Firstly, I apologise for the tone of some of my previous posts (those that were directed at you, at any rate). No offense was ever intended. For the record then, I do not - and never did - consider you a "conspiracy nut" or a nut of any kind. Hope that's crystal clear. (I do, though, consider at least two other contributors to this forum bona fide CN's whose opinions I simply don't care for, but that's rather beside the point). I don't want to appear too fawning, but your posts regarding RLC-related matters on this forum are among the few that I personally consider worth reading.
With respect, though, despite your eloquently stated insistence that you have no theories of your own with regards the collapse of the WTC towers, it is clear (to me at least) that you have, to some extent, assimilated and/or accepted *some* of the very dubious claims of an element within the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. This movement, I have no doubt, comprises largely decent, intelligent, successful people who believe - perhaps rightly - that they've been massively deceived on a wide range of levels by - amongst others - the US administration. I would imagine you've met lots of these people, and maybe you're involved with the Movement in some way. But in amongst them, in small numbers, are despicable lying toerags - but very articulate, vociferous, persuasive, despicable lying toerags. You already know this, so I shan't labour the point any further.
Example 3. The owner of Tower 7, (who also had recently become the owner of Towers 1 and 2, among other buildings in the Trade Center complex) was interviewed on the topic of Tower 7, and said "they told me they were going to pull it" (meaning controlled demolition). To date, no one has been able to get him to clarify that statement with any information whatsoever, but this very clear and indisputable affirmation is also preserved on tape.
I've looked into this a little bit now, and can only conclude one of two things. Either your statement is an untruth on your part, or you have quite uncritically accepted *some* of the lies of the conspiracists. (There's perhaps a third possibility: you simply made a mistake - a bit doubtful though since a person with your kind of high-powered occupation would presumably not make such a stupid mistake).
I repeat part of your statement: ...and said "they told me they were going to pull it" (meaning controlled demolition)."
Larry Silverstein did not say that, Roger.
He actually said this:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said
, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.
' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
You entirely misrepresented what Silverstein actually said. If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong.
YouTube video of Larry Silverstein saying the above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Oh, and Roger: Google Search... +Silverstein +"they told me they were going to pull it" -----> 1 hit
. And a slightly noteworthy one, too.
It's interesting to compare: +Silverstein +"We've had such terrible loss of life" -----> 728 hits
and +Silverstein +"the smartest thing to do is just pull it" -----> 72 hits
Not such a "clear and indisputable affirmation
" now, is it, Roger?
Perhaps yourself (and others, certainly - including Jake) would prefer sceptics to "look at the big picture
" rather than focus on the minutiae. But the big picture is composed of the minutiae, is it not? And the foundations upon which the minutiae stand are crumbling.
Item 1. No one ever said the owner ordered a demolition, the owner said he was "told" the building was being "pulled". It was in a broadcast interview and preserved on tape. (The same can be said about Giuliani, on the subject of Towers 1 & 2, "I was told the Towers were coming down")
You're wrong and you're right. There are thousands of people out there (conspiracists) who absolutely believe that Silverstein *himself* gave the order for the alleged "controlled demolition
" of WTC 7. Need I produce the URLs? I know that you know that these people are ignorant of the facts. But you are almost certainly wrong to say that the use of the verb "to pull" related to "pulling down" or "demolishing" WTC 7. It in fact referred to "pulling out the firefighters
" because all the indications were (from the firefighters themselves and other notable eyewitnesses) that the building was going to collapse. It was mighty dangerous in there. It had sustained massive structural damage. The building was making noises indicative of a failing, stressed structure. That is a fact, Roger. Not mere speculation.
Item 2. That may well be. One has to wonder whether the owner of the building was sufficiently well versed in demolition lingo to make this relevant.
And you accuse me of making "weak points".
Item 3. Bold assertion. No one has seen the time-relevant graphs from this plethora of seismographs, which one would think would be eagerly offered up, although whether or not such items could be trusted would depend on the source.
Again, and I'm sorry to say this, that's either an untruth or you are just ignorant. "No one has seen the time-relevant graphs from this plethora of seismographs,...
What are these then, Roger?
And that's after all of, what, 20 seconds of searching?
