D'après toi, s'ils ont décidé de faire s'écrouler la #7, d'après toi, le faire avec cette qualité de façon aussi rapide, est ce possible???

Ai je bien compris que pour toi, préparer une démolition controlé "on the fly", sans préparation, c'est possible??

Denis, si tu utilise la même expression dans la phrase qui suit, ca te dis quoi? And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. Et ils ont pris cette décision de le détruire et nous avons regardé le bâtiment s’effondré. Le sens ne fonctionne pas du tout avec ton interprétation.

Voici une vue rapproché du wtc7 mettant nettement en évidence une séquence d’explosion se déplaçant du bas vers le haut du bâtiment.

Effectivement, ce "close up" montre bien comment la demolition controllée fonctionne: une séries d'explosifs explose en chaine pour amener la structure vers le bas (d'où l'expression "pull it").

Larry Silverstein l'avait bien dit.

Le dernier clou dans le cercueuil pour l'expression "pull it":

Extrait du livre Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts publié par Popular Mechanics:



Christian

Salut Ekosys,

Moi, je n'ai pas du tout la même interprétation que vous de la déclaration de Silverstein.


Je traduis le bout gras par : "peut-être que la meilleure chose à faire est de le détruire".

À sa place, j'aurais probablement dit à peu près la même chose : "Le bâtiment est tellement abîmé qu'il est probablement irréparable. La meilleure chose à faire est probablement de l'achever en le dynamitant."

...et, peu après qu'ils en aient convenu, le bâtiment s'est écroulé de lui-même, ce qui a amplement démontré qu'il était trop abîmé pour être récupérable.

Où voyez-vous une conspiration là-dedans ?

Denis

Salut surtout à Digipal et à Ekosys,


Tu m'as mal compris.

Bien sûr que ça prend au moins quelques semaines pour organiser et réaliser le dynamitage d'un bâtiment de cette taille. Et ça aurait été une manoeuvre bien risquée étant donné qu'il était très abîmé et proche de l'écroulement. Ça aurait demandé des artificiers très courageux.

Remarquez que je ne suis pas certain de la justesse de mon interprétation. C'est Silverstein qui est le mieux placé pour expliquer ce qu'il a voulu dire. Savez-vous ce qu'il dit lui-même là-dessus ? Je lui donne volontiers le dernier mot.

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

S'il a voulu suggérer de retirer l'équipe des pompiers, ça me va. Après tout, à quoi bon risquer des vies pour limiter les dégâts dans un bâtiment tellement abîmé qu'il faudra probablement le détruire de toutes façons ? Toi, enverrais tu des pompiers risquer leurs vies pour limiter les dégâts dans un bâtiment tellement abîmé qu'il faudra probablement le détruire de toutes façons ?

En fait d'explosion, il ne s'agit probablement -comme l'a déjà souligné My Clone- que des fenêtres qui se brisent au moment de l'effondrement,

AJ I’ve only seen a little bit of your work, but I’m just gonna tell you this: we’re not gonna be defeated, we’re gonna stop government sponsored terror!

MR You can talk all you want. That doesn’t make it true.

AJ We’re gonna defeat government-sponsored terror!

MR Facts are what make something true.

AJ LIKE BUILDING SEVEN EXPLODES! THAT’S WHY FACTS CANNOT BE DEFEATED!

MR Oh, really? Ha-ha. That’s funny. Where’s your evidence?

AJ Oh, massive evidence! We have total evidence!

MR Why did they evacuate the area three hours beforehand?

AJ Larry Silverstein says he pulled the building.

Reminder: Alex Jones is a major 9/11 “Truth Movement” leader, and he
claims to have been investigating these matters since 2001.

MR No. No, Larry Silverstein says they decided to pull. They. (pointing
to the fire trucks parked down the block) Are they in on it?
(crosstalk)

MR They evacuated the area, and he said they decided to pull.
Cameraman He said “We.”

MR Do you want the quote?

Cameraman I know the quote.

MR No you don’t. He said they decided to pull the building and then we
watched it come down.

[Ha! I screwed up there and said “pull the building.” That’s what I get
for listening to the CTs blow that line every time!]
(Crosstalk: see below)

MR Who made the decision? “They.”

Cameraman “We.”

MR He said “We watched.” I’ll bet you a six-pack of beer, my friend.
(We shake. When I later tried to claim my beer money, he claimed it was
29 only for a beer. Can’t these people ever tell the truth?)

