Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

KreeL said:
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..."
Click to expand...

Of course if that happened there would be explosive residue all over New York.
 
Brass said:
But remember, guys, truthers can use non-controlled demolition experts to support controlled demolition theories!

Got it! Good! Great!
Click to expand...

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. :boggled:
 
KreeL said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Because, Conservation of Matter, it's not just a good idea, it's the law. Explosives have to go somewhere when they explode. That somewhere is attached to the debris. You do recall the massive layer of dust covering part of New York when the towers collapsed right? If there were explosives used then there has to be explosive residue in the dust. There is simply no way around this.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Because, Conservation of Matter, it's not just a good idea, it's the law. The explosives have to go somewhere when they explode. That somewhere is a residue that gets attached to the debris. You do recall the massive layer of dust covering part of New York when the towers collapsed right? If there were explosives used then there has to be explosive residue in the dust. There is simply no way around this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
KreeL said:
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. :boggled:
Click to expand...

No, that's just an excuse you use because your work isn't good enough.

What is your desired end state here? Please don't bother with some dishonest claim about a noble search for the truth because if that were true the product of your efforts wouldn't be of such an abysmally low quality. Try to remember that over 3000 people died that day and that it's disrespectful to turn such tragedy and loss into a meaningless hobby. This topic deserves better than you.
 
KreeL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pathetic. This is simple. Find samples of dust from the WTC collapse, test it for residue of explosives. There are plenty around that were used for other testing.
 
Craig4 said:
Pathetic. This is simple. Find samples of dust from the WTC collapse, test it for residue of explosives. There are plenty around that were used for other testing.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed - by anyone caring to test it. You would think that NIST would have been johnny on the spot. Right?
 
Just reading the OP and thinking about some upcoming travel made me see a parallel to the way truthers 'see' things in quite ordinary events.

I travel to the US annually for business. I normally go to the same location, am there for a week or so, then return home.

This year I decided to take some time off there, travel around for a couple of weeks. Because I'm going to be in various locations, I decided to provide my relatives and close friends with an itinerary, details of flight numbers, times, transit stops, etc. Part of my reasoning was that I will be doing a lot more air travel and so there is increased risk (though small) that something could happen to me.

Now let's say something does happen during a flight I am on, and it involved some type of controversy such as a hijacking / sabotage / etc.

A truther might look at my actions and conclude there was something going on. Why did I provide such detail to my friends? I never had before; did I have foreknowledge of the event? Was I involved, planning to 'disappear' and had to make sure people could confirm I was on the flight (since no remains would be found)?

Truthers could have a field day with a simple decision on my part to do something different. I see them applying exactly the same approach with aspects on the 9-11 events.

I believe it is something like anomaly hunting.
 
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.
 
KreeL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I heard your mom calling; your microwave pizza rolls are ready. It would be more polite to come up from the basement and eat them with the family.
 
KreeL said:
Why? Can only speculate, but probably to destroy the structure sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

It was pre-installed to be used for reasons not then known? Does this happen a lot, do you suppose?

KreeL said:
When? Speculation again, but possibly when it was built, or possibly when it was remodeled as Guiliani's 'bunker'.
Click to expand...

Presumably you're aware that explosives can't just be left installed for years? They have a shelf-life.

KreeL said:
Alibi? Speculation - property developement, sensitive government contents, etc.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the question. From a CT pov, debris impact and fire were the 'alibi' that covered up the CD. But it was far from guaranteed WTC7 would be hit, so no guarantee of fire. What then would be the the perps' plausible explanation for why 7 fell?
 
GlennB said:
You didn't read the question. From a CT pov, debris impact and fire were the 'alibi' that covered up the CD. But it was far from guaranteed WTC7 would be hit, so no guarantee of fire. What then would be the the perps' plausible explanation for why 7 fell?
Click to expand...

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.
 
KreeL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom