RiffRaff wrote:I must admit im not an expert on this situation but it screams of bullshit and smells of extreme anti-bush, left-wing propaganda. If that's your leaning, don't latch on to this crap as it makes you appear ignorant of the facts.
If you'll read this you'll find that IRI filed suit claiming "gross negligence" for allowing CitiGroup to maintain large stocks of diesel fuel in tower 7. The fires in tower 7, which were caused by large chunks of debris from the larger towers, became impossible to extinguish thus causing the collapse.
That's interesting, considering Larry Silverstein himself is on camera stating that he ordered building 7 to be demolished; I've seen it myself.
I don't doubt that there were large generators, and maybe even stores of fuel, because it was a protected command center, as Guiliani said. But the building was demolished. You can see it as clear as day in the video, and the owner himself has publicly stated that he ordered it done.
Edit: You're misinterpreting that case you linked to. IRI was trying to sue the Port Authority and Citigroup for storing fuel, making the fires unquenchable. Which does not contradict with what I have said. Silverstein's story was that the fires were unquenchable, so he had to have it pulled. According to the suit, this apparently removed him from responsibility, since he had no choice due to the fires being impossible to put out. So IRI sued the people whom the government's story implied were responsible -- the people responsible for the fires being unquenchable .
And the case was dismissed for not containing any valid legal argument.
Last edited by R00k on Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
see the explosion on the side of the building facing the camera? thats like 15-20 stories down...definitley explosives going off early...its not air pressure blowing concrete into dust...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
You're probably trying to refer to the chunks blowing out the side, but that could be explained several ways. It's not indicative of any detonations. It could even be a large pipe bursting.
It's the constant, wave-like ring that leads the way down the building before the floors even reach it.
Last edited by R00k on Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
You're probably trying to refer to the chunks blowing out the side, but that could be explained several ways. It's not indicative of any detonations. It could even be a large pipe bursting.
dude look at the scale...that's concrete in there flying out many yards...not a pipe...and the building collapsed from above...
Dave wrote:Conspiracy theorists are great at arguing but poor at making arguments.
Dave wrote:Ordering to be demolished was probably his way of pretending he was in control
Like this one? lol, come on man. Just a discussion here, no reason to start politician-style mudslinging.
I would also make sure to consult the court case and I would acknowledge both sides of the argument instead of going off half cocked about some crazy theory with no basis in reality except minor irregularities in a photo.
Salomon Inc. (later acquired by Citigroup) leased floors 28-47 and portions of floors 1-5, largely to operate a trading floor and sustain its trading operations, and built a pressurized diesel fuel system and nine high powered emergency generators, served by two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks and piping always filled with fuel, to ensure that a power outage would not interrupt its trading activities. IRI alleges that Citigroup “designed, constructed, installed and used an emergency generator system that utilized an unreasonable amount of diesel fuel and that continuously pumped that fuel unreasonably close to critical structural supports in the building without proper safeguards,” (Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 55) and that the Port Authority had design control and allowed the construction in violation of City ordinances, that the fuel tanks contributed to the intensity of the fires and inability to bring them under control and proximately caused the collapse of 7WTC in the afternoon of 9/11, and that both Citigroup and the Port Authority were guilty of gross negligence with respect to that design.
k this is the one that really gets me...do u guys see one or two towers in this? if its one then that smoke is just from the other tower collapsing...if there r two towers...then we have a serious problem...
You're probably trying to refer to the chunks blowing out the side, but that could be explained several ways. It's not indicative of any detonations. It could even be a large pipe bursting.
dude look at the scale...that's concrete in there flying out many yards...not a pipe...and the building collapsed from above...
You're right, but it can be explained away one way or another.
The moving, imploding ring, leaving no pieces of steel longer than a couple of stories - even of the 3 foot thick center columns - defies all logic and possible laws of physics when the pancake theory is applied.
Dave wrote:I would also make sure to consult the court case and I would acknowledge both sides of the argument instead of going off half cocked about some crazy theory with no basis in reality except minor irregularities in a photo.
Salomon Inc. (later acquired by Citigroup) leased floors 28-47 and portions of floors 1-5, largely to operate a trading floor and sustain its trading operations, and built a pressurized diesel fuel system and nine high powered emergency generators, served by two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks and piping always filled with fuel, to ensure that a power outage would not interrupt its trading activities. IRI alleges that Citigroup “designed, constructed, installed and used an emergency generator system that utilized an unreasonable amount of diesel fuel and that continuously pumped that fuel unreasonably close to critical structural supports in the building without proper safeguards,” (Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 55) and that the Port Authority had design control and allowed the construction in violation of City ordinances, that the fuel tanks contributed to the intensity of the fires and inability to bring them under control and proximately caused the collapse of 7WTC in the afternoon of 9/11, and that both Citigroup and the Port Authority were guilty of gross negligence with respect to that design.
How does that materially conflict with what I said?
The case even states that the diesel storage was reviewed by engineers, who found that the amount and location of the storage would not be potentially damaging to the structure of the building.
And you're attacking me again for some reason. I'm not "going off half cocked about some crazy theory with no basis in reality except minor irregularities in a photo," on this issue. As I've already stated, the leaseholder responsible for the building clearly stated that it was demolished.
You are searching an insurance court case from three years after the fact, and trying to use it as proof that he was lying about the whole affair when he had absolutely no reason to -- except for your posited assertion that he needed to feel 'in control.'
Dave wrote:Conspiracy theorists are great at arguing but poor at making arguments.
gospel.
I would like each of you to explain to me why the official story is not a conspiracy theory. If you can logically do that, I'll never discuss this again.
Both theories are equally hard to believe, from the standpoint of logical reasoning based on the facts that we have. But what makes my theory hard to believe is simply the idea that there was no way the buildings could have been rigged with explosives before the attacks.
If it became plausible that charges COULD have been placed before the attacks, then this theory becomes much more plausible.
To follow that line of thought, if it were possible to prove that charges WERE placed before the attacks (which I know is not possible to prove), then this theory becomes not only plausible, but even probable, based on the events.
Well, to be clear, I wasn't calling your post conspiracy. I was replying to Geoff's hour-by-hour updates on the real story of TWAT where he posts a book-length indymedia story about Joint CIA/Mossad operations involving invisible UFOs carrying death rays orbiting the pentagon
Freakaloin wrote:
k this is the one that really gets me...do u guys see one or two towers in this? if its one then that smoke is just from the other tower collapsing...if there r two towers...then we have a serious problem...
PLEASE GEOFF... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND JESUS AND ALL THAT IS PURE AND GOLDEN... don't tell me you really think that there are two standing towers in that clip....
