Wednesday, August 25, 2010

9/11 Debate on Coast to Coast with Ian Punnett


Architect Richard Gage [on behalf of 9-11 truth] and physicist Dave Thomas [on behalf of official story] go head-to-head on 9-11

YouTube
by Larry Simons
August 25, 2010

This debate [from August 21, 2010] features 9-11 truth activist and architect Richard Gage [pictured, above left] going against physicist Dave Thomas who defends the official conspiracy theory of 9-11.

I thought the debate was civil, fair and respectful. Lasting just under 3 hours, I have to give the win to Richard Gage. I realize I am partial [being against the official story] but I try not to judge debates based on my personal bias, but rather the evidence that is presented in the debate as if it was the very first time I had ever heard these issues discussed [as was the case with Charles Goyette annihilating Popular Mechanics stooge Davin Coburn in 2006].

Thomas’ views and evaluations brought nothing new to the table as far as convincing me the official story is correct. In fact, I was quite disturbed that still, after nearly 9 years since 9-11, people [particularly physicists] like Thomas are still clinging to the old, tiresome, debunked issues, like: WTC 7 did not fall in freefall time; WTC 7’s collapse was not symmetrical [oh really?]; Larry Silverstein meant “pull the firefighters out of WTC 7” when he said “Pull it”; there were no explosions [or reports of explosions] on 9-11 [oh yes there were]; the lobbies of the twin towers were damaged due to fire shooting through the elevator shafts [there was no trace of soot on any of the walls in the lobbies, plus, it would have burnt up the actual firefighters that were in the lobbies]; WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint; there were massive fires in WTC 7, and so on.

One glaring contradiction on Thomas’ part: He stated that he accepts Larry Silverstein’s statement that “pull it” meant to “pull the firefighting units out of WTC 7”, then later he acknowledged the fact that they couldn’t put out the fires in WTC 7 because the damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers took out the water system.

Well then, one has to ask: Why would the firefighters even be in WTC 7 to begin with if they had no water to fight fires? One might answer, “Well, they didn’t know they had no water until they was inside.” OK, that begs the question: Why did they have to be ordered out of the building if, when they attempted to spray water, none came out? If you have no water, don’t you get the hell out despite your fire commander ordering you out?

Plus, I have never understood why people, like Thomas, keep insisting on the fact that Silverstein was referring to "firefighters" when he said "pull it" anyway. Here is Silverstein's 2002 quote:

"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."

Someone please tell me why, if there was no water, the fire commander was "not sure" if they were going to be able to contain the fire? Wouldn't he be definately 100% positive they wouldn't, since there was no water? Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building [we are told was fully ablaze] when they had no water to fight it? Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call? Why would the fire commander even give a two-cent shit about what happened to an already unsalvagable [so we're told] building?

Listen to the debate










64 comments:

Anonymous said...

great interview. gage destroys this asshole. like charles goyete destroys gavin colbern on kfnx interview.

the_last_name_left said...

you're just never going to get it, are you?

10 years and still not the slightest piece of positive evidence for Troofer conspiracy rubbish. Not a single thing. What a failure. Sane people recognise one might as well give up eventually -- how can one sustain belief with nothing to support it? Suspicion? That's enough for you? Oh well.

Real Truth Online said...

Hmmm, is that why for over a year I have crushed you repeatedly on your blog? Is that why you fail repeatedly to answer even 20% of my questions, let alone 100% of them? Did you even READ my article here? Did you even listen to the interview? Of course not!

Thomas acknowledges that the wtc collapses of 1 & 2 destroyed the water system, but STILL holds the belief that the firefighters had to be ORDERED from the building because they couldnt put out the fires [because of no water]. Why go IN the building if you have no water? Even if youre already inside and discover you have no water, would you sit and WAIT for an order to leave? After all, the fires were "UNCONTROLLABLE" so we're told.

Address this too:

"Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building [we are told was fully ablaze] when they had no water to fight it? Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call? Why would the fire commander even give a two-cent shit about what happened to an already unsalvagable [so we're told] building?"

You wont address it, because you CANT.

Anonymous said...

he just proved why hes a fn queenie larry. hes debunked nothing again. you own this queenie larry.

Real Truth Online said...

Ahhhh, I love it. You posted a comment at 7:33pm last night and DELETED it! I wonder why. How do I KNOW you deleted it? Because ALL posts still go to my email, assmunch.

I'm guessing you deleted it because it was filled with so many holes, it could have been swiss cheese.

This was TLNL's post he DELETED:

"L: Why go IN the building if you have no water?

Don't need water to save lives.

L: Even if youre already inside and discover you have no water, would you sit and WAIT for an order to leave?

Wait? No, work furiously until ordered not to.

L: After all, the fires were "UNCONTROLLABLE" so we're told.

it isn't a static event. And 'uncontrollable' need not mean an absolute furnace raging throughout every inch of the building.

L: "Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building....

Why do you say he was asking for the leaseholders' consent to withdraw men from the building? What was said that leads you to believe this? and about what exactly was the fire chief asking the leaseholder's opinion? opinion or consent? you mix the two things in your question, which is a bit naughty, isn't it?

L: Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call?

People could have died at any moment.....they were dying at any moment and had already done so in relatively huge numbers all day.

If he had withdrawn people earlier, maybe people would have died in WTC7. He didn't know that on the day, presumably.

But anyway - who says that anything Silverstein did or said or wanted influenced the chief fire blokey and the handling of the emergency responses?

Your question works hard to lead someone to the conclusion you want, but it's completely disingenuous as there's no evidence the fire chief called Silverstein for anything other than routine, if there is such a thing on a day like 911.

Was the chief seriously interrupted from his duties when he was on the phone to Silverstein? Was he dragged away from the job in hand? You have no evidence of this at all.

Did Silverstein have any influence on the firechief? You have absolutely no evidence of this at all.

You have no evidence -- and it should matter. The total lack of evidence is made up for by your faith.

no evidence. come on, just accept it? if some good firm evidence ever does show up then we'll all have to sit up and take notice. And people would. But you've got nothing, so they haven't. Worse, you've got a belief you have more than enough evidence - even though you have none. To the rest of the population this looks exactly like what it is - a bunch of nutters."

Real Truth Online said...

Here's my response [YOUR statements in quotations]:

"L: Why go IN the building if you have no water?

Don't need water to save lives."

WHAT lives? The building had been evacuated for HOURS before Silverstein supposedly "pulled" them out, fucktard.

"L: Even if youre already inside and discover you have no water, would you sit and WAIT for an order to leave?

Wait? No, work furiously until ordered not to."

Work furiously doing WHAT? Blowing out the fires? There were no people to save [evacuated] and no water to fight the fires. What other work was there to do? I'll be ignored on that one.

"L: After all, the fires were "UNCONTROLLABLE" so we're told.

it isn't a static event. And 'uncontrollable' need not mean an absolute furnace raging throughout every inch of the building."

Ahhhh, but that is what YOU and others have REPEATEDLY said over and over on your blog when I would ask what made the building collapse and you have said repeatedly the fires were uncontrollable!! Now, when the glaring contradiction is pointed out that the firefighters had NO WATER and I ask "what were they even in the building for?" [since there were no people in it either] you simply want to now DENY the building's fires weren't uncontrollable! God, you are the biggest FRAUD on Earth!

"L: "Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building....

Why do you say he was asking for the leaseholders' consent to withdraw men from the building? What was said that leads you to believe this? and about what exactly was the fire chief asking the leaseholder's opinion? opinion or consent? you mix the two things in your question, which is a bit naughty, isn't it?"

If you're denying that was for NEITHER an opinion or consent, then why ask me "opinion or consent?". You're saying it was for NEITHER----so I ask you: What was the purpose of the call then???? The building was already [supposedly] unsalvagable so the fire commander didnt have to care whether he would damage the building MORE, and Silverstein is NOT in control/command of the fire commanders' men, so what sense does it make if Silverstein meant by "pull it" to "pull the men out?" Hmmmmmmmm????

For the last question you addressed, let me address each statement one at a time:

"L: Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call?

People could have died at any moment.....they were dying at any moment and had already done so in relatively huge numbers all day."

What "People" are you referring to? The EVACUATED occupants of wtc7 or the firemen? No firefighters died in wtc7, but since for some strange reason people KNEW it was 'coming down" then YES, during the fire commanders' phone call, his men could have died--an he had time to call the fucking leaseholder???? Why call him at ALL???

Real Truth Online said...

"If he had withdrawn people earlier, maybe people would have died in WTC7. He didn't know that on the day, presumably."

Wht fucking sense does that make? If he had WITHDRAWN them earlier, maybe people would have died?? You mean the EVACUATED people?? EARTH TO TLNL: THERE WERE NO PEOPLE TO SAVE IN WTC7 FROM LIKE 11:30am AND AFTERWARD. Get it now?

"But anyway - who says that anything Silverstein did or said or wanted influenced the chief fire blokey and the handling of the emergency responses?"

BETTER question: Why even MAKE THE CALL if youre the fire commander? If youre the FC, and you want NO opinions, NO consent and NO influence from the leaseholder---what purpose is there for the call?

"Your question works hard to lead someone to the conclusion you want, but it's completely disingenuous as there's no evidence the fire chief called Silverstein for anything other than routine, if there is such a thing on a day like 911."

It's ROUTINE for fire commanders to call OWNERS of buildings when their buildings are on fire? Where did you get this?

"Was the chief seriously interrupted from his duties when he was on the phone to Silverstein? Was he dragged away from the job in hand? You have no evidence of this at all."

There's TWO things you kep IGNORING about this incident. "SUPPOSEDLY" the building was suffering from UNCONTROLLABLE fires and they had NO WATER to fight them---and not to mention the fact that people were saying ALL DAY the building was "coming down". With these 3 [supposed] "facts" at hand:

1. Uncontrollable fires
2. No water
3. Building is coming down at any time....

you have the balls to suggest that [with his men inside] that doesnt qualify as a "serious interruption"???

"Did Silverstein have any influence on the firechief? You have absolutely no evidence of this at all."

Why even CALL Silverstein if NOT to get insight, influence, consent or an opinion?

"You have no evidence -- and it should matter. The total lack of evidence is made up for by your faith."

You have WAYYYYYYYY more faith then I do to accept te bullshit you accept.

So, tell me---why did you delete the post? I KNOW why you did, but I want you to ADMIT why.

the_last_name_left said...

I didn't delete it. I posted it. SFAIK it had been posted. Fuck knows what happened. Why you hurrah! over imagining i had deleted that post i can't imagine.

the_last_name_left said...

L: If you're denying [Nigro speaking to Silverstein] was for NEITHER an opinion or consent, then why ask me "opinion or consent?". You're saying it was for NEITHER----so I ask you: What was the purpose of the call then????

I'm not saying it was for neither. I don't know what the purpose of Nigro and Silverstein's conversation was - and nor do you.

I am saying you have no evidence that Silverstein was telling Nigro what to do.

No evidence that Nigro ASKED Silverstein what he should do.

No evidence that Nigro asked Silverstein's advice about anything.

No evidence that Nigro or the emergency response was in any way effected by anything Silverstein said, did or wished for.

All you have is some confusion over the timing of when WTC7 was evacuated of people and emergency responders. Hardly surprising to find some confusion.

You take that confusion, mix in your unfounded assertions about what Silverstein said/did, whip up a load of disingenuous questions and voila! you have your conspiracy.

But there's nothing actually there, Larry..... Even if there were a conspiracy, you aren't going to discover it like this.

You're asserting the building was evacuated HOURS BEFORE they 'pulled' the firefighters whatever?

What time was it evacuated Larry? On what is your assertion based?

Do you believe your assertion or not - that the building was evacuated hours before?

IF so, then why was the building evacuated? Because of fires and an unsafe building, right?

the_last_name_left said...

L: he had time to call the fucking leaseholder???? Why call him at ALL???

Whom called who, Larry?

How do you know the conversation put anyone at additional risk? How do you know the conversation didn't happen in a relatively quiet moment when things were essentially settled? like near 5pm ish when it did fall down? ALL THAT TIME LATER....remember?

So....whom called who? What was said? Who asked the other what? Do tell?

How did it put any lives at risk? What was Nigro's attitude to the call? What was his attitude towards spending the time on the call and towards Silverstein?

You don't know. But in your head you somehow imagine you do.

the_last_name_left said...

Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available
The answer is: No.

I asked Chief Nigro about this, and he was kind to respond very quickly. What he said was basically this:

Originally Posted by Chief Nigro: "
I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it."

He also once reminded again, that as we all know, he would not have needed the approval of Silverstein to make the evacuation order. So, whoever Silverstein is talking about getting the call from, it is NOT Chief Nigro.

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


See how disingenuous and misleading your questions are?

end of story.........but i suspect not.

the_last_name_left said...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106581

the_last_name_left said...

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."
-------------

It wasn't Nigro he spoke to. He says "THEY made that decision" and THEN he and others (presumably his family, colleagues) later saw it collapse. There's actually nothing here to warrant concern. And yet look at your ranting based upon your semi-imaginary notion of what happened? lol

All this time you have imagined Silverstein spoke to the Fire Chief himself. Hmmm.

the_last_name_left said...

Nigro has explained his reasoning:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Quote:
Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
--------------
Fearing a collapse is not the same thing as being certain of a collapse.

the_last_name_left said...

1. We walked over by number SevenWorldTradeCenter as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

2. Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

6.The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade
---------------------

Where's the mystery? There isn't any?

Or are all these and other people liars? Is Nigro a liar? All those firemen liars? lol.

All this from the (false and assumed) grounds that Silverstein told Nigro to "pull" something. Sheesh.

You need something more than this Larry. Haven't you noticed that over the last 9 years each and every single Troofer argument retreats and morphs into some new, weaker avenue? Retreat!

The time would be better spent assessing real failures.

Larry said...

"What time was it evacuated Larry? On what is your assertion based?"

Based on the fact that NO ONE DIED in the collapse. If people did NOT get out, they would have DIED. Doesnt take alot of investigation to know that! Geesh!

"IF so, then why was the building evacuated? Because of fires and an unsafe building, right?"

If it was UNSAFE, why were firefighters permitted to go inside? You know, they DO even tell firefighters to get out of unsafe structures!

" I'm not saying it was for neither. I don't know what the purpose of Nigro and Silverstein's conversation was - and nor do you."

Purpose of the call???? Gonna answer that??

"Whom called who, Larry?"

FC called Silverstein DICKHEAD. Silverstein ADMITS in in the quote "I remember getting a call from the fire commander...."

"How do you know the conversation put anyone at additional risk? How do you know the conversation didn't happen in a relatively quiet moment when things were essentially settled? like near 5pm ish when it did fall down? ALL THAT TIME LATER....remember?"

Quiet moment? The building is about to fall and that's a quiet moment?? LOL. The FC called Silverstein at 5pm---a 1/2 an hour BEFORE the collapse? Why would they STILL be IN there if they had NO WATER to fight fires ALL DAY LONG and no people to save??

"Did Chief Nigro call Silverstein? The answer is finally available
The answer is: No."

Hmmmmmm. Silverstein's EXACT QUOTE in the documentary is:

"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."

But why take EXACT QUOTES as truth! LOL.

"It wasn't Nigro he spoke to. He says "THEY made that decision" and THEN he and others (presumably his family, colleagues) later saw it collapse. There's actually nothing here to warrant concern. And yet look at your ranting based upon your semi-imaginary notion of what happened? lol"

WHO SAID IT WAS NIGRO??? THAT WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN ANY POINTS I WAS MAKING. FIND ONE PORTION OF ANY STORY IVE WRITTEN WHERE I EVER SAID IT WAS NIGRO! YOU said it was Nigro! I have always said "FIRE COMMANDER" because that is the EXACT term Silverstein uses!

So, who is the Fire Dept Commander, Einstein???

Larry said...

"We walked over by number SevenWorldTradeCenter as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca"

Hmmmm---but YOU said it wasnt "uncontrollable"----besides NO PICTURE EVER TAKEN confirms that quote. Show me ONE picure that shows 40 stories ON FIRE---just ONE picture. You cant.

