I just learned something...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I think the OP got his WTC numbers confused. It is a well known fact that some buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. For example, WTC- 6 was brought down by C.D. using AMEC Construction. (they weaked the building further and used cables to pull it.

WTC- 5 was also demolished by January 2002 - The same way WTC 6 and also WTC -4 were. So, yes truthers, 3 buildings from the WTC complex were taken down via controlled demolition. They were not 1,2 or 7. Sorry that you or your friend got the building number wrong.

Sure. However, haven't you read Shapiro's article at Fox News?

Silverstein's words on an interview a year later:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

www.archive.org...

Click the tiny little audio file player in the upper right of the article.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I think the OP got his WTC numbers confused. It is a well known fact that some buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. For example, WTC- 6 was brought down by C.D. using AMEC Construction. (they weaked the building further and used cables to pull it.

WTC- 5 was also demolished by January 2002 - The same way WTC 6 and also WTC -4 were. So, yes truthers, 3 buildings from the WTC complex were taken down via controlled demolition. They were not 1,2 or 7. Sorry that you or your friend got the building number wrong.

is there a video footage of these buildings getting demolished? i would like to see how they go down.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Sure. However, haven't you read Shapiro's article at Fox News?

Yes, as discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So Jeff Shapiro (person A) was told by NYPD officers (person B) and Con Ed workers (person B) that they (persons B) heard Larry Silverstien (person C) was on the phone with his insurance company (person D). Since Silverstein was not at Ground Zero on 911; unable to actually be heard having this conversation, there would have to be a (person E) to have communicated this information back to (person C).

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. We have established that in fact the information gathered from Mr. Shapiro is hearsay.

Hearsay.
dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

is there a video footage of these buildings getting demolished? i would like to see how they go down.

I believe so (building 6)

"We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about building six coming down and damaging the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."
"We got the cables attached to four different locations going up. Now they're pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a 8 story building with cables."

[America Rebuilds 2006 Edition]
whatreallyhappened.com...

whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Sure. However, haven't you read Shapiro's article at Fox News?

Yes, as discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So Jeff Shapiro (person A) was told by NYPD officers (person B) and Con Ed workers (person B) that they (persons B) heard Larry Silverstien (person C) was on the phone with his insurance company (person D). Since Silverstein was not at Ground Zero on 911; unable to actually be heard having this conversation, there would have to be a (person E) to have communicated this information back to (person C).

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. We have established that in fact the information gathered from Mr. Shapiro is hearsay.

Hearsay.
dictionary.reference.com...

Yes, it's hearsay. Very intriguing hearsay though, in the context of all the other physical and testimonial evidence. (No need for you and me to go over all of that, I know you will reject everything out of hand, as all 'debunkers' always do)

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

No, it's not "embellishing." It's called "characterizing." And I've been a journalist long enough to have earned the ability to describe a situation and how it appeared to me.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

I'm crossing my fingers, too. Hopefully corroborated with some documents as well.

reply to post by snowcrash911

The NIST report doesn't acknowledge any long-happening leaning or bulging. Some may have believed it, yes. It may even be true. But it remains officially unacknowledged and unconfirmed.

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.

Is that "unconfirmed" - from incident commander on the scene

FDNY has a specialized collapse unit (Housed at Rescue 3 in Bronx) with instruments to determine if building
is stable . Will use a surveyors teansit fixed on point to see if building is starting to creep or move

By the way geard Chief Hayden speak 6 months afterwards so heard the story of the transit directly from him

Is that confiormation enough or will pull the old truther trick, if doesn't conform with my conspiracy fantasy
simply ignore it....

Originally posted by thedman

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 seem to know a lot about WTC7, can you help me find any info about it in the 911 Commission Report .
Thank you sir, I await your answer.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by snowcrash911
Is that confiormation [sic] enough or will pull the old truther trick, if doesn't conform with my conspiracy fantasy
simply ignore it....

I don't mean this in a bad way, but sometimes I read your stuff, and it looks as if you've had a bit to drink, given the sudden preponderance of unexpected line breaks, incoherence and spelling errors.

Don't try to pigeon-hole me as a "conspiracy theorist", thedman, I might as well pigeon-hole you as a coincidence or incompetence theorist.

The bulging and leaning is not in the NIST report. If you want it in (and I'm not against it at all), and part of the official acknowledged explanation of WTC 7's collapse, I suggest you contact NIST and lobby for it. Good luck with that.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


WTC 7 was mentioned only in passing in 911 commission report - simple reason was that was not part of
their scopr.

The commision was established to investigate the intelligence failures which allowed the hijackers to secure
visas, live unmolested for year and half, take flight training and carry out attacks.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.

The commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks
.

WTC 7 was "collateral damage" - not one of the original targets, but caught in the collapse of North Tower

Most of the other buildings in WTC complex was also collaperal damage - WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), WTC 4,5,6
were all damaged by debris from collapse of towers and subsequent fires

reply to post by snowcrash911


One I dont drink....

