What Really Happened to 7 World Trade Center?
generic
> The Wisdom Fund
>
> What Really Happened to Seven World Trade Center?
>
> Why does the "The 9/11 Commission Report' report offer
> no explanation for its collapse on September 11, 2001?
> by Enver Masud
> On September 11, 2001, the 47-story Building 7
> of the World Trade Center (WTC 7) collapsed in
> about seven seconds. Why?
The answer is COMPLETLY SIMPLE: WTC Building 7 collapsed because YOU
ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
The proof: If you were NOT a conspiracy theorist, WTC 7 would remain
standing today!
> "The 9/11 Commission Report" tells us that the Mayor's Office of
> Emergency Management was located on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, and at 8:48
> AM the Emergency Operations Center was activated, but it does not
> mention the collapse of WTC 7. Major news media have largely ignored
> this glaring omission.
>
> Videos of the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, while readily available on
> alternative news sites, have generally not been shown to the public
> after September 11 by major news media. The collapse of the nine-story
> Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 was
> repeatedly shown on television, and initially blamed on Muslim
> terrorists.
>
> Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University,
> writes: "Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse
> lend support to my arguments: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and
> how they caused the building to collapse ["official theory"] remain
> unknown at this time."
>
> Scholars such as theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin, and MIT engineer
> Jeff King question the official version of September 11.
>
> Prof. Jones attempted to make his point on MSNBC's "The Situation" with
> Tucker Carlson last November. Radio talk show host Alex Jones was also
> on "The Situation". Watch this video, and you too may want to ask why
> WTC7 collapsed on September 11.
> VIDEO, etc. at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0417-WTC7.html
David Morgan (MAMS)
"generic" <generic_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> The answer is COMPLETLY SIMPLE: WTC Building 7 collapsed because YOU
> ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
>
> The proof: If you were NOT a conspiracy theorist, WTC 7 would remain
> standing today!
What an idiot....
Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition... there's no conspiracy
in the obvious, only in covering it up.
DemzRock
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:Pg71h.2777$ul5.1429@trnddc03...
I have only two statements that might back David up on this...
1> Unlike WTC1 and 2, WTC falls from the bottom. It doesn't pancake. The
airplane/pancake theory MIGHT expain 1 and 2, but WTC7 was not hit my
airplanes and does not have as much or the same kind of damage.... And it
doesn't fall the same way. Check it out...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
2> Larry Silverstein already said...."I remember getting a call from the,
er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were
gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss
of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that
decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Do you think he
meant "pull out" as in pull out the firefighters? Multiple mainstream
sources ( including Popular Mechanics, the NYT, and FEMA itself) say there
were no firefighters for 6 FREAKING HOURS in the building to evacuate before
the collapse! So either Larry meant that they pulled the building down or
he experienced some kind of black hole time warp or, perhaps, a coma between
evaculating the building and seeing it collapse. "...they made that
decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." He said this on
a nation-wide TV broadcast. It's recorded.
Jeffrey Turner
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:Pg71h.2777$ul5.1429@trnddc03...
>
>>"generic" <generic_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>>
>>
>>>The answer is COMPLETLY SIMPLE: WTC Building 7 collapsed because YOU
>>>ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!
>>>
>>>The proof: If you were NOT a conspiracy theorist, WTC 7 would remain
>>>standing today!
>>
>>
>>What an idiot....
>>
>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition... there's no
>>conspiracy
>>in the obvious, only in covering it up.
>
> I have only two statements that might back David up on this...
>
> 1> Unlike WTC1 and 2, WTC falls from the bottom. It doesn't pancake. The
> airplane/pancake theory MIGHT expain 1 and 2, but WTC7 was not hit my
> airplanes and does not have as much or the same kind of damage.... And it
> doesn't fall the same way. Check it out...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> coughed up in message...
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
I'll even leave your link intact for the sake of fairness.
One doesn't have to see "Loose Change" to discover many of the truths
about 911. Hundreds of documentaries and dozens of books have been
written.
There's one common trail between pundits for the crimes against America,
and that that they never really challenge the information, but attack and
attempt to degrade or disqualify the messenger -- as in the above link
the first real statement make by the author is that, "The fact that this
man (Dylan Avery - the film's author) is still alive, is proof that 'Loose
Change' is bullshit." Well now, isn't *that* a real mature defense?
Jeffrey Turner
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> coughed up in message...
>
>
>>http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
>
> I'll even leave your link intact for the sake of fairness.
>
> One doesn't have to see "Loose Change" to discover many of the truths
> about 911. Hundreds of documentaries and dozens of books have been
> written.
You conspiracy nuts are easy to fleece.
> There's one common trail between pundits for the crimes against America,
> and that that they never really challenge the information, but attack and
> attempt to degrade or disqualify the messenger -- as in the above link
> the first real statement make by the author is that, "The fact that this
> man (Dylan Avery - the film's author) is still alive, is proof that 'Loose
> Change' is bullshit." Well now, isn't *that* a real mature defense?
I wasn't really convinced by that argument, but it does have three good
links at the bottom.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
DemzRock
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
Really. It's quite a pathetic defense. If the thinking goes that the
gubmint would off the guy if he was close to the truth, well, maybe they
know there are too many other documentaries and books out there. Are they
going to off hundreds or even thousands of writers and film-makers? Polls
indicate up to 80% or more of the country doesn't trust the gubmint story to
some degree. Are they going to off 80% of the population. No, they will
carry on like it doesn't matter. After all, a huge chunk of the people who
don't believe the gubmint will still vote for the GOP anyway, because they
think, " Daddy knows best even if he lies to me."
DemzRock
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:12kauad...@corp.supernews.com...
Ah, the old all-or-nothing thinking ploy. Some things are silly about the
911 discussion, like the bill-folding thing, so EVERYTHING that the truth
seekers say must be BS. (By the way, the bill folding thing has little to
do with the truth seekers. It's more like a magic act.) The only problem
with your approach is that life isn't black or white. With your logic, you
must believe that EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE WORLD must be BS, because you can
find something silly about any idea or argument or theory that has ever been
thought.
Also you don't address the point. For WTC 1 and 2, we are given the excuse
that fuel and floors falling one on top of the other equal the first and
only collapses of large steel buildings by fire in history. But WTC7 is
different. It had little fire and, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK at the videos, you
see that the building doesn't pancake. And the lease owner of the building
admitted that they pulled it.
Pointing us to a silly website that has nothing to do with the argument is
actually quite pathetic.
DemzRock
"Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12kc3nh...@corp.supernews.com...
> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>
> Any at all?
>
> ---
> "You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war
> President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
> - Mass murdering Christian George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
>
Yep. There is plenty of evidence. Firstly, there is the video confession
on video tape from the lease owner of the property. That's a pretty big one
when someone admits a building was pulled. But, even without that, there is
plenty of video evidence of the way it fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell,
it is claimed, because of the airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor
after floor, pancaking on top of the next. Remember no other large steal
buildings have had total collapse from fire before or after 911. But with
1 and 2, they say it was fire and pancaking floors. Maybe one could buy
that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7. Little fire and the
building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse used for 1
and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7. Use your eyes and ears, man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NSqtD9SiE&mode=related&search=
Jeffrey Turner
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report,
which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its
collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers
now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised
by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important
thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south
face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the
face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25
percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also
discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and
its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the
exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests
the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in
which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains
that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7
show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two
penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The
entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the
structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's
failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area
for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you
take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it
could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire
section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under
investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were
designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With
columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely
have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby
exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was
fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency
generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a
generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the
basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working
hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the
fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire
that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the
chain-reaction collapse.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
mindarea
Vandar
> "Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
> news:12kc3nh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>>
>>Have any scientific evidence for that insane flying saucer claim?
>>Any at all?
>>
>>---
>>"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war
>>President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
>>- Mass murdering Christian George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
>>
>
>
> Yep. There is plenty of evidence.
Allow me to destroy your delusion...
> Firstly, there is the video confession
> on video tape from the lease owner of the property. That's a pretty big one
> when someone admits a building was pulled.
-The building wasn't pulled. Pulling a building involves attaching large
cables to the structure and using large pieces of equipment to actually
pull the building's supports out from underneath it.
http://911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
-Controlled demolitions experts have repeatedly stated that "pull" is
NOT industry jargon for a controlled demolition using explosives.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
-Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire
departments don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
-The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene (Peter Hayden) also used the term
"pull", in reference to pulling the firefighters out of the area. What
they "pulled" was the firefighting effort.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Thus, that piece of evidence isn't evidence at all.
