Another look at "Pull It"

Originally posted by HowardRoark

A failure of a support column near the transfer trusses could have cause the same failure sequence.

Could you please show us how you have come to this conclusion. Showing us how the transfer trusses went all the way through the building and things like that. Because as far as I'm concerned, unless ALL support columns fail, there would be partial collapse. BTW, the transfer trusses didn't extend the whole width of the building. They were on 4 of the 7 column lines I believe. That's still 3 column lines that should have stood IMO.

Originally posted by ANOK
So Snoopy pls post some proof that 'pull it' means to pull out the fire crew.

No on else has managed to do that yet, otherwise we wouldn't still be discussing it.

You also have to put the whole quote in context.

Right after he said 'They made the decision to 'pull it', he said 'And then we watched the building fall' Not 'And then we watched the NYFD evacuate the building'.
Think about what he's saying here.

When does the owner of a building have any input as to what the fire department does with it's crew? And why would he use fire department jargon? It's logical he would use demo jargon, seeing as this is not the first building he has owned that he has had demolished. He made a lot of money buying old buildings and demolishing them. That is his job, real estate not fire fighting.

According to FEMA there were no fire fighters to pull out of the building anyway.
There were also people in the building when it collapsed, did they not hear the command to 'pull it'?

"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building.

To 'pull' a building is a common controlled demo term. The only reason an owner is contacted is when they have to demo a building.

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

www.prisonplanet.com...

Ill have to do a search as I don't know if the magazine puts their articles online. I have however seen in many a firefighting forum firefighters mentioning it being a firefightin and military term. The 'it' part being used because originally they used horses instead of fire engines and 'it' refers to the contingent of firefighters and horses, etc.

Think about what they are saying? They pulled the building because for hours it wason the verge of collapse. So they did pull it and luckily just in time because shortly after the building collapsed. Again, you are only seeing what you want to see.

What does the owner have any input? it's his building!!! And why would he be using firefighting terms when talking with firefighters? Thank about your question there. And then ask why would he be using demolition talk when talking to firefighters. To say he was using demo jargon is COMPLETELY illogical. Especially since it isn't even correct jargon. To pull means to use cables and pull the building to the side. It that what happened? No. So where do you get this as being logical?

And then you are implying that because he has made money demolishing buildings he must have been behind it? This is pure conjecture and has no factual basis what so ever. So to make a quick buck on real estate he planned this elaborate scheme to fly planes into a building and plant explosives at the same time and all the other nonesense that has to be involved. On top of that he just killed much of the FDNY in WTC 1 & 2 and is on the phone with them helping them get out of harms way. yeah, some logic there.

Again with the no firefighters there to pull out issue which has already been discussed here. If you would read the firefighter testimonies instead of conspiracy web sites, theis would be pretty clear. The building was on the verge of collapse. There is acollapse zone since I think even you might agree that a collapsing building will damage the areas around it. So they had to pull the firefighters from that collapse zone. It's really quite simple. And there very well could have been people in the building. So you think that if someone used the command to pull it that everyone has the ability to get the order no matter what, including non-firefighters and will be instantly transported out of the building because they know the exact moment it will collapse? This is reality not a comic book.

And look at your quote refering to the agent that parished. Not a fire fighter. And you should know that all the different departments were on different frequencies and could not communicate with each other.

Thank you for the quote that says pull it is a demo term for demolishing a building. It's a term used by some demo companies (who were not around) to pull a building to the side with cables. Not implode a building. Ask any demolition company. Try implosion world for example.

And of course a quote from Prison planet. What a reliable site. Again, building 6 was not imploded but actually "Pulled" down to the side.

Originally posted by zorgon
Its obvious by video that at least WTC 7 was a controlled drop, yet did "they" run in amidst all that chaos of the day and perfectly position explosives?

Nobody saw them? They had the explosive on hand ready to go?

I mean it is plausable that a crack demolition team zipped in and set charges in time.

One thing the gov. is good at is blowing things up. We may not know the truth for 50 years or so, but there are way to many questions to just let it go away

If explosives were used, I imagine they would have to have been discretly placed in the weeks/months leading up to 9/11 - I don't know how possible it would be to plant enough in one day without being noticed

I am no expert so cannot say whether or not this is possible and there has been much discussion regarding this on ATS but the thing is, no one so far has been able prove it one way or the other, so the arguments will just continue circling, ever circling

But as for my two cents - the collapse of WTC7 is much harder to explain than WTC 1 & 2 - it fell very quickly (AT LEAST free fall speed by most estimates I've read), straight down and didn't get hit by a plane

Not only that, it was relatively under reported in the media and the avoidance of discussion into WTC7 the 9/11 Commission Report speaks volumes to me - I still meet people today who are unaware three buildings collapsed that day!

[edit on 22/6/2006 by alienanderson]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark

A failure of a support column near the transfer trusses could have cause the same failure sequence.

Because as far as I'm concerned, unless ALL support columns fail, there would be partial collapse.

Could you show us all how you come to that conclusion?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Vushta]

www.holology.com...

Just look at the pictures of the building.

I'm running out of time at work but try looking into WTC 6 which had plenty more damage to it than WTC 7 but yet still partially stood.

Originally posted by snoopy
Ill have to do a search as I don't know if the magazine puts their articles online. I have however seen in many a firefighting forum firefighters mentioning it being a firefightin and military term.

Yes pls find those articles because in the 4 yrs of research no on else, even Howerd, has managed to put this one to rest.
As far as 'pull it' being a military term, I would doubt that very much. I was in the military for 6 yrs and did a lot of fire fighter training, and was involved in pulling guys out of a fire in an ordinance locker on my boat. We didn't pull it; we got the badly burned sailors out of there.

What does the owner have any input? it's his building!!!

You are wrong. If your house was on fire do you think the fire dept would listen if you told them to stop fighting the fire and go home? The owner has no say when there is a danger to the public from fire. The fire chief is in control, not the owner.

And then you are implying that because he has made money demolishing buildings he must have been behind it?

No I am just putting 2+2 together. I don't think he was behind the plan just a paid participant who made out BIG TIME. As well as a huge insurance pay out, he saved a huge amount from not having to have his building renovated to get rid of the asbestos.

And of course a quote from Prison planet. What a reliable site. Again, building 6 was not imploded but actually "Pulled" down to the side.

That is an old tired lame excuse for ignoring what you don't want to see...
None of the buildings were imploded, that is just one way of demoing a building and the least common method.

Consider the facts:

* The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
* Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
* Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
* WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
* Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Why did Silverstein take out insurance against terrorist attacks months before 9-11?
What did he know?

FEMA's main excuse for WTC7 falling is fire. The building was designed to stop the spread of fire....
wtc.nist.gov...

So how did the fire spread around enough of the building to initiate a perfect symmetrical collapse? How did the fire from office furniture alone get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of global collapse? Have you ever seen a building that has been bombed? Here's one...


Notice it's a partial collapse, as is normal according to the laws of physics.
To collapse a building any other way requires special attention. An accidental collapse would be chaotic and unpredictable. WTC 7 was obviously neither.

And we know no steel building has EVER collapsed from fire.

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes pls find those articles because in the 4 yrs of research no on else, even Howerd, has managed to put this one to rest.
As far as 'pull it' being a military term, I would doubt that very much. I was in the military for 6 yrs and did a lot of fire fighter training, and was involved in pulling guys out of a fire in an ordinance locker on my boat. We didn't pull it; we got the badly burned sailors out of there.

What does the owner have any input? it's his building!!!

You are wrong. If your house was on fire do you think the fire dept would listen if you told them to stop fighting the fire and go home? The owner has no say when there is a danger to the public from fire. The fire chief is in control, not the owner.

And then you are implying that because he has made money demolishing buildings he must have been behind it?

No I am just putting 2+2 together. I don't think he was behind the plan just a paid participant who made out BIG TIME. As well as a huge insurance pay out, he saved a huge amount from not having to have his building renovated to get rid of the asbestos.

And of course a quote from Prison planet. What a reliable site. Again, building 6 was not imploded but actually "Pulled" down to the side.

That is an old tired lame excuse for ignoring what you don't want to see...
None of the buildings were imploded, that is just one way of demoing a building and the least common method.

Consider the facts:

* The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
* Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
* Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
* WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
* Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Why did Silverstein take out insurance against terrorist attacks months before 9-11?
What did he know?

FEMA's main excuse for WTC7 falling is fire. The building was designed to stop the spread of fire....
wtc.nist.gov...

So how did the fire spread around enough of the building to initiate a perfect symmetrical collapse? How did the fire from office furniture alone get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of global collapse? Have you ever seen a building that has been bombed? Here's one...


Notice it's a partial collapse, as is normal according to the laws of physics.
To collapse a building any other way requires special attention. An accidental collapse would be chaotic and unpredictable. WTC 7 was obviously neither.

And we know no steel building has EVER collapsed from fire.

