Hmm, I hope you are not going to pretend to misunderstand that so you can quite it out of context later.
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
Hmm, I hope you are not going to pretend to misunderstand that so you can quite it out of context later.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Based on other demolitions of lesser complexity a month wouldn't have done it.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Possibly. . . .I could just be a cynic . . . as I have stated to Mick. . . I come from many generations of conspiracy believers . . . could be genetic . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Don't really care what you call me. I'm interested in factual rebuttal. The rest is immaterial
hiper
Active Member
What I mean is I can't believe you actually wrote these lines :
You assuming both methods work to take down a building like that.
Look at the picture of WTC 1 I just posted... you have no problem with looking at that picture while at the same time
believing a plane and fire are responsible?
No, I'm assuming both methods would take down the building. Not "like that". Does the dog end up the same?
What problem should I have? Relative to the height of the building the plane and fire damage was a few percent. The majority of the damage came from the collapse.
The plane and the fire were initiating events, like the collapse of a floor in verinage demolition.
Last edited:
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Sure doesn't look (Don't you just love the inherent ambiguity of that word?) like anything "controlled" to me. Relatively asymmetric compound sequential structural failure I'd say.Yeah like this... looks very 'gravity driven'.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
No, I'm assuming both methods would take down the building. Not "like that". Does the dog end up the same?
What problem should I have? Relative to the height of the building the plane and fire damage was a few percent. The majority of the damage came from the collapse.
The plane and the fire were initiating events, like the collapse of a floor in verinage demolition.
Please note the sequence of collapse of all three buildings started ABOVE the impact and / or fire points. No controlled demolition does that. The bottom goes first causing the top to follow. Of course the people stating this are just those who do it for a living. What do they know? All they have to offer is practical experience!
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You mean like WTC 7?
hiper
Active Member
The building being blown outward many floors below the 'pancaking floors' above is also a coincidence?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Except Verinage, of course
Now it becomes clear! The French did it!
F4Jock
Senior Member.
No. It's a result of the falling mass above trying to fit into a space too small for it forcing the walls outward. Physics.
Also something debunked approximately 12 years ago, and every two days since then.
hiper
Active Member
Except Verinage, of course
Here we see where "to pull" comes from. Pulling the cables aka intentionally demolishing a building.
It obviously has nothing to do with pulling fire crews out of a building.
Last edited by a moderator:
So WTC7 was brought down by cables?
hiper
Active Member
Got ya.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Except Verinage, of course
What this does show is that a building will fall pretty much straight down if damaged in upper floors. So substitute an aircraft and fire and structural damage and....
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Now when were these cables installed? Where are the pictures of them?
Are you really saying that someone was able to send crews in, during the disaster, and have they install cables?
BTW, 'pull them' is not an uncommon term. I play a war/ strategy on line game. If I have sent reins (reinforcements) to someone's village, prior to an attack. I will ask, 'can I pull them?" (there may still be incoming attacks).
Are you really saying that someone was able to send crews in, during the disaster, and have they install cables?
BTW, 'pull them' is not an uncommon term. I play a war/ strategy on line game. If I have sent reins (reinforcements) to someone's village, prior to an attack. I will ask, 'can I pull them?" (there may still be incoming attacks).
Cairenn
Senior Member.
So there are cables in place to 'pull the building' down, that have been installed before 9/11 inside a crowded area of downtown NYC and NO ONE noticed them? Sure. Not believable.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I would like someone to explain to me, why conspiracy folks ALWAYS come up with complex, unbelievable explanations for things? Or why they decided to 'read into' a comment what they WANTED to hear, not the obvious explanation.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(Broken Link Cached here: http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d )
Jazzy
Closed Account
Their occupancy rate was almost 100%. Perhaps the renovations were affordable after all.
It may well take months to prepare a 'properly controlled demolition', but this was not 'properly controlled', it merely needed to be 'a demolition'. In a 'properly controlled demolition' there should have been no 'appreciable' or 'meaningful' damage to surrounding buildings.
As posted, Susan Lindauer claims explosives were planted beforehand and there was a verified shutdown of all security the weekend before 9/11 with workmen working all weekend and strange noises and dust being reported.
Exotic explosives could easily have been placed at key points and would explain the strange steel degradation as well as burning for many weeks and reports of molten steel.
It's a theory guys... and it ticks the boxes.
Ok, this is a bit fanciful but it is merely a simile. If the Towers had been in Iran and were say nuclear armament strategic command centres, and by taking them out it would destroy the nuclear armament program, are you saying, (if security was circumvented), it could not be rigged in a weekend?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Interesting . . . good point about the lack of the necessary precision and preparation for a proper demolition . .
SR1419
Senior Member.
Oh the Irony...
It was the supposedly near identical nature to a properly controlled demolition that was suspicious in the first place...
So under this theory, what explains the inward bowing of the east walls of WTC2?
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
Last edited:
hiper
Active Member
He's talking about the twin towers.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
"to pull" a building means intentionally demolishing a building by cables or other means.
It also means the preparations had to be done before 9/11.
Having been a command officer in the fire service as well as a regular firefighter and a fire academy instructor all of which I can document, "Pull it" does NOT mean what you think it does, but what do I know. I just did this stuff.....for eleven years.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
But the claim cannot be proven. I can "claim" I'm the heir to the Romanovs and provide anecdotal evidence to support....oh wait! The Simpson's did that!
hiper
Active Member
If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition the whole official explanation of events on 11/09/2001 becomes null and void.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
But it wasn't so it doesn't,
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Consistency is not the hallmark of these theories Mick.
One interesting aside: We have a government that is demonstrably incapable of walking and chewing gum concurrently, yet it's being given credit for flawlessly pulling off one of the biggest and most audacious technically-based cons in history, a covert con that included the murder of thousands. Talk about suspension of disbelief!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I will keep my fingers crossed . . . I hope they think it is sexy . . . aircraft sims and all . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You could but I wouldn't believe you . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
I will keep my fingers crossed . . . I hope they think it is sexy . . . aircraft sims and all . . .
I can think of a ton of reasons it won't happen, especially after Boston, but I'd like to see it as much as you!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is easy . . . there are units within the government that are particularly efficient, covert and capable while most are not . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
But why not? After all, this was already done and lots of people believed Anastasia was who she claimed to be for about half a century. She made a good living a it too, at times, even after she was shown to be a fraud.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
And they are?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
