«

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Originally posted by Microprose Veteran@Jun 30 2005, 02:03 PM
Larry Silverstein, leaseholder, WTC, remarks they "decided to pull WTC 7..." If you look it up, you will find that "to pull" is demolition slang for demolishing a building. Anyway, watch the WTC owner tell his story (which he later denied). The official story still holds that WTC 7, like the two highest towers, collapsed due to fires.

That's a real stretch. From Wikipedia:
It must be noted that the demolition of a building requires extensive planning and placement of a large number of explosive charges, a process that takes several days. Furthermore, Silverstein's comments are subject to interpretation. Opponents of the above interpretation state that Silverstein's "pull it" comment refers to pulling fire teams off of 7 WTC, to prevent further loss of life. Lastly, New York City fire department personnel did not have the proper qualifications for such demolition, nor did they have reasonable access given the significant damage and ongoing large fires in the structure to conduct such a controlled demolition.

Conspiracy theorists apparently continue to believe, however, that a 47-story building can be demolished at the drop of a hat by a group of people with no experience in that area and no tools for doing the job. Is there even any evidence that "pull" is slang for "demolish," or did someone simply decide that it should be in order to support his theory?

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones@Jun 30 2005, 10:55 PM
Is there even any evidence that "pull" is slang for "demolish," or did someone simply decide that it should be in order to support his theory?

"Pull" isn't,... maybe if it was "pull down".

[omg]

Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones@Jun 30 2005, 09:55 PM

Conspiracy theorists apparently continue to believe, however, that a 47-story building can be demolished at the drop of a hat by a group of people with no experience in that area

ok. im not siding with reosen or conspiracy here becuse both sides have good points. but if conspiracy is real then the people who did blow the building down would have been hired by the guys who wanted it blown. then they would have been killed.

[Microprose Veteran]

Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones@Jun 30 2005, 09:39 PM
That may be true, but how many unplanned building collapses have you seen?* (...)* Recalling that 9/11/2001 was a Tuesday, don't you think that at least one of the thousands of people who worked in the WTC towers would have noticed that this was going on?* If you worked in one of the world's tallest buildings, would it not strike you as odd to walk in one morning and see people going to town on the building's support structures with sledgehammers, rock saws, and cutting torches?

To my knowledge I have never heard of a modern steel-skeleton construct collapsing unplanned, unexpected in the last 50 years. There may have been bits and pieces falling off, but I've never heard of a modern building collapsing unexpectedly because of fire. Feel free to inform me if you possess knowledge of such cases.

I doubt there would have been people with sledgehammers and assorted power tools in the WTC in the weeks or months prior to 9/11. It would only attract attention. Since they would have an enormous budget, the perpetrators could have used more and heavier explosives instead of many small charges like the demo-people usually do (who are on a budget and also have safety precautions to attend to). When the order was given to 'pull' building 7, of course they didn't start rigging it at that time with explosives! That would have happened in secret in the weeks or months before.

WTC collapse due to high temperaturs melting steel construction: this is the official government statement. Are you saying they were actually wrong? The official story is that WTC 7 caught fire from the two tall WTC buildings and subsequently collapsed. Only this: building 7 is much, much farther away from the two towers than, say the Millennium Hilton. The Millennium Hilton was also hit by debris of the two towers and it too caught fire, yet it did not collapse.

The difference between WTC 7 and the Millennium Hilton was that WTC 7 was owned by the same man who leased the two WTC tall towers. Incidentally, this man started leasing the WTC from port authorities three months before 9/11 and practically doubled the insurance on the towers. When they fell three months later, he was given 7 billion dollars.

In addition to the general-sounding warning about Bin-Laden, the FBI got numerous reports that hijackers would use planes as missiles in the USA. At least the government did consider this a threat because from 2000 on they ran practice drills of hijacked airliners being used as missiles.

NORAD: whatever they may claim to save face, throughout the Cold War NORAD has always been tracking air traffic within American airspace and outside of that. They would not be very efficient at protecting America if they did not also track air traffic over America itself. When an aircraft diverted from its course, fighters were sent up to intercept the plane within minutes. In the two years prior to "9/11," NORAD conducted practice drills in which hijacked planes were used as missiles targeting the WTC to cause mass-casualties.

Ah, seems I've found a hard-core government supporter. It's always refreshing to meet people who are convinced their government would never lie to them.

Regarding the collapse of the two WTC towers and the collapse of WTC building 7: they did collapse in a vertical, symmetrical way, didn't they? That makes three times on one day. What a coincidence!

NORAD practice drills in which hijacked airliners were used by terrorists to target the WTC and cause mass-casualties:
link
For my further replies see quotes above.

[omg]

of course goverments lie. the question seems to be how much.

[PrejudiceSucks]

To be honest, I'm slightly inclined to agree with most of the US government based conspiracies, due to their strange motives.

I certainly agree that 9/11 was quite possibly staged. A plane would definately not create enough heat, even for a second, to melt a building like that. The demolition charges idea is quite a likely one, it would explain a lot.

What is 3000 lives when you can take the world's affairs away from your fraudulent elections?

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Jul 1 2005, 07:19 AM


What is 3000 lives when you can take the world's affairs away from your fraudulent elections?

