The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON

[TheStatutoryApe]

He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?

Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.

If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.
----------------------
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.

So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.

If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.

Fire still does not turn steel to dust.

Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?

Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.

the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?

I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.

Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?

 

[Entropy]

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

The fire didn't do that. The energy from the building falling down did. The hundreds of thousands of tons of material falling from that height has a ton of energy. Enough energy to melt and disintegrates steel.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Please post a list of all buildings that had a large airliner full of fuel crash into them and that did not collapse so we can compare that data to the WTC airline crashes.

Without this data, you have no argument.

THe project manager already said in the video I posted that he designed the towers to sustain multiple boeing impacts, And we know how fire reacts in buildings.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa, big deception going on here. He said that they decided to pull teh building "and then we watched the building collapse". He DID NOT say that they actually did go in and set the explosives (of course, this would have taken many hours if not days to actually do). He simply said they made a decision, the building collapsed. You must be fooled into ASSUMING they actually went in and took it down.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

 

[Esperanto]

2) The building was fully imploded so that the bottom levels fell at the same time the upper levels did. This would be at almost exactly free-fall. Problems. One, how would you wire the ENTIRE tower for implosion without anyone knowing? Two, if every level did have charges in it or anywhere near all of them, we would have seen the entire wtc seemingly explode. Every eye-witness and every video shows that absolutely nothing was happening on the lower levels when the towers started falling. There would be very noticable flashes of light coming out of the levels if it was demolished.

http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

This video shows explosions going off. There's stuff flying horizontally pretty far as the building collapses btw.

Or of course, you can subscribe to the 3rd option, the offical story, where magically, millions of pounds of steel on the upper floors decided that it was not going to be slowed down by a few support bars.

Ahem, who am I going to believe, Francis DeMartini WTC Construction Manager when he says a jetliner going through one of the two wtc's is like putting a pencil through a screen netting, or you with your "few support bars"?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

Completely incorrect. We're talking about an airplane with an 11,000 gallon fuel capacity. Very few forces in nature are going to be consuming hundreds or gallons of fuel per second. Also, "fireballs got much smaller". Irrelevant. What you see does not matter. I know people who have seen "UFOs" but that does not mean they actually saw aliens. Personal experience is on the lower-rungs of scientific debate. I might as well tell everyone I believe in God because i saw Mary's face in my popsicle.

http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

Tell me how many seconds you think it took for the fireball to go away in this clip then.

Again, another problem with the conspiracy theorists lack of knowledge. No one has stated that steel needed to be melted in order for teh building to collapse except for the conspiracy theorists themselves. A basic basic basic understanding of physics or engineering will tell you that by simply heating a piece of metal, you are effectively reducing its ability to hold a load. It does NOT need to melt for it to give way. Every engineer on this planet agrees with that, every test agrees with it, you are wrong, deal with it.

There was disintegrated steel. So I repeat, Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.

Look at the first video I gave on this post. you got some newscaster telling you there are people standing there.

Again, of course, you need to prove to us exactly how controlled demolitions were going to accomplish free-fall speeds as OPPOSED to why the official story would NOT accomplish free-fall speed.

You can blow up the support at the center, and you won't see debris flying upwards, but you still have a mushrooming effect as you can see from the clip of the south tower falling. Btw, who here thinks steel landing on steel (like FEMA says in their pancake theory, just in case you try to attribute this idea to me) will still fall at the same rate as freefall?

That makes absolutely no sense

:)

Ok you got us, a public opinion poll trumps every and all scientific study done. Hey did you know a majority of Europeans think the US faked the moon landings? Yah, exactly, your point is rather stupid, I am glad you agree.

No, but I was hoping to appeal to your conformist mentality.

Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.

Okay, tell me about a steel building that was destroyed by something other than explosives or earthquakes, then I'll tell you how buildings are supposed to collapse other than straight down.

And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.

When you drop a dog on a dog, does not the falling dog decelerate? When you drop a pancake on a pancake and that pancake drops on another pancake, isn't there resistance?

Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.

The conspiracy theorists said concrete, steel, whatever disintegrated.

The actual site of the destruction of the Twin Towers is now called “Ground Zero.” It does, in fact, look like a scene of death and destruction from some of the most horrific bombing raids from WWII. Rescue and recovery workers I spoke with described their efforts to penetrate and remove the wreckage. Much of the steel is still hot, and for the most part, the more than seven stories of rubble above ground is just pulverized concrete and twisted steel. Yet as of my visit, the workers held out hope for a miracle of finding someone still alive. The spirit of the workers on site and all the related support personnel was powerful, and I made a pledge to do all that I could to support their efforts.

http://www.house.gov/defazio/AtGroundZero.htm

If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.

