Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)
Options
Comments
-
You're saying a bunch of firemen have never seen a building on fire before? More than once in passing?Sure I've no problem with them comparing an event which they've never seen anything like before to something else.
you obviously haven't watched the film or understood it or further more, refused to listen. But again, we move from the points.So George Bush personally ran the security did he?
a plane can bring down the building, but if you were to use explosives, all of a sudden you say there would need to be loads of it. You're contradicting yourself!He he he. So it's clutching at straws to ask how you hide tons of explosives in a full building never mind how you'd even site them in the first place.The building collapsed from where the planes hit. So if there was explosives involved why didn't the explosives go off in the crash and subsequent fire? Why weren't the cables cut? And no matter how hot it actually was in the fires it was very hot, at least 600 degrees+ and a fraction of that would set off explosives.How was it 600 degrees? Says who? You mention cables! If the buildings fell due to fire. How come the building that was hit first fell second after burning for around an hour and 45 mins and the second building to be hit fell after burning for under an hour with a plane hit that didn't even hit the core.
you mean in a case of an accident a plane would not travel that fast? Why? (again, totally off point and totally wrong)They were working on the basis this would be an accident so the plane wouldn't be travelling between 490 and 590mph either.
Explosions, explosions, explosions
no, that peolpe said that things were actually what they were at the time and then a whole bunch of other people that weren't there make up a story that doesn't include or address the eye witnes reports.Ah okay. What facts? that people said some things were like other things?
And other people did too :
more witnesses of explosions
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
YesSo do we find residue of explosives?
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Yes, but you don't want to pay attention to it enough to the point you want to mock it by saying George Bush did it himself. However it was done, it was done and there are plenty of eye witness accounts of it. All of whom you are not willing to believe.Do we have any way all these tons of explosives could be planted?
I think you need something called a detonator to make explosives go bang.Can we figure out why they wouldn't go off in the actual crashes and fires?
Recorded sounds - done! Seismic data, what, totally off point and easily binned.Do we have any recorded sounds or seismic record of controlled demolition?
yes, people that were there, that saw explosions, that say it like it was as they were there. Professional people that have experience of fires everyday, reporting something extraordinary in disbelief. Peolpe that were actually in the building, trying to save people from the fires, firemen who lost lives and friends to the tragedy. Firemen that have never had their explosion reports answered and been told that they didn't hear or see what they say they heard or saw.But we have a few people who used some similes to describe what happened.
distinctive noises "like there were detenators or something" I have a number of firemen on video saying they heard it and saw it and I have the owner of the building saying he "pulled it".Did you watch the video of the controlled demolition I attached? The charges are distinct and clear as day as they go off. Go watch the hundreds of controlled demolition videos on the internet and you'll hear the same thing. But strangely not at the WTC, which is usually why thermite is rolled out.0 -
thecommander wrote: »Just because someone thought something does not make it real. If I saw a building collapsing the only reference I would have to that is a demolition, I've never seen a building collapse from anything else. So for someone to describe it using those terms is not out of the ordinary.
People often describe a motorbike engine backfiring as sounding like a gunshot, but in all reality its just an engine backfiring.
but do you think that the firemen would know what a fire looked like?0 -
Your post #10 in this thread implies to me that the firemen had been told beforehand and were aware that it was going to be demolished. Do you agree that the video does is not evidence of that?
They said "as if they planned" or "as if they were planted", not "like they planned", the quote which you were taking out of context. You were changing the words that they use and the way they deliver them, and that quite honestly is ridiculous.
Also, why would the NYFD be in on it? You think you could tell all those guys that important part of your big conspiracy and it would never get out? If all of the firefighters involved knew?
Don't read the words, listen to them, that's why there is a video. My comments relating to these words that are used by the firemen in the video, remain the same.
Who said the NYFD were in on it? What forum are you in?0 -
I've said it at least three times. The it in "pull it" refers to the firefighting operation to save the building.Thank you for reinforcing my point, the man on the radio says "pull everyone out of there" not "pull it". The only scenario where you would say to another person "pull it" is colloquial and entirely not relevant to this conversation.
You yourself have not managed to put the term "pull it" into a sentence that backs up your theory of "getting them out of there". I have tried, believe me I have, please show me.
I mentioned those other points because you were saying that "pull" was never use to mean "get people out".
No when he said pull it he meant pull the operation.so you think when Larry said "pull it" he meant pull it over? Where's the evidence of that and why didn't he say so when asked to explain himself. Where was the footage of them doing this.
Pull it, is a demolition term, in all of this there is a video of a man saying "pull it" I think in relation to the WTC6. I'll find it if you can't find it yourself.
The only time pull is used in demolition terms refers to a specific type pf demolition, one that doesn't look anything like the collapse of WTC7
Please post this video.
