Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[beachnut]

9/11 bedunkers, please fill in the blanks:

....

Only a troll uses the term bedunkers. It sounds like my grandson made up the term. You are so cute, like my grandsons, all questions. What are you? A self-bedunker? An anti-truther?

Barry has nothing to offer on 911, except he was praying under a desk, so he has no clue what he saw, he was hiding.

Why is Barry on topic? Barry's testimony, video after years, proves he was not killed by explosives. Thus Barry is not proof for explosives, he is evidence of no explosives. His time line if flawed. But his testimony is evidence of no explosives, and damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of the towers.

Pull it - the topic, any insight why 911 truthers (who only have lies and fantasy claims on 911) can't figure out he meant pull the fire support?

 

[alienentity]

No, it doesn't, and it's unfathomable how you cannot understand this. If it was WTC 1 debris that trapped Jennings and Hess, (and btw, Jenning's testimony is above, so you can see for yourself where your story is wrong) but even if it WAS WTC1's debris, you still can't explain why they were in the building well after WTC 2's collapse, among all the other illogical items your timeline creates.

What don't you understand about this? Your timeline, your story DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

But I do understand. Jennings and Hess were vague about the times. The only way we can really know is to corroborate their observations with known events.

Since the burning buses and cars were not evident until after WTC 1 collapsed, it is impossible for the men to have broken the window before that time.

No amount of wriggling and protestation is going to change that fact. You have already lost the argument and your position has failed.

The only way you could 'prove' yourself correct would be to show a video or photo taken BEFORE the WTC 1 collapse, on Barclay st, showing buses and cars burning.
You can't do that, because it didn't happen that way. You will make up excuse after excuse, but you CANNOT supply the proof you need. But we already did.

You have lost the argument. Give it up.

 

[Craig4]

9/11 bedunkers, please fill in the blanks:

WTC 1 was hit at 8:46 a.m. WTC 2 was hit at 9:03 a.m. WTC 7 was evacuated at 9:30 a.m.

Jennings and Hess arrived at WTC 7 at ______ a.m.

WTC 2 fell at 9:59 a.m., 29 minutes after WTC 7 was evacuated. WTC 1 fell at 10:28 a.m., almost one hour after WTC 7 was evacuated.

Jennings and Hess got trapped in WTC 7 when debris from WTC ____ blew out some lower floors.

And there's still residue from the thousands of pounds of explosives that would be required to destroy the buildings.

 

[ozeco41]

And there's still residue from the thousands of pounds of explosives that would be required to destroy the buildings.

Actually the problem is not that one.

The reality is that no explosives were required. The towers would have and did collapse by the mechanisms which have been described many times. So no explosives "would be required"

And that leads to the next part of the problem which arises if "thousands of pounds" of explosives were used.

What did they do?

How was the visible evidence of their use suppressed?

AND
How did they do anything without in any way changing the mechanism of collapses which would have occurred without use of explosives?

The problem facing those truthers who insist that explosives and/or incendiaries were used is far more complex than they thought.

 

[KreeL]

Actually the problem is not that one.

The reality is that no explosives were required. The towers would have and did collapse by the mechanisms which have been described many times. So no explosives "would be required"

And that leads to the next part of the problem which arises if "thousands of pounds" of explosives were used.

What did they do?

How was the visible evidence of their use suppressed?

AND
How did they do anything without in any way changing the mechanism of collapses which would have occurred without use of explosives?

The problem facing those truthers who insist that explosives and/or incendiaries were used is far more complex than they thought.

Indeed you are correct. The mechanism would be unique. Unique mechanisms have been used before to destroy/implode buildings. Did NIST study any of the steel from WTC7 for explosives? No. But FEMA found eutectic steel and recommended NIST look into this anomaly. Did NIST address FEMA's request in their report on 7? If they did, we missed it.

 

[beachnut]

Indeed you are correct. The mechanism would be unique. Unique mechanisms have been used before to destroy/implode buildings. Did NIST study any of the steel from WTC7 for explosives? No. But FEMA found eutectic steel and recommended NIST look into this anomaly. Did NIST address FEMA's request in their report on 7? If they did, we missed it.

What does eutectic mean? Do trolls give answers to their nonsensical silly smoke screen. What does the eutectic mean for your moronic CD claims? Go ahead make my day.
Do trolls care if they can't explain what eutectic means, or what?

