Before and after pictures - How could anybody believe the building 7 story?

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i never said i couldnt address your points. i can address them all night but i have no proof so therefore i said i cant explain them. because i cant.

You said:

DamagedTrax wrote: »

my answer to all your questions is that i dont have the answers.

But now you say you can address them?

Could you please offer suggestions for reasonable, plausible answers for any of these questions:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna 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.

So assuming he was part of conspiracy to demolish the building:
1. Why was he talking to a fire-chief about it?
2. Why did the fire-chief say they were concerned about fighting the fires if they were going to demolish it?
3. Why, if he was involved with a plot that killed thousands, would Larry concerned about further loss of life?
4. Why would demolishing the building have anything to do with a loss of life? Why would "pulling the building" be the smartest thing to do?
5. If you believe that this talk of "loss of life" is somehow a cover, why does he suddenly care about cover when he's making this admission?
6. Why does he say that "they" made the decision? Why fire fighters and not him?
7. Why the hell would they only make the decision on the day when the conspiracy would require months of work?
8. Why did PBS not make the documentary about this guy being behind the worst crime ever after this admission?

Then could you point out what about my explanation is equally problematic?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and believe me, my entire argument to WTC being a dodgy episode is not hinged on Larry's tv interview. thats only a tiny piece of a very confusing puzzle.

I'm not saying that either, I'm just trying to focus on single points rather than long walls of text about the conspiracy.

Having a paragraph about how Larry admitted his guilt sounds impressive thrown in with other claims. But when you stop and examine it closely, problems start to crop up for it, like the ones above.

This is true for all conspiracy claims.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But what if the "it" that is being pulled means the operation to fight the fires?

"maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the operation]. and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Does that not make much more sense and answer every single question the conspiracy leaves?

Yet you claim that he is admitting that he was involved in the conspiracy even though you realise that there are some very large problems with the evidence that you are using to conclude this:


Why should I believe that this is evidence for a conspiracy when it doesn't make any sense at all?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

There goes your firefighter pulling hypothesis

DamagedTrax

1. Why was he talking to a fire-chief about it?

being the owner & the gravity of the situation it would look worse if he wasnt.



2. Why did the fire-chief say they were concerned about fighting the fires if they were going to demolish it?

because situations escalate and nowhere has the firechief on viewable record at the time of the 'fall'. we can only rely on larry's version



3. Why, if he was involved with a plot that killed thousands, would Larry concerned about further loss of life?

sociopaths do things like that very well to cover tracks



4. Why would demolishing the building have anything to do with a loss of life? Why would "pulling the building" be the smartest thing to do?

buildings are often pulled rather than let burn. minimises the unknown.



5. If you believe that this talk of "loss of life" is somehow a cover, why does he suddenly care about cover when he's making this admission?

who knows? he's hardly a bastion of morality and definitely thinks he's above any law. again his past actions confirm this.



6. Why does he say that "they" made the decision? Why fire fighters and not him?

maybe they did. maybe it wasnt his decision to make but it suited him at the time. maybe he lied, not beyond belief.



7. Why the hell would they only make the decision on the day when the conspiracy would require months of work?

unexpected collatoral damage?



8. Why did PBS not make the documentary about this guy being behind the worst crime ever after this admission?

PBS arent responsible for programming.

DamagedTrax

weisses wrote: »

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

There goes your firefighter pulling hypothesis

better evidence than i could ever find.

King Mob

And your answers just lead to yet more sillier questions that contradict the conspiracy even more.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

being the owner & the gravity of the situation it would look worse if he wasnt.

because situations escalate and nowhere has the firechief on viewable record at the time of the 'fall'. we can only rely on larry's version

You are saying that be had to talk to a fire chief but also didn't talk to a fire chief. Neither answer the questions i asked and they contradict each other.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

sociopaths do things like that very well to cover tracks

So he's covering his tracks while he was admitting his guilt? This is self contradictory.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

buildings are often pulled rather than let burn. minimises the unknown.

This begs the question of why they didn't just do this, or say they did this?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

who knows? he's hardly a bastion of morality and definitely thinks he's above any law. again his past actions confirm this.

This is not an answer to the question.
If he thinks he's above the law, then he wouldn't bother mentioning this.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

maybe they did. maybe it wasnt his decision to make but it suited him at the time. maybe he lied, not beyond belief.

This contradicts your version of the conspiracy. You said he told them to do it. And doesn't answer why firefighters would make the decision.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

unexpected collatoral damage?

But your conspiracy is that they planned to take it out before hand.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

PBS arent responsible for programming.

