Why did Larry Silverstein admit to designing the new WTC7 in 2000?

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Mar 19, 2016.

  1. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Calm down, no smartass remark intended.

    Do I get a cookie?

    I agree, but is this not clear evidence of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

    How was I "cherry-picking?" You did not know it existed so I posted it for you.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,235
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    there is zero evidence of controlled demolition ... in any of the towers, regardless of what "pull it" means ... not a single witness to any "workers" stripping walls to get to columns, running wire, no evidence of thermite/thermate, nada, zip, nothing ...
     
  3. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How so?

    You ignored the main post, ad responded to one part of it. That is 'cherry picking'.
     
  4. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's it. It is an illogical story with absolutely NO supporting evidence. If people thought it through, it wouldn't take long for them to realise that CD was impractical, irrational and politically absurd. There is no logic, reason or research from 9/11 truth, and this is why they fail as a movement.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not "clear evidence", it's corroborating evidence. The clear evidence is in the videos, the eyewitness testimonies, the physics, the logic and a host of other overwhelming corroborating evidence including but not limited to the deliberate lack of any forensic criminal investigation, the fraudulent pretense of an investigation, which was not even any legitimate kind of investigation and the deliberate destruction of evidence, which is a crime in itself and amounts to a coverup.
     
  6. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How so? How is it not? Did you watch the whole admission? And if I missed responding to something worth a response, feel free to point it out. Sorry for any confusion.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't share your incrfedulity. Do you not understand that LS had no authority to make any judgements or transmit any orders to emergency services? I don't care what he says on a video. It's the law.

    The whole belief that Silverstein had any influence on 9/11 demonstrates a lack of knowledge of emergency services procedures.
     
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just watched it again, and I still don't understand why you think this means they demolished the building. It's just a chronologically compressed anecdote that means little.

    Ok, I'll go into detail to explain my problem with all this.

    a). I hope you understand the fact that the FDNY (or anywhere on Earth) have to remain autonomous in an emergency response. Even the Police have no authority over them. Likewise, building owners & lessees have absolutely no authority over brigades in the event of being accused of accessory to insurance fraud. The insurance payouts are determined by the fire reports, therefore their integrity must be beyond reproach. Larry Silverstein had no right to brag like that, because he made himself look part of the decision making process. I've never taken this quote too seriously for those very reasons. I think he was 'inflating' his importance if you will.


    b). Let's look at some features of the event. A few givens:

    The water supply was cut off in the vicinity of WTC after the collapse of the twins. Fire appliances resorted to using on board tanks. This method did not produce the pressure required to fight the fires in 7WTC above the lower stories. Above the fires raged. These tanks were soon exhausted and the fire fighters realised there was little they could do to save the building. Survey instruments were set up, and the data indicated 7WTC was becoming unstable, therefore the decision was made to abandon the operation, withdraw to a safe distance, and form cordon. A few hours later it collapsed. The time frame of all this is about seven hours.

    The original design was altered to accommodate the incorporated substation (see Aegis vs. World Trade Centre). This created the need for a very long span design creating the atrium. This created the weakness that allowed the collapse to occur. The collapse time exceeded 18 seconds with the curtain wall falling at around the 12.5 second mark in the sequence.

    [​IMG]

    This gif represents the NIST's model of the collapse. Most of what we see occurs behind the fa├žade (or curtain wall). We know this to be the case, owing to the debris pile of 7WTC. The pics demonstrate that the 'curtain wall' 'draped' over the rubble pile of the interior. See below.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This is replicated in the NIST's model.

    Points of logic regarding the controlled demolition claim:

    1). There is no physical evidence for CD. In this context 'physical' means the 'remains' of explosive deployment (all bombings leave evidence of the device).

    2). How did the FDNY rig the building for demolition (after all, your contention implicates the FDNY in fraud)?

    3). If the building was rigged before the 'False Flag', how did the explosives survive the temperatures?

    4). How did the 'perps' know that a large amount of debris from 1WTC would strike 7WTC? Thus triggering the entire sequence of events.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The red ring denotes the position of the film crew who took the now famous footage.

    These problems in logic are insurmountable IMO, and they are probably the main contributors to the resistance to accept this alternative hypothesis in academic circles (among many others).

    I, in no way believe that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, as the hypotheses are full of assumptions, errors, false conclusions and perversions of the process of logic. Furthermore, it is because of these very factors (and those listed above) that I do not give much credence to the Silverstein canard.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fairy tales are nice but everyone knows they are not reality. When children grow up they stop believing them. At least most children. When the US government and their shills want you to believe a silly fairy tale, they can get really silly, intellectually insulting.

    [video=youtube;pmdcMb5D9gM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM&feature=youtu.be[/video]
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But this comment wasn't insulting? What a parody of a truther you've become. It was telling that you couldn't discount the previous post with anything of value.

