lord_casek Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 theo: cross reference with the NIST report.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 wtc 7 looks like it was pulled to me. Theo, excuse my ignorance, but may I ask what caused the huge gaping holes in the building , and where are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Yea buildings just implode perfectly with structural damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 wtc 7 looks like it was pulled to me. Theo, excuse my ignorance, but may I ask what caused the huge gaping holes in the building , and where are they? Minor damage was caused by the South Tower collapse, and then major damage was caused by the North Tower's collapse being much closer. No one can see the crater in WTC7 because it was in the south face of the building -- most cameras were filmed from the north side of Manhattan. But I've seen a couple. The crater in WTC7 was roughly 20 stories tall, and 25% "deep" in to the building. This was reported by firefighters, police, and paramedics on the scene. Here are probably the best shots available. Here's a view looking from the northwest. You can see a giant crater starting all the way at floor 18 going all the way down. And that's only the corner -- it went in deeper in the front: This is the view looking at WTC7's southwest corner, probably from a ferry on the Hudson River. This is the "small fire" he was talking about. It's so small that the smoke engulfs the entire building and we can't even see the crater: A picture of the North Tower falling against WTC 7: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Yea buildings just implode perfectly with structural damage? Again, comparing two things with two different properties undergoing different stress. 1. That building was not engulfed in flames. 2. Two different structural designs. I'm not a structural engineer, but I recall engineers explaining why WTC7 and the twin towers collapsed. They pointed out neither of the buildings were the "cobweb" design of steel-reinforced concrete pillars running throughout the entirety of the building. Clearly the federal building in Oklahoma City is, just by looking at it. The building was also only a few stories tall, and more "wide" than it was tall. In the WTC, there was a lot of excess "top-heavy" load exerted on the remaining supports. This doesn't appear to be the case in Oklahoma -- and clearly much of the building did collapse after the bombing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 theo: againi say, read the NIST report regarding wtc7. it's interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 gravity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 maybe gravity aided by high explosives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 it could also have been because a ten story massive gash was taken out of the side but hey im sure there is some obscure reason why the NWO just had to have building 7 collapse to further their nefarious plans the insurance(2.1 billions if im not wrong), for larry silverstein, the zionist nwo scum, the one who said "pull it"... buildings 5 and 6 got banged up yet they didnt collapsed like 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 the insurance(2.1 billions if im not wrong), for larry silverstein, the zionist nwo scum, the one who said "pull it"... buildings 5 and 6 got banged up yet they didnt collapsed like 7 Another popular misconception by conspiracy theorist. I did some research, and the term "pull it" is not a term used by construction workers when they're ready to blow up a building. Silverstein's phrase "pull it" was in response to firefighters worries that the WTC 7's fires couldn't be fought and their fears that the building may collapse. When he said "pull it", he meant to pull the operation -- to suspend all firefighting and rescue operations. He was concerned about the safety of the rescue workers. Loose Change merely provides a snippet of him saying "I told them to pull it". If you watch the entire interview, you will see that he's implying the pulling of the operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pull http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry?lb=e&p=num:P1203200&lb=e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 he didnt make the decition to pull. they did. they as the firefighters. contained the fires? small tiny fires? easy... nobody died at wtc7 because everyone was told to get out (i said he said "pull it" , not what pull it means, we know what pull it means, didnt asked about that... nothing is out to the public without being checked carefully by them, silverstein just said it to create more confusion, the technique of having two parties running against eachother, they need a 911 truth movement and an opposite side to create a debate paradigm... if they would have been more careful, there would have not been incomplete factors like these for people to rely on and continue in their denial because their extreme opposite side exaggerated on these imcomplete factors. you want 100% you wont get it, the same you do with everything else, always need 100% to believe, you wont get anything. living a life with no purpose, trying to destroy our lives because your arrogance cant let you change) why didnt you "pulled" a quote for wtc5 and 6. one of the biggest building on planet earth fell on top of them, and they didnt collapsed...look at the first picture, wtc7 area is clean. yet wtc7 was more sophisticated built, newer, and more massive. go on quote something else im done with you for ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 wtc7 had the generator and stored the large amounts of fuel required to run it, unlike the other examples of building fires that didn’t cause a collapse. What benefit would the government conspirators get from having this small building collapse after the twin towers anyway? They didn’t think their plan was unnecessarily complicated enough yet, with the exposively rigged skyscrapers and remote controlled planes and cruise missiles etc etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 stereotype: that's all fine, but NIST says wtc7 didn't collapse because of fire, either. what benefit: wtc 7 housed alot of intel agencies. lots of records were urned up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoeWhan Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I like the original Truth Movement theory/fact. This song, explains my feelings well. LOL! Spandau ballet - true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYb83KM4at4 (Bush is a Nazi scum, 9/11 was known, and they let it happen.