There is a big difference between the owner of a multi-billion dollar development and a private home. But yet you are suggesting that because he was there it must be some sort of big insurance fraud where he blew up the building. And again, The owner who is not in demolition is making calls to the FDNY which is not in demolition. And then by your logic, the FDNY is now involved voluntarily in a multi billion dollar insurance scam. Many of these men gave their lives to help someone with an insurance scam. Right. And then these huge insurance companies just went right along with it. It's completely obvious to everyone else, but the people having to fork over the money are just too dumb to see it right?

I am not ignoring what I don't want to see. thats all sites like prison planet do. Why is it they leave out all information that doesn't support what they want to hear? Why is it they cherry pick their information? Why is it that 90% of everything on that web site is proven to be false and fraudulant? No, the real issue here is that you use the site because they tell you only what you want to hear. They can leave out all the scientific evidence that proves them wrong. And they can make their nice profit off of suckers.

*Saying that because the fires were not evenly distribted would make it impossible to collapse straight down is not only wrong, it's an outright lie. Whoever told you that has no understanding of Civl engineering. My guess is that you got that from Prison planet and it is just yet another one of the lies they pass on as truth to suckers who are too dumb to know better,

* Firemen predicted the collapse because it was #ing obvious it was going to collapse. This is just an absurd argument you are making. And again you are passing on another Prison planet lie that these are the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire. Forget the fact that theyare the only buildings ever to suffer from fire AND structural damage from planes and debre. But other steel buildings in the past have collapsed due to ONLY fire. Again, you have to stop using unreliable sources such as prison planet.

* And what stilverstien said was the smartest thing. had they not pulled it, then many more firefighters would have died needlessly. They saved a lot of lives by making that call. keep in mind that pulling it was an opion. So by your logic they weren't sure if they should demolish it illegally or not? They said they should pull it because the building was unstable. So they blew it up since it was going to collapse anyways? All as an insurance scam? What kind of logic is that?

* WTC7 did not fall perfectly into its footprint, and it did not fall at freefall speeds. Once again more lies from prison planet. No wonder so many people are miislead. They think that because something is printed on the internet it must be true. These web sites are duping you to make a profit.

* Molten Steel. One of the most cliche lies past on by these propoganda sites. What happened is some workers saw molten metal, assumed it was steel and called it that. And suddenly the conspiracy sites take that as fact and pass it on with no credible research what so ever. The rumor started from Mark Loriex using the term molten steel. But when asked about it he said he had no way to confirm it.

And then you ask why a building owner would take out insurance on his building? Who in their right mind would not have insurance on their building? Does this mean every building owner is a criminal?

Originally posted by ANOK
FEMA's main excuse for WTC7 falling is fire. The building was designed to stop the spread of fire....
wtc.nist.gov...

So how did the fire spread around enough of the building to initiate a perfect symmetrical collapse? How did the fire from office furniture alone get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of global collapse? Have you ever seen a building that has been bombed? Here's one...


Notice it's a partial collapse, as is normal according to the laws of physics.
To collapse a building any other way requires special attention. An accidental collapse would be chaotic and unpredictable. WTC 7 was obviously neither.

And we know no steel building has EVER collapsed from fire.

The building was designed to stop the spread of fire? So for some reason they had a design that could prevent fires from spreading and no other building in the world uses that. Millions of lives every year could be saved but for some reason only this building has that ability. And again it wasn't just fire. It was a combination of fire and structural damage such as the huge gash that spaned over 20 stories. And also seen by the building buckling.

And again this talk of a perfect geometrical collapse as if it cannot happen without man made intervention. This notion again is due to the lack of understanding of engineering. When key supprts fail, the weigt is transfered to the remaining supports. Those supports then have to hold a greater load than they are deigned for and thus the opposite end starts to collapse.

This notion that a building must always fall to the side would require forces beyond our ability to psuh the buildings center of gravity far enough for it to fall to one side. But a lot of it has to do with the buildings design. Under certian designs and situations it is possible a building could fall to the side. But this is not the norm.

And once again showing another building of a completely different design and in a completely different situation and expecting it to be compareable. Once again conspiracy web sites trying to dupe you. Please do not pretend you understand physics because everything you are claiming would have to defy the laws.

And again ending with another lie about no steel buildings collapsing.

Snoopy you make some wild claims. So it's a lie that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire? Pls prove this if you can.

Also pls show me this massive damage to WTC 7, not that it makes a diff.

So this is not in it's own footpring?


Also it doesn't have to fall in its own footprint to be a controlled demo. Even though WTC 7 obviously did.

Show me a another building that has fallen like WTC 7 from damage and fire.
The Oklahoma building is a good example. It had massive structural damage and fire yet remained standing. Also building 6 had far more damage than WTC7 and remained standing. The building in Spain that burned for days and remained standing. Now it's you turn....

