Cynthia Weil's WTC 9/11 Footage (Enhanced Quality & Doubled FPS)

a reply to: WhatItIs

Are you an explosives expert because I am not, so who is to really to say what can survive what?
I do know that if you want something to last through a fire, like certain metals, then you make it out of a conductive with a higher melting point. Copper and aluminum melts from around 1200f for Aluminum and Copper from 1600f to 1900f. Do you see evidence that the fire burned this hot? And if so you don't think the wiring could have been encased in something fire resistant?

That day was anything but quite as you suggest, sirens, walkie talkies, crying, etc. and once the building starts falling nothing else can be heard over the destruction. What were they suppose to hear through the hell that was everywhere?

How is comparing a demolition that was not properly prepared helpful here? Should I post one of the hundreds that was successful? I can show you 3 that happened on 9/11, but you've already seen those.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: WhatItIs

He was referring to the decision to pull the firefighters back from the building as they couldn't save it. Not pull it as in demolish it.

I guess Larry should have said "pull out" rather than "pull it" if he really meant one or the other. Funny how he does say "pull it" and they watched the building collapse.

It is not like he stood to make millions from these buildings being destroyed...oh wait.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

Fun fact: after 9/11 Silverstein put in a claim on the insurance, as he should have. However, (and this tends to be forgotten by conspiracy theorists but not by insurance journalists like myself) there was a massive amount of ambiguity over the terms of the insurance contract, as it had just been renewed and the paperwork was still being processed. There was a massive lawsuit over it, during which a lot of normal insurance practices in terms of the transmission of documents (they used a fax for god's sake) were held up to the light and poked full of holes.
If 9/11 had been an inside job (which I strongly doubt) the insurance side of it was hugely screwed up.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So he should have filed sooner? That he filed so close to the disaster is suspect, wasn’t it in July of that year? Going from memory, so maybe.

It seems a lot did not go as planned that day.

I don’t believe it was an inside job so to speak other than a handful knew or allowed it to happen. The US military was not aware. They were as clueless as the victims in those buildings. As it unfolded I believe they acted accordingly. It’s the upper brass I suspect. Cheney most definitely, but I guess the dead cannot defend themselves.

There was 16 hijackers from Saudi Arabia and one financier, Bin Laden, also from there, but the US occupies Afghanistan and then Iraq on the lie of WMDs?
There was purposeful misdirection from the beginning.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

If I recall correctly he renewed the insurance in June (not unusual - there are renewal 'seasons' in insurance and reinsurance and January and June tend to be busy months for the industry).
The ambiguity lay in the language of what constituted an attack. Two different planes attacked two different buildings at two different times. So - one attack or two? Yes, there was just the one organisation behind the attacks, but - and therein lay the legal challenge. There were multiple lawsuits over this and it got very, very, nasty at times. It made a lot of people in the industry realise that the language used in terms & conditions in insurance contracts were overly sloppy.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: WhatItIs

I thought about posting that but decided if they are arguing 9/11 and haven't seen what Larry Silverstein has said, then they are an idiot arguing in the mirror.

I have also decide that it doesn't matter what you bring to the table, they will refute it just to have something to type back.

I realize what I'm saying is uncomfortable for most, but the truth often is.

So.. You got nothing.

Care to provide the actual conversation and quote from Larry Silverstein. He was obviously talking about securing from fire fighting efforts.

Care to give the definition of how “pulled it” is actual used in the demolition business. And give examples of the verbiage in use and context.

Care to talk about WTC7 actually bulging before collapsing.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

Are you an explosives expert because I am not, so who is to really to say what can survive what?

I asked for evidence.

And why would you expect wiring, batteries, and electronics to survive hours off fires. In a building without power or fire water.

Note added, only takes the insulation to degrade and have the wires ground out.

a reply to: WhatItIs

Show me the evidence that the building was totally engulfed? A few floors were on fire, so how that constitutes it was so badly engulfed so bad wiring couldn't have survived is reaching.
You also assume they used one set of wires to wire an entire building. This is not a cartoon, real life would have had detonators all over the building, multiple wiring wired back to a single source assuming it wasn't a remote detonation. So what if one burned up, or even two, three, four?
You still have other floors undisturbed from fires that would still detonate, collapsing everything above and crushing the floors that didn't detonate, probably then making them detonate, again assuming that it was not remote detonation, where wires are not needed, just a certain frequency.