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sqr Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 There was no structural damage in any of these buildings (no steel columns taken out). the supports where cut , cbf reading 1500 posts but it may already be in this thread , thats how they cut supports when they demolish a building . gravity yeah it helped but building dont collapse at free fall speeds , like in demolitions the insurance(2.1 billions if im not wrong), for larry silverstein, the zionist nwo scum, the one who said "pull it"... that was a big oops, plus all the gold that was stored at the bottom of the towers and the term "pull it" is not a term used by construction workers when they're ready to blow up a building. wrong. : wtc 7 housed alot of intel agencies. lots of records were urned up. quoted for truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desism_ktc Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 stereotype: that's all fine, but NIST says wtc7 didn't collapse because of fire, either. what benefit: wtc 7 housed alot of intel agencies. lots of records were urned up. That's stupid. If you want they wanted to get rid of classified intel, all they had to do was confiscate it and then shred it and burn it. Destruction of top secret intel gets destroyed all the time -- in fact it's routine procedure. Destroying a building to get rid of intel is unnecessarily risky and far-fetched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 wrong. quoted for truth Find evidence that this is construction worker jargon used when imploding buildings. Watch "Screw Loose Change" -- they show videotaped recordings of phrases construction engineers use to signal detonation -- and "pull it" wasn't any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 That's stupid. If you want they wanted to get rid of classified intel, all they had to do was confiscate it and then shred it and burn it. Destruction of top secret intel gets destroyed all the time -- in fact it's routine procedure. Destroying a building to get rid of intel is unnecessarily risky and far-fetched. but if you want a bunch of records at one time....from a bunch of agencies.....just easier to get rid of it in one lump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 Find evidence that this is construction worker jargon used when imploding buildings. Watch "Screw Loose Change" -- they show videotaped recordings of phrases construction engineers use to signal detonation -- and "pull it" wasn't any of them. http://www.implosionworld.com/history3.htm http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I think Bill Maher wants to stay on the air more then he wants to admit certain things. His mouth has gotten him in trouble before hasn't it. The fact that he wont even have a discussion about it is ridiculous. As a man that stands on the issue's he stands, regardless if he supports it or not. Why not have a show with people from both sides, and seriously debate the issue. Thats the problem with our heavily biased media. The fact alone that this doesn't happen should make you think. I forgot the exact words Bush used but he basically said don't even question what we tell you about 9/11 and don't listen to anyone that has anything else to say about it. Come the fuck on, if you were that serious about this wouldn't any information that anyone could have be useful? Wouldn't you want to know the TRUTH? Fuck out of here. It's like ya'll are missing the point. I don't know exactly what happened on that day. I don't pretend to. I do know that what we were told happened, didn't happen. Which could only mean complacncy or involvement. *EDIT* What I also think drains from this whole "movement", is the rest of the puzzle. Like just knocking down the towers themselves isn't the only thing that matters. People don't even know how or why that went down yet. So to sit here and speculate on speculated information just sounds crazy. If you want to convince people of things work with the information that is already known. Not made up. So if you're explaining to someone how you feel about 9/11 maybe you should leave all that NWO mumbo jumbo out of it. You sound like a fucking quack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 give it some time, understanding the methods of the new world order takes time and lots of work. still you wont know everything they do, but if you are determined you will get the essential to help yourself break free from their mental slavery which later on will motivate you to act against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sqr Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 It was a bit of a coincidence they were doing traing programs of planes hitting the towers and the white houise on the exact day that it happened. not convinced? the bombings in london were also on a day that that happened to have 'training' going on of the exact incident that happened. my oh my what a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 http://www.implosionworld.com/history3.htm http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824 FAIL. None of those links you provided had the phrase "pull it" in the articles. The first link you provided, only mentioned how attaching cables to certain beams to allow it to "pull" the beams in a certain direction -- that has nothing to do with detonation, but merely describes the purpose of the cables. The second link was mostly the same thing. Found two uses of the word "pull". The first usage was more about cables attached to beams, to help pull the structure in a certain direction. The second usage was about time increments between various charges blowing up on cue, to allow the desired in "pull" of the walls of the building in an inward direction. This was merely a phrase that was used to describe the movement of the wall moving inward. None of this has anything to do with conspiracy theorist's assertions -- that Silverstein's use of the phrase "pull it" is a standardized command used by demolition teams to set off detonations. Casek, I get the feeling you just googled "pull" + "controlled demolition" and then posted first links you got, without actually reading the articles. So again, I ask anyone to provide evidence that the phrase "pull it" is the command given by demolition teams prior to setting off explosives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building. pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desism_ktc Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I just found this thread..and it makes me sad.. and mad... if half of this stuff is true, whoa..I mean I remain speechless.. i left nyc 9/21/01 and there isn't a day that goes by that I think of the city during that time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building. pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck That's not the same phrase that your conspiracy goons are attributing to Silverstein. Also, that doesn't indicate that this is the phrase used by demolition teams when taking down a building. There are hundreds if not thousands of words and phrases to describe a building demolition. We're looking for evidence that states "pull it" is standardized jargon used by demolition teams to signal detonation. Pretty simple request, Casek. Also, cite your source (for your definition). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvDcgf3x3I pull it revisited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.