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

[BustedWing]

That's not what it says. It shows the owner saying "pull it"

And you believe "pull it" to mean??????

 

[BustedWing]

You're being a troll. Please don't. The video in and of itself isn't proof of anything, I posted the video because you called GG a liar when in fact he was telling the truth

Stop dancing.

What do you think Silverstein is saying when he says "maybe the smartest thing to do here, is pull it".

What does he think the smartest thing to do is, exactly?

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

And you believe "pull it" to mean??????

Stop dancing.

What do you think Silverstein is saying when he says "maybe the smartest thing to do here, is pull it".

What does he think the smartest thing to do is, exactly?

To bring the building down. There's no other way he would know that it was going to come down because that had never happened before

However, I wasn't projecting this when I made that post, I was just posting it for GG's sake

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Anyway this conversation is irrelevant to the top so I won't go on

 

[BustedWing]

To bring the building down. There's no other way he would know that it was going to come down because that had never happened before

However, I wasn't projecting this when I made that post, I was just posting it for GG's sake

FINALLY!
Why did it take you umpteen posts to say this? Why did I have to drag it out of you?

So you think the video shows the owner of the building saying "we should demolish the building".

And you think this is the most likely explanation because:

here's no other way he would know that it was going to come down because that had never happened before

and

The fact that the owner of the building said to 'pull it', which usually means bring it down

I say this is wrong.

Why?

Here's the FULL quote (that I asked you for multiple times, and you refused to post)

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

1. Hes talking to the FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER. Why on earth would he talk to the NYPD about demolishing a building? Are you saying the FD are in on it too now? Why would they need to be informed on this part of the conspiracy? They already had hundreds dead on the day, whats a few more? Why the sudden sense of morality from the perpetrators now? It makes no sense.
2. They're talking about how much loss of life there has been that day, and how the FIRE DEPARTMENT are not sure they are going to be able to contain the fire.
3. THEY MADE the decision. THEY. Not Silversten. The FDNY now do demolitions do they?

What does that tell you?

To me, it says they're talking about getting firemen out of harms way, as they've lost too many lives already, so the owner of building the firefighters are trying to save is telling the fire department "stop trying to save my building, lets worry about keeping your guys safe".

But you think differently because he uses the word "pull" instead of perhaps "withdraw" or "fall back", and you're clinging to this belief that the term Pull is commonly used to describe demolishing a building.

Its not. It is only occasionally used for a very specific type of demolition or partial tear down of a piece of a building.

I repeat.

Rarely used.

Only for very specific types or partial types.

Never for a total demolition of a building in the way you're alleging WTC7 was demolished.

Of course, you don't believe me, and so here I will pause and wait for you to ask me to prove this. Which I will.

If you ask me to...

I could also address your allegation that there is no way silverstein could have predicted the building would collapse too, as thats also just silly, but one thing at a time.

 

[BustedWing]

Anyway this conversation is irrelevant to the top so I won't go on

LOL.

Its ok to say you're wrong.

I will 1000% forgive you and move on.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

LOL.

Its ok to say you're wrong.

I will 1000% forgive you and move on.

Wrong about what

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

FINALLY!
Why did it take you umpteen posts to say this? Why did I have to drag it out of you?

So you think the video shows the owner of the building saying "we should demolish the building".

And you think this is the most likely explanation because:


and


I say this is wrong.

Why?

Here's the FULL quote (that I asked you for multiple times, and you refused to post)

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

1. Hes talking to the FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER. Why on earth would he talk to the NYPD about demolishing a building? Are you saying the FD are in on it too now? Why would they need to be informed on this part of the conspiracy? They already had hundreds dead on the day, whats a few more? Why the sudden sense of morality from the perpetrators now? It makes no sense.
2. They're talking about how much loss of life there has been that day, and how the FIRE DEPARTMENT are not sure they are going to be able to contain the fire.
3. THEY MADE the decision. THEY. Not Silversten. The FDNY now do demolitions do they?

What does that tell you?

To me, it says they're talking about getting firemen out of harms way, as they've lost too many lives already, so the owner of building the firefighters are trying to save is telling the fire department "stop trying to save my building, lets worry about keeping your guys safe".

But you think differently because he uses the word "pull" instead of perhaps "withdraw" or "fall back", and you're clinging to this belief that the term Pull is commonly used to describe demolishing a building.

Its not. It is only occasionally used for a very specific type of demolition or partial tear down of a piece of a building.

I repeat.

Rarely used.

Only for very specific types or partial types.

Never for a total demolition of a building in the way you're alleging WTC7 was demolished.

