Question for nextJFKfromMA about 9/11?

Question

You said you want to argue with facts. If this is the case,here's your change to prove that you do argue with facts.

In this specific question, I am not implying nor arguing that 9/11 was an inside job done by Bush or his admin. I am simply asking what happened to WTC7.

1. Do you agree Larry Silverstein declared on TV that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" WTC7?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=larry+silverstein
You can see and recognize Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, declaring on TV that the building will be pulled.

2. Aside from that, a german demolition expert states clearly that there is no doubt whatsoever that the building came straight down for any other reason. This is exactly what Larry Silverstein had said that the building was demolished.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

(question continues - look in details section)

So far, we have the owner of WTC and a demolition expert agreeing with each other that the building was in a controlled demolition.

3. Do you agree that in the Official Comission Report on 9/11, the full official government report completly ommits the collapse of WTC 7?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
(Government official report. Take a look through)

This is the interesting question:

4. Why does the official commission report completly disregards the collapse of WTC 7 ?

5. Do you not believe a commission that ommits crucial facts is biased ?

Do you not agree this raises questions? Such as: Why didn't they mention WTC7 ? Did they have something to hide ?

This was only one point that the official commission disregarded. There are tens of disregarded facts.

Do you not believe that we as americans that believe in "justice for all" deserve a true and unbiased report that will truly investigate and answer all these hundreds of unanswered questions about 9/11 ?

Side notes:
*I did spend some time writing this question, so at least i expect you to answer accordingly.
*The sources are all credible, 2 videos and 1 government report.
*The videos are (considered) primary sources since you can see and recognize the persons in them making declarations.
*Please don't omit any point. It will truly show you argue with facts than otherwise :)
*Be honest and don't evade questions by answering with another question.


Thanks. I'll be waiting for your answer.

Hey nextJFK.

I will answer some of your points.

"south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building".

Although there is no photographic evidence (or atleast I haven't seen any), let's suppose that's true. There is a huge hole in the south side. In this case, since the south side is weakened, the tower should collapse like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=217FEAWgfMA
OR like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2h8qZRheks
OR like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0C1IGSMNk

However, it collapses like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Look in the top middle point as it's weakened first, then the building comes straight down.

It does NOT fall to one side as it's supposed to if it had a "large hole 20 stories high".

We have to use our judgment on this one right ? The demolition expert says it's pulled, Larry says it's pulled, video evidence shows you that it's pulled.


(continued)

OK ok here's the fun part:

You said: "Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges."

Who in his real mind would believe WTC 7 could be pulled with cables attached to excavators? It is impossible. WTC 7 is a HUGE building, it can only be demolished with explosives. No excavator pulling on it will make it collapse from the middle first, then the sides on itself.

If "seeing is believing", look at the above footage and if you still tell me WTC 7 did not collapse because of explosives, i'll seriously start to laugh.

Larry's comment:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and 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."

(continued)

He mentions pull "it" and not "they" or "them". Since "it" refers to an object, wtc7 in our case,
I am sure anyone can agree that "pull it" was meant to pull building 7 and not to "pull the firefighters out of harm's way". His spokesman had to invest this piece just to get him out of trouble.

Although the links you provided are not working, I assumed the sources are ok and you did not invent the whole thing.

You see, If you see with your own eyes, you can judge for YOURSELF. That's the important part.

How more logic than this can it get ?

And if you still believe fires bring down a building watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

Of course you can say that a "combination of debris and fire brought it down".

But you see nextJFK, the fires were not at all visible like the one in Madrid, and the alleged 20 stories high hole did not make it fall on one side (if that were the case).

(continued)

Yet, it falls *straight* down, and the first crack is in the *center* of the building.
(look again to see).

The Demolition experts say it was controlled demolition without a doubt.

And if there were raging infernos inside they could have not planted any explosives. And the "cable theory" ... let's be real. No excavator can pull a 47 floor building, never mind the fact that there is NO evidence of such excavators at the base of WTC 7 except police cars and firetrucks.

(continued)

Summary:

- Larry declares wtc 7 is pulled. His spokesman tries to cover up by saying he meant: "pulling firefighters out of harm's way". Right.
- demolition experts strongly agree wtc 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
- wtc 7 cannot be "pulled" down by cables attached to excavators due to is HUGE size. In addition there is no evidence whatsoever of excavators surrounding wtc 7 that would've "pulled it". Not one.
- Even if there was a hole, it should have fallen towards the south side. (like the footage of the buildings I've shown you earlier - really falling to the side)
- If there were no cables "pulling" the building, fires can't bring it down and it did NOT fall towards the south side, then you can easily see that it collapsed because of explosives planted in the building. And guess what: it coincides precisely with what experts say about it: controlled demolition.

(continued)

Since no one can place explosives while the building is on fire they must've been placed beforehand.

People have to think about this logically and stop believing what it is said to them by TV or media. Let me remind you that News Corp. is owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch (chairman and CEO) which is a strong Bush Administration supporter. It owns Fox News as well.
Filter out the illogical responses.

People that still believe the official story are always saying: "it must be a logical response, it must be something else, the government could have not done something like this."

And, like you, looking for weird evidence as cable pulling and fire bringing the building down and Larry saying to pull firefighters out of harm's way.

The ANSWER is Right in FRONT of you !

People just REFUSE to admit what really happened because of the implications.

When the government said numerous times: "The American people can't handle the truth"... guess what.. they were right. We can't.

The above is one problem with 9/11

Others

-The pentagon,
- witness accounts of not being a plane or seeing a very small plane, but particularly not a 747 (at pentagon)
-the plane to pass through 9 feet of concrete wall when the plane is made of alluminium alloy and light material (the nose is carbon fiber)
-no black boxes at pentagon
-no black boxes at WTC
-the witness accounts of explosions at wtc site,
- confiscation of tapes by the FBI that filmed the pentagon being hit,
-Bush's administration refusal to investigate 9/11,
-the destruction of evidence at the crime scene (when they blocked all access to wtc for forensic detectives)
-the project of the new american century (that needed a "catalyzing effect" like pearl harbor) which was crafted by people that were to become the Bush administration while he was in office,

These are all BIG Ring Bells... too bad they don't ring for most people.

And too bad people are ignorant enough not to care and let the real criminals get away.

Source(s):
http://911truth.org/
http://911scholars.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
http://stj911.org/
http://www.ny911truth.org/
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_911.html
http://www.rense.com/general71/d333m.htm
http://www.infowars.com/

******************************************************
It's funny to note the fact that I have answered your entire questions and yet you say I have read none.

It's also interesting to note that you copied most of your text from debunking911.com.

Yes, opposed to you, I do look at all sources. debunking911.com, if you DO take the time to read all of it, this site raises more questions than it answers. And I would be really interested to know who backs up debunking911 whose theories have no proof, if any.

As an example http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ is founded by PhD University Professors. I would like to see what kid founded debunking911.com and then you can accuse of credibility.

I have addressed what you said about Larry, I have addressed all causes that you stated (copied from debunking911) that could have caused WTC 7's collapse. I have shown you the demolition expert saying there was no other cause besides blowing up of columns. You said he's paid by conspiracy theorists to support them. Like any of those people would gain something out of it.

It's amusing, isn't it? The ONLY defenses you ALWAYS have are:

- We never have good enough sources and none of them are credible, including footage from 9/11. That's no good.

- Despite the numbers of academics and leading scientists, you STILL believe they’re all "conspiracy nuts".

- Many of the university professors, all with PhDs, they are not worth listening to, they're not credible sources.

- Experts, whom are university professors and engineers, are ALL paid by "crazy conspiracy people" to support their theory.

- Alex Jones is a PhD Professor, Doctor in Physics. It seems that people who accuse him never mention this fact, not even debunking911.

- You always state this was too complex to be organized by Bush who is so dumb and his administration. It’s impossible.


It's amusing; I actually thought you can argue with facts “Scottie”...
…What a great disappointment.
****************************************************
****************************************************

Answer 1

Question 1: While I agree that Silverstein used the term "pull", I disagree with the "Conspiracy Theorist" interpretation that this means "blow up the building". While I know the facts make absolutely no difference to you, please read the following and view the supportive videos which you apparently believe to be "definitive" evidence.

WTC 7

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

The second paragraph above has been challenged by conspiracy theorists. For more information on this and a rebuttal read the update around the middle of the page.

Below is a photo of the Bankers Trust building.

As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.

Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:

“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?

Here’s why:

Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.


“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”


Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and it's leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorists let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.

The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.

