What is so hard to understand here? Why the name calling? Oh yeah, 'cause you don't want to answer my questions fully....
To wit - so did they decide to not fight the fires so as to save firefighters' lives? Now, isn't that the real reason they left it to burn? And isn't it true that the words 'pull it' were just an unfortunate choice? Do you really think that if Silverstein is so sinister to demo his own building for insurance money, that he would also be so dumb as to use the phrase 'pull it' ? Don't you think he would be better prepped to deal with the press? Kinda flies against all logic, don't it.......
You also asked me 'then how did they pull it?' Hmmm let's see, I believe you need to prove that one, since you're the one that is asserting it. You see, that's how things work, when you assert something, you need to prove it, with facts, not opinion.
Thinking of logic again, what do you say about a building pancaking at near free fall speed? I aked for an example to show what you mean that it doesn't happen like that, I'd love to hear one. Or maybe you don't answer 'cause you can't think of one. Know why you can't think of one? Because it doesn't exist.....
ANd why wouldn't the building collapse when they let the fire burn? Can you explain why it ABSOLUTELY would not? If you can't then there is a possibility that the theory you believe in is wrong. Right? And using OTHER buildings is a red herring because of the different way it was built. You'd be comparing apples and oranges. Remember, WTC were built with tube in a tube with long, unsupported trusses.... not the same as all the other buildings given in your video. Can you even see how they don't apply?
And what does FEMA changing its' story and saying they're not sure how it fell have to do with anything? Another red herring....
