Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[KreeL]

That's way you would look for the reason the material failed. See, that's why Jones & Co. "found" thermite. They were looking for a reason the building was CD'd with no sound of HE. Thus when they found aluminum, iron oxide, etc they said "aha! Just as we thought!" When people who were able to dismiss preconceived notions looked at it they were able to remember that aluminum, iron oxide, etc weren't unusual in a building & with all of the other evidence found that heat, & stress (& Impact damage for1&2) for prolonged periods (for 7) caused the collapse.

It could depend on what the substance was designed to do. High energy, reasonable noise suppression? Your guess is as good as mine.

Edited to add: It would also likely be easy to apply, and if it resembled paint, all the better.

 

[GlennB]

It could depend on what the substance was designed to do. High energy, reasonable noise suppression? Your guess is as good as mine.

Edited to add: It would also likely be easy to apply, and if it resembled paint, all the better.

My bolding. No, your guess isn't as good as any other. Your guesses, so far, have been laughable.

No painted on layer of anything will cut a steel column, for any reasonable definition of 'painted'. That's the reason pros use shaped charges - to concentrate and direct the force onto a very small area. And, necessarily, they are both bulky and extremely loud.

You treat your speculations as though they are worthy of consideration just because the idea has entered your head.

 

[KreeL]

My bolding. No, your guess isn't as good as any other. Your guesses, so far, have been laughable.

We are talking about a new substance. My guesses are as good as yours.

No painted on layer of anything will cut a steel column, for any reasonable definition of 'painted'. That's the reason pros use shaped charges - to concentrate and direct the force onto a very small area. And, necessarily, they are both bulky and extremely loud.

Perhaps it wasn't designed to cut steel where it was used, but only to weaken it.

You treat your speculations as though they are worthy of consideration just because the idea has entered your head.

Dealing with an unknown accelerant/explosive could give you different results, than say, a block of C-4. Wouldn't you agree? The difference could surprise even you I would suspect.

 

[GlennB]

Dealing with an unknown accelerant/explosive could give you different results, than say, a block of C-4. Wouldn't you agree? The difference could surprise even you I would suspect.

Trotting out your random fantasy beliefs doesn't constitute debate.

Explosives are called explosives because they share certain characteristics. It's a question of definition. Look up the word "explosive".

 

[KreeL]

Trotting out your random fantasy beliefs doesn't constitute debate.

Explosives are called explosives because they share certain characteristics. It's a question of definition. Look up the word "explosive".

Yes indeed, but we are discussing something new. Not something old.

 

[Craig4]

Yes indeed, but we are discussing something new. Not something old.

Provide evidence that an explosive or accerant other than jet fuel was present in any building in the WTC complex on 9/11/2001.

 

[KreeL]

Provide evidence that an explosive or accerant other than jet fuel was present in any building in the WTC complex on 9/11/2001.

In all honesty, this new substance looks like it could be it. I prefer to wait until we know what it is.

 

[Craig4]

In all honesty, this new substance looks like it could be it. I prefer to wait until we know what it is.

Wouldn't the more responsible thing to do be to wait until you've found evidence of explosives? What you've just admitted to is accusing a vast number of people of committing an equally vast number of capitol crimes with no basis for doing so. Do you consider making such allegations without evidence to be honorable behavior?

 

[DGM]

Yes indeed, but we are discussing something new. Not something old.

Going with the "Appeal to magic" fallacy now? Good job, when all else fails, make something up.

 

[000063]

Fire chief on the scene: "Hey looks like WTC7 is going to collapse! I better call Silverstein and ask him if we should start moving people back! I don't know what to do!"

Get real.

It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, you do, and are strawmanning.

Q: If a building collapse, are you not in danger so long as you are not directly inside it?

Insulting my intelligence again.

Q: Would you want to be anywhere near a 47 story building if you thought it was going to collapse?

ditto

I believe you are quite intelligent. Smart enough to know when to evade a question that is disastrous to your argument.

Noone fighting fires in WTC7 - check

Building was evacuated, nothing of value or hazard inside.

Fighting fire across the street - check

Questionable. If you mean 6, there were firearms and hazardous chemicals inside, IIRC.

7 is diagnosed by a non-engineer at the scene as being poised to collapse - check

Firefighters--who are trained for precisely this sort of thing--have reason to believe the building is unstable.

Memos sent to media that 7 is going to collapse - check

Unsupported. If you mean the BBC report, that's attributable to the general confusion of that day.

Silverstein is called to get his input on whether to 'pull it' - check (?)

The little ? doesn't disguise the fact that you are flat-out lying. He was not being asked, he was being informed.

 

[000063]

Of course it wouldn't. Unless, WTC7 was rigged with explosives, and there was a demolition option.

"You want a burned out shell?...or shall we just terminate the structure..."

Rigged with explosives when? Before or after the debris struck it and set it on fire? How did they know the debris would hit it? How did they know it would be damaged by the impact and fire enough to make the collapse look credible? Because you're suggesting a degree of operational flexibility that is impossible even in regular demolitions. Do you think they can just push a button and change the way the building collapses?

"The FDNY and dozens of firefighters on record saying they all knew it was going to collapse"

Certainly firemen who have never seen a skyscraper collapse due to fire would instantly recognize when one is positively going to collapse hours before it does. Why? Because it's on fire, of course!,,,

Straw man. Firefighters have been trained to recognize signs a building is going to collapse. According to that training, WTC7 was going to collapse.