> But, even without that, there is
> plenty of video evidence of the way it fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell,
> it is claimed, because of the airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor
> after floor, pancaking on top of the next.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
> Remember no other large steal
> buildings have had total collapse from fire before or after 911. But with
> 1 and 2, they say it was fire and pancaking floors.
No they don't.
See the NIST FAQ cited above.
> Maybe one could buy
> that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7. Little fire
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden shoots down the claims about a "little
fire" in building seven.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was
just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned
about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about
additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers
and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple
of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the
debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their
safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Also note his use of the word "pull".
> and the
> building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse used for 1
> and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
That's because 7 wasn't a 110-story uniquely constructed skyscraper hit
by an airplane.
> Use your eyes and ears, man!
Use your brain.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NSqtD9SiE&mode=related&search=
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ
I give you the words of controlled demolition experts, the FDNY, and
NIST, and all you have is a video of select clips on YouTube, compiled
by some unknown yahoo with an obvious political agenda, presented
completely out of context, and you think YOU know what happened?
Laughable.
DemzRock
Oh, still quoting debunked pop mechanics articles, eh?
"With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support
the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris
than the FEMA report indicated."
Yep, hypothosis. Theory.
1> "The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of
the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. "
The videos I've seen don't really show any "diagonal collapse". There is
one kink at the top, but, basically the building falls straight down into
it's own footprint like any controlled demo.
2> "There was no firefighting in WTC 7" That kinda proves that Larry
Silverstein couldn't have meant -- pull out the firefighters-- when he said
they they pulled WTC7, huh?
Jeffrey Turner
> "Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>>
>>Have any scientific evidence for that insane flying saucer claim?
>>Any at all?
>>
>>---
>>"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war
>>President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
>>- Mass murdering Christian George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
>>
>
>
> Yep. There is plenty of evidence. Firstly, there is the video confession
> on video tape from the lease owner of the property. That's a pretty big one
> when someone admits a building was pulled.
He didn't admit the building was pulled, whatever "pulling" a building
means, he said they should pull the group of firefighters out of the
building.
> But, even without that, there is
> plenty of video evidence of the way it fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell,
> it is claimed, because of the airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor
> after floor, pancaking on top of the next. Remember no other large steal
> buildings have had total collapse from fire before or after 911.
You mean from being hit by a fully-loaded commercial passenger jet,
followed by a fire.
> But with
> 1 and 2, they say it was fire and pancaking floors. Maybe one could buy
> that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7. Little fire and the
> building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse used for 1
> and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7. Use your eyes and ears, man!
It wasn't a little fire, one of the generators had a pressurized supply
line from a tank of diesel in the basement. Overall, the fuel tanks in
WTC7 could hold 43,000 gallons of diesel. And the building had been
severely damaged by debris falling from 1 and 2. Oh, and it didn't
collapse "from the bottom," the penthouse went first - after about half
a minute of rumblings.
By the way, you should change your nym. If this administration could
pull off the kind of massive conspiracy you're talking about without
anyone breaking ranks then it's obvious that you think the Republicans
_really_ rock. No Paul O'Neills, no loose lips to Bob Woodward,
nothing. Who'd a thunk it from the clowns in the White House?
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message...
news:12kbshb...@corp.supernews.com...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> >
> > There's one common trail between pundits for the crimes against America,
> > and that that they never really challenge the information, but attack and
> > attempt to degrade or disqualify the messenger -- as in the above link
> > the first real statement make by the author is that, "The fact that this
> > man (Dylan Avery - the film's author) is still alive, is proof that 'Loose
> > Change' is bullshit." Well now, isn't *that* a real mature defense?
> I wasn't really convinced by that argument, but it does have three good
> links at the bottom.
Really Jerry... let's not get in a battle of links, or I'll blow you out of the
water. ;-) People are awakening now whether you like it or not. Forty
story steel structures *cannot* undergo complete and total catastrophic
failure of 100% of all structural integritym, instaneously. <beep - end of
story.>
Building 7 WTC is a perfect implosion - there is no denying that it's
appearance in "collapsing" denies all laws of physics as applied to
steel framed buildings, especially one so highly re-inforced. There
is no way, outside of demolitions, that at least SOME portions of the
building would have remained standing and required demolitions to
be brought down. WTC 1 and 2 fell directly onto 3, 4, 5, and 6, and
burned for some time... yet three of those had to be demolitioned in
order to complete their destruction.
The 'collapse' defense argument for building 7's felling is getting old...
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message news:12kc79a...@corp.supernews.com...
> FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report,
> which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its
> collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers
> now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised
> by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.
Dude... you're really new at this.
DemzRock
news:%dp1h.4309$Ka1....@news01.roc.ny...
> DemzRock wrote:
>
>> "Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>> news:12kc3nh...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>>>
>>>Have any scientific evidence for that insane flying saucer claim?
>>>Any at all?
>>>
>>>---
>>>"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war
>>>President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
>>>- Mass murdering Christian George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26,
>>>2006
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. There is plenty of evidence.
>
> Allow me to destroy your delusion...
>
No, allow me to destroy yours.
>> Firstly, there is the video confession on video tape from the lease owner
>> of the property. That's a pretty big one when someone admits a building
>> was pulled.
>
> -The building wasn't pulled. Pulling a building involves attaching large
> cables to the structure and using large pieces of equipment to actually
> pull the building's supports out from underneath it.
> http://911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
>
Ah, interesting, but just because the term is used that way in this context
doesn't mean it is ALWAYs used to mean literally pull it.
> -Controlled demolitions experts have repeatedly stated that "pull" is NOT
> industry jargon for a controlled demolition using explosives.
> http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
>
WOW! Don't you have a current link? Why do you have to use that horrible
web archive deal to dredge up this? And it's only one guy posting about
what he got from yet another site.
> -Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire departments
> don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
>
True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
> -The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene (Peter Hayden) also used the term "pull",
> in reference to pulling the firefighters out of the area. What they
> "pulled" was the firefighting effort.
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>
> Thus, that piece of evidence isn't evidence at all.
>
I considered the excuses that you quote up above until I found out one
thing. There were NO FIGHTFIGHTERs to pull just before the collapse. It
was empty for 6 HOURS! So, how do you say, we decided to pull and then the
building collapsed? Did he go into a coma or a timewarp for 6 hours between
pulling out the firefighters and the collapse? Hmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Also, just because Larry said he was speaking to a firefighter doesn't mean
he was telling the guy to do it himself. He was alerting them that it was
going to be done. And there are videos of firefighters warning people that
the building was going to explode. How would they know that?
"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming
down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here
we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv
They don't say the building is about to collapse of it's own weight. They
don't say it is unstable. They use the B word.
>> But, even without that, there is plenty of video evidence of the way it
>> fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell, it is claimed, because of the
>> airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor after floor, pancaking on top
>> of the next.
>
> NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>
Of course, they don't. It only makes sense with 1 and 2.
>> Remember no other large steal buildings have had total collapse from fire
>> before or after 911. But with 1 and 2, they say it was fire and
>> pancaking floors.
>
> No they don't.
> See the NIST FAQ cited above.
>
OOO. That's interesting. Wasn't the pancake theory sold to America as the
excuse for their collapse? Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff. I
don't necessarily buy it all. But interesting.
>> Maybe one could buy that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7.
>> Little fire
>
> FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden shoots down the claims about a "little
> fire" in building seven.
>
> Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
> Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
> because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
> fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was
> just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about
> the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about
> additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and
> the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of
> hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We
> started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>
> Also note his use of the word "pull".
>
Yes, a good contrast. We wanted to start *pulling* people out and we
starting to *pull* guys back.
NOTICE They DON'T say *PULL IT* like Silverstein said.
People aren't an it. Like many English words, there are mulitple meanings,
especially with slang. You need to check your context. Maybe Larry doesn't
know how to talk, but I doubt it.
>> and the building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse
>> used for 1 and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
>
> That's because 7 wasn't a 110-story uniquely constructed skyscraper hit by
> an airplane.
>
>> Use your eyes and ears, man!
>
> Use your brain.
>
Use your own.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NSqtD9SiE&mode=related&search=
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ
>
> I give you the words of controlled demolition experts, the FDNY, and NIST,
> and all you have is a video of select clips on YouTube, compiled by some
> unknown yahoo with an obvious political agenda, presented completely out
> of context, and you think YOU know what happened?
> Laughable.
>
Controlled demolition experts themselves have viewed the collapse and said
it was controlled....
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
This Dutch Controlled Demo guy watches the WTC7 tape for the first time
without knowing this was on 911. He says it was definitely controlled. He
is very surprised to find out that the tape was made the day of 911.
