The Woolworth Building & 9/11

[Bigfoot73]

Just been watching BBC News24, where a tagline running across the bottom of the screen announced that scientists ( didn't say who or where from) were going to examine the debris from the towers to try and find remains of 1000 victims.
Presumably this was referring to the debris that was shipped to China or Taiwan, and it is something of a revelation that it still exists.
That's all I've seen of this story so far, but this could turn out to be very significant indeed.

 

[Cavynaut]

I saw a similar piece on the BBC news at 6.30 this evening, but they referred to debris that had been dumped in a landfill close to New York City.

 

[Bigfoot73]

That would be the tragically named Fresh Kills site. It will probably be years before any results come out.

 

[Bigfoot73]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8640659.stm

Lotfi Raissi, the airline pilot arrested just after 9/11 has just been declared eligible for compensation by the Ministry of Justice.
There was never a shred of evidence against him. Perhaps now the government might be forthcoming with an explanation of why exactly the @@@@ he was suspected of being a major element in the hijackers' plot.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Just picked up on this over at ATS. Jeffrey Scott Schapiro is a Washington lawyer who has just written an article crticising cospiracy commentator Jesse Ventura. In it he inadvertently reveals something that puts Larry Silverstein's notorious "pull it" comment in a new light.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/
This is the whole article.

Schapiro then goes on to claim he watched WTC7 collapse without hearing any explosions, so there can't have been any bombs or conspiracy. Yet a controlled demolition takes days or even weeks to prepare, not just a few hours and certainly not when the building to be demolished is already damaged and on fire.
He doesn't say whether the insurers actually did authorize it, but for Silverstein to be even asking them, there must have been charges already installed. Which brings us nicely back to the truther claim that the charges may have been planted well before 9/11 in order to bring buildings down without them toppling onto adjacent buildings, thus incurring billions of dollars worth of damages lawsuits.
This was not necessarily done in anticipation of the imminent destruction of the towers, it could have been a precautionary measure enacted against any potential threat or accident.
However it does now revive the original interpretation of that remark: there's nothing cryptic or ambiguous about it at all, he really did mean controlled demolition. The fact that Schapiro is a vociferous suporter of the official story deprives the sceptics of the opportunity to claim this is just truther propaganda.
Thanks Jeff.

 

[McAvennie]

Just picked up on this over at ATS. Jeffrey Scott Schapiro is a Washington lawyer who has just written an article crticising cospiracy commentator Jesse Ventura.

Jesse 'The Body'? :shock:

 

[Bigfoot73]

Yes, him. After being a Hollywood stuntman and having a role in the first Predator film he went into politics and was elected Governor of Minnesota. Apparently the Hispanic people there voted for him thinking him one of them, due to the name, when it's actually just a stage name.
His book on conspiracies has just come out, so apparently he now warrants such inept attacks as Schapiro's.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

...certainly not when the building to be demolished is already damaged and on fire.

There are countless firms that offer emergency demolition services for fire-damaged buildings.

As an investigative reporter who survived the collapse of Building 7 and doggedly investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories in the wake of the attack, I am convinced the 9/11 “Truther” movement is nothing more than a paranoid, delusional pack of lies.

Thanks Jeff.

 

[Bigfoot73]

So which one of these firms was going to go into WTC7 and plant enough charges in the right places to bring it down in it's own footprint while it was burning, after the fire crews had withdrawn ?

fire-damaged

, not fire damaging.

Yet a controlled demolition takes days or even weeks to prepare, not just a few hours

The first part of that sentence. Are you actually suggesting a safe demolition of WTC7 could have been effected in, say, an hour or two? After years of sceptics' protestations about the feasibiltiy of controlled demolition, you are now claiming it could have been done in next-to -no-time? If so, what stopped them? Why have Silverstein and the fire department never had anything to say about that?

 

[Dr_Baltar]

So which one of these firms was going to go into WTC7 and plant enough charges in the right places to bring it down in it's own footprint while it was burning, after the fire crews had withdrawn ?

Given the danger of the building collapsing immenently, almost certainly none. However, Silverstein (an expert in making money, not building safety and demolition) having been told that the building was heavily damaged, unsafe and likely to collapse or need demolished, was likely making calls (if the story's even true) trying to ensure he didn't lose money in either instance.

Are you actually suggesting a safe demolition of WTC7 could have been effected in, say, an hour or two? After years of sceptics' protestations about the feasibiltiy of controlled demolition, you are now claiming it could have been done in next-to -no-time? If so, what stopped them? Why have Silverstein and the fire department never had anything to say about that?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting, as above, that any phone calls that were made (of which there is no proof) would most likely be arse-covering on the part of Silverstein. That makes more sense than a bizarre theory that the building was pre-rigged for demolition 'just in case'.

After years of Truthers' claims about the feasibility of controlled demolition, you appear to be now using a story that categorically states there was no controlled demolition to claim that there was, in fact, a controlled demolition.

 

[Bigfoot73]

was likely making calls (if the story's even true) trying to ensure he didn't lose money in either instance.

would most likely be arse-covering on the part of Silverstein.

Likely? Why likely? Why anything even remotely resembling likely?

makes more sense than a bizarre theory that the building was pre-rigged for demolition 'just in case'.

Oh does it really? Silverstein said "pull it" He wouldn't have said that if it couldn't have been pulled.
Where have all these emergency demolition companies gone?

you appear to be now using a story that categorically states there was no controlled demolition to claim that there was, in fact, a controlled demolition.

Schapiro was actually saying there was no plot, and in the process inadvertently revealed that Silverstein wanted a controlled demolition, and that would only have been possible if the charges were already in place.
The truther interpretation now has some seriously substantiating testimony from a serious source - someone who was there, who is not a truther.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

was likely making calls (if the story's even true) trying to ensure he didn't lose money in either instance.

would most likely be arse-covering on the part of Silverstein.

Likely? Why likely? Why anything even remotely resembling likely?

Look up the definition of the word 'likely'.

makes more sense than a bizarre theory that the building was pre-rigged for demolition 'just in case'.

Oh does it really? Silverstein said "pull it" He wouldn't have said that if it couldn't have been pulled.

The "pull it" comment has been dissected to the nth degree. If you still don't understand the context, after over 8 years of discussion, there's really no point in me trying to explain it to you now.

Where have all these emergency demolition companies gone?

Sorry, I don't get your meaning. There are still emergency demolition companies in existence. There were emergency demolition companies there on and after September 11th. I would imagine they were the ones responsible for demolishing, IIRC, building 4, 5 and 6 (without explosives).

Schapiro was actually saying there was no plot, and in the process inadvertently revealed that Silverstein wanted a controlled demolition, and that would only have been possible if the charges were already in place.
The truther interpretation now has some seriously substantiating testimony from a serious source - someone who was there, who is not a truther.

As I've indicated, controlled demolition is possible without the use of explosives.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Look up the definition of the word 'likely'.

What I meant was I don't see any grounds for assuming any probability for the construction you place on Silverstein's actions.
The "pull it" comment has been dissected, but now there is some new evidence. There is indeed no point you trying to explain the sceptical interpretation to me now , since it looks much less likely to be correct in the light of Schapiro's utterances.

Sorry, I don't get your meaning.

I should have phrased it better: what I meant was you have made no further reference to these companies or addressed my point about the unfeasibility of an emergency controlled demolition on the afternoon of 9.11, with or without explosives.

 

[damando5]

My thoughts are 1-WTC 7 could have come down in a controlled way but not caused by the impacts of WTC 1 and 2, 2- most odd with me is that most if not all metal scrap was quickly sold off to china and could have even been lost at sea before even arriving [should have been able to scrutinize the scrap for any type of evidence].