Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[Crankitup]

Right, so her words alone then. Cool. Back to where we started then aren't we.


How is this relevant at all to the topic at hand? It is also more than a little dishonest leaving out the important part of the quote that shows that it was not Silverstein at all that made the call, rather the fire department commander.

His FULL 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 then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein


In the ACTUAL quote, its pretty obvious that it was not Silverstein, but the fire chief, that made the decision.

How very dishonest of the quote you referenced above, don't you think?

What's clear to me is Larry voiced the idea of pulling it before they pulled it. Although he was talking to the fire department commander when he voiced that opinion, it's not clear who and how many made the final decision because he used the word 'they' rather than 'he'.

 

[BustedWing]

What's clear to me is Larry voiced the idea of pulling it before they pulled it. Although he was talking to the fire department commander when he voiced that opinion, it's not clear who and how many made the final decision because he used the word 'they' rather than 'he'.

Let me ask you this.

What’s MORE LIKELY to you?

Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Given he was talking to a FIRE chief commander mind you...

What’s more likely to be the truth here in your eyes?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BustedWing]

What's clear to me is Larry voiced the idea of pulling it before they pulled it. Although he was talking to the fire department commander when he voiced that opinion, it's not clear who and how many made the final decision because he used the word 'they' rather than 'he'.

Furthermore, was the heavily edited quote you posted a dishonest and deceitful act by whoever presented it to you as proof of what Silverstein said?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankitup]

Let me ask you this.

What’s MORE LIKELY to you?

Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Given he was talking to a FIRE chief commander mind you...

What’s more likely to be the truth here in your eyes?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

There's no way I can see the term pull it as referring to withdrawing firefighters.

What's more the FEMA report on WTC 7 (Chapter 5, section 5.6.1) indicates that no manual firefighting actions were taken at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Furthermore a Fox News reporter (Jeffrey Scott Shapiro) who accepts the NIST report said this about Silverstein ....

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

 

[BustedWing]

There's no way I can see the term pull it as referring to withdrawing firefighters.

What's more the FEMA report on WTC 7 (Chapter 5, section 5.6.1) indicates that no manual firefighting actions were taken at WTC 7 on 9/11.

Furthermore a Fox News reporter (Jeffrey Scott Shapiro) who accepts the NIST report said this about Silverstein ....

You should post the link to the quote you're referencing, as it tells the full story. Im concerned that you chose not to...
Here it is:

Shame On Jesse Ventura!

The former Minnesota governor has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting the mistaken view that our government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

www.foxnews.com

In this link it is VERY VERY clear that
(a) Shapiro believes the official story
(b) Shapiro thinks that those who believe the WTC7 controlled demolition theory are wrong. Very very wrong.
(c) Shapiro states that prior to collapse WTC 7 was very unstable and many people, including silverstein feared collapse
(d) Shapiro was aware of a conversation Silverstein had stating that, should WTC7 not collapse on its own accord, it would be beyond repair, its foundations would be extremely unstable and would need to be taken down safely. IE - a controlled demolition AFTER THE FACT.
(e) Silverstein was having this conversation with his insurance company, to ensure that if this is what was needed, they considered the destruction of the building to be a terrorist act, and not just a building owner deciding to do what he liked with his own property.

The fact you're (deliberately??) conflating this conversation to mean that they were thinking about bringing it down then and there, and that his conversation with the fire department chief was THIS conversation is horribly dishonest, or ignorant.

Many buildings needed to be demolished professionally post 9/11 at ground zero. Silverstein was thinking 7 was going to be one of them. Turns out, it didnt last much longer that day.

Relevant quotes below - bolded emphasis mine:

Perhaps what Ventura is missing is that there is probably more incontrovertible evidence and more witnesses who have already established what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 than most major historical events. To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.

Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
***************************************************
Do you want to reconsider your position on this now?

 

[BustedWing]

What's more the FEMA report on WTC 7 (Chapter 5, section 5.6.1) indicates that no manual firefighting actions were taken at WTC 7 on 9/11.

You dont need to be physically in the building putting out fires to be in harms way and in need of evacuation.

This should clear this up for you bolded emphasis mine:

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[34] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[35] During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[31]:24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[7] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[36] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[37] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[38] The fire expanded the girders of the building, causing some to lose their structural integrity. This led column number 79, a critical column supporting a large part of the 13th floor, to buckle, causing the floors above it to collapse to the fifth floor; however, this could not be seen from outside the building. The structure also developed cracks in the facade just before the entire building started to fall.[6]:21[39] According to FEMA, this collapse started at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling.[5]:23[40] Differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed:[40] at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA,[5]:23 and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.[6]:19, 21, 50–51 There were no casualties associated with the collapse.[39] NIST found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse.[41]

 

[BustedWing]

This is an awful lot of conversation with someone about 9/11 on topics that don't have anything to do with steel melting at point of collapse, something he promised to show evidence of, but claimed he didn't have the time...

