A third tower fell on 9/11

[rareboy]

The reality of Building 7 burning. As anyone can see, there was damage from the falling North Tower from top to bottom on Building 7. It was pretty evident that there were fires on multiple floors.

This was no 'ordinary office fire'. Beyond the extent of the blaze.....an 'ordinary office fire' will not be accompanied by having a huge section of another building crashing into it.

But I am more than happy to see conspiracy wing-nuts fap themselves into a frenzy over shit like this as long as it keeps them in their basements and off the streets.

 

[rareboy]

In their own words.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."
FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition

Check out the Tinypic vids as well.

They put the lie to the ridiculous notion that it was just an 'ordinary office fire'

 

[gsdx]

^ Indeed. The biggest thing which conspiracy theorists ignore is the fact that there is an enormous difference between interior fires (WTC towers) and exterior fires (Grenfell & Burj Khalifa). As spectacular as external fires might be, they are not damaging the interior support structures.

In WTC7, the exterior of the building was not engulfed in flames, but the interior burned on virtually every floor for several hours. The building collapsed at the top first and then the floors begin to 'pancake' from the top down from the added weight, ultimately bringing down the building. By that time, the only force that was keeping the building up was the Force of Habit.

The same process brought down the Twin Towers. Support structure was compromised and gravity did the rest.

I seriously doubt the the theorists have no idea what is involved in controlled demolition which makes building fall straight down. To give an idea, simple explosives are not reliable enough at the best of times let alone in a situation where destructive fire is involved. Special 'explosives' are strapped to the bare steel vertical structure which actually burn through the steel like a blow torch instead of blasting it apart, and the detonation timing must be precise (within milliseconds). This is not something that can be thrown together in a few hours.

As I've said before, controlled demolition of the WTC towers is impossible. Absolutely impossible. And those theorists who still insist that controlled demolition brought down the towers prefer to believe what they're told without those 'facts' getting in the way.

 

[mikey3000]

And yet one of the top demolition experts on the planet confirmed it was a demolition. He died just three days after this interview went public in a single vehicle accident.

 

[rareboy]

And yet one of the top demolition experts on the planet confirmed it was a demolition. He died just three days after this interview went public in a single vehicle accident.

 

[belamyi]

And yet one of the top demolition experts on the planet confirmed it was a demolition. He died just three days after this interview went public in a single vehicle accident.

"That's odd"."I can't explain it."
Of course it is. Of course you can't.

So much for your expert.

 

[gsdx]

And yet one of the top demolition experts on the planet confirmed it was a demolition. He died just three days after this interview went public in a single vehicle accident.

You didn't watch the video all the way through, did you?

My guess is 'no, you didn't'.

If you had, you wouldn't have posted it. (Hint: It virtually proves what I've been saying all along.)

 

[belamyi]

You didn't watch the video all the way through, did you?

My guess is 'no, you didn't'.

If you had, you wouldn't have posted it. (Hint: It virtually proves what I've been saying all along.)

The argument is that he said blablabla, and that he died in a crash a couple of days after blablablaing.

 

[mikey3000]

And yeah, he clearly said demolition. He couldnt explain how they prepped the building so fast. Your opinion is the same as rareboy's. Surprise surprise.

 

[gsdx]

And yeah, he clearly said demolition. He couldnt explain how they prepped the building so fast. Your opinion is the same as rareboy's. Surprise surprise.

No, he couldn't, but each new thing they brought up stopped him in his tracks, and each one made him more skeptical. He went on the premise that it was a controlled implosion. As you said, he clearly claimed that it was a controlled demolition because that was exactly what it looked like. He explained how many men would have to do it and what they would have to do (which was exactly what I was telling you was necessary).

And then he started to learn things that he didn't know when he watched the video. He was shocked to learn that it was WTC7 and you could see the scepticism entering his face. He was more shocked to learn that it came down on the same day as the Twin Towers. More scepticism and more second-guessing. He was even more shocked to discover that the building was on fire and had been burning for 7 hours. At the end, the only answer he had was, "They worked very hard." His face and body language showed that he didn't believe it. He knew that it was impossible.

If you still believe that he thought it was a controlled demolition at the end of the video, the you're giving us a clear view of the mind of a conspiracy theorist who hears only what he wants to hear and creates theories to explain the rest.

 

[mikey3000]

Man. No offense but your brain is wired totally different than most others. What he's saying and what you're hearing are totally different that what others are hearing him say. Clearly, in the next video, you can hear the owner of the building say that a decision was made to "pull it", meaning to take it down, not evacuate it. Can you not hear that?

 

[belamyi]

Man. No offense but your brain is wired totally different than most others.

How many are those "others". You mean the ones who say that things are what they say, no matter what.

