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

Originally posted by RockLobster


Show me a steel high rise that has collapsed like that due to fire and minor structural damage.

Why is a precedent necessary for you to believe that it is probable? Are you claiming that new things can never happen?

All three towers had fire protection , which for some reason , did not work at all.

In 1 and 2, the fire protection was removed by the plane impacts.

In 7, it worked as expected. It prevented collapse for the required time.

No mystery here....

This shows that either , fire protection is useless

Science proves this wrong

and steel melts at lower temperatures these days

Science proves this wrong

or , there is a few liars about .

A more probable explanation is that you are not capable of understanding

I love how the fact that two steel-framed buildings mere yards away collapsing just hours earlier somehow shouldn't put the idea into firefighters' heads that "hey, perhaps this flaming and impact damaged building will collapse also"...

No... apparently they would still regard such an event as an impossibility, having just seen it happen twice in a day. Those firefighters must be retards in some peoples' opinion.

Originally posted by RockLobster

There is no evidence

Outright lie.

the statements of firemen who say there was bombs are dismissed and ignored

They are dismissed cuz they in fact did not actually see bombs.

why should we focus on the ones that back up the origonal lie ?

Cuz they actually SAW the damage with their own eys, and SAW the fire shooting out the windows.

Show me real evidence of severe structural damage.

It is real.

You just choose to irrationally handwave it away.

Originally posted by RockLobster

Neither was Bush but you followed him into Iraq and Afghan to get them " terrorists ".
2nd

No.

I didn't.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi fluff,
Any sensible person with a minute anount of reasoning can just FLUFF off this entire thread.
There is not one single scrap of hear say that has stood the test of what used to be the AMERICAN way. A court of law.
Your 1 and two liners of alufagus are just that.
Hope your Easter is all you hoped it would be.
ljb

Sorry.

My gibberish-to-English translator is in my other pants, and Babelfish doesn't seem capable of translating this either.

So I guess I have nothing to say to this post.

Originally posted by RockLobster

There is no evidence , the statements of firemen who say there was bombs are dismissed and ignored , why should we focus on the ones that back up the origonal lie ?

Show me real evidence of severe structural damage.

Did firefighters actually say they saw actual bombs and them exploding? Or were they saying things like: It sounded like bombs going off! It sounded like an explosion. I heard pops that reminded me of bombs, and I thought there maybe bombs here!

You really should study up on human speech, and specifically similes. Sounded like, felt like, looked like. Those dont mean squat to what it actually was. It is a comparison to something familiar. A tornado is said to sound like a freight train going through a house. Was there a freight train going through the house? (Maybe if it was an EF-5 which threw a train into a house, but lets not get into semantics) Or describing a tornado strike like a bomb going off. Did a bomb really go off in the tornado? It seems you have a lot of studying to do: human speech and dialogue, reading comprehension, fire fighting safety and signs of collapse. I'd get cracking!

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I never heard of this "general rule and consensuses for 'bad evidence'" and I completely reject it. I also do not know anyone else who accepts it.

This is what you can classify as a straw man argument.

Hi plb
Do me a favor son and go get one, say it again ONE, shread, piece morsel,
bit, tad, are you with me here son?
ONE FRIGGIN HUNK of evidence concerning the day of 911,
that has been tested in a court of LAW??
hurry back ljb

You want evidence that has been tested in a court of law ? Have you not seen this lot ? :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by RockLobster

 

So why do you believe that there were explosives in WTC7? Where is the evidence it was blown up? None? Well, it didnt happen then. See how that works?

The difference here is that firefighters actually were trained and saw the damage and used their training to make an educated observation that the buildings were in big trouble.

edit on 4/8/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Hi Gen,
Haven't you seen the Barry Jennings tape where he is crawling up and down BLOWN out stairways. EXPLOSIVES. Where he thinks he is climbing over the bodies of dead people. Possibly FIREMEN??? In The CENTER of BUILDING NUMBER SEVEN.
Stop reading those ignorant old made for duffer reports. Catch up to the year 2012 and the TRUTH.

I think it is you who needs to get into 2012. It is quite clear from what Barry Jennings and Michael Hess (who was with him) said that they were trapped by the damage to WTC 7 caused by falling debris from the North Tower.

Barry retracted his statement about stepping over dead bodies in the lobby years ago and Michael Hess has never referred to them :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi plb
Do me a favor son and go get one, say it again ONE, shread, piece morsel,
bit, tad, are you with me here son?
ONE FRIGGIN HUNK of evidence concerning the day of 911,
that has been tested in a court of LAW??
hurry back ljb

What? You require every piece of evidence to be tested in a court of law in order to accept it? Well then, I guess you reject all those truther theories also.
I can give you piles and piles of extremely convincing evidenced that has not been tested in a court of law. But that is all useless to you.

I wonder how you operate in real life. One of your fellow patients in the asylum says: "The milk has gone bad".
you answer: "Oh, has that been tested in a court of law? No? Then I don't believe it."

reply to post by GenRadek


Looking up the word "like" is already in his homework assignment. But I guess he never did homework in his life so I don't expect there to come anything from it.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by thedman

 

I wonder if they ever will suspect the truth: We are paid trolls, but not for the government. We're paid by ATS itself, to drive traffic. They're playing right into our hands!

