Let’s start with two things which can’t be disputed:
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds“, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement:
“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.”
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: “… we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” There can be little doubt as to how the word “pull” is being used in this context.
Those seem two fairly clear pieces of evidence. Yet they’ve not only been ignored in the official investigation but anyone drawing attention to these, just as in the Jane Standley matter is quite mercilessly vilified, called names and that’s supposed to constitute debunking. I found a site which went into the science of how the burning inside the building caused the collapse, yet nowhere did it address the two points above.
Silverstein did say that and you did hear that explosion.
Now, to take a debunking site, the guy is determined:
I’m arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe.
… and thus it came down due to its own internal issues. He devotes many photos to that and along the way, puts in this “evidence”:
You see, I’m not arguing the conspiracy theorist is 100 percent right on his facts. After all, he is a 911 conspiracy theorist.
His logic is that, as he has now labelled anyone who says otherwise or points to the evidence, as I’ve done above in this post, as a conspiracy theorist, therefore nothing that now vilified theorist says can hold any water. End of story [in his eyes]. I’ll not comment further on that logic.
Here’s another piece of evidence supporting his case:
Conspiracy Theorists are hard at work looking to find the slightest discrepancy in the NIST preliminary report.
Presumably, he means that onlookers are interested in why there is so much denial that WTC 7 was brought down rather than fell down and why this was not reflected in the official version. To ask that question makes anyone asking it a loony conspiracy theorist. I think you know what I feel about the logical faculties of those who go on like this.
The point I’m making
The point in this second post is not to prove or disprove the theories of either the observers/investigators or the debunkers but to ask why the debunkers are so vehement about what don’t seem major points in the first place, thereby sowing suspicion where none should have been, why so hysterical about it and why they feel that lumping all incidents in the world which are questioned under one heading “conspiracy theory”, thereby, in their eyes, debunking all evidence they don’t like?
I must admit I always thought that the state either locked up lunatics or gave them medication. It is with some trepidation that these conspiracy loonies, along with the Princess Diana conspirator theorists – “It was the Duke of Edinburgh & MI5 that done it.” – are still amongst us.
Rather than take each point one by one, rather than address each piece of evidence, they prefer the emotional ad hominem. And they speak of lunacy? The points raised in both this and the first post have not been answered but they have been suppressed in a barrage of guff about “truthers” or whatever the current buzz word is.
How about just answering the questions, one by one? Here’s one site which attempts to. If it comes to believing the quote above or the facts of the case plain for all to see, I know which I’d prefer to believe. Facts every time please, not the invective of auto-debunkers.
All they had to do was listen to Silverstein on WTC 7 and all the hysteria and spittle could have ceased. Oh yeah, never thought of that:
The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report?
Here’s another one to chew over:
On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.
Assuming we’re unbiased, what would that indicate to you about the temperature during the collapse?
Fire Engineering magazine, January, 2002 edition, questioned the legality of sawing off sections of steel from the site and shipping it to China, before any investigation was carried out on it.
In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claimed that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “remain unknown at this time.”
If the insta-dismissal and hysterico-auto-debunking can be set aside for just a minute, surely there are sufficient grounds to have at least the following question answered, just one little question, pretty please:
Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed material, and who had access to WTC Building 7 prior to September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?
If, as I concede there is much evidence for, it was just a decision of Silverstein’s people to lay those charges in the weeks leading up to 911, with no thought of 911 at all, no conspiracy and no hysteria needed, then wasn’t it a coincidence that the whole 911 thing just happened to occur on the same day?
Coincidence is a wonderful thing. Watch this coincidence here.