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn"

YOU said it wasnt "uncontrollable"---why send firefighters into a fully ablaze building that's creaking with NO WATER?

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti"

How did he KNOW it wasnt coming down? A building has NEVER collapsed due to fire alone before. What precedent did he base this on? NO PICTURE shows WTC7 burning "virtually on every floor"----care to produce a picture of this?

"All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes"

This doesnt prove a "fully ablaze" building just because he watched it burn all day. He's not saying how much of it was burning. That quote was useless.

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers"

Really??? Only no picture of video shows this. Hmmmmmm. Care to produce a picture or video clip confirming this quote?

"The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer"

Another pointless quote.

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly."

Definition of "roaring"?

"At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa"

Oh really? based on what? The 200 other buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire alone?

"Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade"

"Out of control" huh? Didnt ou say earlier that it WASNT "uncontrollable"??? Hmmmmm.

Larry said...

The big problem here with these quotes is that most of them completely contradict what even the NIST report says. The NIST report said they really didnt know the cause.

But YOU do. LOL

Its funny how that most of your answers about Silverstein's phone conversation are just "what if's" and "we dont know's"----which is basically an admittance of why we need an investigation! But when I claim a new investigation is needed----you say, "no we dont---we KNOW what happened"---but when I draw conclusions based on the info I have and it doesnt make sense---you say things like:

"So....whom called who? What was said? Who asked the other what? Do tell?

How did it put any lives at risk? What was Nigro's attitude to the call? What was his attitude towards spending the time on the call and towards Silverstein?

You don't know."

EXACTLY MY POINT. We dont really KNOW, do we? Which is EXACTLY why an investigation is needed---but when I say "let's investigate it"---you then claim you KNOW the answers and nothing has to be investigated!

Amazing!

Anonymous said...

larry, this guys a queenie. you own him. hes refuted nothing, nor has he debunked anything. you own him and his blog, hes a fn joke.

the_last_name_left said...

lol

so who did silverstein speak to if not Nigro?

You have no idea.

So, was Silverstein speaking to someone who had the authority to decide whether to "pull" anything or not? You just don't know. You accept it wasn't the guy in charge whom Silverstein spoke to. And yet you place such importance on this phonecall and have done for years.

And this call by Silverstein is supposed to be evidence of purposeful demolition! A call to someone whose identity you don't even know! Did this unknown person influence the "pulling" of anything? How do you know? [You don't]

Did your grand conspiracy make sure that WTC7 looked *AS IF it were going to collapse* so as to convince all the doubters and the experienced firemen on the scene? haha. What an idea.

How do you explain it, Larry? That experienced firemen were saying the building was doomed when the only reason the building fell was explosives? Did the conspiracy make the building look like it was going to collapse? How did they manage it? lol

Larry said...

"so who did silverstein speak to if not Nigro? ...you have no idea"

Yes I do assface....the fire commander! He said so in the quote! What the person's NAME is is irrelevant!

Actually, I have a hard time accepting he meant "pull the building" since why would he admit that on a TV program?? But what else could he have been referring to? It obviously wasn't "the firemen" for several reasons as I have already mentioned:

1. Silverstein had no control or authority over the fire commander's men, so him saying "pull them out" makes no sense

2. There is no mention of firemen in Silverstein's quote. They were talking about the BUILDING the entire time, and for Silverstein to go out of context and mention the firemen out of the blue is highly unlikely. It's kinda like you saying something truthful in the middle of a litany of lies...highly unlikely.

3. The FC would not have needed Silverstein's input, advice, consent (whatever u wanna call it) to have the men removed from the building...period. That's a decision that the FC is completely capable of on his own.

4. You don't say "pull IT" when referring to a bunch of guys. You say "pull em out", plus like I said, they weren't talking about the men in the quote.

5.There were no firefighters to "pull" out after 1130am that day. They were all gone by then. This is why no firefighters died at wtc7 that day.

6. Like I said. The firemen had no water supposedly after the towers fell, which was early in the morning. Why were they in there at all with no water?

As for your last statement---"how did they manage it?" Since not ONE person could have possibly known the building was going to collapse, I personally believe that a message was sent from someone involved in the demolition made sure word got out that this building was going to collapse as to not shock anyone when it did. They knew that if they had said nothing and the building just fell without any heads up, many people would have demanded why it fell (many more than what already do). So they figure if they give a warning in advancen the 'shock factore' would have been diminshed substantially and not many would wonder about it. Without a shock factor, then it's "expected". You normally don't question something that's expected. The BBC and CNN were 2 major networks that knew in advance of the collapse---because they were pre-warned as to remove the shock factor and not question it.

the_last_name_left said...

But how did they make WTC7 look as if it was going to collapse?

How did manage to get it to make creaking noises - such that experienced firemen were convinced it would collapse?

How did the conspiracy manage to make the building physically lean over such that when theodolites measured the building's movement it convinced them that it was going to collapse?

Come on, Larry......the answer is obvious. These are things that are impossible to fake. They really happened. The experts on the scene that day were convinced it would collapse. Else they are all lying.

And Nigro reaffirms it was his ownresponsibility to evacuate, not Silverstein's, whom he says he had no contact with.

WHo is this "Fire Commander" Silverstein mentions? What were his responsibilities? Maybe he was just a comms guy, informing Silverstein of the situation. You are assuming everything about the situation.

You're also asserting the building was cleared by 11.30 - reports conflict over this.

If one was referring to an emergency response EFFORT, or a firefighting effort or team, one might easily use "IT" not "THEM".

All this out of the one phrase? And Silverstein said it on a TV programme! Gee - he gave away the grand conspiracy, just like that? How slack of him? It just doesn't add-up Larry. You're taking unlikely possibilities rather than the obvious. When you add up chances the odds get worse, not better, Larry. 2, 3, 4, 5 unlikely things are fabulously unlikely to all occur compared to a chain of likely events.

Just look at what you're resting everything on here - the word "IT" instead of "THEM" - that's enough to move Silverstein to centre-stage in your grand conspiracy.

You don't even know whom SilverStein was supposed to have spoken to. Did the conversation even happen? Did it happen as Silverstein related to the TV interviewer and in his later statement? You imagine Silverstein to be central to your conspiracy - and hence a major criminal and accomplished liar - yet on this you completely believe him. This is a common flaw of conspiracism - you'll disbelieve all the evidence which conflicts with your claims but you'll hold dear the least thing that you can twist into conforming with your conspiracy narrative. That's intellectually dishonest Larry. Even though you believe Silverstein is a heinous crook and involved in a huge deception of the world and a usurpation of the American state, you believe him over this one statement. Because you think it helps further your 'theory' - of controlled demolition by an 'inside job'. And it isn't "just a theory" -- it's your entire worldview. 911 being an inside job is intrinsic to your wider conception of ther world : of a grand conspiracy, inside jobs, the New World Order, blah blah blah.

the_last_name_left said...

So, when you're looking at "evidence" your entire perspective is totally skewed - you are finding vindication for your own worldview, and confirmation bias ensures you find it. And then you proclaim you reach your conclusions based on "the facts". lol. Clearly it's the other way around - look how you hold to this thin little gruel about Silverstein?

And clearly, if you were to loosen your commitment to 911 being a conspiracy it would threaten to seriously undermine your entire worldview and socio-political conception.

You are not 'just asking questions', rather your entire political activity is based around your commitment to a very particular political conception - one based entirely on a grand conspiracy. Without the conspiracy your framework won't hold - hence your commitment to and need to find "support" for your 911 conspiracy "theory".

You should try looking at it all again, but from a more straightforward perspective ie one that follows the obvious narrative (not necessarily "the official story" as you call it, just the obvious one)

Run through the obvious narrative, and consider how much easier it is than any conspiracy.....how much simpler....and concrete.

If and when some compelling evidence for conspiracy shows-up, you'll be entitled to believe in it. But until there's compelling evidence for it, there's no right to believe in it.

Especially when there's so much very good positive evidence for a far more mundane explanation.