    The comparison is ridiculous, as clearly you and the author do not understand the gif. You have missed an important detail in your haste to post this rubbish, and it is very revealing. It happens when amateurs are given material beyond their scope. However, I might leave it at that for the 'giggle' factor.

    Your tactic of constantly attacking the NIST report without anything credible is tiresome and it merely masks the fact that you're unable to explain the event. It's an elaborate 'reversal of the burden of proof' technique, therefore fallacious, but 9/11 truth are oblivious to the meaning of BoP, and fallacies.

    Now for the rational viewers, here is further confirmation of the NIST's hypothesis. You will note that the curtain wall has almost exclusively draped itself over the rubble pile of the interior. This confirms the NIST's hypothesis:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Now, if the collapse was universal as 9/11 truth would have us believe, the curtain wall rubble would be mixed with the debris of the interior. Upon clearance, this was found NOT to be the case as the entire curtain wall was lying over the interior debris.

    Interior collapsed>>>>curtain wall collapsed and draped over the pile. Simple really, if you don't have a dishonest agenda (of course).
     
  11. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the gif baffles 9/11 truth, this must send them into 'incredulity overdrive':

    [​IMG]

    Or this:

    [​IMG]

    And this one would send them into a fit:

    [​IMG]

    Their incredulity is merely a product of their ignorance, and it exposes the lack of knowledge within the movement. Most of the incredulity derives from the fact that the famous footage only shows the half of the building collapsing (if that). They forget that much occurred 'off camera'. Furthermore, the compression of time in the models also induces confusion for the poor things.
     
  12. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The gash in 7WTC:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Other damage:

    [​IMG]

    The fires:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    "They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. 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. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. 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. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. 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. According to FEMA, the building started to collapse at 5:20:33 pm EDT when the east mechanical penthouse started crumbling, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed—at 5:21:10 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 5:20:52 pm EDT according to NIST.There were no casualties associated with the collapse."
     
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sideshow Bob played the shill card like a good little truther earlier, I forgot to acknowledge his mendacity.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just thought I'd check for insults and mendacity because you posted directly after me. My suspicions were confirmed and you evinced your usual lame tactics.

    Context. They are NOT the same thing.

    ------------------------------------

    A lie (what's new there?). The NIST were restrained by a court order enforced by the NSA. The NIST had nothing to do with it and I suggest if you have a problem, you should take it up with the issuing judge. You won't because you'd rather moan on message boards than actually do anything.Your lies are easily exposed, as other faculties have confirmed the NIST's findings and you know that.

    You believe in controlled demolition but you can't prove it with evidence, so you have to mendaciously attack the scientific and by association, implicate them in fraud. That's quite lowbrow in my book, and that is why I treat your posts with the contempt they obviously deserve..

    LOLOL. Too dumb.


     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now to the damage that is often 'omitted' from the truther texts:

    Column no. 20 was entirely removed from the structure when debris from 1WTC;

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The NIST factored this damage into the modelling process:

    [​IMG]

    Another view of the severity of the fires:

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Liar, I just don't share your hatred and ignorance. Grow up, truther and prove your lies and stop hiding behind insults. They are not considered a valid response by educated individuals.

    Oh, the hypocrisy burns. I see you're unable to challenge the evidence presented and you need to resort to your usual dishonesty. At least you're constant and predictable.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,862
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't even need to challenge it, it speaks for itself and clearly shows the incredible fraud.

    This is a ****ing joke. Pretending this is the result of an "investigation" into the collapse WTC7 boggles the mind.

    [video=youtube;pmdcMb5D9gM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM&feature=youtu.be[/video]

    [​IMG]

    Thanks for posting the evidence of a massive fraud, I doubted you could be useful for something, I was wrong.
     
  18. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    " truther crank " Ya, right, some people have very obvious bias.

    <'Sane' truthers try to distance themselves from no-planers and nuke nutters> more totally biased stuff .....

    Why is it that "truthers" are the subject of such discrimination? What have we done except to question the official story of 9/11?
    is it a crime to not believe everything that the mainstream media puts out?
     
  19. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And some people qualify for the description. ;)

    I can link you to truther sites that claim no-planers are disinformation agents, if I could be bothered.

    Because their liberal use of libel has no foundation in truth.

    1). 9/11 truth continually libel individuals, organisations and academics without evidence.

    2). 9/11 truth intentionally misrepresent evidence to support their irrational claims (e.g. Chandler).

    3). 9/11 truth deliberately avoid producing papers to be subject to peer review.

    4). 9/11 truth mendaciously misrepresent testimony and FAIL to confirm their claims. (cf, the fire fighters testimony that is abused by truthers)

    No, it is actively encouraged. You are falsely placing the responsibility for the accepted version on the shoulders of the media when it has little to do with them. It is this form of misrepresentation that goes toward supporting my case.
     

Share This Page