If that was their goal, wouldn't a regular hijacking have sufficed?
Terrorists hijack plane and demand money, government solves it, nobody dies, the hijackers get arrested, Bush is the hero of the day.

[omg]

would have been a lot harder for bush to make all the dramatic speeches *mah people we have prevented a terrorist attack* just dont stick in peoples minds as much as the stuff he was able to spout for months after the disastor.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

To my knowledge I have never heard of a modern steel-skeleton construct collapsing unplanned, unexpected in the last 50 years.

It can be assumed from this statement that you have no idea how a modern skyscraper would collapse in the event of a massive structural failure, yet you seem to be convinced - with absolutely no evidence, as you have just stated above - that it would fall in some manner other than straight down. You are no doubt aware that gravity is pulling it in exactly that direction, I assume, but you are apparently also aware of some additional force acting laterally, a force strong enough to displace a 500,000-ton building's center of gravity far enough for the building to topple sideways. What, pray tell, is supplying this mysterious force?

I doubt there would have been people with sledgehammers and assorted power tools in the WTC in the weeks or months prior to 9/11. It would only attract attention. Since they would have an enormous budget, the perpetrators could have used more and heavier explosives instead of many small charges like the demo-people usually do (who are on a budget and also have safety precautions to attend to).

So, a demolition crew with tools would attract attention, but loads of "more and heavier explosives" wouldn't? I don't recall any survivors of the attacks reporting delivery trucks unloading strange, unlabeled crates that were hauled into the buildings and strategically positioned next to important structural members. Did they use alien technology developed at Area 51 to make it all invisible?

When the order was given to 'pull' building 7, of course they didn't start rigging it at that time with explosives!

There's that mysterious "pull" word again, and still no evidence to suggest that it's ever used to mean "demolish."

The official story is that WTC 7 caught fire from the two tall WTC buildings and subsequently collapsed. Only this: building 7 is much, much farther away from the two towers than, say the Millennium Hilton.

Um, no. It isn't. Have you even looked at a map of the site? See the "Millenium [sp] Hotel" waaaay over there on the right? Now do you see "7 WTC" up there near top center? Where in the world did you get the idea that 7 WTC is "much, much farther away" from the two main towers than the Millennium Hilton? You may want to re-evaluate the veracity of that particular source.

The Millennium Hilton was also hit by debris of the two towers and it too caught fire, yet it did not collapse.

So? We've already established that the Millennium Hilton was farther from 1 and 2 WTC (please refer to the map again if you still don't believe it), but let's dismiss that for the moment. How much debris hit each building? How bad were the fires in each? How was each building constructed? Come on, man! These are complex events! You can't oversimplify like that and expect to retain much credibility.

The difference between WTC 7 and the Millennium Hilton was that WTC 7 was owned by the same man who leased the two WTC tall towers. Incidentally, this man started leasing the WTC from port authorities three months before 9/11 and practically doubled the insurance on the towers. When they fell three months later, he was given 7 billion dollars.

This is the same man, Larry Silverstein, from which you have taken your "pull" quote. It appears that you are now saying he is not to be trusted. Seems like you wouldn't put a lot of credence in anything he says, then.

In addition to the general-sounding warning about Bin-Laden, the FBI got numerous reports that hijackers would use planes as missiles in the USA. At least the government did consider this a threat because from 2000 on they ran practice drills of hijacked airliners being used as missiles.

Yeah, I followed that link. (Are you following mine?) Here are a couple of salient passages:

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere.

That seems to support one of my earlier statements. Remember, this is your source.

When an aircraft diverted from its course, fighters were sent up to intercept the plane within minutes.

And do what? Shoot it down without knowing the intentions of the pilot? You didn't answer my question on this subject, so I'll ask it again: Even assuming the government knew that four airliners had been hijacked, what were they supposed to do? Sure, it would have been nice if Mohammed Atta had personally called the White House and said, "Yeah, about those four planes: we're gonna crash 'em into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and <insert other target here> in about an hour, 'kay?" But he didn't, did he? Still, you seem to be insisting that it would have been perfectly acceptable to shoot the planes down. Am I reading you correctly? Because if you're saying something else, please, let me know.

Regarding the collapse of the two WTC towers and the collapse of WTC building 7: they did collapse in a vertical, symmetrical way, didn't they? That makes three times on one day. What a coincidence!

Or, not knowing anything about how skyscrapers collapse, you could look at the events and say, "Hmmmmm, three of them collapsed in this manner. In the absense of evidence to suggest otherwise, maybe that's how most of them collapse." That's making a hypothesis based on observation, a key aspect of the scientific method. It is useful because it allows architects and engineers to improve upon skyscraper design in the future in order to make them safer. What you're doing is generating a theory without supporting evidence. How is that useful?

Ah, seems I've found a hard-core government supporter. It's always refreshing to meet people who are convinced their government would never lie to them.

This statement pretty much sums up all conspiracy theories and the thought processes of the people behind them. What you've done is taken an isolated incident - in this case, my refusal to accept your theory - and wildly extrapolated from it, with no supporting evidence other than that which you have generated yourself, to come to the conclusion that I accept without question everything the government tells me. Aside from being deeply offensive, that's just plain stupid. I'm intrigued, though. What else do you know about me?

[omg]

you like pie.