Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Neutrality

• • If you are so sure that damage and fire caused the collapse of 7 WTC then prove it. Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
    • I don't have to, as this is not the forum for debating 9/11. Please take it elsewhere. Thank you. --Durin 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Pretty simple, if you are going to claim it, then you need to prove it, otherwise you will be perverting wikipedia, you have an opinion, encylopdias are not editorials. Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
        • As I have noted several times before, this is not the forum for debate. Also, *I* am not the one who made the changes you are contesting. So, not only are you arguing in the wrong place, you are also arguing with the wrong person. And again, as I have stated before, if you find fault with something in the article then by all means change it. Just be prepared to have your edits reverted for failure to have a basis in fact. Please cease this debate. You are getting nowhere. --Durin 20:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • This is the discussion page, no? I am not argueing at all, I am debating under the rules of logic,and Socratic method, this is what discussion is. If people want to claim things on the discussion page then they need to back it up with something, not with opinion, or expert opinion, especially not the expert opion of the expert that favors their claim. Alfonslof (talk · contribs)

• • The problem with the damage and fire theory is that its primary supporting claim is founded in nothing, and can't be proven, and is a unique phenomenon that is not supported by history or any other lab expierment, as a matter of fact lab expierments show that fires do not cause ASTM E 119 to melt, or even stress significantly. Steel for building structures are preengineered, lab tested, and fire rated.another unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
    • If the steel is incapable of being compromised by fire, then why put fire protective coatings on it? Again, if you're so certain about what caused WTC 7 to collapse, then by all means change the article. Again, be prepared to have your changes reverted. This is not the forum for debate. --Durin 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 Alfonslof (talk · contribs)

• • Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce’

A respected professional magazine read by firefighters and engineers is calling the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Towers a farce and a sham. http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html Alfonslof (talk · contribs)

The problem with the controlled demolition theory is that its primary supporting claim is the history of fires in steel buildings. Let’s start with the Towers themselves. It is often noted that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand airplane impacts. This is true. The Titanic was also designed to withstand iceberg impacts without sinking; most of us are familiar with the fate that particular ship met. The WTC complex experienced a sudden violent impact followed by intense fires. The scale of the fires in the WTC complex sets it aside from the history of any other building. In other words, it was a unique occurrence. This fire did not start slowly; it did not gradually grow into a dangerous threat. This blaze was an immediate raging inferno the second the towers were hit, and it was a continuous raging inferno until their collapse. To suggest that two 110 story buildings collapsing would have no significant impact on the structural integrity of an adjacent 47 story building goes against the normal thought process of what one would expect to happen. We have photos that highlight some of the damage, and that’s only what we can see from the outside. We have first hand personnel that can describe damage to the structure. We also know that fires were spreading without resistance through the building. We have video showing the authorities moving people away because of the fear it might collapse. And finally, we have the collapse itself.

There are errors in the thought processes that are apparent in the controlled demolition theory. For example, one fallacy argues that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. In the investigative world, belief comes from positive evidence in support of a claim, not a lack of evidence for or against a claim. Many theorists also rely on what is known as a false positive to make certain claims. For example, strange mountain shapes on Mars offer proof on an underground civilization.

• • The above paragraph is a strwman, noone has made that arguement in this discussion.

For some who believe in the demolition theory, no amount of evidence will ever be enough. The only way to be certain would be to have the luxury of time travel. Regardless of what the preponderance of evidence suggests, there will always be that sinister statement that stands out. There will always be this photograph that “looks” strange or “appears” to do this or “seems” to confirm that. The human brain is trained to look for connections in its observations. This is why Dan Rather said what he said; this is why some firefighters reported explosions. It is the way our mind works.

Encyclopedias have to rely not only on evidence, but the validity of that evidence. A simple solution here might be to point out the existence of a controversy, which is simply the ongoing discussion here and direct the reader to a more appropriate section. The official story is the official story for a reason. It is the most widely believed and most widely accepted scenario by the majority of the public. It is my view that this section of the article not be a forum for a persuasive argument in favor of or against the idea of a controlled demolition.--Doctor9 19:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I know it's very pathetic to argue about one word, but "many" implies that it is a widely accepted theory whereas "some" is more vague, but then again we don't know how many people do think that. And I'd like to see some sources on this Larry Silverstein stuff. - Mirage5000 05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• • "Because of the percived unusual nature of its collapse[3], 7 World Trade Center is frequently mentioned in 9/11 conspiracy theories". This sentenece is slanted. No steel skyscrapers had collapsed before or since 9/11, that makes it unusal, the word percived is very biased, as if it is only a perception and not a fact, it is a fact that the collapse of 7 is unusual, with the only examples of like collapse being controlled demolitions, but you are welcome to prove there are other examples if you can! You will not be able to. Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
    • That is because there is no building with its type of structure which has experienced significant structural damage and then endured 7 hours of unchecked fires and survived. I invite you to find another building that has. Fire was not the only factor in its collapse, just as in WTC 1 and 2 fire was not the only factor in their collapse. --Durin 19:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Prove it! unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)

