Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Danny Jawenko, a Dutch controlled demolition expert is shown Building 7 collapse without prior knowledge that this happened on sept 11th:



Owner of the building says to 'pull it and let it come down' - this means that a team had 7 hours to rig the whole building for demolition:



And I will let this one speak for itself;



And just a small piece on the farcical pentagon attack;

This is the truth admitted by the American themselves and even in 2001 ,some people had big question mark about what happened

uaebadoo wrote:This is the truth admitted by the American themselves and even in 2001 ,some people had big question mark about what happened

Just stick to Gulf News telling you what's really happening in the world...

Ridiculous. Arabs flew planes in to 2 big towers, tell me where the doubt is? Someone last week said the twin towers were rigged, how come the "expert" didn't think they were?

scot1870 wrote:

uaebadoo wrote:This is the truth admitted by the American themselves and even in 2001 ,some people had big question mark about what happened

Just stick to Gulf News telling you what's really happening in the world...

Ridiculous. Arabs flew planes in to 2 big towers, tell me where the doubt is? Someone last week said the twin towers were rigged, how come the "expert" didn't think they were?

scot wot proof do you have apart from the CNN, ABC news and bbc news and the british government and usa government saying that the ARABS flew the planes? oh it must be the passports they found in the rubble of the wtc right? the passport made out of PAPER, which survived the crash, the fire and then the collapsing of the buildings.

Or maybe it was the CCTV of BROWN skinned ppl videoed at various places in the world and the world was informed that these were the terroists??

OK ok ok I believe you they were arabs. you telling me that the CIA and FBI the worlds most advanced secret services went to sleep? Lol come on if they wanted to they could tap into this forum and see what we are typing. hell they can zoom into your building with a help of a satellite and figure out what you up or even what you typing. Come on the CIA and FBI knew about the "chatter" the AL Qaeda were creating and nothing was done. Y nothing was done? Because the USA government needed an excuse to take over Afghanistan and Iraq. Yeh i know you saying this is bullshit. the government would never do this but then again WHY wouldnt the POLITICAN do this?? Are you going to believe what ever CNN and BBC news tell you? dont believe the media dont believe what you see in the cameras.

Y does the Media dont have access to those obtained in guantamalo? Is the USA government keeping them away from the media so that the rest of the world doesnt know about the TRUTH???????????

Actually many experts said immediately after the twin towers went down, that it looked like a demolition job, then they suddently changed their tune a few hours later.

There's lots of evidence to suggest, that although the planes flew into the towers, that they were rigged with explosives aswell.

The jury is still out over this one.

Chocoholic wrote:Actually many experts said immediately after the twin towers went down, that it looked like a demolition job, then they suddently changed their tune a few hours later.

There's lots of evidence to suggest, that although the planes flew into the towers, that they were rigged with explosives aswell.

The jury is still out over this one.

I am sure you guys must have seen Loose Change on youtube.com. I know its hard to believe. But what if it was? What if this was all a stunt so that USA could attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Initially they said that in Iraq they had WMD but they never found them? Did they?

We can find out the truth after 50 odd years because the report they carried out will be made public after 50 odd years.

Al Jazeera covered it live, as in the 2nd tower when the plane hit.

I suppose they were in on the conspiracy also

arniegang wrote:Al Jazeera covered it live, as in the 2nd tower when the plane hit.

I suppose they were in on the conspiracy also

heheh yes arni not only did al jazeera cover it but the whole worlds media covered it. It doesnt matter if Al Jazeera covered it or CNN covered it. Cos we all saw it first aeroplane went in and then i dont know 5 10 minutes later when the whole worlds focus was on the first plane collision into 1 tower, coincidently we go hello here what is this 2nd plane doing oh booom. its just a coincidence that the 2nd plane had to crash into the tower when the worlds media was focusing onto the world trade center?? hmmm strange isnt it?

ANd its strange that when WTC were attacked in 1998 with a bomb blast in the basement it didnt collapse? Yet when the aeroplanes crashed into the 2 tower instead of the top bit toppling over, they came down????? strange isnt it?

Have you ever seen the foundation of the appartments they building in UAE. if you havent plz do. The foundation is the strongest part together with the latest technology the appartments can withstand the strongest earthquake. Now the Twin Tower, worlds tallest buildings should have had a pretty hefty foundation considering their size dont u think so. The twin towers were designed to withstand the +100kph wind and even the strongest of the earthquake. It was built of the strongest metal. It didnt collapse when there was a bomb blast at the FOUNDATION of the building. So did it really come down because of the aeroplanes collision near to the top? Ok fine the fire was strong and so on the aeroplanes did bring it down. But instead of bringing it down shouldnt the top bit have toppled over??? strange is nt it that the towers came down as if there were demolition charges placed in the building. Come on guys. Whatever USA and UK government say the CNN will say yes its true. But is it true?
USA and UK government said there were WMD in IRAQ, the poppet media said yes there was. Well we all know now that there werent any.

Look at the results of the 9 11. Who benefitted the most?

arniegang wrote:Al Jazeera covered it live, as in the 2nd tower when the plane hit.

I suppose they were in on the conspiracy also

heheh yes arni not only did al jazeera cover it but the whole worlds media covered it. It doesnt matter if Al Jazeera covered it or CNN covered it. Cos we all saw it first aeroplane went in and then i dont know 5 10 minutes later when the whole worlds focus was on the first plane collision into 1 tower, coincidently we go hello here what is this 2nd plane doing oh booom. its just a coincidence that the 2nd plane had to crash into the tower when the worlds media was focusing onto the world trade center?? hmmm strange isnt it?

ANd its strange that when WTC were attacked in 1998 with a bomb blast in the basement it didnt collapse? Yet when the aeroplanes crashed into the 2 tower instead of the top bit toppling over, they came down????? strange isnt it?

Have you ever seen the foundation of the appartments they building in UAE. if you havent plz do. The foundation is the strongest part together with the latest technology the appartments can withstand the strongest earthquake. Now the Twin Tower, worlds tallest buildings should have had a pretty hefty foundation considering their size dont u think so. The twin towers were designed to withstand the +100kph wind and even the strongest of the earthquake. It was built of the strongest metal. It didnt collapse when there was a bomb blast at the FOUNDATION of the building. So did it really come down because of the aeroplanes collision near to the top? Ok fine the fire was strong and so on the aeroplanes did bring it down. But instead of bringing it down shouldnt the top bit have toppled over??? strange is nt it that the towers came down as if there were demolition charges placed in the building. Come on guys. Whatever USA and UK government say the CNN will say yes its true. But is it true?
USA and UK government said there were WMD in IRAQ, the poppet media said yes there was. Well we all know now that there werent any.

Look at the results of the 9 11. Who benefitted the most?

guys sorry for the repost. my net is playing up.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

Click on the link on top. There was a building in spain in madrid in 2005 that was on fire for MORE THEN 10 HOURS. THATS right 10 HOURS??? it is a 32 storey building. It was on fire for more then 10 hours and end of it all the building didnt come down like the Twin Towers came down. Instead the top 6 floors toppled off.

a 32 storey building on fire for 10+ hours and it didnt come down instead 6 floors of it toppled over.

twin towers werent 32 storey building and NO they werent on fire for 10 HOURS. They were taller then 32 storey, more bigger and more stronger then this building in Madrid. And twin towers were not on fire for 10 hours maybe 1 or 2 hours. Yet they came down instead of the top floors toupling over. Strange isnt it?

The twin towers were on fire on the 13th Feburary 1975. The 11th Floor was on fire for hours. Yet the building didnt come falling down.

There was a bomb blast in Feburary 26th 1993. A 1,500 pounds of bomb blasted at the basement of one of the towers and created a 100 foot hole in floors. Yet the twin tower didnt come down?

There are many more incidents like this across the world where buildings were on fire. A few of the floors toupled over but they never came falling down. So y is it that the Twin Towers the worlds TALLEST building made of god knows how many steel bars came down in less then 2 hours?

Was it just an excuse to Attack Iraq and Afghanistan?

we have discussed this to death on the forums in the past.

No building has ever been designed to have a fully fuelled passenger jet fly into it at 500mph. The conclusion for the collapse was that the intense heat/fire created by the aviation fuel melted the welds of the supporting beams with the core and the fire protection that was sprayed onto the beams was not resistant enough and failed.

It wasnt the planes that caused the collapse it was the resulting fire from the fuel, its that simple.

arniegang wrote:we have discussed this to death on the forums in the past.

