More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)

hkcharlie · 04-05-2009 2:14pm

I thought WTC7 was as good as empty when it went and so the "pulling" of building 7 wouldn't immediately be incriminating of Larry. It is of course the can of worms that it opens, if that's what he did mean.

Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

Diogenes · 04-05-2009 2:56pm

hkcharlie wrote: »

I thought WTC7 was as good as empty when it went and so the "pulling" of building 7 wouldn't immediately be incriminating of Larry.

Yeah, but to go back you can't prep a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition using cables or explosives in an afternoon.

It is of course the can of worms that it opens, if that's what he did mean.

The story has always been that the building was damaged by debris from the tower's collapse and uncontrolled fires burnt throughout all day.

You're trying to suggest that they orchestrated one of the greatest criminal frauds in history but didn't decide to get their stories straight before being interviewed on camera.

Really?

Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

Except that this wasn't a garden shed on fire. It was a 47 store building with a unique structure, built over a Con Ed power substation and a subway stop. It also contained the city's emergency management office. As such I imagine that the building's owner would be an invaluable resource to a fire chief, with Silverstein's knowledge of the building, and therefore be kept in contact for consultation.

Penn · 04-05-2009 3:12pm

hkcharlie wrote: »

Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

Exactly. So how would it be possible for Silverstein to order the building to be demolished if "pull it" did indeed mean to demolish the building? Since it is entirely the fire chiefs operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner, then anything Larry Silverstein said in that conversation is irrelevant.

Larry Silverstein wouldn't have had the authority to "pull the operation", but that doesn't mean he couldn't have suggested it to the fire chief in order to ensure minimal loss of life.

King Mob · 04-05-2009 3:30pm

hkcharlie wrote: »

Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

And if you read the entire quote it says quite clearly the he thought it was a good idea to pull and that "they" made the decision to pull it not Silverstien himself.

meglome · 04-05-2009 3:41pm

Hkcharlie I have no problem admitting that when Silverstein said 'Pull it' I assumed he meant the operation to save the building. Since there was no evidence of controlled demolition pulling the operation made the most sense to me. Now this was an assumption on my part and as Bonkey rightly points out we don't know as fact what he actually meant at the time, although he has subsequently said he meant pull the operation.

You might not believe this but I'm not fixed to any version of events here. For any version of events I read or hear I'm going to ask the practical questions first. With the controlled demolition version we should have residue of explosives, a way to plant the explosives, a reason they didn't go off in the crash and fires, seismic records etc. But we have none of these things, not even one. So we can't even get past the basics of the controlled demolition theory. What we have is an assumption that Silverstein openly admitted to the biggest CT in history on TV and a superficial similarity to a controlled demolition.

hkcharlie · 05-05-2009 1:10am

This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

King Mob · 05-05-2009 1:25am

hkcharlie wrote: »

This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

So a week to set up all the explosives to take out a 70 story building?
Sounds like a tough job.
Anything like evidence for this?

And you do know that this video claims thermite was used not explosives?

Any back up for this story then?

hkcharlie wrote: »

This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses.

It showed no such thing.

hkcharlie wrote: »

It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

And the building was showing plenty of signs that it was going collapse well before it actually did. Of course it's impossible that a firefighter would use a poor choice of words or than this lady would mishear or misremember?

hkcharlie wrote: »

This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

Look at that, a series of rapid explosions starting from the bottom on every floor followed immediately by the collapse of the building. Exactly what you don't see in the WTC7 collapse.

And note how much work has been done on the outside of the demolished building.

So really you're the one showing us an orange and calling it an apple planted by the government.

hkcharlie · 05-05-2009 1:53am

hkcharlie wrote: »

This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

anyone else?

King Mob · 05-05-2009 1:57am

hkcharlie wrote: »

anyone else?

My answers not good enough or something?

meglome · 05-05-2009 3:19am

hkcharlie wrote: »

This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

Okay so. A heightened security alert was lifted prior to 911, as in extra security. They didn't take away the normal security in any way. See here. There was still at least one bomb dog at the complex. What specific evacuation are you referring to?

hkcharlie wrote: »

This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

Yup there's a ripple of ropey video. WTC 7 had been making creaking sounds for a couple of hours before it collapsed. So let's go back to my suggestion of using the practicalities... most of the walls of WTC7 were glass but somehow during these explosions hardly any of the glass broke, pretty incredible eh. Was this glass even blown out at all? It would seem not...See here. More about 'squibs'.

hkcharlie wrote: »

This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

So it does seem to me the guy in the video is showing us an orange but wanting us to believe it's an apple. Controlled demolition is very distinctive, there are no sign of that at WTC7. In the video you linked you can see the penthouse falling into the building before the main collapse starts and with no sounds of explosions. Look at all the stills and video.

