Larry Silverstein: No response on WTC 7 lies

Discussion in '9/11' started by Robodoon, Aug 30, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Robodoon

    Robodoon Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,906
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJsEGgc5L2c&feature=player_embedded#!

    Larry Silverstein: No response on WTC 7 lies





















    Luke Rudkowski
    We Are Change.org
    August 30, 2011

    There are so many unanswered questions about the days 9/11, and instead of making up theories and speculating, we go to the horse’s mouth to get answers; sadly the response we get from these questions only invites more speculation about what happened on 9/11.

    Ask questions, demand answers. We Are Patriots, We Are Fearless because We Are Change.



    NOTE: — Tonight AUG 30 at 7pm, we will have Luke Rudkowski in an Infowars Special Report to talk about his confrontation with Larry Silverstein.


    Comment: What a toad, Building 7 was blown, it was prewired, there is even a count down on the building. But the lies continue and the wars move on based on lies. The rich get away with terrible crimes which never seem to end.
     
  2. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTC7 is indeed a conundrum. If it was blown-and much evidence points to that-we need to know why.
     
  3. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not a conundrum at all. It wasn't blown. There is no conspiracy.
     
  4. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what happened? I have to admit to some confusion over this.
     
  5. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Snake, check out the BBCs 'Conspiracy Files' on youtube. These are two excellent one hour long documentaries which comprehensively demolish (excuse the pun) all the conspiracy theories relating to 9-11.
     
  6. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The failure of the Twin Towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

    Counterpunch commissioned its own expert – an aerospace and mechanical engineer – to test the official findings

    http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

    He shows that NIST must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled and the building imploded

    http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

    Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    NIST concluded that “blast events inside building 7 did not occur” and “found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.” A NIST WTC 7 fact sheet summarized the case against controlled demolition:

    “In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.”

    For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

    The simplicity of the official theory—that unchecked fires led to a chain of failures and then progressive collapse—and the extensive computer modelling of the hypothesis place it squarely in the best traditions of the scientific method. Moreover, specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. See for example:

    Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions”. J Engrg Mech 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf.

    Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). “Professors of Paranoia?”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm.

    The final NIST report on the collapse of 7 WTC in November 2008 explains that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire. Fires continued to burn throughout the afternoon on the lower floors. At 5:20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures within the building, eventually leading to global collapse

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

    From collapse timing measurements taken from a video of the north face of the building, NIST observed that the building’s exterior facade fell at free fall acceleration through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf.

    The entire facade above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, until completion of the global collapse sequence.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf.

    The University of Edinburgh published a paper in which they concluded that the towers were uniquely vulnerable to the effects of large fires on several floors at the same time.

    http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216.

    Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Centre in New York, remarked, “no building is prepared for this kind of stress.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107985.html.
     
  7. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'll state straight up that I don't believe any wackjob theories.

    Now, many many buildings have been in an inferno state and still be standing, although a shell. I don't understand why building 7 fell when it wasn't even close to an "inferno state". I'm not saying it was blown, or anything like that, but is this the only building to collapse from fire and minor damage? Was it just that poorly designed? If so, should the builders respond and pay costs for the issue here?

    I can understand the towers going since the planes hit it, but not sure on building 7. You can say that it was structurally damaged, but it didn't seem to be so, really. Lack of water seems like a poor reason considering buildings that have been engulfed in flames but still standing.

    Then again, I know pretty much nothing about constructing a fireproof building, but it does seem strange.
     
  8. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All is explained in post 6..Are you blind or do you have problems with comprehension?
     
  9. timmyg

    timmyg Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and what is the definition of a 'wackjob' theory exactly?

    to me..a 'wackjob theory' seems like a theory which includes the passport of a hijacker of a plane falling out of said plane on to the street around the same time it smashes into a building.


    it doesn't really matter how many people work for NIST, and how many documents they look at. If they only examine one hypothesis, they will only reach one conclusion.
     
  10. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did you bother to read MY post?

    Post 6 says:
    My post says:
    So, yes, I did read post 6 ... my questions were in DIRECT RESPONSE to post 6. Are you just trolling, or forum-challenged? I'll have to refer you to your own comments before you post inane responses next time.


    So I was asking... was this a flaw with building design OR are there other examples of building collapse with no little structural damage (i.e. no plane hitting it) and fires that could not be described as infernos?
     
  11. Abu Sina

    Abu Sina New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,370
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Blown up were the offices of:

    Internal Revenue Service Regional Council

    United States Secret Service

    New York City Office of Emergency Management

    National Association of Insurance Commissioners

    Immigration and Naturalization Service

    The Department of Defense (DOD)

    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

    Witnesses said that in the previous weeks truck loads of boxes of documents were driven away from the CIA and Secret Service Offices.
     
