Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
You forgot that a building collapsed large chunks of steel into WTC 7's side? Again, nothing like 9/11 has EVER happened before or since.

And that caused a perfectly symmetrical complete structural failure, identical to a controlled demolition. Oky Doky..ya got me.....

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia

 

Okay i now know your a complete and utter Idiot....

This is why we're not keen on posting tons of evidence OVER AND OVER.
This is how people like yourself respond.
Instead of disagreeing in an adult manner and/or with science, you call someone an idiot.
Your argument is so weak that you must divert away from it with childish insults? REALLY???

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by Varemia

 

Originally posted by Varemia
You forgot that a building collapsed large chunks of steel into WTC 7's side? Again, nothing like 9/11 has EVER happened before or since.

And that caused a perfectly symmetrical complete structural failure, identical to a controlled demolition. Oky Doky..ya got me.....

edit on 10-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

Look at the shape and size of the building.
What did you expect to happen with a complete structural failure of the building? Did you actually think it would just tip over on it's side? regardless of how the damage was caused?

reply to post by jfj123

The point is there would not have been a complete structural failure of the building. I tend to concur with Varemia's assessment of your logic. What is your explanation of Silverstein's statement of 'pulling' the building, or of BBC's 'premonition' of WTC 7's collapse?

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123

 

The point is there would not have been a complete structural failure of the building. I tend to concur with Varemia's assessment of your logic. What is your explanation of Silverstein's statement of 'pulling' the building, or of BBC's 'premonition' of WTC 7's collapse?

By pulling, he meant that they were "pulling the firefighters out of the area". The guy that said that explained it in an interview.

Also, the BBC "premonition" wasn't a premonition at all. Firefighter KNEW the building would be collapsing around 2 pm, and the building came down at 5:25. Because BBC heard that the area had been evacuated for the building to collapse safely, they accidentally reported that it had already collapsed.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia

 

Okay i now know your a complete and utter Idiot....the video shows absolute clear evidence of explosions on all levels simultaneously. right at mark 1:42 thanks for the video and confirmation...and the video was posted showing that exact result do you not read the postings for the video....then you make a absolutely rediculous statment about ONE column failure which would have the complete opposite effect to a building coming down evenly...stick to your Anthropology.
You have contradicted yourself over and over throughout this thread...and you still continue with it. right at the mark i stated watch the whole series of explosions .....that is not ejections from the collapse as the building is failing simultaneaously.
what you have proof of is a controlled demolition...and if you had even bothered to read the posts on the vid itself you would have understood that.
you ask why i might be using such harsh words on you ,it is so you might stop with your crud and trying to just only see things one possible way.
Wake up as you have no idea what your saying....and you have no concept of building demolition just by the word you used.
One column failing.... OMG

Look at this video I made MYSELF. It shows the column failure:

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123

 

The point is there would not have been a complete structural failure of the building. I tend to concur with Varemia's assessment of your logic. What is your explanation of Silverstein's statement of 'pulling' the building, or of BBC's 'premonition' of WTC 7's collapse?

How do you know there would not have been a complete structural failure? Specifically, how do you KNOW ?

Simple. When actually taken in context, he simply meant pull everyone back and let it fall.
Pulling is not a term used in CD.

reply to post by jfj123

So, "pull it" is not a term used in controlled demolitions, according to you.

That must mean you are in controlled demolitions. This is what you do, right? If not, how did you come across this information?

Could you enlighten me on the slang that IS used?

Your whole premise is laughable. The job of a CD is to pull it. Bring it down. Is any employee going to go to their job and ask, "do we pull it"?

Um, yes sh*t head, what are we here for?

Let's pretend, while we are in this fantasy, that Silverstein was a fireman! Not only that, HE was the chief! HE was going to issue the command, because every party involved was reporting to HIM. But, like a good chief, he seeks the advice of his men on the job. What does he report as to the reason why he decides to "pull it"?

"We have had such an enormous loss of life......"

Back to your premise. Pull it. Not a term used by "controlled demolition" people. Is "cook it" a term used by cooks? Is "grow it" a term used at a nursery? What else can you tell us! I am all ears.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by jfj123

 

So, "pull it" is not a term used in controlled demolitions, according to you.

That must mean you are in controlled demolitions. This is what you do, right? If not, how did you come across this information?

So you are in controlled demolition and you know it IS a term used? This is what YOU do?

Um, yes sh*t head, what are we here for?

Again with the childish insults You are amusing

Let's pretend, while we are in this fantasy, that Silverstein was a fireman! Not only that, HE was the chief! HE was going to issue the command, because every party involved was reporting to HIM. But, like a good chief, he seeks the advice of his men on the job. What does he report as to the reason why he decides to "pull it"?

Again, when taken into context with his entire statement, he's referring to ceasing all activity that might save the building because of the state it was in. I'm not sure how you can't get this from his statement ??? Later on he even explains his statement. Why don't you believe him?

What else can you tell us! I am all ears.

Actually you seem to be all mouth. Unfortunately, you're not all common sense. What a shame that you will ignore something right in front of you so you can continue believing in your fantasy.

Here's larry silversteins recount of what happened.



debunking the "pull it" phrase. Watch the video.
www.liveleak.com...