 

[yebiga]

Do you see what you did there?

We asked you for YOUR version of events. A chance for you to say “THIS is what happened that day, and THIS is HOW it happened”.

Instead, you went on a crappy and error strewn rant about how the official story is wrong.

Do you know why you did that?

Because....

you don’t have an explanation for 9/11. No conspiracy theorist can come up with ANY explanation that comes CLOSE to explaining the events of the day.

All you can do is pick holes in the official story. You can’t offer up a scenario (that stands up to any scrutiny) that better explains 9/11.

In fact, most of the conspiracy theories directly contradict each other (if one theory you agree with is right, then a different one you also agree with CANNOT be right).

So again...without attacking the official story...can you put together a coherent explanation for what happened on 9/11? One that can stand up to any sort of scrutiny?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Here is the thing: there are some known agreed upon events surrounding 9/11/2001 and an official but quite fantastic story about those events. There are an infinite number of more believable stories one could postulate to explain those known events. To engage in that kind of supposition though is counter productive. It shifts the focus towards a theory and thereby solidifying the lie. It is sufficient to point out that the official story is simply a farce and any half arsed investigation would even at this late stage reveal it to be the most amazingly stupid fiction ever told.

What kind of crazy point are you trying to make when you state the contending theories contradict themselves? An infinite number of stories are possible. It is therefore self evident, if people engage in suppositions, you will find contradictions between one and another - it is easy to take pot shots. But that is simply a ruse to deflect from the only thing that matters and that is - the official story is bogus from foot to toe. And the fruit of that lie has directly led to immeasurable suffering.

The amoral descent for the US government following the 9/11 hoax is itself becoming the official story that ultimately leads to the Trump Presidency. The 9/11 Hoax is destroying the US from within. The US electorate has suffered an abuse it cannot easily find healing and its very life force is depleted by its continuing regression. The repressed anger of 9/11 has lashed out first at the world and now domestically - it is a shell of the nation it once was.

Suppositions with you serve no purpose than to feed your shut mind.

 

[yebiga]

There are numerous eyewitnesses and some lost videos - which I saw back in the early 2000s - of a countdown to the WTC 7 & collapse.
A search of duckduckgo will suffice to overwhelm you with testimonies.

 

[Crankitup]

In this link it is VERY VERY clear that
(a) Shapiro believes the official story

That's what I said!!!! I mentioned that he accepts the NIST report. Whilst he accepts that he also makes it clear Silverstein was talking about bringing down the building when he said they should 'pull it'.

 

[Crankitup]

This is an awful lot of conversation with someone about 9/11 on topics that don't have anything to do with steel melting at point of collapse, something he promised to show evidence of

No that's a misrepresentation of what I said. What I said I would do was outline where and when you have twisted and misrepresented what I've said, something you seem to do on a regular basis but have no awareness of doing so. So here we have another example. TBH I've lost patience in having any dealings with you at all but it just so happens that I was at at home sick today and not so bothered about wasting my time.

but claimed he didn't have the time...

What a joke that is. You claimed to not be in a rush.

 

[Procrastinator35]

What a joke that is. You claimed to not be in a rush.

You need to trust your instincts with this poster & cease from giving him the benefit of the doubt....He's a troll & a dis-info plant, pure n simple...The same goes for his pal & brother in arms in Doc_

 

[Crankitup]

You need to trust your instincts with this poster & cease from giving him the benefit of the doubt....He's a troll & a dis-info plant, pure n simple...The same goes for his pal & brother in arms in Doc_

Good advice.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Good advice.

This is almost entirely the only thread they post in...i'd suggest an assigned gate-keeper for the 5-EYES INTEL est for this site, without question.

 

[Doc_]

This is almost entirely the only thread they post in...i'd suggest an assigned gate-keeper for the 5-EYES INTEL est for this site, without question.

Wrong again......
Not very good at this are you?
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/members/doc_.41149/post-areas

 

[BustedWing]

Here is the thing: there are some known agreed upon events surrounding 9/11/2001 and an official but quite fantastic story about those events. There are an infinite number of more believable stories one could postulate to explain those known events. To engage in that kind of supposition though is counter productive. It shifts the focus towards a theory and thereby solidifying the lie. It is sufficient to point out that the official story is simply a farce and any half arsed investigation would even at this late stage reveal it to be the most amazingly stupid fiction ever told.

