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: 59
17
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
So why you here then?


Two reason. Warn people of the pollution. And entertainment. Even though I rarely use lol similes, I do lol occasionally.



Why do you insult people, and try to make out as if they are less intelligent than you?


Insults like what? I point out fallacies and bulcrap. If that insults you, there is something wrong with your position.



Are you a bigot?


Sure I am a bigot to a certain degree, everyone is. But I always offer people the chance to prove my prejudices wrong. Which can't be said about some of your fellow truthers, who you don't seem to have a problem with.


Another thing, you think Alex Jones is in it for the money? Give me a break! Do you know how much it cost's to run a full time radio station? Maybe that's why he tries to sell a few DVD's, which by the way, he encourages people to burn and give away for free. He also uploads all his documentaries to Youtube.

And yeah too right he is crazy mad, The truth does that to people!


Whether that was his initial intention, I don't know. He did found out that he could make a good buck from it and and isn't shy for doing that.

Again, the point is that people with a financial interest in bringing you certain information makes them biased. Of course bias is always a problem, bit when someone is financially dependent on it, the person will never publish information that his audience does not like. When you do not realize this, you are gullible.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Wrong. Here's what I said: "Steel buildings do not collapse into their own footprint unless each and every supporting beam is taken out in a methodical fashion."


Nice try. I wasn't refering to that.

Here's what you actually wrote:




all the beams melting and weakening at just the precise moments to initiate a near-free-fall collapse of Building 7



And that's what happened, a 47-story building collapsed into its own footprint ON DEMAND. And you pseudo-wannabe-debunkers claim that some of the rubble landed outside the bulls-eye zone. Well take a look at controlled demolition videos. SOME OF THE RUBBLE FALLS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT!!

You know, you aspiring debunkers really make fools of yourselves and you don't even realize it. What's even more disturbing is that you defend this criminal cabal with an OBSESSIVE PASSION. Keep drinking that fluoride, it's working quite well.
edit on 7-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Your anger would be weird if it wasn't quite so funny.

Have you managedto address the reason for the firefighters' expectation of collapse yet? Or their opinion of your silly conspiracy theories? I guess we'll just have to add them to the list of the cabal's pals...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


I went for some sleep.

The reason Anok is avoiding me is because I continuously expose his miserable understanding of physics, and I expose his lies, like I did in that post to him right here. And he does not like that so he ignores most of my posts.

For some reason you are ok with him lying, and decide to attack me instead for exposing that lie. Thats says more about you than about me.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Have you managedto address the reason for the firefighters' expectation of collapse yet? Or their opinion of your silly conspiracy theories? I guess we'll just have to add them to the list of the cabal's pals...


The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.

You and a couple of your goon buddies here are very obviously TROLLS.

Try to have a Happy Easter with your family, if you have one. I won't be wasting any more time with your circular reasoning, rudeness, and utter nonsense.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


If you are saying that the firefighters knew what to expect because "somebody" told them it must follow that they then became accessories to the conspiracy because they have been lying about it ever since.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


The ignorance, whether willful or accidental, is stunning. To think that someone had to "tell" the NYFD that the building was going to collapse, because somehow they already knew from some sort of super-secret evil plan, rather than basing their judgement from their experience and training, boggles the mind.

Once again, I am sending a challenge to you "truthers": Go out and do some research regarding fire safety and how they train for signs of impending structural failure. This willful ignorance will stop now. I'd prefer if the "truthers" kept their mouths shut until after they have done some actual research. I know I have posted here links and titles of firefighting manuals and books where the specifically talk about what signs firefighters look for in order to judge if a building is in danger of any sort of collapse. No more ignorance. DENY IGNORANCE.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ReconX
 


You are aware what the 9/11 Commission Report was tasked to do correct? I do agree that it was a whitewash and no one got chewed out, but we are not talking about who covered who's a** from bungling intel failures. But bringing up the 9/11CR is off topic. We are talking about WTC7 and the knowledge by observation and training of the NYFD, of impending structural failure. Why do "truthers" bring up the 9/11CR when talking about the fires and collapses of the WTC buildings?

Also, regarding AE9/11T, I would not sign up to their opinions as facts. just barely 1600 people that signed on to that trainwreck club, after 10 years, shows just how small of a minority they are in the real world. ASCE, NIST, FEMA, these are the ones I'd turn to for actual expert advice. Not home decorators, room architects, and computer engineers. Just because you have "engineer" in your title does not make you qualified to comment on EVERYTHING in engineering.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.


You call it foreknowledge cuz you can't fathom that they just might know their job, and so assume some sort of conspiracy.

Others recognize their experience and education and don't have an issue with their strong belief that 7 would fall due to structural and fire damage.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The firefighters expecting collapse does not help your case one iota. In fact, it proves that SOMEBODY had foreknowledge.


Some days ago, the weather forecaster on TV predicted that there would be clouds with a bit of sun and some rain the next day. And then, the next day there were clouds, a bit of sun and some rain
.

