Here is a link to the pbs interview where Larry Silverstein said it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq-0JIR38V0

I know everyone has seen the building go down. That is never a building's response to a fire, according to what I have seen. The 911 report kind of skimmed over it and went into no detail. I don't put any stock in quasi scientific explanations of why, in this one special case, a fire led to a pancaking collapse. When you have a foregone conclusion and look to find reasons why the conclusion is true you are not engaging in science. I wouldn't even read the popular mechanics article supposedly debunking the conspiracy theories. I talked to 4 or 5 grad and undergrad students in civil engineering back when this happened just because they were around and I wanted to pick their brains. None of them thought it was a controlled demolition but they all had distinct theories of why the building collapsed. Obviously they cannot all be correct. But that doesn't make them conspiratards. They are simply using their education and judgement to make a guess, although they were far more adamant than I am. I know that there is a decent chance that it wasn't a controlled demolition. But I think more likely than not it was.

If someone were to show that this type of collapse happens sometimes resulting from a fire that would go a long way towards me reconsidering. But from what I have been told this type of collapse resulting from fire is practically unheard of.

Maybe I should read more about it. But like I said, when smart people decide on a conclusion and then start looking for supporting evidence they can sound very convincing while being way wrong. You can be assured that the people who write the official reports did not ever consider the possibility that there was controlled demolition. Look at all the "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq. Look at all the smart people who had us believing ice cream trucks were mobile weapons factories (well not me but most people). They believed it too because they started with a conclusion and went from there. That is not how to do science.

There are several physicists and engineers at accredited universities who believe the twin towers were a controlled demolition. In that case I suspend judgement because that event was such a novel experiment that you kind of have to take it at face value. You can see the planes impacting the buildings and who knows what kind of effect that has- it has never been studied experimentally or longitudinally. But with building 7 we see just a fire and some apparently minor structural damage. We have plenty of comparisons for that in the past and, though I could be misinformed, we haven't ever seen that outcome resulting from similar scenarios in the past.

I don't doubt that he said it. It's the importance you place on your very specific interpretation of what he said. It's a totally reasonable thing to say with respect to giving up on fighting the fire. And even if it weren't its ridiculous to place much emphasis on one phrase said by one person in the middle of a major once-in-a-century event.





We went over this in the other thread. We're talking about a building that had at least minor, and very possibly, major damage from massive super tall skyscrapers collapsing nearby. We're talking about a fire that ravaged for a long period of time without efforts being made to control the fire.

This wasn't a standard skyscraper fire. And, even if it were, we have a small sample size of what happens in sky scraper fires - especially when you take into consideration the number of different core designs for these buildings.

Comparing this to Iraq is just silly. The major evidence for WMDs presented to the public was "Just trust us". That's not the evidence for the WTC 7 collapse.


Edit: And this doesn't even cover the ridiculousness of how hard it would have been to carry off the WTC 7 as a controlled demolition. Like, how do you think this was done?

Deuces,

I added you to my mental "people who shouldn't be taken seriously" list when it became you have a terrible filter for conspiracy claptrap. With as much offense as is appropriate- you're being a complete ****ing asshat.

To be frank- any intelligent person should reject 9/11 conspiracies well before we get into stupid debates about how a building should collapse when you hit it with a plane. If you lack the common sense and critical thinking skills to do that, it's really hard to take anything that happens after seriously.

Story checks out. Dude, you're a ******.

Deuces- Can you explain, in your own deeply ******ed words, what the "pull it" quote means? I'm not doubting that somebody said it, but I don't understand the context.

Who said it, and why does it matter? DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST WITH A YOUTUBE. I want prose. I want you to explain why I should care.

Conspiritards, at their hearts, are just insanely arrogant. Like the mystery here that needs explanation isn't "Why WTC 7 collapse?"

The actual mystery here is "Why does Deuces not understand why WTC 7 collapsed?", and man, that **** does not require a conspiracy to explain. But to Deuces it does. There has to be more to this story.

JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, of course, Deuces will never explain:

1. How and when the building was rigged to explode
2. Who rigged it and why

I have no idea how the Space Shuttle works but I still believe the Hubble telescope is in orbit. I'm a sheeple!

This is so true. It's like they can't even fathom that some thing are beyond their understanding.

When he said "pull it", "it" was either referring to the building or the operation. It would be strange for "it" to refer to the fire control operation based on my interpretation with how people generally talk. Who talks like that? And why would he be in charge of the firefighting operation or even talking to the firefighter's? Just because you own a building doesn't mean you decide whether or not it burns to the ground or what the general emergency response will be. Why would this person have any say whatsoever in this situation?

Also, his quote is not some proof of what happened. But when considered alongside other facts it adds to the controlled demolition theory. As well it is a problem for other theories. Larry Silverstein is no trivial person. He is not some deluded geezer who thinks he was telling the emergency responders what to do when he really wasn't. He was actually telling them what to do. Why was this?






This is a fair point and why I am not completely sold on the controlled demolition theory.



The methodology used to arrive at conclusions was the comparison I was making and it is a valid comparison. People start with conclusions and look for supporting evidence all the time and it is always bad. With all the political implications here there is almost no way to even get an objective evaluation. The WMD "evidence" was far more than "just trust us". Collin Powell put on quite a little show and iirc he said a little more than "just trust us". He had photos and diagrams and everything. Unfortunately for him and the rest of the establishment their theory was actually tested.

As to how I think it was done I wouldn't dare speculate. I have no idea. I believe that all of the ruins were restricted from inspection immediately after the events. That being the case we may never be able to have full confidence in any explanation.

Good lord. I saw a person on the news the other morning say "tomorrow" instead of yesterday. She tried to walk it back but it was to late, Who talks like that if they can't see the future?????

And what kind of ****ed up logic do you have to use to simultaneously believe that:

A) Larry Silverstein doesn't have any say over how the fire is being fought

and

B) Larry Silverstein is part of a major conspiracy and was in control of when and how the building was brought down in a controlled fashion.

I would like to engage in debate but I don't think I am capable of speaking in "deeply ******ed" words. I suggest if that is how you want your debates framed you go the nearest group home, which I suspect might not be too long of a trip for you.

So you can't explain why I should care? Just like ShaneG. Eerie similarities.

"Pull it" means two different things to firemen and to demolition experts, this is like kiddy pool level conspiratarding. As a clue, to demo guys it means attaching cables to support structures and using winching mechanisms to literally pull out key supports.

Even if building 7 was controlled demo'ed, which trust me it wasnt, they wouldnt say "pull it" when doing so. The it they were pulling was the operation to put out the fires, they could have just as easily said "**** it" and you would be like "dude, there is the evidence that they literally ****ed the building until it fell over".

I'm not even sure it's that conspiracy people ARE arrogant as much as they have the aspirations of arrogance. I've bitched about this in other places, but the professional internet cynic who feels driven by a need to be right where others are wrong is one of the last decades worst creations.

The best any of this building crap does is raise the specter of ambiguity. That might have meaning in some other context, but as it relates to 9/11- where we know what happened, it's just so dumb and such backwards assed reasoning. It's really simple, we saw a plane fly into a building. The building fell down. We know who did it, we know why they did it. (something that most conspiracies don't effectively address). I don't get how people look at the basic facts of 9/11 and think it's fuzzy enough that all this speculation and guesswork means anything?

Then of course it's people like Deuces and Shane, who not only buy into 9/11, but also find conspiracies in Boston, and GOSH, everywhere ****ing else. That the single issue conspiracy nutjob is a rare beast is really ****ing telling. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Lizard People thing is popular is so that that crowd can go "Well sure, THAT'S crazy, but LBJ killed JKF, we've never been to the moon, that guy in Boston really has legs and 9/11 was an inside job".

To be fair we are talking about building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane.

I am sorry if what I say is troubling to you. Or maybe not what I say so much is troubling as that someone who you might perhaps agree with on some range of other issues finds some possibility of truth to an almost universally socially unacceptable theory. I know in the real world this is a non-starter and quick way to be dismissed. And I also understand the desire to live in a country in which the encouraging, enhancing, or outright fabrication of terrorist attacks in order to further political aims is beyond consideration. But in fact those are are historically tried and true methods of achieving mass cooperation towards political aims.

As in the Bush v. Gore situation, people are in a position where the implications of some possibilities are too impossible to manage from a practical standpoint to even merit investigation. In other words we would be better off not knowing. If we were to believe, as I do, that Bush effectively "stole" the election, what should we do about it? End the country? That would be a bit drastic from a practical standpoint. So even if we really believe that the election was stolen it would perhaps be optimal to ignore the evidence, move forward and continue life as we know it since, as Americans, that life is pretty good.

Nah- I'm right about a lot of stuff, even people who are busy being wrong are going to agree with me a lot.

Of course this is possible, but the form it takes is the post 9/11 WMD hunt, not the murder of 3000 people. That's one of the reasons the conspiracy fails, there's no need for it to accomplish the goals the imagined people behind it have in mind. (also the people with the ability to pull off something like that would probably just like, use those powers to accomplish their end goal because murdering browns is a lot easier than whites).

There's obviously a degree of skepticism with which you should approach everything, but that same degree should lead you to reject this conspiracy stuff outright.

I like how Deuces whined like a little bitch that I called him ******ed but he's totally blase about calling Dids too small minded and afraid to be as clued in as Deuces. Which, again, appears to be based on a guy saying "pull it".

Funny how that **** works.

Deuces, though, is strong enough of both mind and body to face the unthinkable:

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. By... somebody? For some reason?

Stopped reading Deuces ITT when he said he wouldn't even bother reading the Popular Mechanics explanation/debunking.

That was actually pretty awesome. Usually conspiratards are at least smart enough to try and obfuscate the fact that they're totally uninformed.

Yes, propaganda is a tried and true method to steer public opinion in a way that supports any given political/military agenda. You are right, however, when you mention wtc 7 as that was another thing that was brushed under the carpet just like everything else.

I won't debate about politics much, eg. bush v gore, left v right paradigm as I just see it as one fraction of a much bigger, sinister agenda. I'd prefer to focus on the things that I can definitely say are unreal, such as the pics and vids released that are meant to represent reality.

ShaneG could you list all the things you think are conspiracies ? You don't need to go into details but besides 9/11 and the moon landing what else is a conspiracy in your opinion ?

Well, for a start, all of the major psy ops such as 9/11, london 7/7, batman theatre aurora, sandy hook, the recent alleged woolwich massacre in england, plus many of the stories in the past about serial killers, it's all there to instill fear. If we dig a bit deeper we can look at things like the holocaust, dinosaurs and whether man evolved from apes like we are taught in western education.

Gotta feel bad for people like snowden and manning. Giving up there lives leaking such mundane crap compared to what the government is really doing.

Unless they are leaking as part of a government plan to convince the sheeple that the government is bad at keeping secrets.

They know you know Shane. Be careful.