Tower 7 had serious damage. Does this look like "no damage"?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
There was a giant ragged hole 20 stories high!
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
There was a giant ragged hole 20 stories high!
The 500 page report of which I have skimmed(as much as a sane human can) and done some keyword mining on appears to not explain what happened. I contend there are inaccuracies in it, and find it odd that it took 8 years to produce it. Regardless, the building suffered structural damage to a corner. However, the entire building collapses into itself perfectly within the footprint. Statements were made that the building was "pulled" as it was unsafe. They were retracted. I don't care about citing sources, this is public knowledge.
So I think it was pulled. However, I would strongly contend & double down on that 500 page book being an utter piece of shit that does not come close to explaining to a rationally inquisitive person how that tower collapsed.
edit:
"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." –Larry Silverstein"
edit 2: Architects & Mechanical Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a group of (as one would expect) Architects & Engineers. Tony Szamboti is probably the most prominently outspoken of the group. Some of the findings indicative of the group are summarized here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3WdpzaA4o
How was it pulled? How did they set up a controlled demolition of a burning building? Why would they not tell emergency services they were going to do that?
Would emergency services not have noticed demo experts with piles and piles of explosives entering and exiting the building?
Seriously, an "inquisitive mind" would ask these sort of questions. Go down to one of the on duty fire houses and ask your questions there...
Could you answer my other questions, hope to setup a controlled demo so quickly without anyone noticing the amount of people and explosives required... ?
We are just trolling each other at this point right?
I am not saying that. The silverstein quote isn't saying that. No one is saying that. There are many statements that have been retracted, this quote was not retracted but ascribed a different meaning. However to your point: the quote seems to indicate that Silverstein suggested the fire department install controlled demolition.
It can be assumed that even though he made several billion, his allusion to safety probably mean that he also thought that it would logically make sense for the fire department to leave the building after installing the explosives.
> hope to setup a controlled demo so quickly without anyone noticing the amount of people and explosives required... ?
There is an answer, not neccessarily what I believed happened, but certainly plausible:
All of the people who fled the fucking terrorist attack weren't there. A small team swept the building and installed the charges. The remainder of the fire department was focused on rescue attempts in 1 and 2. After the charges were set and the building was garunteed empty (or reasonable confidence) the order was given to drop it.
Why? Well, there was a massive fucking rescue effort underway so having a 750ft 47 story building randomly fall into the rescue effort (due to weakened asymetrical damage on the struts facing towers 1 + 2) they decided to use charges to control the footprint, limiting blowback and impact on ongoing off site efforts.
Idk how long you think it takes to set up charges but the building collapsed at 5:21pm and the attack occurred at 9ish. in fact, almost exactly 8 hours later. So, I am not saying this is exactly what happened, I only contend there are severe issues with the official story, but I do believe a highly trained team of demolition experts could set up and demolish a building with ~6 hours prep time.
I also have difficulty interpreting anything from myself or the quote even remotely intimating that this should be done with people inside. As to alerting their own personell, again there may have been an announcement, I don't fucking know as I don't have closed feed gov't radio recordings from 1.5 decades ago.
edit: Would emergency services not have noticed demo experts with piles and piles of explosives entering and exiting the building?
I mean, again, the entire air was full of dust and smoke and anyone not fleeing was looking in the rubble for people. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see other people with gear heading into a building in the distance (if this were in deed the case) and not wonder what that gear consisted of. Largely, because you are standing on the mass grave of >1000 people trying to survive long enough to save a couple more peole before you pass out from exhaustion.
If the destruction of the main towers was deliberately orchestrated, it couldn't possibly have been by Larry Silverstein acting alone. No landlord can literally get away with murder; if he caused the attacks, either he's an absolute criminal mastermind or he'd be dead by now.
If there was more going on than just al-Qaida, the US almost has to have known about the attacks in advance. If we did know, why did we let the attacks go through -- and if we were ruthless enough to let them happen, why weren't we ruthless enough to implicate Iraq?
From what I've heard, GWB saw Saddam as a family enemy, and started asking if Iraq was involved with the WTC attacks indecently quickly after they'd occurred. If he was willing to sit idly by as his citizens were killed (or even authorize the killings himself), surely he wouldn't scruple to frame an old enemy in the process. It would kill two birds with one stone: misdirect the blame in a very plausible manner, and give Saddam what was coming to him anyways (at least from GWB's perspective).
(Come to think of it, why not implicate the government of Saudi Arabia in a really clear, undeniable fashion? It would be easy and convincing -- I mean, they're already halfway to fully culpable in the official narrative of the attacks -- and it would offer a large, cheap payoff. On September 12th, "discover" that the Saudi royal family had signed off on the attacks. On September 13th, demand that the Saudis hand over 51% of Saudi Aramco by September 14th, or we'll bomb Riyadh and seize the oil fields on September 15th. It's not like the Saudi armed forces could stand up to the US...)