HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Building 7 Conspiracy Fan...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:16 AM

Building 7 Conspiracy Fans - Here you go - Building 7 Explained logically....

Watch this and your questions will be answered!!! Or should be! Case closed!

50 replies, 8833 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Building 7 Conspiracy Fans - Here you go - Building 7 Explained logically.... (Original post)
Logical Jan 2012 OP
gyroscope Jan 2012 #1
deconstruct911 Jan 2012 #2
Logical Jan 2012 #3
gyroscope Jan 2012 #5
Logical Jan 2012 #8
gyroscope Jan 2012 #12
cpwm17 Jan 2012 #11
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #15
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #4
gyroscope Jan 2012 #6
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #7
dougolat Sep 2012 #43
Logical Jan 2012 #9
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #16
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #48
T S Justly Jan 2012 #10
wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #13
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #14
sabbat hunter Mar 2012 #17
AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #19
Politicalboi Mar 2012 #18
jberryhill Aug 2012 #20
zappaman Aug 2012 #21
jberryhill Aug 2012 #22
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #23
Ruby the Liberal Aug 2012 #24
CJCRANE Aug 2012 #25
freshwest Aug 2012 #41
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #26
hlthe2b Aug 2012 #27
Kali Aug 2012 #28
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #31
magical thyme Aug 2012 #38
UnrepentantLiberal Aug 2012 #29
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #32
UnrepentantLiberal Aug 2012 #34
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #36
zappaman Aug 2012 #35
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #37
Amaril Aug 2012 #30
Nasty Gash Aug 2012 #33
Viva_La_Revolution Aug 2012 #39
snooper2 Aug 2012 #40
sylvi Aug 2012 #42
NoMoreWarNow Oct 2012 #44
William Seger Oct 2012 #45
1444tx Nov 2012 #46
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #47
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #49
Frank_Norris_Lives Dec 2012 #50

Response to Logical (Original post)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:13 PM

1. 'Collapsed simply due to uncontrolled fires'

well, this is bad news for the professional building demolition industry. the NIST report will put them put out of business for good. for the first time in history, a steel high-rise is brought down by fire.

...which shows that from now, on all you need is a box of matches and a can of gasoline and voila! instant do-it yourself controlled-demolition. just like magic.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:53 PM

2. Why not just blow out a couple floors

and let the pulverization begin.

But you're right, a match is still cheaper than rigging an entire floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 04:06 PM

3. Think again! Other structures have been brought down with only fires.....

and most buildings do not have multiple fires burn for 7 solid hours with no sprinklers working and no firefighters fighting them.

Keep trying. We will keep proving you wrong!

This is easy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:31 PM

5. Is the building demolition industry aware of that?

someone better inform them quick!

I hope you don't own stock. better sell before its too late.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:45 PM

8. Fire can also bring down bridges, but I think they still prefer to use jackhammers and equipment....

Maybe most engineers, unlike you, think leaving all the flammable material in a abandoned building and then setting it on fire and waiting 7 hours is not a very effective way to bring it down. But maybe you know more than they do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 06:55 PM

12. Bay bridge collapse

you're forgetting the impact of the explosion.
the fuel tanker was filled with thousands of gallons of gasoline.
when it ignited the explosion was like a giant bomb going off.

the bridge is not comparable to WTC 7.
it was made of steel-reinforced concrete, not steel-framed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 06:02 PM

11. Since WTC7 severely damaged the neighboring buildings when it collapsed, I doubt this will catch on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:45 AM

15. LOL!

Yeah right. You do know that WTC 7 was 47 stories high don't you? Not some one story office building. These fires were NOT hot enough to take the buildings down. Jet fuel needs containment to keep hot. So then we are also not to believe Barry Jennings who worked in WTC who said there were bodies in WTC7 before the towers fell, and he heard explosions in WTC7 before the towers fell.

&feature=related

This is easy. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:22 PM

4. I noticed that you didn't respond to my point about Fiterman Hall

I'm guessing that if a professional building demolition company had been brought in to destroy WTC 7, it wouldn't have settled for doing irreparable damage to Fiterman Hall in the process.

I suppose that doesn't really rebut your argument, because you didn't really make an argument. Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:32 PM

6. Never heard of it

Fiter who? would be nice if I knew what you were talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:35 PM

7. the year is 2012

It certainly would be nice if you knew about Fiterman Hall before you try to lecture people about the collapse of WTC 7.

Just a thought. No need to thank me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:16 AM

43. So, you know this?

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 06:25 AM - Edit history (1)

" The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7 was Not An Inside Job" on WashingtonsBlog:

[link:http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/911-at-least-this-one-aspect-was-not-an-inside-job.html|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:46 PM

9. Great point. But logic does not apply to many here!! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:47 AM

16. You're right it doesn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:38 AM

48. Over a year ago I attended a lecture by the NIST scientist...

...who put together the time-line models of the fires within the buildings. He showed a film of this building suddenly collapsing behind a reporter conducting an interview. Very strange, the building just starts to disappear from the top down, collapsing in on itself.

He explained the dynamics. This building was very odd-shaped and the section that started the collapse was basically held up by one central steel pillar. As the fires inside successively ignited, flared up, and and diminished over a long period of time, the sections of the pillar were successively heated and cooled. The expansion and contraction caused the pillar to warp and "walk" over its base, a concrete pad. Eventually, it slipped off the edge of the pad, and the section it was holding up, starting at the penthouse on the top, came down, caving in upon itself. This destabilized the whole structure.

Normally office fires are put out relatively quickly and don't spread around inside a building. Due to the emergency surrounding the area, there was no attempt to put out the fires in this building and they just kept burning and spreading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:53 PM

10. DUzy! Lol. (nt) (nr)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)


Response to Logical (Original post)

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 03:27 AM

14. Nope!

The building in Madrid burned for 24 hours, and only a few floors fell. This video proves nothing. The 23rd floor was reinforced, and office fires don't burn that hot. And the freeway overpass collapse is not a fair comparison. That fire had direct fuel to keep the fire hot enough to melt the steel. Office furniture, doesn't burn that hot. And there is video of firemen telling people just minutes before it fell down that it was coming down. And then you heard a big explosion, but that video is hard to find these days. I wonder why. Like the video of Pentagon employees standing shoulder to shoulder out on the Pentagon lawn picking up evidence on 9/11. And they weren't cops either. They were sent out to tamper with evidence. And we have the BBC video of reporting that WTC7 building had collapsed before it did. And of course Larry Siverstein who said they decided to "pull it" which is left out of this video that proves NOTHING.

Madrid building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 12:37 PM

17. When exactly

do you think WTC 7 was wired for implosion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:15 PM

19. Great, you just compared an apple to a brick.

The steel-framed components of the Windsor Tower collapsed to the ground less than 3 hours into that fire. THAT is the only valid part of your analogy. (And it tends to prove the uncontrolled/unopposed fire in WTC7 causing the collapse of the building)

What you see still standing after the Windsor Tower fire is ONLY the components of the building that are concrete pillars. Fire does damage concrete, through spalling, but it was negligible in this case. Had WTC7 been built like the Windsor Tower, it probably would have survived.


"The structure was divided into two halves by a technical floor without windows. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing."

WTC 7 did not have the concrete core that you see standing in the aftermath of the Windsor Tower fire. But look carefully at the aftermath. You might notice the shape of the building is quite different from the pre-fire photos. That is because the sections of the building that WERE steel-framed construction, are gone. They failed and collapsed to the ground. If you watch the news footage of the fire, you can see those components collapsing at about the 3 hour mark. Why some of those components failed faster can be explained in differences in construction method, the amount of load the metal was required to bear (Windsor only had some sections of some floors in steel-frame, smaller building only 29 stories, etc.) or fuel sources available inside, different fireproof ratings on furnishings and materials present, etc.

Basically, your analogy tends to prove WTC7 collapsed as a direct result of the un-fought fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 12:19 AM

18. Yes WTC 7 was fragile LOL!

How do they explain cars burnt out on a street like an explosion? Larry Silverstein saying "pull it"? Larry Silverstein getting 7 Billion of insurance money on a 16 million dollar investment.
2.3 Trillion unaccounted for at the Pentagon on 09/10/01. Doesn't anybody even think that money and power were the motive? Bush and his cronies made good money over this. And what about the stock dealings the week before? Or was that some lie too? Or lack of defense by the Pentagon. How can a passenger plane hit a military building 40 minutes after the second impact on the towers? Is that logical? Is that what we pay for? It that believable?

Here's a video I found last week that shows more ground coverage around WTC 7. Oh and note that the cars lack debris on top of them from free falling buildings.

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:17 AM

20. "Larry Silverstein saying "pull it"?"


Whom did Larry Silverstein instruct to "pull it"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #20)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:13 PM

21. And what does "pull it" mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:24 PM

22. That's not as interesting

Let's assume he meant "secretly demolish the building and then collect insurance".

These guys never seem to want to talk about the actual context in which they base this particular piece of nonsense - i.e. a discussion he had with FDNY officials.

If we accept the premise as true, the way this shakes out is that Silverstein instructed to the FDNY to do it, the firefighters somehow were prepared to do so in a burning building on short notice, AND they kept their mouths shut about their own complicity in an incident which claimed many of their own lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:44 PM

24. Um, clarify please?

Your Human civilization is only 12 to 14 thousands of your years old.


Do you not count yourself among us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:17 PM

25. First contact with an alien life form!

And it chooses DU as the venue for this momentous occasion, in the Creative Speculation forum no less!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #25)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 01:05 PM

41. I respect emigrants who take the time to speak our language, as we're monolingual in the USA.

I feel honored and will be stopping by here more often. This will be enlightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 07:28 AM

26. We are among you now

 

Some few of us are among you now. It has not always been so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 11:50 AM

27. Modern humans have been on earth for 200,000 years by most estimates.

So are you of the "man coexisted with dinosaurs put there by God a mere few thousands of years ago-- creationist" persuasion? Since you say we've only been around 12-14,000 years, I'm quite fascinated to see where you go with this.

But, far be it from me not to welcome a guest--including a guest from ---wherever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:28 PM

28. modern human does not = civilization

that came much later than the biology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:04 PM

31. I said "civilization"

 

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 06:48 AM - Edit history (2)

I said "civilization" not "humans". Civilization usually refers to sedentarization or establishment of permanent habitations, cities or city-states by your anthropologists. This is the point at which widespread cooperation must begin to be learnt.

We observed sedentarization occurring approximately 12 to 14 centuries ago on Earth.


I am a little confused. You first said human civilization began 12,000 to 14,000 years ago on Earth. Then that sedentarization began 12 to 14 centuries ago. 12 to 14 centuries seems closer to 1,200 to 1,400 years.

Or did you mean millennia rather than centuries?


Observant reader magical thyme detected an error in this writing and kindly informed me of same. Kindly know that "centuries" should read "millennia". Thank you for the correction reader magical thyme and thank you for your interest. I am not permitted to send you a personal writing for the rules of this forum forbid such by new members. Kindly accept this impersonal thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 06:03 AM

38. hello and welcome, Nasty Gash

I am a little confused. You first said human civilization began 12,000 to 14,000 years ago on Earth. Then that sedentarization began 12 to 14 centuries ago. 12 to 14 centuries seems closer to 1,200 to 1,400 years.

Or did you mean millennia rather than centuries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 03:28 PM

29. Hi, being from another planet.

 

How should we address you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:17 PM

32. None of us have names.

 

We have not names in the Human sense. Our individual identities have more to do with our location in 4-space, but that is an inadequate attempt to describe it in Human terms. It might be helpful for Humans to think of our individual identies as "addresses" In 4-space.

Please use the label "Nasty Gash" if you wish, for me. Others have chosen their own labels.

Thank you for asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 05:22 PM

34. What is your mode of space travel?

 

Do you have a solution for that going faster than the speed of light problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:04 PM

36. Thank you for your interest

 

You enquire about superlightspeed travel. As Humans presently perceive the concept, yes, we are able to "move" from one "location" to another in 3-space at superlightspeed (again, as Humans conceive the terms). However, Dr. A. Einstein was correct. I trust you have some knowledge of his conclusion that superlightspeed is not possible. It will require perhaps another 2 centuries for Humans to discard their current 3-space thoughtmode and to acquire the 4-space thoughtmode required fully to comprehend the matter.

We are gratified by your interest in us. We are especially gratified by your inquisitive nature. Would that all Humans would be so. However, the matter I introduced in my initial writing is of far greater import. You Humans must attend to that lest your civilization fail and never learn the answers which you seek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 06:49 PM

35. This is fascinating and I consider myself lucky to be able to question a real space alien.

1. How long have you been visiting the Earth?
2. Will you ever reveal yourself to the entire planet?
3. Are you friendly or hostile?
4. Are you able to pick up our television signals? If so, are you a STAR TREK fan or a STAR WARS fan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:43 PM

37. Thank you for your interest

 


1. How long have you been visiting the Earth?

It is difficult to express in Human terms. It is similar to asking "what time is a lightyear?". Perhaps it would help to know that we witnessed the first asteroids bringing "life" to your planet.


2. Will you ever reveal yourself to the entire planet?

Already we have.


