9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Blanchard is a known defender of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, and has had articles he's written refuted by the truth movement: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/

It's relatively easy to refute his statement that controlled demolition teams don't use the term "pull it", thanks to the legwork of others: http://killtown.blogspot.ca/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

There is a lot of other evidence that WTC 7 was taken down via controlled demolition as well. Architects and Engineers have written an 8 page article on the subject: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PD..._of_World_Trade_Center_Building_7_on_9-11.pdf

 

Perhaps, however, the link was unable to refute the primary contention (from the link):

'We have never once heard the term &#8220;pull it&#8221; being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we&#8217;ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to &#8220;pull&#8221; the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

We know that is how 6WTC was demolished, but it is immaterial to 7WTC.

This link merely confirmed my point above.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with their literature and I'm on their mailing list. I'm open to debate any points you'd like to discuss on the subject, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply in a civil and erudite fashion.

In light of how often the terms 'pull' and 'pulled out' are mentioned in the firefighters' testimony in the context of 7WTC, I'd tend to favour that interpretation over the demolition explanation, which in this context is somewhat inappropriate. Even AE9/11T won't commit to the meaning of the term:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696...e-controlled-demolition-of-the-building-.html

I can't recommend the following document and its attendant bibliography enough in exposing the manipulations, misrepresentations, and misinformation behind many of alternative hypotheses on this particular subject.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

 

Yes, I'm familiar with the piece.

"A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, &#8220;I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.&#8221;

&#8220;Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building &#8211; since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.&#8221;

This one never gets beyond the guy's memory and no-one can find the interview. This is the same video AE9/11T were trying to find last year, to no avail IIRC. The FDNY do not carry the materials required to demolish a building of that size, nor would they need the insurance company's permission even if they could, as the FDNY is autonomous in an emergency response. It's a strange claim that one. Why would the FDNY wait for an owner to call an insurance company etc.?

Yes, there was no water supply to fight the fires, therefore they concentrated on the rescue efforts in the immediate vicinity, hence the order. Some efforts were made, but they relied on the on-board pumps and the tanks soon ran out.

The order to evacuate was given by Chief Nigro at 2:30pm.

Here A. Jones perpetuates the mythology (note the mistakes and lies):

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html

 

Yeah when there are multiple independent claims of molten steel corroborating each other, it "could have just as easily been another material". Such as what? Ice cream? No it was MOST LIKELY molten steel. And yeah, it absolutely required a detailed forensic examination/investigation because it was a highly significant once in a lifetime anomaly that was deliberately ignored by the official investigators. And while it may have had nothing to do with CD, it may also have had everything to do with CD but that was officially ignored by the investigators as well by their own admission. An investigation that ignores key features/events is NOT a legitimate investigation, especially when most of the investigation standards are ignored as well.

 

PULL IT, according to a real fire marshall (expert witness), someone in a POSITION TO KNOW as opposed to a rabid denier:

At about 1:33

[video=youtube;nQrpLp-X0ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

I did, all of them. And although according to you, you were there and suffered personal physical damage and the loss of many friends (my sincere condolences), it has nothing to do with the official reports. IMO they are a massive criminal fraud that were NOT the result of any legitimate forensic criminal investigation into 9/11.

 

its a pity play, seen these posers far too many times.

 

you certainly have the patience of a saint to deal with these trolls and respond to them seriously. When I give people factual answers to their questions only to have them distort facts to create talking points thats the point they have to be classified as trolls. I glanced back at the responses to my recent posts and frankly had to laugh. Waste of time getting on their incredulous merry go round that demonstrates complete lack of understanding, not only of physics and engineering but virtually everything. I suppose thats ok though since they are just driving more nails in their own coffin.

so they are entitled to their own opinions they are not entitled to their own facts.

For instance NIST admitted wtc7 freefall and its impossible for any building or any part of a building to freefall without "all" the supporting structure being removed. That said we know the building was pulled is a fact. The only question is who pulled it.

 

It's not about that. It's about the fact that I want to discuss 9/11 regardless of the distractions. It keeps it alive. They are only meaningful to me personally as a tool to pursue my agenda.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can see through them, it's not that difficult.

I'm more interested in driving nails into the coffins of those responsible, not their sock puppets.

Their facts are limited by the Official Bible - 9/11 Edition. They even had a 9/11 For Dummies print in summary form so the average reader would not get confused with the 100 virgins story, so much for those facts.

Well I know what you mean but that's far from the only question IMO. And BTW, it doesn't matter if they calculated exact free fall or not, it's so obvious what it was, period. What makes it even more obvious is NIST's fraud and the massive coverup that's still ongoing.

 

Or it could have been aluminium, glass, lead. Furthermore, this post supports my case for the low standards of evidence that apply to 9/11 truth.

 

Actually that confirmed my point at 1:30 ff.

'We have no term for 'pulling' a building'. Exactly! Pull refers to pulling the men out of the area as in the quotes I supplied previously..

Thanks Bob.

- - - Updated - - -

The only posturing (posers) and chest beating around here seems to be yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't watch it, huh?

 

No it was steel, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" is as straightforward as it gets and especially if it was clarified years later. And since no one conducted a forensic examination, it is what it is unless and until proven otherwise.

YOU have no case, face it, it was MOLTEN STEEL, as reported and corroborated independently by credible eyewitnesses who were visibly shocked at what they saw. The only case missing is a forensic chemical analysis that would confirm what the eyewitnesses saw, which was deliberately never conducted by any officials tasked with investigating 9/11. It has zero to do with any phantom invention, it has to do with the reality I just stated.

 

Where does Rudy Dent say that? Not YOU, Rudy Dent. That's right, he doesn't, YOU said that. But he's a fire marshall, an eyewitness and an expert witness and you're nobody who means anything to anyone with respect to 9/11. And when he says "the building did come down in complete classical controlled demolition", that also confirms YOUR quotes?

 

No evidence of molten steel by any credible witness ... pure conjecture ...

Truthers have no case that would hold up in a court of law ...

 

So he claims he saw molten steel? I understand that and don't question it.

Ok, they believe they saw molten steel. I have no problem with that. Now how does this prove CD?

- - - Updated - - -

At 1:30 as you suggested.

I am discussing the point regarding Silverstein's claim. Was not that the reason you posted this? His testimony confirmed that of the firefighters regarding the 'pull it' claim.

Isn't that the subject here?

- - - Updated - - -

They can't even prove their premise, that is, molten steel is evidence of a CD, let alone prove the existence of this material. Why should anyone take it seriously? Is it sick if I enjoy their collective floundering upon the rocks of reason?

 

If it makes you comfortable with that, it's ok with me. I'm not here to convince of anything,

Non sequitur. It's as relevant as your belief that the molten claims are "pure conjecture".

 

No he said he saw the melting of girders. But they could have been made of ice cream, you never know. That's why claims like that are usually investigated, to verify if it was molten steel or molten ice cream. But you know official investigators cut corners, after all, they only had about 7 years.

<Mod Edit> But you just questioned it the prior sentence. That was quite a speedy turnaround.

<Mod Edit>

I thought I answered that many posts ago, but that was just my opinion. For all I know it either proves CD or it proves someone under the buildings built a secret foundry and the whole shebang spilled over due to the collapses.

I didn't suggest anything, Rudy Dent did, but whatever floats your boat is ok with me. Pull IT definitely means pull firefighterS out of a building who were not in the building in the first place. Silverstein was having a grammatical issue due to nerves. Can you blame him, $billions were at stake.

<Rule 3>

The subject here is "9/11: What really happened on that day?",...And what happened on that day among many other things is that many first responders claim they saw molten steel. <Mod Edit>

 

Yeah, semantics.

<Mod Edit> I've never denied anyone said they saw molten steel. <Mod Edit>

<Reply to Deleted>

No, it was a low level response that couldn't prove the claimed premise. I went through that for six pages with yourself and others. No-one understood that the premise needed to be demonstrated.

