WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[KevinWestern]

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=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA]Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube[/ame]

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone help me with this? Need to hear from the skeptics.

 

[KevinWestern]

And secondly, if building 7 was brought down manually by the Fire Department how did they manage to get the explosives set, etc so quickly? It's my understanding that controlled demolitions take at least of few days of planning/prepping.

 

[SAYIT]

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:
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone help me with this? Need to hear from the skeptics.

You misconstrue. He neither ordered nor had the authority to demolish the building and the Fire Commish, to whom Silverstein was speaking, also lacked that authority. Their conversation was about pulling the firefighters to minimize the loss of life as there wasn't enough water pressure with which to fight the fire.
A rich and powerful gang of insurers paid out a ton of cash in part because they could not make a case that anyone other than the 9/11 attackers were responsible for the losses that day. I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?

 

[KevinWestern]

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:
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone help me with this? Need to hear from the skeptics.

You misconstrue. He neither ordered nor had the authority to demolish the building and the Fire Commish, to whom Silverstein was speaking, also lacked that authority. Their conversation was about pulling the firefighters to minimize the loss of life as there wasn't enough water pressure with which to fight the fire.
A rich and powerful gang of insurers paid out a ton of cash in part because they could not make a case that anyone other than the 9/11 attackers were responsible for the losses that day. I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?

[MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] - Listen, I'm not here to say the government was behind the attacks, etc, and agree that the "pull" order could have meant a number of things. Moving on..

WTC 7 had a bit of damage on its south end from towers 1 & 2, but when it collapsed it did not tip to that side (as one would suspect). Instead, it fell straight down. Firefighters were telling people to back away (there are video records of this) because the building "was about to come down". If fire alone bringing down a modern skyscraper is an extremely unlikely event that has never happened before in human history prior to 9/11, how in God's name were the firefighters - ie not building engineers - so confident and accurate in predicting the collapse? These are just honest questions I'm asking.

When it comes to unprecedented events (like fire collapsing a skyscraper) I give the explanation provided by the 9/11 report on towers 1 & 2 the benefit of the doubt because it's ALSO an unprecedented event to get hit directly by a jetliner. But building 7? No plane hit that building. It was 3 football fields away from the towers that were struck. It fell straight down.

It's just a little bit suspect. Please don't insult me with the trolling comment.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article from the same site that addresses the "pull it" statement.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

 

[KevinWestern]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Thanks, I’ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply?

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don’t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? 6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?

 

[SAYIT]

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:
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone help me with this? Need to hear from the skeptics.

You misconstrue. He neither ordered nor had the authority to demolish the building and the Fire Commish, to whom Silverstein was speaking, also lacked that authority. Their conversation was about pulling the firefighters to minimize the loss of life as there wasn't enough water pressure with which to fight the fire.
A rich and powerful gang of insurers paid out a ton of cash in part because they could not make a case that anyone other than the 9/11 attackers were responsible for the losses that day. I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?

[MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] - Listen, I'm not here to say the government was behind the attacks, etc, and agree that the "pull" order could have meant a number of things. Moving on..

These are just honest questions I'm asking.

It's just a little bit suspect. Please don't insult me with the trolling comment.

Had you posted legit doubts about WTC7's collapse there would have been no insult but your opening salvo ("Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building") was not just suspect, it was clearly intended to appeal to a certain type of CT.
I call that trolling and if you don't like it....

 

[KevinWestern]

You misconstrue. He neither ordered nor had the authority to demolish the building and the Fire Commish, to whom Silverstein was speaking, also lacked that authority. Their conversation was about pulling the firefighters to minimize the loss of life as there wasn't enough water pressure with which to fight the fire.
A rich and powerful gang of insurers paid out a ton of cash in part because they could not make a case that anyone other than the 9/11 attackers were responsible for the losses that day. I know you are bright enough to know these facts so what's the purpose of this thread? Trolling perhaps?

[MENTION=35716]SAYIT[/MENTION] - Listen, I'm not here to say the government was behind the attacks, etc, and agree that the "pull" order could have meant a number of things. Moving on..

These are just honest questions I'm asking.

It's just a little bit suspect. Please don't insult me with the trolling comment.

Had you posted legit doubts about WTC7's collapse there would have been no insult but your opening salvo ("Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building") was not just suspect, it was clearly intended to appeal to a certain type of CT.
I call that trolling and if you don't like it....

Disagree. My post was not inflammatory, didn't call people names, and was simply asking a question that I was fully prepared to discuss respectfully. That's not the definition of "trolling", which is why I'm correcting you.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Thanks, I’ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply?

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don’t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? 6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?

dont listen to anything freewill says Kevin.Freewill is a disinformation agent troll who makes up lies about the JFK assassination.He goes around trolling these boards defending the lies of the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin ignoring the facts there were multiple shooters with multiple bullets photographed that day that could not be traced back to oswalds rifle.ignoring that all the dallas docttos said the back of the head wound was an EXIT wound,ignoring that many witnesses said they saw a gunman behind the picket fence firing a rifle,ignoring that the secret service committed treason that day violating protocals,ignoring the warren commission members should have been jailed for committing the crime of altering witness testimonys.

so you should be much more careful in who you listen to around here.say it is just like him as your finding out.

to find out the truth about 9/11,what you REALLY need to do is read David Ray Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X[/ame]


His book will answer your question and refutes that propaganda link of freewills.

His book debunks that link and the lies of freewill here.Griffin in his book talks about demolition EXPERTS that have said the three buildings coud not have toppled down like they did unless explosives were planted.

Freewill and others when cornered with this fact have no answers for this fact and always change the subject which is bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup trolls like him cant get around. First,it was NOT hit by an airliner so there is no logical explanation for its collapse

2nd-there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SERIOUS FIRES AND FAR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO THEM THAN BLD 7 yet "they" did not collapse.a fact none of these trolls like freewill ever have an answer for.

3rd-the twin towers and bld 7 were the only buildings that collapsed that day,they were all owned by Larry silverstein and they were the ONLY ones that collapsed. thats being quite a coincidence theorist to swallow that coincidence.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Thanks, I’ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply?

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don’t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? 6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?

You sure do know of other buildings that more or less collapsed straight down, WTC 1and2. How many other buildings do you know of that have collapsed? I doubt many.

Any way here are some pictures and a video of a site that should not have an axe to grind. Note how intense the fires were: Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Mail Online

Also the link I provided you made this statement: To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

Which is not falling into its footprint. So I am not sure you looked at the evidence that was in the link.

Bottom line to me is, we know it was on fire, we know fire weakens steel, we know people could not have gone in and placed charges, and we know the result. Why exactly it fell as it did we may never know we just know it did.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Thanks, I’ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply?

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don’t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? 6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?

dont listen to anything freewill says Kevin.Freewill is a disinformation agent troll who makes up lies about the JFK assassination.He goes around trolling these boards defending the lies of the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin ignoring the facts there were multiple shooters with multiple bullets photographed that day that could not be traced back to oswalds rifle.ignoring that all the dallas docttos said the back of the head wound was an EXIT wound,ignoring that many witnesses said they saw a gunman behind the picket fence firing a rifle,ignoring that the secret service committed treason that day violating protocals,ignoring the warren commission members should have been jailed for committing the crime of altering witness testimonys.

so you should be much more careful in who you listen to around here.say it is just like him as your finding out.

to find out the truth about 9/11,what you REALLY need to do is read David Ray Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X[/ame]


His book will answer your question and refutes that propaganda link of freewills.

His book debunks that link and the lies of freewill here.Griffin in his book talks about demolition EXPERTS that have said the three buildings coud not have toppled down like they did unless explosives were planted.

Freewill and others when cornered with this fact have no answers for this fact and always change the subject which is bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup trolls like him cant get around. First,it was NOT hit by an airliner so there is no logical explanation for its collapse

2nd-there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SERIOUS FIRES AND FAR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO THEM THAN BLD 7 yet "they" did not collapse.a fact none of these trolls like freewill ever have an answer for.

3rd-the twin towers and bld 7 were the only buildings that collapsed that day,they were all owned by Larry silverstein and they were the ONLY ones that collapsed. thats being quite a coincidence theorist to swallow that coincidence.

