01-05-2010, 06:31 AM
Anthony Marsh wrote:
'You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein'
Huh?
You just told me it was a controlled demolition, you said 'Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained…'
(For what it is worth, there was no survey made of the building later in the day, the whole area was in general turmoil, and cordoned off.)
Anthony Marsh also wrote:
'They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.'
Really? I challenge you to provide a single example in the entire history of the world where a building got damaged by an unforeseen catastrophe and they demolished it the same day because by some remarkable act of precognition it had been prewired for a controlled demolition.
Honestly mate, if you agree it was a controlled demolition you are on the side of the Troofers. The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it.
'You are begging the question. You are ASSUMING it was a controlled demolition and therefore conspiracy by Silverstein'
Huh?
You just told me it was a controlled demolition, you said 'Yes, he means a controlled demolition of building 7. But that decision was made later in the day when he saw how much damage it had sustained…'
(For what it is worth, there was no survey made of the building later in the day, the whole area was in general turmoil, and cordoned off.)
Anthony Marsh also wrote:
'They do it all the time. They assess the situation and then declare the building NWS, not worth saving. That allows it to be demolished for safety reasons.'
Really? I challenge you to provide a single example in the entire history of the world where a building got damaged by an unforeseen catastrophe and they demolished it the same day because by some remarkable act of precognition it had been prewired for a controlled demolition.
Honestly mate, if you agree it was a controlled demolition you are on the side of the Troofers. The whole point about the original article by the Fox News journalist is, he forgot the script and inadvertently admitted to the controlled demolition thesis rather than pour scorn on it.