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

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Why is anyone bothering to debate GoodOlDave? This guy is a disinfo troll and a mainstream dupe. This guy doesn't know anything. Hey Dave, if you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracies, why do you put so much effort into refuting and debunking the alternative theories?

There, you see? boogeymen coming to get you. Fire fighters are in on the conspiracy. The FBI, the CIA, and the NYPD are in on the conspiracy. NIST, FEMA, MIT, and Perdue are all in on it. The FAA, NATO and NORAD are in on the conspiracy. I've even heard some people accuse the Red Cross of being in on the conspiracy. So, of course- BIG SURPRISE- I'm in on the conspiracy too. research. It's a religious zeal to convert others into believing what you want to believe regardless of whether it's even true or not...and you actually need to ask why I'm debunking these theories of yours? ]

Hello again davy

I shortened your rant a little to be able to make some observations.
Now in this thread
What member said there were boogie men?
What member said firefighters were in on it?
Which member mentioned MIT?
" " " Perdue?
" " " NATO?
" " " Red Cross?
Never leave these threads davo there is noone as easy.
don't go, please stay ljb

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Funnily though I do recall Larry said his people were in the building in the afternoon checking out the damage but it wasn't the fire department, so it was probably his own so called 'security' team. WTC7 was on fire before the afternoon as the north tower was down by 10:30...

Just a wild guess here, but that could be the 'they' he was referring to when he said 'they' made the decision to 'pull'?

reply to post by ANOK


I take you didn't know the answer to my extremely simple physics question? You again demonstrated you don't understand any physics by not answering (at least according to your flawed logic).

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

What member said firefighters were in on it?

If you think building seven was a demolition then a large number of the firefighters must be in on it. They said they thought it would collapse and it did. They remain unsurprised that it came down to this day.

So if it was indeed a demolition then they are lying and must be covering up the conspiracy. Most people find this very unlikely.

World Trade Center
2009 November | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”–
Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
–Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”
–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York at the end of 2001, were not publicly released

search.yahoo....**http%3a//911caper.com/2009/11/

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

What member said firefighters were in on it?

If you think building seven was a demolition then a large number of the firefighters must be in on it. They said they thought it would collapse and it did. They remain unsurprised that it came down to this day.

So if it was indeed a demolition then they are lying and must be covering up the conspiracy. Most people find this very unlikely.

tricks
Yeah sure
Actually the ones trying to indite firemen is you and your Merry Band of BEND.
you all fail badly
toodgles ljb

Fire in WTC 7 before WTC 1, and 2, collapsed?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

tricks
Yeah sure
Actually the ones trying to indite firemen is you and your Merry Band of BEND.
you all fail badly
toodgles ljb

Nope. It's you who is slandering the fire personnel.

Either that or you're just ignoring the implications of your silly ideas. Either because you're not clever enough to work them out properly, or more likely because they make the maintenance of your prejudices a little bit harder.

Still, top work freedom fighter.

Originally posted by ReconX
Fire in WTC 7 before WTC 1, and 2, collapsed?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen someone get starred for.

The majority of the fire was visible from the South side of the building. Where do you think all the smoke came from?

Edit: My bad, read it wrong. It's still dumb. That's the sun. It reflects on glass, in case you were wondering.

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

So do you have any proof that larry and the fire marshall talked? Just curious if it exists.

No I don't, but it's a given that someone from the fire department would have reached out to him to tell him they were writing off the building, particularly with a major building like that. They wouldn't have just abandoned the building and have Silverstein find out about it on the evening news. It almost certainly wasn't the fire commanders themselves though since they definitely had more important things to worry about at the time than Silverstein. It was probably some liason or spokesman representing fire command and it was almost certainly the case they were specifically telling him they were abandoning the building, rather than asking him for directions.

The point is, just becuase Silverstein was embellishing the conversation he had with the fire department it doesn't mean it's any sign of some sinister secret plot to take over the world. All it means is that he's in the business of self promotion.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

tricks
Yeah sure
Actually the ones trying to indite firemen is you and your Merry Band of BEND.
you all fail badly
toodgles ljb

Nope. It's you who is slandering the fire personnel.

Either that or you're just ignoring the implications of your silly ideas. Either because you're not clever enough to work them out properly, or more likely because they make the maintenance of your prejudices a little bit harder.

Still, top work freedom fighter.

Hi tricks,
Thanks for the comp on the work.
But I still gotsta do this
Don't worry I'll try to get you some cred if you switch over.
I hope your SUP don't see this one.
hold on Buckaroo


posted on 3/26/2012 @ 10:29 PM this post

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


Hi trick,

Rather than just reply with this I ain't got no idea nonsence (but I do think there is a lot of truth there)
Why don't you quote me and address me with your personal perplexities.


Very well. With some trepidation...


