WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[Skylar]

I've explored a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories and have found many to be silly and simply untrue (when you look at all sides of the argument).

However, one I could never get an explanation for is this:

1.) Why did Larry Silverstein basically say flat out that he made the decision to "pull" or demolish the building:
[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]j2q2mD2HaKA[/MEDIA] Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7 - YouTube

You don't have to dig very deep for an answer to that one: 'Pull it' isn't a reference to demolition.

Here's your first clue: The conversation was between Silverstein and the FDNY Commissoner. So if 'pull it' were an order to demolish the building, the folks that made the decision to 'pull' would be the FDNY. And they don't demolish skyscrapers. They never have. Robbing the 'demolition' narrative of even a scrap of plausibility.

However.....per Silverstein, 'pull it' meant pull the fire fighting effort. And that's something that the FDNY can absolutely do. And a decision the FDNY verifiable made, deciding that fire and structural damage in WTC 7 were so severe that they evacuated the area and let it come down.

It also provides an explanation that is infinitely more plausible than the FDNY demolishing a burning building. Plus, its backed up by the FDNY who used the term 'pulled' over and over again to refer to abandoning the fire fighting effort of WTC 7.

Does that help? There are about a dozen more ways the 'pull it = demolition' interpretation just doesn't work. But those are the two most obvious.

When the official explanation basically says that it collapsed on it's own "naturally due to damages sustained from the initial attacks"?

The official explanation is that the collapse initiated on the 13th floor at column 79 due to fire. Nature didn't have much to do with it.

 

[Skylar]

...people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.

...and the 2.25 seconds worth of free-fall.

Wait a sec'; that would make you a nutcase, wouldn't it, Ollie?

You need to let this sink into your thick skull: the building could've taken a week to completely collapse and that still wouldn't account for NIST'S admission of a physically impossible period of free-fall.

Your timing is off. First, the Penthouse began collapsing into the WTC 7 about 20 seconds before the facade collapsed. Falling fully into the WTC about 7 seconds before the WTC 7 facade fell. That demonstrates, undeniably, that the central structure of the WTC 7 was collapsing before the facade came down. So your time line on the collapse is off by about an order of magnitude.....as you only count the last portion of the collapse. And ignore everything before it.

Second, the NIST report indicates that the collapse initiated on floor 13. So if floor 13 came down, the floors above it would collapse. Why then the facade above floor 13 falling be 'physically impossible'? Your assessment fails again.

And of course, the collapse initiated in virtual silence. And there's no such thing as silent explosives. So it clearly wasn't bombs. Making the NIST explanation the only one left standing.

 

[Skylar]

WTC 7 had a bit of damage on its south end from towers 1 & 2, but when it collapsed it did not tip to that side (as one would suspect). Instead, it fell straight down. Firefighters were telling people to back away (there are video records of this) because the building "was about to come down". If fire alone bringing down a modern skyscraper is an extremely unlikely event that has never happened before in human history prior to 9/11, how in God's name were the firefighters - ie not building engineers - so confident and accurate in predicting the collapse? These are just honest questions I'm asking.

Because the FDNY had been watching it burn for hours. They put a transit on the building and measured its leaning, bending and buckling. They actually found a bulge forming on one corner. Fire fighters that went near the structure could hear it groaning. They're were pretty certain the building was coming down hours before it did. So they pulled their fire fighting effort and evacuated the area in advance of the collapse.

And they were right.

Oh, and there were building engineers on site. Though none of the FDNY accounts of their assessment of WTC 7 include mention of them, they almost certainly consulted with them. As these same engineers had anticipated the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. So they'd earned a little credibility.

If you'd like direct quotes of all the FDNY folks who made this assessment, I'd be happy to provide them. Most are part of the oral histories collected by the NY times in the months after the tragedy. Or interviews with firefighters in 'FireHouse' magazine.

 

[Skylar]

gee you sound just like the last guy....

So I'll ask again.

Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?

Not to concede your point, but it's totally irrelevant to the impossibility of any amount of free-fall (including the amount admitted by NIST) without the sort of mechanism mentioned in my previous post. My argument isn't based on the veracity of truther videos; it's based on the veracity of NIST's own admission.

If the collapse of the facade initiated on the lower half of the building, some amount free fall is entirely possible. In fact, probable. You've fallen into a common pitfall that ensnares many a conspiracy theorist: arbitrarily declaring that something is 'impossible' as the basis of your conspiracy.

The obvious problem with the 'veracity' of that process being.....typing the word 'impossible' doesn't actually make it so.

 

[Penelope]

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.

 

[daws101]

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.

false !that would be you and all the other uneducated nut sacks .

 

[Penelope]

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.

false !that would be you and all the other uneducated nut sacks .

Wrong I already know deep down it was, so I don't have to convince myself of anything. All you have some wacko 19 arab hijacker story and the NIST report, that is full of baloney.