2nd-there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had FAR MORE SERIOUS FIRES AND FAR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO THEM THAN BLD 7 yet "they" did not collapse.a fact none of these trolls like freewill ever have an answer for.

Prove this with a link. There were other building severly damaged and didn't fall, but WTC 7 is the only one I know of that burned for 7 hours then collapsed. Who in their right mind would know to have the charges ready to plant and have the people willing to go into a burning building to set the charges. Do any of the demolition experts you say this is impossible explain why it takes them weeks to do what apparently someone did in less then 7 hours to a burning building? Does it even make sense to you? Apprently it does not have to make sense. OR on the other side if the charges were already placed then how would the person "pulling" the building know he could wait 7 hours and the charges would still ignite? Again, does that make sense to you?

I wait for your link to the evidence. Just that one don't flood a thread with a bunch of crap.

 

[Freewill]

KevinWestern

Have you noticed something about 9/11nutbag? I didn't really say anything or offer an opinion. You asked for links and I provided what I think are good links. But that doesn't stop 9/11nutbag from telling you I dispense bad information. See that is what they do, they attack without provocation and without reason.

Think for yourself is what I say. Look at the pictures of WTC 7 on fire, ask yourself if you would go into that building and set explosive charges. Ask yourself if you would know enough to be able to prior set the charges so the building collapses due to the charges and it just happens to line up with were the fires ranged for 7 hours. How would you accomplish such a feat? I am not telling you that there are not people who could not have done both, I am saying look and make up your own mind.

 

[Freewill]

Instead of waiting for 9/11nutbag let's read about what some real demolition experts have to say: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac

Lots of good stuff and great links, enjoy.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the paid trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.

 

[Freewill]

the paid trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.

I asked for something simple, to most people. Provide your evidence of other building burning as did WTC 7. Waiting...................

 

[KevinWestern]

the paid trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.

I asked for something simple, to most people. Provide your evidence of other building burning as did WTC 7. Waiting...................

Hello, sorry I've been spotty with the thread. According to the NIST report (I believe), fire in WTC7 would only burn for about 20-30 minutes at a single spot and progress onward to a different location. The building had pockets of fire that would move; the entire structure was NOT engulfed by any means. Was this sort of a fire powerful enough to take down this massive building?

Secondly, what do you think about the BBC report speaking of the collapse 20 minutes prior to it happening. They chalked the error up to "confusion". I however - being an inquisitive person - would think it's extremely strange that someone was able to accurately predict an event that has NEVER occurred before (a building being brought down by fire alone). Don't you find that just a bit odd?

Again, not jumping to conclusions, just pointing out oddities.

 

[SAYIT]

the paid trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.

I asked for something simple, to most people. Provide your evidence of other building burning as did WTC 7. Waiting...................

Hello, sorry I've been spotty with the thread. According to the NIST report (I believe), fire in WTC7 would only burn for about 20-30 minutes at a single spot and progress onward to a different location. The building had pockets of fire that would move; the entire structure was NOT engulfed by any means. Was this sort of a fire powerful enough to take down this massive building?

Secondly, what do you think about the BBC report speaking of the collapse 20 minutes prior to it happening. They chalked the error up to "confusion". I however - being an inquisitive person - would think it's extremely strange that someone was able to accurately predict an event that has NEVER occurred before (a building being brought down by fire alone). Don't you find that just a bit odd?

Again, not jumping to conclusions, just pointing out oddities.

Yes, one can question much of what occurred on 9/11 but the bottom line remains that unless you believe Silverstein and the fire commish pre-planted explosives (of which there is no evidence) in WTC7 or rushed in to do so after the place was on fire, you will eventually come to the conclusion that the NIST findings, as imperfect as they may be, are about as close to factual as we are likely ever to get. The rest is just mental masturbation. Enjoy.

 

[Rockland]

the paid trolls as usual,are getting desperate ignoring facts that shoot down their lies.

I asked for something simple, to most people.

But 9/11 Whackjob is quite simple, to most people.

 

[daws101]