• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wtc 7

audesapre

New Blood
A
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
4
I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might.
 
audesapre said:
I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might.
Click to expand...
First thing is you should tell your professor to get out of 2002 and come to 2008.
 
first thing you should tell your professor is to get a refund from whatever college he attended.
 
You had time in a summer school class to talk about the WTC 7 collapse? Man, things have changed since I was in school.
 
audesapre said:
Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).
Click to expand...
this is not entirely true, security had been on heightened alert (12 hour shifts) for 2 weeks before 9/11 (due to phoned in threats) and had returned to normal the week before

the normal complement of bomb sniffing dogs were still on duty up to and on 9/11, in fact one died when the towers collapsed (google sirius+wtc)
 
First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...and the 9/11 topic came up in discussion regarding "false flag terrorism." Read into that what you will.

As I said prior, I am having a hard time buying into the whole "inside job" bit...I mean, if a gov goes through the trouble of engineering a ploy to KILL 3000 of its own constituency then why would they let us uncover it? Hasn't anybody watched X Files :) ? Also, there's just so much at stake if something like an "inside job" was exposed...too much, I would think.

Just my thoughts. I didn't have time to get a word in during class.

Anyhow, back OT, has anybody watched "A Great Conspiracy"?
It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.
 
So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...
 
What the hell is the world coming to when people that are suposdely educated can spew crap like, "Silverstein said WTC7 was a CD because he said to pull it."

OP, I don't know if you know this or not but it is completely obvious that he meant to pull fire fighters from the building. Furthmore, he wasn't even in a position to make such a decision. It mas made by FDNY Cheif Daniel Nigro (he was in charge of the entire operations that day and and came upon that position only because his boss died when the towers collapsed) because it was apparent to him that the building would collapse and he wanted to prevent any further loss of life.

He was right, and thanks to his decision, nobody died when WTC7 collapsed. Silverstein only agreed with this assement. This is apparent to anybody that has done any honest research on the subject.

Anybody that spews the Silverstein said pull it crap is either a liar or a very incompetant researcher. I have no idea which category your professor falls into. If any professor that I had brought up this BS, I would have called him on it and made him look like a fool.

What sort of course was this anyway?
 
audesapre said:
But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...
Click to expand...

I didn't see this before I responded before. But "pull it" is never used in the demolition buisiness as a term for using explosives to bring a building down. Sometimes a building is pulled down by attaching cables to columns and pulling it. This happend with one of the WTC buildings (I forget which one, I think 5 or 6) sometime after 9/11. But that building was much smaller than WTC7 and it is impossible to demolish a building the size of WTC7 in such a matter.
 
audesapre said:
... ...the guy actually is bright, in certain ...It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.
Click to expand...
I recommend making flyers about 7 that debunk his super stupid rant, and put them in the room without getting caught. See if he ""esplodes"" in front of the class.


Who has the guts to turn in this guy who spews lies about 9/11? If he was smart, he would not be teaching lies.
 
dtugg said:
OP, I don't know if you know this or not but it is completely obvious that he meant to pull fire fighters from the building. Furthmore, he wasn't even in a position to make such a decision. It mas made by FDNY Cheif Daniel Nigro (he was in charge of the entire operations that day and and came upon that position only because his boss died when the towers collapsed) because it was apparent to him that the building would collapse and he wanted to prevent any further loss of life.
Click to expand...


Actually, it wasn't Nigro who spoke to Silverstein. From another thread:

Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available

ref said:
The answer is: No.

I asked Chief Nigro about this, and he was kind to respond very quickly. What he said was basically this:

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.
Click to expand...
He also once reminded again, that as we all know, he would not have needed the approval of Silverstein to make the evacuation order. So, whoever Silverstein is talking about getting the call from, it is NOT Chief Nigro.

An interesting twist to the story. Wonder what the truthers are going to make of this :)
Click to expand...
 
audesapre said:
So...I found the video - where silverstein "admits" to having the building demolished - that my professor referred to and silverstein says "we made the decision to pull it."

Um...is "pull" code for demolishing a building? I thought it referred to the firefighters pulling out...and then there's this alternate theory about "pull" referring to the use of cables to pull down a building so that it falls in the right place...

But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...
Click to expand...


Audesapre, I suggest you take TAM's advice at post #6 and familiarise yourself with the information in the links he posted. It'll give you a better overall understanding of what happened. Once you've done that I'm sure people will be happy to answer any questions you have.

Also, the BBC recently screened a documentary about WTC7 and the CTs surrounding it. It is discussed in this thread.
 
yes your professor is bright. I see plenty of bright people living in cardboard boxes and talking to themselves while claiming aliens are eating their brains. Yes I know they seem crazy, but they really are well spoke when not eating their boogers.
 
This thread is an excellent example of why the aural history of debunking and critical thinking must be carried on.

I find it quite distressing that a college professor is promoting these claims, but while Ward Churchill is sill fogging the mirror, I suppose anything is possible.

Audesapre, instead of looking to counter the claims with specific details, learn to ask for evidence and logical connections. It is a skill that is used in root cause failure analysis. Look into that if you can as part of a curriculum of instruction. It is how technical and law enforcement entities examine a failure and figure out its cause.

The gist of RCFA is to ask a series of who, what, why, how questions. The beauty of this line of questioning is that is does not require any specific knowlege on the part of the questioner. Just technique and knowledge of the process. If you know RCFA techniques, you can find out who killed Kennedy or who smashed your holloween pumpkin. It is all the same technique.

Lets taken one small example. Your prof said that bomb sniffing dogs were pulled off the case.

How do you know that prof?
Who told you?
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Is there an alternative explanation?

Make him support the wild accusations. Just dont take them at face value.
 
Last edited:
Magenta said:
Actually, it wasn't Nigro who spoke to Silverstein. From another thread:

Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available[/URL]
Click to expand...


Honestly, I didn't know this. But I also didn't say (nor really imply I think) that Nigro spoke to Silverstein about it. Doesn't matter too much anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom