"3 in history, collapsed from fires.....WTC 7, and these two..."

What does this mean?

Only three high rise buildings in history have ever collapsed due to a fire, and the list includes five famous ones, all having had more floors affected and that burned for longer--
those 3, were WTC 1 WTC 2, and WTC 7(if you have doubts about the big towers, you should have no trouble seeing, that WTC 7 is obviously a take-down...)

Well, firstly, the first half of your reply doesn't seem to make sense. You say that only "three high-rise buildings in history have ever collapsed due to a fire," but also state that the "list includes five famous ones." If there have only ever been three such examples, how can the list of those examples include (at least) five?

Secondly, and more importantly, the World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to a combination of the damage suffered from the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner and the ensuing, unfought, multiple-floor, jet-fuel-accelerated fires (in the cases of buildings 1 and 2) or due to a combination of the damage suffered from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper and eight hours of widespread, unfought fires (in the case of building 7). They were indeed the first buildings in history to collapse as a result of these factors, but, then again, they were the first buildings in history to have been subjected to these factors.

As far as I know building 7 was pulled. That, I believe, no one disputes.

Well, you're quite wrong on both counts.

Ok Par, re-read the sentence carefully, it's the structure that confuses..should have used better sentence structure-
only 3 have ever collapsed due to fire-those 3

those towers were designed to take an impact of a Jumbo Jet

The fire stopped burning for the most part, prior to the colapse-

The prep for setting up a controlled demo, takes more time than was necessary, besides, part of the news reporting that cay, would have ran something like, "Demolitions crews are here, placing charges, etc., it has been determined that the building must be brought down" etc....WTC 7 was not that badly damaged, and the official story is that the debris from #WTC 1 or 2, that hit the building, ignited some fuel tanks inside the building....(non-existent fuel tanks in a building, do not cause it to buckle towards the center, sending down in a neat pile)

So it was pulled, but why is there no banter about the logistics of it, the set up, for chrissaske, NYC, broad daylight, other buildings around it...that, is complete HORSESHIT!

These responses are from that predictable portion of the human process(mental), that produces denial as a defense and survival mechanism.....i.e. Just because one refuses to or is incapable of wrapping their brain around an idea, does not mean it is crazy, wrong, absurd, etc....

"Subjected to these factors"....Soooooo, again, the "official" story, and the "EXPERT'S" explanations, are all a monkey needs to arrive at an opinion???

How insane.

....tooth fairy shit, ...Easter Bunny

Well, let's take this one point at a time. I will address your subsequent statements (the fact that the towers were designed to withstand an airliner impact; the claim that the fires had stopped burning; etc.) in due course.

Before that though, given that no one's claiming that fire alone caused the collapses, pointing out that fire alone was unlikely to have been sufficient cause is simply a straw man argument. So, do you now acknowledge that the claim is not that fire alone was the cause, but instead that the cause was a combination of airliner/debris damage and fire?

....and perhaps, some factors we don't know about, like the al-qaida connection, having access to the buildings to plant explosives prior to the plane crash that could not have taken both buildings down on their own, in a similar fashion, an hour apart.....continue playing the apathetic, mouth-flapping hominid, till you work it out, that denial, is a diseased process.....

Peace...Now, please, stop yer brain from masturbating for a while, and try, if you choose, a less defensive approach.....then read some other rants here, on the sug-jest, and please, stay here and go charter, the sift needs yer coin......

Well I'm glad to see you (seem to) tentatively agree. As I said, I can get to any other points you'd like to make in due course. So, would you like me to address the issue of the towers having been designed to withstand an airliner impact, or are you abandoning this discussion?

I would really like to know your position on the "pull it" nonsense.

slow to the plates, need apply, this is not a personal discussion on a point-by-point, ad-infinitum program....the jury is still out on what really happened, for more than one would care to spend their valuable time, worrying about....don't we all have lives that don't include, being fucked by the un-named??? The towers were not taken down by desert dwellers,...Moe Ron, is a friend of mine, let me introduce, a mirror.

Bluecliff:

Please elaborate and I'll endeavour to inform you of it.

Choggie:

Do you want to continue our discussion or not?

sure, this post will be here, may follow the link, would rather have bbq.....on second thought, nah, When the beating of the heads against walls becomes tiresome , the dead know their place for a nap....

Do you believe he meant - pull the firefighters out? (Sielversteins interview)
He has made statements to that end.

"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."

The pull it meaning - pulling the firefighter out. (a grammatical curiosity to say the least falling under a rationale non the less)

Well, yes. Of course that's what he meant. Using the term "pull it" to mean "pull the team of fire fighters back to a safe distance" is hardly a grammatical curiosity. There are numerous quotations in which the fire fighters themselves use it in precisely the same way. An example of something that would have been grammatically curious is if by "pull it" he'd meant "blow it up." Further, given that he was talking to the Fire Department, it would imply that the Fire Department made the decision to carry out a nefarious demolition.

Somehow, I doubt he'd be the subject of all this libellous nonsense if his name wasn't Silverstein.

Missing the point? Still par, you do not have an opinion of the nature of the collapse-

If it had been demolished by decision after the fire, it could not have been executed with such precision, in that span of time....\

there were no news reports to that effect-

No discussion afterward or an official statement that that is indeed, what had happened with WTC 7

this denial is getting feeble and old, like the preponderance of verbiage used to indulge this mechanism, of a mind capable, but unwilling, to consider, a possible scenario, other than the bullshit party line...

Firstly -- and I'm sure I shouldn't need to point this out -- Bluecliff specifically asked me for my opinion on Silverstein's use of the term "pull it." So, to say that by informing him of it I'm "missing the point" is really quite surreal.

Secondly, and quiet clearly, I didn't claim that a demolition was carried out "after the fires" or, for that matter, at any other time. I was pointing out that if by "pull it" Silverstein really had meant "blow it up," it would imply that the Fire Department had made a decision to carry out a nefarious demolition.

*engineering

Adding video to channels (Engineering) - requested by Norsuelefantti.

*documentaries

Adding video to channels (Documentaries) - requested by mauz15.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chingalera.

Awarding chingalera with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead account terminated

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by oritteropo.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.