• Some or Many? 50% of the people of NYC believe that 9/11 was an inside job according to a Zogby poll http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 , so that would be many, very many. Silverstein said, "pull it" not them. Do you think he refers to people as it? We need to go by what he said. An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull". Silverstein was the owner at the time of 9/11 as far as I can tell, he was leasee of the rest of the WTC complex. Silverstein's "pull it" statement in mp3 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
  • The Zogby poll link referenced above does not come to the conclusion that 50% of New Yorkers believe it was an "inside job." The poll suggests New Yorkers believe US Leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9-11 Attacks and consciously failed to act. --Doctor9 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Recomendation, do not use the term "conspiracy theorist", it is associted with the tin foil hat, chubacabras, aliens and the like, and has been demonized in the popular vernacular, despite it's dictionary meaning.
  • Prove that there were firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said "pull it". Just prove it! unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
    • I think it's up the people who believe "it" meant demolishing to show that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 at the time Silverstein said "pull it" and that Silverstein knew there were no firefighters in the building. --Durin 18:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The burden of proof lies in the court of the person who claimed this "The expression could simply refer to a decision to pull firefighting operations out of the building" because if there were no firefighters in the building at the time Silverstein said, "pull it" his statement could not mean remove the fighterfighters. So the claimer needs to establish, who Silverstein talked to, when he talked to him, and when the firefighters were removed from WTC 7, otherwise it is an unsubtantiated claim. Who is the "we" that "watched the building collapse" and when did they watch? unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
        • The government's stance is that pull "it" did not refer to demolition of the building. Based on your assertion, the government should therefore be burdened with proving that there were no missiles on the 767 tanker with no windows, that there was no nuclear bomb that blew up beneath WTC 1&2, that there were no explosive inside WTC 1, 2, and 7, that there was no inside job, etc...etc...etc... Otherwise, their statements to the contrary are nothing but unsubstantiated claims. I guess the moon landings didn't happen either since the government hasn't proven to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorists that the Van Allen belts won't kill you on contact, or that there isn't a large chem trailing program over the entire country, much less the planet. We can do this ad nauseum. Personally, I'm not up for it. FEMA, NIST and others have teamed with literally hundreds of related field experts to determine the collapse sequences of the various WTC towers. In no case has any part of the investigation led to the possible conclusion that any of the buildings were intentionally demolished. If you want to insist on believing in unknown demolition teams working in total anonymity for weeks prior to 9/11 without anyone seeing them and a building that can be heavily damaged, suffer fires for 7 hours and then underwent intentional demolition, perferctly falling into its own footprint (well, according to conspiracy theorists...though this isn't true), and that Silverstein made the collosal error or stating as much in a publicly aired interview that was allowed to go on the air despite Silverstein's collusion in the purposeful demolition of the building which could blow the cover on the largest conspiracy in history...that's your business. Me, I'll go along with substantiated fact. Substantiated fact is that no evidence of intentional demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7 have been found by FEMA, NIST, FBI, or any other federal agency working on 9/11 investigations. I'm done with this debate. As I've said here repeatedly, this is NOT the proper forum for it. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We work with substianted fact, and all the more so on controversial articles. If you don't like the article because it doesn't support your pet conspiracy theory, then by all means change it to do so. NObody is stopping you from doing so. But, be prepared for others to revert your edits because they will be unsubstianted speculation. Good day. --Durin 16:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I have watched this talk page grow in recent days about a statement that seems very inconsequential in the big picture arena. The statement has been clarified more than once as to what the guy meant. It's easy today, with the benefit of hindsight, to question somebody's verbiage. We can sit in our comfortable offices or hang out in a library or relax on a sofa examining the semantics of a particular sentence. On September 11, nobody on the scene had that benefit. There was a chaos unfolding that morning that is rarely seen on the streets of America. It is reasonably and rationally conceivable that in the midst of confusion, the smoke, the sirens, the yelling, the constant questioning, that Silverstein could make a statement referring to the pulling out of a fire team whether or not a team was inside the building. The Fog of War is mentioned often on a battlefield; this same fog exists in times of crisis. The burden of proof does rest on those making claims of an inside job. It goes against the grain of society, and as such that burden rest on your shoulders. Often times, the true answer is the most simple one. --Doctor9 03:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • There were manual rescue operations in WTC 7 that day. In fact, some conspiracy sites make reference to various logs of FDNY operations in WTC 7 during the day. To support your assertion here, you will need to ascertain a time reference for when Silverstein was in communication with FDNY and said "pull it" ascertain whether the building at the time was entirely empty of fire fighters, and whether Silverstein knew it was already empty. At that point, you will begin to have some basis for undermining the concept that "pull it" meant the FDNY efforts. --Durin 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Durin, your term 'conspiracy sites' appears to be designed to produce an emotional reaction, not to provide important facts. Your suggestion that Silverstein's 'pull it' statement referred to people is an unsupported assertion that denies the basic meaning of the pronoun involved. Here is a two-sided argument:
  • Controversy exists as to the use of the Silverstein's term 'pull it' regarding WTC7. 'It' does not refer to people. People are usually referred to as 'them' or as other pronouns. Silverstein went on to say, in the same sentence, 'and we watched the building collapse.' This indicates a relationship between the pulling of 'it' and the collapse of the building. From the full statement, a cause and effect relationship is inferred. 'It'--the building--was pulled and then 'it' collapsed. (Thus, your 'concept' which you suggest must be 'undermined' is merely one of those 'conspiracy' arguments. To be fair, your unsupported 'concept' must be removed or a factual rebuttal must be permitted.)
  • The September 9, 2005, written statement by Silverstein's representative indicated that the 'Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building.' The statement made no mention of the term 'pull it.' However, the US Department of Justice website explained, "Mr. McQuillan [the Silverstein representative] has stated that by 'it,' Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building." http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
  • To date, Silverstein has not been examined on his use of the term 'pull it.'--User:RegularGuy
    • With your notation of the DoJ explanation of "it" any other inferential use of the word to describe demolition of the building is unfounded speculation. --Durin 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BALANCED DISCUSSION PROVIDED. Above, I posted a balanced discussion of the controversy involving the collapse of WTC7, covering the Silverstein statement. However, balanced does not mean fair. The Wikipedia page in question does not present such a balanced discussion and should be replaced with the paragraphs I posted, except for the parenthetical.
  • The current version, "[o]thers interpreted Silverstein's statement to mean 'pull out' — to withdraw firefighters from the building," is a conclusory statement, completely unsupported by fact. After searching on the internet for over an hour, I found some support for that statement at the DoJ website.
  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CLAIM. You indicated that the Department of Justice has the final word on Silverstein's statement. However, Silverstein is not the Department of Justice. The DoJ does not speak for him. The reason that the DoJ statement supported the claim in your article was because it qualifies as an 'other.' The person quoted at the DoJ site is not Silverstein either; thus, he is also an 'other.' The DoJ's quote of that person was a very short edited quote, and the DoJ did not site either a source or the surrounding circumstances of the discussion. There was no independent corroboration.
  • The DoJ had a vested interest in promoting the official government position, and provided information that is one-sided. The vested interest was to support the administration's assertions that there was a terror assault on the WTC complex, and to support the ensuing wars which involved areas with vast and desirable resources like oil pipeline routes and oil fields. Documents at the website for Project For The New American Century (PNAC) make this desire to control these kinds of resources clear. See http://newamericancentury.org, and Rebuilding America's Defenses, http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. Founding members of PNAC joined the Bush administration. None of these officials have distanced themselves from the PNAC agenda.
  • Fair analysis of claims that bombs were planted in the buildings would suggest that someone with access to the buildings may have been involved in the September 11, 2001, event. This could undermine the government's simple story about 19 hijackers and lead to a further investigation. The investigation could focus on the DoJ itself, and could create questions about the war choices made afterward. Thus, the DoJ statement amounts to a denial by a subject of interest. As such, it cannot be trusted. A similar argument could be made regarding the Silverstein representative.
  • SILVERSTEIN'S SILENCE. Silverstein has remained silent on this issue for more than four years. His continuing silence in a situation where a reasonable person would protest the interpretation strongly implies that he has no defense. See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a159.htm. Silverstein had strong reasons to protest what has been described herein as an interpretation of the term 'pull it.' If 'pull it' was to be interpreted as demolishing the building, this would indicate that bombs were planted, and that Silverstein, as the person authorizing the demolition, had knowledge of the bombs. He then would be viewed as responsible for the collapse of the building. This disclosure could lead to discussion of issues like insurance fraud, unauthorized detonation of explosives, or strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. Opening discussions of these issues could only have adverse effects upon Silverstein.
  • Silverstein's First Public "Pull It" Response http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html
  • THE WORD 'IT.' Finally, 'any other inferential use of the word' IT than its usual meaning regarding objects not people would be 'unfounded speculation,' to use your own words.
  • WHAT DO WE DO NOW? Having explained in detail the problems with the page, it is time for changes. I provided a balanced alternative to the discussion on the page. I worked very hard to come up with something balanced to try to support the assertion that Silverstein meant something other than the usual meaning of the term. I went out of my way to find support for this concept. Initially, I even avoided discussing the weaknesses in the argument, thereby, sacrificing fairness for balance. Changes are needed. WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL?—RegularGuy
    • First, I'm not going to debate this further here. As I've noted before, there are more appropriate forums for it. A talk page of an article makes a very poor forum. Second, see WP:BOLD. If you want to change the article, then change it. Just remember that once you click "Save page" your edits are no longer your property; don't be upset when someone else has a contrary view, can support it with citable references, and makes changes based on those citable references. My proposal is that you make changes based on known, citable, supportable fact. If you can't make such changes, then do not make changes. This topic is and will remain controversial. Personally, I don't think the "it" controversy should be part of the article. Hanging so much controversy on a single two letter word strikes me as very unencyclopedic. Ultimately, that is what we are doing here; building an encyclopedia. This is not a forum. It is not a place for debate in encyclopedia articles. Also, please note that you can sign your edits by typing ~~~~, or clicking the second button from the right on the series of buttons on the top of the edit window. --Durin 14:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are also problems with the physics of the 7 collapse, it falls far too fast, at the rate of free fall, and you can see cutter charges going off on the outside of the building. See Video - http://www.911hoax.com/gwtc7_1.asp?strPage=wtc7_1&intPage=60&PageNum=60 I am sorry about this, but I want the truth, anything less than that just wont do! I understand there are politcal problems with this topic, if the terrorist are not the ones that did it, then who did, and why is it being covered up? Will wikipedia help to cover the truth, or tell it? unsigned edit by Alfonslof (talk · contribs)
  • Falls far too fast? What is your grounds for stating this? How should it have fallen and how fast? Please demonstrate the physics behind this that would supersede the laws of gravity in this particular instance. Before you can do that, you will have to demonstrate an alternate collapse sequence than those provided by FEMA to show why the building should not have fallen at the rate that it did. As for cutter charges; if your only evidence for this is some video footage and your own conclusions, you have little to go on (unless perhaps you are a demolitions expert?). A building that is collapsing, by its very nature, is going to cause outward progression of air mass that was previously within the intact structure. That movement of air is going to cause a dramatic outward push of all manner of debris. An encyclopedia is not the place for speculation and unfounded assertions. If you can provide referenceable cites to buttress claims of fact, then it will be acceptable. Speculating as to hidden motives, hidden operatives, and coverups is not encyclopedic. There are plenty of forums on the Internet for discussion of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, ranging from UFOs to nuclear bombs blown up underneath WTC 1/2. In every case, the believer(s) of the given conspiracy theory absolutely insist they are right, and everyone else is wrong, despite these conspiracy theories disagreeing with each other. Somebody is wrong. Wikipedia's business isn't being a forum to air such theories; Wikipedia's business is to be an encyclopedia, and as such we ask for and depend upon cites to back up claims of fact. --Durin 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one speculating here, and I did not title the paragraph "Controversy" and then go on to speculate about what the controversy is. There are facts, and you specualte that these facts are theoretical, which in your context means unfounded. How fast should a building fall? Steel framed buildings do not fall due to fire, never had before 9/11, and have not since. Formula for distance of objects dropping in free fall: 4.9 x seconds squared = distance of fall, learn about Terminal Velocity with variable drag coefficients from NASA, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/termv.html and since we have a video we know how fast 7 is falling, it is falling with virtually no resistance. We can know because there is evidence, the video, and Newtons Laws. Not only that, but FEMA had reported that they did not know what caused the collapse of 7, and then speculated about what may have caused it. Like in the paragraph below, roadrunner is speculating about what people are saying about the collapse, and putting words into their mouths, with an obvious strawman, and I am one these "Others" and that is not quite what I and others are saying, so if you are going to quote "others" quote them accuratly. It is obvious that you wiki people do not know the extent of the controversy. Wiki is misleading the reader based upon unfounded speculation. I did not set up the debate here, wiki did, wiki had made unfounded claims. The reason I am doing this is to try to stop wiki from slanting the story of 7, and to stop the strawmaning of the so called "conspiracy theroist", you opened the can of worms, not me. Wiki is staging an imaginary arguement, the 2 sides are "conspiracy theorist" v official governemnt theorist, and then you end the debate in stalemate, implying that for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert, so we just can not know. I am not sure how to resolve these problems, it is complicated, emotion driven, and has poltical and legal overtones.--User:RegularGuy