As stated in the video,
the following demolitions companies were contacted and asked if "pull it" was a term used in the demolitions industry. All 11 said it was not nor has it ever been a term used in the industry.
Brandenburg industrial services
Vaccaro construction
Drop-a-box
A-1 affordable construction
Jersey shore
Bluegrass
EJB global
Demolition Consultants
Robinette Demolition
Cutting Technologies
Controlled demolition

But of course all this info will be discounted as fake by "truthers" ....ironic name huh ?

reply to post by Varemia

Your video? Seems to be based strictly on your personal observations. Your explanation of BBC premonition? Please provide the documentation for your claim.

In terms of the claim of Silverstein 'pull it' comment not referring to the buildings demolition...

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that 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, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Later, in the same PBS documentary a statement by a Ground Zero worker seems to support the demolition theory:
.'.. we're getting ready to pull the building six'.

Here's what Controlled Demolitions, Inc said:
(Remember that Controlled Demolitions, Inc was hired to help with the clean up at ground zero.)

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes? CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.
Audio here: www.pumpitout.com...

You people are hilarious! Still arguing over 9/11. 9 years has elapsed and the cover up continues. The perpetrators have a large network of loyalists who troll message boards supporting the official lie. They also control mass media and script their talking heads to support the official lie. So who were the perpetrators of 9/11? Determine which group of people control the mass media and there is your answer.

reply to post by FelicityJones

Ya'know, I think you are right. I am fairly new here on ATS, and I have noticed there are a few members here, supporters of the Official Story of 911, who seem to be suspiciously 'married' to their views. They seem to not be able to reason in a rational manner. These are most likely the 'trolls' you refer to. Thanks for the 'heads up', I am sure I will learn soon who to debate with, and who to ignore.....

I'd say the 9/11 issue is not going to go away, as it is just starting to pick up massive steam. However, there is no reason to panic, the more you start to think of it as 'nonsense' the more it will just hurt your brain. Maybe ask people why they feel 9/11 was a conspiracy. You perhaps do not believe there is any evidence, but they obviously must believe there is evidence, otherwise they wouldn't believe it!

reply to post by jfj123


It's ridiculous to assume that when Silverstein said "pull it" he was referring to pulling fire fighters out of the building. Since when did he have the authority to remove fire fighters from a building? And since when does anyone refer to fire fighters as "it" ?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Cobra.EXE
you all think somebody in the mountains with a towel on his head financed the most elaborate attack on the greatest nation known to man that has no fly zones.

and you cant find him?!

Better than that. They don't even want him!

FBI says it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

I'm just wondering...If you don't believe the governments official story, why would you believe what the FBI says? If this conspiracy is as far reaching as you say it is, how can you accept any official statement or document as true?

I'm just wondering...If you don't believe the governments official story, why would you believe what the FBI says? If this conspiracy is as far reaching as you say it is, how can you accept any official statement or document as true?

I think you are missing the point. The fact that the OS and the FBI are not on the same page is evidence that there IS a conspiracy...just maybe not as far reaching as many assume...

reply to post by jambatrumpet


You do realize that by pull it, they mean to "pull it down," as in physically? They sometimes literally attach cables and pull a building down or rip out an essential part. They never use pull in association with explosives.

As for verifying the statement, just listen to the people in the various newscasts about building 7. Just about all of them had prior knowledge that it was going to collapse. Are they all omniscient or was it made well known that the area was cleared so that the building would collapse with a minor loss of life. And, in fact, when WTC 7 finally came down, no one died. Magic, or smart people that could see that the building was in serious danger of collapse?



Also, about 3:30 you can see an interesting view of the collapse that shows that it wasn't exactly the most perfectly symmetrical fall. Sure, for some reason whoever did the video cut the penthouse collapse out of almost every single clip included in the video, but it shows the gist of it all, and listening to the real-time reactions is very revealing about what people knew it was going to collapse. Many even allude to how they thought it must have been demolitions, but it was all speculation at that point. The newscasters had no idea if it was demolished or fell as a result of the events that day.

I'd like to know who controlled demo'd the buildings. Symmetrical free fall collapse can only occur when multiple support columns that span the floor are severed simultaneously. Not weakened, but severed completely. Random office fires that move from room to room and burn out cannot sever multiple support columns at the exact same time. It is impossible. Only a controlled demolition can do such.

It's your wake up call people. It's do or die. 9/11 was a fraud. Unless the 9/11 fraud is exposed and all events based upon this fraud are reversed, you will forever be enslaved by the perpetrators.

Originally posted by FelicityJones
I'd like to know who controlled demo'd the buildings. Symmetrical free fall collapse can only occur when multiple support columns that span the floor are severed simultaneously. Not weakened, but severed completely. Random office fires that move from room to room and burn out cannot sever multiple support columns at the exact same time. It is impossible. Only a controlled demolition can do such.

It's your wake up call people. It's do or die. 9/11 was a fraud. Unless the 9/11 fraud is exposed and all events based upon this fraud are reversed, you will forever be enslaved by the perpetrators.

How many times has it been said? All the columns didn't fail simultaneously! One failed, and the floors inside collapsed inward like taking a middle card out of a multi-story three column card stack (ignoring the horizontal balance needed to keep it standing of course). It was because the exterior design of the building was meant to hold most of the load that it remained standing until the inner collapse blew out the base.

In part of the video I posted above, a man was saying, "the bottom floor finally went, and a second later the whole building came down."