Silverstein's Quote:

"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."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"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." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

It mirrors what Silverstein said.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html

And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

That alone should end this debate. The fire department didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire department lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.

More from another blogger…

RealityCheck

“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!

I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].

So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?

(2) As to the term "pull":

Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).

RC.

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?

There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

In pure conspiracy theorist form, the second paragraph on this page has been taken out of context. Yes, building 7 fires were unfought but that doesn't mean there wasn't firemen on the scene, does it? Daniel Nigro said there were RESCUE OPERATIONS that were ongoing. He also says it was HE and not Silverstein who ordered the firemen out.

I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. Chief Nigro

There is more than enough evidence that there were firemen around Building 7 to "Pull" from the area.

We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden

What part of this is difficult for the people who purport to be scholars? While my grammar is admittedly poor, the conspiracy theorists reading comprehension seems to be worse. Or is it? I think they're hoping everyone else has poor reading comprehension. For those who are reading comprehensionally challenged let me clear this up for you.

The firemen started search and rescue operations for people who may have been trapped or hurt in Building 7. By 2:00PM they knew the building was going to collapse and PULLED them away. These are the firemen saying this. Not me, not Bush, but the firemen.

What about just listening? Do the conspiracy theorists know how to listen?

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Do they really think the immediate area around the building was vacant with not a soul for blocks? Of course they don't. They pounce on any and all quotes which have the slightest possibility of being taken as a contradiction. This is the theme which runs throughout the so called truth movement.

Here is evidence they had rescue operations IN Building 7:

We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

You can't evacuate a building no one is in...

How many firefighters are they going to call liars? How many?... These heroic firefighters who would risk their lives for these opportunists. The personal attacks on me are to be expected but the attack on these brave men and women should not go unnoticed. E-mail the conspiracy theorists and tell them to stop lying about the firemen's quotes for monetary and/or personal gain. One of whom is dead and can't defend himself.

What Silverstein said means nothing in the light of the firemen's quotes. It's not unreasonable to conclude Silverstein was under the impression the firemen were containing the fires when in fact the firemen were performing a rescue operation. There is the real possibility Silverstein was told by Nigro that (Paraphrasing) 'there are firemen in the building and I'm going to have to pull them out.' Silverstein may have just assumed they were fighting the fires, which isn't unreasonable. Maybe they were fighting fires in the very beginning but when the "attempt" failed due to a lack of water pressure, they switched to rescue only? So for the purposes of the report. there were no firefighting in the building because they had low water pressure. At least I've provided you with evidence to support this conclusion.

Is that the evidence of explosives? Do you want to put Silverstein in jail because he used the word pull "it" to describe getting the firemen out of the area? Or because he didn't know the task the firemen were performing in the building? Is that reasonable? Of course not.

Using conspiracy theorists logic, since conspiracy theorists have created a small industry around this event, maybe they blew up the towers?

This is just the latest attempt to take your mind off their collapsing conspiracy story...



"Just a few small fires..." Remember that?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This video shows a large rip in the south side of building 7 before it collapsed. Evidence the building was far more damaged than conspiracy theorists suggest. Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down". Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11



Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.


Not only does this photo show a firemen who would have been "Pulled" from the area but the fires which may have weaken the building below the east penthouse.



In the following image the east penthouse falls...



Now the west penthouse falls...






One possible collapse hypothesis. The investigation is still ongoing and this may not be the way the building collapsed. I show this only to show a global collapse by fires on lower floors are not the impossibility conspiracy theorists lead you to believe.

To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.



Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.

Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.





This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.

Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.



Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.



Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.



If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorists point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.

The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".



In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.

The NIST preliminary report on World Trade Center 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

With the lack of even the smallest amount of hard evidence supporting their stories, conspiracy theorists have become more desperate to find anything which could be twisted to support them. Case in point: The WTC 7 was seen in the background of a BBC report while the reporter said the building had already collapsed. The story is that the reporters were given a "script" to say and these reporters stupidly read the lines before the building fell. Plain old common sense can dispatch this conspiracy story.



Why do they choose to believe the more unlikely conspiracy story which suggests that at least some reporters of some news organizations were given a script? Especially when, much more logically, miscommunication could easily explain the video.

Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up??? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and let them report the collapse as they would have normally?

What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. [Edit: we now know they were monitoring the news from different outlets and that's where they learned of building 7.] According to the fire department, by 2:00PM they knew the building would soon collapse. Reporters KNEW this well before the collapse because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporters were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC, it may have simply been miscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'very sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this. Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico's Neanderthal man...)