But you choose to ignore all the evidence you don't like. And instead you hold on stubbornly to the tiniest morsels, such as this Silverstein quote: it's hardly blueprints for the gaschambers, is it? Yet you don't find gaschambers convincing for the Holocaust. You don't accept confessions from condemned men who were there. You don't accept RedCross reports nor Einsatzgruppen reports. But this one word from Silverstein is golden to you. It's just not cricket.

the_last_name_left said...

FAILING GRADES TO THE JOURANL
The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.

Nevertheless, the publication gets her to give the Open Chemical Physics Journal failing grades.

“I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:

“There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”, is the harsh verdict.

The professor informs us that a few years ago she was invited to be editor in chief of a journal which would open new possibilities for new researchers and because she supports the idea of open access journals where the articles are accessible to everyone, she said, “Yes” thank you.

“It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing,” concludes Marie-Paule Pileni."

the_last_name_left said...

elsewhere here you publish Jesse Idiot Ventura claiming that

"Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009."

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

the most conclusive evidence? published in a junk journal whose editor resigned?

says it all. that's the best evidence you have.........junk.

why did they use a vanity publisher? why did they avoid proper peer-review? so as to avoid it, obviously. so that they could claim "peer-review" without ever having had proper peer-review.

And this is "the best evidence"!!!

the_last_name_left said...

elsewhere here Larry writes:

"The case for controlled demolition, as opposed to fire, is strongest for WTC 7. "

-----------

Notice how you are drawn to what you imagine appears to be your strongest case?

Not the weakest? Why don't you ever stress the weakest points Larry? Afraid they will give too easily?

This is why you equivocate and stall when asked to give an account of what happened.

You play a little game, whereby you make grand and outrageous claims - such as the buildings were destroyed by explosives. But when asked for an explanation of who, how, when you backslide into claiming "That's what we need the investigation for!".....as if you haven't already been claiming the buildings were destroyed by explosives.

You write:

L: [WTC7's] collapse has all the hallmarks of, and can only realistically be explained by, a conventional controlled demolition.

That is not merely "asking questions". It's making bald assertions which are (pretty obviously) false.

You call your article "10 smoking guns". You cite "The Demolition of WTC1+2" and "The Demolition of WTC7". You do not ask, as in "Demolition?" ....you assert "The demolition...."

Also, in the same article you say the 911 Commission report was "a 517 page lie". Again, that's an assertion - not a question.

Under that item you make two remarkable but well-known claims:

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent...

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October...


Please tell me how you *know* these events actually happened? What's the source? What corroboration is there? Let's see what you base your ASSERTIONS upon?

Larry said...

"..you'll disbelieve all the evidence which conflicts with your claims but you'll hold dear the least thing that you can twist into conforming with your conspiracy narrative."

Give me one piece of EVIDENCE that conflicts with my claims.

"Even though you believe Silverstein is a heinous crook and involved in a huge deception of the world and a usurpation of the American state, you believe him over this one statement."

Who said I "believed" anything? I am doing the exact same thing a policeman would do at a crime scene----asking QUESTIONS based on statements that the accused asserts to be true. And that is all we ask for---an INVESTIGATION to have these questions ANSWERED. But dickbrains like you have no need to have questions answered. You just fall down and say "Well, I heard on the TV that it was 19 guys directed by a guy in a cave---well, it must be true then!"

"Because you think it helps further your 'theory' - of controlled demolition by an 'inside job'. And it isn't "just a theory""

No, it's people like YOU and Popular Mechanics, etc...that help that. People who say fire vaporizes planes but leaves human flesh unmolested, buildings collapse due to fire alone, planes that crash that leave NO wreckage and finding DNA at crime scenes when they have no DNA to match it. THAT is what supports my view. Idiodic statements made by the very people who claim to have the TRUTH. How many times have I schooled YOU alone about this? A couple dozen?

Real Truth Online said...

In 5 posts about the resigned researcher, you never gave ONE reason for it. Im sure all 5 posts was one big copy and paste job.

Real Truth Online said...

"Also, in the same article you say the 911 Commission report was "a 517 page lie". Again, that's an assertion - not a question."

Why is it NOT a lie?

the_last_name_left said...

L: If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

So how did the perps know what to do to convince experienced professionals that the building was going to collapse?

Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?

Did the conspiracy ensure the buildings made noises sufficient that experienced professionals would mistakenly imagine the building was going to collapse?

Your question applies to your own position - but you don't ask it.

The only other way out you have left is to assert all these experienced professionals who gave testimony that they thought the building would collapse - are liars.

Do you believe this or not? Do you assert this or not? Are they (all) liars or not?

If they are not liars, then they were hoodwinked into thinking (what you describe as) an impossible event was going to occur.

So - let's ask your question - how did the conspiracy know what it would take to convince all these experienced professionals that the impossible was going to happen? It had "never happened before" according to you, and so how could your conspiracy have known what it would take to persuade all these professionals that the so-called impossible was suddenly very likely?

the_last_name_left said...

Why is the 911 Commission not a lie?

That wasn't the issue - the issue was you claimed it was "a lie" citing as evidence their omission of reports that OBL had been been treated in some MidE hospital.

I asked you for the provenance of your claim - who reported it? any corroboration? why do you choose to believe it?

Unless there are good grounds for your claim to be considered TRUE, its omission from the 911 Commission cannot be used as evidence that the 911 Commission report is "a lie".

In fact, the claim came through French Journal Le Figaro, and it was based on claims that purportedly came through french intelligence. all un-named sources, you understand. And no-one else followed up with the report - they only reported that Le Figaro had reported it.

Yet you believe it. Why?

Likewise for your claim about the US threats of war against Taliban prior to 911. In paris I believe?

If you can't pass these claims off as "TRUE" and reliable, then you can't use their omission from the 911 commissions's report as evidence of it being "a lie". See?

Larry said...

"So how did the perps know what to do to convince experienced professionals that the building was going to collapse?"

That would be answered by answering my ORIGINAL question---"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"---which you AVOIDED.

"Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?"

You have photos of it "leaning"?? Be careful of what witnesses say, moron. Witnesses also supposedly saw PEOPLE inside the windows of the "airplane" that hit the Pentagon. How would they see anything but a big blur, since the "plane" was going over 500mph?

"Did the conspiracy ensure the buildings made noises sufficient that experienced professionals would mistakenly imagine the building was going to collapse?"

There you go again ASSUMING you know what "noises" would be required to know what an unprecedented event would require. Answering my ORIGINAL question was avoided here again.

"Your question applies to your own position - but you don't ask it."

Its "MY position" that a building has never collapsed due to fire before?? Oh no buddy, that's FACT.

"The only other way out you have left is to assert all these experienced professionals who gave testimony that they thought the building would collapse - are liars."

Were any of the quotes you cited recorded on video footage like the Silverstein comment was?? Hmmmm???

"So - let's ask your question - how did the conspiracy know what it would take to convince all these experienced professionals that the impossible was going to happen? It had "never happened before" according to you, and so how could your conspiracy have known what it would take to persuade all these professionals that the so-called impossible was suddenly very likely?"

You still havent answered how they would have known even OUTSIDE of the context of conspiracy!

Larry said...

"Why is the 911 Commission not a lie?"

Norman Mineta tstified that he was in the presidential bunker of the White House with Dick Cheney BEFORE the Pentagon hit because a man came in every few minutes and told Cheney, "the plane is 50...30...10 miles out"-----but the 9-11 report said Cheney didnt get there til 9:58am---AFTER the plane hit.

The 9-11 commission did not investigate wtc7----in fact, there is NO mention of wtc7 in the entire report.

No cover up huh? No lie huh?

Who cares about Bin laden? Even our government doesnt care about him. Im sure he's been dead for 7 years now. I simply dont cae about Bin Laden----he had nothing to do with 9-11.

Larry said...

By the way, did you even listen to this debate I posted? I bet that's a big NO.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, earlier you said:

L: If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Therefore, unless you are saying all those testimonies from firemen are fake, or the firemen are liars, then someone must have persuaded them that the building was going to collapse.

Right?

But by your own argument, as it had never happened before, it was impossible for the conspiracy to know the impossible - just as it was supposedly impossible for the firemen present on the day to know what would suggest the building was going to collapse -- and therefore it was impossible the conspiracy could PREPLAN a scheme to convince the firemen of the impossible.

Right?

And there goes your entire scheme. But I bet you don't notice....

;)

If it isn't possible for firefighters to realistically assess that a building might collapse, then how come the conspiracy managed to convince them of it?

If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the firefighters on the ground to "KNOW" the building might collapse, then it must have been impossible for the conspirators to plan a fail-safe way of convincing the firemen that it would collapse.

=====

Compare that to

"experienced people feared the WTC7 would collapse because of the damage it sustained from earlier collapses and the subsequent, essentially unfought, fires."

Larry said...

No, Im saying "answer the fucking question and stop addressing it with MORE questions as to AVOID answering it"-----give me an ANSWER to that question.

In an earlier analogy, I said:

"If the sky never rained frogs before, how would you know it was about to rain frogs?"

In line with that analogy, you are saying that if it rained frogs and it never had before, and you said it was going to before it happened---and then it DID rain frogs---and I asked you "How did you know it was going to rain frogs?"----you are saying it's WRONG for me to even ask that question. I should just accept that you knew and shut my mouth-----------right??

Now answer my question [at the top].

Im assuming you didnt liten to the debate right---since you IGNORED me asking u that?

the_last_name_left said...

Oh come on, Larry!? We're not talking my ability to predict raining frogs. Who knows how to predict that?

What we are talking about is the claims made by apparently competent fire-professionals and ER people.......and whether they are true and/or plausible.

But you have a problem here -
Unless you're going to call the firemen and others liars then you are left explaining two things:

1) If WTC7 was destroyed by explosives, how come so many experienced professionals were concerned that the building would collapse? How to explain the building's measured shift under theodolite/transit? The creaking? The fires? Did the conspiracy see to it that these things happened - so as to give credence to the stories of "collapse "? Or did these things just happen because the building actually was "collapsing" - no controlled demolition needed.

2) If it was impossible for experienced professionals to correctly suspect a building of threatening to collapse, then how could your grand conspiracy have persuaded all those professionals that that was indeed what was going to happen - even when it wasn't!!!???

[You say it was impossible for fire/engineers to be able to "know" WTC7 was going to fail........but that doesn't stop you implying that the conspirators hoodwinked them into believing it was going to collapse -- even though such a thing is apparently impossible to know. lol.

Somwhow it's impossible to know if it is going to happen for real, but if it isn't going to happen, it is possible to know it will happen! MAD!!!!]

BTW Suspecting a building might collapse is not quite the same as "knowing" it will.

Larry said...

I have already addressed every comment you made (above) and you KEEP REPEATING it OVER AND OVER. You are doing this ON PURPOSE to avoid answering my question: for the 4th fucking time now: "If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (which it has not) how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that was "going to collapse"?

Now, an ANSWER please!!

Larry said...

"BTW Suspecting a building might collapse is not quite the same as "knowing" it will."

That shows you have done ZERO research, because several policeman were overheard just before the collapse saying "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon"----that's more than just "suspecting" it. Seconds before that statement in the clip below, you hear an explosion. But, of course, you wont watch it!

watch this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

What about witnesses and policeman Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPhadden who heard bombs go off as it collapsed? Oh I see, only YOUR "experts" count, mine dont--right?

the_last_name_left said...

The answer is really very simple and obvious.

Experienced fire professionals can form a pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity. Esp in NY - home of the hi-rise, and esp. when they're equipped with engineer's transits/theodolites designed to accurately measure exactly the sort of parameters which would indicate a building moving towards collapse.

The accounts of the firemen and of the chief Nigro suggest all sorts of reasons they suspected the building would collapse - fire, damage, creaking noises, indications from theodolites, past experience from earlier in the day......etc.

It would be a bit silly to suggest the fire engineers couldn't assess a building AT ALL simply because the design was not a common one. Especially when we have first hand accounts of said fire engineers assessing the building in all sorts of ways - and concluding that the building was likely to collapse. IT burned all day (fire peeps called it "fully-involved"), with severe unfought fires, following damage sustained during the collapse of N/WTC tower.

There doesn't seem anything remarkable about it.
-------------

On the other hand, you aren't answering many questions are you, Larry?

Why do you believe the story about OBL? How do you know the single-sourced report (from French intel?) was accurate and true? If it isn't true, then you've been as misleading as you claim the 911 commissison was for omitting such "facts", right?

And you haven't answered this -->

If it was impossible for the fire people to "know" the building would collapse, because it has never happened before, then how did the conspiracy know what to do to persuade those same firemen that it would collapse?

Your "thesis" has extra layers of complexity from the standard explanation - and yet you only apply your critique to the 'standard explanation'.

For you, even though the building *could not* collapse from fire and damage.....and even though it would have been impossible for the firepeople to have reason to fear a collapse because it had never happened before.....you tacitly hold that the conspiracy made these fire professionals wrongly believe the building would likely collapse.

How does one make firepeople believe a building is under threat of collapse, I wonder? [Give it all the characteristics of WTC7!]

But how does one do this when it is "IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW BEFOREHAND" what the indications of a GENUINE collapse would be, Larry?

If it's impossible for the firemen on the ground on the day to properly assess a building's threat of collapse, how did your conspiracy know BEFOREHAND, when they planned all this?

Are you saying the conspiracy made the building appear as if it was going to collapse? Did the conspiracy make the building move so as to alarm the theodolite ops? Did the conspiracy make the building creak so as to make them fear for its safety? Using loudspeakers, I suppose? Did the conspiracy purposefully damage WTC7 during collapse of earlier WTC? Did they set it on fire, ensure the water-levels were insufficient, the sprinklers knackered etc?

All to create a (false) notion of collapse?

And yet all apparently pointlessly - because according to Larry it was impossible for the firemen and engineers on the ground to know it might collapse anyway !! because it had "never happened before".

How do you resolve this conundrum for your thesis, Larry? You haven't started yet.

Anonymous said...

larry the last queenie fraud name left has debunked nothing refuted nothing and has contradicted himself over and over again. just tell the fraud to watch the william rodrigueze dvd. he was the last man out of the south tower. he would have a good idea of what happened that day in the w.t,c. anyway this fraud believes in magic. who else would believe that fire can melt steel but leave a passport intact. larry , has this asshole answered why wooden stoves dont melt?

the_last_name_left said...

Read about William Rodriguez's various responses to this paper, and his reasons for declining to address its specific points, here. You can read my emails to Mr. Rodriguez here.

A summary of many of Rodriguez's false claims is here.

January, 2009: Contrary to William Rodriguez' repeated claims that his June, 2004 interview with 9/11 Commission staffers was covered up, the staffers' notes of that interview have been made available to the public, along with a great deal of 9/11 Commission documents, as scheduled. Mike Williams of 911myths.com has obtained, scanned, and made available those notes here and here.

In 2005, Rodriguez made this claim: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower." Source Yet the handwritten notes by his two interviewers show no such claims about explosives, just as Rodriguez made no such claim in TV interviews in 2001 and 2002, in his statement to NIST, or in his 2004 conspiracy lawsuit against the United States.

Likewise, the notes show that Rodriguez made no mention of suspicions that the attacks were a U.S. government "inside job" and subsequent cover-up, or that his accounts of that day were censored by the anyone.

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/home
-----------------------

Next?

the_last_name_left said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry said...

“The answer is really very simple and obvious.

Experienced fire professionals can form a pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity.”

Based on what?

“Esp in NY - home of the hi-rise, and esp. when they're equipped with engineer's transits/theodolites designed to accurately measure exactly the sort of parameters which would indicate a building moving towards collapse.”

But yet, expert and architect Richard Gage says the complete opposite and says it’s demolition, and he’s a “nut” right? Your experts are “REAL” experts, mine are “bonkers” right?

Besides, why didn’t they put transits on wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6? They were COMPLETELY damaged and had wayyyy more fire---yet, NO transits!

“The accounts of the firemen and of the chief Nigro suggest all sorts of reasons they suspected the building would collapse - fire, damage, creaking noises, indications from theodolites, past experience from earlier in the day......etc.”