You missed the point about the fire resistance of WTC 7. Do you realize for the building to have fallen the way it did ALL supports would have had to fail at the same time, or again you would have had a chaotic, unpredictable collapse. Not a neat straight down predictable collapse.

There is NO proof of massive fire throughout the whole structure, hot enough to cause structural steel to fail, let alone leave molten pools in the rubble for days after.
How do you explain that?

It's the physics of the collapse that matter, not the mechanics of the structure.

Pls explain what you mean by the physics of the controlled demo theory is wrong?
I think you've got it backwards.

So are you a structural engineer? What gives you the authority to claim what I'm presenting is lies and that what the gov is telling us is not? You accuse me of using bogus conspiracy sites, what do you use, the NIST report and (un)popular mechanics, both de-bunked here on ATS btw...

[edit on 22/6/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Snoopy you make some wild claims. So it's a lie that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire? Pls prove this if you can.

The McCormick Center in Chicago, and the Sight and Sound Theater in Penn for starters. And now a challenge for you. Show me a steel framed building over 40 stories high that takes up an entire city block, has a tube in tube design, came off the core columns at the bottom, and didnt fall.

Also pls show me this massive damage to WTC 7, not that it makes a diff.

So this is not in it's own footpring?


No your picture pretty much proves my point that it did not neatly fall into its own footprint.

Also it doesn't have to fall in its own footprint to be a controlled demo. Even though WTC 7 obviously did.

just like a controlled demolition is not the only means of a building collapsing. So again your claim is based on baseless speculation simply because to your untrained eyes it reminds you of a controlled demolition. But here's a lesson. When you see a building collapse from a controlled demolition, you aren't watching the demolition. The charges simply take out key support systems. Then the building falls on its own due to gravity. The difference here was that fire and structural damage took out those key supports and again gravity took the building down.

Show me a another building that has fallen like WTC 7 from damage and fire.
The Oklahoma building is a good example. It had massive structural damage and fire yet remained standing. Also building 6 had far more damage than WTC7 and remained standing. The building in Spain that burned for days and remained standing. Now it's you turn....

I will meet your challenge once you meet mine above. But as we all know this event is the first time in history. As soon as another situation that is comparable happens, then I will happily give you an example. But I do hope you see the flawed logic in your challenge. An event unlike anyting that has ever happened before creaates a unique outcome and you are surprised. The Oklahoma building is not a good example at all. It's a completely different design and a completely different circumstance. There was nothing similar about them what so ever. Building 6 clearly did NOT have more damage what so ever, not to mention once again, differnt design and different impact.


You missed the point about the fire resistance of WTC 7. Do you realize for the building to have fallen the way it did ALL supports would have had to fail at the same time, or again you would have had a chaotic, unpredictable collapse. Not a neat straight down predictable collapse.

Once again incorrect. I don't know where you get this but it simply is not how it works. You can pretnd it is all you want, but don't expect the engineering comunity to take you seriously if you want to make such claims. You can pretend they are just ignorant scientists if you want, but that would just be your own reality.


There is NO proof of massive fire throughout the whole structure, hot enough to cause structural steel to fail, let alone leave molten pools in the rubble for days after.
How do you explain that?

Have you read the fire fighter reports? If you did you would not be making this claim. And this is all in all the reports you say don't say anything. But here are a couple links from firehouse.com in case you dont trust the reports:

www.firehouse.com...

www.firehouse.com...

It's not odd that there was melted metal. It would be odd if it was steel, but that's not likely. But this is just the tip of the iceburge. The problem is that the conspiracy sites use the initial reports which said there wasn't much damage. After a few days of investigations it became obvious that there was severe damage. And even on the conspiracy sites themselves have pictures of the massive damage. And even loose change shows rare video footage of the damaged side.

It's the physics of the collapse that matter, not the mechanics of the structure.

Pls explain what you mean by the physics of the controlled demo theory is wrong?
I think you've got it backwards.

What I mean is that your idea of physics is wrong and what you suggest should happen would defy the laws of physics. For instance your suggestion that the buildings should have fallen to the side if it wasn't qa controlled demolition. I don't think you realize the force that would be needed to move the buildings center of gravity far enough for them to tip.

So are you a structural engineer? What gives you the authority to claim what I'm presenting is lies and that what the gov is telling us is not? You accuse me of using bogus conspiracy sites, what do you use, the NIST report and (un)popular mechanics, both de-bunked here on ATS btw...

I am not a structural engineer. But my information is based on the analysis of strutural and civil engineers who have investigated the buildings. And by that token, are you a structural engineer? Because you are the one making the initial claims and you seem to feel you have the authority to make such claims.