The little guy in black, wearing sunglasses, is Tom Foti, a regular on
Saturdays at Ground Zero. He’s the most despicable creep I’ve met in
years, but we’ll wait to see if the video from 9/11 appears in which I
explain why that’s so. In the present video, while Alex Jones falsely
accuses me of introducing straw man arguments, Tom Foti actually introduces
straw man arguments, by shouting them out while I’m trying to talk
to Jones and his cameraman. Here Foti claims that I said there were no
cameras at the Pentagon. Never mind that he’s trying to bail Jones out
by changing the subject, I’ve never said anything like that. Foti is referring
to an email I sent to him and many others in August, which
quotes a Pentagon employee as follows:
“Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what
I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few
cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling
a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens
of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given
moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility
(all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only
needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such
as the one this video came from).”
Tom Foti turns that into “Mark Roberts says there are no cameras at the
Pentagon.” He’s lying, which is par for his course. The saddest thing
is – and this happens all the time with Foti – I had corrected him
about this misconception at Ground Zero a week or two earlier. Later,
Foti brings up another straw man. He says I claim that building 7 collapsed
in 18 seconds. No, that’s the time of the seismic rumbling recorded
by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory when WTC 7 collapsed, which
may indicate internal collapses before the external collapse becomes
visible. LDEO says that is not to be taken as conclusive. The time I
quote for the visible collapse of WTC 7 is at least 13.5 seconds from
the start of the fall of the east mechanical penthouse. This is easily
checked by reviewing my internet forum posts from before I met Foti.
The CTs don’t count the east penthouse as part of building 7’s collapse,
although that structure covers an area equal to four apartment
buildings on my block, and was caused by collapses on the lower floors.
Later in this paper we’ll see a video that shows this collapse clearly.
To justify their fabricated time of 6.5 seconds, the CTs show video
clips of building 7 that do not show the roof or that are edited to
omit the start of the collapse.

29:38
AJ Listen, we’re gonna defeat the New World Order, don’t worry.

MR The New World Order, sir? Tell me more about building 7. Why did
they evacuate–

AJ –Do you believe, hold on, hold on. (changing the subject) Do you
believe they found WMDs in Iraq?

MR Answer the damn question! You brought it up!
AJ Yeah.

30
MR Why did they evacuate this area three hours beforehand? Why did
every fireman who was here say, “The building’s about to collapse?”

AJ Because they told the firemen– you’re not letting me talk.

MR Why was it making noises? Why was it leaning?

AJ See, he won’t let me talk.

MR There you go. Now you can talk.

AJ They told them to get out because they were gonna blow it!

MR So the Fire Department’s in on it?

AJ No, they were told to get out.

MR Why don’t you tell the Fire Department. The New York City Fire Department.

They’re right there (pointing).

AJ (To the crowd, changing the subject again) Oh, I guess there
wasn’t poisonous dust, either, like they said.

MR They’re right there. Tell them they were in on it. You just said
they were in on it.

AJ No, I didn’t say, I said they were told to, they were told to pull
out.

Stop the presses! That’s the first “9/11 Truth” leader I’ve seen get the
“pull” part right. Congratulations, Alex!

MR Oh, and they just obeyed because they were gonna blow up the building?

AJ No, because they were given orders!

MR Who? Who gave them orders?

AJ They don’t ask questions. They don’t say, “Port Authority, why are
we supposed to pull out?”

MR Chief Daniel Nigro, who was in command here, gave the orders. Are
you gonna say he’s a liar?

AJ See, guys, this is all “straw man.” We never said the firemen were
involved. He just claimed we said it. He’s a liar! That’s what liars do.
They build straw men.

MR Who gave the order? Chief Daniel Nigro. You want to see the order?
(I had the quote with me)

AJ Yes, he’s told to pull them. It doesn’t mean he’s involved. He’s
given an order.

MR Who told him? Where’s your evidence? Where’s your evidence?

AJ We – the firemen reported that they heard and saw explosions going
off in all these buildings.

MR Name one explosion they heard going off there (pointing to building
7). You know there were demolitions experts here? (Inaudible)

31
AJ See, folks, this is straw men. He isn’t having a real debate.

Good timing Alex. Now Tom Foti pipes in with his second straw man argument.

31:45
AJ There’s no point talking to him. It’s all straw men. Just like you
heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just
made it up.

MR Oh, they just followed orders to pull out?

AJ Yeah.

MR They didn’t give the orders, they followed the orders? They didn’t
give the orders? You’re saying the Fire Department did not give the order
to pull out?

AJ No, they were given an order. They followed the order.

MR By whom? By whom?

AJ Oh, it’s admitted! The Port Authority...Giuliani.

Let’s keep in mind what Jones is saying. He’s saying that Larry
Silverstein, the Port Authority, and Rudy Giuliani were ultimately in
charge of firefighting operations at the WTC, not the FDNY. These people
(and this organization: note that Jones doesn’t say who in the Port Authority was involved) planned to demolish WTC 7 with explosives. Therefore, when the Chiefs on the scene say that their inspection of the building led them to withdraw their men to keep them alive, they’re lying.

Jones says the FDNY pulled away from building 7 because they were
ordered to, not because they determined that damage and fires in the
building made it unsafe. Therefore all the eyewitness accounts from the
FDNY (which we will see shortly) that say otherwise, are wrong. And the
agonizing decision to cease rescue operations in the area was not the
FDNY’s decision. And all this has been covered up by everyone involved.
Heinous crimes, massive deception. The conspirators, at minimum:
Silverstein, the Port of New York and New Jersey Authority (which lost
40 employees on 9/11), Rudy Giuliani, and the FDNY, which lost 343 men.MR Who admitted it?

AJ I’ve got the newspaper articles.

