Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

Originally posted by gavron
there has never been any evidence that a large, burning, multi-story building has EVER been brought down by any team before or since. So he could not possibly have meant the building.

How many of those buildings had top secret files that needed to be protected? Explosives may have already been in the buildings from the beginning.

And you know as well as I do that no steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed from fires either. CD companies use explosives, not fire because fire can't do this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]

Over and out.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
How many of those buildings had top secret files that needed to be protected? Explosives may have already been in the buildings from the beginning.

...and you have evidence that this has ever been done before as well, I take it? Or is this another unsubstantiated claim?

CD companies use explosives, not fire because fire can't do this:

So, it CD companies now are an integral part of new high rise construction then? So they can pre-wire the buildings to come down in a controlled manner?

You do, of course, have proof that a CD company has done this before, right?

I don't follow the 911 stuff but I was always curious on what the estimated head count of people evolved to pull this off is?

It has to be astronomical?

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Unfortunately, this is coming from Prison Planet, so who knows how much truth there is in it.

THIS IS NOT COMING FROM PRISONPLANET.

It's coming from Fox News own HIT PIECE on 911. Prisonplanet didn't make that up.

If there was a real investigation out there, they would be able to confirm or not if Silverstein called his insurance. If he did, it's a proof that the building was RIGGED with EXPLOSIVES BEFOREHAND.

Thats what I was thinking?

How in the hell do you rig that building with explosives when all this # is going down?????

WTFFFF

REMISNE earlier has posted this link:

www.implosionworld.com...

Assertion number 7 pretty much sums up why a CD of WTC7 was not probable.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So Larry is now confirmed to have asked to bring the building down with explosives and then admits to someone making that decision.

Confirmed?

Confirmed by whom? All I was able to get out of that was nothing but hearsay. Some "NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers" without names or statements is not confirmed.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by gavron
there has never been any evidence that a large, burning, multi-story building has EVER been brought down by any team before or since. So he could not possibly have meant the building.

How many of those buildings had top secret files that needed to be protected? Explosives may have already been in the buildings from the beginning.

Strawman. You need to stick to evidence. You don't wire buildings to destroy files. One can speculate endlessly but in the end it still comes down to the same point: there is not a stitch of evidence of explosives.

And you know as well as I do that no steel-structured highrise has ever globally collapsed from fires either. CD companies use explosives, not fire because fire can't do this:

Red Herring. WTC 7 was a unique structure under unique circumstances.

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to stick to evidence.

We are sticking to the evidence. Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire. Evidence says that CD companies use explosives to bring down steel-structured highrises because fire won't work. And you can't refute any of that, can you?

Originally posted by gavron
Assertion number 7 pretty much sums up why a CD of WTC7 was not probable.

Actually, that assertion is quite false and therefore, nothing that ImplosionWorld says can be trusted.

Assertion #7 says that there was significant damage to WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1. Not only does the only video available not show significant damage, the NIST report also says that the collapse of WTC 1 had "little impact" on the collapse of WTC 7.

I am getting off this never ending spin cycle that is called 9/11..

I don't know how you guys do this.. same material, same talking points, doesn't matter the OP, just goes right back to that same old same old...

Enjoy, but please be civil to each other

I leave you with a song that popped into my mind after reading how this thread has evolved...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
We are sticking to the evidence. Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire. Evidence says that CD companies use explosives to bring down steel-structured highrises because fire won't work. And you can't refute any of that, can you?

Can you please show us 1 example of a building pre-wired with explosives...as part of the construction process.

Plus - if these buildings were pre-wired...isnt it interesting that none of those fires caused those pre-installed explosives to detonate. After all, if the fire was so large that the fire dept was pulled out, they somehow werent burning in the key areas where the buildings were wired with explosives?

Originally posted by Tyr Sog
I don't follow the 911 stuff but I was always curious on what the estimated head count of people evolved to pull this off is?

It has to be astronomical?

You are quite right of course and the head count is ever increasing as more witnesses, engineers, explosives experts, aviation experts, radar experts, voice-morphing experts, demolition experts, dna analysts, crash site investigators, air traffic control staff, cold-blooded killers of women and children taken off planes, relatives of alleged phony victims, at & t operators, first responders etc grows like topsy.

But, not one has talked, or even left a deathbed deposition !

Bit tough on Bill Clinton who could not even get away with a blow-job.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to stick to evidence.

We are sticking to the evidence. Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire.

I already addressed that:

Red Herring. WTC 7 was a unique structure under unique circumstances.

Is this what your group, Architects and Engineers, are trying to claim?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I am getting off this never ending spin cycle that is called 9/11..

I don't know how you guys do this.. same material, same talking points, doesn't matter the OP, just goes right back to that same old same old...

Enjoy, but please be civil to each other

Jack ---Great Find! I was a little late to this but noticed and my jaw hit the floor. This is HUGE! This man should be put before a grand jury and forced to reveal sources!

I think we may have broken through to the second level of defense. Limited hangout on Bldg 7. How much you wanna bet we see a Pentagon video soon!

Originally posted by jthomas
Red Herring. WTC 7 was a unique structure under unique circumstances.

Sorry, but that's not evidence. That's you making personal, opinionated claims.

Don't forget that WTC 7 was so structurally sound, that entire floors could be removed without affecting the structural integrity of the building. And on top of that, not only were 3 floors removed for Salomon, they added 375 tons of steel for extra support.

In other words, not only was WTC 7 so structurally sound that entire floors could be removed without affecting the structural integrity of the building, they added 375 tons of more structural support.

Therefore, your claim that WTC 7 was "unique", thus implying it was a flimsy and weak structure, is baseless. A claim made up based on denial to keep from having to believe in a conspiracy.

Originally posted by jthomas
Is this what your group, Architects and Engineers, are trying to claim?

AE911T is not my group, nor do I speak for them.


Now, unless you can refute this with facts and evidence instead of baseless claims and opinions, then there's really nothing more to discuss here.






[edit on 23-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Therefore, your claim that WTC 7 was "unique", thus implying it was a flimsy and weak structure, is baseless.

There is no such implication.

A claim made up based on denial to keep from having to believe in a conspiracy.

It's too bad that no one has been able to convince anyone of any conspiracy. We've been waiting 9 years for your evidence and all we get are your unsupported claims and appeals to ignorance.

Let's repeat the facts so there are no misunderstandings. No evidence of any kind of explosives has ever been found or demonstrated. Now, just when will you produce such evidence or admit you're wrong?

AE911T is not my group, nor do I speak for them.

You promote them in your sig. Do they disagree or agree with you?

Originally posted by jthomas
It's too bad that no one has been able to convince anyone of any conspiracy.

If that were the case, then AE911T wouldn't continue to be growing. 1000 AE's 2 months ago and now approaching 1200. Millions of truthers in nearly every major country in the world. Nah, nobody is being convinced of a conspiracy.

And just as I thought, you couldn't refute the evidence that I asked you to, so I guess we're done here.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
We are sticking to the evidence. Evidence says that steel-structured highrises don't globally collapse from fire. Evidence says that CD companies use explosives to bring down steel-structured highrises because fire won't work. And you can't refute any of that, can you?

Refute what? Where is your evidence? This is a statement made by you just as you harass others about statements they are making as not evidence. How about you show your evidence, then maybe we can refute it.

Just posted in another thread about the direct FOX article.

You guys are missing the point... quit arguing about that one quote by Silverstein...

The FOX article actually lends to the idea that he was indeed referring to the building in that quote... but anyways...

The article by Fox is so adamant about demonizing Ventura, that it appears to have backfired tremendously.

Mr. Shapiro is either an idiot, or is obviously disinfo to the core.

How he can state that he knew Silverstein was thinking about demolishing the building - and then WATCHED HIMSELF the building come down at freefall... and then to conclude that the building came down because of structural damage?!? is beyond me..

How does he reconcile that in his reasoning intellect?

How can he still conclude that this was a collapse due to structural damage when NO other buildings much nearer to the Twin Towers collapsed?!

This article by Fox was a hasty move by the 9/11 perps.

Tisk tisk Fox, 'Haste makes Waste'