In your post you stated to note 1:32. <Rule 3>

No, it meant to pull the men back away from the building as proved earlier with quotes.

<Reply to Deleted>

...The 'subject' quite obviously referred to my post that you replied to. <Mod Edit>

No-one ever disputed that. <Rule 3>

<Reply to Deleted>

 

I just had to post this from ISF because of its relevance:

/Engage truther mode/

I'm not saying anyone did. I'm just speculating.

However, I know someone did, because I believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

However, I'm not going to say who I think did it, or how, because I'm just asking questions.

However, if you say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, I will mock you for mindlessly supporting the official story, and accuse you of shilling for the government.

However, if you ask me for my counter-evidence for my own view, I will decline, because it would be too dangerous for me to post it: I might get 'disappeared'.

However, I will state repeatedly online that I think 9/11 was an inside job, because the evil they (who I'm not going to name) will never be able to find me.

However, I believe that the conspiracy, which is capable of planning meticulously decades in advance, and has no compunctions about killing any number of people, has already killed a large number of witnesses, and bought or coerced the silence of even more. Just not me.

However, I will repeatedly point to AE911Truth, who are fearlessly campaigning for a new investigation despite these threats and inducements.

However, I will not say who should conduct the investigation, or how, or how impartiality can be assured, given that the vast majority of experts in all the relevant fields cannot be trusted to speak the truth.

I can't do this any more: too scary.
/Exit truther mode/

Thank you Cosmic Yak, that was so apt.

 

Part 3

Arthur Scheuerman, retired Battalion Chief from the New York City Fire Department and author of 'Fire in the Skyscraper', talks about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001. Arthur was there, and saw the terrible damage the building had sustained from falling debris, the huge prolonged fires, and made the professional decision that the building was probably going to collapse. The Fire Department decided to "pull" all personnel from the building and from the probable collapse zone, hundreds of feet in every direction, including evacuating other buildings of both firefighters and civilians.

[video]https://youtu.be/PsN-X_RDC6o[/video]

 

Yep, there are two kinds of eyewitnesses, those who believe the OCT and those who don't.

 

...should have been fired for making the wrong decision since NIST pointed out that the damage from falling debris was superficial.

<Mod Edit> the damage had NOTHING to do with the demolition.

<Mod Edit>

 

Well seeing as WTC7 was CD'd and the word was passed around by some unknown source that the building would "collapse" (because that's what buildings do when they are successfully CD'd) and it was "predicted" as early as 5 hours before they "pulled it", and they had already murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people in the prior 2 CDs and apparently they decided for some odd reason that they were going to try not to murder more people, they gave the order to "pull" all personnel out hours before they pulled the trigger and claimed pull IT means pull firefighters out who were already pulled out hours earlier. But you know how quotes are taken out of context and distorted. Pull IT and pull THEM OUT are interchangeable depending on who it is you want to snow.

 

/Engage ANTItruther mode/

I'm saying 19 Arab Mualims did it, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden from his cave in Afghanistan while on kidney dialysis.

I believe this because that is what the government and media told us.

However, if you say that 9/11 was an inside job, I will mock you for mindlessly supporting a conspiracy theory, even though the government's story is a conspiracy theory.

However, if you ask me for my counter-evidence for my own view, I will decline, because I already know the truth.

However, I will state repeatedly online that I think 9/11 was not an inside job, because conspiracies don't exist, except of course for the official conspiracy theory.

However, I believe that the official story, which is capable of planning meticulously decades in advance, and has no compunctions about killing any number of people, has already killed a large number of witnesses, and bought or coerced the silence of even more.

However, I will repeatedly laugh at AE911Truth, who are fearlessly campaigning for a new investigation, and despite these people being far more qualified than myself to discuss these topics, I don't care.

I can't do this any more: too scary.
/Exit ANTItruther mode/

 

No prize for second , Dude.

9/11 truth: Lacking in original thought for over 15 years.