 

[KreeL]

What does eutectic mean? Do trolls give answers to their nonsensical silly smoke screen. What does the eutectic mean for your moronic CD claims? Go ahead make my day.
Do trolls care if they can't explain what eutectic means, or what?

Simple. If a thermitic substance exists that can weaken steel gradually and keep reacting until it turns structural steel into what FEMA found at ground zero, then truther claims of arson/CD would be substantiated.

 

[alienentity]

Simple. If a thermitic substance exists that can weaken steel gradually and keep reacting until it turns structural steel into what FEMA found at ground zero, then truther claims of arson/CD would be substantiated.

Apparently powdered unicorn horn can also do that. And it is more likely to have been at ground zero.....


Translation: Seriously? You guys are going to hang this kind of vague speculation AS YOUR BEST HYPOTHESIS? That's not even a weak argument, it's nonexistent. There is zero evidence that therm*te can behave the way you require it to, and unfortunately a LOT of other more likely scenarios which fit the conditions better.

You do realize that you can never eliminate a number of other sources for the eutectic erosion, I hope. You can NEVER prove your hypothesis as a certainty - not possible.

 

[KreeL]

Haritt proved arson to me when he found the unreacted thermitic material in the dust. The hypothesis then becomes how it was used to produce the results we witnessed.

 

[ozeco41]

Haritt proved arson to me when he found the unreacted thermitic material in the dust. The hypothesis then becomes how it was used to produce the results we witnessed.

Exactly.

Which is why all the "was there thermXte" discussion is pointless.

If anyone in the truth movement could construct the hypothesis you identify it would not need proof of thermXte in the dust.

BUT it is 2012. Sensible people know there was no demolition. Truthers know that, despite over ten years to come up to proof, not one of their members has come forward with the hypothesis.

In fact by admitting the need for the hypothesis you risk excommunication...

 

[KreeL]

Exactly.

Which is why all the "was there thermXte" discussion is pointless.

If anyone in the truth movement could construct the hypothesis you identify it would not need proof of thermXte in the dust.

BUT it is 2012. Sensible people know there was no demolition. Truthers know that, despite over ten years to come up to proof, not one of their members has come forward with the hypothesis.

In fact by admitting the need for the hypothesis you risk excommunication...

I agree with most of what you are saying, and I understand your point of view -except you are bedunking a standard demolition. When this substance was introduced to WTC7, then everything standard about this demolition goes out the window. I can understand this, and I think you can also.

 

[alienentity]

Haritt proved arson to me when he found the unreacted thermitic material in the dust. The hypothesis then becomes how it was used to produce the results we witnessed.

Oz is correct - there is no hypothesis, at least not one which can be articulated in meaningful engineering terms.

Besides, Harrit has failed to prove his claim of a thermitic material. Since none of the chips contain more than a very small percentage, by weight, of materials which could possibly react in a thermitic way, then chemically they are not capable of such a reaction.
A material with approx. 1.6% Al and 2.6% FeO2 in a 75% organic binder is not capable of thermitic reaction under any circumstances.

I don't imagine you care if that is true, because you've already committed to a nonsense belief and would be devastated to realize how wrong you are.

ps, there are a number of other reasons why this material could not have brought the buildings down, I just listed one important and fatal one - it's not thermite.

 

[alienentity]

I agree with most of what you are saying, and I understand your point of view -except you are bedunking a standard demolition. When this substance was introduced to WTC7, then everything standard about this demolition goes out the window. I can understand this, and I think you can also.

Again, there is no hypothesis. You are simply claiming that it happened by some heretofore unknown method, which even you cannot describe.

You might as well say 'it was done by magic, someone put a spell on the towers and they fell at freefall speed'.

You seem to forget, as truthers always do, that there IS a scientifically valid theory of failure for all 3 buildings which involves fire and steel failure. Nobody has even attempted to disagree with this main hypothesis in a legitimate scientific forum such as a peer-reviewed journal.

So not only do you lack the necessary compounds to carry out the deed, you lack a hypothesis as to how they might have been used.
BTW, did you know that no test demonstration of nanothermite has been done to verify even the idea that it could cause structural steel buildings to fail?

You're not even at stage one of proving anything.