Longjohnbritches said this

First of all do you know that the most dangerous job (liget job I mean) is being a fire fighter. My heart aches for the valient, honest, sincere,
totally incredible individuals that put thier lives above thier own families welfare to save the likes of you and others that would and will wallow in thier GLORY.
Humph Perhaps that is why I am here.
Let's get back on topic. Has there been a trial or is there one slated to vinticate any or all of the miligned of 911????
and if you do not mind. Take a breath and spill your guts not some damn fool websites impression but one from your heart tricks.
I know you can do this


Time for retirement ole chap
May the good Lord take alikin to ya
ljb

reply to post by ReconX


I'm pretty sure that that photo shows not building seven, but the world financial center,

In the September 11 attacks One World Financial Center had a massive piece of steel shot into its west side and other debris severely damaged the lobby and lower floors making One World Financial Center was severely damaged and in danger of collapse. It has been fully restored and significant repairs were made to the other buildings in the complex. The Winter Garden had received major structural damage to the glass and steel frame but was ceremonially reopened on September 11, 2002.[4]

from wikipedia.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
heh, again that's a bad analogy of what Larry is saying. A better one is comparing it like someone admitting yes they cheated on their wife and we have the evidence that suggested it (lipstick on the collar) but protecting the identity of his lover by saying 'oh it was some hooker i didn't know' when in fact it's his wife's best friend. It's credible that he cheated yes, but not credible that it was 'some hooker' purely because he said so...

I don't see your point. From start to finish Silverstein said he was concernd with the tremendous loss of life and although I don't believe he had any say in what the fire department did, he obviously agreed with their decision. YOU on the other hand are attempting to reinterpret this whole thing into sounding like some sinister secret plot to blow up a bunch of occupied buildings while the people were still inside them, as well as a scheme between him and the fire department to intentionally cover up the plot. You're trying to go literally to the exact opposite end of the spectrum of what actually happened so your analogy isn't even remotely applicable.

Not in laymen's terms, I demonstrated that a few posts back. I believe Larry meant pull it down, like when a building is brought down purposefully.

...but that's your own personal belif, basd upon your own desire for these conspiracy claims to be true. From actual references it shows "pull it" refers to pulling a structure down with cables, and besides, fire fighters aren't even involved in demolitions. If you're going to use your own personal opinions to rewrite events to your liking then Judy Wood's followers can equally say "pull it" referred to "pulling the switch on the orbital lasers that disintergrated the building", because they don't need to sneak in the word "down" while noone is looking like you do. If you require no tangible evidence to back up your statements then neither does anyone else.

I'm sorry, but I need to stick with the facts, ad the facts shows that "pull it" referred to controlled demolitions is a made up internet meme.

...but since Chief Nigro and deputy Chief Hayden were physically there and they both give thumbs down to these controlled demolitions claims

So did I to begin with..

...which means that one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites threw a lot of sexy sounding drivel to seduce you into believing this bit, because it would take a quite polished snow job to get you to believe something other than what professionals in the building saving business who were physically there are saying. Regardless of who it was, you have to know Nigro and Hayden were there- the people spinning these conspiracy stories weren't.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I take you didn't know the answer to my extremely simple physics question? You again demonstrated you don't understand any physics by not answering (at least according to your flawed logic).

What question, I have no idea what you're talking about? I've gone back 4 pages and see no question addressed to me from you.

Please be more specific.

I don't think I would have any problem answering your question.

reply to post by ANOK


Nice dodge. You must by way to busy with your exciting real life, I can understand.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ReconX

 

I'm pretty sure that that photo shows not building seven, but the world financial center,

In the September 11 attacks One World Financial Center had a massive piece of steel shot into its west side and other debris severely damaged the lobby and lower floors making One World Financial Center was severely damaged and in danger of collapse. It has been fully restored and significant repairs were made to the other buildings in the complex. The Winter Garden had received major structural damage to the glass and steel frame but was ceremonially reopened on September 11, 2002.[4]

from wikipedia.

No it's WTC 7.

reply to post by ReconX


I see. I was confused by one of the WFC buildings in the foreground, along with the WFC winter garden dome. This might be interesting, but I'd like some more photos of this event, or some clearer ones before I'm convinced that it's fire.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Nice dodge. You must by way to busy with your exciting real life, I can understand.

Huh? Again I have no idea what you're talking about. I have seen no question.

Ask the question again, or shut up.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia

 

So sad. We've already covered all this, many times.

It's already been explained why fire could not have caused the collapse into its own footprint.

Not hearing explosives does not change the final outcome of the collapse, what happened during the collapse is not as important as how the collapse finished up. Post collapse pics do not lie, they show the final outcome of the collapse is not compatible with a natural collapse.

Sorry but again you refuse to address the points I make. Do you actually follow the debate?

When are you going to explain how a building can fall mostly in its own footprint from fire? You need to explain how the outer walls can be on top of the rest of the collapsed building if it didn't collapse straight down. You should be able to do that using simple physics if what you claim is true. Where is it?

I notice you like to make statements as matters of fact, deliver them with a tone of authority, allude to "simple physics", explain Newton’s laws, make declarations of impossibilities, etc. Do you really think you're impressing anyone? These are all the telltale signs of dis-info. Reality is never so simple.

