Larry Silverstein designed NEW WTC-7 in April of 2000

a reply to: hellobruce

I was not aware of that but it still doesn't answer my question. There is absolutely no reason in the world as to why a resources news organization like the BBC would announce the collapse of WTC7 AN ENTIRE 30 MINUTES before it occurred. Sorry, there are still some questions there. Also why the hell was it bulging to begin with? What of all the witness testimony of explosions? Unreliable? Refer to "Debunkology's" post for one example. Too much does not add up in regards to 9/11. What about the Pentagon? They can release only a grainy video of a building that should be one of the most secure in the world? The world's biggest Super Power only had one camera, a camera of low quality one might add, watching that part of the building? What of the engines? What of the size of the hole? What of the engineers refused entry by the FBI?

And no, I will not take my time to dig up sources for all of this. It is well known and readily available. If you'd like to respond with "source or it doesn't matter", than oh well I guess. The above are valid questions that continue to be asked and have yet to see any satisfactory answer. I won't even get into the fast destruction of crime scene evidence by shipping off almost all of the WTC steel to China and not even bothering to test for explosives. The 9/11 Commission was even more of a joke than the Warren Commission, and that should say something.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Nope, the first part of construction, that started in May 2002, was the sub station. That itself took until October 2003 to complete. So 18 months to get the finer points sorted on the new building.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce

I do not know if you are aware that www.911myths.com... is a bias website that only supports the Official Story of 911.

So as it does not push a silly conspiracy theory, you want to ignore it!

The fact is, the website does not accept real science, or technical papers outside of the government narratives.

What "technical papers" are you on about?

I do not find 911 Myths a credible source when it comes to debunking 911 facts.

Well, as it just posts facts about 9/11 of course you want to ignore it!

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
a reply to: hellobruce

I was not aware of that

Funny how you missed what the FDNY actually said....

Also why the hell was it bulging to begin with?

You are also not aware it was severely damaged when the North Tower collapsed, and had unchecked fires burning for hours....

What of all the witness testimony of explosions?

An "explosion" is not always caused by explosives.... did you know there are hundreds of explosions in New York every year?

What about the Pentagon? They can release only a grainy video of a building that should be one of the most secure in the world?

What evidence do you have it is one of the most secure buildings in the world? They even run public tours through it - something else you did not know!

What of the engines?

What about the engines? There are pictures of them....

What of the size of the hole?

What about the hole? It was as you would expect...

And no, I will not take my time to dig up sources for all of this.

Of course you will not, as you know you are unable to!

not even bothering to test for explosives.

Why would they? How did any explosives get past the bomb sniffing dogs? As there was zero evidence for any explosives, they were not tested for.

www.nist.gov... Content from external source 13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7? Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

All you have done is no research, just repeating the lies and crap from truther sites that has been debunked here many many times before.

a reply to: hellobruce

This argument is futile and I'm done with it. You won't change my views and I obviously won't change your's. I am fully aware of public tours at the Pentagon. Troll someone else please. The Pentagon, the HQ of the American military, certainly has and had capabilities in place in the event of an air/ICBM assault. I highly doubt they forgot the cold war. However, I'm not going to engage with a back and forth with you. Let people think what they may. My beliefs are based off of facts. I'm sure that you believe the same of your own.

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
The Pentagon, the HQ of the American military, certainly has and had capabilities in place in the event of an air/ICBM assault.

It has? Your evidence for that is what exactly? You are not even aware how close it is to the airport!

My beliefs are based off of facts.

Facts only you know, like the above!

a reply to: hellobruce

Well, as it just posts facts about 9/11 of course you want to ignore it!

I do not ignore facts specially when they come from credible sources.

The official Narratives of 911 are not the facts and many parts have been proven false.

Do not "assume everyone ignores" facts, because some of us do not support the official narratives.

Since some people believe the official narratives are correct, and many people believe they are false then perhaps all these websites that support different sides of 911 should be banned on ATS in my opinion, because most are bias and only support one side of the 911 story.

I have done enough research into 911 to know there was in fact a great big cover up and most of the truth will never be told.

So in my "opinion" 911 is nothing more then peoples "opinions" and "assumptions".

Now for me, I do not trust our government when it comes to information and I cannot speak for anyone else.

As for Larry Silverstein saying "pull it", it has become a two sided war of "opinions" to what PULL IT means, there is no point into debating it any longer.

However, we are all initial to our "opinions" as you are. If you want ATS members to respect you and your "opinions" perhaps you should try to be courtesy to the members you disagree with. People might take you more seriously then.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Well what I got from starting around the 50 minute mark was a repulsive man who on the day the disaster happened being worried more about the loss of business and rebuilding than the fact that 3000 lives were lost and the "homeland" had been attacked. You also get the feeling that "he" knew exactly who carried this out hours after (ya, we know).

If you have any other snippets I'll give them a watch (at the closest minute please), I can't watch that ill mannered, gum chopping lowlife for very long.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes facts. Facts like Washington DC is or should be protected by NORAD. Facts like the nation's capital had more than adequate defense to take down a defenseless airliner. If you would like to suggest otherwise, well that's patently absurd. Yes we spend much more money than many nations combined on "defense". Russia and China, for example, spend alot less. I have a pretty good feeling that nobody will be flying in 4 airplanes and doing such damage. Civilian airliners none the less. However, the above mentioned countries do indeed spend much, much less. The planes would likely have been taken down very fast by either of them. In the US on 9/11 why weren't fighter jets scrambled and IF THEY EVER WERE, WHY NO SHOOT DOWN?

If you really don't think that the Pentagon has a layered air defense system, and has had such a system since before 2001, well I don't know what to say to you. Yes our war planners were really THAT STUPID. THEY WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO LEAVE HQ NOY DEFENDED FROM AN ATTACK BY AN UNARMED PLANE! Let that sink in for a moment and realize how totally ridiculous that is!

Either way; ByeBruce. This seems like a game and I think I'm done playing.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Nope, the first part of construction, that started in May 2002, was the sub station. That itself took until October 2003 to complete. So 18 months to get the finer points sorted on the new building.

even so...the point remains...he never stated when they got ready plans...just that they had first design meeting in april 2000. Your theory that he misspoke is wishful thinking.

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes facts. Facts like Washington DC is or should be protected by NORAD.

Obviously you do not know what NORAD was responsible for back then!

Facts like the nation's capital had more than adequate defense to take down a defenseless airliner.

Yet you are unable to show any evidence for these "defences"....

In the US on 9/11 why weren't fighter jets scrambled and IF THEY EVER WERE, WHY NO SHOOT DOWN?

Please show us the fighters that were on ready alert, and their locations on 9/11....

If you really don't think that the Pentagon has a layered air defense system, and has had such a system since before 2001,

Please show us evidence for this "layered air defense system".... you obviously are not even aware how close the Pentagon is to a airport!

Funny how you are unable to back any of your claims up with any evidence!

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

How is it wishful thinking?

Thinking this is evidence of his involvement is wishful thinking.

The cronology of what he's talking about doesn't fit your wishful thinking scenario.

a reply to: ugmold

I think this post sums up the "truther" movement perfectly.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ugmold

I think this post sums up the "truther" movement perfectly.

Please explain, that makes no sense.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Well, the guy flat out TELLS US, reading from a PAPER...that WT7 the SECOND, was planned in 2000.

You tell us that he is lying, that EVERYTHING that these people have been caught in lies have been all "slip of the tongue", "mistakes", "honest errors" etc.....

The fact the building and all it needed to be built was started so soon after 9/11 should have raised some red flags, but no, none of that!

Excuses for everything, "incompetence" and yet you tell us that we should believe this man is the most well meaning dude who was only into rebuilding the WTC ??

Yes, let us forgive them all, no matter what they did, LOL.

a reply to: s3cz0ne

I was not aware of that but it still doesn't answer my question. There is absolutely no reason in the world as to why a resources news organization like the BBC would announce the collapse of WTC7 AN ENTIRE 30 MINUTES before it occurred

Thats because BBC was quoting from a Reuters story which in turn was quoting a local source . Its called chaos Aka "FOG OF WAR" where information arrives in dribs, out of sequence with much of its wrong. Like the game of telephone where a phrase is passed from one person to another - at each retelling becomes less accurate and more distorted

a reply to: s3cz0ne

If you really don't think that the Pentagon has a layered air defense system, and has had such a system since before 2001, well I don't know what to say to you. Yes our war planners were really THAT STUPID. THEY WERE STUPID ENOUGH TO LEAVE HQ NOY DEFENDED FROM AN ATTACK BY AN UNARMED PLANE! Let that sink in for a moment and realize how totally ridiculous that is!

Layered air defense...??

Maybe back in 1950's during Cold War when threat was from manned bombers. Defenses like Nike missile sites around major cities and manned interceptors like F series (F101, F102, F104, F106) fighters, many armed with nuclear missiles were on
alert. As missiles became more numerous and accurate the air defenses were scaled back and eliminated because were no
longer effective against threat

NORAD is designed to detect and react against threats from OUTSIDE OF US BORDERS . On Sept 11 were exactly 14
air defense fighters at 7 bases over entire lower 48. Not designed to operate on US territory because radar were focused
looking outward. Also there were some 4000 civilian flights every day over US mainland. Explain how one determines
which airliner is a threat out of thousands of others ??

Have read this thread.... as well as ....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and I still have some questions. I just can't seem to wrap my head around one or two things. First off, it seems like
there are a few posters that say that sometimes explosions are not in fact explosions. I suppose that is possible. Just
like the sound of a car backfiring isn't always a car backfiring; however, there are numerous references to
FDNY officials (and others) saying they heard "explosions". I would certainly trust their discretion about an explosion since they saw/heard it in person, as opposed to someone that is on a keyboard trying to disprove it. But here is the "kicker" for me. If there was in fact just "ONE" verifiable explosion, as in demolition, it changes the whole playing field. Forget squibs and multiple explosions...just ONE makes a big difference.

Number 2.. This one is one I have been back and forth on and I still haven't "taken a side" in my own mind. What I keep asking myself is, "Who actually benefited from 911?

19 Middle Eastern Men flawlessly pulled off the biggest act of terrorism in the history of the world, but WHAT did they
gain? Did they shut down the U.S.? Is their economy better now than in 2001? Do they have more freedom or did they do it so they could puff out their chest and say they "beat the system"? What was their desired outcome?

If this is a big conspiracy and the U.S. government (and others) were in fact involved, what did they gain and how did they benefit? This is where I get rather concerned. When you take an honest look at the attackee and the attacker, the
outcome and benefits that were derived, it is pretty obvious who might have gotten the most benefit from 911.

THAT has bothered me quite alot and I cannot come to a concrete decision one way or another. I will just continue to observe and stay neutral in regards to my belief.

Awesome thread and thanks to all for all the varying info....

a reply to: ParasuvO

Wow you've jumped to a lot of conclusions here, I never said he was lying, I never said he was well meaning either.

What I am saying though is that listening to more than just the short snippet paints a larger picture of what he's saying.

Here's a question for you then, if he did indeed mean to say April 2000, why? Going by what you guys are carrying on about, there's no way in hell he would come right out and admit to having plans for a new WTC7 before 2001, would he?

You're acing like you've caught him out, yet can't even consider that he may have slipped up the other way, the way contradictory to your beliefs.

So what is it? A deliberate admission of guilt? Or a mistake?

And also, the site got rebuilt so fast because the sub station had to be rebuilt ASAP.

I would have thought that part was obvious...

a reply to: hellobruce

Fair enough. Foolish of I to assume that the country that spends the most ammount of money in the world on its military could adequately defend it's own base of operations and Capitol. So silly of me. No I do not know the intricate details of our AA/AD circa 2001. Fine. I do know we had multiple excercises happening that, in fact one that simulated a plane crash in to the WTC. Coincidence? I also know we had birds in the air, away from where these things happened. I also think it's fair to assume that the USAF conducts intercepts on a regular basis and monitors restricted air space. If they're not monitoring it is extremely embarrassing and sad. If you want the wider breakdown of this refer to the book I previously mentioned; 9/11: Synthetic Terror Made in the USA by Webster Tarpley's. Don't wanna read the book? A simple YT search will suffice. That is if you are interested in what he points out. It deserves a LONG thread in and of itself, a thread I simply don't have the time to compile at this point but may do a later point.