This is undeniable proof that he had foreknowledge of the weather, and can only mean that the government is manipulating the weather. He must have been told by someone from the NWO.

Yep, that story is as silly as your whole argument.
edit on 8-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

Well , the body language in the interview says it all.




This is priceless! Rocklobster, you made my Easter!



Why would the fire dept contact Larry Silverstein to get his input ?


Well, we don't know for sure do we? All we can do is speculate.


He claims that he suggested they should pull it , then they made the decision to pull ,


WTF? "they" meaning the FDNY. Really, why are you guys still getting this wrong?


so ..... Larry Silverstein told the firemen to pull out , and they pulled out , that is your arguement(sic) ? And you say that my arguement(sic) is weak ?


I doubt that's what he is saying. Silverstein had nothing to do with the fire rescue operations. Oh, and you spelled argument wrong twice.


Explain to me why Larry would have such an important role in this situation , because i simply do not follow.


He owned the lease on all the buildings...perhaps it was just a courtesy? Again, unless you were listening to the conversation, you don't know.


And... i dont know who he was talking to when he said "pull it" , i know it wasnt the fire dept because he has no authority over them , possibly a demo expert from Controlled Demolitions Inc.


See, you are making wild speculations. No one ever said Larry had authority. "THEY" made the decision. "THEY" "THEY" THEY!!!



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

" Bashar is a multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial being who speaks through channel Darryl Anka from what we perceive as the future."


All right. This is just getting to be too much. There's nobody on this board today but debunkers, trolls and insane persons. I'm going outside.
edit on 4/8/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


If they claim to have inspected the damage and decided it was going to collapse, then yes , they were lying. The damage to tower 7 was not enough for it to collapse , how hard is this for you to understand ?


Frank Cruthers: "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)


So it seems clear that you believe Fire Chief Frank Cruthers and/or Chief Fellini is LYING. Is this the case? Who should we believe?
edit on 8-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


What are you getting at ? is there a point that you are trying to make ?

I have already said , who ever said that they checked the tower and the damage had compromised the structural integrity of the building , was LYING ..... in this case , it looks like Fellini , doesnt it.

Why are you asking ? ..... again ?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

What are you getting at ? is there a point that you are trying to make ?

I have already said , who ever said that they checked the tower and the damage had compromised the structural integrity of the building , was LYING ..... in this case , it looks like Fellini , doesnt it.

Why are you asking ? ..... again ?


Where is your proof that he lied? Do you have any? Why would he lie?
I'm willing to bet a steak dinner you dont have one iota, shred, or scrap of evidence he lied, other than your innuendo and imagination and the tried and true "because I said so"?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
SIX SIGMA

Ok , so you beleive that whilst the emergency operations were taking place , life and death situations ..... the fire dept thought , "oh , we need to phone Larry because he owns these buildings " ? ... what world are you from ?

He claims he -> suggested



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Show me proof he didnt lie , show me proof of a severly damaged WTC 7 ........ can you ? i`m tired of asking you.

From the text he quoted , Fellini is the one who said the structural integrity was compromised , he`s a liar.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
You call it foreknowledge cuz you can't fathom that they just might know their job, and so assume some sort of conspiracy.

Others recognize their experience and education and don't have an issue with their strong belief that 7 would fall due to structural and fire damage.


Problem is before 911 no steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire and asymmetrical damage, so there was no precedence to make such a claim.

So how would their experience and education help predict a normally impossible act? What was that claim based on? Could have have been rumour rather than experience?

So not only do OSers think the fire fighters demolished the building, they think they were psychic, and we're the crazy ones...



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Show me proof he didnt lie , show me proof of a severly damaged WTC 7 ........ can you ? i`m tired of asking you.

From the text he quoted , Fellini is the one who said the structural integrity was compromised , he`s a liar.

If Fellini's a liar, then all the chiefs calling the shots that day are liars. Perhaps you need to re-read some of those quotes. Did you actually read them?


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)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


"A number of " ... is not specific enough , but you obviously have not been taking any notice at all ....... Who ever checked the damage and said that the structural integrity was compromised ... is a liar , as i have said.

I hope you actually read this post then get to your point.

By the way ...... what companies ?
(C.D.I)
edit on 8-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Aah so those firemen who predicted the collapse were liars and are accessory to the murder of several hundreds of their colleagues. And all the other firemen didn't mind about that of course.

Why not accuse them of blowing up those building and killing their colleagues themselves while you are at it? Or is that too delusional even for you? I kind of doubt it.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 

The point is--there is no reason to question the integrity of those fire officers or the veracity of their testimonies. They were THERE. They saw the building first hand and up close. They assessed the damage and made a decision based on that assessment.

On what have you based your assessment of the damage to WTC7? Is it more credible than the collective eye-witness testimonies of experienced FDNY officers?
edit on 8-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join