• I know a substantial amount about the controversy. I was party to literally hundreds of discussions revolving around it as a denizen of alt.conspiracy. I'm well aware of the issues at hand. What I have a concern with is someone indicating that the rate of the building's fall was too fast. Too fast for what? How fast is fast? How should it have fallen given X scenario? There are a multitude of questions to be answered before such a statement has any basis in supportable facts. Having supportable facts is crucial to the article; not unfounded speculation. By doing so, we ignore the emotional and politically driven discussion and remain focused on a supportable facts. We can debate on this talk page all we'd like. Personally, I don't wish to. This isn't the forum for it, and such a debate is poorly served here. What I do not want to see is the article itself become a debating ground. --Durin 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Re: steel framed buildings not collapsing due to fire: As I noted below, there have been no other buildings of WTC 7's unusual construction that have experienced what WTC 7 did and withstood the damage without catastrophic failure. Furthermore, it isn't just the fire; the building was substantially damaged on its south face. There were multiple possible contributing factors to the building's failure, not just fire alone. This is true for WTC 1 and 2 as well. Whether other steel framed buildings withstood fire or not is irrelevant; they are not WTC 7, and they did not experience a nearby collapsing building throwing rubble into them. --Durin 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Roadrunner 06:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Others have speculated that the building -- which collapsed neatly into its own 'footprint' in a manner similar to that of a controlled demolition -- was intentionally demolished. In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC7, was interviewed. In the video he says there was a "pulling" at WTC 7, which some people interpret as meaning that it was a controlled explosive demolition:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know,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 we watched the building collapse.'"

Others interpreted Silverstein's statement to mean "pull out" — to withdraw firefighters from the building in light of the deaths of many trapped within the collapsing twin towers.

CBS news anchor Dan Rather said the collapse of 7 WTC was, "reminiscent of...when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."

The FEMA report on the WTC collapse says:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

The interesting fact is, Larry Silverstein admitted to "pulling" the building. Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demolition. The only thing is, controlled demolitions take weeks to set up. Also, 7 WTC is the only steel skyscraper in the history of man to collapse from small fires.

• For every supposed conspiracy slant to 9/11, there is a non-conspiracy rebuttal. For example, just in the above paragraph the rebuttals are: 1) Silverstein didn't say pull the building. He said pull 'it'. What 'it' he was referring to is assumed by non-conspiracy thought to be the fire team. 2) Dan Rather is not a demolitions expert; that he thought it looked like a controlled demolition is meaningless; he lacks the knowledge. 3) When you can name another steel structure with very similar to design to WTC 7 that experienced like fires, then it becomes relevant that other like buildings haven't collapsed. Simply that a building is made of steel isn't enough. 4) If the fires were so small, then why were their huge columns of smoke rising from it in several phots?
  
  This sort of debate can go on and on and on and on ad nauseam, sine fine. Such debates are poorly served in mediums such as this. There are plenty of forums available for discussing the events of 9/11. I suggest you avail yourself of those forums. --Durin 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

"For every supposed conspiracy slant to 9/11, there is a non-conspiracy rebuttal." The arguement is not conspiracy v non - conspiracy, it is conspiracy v conspiracy, and stating it in any other way is a slant. The official theory is a conspiracy theory, remember the 19 hijackers? Problem is there is no evidence to support that "official theory", it is full of holes. Explosions in WTC towers too? Yes there were, and more than just eyewitness accounts. http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/FOIAbombsWTC.php , so to use the colapse of the WTC towers as a precident for the collapse of 7 is abusrd. You need to speak accuratly, the governments version of the conspiracy is merely a theory, you need to understand that. The burden of proof is in their court, and it can be proven, they have no proof, and if you are going to defend Silverstein, and the official theory, then prove it! If you can not prove it, then you should not be repeating it as fact in your encyclopedia.

An error in assumption is worth noting...Durin...seems the puffs of "air" come out before building 7 even starts to fall. How could your theory of air from inside being forced out hold water? the building isnt falling while the puffs come out of the building! It doesnt add up to support your claim