See also: http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
I suspect this is a reference to seismographs that are well established with ongoing research work in various institutions in the area, and I wonder whether they'd have registered any such thing in any case. Seismographs are purpose-calibrated.
I would doubt that you have sufficient background in the science of Seismology to hold anything more than mere suspicion. The seismographs certainly registered A) the impacts of the two planes, and B) the collapses of the three WTC buildings. Now, if (and only if) you're going to try the tired old cop out along the lines of "the seismology data might just have been fabricated
" then I feel you're really stepping into CN pastures, because this is exactly the kind of pathological denial that CNs specialise in. On the other hand, you may be in possession of hard evidence to support a case that Columbia University was part of the conspiracy, or that the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network was in on it too, and not to forget Protec.
Item 5. I was there, I saw those crews. They arrived at the same time as 2 additional EPA emergency response monitoring trucks. Well after the collapse of Towers 1 & 2. Remember that Towers 1 & 2 are the subject of the improperly explained collapse. Tower 7 is only interesting because of the owner's assertion as to a prior knowledge, and that only because Giuliani said the same thing about Towers 1 & 2, and also because no one knows who "they" were, who were issuing these warnings. Remember that the State and City authorities were - at that time - chasing their tails, with no one really in charge of anything.
"They" (in the case of WTC 7) were the firefighters that had battled the raging inferno that was gutting the building, were they not? Witnesses on the ground close-by began to hear the building making sounds indicative of structural weakening. Eyewitnesses (including firefighters and those that Brent Blanchard had spoken to) said that everyone knew it was going to collapse because of the state that the building was in. Word got from the firefighters that the building was going to collapse.
And the reason I'm focusing on WTC 7 at length is because it was primarily the subject of your third "Example". You made definite assertions, so you ought not to complain when someone decides to pull you up over them.
Your assertion that "To date, no one has been able to get him to clarify that statement with any information whatsoever,..
" is rather dubious. It was clarified (though probably not to your satisfaction, I trust) through a spokesperson (for Larry Silverstein). Do you know who that was? (Probably not.)
Quoting Dara McQuillan:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Not very convincing, perhaps. Afterall, he could be lying.
Meet Firefighter Richard Banaciski:
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled
us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled
us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down."
I think it could take only a bona fide CN to accuse or even suggest that Firefighter Banaciski lied or that he's just another conspiracy stooge. It would smack of utter desperation. This is why you're not going to dismiss this counterevidence, I hope.
Item 6. I would agree, except for one additional question with regard to Tower 7... Considering how the structure was severely slammed and weakened by debris (twice, once when the planes hit, once when the other towers collapsed) on ONE side, at several points of its height,
Indeed. Debris that included tons of steel girders falling at at least half-terminal velocity.K.E. = (1/2) m * v^2
. Lot of energy.
and considering the locations of the two diesel dumps that were burning for hours, we're inordinately lucky that the structure didn't collapse down and sideways, taking out another block of real estate in the process. Perhaps incentive enough to "pancake" it in a controlled manner? Who knows?
Well, maybe. You have, I notice, omitted to mention, or are simply ignorant of, an important little detail regarding the moments before the collapse of WTC 7. And I'm not alluding to the mechanical penthouse(s).
Once again, I'm NOT advocating the theory that a controlled demolition was employed in the collapsing of any of these 3 buildings. I am merely expressing my disbelief of the explanations offered to date. Interestingly, you seize upon the one building of the 3 with a "classic" structure and with a lengthy distress period likelier to cause a failure of said structure. This is quite removed from the circumstances of Towers 1 & 2.
I'm not seizing upon anything! Just looking at the minutiae, one little thing at a time. I suspect you would've still said similar if I had made towers 1 & 2 the centre of my focus instead of WTC 7.
As I said, this is not the place to engage in lengthy examinations of the various explanations and their weak - or even non-credible - points.
Is there a right place?
The true answer is that there are no real answers, at this point.
Now who's making the bold assertions? There are
answers, and you know it. You just don't agree with them.
Of course, someone with an unrealistically trusting mind-set
Sheesh. I haven't mischaracterised you (or if I have, it was unintentional and I've apologised for it). Don't mischaracterise me, please. There's been too many ad hominem attacks in this discussion. Ça suffit.