Okay I pick #2. The one about building #7. That is one of the hardest ones for me to swallow.
OK... Heres your question.
2. WTC Building #7. It was not hit by a plane. You can see it had some small fires in a few floors. The media coverage of the fires in that building were reported in the major media and are available on YT as well. What caused it to collapse later in the day around 5:30 in about 7 seconds. It collapsed neatly and completely into it's own footprint for no apparent reason that I can think of. I've seen much weaker buildings with much worse fires burn for much much longer and they don't collapse at all. They just sort get gutted from the inside and the frame remains. Here nothing remained. Absolutely everything went down all in one shot for no good reason.
Larry Silverstein was on PBS a few days later and said he asked "them" to "pull it" "and we watched the building come down". "Pull it" is a phrase known to be used by demolition workers when they do a controlled demolition. If it was a controlled demolition how did they set that up so fast amongst all the chaos of the day? Correct me if I'm wrong but a controlled demolition would take weeks to set up, and why would they set one up in the first place?
It's notable that Larry Silverstein owned the twin towers and Building #7 and profited greatly from the insurance policies he'd taken out on his buildings weeks before the events. His buildings were the only ones that collapsed.
OK.. here goes my answer…..
C.T. (Conspiracy theorirsts)
CLAIM 1 BY C.T.
The fires observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires, and could have never triggered its collapse.
RESPONSE
The burning in WTC 7 were EXTREMELY extensive. Here is a picture (Not doctored) showing the fires of WTC 7 burning well before its collapse.
Ive added additional Video... since Nik responded that he thought the photo was taken after another building was toppling.. and the smoke wasnt actually coming from WTC 7
Also check out this:
Especially at about 1:20 The fire on the south side is completely consuming... and starts to create a visible hole in the overall structure. Again.. the Conspiratists always leave this out fro some reason. hmmmm.. I wonder why?!?
Short clip here:
Here is the LOWER south side:
(Here you can here the fireman saying... 'thats why they PULLED everyone out of here'.... (Discussing the instabillity of the building)
How does the 9/11 Truth Movement ignore this?? The Truth Movement’s presentations and documentaries only show the north side, and not the side with all the flames.
More Proof:
Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:
‘We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.’
More Proof:
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time
I personally remember this being reported over and over again by the news… and am shocked that C.T. always ignore this. The news (On nearly every channel) kept telling us from a variety of independent experts that the building would fall.
Again… all of this is ignored by C.T.
More Proof:
Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage.
CLAIM 2 BY C.T.
Silverstein’s allegely “confesses” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds
“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.14
And since “pull it” is “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.. he must have meant it was prepped tobe demolished long before.
C.T. believe that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, in order to claim a huge insurance payoff
RESPONSE:
Silverstein was talking about the fire unit… not the building. He was speaking about pulling the fire unit out of the building because the loss of life was already. But if you don’t believe me or him… read on.
People in the fire industry often use the word PULL to describe ‘pulling out a unit from an operation (Example on 9/11, one first responder said, there were ‘tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out.’) (there are many more examples)
Also..
There were dozens of firefighters from multiple units present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue missions until late in the day on 9/11. They were there from the first response… and they stayed there all the way until they were ordered to ‘pull’ out, because it was too dangerous. NONE OF THEM TELL ANYTHING REMOTELY SIMILAR TO WHAT COSNSPIRATISTS THINK. All of their stories are consistent. , (Unless you believe that they are all involved with a giant conspiracy)
Prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. The building needs to be partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. It is a huge undertaking.
ALL of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government or Larry gain access to wire complete demolition and to gut the buildings without anyone noticing? Since there were no casualties in WTC 7, all youd need is 1 person to say they saw something suspicious… and there wasn’t a SINGLE person to do so.
(BTW even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits that this is a big hole in their theory)
ALSO.. If this were true about Silverstein doing this to get insurance money, and he was such a maniacal genius.. . why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special shortly after? (Which the insurance company would do everything is possibly could to nullify any claims.. and he would then spend years in jail.)
ALSO the insurance policies he'd taken out on his buildings weeks before were the exact same plans he had on the building since it was first constructed. He wasn’t ‘taking out’ a brand new policy… he was simply renewing a policy that he had since the building was first built. There was NO new coverage added and nothing suspicious about it.
Topic: 8 Nagging Questions About 9-11 (Read 49903 times)