And no neither NIST nor popular mechanics has been debunked. You guys make claims such as popular mechanics being written by chertoff's cousin or uncle or something. Yet they haev no relation to each other and had no knowledge of each other. Once again, another direct lie made by the conspiracy sites.

[edit on 22/6/2006 by ANOK]

Why would anybody say 'pull it' when saying this 'pull them' is just as economical usage of words and the mean in speech and hearing is more precise? I'm sorry but I'm not the least convinced by any of the voluminous explanations here to PROTECT Leisure Suit Larry from the ticking timebomb under him. That bomb is the truth he knows and must tell the world.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Why would anybody say 'pull it' when saying this 'pull them' is just as economical usage of words and the mean in speech and hearing is more precise? I'm sorry but I'm not the least convinced by any of the voluminous explanations here to PROTECT Leisure Suit Larry from the ticking timebomb under him. That bomb is the truth he knows and must tell the world.

Thats a bogus appeal to common sense.

Why not be consistant with that? Why would a person ingaged in insurance fraud publicly state that it was his call to destroy the building (that the CTs claim had "little damage" and "small fires") and in doing so give the insurance companies an out?

Also if Sliverstien was in for a massive payout, why did he attempt to lowball the coverage in the months before the collapse? He only relented to up the coverage because of pressure exerted by other entities with financial interests in the buildings?
How much sense does that make?

Originally posted by snoopy

I am not ignoring what I don't want to see. thats all sites like prison planet do. Why is it they leave out all information that doesn't support what they want to hear? Why is it they cherry pick their information? Why is it that 90% of everything on that web site is proven to be false and fraudulant? No, the real issue here is that you use the site because they tell you only what you want to hear. They can leave out all the scientific evidence that proves them wrong. And they can make their nice profit off of suckers.

How about FEMA and NIST ignoring blaring evidence to fit their agenda? It works both ways and both sides are guilty of it (which IMO is wrong). Show me how PrisonPlanet is making money please.

*Saying that because the fires were not evenly distribted would make it impossible to collapse straight down is not only wrong, it's an outright lie. Whoever told you that has no understanding of Civl engineering. My guess is that you got that from Prison planet and it is just yet another one of the lies they pass on as truth to suckers who are too dumb to know better,

Obviously you have no clue of civil engineering. He may have heard that from me or someone else I don't know. But, guess what....I have a degree in civil engineering with an emphasis on structural...do you?

* Firemen predicted the collapse because it was #ing obvious it was going to collapse. This is just an absurd argument you are making. And again you are passing on another Prison planet lie that these are the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire. Forget the fact that theyare the only buildings ever to suffer from fire AND structural damage from planes and debre. But other steel buildings in the past have collapsed due to ONLY fire. Again, you have to stop using unreliable sources such as prison planet.

Need I remind you of the T&C's of this site? Please show me another steel structure that has collapsed globally due to fire. Try as you might, you can't. Building 7 which we are talking about had no structural damage from planes so please quit using this arguement.

* And what stilverstien said was the smartest thing. had they not pulled it, then many more firefighters would have died needlessly. They saved a lot of lives by making that call. keep in mind that pulling it was an opion. So by your logic they weren't sure if they should demolish it illegally or not? They said they should pull it because the building was unstable. So they blew it up since it was going to collapse anyways? All as an insurance scam? What kind of logic is that?

Boy, I'm glad they saved those lives of the firefighters that weren't even in the building. According to FEMA, the building was evacuated by something like 10 or 11 in the morning. The guy who died wasn't part of the firefighting operation.

* WTC7 did not fall perfectly into its footprint, and it did not fall at freefall speeds. Once again more lies from prison planet. No wonder so many people are miislead. They think that because something is printed on the internet it must be true. These web sites are duping you to make a profit.

Can you show where building 7 didn't fall into it's own footprint? Or at freefall speeds? Actually the main building collapse was faster than freefall....can you explain that? No you can't and neither can FEMA or NIST. If you can, I'm sure you'd have a well paying job with NIST.

* Molten Steel. One of the most cliche lies past on by these propoganda sites. What happened is some workers saw molten metal, assumed it was steel and called it that. And suddenly the conspiracy sites take that as fact and pass it on with no credible research what so ever. The rumor started from Mark Loriex using the term molten steel. But when asked about it he said he had no way to confirm it.

Wrong again. Engineers (who know what molten steel is) that were on site helping with the clean-up and cover-up said it was molten steel. Try again.