Fascinating stuff.
Hey, I could be wrong about all this.
It's the 6 hour break between the firefighters leaving and the collapse that
makes me really question this.
Remember, Larry said it.
"...they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
collapse.”
Yep...
"...then we watched the building collapse.”
pull.... collapse....
If YOU are right, shouldn't he have "they made that decision to pull THE
LAST GUYS OUT and then LATER THAT DAY we watched the building collapse”!?!?!?
No, he says, ....pull... then collapse....
Or maybe he just doesn't know how to talk right?
Possible.
But I doubt it.
DemzRock
"mindarea" <mind...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4546127f$0$12183$8826...@free.teranews.com...
OH WOW! That really straightens me out!
Answers all the questions.
mindarea
Good. Next, stop using the death of 3000 of my fellow Americans to advance
your warped world view. Goddamned tin-foil-hat cretin.
DemzRock
I will when your side stops using the death of 3000 of my fellow Americans
to advance
your warped world view. Goddamned tin-foil-hat cretin!
Yep, I can say the same thing about you.
You do know that W admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that he
doesn't even care about OBL any more, right?
Vandar
It's generally not used at all. As you heard the guy say: "It isn't
every day that you pull down an 8 story building", but conspiracists
would like people to believe they "pulled" a 47 story building a few
days earlier.
You don't "pull" skyscrapers, you either dismantle or implode them.
"Pull" is not used in reference to dismantling or imploding... ever.
>>-Controlled demolitions experts have repeatedly stated that "pull" is NOT
>>industry jargon for a controlled demolition using explosives.
>>http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
>>
>
>
> WOW! Don't you have a current link? Why do you have to use that horrible
> web archive deal to dredge up this?
Because the original page is gone.
> And it's only one guy posting about
> what he got from yet another site.
And here's a page from that other site.
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
>>-Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire departments
>>don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
>>
>
>
> True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
There is no other option.
>>-The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene (Peter Hayden) also used the term "pull",
>>in reference to pulling the firefighters out of the area. What they
>>"pulled" was the firefighting effort.
>>http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>>
>>Thus, that piece of evidence isn't evidence at all.
>>
>
>
> I considered the excuses that you quote up above until I found out one
> thing. There were NO FIGHTFIGHTERs to pull just before the collapse. It
> was empty for 6 HOURS! So, how do you say, we decided to pull and then the
> building collapsed? Did he go into a coma or a timewarp for 6 hours between
> pulling out the firefighters and the collapse? Hmmmm
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
You conveniently snipped the part that answers that very question.
"It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any
attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going
to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building
there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was
remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling
the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches
along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we
were concerned for their safety."
> Also, just because Larry said he was speaking to a firefighter doesn't mean
> he was telling the guy to do it himself. He was alerting them that it was
> going to be done. And there are videos of firefighters warning people that
> the building was going to explode. How would they know that?
You say you considered the sources but you didn't even read them.
From the interview of Deputy Chief Hayden I previously cited:
"We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into
the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only
of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still
standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would
collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between
floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty
sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a
visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5
o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse."
As for the cop saying it was going to explode - Always remember that
half the country has below average intelligence.
> "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming
> down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here
> we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv
>
> They don't say the building is about to collapse of it's own weight. They
> don't say it is unstable. They use the B word.
It isn't a they, it's one cop.
>>>But, even without that, there is plenty of video evidence of the way it
>>>fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell, it is claimed, because of the
>>>airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor after floor, pancaking on top
>>>of the next.
>>
>>NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse
>>http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>>
>
>
> Of course, they don't. It only makes sense with 1 and 2.
You really should try READING the references provided.
They are talking about WTC 1 & 2.
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>>>Remember no other large steal buildings have had total collapse from fire
>>>before or after 911. But with 1 and 2, they say it was fire and
>>>pancaking floors.
>>
>>No they don't.
>>See the NIST FAQ cited above.
>>
>
>
> OOO. That's interesting. Wasn't the pancake theory sold to America as the
> excuse for their collapse?
It's what a lot of people assumed before the report came out.
> Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff. I
> don't necessarily buy it all. But interesting.
>
>
>>>Maybe one could buy that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7.
>>>Little fire
>>
>>FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden shoots down the claims about a "little
>>fire" in building seven.
>>
>>Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
>>Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
>>because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
>>fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was
>>just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about
>>the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about
>>additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and
>>the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of
>>hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We
>>started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
>>http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>>
>>Also note his use of the word "pull".
>>
>
>
> Yes, a good contrast. We wanted to start *pulling* people out and we
> starting to *pull* guys back.
>
> NOTICE They DON'T say *PULL IT* like Silverstein said.
The "it" was the firefighting effort. It makes perfect sense in context
with his entire statement.
"You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest
thing to do is, is pull it".
He means get the people out of the building - Don't risk anymore lives.
> People aren't an it. Like many English words, there are mulitple meanings,
> especially with slang. You need to check your context. Maybe Larry doesn't
> know how to talk, but I doubt it.
He's no dummy. Which is something else to consider. If he purposely
destroyed his own building for the insurance money (a criminal act and a
financial loss), would he be stupid enough to actually admit in front of
a camera while his insurance claim was still pending?
I don't think so.
>>>and the building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse
>>>used for 1 and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
>>
>>That's because 7 wasn't a 110-story uniquely constructed skyscraper hit by
>>an airplane.
>>
>>
>>>Use your eyes and ears, man!
>>
>>Use your brain.
>>
>
>
> Use your own.
I can use no one else's.
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NSqtD9SiE&mode=related&search=
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ
>>
>>I give you the words of controlled demolition experts, the FDNY, and NIST,
>>and all you have is a video of select clips on YouTube, compiled by some
>>unknown yahoo with an obvious political agenda, presented completely out
>>of context, and you think YOU know what happened?
>>Laughable.
>>
>
>
> Controlled demolition experts themselves have viewed the collapse and said
> it was controlled....
>
> Example:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
>
> This Dutch Controlled Demo guy watches the WTC7 tape for the first time
> without knowing this was on 911. He says it was definitely controlled. He
> is very surprised to find out that the tape was made the day of 911.
> Fascinating stuff.
What I find most interesting about that clip is that it's an alleged
"expert" who didn't even know how many buildings collapsed on 9/11. He's
watched one video, obviously presented to him by a conspiracist, and all
of a sudden he knows it was a controlled demolition. Why? Because he
can't explain it otherwise.
A team of experts who are actually conducting a full investigation say
otherwise.
Really... the guy didn't even know building 7 collapsed. Now THAT'S
ignorance.
> Hey, I could be wrong about all this.
We all *could* be.
> It's the 6 hour break between the firefighters leaving and the collapse that
> makes me really question this.
>
> Remember, Larry said it.
>
> "...they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
> collapse.”
>
> Yep...
>
> "...then we watched the building collapse.”
>
>
> pull.... collapse....
>
>
> If YOU are right, shouldn't he have "they made that decision to pull THE
> LAST GUYS OUT and then LATER THAT DAY we watched the building collapse”!?!?!?
Don't know. I've never spoken with Silverstein so I have no idea how he
speaks. It's probably just the way he is - matter of fact with the
fewest words possible.
DemzRock
Never say never. Especially from a real estate lease holder. He might use
the slang a little more loosely than real control demo guys.
>>>-Controlled demolitions experts have repeatedly stated that "pull" is NOT
>>>industry jargon for a controlled demolition using explosives.
>>>http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
>>>
>>
>>
>> WOW! Don't you have a current link? Why do you have to use that
>> horrible web archive deal to dredge up this?
>
> Because the original page is gone.
>
>> And it's only one guy posting about what he got from yet another site.
>
> And here's a page from that other site.
> http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
>
No reference to the word "pull" or WTC7 there, dude.
>>>-Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire
>>>departments don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
>
> There is no other option.
Right. No other option but to let the pre-installed you know whats be
triggered? I know that sounds silly. But you DO know what was housed in
that building, right?
>
>>>-The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene (Peter Hayden) also used the term "pull",
>>>in reference to pulling the firefighters out of the area. What they
>>>"pulled" was the firefighting effort.
>>>http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>>>
>>>Thus, that piece of evidence isn't evidence at all.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I considered the excuses that you quote up above until I found out one
>> thing. There were NO FIGHTFIGHTERs to pull just before the collapse. It
>> was empty for 6 HOURS! So, how do you say, we decided to pull and then
>> the building collapsed? Did he go into a coma or a timewarp for 6 hours
>> between pulling out the firefighters and the collapse? Hmmmm
>> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> You conveniently snipped the part that answers that very question.
>
> "It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt
> to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose.
> We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were
> worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of
> the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a
> couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the
> debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their
> safety."
>
"pull guys" vs "pull it"
Maybe Larry thinks people are its.
>> Also, just because Larry said he was speaking to a firefighter doesn't
>> mean he was telling the guy to do it himself. He was alerting them that
>> it was going to be done. And there are videos of firefighters warning
>> people that the building was going to explode. How would they know that?
>
> You say you considered the sources but you didn't even read them.
>
> From the interview of Deputy Chief Hayden I previously cited:
>
> "We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into
> the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only
> of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still
> standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would
> collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors
> 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she
> was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge,
> it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the
> afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing
> was going to collapse."
>
> As for the cop saying it was going to explode - Always remember that half
> the country has below average intelligence.
>
And maybe Larry Silverstein too, since he can't talk.
>> "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming
>> down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ...
>> "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv
>>
>> They don't say the building is about to collapse of it's own weight.
>> They don't say it is unstable. They use the B word.
>
> It isn't a they, it's one cop.
>
>>>>But, even without that, there is plenty of video evidence of the way it
>>>>fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell, it is claimed, because of the
>>>>airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor after floor, pancaking on
>>>>top of the next.
>>>
>>>NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse
>>>http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, they don't. It only makes sense with 1 and 2.
>
> You really should try READING the references provided.
> They are talking about WTC 1 & 2.
>
I'm REALLY sorry. I don't have all day to read these in detail right now.
I have work to do. Just keep snipping and pasting the relevant stuff so I
can see it here. Otherwise I may look at it tonight. By the way, this is
from the gubmint, right? hehe
Yes, PULL IT AND THEN THE BUILDING FELL DOWN. Not Pull it and then later in
the day, the building fell down.
Again, I will admit, maybe the guy just can't talk straight.
>> People aren't an it. Like many English words, there are mulitple
>> meanings, especially with slang. You need to check your context. Maybe
>> Larry doesn't know how to talk, but I doubt it.
>
> He's no dummy. Which is something else to consider. If he purposely
> destroyed his own building for the insurance money (a criminal act and a
> financial loss), would he be stupid enough to actually admit in front of a
> camera while his insurance claim was still pending?
>
> I don't think so.
>
AH, BUT, perhaps that's why it came out as a slightly mangled statement?
AH- HA! Maybe he realized what he was saying as he said it?
>>>>and the building collapsed all at once... from the bottom. The excuse
>>>>used for 1 and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
>>>
>>>That's because 7 wasn't a 110-story uniquely constructed skyscraper hit
>>>by an airplane.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Use your eyes and ears, man!
>>>
>>>Use your brain.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Use your own.
>
> I can use no one else's.
>
Phew! That's a relief.
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5NSqtD9SiE&mode=related&search=
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47EakvagQ
>>>
>>>I give you the words of controlled demolition experts, the FDNY, and
>>>NIST, and all you have is a video of select clips on YouTube, compiled by
>>>some unknown yahoo with an obvious political agenda, presented completely
>>>out of context, and you think YOU know what happened?
>>>Laughable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Controlled demolition experts themselves have viewed the collapse and
>> said it was controlled....
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
>>
>> This Dutch Controlled Demo guy watches the WTC7 tape for the first time
>> without knowing this was on 911. He says it was definitely controlled.
>> He is very surprised to find out that the tape was made the day of 911.
>> Fascinating stuff.
>
> What I find most interesting about that clip is that it's an alleged
> "expert" who didn't even know how many buildings collapsed on 9/11. He's
> watched one video, obviously presented to him by a conspiracist, and all
> of a sudden he knows it was a controlled demolition. Why? Because he can't
> explain it otherwise.
> A team of experts who are actually conducting a full investigation say
> otherwise.
>
Right. Gubmint team posting on a gubmint site.
Like I would expect a pro-electric car analysis on Exxon's site. Actually,
that's much more likely. They might do it as public relations.
> Really... the guy didn't even know building 7 collapsed. Now THAT'S
> ignorance.
>
Um, a LOT of people didn't know WTC7 collapsed on 911, expecially people
living in Holland, I would bet.
>> Hey, I could be wrong about all this.
>
> We all *could* be.
>
OK.
>> It's the 6 hour break between the firefighters leaving and the collapse
>> that makes me really question this.
>>
>> Remember, Larry said it.
>>
>> "...they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
>> collapse.”
>>
>> Yep...
>>
>> "...then we watched the building collapse.”
>>
>>
>> pull.... collapse....
>>
>>
>> If YOU are right, shouldn't he have "they made that decision to pull THE
>> LAST GUYS OUT and then LATER THAT DAY we watched the building collapse”!?!?!?
>
> Don't know. I've never spoken with Silverstein so I have no idea how he
> speaks. It's probably just the way he is - matter of fact with the fewest
> words possible.
>
>> No, he says, ....pull... then collapse....
>>
>> Or maybe he just doesn't know how to talk right?
>>
>> Possible.
>>
>> But I doubt it.
>>
>>
>>
>
Ah, so Silvertein CAN'T talk right. OK. That actually might be the truth.
See I am only after the truth.
But, it still seems pretty odd to say we decided to pull it and then it came
down.
From Larry's statement, watching the videos, and seeing Demo experts talk
about it, I am about 70% convinced it was controlled demo. I think Dave M.
is 99% convinced.
But, again, I am only interested in knowing the truth. With the most
secretive gubmint in history, I don't think we're going to get too much any
time soon.
mindarea
So? I'm not a 'W' supporter or an Iraqi war supporter, your comments
referencing this and W's current position on OBL are therefore irrelevant
to me and any discussion involving the actual mechanisms of the towers
collapse. What your comments do reveal however is that, just as I
suspected, you have incorporated 911 into a convoluted and distorted world
view. And it only took 2 posts to drag this out of you. Congratulations
dumbass.
DemzRock
So you do not support W or the Iraq war, huh?
So you must question W on some things, and you must question the gubmint's
line on the war, huh?
AND YET, you refuse to even consider questioning the gubmint line on what
happened on 911. YEAH RIGHT. You are so transparent.
And your mindless name-calling proves to me that you have nothing to
contribute to the conversation.
So.BAH-BYE.
Jeffrey Turner
Silverstein's 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 then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire
commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition
business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire
Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander
told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the
building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his
view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those
firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the
building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7
World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on
the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just
see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look
right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high
up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They
said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were
really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street.
They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there -
this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried
about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were
trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did
come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal
collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon
was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center,
which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and
Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered
the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so
we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time
and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did
collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on
what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half
after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade
Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
http://forum.grasscity.com/general/114569-demolition-expert-wtc-7-a.html
DemzRock
- Fact - This may not be relevant. "And they made that decision
to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Does he really say who
"they" are?
> Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
>
> "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire
> Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander
> told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the
> building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his
> view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those
> firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the
> building."
>
>
-Fact. People like to CYA.
-Another fact. From multiple mainstream sources ( including Popular
Mechanics, the NYT, and FEMA itself) say there were no firefighters for
about 6 HOURS in the building to evacuate before the collapse!
>
> He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
>
> "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7
> World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on
> the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just
> see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look
> right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high
> up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
> tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They
> said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were
> really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
> regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street.
> They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there -
> this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried
> about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were
> trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did
> come down." - Richard Banaciski
>
-Is it a FACT? That there are really no good picures of this so-called
major damage?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
> Banaciski_Richard.txt
>
> Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal
> collapse from fire...
>
Normally?
I thought large steel buildings don't NORMALLY collapse from fire. Maybe
they were expecting a NORMAL partial collapse, like part of a floor here or
there. Not a very RARE complete collapse into it's own footprint?
hmmmm.... just maybe...?
> "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon
> was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center,
> which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and
> Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered
> the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so
> we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time
> and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did
> collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on
> what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half
> after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade
> Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
>
> http://forum.grasscity.com/general/114569-demolition-expert-wtc-7-a.html
>
> --
> Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
> is the death of knowledge.
> -Alfred North Whitehead
"And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building
collapse."
Again, unless he meant something else, the guy can't talk. It was "much
later on in the day" before it collapsed as you quote your copypasta above.
If only he said "later" and not "then," I could go with the idea that he
was a nervous idiot in that show. I will seriously admit that it's possible
he just truncated the day in his mind, but I still have doubts.
In the mean time, it doesn't matter if it was incompetance, complicity, or a
combination.
We do know 911 was used as an excuse to invade the wrong country and do some
other nasty things.