Any of these “accounts” on video tape? I asked that before and it went IGNORED---as usual.

“It would be a bit silly to suggest the fire engineers couldn't assess a building AT ALL simply because the design was not a common one.”

Assess is one thing------to KNOW it is coming down is another. You have YET to answer my question. WHEN oh WHEN will it be answered??? You said the answer is obvious---but, still NO ANSWER from you.

“Especially when we have first hand accounts…”

Any on video tape? When will that be answered?

“Why do you believe the story about OBL?”

I answered it. I said I didn’t care about Bin Laden---so anything concerning him is irrelevant to me. Anyone with a brain knows he’s dead.

“If it was impossible for the fire people to "know" the building would collapse, because it has never happened before, then how did the conspiracy know what to do to persuade those same firemen that it would collapse?”

ALREADY fucking answered this!! STOP asking questions OVER and OVER that I answer! Here was the answer:

As for your last statement---"how did they manage it?" Since not ONE person could have possibly known the building was going to collapse, I personally believe that a message was sent from someone involved in the demolition made sure word got out that this building was going to collapse as to not shock anyone when it did. They knew that if they had said nothing and the building just fell without any heads up, many people would have demanded why it fell (many more than what already do). So they figure if they give a warning in advance the 'shock factor' would have been diminshed substantially and not many would wonder about it. Without a shock factor, then it's "expected". You normally don't question something that's expected. The BBC and CNN were 2 major networks that knew in advance of the collapse---because they were pre-warned as to remove the shock factor and not question it.

Larry said...

My question for the 5th time now:

"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?""

An answer finally???

the_last_name_left said...

L: I personally believe that a message was sent from someone involved in the demolition made sure word got out that this building was going to collapse as to not shock anyone when it did.

lol

what about the leaning walls?

the creaks?

the fires?

the damage?

were these things part of the "pre-warning" undertaken by your conspiracy too?

how do you explain these things? do tell?

Larry said...

Got pics of the leaning? Audio clips of the creaking? Very minimal fires---ive seen many many pics and footage----never saw leaning. If it leaned, it would have collapsed on its side in the direction of the lean. But no, straight down in 6 seconds. Very minimal damage too---compared to the massive damage and fires to wtc 3, 4, 5, and 6---all of which did NOT collapse. Gonna keep ignoring my question? Why do u keep ignoring it? Because u have the truth???? Lol

Anonymous said...

hell never answer the question larry, hes a fraud queenie. he dances around the question as always. refute 0, debunks o, contradictions many.

the_last_name_left said...

Pics of the leaning? yes, and proof you have ALREADY seen them -

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/09/wtc-7-falling-forwards-not-symmetrical.html

Today you claim "Very minimal fires---ive seen many many pics and footage----never saw leaning.!"

However, as that link proves, you have ALREADY seen pics of WTC7 LEANING -- I SHOWED THEM TO YOU.

You just totally wipe such facts from your mind?

Today you are claiming:

L: "If it leaned, it would have collapsed on its side in the direction of the lean."

It did. Look at the pictures post collapse......the pile is overlaid with the REAR (NORTH) wall of the WTC7. As if it has been laid over the top of the pile. The building collapsed towards the South - as can be CLEARLY SEEN in the picture at that link I just posted.

This makes sense, as the Front/South side of the building was considerable narrower than the North/rear wall.

Also, the South/narrow face was the one facing the WTC; it is the wall that can be seen to be damaged following WTC collapse; it is the wall from which huge amounts of smoke can be seen pouring immediately after the collapse of WTC 1/2.

It is the most obvious way for the building to collapse - by leaning towards to the south.

And that's what is seen on that video which I posted - and from which I culled stills clearly showing WTC lean forwards in the collapse. Obviously, in the most well-known video footage the camera is perpendicular to and facing the North face of the building, necessarily obscuring any southwards tilt as there is no such perspective available.

The video and stills at that link I posted show different - that the building certainly did lean forwards ie to the South.

This fact is corroborated by the photos of WTC7 after it had collapsed - the rubble pile is carpeted by the rear (North) wall, as if it had been laid on top of the collapse. (Which is exactly what one would expect from a southwards collapse)

No "perfect symmetry" - and in accord with frontal/south-side damage from collapse of WTCs, and the subsequent fires.

the_last_name_left said...

People will make their own minds up.

Here's some further evidence which completely contradicts your claims.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Check the sequence of pictures from a perspective lacking in the usual footage?

About halfway down the page is the sequence of WTC collapse, and the subsequent enormous amounts of smoke pouring out of WTC7.

True enough, one can't see actual flames in the WTC7 from these shots, but seriously - what is making all that smoke? That's a huge fire. Obviously.

And look at the photo sequence? WTC7 is fine, until North Tower collapses, followng which all the photos show WTC7 engulfed in smoke. Huge fires - obviously.

And seemingly obviously initiated by the collapse of N Tower - look at the debris in the pictures during collapse? And then look at WTC7 when the smoke has cleared somewhat? There is a huge amount of smoke coming from it.

Previously LArry claimed:

L: we see no major fires in the bottom area of the South side in any of the pictures!

Rubbish. Look at the pictures I just posted. They prove you are wrong.

Furthermore, to then see pictures of the building leaning forwards/southwards in the direction of the cause of this damage and fire is not surprising in the least. Especially as that side of the building was narrower than the northside.

LArry has also tried to wriggle out of similar arguments by saying

L: "A LEAN is not in contradiction with "perfect symmetry"

Of course it is. A lean is by definition a breaking of a symmetry.

But notice how he is recognising a LEAN? Some time ago he accepted the LEAN, now he says he has "never seen any pictures" of it. Forgetful? He HAS seen such puctures already - check my first link.

Larry also says things like:

L: "You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire"

Oh, y - sure.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry says no fires on Southside WTC7

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-105.jpg

GO and look. What's your best guess as to the cause of all that smoke, Larry?

Now, imagine what is going to happen to whatever is causing all that smoke if there's no water to fight it?

What do you think will happen?

the_last_name_left said...

not "straight down"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc708/Seven2.jpg

this pic is from the N facing S

http://www.wtc7.net/docs/b7_3.jpg

Which direction did it fall? Away from the camera. ie to the South. To the narrow side. the side with the damage and serious fires.

Another pic of the rubble pile carpeted by the exterior walls - again suggesting the building slumped SOUTHWARDS. We saw it lean, after all.

http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wtc-7-perfect-implosion.jpg

Real Truth Online said...

“However, as that link proves, you have ALREADY seen pics of WTC7 LEANING -- I SHOWED THEM TO YOU.”

That was not PICTURES of the building leaning PRE-COLLAPSE. That was a VIDEO of the building at a slight lean AS IT COLLAPSED----------------------two COMPLETELY different things. I say “slight” lean because it if was a COMPLETE lean, the building wouldn’t have fallen straight down on ALL sides at the same time as we see in the popular videos of it falling. It if had collapsed ON ITS SIDE toward ONE SIDE of the building, it would have tumbled over like a tree when it’s cut down---but it DID NOT do that---did it?? NO, it didn’t.

The “lean” you’re referring to in previous posts are policemen saying it’s leaning BEFORE the collapse. That is what I’m asking for pictures of------now you LIE and say you have already showed me PICTURES of it leaning when it was a VIDEO of the ACTUAL collapse! Youre a FRAUD!

What was THIS link supposed to prove?
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

It was all just pictures of the twin towers!

The famous claim that enormous amounts of smoke pouring from wtc7 is FALSE, that smoke was coming from wtc5 [which was completely ablaze] I have pictures of the smoke from wtc5 blowing toward wtc7 making it appear as if that smoke is coming from wtc7----it’s NOT, and that claim and LIE is still being repeated by MORONS like you.

“And look at the photo sequence? WTC7 is fine, until North Tower collapses, followng which all the photos show WTC7 engulfed in smoke. Huge fires - obviously.”

“Huge fires—obviously”??? You cant have smoke without FIRE and I see hardly ANY fires in ANY of the pictures of wtc7. LIKE I SAID, the smoke you see that is “supposedly” pouring out of wtc7 is actually pouring out of wtc5---------------which WAS fully ablaze----this is EXACTLY why you see all that smoke “pouring from wtc7” but you see NO FIRE-----DICK!

