Larry Silverstein confronted again - still no response to WTC 7 lies

The guy beside the guy asking the question gives such an awesome ugh face

There is probably a lot of coveres up shit with 9 11. However thinking that Silverstein said pull it meaning anything othee than get the firefighters out is retarded.
 
by hand vs copy/paste

I'd assume your intelligence level to be on the copy/paste areana, but I want you to have wasted your life typing out something meaningless

I'm just implying you put WAY too much fucking effort into it
 
My daughter has an imaginary friend she talks to when playing "restaurant". Does it make me a fucking idiot because I don't believe that she is actually playing with a real kid?

There is a difference between having an open mind and using your imagination to make things up to help support a weak theory.

In your case, you are just making up imaginary hocus pocus like my daughter.
 
What is this government you say did this?
The thousanRAB of government employees did it, is that what you mean?
This is disinformation, a cover up, do you understand?
 
You are the one in denial, the facts have been given you by scientists, structural engineers, the firemen and people that worked in the buildings, they have all told you what happened. There are lots of reputable websites that will explain it far better than we can on a messageboard. We weren't there, we didn't take samples and analyse them, so go the the websites of the engineers who can explain it to you.
It's not up to anyone here to try, you can't grasp it, it's beyond your psyche to take in.
You're scared of finding out what really happened, so you can't let yourself see it.
That's ok, lots of people are like you.
 
I was addressing the claim the building was planted with explosives and brought down. Nothing more. If there is more to this....so be it. I was just curious to how a building is 'blown up' with explosives that make no noise. Obviously you do not have an answer to that so no reason to reply to my posts anymore.
 
The building housed some of the most important secret documents to the government and private companies. There was a contigency plan in place to destroy the structure should it fall in the hanRAB of terrorists or invading forces.

The building was the newest addition to the WTC complex, built in 1985. Far more modern and better built than other structures that have suffered massive fires and were still standing when the fires were out. The building was also design to be more robust than most, which is why it housed what it did (including the mayor's bunker). Why would they put a bunker in a building that could so easily be destroyed? The answer is that they didn't. The building was far more robust than they give credit for, to make their conspiracy theory (the official story) hold water. A well-built automobile has what are called crumple zones. There are impact protection points that are designed to "self-destruct" to save the passengers. Likewise, this building was either designed or retrofitted with the demolition version of crumple zones- that is, explosives or mechanical devices were already in place to enable the building to be pulled down on demand.

The logical conclusion is what Silverstein himself said. They didn't believe they could save the building. Silverstein had been in touch with the authorities throughout the day. They'd already pulled out all the firefighters. The decision was made to pull the building down, so that no one could go in under the cloak of smoke and chaos and steal what was inside. One hard drive from one computer in that building would be worth millions to a foreign government or terrorist organization. It was plausible that terrorist elements would be in the area to take advantage of the situation. The building was demo'ed to prevent such an act. The official story is that WTC7 was brought down by fires, the fuel source of which were normal office furnishings. That is quite simply a lie. But why would we tell the public (and our enemies) that we would demolish a building rather than let its contents fall into enemy hanRAB?
 
Yes, you should hear an explosion. But I should also hear the sound of the building collapsing which also appears to be silent in the video so that discredits the argument of not hearing explosions in my opinion
 
You would pretty much have to build the entire thing around the explosives, but then some how prevent the damn things from popping off from random ESD, while also protecting it from a fire that burns for several hours that destroyed most of the building. I'm sure the military would love to know how that works.
 
If you make stupid suggestions like "the building was pre-wired for demolition when it was built", then yeah, you belong in that category.
 
LOL

Once again the situation is this...

Sheep: "9/11 truthers are idiots, excuse me while I argue with smilies and insults."
 
Back
Top