WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
@EversharpAudio ...
@EversharpAudio whats more, you should have told me beforehand that you had no point to make
If we're all made ...
If we're all made of wax then what is Larry made of? Like if you get it :)
Yes, that's true, ...
Yes, that's true, as there are when it comes to any investigation and any report, particularly one that contains this many variables. What's your point?
Did I mention ...
Did I mention conspiracy? No, I mentioned that scientifically there are various anomalies with the official report.
Looks like you ...
Looks like you can't answer the question. Okay, here it is again. Why would Israel put its own national security at risk by attacking its greatest ally and arms supplier?
Oh, what's more, ...
Oh, what's more, it's true that no STRUCTURALLY SOUND building collapses from fire alone, the building was pummeled with debris to the point where whole series of floors were scooped out of it. These people are completely ignoring the fact that TC 7 suffered structural damage, not just fires.
*Event
*Event
The problem is, ...
The problem is, you're trying to cope with what is most definitely un unlikely even by positing a conspiracy theory that is MORE unlikely than the one you're trying to cope with. No group that was even remotely worried about getting caught would have said "You know what, let's control demo a random building just for shits and giggles"
Watch these few ...
Watch these few videos and see if you will continue to believe the building fell from fire alone. Many world renowned experts refute the official 911 report on the basis of science alone. The facts can't be argued for they stand true due to the laws of physics. /watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY /watch?v=tzA3RzJ6wyM /watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM /watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&t=13m20s /watch?v=IzGQtoz9qiU But regarding your point you're right, Silverstein didn't mention controlled demolition. Just used a demolition term.
So the fire ...
So the fire department commander called him and said that they couldn't contain the fires, that there had been considerable loss of life from the fires, to the point where they had no choice but to pull all of the fire fighters out of the building, the fires were allowed to burn unchallenged, and the building collapsed, Got it Thank you Larry. Now, where did he say anything about a controlled demolition? After the camera stopped rolling?
13- 2-3) More black ...
13- 2-3) More black smoke - less heat. "can" is not "did". 4) No, you are.5 The concrete core was neither strength reinforcement nor fire protection? What was it? Decorative? Sayanim are we, 13?
And DO NOT use ...
And DO NOT use America, israel, and ALLY in the same sentence. America is the host to the zionist parasite. Study zionism. The persecution of Jewish Germans was not only caused by them (Balfour), they participated with the Nazis in abusing their own people. You may recall (or Google) "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" - Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee February 18, 1943 Pure psychosis does not need reasons, 13. Go 'home', now.
Ask the crew of the ...
Ask the crew of the USS Liberty in their strafed life boats. Ask the perps in the Le Von Affair. Ask the legion of dual passport traitors in bush's gov. Ask bin Laden who denied ANY involvement until his right-handed double took over after he died in late November of 2001. Most importantly, ask yourself Cui bono? Obviously not for oil. Better get your apartment in a new settlement now. You haven't been paying attention, the bear is stirring. Thank your fellow psychopaths at goldman-sucks...
13 - 6) All of them ...
13 - 6) All of them - go see AE9-11, the guys who design and build these structures. Hmmm, no answer to 7)? 8) Kuwaitis owned the company. You may recall the First Gulf War - the Kuwaitis owed big time. 9-212) Any black guy in America who had a tenth of the associations with a murder demonstrated for israelis with 9/11 would be on Death Row in a week.
Hey, 13, Shalom! ...
Hey, 13, Shalom! But that 's really NOT the zionist way, is it? Thanks for the heads up on these points that I trusted others on. Having had a few semesters of engineering physics while studying Cell Biology, I am not a physicist nor structural engineer. But, I do have eyes. Have you looked at the core structure of these buildings? Nice try on 1) but go look up UL-263 (standards for building materials). Lie one.
So you're one of ...
So you're one of the dolts that think Israel was behind 911? Okay, see if you can answer this question. Why would Israel put its own national security at risk by attacking its greatest ally and arms supplier?
1. Nope, UL doesn't ...
1. Nope, UL doesn't test steel. Besides, if you think fire can't weaken steel, why do you suppose they coat it with SFRM fireproofing? I'll bet you can't answer! 2-3. Wrong, FEMA said "most", not all, burned off. You got the fire temperatures wrong. Office fires can burn in excess of 1,000C. 4. You're confusing static load with dynamic load. LOL! 5. Concrete was not used for strength reinforcement and did not protect the steel from fire. Wow! You sure got a lot wrong!
"the rest of the ...
"the rest of the structure was intact and it simply could not 'pancake' as we saw it do." Really? Which structural engineers or forensic engineers say that? Or did you just make it up by yourself? "The WTC security vendor was controlled by gwb's (gubno) cousin marvin bush" Oops! You forgot to mention that Marvin left the board of the contractor a year before 9/11. That's pretty pertinent information and yet you left it out. How come?
6) Even if the ...
6) Even if the steel on the impacted floors melted, the integrity of the rest of the structure was intact and it simply could not 'pancake' as we saw it do. 7) An 'electrical upgrade' was being done (by an israeli connected firm) in the weeks immediately before 9/11 which required all security cameras to be disconnected 8) The WTC security vendor was controlled by gwb's (gubno) cousin marvin bush 9 -212) Search and you'll find no end to more associations, mostly with the israelis 213) Cui bono?
1) The WTC steel ...
1) The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. 2) The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) 3) In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C) 4) The WTC was built to hold 5 times its load 5) The steel was surrounded and reinforced by thick concrete walls
There were no ...
There were no detonation charges before WTC 7 collapsed, at least no demo experts say so. The firefighters were closest to the building and didn't report hearing any. No trace of any detonation charges in the seismic record either. You'll have to do better than make unsubstantiated assertions.
Please read more ...
Please read more carefully. I didn't say the Windsor collapsed. I said the steel did, concrete did not. You should know that fire can indeed cause steel to weaken and thus have its load bearing capability compromised.
Also, the only ...
Also, the only mention of a Kmart fire in 1953 is THIS EXACT SAME POST VERBATIM made by OTHER PEOPLE, with NO SOURCES. This is just silly, if you want to debunk you HAVE TO HAVE YOUR S#!T TOGETHER. Please. Notice the nice little Semtex detonations right before WTC 7 collapses? It's been recorded from multiple camera angles, and the explosion locations agree on all tapes. EVIDENCE. Please find some.
The Mumbai High ...
The Mumbai High North Platform was an open-ocean oil structure which was struck by a ship. The fire razed the building, which was FULL OF CRUDE OIL. There was no concrete in the structure to help absorb heat, and there was a continuous supply of fuel and oxygen to the blaze. Situation here is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from any WTC building. Please source more convincing material. I hope you aren't trying to play word games: "see! steel buildings DID collapse from fire! (oil rig hit by a ship wtf???)"
After a single ...
After a single search, I find that the Windsor in Madrid in 2005 did NOT collapse, though there was extensive damage from a fire that raged out of control from 11:00 pm until 1:30 pm the next day, finally declared put out at 5:00 pm - a lot longer than the fire at any WTC building. I shall continue checking your facts...