I have seen the video. Why would Silverstien admit his part in the biggest conspiracy in America on video for a freely available documentary?I think the term is that he messed up, got caught out etc Why do you think I am talking about this point if it didn't happen?
A series of rapid explosions accompanied by flashes directly before the collapse?Except there were explosions and several eye witness fireman that were there say that it was like that.
Cause not one of the videos shows that.0 -
Now hold on, you are the one who misquoted, and as I said above, your post makes it seems as though you are saying that the firemen knew in advance it was going to be demolished. Therefore they would have to be in on it. Have I misread post #10?
I did listen to the video, that's why I'm able to quote what the fireman said.0 -
Advertisement
-
and in your previous example he doesn't say "pull it" does he!I've said it at least three times. The it in "pull it" refers to the firefighting operation to save the building.
I mentioned those other points because you were saying that "pull" was never use to mean "get people out".
No when he said pull it he meant pull the operation.
The only time pull is used in demolition terms refers to a specific type pf demolition, one that doesn't look anything like the collapse of WTC7
Please post this video.
Here is the video of the guy saying "pull building six", so I guess it's not an old term that isn't used any more.
The spotlight wasn't on WTC7 and when he made the comment it became much more in the spotlight. It is quite obviously something that I guess he'd wish he never mentioned.I have seen the video. Why would Silverstien admit his part in the biggest conspiracy in America on video for a freely available documentary?
The videos show numerous witnesses reporting explosions.A series of rapid explosions accompanied by flashes directly before the collapse? Cause not one of the videos shows that.
more witnesses of explosions
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Sound of explosion
and you are saying that there weren't any explosions?0 -
Now hold on, you are the one who misquoted, and as I said above, your post makes it seems as though you are saying that the firemen knew in advance it was going to be demolished. Therefore they would have to be in on it. Have I misread post #10?
I did listen to the video, that's why I'm able to quote what the fireman said.
ok ok ok - lets slow down and breath for a bit shall we?
pint - ok
Now, when you first commented on the point I was making, it appears you couldn't listen to the video because your audio wasn't working.
However I might have written it, spelt it, worded it, punctuated it ... I have throughout asked all not to use the written word when discussing it, but to actually listen to it. Which I believe you have now done.
Under no-circumstances have I suggested that the firemen were "in on it".
Can we draw a line under this side issue now?
The point I was making, as I stated in post 20, was that by these firemens conversation, explosions were witnessed inside the building by these firemen.
I think it is fair to draw to this conclusion. I will certainly not call them liars! I wasn't there.0 -
Well I have no idea what you meant in post ten so, or what the relevance of "like they planned" is, but there's been miscommunication somewhere along the line I guess. Fair enough.
Don't really have the time to watch all teh other videos, so I'll keep out of that one for a while.0 -
No he was saying everyone was being pulled out, which you claimed is not a term used.and in your previous example he doesn't say "pull it" does he!
Silverstien was referring to the operation to save the building and how it was pulled.
Yes he was referring to the specific method of demolition using cables to pull the structure down.Here is the video of the guy saying "pull building six", so I guess it's not an old term that isn't used any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center
I would be kicking myself too if I had lets slip my involvement in a huge conspiracy.The spotlight wasn't on WTC7 and when he made the comment it became much more in the spotlight. It is quite obviously something that I guess he'd wish he never mentioned.
Have you actually seen a controlled demolition?The videos show numerous witnesses reporting explosions.
more witnesses of explosions
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Sound of explosion
and you are saying that there weren't any explosions?
How come there is no video of the WTC7 collapse that shows the very rapid series of explosions on all floors you see in every other demolition?0 -
He didn't say "pulled out" and I have never said that it is a term not used.Not he was say everyone was being pulled out which you claimed is not a term used.
Silverstien was referring to the operation to save the building and how it was pulled.
I have said that you wouldn't use the term in the way that he did to refer to people.
"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, '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."
Why would he say "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" in the same sentence, because "pull" is a term used to bring down buildings.
Your theory is (I believe) that he meant it like this "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' (meaning the operation) and then he goes on to say "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
It still doesn't fit, he confirms it with the final statement. Google it "pull the operation", no one uses it to mean that!
So you agree it is a used demolition term then!Yes he was referring to the specific method of demolition using cables to pull the structure down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center
you dont' say!I would be kicking myself too if I had lets slip my involvement in a huge conspiracy.
Have you totally ignored the fact that I provided 5 videos of many more people (that were actually there) saying that there were explosions.Have you actually seen a controlled demolition?
How come there is no video of the WTC7 collapse that shows the very rapid series of explosions on all floors you see in every other demolition?
