Is WTC Owner Larry Silverstein the Key to Breaking 9/11 Wide Open?

Trogdor the Burninator said:

The guy on these forums who used to insist that the airliner debris at the pentagon must have been trucked in because no-one had HD video of the plane crashing was my favourite.

Click to expand...

RealDealNeverStop? Probably not; he would never commit to anything, even if every question he asked logically demanded it.

How about the guy that posted/copied&pasted that the hijackers were still alive? Remember him? Oh, wait. I think he's still around.


Btodd

Btodd said:

RealDealNeverStop? Probably not; he would never commit to anything, even if every question he asked logically demanded it.

Click to expand...

Ah yes - his "radio controlled airliner scenario" was one of the highlights.

Good times...

Trogdor the Burninator said:

Ah yes - his "radio controlled airliner scenario" was one of the highlights.

Good times...

Click to expand...

He was some piece of work...would ask a question that directly necessitated that no plane hit the Pentagon, and when you would say, 'So you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon?'...he would, with a straight face, reply, 'I didn't SAY that'.

Oh, OK.


Btodd

ManFromUncle said:

So "trutherism" is pointing out that a skycraper cannot be prepped and wired for demolition in a few hours? Duh. It takes weeks if not months. This is especially so when they have already declared it not even safe for firefighters to enter, and have cleared them out. Double duh. WTC 7 came down at 5:20pm on the same day, are you understanding this?

Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe it ever was wired for demolition. No one ever intended to wire it "in a few hours." One guy talking about demolishing it, after it was clearly heavily damaged, is the one tidbit of information you have and you thus conclude that there was a massive undertaking to secretly wire it for demolition in advance without anyone noticing, with the building just so conveniently having received massive structural damage from the other buildings falls giving cover for the demolition. That's lunacy. The building fell due to structural damage from the towers' debris coupled with extensive fires.

Maynard Keenan said:

There is no reason to believe it ever was wired for demolition. No one ever intended to wire it "in a few hours." One guy talking about demolishing it, after it was clearly heavily damaged, is the one tidbit of information you have and you thus conclude that there was a massive undertaking to secretly wire it for demolition in advance without anyone noticing, with the building just so conveniently having received massive structural damage from the other buildings falls giving cover for the demolition. That's lunacy. The building fell due to structural damage from the towers' debris coupled with extensive fires.

Click to expand...

Amazing how you tie yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. That is the real lunacy.

- Skyscrapers do not fall perfectly symmetrically at free-fall acceleration due to fires and "structural damage." If they did the demolitions industry woould be out of business. Why bother with million dollar fees to experts who bring lifetimes of experience to this specialized art, if all you need to do is start a few fires and drop a couple of wrecking balls on top? To believe this is possible you need to be an utter fruitcake.

- Demolitions expert Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolitions Inc., the leader in the industry which got a clean up contract at Ground Zero, says he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. He said: "I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me."

- NIST report that given this absolutely unprecedented collapse, they didn't even look for explosives.

- Now Lucky Larry blurts out on camera "I said, "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. " An admission of foreknowledge which you call "a tidbit of information." I have a "tidbit" of information for you. Your house is burning down.

- You conveniently gloss over a few other "tidbits of information," like that Silverstein, on this one day of all days, was not at his usual spot in the North Tower. More "tidbits": neither were his two kids.

Your Honor, that smoking gun with this man's fingerprints all over it is just a tidbit of information. You have to be a lunatic to think that means anything, your Honor.

You've got a be a nutcake bending over backwards to not see to not see the obvious here. Closing your eyes is not a good survival strategy.

Ed Asner on WTC 7
[youtube]0ODw70GFbHo[/youtube]

So, if I understand correctly:

*It would take weeks/months to wire the building for a demolition with crews of people.

*Nobody reported anything of the sort happening in the weeks/months prior to 9/11.

*No wiring was found anywhere, even though there would be so much wiring as to require crews of men and weeks/months to do it.

*No explosions went off, which makes one wonder what the building was supposedly 'wired' for.