  12. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Whackjob: A crazy, possibly dangerous, person. Of course, I'm not using the phrase literally. Theroies like a missile strapped to the bottom of the plane, remote controlled planes, the REAL planes being blown up and sunk to the bottom of the ocean so nobody can trace it... but by all means beieve any theory you wish.

    As for the passport issue, well a passport was found. The theory would be that it was planted, not that it fell from the sky as that is the reported "true" story.
     
  13. Abu Sina

    Abu Sina New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,370
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Published on Sunday, November 4, 2001 in the New York Times
    Secret CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11
    by James Risen

    WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

    The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

    The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building.

    Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

    A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

    The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.

    The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations.

    The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.

    As a result, a C.I.A. station today should be able to protect most of its secrets even in the middle of a catastrophic disaster like the Sept. 11 attacks, said one former agency official. "If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around," the former official said.

    The agency's New York officers have been deeply involved in counterterrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. Many of the most important counterterrorism cases of the last few years, including the bureau's criminal investigations of the August 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa and the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen have been handled out of New York.

    The United States has accused Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network of conducting both of those attacks.

    But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex.

    With their undercover station in ruins, C.I.A. officers in New York have been forced to share space at the United States Mission to the United Nations, as well as borrow other federal government offices in the city, officials said. The C.I.A.'s plans for finding a new permanent station in New York could not be determined.

    The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

    The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States. The bureau's New York office, at 26 Federal Plaza, was unaffected by the terrorist attack.

    The destruction of the C.I.A.'s New York station has added to the intense emotions shared by many of its employees about the agency's role in the battle against terrorism. For some, the station's destruction served to underscore the failure of United States intelligence to predict the attacks.

    In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, morale suffered badly within the C.I.A., some officials said, as the agency began to confront what critics have called an intelligence failure on the scale of Pearl Harbor.

    But the terrorist attacks have also brought an urgent new sense of mission to the agency, which has been flooded with job applications as well as inquiries from former officers eager to return to work. Congress is pouring money into the agency's counterterrorism operations, and the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.

    The attacks were not the first in which the C.I.A. was directly touched by terrorists. In 1983, seven agency officers died in the suicide car bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut. Among the others killed was the agency's station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley, who died in captivity after being kidnapped by terrorists in 1984, and Richard Welch, the agency's Athens station chief, who was shot to death by Greek terrorists in 1975.
    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
     
  14. Abu Sina

    Abu Sina New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,370
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    are we supposed to believe that the Pentagon the most heavily protected building in the world had only one camera showing the impact area?

    If so then my compound has more cameras and angles at it's entrances than the Pentagon.:mrgreen:
     
  15. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh gawd, not another conspiracy theorist.
     
  16. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The building was in an inferno, there was no water to put it out, the steel buckled due to the heat and the building collapsed...No confusion, but you seem intent on creating it..
     
  17. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, conspiratorial bullcrap. The evidence which contradicts this BS is posted in 6. What is it with these conspiracy theorist nutjobs?
     
  18. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why the defensive stance? I'm not calling out your data, or suggesting any conspiracy. I don't want to create confusion by asking some questions; rather you seem to be creating by suggesting some pretense to my questions.

    All the pictures I have seen do not show an inferno for the whole building.... whilst I have no doubt a fire was spreading on the inside and was not "controlled", I haven't seen any evidence that it was as wild as other fires that have left buildings standing. The south side certainly appears to have a lot of smoke (which, in itself, says certain things about the intensity of the heat), but the north side does not show this.

    In this case, ruling out any conspiracy, it suggests that the building was not as sound as it should have been, therefore there may have been some architectural flaw. All columns across a floor/s were weakened and collapsed at the same time when there was no direct impact on the columns or fireproofing, and even though the images show no fires or damage to the building on the NORTH side? Sounds like some flaw in design or maintenance.

    The reports were that most of the fires were also put out...
     
  19. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey, he has a point.
    I don't see any conspiracy being formed from asking if there are really more camera angles... which of course there are, but we haven't seen them. I would like to see them... not to prove a conspiracy is in place, but just to see them... anything wrong with that?
     
  20. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A clear example of looking for a conspiracy instead of an explanation. If you advance the time by a few seconds and have the passport being one of numerous objects ejected from a disintegrating aircraft on and just after impact before the explosion/fire completely engulfs it, it seems perfectly reasonable.
     
  21. Robodoon

    Robodoon Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,906
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL! :bored:
     

Share This Page