Listen to Aaron Brown from CNN say the building collapsed or is collapsing with the building in the background.



I have had on this site since I started it (just under the 12 things we know for sure on this very page) the link to a video with someone from MSNBC saying “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” As the building collapses. That makes CNN, BBC and MSNBC who knew the building was going to collapse. I searched for the MSNBC video because I remembered the media saying the building would collapse before it did. Here is that video again...

How many people knew that building was Building 7 before that day? It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect every reporter to know the names of all the buildings in the World Trade Center. For all they may have known, building 7 could have been one of the smaller buildings which were also on fire.

The downright absurd conspiracy story: The government told many reporters to report something they would have reported anyway after the building collapsed.

A little critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk this nonsense. Why in the world would they make an already unbelievably massive conspiracy into one involving reporters who would LOVE a scoop like that? "Sept. 9, 2001 - EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS! Government about to murder thousands for oil! We have the script!" Can you imagine the job offerings after a scoop like that? Can you say Pulitzer prize? What a hero! Who would pass that up to help a shadowy government commit the mass murder of Americans? This would be MUCH bigger than Watergate! Or maybe this was a planed gaffe to expose this plot? Are we to believe this gaffe is the only way she could have told us? A method which could easily be dismissed as typical poor reporting?

And here is the kicker... Did they really need even MORE people involved? What was the reason they absolutely needed to tell the reporters this? Why haven't any of the other reporters talked? Are most reporters part of a mass murder scheme? How much can conspiracy theorists swallow?

At best, this is an attempt to take your minds off the real issue. Why did the media know the WTC 7 was going to collapse if there were just a few small fires? This is another part of the conspiracy story they don't want you to think about.

Do the conspiracy theorist leaders have one shred of REAL evidence of explosives or anything else which could take down the buildings? Air samples with trace explosive chemicals in it? A memo like the Downing Street memo? A whistleblower who was in on the planning maybe? None of that involves the so called "whisked away steel". They have nothing. They're left to scour the internet for the slightest mistake made by anyone on that horrific, chaotic day. They're left destroying peoples' lives by suggesting innocent people are involved in mass murders.

BBC's response...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

I smell a deliberate attempt to quiet the media. It is not lost on me that the BBC recently created a story which casts the conspiracy leaders in a bad light. What media will want to expose the misinformation and deception of these conspiracy leaders if they incur the wrath of a few fringe lunatics? Apparently, Alex Jones, Fetzer and Co. would like their own shadowy, loose knit government based on fear. B@@!

Another update:

It seems I wasn't far off from what the BBC suspects happened. They even reference the CNN video above.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Update:

Here is a first responder with Building 7 in the background during an interview. Note the frustration in his voice because he can't do anything for the building.



First responder: "You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...

Question 2: Did you ever wonder why who ever the Conspiracy Theorist who posted this video on youtube had to get a "German Demolitions Expert" to support this fantasy? Are there no such "experts" in the U.S.? Or do you believe that all of the U.S. experts are part of the "conspiracy"? Could it be that the person who put together the video went on a "shopping" expedition to locate a supposed expert who would support their preconceived agenda? While you think about that, here is a list of U.S. experts that don't agree with your supposed "expert witness".

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Question 3: I have read the 9/11 Commission Report cover to cover and, off the top of my head, I don't recall any specific references to WTC7.

Question 4: Logically, the collapse of WTC7 was a secondary event to the primary events of the "attacks" that the 9/11 Commission was empowered to investigate. In other words, WTC7 was not directly attacked by the terrorists on 9/11 and was viewed as "collateral damage" and not pertinent to their investigation.

Question 5: No. But I believe that "Conspiracy Theorists" like what they perceive to be "information vacuums". This provides openings for their "theories". And since WTC7 was not directly addressed by the 9/11 Commission, Conspiracy Theorists "jumped on" this as "proof" of the existence of a conspiracy.

For the record, this was subsequently addressed by the NIST investigation. You can find their preliminary report at: http://wtc.nist.gov/pub/wtc%20part%20IIC%20-%20wtc%207%20collapse%20final.pdf. This was released in 2005. I believe their final report is scheduled to be released any day now.