So we still have no residue of explosives, I've still seen no way to plant these explosives without anyone seeing, we still don't have a way the explosives wouldn't go off in the crash or fires and there are no sounds of controlled demolition. That summarise it?

All the videos you're linking to contain no balance whatsoever. Do you wonder why they seem to leave out obvious problems with what they are saying and are very selective in using quotes? If they are so sure what they are saying is true why not actually tell the full truth?

hkcharlie · 05-05-2009 4:46am

meglome wrote: »

Okay so. A heightened security alert was lifted prior to 911, as an extra security.

noted

meglome wrote: »

They didn't take away the normal security in any way. See here. There was still at least one bomb dog at the complex. What specific evacuation are you referring to?

not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.
As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

(I have to say this has completely broken the ice in this conversation for me and well done!)

I know I have more to comment on - but this is as much as I can muster for the moment, I got stuff to do.

Penn · 05-05-2009 8:46am

hkcharlie wrote: »

noted
not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.
As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

(I have to say this has completely broken the ice in this conversation for me and well done!)

I know I have more to comment on - but this is as much as I can muster for the moment, I got stuff to do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explosion

Explosion does not have to mean "the use of explosives".

meglome · 05-05-2009 2:38pm

hkcharlie wrote: »

not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.

WTC7 would have been hit by debris from the plane crashes and then hit hard from the collapses, not to mention the sound of the collapses. Anyone in the building at those times would have heard what they could have easily thought were explosions. However there is no controlled demolition I've ever heard of or seen that the explosives go off and some time in the future the building collapses. In all the controlled demolition videos I've seen a series of timed explosives go off then building collapses almost immediately.

hkcharlie wrote: »

As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

Sure not the first site I'd choose to use. But it's a starting point to say that there may well have been bomb dogs in the buildings.

Nuravictus · 06-05-2009 1:15am

Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?

King Mob · 06-05-2009 1:29am

Nuravictus wrote: »

Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?

Yea pretty much.

The dust was collected for analysis long after 9/11 and there was only four samples. So not very conclusive.

The may well have been thermite like substances in the dust but that doesn't mean that thermite was used to demolish the buildings.
Thermite is pretty much aluminum and rust exposed to fire. The twin towers had lots of aluminum and rust and a good bit of fire.

And then there's the problems with the idea that thermite was used to demolish the buildings in the first place....

hkcharlie · 06-05-2009 2:01am

Nuravictus wrote: »

Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?

can you provide the sources?

Mahatma coat · 06-05-2009 3:56am

when did WTC7 catch fire in the timeline??

Most people are saying that the damage was caused by the other towers falling in it, but then people are also saying that it burnt for hours and hours in the morning.

Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane, and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

So what caused the fires in WTC7, it wasnt debris from teh falling buildings was there that much debris created by the first plane impact??

uncleoswald · 06-05-2009 8:27am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane, and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

so who's bodies were these then? how many wtc7 staff died that day?

Diogenes · 06-05-2009 10:40am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

when did WTC7 catch fire in the timeline??

After the collapse of the first tower.

Most people are saying that the damage was caused by the other towers falling in it, but then people are also saying that it burnt for hours and hours in the morning.

Yes the towers collapsed in the morning and the WTC collapsed late afternoon, I don't understand your confusion.

Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane,

No he didn't

and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

He latter publicaly stated he was misquoted.

Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

Source sigh etc etc..

So what caused the fires in WTC7, it wasnt debris from teh falling buildings was there that much debris created by the first plane impact??

Why wasn't it debris from the collapsing towers?

Penn · 06-05-2009 11:04am

Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

I think I remember seeing something like that in a documentary, but I don't think it Barry Jennings, I'm pretty sure it was some other guy, cos I remember the fireman who was in the building with him was then invited to the mans daughters wedding, which they showed in the documentary, and they were both white. They exited through a hole in the side of the building and climbed down the rubble that was there. This is just going by recollection though, I don't have time now to search for the video.

bonkey · 06-05-2009 11:07am

8:46 Plane impact WTC1 (North Tower)
9:03 Plane impacts WTC2 (South Tower)

9:59 WTC2 (South Tower) collapses
10:28 WTC1 (North Tower) collapses

According to NIST, no fires were observed subsequent to the collapse of WTC2, but that teh fire-alarm system sent one signal to the monitoring company. It did not contain any information of where the fire might be.

Again, according to NIST, the fires which led to the collapse were started by the collapse of WTC1.