Why did the penthouse fall seconds before the building, because the firing order was off maybe?

Show you evidence? Show me common sense.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

Show me the evidence

How about you stop changing the subject and answer the questions concerning Larry Silverstein

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

Are you an explosives expert because I am not, l.

The “pull it” is your only “evidence” and you don’t even know what it means.


And over and over again the claim concerning controlled demolition that the core had to be cut column by column floor to floor with perfect split second timing.

The building didn’t have to be totally engulfed to destroy critical wiring, batteries. and electronics required for a sophisticated split second controlled demolition system on every column on every floor where there is no evidence it could survive the fires, it actuated, or eve installed in a building each square foot was rented out at a premium.

Just wide spread fires would have ruined such a system.

Other than misquoting Silverstein on a term you can’t show means explosives / pyrotechnics in the demolition business, do you have actual evidence? Or just hearsay.

Just with the fact that WTC 7's penthouse collapsed seconds before the entire building did should warrant all kinds of independent investigations.

In my opinion the building was "pulled" because Flight 93, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, was intended to hit WTC 7, but didn't make it, so they had to continue with the plan and demolish WTC 7 later that day.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

WTC 7 was 47 stories - the area is ringed with buildings 40-50 stories making it difficult to target versus the WTC twin tower at 110 stories As stated nobody gave WTC 7 a second look , it was just another office building, until the conspiracy loons started howling about it

Also how does one rig a building for demolition in a few hours, a building on fire on multiple floors with no functioning elevators

Logic is not your strong suit

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

Yeah, you're right.

Who said? So we are to believe a hijacked flight told the military where it was headed, and we are suppose to believe that?

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

Flight 93 was spotted by several other aircraft heading Southeast toward Wash DC The Flight Data Recorder show them dialing in the VOR radio beacon at Washington National on the Potomac River


Again I point out logic is not you strong suit .....

a reply to: WhatItIs

I'm an explosives expert.
I spent 8 years in Marine Corps Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) the military equivalent of the Bomb Squad. I also completed about 20 additional explosives related courses after finishing the initial 9 month MOS school.

I did 2 tours in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. I've blown up lots of stuff. Trained to disarm nuclear weapons. Developed inerting procedures for unknown foreign submunitions. Worked with the Secret Service on protection details for 3 former Presidents. I've worked with DARPA, the FBI, and trained State bomb squads.

There's no reason WTC7 should have come down other than controlled demolition.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You can also point out to this clown that Silverstein was not the original winner in the bidding to buy WTC complex

It was Vornado Real Estate Trust which was the original winner Vornado could not come up with the financing

Silverstein could Also insuring the building Silverstein tried to low ball it trying to insure each building for like 1.5 billion
People fronting the money (you dont think Silverstein paid for it out of pocket, its called "leverage" where you put up some of the money and borrow rest from investors) wanted 5 billion each, considering how it had been attacked in past (Feb 1993) Settled on 3.55 billion each building

a reply to: watchitburn

OK Mr explosives expert - explain how one rigs a building in a few hours , a building on fire on multiple floors, with no function elevators and lights

How one gets into the building without being spotted, there were multiple camera crews filming the building

A building where a 3 story bulge was forming in the southeast corner, where a surveyor transit showed the building was moving out of plumb

Where by 230 pm were concerned building was becoming unstable and in danger of collapse At 3pm collapse zone was set up around building personnel cleared out

Maybe should read Chief Vincent Dunn FDNY Ret) , THE COLLAPSE OF BURNING BUILDINGS, on what signs to look for in a building on fire

a reply to: WhatItIs

I didn't change the subject, I ignored you, what you asked is in the video, so I assumed you didn't watch it, so if you cannot give it the time why should I give it to you?

a reply to: firerescue

Show me how it caught fire.
Show me the "visible bulge"

With 3 camera crews filming, surely they caught this. Why were they filming a building so far removed from the buildings that were struck by planes.

a reply to: firerescue

And here you are saying what can and cannot happen. The buildings officed CIA and Secret Service offices, addressed on the first page.

Everyone is clinging to Silverstein when I wasn't the one who brought it up, I agreed though.

As for flight 93, trying to stay hidden in the sky after it turned around, is going to hint where it is heading when it three other planes have already hit their target? Besides I've already shown they didn't fly straight to their target, but you gloss over all of that.

Goodnight echo chamber, how I don't miss you.