*Silverstein said 'pull it', which isn't a term used for blowing up a building, while talking to the chief of the NY Fire Department about the terrible loss of life that had already occurred as the reason for the decision they made. The reference to the terrible loss of life is a nonsensical statement made by a psycho, not a reference to keeping the firefighters from harm over an empty burning building. The head of the NY fire department was apparently in charge of a controlled demolition, because the fire department was 'in on it'.

*The government threw Silverstein into the plot too, which is the most complex conspiracy ever carried out...and then Silverstein accidentally told everyone about it on television.

*A man that worked mostly as a photographer for a demolitions company said it 'looked like a demolition' in a video on YouTube. He also signed a petition.

*No explanation has been given for why it was necessary to blow up an empty building after the Twin Towers had fallen in order to carry out the conspiracy.

*Also, here's Ed Asner.


=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION



Btodd

ManFromUncle said:

Amazing how you tie yourself in knots to avoid the obvious. That is the real lunacy.

Click to expand...

Speaking of knots....

Who flew the planes that hit the WTC?

What crashed into the Pentagon?

If there was an evil conspiracy to kill so many people on 9/11, why did they pull the firefighters out of WTC7, but not WTC1 and 2?

Btodd said:

So, if I understand correctly:

*It would take weeks/months to wire the building for a demolition with crews of people.

*Nobody reported anything of the sort happening in the weeks/months prior to 9/11.

*No wiring was found anywhere, even though there would be so much wiring as to require crews of men and weeks/months to do it.

*No explosions went off, which makes one wonder what the building was supposedly 'wired' for.

*Silverstein said 'pull it', which isn't a term used for blowing up a building, while talking to the chief of the NY Fire Department about the terrible loss of life that had already occurred as the reason for the decision they made. The reference to the terrible loss of life is a nonsensical statement made by a psycho, not a reference to keeping the firefighters from harm over an empty burning building. The head of the NY fire department was apparently in charge of a controlled demolition, because the fire department was 'in on it'.

*The government threw Silverstein into the plot too, which is the most complex conspiracy ever carried out...and then Silverstein accidentally told everyone about it on television.

*A man that worked mostly as a photographer for a demolitions company said it 'looked like a demolition' in a video on YouTube. He also signed a petition.

*No explanation has been given for why it was necessary to blow up an empty building after the Twin Towers had fallen in order to carry out the conspiracy.

*Also, here's Ed Asner.


=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION



Btodd

Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that the twin towers were designed to fall straight down in case of catastrophic damage.

Because, you know engineers thought it was a good idea that in the case of a major fire or whatnot that the building wouldn't topple and land right across Lower Manhattan....

Dave Ellis said:

Never mind the fact that the twin towers were designed to fall straight down in case of catastrophic damage.

Click to expand...

Well, tall buildings aren't really going to fall any other way other than "straight" down (not really - the collapse of the towers did heavily damage surrounding buildings - but close enough for common vernacular) when it fully collapses, especially if the collapse initiates high up. If there's no lateral force, its movement away from "straight" down is pretty limited. Buildings like that aren't going to fall over like trees. More like a house of cards.

ManFromUncle said:

...Skyscrapers do not fall perfectly symmetrically at free-fall acceleration due to fires and "structural damage."...

Click to expand...

Quoting NIST: "The north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions."

Quoting NIST: "WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

ManFromUncle said:

...- NIST report that given this absolutely unprecedented collapse, they didn't even look for explosives...

Click to expand...

Quoting NIST: "Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions. There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that '... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.' ... In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although '… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.'"

ManFromUncle said:

More psychobabble which is nothing more than a dodge to once again avoid the facts, like you know, the OP. No one cares about your armchair analysis of anyone who doesn't accept the official story. If anything the real candidates for psychoanalysis are those who keep denying the facts and what their eyes can see in order to preserve their more comforting view of the world.

Now that you mention it, the documentary Experts Speak Out on 9/11 did a segment on just that, interviewing professional psychologists explaining why people have such a block about looking at the facts of 9/11.

Please watch and discuss:

Psychologists speak on the difficulty of accepting the truth about 9/11
[youtube]cPBiZcfg2lE[/youtube]


Full documentary
[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]

Click to expand...

Regarding the OP...I asked about the Daily Paul and didn't get a reply from you. Unless I missed it.

Is that a source you would consider legitimate?

I ask because I have followed conspiracies for a long time. Many of them are perpetuated on some pretty flaky sites and have no real sources to speak of. If we're going to talk about something as serious as 9/11, it better be on the up and up.

Maynard Keenan said:

There is no reason to believe it ever was wired for demolition. No one ever intended to wire it "in a few hours." One guy talking about demolishing it, after it was clearly heavily damaged, is the one tidbit of information you have and you thus conclude that there was a massive undertaking to secretly wire it for demolition in advance without anyone noticing, with the building just so conveniently having received massive structural damage from the other buildings falls giving cover for the demolition. That's lunacy. The building fell due to structural damage from the towers' debris coupled with extensive fires.

Click to expand...

And this is your professional opinion as a structural engineer or an architect?! 2000 architects & engineers have a problem with this inexplicable collapse. World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

Maynard Keenan said:

See, this was exactly what I meant when I said trutherism is based on ridiculous jumps to conclusions. The property manager, seeing that the foundation was damaged beyond repair, sought permission from insurers for a controlled demolition. You thus conclude that the building already had explosives wired in. Despite the author of the article stating that he was there and that there were no sounds of explosions, nor did the building's collapse occur as a controlled demolition would. No one knew, at the time, if the building would collapse very quickly, as it did, or if it would remain standing for some time in a weakened state. It would be prudent in such a situation to get approval for a demolition so that as soon as workers could safely enter, work could be done to bring the building down in a controlled manner.

Click to expand...

Where do people get the idea that demolishing buildings can happen on the strength of a phone call. even after a building is damaged by fire or other cause individuals can't just decide to "pull" a building. Doesn't matter if you're the owner or the mayor. There would need to be a structural inspection and report from a structural engineer making a recommendation for demolition. you would then need the approval of the city council. that's why damaged buildings don't get brought down until this all happens, which takes time. If I was a tenant in WTC7 and my business was destroyed in a deliberate Silverstein authored demolition I would like to see the report and approval documentation before I sue for unnecessarily destroying my business. No wonder he retracted his comments.

sword_of_truth said:

And this is your professional opinion as a structural engineer or an architect?! 2000 architects & engineers have a problem with this inexplicable collapse. World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

Click to expand...

Architects don't engineer structures.

Architects don't engineer structures.

Architects don't engineer structures.

I know one day I'm going to get some people on these threads to understand this if I repeat it enough. So I don't care how many architects are in AE911 - it's as irrelevant as their massive appeal to authority argument.

And the vast majority of the people at AE911 aren't structural engineers anyway, as I posed some time ago in the other truther thread.

Trogdor the Burninator said:

I actually encourage people to read the list - to recognise it for the gigantic appeal to authority that it is.

Then actually look at some of the people who signed

Like the guys from IT....

Eric A. Klein, M.S. Computer Engr., Santa Clara Univ.,
San Francisco CA, USA

Martein Bakker, Ir.,Information Technology,TU Eindhoven,
Eindhoven NB, The Netherlands


Or the Marine Engineers.....

Erik M. Soderlund, BS Marine Engineering, Lic: 514165
Hang Dong Chiang Mai, Thailand


Or the people with a bachelor of science....

Dave Thomson, B.Sc. (hons),
Fremont CA, USA


Or the engineering disciplines completly unrelated to structures...

Matthew S. Roberts, B.S. Environmental Engineering, Lic: 10985
Flagstaff AZ, USA

Ahmad Solomon, B.Sc. Petroleum Engineering, TU, Lic: Texas 78532


Or, because I know you wanted it - the Landscape Architects...

Frederick Jon Wepfer, environmental design, Lic: Registered Landscape Architect Lacey WA, USA

John Robert Russell, Grad. Dipl. Urban & Reg. Plng. AA London, Lic: Indiana Landscape Architect's License LA80050004


And all put together by a guy who is not qualified to certify structures, because he's an architect.

