Larry Silverstein question

Things to note:
1. He was talking to the Fire Department commander.
2. He never made the decision, it was the Fire Department.
3. Neither Silverstien or the Fire Department demolish buildings.

Do you admit the coincidence between their decision and the building collapsing shortly there after? What are chances? And what's the loss of life reference to? World Trade Center 1 and 2 deaths? Or just in World Trade Center 7? because the World Trade Center 7 fires weren't raging infernos. Interesting.

What happened to the sprinkler systems that day? Weren't they created to hold down office fires? Did they not provide some aide to fire fighters?

No, that's WHY they decided to 'pull it'.




Don't know, he didn't say.



I already addressed this, you ignored it last time







www.nytimes.com...

More quotes here:
www.debunking911.com...



I'd like to point out that you haven't provide 1 bit of evidence for your assertions that 'pull it' refers to demolishing WTC 7 or that the fires were small.

So you're saying that the fire fighters had advance knowledge the building was going to collapse, if so.. then how?



That's smoke my friend, I don't see any pictures of raging fires that threatened the majority of the building. Nothing more than an office fires at that point, so how were they raging? I'm honestly trying to see fires through those windows but I see none, all I see is smoke, but I'm assuming the windows are broken if smoke is coming out.

Could it be some debris hit the building, so smoke is just pouring out of other areas?



To this date I haven't seen a single picture of major damage caused by the debris from the World Trade Center 1 or 2, and even if it did, it would contribute to the upper portion of the building, how does that contribute it to falling from that ground up, THATS JUST to say IF it was hit by substantial amount of debris, like chunks of the building gone, broken glass and minor global structural damage isn't going to cause that.





Lower floors fires are major? Even with sprinkler systems, with easier access with fire fightering equipment, they were unmanageable. I don't even understand how the lower corner could be taken out? Was it that unaccessible? Where are these pictures of huge amounts of damage caused by fire? And since the fire wasn't as significant as the World Trade Center fire, how'd it manage to take down the building simultaneously? You had the center give out and then the outer edges, like a conventional demolition. Not to mention at free fall speed.

Oh and Skippy, small fires, I was referencing to being created by debris from the building, as I still see HOW they fires were created by falling debris, but since somehow they did happen, it wasn't a burst or an explosion --> Sprinklers can't take care of that.

My reference was debris creating small fires and then having them eventually expand, that was my context, comprende?

Lets look at some more angles:

- The Official Story, which was created by FEMA for what happened to WTC 7 and why it collapsed, was claimed to have a "low probability of occurence".

- The fact they decided to pull out when there were no major signs of fires in the building.



How can that even be surmised with the building as large as it is? I don't see a large inferno raging globally across the building.

- Concrete from WTC 7 was pulverized, how?

- It fell at free fall, how?

EDIT: How do you manage to have building 7, with minor fires on a global scale, collapse as compared to buildings 5 and 6, with rather large fires, and not collapse.

EDIT: FURTHERMORE, How did Larry Silverstein and the Chief Firefighters assume the building was going to fall down? They didn't construct the building, they're not knowledgeable on its specifications. Still want to see photos that show it being that compromised.

WTC 1 and 2 are more believable as the fires engulfed the building, WTC 7 is different.

[edit on 8/14/2006 by Masisoar]

Since when do fireman take orders (about their men) from building owners? Wouldn't that be the chief assessment?

Cheif: "Hey, the building is too far gone, we're bringing our men out."

Silvertein: "I got an Idea, pull it."

Cheif: "Pull what?"

Silverstein: "It means get your guys out of there."

"That's what I just said."

Are we really buying this conversation?

AAC

That was a fast reply, did you look at both sites I linked too?



Read the quotes from the 2nd link, has a lot of quotes about the massive fires and damage to the building.


So, you see a massive amount smoke, and deny the fires creating it are large, because you can't see the fires because of the smoke it's creating.



www.debunking911.com...

That's the bottom of the building BTW.



