Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The owner, Silverstein "pulled" the building. Interpret that as you like. RP
Quote:
"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 then we watched the building collapse."
What makes more sense based on the exact quote above.
1) That he told the FDNY to destroy the building for their safety (wasn't aware he had control of the FDNY).
2) That he told the FDNY to pull their men out of the building for their safety.
Since the safety is what as discussed as being the reason to "pull", why would it be safe to collapse the building? Why is that what would prevent loss of life?
I lost 2 people in the attacks. I was blocks away when it happened.
I was NOT a fan of Bush or that entire administration. I researched and researched and researched and read, and spoke with people who were there. I do not believe the buildings were taken down by explosives.
I wonder how long it took to prep the foundation and supporting walls. I have a REAL hard time believing they would be doing that right after WTC 1 and 2 fell into their own footprints. If you look at the photos there were a handful of small fires burning. RP
I wonder how long it took to prep the foundation and supporting walls. I have a REAL hard time believing they would be doing that right after WTC 1 and 2 fell into their own footprints. If you look at the photos there were a handful of small fires burning. RP
The video I watched day of 9/11 showed flames pouring out of windows on multiple floors along with a gigantic gash in the side of the building. Quick google search finds video to support that.
I’m going to answer a bunch of posts without quoting them.
Re: the BBC reporter. Many people don’t realize that a total of 8 buildings were destroyed that day, all buildings in the immediate area had various stages of damage, some on fire, (one firehouse remained closed for months), with 2 others damaged beyond repair. Even some native New Yorkers didn’t know which building had which number. All the WTC buildings were penetrated by burning debris from the towers and pieces of the planes. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all ablaze and collapsed or partially collapsed at various times of the day.
You may mean well, I don't know. But what I do know is that these are blatantly false claims. No other buildings collapsed other that Towers I & II, and #7. Not ONE OTHER BUILDING. And 3,4,5, and 6 were far more severely damaged than #7, yet these building still stood, and had to be demolished by crews after the fact. Furthermore, never before 911, in the history of modern building construction has a steel building ever collapsed due to fire. On that day, 3 buildings did, and all three were owned by Larry Silverstein.
Even though we here on these public boards are not necessarily "professional journalists", there still exists an obligation to observe journalistic integrity, given the number of views these posts receive. It's quite OK to speculate, and just fine to offer opinion, but don't make declarations that are flatly false, as if they were well established truth. It's dishonest, and a disservice to others who may view this as actual fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
Many people confused those buildings with building 7. 7’s fires were mostly in the center of the building and weren’t easily seen from the outside. I can’t find it now, but I have a photo where you can see a huge slash in the building from falling debris. Someone else mentioned the buckling from it. Fire collapses buildings everyday. Why do people think a plane had to hit 7 for it to come down?
Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse, ever, not once. 911 was the first time, and not one has since collapsed due to fire. Here are some other buildings that experienced severe fires and still remained standing: Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
Larry Silverstein certainly is a powerful man, but not powerful to destroy buildings. With all the money he would lose, why would he do that? Insurance certainly would not cover all that he would lose financially. Give it up. “Pull’ was a misstatement. They were ‘pulling’ the firefighters from the building.
Wow .. this is so ludicrous. He multiplied his investment by a factor of 70 times, all in a matter of 90 days, Give it up, indeed. He literally made a killing on this murderous event ... to the tune of several Billion dollars!!
I'll tell you what, I wouldn't suggest that the average guy buy a building, take out special insurance on it and have that very thing happen 90 days later without the "authorities" considering him a prime suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
As for people, especially fireman and other experts, knowing the buildings would collapse. Yes, we did. It was obvious. I managed to call my father about 10 minutes after the second plane hit. My best friend was on the 92nd floor of the South Tower (she got out). He was hysterical – and my Dad is a very calm man – he told me the buildings could not survive. He knew the truss structure of floors and told me then and there that they would come down. He knew his friends were in serious trouble as well. They were all part of emergency systems in the building and would be in the basements.
That's interesting, since the actual designers claim they were surprised, since the buildings were specifically designed to withstand multiple impacts from Boing 707s, the largest commercial jet at the time the buildings were designed and built, which are similar in size to the planes that hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
As for the countdown to the collapse, I haven’t heard that. Please provide the names of the witnesses so I can research.
Better ... here is the video testimony ... so one need not rely of the accuracy of 2nd hand accounts or transcripts.
The freefall, falling in it’s own footprint argument: How do you expect a building to fall? Once the momentum started, what could possibly slow it down?
This is the problem with speaking so authoritatively without the expertise or knowledge to make such assessments. There are over 600 Engineers and Architects who have studied these events in tremendous detail, and they conclude that all three buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition and not because of plane impacts and fires. I am not an Architect or a building construction engineer, so I'll defer to those experts. What I do know is that simply watching those buildings come down immediately raised questions in my mind.