And then you ask why a building owner would take out insurance on his building? Who in their right mind would not have insurance on their building? Does this mean every building owner is a criminal?

He took out insurance against terrorists, not just insurance on the building. But, you could argue that with all the warnings about terrorists striking, he wanted insurance. But, then again, that would mean Silverstein had the foreknowledge that even our great intellegence community didn't have.

Originally posted by snoopy
[
The McCormick Center in Chicago, and the Sight and Sound Theater in Penn for starters. And now a challenge for you. Show me a steel framed building over 40 stories high that takes up an entire city block, has a tube in tube design, came off the core columns at the bottom, and didnt fall.

Can you post pictures of these buildings please? I have searched but from what I have seen, the McCormick Center partially collapsed from that fire. I can't find anything about the theater. Also, what do you mean by "came off the core columns at the bottom"? That doesn't make sense unless you factor in demolitions.

Originally posted by Griff
He took out insurance against terrorists, not just insurance on the building. But, you could argue that with all the warnings about terrorists striking, he wanted insurance. But, then again, that would mean Silverstein had the foreknowledge that even our great intellegence community didn't have.

Why? AFAIK since 1993 there were multiple WTC terror warnings, even though a truck bomb or so was expected.

But it's our government intellegence agencies that they blamed for not knowing 9/11 was about to happen. Plus, the point of my post was that he took out insurance for terrorism. My question is: Is this normal for buildings? Do all buildings have terrorist insurance? Or even just buildings deemed suspected terrorist targets? I'm talking pre 9/11 not after 9/11.

Originally posted by Griff

How about FEMA and NIST ignoring blaring evidence to fit their agenda? It works both ways and both sides are guilty of it (which IMO is wrong). Show me how PrisonPlanet is making money please.

Obviously you have no clue of civil engineering. He may have heard that from me or someone else I don't know. But, guess what....I have a degree in civil engineering with an emphasis on structural...do you?

Need I remind you of the T&C's of this site? Please show me another steel structure that has collapsed globally due to fire. Try as you might, you can't. Building 7 which we are talking about had no structural damage from planes so please quit using this arguement.

Boy, I'm glad they saved those lives of the firefighters that weren't even in the building. According to FEMA, the building was evacuated by something like 10 or 11 in the morning. The guy who died wasn't part of the firefighting operation.

Can you show where building 7 didn't fall into it's own footprint? Or at freefall speeds? Actually the main building collapse was faster than freefall....can you explain that? No you can't and neither can FEMA or NIST. If you can, I'm sure you'd have a well paying job with NIST.

Wrong again. Engineers (who know what molten steel is) that were on site helping with the clean-up and cover-up said it was molten steel. Try again.

He took out insurance against terrorists, not just insurance on the building. But, you could argue that with all the warnings about terrorists striking, he wanted insurance. But, then again, that would mean Silverstein had the foreknowledge that even our great intellegence community didn't have.

What is the blaring evidence that NIST is ignoring?

Prison planet makes money like most all web sites through advertising. The more hits these sits get the more money they make. The more sensationalism they use, the more hits. And many also make money off of DVD sales. Some even charge membership fees for certian areas. But more importantly..If they are just seeking truth, why do they leave out information? When they quote people, why do they edit out the parts that explain what they are trying to claim? For example when someone says something like "It was just like a controlled demolition, but then I realized it was just the force of the building coming down" Why do they only use the quote about it being like a controlled demolition. This goes for almost every eyewitness these sites quote. Is that truth seeking?

If you have a degree in civil and structural engineering then you would know better. You would understand counter levy systems and what not. You would understand just as the many engineers from BYU, MIT, etc etc who have studied the collapses do. But somehow these 100s of experts, and the millions of others aroun d the world who are paying attention are all completely unaware of these things that someone on an internet forum is an expert on. You know, I think I am gonna take my chances with the 100s o experts instead of someone on an internet forum.

If you read my arguments you will see several buildings listed as examples. And I would also ask that you meet my challenge listed in that same post. I dare you. And to make an argument that no planes hit WTC&? Who ever said they did. But isn't it kind of convenient of you to ignore all the evidence of damage? Such as the 20 story gashes the building buckling in places, the 7 hour long fires unaided, and all the fire fighter testimonies describing extensive damage? So excuse me, but so long as it's fact, I will use the argument. I don't cherry pick my information.

