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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 37
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
An industrial building built to withstand the forces from the weight and vibration of the operating machinery of a feed mill was somehow not as strong as an office building?


The main comparison should be between a skyscraper that followed NYC code, and thus could carry some 250% of all expected loads for one whole week without failures, and this concrete building. The WTC towers could have had duplicates stacked on top of themselves, and then another half of each tower further stacked on, and for a whole week there would not be any failures. This is the law for skyscrapers in NYC. I'm not so sure that that comparatively simplistic concrete building could do the same. The issue is gravity loads anyway, not ability to withstand vibrations.




posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
WTC 7 was demolished,
Larry silverstein (wtc leaseholder) says it himself,
"the smartest thing to do is pull it"

source

[edit on 033131p://3616 by iamian]

[edit on 033131p://3916 by iamian]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The main comparison should be between a skyscraper that followed NYC code, and thus could carry some 250% of all expected loads for one whole week without failures, and this concrete building.


Fine. What loads do you expect in an office building as compared to a feed mill?

What weighs more, an office full of accountants or a bin full of cattle feed?


I think it would be more accurate to compare the relative strengths of the building structures.

The feed mill was a compact, concrete structure built to handle large and constantly shifting loads and the vibration of heavy grain handling equipment.

The WTC towers were built to handle loads that were relatively small in comparison to the building as a whole. They were built to sway in the wind. At the topping out party, a band was playing the Mexican Hat Dance in the “Top of the World” restaurant. The floor began to bounce so alarmingly, that they had to stop the band from playing that song.




[edit on 4-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
WTC 7 was demolished,
Larry silverstein (wtc leaseholder) says it himself,
"the smartest thing to do is pull it"


The firemen were talking about pulling out and not fighting the fires in the building due to the structural damage caused to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

This subject has been discussed too many times to get into again.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The issue is gravity loads anyway, not ability to withstand vibrations.


Was there not a small *ahem* vibration when the top floors of the building started to collapse?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by iamian
WTC 7 was demolished,
Larry silverstein (wtc leaseholder) says it himself,
"the smartest thing to do is pull it"


The firemen were talking about pulling out and not fighting the fires in the building due to the structural damage caused to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

This subject has been discussed too many times to get into again.


No you ignorent oath, i said Larry silverstein the leaseholder of the WTC buildings, the guy who got the insurence payout, not the firemen, dont quote me when you dont know what your talking about!



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian

Originally posted by iamian
No you ignorent oath, i said Larry silverstein the leaseholder of the WTC buildings, the guy who got the insurence payout, not the firemen, dont quote me when you dont know what your talking about!


(Emphasis added)
You really should check your spelling, grammar and punctuation carefully before you call someone “ignorant.”


And just who was Larry Silverstein talking to when he made that remark?

A demolition contractor?


[edit on 4-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary that they decided to 'pull' Building 7

windows

quicktime



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The firemen were talking about pulling out and not fighting the fires in the building due to the structural damage caused to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

This subject has been discussed too many times to get into again.


No you ignorent oath[sic], i said Larry silverstein[sic] the leaseholder of the WTC buildings, the guy who got the insurence[sic] payout, not the firemen, dont[sic] quote me when you dont[sic] know what your[sic] talking about!


Actually Larry says in the video:


"I remember getting a call from the, er, 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."
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Notice 'they' made the decision to pull, which was preceeded by "getting a call from the, er, fire department commander". Hence the firemen effectively did say it.

"dont quote him when you dont know what your talking about! "

EDIT:

Nice tactic, instead of seeing the more relevant actual clip of what Silverstein said, you link us to over 20 minutes of crud. Nice tactic... Does it actually have the recording of what Silverstein said anywhere in there? Who was it Alex Jones, whoever it was the only bit I saw (though I hardly watched any of the stomach churning drivel) was him saying that Silverstein said he was going ot blow it up. His tactics are interesting, you should check out my thread on Derren Browns mind control techniques - this guy seems to like using similar ones...