Happy Easter doc
Which goverment???
And rather than scratch themselves the team of truth rushes on to the field and plays into the tiny HANDS of the retiring OS'ers.
Let's review your IGNORANCE here.
Larry said "Pull IT", not PULLET like an EASTER chick.
You may be partial to trival tripe and spin. Save that for lunch break.
Barry Jennings said bombs must have caused the internal damage to BUILDING SEVEN.
Firemen have no part of "LARRY saying PULL IT" to nobody knows who"
FIREMEN NEVER mention PULL IT once THE ENTIRE DAY OF SEPTEMBER 11 2001.
let's conclude your IGNORANCE here.
ljb

The excerpt below is from an article entitled A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT By Brent Blanchard August 8, 2006

“This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for lmplosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protecservices.com), Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden.”

ASSERTION #7
“WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.” PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

The above assertion has taken several forms over the past few years and has developed into a major point of discussion amongst conspiracy theorists. Most recently, it was used as a cornerstone allegation on C-SPAN’S national broadcast of a 9/11 symposium hosted by Mr. Alex Jones, an author and radio personality who is highly critical of the government’s handling of 9/11.

However, from a demolition standpoint, several aspects of this claim are problematic.

1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.

2. We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

3. Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

4. Saying, “No airplane hit it” implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and impacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20"‘ floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building’s south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. Regardless of the fire’s origin, these flames are clearly visible from all four sides of the structure. With most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate.

5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

6. Finally, we have not discovered or been presented with any physical evidence indicating explosives were used to fell the structure. We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


This so totally hammers down every single truther argument. All experts are against them, but still truthers somehow think they know better, without any relevant education or experience.

However:

This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001,

Aha, so he was part of the conspiracy!


Just being one step ahead in the chain of truther reasoning.

Originally posted by RockLobster
Again with the "LIARS"

How can you beleive them if there is no evidence to back up their claims ?
Why should i believe these men ? because they have badges and save cats from trees ?

Is it wrong to ask questions where you come from ?

This is absurd, and reveals the inanity of the truther perspective. They don't just hand out Fire Chief badges to anyone. Have you any idea what it takes to rise to the position of Fire Chief in the FDNY? It takes a person of extraordinary character to assume such responsibility--you know--the LIVES of both firefighters and civilians. Those officers earned their positions based on their knowledge, competence, experience, and ability to lead. Each of the men you are implicating as liars had earned through hard work and dedication the trust and respect of their companies.

You have reduced them to criminals with badges who "save cats from trees". You could not be more ignorant. These men, by their training, experience, and track records are archetypical "credible witnesses".

Check the FDNY Oral Histories to learn what happened that day. I know of at least seven individual FDNY members who testified that they personally judged that WTC 7 was likely to collapse.

They are:
Cassidy, Tiernach, 9110413
Fellini, Frank, 9110217, p. 3
Goldbach, Ray, 9110150, p. 13-14
Kelty, Eugene, 9110261, p. 11-12
Massa, Vincent, 9110222, p. 17-18
Nigro, Daniel, 9110154, p. 10
McGlynn, James, 9110447, p. 29-30

ALL of these men are liars? Criminals? Accomplices to the mass murder of innocent people, including their own friends and colleagues? It's amazing you believe this based on a "lack of evidence" of damage to WTC 7.

If you need more evidence, have you checked the 700 pages of evidence published by NIST? It's full of photos, witness testimonies, and expert analyses. Or do you dismiss ALL of that also? All liars?

reply to post by -PLB-

Indeed. This is my favorite quote so far:

Originally posted by RockLobster

And yes , i believe that my knowledge and experience in demolition is more credible than the experienced FDNY officers that you insist on quoting. Do you have a problem with that ?

how about that evidence ? do i need to ask for it in another language ?

Regardless of his purported "experience", from someone who wasn't even there that day, this is simply delusional.

Shills never change their spots...

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Shills never change their spots...

Truthers never change their baseless accusations.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Shills never change their spots...

Truthers never change their baseless accusations.

LOL....

Notice the lack of denial of being a shill?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I do enjoy the fact the Sprinkler systems in WTC 7 didnt work that day, or how LARRY S himslef was vacant from the building...

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Shills never change their spots...

Truthers never change their baseless accusations.

LOL....

Notice the lack of denial of being a shill?

And in your world this is some kind of significant evidence, right? Or--wait--a "lack of denial" would be a "lack of evidence". So there is ZERO evidence that I'm not a shill. Therefore I am. Did I get it right?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


As, I read thorugh your post, all I could think of was the Fireman that are totally agaisnt what your are saying... Then as it always comes to mind about WTC 7, as on 911 we all saw it comes down. The question is how do Fireman (PULL A BUILDING) within 6 hours of a EVENT NO BODY WAS SUPPOSED TO KNOW WAS GOING TO OCCUR???? I thought it took professional Demolishin Experts weeks if not months to properly plan a 47 story structure like WTC 7 to fall????


Yeah your right a couple of local fires inside jumped onto support columns and made it fall into its own footprint,, gee what was I thinking...