Congressman Confronted On CSPAN "The Evidence That WTC Building-7 Was Brought Down With Explosives

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


It was implied in what you wrote. Feel free to correct me. But if I was a betting man I'd wager you haven't.




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


I asked you to quote.. I know you know how to, show me where I implied I have not read it please.
Place your wager while you are at it as well



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


The implication in what you wrote was that it was more incumbent upon him to have read it because of his job. I took this to be a partial explanation of the fact - and therefore an implication - that you hadn't read it.

Certainly it suggests that you feel more at liberty to hold an opinion without having read it than the Congressman should. That remains inexplicable to me, since it's you that is flinging around accusations.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


The implication in what you wrote was that it was more incumbent upon him to have read it because of his job. I took this to be a partial explanation of the fact - and therefore an implication - that you hadn't read it.

Certainly it suggests that you feel more at liberty to hold an opinion without having read it than the Congressman should. That remains inexplicable to me, since it's you that is flinging around accusations.


You are 100% correct in that i was implying it was more incumbent for him to read to it as I laid out before, part of his civic duty.

How that correlates to a "partial explanation of the fact" that I didn't read it still escapes me.....
It is an outrage that he can defend something that he hasn't read, so since i am outraged at that it means I didn't read it??? I am missing the steps on how that imply's I didn't read it....
If i was defending him then I could see what your are getting at....I am not....
Until you can prove I didn't read anything, don't read between the lines to 'imply' that I did or didn't.
Other wise your just flinging those accusations right back



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


I still don't think you've read it.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

jaws1975
reply to post by samkent
 


How is it taken out of context, it's pretty clear what he said "pull it", he didn't say pull them. It just so happens that is the lingo for bringing down a structure in the demo business, so how exactly was it taken out of context? Also, that video could be used in a court of law as evidence, so anybody spouting about lack of evidence there you go.


Google is your friend:

Debunking pull-it


Silverstein's Quote:

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

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


Read the rest of the page it clearly lays down how these comments were taken out of context.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


I still don't think you've read it.

And you are more then welcome to that opinion but don't go around stating i didn't read it as a fact if you can't prove it.

You can go around and try and "imply" all you want, and you fail to quote anything that remotely suggest that i haven't read it.
Please continue with your one line response's... Have you read the T&C?



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Why would the fire chief need to call the building owner to ask him if he should pull his men out? That is a decision the fire chief should be making based on what is good for his men not what is good for the building owner wants....
And there really isn't a good track record of the chief agreeing that he made that call..

911blogger.com...



Silverstein claims he spoke with the NYC “fire department commander” on 9/11, which was Chief Daniel Nigro. However, Daniel Nigro has confirmed that he did not speak to Silverstein on 9/11:

1. “I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein’s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day, and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn’t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY; it just means that I am not aware of it.”

2. To date, not a single member of the FDNY has corroborated Silverstein’s story.
When members of the group We Are Change confronted Silverstein about his comments, he commented that he received the call from the FDNY at around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m.3 However, according to the NIST report of WTC7, the decision to pull the firefighters away from the area surrounding Building 7 occurred at 2:30 p.m.4 This clearly contradicts Silverstein’s account of events.

3. According to mainstream journalist and 9/11 eyewitness Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein discussed demolishing Building 7 on 9/11 with his insurance carrier. This report was sourced not by FDNY officials but by NYPD officers and ConEd employees. Bizarrely, Shapiro seems to think that his claim exonerates Silverstein and that it somehow removes the mystery about how the building came down symmetrically and in freefall without explosives.5


So we have mismatched timelines and a chief that says he never made the call... And again, why would he call the building owner? What authority does silverstien have over the fire dept? Sure it is his building be he doesn't decide how long the firefighters stay or go, if time was so precious why was time just getting the thoughts of the owner when they really don't have any authority of the decision..



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sremmos80
 


You are misinterpreting this quote:


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

It kind of sounds like the Fire Department commander called Silverstein for direction about what to do in the building, but if you read it carefully you can see that the Fire Department commander was just appraising Silverstein of the situation in the building and Silverstein just offered his opinion about it which the FD agreed with. You can tell this, thanks to this line in the quote:


And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

The Fire Department is still credited with making the decision to withdraw here showing that they merely just agreed with Silverstein's idea. The Fire Department probably would have still made that decision even if Silverstein hadn't given them his opinion or gave him them an opinion opposite of what was said.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


So ignore the source of mine that says he never made that call? The time inconsistencies are more then just misreading a quote.
Still doesn't explain WHY he called him, again silverstien has no say in if the firefighters stay in that building, why would the commander waste the time just to tell him they are doing something if regardless of what he says, nothing is going to change.
Of course silverstien is going to say let it fall, he stands to make billions if it gets destroyed by fire, he probably never wanted them to start fighting the fires.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





I would also add that I personally have not seen any evidence (and i mean real evidence not conspiracy theorist rhetoric) that WTC-7 was brought down by explosives that the caller suggests exists.


I have an AWESOME idea.......then... PROVE FIRE DID!!! ....as claimed.

since you are touting the official claims ALL over ATS, tell me HOW FIRE ALONE removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds, when we see the kink form, so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy was available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

specially since 2005 NIST found NO scientific reason WHY these three buildings fell on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


yet, for SOME reason, the 2008 NIST is allowed to *IGNORE* their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as *NO OTHER* building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
*ONE*, that will show them the fraud they are, and *TWO*,because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.





top topics
 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant