yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by GenRadek

 

So.. according to official deniers of said conspiracy, totally unfought fires brought the building down or was a major cause, but the incredibly inexplicably larger fires in the other buildings WERE fought ??

You know , the fires that had firefighters and sprinklers systems ? Battling heroicly yet the fires were so much larger but that makes them weaker I guess, since at least an attempt was made.

Nice leap of logic..

It would be prudent to familiarize yourself with the different designs and construction of the said buildings first, as well as scenarios and context. WTC1 and 2 had airliners slam into them at high speed, removing fireproofing that was already dubious applied during construction, and starting massive fires all at once. WTC7 was impacted by debris from the collapsing Towers which damaged the structure and started fires across multiple floors that were unchallenged for nearly 6 hours.

BIG differences chief. Windsor Tower had a massive steel-reenforced concrete core with concrete columns and massive technical concrete floors which saved it from total collapse, but it didnt stop the steel supported floors from collapsing within two hours. The Mandarine Hotel had a concrete structure under the steel facade.

What is even more amusing is, the constant claims of a fire "Out of Control" !!! OMG !!!
NOT fought by firefighters !!!

According to firefighters on scene: YES THERE WERE! They were there. YOU were not. THEY saw the fires firsthand. YOU did not. Evidence was supplied by the copious amounts of smoke coming off the entire face of the WTC7 that was facing the collapse site. Flames were seen on multiple floors and some had entire floors affected. What, you expected firefighters to go inside a structurally unsound building with no water?

And yet these same firefighters who did not fight the fires were "pulled" by Larry Silverstein ??

Comical to say the least, I think it proves quite nicely that Larry meant what he said, we knocked that sucka down !

< snip > Larry didnt pull anything. "They" made the decision to pull. "They" in reference to fire commander of the NYFD. They made a decision to pull the firefighting operation due to the dangerous situation at WTC7. But since you are so confident that the NYFD is in the explosive demolition business, maybe you can offer some more instances where the NYFD demoed buildings with explosives. Much moreso, can you explain how exactly someone can rig a burning building to explode within a couple of hours.without any casualties or premature detonation?

But you know what? Post the entire Larry quote and point out where he said anything about knocking something down?

MOD EDIT: Please be aware of the 9/11 forum guidelines. Violation of these guidelines can and will result in permanent account banning.

People should educate themselves on Super Thermite

Originally posted by Imightknow
People should educate themselves on Super Thermite

People should just educate themselves!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

I'm guessing the one hit by two airliners full of jet fuel.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

I'm guessing the one hit by two airliners full of jet fuel.

Hmmm...WTC7

Try again!

reply to post by zerozero00


on super thermite

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by SpearMint

 

You mean besides the interview where the guy that owned the WTC complex said he made the call to "Pull it"
The insurance policy covering acts of terrorism he took out a month or so before the attacks.

I can't post links from my phone, but it's not hard to find this info.

You mean the fire commander on scene that made the decision to pull the firefighting operations? Before you make an accusation please be informed of the facts. Also insurance payouts did not cover the expenses even remotely of clean up, reconstruction and the losses in property taxes on the site.

You should get your facts straight, sir.
Fire commander =/= owner of WTC complex. I think he's referring to Larry Silverstein. Haha. Your second point is moot.


"I remember getting a call from the 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."

-LS

Okay, I'm back after watching hours of the Fox news 911 broadcast on youtube and the crucial sections on the wtc 7 are missing from their series. I can only find snippets for that time slot from individuals putting them up on youtube. But after racking my brain to recall what I did hear that day on fox I think I might have figured out what happened to 7. Here goes:

1. The two towers were struck by whoever;
2. damage to the underground shared complex beneath all the wtc was major;
3. wtc 7 was in bad shape, especially after the damage to the underground;
4. engineers assessed it as having a strong likelihood of falling to the side if it went down;
5. the mayor/military listened to the engineers and decided to take it down as safely as possible;
6. this is what I heard Fox saying and disagreeing with as they felt it would not be possible to do it safely;
7. Fox's source for this was not the mayor or military, it was police or fire dept that was trying to keep the area clear and safe, they wanted the reporters out of the area so hence Fox got the notice it was going down;
8. military or demolition experts set up the charges;
9. building seven went down;
10. now, here's the pinch, insurance coverage, will it be covered if the mayor ordered it down, would the city have to pay for it? Would the military have to answer for it? I'm sure the building owner was frantically going over his options on how to handle the situation so that he could rebuild and he would need the insurance money to do that;
11. also, liability for any casualties that could be related in any way to the quick demolition of 7;
12. so to sum it up I believe it has been covered up so that insurance and liability would be in place for the owner to rebuild. Hence Fox shushing up after the fact, CNN shushing up, etc, they all wanted to help NY back on it's feet.