 

[Penelope]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

 

[daws101]

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.

false !that would be you and all the other uneducated nut sacks .

Wrong I already know deep down it was, so I don't have to convince myself of anything. All you have some wacko 19 arab hijacker story and the NIST report, that is full of baloney.

what you know is called rationalizing.
in reality you know jack shit because all you've seen is conspiracy videos and visited conspiracy sites. you either cannot or will not even make an attempt to be objective.

 

[daws101]

wild cARD IS TOO CHICKEN SHIT TO EVEN DEBATE THE MATTER!

 

[daws101]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

 

[Penelope]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

 

[daws101]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

ah but you do..in the form of conspiracy myth.
what you read was on conspiracy sites yes? no?

 

[Penelope]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

ah but you do..in the form of conspiracy myth.
what you read was on conspiracy sites yes? no?

Not really, I researched the people involved on my own. The only thing those sites gave were names, and I didn't agree with all they had to say, but it was very easy to put two and two together. First one needs motive, ability and access. The PNAC and Clean Break was just the clincher. Also when someone had predicted it in the early 90's, its just hard to put two and two together.

 

[Skylar]

I think your trying to hard to convince yourself it wasn't and inside job, keep working at it.

I'm just reviewing the facts and evidence. Which, of course, you fastidiously avoid.

Which speaks volumes.

 

[Skylar]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

Our positions are based on the evidence. Yours on what you 'know, deep down'. There's a difference. You won't have a debate of evidence. Even now you're avoiding even mention of it. You want a debate of feelings.

And your feelings don't trump our facts and evidence. Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

ah but you do..in the form of conspiracy myth.
what you read was on conspiracy sites yes? no?

Not really, I researched the people involved on my own. The only thing those sites gave were names, and I didn't agree with all they had to say, but it was very easy to put two and two together. First one needs motive, ability and access. The PNAC and Clean Break was just the clincher. Also when someone had predicted it in the early 90's, its just hard to put two and two together.

I've discussed these issues with you, P. And you haven't researched a thing. You told us how the PNAC document tried to justify the Patriot Act. But that was pure bullshit. As the PNAC document was written before the Bush presidency, before 911, before the Patriot Act. And makes no reference to the Patriot Act, nor could it. Rendering your narrative physically impossible.

Which you'd know if you'd ever read the PNAC document. Instead you repeat what you were told to think about it. Without thought. Without question. And without ever having read the source material.

And of course, when presented with the legion of conspiracy killing holes in your narrative, you ignore them, pretend they don't exist, and make vague reference to what you 'know deep down'. Which isn't an argument.

Its an excuse for one. And you know what, P? Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk."

Right, .... I for one smelled something rotten about this whole scene from the very start. First with the "collapse" events of the two towers and then WTC7 "collapsing" as it did. on viewing the newsreel of the event the building came straight down for a period of time and later, through scientific analysis was found to be free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.
now this is significant in that in order to have free fall acceleration,
there isn't any resistance at all under the falling mass, and note that the whole visible bit, that is the North & West walls of the building fall in unison. how is this the product of fire + chaotic damage from rubble thrown by the "collapsing" WTC 1, & 2 ?

 

[daws101]

I just wanted to say "thank God Larry said pull when he did , and down it came" Believe me , no one was even trying to put a fire out in building 7, if anything they really wanted that one completely destroyed.

SPEAKING OF WACKO STORIES..

No I think you are rationalizing. I have based my opinion of what I have read, not what I have been told. Think how dumb it'd be if we still believed in Santa Clause.

ah but you do..in the form of conspiracy myth.
what you read was on conspiracy sites yes? no?

Not really, I researched the people involved on my own. The only thing those sites gave were names, and I didn't agree with all they had to say, but it was very easy to put two and two together. First one needs motive, ability and access. The PNAC and Clean Break was just the clincher. Also when someone had predicted it in the early 90's, its just hard to put two and two together.

 

[daws101]

"Your process of belief over evidence, feeling over fact, repeating over research......is embarrassingly common among truthers. Which is why they're usually so laughably easy to debunk."

Right, .... I for one smelled something rotten about this whole scene from the very start. First with the "collapse" events of the two towers and then WTC7 "collapsing" as it did. on viewing the newsreel of the event the building came straight down for a period of time and later, through scientific analysis was found to be free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.
now this is significant in that in order to have free fall acceleration,
there isn't any resistance at all under the falling mass, and note that the whole visible bit, that is the North & West walls of the building fall in unison. how is this the product of fire + chaotic damage from rubble thrown by the "collapsing" WTC 1, & 2 ?

only a portion of the north face of wtc 7 was in freefall for 2.25 sec which proves nothing except that for in that tiny fraction of time it struck nothing it's not statistically or forensically important.
however the lack of any accelerants ,thermite, det cord etc. is...