No building has ever been designed to have a fully fuelled passenger jet fly into it at 500mph. The conclusion for the collapse was that the intense heat/fire created by the aviation fuel melted the welds of the supporting beams with the core and the fire protection that was sprayed onto the beams was not resistant enough and failed.

It wasnt the planes that caused the collapse it was the resulting fire from the fuel, its that simple.

heheh arnie i was hoping someone would say that. Did you know in 1945 a B-25, 10 ton plane crashed into the Empire State building. You can say it was the same size as one of the planes that crashed into the twin towers.

What was the different between the two aeroplanes? One was military the other were pessenger planes. But both had aviation fuel in them. Didnt they? So y is it that the Empire State building which is smaller then the Twin Towers didnt come down. Wasnt there a fire resulting from the FUEL in the Empire state building? Y didnt the empire state building come down then? I thought it was simple as that .

Click on the link below and read all about it.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/ ... ecrash.htm

We are all aware of the B 25 incident.

However please take those rose tinted spectacles off.

1. Because of this very incident the WTC was designed to take an impact from a Boing 707 (gross weight 86,184 Kgs ie x5.5 of B-25)

2. The B-25 gross weight at take off was 15,200 kgs

now this is the really interesting bit .....

The 767-200 gross weight at take off was 171,170Kgs

Now according to my basic mathmatics, the difference in size and weight of these 2 aircraft is times a factor of approx x12. Also the 767-200 max speed is 100% more than the B-25.

The comparrisson is likened to being rear ended by a Toyota Yaris doing 30kph verus a Fully Armoured Hum V doing 60kph

So i dont really see your point.

All of this is debunked by the *fact* that the world trade center 7 came down like a pack of cards................and it was not hit by any planes, it just had a fire on the basement floor which was being contained by the NY fire dept.

Two buildings which stood next to WTC7 stand in tact today;

http://bilder.vgb.no/14097/img_462d1464c1324.jpg

I can understand how there are some who just cannot fathom that governments do not lie to the people and the press.

Yes arnie you are right. but it wasnt 500 mph but 600 mph and the tests were carried out in the 70s with a 707. You are absolutely right on this one.

John SKilling the bloke who designed the twin towers said that "the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed". But, he says, "The building structure would still be there".

Les Robertson one of the original structural engineers of twin tower said that "little likelihood of a COLLAPSE no matter how the building was attacked".

Frank Demartini a on-site contruction manager for the trade center said ". the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS of JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

So arnie if you take multiple 707s i.e 3 707s = 86,184.00 kg x 3 = 258552 kgs. that is how much the Twin towers could have withstand.

Ask yourself this why would they design the towers to survive plane crashes without considering the JET fuel?
Yes the considered the fact that "all the fuel would dump into the building. there would be a horrendous fire. BUT the building structure would still be there".

These are all quotes from the designers, engineers and architects of the twin towers. They were quoted saying this in 1993 after the bombing of twin towers.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html


what bout the building in madird was on fire for 10 hours?? and it didnt come down like cards instead the top 6 floors toupled off. Arnie u want to explain this?

rudeboy, you live in a weird world.

We know Arabs hijacked the planes as there were people on board who phoned to say what was happening (yup, that little TV remote on your Emirates flight also has another use)! There is footage of the people boarding the planes! All part of the conspiracy I'm sure.

Ooooo, a building on fire in Madrid didn't fall down. Wow, I'm sure it was the same size and build as the twin towers and was subject to the same conditions. Oh, wait a minute...the laws of physics don't seem to apply when we're talking about conspiracies. Do you know what 1000 degree heat does to materials? As for "it looked like a demolition", did your cartoon world make you think it would topple like the leaning tower of Pisa?

News can be manipulated but the truth is not buried forever. The BBC is independent and has no reason to kiss Blair or Bush's arse, why would it cover it up? Has Al Jazeera ever come up with compelling evidence even (please spare me the "experts" they came up with, there's as many people who say the theories are all rubbish)?

As for who benefitted from 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you're living in a country that's one of the prime beneficiaries...

scot1870 wrote:rudeboy, you live in a weird world.

We know Arabs hijacked the planes as there were people on board who phoned to say what was happening (yup, that little TV remote on your Emirates flight also has another use)! There is footage of the people boarding the planes! All part of the conspiracy I'm sure.