Once agian you clearly did not read my post. Do you live in a fantasy world where buildings collapse with no damage to the surrounding areas? In fact the person I was replying to even made mention of people in the building being killed. So obviously there were some people in the building. But more importantly, the building had a collapse zone. The fire fighters talk about this a lot. But since you ignore that evidence you wouldn't know about that. They had to be removed from the collapse zone because in the real world a falling building doesn't just hurt itself. And of course this all comes down to the word "it" which doesnt mean a specific person. It likely means the firefighters, anyone in the building, the horses who at one time carried the firefighting equipemnt, the firefighting equiment and whatever other resources are being used about the building referred to as "it".

Can I show where building 7 didnt fall into its own footprint? None of the buildings did and the photos you guys have used show that. As for freefall speed. You guys are making that claim when you have no ability to make the claim. It's impossible to say the exact time, but it's possible to say that it definitely was longer than the times the conspiracy sites use. This is because we can know for fact that the building is still falling after it is obscured by dust and it can be shown in the demonstration videos that the buildings start falling before they start the timers. More importantly it can be proven conclusively by watching the debre fall faster than the building itself. And for that to happen would break the laws o physics. And only an idiot would think anything could fall faster than free fall speed. Oh wait, I geuss the conspiracy web sites think that. Kinda makes you wonder why they aren't taken seriously huh? Here's an idea, how about YOU explain them falling faster than freefall speed. Since you insist on NIST explaining something that could not possibly have happened.

Engineers know what molten stele is. And had any been there to test it, then you might have a point. Maybe you need to try again. Show me anything that actually proves it was molten steel. Show me any metalurgy tests.

OMG you are really onto something. Larry got terrorism insurance on a building that was struck by terrorists in the past. OMG!!!! You found the missing link? Why would anyone on earth get terrorism insurance on a building that has been a constant terrorist target? Obviously 1993 was just a mishap. I think you should testify in court. Until now no one was able to put the pieces together and this point alone blows the lid wide open. Thank you for ending the debate once and for all.

Everybody, the owner said "PULL IT" regarding his building 7 and then the 47-story skyscraper mysteriously collapsed.

What more do we need?

Originally posted by snoopy


What is the blaring evidence that NIST is ignoring?

How about the evidence that they came up with that none of the steel that they tested reached over 250 C? How about the sulfides they found on the steel? That's just two off the top of my head.

Prison planet makes money like most all web sites through advertising. The more hits these sits get the more money they make. The more sensationalism they use, the more hits. And many also make money off of DVD sales. Some even charge membership fees for certian areas. But more importantly..If they are just seeking truth, why do they leave out information? Is that truth seeking?

So, because someone owns a website they are out to make money? The same could be said about this site then couldn't it? Are the three amigos just out to make money? As far as shady quoting and all...I agree that that is not "truth seeking". You have to realize that both sides of the fence do this also. I don't visit prison planet so i wouldn't know about them.

If you have a degree in civil and structural engineering then you would know better. You would understand counter levy systems and what not. You would understand just as the many engineers from BYU, MIT, etc etc who have studied the collapses do. But somehow these 100s of experts, and the millions of others aroun d the world who are paying attention are all completely unaware of these things that someone on an internet forum is an expert on.

lev·y Audio pronunciation of "levy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lv)
v. lev·ied, lev·y·ing, lev·ies
v. tr.
1. To impose or collect (a tax, for example).
2. To draft into military service.
3. To declare and wage (a war).
v. intr.
To confiscate property, especially in accordance with a legal judgment.
n. pl. lev·ies
1. The act or process of levying.
2. Money, property, or troops levied.

Source: dictionary.reference.com...

Can you be more specific about these counter levy systems? What do they have to do with how the towers fell?

First of all, I have never stated that I am an expert on anything. How do all the 100s of engineers know exactly what happened and how they fell when they haven't seen any construction documents? Did you know that you can't do a finite element analysis without knowing how the building was constructed? I would like you to show me one expert in the field of engineering that has done a complete structural analysis on how the buildings fell. NIST even admits that they don't know and have access to the construction documents. I'm sure you'll quote Dr. Eager like everyone else does though. Did you know Dr. Eager was the one who came up with the pancake theory that he's changed like 3 or 4 times by now? Probably not.

If you read my arguments you will see several buildings listed as examples.

And I asked you to post some pictures of a global collapse of a steel building due to fire. So far all I've seen is partial collapses. I have seen bridges that have bent from fire but you have to remember 2 things. Bridges don't have any fireproofing. Also, the fires were intense and lasted longer than an hour.

And I would also ask that you meet my challenge listed in that same post. I dare you.

I can't think of your challenge at the moment and can't look into the thread from here. Could you jog my memory please and I'll see what I can come up with. This isn't 2nd grade, so you daring me has little effect.

And to make an argument that no planes hit WTC&? Who ever said they did. But isn't it kind of convenient of you to ignore all the evidence of damage? Such as the 20 story gashes the building buckling in places, the 7 hour long fires unaided, and all the fire fighter testimonies describing extensive damage?

Yes, this building had extensive damage to it. Do you realize that once those columns and surrounding areas are no longer a part of the building (i.e. the damage) those areas don't contribute to the building anymore like loads from them and everything else. That is why buildings partially collapse unless all columns are severed in a controlled fashion. If there is even one column left to stand, that column will give resistance and there fore make the building fall in a chaotic fashion not controlled. So, you are telling me that there was damage enough to every single column to make them non existant?

Once agian you clearly did not read my post. Do you live in a fantasy world where buildings collapse with no damage to the surrounding areas? In fact the person I was replying to even made mention of people in the building being killed. So obviously there were some people in the building. But more importantly, the building had a collapse zone. The fire fighters talk about this a lot. But since you ignore that evidence you wouldn't know about that. They had to be removed from the collapse zone because in the real world a falling building doesn't just hurt itself. And of course this all comes down to the word "it" which doesnt mean a specific person. It likely means the firefighters, anyone in the building, the horses who at one time carried the firefighting equipemnt, the firefighting equiment and whatever other resources are being used about the building referred to as "it".

Once again you did not read my post. The person who died in building 7 was not a part of the firefighting team to be pulled. So, now that we've established that there were no firefighters to be "pulled' the official story now becomes they needed to be "pulled" from the collapse zone? Interesting.

Can I show where building 7 didnt fall into its own footprint? None of the buildings did and the photos you guys have used show that. As for freefall speed. You guys are making that claim when you have no ability to make the claim. It's impossible to say the exact time, but it's possible to say that it definitely was longer than the times the conspiracy sites use. This is because we can know for fact that the building is still falling after it is obscured by dust and it can be shown in the demonstration videos that the buildings start falling before they start the timers. More importantly it can be proven conclusively by watching the debre fall faster than the building itself. And for that to happen would break the laws o physics. And only an idiot would think anything could fall faster than free fall speed. Oh wait, I geuss the conspiracy web sites think that. Kinda makes you wonder why they aren't taken seriously huh? Here's an idea, how about YOU explain them falling faster than freefall speed. Since you insist on NIST explaining something that could not possibly have happened.

Look into building 7 and tell me it didn't fall faster than freefall speed. I'm talking the main building not the penthouses.

Engineers know what molten stele is. And had any been there to test it, then you might have a point. Maybe you need to try again. Show me anything that actually proves it was molten steel. Show me any metalurgy tests.

There in lies another problem. Why didn't they do any metalurgy tests? Again, shody investigation.

OMG you are really onto something. Larry got terrorism insurance on a building that was struck by terrorists in the past. OMG!!!!

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. I am going to concede the terrorist insurance part because it really has no influence on it one way or another. But, answer my question please. Is it commonplace for buildings to have terrorist insurance pre 9/11? It's an honest question that I don't have the answer to. Did the Murrah building have terrorist insurance?

p.s. I had to shorten some of your quotes because of the character minimum, not because I'm being dishonest like you claim all CT sites are.

Originally posted by Griff

How about the evidence that they came up with that none of the steel that they tested reached over 250 C? How about the sulfides they found on the steel? That's just two off the top of my head.

Care to point that out? I never read anything like that in the NIST report and all the numbers in that I heve read in that report are much different. And there have been tests done that have found steel to melt at much higher temps than the conspiracy sites claim are possible. Also, the conspiracy sites tend to base claims on very early reports before they had been updated. But if you provide a link to a the current NIST report that points that out, we can discuss it further. Or perhaps just a page number since it's hard to link to a PDF.

So, because someone owns a website they are out to make money? The same could be said about this site then couldn't it? Are the three amigos just out to make money? As far as shady quoting and all...I agree that that is not "truth seeking". You have to realize that both sides of the fence do this also. I don't visit prison planet so i wouldn't know about them.

No, if you had actually read what I wrote you wouldn't make such a statement. If they weren't about making money, then maybe they would not lie. And I am not talking about misunderstandings, but falt out direct lies. On top of that they omit much of the most important information. Now you tell me why these web sites would intentionally defraud people?


Can you be more specific about these counter levy systems? What do they have to do with how the towers fell?

Yes I can. First of all, forgive me for being an idiot and trying to type things while doing other work at the same time, as I cannot believe I actually typed that. What I meant to say (and can only assume I was working on something that related to those other words at teh time) was a cantilever design. And it only has to do with WTC7. The sugnificance is that it requires less supports to be cut before failing.