So, the buildings landlord states on national TV that he gave the order to pull building 7 and it's such a big mystery and an "inside job" when it came down?

I gotta say, that's pretty powerful evidence re: building 7.

And he couldn't possibly have meant, when he said "pull it," that they should pull out all firemen and equipment trying to save the building. Noooo, that wouldn't be possible at all. Plus we all know that firefighters are trained demolitions experts who at a moments notice are ready to wire and blow up any building they deem unsafe.

I also love the appeals to everything being "obvious" and the condescending attitude the speakers take. Who needs science and fact when things are obvious? Like, for instance, obviously we are the center of the universe because when we look at the sky it is obvious the sun and stars revolve around us. And it's so obvious the world is flat--you can see the edge of it every time you look at the horizon! And of course those towers falling... quite obviously the work of some government conspiracy.

Obviously.

"Government conspiracy" is meaningless phraseology.....it's a goddamn no-think label....

>> ^SDGundamX:
And he couldn't possibly have meant, when he said "pull it," that they should pull out all firemen and equipment trying to save the building. Noooo, that wouldn't be possible at all.


Uhm, noone was hurt when building 7 came down?

"Bombs" = transformer explosions.
Morons.

Now choggies confused.....Morons?....How bout, a fool makes assumptions, based on limited data-

And we are forgetting, or are we not, doubters and idiots, that buildings only fall like WTC 7 did, when s'ploded....??
Critical thinking being a commodity lost to imbeciles taught to "learn" in bereft institutions and public schools, is there a possibility that an "official" report contains loads of horseshit, and that the word "official" is only a word, meaningless unless AFFORDED SUITABLE CONTEXT???? The NIST report is shit until proven not shit, and it can't be proven such....because even they most likely, don't have all the proper information, and if they do, they are selective and biased in their conclusions......Morons my ass....a moron pooh poohs a possibility because denial is much more palatable.....

The fucking thing did not fall from a fire, and some sprinkies not working, folks.....if ya believe that, then well, join the other morons, on the slow-moving barge to Denseville......

Sulphur dioxide from the office equipment reacting with the heated steal breaks down the support into its basic constituant elements (mainly iron / charcoal).

Steel is strong, Iron...is not.

Bam...down she comes.

Doesnt happen elsewhere cause noone uses sulphur based products in their office equipment, not since the freakin 80's.

But what would I know ehh chog ?

Moving this video to choggie's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

^ lol on the sulpher-based products... that's too funny.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by Constitutional_Patriot.

I've always thought the building 7 collapse was suspect, BUT saying that he meant 'demolish the building' by saying 'pull it' is total horseshit.

I've heard demolitionists use that term though.. plus.. you "pull" something from the bottom, then it falls. It seems like common sense to me.

Or if he was talking about rescue operations...

pull
transitive verb
6: to remove from a place or situation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull

Why would he be ordering a demolishing on the day in question? Those things take weeks to set up, it's not something you do on a whim.

>> ^ElJardinero:
Or if he was talking about rescue operations...
pull
transitive verb
6: to remove from a place or situation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pull
Why would he be ordering a demolishing on the day in question? Those things take weeks to set up, it's not something you do on a whim.



pull "it"
"It" usually doesn't refer to people


Re: Why would he be ordering a demolishing on the day in question? Those things take weeks to set up, it's not something you do on a whim.

Exactly.. which is why this is a major problem. If detonators were placed before the day in question then this would be a smoking gun that this was an inside job.

An operation like this requires 10-30 people, drilling holes in support columns and putting explosives in. For at least a few days.

Thousands of people working in the building wouldn't notice this? Tens of thousands wouldn't have noticed hundreds of men drilling holes in WTC 1&2 ? The amount of holes and wiring would be staggering. Also, if you've ever seen a demolition video you would know how loud they are. People saying "oh i heard a bomb" on video on the day in question can hardly be reliant witnesses, there was a lot of confusion and bomb sounds can very easily be gas tanks, something collapsing e.t.c. Also, to take down those big buildings you would need hundreds of bombs, making hundreds of bomb sounds. It's very clear in the videos that nothing of that sort is heard.

Also, "it" can refer to an "operation" .. salvage or rescue. I don't think he would talk so nonchalantly about it if he really ordered them to be "pulled".

My bet would be on that they knew the attack was coming, but didn't stop it. Controlled explosives or airplanes with lazer pods under them just doesn't cut it for me.
----
I even found a video supporting my case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Thank you CP, owe ya one, the sentiment is appreciated. No use kicking against pricks, eh??
*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter choggie.