What? You mean the 9/11 Commission Report denying the existence of the towers' core columns?

The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=96206

Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?

The conspiracy theorists believe everything was blown to bits, just look at pictures of ground zero.

I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.

You deny them falling at near freefall rate?

Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?

Empty space? Okay, let's toss out the core structure why not you people are ignoring everything else.

Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?

You think dropping concrete a few thousand feet will atomize it?

Whoa whoa whoa, big deception going on here. He said that they decided to pull teh building "and then we watched the building collapse". He DID NOT say that they actually did go in and set the explosives (of course, this would have taken many hours if not days to actually do). He simply said they made a decision, the building collapsed. You must be fooled into ASSUMING they actually went in and took it down.

He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.

Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they don't know what happened. Good luck!

 

[Pengwuino]

THe project manager already said in the video I posted that he designed the towers to sustain multiple boeing impacts, And we know how fire reacts in buildings.

I remember the manager being interviewed before. Yes he said htey could sustain IMPACTS but not fires. As we all know, fire in a building will weaken the structure.

And WHOA WHOA WHOA. Ok...

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

Listen to it closely. Rather says they REMIND HIM of buildings that are demolished with explosives.

Now you are bringing up blatantly false information...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please stop posting or I'll lock the thread. I want to see where we stand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

Save your arguments for a bit here.

I will assume that no response means that you're not sure.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Sure, I accept that the Administration and the media lies to me, hell I hear it all the time on TV, they're not good enough at lying to pull something like 9/11 off. But the fact is that the evidence, even if you ignore evidence presented by the government and the media, is still overwhelming against you're arguement.

That's called spin, when you tell a lie you pepper it in truth, most of the population lives in a disinformation matrix, and there are enough paid liars w/ University degrees hanging on the wall to try to silence and discredit the people who bring the truth.

For example, did you know vaccines have a mercury perservative in them which has irrefutable been linked to autism?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

How about Depleted Uranium, the true culprit of Gulf War Syndrome, cause seven to ten the birth deffects, and tripple the cancer rates in Iraq? Did you know about that?

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm

The globalists who really run our government, and Britian, and France, and Isreal, and no doubt many others which I'm not positive about, have the potencial to pull off 9/11 easily. There's a war being waged on humanity, are you going to let them take all of our liberty away on a pack of lies?

There's hardly ANY evidence for the offical line, I don't see your evidence most of the data is distorted or omited, there' are at least 20 witnesses who heard bombs explosions, over five fire fighters saying that, people in the basment saying that, they reported explosives on three differen't news cats direcly after 9/11, and that's not all the forensic evidence. And I haven't even gotten into building seven, so I think you have this backwards buddy, there's a TON, amazing, incredible amount of evidence on the side of it being some sort of state sponsored event. The fire explanations are VERY far fetched.

What do you think happened in the Windsor building, why didn't it collapse, and the towers fires were almost out, they burned for like 20 minutes, and would have started cooling afterwards.

You failed to understand my point. Why would the government plant bombs in the building AND fly a plane into it? A plane being flown into a building by terrorists would have still be enough to show how vulnerable the US was to attacks and achieve just what the government "suppostively" wanted..

There's NO way for anyone who was not in the opperation to know what, however, there's no way fire caused it to fall, the fires were not even bad.

How and Osama Bin Ladin, part of that "shadowy" group that wanted to blow up the WTC for reasons we don't know, has been determined to destroy the WTC for the last 10 years! It's no secret! And the reason he wanted to destroy them was because he hates the US and it's ALLIES! What better place to strike than the WORLD trade center?..

Is this a point? You know Bin Laden was a CIA asset for many years, right? BEsides that, there were tons and tons of warnings of 9/11 before the event, did you see that in my threaD? Did you read it? Yes, why would you make this point then. IT's obvious that without any of this evidence, they allowed 9/11 to happen at the bare minimum.

How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster??..

LOL, NO! I'm saying the entire central Colum would have to be destroyed to achieve this, And it would have to be the column in the center to achieve a symetrical straight vertical collapse, PLEASE do some research on controlled demolition of sky scrapers, It's not easy to make a building fall down symetrically. are you saying the fire burned at the exact same tempeture all throughout the vertical column, that's what is required to make this happen, aand the flames could not have heated the steel up in the short amount of time before it collapsed. Do some research on Controlled Demoliton, and get back w/ me, you'll see I'm right, tho cognitive dissonence comes into play, and you may not accept it.

WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.??..

Where's your link for that buddy? I proivded engineering links for everything I posted, and I don't trust any article that has anything to do w/ 9/11, so get a link to support this that has nothing to do w/ 9/11, most of mine don't and I am right, When blacksmiths forge steel, they heat it up to 2000 degress. Did you click the link?

