Brass
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Messages
- 441
The building was also tilted. Didn't help WTC7's cause.
Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'
- Thread starter timmyg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- larry silverstein pull it
The building was also tilted. Didn't help WTC7's cause.
plague311
Great minds think...
Not to mention the scores of firefighters that stated they heard the building creaking, moaning, and actually shifting before the zone was established.
Just the thought that they could pull this off is ridiculous on so many levels. The requirements are extreme.
To rig the building in advance you would have to know if WTC 1 was going to hit WTC 7 before you CD'd WTC 1. I don't know, someone confirm for me, if the demolition charges in WTC 7 can be shaken loose, but I would imagine if they can be, an enormous amount of debris hitting the building would be able to do it. Not to mention Jennings stating that the build shook several times while they were evacuating. So we run into the same issue of "would the explosives live through the ensuing chaos" issue.
In another scenario, you plan for WTC1 to hit WTC7 and then go in to prepare the demo. Then you run into the problem of having thousands of people, several TV stations (including international), and photographers on scene wondering why people are running in and out of building 7, then it falls down. On top of it being, literally, impossible under the circumstances.
When it comes to the steel, twoofers make it sound like as soon as it leaves the US, no matter the circumstances, then no one would notice anything. When it arrives at the ports for recycling, the people in that country unloading it wouldn't comment on how it looks? I am assuming the plants the steel went to in order to be recycled would have a few people that know something about the appearance of steel after a demo. Not to mention, considering the scale of coverage, most people at the recycling plant would be waiting to see the steel.
All of this adds up to no one caring what Silverstein said. Hell, he could have said he did it straight up, but everything else points to that being BS.
Just the thought that they could pull this off is ridiculous on so many levels. The requirements are extreme.
To rig the building in advance you would have to know if WTC 1 was going to hit WTC 7 before you CD'd WTC 1. I don't know, someone confirm for me, if the demolition charges in WTC 7 can be shaken loose, but I would imagine if they can be, an enormous amount of debris hitting the building would be able to do it. Not to mention Jennings stating that the build shook several times while they were evacuating. So we run into the same issue of "would the explosives live through the ensuing chaos" issue.
In another scenario, you plan for WTC1 to hit WTC7 and then go in to prepare the demo. Then you run into the problem of having thousands of people, several TV stations (including international), and photographers on scene wondering why people are running in and out of building 7, then it falls down. On top of it being, literally, impossible under the circumstances.
When it comes to the steel, twoofers make it sound like as soon as it leaves the US, no matter the circumstances, then no one would notice anything. When it arrives at the ports for recycling, the people in that country unloading it wouldn't comment on how it looks? I am assuming the plants the steel went to in order to be recycled would have a few people that know something about the appearance of steel after a demo. Not to mention, considering the scale of coverage, most people at the recycling plant would be waiting to see the steel.
All of this adds up to no one caring what Silverstein said. Hell, he could have said he did it straight up, but everything else points to that being BS.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
A courtesy call. Why do you refuse to answer all the critical questions regarding any of this? Whats the point in asking questions if you're going to ignore all answers and any points anyone brings up for you to just ask some other random question or say the same thing several pages later?
There's plenty youve ignored but this issue in particular is particularly ridiculous, so answer the question. Why is it so hard for you?
Q: In a building collapse, are you not in danger so long as you are not directly inside it?
Q: Would you want to be anywhere near a 47 story building if you thought it was going to collapse?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
A W Smith
Philosopher
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Why do you expect people to answer your questions when you refuse to answer anyone elses?
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
I'm not so sure truthers are familiar with the term 'courtesy'.
NoahFence
Banned
Good "call".
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
KReeL if this link doesn't convince you, you're beyond any hope whatsoever
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
They didnt ask him if they should do anything, they had already made the decision.
That is why Silverstein said "THEY" made the decision. Not "we" not "I", but "THEY". All the call was about was to let him know that they wont be able to contain the fires and that they are pulling the firefighting and rescue efforts going on in the area and letting it burn, because WTC7 is unstable and likely to collapse so its not worth the risk to their firefighters or anyone else.
You planning on addressing these questions KreeL?
Q: In a building collapse, are you not in danger so long as you are not directly inside it?
Q: Would you want to be anywhere near a 47 story building if you thought it was going to collapse?
No need to talk about WTC7 or demolitions here. Just yes or no will do, but feel free to expand on your answer.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Oh yea, it makes much more sense to think that he casually admitted fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since, without anyone noticing, in a pre-recorded documentary.
Oh yea, it makes much more sense to think that he casually admitted fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since, without anyone noticing, in a pre-recorded documentary.
Would it make even more sense if Silverstein simply made it up for the camera?
plague311
Great minds think...
Noone fighting fires in WTC7 - check
Fighting fire across the street - check
7 is diagnosed by a non-engineer at the scene as being poised to collapse - check
Memos sent to media that 7 is going to collapse - check
Silverstein is called to get his input on whether to 'pull it' - check (?)
Fighting fire across the street - check
7 is diagnosed by a non-engineer at the scene as being poised to collapse - check
Memos sent to media that 7 is going to collapse - check
Silverstein is called to get his input on whether to 'pull it' - check (?)
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
So can I gather from this that your answer is NO to both questions, then?
Once and for all then....
Do you accept that there WAS reason to pull everyone away from WTC7 when it was considered a collapse risk?
The questions I asked were obvious because you made a claim that there was no need to pull everyone away from an area a 47 story building was deemed at risk of collapse, because no one was inside it. You insulted intelligence itself when you posted that.
Last edited: