What is so hard to understand here? Why the name calling? Oh yeah, 'cause you don't want to answer my questions fully.... To wit - so did they decide to not fight the fires so as to save firefighters' lives? Now, isn't that the real reason they left it to burn? And isn't it true that the words 'pull it' were just an unfortunate choice? Do you really think that if Silverstein is so sinister to demo his own building for insurance money, that he would also be so dumb as to use the phrase 'pull it' ? Don't you think he would be better prepped to deal with the press? Kinda flies against all logic, don't it....... You also asked me 'then how did they pull it?' Hmmm let's see, I believe you need to prove that one, since you're the one that is asserting it. You see, that's how things work, when you assert something, you need to prove it, with facts, not opinion. Thinking of logic again, what do you say about a building pancaking at near free fall speed? I aked for an example to show what you mean that it doesn't happen like that, I'd love to hear one. Or maybe you don't answer 'cause you can't think of one. Know why you can't think of one? Because it doesn't exist..... ANd why wouldn't the building collapse when they let the fire burn? Can you explain why it ABSOLUTELY would not? If you can't then there is a possibility that the theory you believe in is wrong. Right? And using OTHER buildings is a red herring because of the different way it was built. You'd be comparing apples and oranges. Remember, WTC were built with tube in a tube with long, unsupported trusses.... not the same as all the other buildings given in your video. Can you even see how they don't apply? And what does FEMA changing its' story and saying they're not sure how it fell have to do with anything? Another red herring....
bldg 7 was built way after 1 and 2.... and fire has never collapsed a modern steel structure before. have u seen the pictures of the ATF bldg... the whole side was taken out... but the rest stood. and yet... 2 small fires brought down 7 in a controlled demo style symmetry. GET FKN REAL
you want squibs... ive got ur stinking squibs: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
So what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." He could not have meant that they should "pull" the firefighters from the building because there weren't any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that "pull" is not used to mean "demolish" a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant? The only reasonable conclusion is that Larry Silverstein's statement is an admission that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, meaning that the official version of what happened to WTC 7 is false, and casting serious doubt on the official story that terrorists of a foreign origin destroyed the twin towers, as well as on the rest of the official account of 9/11. Note that this admission is a statement against Silverstein's own interests (putting him at odds with the official version of events and potentially jeopardizing his insurance claims). Such statements are given great weight as a matter of law.
Haroki, these types are lunatics, logic and reason play no role here. For instance, if I were to ask the following: Why would the demolition of this inconsequential building, wtc7, even be included in what would be one of the most evil conspiracies in human history? Why would they include this in their plan, when it serves no purpose, and only adds significant risk? There is no plausible answer to this, which doesn't matter, they'll concoct one.
in the spirit of objectivity, don't you feel obliged to consider plausible reasons? or do you just 'know' you're right i'm not taking a position on detonation one way or another, just sayin
Agreed, to a point. Frankly, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy lunatics. A better phrasing of the question might be: What would be a plausible benefit to bringing down an inconsequential building considering it would introduce significantly more risk? How many more third-parties would be needed and therefore added to the list of conspirators to bring this little regarded building down? How many more eye-witness would rigging this building up with explosives result in??? And What Purpose Has It Served???? Duh, indeed.