Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 54,242
- 16,467
- 2,250
I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).
However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:
1.) Why did Larry Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building:
[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]j2q2mD2HaKA[/MEDIA] Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube
You don't have to dig very deep for an answer to that one: 'Pull it' isn't a reference to demolition.
Here's your first clue: The conversation was between Silverstein and the FDNY Commissoner. So if 'pull it' were an order to demolish the building, the folks that made the decision to 'pull' would be the FDNY. And they don't demolish skyscrapers. They never have. Robbing the 'demolition' narrative of even a scrap of plausibility.
However.....per Silverstein, 'pull it' meant pull the fire fighting effort. And that's something that the FDNY can absolutely do. And a decision the FDNY verifiable made, deciding that fire and structural damage in WTC 7 were so severe that they evacuated the area and let it come down.
It also provides an explanation that is infinitely more plausible than the FDNY demolishing a burning building. Plus, its backed up by the FDNY who used the term 'pulled' over and over again to refer to abandoning the fire fighting effort of WTC 7.
Does that help? There are about a dozen more ways the 'pull it = demolition' interpretation just doesn't work. But those are the two most obvious.
When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
The official explanation is that the collapse initiated on the 13th floor at column 79 due to fire. Nature didn't have much to do with it.