View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

WTC 7 Video

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 09:48

NinjaPuppy wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:''Pull Out'' would be the term used for the firemen to retreat to a safer area, not PULL IT.

Pull Back, not PULL IT.


So you've spent 40 years of your life listening to the local lingo? Next, it wasn't a fireman who said this, it was the owner of the building. New York slang is not spoken like proper English.

So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Oct 2009, 09:51

highflyertoo wrote:So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.

I have no idea. I am no expert in the field and I wasn't an eyewitness to the scenario. I will say that I am of the opinion that building 7 certainly did not get much press and there is little know from any official reports.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 09:53

NinjaPuppy wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:''Pull Out'' would be the term used for the firemen to retreat to a safer area, not PULL IT.

Pull Back, not PULL IT.


So you've spent 40 years of your life listening to the local lingo? Next, it wasn't a fireman who said this, it was the owner of the building. New York slang is not spoken like proper English.


Did the large fires weaken the WTC 7 to collapse? It's a Yes or No question
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 09:56

NinjaPuppy wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.

I have no idea. I am no expert in the field and I wasn't an eyewitness to the scenario. I will say that I am of the opinion that building 7 certainly did not get much press and there is little know from any official reports.


I'm asking your ''opinion'' if small or large fires caused the WTC 7 to collaspe,as there were no plane(s) flown into WTC 7.
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Oct 2009, 10:06

highflyertoo wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
highflyertoo wrote:I'm asking your ''opinion'' if small or large fires caused the WTC 7 to collaspe,as there were no plane(s) flown into WTC 7.

My opinion is that it's possible that the commotion and shock waves from two 110 story buildings collapsing caused some major structural damage to all of the surrounding buildings. Combine that with the possibility of crappy architecture, crappy building materials and fires and it is certainly possible.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 10:20

My opinion is that it's possible that the commotion and shock waves from two 110 story buildings collapsing caused some major structural damage to all of the surrounding buildings. Combine that with the possibility of crappy architecture, crappy building materials and fires and it is certainly possible.-Ninjapuppy


Have you Googled about the WTC 7 architecture that was designed to withstand , fires, some explosive damage and Earthquakes which housed the Nerve Centre of American Security?
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Nostradamus » 18 Oct 2009, 11:12

So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.


The fires were large. There were large fires on floors floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. In addition to these large fires fires were observed on many other floors.

The NIST report on WTC7 attributes the failure of the building to a specific point in the building, column 79, which failed due to loss of strength suffered from the heat of the fires. It is also possible that damage to the south facade from debris hitting the building also led to the critical internal failure of WTC7.

So the answer is Yes although your question is poorly formed and incorrect.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Nostradamus » 18 Oct 2009, 11:17

Have you Googled about the WTC 7 architecture that was designed to withstand , fires, some explosive damage and Earthquakes which housed the Nerve Centre of American Security?


Every building is built for some resistance to fire. Buildings especially modern office buildings require such systems as sprinklers to be important in meeting the fire resistance goal. Water was out in WTC7. No sprinklers were working in the fire zones.

No explosives went off in WTC7. No earthquakes. So that's not up for discussion.

But what is this claim of a "Nerve Centre of American Security". Fill me in.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Nostradamus » 18 Oct 2009, 11:19

Silerstein is an old man, and when he was younger the demo teams ''pulled down buildings'', didn't blast.

So the term ''pull it'' which he says he used on that day fits in with what happened next, the WTC 7 collapse.


No it doesn't. It does not fit in. The notion of pull it being a demolition term is twoofer nonsense.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Nostradamus » 18 Oct 2009, 11:26

NinjaPuppy, what has me concerned in all this is not the events of 9/11. What happened that day was due to a group of determined terrorists. What I see nefarious in all of this is that the owners of the WTC are the Port Authority. They get a dispensation to NOT follow city codes on skyscrapers. The buildings are going back up. The new buildings will also be owned by the Port Authority. It seems that again they will NOT be held to follow skyscraper codes that others have to obey.