DemzRock
<mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1162240344.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> By the way, you should change your nym. If this administration could
>> pull off the kind of massive conspiracy you're talking about without
>> anyone breaking ranks then it's obvious that you think the Republicans
>> _really_ rock.
>
> the WTC, they could easily have bumped off the '9/11 truth' idiots long
> ago.
>
> In reality, they're useful idiots who help Bush cover up the
> incompetence of the US government prior to 9/11. by making everyone who
> questions the official 9/11 story look like a mush-brained moron. If
> Bush didn't have them he'd have had to invent them.
>
> Mark
>
Who is to say that they didn't invent some of them?
Deputy Dumbya Dawg
"DemzRock" <Demz...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:Fd-dnb8vReQu6tvY...@comcast.com...
:
: <mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Who says that the truth idiots are not the ones pulling
off the false flag event in the first place?
dawg
:
:
:
DemzRock
"Deputy Dumbya Dawg" <Deputy_Du...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:wWu1h.1989$zf....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not too many people that I know of.
John P.
>>>Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>> Have any scientific evidence for that insane flying saucer claim?
>> Any at all?
> Yep. There is plenty of evidence. Firstly, there is the video
> confession on video tape from the lease owner of the property.
Really? I've heard his comments in their entirety and somehow missed where
he 'confessed' to anything. Could you specifically quote his confession?
> That's a pretty big one when someone admits a building was pulled.
Is it? What does it mean when a building is "pulled"? What building was
"pulled"? Who admitted to "pulling" it?
> But, even without that, there is plenty of video evidence of the way it
> fell.
> For example, WTC1 and 2 fell, it is claimed, because of the airplane fuel
> fire and the felling of floor after floor, pancaking on top of the next.
Who makes this claim? The final NIST report disagrees with every point in
that statement.
> Remember no other large steal buildings have had total collapse from
> fire before or after 911.
Actually, several STEEL framed structures have collapsed due to fire. ...
but don't let facts get in your way, you're on a roll!
> But with 1 and 2, they say it was fire and pancaking floors.
This is your 'evidence' that building 7 was brought down by controlled
demolition?
Perhaps you don't understand what 'evidence' is.
> But look at the videos of WTC7. Little fire and the building collapsed
> all at once... from the bottom.
Fires on nearly every floor, an 18 story hole torn from the building by the
collapsing towers... but, again, those are just the facts, don't let them
influence you in any way. If you were to do so, the next thing you'd know,
people would expect you to be able to apply logic and reasoning... it would
just get messy. Carry on as you were.
> The excuse used for 1 and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
> Use your eyes and ears, man!
I planned on using the evidence you claimed exists. I had hoped you would
present that evidence. I am very disappointed you have chosen to keep it
secret.
John P.
>> -The building wasn't pulled. Pulling a building involves attaching large
>> cables to the structure and using large pieces of equipment to actually
>> pull the building's supports out from underneath it.
>> http://911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
> Ah, interesting, but just because the term is used that way in this
> context doesn't mean it is ALWAYs used to mean literally pull it.
The problem you have with this point is that you cannot show that it is ever
used in the context you claim (i.e. demolish a building with explosives). In
that regard, the demolition industry disagrees with you. To them, it always
means pulling a building down with cables.
>> -Controlled demolitions experts have repeatedly stated that "pull" is NOT
>> industry jargon for a controlled demolition using explosives.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
> WOW! Don't you have a current link? Why do you have to use that horrible
> web archive deal to dredge up this? And it's only one guy posting about
> what he got from yet another site.
How about this then...
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
From page 9 of 11...
"2. 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. This author and our research team were on site when workers
pulled
over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say
with certainty
that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground
Zero on 9/11,
physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure
did not collapse
in that manner anyway."
>> -Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire
>> departments don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
> True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
Yes... perhaps Silverstein was thinking the fire commander didn't have much
to do and maybe he could make a few phone calls to rustle up a demolition
company who was willing to come in to plant explosives in a burning building
that was showing signs of imminent collapse.
>> -The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene (Peter Hayden) also used the term "pull",
>> in reference to pulling the firefighters out of the area. What they
>> "pulled" was the firefighting effort.
>> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
>> Thus, that piece of evidence isn't evidence at all.
> I considered the excuses that you quote up above until I found out one
> thing. There were NO FIGHTFIGHTERs to pull just before the collapse. It
> was empty for 6 HOURS! So, how do you say, we decided to pull and then
> the building collapsed? Did he go into a coma or a timewarp for 6 hours
> between pulling out the firefighters and the collapse? Hmmmm
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Silverstein gets a call from an FDNY commander, telling him they cannot
battle the fires in WTC 7. It would seem logical that he would presume there
was some firefighting effort going on there. If you read the FDNY
statements, they were pretty much going back and forth in the vicinity of 7,
exploring the possibility of making some attempts there, then deciding
against it. Communications among the emergency crews were poor. There was,
perhaps, just a bit of confusion that morning as to what was happening and
what should be done. You have no reason to believe Silverstein would have
known there was no firefighting effort in 7 (or even the FDNY commander for
that matter).
They were discussing firefighting efforts. There is nothing to suggest the
subject was changed telepathically to controlled demolition of a burning
building that was showing signs of collapse.
> Also, just because Larry said he was speaking to a firefighter doesn't
> mean he was telling the guy to do it himself. He was alerting them that
> it was going to be done. And there are videos of firefighters warning
> people that the building was going to explode. How would they know that?
Believe it or not, firefighters have an aversion to being inside a building
when it collapses. As such, part of their training involves noting signs of
possible or probable collapse. Extensive fires, severe damage to the
building, a bowing wall, creaking and groaning noises coming from the
structure, etc. told them it was going to collapse.
> "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming
> down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ...
> "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_blow_up.wmv
> They don't say the building is about to collapse of it's own weight. They
> don't say it is unstable. They use the B word.
Hmmm.... but when they use the P word (pull), it doesn't mean to them what
it normally means?
Try for some consistency.
>> NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse
>> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
> Of course, they don't. It only makes sense with 1 and 2.
The final NIST report doesn't support the pancake theory of collapse for 1 &
2.
> OOO. That's interesting. Wasn't the pancake theory sold to America as
> the excuse for their collapse?
No.
>> Also note his use of the word "pull".
> Yes, a good contrast. We wanted to start *pulling* people out and we
> starting to *pull* guys back.
> NOTICE They DON'T say *PULL IT* like Silverstein said.
Maybe that's why they wouldn't let him wear a fireman suit that day.
> People aren't an it. Like many English words, there are mulitple
> meanings, especially with slang. You need to check your context. Maybe
> Larry doesn't know how to talk, but I doubt it.
Then again, there is no evidence that cables were attached to WTC 7 and it
was pulled over. The videos clearly show is falling nearly straight down. If
Silverstein ordered it pulled, no one listened to him.
> It's the 6 hour break between the firefighters leaving and the collapse
> that makes me really question this.
Yeah... maybe they hired a bunch of mental patients to go into a burning
building that was showing signs of collapse and rig the building (which
would normally take several MONTHS) in just 6 hours.
Yeah... I could see where you might find that a logical conclusion.
John P.
>> It's generally not used at all. As you heard the guy say: "It isn't every
>> day that you pull down an 8 story building", but conspiracists would like
>> people to believe they "pulled" a 47 story building a few days earlier.
>> You don't "pull" skyscrapers, you either dismantle or implode them.
>> "Pull" is not used in reference to dismantling or imploding... ever.
> Never say never. Especially from a real estate lease holder. He might
> use the slang a little more loosely than real control demo guys.
Then they wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about. ... but then, he
was talking to an FDNY commander, who really wouldn't know what they hell
Silverstein meant if he was inproperly using a demolition industry slang
term.
> "pull guys" vs "pull it"
> Maybe Larry thinks people are its.
Or maybe he thinks a firefighting effort is an it. ... but then, so would
most other people.
> I'm REALLY sorry. I don't have all day to read these in detail right now.
> I have work to do. Just keep snipping and pasting the relevant stuff so I
> can see it here. Otherwise I may look at it tonight. By the way, this is
> from the gubmint, right? hehe
While you're reading the NIST report, you might want to check out the very
beginning where they list the experts involved in the investigation. You'll
note that most of them are not employed by the government.
> Yes, PULL IT AND THEN THE BUILDING FELL DOWN. Not Pull it and then later
> in the day, the building fell down.