Nuravictus · 06-05-2009 11:29am

hkcharlie wrote: »

can you provide the sources?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

meglome · 06-05-2009 12:50pm

Nuravictus wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Even leaving aside the dubious nature of the thermite that was supposedly found we still have several practical problems to overcome.

It was supposedly a controlled demolition but controlled demolition has never used thermite.
How do you get tons of thermite into the building without anyone seeing?
How do you get this thermite directly onto the support columns without anyone seeing?
What is the delivery mechanism given the nature of thermite?
How does no one see the mechanism to set off the thermite, cable or other?
Why didn't the crashes and fires set off the thermite?
There has never even been an experiment run to show thermite could cut the steel as is suggested (Happy to be shown otherwise).

bonkey · 06-05-2009 1:03pm

meglome wrote: »

* How do you get tons of thermite into the building without anyone seeing?

I believe someone had the idea that a ceiling-tile-replacement project (which did occur) could have accomplished this.

The problem arises only when one asks:

* How do you get this thermite directly onto the support columns without anyone seeing?

Here, the ceiling-tile argument falls apart. You couldn't.

* The slightest spark would set thermite off, why didn't the crashes and fires do that immediately?

This question is invalid, as it is based on a false premise. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite...it is not accurate to presuppose that "the slightest spark" would set it off.

It would be fair to reword the question in terms of persistent fire.
A more interesting question is, perhaps, how one could synchronise so many seperate thermite reactions given its ignition difficulty.

* There has never even been an experiment run to show thermite could cut the steel as is suggested (Happy to be shown otherwise).

From memory, CrazyChainsaw on the randi forums has come up with a way in which thermite could be used to cut horizontally. It involves some bulky apparatus, uses more thermite (than would otherwise be required for the same cut performed vertically), perhaps some oxygen airflow mechanism, and leaves a very distinctive, messy signature. Oh...and there's that whole synchronisation problem again...

Synchronisation and reaction-speed is, to be honest, the real killer. With explosives, its like having a series of axes which are synchronised to cut all the supports in one blow each, at exactly the same moment. Thermite, in comparison, is like having a dozen blokes with chainsaws (or blowtorches), who will start the chainsaw (or blowtorch) manually when given a signal, and then proceed to cut through.

King Mob · 06-05-2009 1:05pm

And remember: rust + aluminum + fire = thermite.

Nuravictus · 06-05-2009 1:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

And remember: rust + aluminum + fire = thermite.

Its Nano Thermite, not Thermite.

King Mob · 06-05-2009 1:45pm

Nuravictus wrote: »

Its Nano Thermite, not Thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastable_intermolecular_composite

So aluminum and rust in really small particles.

meglome · 06-05-2009 2:21pm

bonkey wrote: »

I believe someone had the idea that a ceiling-tile-replacement project (which did occur) could have accomplished this.

Fair point. Though I'd still say it would be very tricky to get tons of thermite into the building without anyone noticing something was amiss. I'm sure it would be fairly easy to track down the contractors and ask if you did believe something was amiss. Has the 'truth movement' done this I wonder?

bonkey wrote: »

This question is invalid, as it is based on a false premise. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite...it is not accurate to presuppose that "the slightest spark" would set it off.

It would be fair to reword the question in terms of persistent fire.
A more interesting question is, perhaps, how one could synchronise so many seperate thermite reactions given its ignition difficulty.

Indeed, I've changed my point above. Even if thermite isn't that easy to ignite, in the crashes and fires I just don't see how it still wouldn't ignite pretty quickly. Especially given the temperatures.

bonkey wrote: »

From memory, CrazyChainsaw on the randi forums has come up with a way in which thermite could be used to cut horizontally. It involves some bulky apparatus, uses more thermite (than would otherwise be required for the same cut performed vertically), perhaps some oxygen airflow mechanism, and leaves a very distinctive, messy signature. Oh...and there's that whole synchronisation problem again...

I really didn't doubt that some mechanism could be found to get this to work, in theory at least. My doubts would be about how cumbersome and impractical this would be. My feeling would be very impractical and very cumbersome. And as you rightly point out it would leave obvious tell tale signs behind it. And of course I'd still like to see this in real world experiments.

bonkey wrote: »

Synchronisation and reaction-speed is, to be honest, the real killer. With explosives, its like having a series of axes which are synchronised to cut all the supports in one blow each, at exactly the same moment. Thermite, in comparison, is like having a dozen blokes with chainsaws (or blowtorches), who will start the chainsaw (or blowtorch) manually when given a signal, and then proceed to cut through.

Even worse than that I feel. If you can't show the mechanism to use the thermite works in practise then I'll still have to wonder why the thermite wouldn't just burn a small hole in the steel and pour through it.

More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)

Comments