And btw Jet fuel only burns for 30 secconds to two minutes, so I don't think it was the jet fuel. And steel cna easily withstand 1000 degrees of tempeture bring me a credible non-911 link that says otherwise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Done.

Subject closed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, Sub-Zero had indicated that this was an accident; the threads do move pretty fast. So again, I am waiting to hear from the skeptics. Do we have any common ground here?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

Perhaps I'm biased but they don't even seem to be able to respond to our arguements unless they are twisting our words or creating strawmen. I'm baffled that they could even believe half of this. I'd be more than willing to continue this if only in the hopes that we might be able to get them to be more incredulous of their sources or this wacky version of physics they are learning.

 

[outsider]

Well, since you reopened this, I guess I will come into agree with what the crazy's are saying to some degree, but disagree with their method of debate.

After watching some of the vids, i'd hate to say that they almost resemble the same type of stuff the rightwing crazys got... i'd even consider these guys false leftys with the way that they go about arguing... but they are probably just very passionate.

The video about the pentagon explosion was one that I thought was quite good. I personally have never been satisfied with the results of any of the investigations. Any media that came out of 911 was suspicious to me. The whole threat level colors and the obvious scare tactics were so corny to me (but if I were writing them, I would've used similar methods)... this is the type of media that America loves though. I'm on the side of the crazys... they can bash me for calling them crazy... i don't care... I believe the conspiracy theory that there is a global corporate agenda in the works... I can't prove it, nor do I care to have a lot of people agree with me, so I won't chase down the proof... I just know how corporations work from the inside... and since everything is relative and connected I come to my personal conclusion... believe what you want...

America is not evil... There are certain rich people who want to corner the market on being rich and untouchable who are at fault... it just so happens that some of them are American.

It is definitely true what they say about people who have money & power... they are concerned about getting more. There is some inferiority complex involved. Capitalism drives a lot of this complex for sure... hence the war of beliefs (IMO).

 

[outsider]

as for bombs and underground bombs on the WTC Towers, that's pretty far fetched... I hope they pick something else to debate rather than the way in which the towers fell...

but to support what they are saying, don't engineers implode buildings using explosives placed in strategic places to ensure that buildings fall straight down to prevent damaging other buildings?

Otherwise, we could just hire anyone to destroy old buildings, NO?

 

[Pengwuino]

After watching some of the vids, i'd hate to say that they almost resemble the same type of stuff the rightwing crazys got... i'd even consider these guys false leftys with the way that they go about arguing... but they are probably just very passionate.

I think this insanity transcends ideological lines. I think there backwards-wingers

 

[Pengwuino]

but to support what they are saying, don't engineers implode buildings using explosives placed in strategic places to ensure that buildings fall straight down to prevent damaging other buildings?

Otherwise, we could just hire anyone to destroy old buildings, NO?

Demolition crews basically get the blueprints and determine exactly where they should set off explosives (I believe they use a type of thermite drilled into the steel when they have to topple steel buildings) so that buildings fall in the way they want them to fall. You can make a building fall in most any direction... except when it comes to tremendously tall skyscrapers. There is nothing you can do to make a building fall anywhere but straight down when your dealing with skyscrapers basically because your dealing with such incredible amounts of mass.

I remember a show a while ago where they were showing various demolitions. One happened to be a very large sky-scrapper. They said that basically the only way to do it was set off shape-charges at like... 3 floors of charges with 5 floors inbetween all the way up. The charges would basically weaken the structure and the building would collapse upon itself with the force of gravity. The OBVIOUS difference in the controlled demolition in the show and the supposed demolition in the WTC is that the bottom floors started to fall at the same time as the top floors. As we can see in the WTC, a large section basically fell and pushed everything down as it made contact.

 

[outsider]

Demolition crews basically get the blueprints and determine exactly where they should set off explosives (I believe they use a type of thermite drilled into the steel when they have to topple steel buildings) so that buildings fall in the way they want them to fall. You can make a building fall in most any direction... except when it comes to tremendously tall skyscrapers. There is nothing you can do to make a building fall anywhere but straight down when your dealing with skyscrapers basically because your dealing with such incredible amounts of mass.

I remember a show a while ago where they were showing various demolitions. One happened to be a very large sky-scrapper. They said that basically the only way to do it was set off shape-charges at like... 3 floors of charges with 5 floors inbetween all the way up. The charges would basically weaken the structure and the building would collapse upon itself with the force of gravity. The OBVIOUS difference in the controlled demolition in the show and the supposed demolition in the WTC is that the bottom floors started to fall at the same time as the top floors. As we can see in the WTC, a large section basically fell and pushed everything down as it made contact.

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

 

[Pengwuino]

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

Which one... what do they say. I've seen so many of these things

 

[Rude Boi MC!]