Although Scepcop thinks I do not question the 'establishment', I do and this is a case in which I think that it is possible that letting the rules slide for the Port Authority led to the construction of buildings that were more likely to collapse. For example, I read that there were spans in WTC7 that could be made there that would not be allowed under NYC's skyscraper code.

The buildings fell under extreme circumstances. Do you think that the Port Authority is allowed to take risks with people's lives by being allowed to avoid the rules others have to follow.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 12:35

Nostradamus wrote:
So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.


The fires were large. There were large fires on floors floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. In addition to these large fires fires were observed on many other floors.

The NIST report on WTC7 attributes the failure of the building to a specific point in the building, column 79, which failed due to loss of strength suffered from the heat of the fires. It is also possible that damage to the south facade from debris hitting the building also led to the critical internal failure of WTC7.

So the answer is Yes although your question is poorly formed and incorrect.


What do you know about NIST ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby highflyertoo » 18 Oct 2009, 12:35

Nostradamus wrote:
So did the small fires weaken the WTC 7 to cause it to collaspe? It's a Yes or No question.


The fires were large. There were large fires on floors floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. In addition to these large fires fires were observed on many other floors.

The NIST report on WTC7 attributes the failure of the building to a specific point in the building, column 79, which failed due to loss of strength suffered from the heat of the fires. It is also possible that damage to the south facade from debris hitting the building also led to the critical internal failure of WTC7.

So the answer is Yes although your question is poorly formed and incorrect.


Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Scepcop » 18 Oct 2009, 16:16

Nostradamus wrote:
You believe ''small fires'' caused the WTC 7 to collaspe. Yet me and others know that ''pull it'' means DEMOLITION.

One day you may question yourself that Governments aren't the Goodies afterall.


Oh goodie. The first flagrant lie. WTC7 did not have "small fires".
Oh goodie. Lie number 2. Pull it does not mean demolition.

The notion that pull it is a common demolition term is a notion cooked up by others than people in the demolition industry.

If we go to a site like implosionworld.com we can see one of the few uses of the world pull:
Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction.


Here is another:
Brett Blanchard, from implosionworld.com explains:

We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.


Why are you purposely misrepresenting the facts?


First, it doesn't matter if the fires were small or large. Even large fires cannot cause a collapse like that in 6 seconds. It's never happened before. And it's either impossible or one in a million.

Your point is irrelevant.

As to "pull it", what is your theory as to what Silverstein meant by it? That he was referring to the fire fighters? If so, he would have said "pull them" not "it". Plus, there were no firefighters in Building 7 at the time.

Silverstein doesn't care about whether a building is taken down with cables or with explosives or thermite. That is a small technicality. Perhaps he was using a figure of speech to describe destroying the building. It's not clear. But saying that it refers to firefighters makes no sense.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Scepcop » 18 Oct 2009, 16:19

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Apparently there are no ''come forward witnesses'' to verify that only nano seconds prior to the collaspe of WTC 7 were the the words ''fire in the hole'' voiced to be heard.Yet the term ''pull it'' was used on Silverstein's National TV interview. Yes ?

Bottom line- 'pull it' is not a term used by demolition experts.
In this country, 'pull it' could be used as in, 'pull the plug' meaning cut off the efforts to extinguish the fires. It is slang generally used in that area of the country to mean 'stop'.


It is a demolition term. You can call a demolition company to verify this. Someone did and posted the conversation on Youtube. If you watch the film in this thread, it shows a bunch of people saying "let's pull building 6" just before it was taken down.

The thing is, it refers to bringing down a building with cables, not with explosives. So the question is what Silverstein really meant by it.

I'll bet Silverstein regrest everyday saying that on national TV. lol
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: WTC 7 Video

Postby Scepcop » 18 Oct 2009, 16:25

In this clip you will hear them saying "pull" to bring down Building 6. And you will also hear a phone call to a controlled demolition company as to what "pull it" means.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron