Re: Debunking the debunkers - WTC7 Larry Silverstein's Pull It

[StageMan]

Yes he did give the order to pull it. Mr. Dumbass because a building can't be wired for demolition in 10 minutes. You alleged de-bunkers of the de-bunkers are a lot stupider then the actual definition of the word "stupid".

[WarCrime911]

Sorry but the laws of physics rule in favor of the Conspiracy side, just like in the case of JFK with the shot from the grassy knoll. All confirmed by physics (heck even Richard Feynman agrees with us!)

So for the buildings to collapse at or near free-fall speed that means ALL of the Gravitational Potential Energy is being converted directly into Kinetic Energy.

That energy can't be used twice, which means there's none left over. From where did the energy to pulverized the concrete come?

[911MmRy]

pulverized concrete is no trait of controlled demolition.

to want to turn a whole building into dust to bring it down is just waste of energy.

btw it didnt come down nowhere close to "free fall speed". it went down in 16 sec

you might wanna research that one;-)

[WarCrime911]

If it came down in 16 seconds, then why do the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, and the FEMA report ALL say 8-10 seconds respectively???

These are the official reports done by your own expert investigators right? So YOU might want to go research that one again ;-)

If you are going to demolish a building with a covert ops task force (like NAVY SEALS underwater demo teams do) you always use extra explosives to make sure the job gets done. Jesse Ventura should know right?

[911MmRy]

they say that about the WTC towers 1 and 2. wtc7 is not mentioned remember?

this whole video is only about tower 7, and it went down in 16 sec

watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

here I done the research for you, duh

it's not hard you might wanna try it some time;-)

[WarCrime911]

So you are agreeing that the twin towers collapsed at near free-fall speed? Because those were 110 story buildings as opposed to WTC 7 which was 47 stories. So for them to collapse faster than you allege 7 to fall, is highly improbably. No?

So you are saying that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition but Building 7 wasn't??? Right. . .

I watched your video. LOL!

If you honestly believe that Building 7 fell from fire and not a classic controlled demolition than

[911MmRy]

I never said I agreed with anything. I merely said the reports said they fell in 10 sec or whatever. I just have heard they said it, but I believe that figure is inaccurate.

good that you watched the video and you obviously didnt understand it, or else you wouldnt think tower7 could't fall slower than wtc1 and 2

wtc7 fell from damage fire and fuel tank explosions;-)

[WarCrime911]

I watched the video you sent me, and yes I already know about the Penthouse pre-collapse. It doesn't explain things better, in fact it leads to more questions. Structural failures only occur at the weakest section of a building. But if you look at the blueprints, the beams supporting the Penthouse were the strongest, MOST structurally reinforced beams in the entire building. They should have been the LAST to fail, not the FIRST.

Care to explain?

[911MmRy]

when there is something you don't understand you don't hang on the most isane explanation you can find;-)

[WarCrime911]

The scientific method would be to experimentally and logically test EVERY explanation, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE, INSANE, OR UNLIKELY it may be! Go through them and make sure that the theory fits the data. Whatever you are left with, no matter how improbably, is the truth.

The only thing that can explain a perfectly symmetrical failure on both sides of an uneven trapezoid shaped building, is controlled demolition. Look how perfectly it falls! This was NO an accident!

[911MmRy]

have you actually seen on which floors tower 7 was on fire? or better on how many floors? and it was no perfect symmetrical failure. close to perfect symmetrical but that's it.

your cd claim does not explain anything. it raises more questions that no damn cter ever cared to explain

watch?v=3vsqo7YJQm8

just a little example, of if they wanna explain anything or just want to make you confused

[WarCrime911]

Sorry buddy, but I studied physics in college and I've been researching 9/11 for 3 years now. I'm NOT the one who's confused here! The only theory that I have found that can substantially explain the data is controlled demolition for all 3 buildings. The only thing asymmetric about the collapse is the crimp or fault line which is a key characteristic and identifying mark of controlled demolition. Where they blow out central columns first to make the building fall in on itself.

[911MmRy]

so when even you figured it all out, why don't anybody convince some credible experts that all this time the "nuts" were right?

[anewlow23]

@911MmRy There are lots of credible experts just go to architects and engineers for 911 truth there 1333 a and e who think controlled demolition. Also check out dwain deets and his interview with CIT he is a rocket scientist who worked for NASA for 35 years!

[ctcole77]

@911MmRy

"We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."

ImpolsionWorldDOTcom

911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!

[antiklaus]

You don't even know the difference between evaporated steel and shattered steel. You are hardly one to be asking people to do research.

All of your research comes from 9/11 myths, a website run by a mid-twenties computer expert from the UK.

Hardly the "expert" I'd be wanting to do my research.

[antiklaus]

You do realize the logical fallacy in the "fell in 16 seconds" video, right?

Come on... you can do it.

If I hold up two bricks at 47 stories, drop one, and it falls at freefall speed, and then wait 8 seconds, and drop another one that falls at freefall speed, do I say that the bricks took 16 seconds to fall?

No, I say I have two bricks that fell at freefall speed.

Compare that to what happened.

Penthouse, fell at freefall.

Facade fell at freefall.

No matter how you slice it.

[antiklaus]

What is it that causes freefall collapses, that are generally done in sections, to minimize collateral damage?

That's it... Teams of people set the buildings on fire and watch them fall in freefall right?

Oh wait. That never works.

They use explosives to undermine the structures, then, they either use cables or other explosives to initiate the collapse in stages.

Demolitions use explosives (which cause evaporated steel)... which was found at the WTC7 site by NIST.

[DonLeoMarin]

Larry and the rest of his friends will flee this country once they have milked it for all its worth

[besjond]

But the other debunker said that it collapsed because of fire and he didn't mentioned any "pull it" on his video. It was just a collapse not a demolition. "pull it" means demolish , right?.... right??

[WhyAskQuestions]

To a 9/11 CTists the words "pull it" really mean "pull my finger".

And they can pull my finger for all the shit they spew out daily and the shit they really believe in without any hard evidence to back their statements up.

[aussiestormer]

truthers like the term "pull it" because it reminds them of there sex life which consists entirely of pulling themselves.

[UPRsupport]

Some people are just keep repeating the same bullshits like - ArmchairRevolution. Thats fine, I dont mind. But, yea some of his videos are so dumb... well hes close to the other group.

The other group are people really fucked up, propaganda agents like SlimeBuster. Hes definitely blocked. I see clear difference.

Keep working and mayby You'll join him.

[911MmRy]

maybe they have to repeat cause u keep asking the same questions or dont want to look at real evidence?

[UPRsupport]

waddup bjacz... can't respond?

[911MmRy]

what do u want?

[UPRsupport]

nothing just saw your rate on my video... thats all.

[911MmRy]

yea and u blocked me

though I never commented on your videos before

u are afraid of the truth... sucks for you...

[UPRsupport]

You're not blocked by me You dumb fuck. Are You trying to discredit me that way? God sake.

[911MmRy]

k either u just unblocked me or out of some reason utube didnt deliver my comment, if that's the fact I apologize;)

dont wanna hurt your precious feelings...

[Bundy133T]

I couldnt comment either. I wonder why?

;P

[josepyGDB]

By the way, I couldn't care less about what Silverstooge said or didn't say. That's the weakest of the arguments here. I was merely pointing out that what he said could easily be an order.

Fact is the building fell straight down into itself at free fall speed. If that isn't questionable to you then...

[911MmRy]

the usual lazy cter type guy

u dont understand why it fell and instead of researching u say it has to be blown up. the simplest solution for u so u dont have to do anything just say it was blown up. yea real clever

[josepyGDB]

I've actually done research. It appears that you've let the government do yours for you. Put back on the horse-blinds and get back in the field to graze with the other cattle.

[911MmRy]

common sense and physics debunk your ass so dont bother ridiculing yourself even further

consider it mission accomplished

[josepyGDB]

Right back at you.

[911MmRy]

u've never addressed this question: Why in hell should silverstein know the "slang" term of controlled demolition industries? and why would he use it? why would he be stupid enough to blow it all on running camera? and why didnt anyone say

k u admitted it u r under arrest

and dont come with they are all in on it or bought off. if u r so convinced why dont u go to court with this claim? lets see what the court says? or any court in the WORLD

[josepyGDB]

I did address it. Earlier on I said "By the way, I couldn't care less about what Silverstooge said or didn't say...

[911MmRy]

great answer...

keep on kiddin yourself and believing in crap

[josepyGDB]

You too

[josepyGDB]

...and(I)said "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.", and the rest follows...

Anyone who has been involved in any kind of chain of command knows that when someone in charge gives an opinion it quickly becomes a command. The FD commander called Larry for an opinion and got it. Larry is the owner of the buildings, is liable, and is, therefore, in charge. It was a thinly veiled order...

[911MmRy]

an order to evacuate the building yes

[Bundy133T]

Some better questions to ask:

Is Larry a demo expert?

Is Chief Nigro a demo expert?

Who actually made the decision to "pull" according to Larry's quote?

Since when does Chief Nigro do demolition work?

Since when does the FDNY do demo work?

Where were the cables attached to WTC7 as it was "pulled"?

Do you even know what the term "pull" means in reference to demolition? (Hint: something with cables)

Which building was ACTUALLY pulled during demo? (Hint: it wast 7.)

[josepyGDB]

Wrong. Pull it originally refered to the use of cables, it is now a slang for all controlled demolitions. That has already been covered. No one said 7 was pulled by cables. It was imploded.

"Since when does the FDNY do demo work?" you ask? The fire department is always included in demolitions for safety. Great job of addressing nothing here and thanks for the laughable hints. Nice try though.

[Bundy133T]

Show me one instance of a building taller than 10 storys being demoed with explosives by a fire department.

And wrong again. In slang terms, pull it referred to pulling down with cables. The only time it became a new term for demo is when the conspiracy nutters twisted its meaning to "implosion".

Hey, have you ever read any of the fire fighters comments, especially those that actally were in and around WTC7? Not a single mention of demo charges or anything. Are they lying?

[josepyGDB]

1. I never said they do the actual demo. Learn to comprehend. They are experienced in demos as they are there for "fire" safety. What part of that do you still not understand?

2. Wrong, "pull it" has been a slang for demo since before 9/11.

3. I've done better. They have video of them saying there were explosive. Lots of it.

[911MmRy]

if pull it were a slang for demo, which is extremely doubtable, cause cters tend to lie (and why should I trust some wuss on the net?)Why in hell should silverstein know the term? and why would he use it? why would he be stupid enough to blow it all on running camera? and why didnt anyone say

k u admitted it u r under arrest

and dont come with they are all in on it or bought off. if u r so convinced why dont u go to court with this claim? lets see what the court says? or any court in the WORLD

[MrEclectik]

building 7 came down in a controlled demolition with 99% certainty kid. But you can continue to believe a steel framed building with minimal damage fell perfectly straight down due to symetrical structural failure after receiving minimal damage and everyone cleared out.

[911MmRy]

the penthouse of the building fell first so there were no symetrical structural failure kid.

u have to start a serious reseach on how the building fell, and not take the next best solution that comes to hand. the world is not that simple as u want to make us believe.

the answers to the question of how it fell are out there on the net u just have to search for it

[YNOTcreatemoneyart]

NICE TRY