Lower fires are more likely to bring down a building than higher fires, the bottom is supporting the most weight. The fires last for 7 hours unfought, no other building has
unlike any other building before it. You keep saying the fires were small, without providing 1 bit of evidence, i've shown you video and pictures of the massive amount of smoke coming out of the building, and quotes from the firefighter on the scene.

PS, I remember reading about how the water pressure was really low and the fire hoses weren't spraying across the street.

You're forgetting that Silverstien, never gave the order, read the tread before posting.

Is that from the recently released report, or the quote from before they studied the collapse in depth?



There was, i already showed you the evidence.

A frigging building does not frigging implode straight
down in a few seconds because of a a couple of fires.. not even if it were a
raging inferno.

No other explanation other than explosives and/or
thermite whatever is possible for the entire structure to FAIL at the SAME freaking
moment and drop down as if it were a piece of foam lit up from the bottom melting
it down rapidly...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Quotes help an investigation, photos do the justice.



Where are the fires if they're that threatening? Hidden in a small pocket of the building no one can see? Fires are luminous, I can't see any flames through any part of that smoke, atleast not the major amount that seems to be contributing. Hmmm.



That's weird, white smoke, wouldn't you expect darker smoke? But aside from that, look at the size of the "possible debris hole size" Do you think that really has a HUGE contributing factor to downing the rest of the building? Because as the collapse videos show, it doesn't give out on the corners.



The fires lasted 7 hours unfought, so why do you need to pull firefighters, am I getting what you are saying? That's the thing pointy SMOKE and FIRES are different matters.
You show smoke but no fires, like I said above, are they hiding somewhere where we can't see them?

Again I'll clarify - small fires, from the initiating fires from "debris", should of been put out by sprinklers, yet they "somehow" continue to grow but no majorly.

But when you're talking on the global scale, the fires weren't obtrusively large and wide spread. Your picture of the smoke proves one thing, there was a lot of smoke.

But I'm not going to be ignorant and stand by and say "there were no fires because you simply can not see them" that's just sort of deductive logic. However, for the building to fall from the top up, you have the most easiest to access fires of the whole building.

But back to the smoke issue, if the infernos are that bad, why can't you see them? There is a huge mass of smoke, debris hit the windows, so you have ways for smoke to leak out of.

But aside from that -

What about the pulverized concrete?
What about the virtually free fall speed of the building itself?
And under what expertise did they know what WTC 7 was going to collapse soon and it was worthless to fight the fires any further? WTC 7 isn't your average HOUSE fire where such a thing is easy to decide.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 14/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

That's when FEMA made their best assumption within time after the collapse, and their opinion of it, and what the official story sticks by.

I don't see how they create a recently created study when the evidence has been gone for quite some time now.

EDIT: Uno step further:

As brought up, NUMEROUS TIMES, the Madrid Fire:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

That's what I call engulfed in flame, and not just smoke Skippy, and that building managed to stay erect! Whada know

[edit on 8/14/2006 by Masisoar]

Read the quotes from the page i provided. From the 1 a quoted:

For those of you claiming it is "just smoke", I would like your ideas on what creates that much smoke from a 50 story building.

Smoke bombs perhaps?

Sparklers?

Or massive fires?

I know which one makes more sense to me.

Madrid had a concrete core, which was credited with being the only reason it was still standing, the steel section collapsed early on, long before the fire reached it's maximum temperature.

Fires, but if there were massive fires, how come the flames can't be seen that clearly, if the FIRES were as BIG as you're making them out to be.

Yes aside from my smart remark, that's what I call a raging inferno, which wasn't even noticed in WTC 7. Which another point I'm trying to get at, if there are no self evident pictures yet testimonials of fires, and photos tell a lot, then where are the massive fires around the base? Because from the one shot you continue to use for defense reveals fires one area of that side of the building, but how much more than that? How BIG were the fires? Come on, get with it.

And once again:

What about the pulverized concrete?
What about the virtually free fall speed of the building itself?
And under what expertise did they know what WTC 7 was going to collapse soon and it was worthless to fight the fires any further? WTC 7 isn't your average HOUSE fire where such a thing is easy to decide.

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

It's alright man I like it, gives me something to do =)