A simple FACT about 9/11 thats CANNOT be debunked!

Keeping all othe theories and proofs aside. I present these two in a simple manner. I would like to see people debunk this.

Fact: Building 7 was rigged with explosives.

Flight 93 was supposed to fly into building 7 but it fell in pennsylvania, so owner Larry Silverstein had to bring the building down himself.

He himself stated in an interveiw that he ordered to pull the building (ie. controlled demolition). Pulling down a building takes weeks of planning and preparation so that explosives can be safely positioned and wired. Not so in this case. Larry achieved this feat in just a few hours. This is while the building was on fire.

Fact: Anonymous put options on the airlines.

source
Try to purchase some stock, or some futures, a mutual fund or some put options, without providing your identity. Go ahead and try it! See if you get anywhere. Find out what happens when you tell the investment firm that you want to make a huge investment anonymously. It can’t be done.

Then ask yourself this question: How could someone have placed anonymous put options on American Airlines and United Airlines just prior to the attacks of 9/11? Then ask yourself why no one has investigated this suspicious deal. Ask yourself why there has been no attempt by the US government to identify the person who anticipated huge profits from a disaster that was yet to occur.

....
I did not include any sources because anyone who will try to debunk this, first should do a little research on their own and will find out that above presented facts are indeed facts. Then debunk it.



Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism
Mod Edit: External Source Tags

[edit on 10/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by half_minded
Keeping all othe theories and proofs aside. I present these two in a simple manner. I would like to see people debunk this.

Fact: Building 7 was rigged with explosives.

Flight 93 was supposed to fly into building 7 but it fell in pennsylvania, so owner Larry Silverstein had to bring the building down himself.

He himself stated in an interveiw that he ordered to pull the building (ie. controlled demolition). Pulling down a building takes weeks of planning and preparation so that explosives can be safely positioned and wired. Not so in this case. Larry achieved this feat in just a few hours. This is while the building was on fire.

If you would care to explain how someone could correctly place charges for a controlled demolition in a building that had a massive hole in the SW side of it AND had fires througout the whole building - be my guest.

How do you get into this building and place explosives? More importantly - how do you do so without anyone seeing you?



Seriously. Put up or shut up. It's not possible to place charges inside a building right when the two buildings next to it are coming down. Explain how you would pull off a demolition of a building that size in less than 24 hour without being harmed or seen.

Preparing a controlled demolition takes MONTHS not HOURS.

He never said pull the building. He said "pull it". That could mean the firefighting operation for all you know.

www.debunking911.com...

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

Not to mention your serious logic errors.

www.911myths.com...

Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?

Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.

Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?

Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?

Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?

LOGIC.

Not to mention the flight paths the planes took clearly indicated that flight 93 was headed to Washinton DC. The planes that took off from Boston were the ones that were targetted at NY.

www.rense.com...
Your 'source' wasn't hard to find. Perhaps next time you shouldn't COPY WORD FOR WORD.

Your source is Rense - who fails to note a source for the claims itself. The article even says that nothing was done anonymously. The identity of the owner is being withheld due to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Nice try - but come back with a real source and back up your claims next time.

[edit on 26/10/2006 by doctorfungi]

HAHAHA I can't believe you got pwned by an australian about 9/11
OK doc, about the bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the towers the week prior to 9/11 what is your opinion on that? lets do 'em one at a time.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Elijio]

You agreed to tht fact that it takes months not hours to prepare for demolition. Hence, we knoe it was planned to bring down building 7.

Larry said 'Pull it'. He could not have meant fire fighters because there were no fire fighters in the building at that time. Besides, he would have said 'Pull them' not 'it' unless he was referring to the building.

Maybe larry accidently blurted out abt that fact and later tried to cover it up with explanations.

Not to mention, these 3 buildings were the only buildings in history to fall down due to fire. Steel buildings falling down in a matter of hours exactly like a demolition.

Originally posted by half_minded

Not to mention, these 3 buildings were the only buildings in history to fall down due to fire. Steel buildings falling down in a matter of hours exactly like a demolition.

You mean the ones that involves large passenger planes along with the fire?

Originally posted by half_minded
Keeping all othe theories and proofs aside. I present these two in a simple manner. I would like to see people debunk this.

Fact: Building 7 was rigged with explosives.

Flight 93 was supposed to fly into building 7 but it fell in pennsylvania, so owner Larry Silverstein had to bring the building down himself.

He himself stated in an interveiw that he ordered to pull the building (ie. controlled demolition). Pulling down a building takes weeks of planning and preparation so that explosives can be safely positioned and wired. Not so in this case. Larry achieved this feat in just a few hours. This is while the building was on fire.

Fact: Anonymous put options on the airlines.

source
Try to purchase some stock, or some futures, a mutual fund or some put options, without providing your identity. Go ahead and try it! See if you get anywhere. Find out what happens when you tell the investment firm that you want to make a huge investment anonymously. It can’t be done.

Then ask yourself this question: How could someone have placed anonymous put options on American Airlines and United Airlines just prior to the attacks of 9/11? Then ask yourself why no one has investigated this suspicious deal. Ask yourself why there has been no attempt by the US government to identify the person who anticipated huge profits from a disaster that was yet to occur.

....
I did not include any sources because anyone who will try to debunk this, first should do a little research on their own and will find out that above presented facts are indeed facts. Then debunk it.



Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism
Mod Edit: External Source Tags

[edit on 10/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

FLIGHT 93: the plane never exploded nor was brought down in pennsylvania. it landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio airport, where the passengers fate was then met, there were no dead bodies in PA. There are numerous reports of there being no dead bodies or plane parts in PA. There is testimonies & evidence of the plane safely landing at the airport. Flight 93 was still active & in use after 9-11 it was just recently been listed as no longer in use. it was probably just a shell of an aircraft of some sort that was shot down in PA. for the record there were NO BODIES or plane debris found in Shanksville, PA! (just a hole in the ground).

EVEN FOX SAYS SO! (lol) : FOX News reporter: "It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground."
youtube.com...



additional info:

www.rense.com...

www.newswithviews.com...

theres tons of info on this... just google: "flight 93 landed"

this is NOT what a plane crash looks like: www.dailyamerican.com...

THIS is: image.guardian.co.uk...

-DG724

[edit on 26-10-2006 by dragongirl724]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by half_minded

Not to mention, these 3 buildings were the only buildings in history to fall down due to fire. Steel buildings falling down in a matter of hours exactly like a demolition.

You mean the ones that involves large passenger planes along with the fire?

Thats funny,i dont recall WTC 7 ever being hit by any plane.

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Thats funny,i dont recall WTC 7 ever being hit by any plane.

Sure it did. You just forgetting parts of the plane. Otherwise, why else did it catch on fire?

I don't understand why people try to translate Larry Silverstein's comments for him. I'm going to assume that nobody here knows Mr Silverstein personally. So how do you know what he meant? Mr. Silverstein is an intelligent man who understands pronouns. Take this example doctorfungi: Let's say I saw a group of guys standing around your car and I thought they looked suspicious. So I went to you and told you. Would you respond by saying "Tell IT to get away from my car." ??? By trying to say IT refers to a group of men is ridiculous.

As far as it referring to "the operation", "IT" was already pulled hours before he made the remark. All we know is what he said, and he said "Pull it." I don't know what he meant by this remark, but it is highly unlikely he was referring to a group of men. For a group of men, the usual remark would be "them." However, I don't think he meant "pull them" either. I would think he would've said "pull them out..." That isn't me trying to translate for him, that is just basic grammar.

I think a plane was supposed to hit building 7, maybe Flight 93 maybe another plane. It was peculiar to me how no one was sure where Flight 93 was headed. There was only speculation and then a couple days later everyone was sure. There were other suspicious planes on the morning of 9/11, but then i guess the reports were wrong because there were no follow up reports. I think the hijacking plot included more planes than those 4, but was cut short when they grounded all flights. So "IT" was only able to get 4 planes and by "IT" I mean the hijackers.... or would "IT" refer to the plot????

Originally posted by deltaboy


Sure it did. You just forgetting parts of the plane. Otherwise, why else did it catch on fire?

Um, parts of a plane do not a whole plane make. It got hit with debris. It caught fire. BIG difference from getting hit head on full blast from a loaded passenger jet.

It certainly isnt the first building in history to be damaged by foreign debris, nor the first building in history to catch fire.

It is, however, the first building in history to completely collapse from "fire".

Originally posted by Elijio
HAHAHA I can't believe you got pwned by an australian about 9/11

OK doc, about the bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the towers the week prior to 9/11 what is your opinion on that? lets do 'em one at a time.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Elijio]

Those were just some extra dogs that were only there for a couple of days in response to a specific bomb threat.

Sirus was on duty that day.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


It is, however, the first building in history to completely collapse from "fire".

Do I have to point out just how absurdly stupid that statment is?

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Thats funny,i dont recall WTC 7 ever being hit by any plane.

Sure it did. You just forgetting parts of the plane. Otherwise, why else did it catch on fire?

I don't believe WTC 7 was hit by any parts of the plane.

It was hit by parts of WTC 1 when that building collapsed.


Some more info on the fire:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 26-10-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Do I have to point out just how absurdly stupid that statment is?

No, probably because you cant. Do you know any other buildings that collapsed from just fire?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Sure it did. You just forgetting parts of the plane. Otherwise, why else did it catch on fire?

A FEMA Report diagram shows major aircraft debris ejections during the impacts into the WTC Towers. WTC7 was not hit by aircraft debris.



Its fire did not begin/build up until some time after WTC1's collapse.

Not that any of that would account for a free-fall speed collapse anyway.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


It is, however, the first building in history to completely collapse from "fire".

Do I have to point out just how absurdly stupid that statment is?

You have to say SKYSCRAPER.

If you just say "building", HowardRoark will go off posting pictures of 1- or 2-story buildings that have collapsed from fire. Its almost like a set list of commands that he's programmed for or something. So you have to say first SKYSCRAPER in history to have globally collapsed from fire. Then he won't say a damned thing to you.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by bsbray11]

In 1976, the New York City Fire Commissioner, John O'Hagan, published a book entitled "High Rise/Fire and Life Safety," in which he called attention to the serious fire-safety issues in most high-rise buildings constructed since 1970, referring to such buildings as "semi-combustible." Unlike the earlier generation of skyscrapers, which used concrete and masonry to protect the structural steel, many of the newer buildings employed sheetrock and spray-on fire protection. The spray-on protection generally consisted of either a cementlike material that resembles plaster or a mineral-fibre spray, such as the one used to protect the floor joists in the World Trade Center. O'Hagan pointed out that, even when these spray-ons are properly mixed and applied to the steel (which must be clean), they are much less dense than concrete and can be easily knocked off. The swaying of the cables in the elevator shafts has been known to dislodge the fire protection from the columns in the cores of these buildings, and the coating used on floor supports is often removed by workers who install the ducts and wiring inside the hollow floor. The questionable performance of the fire protection used in these buildings, combined with the greater expanse of lightweight, unsupported floors, O'Hagan said, created the potential for collapse, of the individual floors and of the entire structure. He also pointed out that the open spaces favored by modern developers allowed fires to spread faster than the compartmentalized spaces of the earlier buildings, and that the synthetic furnishings in modern buildings created more heat and smoke than materials made out of wood and natural fibres.

www.skyscrapersafety.org...

Thank you, bsbray, for the correction.

Ill correct this case of semnatics.

WTC7 is the first SKYSCRAPER made of steel and glass in history to collapse due to just fire.

There.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Thank you, bsbray, for the correction.

Ill correct this case of semnatics.

WTC7 is the first SKYSCRAPER made of steel and glass in history to collapse due to just fire.

There.

Wrong.

There was physical damage to the building from the collapse of the adjacent WTC 1.

Why did Lucky Larry say the following though: 'there was such a terrible loss of life already...'

I swear those words still haunt me that he said. What was he really saying?

Is it possible he suggeste that: We murdered too many people already so I wanna get this over with?

Any guesses here?