Click to expand...

Trogdor the Burninator said:

Architects don't engineer structures.

Architects don't engineer structures.

Architects don't engineer structures.

I know one day I'm going to get some people on these threads to understand this if I repeat it enough. So I don't care how many architects are in AE911 - it's as irrelevant as their massive appeal to authority argument.

And the vast majority of the people at AE911 aren't structural engineers anyway, as I posed some time ago in the other truther thread.

Click to expand...

So architects don't study structural engineering as part of their course? That architects aren't ultimately responsible for engaging structural engineers as part of the design team? They might not be ultimately responsible for structural integrity of the building but they are building professionals who are expected by clients to endorse an opinion given by an engineer. In other words, we need to know enough "to keep the b#$tards honest". You wouldn't value the profession medical opinion of an experienced nurse just because he/she is not a doctor?

sword_of_truth said:

So architects don't study structural engineering as part of their course? That architects aren't ultimately responsible for engaging structural engineers as part of the design team? They might not be ultimately responsible for structural integrity of the building but they are building professionals who are expected by clients to endorse an opinion given by an engineer. In other words, we need to know enough "to keep the b#$tards honest". You wouldn't value the profession medical opinion of an experienced nurse just because he/she is not a doctor?

Click to expand...

The greater point, aside from the fact that the term 'architect' or 'engineer' spans a HUGE variety of disciplines that have nothing to do with buildings (software engineer, landscape architect, etc., ad nauseum)...is that simply signing your name to a petition that disagrees with some other position does NOTHING. There are a variety of respected scientific journals that a paper could be submitted to, demonstrating that the collapse of either the Twin Towers, or Building 7, were the result of a controlled demolition. And then the scientific method could take its course. But no, in this case, the petition itself is supposed to count as the argument...even when it's mostly padded with 'architects' and 'engineers', both very general terms, who have nothing to do with the subject matter. It's designed to trick you, and make you believe that less than 1% of the world's architects and engineers (despite the fact that the number of each who have any expertise in collapsing buildings is WAY less) is a really significant thing, even though they can't show it in a proper paper in a real scientific journal.


Btodd

sword_of_truth said:

So architects don't study structural engineering as part of their course?

Click to expand...

No. Their study of structures is at a limited level. Architects are primarily concerned with form and function of spaces, not engineering.

sword_of_truth said:

That architects aren't ultimately responsible for engaging structural engineers as part of the design team?

Click to expand...

Engaging someone != knowledge. And for large constructions jobs, the project manager would be doing the engagment anyway. Doesn't make the PM a structural engineer either.

sword_of_truth said:

They might not be ultimately responsible for structural integrity of the building but they are building professionals who are expected by clients to endorse an opinion given by an engineer.

Click to expand...

100% NO.

Architects do not "endorse" engineering opinions on structures. They will have a very general idea as to what works and what doesn't, but that's it. That's why contruction projects have engineers.

sword_of_truth said:

In other words, we need to know enough "to keep the b#$tards honest".
You wouldn't value the profession medical opinion of an experienced nurse just because he/she is not a doctor?

Click to expand...

Depnds in which area - there are things I would only trust a doctor's opinion on. I'm not asking my nurse to endorse a cardiologists views on open heart surgery.

sword_of_truth said:

And this is your professional opinion as a structural engineer or an architect?! 2000 architects & engineers have a problem with this inexplicable collapse. World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

Click to expand...

Ok... So there's 2,000 engineers and architects that have a problem with an "inexplicable collapse"

And there's tens, if not hundreds of thousands that don't view it as all that strange.

For the record, Larry Silverstein doesn't own the WTC. He's the developer and property manager. He was hired by the owner. Which is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority had their headquarters in one of the towers, and lost over 80 employees in the attack, BTW.

If the article can't get a simple fact like this straight, its credibility is jack squat.

Not only is Silverstein not the key behind 9/11 'truth', these threads are just getting boring.