World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

originally posted by: beefydog
a reply to: hellobruce

What else could "pull it" possibly mean in this context?

Um, "Pull it Down" as in pull the building down. Pretty common old phrase.

It couldn't be "pull the men out" or "pull the plug" (the building was completely evacuated)

Some have a hard time believing that the politicians and leaders of this country could do anything shady, dishonest or willingly harm the American people. Though history of their actions gives plain evidence that they indeed to act in those ways, and often.

So much stinks in this whole thing, and they've dumb'd the populace down enough that most won't or don't speak up about lame-ass explanations.

I've people I know, who have apologized to in the last few years...things I've been saying for decades have started to come to light and in public view. So that "Conspiracy Theorist" badge the pinned on me that they're apologizing for? I wear it with distinction and honor. The definition I choose to give that label is one who can gather information, discern it for themselves and think outside what they are being told...when what they're being told doesn't make sense. All things that people don't want to believe in arenas like the 9/11 and other events, are always 'conspiracies' until proven. When it's proven, then they're like, ok well then, there we have it. No mention of those who could escape the mental lemming farm and tried to spill it like it was....

Being around demolition off and on growing up...so much of this has never sat right with me. Buildings topple when on fire...especially if there is structural damage that clearly starts on one side.....collapses on itself? One, luck. Two, not very probable. Three? IMPOSSIBLE.

To me I agree with those who say the buildings were 'pulled' or 'demo' - it's plain to see. Also, suspicious...99 year lease with all that insurance on it....follow the money to an extent here folks.

Others have pointed out that out of all the tenants of all three buildings, which entity had the most office space, yet had the fewest deaths from the tragedy? The Gov't did, there are also some who say that there were 'stand down' orders in place to all employees....which is why many didn't report to the office....and though they had the most floorspace..had the fewest employee deaths.

So many talking, so many things don't add up, and yet even more people just want to accept the 'weather balloon' or 'swamp gas' type explanations....troubling.

No conspiracy and the OS can keep its cool. Bin Laden's men took out 2 towers, the collapse damaged 7, Fire fighters were stretched thin after they collapsed, and there was no water to fight wtc 7 fires so they made the decision to pull the building before it became a towering inferno which would of collapsed chaotically possibly cause much more loss of life and property damage.

They made a good call to pull wtc 7, if they did it could of been much worse. Hope for the best, plan for the worst

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
They made a good call to pull wtc 7,

So again, when did they sneak in with tonnes of explosives, and the men to do the man years of work to wire up the building for demolition?
Without any fireman or police noticing the trucks etc. carrying the explosives?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
They made a good call to pull wtc 7,

So again, when did they sneak in with tonnes of explosives, and the men to do the man years of work to wire up the building for demolition?
Without any fireman or police noticing the trucks etc. carrying the explosives?

As you have been told before this is just debunker silliness again. No one but you is claiming that they rigged it to blow on the morning of 911. Not even far out truthers subscribe to that theory.

The building was at risk of becoming an inferno, damage from the collapse of wtc 1,2, and there were no fire fighters or water for that matter to contain the fires and the smartest thing they could do is pull the building, and they watched it collapse.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
No one but you is claiming that they rigged it to blow on the morning of 911.

Now your silly conspiracy theory gets even sillier, you claim high rise buildings in the CBD are already wired up with tonnes of explosives.... just because!

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that 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."

ALso you are someone states that Silverstein does not say PULL IT, but just pull. Wrong, the building was not going to get tended to and they made the decision to pull it.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
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

They knew it was going to fall down...

..Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. graphics8.nytimes.com...

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. www.firehouse.com...

Here you see where the term "pull" came from!

So you think buildings are wired up with tonnes of explosives... just because!

Sorry I guess you haven't seen the evidence or have the ability to understand but you are a mere 1-3 people in this thread that doesn't agree that World trade Center 7 was pulled/controlled collapse due to no firefighting efforts being available let alone water.

We all know what Silverstein meant when he said PULL IT. To control the collapse of World Trade Center 7 before it became a towering inferno.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Sorry I guess you haven't seen the evidence

That is because there is no evidence - again, how and when did they wire the building up with tonnes of explosives necessary?

That question that you refuse to answer just shows how silly your conspiracy theory actually is!

We all know what Silverstein meant when he said PULL IT.

Yes, as I have shown pull the men out!

a reply to: hellobruce

If there were bombs they were placed there sometime before 9/11. Hell maybe that corrupt secret service agent , Mr bennette, knows.

And b

Just because you need "it" to mean "people" in order to keep you delusion alive in no way makes you correct. Since when do you call multiple people a singular "it"?

Not to mention if your assessment was correct and that the building was on fire noone was trying to put out the flame and the building was leaning then there would be noone in the building to , in your words, "pull"

It's just your wishful thinking.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe they wouldn't even use conventional explosives..just military grade thermite..that hisses like a snake..

Shadow Herder. You keep defending this position but never show anything more than a single youtube clip where silverstein does indeed say pull it. You in ore the fact that it this isn't a demolition term. You have no answer for how the building was wired pre op. Let's go back to the start. How many people and why? Who pre wired the buildings? When? What if a fire had broken out before September 11th? How did they manage to keep all these events secret? What if building 7 had not been damaged by a collapsing wtc tower? How would they have started a fire then? Come up with a joined up story for all these parts here.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Shadow Herder. You keep defending this position but never show anything more than a single youtube clip where silverstein does indeed say pull it....... Let's go back to the start. How many people and why? Who pre wired the buildings? When? What if a fire had broken out before September 11th? How did they manage to keep all these events secret? What if building 7 had not been damaged by a collapsing wtc tower? How would they have started a fire then? Come up with a joined up story for all these parts here.

You are following a system
Disinformation Rule 14

Rules Of Disinformation Number 14. Demand complete solutions Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics

Funny how you are the one refusing to address the issue - How and why were tonnes of explosives installed in WTC 7, man years of work to wire it up, including holes punched in walls etc. yet no one noticed this tonnes of explosives or all the workers?

That is why your conspiracy theory is so silly. Also what would they have done if WTC 7 was not severely damaged, was not on fire, was not groaning and creaking and the FDNY knew it would collapse due to the bulges etc?

Some people are so desperate to believe conspiracy theories they constantly use Rule of Conspiracy Theories - Rule 3

"When you have no facts, just make crap up."

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Shadow Herder. You keep defending this position but never show anything more than a single youtube clip where silverstein does indeed say pull it....... Let's go back to the start. How many people and why? Who pre wired the buildings? When? What if a fire had broken out before September 11th? How did they manage to keep all these events secret? What if building 7 had not been damaged by a collapsing wtc tower? How would they have started a fire then? Come up with a joined up story for all these parts here.

You are following a system
Disinformation Rule 14

Rules Of Disinformation Number 14. Demand complete solutions Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

I've literally no idea what you are talking about now. Where are these rules written down? Just answer the questions.

a reply to: hellobruce

"When you have no facts, just make crap up."

Who said they are going to pull them (firemen) of.

Any facts at hand?
Or just your wishfull thinking again?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Who said they are going to pull them (firemen) of.

What else could they pull? Pull is not a term used in demolition, except for pulling a building down with caables....

Do you have any facts that "pull" means demolish a building?

a reply to: beefydog

There is one more suspicious item, the central columns simply vanished into a puff of dust (notice, that the collapsing flooring computer simulation disregards the central columns completely - either a stupid engineering programmer or they think we engineers are complete idiots).

Exactly. That's why I would continue to ask for the NIST study regarding the destruction of those central columns.
Just because there is none.
We may call all believers of the pancake-theory silly names like 'conspiracy-theorist' now, as they are unable to prove their claims. They actually suggest the structural engineers didn't do their job properly, without a single piece of evidence of course.
Some might even try to sell their magic snake oil next, something I'm really looking forward to.

a reply to: hellobruce

Do you have any facts that "pull" means demolish a building?

Irrelevant question. Simply put: what the hell did he actually say now?
Can you offer at least something, that suggests he did indeed say "pull them of"?

And how would that apply to the rest of his explanaition? Exactly. It doesn't make any sense at all.

This was investigated and everyone knows that it was not a controlled demolition.
You really need to do some research on the matter.
YouTube videos are NOT research.
Case closed.