“Furthermore, to then see pictures of the building leaning forwards/southwards in the direction of the cause of this damage and fire is not surprising in the least. Especially as that side of the building was narrower than the northside.”

You showed me NO PICTURES OF WTC7 LEANING PRE-COLLAPSE. They were video stills of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE and it was only a SLIGHT lean. SHOW ME PICS OF IT LEANING PRE-COLLAPSE.

L: "A LEAN is not in contradiction with "perfect symmetry"

“Of course it is. A lean is by definition a breaking of a symmetry.”

The building was slightly leaning, YES, but the building came down perfectly leveled, straight down----in OTHER WORDS, the building didn’t topple over AS IT SHOULD HAVE in order for YOUR claim to be valid.

L: "You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire"

“Oh, y - sure.”

NAME ONE.

“Larry says no fires on Southside WTC7

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-105.jpg”

Hmmm, funny, the pic in that link shows NO FIRES. All I see is SMOKE----smoke that is coming from wtc5!!

“GO and look. What's your best guess as to the cause of all that smoke, Larry?”

I told you-----smoke that drifted over from wtc5----which WAS fully ablaze! Are you saying that it doesn’t require FIRE to produce smoke? You must be---because there’s NO FIRE in the link you sent!

“Now, imagine what is going to happen to whatever is causing all that smoke if there's no water to fight it?

What do you think will happen?”

Well, I would suppose that IF that smoke was coming from wtc7, which it was NOT, I imagine the building would remain standing even after burning all day, since every building BEFORE and AFTER 9-11 that burned LONGER and HOTTER still remained standing. Even if it WOULD collapse, it would collapse on THAT ONE SIDE, in other words---TOPPLE OVER like a cut down tree. But it didn’t, it fell straight down in 6 seconds!

My latest post proves what im saying.

the_last_name_left said...

Earlier Larry insisted that

L: If it leaned, it would have collapsed on its side in the direction of the lean. But no, straight down in 6 seconds.

But now Larry is admitting WTC7 did not fall "straight down":

L: That was not PICTURES of the building leaning PRE-COLLAPSE. That was a VIDEO of the building at a slight lean AS IT COLLAPSED-

A lean - as it collapsed. Towards the South ie the side with the damage from WTC collapse earlier, the most obvious fires, the narrower face. The side one would expect.

Larry even admits that:

L: Even if it WOULD collapse, it would collapse on THAT ONE SIDE,

It did. That's what I have been trying to tell you. Not completely in a perfect felled-tree kinda way, but it clearly fell southwards - as if the S gave way and the N fell on top of it, somewhat.

That's corroborated by the pictures of the walls lying atop the rubble, and the pics of the building heavily leaning southwards in the collapse.

But Larry still insists on apparent falsehoods:

L: I see hardly ANY fires in ANY of the pictures of wtc7

SMOKE - HUGE AMOUNTS OF.

What else made that smoke? lol

If you have "proof" this smoke is coming from a different WTC, where is it?

And - importantly - you here recognise that it would need a large fire to generate all that smoke, right? Because you're saying it comes from "a fully ablaze building" - it's just you say the building which is ablaze is NOT WTC7.......but clearly you tacitly accept all that smoke is clear evidence of a major fire somewhere.

So......let's see your evidence that that smoke (which is evidence of major fire) is NOT coming from WTC7?

And btw - what caused the other WTC to be "fully ablaze"? It was right adjacent to WTC7, right?

What set it "fully ablaze"?

the_last_name_left said...

no, Larry - this is smoke from WTC7

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum11.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

EVEN BETTER _ WATCH FOR YOURSELF:

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

There is no doubt where that smoke is coming from - it's WTC7.

Real Truth Online said...

I love how virtually 90% of what I previously posted was IGNORED.

I can destroy what you DID acknowledge easily:

You said:
Earlier Larry insisted that

L: If it leaned, it would have collapsed on its side in the direction of the lean. But no, straight down in 6 seconds.

“But now Larry is admitting WTC7 did not fall "straight down":”

L: That was not PICTURES of the building leaning PRE-COLLAPSE. That was a VIDEO of the building at a slight lean AS IT COLLAPSED-

“A lean - as it collapsed. Towards the South ie the side with the damage from WTC collapse earlier, the most obvious fires, the narrower face. The side one would expect.”

Yes, and I asked for PICTURES of WTC7 “leaning” BEFORE it collapsed!!! You posted all those quotes from policemen, etc….saying that the building was LEANING, right? I asked you for PICTURES of the building LEANING BEFORE the collapse-----in other words: PICTURES of what the police supposedly saw------INSTEAD, you refer back to your idiotic blog where you posted VIDEO STILLS of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE.

I didn’t ask for VIDEO STILLS of the collapse ITSELF, I asked for PICTURES of the building PRE-COLLAPSE because you claimed the building was LEANING BEFORE it fell. I wanted PICTURES of that-----------you FAILED to send me any!

L: Even if it WOULD collapse, it would collapse on THAT ONE SIDE,

“It did. That's what I have been trying to tell you. Not completely in a perfect felled-tree kinda way, but it clearly fell southwards - as if the S gave way and the N fell on top of it, somewhat.”

You just contradicted yourself. You ADMIT in the above quote that it didn’t fall “completely in a perfect felled-tree kinda way”, but you began the quote by saying “IT DID” as in “it DID fall only on one side”. It did NOT fall only on ONE side, it fell at a slight lean but STRAIGHT down---when I say “straight down” I am talking about gravitational straightness-----in other words, not crumbling or tumbling over or tipping over----which if it fell by the way YOU suggest, it SHOULD HAVE tipped over or crumbled over, since youre saying its NOT symmetrical. By the way, it didn’t fall AT ALL in a “felled-tree kinda way”. Trees don’t “kinda” tip over----they DO tip over. According to YOUR theory, the building, since a “giant chunk” was taken out AS YOU CLAIM, it should have tipped over----it didn’t!!

L: I see hardly ANY fires in ANY of the pictures of wtc7

“SMOKE - HUGE AMOUNTS OF.

What else made that smoke? lol

If you have "proof" this smoke is coming from a different WTC, where is it?”

THE ANSWER TO THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN MY POST ABOVE, ASSHOLE! It came from WTC5!!! And I even posted in my most recent post PICTURES of the smoke POURING from WTC5 and drifting over in front of the south face of WTC7!!! Hmmmm, I wonder why you made ZERO comments under my most recent post about WTC5’s smoke??? Is it because in posting comments under that thread, you’d have to acknowledge the post and the pictures????

I posted my most recent post at 4:24 pm MY TIMEand you posted your stupid-ass comment at 10:17pm MY TIME, so I not only told you in my above post that the smoke came from WTC5, but I posted my most recent story 6 HOURS before you posted your above posts and you STILL asked the question “where’s the proof?”--------------this not only PROVES you don’t read my posts, but it also shows that even AFTER you come to my blog and see my most recent story [at the top] you COMPLETELY IGNORE it and post your stupid questions ANYWAY!

You are one STUPID mother fucker!

Oh, and by the way, I’m not letting you get away with not answering the question Ive asked 7 times now, and STILL have received NO answer:

If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Gonna answer it? Gonna post comments under the WTC5 smoke story????

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????????????????

the_last_name_left said...

Like I said originally:

--------
10 years and still not the slightest piece of positive evidence for Troofer conspiracy rubbish. Not a single thing. What a failure.
--------

Larrys demands

L: Give me one piece of EVIDENCE that conflicts with my claims.

He has it - over and over and over. But does it make any difference? No. Larry discards all evidence he doesn't like ie anything that contradicts his myth of "controlled demolition"

eg


At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti"

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers"

"At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa"

etc.

the_last_name_left said...

What positive evidence for controlled demolition do you have?

Do you have any spent/unspent explosive charges? detonators? any documentation to support it?

No.

You have NOTHING.

So why do you believe it?

You suggest you take the evidence and form your conclusions based upon it. But how come you have already reached conclusions when you obviously have no evidence?

You say you believe that "someone" made sure people "expected" WTC7 to comedown, so that they wouldn't be "surprised" when it was demolished with explosives.

But you have absolutely no direct positive evidence to support this belief. You have suspicions, that's all - that's not evidence, Larry, it's prejudice when placed against the mountains of positive evidence for the bloody obvious.

The firemen did not *know* the building would come down......they SUSPECTED it would. You can't understand the difference, and on such misunderstandings your entire myth rests.

It is not *impossible* to suspect a building might collapse - it's perfectly possible. To "know" it will is a slightly different matter. You purposefully insist only the second sense can operate - "know" as opposed to "suspect". They SUSPECTED the building was going to collapse. Seemingly they felt damned sure it would collapse - for all the reasons they have given, on the record. That's positive evidence by experienced professionals - firemen, police, medics......incl. chief of FireDept Nigro, Commanders on the ground, using engineer's transits, etc.

You choose to discount all this and prefer to "believe" whatever you like. Your choice......

Larry said...

“You asked for pics of it "leaning" ---> you did NOT say "before collapse". You got what you asked for.”

Oh yes I did moron. I said PRE-COLLAPSE when I FIRST asked for the pics. PRE-COLLAPSE/BEFORE collapse---what’s the difference???

Here was my EXACT quote when I FIRST asked:

“You showed me NO PICTURES OF WTC7 LEANING PRE-COLLAPSE. They were video stills of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE and it was only a SLIGHT lean. SHOW ME PICS OF IT LEANING PRE-COLLAPSE.”

I also said this:

“That was not PICTURES of the building leaning PRE-COLLAPSE. That was a VIDEO of the building at a slight lean AS IT COLLAPSED----------------------two COMPLETELY different things.”

In which you responded:

“A lean - as it collapsed. Towards the South ie the side with the damage from WTC collapse earlier, the most obvious fires, the narrower face. The side one would expect.”

So, you see, you ACKNOWLEDGED THE QUESTION before but NEVER answered it by posting links to showing pics of it PRE-COLLAPSE-----now you say I “NEVER SAID” pre-collapse! LOL!

“As for it leaning *before* it collapsed, no, I have no pictures.......but WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS - FROM EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL FIREMEN USING EQUIPMENT DESIGNED FOR JUST SUCH A JOB.”

LOL! This is what prompted my original question---the one you NEVER ANSWERED after Ive asked it 7 times [now 8]:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

“--->CREAKING
--->DAMAGE FROM WTC COLLAPSE
--->LARGE UNFOUGHT FIRES
--->HUGE AMOUNTS OF SMOKE
--->ENGINEER'S TRANSITS INDICATING BUILDING WAS MOVING”

I addressed this already when I said:

“Got pics of the leaning? Audio clips of the creaking? Very minimal fires---ive seen many many pics and footage----never saw leaning. If it leaned, it would have collapsed on its side in the direction of the lean. But no, straight down in 6 seconds. Very minimal damage too---compared to the massive damage and fires to wtc 3, 4, 5, and 6---all of which did NOT collapse. Gonna keep ignoring my question? Why do u keep ignoring it? Because u have the truth???? Lol”

Never answered ANY of the questions above!

“THE BUILDING WAS EVACUATED HOURS EARLIER”

ha ha! So who were they saving??? You told me when I first said they had no water to fight the fires, this:

"L: Why go IN the building if you have no water?

“Don't need water to save lives."

Now you ADMIT the building was evacuated!!! WHO WERE THEY SAVING??

“MANY PROFESSIONAL FIRE-PEOPLE FEARED IT WOULD COLLAPSE”

Why would they? Based on what? I go back to my original question that you NEVER answered:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

the_last_name_left said...

lol, come on now, Larry?

anyone can read that you said you had never seen pics of WTC leaning. YOu never mentioned "pre-collapse" when you made your initial claim. You added the clause "pre-collapse" after you'd (again) been shown the pics of WTC7 leaning.

Your question has been answered over and over -

L: “If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

And so how did your conspiracy know what to do to convince the experts on the scene that it WAS going to collapse?

You laughably imagine these people were convinced of an impending collapse.....convinced by the conspiracy! Even though you assert it was impossible to know beforehand what would suggest the building was going to collapse.

So how did your conspiracy know?

And what about the personal testimony of fire-professionals? Are they lying? Or were they just mistaken? The building wasn't creaking? It wasn't fully involved in fires? IT wasn't damaged? The theodolites never measured the building moving?

How so?

Larry said...

“IT has NOT "never happened before". Buildings are suspected of collapsing from fire all the time.”

Name ONE.

“[only one shows fire but WTC7 isn't visible in that picture.....]”

WRONG!! BOTH pics I posted show WTC7 in the picture!!

“I don't believe there's any fire in those pics, because I can't see fire.......only smoke.

That's how silly your usual argument against WTC7 being on fire is. You can't see the fires....so it can't be on fire.”

Oh my god! Are you fucking RETARDED????? YOU ARE SAYING WTC IS ON FIRE!!! NOT ME!!! YOU CLAIM THERE’S SMOKE [which there is] BUT SMOKE CAN ONLY BE PRODUCED BY FIRE----AND WTC7 IS NOT ON FIRE IN THE PICS----AS IT SHOULD BE TO VALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THE SMOKE IS BEING CAUSED BY FIRE! You have said REPEATEDLY that WTC7 was FULLY ABLAZE------now I say “One problem: One major, much needed element the photos Larry posted above do NOT show...............fire” and you AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE’S NO FIRE-----but THERE SHOULD BE FIRE TO PRODUCE SMOKE! Jesus!!!

“"the official defenders of the 9/11 myth" --- Troofers!”

Actually that’s talking about YOU.

“"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers"”

Wait a minute---you just ADMITTED that there was NO FIRE in the pictures I posted!!!! Now you quote someone saying it was “completely involved in fire???” WOW!!!

“I didn't see your latest post when I posted HERE in response to your question for evidence of WTC7 leaning, and which I gave you…”

Ummmm, actually I already addressed this!! I posted my story at 4:24pm yesterday and you posted your comment at 10:17am--------------SIX HOURS AFTER I POSTED MY STORY---and you claim you “NEVER SAW IT”----LOL!

“your blog is eating posts”

Ahhhhhh it’s a conspiracy!!!!! LOL

“Do you have any spent/unspent explosive charges? detonators? any documentation to support it?

No.

You have NOTHING.

So why do you believe it?”

I have the smorgasbord of contradictions on your part where you constantly deny something and then ADMIT it in the very next post. Ex: There was no fire at WTC7/the building was “completely involved in fire”---and “the firefighters don’t need fire to save lives/then you admit the building was EVACUATED”—and on and on and on…..you CONTINUALLY contradict yourself, REFUSE to answer questions that Ive asked 9 times and continually REPEAT responses that I have already addressed ---yet you fail to address MY questions even ONE time.

This is now the 10th time I have asked this question:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

WHEN, OH WHEN, WILL I GET AN ANSWER?????????????????

Larry said...

"anyone can read that you said you had never seen pics of WTC leaning. YOu never mentioned "pre-collapse" when you made your initial claim. You added the clause "pre-collapse" after you'd (again) been shown the pics of WTC7 leaning."

WRONG---after I asked for PRE-COLLAPSE PICS of it "leaning"----you gave me that stupid link which wre VIDEO STILL OF THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE!!!

You are simply LYING!

"Your question has been answered over and over -"

L: “If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

You have NEVER answered it----NEVER. If youre SO SURE you did, re-post the answer!

the_last_name_left said...

Boring. It's pointless speaking to an idiot.

The WTC7 was clearly emitting vast amounts of smoke.

We have firsthand expert testimony from firepeeps and ER - WTC was fully involved, was creaking, was "moving", was damaged.

You have absolutely nothing.

You're not being honest, Larry. There's no helping you.

Anonymous said...

larry, this last queenie fraud is going to ignore you again and again, he refutes nothing nor does he debunk anything. when hes lost he spins then makes things up. you own him larry. he should get a gun and put it against his head and end all our misery.