Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I wish I had this much time on my hands.
You took all that time just to regurgitate what has been said around here adnauseum?
It is entirely possible that tomorrow some new ground breaking evidence could come into the light that will radically challenge the content of this thread.
To address the first issue, who exactly did Silverstein speak to? honestly nobody knows,
have read a number of firefighters who deny having spoke to him which actually casts doubt over weather he even did actually say what he said, remember he was speaking a year after the event.
As to the second point, all I have is that link to provide evidence for that for now it was based on a report complied by a team of explosive demolition experts who claimed to have spoken to people there. Its possible they were based in or near New York and that is how they were able to get to WTC so early with out flights.
What kind of new evidence must come out for you to change your mind?
Why do you think the 9/11 Commission didn't find out? And why do you think the media didn't ask?
So you did not confirm if this report was compiled by a team of real explosive demolition experts? Did you check their backgrounds to make sure they are even qualified to compile such report?
I think firstly it would be some kind of high level admission of guilt with documented proof but i dont expect that to ever turn up.
Secondly probably something that would suggest a controlled demolition however i have looked and i have not found anything.
But really though just about anything
As to why NIST never asked, I can only assume it is because they were happy with Silverstein's later statement on the issue.
Again like i said in the OP, I really dont see any merit to the claims that good o' Larry gave the FDNY the green light to blow up a building.
The lead author of the paper is a Brent Blanchard who is a published expert in the field of demolition.
I think you are right that a admission of guilt might never turn up. I'm interested to know why you think it won't turn up?
This sound ridiculous, the most obvious explanation is some kind of deliberate demolition
That must be a joke. No way you actually believe what you wrote. There is about 3000 posts of yours that prove otherwise.
Then what do you assume the reason is that Larry would say something like that on TV? Are you not concerned that he felt the need to lie about something like that? What else is he lying about?
"I remember getting a call from the 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."
Blanchard's report is a load of condescending crap
I think that the biggest and most obvious answer to that question is simply that it does not exist, in other words there is no big grand government false flag conspiracy so there is nobody also to admit the guilt of such a conspiracy.
Well to the lay person it looks like a controlled demolition upon first inspection, truthers seem to have taken the attitude of "well it looks like a controlled demolition so it must be one, now lets find actual evidence", to me this is a backwards attitude. Like i have said in the OP there is no evidence presented so far that supports the idea of a controlled demolition, none.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call me a name i suppose it could be a lot worse than "you must be a joke".
I did say just about everything
the "pull it" quote i have addressed in the OP and in my answers on this thread so far.
Do you believe he was telling the FDNY to pull out of the building or demolish the building?
But to focus specifically on what Jim Hoffman has to say about WTC-7, not very much
Blanchard uses a dozen paragraphs to establish his expertise, touting Protec as "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition." Showcasing his specialized knowledge of demolition and repeatedly referring to evidence unavailable to the public
Who was the fireman that called Silverstien?
If he does not exist, why did Silverstein lie about it?
If he did make this up for some reason, what else is he lying about?
My opinion is that if he did talk to the chief about the safety of firefighters, it was most likely to tell them that the building is going to be collapsed. This is why no chief in his right mind would admit to having this conversation if he cared about his and his family's future.
I didn't ask what Jim Hoffman said about WTC7. What do you think about what he said about the Brent Blanchards report?
You are really starting to nick pick at what I say and i refuse to be draw into a argument of semantics
It is doubtful anyone did actually call him, Silverstien was recalling events a year after the happened but it is entirly possible and its just that whoever phoned him has yet to come forward
probably because he was recalling events a year after they happened
I think Silverstien is a slug of a man, he is scum, he probably lies about a lot of things, but i dont think he is lying about having ordered WTC-7 demolished.
yeah.... only in hollywood
I have made my views on that report clear already, this is a thread about WTC-7 i am not going to get dragged down into a debate about matters not pertaining to WTC-7.
I believe that Blanchards reports is accurate if you do not then that is fine, like i said in the OP i am not out to convince anyone.
I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
Amongst its other occupants included the New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OME) located on the 23rd floor which scanned the emergency frequencies of New York 24/7 ready to respond to any emergency that might present.
this must mean either Jenning’s is lying or mistaken.
What is also worth noting is that there are no bodies as Jennings testimony to Loose Change implies.
Yet If the truthers are to be believed on this one then Larry ordered the FDNY to bring down the building, which automatically assumes that the FDNY were in on this whole conspiracy in some way, which of course they deny.
The image shows that there were at least some 10 or 12 inferno's burning throughout the day in WTC-7 on multiple floors and this was in addition to the structural damage the building had sustained.
Yet even with the BBC’s explanation of this the conspiracies continue.
The Fire-Fighters and engineers on the ground were reporting that it was looking like it could collapse so they put up the exclusion zone and it’s instability was being reported elsewhere in the media which all points to this just being a mistake by the BBC.
The common thing was, hey, we’ve still got people here, we don’t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance.
In addition to this another Report into the events of 9/11 looking at claims made by 9/11 truthers by a group of demolition experts had this to say about Silverstein's "pull it" comment.
We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.
So if you think about what he is saying it would seem to make much more sense to assume that he was talking about the fire-fighters rather than pulling the building because the idea that the FDNY would be in on Silverstein demolishing WTC-7 just doesn't seem to add up.
There are always going to be some who think that Larry actually ordered the FDNY to blow up WTC-7, but I honestly just don’t quite get this claim.
So what can we draw from these observations, well firstly we can say with out doubt that the collapse of the building was not symmetrical first we have the collapse of the east penthouse, then there is the visible "kink" in the building and as it falls it appears to by falling at a backwards angle. So its defiantly not a symmetrical collapse.
For example there were many eyewitness News anchors who said it "looked like a contorted demolition". This statement was then backed up by European demolition expert Danny Jowenko when speaking about WTC-7 he had this to say.
So explosive demolition experts who witnessed the fate of WTC-7 for themselves have dismissed the notion of controlled demolition.
Now we already know that the building did not fall at free fall speed but did it collapse in its own foot print? well for it to do so then it would have to have fell perfectly into its own perimeter, so did it?
And again this picture above shows parts of WTC-7 up against another building, this wouldn't have happened if it had collapsed into its own footprint.
So we can say that the collapse was not symmetrical, we can also safely say that it did not fall at gravitational free fall (well other than those 2.25 seconds), we can also say that eyewitness explosive experts did not see any evidence of contorted demolition and we can now also say it did not collapse into its own footprint .
But the big question at the very heart of this article is how did it collapse, what actually caused this building to crumble to the ground the way that it did, based the observations made so far we can rule out conventional controlled demolition
Because of his theories after a very long year Jones’s employers at Brigham Young University (BYU) put him on paid administrative leave in October of 2006.
In addition to Jones claiming that Thermite had been used to demolish the towers on 9/11 his other "speculative" work included a paper about how Jesus Christ had visited ancient America.
Another interesting point to raise about these findings is that after he published this paper he then had a accompanying documentary “Hypothesis ” throughout this documentary Jones repeats statements saying he didn’t know what to expect when he looked at the results of the dust samples. But in 2005 he said he believed there was thremite used, then in 2007 he starts testing them and finds his thermite but all way through this documentary he is saying “i didn’t know what to expect”... hmmmm.....
And on top of that following the publication of Jones et al publication in the journal the editor of “the open chemical physics journal” quit over it because she had not been informed of its publication and disapproved of it.
The whole point of the thermite would be to undergo a reaction and melt through the steel, well that what Jones would have us believe, yet at the same time also seems to argue that loads of it didn’t react?. He expects us to believe that loads of this extremely highly reactive thermite did not ignite?
In another inconsistency he argues that this super “nano-thermite” would be in a gel form, so it was a gel yet he has all these solid little red/grey chips with unreacted nano-thermite?
In yet another inconsistency Jones received 5 samples but only tested 4, the reason he cites for this is because the owner of the fifth sample didn’t want o be named, so rather than calling him Mr. X, Jones just omitted this sample completely form the paper.
This is consistent with other research looking at assessing the dust from the destruction of the world trade center’s also did not find any evidence of thermite or other explosives such as the US Geological Survey who were called in shortly after 9/11 to analyse the dust. They found lots of similar chemical elements as Jones did but they don’t seem all that shocked to find them, Sulphur is used in building materials for example.
Additionally there is no evidence in the photographic history as we cannot see any of these huge flashes that thermate and thermite both create nor is any explanation given as to how they could control this incredibly volatile substance.
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY
Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were.
PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA
THEN THAT'S WHEN KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN? THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE .WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE? IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE AT FIRST THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH MEOLA
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
reply to post by whatsecret
Sorry for not getting back to you quicker,
its clear you have put a lot of time into those posts.
Now other than us getting bogged down debating all of these issues in one go could you perhaps highlight to me your main points and then we will move on.