yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Haven't tall buildings been damaged before and collapsed, or has every tall building ever damaged by fire or an explosion somehow managed to stay up, except for the three in New York?

This one collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint:

www.bbc.co.uk...

(note that I am using the same definition for "free fall speed" and "own footprint" as it is most often used in reference to WTC buildings)

Though this was probably an inside job as people heard explosions.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

As always, when conspiracy theorists show images of WTC 7 they avoid showing the south side which had a huge hole in it from falling debris and was belching smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

Well..... let me remind you that your writing for a conspiracy. Website? ...and lets also keep in mind that buildings. Don't fall in their own foot print with out any risistance, from a hole.. would it not fall on the side that the hole is located? My tree did last week when I chopped it down

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


A building and a tree are not the same thing. They have a different structure. You can not compare the two or expect them to collapse/fall over in the same way.

ATTENTION


Anymore breaches of the Terms & Conditions Of Use (Please read) in the 911 Forum will be meet with full Bans no warns.

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##
Zero tolerance folks. Post inside the T&C, which you agreed to upon registering to ATS or you WILL face actions against your account. This is not open to debate. Most 9/11 posters will probably welcome this action. If you do not, that's not our issue, it's yours. As already said, you agreed to the T&C upon registration. It's unfortunate that this action had to be implemented but this forum WILL regain ATS standards.

Please do not reply to this post.


Sauron
Super-Moderator

Originally posted by LightningStrikesHere
Well..... let me remind you that your writing for a conspiracy. Website?

A website where the motto is "Deny Ignorance", NOT "Embrace Ignorance" like some people apparently think!

buildings. Don't fall in their own foot print

Well, none of the buildings fell into their own footprint at the WTC.... if they did how do you explain the damage to WTC 7, 3 WTC, 6 WTC, 5 WTC, 4 WTC, The Deutsche Bank Building, and Fiterman Hall??

So what page do I go to to see the information that should be in the op?

Originally posted by whatsecret

Huge buildings do not collapse symmetrically due to a huge hole on one side only... I would love to be proven wrong, please show me under what circumstances do buildings suddenly, completely and symmetrically collapse within seconds.

Again you didn't look close enough this is a still of the start of the South Tower collapse



The South Tower was struck second , impacted lower down and the impact was off centre of the elevation struck.

It had a greater load above the impact point so although struck second it fell first, because the damage was off centre the building fell in that direction at the start of the collapse as you can see in the above image.

The North Tower although struck first fell second impact was higher up the structure, it fell almost exactly straight down as you can see from the image below impact damage was mid elevation.



Here is a gif showing impact position and possible impact position with the core.

WTC 1 the North Tower



WTC 2 the South Tower



WTC 7 when it fell showed a kink in the roof line which was off centre and in the area below the East Penthouse.



Here is the debris after collapse , if it fell straight down why is most of the debris on the SOUTH side of the building (top of picture) the side DAMAGE by debris impact and part of the North wall is lying on the debris pile

Originally posted by seentoomuch
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Whatever the owner of the building said is moot. Insurance coverage = what he said and what he did might be two different things.

But the insurance companies didnt pay out initially, and the amounts paid out did not even cover the clean up and rebuilding of the site. Larry lost millions of dollars.

reply to post by GenRadek
I guess I don't know enough about 911 to be posting on here. Sorry, I didn't know he had a hard time with the insurance company paying out and that he lost millions. But even then I still know what I heard that day on Fox news and it was that wtc was going to be brought down by experts. I don't have an opinion on the other buildings, I only heard about this one. Here is a page that has a section on the owner and the insurance company on the phone talking about it.

whatreallyhappened.com...

So now, lol, I am bowing out of this forum and heading back to the areas I'm familiar with, good luck on figuring all this out!

reply to post by wmd_2008

WTC 7 when it fell showed a kink in the roof line which was off centre and in the area below the East Penthouse.

You are not very convincing because the kink is present in most controlled demolitions.

Here is the debris after collapse , if it fell straight down why is most of the debris on the SOUTH side of the building (top of picture) the side DAMAGE by debris impact and part of the North wall is lying on the debris pile

In my non expert opinion because it was 47-story building, and if the north wall fell to the north it would damage even more buildings. But the south side was already destroyed so it makes sense that the demolition was designed to not cause more destruction.

I think that is the whole point of a controlled demolition. It's probably not even possible to implode buildings of such size without damaging the surrounding buildings.

Plus I didn't say it fell straight down. I said it fell symmetrically. What is the reason for northwest corner to collapse at the same speed as the northeast corner?