Of course, you don't believe me, and so here I will pause and wait for you to ask me to prove this. Which I will.

If you ask me to...

I could also address your allegation that there is no way silverstein could have predicted the building would collapse too, as thats also just silly, but one thing at a time.

Please explain how they could predict an unforseen event was going to occur several hours before it was even possible

 

[BustedWing]

Wrong about what

Do I really need to spell it out?

Silverstein wasnt talking to the FDNY commander about demolishing a building.

Thats absurd, as evidenced by what I had just shown you.

 

[BustedWing]

Please explain how they could predict an unforseen event was going to occur several hours before it was even possible

It was predicted that Building seven was in danger of coming down for hours prior to collapse.

There is lots and lots of corroborating evidence for this. (This also explains the whole "BBC said it collapsed before it did, they're in on it!!" nonsense too. but thats another topic)

Heres some of the quotes from various sources showing many people feared for the structural integrity of WTC7 before collapse. THERE ARE LOADS MORE.

THERE ARE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF THE BUILDING ENGULFED IN SMOKE.

Its really not that difficult to see people were worried the building might collapse.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(Broken Link Cached here: http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d )

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Do I really need to spell it out?

Silverstein wasnt talking to the FDNY commander about demolishing a building.

Thats absurd, as evidenced by what I had just shown you.

So what was he talking about then?

It was predicted that Building seven was in danger of coming down for hours prior to collapse.

There is lots and lots of corroborating evidence for this. (This also explains the whole "BBC said it collapsed before it did, they're in on it!!" nonsense too. but thats another topic)

Heres some of the quotes from various sources showing many people feared for the structural integrity of WTC7 before collapse. THERE ARE LOADS MORE.

THERE ARE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF THE BUILDING ENGULFED IN SMOKE.

Its really not that difficult to see people were worried the building might collapse.


He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

How would they know 6 hours in advance when it wasn't even close to happening? They cleared the building out at like 11:30am because there was no water available.

You would need genuine psychic powers to predict such an unforeseen, unpredictable even

 

[Exe Gesis]

Sheesh BW what a cluster* of a conversation from you.

It was GG saying pull it means demolish and GG saying thats EVIDENCE for CD.

evidence is a bunch of stuff brought before a judge and jury. Some evidence is damning, some is curcumstantial, some is eye witness, some is hearsay, etc. But its evidence, and GG was saying that. LA merely provided the video.

 

[BustedWing]

So what was he talking about then?

I......I......just TOLD YOU.

I walked you through this.

To me, it says they're talking about getting firemen out of harms way, as they've lost too many lives already, so the owner of building the firefighters are trying to save is telling the fire department "stop trying to save my building, lets worry about keeping your guys safe".

How would they know 6 hours in advance when it wasn't even close to happening?

....................you serious?

They SUSPECTED. They didnt know, they suspected, you know, by the fact that a huge chunk of the building was effectively scooped out by the collapsing WTC tower, and the fact that many many floors were on fire, and the fact the sprinklers were not working.

They cleared the building out at like 11:30am because there was no water available.

Not true, as is evidenced by the quotes I literally just gave you. They pulled all firemen back (who were trying to fight the fires using hand lines) approx 90mins-2 hours before collapse.

You would need genuine psychic powers to predict such an unforeseen, unpredictable even

Or you know...eyes, ears, and a shred of common sense.

 

[BustedWing]

Sheesh BW what a clusterfu** of a conversation from you.

It was GG saying pull it means demolish and GG saying thats EVIDENCE for CD.

evidence is a bunch of stuff brought before a judge and jury. Some evidence is damning, some is curcumstantial, some is eye witness, some is hearsay, etc. But its evidence, and GG was saying that. LA merely provided the video.

Exactly how many accounts do you have...you don't often refer to yourself in the 3rd person.

Slip up here mate?

Gotcha!

 

[Crankitup]

WHich report?
Important we know this bit of clarity before you get an answer, as it seems you're extremely ignorant of how many reports there are, what their functions were, and what they're called.

WHich report are you talking about?

Once again a twist and misrepresentation. You have no basis for saying I'm ignorant of how many reports there are and what they were called. The two questions are related to the 9/11 Commission report as stated in the first part of question 1 where I said "Regarding the 9/11 Commission...". Only a SFB dill would consider that the second question would be referring to anything else other than the report mentioned in the first question.

 

[BustedWing]

Once again a twist and misrepresentation. You have no basis for saying I'm ignorant of how many reports there are and what they were called. The two questions are related to the 9/11 Commission report as stated in the first part of question 1 where I said "Regarding the 9/11 Commission...". Only a SFB dill would consider that the second question would be referring to anything else other than the report mentioned in the first question.

You're quite right - I mistook you for LA. Apologies.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Exactly how many accounts do you have...you don't often refer to yourself in the 3rd person.

Slip up here mate?

Gotcha!

Wtf is wrong with you? I am referring to myself in the third person because he often does that, GG. But hes using my own GG.exe account to refer to this GG fella. So how is that multiple accounts or a sock puppet?

 

[Exe Gesis]

You're quite right - I mistook you for LA. Apologies.

Lol sock puppets everywhere, youre fighting ghosts in your mind

 

[BustedWing]

Lol sock puppets everywhere, youre fighting ghosts in your mind

I think I might be onto you mate....

LA and Crankitup...nah i think they're two different people (I just mixed them up for a moment there, my bad) but you...I'm yet to be convinced.

Can you show me some other times you've referred to yourself in the third person?

 

[Crankitup]

So....now that you see it (I EXTREMELY sceptical that this is the first time you've seen it, but anyway), does it change your view on when collapse started?

Why or why not?

Why would you be extremely sceptical? Why don't you just say what you really think? You think I'm lying. Which I'm not. Colour me pretty offended TBH.

The first time I viewed the video was after reading this post (#1,641) where GG mentioned 39 seconds. I watched the video scrolling it forward from that point
and didn't see anything collapsing until 41.5 seconds. Why would I roll it back further to see the earlier footage of the penthouse collapsing on the upper left hand side of the building if I hadn't seen anything happening prior to 41.5 seconds?? I never saw your comments to talking about the 34 second 'action' until after the fact.

You disbelieve me and fine you're welcome to have that view but ask yourself a key question using logic for a change. WTF would I gain from lying about this? The fact that I was ignorant about the earlier 'action' in that video until later until you pointed it out to me and I reviewed it gained me what advantage? Other than more juvenile comments and grief from you, what possible motive or gain could possibly be achieved? Use your brain for a change you fool.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I think I might be onto you mate....

LA and Crankitup...nah i think they're two different people (I just mixed them up for a moment there, my bad) but you...I'm yet to be convinced.

Can you show me some other times you've referred to yourself in the third person?

I could but i cant be bothered. Also i suck at searching. LA is a beast at finding stuff on bigfooty, ask him nicely.

But trust me, i am strange and often do strange stuff randomly. I even used to be able to "like" my own posts.

 

[Exe Gesis]

You're quite right - I mistook you for LA. Apologies.

Also, its ok for you to make a mistake and apologize, but if crankitup made a mistake with the video and apologizes you can't accept it and attack him for it. Chill, sir.

 

[Crankitup]

Lets stay on point here. We can talk about the passport if you like, but first...stay on point.

Why is it that you're allowed to change the topic of the discussion (as you have at several times) and noone else is? I for one would like the passport thing cleared up now because as we've seen earlier in the thread, sometimes you forget about questions you've been posed and so they never get answered. I'm not asking for a long dissertation, just a sentence or two explaining how you think the miracle of the unsinged, unmarked passport of a principal actor from that day ending up lying on the footpath not too far from the towers.

 

[Crankitup]

Awesome. About 3 hours of video. Thats quite a lot of conspiracy footage for "an agnostic" to watch dont you think?

Show me whats worth seeing in here. Time stamp it. tell me what you think it shows or proves.

Then I'll respond.

Otherwise, I'm effectively being asked to go on a wild goose chase, and everytime I outline a piece of steaming garbage out of one of the videos, you can easily just say "no...not THAT bit, thats NOT the bit thats important".

SO...lets cut to the chase..time stamp the important bits, the bits you think actually tell us something meaningful.

Make up your mind. In one post you want me to stay on point and not change the subject and now what you're asking me to do will do that very thing multiple times.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Why is it that you're allowed to change the topic of the discussion (as you have at several times) and noone else is? I for one would like the passport thing cleared up now because as we've seen earlier in the thread, sometimes you forget about questions you've been posed and so they never get answered. I'm not asking for a long dissertation, just a sentence or two explaining how you think the miracle of the unsinged, unmarked passport of a principal actor from that day ending up lying on the footpath not too far from the towers.

The lol didnt stop there tho. They also found an unblemished passport at Shanksville despite the entire plane disappearing into the ground or in thin air. And it didnt stop there either, they also found an umblemished passport at the Pentagon wreckage despite also the plane disappearing into thin air and that section of the building going up in flames