Ok the point of contention that was actually picked out a long time ago was the collapse of building 7. I would also like to see you conspiracy theorists defend the official conspiracy theory, and provide "you’re strongest argument" as to why that brainwashing is actually true. I have to make this clear though, this whole debate is not meant to be about a personal attacks on those who still believe the official story. Believe it or not we’re on your side and we’re just trying to point out to you all, that there’s a massive fraud taking place, and that we need everybody to fight it. So let's please not descend into pathetic beefs, and let's just argue the cases.


But as I said Building 7 is what we’re saying, based on logic and reasoning, can only be described as a controlled demolition. And so by default that raises serious questions as to the legitimacy of the official story, of the attacks being solely carried out by Arabs “who hate our freedoms”. So study the video of it’s collapse and bare in mind the facts like minimal fire and no plane or substantial debris hitting it, and see if you can understand where our argument is coming from.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg Video Broadcast by CBS - 1.4mb - mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

http://wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg Video from NBC news camera - 1.5mb
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg Video broadcast on CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.


The difference between building 7 and the towers is that, WTC 7 can be described as an implode demolition, and if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, they can be described as explode demolitions.

 

[Rude Boi MC!]

Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.

Yes we should get on to that, but right now we're focusing on the collapse of building 7. I know what you’re talking about though, there's tremendous suspicion about what happened at the pentagon also.

 

[outsider]

can someone other than the rude boi explain what happened with building 7? There wasn't any reasons for it to collapse was there?

 

[Pengwuino]

can someone other than the rude boi explain what happened with building 7? There wasn't any reasons for it to collapse was there?

... read the last 8 pages.

 

[outsider]

no.. i did not read anything previously about a direct hit... fire isn't enough to take a building down... are there not sprinklers?... it's late... I'm :zzz:

 

[Pengwuino]

no.. i did not read anything previously about a direct hit... fire isn't enough to take a building down... are there not sprinklers?... it's late... I'm :zzz:

Well denying it doesn't make it false. This FACT has been substantiated by many many many experts. And even on the day it happened, people were saying the water systems were damaged from the twin tower's collapse so the sprinklers couldn't activate. That or they had to de-activate them... whichever it was, it was being discussed on the 9/11 and there was nothing intriguing or questionable about the explanation. No conspiracy nuts have brought it up so far so I suppose its of the utmost factual integrity

 

[Esperanto]

Just for the hey of it I'll say it again. The building owner said he pulled it and Fema said “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

Can anyone hear me?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, Evo, any common ground?

Esperanto, could you post a link to what you just said. I have no idea where it might be at this point.

 

[Evo]

Ivan, there have been a ton of threads on this, and the result is always the same, there is no crediblity to these "conspiricy" theories. How many threads with the same drivel being regurgitated do we want to endure? When one of these kids can come up with new hard evidence, we can look at it then, right now there is nothing to look at. Here is a link Fred Garvin provided in the last WTC 7 thread. It's the official report on the WTC 7 collapse.

Without water for the sprinkler system, the fire department did not attempt to control the blaze. It continued to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours.

WTC 7 summary:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wt...ort/WTC_ch5.pdf

5.6.2 Probable Collapse Sequence

The collapse of WTC 7 appears to have initiated on the east side of the building on the interior, as indicated by the disappearance of the east penthouse into the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or “kink” on the east half of WTC 7 (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24). The collapse then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the
inside and progressed up, as seen by the extension of the fault from the lower levels to the top.

During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse. The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7, located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building.

 

[Esperanto]

Esperanto, could you post a link to what you just said. I have no idea where it might be at this point.

I'll quote myself on this topic thread.

And to those people who want to point to the fuel tanks in building 7


Quote:
“The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, “The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.”



http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/LiesAndVideotape.html

The building seven was burning for seven hours before it collapse at 5:30 p.m. People were evacuated an hour or two before. That's how mild the fires were.

Let's just forget about all that evidence and compare what Larry Silverstein and FEMA say.


Quote:
n a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."



http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html


Quote:
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”



http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

How can you defend that?

But whatever, let's just focus on building 7 when Larry Silverstein said he blew it up and FEMA said "... I don't know"

Answer now!

He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.

Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they don't know what happened. Good luck!

Then tell me, Evo can stick with the idea that fire caused wtc 7 to collapse when Larry says he blew it up and I am guilty of ignoring the evidence?

 

[Evo]

Then tell me, Evo can stick with the idea that fire caused wtc 7 to collapse when Larry says he blew it up and I am guilty of ignoring the evidence?

Your information is not accurate. No one said they blew it up, if they had, there wouldn't be any question, would there?

If you have nothing factual to present, I suggest you stop wasting our time here.