Because people do talk like that, right. "He decided to pull it, we hung up
the phone, then there was a pause, he walked over to where he could see the
building, then I went and stood next to him, and we watched the building
come down." Right? I mean, he does say "We watched it come down". By 'we',
we should take that to mean Silverstein and the FDNY commander. They were
talking on the phone, but somehow, once the hung up, they were standing
together in a spot where they could see WTC 7. Right?
> Again, I will admit, maybe the guy just can't talk straight.
Or maybe he was simply recanting a conversation from a very unusual,
stressful and hectic day and he didn't stop and ponder whether internet
conspiracy theorists might hang on his every word.
John P.
> - Fact - This may not be relevant. "And they made that decision
> to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Does he really say
> who "they" are?
Nope.
Does he say why he was talking on a phone to someone he must have been
standing next to?
"...then we watched the building collapse"
>> Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
>>
>> "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire
>> Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander
>> told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the
>> building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his
>> view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those
>> firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the
>> building."
> -Fact. People like to CYA.
Fact - Insurance companies like to investigate fraudulent insurance claims.
How many insurance companies do you think might have investigated the WTC
collapses?
> -Another fact. From multiple mainstream sources ( including Popular
> Mechanics, the NYT, and FEMA itself) say there were no firefighters for
> about 6 HOURS in the building to evacuate before the collapse!
.... yet, that isn't what Silverstein was told.
Why is it you only believe Silverstein when you think he is saying something
that supports your presupposed theory? How is it that when he counters what
you want to believe, he is simply covering his ass?
> -Is it a FACT? That there are really no good picures of this so-called
> major damage?
There are a couple of pictures... but then, perhaps you are right. Maybe all
the FDNY and NYPD personnel are lying to cover for the people who murdered
their brothers.
>> Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal
>> collapse from fire...
> Normally?
> I thought large steel buildings don't NORMALLY collapse from fire.
> Maybe they were expecting a NORMAL partial collapse, like part of a floor
> here or there. Not a very RARE complete collapse into it's own footprint?
> hmmmm.... just maybe...?
I don't think a firefighter cares much to be crushed under a single floor,
or under the entire building. Either way, once a building shows any sign of
collapse, they would prefer to be out of the building. Given everything they
have to do in such an event, I doubt they spend much time considering the
number of floors which may collapse.
"Hey Joe! Get outta there! That thing looks like it's gonna collapse!"
"Yeah... but it only looks like a few floors will collapse. I think I'll
stay a while longer. This hot dog is almost done. Why don't you grab a stick
and roast one up for yourself? If the floor above us collapses, we'll just
have to eat them on Flat Bread! HAHAHAHAHA!"
OK... so, I'll admit, I actually do know at least a couple of firefighters
who might have a conversation like that! ;-)
John P.
>> Pull your head out of your ass.
> OH WOW! That really straightens me out!
> Answers all the questions.
Probably makes it easier to breath too. Did the light hurt your eyes at
first?
Who would have guessed the solution would be so simple?
Feel better now?
John P.
>> More to the point, if they could pull off the deliberate destruction of
>> the WTC, they could easily have bumped off the '9/11 truth' idiots long
>> ago.
>> In reality, they're useful idiots who help Bush cover up the
>> incompetence of the US government prior to 9/11. by making everyone who
>> questions the official 9/11 story look like a mush-brained moron. If
>> Bush didn't have them he'd have had to invent them.
> Who is to say that they didn't invent some of them?
Who is to say the government didn't invent ALL of them? I mean, is it
possible for people to *really* be *that* stupid and live? Given the number
of conspiracy kooks who buy into these ridiculous kook conspiracy theories,
there'd have to be a sucker born ever 5 seconds.
mindarea
Your insistence to continually inject your politics or fucked-up
philosophy indicates you have another agenda, one in which the death of
3000 innocent Americans is simply a pawn on a chess board in the
convoluted, tormented world of a groundless, fact-less conspiracy. You
have no facts, your understanding of the world is flawed, your
understanding of 911 is flawed, you have nothing except suspicion, fear
a demented world view, a handful of 'scientists' (who in reality are
lunatics or fundamentalist extremists), and a circle-jerk of weblinks
mutually supporting a collective incompetence.
You are not a patriot. In reality, you are a traitor, one who defiles the
memory of all those who died on 911 and their families. By continually
suggesting government malfeasance you dishonor the 911 victims, yourself
and your country. By continually suggesting this duplicity it is you who
is diverting and obscuring blaming the real culprits, and you are by these
actions hastening and encouraging the next attack. It is you and your
band of merry conspirator's who are guilty of this, not I
Bye bye asswipe, dry up and blow away. I think the fake moon
landing or crop-circle forums are just heating up, maybe you should check
them out.
DemzRock
"John P." <Admir...@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com> wrote in message
news:TtmdnYgkXqSOJNvY...@comcast.com...
> "DemzRock" <Demz...@rock.com> wrote in a message
>
>> - Fact - This may not be relevant. "And they made that decision
>> to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Does he really say
>> who "they" are?
>
> Nope.
>
> Does he say why he was talking on a phone to someone he must have been
> standing next to?
> "...then we watched the building collapse"
>
>
>>> Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
>>>
>>> "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire
>>> Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander
>>> told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the
>>> building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his
>>> view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those
>>> firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the
>>> building."
>
>> -Fact. People like to CYA.
>
> Fact - Insurance companies like to investigate fraudulent insurance
> claims.
>
> How many insurance companies do you think might have investigated the WTC
> collapses?
>
-Fact They may have bought the same line you're buying.
>
>> -Another fact. From multiple mainstream sources ( including Popular
>> Mechanics, the NYT, and FEMA itself) say there were no firefighters for
>> about 6 HOURS in the building to evacuate before the collapse!
>
> .... yet, that isn't what Silverstein was told.
>
How do you know that?
> Why is it you only believe Silverstein when you think he is saying
> something that supports your presupposed theory? How is it that when he
> counters what you want to believe, he is simply covering his ass?
>
I don't assume anything. All I know is that he said they pulled it and then
watched the building fall. Maybe he was confused about who was in the
building. Maybe he compressed the events of the day in his mind. I've said
that a few time in earlier threads. But it's just freaking weird that
there was 6 hours before the firefighters were pulled out and the buildings
collapse into it's own footprint. It may all be coincidence. I admit that.
But it's just odd.
>> -Is it a FACT? That there are really no good picures of this so-called
>> major damage?
>
> There are a couple of pictures... but then, perhaps you are right. Maybe
> all the FDNY and NYPD personnel are lying to cover for the people who
> murdered their brothers.
>
>>> Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal
>>> collapse from fire...
>
>> Normally?
>> I thought large steel buildings don't NORMALLY collapse from fire. Maybe
>> they were expecting a NORMAL partial collapse, like part of a floor here
>> or there. Not a very RARE complete collapse into it's own footprint?
>> hmmmm.... just maybe...?
>
> I don't think a firefighter cares much to be crushed under a single floor,
> or under the entire building. Either way, once a building shows any sign
> of collapse, they would prefer to be out of the building. Given everything
> they have to do in such an event, I doubt they spend much time considering
> the number of floors which may collapse.
>
> "Hey Joe! Get outta there! That thing looks like it's gonna collapse!"
>
> "Yeah... but it only looks like a few floors will collapse. I think I'll
> stay a while longer. This hot dog is almost done. Why don't you grab a
> stick and roast one up for yourself? If the floor above us collapses,
> we'll just have to eat them on Flat Bread! HAHAHAHAHA!"
>
> OK... so, I'll admit, I actually do know at least a couple of firefighters
> who might have a conversation like that! ;-)
>
hehe Well, hey, I just want to know the truth. Maybe he just stumbled on
his words. I bet he wishes he said it slightly differently.
DemzRock
> "DemzRock" <Demz...@rock.com> wrote in a message
>
>>> -The building wasn't pulled. Pulling a building involves attaching large
>>> cables to the structure and using large pieces of equipment to actually
>>> pull the building's supports out from underneath it.
>>> http://911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi
>
>> Ah, interesting, but just because the term is used that way in this
>> context doesn't mean it is ALWAYs used to mean literally pull it.
>
> The problem you have with this point is that you cannot show that it is
> ever used in the context you claim (i.e. demolish a building with
> explosives). In that regard, the demolition industry disagrees with you.
> To them, it always means pulling a building down with cables.
>
I'm not sure that's true. I have one friend who said he had friends in the
demo business and that he would ask about it. He never got back to me on
it. He later responded to be on other issues about WTC7.
jod911?
>>> -Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire
>>> departments don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
>
>> True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
>
> Yes... perhaps Silverstein was thinking the fire commander didn't have
> much to do and maybe he could make a few phone calls to rustle up a
> demolition company who was willing to come in to plant explosives in a
> burning building that was showing signs of imminent collapse.