Am "keyboard challenged" which may account for disjointed style - maybe should overlook that and
concentrate on the points trying to make

As for NIST omission of that - cant explain why omitted, but does not mean was secret

Took me about 30 sec to find quotes from Chief Hayden

Was well established that FDNY abandoned WTC 7 around noon do to structural damage suffered and no water
was available to fight spreading fires

No sense putting men in danger for empty building , considering search and rescue operations going on at
towers

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Congratulations. You just accused the New York Fire department AND the New York Police Department AND the New York Port Authority of conspiring to commit mass murder.

and you are, who?
their lawyer or just another brown-nosed citizen, eh?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by behindthescenes

I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.

So in other words you're embellishing. You're taking some anonymous person's off the cuff remark and passing it off as if it's every day information. And you wonder why there are people like myself who can't take a single thing you truthers say seriously.

Well, I do hope your friend does have the courage to stop hiding under his bed and release his information. It would necessarily mean it will be the first legitimate bit of information showing conspiracy that doesn't need to rely on the trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies the truthers have exclusively relied upon up until now to get people all paranoid over shadows and imaginary boogeymen. I'm not holding my breath, though, as the entire reason the truther movement needs to rely on trickery, innuendo dropping, and outright lies in the first place is specifically because this whole conspiracy bit is baloney and the main proponents are out to make a fast buck off the movement rather than learn the truth about anything. THAT is the true "common knowledge".

dude, stop blowing bubbles from your arse.
lol.

and watch tv footage from 9/11/01.
again and again and again.
and again.

by the way, your guvmnit made far much moneys off of 9/11 than any truther
ever has (or will, although that argument is just another one coming from debunkers
because they are pathetic and they're outnumbered and are feeling cornered), so if
you are so "concerned" about moneys, maybe you should grow a pair and go after
the big boys. eh? but that means you need to first pull your head from your arse.
but, your head doesn't want to, right?

Originally posted by behindthescenes

 

I'm crossing my fingers, too. Hopefully corroborated with some documents as well.

Well, here's something to light a fire under his butt...if he really isn't just mindlessly quoting some sexy sounding thing he read on one of these damned fool conspiracy web sites and he genuinely has insider information, hit means he has evidence of a coverup that got 3000 innocent people killed. If *I* knew the identity of someone who murdered 3000 I'd be sure as shootin' be calling it in to crimestoppers. Why is HE protecting the identity of a bunch of murderers? He won't' even need to come forward directly. He can go to any one of those mass media conspiracy theorists with their own personal media empires, like Alex Jones or Richard Gage, and let the secret gov't agents assassinate them.

In case you didn't know this before you posted this...and it sounds like you didn't...those of us who come here to put these conspiracy theories under the light of reason and critical analysis don't have anything to lose if genuine information proving conspiracy comes to light, other than maybe eating some crow. You truthers on the other hand have a LOT to lose by playing the Senator McCarthy routine and claiming "you have inside information about 9/11 on that piece of paper in your hand" because sooner or later you're going to need to show what you've got. Up until now all you have is the make believe you're getting off those damned ool conspiracy web sites so I hope for your sake this isn't just a game you're playing out of last resort desperation..

Originally posted by psyop911

and you are, who?
their lawyer or just another brown-nosed citizen, eh?

Allow me to answer your question with another question- Are you genuinely saying it's perfectly fine to go around accusing innocent people of conspiracy to commit mass murder if it advances your political agenda? As far as you're concerned, I'm a nobody, because as far as I'm concerned, your truther movement is a laughing stock and it's no skin off my nose if you wind up being censured and ordered to pay hefty fines for behaving like a complete idiot like Judy Wood's lawyers were.

The only thing I care about is that you truthers with your penchant for changing everything you touch into a three ring circus of absurdity are raping the call for further investigations like it was a five dollar whore, and you're destroying any possibility of any genine investigatiosn for the rest of us. It's nigh impossible to call for an investigation into how the gov't let us down on 9/11 when you characters steer it away into proving the planes were all holograms and bin Laden was really a shape shifting alien lizard.

Good grief, grow up.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
...a person who is involved in some way with the WTC project financing and studies says, without batting an eye, that WTC7 was purposely demolished because the damage was too great.

No, it didn't collapse on its own, but was "imploded."

He told me this like it was a known fact. In fact, it was common knowledge as the WTC owners were negotiating over insurance payments for WTC7.

Could you start next time right our from this message?

That would mean that the demolition scheme was already installed in the building, wasn't it? It takes weeks...
Or it was always there. Just in case.

Update on this.

I will be conducting an official interview with the source this Thursday, mainly about his experience working with Silverstein on the 9/11 lawsuits, but we'll be getting into WTC7.

I will post my findings here before I do the article, and hopefully will also have that documentation, so we can settle this.