What kind of crazy point are you trying to make when you state the contending theories contradict themselves? An infinite number of stories are possible. It is therefore self evident, if people engage in suppositions, you will find contradictions between one and another - it is easy to take pot shots. But that is simply a ruse to deflect from the only thing that matters and that is - the official story is bogus from foot to toe. And the fruit of that lie has directly led to immeasurable suffering.

I'll respond to the bolded bit, as I believe it also addresses the nonsense you have typed around it.

The fact that contending theories contradict themselves is an issue because it means that NONE of them explain the complete event. If you believe one of them, then by DEFINITION another one you also said was true CANNOT BE TRUE, because they completely contradict each-other.

As an example would be saying that thermite brought the towers down quietly AND people heard bombs going off, so therefore bombs AND Judy Woods is correct with her lasers from space theory.

They cant all be right, but people here agree with all three of them, just so long as it is NOT the official story.

This happens over and over and over.

 

[BustedWing]

That's what I said!!!! I mentioned that he accepts the NIST report. Whilst he accepts that he also makes it clear Silverstein was talking about bringing down the building when he said they should 'pull it'.

What you are deceitfully doing here is conflating his well known and publicised conversation with the fire chief, which was CLEARLY about getting firemen out of harms way, with a different less well known conversation with his insurance company about what to do with the damaged beyond repair, but as yet not collapsed building of his, and whether he would be covered if he decided to take certain steps.

You know it. I know it. Why you're pretending otherwise I have no idea.

That you're just avoiding the multiple clarifying points i have made on this topic tells me plenty. Even just this post alone...you have decided to ignore all the points I made that totally blows your point out of the water, and instead pretend that one of those points back you up in some way.

 

[BustedWing]

No that's a misrepresentation of what I said. What I said I would do was outline where and when you have twisted and misrepresented what I've said, something you seem to do on a regular basis but have no awareness of doing so. So here we have another example. TBH I've lost patience in having any dealings with you at all but it just so happens that I was at at home sick today and not so bothered about wasting my time.

You did say you were going to show me where I have lied and misrepresented you etc etc yes, but you ALSO said

I only have a short time right now. Just want to focus on one aspect before I address the rest of your last two posts.

If you do so I'll rebut each and every point you made in #1,087 including the lies and misrepresentations of my position.

One of those points was a big one - namely EVIDENCE for steel melting at point of impact. You so far have decided that this point is not nearly as important to you as "showing where BustedWing isnt being honest".

 

[BustedWing]

What a joke that is. You claimed to not be in a rush.

I'll kindly refer back to my earlier post with an analogy about owing somebody money, claiming to not being able to pay them back, and then being caught spending frivolously.

It still applies very well here....

 

[BustedWing]

Good advice.

Look at his post about me - a disinfo plant..goodness me!

This is the guy you want to side with?

 

[BustedWing]

Wrong again......
Not very good at this are you?
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/members/doc_.41149/post-areas

pssst...I think he was refering to meeee....

 

[Crankitup]

I'll kindly refer back to my earlier post with an analogy about owing somebody money, claiming to not being able to pay them back, and then being caught spending frivolously.

It doesn't matter. You said 'no rush' before I gave any reason for delay. You can just wait. "Next month" is almost upon us anyway. 5 days to wait.

 

[BustedWing]

It doesn't matter. You said 'no rush' before I gave any reason for delay. You can just wait. "Next month" is almost upon us anyway. 5 days to wait.

Lol!

Not a great look for your credibility there sunshine.

I wait with baited breath...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankitup]

Lol!

Not a great look for your credibility there sunshine.

Not a great look for my credibility that I'm making you live up to your original (disingenuous) statement of 'no rush' by making you wait? I would argue the opposite.

I wait with baited breath...

I hope for your sake this isn't the case. Walking around with fish bait hanging out of your mouth will give you a nasty case of halitosis I suspect. If you meant 'bated' breath then, .

 

[Crankitup]

What you are deceitfully doing here is conflating his well known and publicised conversation with the fire chief, which was CLEARLY about getting firemen out of harms way, with a different less well known conversation with his insurance company about what to do with the damaged beyond repair, but as yet not collapsed building of his, and whether he would be covered if he decided to take certain steps.

Why was the term "pull it" at this point clearly about what you claim, when earlier in the VERY SAME documentary the term was used to refer to bringing down WTC6? A building which was literally pulled down with cables.

".... we're getting ready to pull building six."