How can you state that it’s “impossible” for a building to collapse into its own footprint “naturally”? Is this an absolute? It depends on what one means by “naturally”, and would also depend on the design of the building and the nature of the collapse. It also depends on what you mean by “collapse into its own footprint”. How much lateral movement or rotation is allowed in your definition of that term?

If you would like an explanation by professionals of how it could have been possible for WTC 7 to collapse as it did, check, as an example, the Nov., 2007 issue of “Stucture Magazine”:

Or the NIST article published in the Jan 2012 issue of “Journal of Structural Engineering”; Vol. 138 Issue 1, p109-117:

Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the structural analysis approach used and results obtained during the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to model the sequence of fire-induced damage and failures leading to the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7). The structural analysis required a two-phased approach to address both the gradual response of the structure to fire before collapse initiation (approximately 4 h) and the rapid response of the structure during the collapse process (approximately 15 s). This paper emphasizes the first phase, a pseudostatic (implicit) analysis that simulated the response of structural elements to fires that spread and grew over several hours and presents key aspects of the second phase, a dynamic (explicit) analysis that used the first-phase damage as initial conditions and simulated the progression of structural failures that resulted in global collapse. The analyses accounted for (1) geometric nonlinearities; (2) temperature-dependent nonlinear materials behavior for both members and connections (including thermal expansion, degradation of stiffness, yield and ultimate strength, and creep); and (3) sequential failure of structural framing and connections. Analysis uncertainty was addressed by determining rational bounds on the complex set of input conditions and by running several multiphase analyses within those bounds. The structural response from each analysis was compared to the observed collapse behavior. This approach allowed evaluation of fire-induced damage, sequential component failures, and progression of component and subsystem failures through global collapse of WTC 7.

What’s my point? There are experts and professionals in the field who believe a “natural” collapse is possible based on legitimate research. They developed a theory, created a model, and tested it. Then they published their research in a peer-reviewed journal, subjecting their work to the scrutiny of other professionals in the field. Their work has been criticized by some, but accepted as credible by most.

On what research do you base your claims? If you, with your post-collapse photos theory, have incontrovertible mathematical (physics) PROOF that WTC 7 could not have fallen as it did without explosives, then you hold THE smoking gun, solving a major piece of the crime of the century. So why are you dicking around on ATS with this knowledge, debating with lay people? Why are you not working out your equations (the “simple physics”), writing up your thesis, and submitting it to a professional journal, or at least to a credible professional in the field who can assist you in getting your work published?

I think we all know why.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I notice you like to make statements as matters of fact, deliver them with a tone of authority, allude to "simple physics", explain Newton’s laws, make declarations of impossibilities, etc. Do you really think you're impressing anyone? These are all the telltale signs of dis-info. Reality is never so simple.

LOL If you don't like my posts then stop reading and responding to them, it's that simple mate. I know you don't like my posts because you don't know how to reply to them.

How can you state that it’s “impossible” for a building to collapse into its own footprint “naturally”? Is this an absolute? It depends on what one means by “naturally”, and would also depend on the design of the building and the nature of the collapse. It also depends on what you mean by “collapse into its own footprint”. How much lateral movement or rotation is allowed in your definition of that term?

Because it is. If you think it can then you simply fail to understand why, I have explained it many times and yet not one of you have actually addressed what I say with any physics that contradict what I say.

If you would like an explanation by professionals of how it could have been possible for WTC 7 to collapse as it did.

No actually I don't, I want to debate you, not someone else through you. You are the one here claiming I'm wrong, so address my point with your own knowledge, not someone else's that you obvioulsy think is correct simply because it's from an 'authority'.

What’s my point? There are experts and professionals in the field who believe a “natural” collapse is possible based on legitimate research. They developed a theory, created a model, and tested it. Then they published their research in a peer-reviewed journal, subjecting their work to the scrutiny of other professionals in the field. Their work has been criticized by some, but accepted as credible by many.

So you have NO idea yourself if I am right or not. I'm hear to debate you not your 'experts'. Many experts agree with me. But who cares I am an EXPERT. You have no idea who I am.

On what research do you base your claims? If you, with your post-collapse photos theory, have incontrovertible mathematical (physics) PROOF that WTC 7 could not have fallen as it did without explosives, then you hold THE smoking gun, solving a major piece of the crime of the century. So why are you dicking around on ATS with this knowledge, debating with lay people? Why are you not working out your equations (the “simple physics”), writing up your thesis, and submitting it to a professional journal, or at least to a credible professional in the field who can assist you in getting your work published?

My own education mate. I don't need someone else to tell me what is right or wrong, or what to think.

Maths is not required to see the obvious. You all seem to fall back to this whenever you have nothing else.

I'm not in this debate to solve the 911 conspiracy, I am simply here to debate idiots who fail to understand basic physics, my beef is with you not the perps of 911. I am under no illusion that the true story will ever come out. I'm not living in lala land lol. I just like to see you guys get all pissed off because someone dares to question your reality...