How to make a skyscraper disappear

In Japan alone there are 797 skyscrapers over 100 metres tall, around 150 of which will be between 30 and 40 years old in the next decade, says Ichihara. This has historically been the age when such buildings are earmarked for demolition, but conventional methods are not suitable for such tall skyscrapers.

I am not an expert and all I got is my personal opinion. If WTC 7 didn't have all those government agencies in it, by the end of the day it would probably look like this.

reply to post by GenRadek


[snipped]

What is meant by the word "it"? Either it's referring to:

1) The firefighting operation.

2) Demolishing the building.

Obviously that's where people are divided.

Since you just don't get it, allow me to offer an alternative example:

Suppose I demolished a mansion I built a few months back. It caught on fire, and the firefighters could not stop the flames. If I say:

"...Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The only difference between me and the OP's person of interest, is that I made it clear I was demolishing the building. If I hadn't, then everyone would assume that sentence referred to the firefighting operation. That's why people aren't sure. Context doesn't matter here.


Everything else you wrote was not in question. The sentence in question is not about "getting facts in order", it's about understanding a possible secondary meaning in the wording. And yes, when the OP was talking about the WTC owner making the "call to pull it", you referring to the fire commander was factually incorrect.

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba

The only difference between me and the OP's person of interest, is that I made it clear I was demolishing the building. If I hadn't, then everyone would assume that sentence referred to the firefighting operation. That's why people aren't sure. Context doesn't matter here.

Since the OP's person of interest didn't make clear he was demolishing a building, shouldn't everyone assume his sentence referred to the firefighting operation? Because in your analogy, you say that if you had not made that clear, people should assume that. Are you making an exception in case of Larry? It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

WTC 7 when it fell showed a kink in the roof line which was off centre and in the area below the East Penthouse.

You are not very convincing because the kink is present in most controlled demolitions.

Here is the debris after collapse , if it fell straight down why is most of the debris on the SOUTH side of the building (top of picture) the side DAMAGE by debris impact and part of the North wall is lying on the debris pile

In my non expert opinion because it was 47-story building, and if the north wall fell to the north it would damage even more buildings. But the south side was already destroyed so it makes sense that the demolition was designed to not cause more destruction.

Seriously YOU think whats underlined above, so if what people are trying to claim that 9/11 was a deliberate act and was a demolition job what difference would another one or two more buildings make

The South side wasn't destroyed it had structural damage that's why when the steelwork failed internally although seen from the north side it looked a straight vertical collapse the South side fell that direction and part of the north wall ends up on top of the debris because of that.

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba
reply to post by GenRadek

 

A bit flustered are we?

If it's about reading comprehension, wouldn't your comprehension skills be sub par if you can't understand where the OP's perspective is coming from? You can't tell that there could be two possible meanings from one of the sentences in that paragraph?

Nope, there is only one. And that is pulling the firefighting operation.

What is meant by the word "it"? Either it's referring to:

1) The firefighting operation.

2) Demolishing the building.

In this case, it means 1).
Can you show us an instance where a building demolition is referred to as being "pulled"? And do not post the WTC6 cable tear down. That was literally pulled down with cables. I did not see any cables attached to WTC7. Did you?

Obviously that's where people are divided.

Since you just don't get it, allow me to offer an alternative example:

Suppose I demolished a mansion I built a few months back. It caught on fire, and the firefighters could not stop the flames. If I say:

"...Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The only difference between me and the OP's person of interest, is that I made it clear I was demolishing the building. If I hadn't, then everyone would assume that sentence referred to the firefighting operation. That's why people aren't sure. Context doesn't matter here.

I do get it very well. The Truth Movement does not.

There is a difference. And context. Larry was talking about how much loss of life there has been and since WTC& was beyond saving, its best to just leave it and pull out. Firefighters have quite a history of using "pull it" or some variation of "pull". In the demo business? Not so much. It was made up (ie a lie) created by Alex Jones and his ilk. You have been suckered by this conartist.

But let us use logic: Which sounds logical?
1) We've had such a tremendous loss of life, maybe the best thing to to do is pull everyone out and screw the building, let it burn.
2) We've had such a tremendous loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is rush in a team of demolition experts into the burning structurally unsound building and rig it with explosives and blow it all up to save lives.

hmmmmm perplexing. Yah, showing concern for more lives that maybe lost trying to save a lost cause by placing more lives at risk of death by having them go into a burning, structurally unsound building with explosives. This is the disconnect of reality for the Truth Movement that believe that Larry ordered explosive demolition of a building. If the building was pre-rigged, then you have to explain how you fire-proof explsosives and the wiring for hours and hours of expsoure to direct flame without any degredation or early detonation?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba

The only difference between me and the OP's person of interest, is that I made it clear I was demolishing the building. If I hadn't, then everyone would assume that sentence referred to the firefighting operation. That's why people aren't sure. Context doesn't matter here.