>
No. They would have had to be planted ahead of time. That's the whole
point.
BDK
mind...@gmail.com says...
LOL, great post. Nicely put.
BDK
Fred Fazemeier
Actually, your post to him reinforces your own projection. For anyone to
question a shoddy government investigation is not the act of a traitor, as
you claim. For someone to NOT question and assume the government has our
best interests is to become complacent and lose your voice. Smearing the
messenger in this puts you further away from credibility. You offer no
arguments, just name-calling and implications of mental illness to bolster
your position. Weak.
*us*
>...popularmechanics...
Chertoff's cousin wrote that piece of propaganda.
Go ahead, believe and be fleeced.
DemzRock
Well, mindarea, I think your insistence to continually inject your politics
or fucked-up
philosophy indicates you have another agenda, one in which the death of
3000 innocent Americans is simply a pawn on a chess board in the
convoluted, tormented world of a groundless, fact-less conspiracy. You
have no facts, your understanding of the world is flawed, your
understanding of 911 is flawed, you have nothing except suspicion, fear
a demented world view, a handful of 'scientists' (who in reality are
lunatics or fundamentalist extremists), and a circle-jerk of weblinks
mutually supporting a collective incompetence.
You are not a patriot. In reality, you are a traitor, one who defiles the
memory of all those who died on 911 and their families. By continually
suggesting government lack of malfeasance you dishonor the 911 victims,
yourself
and your country. By continually suggesting their innocense it is you who
is diverting and obscuring blaming the real culprits, and you are by these
actions hastening and encouraging the next attack. It is you and your
band of merry conspirator's who are guilty of this, not I
Bye bye asswipe, dry up and blow away. I think the fake moon
landing or crop-circle forums are just heating up, maybe you should check
them out.
======================================================
Seriously, more people on your side believe in fake moon landings and crop
circle then our side, or, at least, me. One of my conservative friends at
work thinks the moon landing was faked. I don't. And people have
confessed to making crop circles. I know they are fake. But you don't
know all the particulars of 911 and neither do I. W and company have
blocked investigations and even sent records out of the country. Probably
they were just covering their incompetance, but without more open and more
complete investigations, how can we trust them?
Bottom line, I, like millions of others, are just seeking the truth. I am
open to debating and finding the truth.
Your mind is closed as you defend a bunch of lying neocons.
DemzRock
True.
But who is the sucker and who is the kook, when neither side really knows
that many facts.
If W and company are just incompetant (very possible), then why do they help
all the countries who actually WERE involved with 911. SA - check. UAE -
check. Pakistan - check. All good buds with them!
Afghanistan made sense. ok.
Iraq - no connection to 911. Completely boxed in with no WMD. ATTACK!
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> Actually, your post to him reinforces your own projection. For anyone to
> question a shoddy government investigation is not the act of a traitor, as
> you claim. For someone to NOT question and assume the government has our
> best interests is to become complacent and lose your voice. Smearing the
> messenger in this puts you further away from credibility. You offer no
> arguments, just name-calling and implications of mental illness to bolster
> your position. Weak.
That the gov't investigation was shoddy has nothing to do with the fact
that the controlled demolition/missile hit the Pentagon conspiracy
theories are just loony and incompatible with facts in both demolition
physics and group psychology.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> I don't assume anything. All I know is that he said they pulled it and then
> watched the building fall.
That's not even a natural way of saying what you want to think he said.
Most people would either say, "we pulled the building and watched it
fall," or, "we pulled it and watched it fall." Using the pronoun first
followed by the noun is awkward and unnatural, if they refer to the same
thing.
--Jeff
DemzRock
Personally, I don't subscribe to the no-plane Pentagon theory myself,
although there are a few things about the event that are very odd, like
their reluctance to release ALL the tapes that may have caught the event.
The way the the plane disintigrated.... But I keep my mind open.
I only seek the truth.
mindarea
Fucking conspiracy loon.
FYI retard, incompetence is spelled with an "e". And innocense? Are you
calling me a collection of flowers? Jesus Christ you're stupid. You would
not know the truth if it fell on you.
DemzRock
No, you're a Fucking conspiracy loon! NYAA NYAA!
Picking on a few typos. Jesus Christ, you're stupid. You would not know the
truth if it fell on you.
By the way, you should have a comma after "Jesus Christ."
Seriously, I am just looking for the truth. There's the gubmint's version
of the 911 conspiracy out there, and there are a bunch of other theories and
discussions going on out there.
***** Here's a big flash for you! *****
The gubmint's version is just as much a "conspiracy theory" as any other.
There has been no proof. No trial. Nothing but their position on what
happened.
Why do you swallow it completely when the admin has been caught in lie after
lie after lie? Maybe their view IS very close to what happened. Maybe
they only block investigations to cover for their incompetance.
Why do you think they have tried to block 911 investigations?
You tell me.
Try to do it without name-calling. It just makes you look bad.
*us*
>...conspiracy loon... retard...stupid...
You actually believe a guy on dialysis in a cave in
Afghanistan stood down the US air defense system
so thoroughly that the Pentagon itself got hit.
Your fascist fuhrer sought to obstruct the 9/11
investigations, and lied about the crimes.
You must really be out of it not to wonder why.
DemzRock
<* US *> wrote in message news:ulgfk2d7kjcmm2l09...@4ax.com...
Really. I don't understand these people. I guess they must be coming from
massively disfunctional families where Daddy knew best even if the was
giving daily beatings or worse. Why else would they be so hugely in denial.
*us*
They are neither well-nourished nor well-educated,
and they have thus been made afraid, too easily, of
artificial chimaera.
John P.
>> Fact - Insurance companies like to investigate fraudulent insurance
>> claims.
>> How many insurance companies do you think might have investigated the WTC
>> collapses?
> -Fact They may have bought the same line you're buying.
You think? The same people who will fight an auto body repair shop over $5
on an auto repair? These are the people you think would pay out millions of
dollars with barely a whimper?
>>> -Another fact. From multiple mainstream sources ( including Popular
>>> Mechanics, the NYT, and FEMA itself) say there were no firefighters for
>>> about 6 HOURS in the building to evacuate before the collapse!
>> .... yet, that isn't what Silverstein was told.
> How do you know that?
The same way you know he said "pull it"... because that is what Silverstein
told us.
>> Why is it you only believe Silverstein when you think he is saying
>> something that supports your presupposed theory? How is it that when he
>> counters what you want to believe, he is simply covering his ass?
> I don't assume anything.
No? You've already said you are convinced the government is guilty in any
matter they touch, therefore, it is a simple matter of finding how they
might be guilty in pulling off 9/11. You assume everything and accept
anything that supports your assumptions.
> All I know is that he said they pulled it and then watched
> the building fall.
Yes. That is all that you know. You don't know whether or not "pull" is some
type of demolition industry slang. You don't know if it was demolition
industry slang, if it would describe what happened to building 7. You don't
know what caused building 7 to collapse, but are willing to assume it was
explosives. You don't know why these explosives can't be seen or heard in
the video evidence.
> Maybe he was confused about who was in the building.
Ya think? Do you think maybe a few people were confused as to exactly what
was going on the morning of 9/11? Do you think in telling us about his
conversation that he was telling you word for word, verbatim, what was said?
> Maybe he compressed the events of the day in his mind. I've said that a
> few time in earlier threads. But it's just freaking weird that there was
> 6 hours before the firefighters were pulled out and the buildings collapse
> into it's own footprint. It may all be coincidence. I admit that. But
> it's just odd.
Really? Do you find the rest of the morning of 9/11 to be just another day?
Or might you find it odd that there are people so into their mythological
religions they would murder in the name of the gods they created?
>>> -Is it a FACT? That there are really no good picures of this so-called
>>> major damage?
>> There are a couple of pictures... but then, perhaps you are right. Maybe
>> all the FDNY and NYPD personnel are lying to cover for the people who
>> murdered their brothers.
>>> Normally?
>>> I thought large steel buildings don't NORMALLY collapse from fire. Maybe
>>> they were expecting a NORMAL partial collapse, like part of a floor here
>>> or there. Not a very RARE complete collapse into it's own footprint?
>>> hmmmm.... just maybe...?
>>
>> I don't think a firefighter cares much to be crushed under a single
>> floor, or under the entire building. Either way, once a building shows
>> any sign of collapse, they would prefer to be out of the building. Given
>> everything they have to do in such an event, I doubt they spend much time
>> considering the number of floors which may collapse.
>>
>> "Hey Joe! Get outta there! That thing looks like it's gonna collapse!"