Here is a link with what he actually says, as detailed above:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Various people (including firefighters) have already explained that the term means 'to pull the firemen out' in firefighter terms. It's pretty obvious what the context is in this case as it does say "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander[....]" but sadly this doesn't apply when it endangers the conspiracy theory.

Now watch the dis-information agent accusations fly


[edit on 4-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
all i did was post a link about Larry Silerstein, your like the defenders of the anti conspiracy faith, disagree and you get burned.

Agentsmith, i'm just flabbergasted with anything you say.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
i gno rent oath. cute.

anyway.

'pull out', or 'pull back' is the commonly understood jingo used by firemen. not 'pull it'.
as was previously discussed, and 'debunked' 'many times'.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
So why was the Fire Department making decisions to demolish buildings? Is that usually up to them? Didn't the Fire Department think it odd that the building was wired up to be demolished on their say, or are they in on it too?
Obviously Silverstein who was clever enough to mastermind such a plan was too stupid to remember that it isn't a good idea to talk about it on international TV.

He has stated exactly what he meant, but I guess he's obviously lying when he says that, he was only telling the truth when the meaning of his words could be twisted

Hell, it was only himself that said it anyway, what would he know about what he meant...

Obviously as the link is to a Government site, it must automatically all be lies too.


In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

usinfo.state.gov...


[edit on 5-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Was there not a small *ahem* vibration when the top floors of the building started to collapse?


I suppose gravity did that? Mini-earthquake in the WTC?

Btw, anybody heard of Indira Singh?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i gno rent oath. cute.

anyway.

'pull out', or 'pull back' is the commonly understood jingo used by firemen. not 'pull it'.
as was previously discussed, and 'debunked' 'many times'.


once again i repeate the oath statement again, open your eyes and read before quoting anything i say.
whats wrong with you ppl??????????

the fire department called J Silverstein, " hello mr silver , what do we do?"

mr silver, PULL IT!,

MOD, you've give me a warning without any reason, its as though friends stick together on this board, how crass is that.

I deny you , i deny the PROFANE,



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Ah yes of course how stupid of me, because we all know that the Fire Department handles demolitions..

Not only that but you and everyone else that entertains the 'pull it = demolition' idea obviously know what Mr Silverstein meant more than he does - what would he know after all...

[edit on 5-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Agentsmith, isn't that the character from the Matrix, the annoying one who never goes away?

my advise to ppl is dont talk on the 9/11 threads, becouse you just get press ganged, or spoken too rudely.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
Agentsmith, isn't that the character from the Matrix, the annoying one who never goes away?


Yes that's me alright




my advise to ppl is dont talk on the 9/11 threads, becouse you just get press ganged, or spoken too rudely.


emm, so calling people ignorant oafs and such is not rude then... Uh OK. So you know what people mean better than they do AND you also don't class your own rude behaviour as being so.
I also notice that anyone who doesn't agree with all the alternative theories is automatically working for the authorities - it couldn't be because it's their opinon of course.. Or because they arn't desperate to twist everything into a conspiracy.

Riiiighht....




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Jeez, no matter what exactly silverstein alluded to with his comment, the fact remains that he, unlike everyone else at the time [speaking officially], expected it to fail, or else he'd have most likely preferred the firemen put out those fires which were slowly consuming his property. This indicates that he wanted to minimize casualties, but also that he had a seemingly all encompassing understanding of when the structure would come down, again, unlike everyone else [speaking officially]. So skip the linguistics and ponder that...



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I have a theory on the "pull it" quote. Maybe Silverstein miss quoted himself in the PBS documentary? I mean, since he is not a fireman and wouldn't be that familiar with the jargon. It was a year later after all. Does anyone here remember the exact words from a conversation a year ago? Granted that conversation would kinda stick in your mind more than most, but maybe he just slipped up when he said "pull it" as oppossed to "pull out". And now he doesn't want to look like a fool, that's why he doesn't talk about the slipup?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
This indicates that he wanted to minimize casualties, but also that he had a seemingly all encompassing understanding of when the structure would come down, again, unlike everyone else [speaking officially]. So skip the linguistics and ponder that...


I've read that the firemen are the ones who suggested it may collapse in the first place, so what gives?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join