While it is apparent from your multiple posts that you have already made up your mind and will not permit yourself to be "confused" by the facts, I hope you will invest some time in reading the above and viewing the accompanying documentation.

Needless to say, I look forward to your responses!

Thanks for playing!

Edit: As expected, you apparently didn't bother to seriously read my responses to your "questions". If you had, you would have addressed such issues as how you know what Silverstein meant when he said "pulled". (I have to believe that you are either relying on psychics...or that you are a mindreader.)

In addressing the collapse of the building, I have provided multiple sources, including the NIST, that explain how and why the building fell as it did. It appears that rather than considering the evidence of eye witnesses, structural engineers, and physicists, in typical "conspiracy theorist" style, you cling like a dog with a bone to your "theory" and seem unable to provide anything but "youtube" videos to back it up. (I know...I know...you believe youtube videos to be the gospel repeating over and over that you can see it. The problem is, you don't understand what you are seeing and the science behind the events depicted. Rather than consulting experts, you rely on your preset agenda to guide your understanding).

For example, assume for a moment that your "conspiracy fantasy is true and evil Larry Silverstein "blew up" WTC7. How long do you think it takes to plan, prepare and wire a building with explosives to that you can bring it down effectively and safely in a controlled demolition? It is precision work involving precise cuts in support columns, carefully sized and placed charges, and synchronized explosions. Does it take days? Weeks? Months?

According to your "theory" one of two things had to have occurred. Either Silverstein and his nefarious band of criminals wired the building weeks ahead of time in "anticipation" of the 9/11 Attacks. Or somehow, they managed to respond to the attacks by planning and wiring the building in a matter of hours? I think you will agree, based on your "scenario", it would have to be one or the other.

So which is it?

And any rational person would agree that neither scenario is credible.

But on a positive note, you seem to have moved away from your German Demolitions Expert. (Even though you can "see" him right there on your youtube video).

And you chose to ignore my responses to your questions about the 9/11 Commission Report.

Interestingly, you also apparently didn't bother to look at the NIST data.

But what the heck, as I said at the outset, you have already made up your mind as to what you are going to believe and nothing and no one will ever change that. You will not permit yourself to be confused by the facts.

P.S. I thought it fascinating that, in your initial question you indicated that you were only interested in WTC7. At the end of your post, you are citing all the classic and thoroughly debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. And suddenly, your sources become all the 9/11 Conspiracy sites.

Needless to say, you are going to believe what you choose to believe.

Beam me up Scottie!

Edit: lol It is apparent that, in your mind at least, you are right and have made the most compelling argument. Well, why don't we do this...why don't we let other users decide who made the more factual and compelling argument? If people think you did, they can star your "question". If people think I did, they can simply give me a thumbs up.

Answer 2

WTC 7 sustained serious structural damage from the debris of the twin towers collapses. The damage was sufficient to cause it to collapse also. Because the damage was to lower floors and to a corner of the building the structural supports were over stressed and gave way. The effects of such damage in such a location approximates what is done when imploding a structure. The base support removal results in a ground up collapse. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Answer 3

Of course, he should. The people of the World need to find out what really happened. The truth is out there on the Internet for all to see, but the MSM is keeping the the same truth away from the people. This is a criminal act of the worst kind. The criminals endorsing this outrage should all be brought to justice and made to pay for covering up the truth. The 3000 deserve to be honored by an investigation. President Bush should be prosecuted as well. He has disgraced himself and his office, and he has shamed his homeland like no other President before.

Answer 4

what people need to realize is #1 911 would have happened no matter who was in charge { there are bigger powers at work }

#2 the official line is the official line its what people will believe and continue to believe because that is what they have been fed

#3 the are many , many questions about 911 that I nore you can say 911 was an inside job or not I agree the whole thing is crawling with suspicion but I cant say it was a inside job but I do know no terrorist in a cave did 911 without help , alot of help .

Answer 5

I've heard about these stories and the only thing I can say about them is this. If explosives where used by anyone other than a terrorist it would have been for the greater interest and safety of the majority but I do not believe this actually happened.

Answer 6

911 was an inside job, the USA planned Pearl Harbor to get into WW2, JFK was killed by LBJ, and I saw Elvis eating a PB&J at bigfoots house.

Get a clue. Your "credible sources" are entertaining at best. Get a count of how many US soldiers died so that you can dribble this bull and be protected by our constitutional freedom of speech.