But to explain the physics in layman's terms, the "conservation of momentum" principle of physics holds that the collapsing floor would be resisted and slowed down as it impacts each succeeding intact floor, slowing the speed of the fall. There is no accumulation of momentum as the collapse progressed, as one might wrongly assume .. this is a foundational principle of physics. There is speculation regarding how much time it would presumably take .. ranging from a very conservative 18 seconds up to 45 seconds or longer for the buildings to collapse to the ground without the assistance of explosives to remove the structural resistance of those floors below the initial collapse point. The actual time of the collapse of slightly over 10 seconds is roughly "free fall" speed ... meaning that there was no resistance offered by the structures below those collapsing floors. It may seem insignificant to you, but to Engineers, the absence of this resistance is very significant, and is considered impossible without the assistance of explosives to remove that resistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
The weight of the building and contents would have kept it going. Filling a building with that amount of explosives without anyone noticing is impossible. The building isn’t empty at night. Maintenance crews, cleaning people, managers, structural engineers and HVAC people are crawling all over the building 365/24/7. My Dad worked nights, inspecting all those nooks and crannys, checking things like steam lines, ducts, electrical lines and water pipes and conducting tests. These things are all in the floors, walls, supports and ceilings where supposed explosives would have to be placed. How did all these people miss seeing explosives?
A data analyst at one of the Towers reported that both Towers had undertaken a complete re-wiring of the communications infrastructure of the buildings weeks before 911, with blocks of floors sealed off for these upgrades.
In the previous year a massive upgrade to all 170+ elevators was undertaken by ACE elevators, one of the largest ever jobs in the history of the industry.
Just 5 days before 911, a total system power down was done in which all power to the buildings were cut off, for about 24 hours. Additionally, 5 days before 911 bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the complex.
Coincidentally, Marvin Bush (the President's brother) was in charge of the security firm Securecom, that held the contract for the world trade center security services ... imagine that.
All of this kinda leaves your "it would have been impossible ...." claim rather impotent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
Can anyone back up William Rodriquez’ claims? He is the only person I have heard of who claims a B2 explosion BEFORE the planes hit. My witness states otherwise.
I know he assisted those injured by the explosion to safety, so I suspect there are additional stories to corroborate his account of the events. I don't know their names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
FEMA in the building. Security and emergency response practice had always been part of building operations, but were ramped up exponentially after the 1993 bombings.
Once again, you are diverting attention from the facts (for whatever reason), as FEMA flew into NY the night before 911 ... then tried to claim they didn't ... then changed their story again and cited the training drill that was conveniently scheduled for the same day the actual events took place.
It's important to note, in order to establish a pattern, that Visor Associates where conducting terror response training exercises in London on the morning of the 7/7 London subway bombings. The exercise included the very same targets that the actual events targeted. A rather conspicuous coincidence indeed. This is a classic cover for being able to claim "training exercise" if one or more of the perpetrators get caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYChistorygal
Bodies hitting cement after falling 100+ stories sound like explosions, mostly because the ARE exploding.
I’d also like to say that I’m not advocating that people shouldn’t question things. I certainly do. Remember, if anyone wants answers, it’s the victim’s loved ones. There is just no way that literally tens of thousands of people could be in on a conspiracy.
I won't address the crude body remark, with a response.
As for the Tens of Thousands ... utter nonsense. Would you have everyone believe that it would require 10,000 people to pull this of, while also having us believe than 19 hijackers and a Caveman in Afghanistan did it on there own? Let's get real here.
But, it's a well established fact that over 100,000 people participated in the Manhattan project, and they kept that secret pretty well ... but I digress.
You claim no one is speaking up ... but clearly lots of people are speaking ... you and others like you ... for whatever reasons you may have, simply write off all of this with rather weak explanations and outright fabrications.
Historically, there have been many false flag operations both conducted and proposed by authorities of the US, and many more than that around the world. Such as, the Maine incident ... the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, and the Northwoods documents.
Too many inconsistencies surround the events of 911 to believe it was only a group of 19 Arabs with box cutters directed by a CIA asset living in a cave who were able to defeat the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and with crudely trained non-pilots able to strike with deadly accuracy 3/4 of their intended targets without resistance from the US Air Force and NORAD.
Has anyone pointed out how much prep work goes into using explosives for controlled demolitions? You know crews of workers weakening structural supports, removing interior walls, packing girders with explosives, wiring stuff like that? And, all done without the slightest knowledge of thousands of workers entering the buildings on a daily basis?
Firefighters reported smelling cordite. Hmm, plus the underground fires burnt at over 1,000*f. That sure isn't jet fuel, that burnt off at impact. RP
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