Since the OP's person of interest didn't make clear he was demolishing a building, shouldn't everyone assume his sentence referred to the firefighting operation? Because in your analogy, you say that if you had not made that clear, people should assume that. Are you making an exception in case of Larry? It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here.

Well, actually my point is, that when someone like LS, who is used to international spotlight, AND on a PBS interview and should be careful with his words and prepare them beforehand ...yet, he uses "Pull it" instead of
"Pull the operation"
"Pull the firefighters out of the area"
"Pull Out"
"Pull everyone out"
In addition to a hundred other ways.

That creates suspicion, because "Pull it" was a poor choice and yet very relevant to that particular event, therefore it should be understandable why some people are unsure of his meaning. It doesn't matter what context he used it in. His wording should be precise.

Since he didn't make it clear that he was referring to demolishing the building, I can understand the opposing view that he was referencing the firefighters. But in my example, the ONLY way anyone knew I was referring to the demolition was because I said beforehand what I was referring to.

So YES, everyone SHOULD assume he was referring to the firefighting operation (it was said during an interview, so he had ample time to prepare what to say), YET his wording creates obvious suspicion.

That's all this is about.

reply to post by GenRadek


Sir, I've read both perspectives, and the only reason option 2 doesn't sound logical is because it was never about getting explosives into a burning building to destroy it. Conspiracy theories say that the explosives were planted long before that day.

There is a context, true, but it is irrelevant in this case because of his choice of wording. Please see my above post. I'm not here to create a backstory for everything he said, GenRadek. I am however interested in his wording. In some interviews, poor choice of words can reveal lies as well. I'm wondering why this was never taken into consideration.


Edit:

It's not right to categorize everyone you consider part of the "truth movement" as being wrong. I would say, there are those on both sides that study the material well and those who don't. We tend to hear often however, from those who don't.

reply to post by Ewok_Boba

Sir, I've read both perspectives, and the only reason option 2 doesn't sound logical is because it was never about getting explosives into a burning building to destroy it. Conspiracy theories say that the explosives were planted long before that day.

A point that conspiracy believers never address is the expiration dates for explosives, detonators and det cord.
A quick search on the web shows that most expire in weeks to a couple years at best.

So rigging a building at the time of construction will have a short lifespan.

Originally posted by Ewok_Boba
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Sir, I've read both perspectives, and the only reason option 2 doesn't sound logical is because it was never about getting explosives into a burning building to destroy it. Conspiracy theories say that the explosives were planted long before that day.

There is a context, true, but it is irrelevant in this case because of his choice of wording. Please see my above post. I'm not here to create a backstory for everything he said, GenRadek. I am however interested in his wording. In some interviews, poor choice of words can reveal lies as well. I'm wondering why this was never taken into consideration.

The wording he used was in regards to firefighting operations. That is all. Any hoopla about wording or what he meant was manufactured by the Truth Movement and Alex Jones. hence why this is a non-starter and completely based on a false premise to begin with. nothing in context suggest otherwise. Also, any explosives planted earlier would have to have been fire and shockproofed, and maintained. Everything deteriorates in time, including wiring and explosives. Much more so while exposed to heat and flame.

Edit:

It's not right to categorize everyone you consider part of the "truth movement" as being wrong. I would say, there are those on both sides that study the material well and those who don't. We tend to hear often however, from those who don't.

edit on 12-4-2013 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)

A majority of those in the Truth Movement have been wrong about everything except for the date. Majority just regurgitate the garbage put forward by Dr. Griffin, Dylan Avery, Gage, Alex Jones, et al, and refuse to hear anything else that counters their beliefs, no matter how convoluted or double thought, or just plain wrong. I have yet to meet someone from the Truth Movement that had genuine questions and rational beliefs. And this all started from a gentleman by the name of Dr. Griffin. A THEOLOGIAN to boot. He has created the truth Movement as a new "religion" of sorts, with himself as the new leader. He has as much to say about the complexities of the events on 9/11 as a tribesman from deep jungles of Borneo has about nuclear fission.

Originally posted by samkent
"Building 7 is the smoking gun" We see it posted here time after time.

Perhaps if the OS non believers could come up with one single unified theory that covers all the 'unexplained anomolies' they always bring up, then and only then the world may start to consider this as a conspiracy.

But to hang on one aspect that they themselves don't full understand and then claim the entire day was a conspiracy is just plain silly. Using their belief strategies we could consider WW2 to be a big conspiracy. As if it never happened.

What has that got to do with the picture?

Do you not think that this collage of images speaks volumes?

I don't see how you cannot see the problem being raised here!?!

Blinded by the OS?!