You're basically accusing the FDNY--all of it--of complicity in the murder and coverup of 343 of their brothers, several cops, and 3,000 civilians. There are thousands of them. And these people, who run into burning buildings for a living, all kept mum.

"No. He is told that WTC7 fire cant be fought, that its being left to burn, that its unsafe and unstable and that they are pulling the firefighting and rescue efforts away for everyone safety. "

There you go. You have your speculation, and other people have theirs.

After watching the collapse many times, it looks more like a demolition. Not just to me, but to millions of people. So judging by the results, my speculation is more accurate than yours.

Most people think it was a collapse. Truthers are the vast minority. Watching the collapse is no substitute for years of study by qualified engineers and other professionals.

 

[000063]

Why do you say that?

On account of the exploding.

Also, the dust from 9/11's collapse being all over New York, which would include explosive residue. Some of the tons it would have taken.

This is funny, and I still like you brass. However, 8 years ago it was "non-structural engineers", "non-physicists", "non-airline pilots" - the list goes on. Are you saying if I find a CD expert that thinks WTC7 was a demolition you will convert to the truth, or what?

It's always the same old 'move the goalposts' for you guys.

Well, that's ironic.

We all know you wouldn't find such an expert anyway.

And, according your post, all the demolitions already performed inside NYC left explosive residue all over NYC. So how would you tell the difference between any new explosive residue all over NYC? Would you go scrape a building in the Bronx? Test it for what?

The answer is in the WTC dust, of course, and you answered your own question.

The WTC dust, and specifically the WTC dust, went all over NYC. That dust would've contained explosive residue. Yet even with the WTC dust, truthers have to try and say thermite was present, because iron microspheres.

Yes indeed - by anyone caring to test it. You would think that NIST would have been johnny on the spot. Right?

Incredulity. NIST found nothing they considered evidence of explosives, just like they didn't find anything they considered evidence of thermite. And they tested explosives; the sound of one charge alone would've been audible halfway to New Jersey, at least. Dozens going off also means extensive incidents of barotrauma, which was not reported, even by people inside the WTC when it collapsed.

I like how you accuse of of moving goalposts, but when people answer your questions, you just come up with more nonsense to evade what they actually said.

 

[000063]

Would you look for something noone has seen before (outside of the scientists that created it)? If so, how would you know what you were looking for, or at? Would the scientists that created it give you any help? I guess we'll see.

Argument from lack of evidence.

Fire would definitely be needed. I agree. In fact, multiple fires on multiple floors would likely be needed. In reality, we don't have a clue what started the fires in WTC7. We all assume it was fiery debris. There again, we can only speculate.

Evasion.

Dealing with an unknown accelerant/explosive could give you different results, than say, a block of C-4. Wouldn't you agree? The difference could surprise even you I would suspect.

Appeal to magic.

In all honesty,

Hah!

this new substance looks like it could be it. I prefer to wait until we know what it is.

Affirming the consequent.

 

[Edx]

Dealing with an unknown accelerant/explosive could give you different results, than say, a block of C-4. Wouldn't you agree? The difference could surprise even you I would suspect.

You just told me earlier they used regular explosives like C4.

I like how you have evaded every single one of my questions. Just like a typical truther.

 

[Brass]

This is funny, and I still like you brass. However, 8 years ago it was "non-structural engineers", "non-physicists", "non-airline pilots" - the list goes on. Are you saying if I find a CD expert that thinks WTC7 was a demolition you will convert to the truth, or what?

It's always the same old 'move the goalposts' for you guys.

I'm already on the real truth side. The side who uses experts to back up their claims and not some 22-year old college student who got rejected from film school twice.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What seems odd is the quote you just grabbed out of thin air.

You seemed to have missed the words, "something like".

Please tell me how on earth you managed to get from my post that I agree with you?

That's what trolls do.

In all honesty, this new substance looks like it could be it. I prefer to wait until we know what it is.

This is also something else that trolls do. He's conjuring up fantastic new substances to explain why he believes that the collapse of WTC7 couldn't be "natural". The existence of this substance is, apparently, a fact. Its properties, however, are completely unknown.

Amazingly retarded, and intentionally so.

 

[twinstead]

This is also something else that trolls do. He's conjuring up fantastic new substances to explain why he believes the collapse of WTC7 couldn't be "natural". The existence of this substance is, apparently, a fact. It's properties, however, are completely unknown.

Amazingly retarded, and intentionally so.

indeed

 

[GlennB]

Amazingly retarded, and intentionally so.

I hope so. Otherwise I fear for Kreel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"No. He is told that WTC7 fire cant be fought, that its being left to burn, that its unsafe and unstable and that they are pulling the firefighting and rescue efforts away for everyone safety. "

There you go. You have your speculation, and other people have theirs.

After watching the collapse many times, it looks more like a demolition. Not just to me, but to millions of people. So judging by the results, my speculation is more accurate than yours.

I'm not sure I take much more of this level of stupidity......

How he imagines what something looked like to millions of uneducated people is of any interest or importance.........its classic South Park comedy material.

 

[NoahFence]

In all honesty, this new substance looks like it could be it. I prefer to wait until we know what it is.

This is all truthers have left?