Yes they were. They made the documentary. If they where controlled and made to cut it in a certain way, they would have cut out his "admission."

Now could you please outline the problems with my explanation that makes it less likely than your one?

DamagedTrax

King Mob wrote: »

Now could you please outline the problems with my explanation that makes it less likely than your one?

since reading evidence in the link weisses posted, its a moot point.

maybe you should debunk the evidence provided?

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

since reading evidence in the link weisses posted, its a moot point.

maybe you should debunk the evidence provided?

What in that link disproves my explanation?

It contends that people are arguing that he meant it as pulling firefighters out of the building.
That's not what I said.

Also the link keeps saying that "pull it" is a demolition term. Which is true, but only for the type of demolition they used for WTC6, which was basically pulling it down with cables. That's not what happened to WTC7.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Also the link keeps saying that "pull it" is a demolition term. Which is true, but only for the type of demolition they used for WTC6, which was basically pulling it down with cables. That's not what happened to WTC7.

Silverstein Quote

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna 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.

So he said pull it

There where no firefighters to pull out

There where no cables around building 7 with excavators to pull it

And if he was referring to firefighters or anyone else for that he would have said

and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull everyone out. And they made that decision to pull out all the people and we watched the building collapse

And i love the way you try to dismantle the pulling term but its not gonna work .... putting a cable around an object and pulling that object is called pulling and has nothing to do with demolition by definition.

Maybe you can provide the accepted used definition of the term pulling when it relates to the demolition business and used by demolition company's as you describe it.

pull it" is a demolition term. Which is true, but only for the type of demolition they used for WTC6, which was basically pulling it down with cables

MrPudding

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i believe that 3 buildings falling like that in the one day has never happened before or since.

How many times, prior and subsequent, have airliners crashed into building like they did that day?

Also, are you saying that the owner of building 7 was involved in flying the planes into the twin towers?

MrP

MrPudding

Also, I have been trying to find some information about the origins of the phrase "pull it". I work in IT in a bank and we use the phrase when decide not to carry out a change that was previously agreed and authorised, for example, "I was about to start the change last night when I notice that one of the arrays was not behaving as expected, I decided to pull it." Or, "after the issue we had this afternoon change management have pulled all the changes."

I can't find any particular reference, but to me the phrase "pull it" in reference to stopping doing something seems fairly normal. You hear it on TV all the time.

MrP

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, I have been trying to find some information about the origins of the phrase "pull it". I work in IT in a bank and we use the phrase when decide not to carry out a change that was previously agreed and authorised, for example, "I was about to start the change last night when I notice that one of the arrays was not behaving as expected, I decided to pull it." Or, "after the issue we had this afternoon change management have pulled all the changes."

I can't find any particular reference, but to me the phrase "pull it" in reference to stopping doing something seems fairly normal. You hear it on TV all the time.

MrP

What you are referring to is "pull" as in "pull the plug" meaning to decide to stop doing something.

It's more complicated with Larry Silverstein's statements because to "pull" a building is demolitions industry jargon to intentionally demolish a building. He was referring to building 7. It is reasonable to assume that given their professional experiences that both Silverstein and the fire Chief were familiar with the industry term.





Title
DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOLITION TECHNOLOGIES: ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING PULLED DOWN BY EXPLOSIVES
http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC9134

Building Demolition Torch and Pull.wmv


pabdemolition·79 videos

Given the context he could have said either. Though as has been pointed out there were no fire crews to "pull out".

Demolitions Experts have gone on record as saying the destruction of building 7 replicates a controlled demolition in every aspect, so the jury is very much out.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

How many times, prior and subsequent, have airliners crashed into building like they did that day?

Also, are you saying that the owner of building 7 was involved in flying the planes into the twin towers?

MrP

2 Crashes, 3 buildings come down. Even David Copperfield would be proud of that one.

This is probably as close as your likely to get http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you are referring to is "pull" as in "pull the plug" meaning to decide to stop doing something.

It's more complicated with Larry Silverstein's statements because to "pull" a building is demolitions industry jargon to intentionally demolish a building. He was referring to building 7. It is reasonable to assume that given their professional experiences that both Silverstein and the fire Chief were familiar with the industry term.





Title
DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOLITION TECHNOLOGIES: ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING PULLED DOWN BY EXPLOSIVES
http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC9134



Given the context he could have said either. Though as has been pointed out there were no fire crews to "pull out".

Demolitions Experts have gone on record as saying the destruction of building 7 replicates a controlled demolition in every aspect, so the jury is very much out.

Ok, cheers for that.