Ooooo, a building on fire in Madrid didn't fall down. Wow, I'm sure it was the same size and build as the twin towers and was subject to the same conditions. Oh, wait a minute...the laws of physics don't seem to apply when we're talking about conspiracies. Do you know what 1000 degree heat does to materials? As for "it looked like a demolition", did your cartoon world make you think it would topple like the leaning tower of Pisa?

News can be manipulated but the truth is not buried forever. The BBC is independent and has no reason to kiss Blair or Bush's arse, why would it cover it up? Has Al Jazeera ever come up with compelling evidence even (please spare me the "experts" they came up with, there's as many people who say the theories are all rubbish)?

As for who benefitted from 9/11. I'll give you a hint, you're living in a country that's one of the prime beneficiaries...

Scott hahahah nah mate I live in the real world. I dont watch CNN, BBC news or even sky news. I dont believe what the media says let it be western or arabic. As I see it the media are puppets of the politicans.

hahahah yes I do know what 1000 degree does to materials. But was WTC made out of wool and plastic?? no it wasnt. It was made out of RE-INFORCED STEEL. And did you know that the MELTING POINT of steel used in the construction of WTC was 3000 DEGREES F thats right scott. 3000 degrees hmmm thats twice more then 1000degree.

The maximum temprature that JP-8 (jet fuel) burns at is 1800 degrees F. That is assuming that there is there is maximum oxygen available to feed the fire. The fires in the buildings were oxygen difficent due to the somke inside the towers engulfing the flames. This would mean that the fires wouldn't even burn at the max. temp. Instead they were burning at less then its potential 1800 degrees. so how did the WTC come down?

UAE benefitted from september 11???? you want to explain how :S.
I thought bushy baby benefitted by having to stand for president AGAIN.
I thought the owner of the WTO benefited. because 9/11 earned him the nice sum of $7.5 billion and letting Silverstein build a new corporate complex "for FREE". thats right folks FOR FREE.


wait a minute I know y the building in Madrid or all the other buildings across the world that were on fire for more then 10 hours didnt come down but the WTC did. Its because the other fires were a regular ordinary type fire. The WTC fire was DIFFERENT. it was A REICHSTAG FIRE. MUCH hotter .

OOOOOH wait wait i know. Aliens from Area 51 zapped both of the towers with their flying machines .

As I say, media can be manipulated but if you read Western newspapers they ask a loooooooot of questions about what government does. For example, were Tony Blair (or now Gordon Brown) to allocate himself land that belongs to the country and sell it off for millions in real estate developments and keep the proceeds they may ask a few questions. And, indeed, make sure he went to jail. Can't think of any examples where stuff like that has happened though, no idea why I mentioned it.

Oh dear. Nobody said the steel was melted like the baddy in Terminator 2, suggest you go back to the drawing board. You may also want to look at demolition videos, what do you see? Oh yes, explosions!

Live in your fantasy world, the UAE surely hasn't benefited from high oil prices or indeed OPEC decisions not to include world production. Honestly, it's all visionary leadership...

Hey, I've heard a good one. Princess Diana was killed by MI6. Shhhh, don't tell anyone, you're the only one that knows.

scot1870 wrote:As I say, media can be manipulated but if you read Western newspapers they ask a loooooooot of questions about what government does. For example, were Tony Blair (or now Gordon Brown) to allocate himself land that belongs to the country and sell it off for millions in real estate developments and keep the proceeds they may ask a few questions. And, indeed, make sure he went to jail. Can't think of any examples where stuff like that has happened though, no idea why I mentioned it.

Oh dear. Nobody said the steel was melted like the baddy in Terminator 2, suggest you go back to the drawing board. You may also want to look at demolition videos, what do you see? Oh yes, explosions!

Live in your fantasy world, the UAE surely hasn't benefited from high oil prices or indeed OPEC decisions not to include world production. Honestly, it's all visionary leadership...

Hey, I've heard a good one. Princess Diana was killed by MI6. Shhhh, don't tell anyone, you're the only one that knows.

The western media questions alot do they? Oh so when Bush and Blair said there were weapons of mass distruction here. What did the Media dO? wait a second yep They believed them. And then Bush and his merry men in g strings rode their horses to Iraq and guess whAT? The WORLD FOUND OUT THAT BUSH AND BLair had lied to them. LOL

So how do you know that the government is not lying about september 11?? Oh wait you believe whatever bush or gordon or blair says right?? Oh alrite i get it now.

Lol I am not the one who said steel melts like the baddy in terminator. The steel in WTC had a high melting point till 3000 degrees. They would have only melted if 3000 degrees and some oxgyen had been in the room. But it didnt. But wait wait wait guys I would like to hear professor Scotty explain to everyone how really steel melts. Please scot do the honours mate.

Diana was killed by a ISLAMIC terroist cos she was gonna get married to a muslim lol .

Scot I am sorry I dont know how steel melts. You want to tell me how it melts. Lets here your side of the story.

The whole structure was weakened, partly by impact, largely by burning. Gravity did the rest. What's to explain?

Oh yeah, it's cos Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan for, er, the poppies whilst watching his economy being crippled by rising oil prices. How silly of me.

The media REPORTED (not engineered) the words of the US and UK in the lead up to the war, if you're so good on this Google malarky you may see many in the media questioned it in the west and people took to the streets in protest.

Not to worry though, Gulf News is on top of world affairs so you'll not miss a thing.

http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Health/10169088.html

Loose Change Guide

You have yourself a good day now.

It was more to do with the welds melting as opposed to the steel melting. The Steel, because of the intense heat expanded thus forcing the welded joints to weaken and fail.

The steel over-heated more than expected because the "fire protection" that was sprayed on to the girders also failed.

WTC7 is the smoking gun.

It was not hit by any planes and was quite frankly brushed over during the commission.

Silverstein (owner);

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse."

This was seven hours after the fire started - this means a demolition pre-prep which takes a month had to be carried out throughout the building in half a day.

Naturally this does not add up so Silverstein now claims that 'pull it' means get out and let it burn.

'Pull!!!' has been a trade term for demolition for as long as the trade has gone.

So think about this 6-7 hours to rig a building up or the building collapsed on its own from the fire and explosion on the ground floor which in left resulted in the top collapsing downwards?

As for the media - well thats whole new topic which anyone can research themselves. Some of my family are journalists so I stopped trusting what I am told a long time ago now.

arniegang wrote:It was more to do with the welds melting as opposed to the steel melting. The Steel, because of the intense heat expanded thus forcing the welded joints to weaken and fail.

The steel over-heated more than expected because the "fire protection" that was sprayed on to the girders also failed.

Kind of like this



That looks distinctly the result of the use of thermite incendiary cutter charges.

They place them at an angle so that the girder dislodges at a downward slide resulting in each floor collapsing downwards rather then the whole thing toppling over.

scot1870 wrote:The whole structure was weakened, partly by impact, largely by burning. Gravity did the rest. What's to explain? [/url]

errr what about the building in Madrid then? or the empire state building that was hit by a B-25. Wasnt that damaged PARTLY by impact BUT LARGELY BY BURNING? Yet it didnt fall down? strange scot that the rule of gravity didnt apply there .

scot1870 wrote:Oh yeah, it's cos Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan for, er, the poppies whilst watching his economy being crippled by rising oil prices. How silly of me.[/url]

Lol yeh the poppies and drug business has started doing well under the rule of USA Afghanistan. Doesnt this remind you of the same Vietnam where USA troops seized drugs from there, shipped it VIA plane to USA and sell them there. hmmm how do i know this? do you want a link .
Lol y ARE you complaining about the OIL prices man??? hahahh the oil prices went up NOW. they didnt go up when Twin towers went down .

hmmmm theres no oil in Afghanistan but we do know that they have large amount of Natural Gas there UNDISCOVERED TOOO. Or maybe its the precious metals lol. Maybe Aghanistan was invaded to have a strategic base for the Americans to Attack Iraq and hmm maybe Iran. Well now they have a base there they can attack WHOEVER they like. Even Russian and China .

scot1870 wrote:The media REPORTED (not engineered) the words of the US and UK in the lead up to the war, if you're so good on this Google malarky you may see many in the media questioned it in the west and people took to the streets in protest.[/url]

Yes scot more and more ppl are openig their eyes. especially when their governments lied about the WMD in Iraq which in fact was A LIE. and just because of one little LIE families in the West have lost their fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers, wifes, husbands, son and daugthers to the war in Iraq. I am not sure how many American and british soilders have died. Maybe you can switch on CNN and tell me what is the latest count of deaths. Hey atleast they died because of one lil lie didnt they .

scot1870 wrote:Not to worry though, Gulf News is on top of world affairs so you'll not miss a thing.[/url]

Lol you 4got I dont read newspapers or watch news on the tv let it be Arabic newspapers or English newspapers. Cos we all know here that if Bush says there is Weapons of Mass Distruction in Iraq. Then hell yeh there are WMD in Iraq .

arniegang wrote:It was more to do with the welds melting as opposed to the steel melting. The Steel, because of the intense heat expanded thus forcing the welded joints to weaken and fail.

The steel over-heated more than expected because the "fire protection" that was sprayed on to the girders also failed.

Arnie do you have a bachelors degree or masters degree in Chemistry that allows you to say this .

or what is your profession?? Do you have experience in welding? If so what kind of welding?

arniegang wrote: The steel over-heated more than expected because the "fire protection" that was sprayed on to the girders also failed.

hehheh arnie were you one of the engineers involved in the designing of the twin towers. cos the way you said "the steel over-heated MORE then expected", makes me think you were one of the engineers mate .

hmmm I wonder if there were water sprayers in twin towers. guess they all werent working that day cos FBI and CIA went to sleep and let the "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST" come and fly 4 jumbo jets over the skys of USA. heheh.

scot and arnie i know its hard for you to believe me. I am not changing your opinion. you have urs I have mine. We all are intitled to have our own opinions.

I know its hard for you to think that the government WILL ever lie to you.

But I am not saying that arabs planned 9 11. They could have but then again they couldnt have and someone else might have done it. But there is no proof of this. Yes I know you thinking oh Osama admitted. You just need a laptop and voice morphing software and video software. with that you can do everything. Even get osama on tv speaking in a british accent. I can go on and on how the evidence provided by USA is a bit dodgy. I am not the only one who finds it dodgy. there are ppl in USA who find it dodgy.

September 11 could have been planned by Al Qaeda. But there is no "legitimate" proof. OR it could have been done by "usa government" or someone else. But then again there is no proof.

There is always 2 sides of a story. u r saying al qaeda have done it all. I am saying someone else hve done it. I dont know who is rite nd who is wrong. But u have to consider both of them because BOTH of them could have happend.

How to proove what happened really? well most of the evidence has been destroyed. or most of the CCTV or evidence are under the control of FBI and CIA to insure that the "NATIONAL SECURITY" is not breached.
Also Y are the ppl under captivity in gauntamao bay under USA? Y are they not being handed over to the National Court of Criminal in Hague and tried for War Crimes there and have a proper trial? Y isnt this happening?

Do those ppl in Gautanamo Bay know something?? Is Mohammad Atta ALIVE and in Gautanamo BAY??? I dont know he could be there he couldnt be. But i do know that those ppl should be hand over to a Internaitonal tribunal and tried. And it should be publiced so that the world can see their trial. Because wasnt the twin tower not an attack on USA but an attack on the whole wide world???

jabbajabba wrote:WTC7 is the smoking gun.

It was not hit by any planes and was quite frankly brushed over during the commission.

Silverstein (owner);

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse."

This was seven hours after the fire started - this means a demolition pre-prep which takes a month had to be carried out throughout the building in half a day.

Naturally this does not add up so Silverstein now claims that 'pull it' means get out and let it burn.

'Pull!!!' has been a trade term for demolition for as long as the trade has gone.

So think about this 6-7 hours to rig a building up or the building collapsed on its own from the fire and explosion on the ground floor which in left resulted in the top collapsing downwards?

As for the media - well thats whole new topic which anyone can research themselves. Some of my family are journalists so I stopped trusting what I am told a long time ago now.

come on jabbajabba the guy wouldnt do a insurance scam to make him $2.7 billion richer. No way he cant do that. Hes an American, an american cant kill thousands of ppl just to make himself powerful and rich. come on jabbajabba even though silverstine is $2.7 billion richer cos of 9 11 i dont think it was him. or was it . I dont think its him. someone else has a bigger plan. a plan for NEW WORLD ORDER. heheh scott i know i know i shouldnt watch too many movies . But it could happen .