What he's saying and what you're hearing are totally different that what others are hearing him say. Clearly, in the next video, you can hear the owner of the building say that a decision was made to "pull it", meaning to take it down, not evacuate it. Can you not hear that?

You mother language is English, right? It may then be easier for you to hear and understand what he is saying there: "Then I remember they gave me a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they'd gonna be able to contain the fire, then he said 'you know, we face such terrible loss of life', 'the smartest decision to do is pull it', and they made that decision, to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

Now, as the native English speaker that you are (you are a native speaker, right?) you know the meaning of "pull" and what it means "to pull it": to abandon. As a native English speaker (because you are so, right?), you now that in a turn of phrase with a simple verb plus the "it", the "it" merely refers to the situation, not an object.

Because the building is in your own mind all the time, whatever Mr. Silverstein is saying you take as referring to the building and, logically, you "pull" your own sense of what he is actually saying.

He is referring to "the firemen in the building on fire". He quotes the commander talking about the danger continuing there represented for the men working inside, then he speaks about the final decision to "pull it". But that, for you, means "pull it down". Because they had been working to extinguish a fire for hours, then decide to spend a few minutes to pull it down. Unless you decide that WTC7 too had built-in explosives in its structure, and they only had to "trigger it".

"Pull", "pull it", "pull it down". When you are obsessed with a result, everything makes sense with the result you want to obtain, and you keep feeding that belief, forgetting what you have missed, and what you have blundered in your "demonstration".

But, hey, I am not opposing to your own beliefs and your own sense of right: nobody who merely discusses and reasons facts can oppose people who believe they are right, in whatever way they please to turn their facts to continue to appear that they are right.

 

[rareboy]

Man. No offense but your brain is wired totally different than most others. What he's saying and what you're hearing are totally different that what others are hearing him say. Clearly, in the next video, you can hear the owner of the building say that a decision was made to "pull it", meaning to take it down, not evacuate it. Can you not hear that?

This has been explained.

He was referring to the Contingent of firefighters.

'Pull it' is not a term used in demolition. This has also been explained.

There is no mystery here.

It isn't our brains that are wired differently.

It is the brains of the die hard, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Paranoid, neurotic and resistant to facts.

No offense.

 

[belamyi]

Man. No offense but your brain is wired totally different than most others. What he's saying and what you're hearing are totally different that what others are hearing him say. Clearly, in the next video, you can hear the owner of the building say that a decision was made to "pull it", meaning to take it down, not evacuate it. Can you not hear that?

Short version of my above commentary:

you say Silverstein said "pull it down". He said "pull it".

Anyone can see that "pull it" and "pull it down" are not the same and, as a native English speaker, you should know that the meaning of the expression is as different as its form, and one expression is not the same as the other.

 

[Pierresro]

I despise September 11 conspiracy theorists even more than moon landing deniers.

You are absolutely correct they are ignorant low educated fools!

 

[gsdx]

Man. No offense but your brain is wired totally different than most others. What he's saying and what you're hearing are totally different that what others are hearing him say. Clearly, in the next video, you can hear the owner of the building say that a decision was made to "pull it", meaning to take it down, not evacuate it. Can you not hear that?

So, your own evidence killed your own argument, so now you're changing the rules of the game.

My brain is wired quite well, thanks, and I heard what I heard in the Jowenko video. You heard what you wanted to hear and that was as far as it went for you. You didn't bother to pay any attention beyond what you wanted to hear.

Your track record precedes you, Mikey. How often have you posted articles based solely on the headline only to find the content was completely the opposite? This is exactly what happened with your Jowenko video. You heard 'controlled demolition' and that was enough for you. Had you bothered to watch the entire video and learn the facts as Jowenko did, you would never have posted that video because it throws all sorts of wrenches into your conspiracy theory's gears.

 

[mikey3000]

Hmmm. I see that some posts appear to have already been deleted (like gdsx post about buildings stay up via "habit", so i won't bother. I'll concede. You are all right. The collapse of WTC 7 is just as you say, and the government report on the incident is 100% fact.

 

[belamyi]

^ No, no, please. You are right... well, half-right: it was a demolition set-up planned by conspiration theorists to frame the government and prove themselves right.

 

[rareboy]

^ No, no, please. You are right... well, half-right: it was a demolition set-up planned by conspiration theorists to frame the government and prove themselves right.

 

[rareboy]

Hmmm. I see that some posts appear to have already been deleted (like gdsx post about buildings stay up via "habit", so i won't bother. I'll concede. You are all right. The collapse of WTC 7 is just as you say, and the government report on the incident is 100% fact.

You can comfort yourself 'knowing' that those of us pointing out the flaws in your thinking, research and knowledge are actually all Deep State actors who have been embedded in JUB for the sole purpose of keeping people like you away from the Truth.