|
Post by scooter on Jun 7, 2006 18:43:21 GMT -4
So, in the Turbonium world, if I lived in/rented/leased a building near a potential terrorist target, I better start checking for long ago planted explosives. If I owned the building, I probably planted them, or know who did. Are all high rise office buildings "wired" for that "perfect time" ? Dear Lord, man!!! There are many firefighter accounts indicating significant structural damage to the face of WTC7. There were significant fires. There was diesel fuel. After seeing the two WTC towers fall (with potentially 10s of thousands dead, they didn't know), they chose to pull back. They were uncertain, frightened, and shocked. Rant time... The scale of this CT is ludicrous...do you live looking over your shoulder for "them"? Your paranoia about incredibly remote, impossibly complex and involved conspiracies are beyond the pale...claiming that fire chiefs themselves knew of the CD plan (you cannot deny he knew of the WTC1&2 plans as well)....this is sickening. Firefighting is a close brotherhood, like you and I will never know. The suggestion you "claim" is nearly tantamount to them willfully murdering a beloved family member. Chiefs were all once common firefighters, not like todays business executives. Read your recent posts. You are ignorant, and disturbed, if you truly believe what you so flippantly propose. I take your words at their face value. Get a grip...and think about how foolish and remote your "theories" are, and how they immune people to real dangers. You watch way too much TV... Standing by for words from the moderator, but the "accusations" of these CTs can go beyond "theory" into ugly areas. I think Turbo has lost it...or is a slave to the CT thought control. He has becoming a stereotypical farce of the CT mentality, taking it to the irresposibly foolish and dirty. He has become a troll, or is emotionally disturbed...or maybe mis-typed his thoughts, though I doubt this. ...or maybe I'm mistaken? Rant off..I tire of the ugliness of this mentality. Dave
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 19:05:19 GMT -4
So the Fire Commander is now in so deep that he not only is told about it, but is told who put the explosives in so he could give them the go command?
We really don't know. Silverstein only said "...they made that decision to pull.." Whether the Fire Dep't Commander or Silvestein or one of his intermediaries gave the go ahead to the demo crew is speculation. And quite irrelevant to the fact that "pull it" meant to demolish the building.
So he was told aboput WTC 7, but not 1&2, and he wasn't supposed to put this together and realease that he was now knee deep in a cover up of his own men. How exactly did the conspirators know he would dob them in? Not only is it "farfetched" but totally implausable.
The Fire Dep't Commander would certainly seem to have known because of what Silverstein said. But remember, nobody was hurt or killed in the WTC 7 collapse. Everyone was ordered to stay away from it "for safety reasons" at 11:30 am, hours before the collapse. Silverstein and the Commander would likely not be charged with committing a crime if the collapse was intentional, and/or they knew about it, and/or they issued the order. They would have been guilty of not declaring the site be cleared specifically for a controlled demolition, and for subsequently not disclosing the fact that it was a controlled demolition. At most, the failure to specifically declare the zone off-limits for controlled demolition may warrant a fine of some sort. But since proper safety precautions were taken, I wouldn't think these would be criminal offences.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 19:16:58 GMT -4
I wasn't talking about the fires setting off the explosives, I was talking about the fires destroying the miles of detonation cord required to set off the explosives.
Remote control detonation would eliminate that problem.
Small, limited fires? Maybe if you only look at 1 or 2 pictures from the early morning and ignore anything taken later in the day.
That is a huge amount of smoke and dust considering there aren't any fires to be seen anywhere inside the building! And along only one side of the building, no less. The smoke and dust we see in the video is from the collapses of the towers, hitting the south side of WTC 7 from top to bottom and deflecting back again.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 19:31:43 GMT -4
Read your recent posts. You are ignorant, and disturbed, if you truly believe what you so flippantly propose. I take your words at their face value. Get a grip...and think about how foolish and remote your "theories" are, and how they immune people to real dangers. You watch way too much TV... Standing by for words from the moderator, but the "accusations" of these CTs can go beyond "theory" into ugly areas. I think Turbo has lost it...or is a slave to the CT thought control. He has becoming a stereotypical farce of the CT mentality, taking it to the irresposibly foolish and dirty. He has become a troll, or is emotionally disturbed...or maybe mis-typed his thoughts, though I doubt this. ...or maybe I'm mistaken? Rant off..I tire of the ugliness of this mentality.
Ad hominems don't bother me, though you've spouted off more than enough to violate forum rules.
It always seems to be that those who can't address the issue with a valid counterpoint resort to this sort of rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jun 7, 2006 19:31:55 GMT -4
Did you watch the same video as me? The smoke was coming off the building continuously from the entire south face, it wasn't just dust blowing back from the collapses that happened like 8 hours earlier.
Remote detonation would not eliminate that problem unless they had fireproof explosives and detonators. Besides, there's no explosion in any of the video, just a collapse. How do you explosively drop a building without visible or audible evidence?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 19:34:14 GMT -4
Doesn't anybody want to address the Silverstein comments?
What did he mean by "pull it"? It's not the firefighters. And it's not the firefighting effort.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 19:44:50 GMT -4
Did you watch the same video as me? The smoke was coming off the building continuously from the entire south face, it wasn't just dust blowing back from the collapses that happened like 8 hours earlier.
So where are the fires? Or even one flame?
Remote detonation would not eliminate that problem unless they had fireproof explosives and detonators. Besides, there's no explosion in any of the video, just a collapse. How do you explosively drop a building without visible or audible evidence?
No, remote detonation of individually rigged explosives can be done, in sequence, without miles of detcord.
The WTC 7 collapse is very comparable to many other controlled demolitions - watch some of the videos at the implosionworld website.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 7, 2006 21:04:04 GMT -4
Doesn't anybody want to address the Silverstein comments? What did he mean by "pull it"? It's not the firefighters. And it's not the firefighting effort. This has been discussed before. There was no support for that claim then, you will have none for it now. So why should anyone bother.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 7, 2006 21:19:35 GMT -4
Doesn't anybody want to address the Silverstein comments? What did he mean by "pull it"? It's not the firefighters. And it's not the firefighting effort. And he didn't mean to explosively implode the building. When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull". Note the red lined box in the lower left corner here www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/implosion.pdf"Pull" is only used if they bring something down mechanically (like they did with WTC 6) such as with a wrecking ball or pulling a chimney or tower over onto its side. Even then most companies speak of it as a "felling". Check this demo companies list of projects. Do you see a pull anywhere? How about a felling, or a shot? www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htmEven this kids DVD review mentions that buildings are "shot". www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=395with this quote, "they set a new world record for most buildings "shot" (industry term for bringing down a building or structure with explosives) at one time."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 23:02:55 GMT -4
And he didn't mean to explosively implode the building. When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull".
But Silverstein is not a demolitionist. And he grew up through the 30's and 40's, when "pulling" a building was common slang for building demolition. It's perfectly feasible that he would still refer to a demolition as "pulling".
Nothing else fits with his comments. Even his comments easily make the most sense in view of a controlled demolition...
"...and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
The decision to pull seems to have been soon followed by the collapse. So if we look at the two options....
Option 1: "..and they made that decision to end the firefighting effort, and then we watched the building collapse." Option 2: "...and they made that decision to demolish the building, and then we watched the building collapse." - The firefighting effort had completely ended by noon.
- Silverstein's publicist said the converation took place in the afternoon, or some time "later in the day".
- The timeline completely supports the demolition explanation, and completely contradicts the firefighting effort explanation.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 7, 2006 23:32:31 GMT -4
And he didn't mean to explosively implode the building. When a demolitionist implodes a building with explosives it is known as a "shoot" not a "pull".But Silverstein is not a demolitionist. And he grew up through the 30's and 40's, when "pulling" a building was common slang for building demolition. It's perfectly feasible that he would still refer to a demolition as "pulling". That is the best you have, a supposition that he might have meant something base on what you think was slang years ago. And for this you casually accuse people of murder?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2006 23:57:56 GMT -4
That is the best you have, a supposition that he might have meant something base on what you think was slang years ago. And for this you casually accuse people of murder?
No. First, I already said nobody was injured or killed from the WTC 7 collapse. Everyone was ordered away from the building for safety reasons. So I haven't accused anyone of murder, "casually" or otherwise.
Second, the slang "pull" is not something I "think" was used years ago, it was used years ago, according to articles that you can easily look up for yourself.
And, the "best" I have is that the only logical explanation for "pull it" is building demolition.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 8, 2006 0:22:55 GMT -4
Turbonium
- Why would he talk to the Fire Chief about this?
-Why would he talk about this during a TV interview?
-If he so obviously meant pull the building why do only CTist see it that way?
-Explain these aspects of the FULL quote
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire…”
-Sounds to me like the commander was telling him they were giving up putting out the fire or at least suggesting to Silverstein that they give up.
-If the fires were as small as you claim why did the commander doubt they could contain it? Why did Felini conclude the building was unsafe?
“…and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it…'
-Why would a man who had just murdered thousands of people suddenly be concerned with a couple of firemen or no firemen since you claim none were close enough to be injured by a collapse?
-How would the other deaths that day justify demolishing the building with pre-planted explosives?
-If what you say is true, i.e. that the fire were small and the building wasn’t unstable, where did the danger of people being killed come from. The risk of additional “loss of life” is implicit.
-According to the quote he only reached the conclusion that “the smartest thing to do is just pull it” AFTER being told the fire department might not be able to “contain the fire”
-he is making a suggestion (“maybe the smartest thing to do”) not coluding or giving an order.
“…And they made that decision to pull”
- i.e. the decision was made by the dept. NOT Silverstein.
Len
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 8, 2006 0:31:56 GMT -4
But remember, nobody was hurt or killed in the WTC 7 collapse. Everyone was ordered to stay away from it "for safety reasons" at 11:30 am, hours before the collapse. Silverstein and the Commander would likely not be charged with committing a crime if the collapse was intentional, and/or they knew about it, and/or they issued the order. They would have been guilty of not declaring the site be cleared specifically for a controlled demolition, and for subsequently not disclosing the fact that it was a controlled demolition. No crime? How about insurance fraud and uuuh several thousand counts of first degree murder? Because if they had secretly pre-wired 7 for demolition this would prove foreknowledge of the attacks
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 8, 2006 0:42:53 GMT -4
That is the best you have, a supposition that he might have meant something base on what you think was slang years ago. And for this you casually accuse people of murder?No. First, I already said nobody was injured or killed from the WTC 7 collapse. Everyone was ordered away from the building for safety reasons. So I haven't accused anyone of murder, "casually" or otherwise. Second, the slang "pull" is not something I "think" was used years ago, it was used years ago, according to articles that you can easily look up for yourself. And, the "best" I have is that the only logical explanation for "pull it" is building demolition. More bullsh*t obviously if Silverstein was guilty of demoing 7 WTC he was involved in or at least had foreknowledge of the attacks. If the FD commander and the others who "decided to pull" decided to demo it they were at the least accessories after the fact to the murder of almost 3000 people (and at the time believed to be more) including hundreds of their fellow firefighters. Why would guys who spent their careers risking their lives to save those of strangers do such a thing? Don't play bullsh*t semantic games and insult our intelligence if you are accusing people of being murders at least own up to it.
|
|