 

[KreeL]

Oz is correct - there is no hypothesis, at least not one which can be articulated in meaningful engineering terms.

Besides, Harrit has failed to prove his claim of a thermitic material. Since none of the chips contain more than a very small percentage, by weight, of materials which could possibly react in a thermitic way, then chemically they are not capable of such a reaction.
A material with approx. 1.6% Al and 2.6% FeO2 in a 75% organic binder is not capable of thermitic reaction under any circumstances.

I don't imagine you care if that is true, because you've already committed to a nonsense belief and would be devastated to realize how wrong you are.

ps, there are a number of other reasons why this material could not have brought the buildings down, I just listed one important and fatal one - it's not thermite.

Since we don't how how or where this substance was manufactured, the exact purpose and/or properties remain unknown - that is until it can be duplicated and tested. That will be exceedingly difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.

 

[ozeco41]

I agree with most of what you are saying, and I understand your point of view -except you are bedunking a standard demolition. When this substance was introduced to WTC7, then everything standard about this demolition goes out the window. I can understand this, and I think you can also.

I understand where you are trying to come from. But my understanding is not based on whatever you mean by "standard demolition". I work from basic engineering principles which no implicit appeal to magic can change.

To cause a structure to collapse means that some members have to be weakened or cut. Even if you introduce a magic substance to achieve that it still has to be achieved for each member.

Then there have to be sufficient weakened or cut members and they have to be related in a way which turns a structure into a mechanism. No matter what you magic substance it does not change the need for a collapse mechanism. So your next step of fantasy is to claim a magic mechanism. You are on your own there because I cannot conceive of one. - recall it has to work with the real and conventional structure - you don't have a "magic" structure to start from.

And we have only touched on the outline of the technical requirements. There are equally substantial barriers to CD in the domains of both (and separately) logistics and security.

THEN even further your magic demolition has to match the visual evidence of the collapse mechanisms which actually happened on 9/11. That of course is why the truth movement fell all over WTC7. For WTC1 and WTC2 the mechanisms (two that matter) are sufficiently visible that claims of CD cannot be sustained. So WTC7, with the mechanism details hidden, was a godsend for truthers. Given the truther habit of reversing burden of proof debunkers have a hard time proving that the hidden mechanisms of WTC7 were not demolition.. Only if you accept reversal of burden of proof naturally and I don't.

Back to my main theme - the sum total of these barriers, technical, logistic, security (leave aside strategic motivation for now) and you face at least ten times the single logical element of either thermXte or "magic".

Hence my dismissal of silly truther claims that, once we prove [thermXte|eutectic steel|any|others] we have proved CD. Utter nonsense. It isn't even a decent start. In fact it is a waste of time since the other (whatever - 95%) is far harder. And the ball is still in your court to come up with a hypothesis more substantial than an implied belief in magic.

 

[Craig4]

Since we don't how how or where this substance was manufactured, the exact purpose and/or properties remain unknown - that is until it can be duplicated and tested. That will be exceedingly difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.

So you believe a substance exists that you cannot find, and cannot establish has ever been manufactured. On the basis of a substance you cannot establish exists and further, cannot establish was ever applied to any buildings you accuse people of thousands of capitol crimes? Seriously?

 

[DGM]

I understand where you are trying to come from. But my understanding is not based on whatever you mean by "standard demolition". I work from basic engineering principles which no implicit appeal to magic can change.

You don't understand the power of some of this special stuff.

 

[ergo]

But I do understand. Jennings and Hess were vague about the times. The only way we can really know is to corroborate their observations with known events.

Since the burning buses and cars were not evident until after WTC 1 collapsed, it is impossible for the men to have broken the window before that time.

Were not evident to whom?

(Just trying to follow you in your logic here, in the hopes of showing you more clearly why it doesn't matter.)

 

[ergo]

~9:30am (more toward 9:40)

2

Thanks, DGM. This kind of timeline does seem necessary for your theory to somewhat work. You're aware it contradicts the popular explanation, as found in Wikipedia?

It also raises a difficult question: How did debris from the destruction of WTC 2 at 9:59 hurl itself into WTC 7 enough to knock out several floors below floor 6, trapping Jennings and Hess? While not hurling itself into any other buildings neighbouring or shielding WTC 7?

 

[ergo]

Here's another to get the 3D perspective.