Do you know if the theory is he was involved with the plane crashes? I have not had a chance to read all the links. From my understanding of demolitions, which is admittedly inexpert, there are two possible scenarios. Either he arranged the crashes or, the crashes were co-incidental to the building coming down. My understanding is that it takes several weeks to prepare a building for a controlled explosive demolition. Is anyone suggesting that after the planes crashed they started to lay explosives to bring the building down?

MrP

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Given the context he could have said either. Though as has been pointed out there were no fire crews to "pull out".

He didn't say "pull out" or "pull them". He said "pull it"

Could this not mean "pull the attempted or planned operation to fight the fires"?

And if so, doesn't that not made it more likely for him to have meant that given how little sense they other meaning has?

King Mob

MrPudding wrote: »

Is anyone suggesting that after the planes crashed they started to lay explosives to bring the building down?

MrP

Very few, if any conspiracy theorists suggest that. The main argument is that there is no way the building could have collapsed without a demolition so the explosives had to have been set before hand, meaning the entire thing must have been a conspiracy.

If they set the explosives afterwards, it doesn't result in the same global conspiracy and WTC7 cannot be used as an argument for the conspiracy.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

He didn't say "pull out" or "pull them". He said "pull it"

Could this not mean "pull the attempted or planned operation to fight the fires"?

And if so, doesn't that not made it more likely for him to have meant that given how little sense they other meaning has?

Was there such an operation ?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Was there such an operation ?

Given the things the firefighters were saying and basic common sense, it's not a stretch to imagine they were planning such an operation.

I don't think they actually got as far as getting into the building with equipment to fight the fires properly.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Given the things the firefighters were saying and basic common sense, it's not a stretch to imagine they were planning such an operation.

I don't think they actually got as far as getting into the building with equipment to fight the fires properly.

Im a little rusty

I though they pulled the firefighters out hours before because they thought it was unsafe/might collapse

Then they planned to go back and Silverstien said dont bother and it collapsed

Who was making that decision to send more firefighters to their deaths ?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Im a little rusty

I though they pulled the firefighters out hours before because they thought it was unsafe/might collapse

Yes. This is consistent with the more likely explanation I am proposing.
The pulled the firefighters out before an operation to stop the fires in the building began.
It was likely being considered or planned before the decision was made to pull it as they were worried that the building could collapse and it was not worth the risk to firefighter's lives.

enno99 wrote: »

Then they planned to go back and Silverstien said dont bother and it collapsed

That's not what I am suggesting.
They weren't taking orders from Silverstien and this is clear from what he says in the clip. They made the decision to pull the operation. He just voiced the opinion that that was probably a good idea.

I don't understand why people have so many problems with the explanation I am proposing yet are perfectly ok with the conspiracy explanation when it doesn't make any sense.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. This is consistent with the more likely explanation I am proposing.
The pulled the firefighters out before an operation to stop the fires in the building began.
It was likely being considered or planned before the decision was made to pull it as they were worried that the building could collapse and it was not worth the risk to firefighter's lives.

Bit of a riddle there

That's not what I am suggesting.
They weren't taking orders from Silverstien and this is clear from what he says in the clip. They made the decision to pull the operation. He just voiced the opinion that that was probably a good idea.

Why would they ring him at all then what could he contribute had he any fire fighting experience
clearly they wanted his opinion but on what ?

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna 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.”

Could an experienced Fire department Commander not come up with that solution on his own
And if firefighters were already pulled out they must have intended to send them back in if not why were they concerned about the loss of life

I don't understand why people have so many problems with the explanation I am proposing yet are perfectly ok with the conspiracy explanation when it doesn't make any sense.

I guess people dont understand why others believe the official story when they see so many holes in it

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Bit of a riddle there

Not really. What part of it do you not get?

enno99 wrote: »

Why would they ring him at all then what could he contribute had he any fire fighting experience
clearly they wanted his opinion but on what ?

Who said they called him for his advice? Or that his opinion factored into the decision?

As the owner of the building I can imagine them calling him just to update him on the situation and possible to the fact that they thought it was a possibility that the fires might not be containable.
Maybe he said what and the fire chief told him they hadn't made the decision yet.

enno99 wrote: »

Could an experienced Fire department Commander not come up with that solution on his own

Again, who said he did not?

enno99 wrote: »

And if firefighters were already pulled out they must have intended to send them back in if not why were they concerned about the loss of life

Again, another narrow assumption to make the explanation sound unreasonable.

The firefighters could have been busy assessing the damage, helping people evacuate or looking for people who might be stuck. Meanwhile the higher ups are planning an effort to fight the fire in the building while weighing up if it's possible and safe to do so. They ultimately decide not to, pull the planned operation and call the fire fighters out of the building.

What about this is unreasonable or impossible?

enno99 wrote: »

I guess people dont understand why others believe the official story when they see so many holes in it

So do you agree that the conspiracy explanation, that he was admitting that he ordered the building to be demolished using secret demolition charges does not make any sense?
Or do you think that it is more likely than my explanation?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

The firefighters could have been busy assessing the damage, helping people evacuate or looking for people who might be stuck. Meanwhile the higher ups are planning an effort to fight the fire in the building while weighing up if it's possible and safe to do so. They ultimately decide not to, pull the planned operation and call the fire fighters out of the building.

What about this is unreasonable or impossible?

Like I said im a bit rusty

If I remember correctly the last people to come out of builging 7 was Barry Jennings and the Watergate lawyer (cant remember his name) this was around I o clock they then assessed the building thought it was unsafe and it might collapse and evacuated everybody I think according to NIST it was fully evacuated by 2 oclock

fire commander rang Silverstien around 4 o clock

So its your contention that fire commanders discussed an operation in this period of 2 hours whether they might be able to get control of the situation
And that they came up with a plan which they put forward to Sliverdtein and he said pull it
So if they did It meant sending firefighters back into a building that was unsafe a couple of hours before
What had changed had the fire that was engulfing it(as we are constantly told) dissipated did the gaping hole disappear

That makes it unreasonable

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

fire commander rang Silverstien around 4 o clock

Does the interview mention that the fire commander called at that time?
I've never been able to find something that said when this conversation was meant to take place.

enno99 wrote: »

So its your contention that fire commanders discussed an operation in this period of 2 hours whether they might be able to get control of the situation

Yes this is probable.

enno99 wrote: »

And that they came up with a plan which they put forward to Sliverdtein and he said pull it

I do not contend this.
I don't think there's any reason to think that they did run the specific plan by Sliverstien.
Nor do I think there's any reason at all to assume they decided on his say so.

Again all we know for the conversation as reported is that the fire chief told him that they might not be able to control the fire.
Him being the owner of the building, I see him being informed of such things.

enno99 wrote: »

So if they did It meant sending firefighters back into a building that was unsafe a couple of hours before
What had changed had the fire that was engulfing it(as we are constantly told) dissipated did the gaping hole disappear

Again this is assuming that Silverstien had the final say so on this plan, which is exactly not what I am saying.

Also, "unsafe for civilians" does not mean the same thing as "unsafe for a firefighting operation".
If it did, then no firefighters would ever go into a burning building.

The firefighters would have assessed the situation to see if the fire could be contained safely.
They would have considered the pros and cons of such an action. Weighing the potential damage and spread of the fire to other buildings and loss of civilian life against the potential dangers to the firefighters.
Since there was no civilians to be harmed, they probably concluded the risk of damage and spread of fire was not worth the risk to their lives and they pulled the operation.

enno99 wrote: »

That makes it unreasonable

And the conspiracy explanation is reasonable?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Does the interview mention that the fire commander called at that time?
I've never been able to find something that said when this conversation was meant to take place.

@1.45

Again all we know for the conversation as reported is that the fire chief told him that they might not be able to control the fire.
Him being the owner of the building, I see him being informed of such things.

Ok that seems reasonable never heard of him being informed of the status of 3/4/5/ or 6 though what was so important about 7

The firefighters would have assessed the situation to see if the fire could be contained safely.
They would have considered the pros and cons of such an action. Weighing the potential damage and spread of the fire to other buildings and loss of civilian life against the potential dangers to the firefighters.
Since there was no civilians to be harmed, they probably concluded the risk of damage and spread of fire was not worth the risk to their lives and they pulled the operation.

Again that part is reasonable and seems to have been carried out and concluded by 2.30

Silverstein claims he spoke with the NYC “fire department commander” on 9/11, which was Chief Daniel Nigro. However, Daniel Nigro has confirmed that he did not speak to Silverstein on 9/11:

1. “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.”2

2. To date, not a single member of the FDNY has corroborated Silverstein’s story.
When members of the group We Are Change confronted Silverstein about his comments, he commented that he received the call from the FDNY at around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m.3 However, according to the NIST report of WTC7, the decision to pull the firefighters away from the area surrounding Building 7 occurred at 2:30 p.m.4 This clearly contradicts Silverstein’s account of events.

So according to NIST the building and the rescue workers in surrounding area had been evacuated by 2.30


according to lucky larry he got the call from the fire commander(who has no recollection of it) between 3.30 and 4.00

so who were they what was it that was Being pulled after 4.00 ?




So who in NYFD would have access to his number only senior members you would presume why would he not name them and have them back up his story

Perhaps he was just lying

generally people lie to cover something up or they lie to make themselves seem important
the latter hardly applies to Silverstein

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Ok that seems reasonable never heard of him being informed of the status of 3/4/5/ or 6 though what was so important about 7

7 was the only one with a fire still going at the time.

enno99 wrote: »

So according to NIST the building and the rescue workers in surrounding area had been evacuated by 2.30


according to lucky larry he got the call from the fire commander(who has no recollection of it) between 3.30 and 4.00

so who were they what was it that was Being pulled after 4.00 ?

So who in NYFD would have access to his number only senior members you would presume why would he not name them and have them back up his story

Perhaps he was just lying

He could have misremembered the time or who called him.
He could have spoken with an assistant or someone relying a message from the chief.
He could have been told that they were pulling the operation on the phone and he agreed that it was for the best.
The firefighters could have been assessing whether or not to return to the area to save the building after they had evacuated.
He could be embellishing or making up the story to make for a good quote for the interview.

Literally a thousand other more likely and reasonable explanations that don't indicate a conspiracy and isn't inherently nonsensical like the conspiracy explanation.

enno99 wrote: »

generally people lie to cover something up or they lie to make themselves seem important
the latter hardly applies to Silverstein

Could you please clarify whether or not you think the conspiracy explanation (that he is admitting he ordered the building demolished using secret, preplanted explosives) is reasonable or more reasonable than any of the explanations I have suggested?

Because if you do, you seem to be claiming that he is lying to cover himself while admitting to being involved in the biggest crime ever. This makes no sense at all.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok, cheers for that.

Do you know if the theory is he was involved with the plane crashes? I have not had a chance to read all the links. From my understanding of demolitions, which is admittedly inexpert, there are two possible scenarios. Either he arranged the crashes or, the crashes were co-incidental to the building coming down. My understanding is that it takes several weeks to prepare a building for a controlled explosive demolition. Is anyone suggesting that after the planes crashed they started to lay explosives to bring the building down?

MrP

All kinds of people believe all kinds of things and I can only speak for myself, but without having any kind of informed opinion of controlled demolitions I would certainly consider it impossible that any of the buildings were rigged after the planes hit.


If the buildings were rigged with explosives then this would almost certainly have to have happened prior to sept 11th.


I've forgotten more than now know but I've looked into it before and I don't think it would be impossible.


To disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis you have to prove it as impossible.


There are a number of things to keep in mind. The structural columns were accessed through the elevator shafts. This wouldn't be a standard demolition job, so no need to think of building codes and health and safety. It would have been carried out by Navy Seal types, not civilian engineers. There had been numerous drills and power downs in the towers in the weeks leading up to the attack. There had been numerous security breaches in the buildings, for example a bunch of art students were actually squatting in one of the WTC buildings.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think there's any reason to think that they did run the specific plan by Sliverstien.

I assume then you've never seen the interview of the first responder at building 7 who was told to stay behind a line because they were going to take the building down, who later ran over to him and told him to run for his life because the they were taking the building down, who heard a countdown on a walkie talkie and moments later building 7 started coming down, the same first-responder heard explosives too.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume then you've never seen the interview of the first responder at building 7 who was told to stay behind a line because they were going to take the building down, who later ran over to him and told him to run for his life because the they were taking the building down, who heard a countdown on a walkie talkie and moments later building 7 started coming down, the same first-responder heard explosives too.

No I haven't.
Does it have something to do with the point you quoted or any of the others I have made about Silverstien's statement?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No I haven't.
Does it have something to do with the point you quoted or any of the others I have made about Silverstien's statement?

Before I go to the effort of digging it up I need to be sure you will actually view it with an open mind.


What would it mean to you if a 911 first-responder and eye-witness to Building 7's demise and collapse stated that he was was informed that they were going to take the building down, heard a countdown and then boom, explosives?

King Mob

So it has nothing to do with the points I have made.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Before I go to the effort of digging it up I need to be sure you will actually view it with an open mind.

Even if the video shows what you said it shows, and everything he says is in context and cannot be taken any other more plausible way, I still don't think it would be convincing as already I can tell that his story does not match observation.

There is plenty of footage of the collapse of WTC7, there is no explosions heard or seen.

But at the moment I am trying to focus on the points made by Larry Silverstien.

Do you think he admitted guilt on camera?