading FIREFIGHTERS have cleared the building by THREE HOURS BEFORE it's demolition into is't own FOOTPRINT.
The WE Larry speaks of in the desission to "PULL IT" could have been anyone on the planet.
Why in your convoluted spin do you keep refering to fireman over and over.
Have you been hypnotised ???? You will wake up for your next post BuZzzt!!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Why do people keep using melted steel for a reason for a structural failure?

Why do they think they have a point?




Because the words: demolition, explosives, bombs and dynamite aren't within their minds' framework quite yet.

So it's easy to JUMP to the conclusion of "melted steel" without thinking of the logic.

That's what most people do anyway these days.
They hear something spun out on the news and they simply repeat.

We're living in the real live version of the 100th Monkey Syndrome and it's sweeping this planet faster than the speed of stupid!




top topics



 
17
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join