MR No you don’t. (to crowd) See, look at this (evasion?). (To Jones)
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about! You’re lying to people
at Ground Zero.

AJ See, all he does is sit here and act confident. He blamed us for
saying the firefighters were in on it.

MR I’m asking where your facts are. Where are they? You’re saying an
order was given. Who gave it? Tell me. Give me the name. Right now. With the cameras here. Who? Who did it?

32
AJ See, this is how the spin works. This is a lawyer technique. Number
one, he doesn’t let me talk.

MR I’m a tour guide, I’m not a lawyer! You can’t take on a tour guide
from New York City?

AJ No, I, I said you’re using a lawyer, lawyer tactic.

MR Yeah, facts. Give me facts. Give me evidence, give me facts. How
about that?

AJ He’s claiming I blame firefighters. He’s claiming (inaudible)

MR Sure you do.

AJ And none of it’s true.

MR You’re saying they didn’t give the order to pull out. You’re saying
they didn’t survey the building, and determine it was too damaged to
stand, not safe to be in? You’re saying that? You’re saying the Fire Department did that.

AJ No modern building had ever fallen–

MR Yes or no? Are you saying that the Fire Department did not survey
the building?

AJ See I just brought a question up. He doesn’t answer it.

MR Did you say the Fire Department did not survey the building?

AJ See, he won’t even let me answer.

MR Did you say the Fire Department did not survey the building?

AJ He just repeats the same thing over and over again.

MR Did you? Yes or no?

AJ (Shouting) HEY FOLKS, HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW 9/11’s AN INSIDE JOB?

About 4 people, and mainly Tom Foti, shout YEAH!

AJ That’s right, it’s an inside job, brother!

MR (To crowd) This guy’s a well-known radio personality. He’s got lots
of videos out there. He does not even know the basics. All he can do is
change the subject.

AJ I know all the basics.

MR All he can do is change the subject.

AJ He set the subject, he made up that we blame the firefighters.

MR You brought up this building. You said it was blown up! Where’s
your evidence?

AJ He’s lying again. See, that’s what they do. [Lying? Allow me to
refer you to this AJ quote above: “They told them to get out because
they were gonna blow it!”]

MR Where’s your evidence? What I do is ask for evidence, sir.
33

AJ See, I could make up a claim that he said George Bush did
it....(more straw man accusations)

Cameraman who owes me a six-pack Do you know what a squib mark is?

MR Do you know what air pressure is?

AJ (Straw man, etc.)

MR All I ask for is your evidence.

And on and on. That’s the pathetic Alex Jones, the hero of the “Truth
Movement,” at Ground Zero. Accusing people of horrible crimes without a
shred of evidence.
After all that backpedaling and evading by Jones, and all his protests
about my “straw man argument” about the Fire Department, minutes later,
30 feet away:
“The firefighters ARE paid off.” (Jason Bermas)

Tu t'égares là Denis.

Le bâtiment étant en feu (non combattu), ils auraient eu du mal à y placer des explosifs.

Au coeur d'évènements horribles, la seule chose à laquelle il pense pour qu'il n'y ait plus de pertes humaines, c'est de dynamiter le batîment dans quelques semaines? A ton avis comment le chef des pompiers a réagi. Non franchement ça n'a pas de sens.

The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Bah voilà.

Pour ceux qui aiment les débats de rue, la vidéo est visible ici et l'empoignade dure de 26:30 à 37:30.

Voici le transcript avec quelques commentaires de Roberts. Attention dumping:

Mon idée principale était que même en supposant que le "pull it" de Silverstein se référait au dynamitage du building, il s'agissait d'un opération à organiser~réaliser dans un futur indéterminé plutôt que tout de suite.

Non, il a bien dit : They made the dicision to pull and we watch the building collapse. Donc rien à voir avec tes spéculations.

y'est pas possible d'installer des explosifs dans un building le jour même et le faire tomber le soir venu, surtout dans l'état qu'était New York ce jour là.

Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Status: False.

(...)

The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Est-ce un hasard si 56 ans aprés le seul crash d'avion (avion militaire d'ailleurs : Le 28 juillet 1945, un bombardier B-25 Mitchell s'écrasa dans la face nord de l'Empire State Building au niveau du 79e étage. L'incendie fut éteint en 40 minutes mais 13 personnes périrent dans l’accident), l'unique crash d'avion (American Airlines aussi) sur le sol des USA ait lieu dans la même ville et seulement deux mois après le 11/9 ? Le sort s'acharnerait-il ?! Petit rappel de ce crash dont plus personne ne parle :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vol_587_American_Airlines

Pour vous c'est une simple coïncidence, un avion abattu (la partie qui s'est détachée de l'avion et qui contenait un des moteurs me fait penser à un missile ayant traversé l'avion et non une "terrible turbulence" comme l'indique la version officielle), ou encore un acte de terrorisme ?

J'ai tendance à penser que comme pour l'avion de Pennsylvanie, cet avion aussi a été abattu par un chasseur, et que les autorités camouflent cela pour éviter les énormes compensations financières pour les familles et autres poursuites liées à une telle décision.