>>
>> "Yeah... but it only looks like a few floors will collapse. I think I'll
>> stay a while longer. This hot dog is almost done. Why don't you grab a
>> stick and roast one up for yourself? If the floor above us collapses,
>> we'll just have to eat them on Flat Bread! HAHAHAHAHA!"
>>
>> OK... so, I'll admit, I actually do know at least a couple of
>> firefighters who might have a conversation like that! ;-)
> hehe Well, hey, I just want to know the truth. Maybe he just stumbled on
> his words. I bet he wishes he said it slightly differently.
I don't think you have any concern for the truth unless the truth is that GW
and his administration somehow pulled the strings. People searching for the
truth don't generally grasp at straws in order to move away from it. The
whole "pull it" 'mystery is nothing more than invented conspiracy kook
fantasy. The truth doesn't need invented 'facts' or lies to support it. The
kooks created the idea that this was a demolition industry term that could
describe what happened to building 7. It isn't. It never was. People within
the industry have clearly stated this. To continue to bark up the wrong tree
is either foolish or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation... and certainly
has nothing to do with searching for truth.
You can lie to yourself... but I'll call a spade a spade.
John P.
>> The problem you have with this point is that you cannot show that it is
>> ever used in the context you claim (i.e. demolish a building with
>> explosives). In that regard, the demolition industry disagrees with you.
>> To them, it always means pulling a building down with cables.
> I'm not sure that's true. I have one friend who said he had friends in
> the demo business and that he would ask about it. He never got back to me
> on it. He later responded to be on other issues about WTC7.
If you are not sure, it is only because you choose to be unsure. With
nothing to suggest this position might be correct, with zero evidence of
controlled demolition, pushing to believe indicates a desire to support your
assumptions. Perhaps you have a friend who is a researcher or investigator
who can tell you why this is the wrong way to look for 'the truth'.
>> http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
>>
>> From page 9 of 11...
>> "2. 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. This author and our research team were on
>> site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall
>> 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would
>> have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically
>> impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not
>> collapse in that manner anyway."
> jod911?
Provides the link to Blanchard's paper - what about it?
You were given the link to the source site (implosionworld.com), but you
seemed to dislike it.
Do you disagree with Blanchard in any way?
>>>> -Silverstein was speaking to a fire department commander. Fire
>>>> departments don't do controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.
>>> True, but that doesn't mean he was telling the guy to do it himself.
>> Yes... perhaps Silverstein was thinking the fire commander didn't have
>> much to do and maybe he could make a few phone calls to rustle up a
>> demolition company who was willing to come in to plant explosives in a
>> burning building that was showing signs of imminent collapse.
> No. They would have had to be planted ahead of time. That's the whole
> point.
Is it? I thought finding the truth was the whole point.
John P.
>>> Who is to say that they didn't invent some of them?
>> Who is to say the government didn't invent ALL of them? I mean, is it
>> possible for people to *really* be *that* stupid and live? Given the
>> number of conspiracy kooks who buy into these ridiculous kook conspiracy
>> theories, there'd have to be a sucker born ever 5 seconds.
> True.
> But who is the sucker and who is the kook, when neither side really knows
> that many facts.
Suckers and kooks think a missile hit the pentagon (although they seem to
have no clue what a missile strike might have looked like). They believe the
twin towers fell in 10 seconds, after watching a video of 30 to 40 floors
still standing at 12+ seconds into the collapse. They believe the towers and
building 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition using explosives -
and they can prove it because *some* witnesses (of hundreds or thousands)
said they heard explosions - but none of these explosions (a controlled
demolition would require many) are heard or seen on *any* of the video
evidence. The same people will claim thermite was used (which isn't an
explosive - so then why would witnesses hear explosions?) to bring down the
buildings. They claim there was no damage to WTC 7, it wasn't hit my debris
from the tower, and there were minimal fires - a claim which requires a
belief that all of the statements from FDNY and NYPD on the scene are lies
intended to cover-up the murder of their brothers.
I don't have an problem telling who the suckers or kooks are. They couldn't
be any more obvious if they were painted neon green.
I don't know everything, or even close to everything, about anything, but, I
do know enough to either know when I see or hear the truth, or at least, I
know enough to be able to research and see if what is being said can be
supported.
I distrust politicians probably more than 90% of the kook population. I
don't think they're planting chips in my brain or sending secret messages
through my fillings, but I do keep my hand on tightly on my money in the
presence of any politician. I've spent what is probably now 2 years digging
into all of the 9/11 related info. In that time, I have been unable to find
support for any of the alternate conspiracy claims. At the same time, I can
readily find support among experts for the conclusion that 19 hijackers took
control of 4 planes and caused the events of 9/11.
Whether I like that truth or not, it is what the facts and evidence can
support.
> If W and company are just incompetant (very possible), then why do they
> help all the countries who actually WERE involved with 911. SA - check.
> UAE - check. Pakistan - check. All good buds with them!
Ain't politics a bitch. I noticed some people with the same questions have
little knowledge of history. Talk about the cold war and they tell me they
weren't born yet or were little and unaware. Tell them we were allies with
Russia prior to the cold war, and I get a blank look in return.
Politicians are morons. Their decisions and policies support that.
> Afghanistan made sense. ok.
> Iraq - no connection to 911. Completely boxed in with no WMD. ATTACK!
Iraq started in 1989 and never had anything to do with 9/11. The events of
that day simply created a desire for vengeance and blood among the general
population, allowing greater support for the long planned invasion. The
Democrats demanded Bush send troops into Iraq to "stop Saddam", and he was
foolish enough to believe them.
DemzRock
Actually, you have some good points here. Thanks.
*us*
>You actually believe that the guy (on dialysis, or not) lived in a cave in
>Afghanistan pre 11/9/2006?
>
>Shill #312
Why would you imagine that? The CIA takes
good care of its operatives, for the most part.
I wasn't discussing my beliefs, merely those of
the deluded, deranged bushkultie.
The Truth
OBL has probably been partying in NYC courtesy of the Bush clan.
*us*
They're business partners sharing in the spoils.
Protagonist
> DemzRock wrote:
>>> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Building 7 is a picture-perfect, controlled demolition.
>>>
>>> Have any scientific evidence for that insane flying saucer claim?
>>> Any at all?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> "You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war
>>> President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."
>>> - Mass murdering Christian George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26,
>>> 2006
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. There is plenty of evidence. Firstly, there is the video
>> confession on video tape from the lease owner of the property. That's
>> a pretty big one when someone admits a building was pulled.
>
> means, he said they should pull the group of firefighters out of the
> building.
This is the stupidest statement I ever heard.
>>pulling" a building means, he said they should pull the group of
firefighters out of the building.<<
Hey, honey pull your hair down a bit, means pull all the fleas out of
her hair!?
Haha!
Silverstein made a nice bundle "PULLING ALL THOSE BUILDINGS down",eh?
>
>> But, even without that, there is plenty of video evidence of the way
>> it fell. For example, WTC1 and 2 fell, it is claimed, because of the
>> airplane fuel fire and the felling of floor after floor, pancaking on
>> top of the next. Remember no other large steal buildings have had
>> total collapse from fire before or after 911.
>
> You mean from being hit by a fully-loaded commercial passenger jet,
> followed by a fire.
These buildings were designed for take a 707 impact and planes don't fly
without fuel!
>
>> But with 1 and 2, they say it was fire and pancaking floors. Maybe
>> one could buy that, maybe not. But look at the videos of WTC7.
>> Little fire and the building collapsed all at once... from the
>> bottom. The excuse used for 1 and 2 doesn't match the collapse of 7.
>> Use your eyes and ears, man!
>
> It wasn't a little fire, one of the generators had a pressurized supply
> line from a tank of diesel in the basement. Overall, the fuel tanks in
> WTC7 could hold 43,000 gallons of diesel. And the building had been
> severely damaged by debris falling from 1 and 2. Oh, and it didn't
> collapse "from the bottom," the penthouse went first - after about half
> a minute of rumblings.
BS! Silverstein wanted that building down, to collect the money and to
make room for the new ones.
>
> By the way, you should change your nym. If this administration could
> pull off the kind of massive conspiracy you're talking about without
> anyone breaking ranks then it's obvious that you think the Republicans
> _really_ rock. No Paul O'Neills, no loose lips to Bob Woodward,
> nothing. Who'd a thunk it from the clowns in the White House?
I worked for a large company 12 years, (lot of red tapes)you would be
surprised over shit, people keep their lips tight, not even getting 2
cents more, just job security.
JS
>
> --Jeff
>