3. Are you friendly or hostile?

Do you not believe my initial writing? We have nothing but goodwill toward all species.


4. Are you able to pick up our television signals? If so, are you a STAR TREK fan or a STAR WARS fan?

Your broadcasts in general do not interest us for they are designed to indoctrinate and they encourage avarice and the coveting of petty material goods.

Your interest is gratifying. However, it is urgent that the message of my initial writing be attended to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 03:41 PM

30. The burning question that we all need answered........

.......do all of you look like Keanu Reeves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amaril (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:25 PM

33. He is not one of us

 

Keanu Reeves is not one of us. He is a Human actor. Do not be deceived. Human movies usually are produced for propaganda and indoctrination purposes and sometimes for entertainment, not to depict reality. We all have different external visages just as your species has.

Thank you for your interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:15 AM

39. Well, I'm glad you're here

as long as you don't eat us.



to DU, Nasty Gash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:36 AM

40. The most important thing for a society to survie is science-

As we still have billions of humans on our planet who believe in mythical gods, can you explain the evolution of your societies?

I mean, you didn't just "pop" into being right? The planet or moon you are from had it's own evolution within it's solar system. Live maybe began in the seas like earth, or maybe pools of methane or where the lava flows melted the frozen crust creating the first pools of liquid water.

So again since you just didn't "pop" into being except for gracing our presence here, explain the mystical in your society from it's earliest stages and what it took to get over it. Once your kind evolved to a point where you coud question why you are here, why the ground shakes, why flash storms happen how did pre-mature versions of you deal with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Gash (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 11, 2012, 06:08 PM

42. Is Elvis really dead?

 

Please say no. I have a bet going with someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:45 PM

44. No new info here

 

I don't think it addresses the many issues that have been raised by serious 9/11 skeptics.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #44)

Fri Oct 12, 2012, 07:50 PM

45. No new info there, either

... and the issues raised in that article have been addressed many times. For example, the main claim is that the 2.25 seconds of WTC7 free-fall is not explained by the NIST theory. Yes, it is, and the explanation is much better than their "scientific" controlled demolition theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:06 AM

46. Building 7

This is really obvious, and I know it's been "debunked" among the uber intellectuals, but you Tube "Larry Silverstein Pull it". It's well known among demolition teams what that term means but I know, I know- unless MSM said so it's not true. Or, one could just put the implosion of a building featured on KXAS Channel 5 news (or any implosion) a week ago next to Building 7 and see the glaring similarities.

(sarcasm on)
It's truly impossible that a government wouldn't allow that horrible event to happen especially considering that the defense industry has profited IMMENSELY since 9/11/01 and boy howdy those neo cons sure did predict it with PNAC, now didn't they? Oh and my gawrsh, how did they know to place put options on said aircraft in the days and weeks prior to 9/11. And don't worry, Operation Northwoods wasn't a plan that didn't involve remote aircraft not being shot down to blame on our enemies; but oh it's my tinfoil hat that's on too tightly.....RIGHT
(sarcasm off)


Seriously, the people "in charge" KNOW how mentally WEAK the general populace IS and THAT is why your government is being sold off, jobs are being shipped out and they have *US* fighting about wedge issues. You think they are going to CORRECT what they USE to DIVIDE US?
Lol wake the f**k up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1444tx (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:57 AM

47. Pull-it isn't a term used by demolition teams while imploding buildings

that's made-up "truther" B/S. In the video, he clearly meant that they should pull the firefighters back from the building, since the fires couldn't be fought and WTC7 appeared to be in danger of collapsing.

It's ridiculous to think that Larry Silverstein would admit to imploding WTC7 on a TV program.

If you showed the implosion of a building next to the WTC7 collapse with the sound turned on, you'd notice one big difference right off: from a distance, WTC7 fell in silence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:56 AM

49. WTC7 fell in silence... I saw a video of the collapse at a lecture given by a NIST scientist...

As I remember it, there is a reporter doing an interview with someone and the building is in the background. As they talk, starting at the top with the penthouse, the building just starts to disappear into itself.

The really strange thing is that it is just not very dramatic. And the interview just goes on, with out the two noticing what is happening at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:30 AM

50. And Mr. Silverstein.....

....is not in the demolition industry, is he? To pull (down) a building is however common vernacular.

http:// www. google.com/search?q=%22pull+down+a+building%22

So, it's not B.S.

It's ridiculous to think that Mr. Silverstein would purposefully admit to imploding WTC7 on a TV program. As they say, there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread