Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Naturally, the contradictions exist. On the timeline thread, he's trying to say that the damage happened before the twin towers collapse so he can prove explosions inside WTC 7 were not the collapses. But here, the towers have collapsed, causing the damage to WTC 7 that larry silverstein call the insurance company about. According to this thread, that's when the plans to blow up WTC 7 were hatched.
 
Brass said:
And yet, there is still debris in the surrounding streets. I don't even need to make a point; ergo made it for me! This would make WTC7 the most uncontrolled controlled demolition ever.
Click to expand...

I never cease to amaze at this attempt from "debunkers". The building didn't fall neatly into its basement, sweeping up after itself, therefore it wasn't a controlled demolition. :eye-poppi

Where do bedunkers think 47 storeys of highrise are going to fit? Forty-seven storeys of fully furnished, steel-framed highrise? Where do bedunkers think the debris from a controlled demolition ends up?

Seriously, what on earth do you think you're arguing here?
 
ergo said:
I never cease to amaze at this attempt from "debunkers". The building didn't fall neatly into its basement, sweeping up after itself, therefore it wasn't a controlled demolition. :eye-poppi

Where do bedunkers think 47 storeys of highrise are going to fit? Forty-seven storeys of fully furnished, steel-framed highrise? Where do bedunkers think the debris from a controlled demolition ends up?

Seriously, what on earth do you think you're arguing here?
Click to expand...


Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded – coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m. - Richard Gage
 
Yah, I heard enough of Richard's vomit-inspiring nonsense to catch that stupid canard.... he's still going on about

'near' freefall speed (ie a meaningless term which he hopes will sound like something)
two isolated pockets of fire which could be knocked down by two lines

What a lying sack of ****.
 
ergo said:
Where do bedunkers think 47 storeys of highrise are going to fit? Forty-seven storeys of fully furnished, steel-framed highrise? Where do bedunkers think the debris from a controlled demolition ends up?

Seriously, what on earth do you think you're arguing here?
Click to expand...

Brass said:
Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded – coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m. - Richard Gage
Click to expand...

Owned.

I'm sure I've seen ergo use the claim 'fell neatly into it's own footprint' numerous times..
 
cjnewson88 said:
Owned.

I'm sure I've seen ergo use the claim 'fell neatly into it's own footprint' numerous times..
Click to expand...

ergo said:
So I guess from AE's pictures without commentary, we can conclude that some flying debris and the rubble from WTC 7 damaged nearby buildings.

The argument in the referring thread is that this somehow refutes the idea that the building fell straight down (or largely straight down, since we know imploded buildings can and do fall at angles.) And that because it damaged other buildings, it didn't fall into its footprint, i.e., fall straight down. And therefore couldn't possibly be a controlled demolition.

Edit: and that the picture he provides for us above shows that the building fell outside of the specific site it was built on, and fell somewhere else.
Click to expand...
ergo said:
And how does your photo above show that it didn't fall into its footprint? If the rubble pile is not situated on the site that building 7 was built on, what site are you claiming it is sitting on?
Click to expand...
ergo said:
I've never said anything other than that it fell into its own footprint. Which your picture clearly shows. I'm glad you agree.
Click to expand...
ergo said:
I'm sorry, AE, that's simply not the truth. You'll find in this thread many bee dunkers claiming that the building did not fall into its footprint, and that the debris pile over the site somehow proves this.

Oystein is the only one who has negated this claim. To his credit.
Click to expand...
ergo said:
Right, because it should be "onto its own footprint"?

That's fine. You guys can have your ons and ontos. The debris piles after the event is not the important point. It's how the buildings descended.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's when the "into/onto" thing originated.

#000063bookmark
 
Ergo talks the big talk for somebody with ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support his belief other than simple incredulity
 
ergo said:
I never cease to amaze at this attempt from "debunkers". The building didn't fall neatly into its basement, sweeping up after itself, therefore it wasn't a controlled demolition. :eye-poppi

Where do bedunkers think 47 storeys of highrise are going to fit? Forty-seven storeys of fully furnished, steel-framed highrise? Where do bedunkers think the debris from a controlled demolition ends up?

Seriously, what on earth do you think you're arguing here?
Click to expand...


So you are saying it wasn't a controlled demolition just a demolition? well at least that would be making some progress....I always thought the insistance on the "controlled part" was a little silly.......I mean why would "they" care what damage was done by its collapse? They certainly did not seem to care much when WTC1 and 2 came down....
 
Ergo's thread direction is nice, but let's not forget what this one was about to begin with; a ten year old farce, that contorts and twists the context of a witness statement, and tries to invent meaning to a series of words that doesn't exist.

Grizzly Bear said:
assertion.jpg


Source
Click to expand...

While the "pull it" deal is still beating a dead horse beyond recognition, why should diversions that deal with engineering topics on which said people are ineducable, be graced with any attention? These people aren't answering the thread OP; they don't get the "respect" of having their derails addressed unless they deal with the actual topic
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
So you are saying it wasn't a controlled demolition just a demolition? well at least that would be making some progress....I always thought the insistance on the "controlled part" was a little silly.......I mean why would "they" care what damage was done by its collapse? They certainly did not seem to care much when WTC1 and 2 came down....
Click to expand...
He's very carefully not asserting anything. He's implying things by questioning, and strawmanning, but studiously avoiding anything he can be pinned down on. Like usual.
 
Well, he's already been nailed with a pretty significant self-contradiction - which he's naturally ignoring in the hopes that it goes away.
 
000063 said:
He's very carefully not asserting anything. He's implying things by questioning, and strawmanning, but studiously avoiding anything he can be pinned down on. Like usual.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's deliberate, though. I think it's just a side effect of his rather poor attempts at putting "bedunkers" on the defensive, even when the tables have been turned.
 
RedIbis said:
False choice fallacy. There was not firefighting effort.
Click to expand...

Daniel Nigro himself said they evacuated a collapse zone around WTC7 in anticipation of the collapse, so if you're trying to imply that there weren't any firefighters or efforts to be "pulled" from the collapse zone, you are mistaken... unless of course you think Nigro is lying because he's part of this alleged cockamamie "inside job" cover up. Other firefighters corroborate his account of the evacuation and his reasoning for evacuation.

This means that "pull it" can be interpreted as reference to an evacuation; a top secret hi-tech nano-thermite controlled demolition is not the only possible interpretation. The controlled demo interpretation is unlikely since there weren't any controlled demolitions on 9/11.
 
adkinsjr said:
Daniel Nigro himself said they evacuated a collapse zone around WTC7 in anticipation of the collapse, so if you're trying to imply that there weren't any firefighters or efforts to be "pulled" from the collapse zone, you are mistaken... unless of course you think Nigro is lying because he's part of this alleged cockamamie "inside job" cover up.
Click to expand...

Red clearly thinks you're safe in a building collapse so long as you're not directly inside it, and firefighters wouldnt have any reason to want to be far away from a building that they think is at risk of collapse.

:D
 
Couldn't the firefighting operations just outside the building be trying to do something about all the burning cars? Surely they were in the danger zone.

Not every fire was inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom