Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers

[therazor]

I've gone back and forth on this topic. It seems most here subscribe to the idea that the towers fell in a way different than the official story.

Can supporters of this idea give me one fact they have as evidence to discuss?

[luciferhorus]

Since there are literally thousands of posts on this forum on this subject, if the subject is new to you, I would suggest that you do some reading on the matter as a means of initial research.

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones"
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...lyCollapse.pdf

and

"Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones"

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...1SciMethod.pdf


Lux

[therazor]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

Since there are literally thousands of posts on this forum on this subject, if the subject is new to you, I would suggest that you do some reading on the matter as a means of initial research.

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones"
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...lyCollapse.pdf

and

"Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones"

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...1SciMethod.pdf


Lux

Not a newbie at all. Just curious as to this group's most compelling evidence.

[luciferhorus]

I refer you to the documents above.

[therazor]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

I refer you to the documents above.

I'll be honest in saying that I was under the impression that the CT community had rejected Steven Jones for some time. Guess I was mistaken. I read through most of the first pdf. Seems the other is having issues loading on my laptop.

I've heard pretty reasoned arguments against the whole free-fall issue, as well as the molten steel claims.

There's a lot there and its too much to discuss all at once. If you had to pick one major claim that Jones makes, what do you find most compelling?

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by therazor

I'll be honest in saying that I was under the impression that the CT community had rejected Steven Jones for some time.

Yes that is probably a view held by some of the "crazies" of the 911 movement; it seems to be for much the same reason that people read the National Enquirer instead of the New York Times; the more sensational and outlandish a theory is, the more publicity it gets, and in the opinion of some people, only those who constantly harp on about some of the more outlanding theories have any merit, whereas Stephen Jones is a professor with a PhD in Physics who was previously known for his work on Cold Nuclear Fusion; he and his research team still hold the world record for the most about of energy produced in a cold fusion experiment. Obviously such a person of scientific merit and integrity has absolutely no merit to those of a more sensationalistic National Enquirer mentality; but bear in mind also that most Americans are barely literate, barely able to read a cornflakes packet, most of them cannot locate Brazil on a map, most of them seem to believe that Jesus was an evangelical Capitalist, and they have an ex president (G. W. Bush) who despite having an expensive private prep school education, a graduate degree from Yale and a post grad from Harvard, has trouble constructing sentences ("Is our children learning"), believes that God speaks directly to him and was unaware that there were any "black people" in Brazil (in a converstation with the President of Brazil).

I've heard pretty reasoned arguments against the whole free-fall issue, as well as the molten steel claims.

I have not heard any reasonable arguments against these two claims.

There's a lot there and its too much to discuss all at once. If you had to pick one major claim that Jones makes, what do you find most compelling?

Well there are numerous threads here and despite some people's attempt to create a "single issue" out of 911, the evidence is rather more comprehensive.

Probably the major issue which first attracted mass attention to the 911 black military operation was the tiny hole a few feet wide at the Pentagon which a 767 supposedly dissapeared into. With the WTC it is probably the fact that three buildings were brought down in a controlled demolision, one of which was not even hit by an aircraft and whose owner admitted that it had been "pulled" down.

Lux

[therazor]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

one of which was not even hit by an aircraft and whose owner admitted that it had been "pulled" down.

Lux

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by therazor

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

1: Silverstein's Comment:

"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 we watched the building collapse."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...in_pullit.html

Silverstein's Official Retraction of the "Pull it" Comment.


"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

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.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]"" Ibid

2: No firefighters were in "Building 7" to be pulled out.

"There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] (6 hours before the building collapsed)"" Ibid

3: Evidence of advance knowledge of a controlled demolition

" (New York Firefighter captured on video) It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

Video Link on http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...in_pullit.html


"INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
Ibid

The collapse of Building 7 announced live by the BBC while it can still be seen in the background.



A picture can tell a 1000 words...........

So in summary. 1: You claim to be familiar with the facts; 2: You post a thread entitled, "Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers?" 3: You claim to have read at least the first Stephen Jones essay hyperlinked above. 4: You find it ridiculous that Silverstein's "pull it" comment refers to a controlled demolition, when indeed all the signs of a controlled demolition did occur, and you suspect he was referring to pulling firefighters, who according to the FEMA report had not even attempted to fight the fire at building 7.

So really I conclude that in common with numerous other posters in various 911 forums, who wish to ramble on incessantly about their opinons, in an attempt to support the propaganda of the state terrorists who are real enemies of America and of humanity, that you may well just be similarly entirely disinterested in the facts.

I thus again refer you to the comprehensive arguments made by Stephen Jones in the essays hyperlinked above. Or alternatively just choose any of the numerous threads on this forum and ramble on incessantly regarding your opinions, and you will be quite at home among numerous others of a similar ilk, many of whom are probably barely literate enough to read Stephen's Jones' essays anyway and who consider their own opinions and those of the state terrorist propagandists to be a higher authority.

Lux

[ultima1]

Originally Posted by therazor

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

Well there are several reasons why we know that PULL IT did not mean the firemen.

1. There was no firefighting operaton going on in building 7.

2. The firemen there were in building 7 were evacuated early in the day BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

3. A fire chief stated they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

[throatyogurt]

Originally Posted by ultima1

Well there are several reasons why we know that PULL IT did not mean the firemen.

1. There was no firefighting operaton [sic] going on in building 7.

2. The firemen there were in building 7 were evacuated early in the day BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

3. A fire chief stated they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.

Thank you!

[tabea_blumenschein]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.
Thank you!

Yes, I'd like the answer to that question as well.

[ultima1]

Originally Posted by throatyogurt

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein

Yes, I'd like the answer to that question as well.

Well we know it was after the firemen were evacuated due to Chief Nigro's statment that he evacuated the firemen WITHOUT talking to the owner Silverstein.

Chief Nigro became the fire commander later on in the day and talked to Silverstein about not being able to save the building and decided to PULL IT.

[stannrodd]

Originally Posted by therazor

I've gone back and forth on this topic. It seems most here subscribe to the idea that the towers fell in a way different than the official story.

Can supporters of this idea give me one fact they have as evidence to discuss?

Evidence of what ??

That the towers didn't fall as described in the media .. or as described in a document ??

Could you clarify.

Stann

[helloperator]

Originally Posted by therazor

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

Yes I often call fire fighting efforts 'it'

[aviatorexp]

I am sure I have asked this before, but why would they blow the building up if they were already worried about it collapsing anyway? Isn’t that why they pulled all the fire fighters out earlier that day? What benefit would they have in using controlled demolition? Why did they need to? How did they get all those explosives into the building and rig them up without anyone noticing when it takes a demolition company weeks to rig a building and have miles of cable lying around everywhere?

[policestate]

Originally Posted by aviatorexp

I am sure I have asked this before, but why would they blow the building up if they were already worried about it collapsing anyway? Isn’t that why they pulled all the fire fighters out earlier that day? What benefit would they have in using controlled demolition? Why did they need to? How did they get all those explosives into the building and rig them up without anyone noticing when it takes a demolition company weeks to rig a building and have miles of cable lying around everywhere?

i'm going to assume that you are talking about Building Seven.

Why were they concerned about it collapsing? wasn't like it was hit by a plane or anything.

[aviatorexp]

No what I mean is, seeing as there is a theory that WTC7 was not that damaged and therefore it must have been a controlled demolition that collapsed it, why would they have needed to destroy the building at all?

Oh I see, I took them to be worried about it collapsing from the previous posts quotes.

[policestate]

it wasn't that damaged. had a few fires in, from what i have read. why did it go down like a pancake? don't know.

here's a screen cap

[aviatorexp]

Ok, but if the building was collapsed by CD then they must have had a reason, what was that reason?

[macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by aviatorexp

Ok, but if the building was collapsed by CD then they must have had a reason, what was that reason?

To expand on that question...why did they wait 7 hours to CD the building?... and when were the explosives, that no one heard go off, planted?