uhh - gee - the one that the order was issued to 'pullit' - certainly makes sense - it has to be the tiniest fire - which would naturally melt the steal and look out nyc - but the unbreathable air will be declared as breathable.
sad that none of the perps have been brought to justice.

reply to post by GenRadek
All these people think WTC7 was demolished because it fell at near free fall speed into its own footprint, never before seen in a highrise building fire before or since.

You think your words are going to sway their perception of what happened?
Who here had believed it was demolished initially, but was eventually convinced otherwise by your posts?

Somehow I doubt anyone has been.
Why continue to swing and flail against the overwhelming consensus?

New York is poorer without them as they had come to symbolise it even more than the statue of liberty for many people, Is it not possible that someone knew of the impending terrorist attack and instead of stopping it decided to use it even make it more catastrophic,.

Correct me if I am wrong but they were the oldest of those building's in the image and architecturally took there strength from there exterior skin frame, could not a partial collapse have created sufficient down force to cause a cascade failure of the structure as we see on the video of the event and remember they not only had fire but very large passenger jet's hammer into there top side's,.. Still it is odd so many collapsed and in such a short space of time.

On the TV I remember the speech given by Bush Jr were he at first seemed to make an error of speech when he said something good I mean terrible has happened, it may have been just a speech error as he seemed to be grinning with a kind of mad anger as most American's and many other's in the western world were.

They were not just the end of thousand's of people or a terrible scar on New York there destruction was an end of innocence and a wake up to the danger of an untended fire burning in the middle east that needed to be controlled if it could no be put out and in hindsight whatever you may think of the war in Afghanistan it was justified just not prosecuted as effectively as it could have been if the world's press had not been paying attention.

I believe anyone in the various branch's of the us secret service's would have never done this to there own people as an organisation but some individual's may have been ruthless enough and if so are themselves now dead most likely.

reply to post by seentoomuch

8. military or demolition experts set up the charges;
9. building seven went down;

Fox news actually broadcast this on Sept 11 or these words came about months/years later?

reply to post by samkent

samkent, back to work!

Good to see you again.

..punching out G'night Sam, G'night Ralph.

Most people don't have access to the info you do, but you persist in defending the indefensible. Nice job you have..

reply to post by samkent
Hi

On 911 I remember Fox news saying that people (firemen, police) on the scene were saying that it was unstable and that it would have to be taken down with a controlled demolition. Fox was strongly against that. I went to fox's youtube 911 broadcast channel but the three hours of broadcast for wtc 7 was not there. I was only able to find snippets of that slot of time from individuals on youtube. So take it as you will....... maybe someone can find the missing time broadcasts?

reply to post by LABTECH767

I believe anyone in the various branch's of the us secret service's would have never done this to there own people as an organisation but some individual's may have been ruthless enough and if so are themselves now dead most likely.

And yet more people 'in on it'.

Just how many people would it take to
'plan the deed',
'do the deed',
'prevent help during the deed',
'hide the deed',
'cover up the deed during clean up',
'cover up the physics of the deed',
'prevent the worlds experts from speaking out'?
That's a lot of people to watch over for 12 years.

And yet Alex Jones, RIchard Gage, Jessie Ventura have not met with mysterious accidents.
And yet they don't convince the owners of ATS to strike the 911 section.

For all the control they have over hundreds of thousands of people who "know the truth'. They can't add another 5 or 6???

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerozero00

 

The OS is a unified explanation for an impossibility, it defies physics and is not an adequate reason for the collapse of buildings.....Hence

It isn't an impossibility.
The lack of fire experts speaking out should tell you that.

I know, I know. The big bad government is silencing all the experts.
Prove it. Prove all the experts on the planet are under the control of the US government.

You aren't even making any sense buddy.

There were plenty of Fire Safety Engineering Science experts who came out saying 911 was a sham, through the A & E for 911 Truth group.

So since there isn't a lack of fire experts speaking out, than what we do have actually here is a lack of accurate knowledge on your part.