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.
"maybe the smartest thing is to pull IT, and then we watched THE building collapse".
"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.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And now you can't even get your lies straight. First theres no fires, then you are outraged saying that no one said there's no fire, then in your last post you claim that smoke can exist for hours without fires.
But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.
Just once Bsbray maybe you can show some actual evidence or maybe some eyewitnesses that only saw small or no fires in WTC 7. If not, then maybe you can explain why you think the firefighters are in on it and how they planted bombs in the building.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
"maybe the smartest thing is to pull IT, and then we watched THE building collapse".
Wow, that is a pretty bad mangling of the quote.
"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.
Isn't it amazing how much you can twist things by putting them out of context.
They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Read the pdf I posted. There are pages of firemen and rescue workers who witnessed out of control fires in 7.
You "small fire" theorists are all calling them liars, regardless of how many people have been tricked by the lies on 9-11 denial sites.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please show some actual evidence on why you think the firefighters are lying and/or in on it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.
Any proof you have to the contrary, please let's see it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
They made the decision. Not Silverstein. Silverstein had no authority over the firefighters. Nor did the firefighters plant bombs in 7.
Any proof you have to the contrary, please let's see it.
[edit on 5-2-2007 by LeftBehind]
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a general definition of hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
www.911myths.com...
The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
– Capt. Chris Boyle
/e7bzp
We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.
–Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...
We never said they were in on it, we never said they were lying. They might think they're telling the truth without remembering the full truth.
The point is WHAT they pulled.
"It" referring to a building rather than a person or people.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
So if you have some evidence that actually backs up what you guys are claiming go ahead and post it.
Originally posted by Damocles
short post
why would you build a 'bunker' in a high rise?
that just defys logic on so many levels i cant even comprehend that one.
is it possible that it was simply a command and control center for a disaster? why would that need to be a "bunker"?
To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.
It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.
Originally posted by damocles
so, ive said all that to say this...wheres the proof of explosives?
Originally posted by Shroomery
Originally posted by LeftBehind
And now you can't even get your lies straight. First theres no fires, then you are outraged saying that no one said there's no fire, then in your last post you claim that smoke can exist for hours without fires.
But go ahead, ignore me like you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fantasies.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by damocles
so, ive said all that to say this...wheres the proof of explosives?
From the rest of your post it sounds more like you're asking for proof of something like C4 or any other conventional high explosive than any explosives in general. Right?
What if they just didn't use a conventional high explosive?
[
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Hearsay and eyewitnesses are not the same thing.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a general definition of hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."
Since the people on the ground that day actually talk about what they personally saw, it is not hearsay.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
They really are witnesses to fires and damage to WTC 7. When you combine that with the pictures and videos of smoke billowing out of the south side, it's pretty easy to conclude that there were in fact large fires.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Posting pictures of small fires as proof, and yet ignoring all the things I just listed is to ignore reality and only pick the evidence that fits your theory.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
We never said they were in on it, we never said they were lying. They might think they're telling the truth without remembering the full truth.
You are saying that they are in on it, and lying about it. Remember a paragraph or two before that in the same post.
The point is WHAT they pulled.
"It" referring to a building rather than a person or people.
You are saying that the firefighters stopped nearby rescue operations to demo a building, making them complicit in insurance fraud, and mass murder, and then lied about it.
You can sugar coat it if it helps you sleep at night, but it doesn't make your accusations any less disgusting.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
So if you have some evidence that actually backs up what you guys are claiming go ahead and post it.
If you have nothing, then admit it, and stop accusing ground zero fire fighters and rescue crews of mass murder and false statements.
Originally posted by Damocles
the problem is bsb, and i guess this is my point...for ANY 'explosive' to structurally damage a building you have to release energy. can we agree on that? conventional explosives are just really fast chemical reactions during which heat and light are released. the sounds come from the supersonic overpressure.