Are you saying that there were no explosions?0 -
Advertisement
-
I was taliking about the firefighter in the video I posted.He didn't say "pulled out" and I have never said that it is a term not used.
Yes you would. Both times he was refering to pulling the operation.I have said that you wouldn't use the term in the way that he did to refer to people.
"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, '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."
Why would he say "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" in the same sentence, because "pull" is a term used to bring down buildings.
Yes it does.Your theory is (I believe) that he meant it like this "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' (meaning the operation) and then he goes on to say "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
It still doesn't fit, he confirms it with the final statement. Google it "pull the operation", no one uses it to mean that!
"'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the operation to save the building.' And they made that decision to pull the operation and we watched the building collapse."
Not really far fetched is it?
Yes for a very very specific type of demolition useing cables not explosives.So you agree it is a used demolition term then!
Are you claiming the WTC7 was pulled down by cables?
Or maybe he didn't admit anything and people are putting a meaning on an out of context quote?you dont' say!
There might have been explosions. But none that are consistent with a demolition and there are certainly other explanations.Have you totally ignored the fact that I provided 5 videos of many more people (that were actually there) saying that there were explosions.
Are you saying that there were no explosions?
In a demolition there is a rapid series of explosion on all floors of a building with visible flashes followed immediately by the collapse of the building.
None of the videos of the collapse show this.0 -
who say "pull everybody out of here" not "pull it" or "pull" or even "pull the operation".I was taliking about the firefighter in the video I posted.
If you want to play make believe I suppose anything is possible. He didn't say that did he!!!!!!!!"'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the operation to save the building.' And they made that decision to pull the operation and we watched the building collapse."
Not really far fetched is it?
And like I said, google the phrase "pull the operation", no one uses it, there are no search results for "pull the operation". NO ONE USES IT!
Great - you agree it is a demolition term.Yes for a very very specific type of demolition useing cables not explosives.
I'm claiming it was helped down and didn't come down because of fire!Are you claiming the WTC7 was pulled down by cables?
There is nothing out of context about it, it is you that is making up the out of context, it is you that is saying "this is what he meant to say!"Or maybe he didn't admit anything and people are putting a meaning on an out of context quote?
I don't care about the pretty picture demolition that you are refering to, it obviously wasn't meant to be a safe way of bringing down the building. It was meant to put the fear of god into each and every individual watching it unfold for the pretext to war in Iraq and Afganistan!There might have been explosions. But none that are consistent with a demolition and there are certainly other explanations. In a demolition there is a rapid series of explosion on all floors of a building with visible flashes followed immediately by the collapse of the building. None of the videos of the collapse show this.0 -
I posted it because you claimed that no one uses the verb "pull" in that context.who say "pull everybody out of here" not "pull it" or "pull" or even "pull the operation".
So then the slightly modified phrase I posted makes no sense?If you want to play make believe I suppose anything is possible. He didn't say that did he!!!!!!!!
And like I said, google the phrase "pull the operation", no one uses it, there are no search results for "pull the operation". NO ONE USES IT!
Yes a demolition term for a specific type of demolition that is completely different to the one you're claiming.Great - you agree it is a demolition term.
Pulling means pulling with cables not explosions.
But seems you like to take what you want for quotes instead of their actual meaning.
So it wasn't pulled?I'm claiming it was helped down and didn't come down because of fire!
Really, it looks like that's exactly what you are doing.There is nothing out of context about it, it is you that is making up the out of context, it is you that is saying "this is what he meant to say!"
Ah so it's a demolition that doesn't look like a demolition but does? Great logic.I don't care about the pretty picture demolition that you are refering to, it obviously wasn't meant to be a safe way of bringing down the building. It was meant to put the fear of god into each and every individual watching it unfold for the pretext to war in Iraq and Afganistan!0 -
and in your example he didn't just say "pull" or "pull it" which are the devine words of Larry.I posted it because you claimed that no one uses the verb "pull" in that context.
You changed the words .......
........... sure it makes sense when you change the words. But he didn't say that did he.So then the slightly modified phrase I posted makes no sense?
it is a demolition term that means bring down the building.Yes a demolition term for a specific type of demolition that is completely different to the one you're claiming.
Pulling means pulling with cables not explosions.
You keep changing the words Larry used, not me!Really, it looks like that's exactly what you are doing.
Do you even no what the word demolition means?Ah so it's a demolition that doesn't look like a demolition but does? Great logic.
It doesn't mean
demolition means (strangely enough) to demolish something.there is a rapid series of explosion on all floors of a building with visible flashes followed immediately by the collapse of the building.0 -
You claim that no one used the word "pull" to describe the removal of people from an area.and in your example he didn't just say "pull" or "pull it" which are the devine words of Larry.
This is not so.No, because "pull it" is never used to say "lets get out of here" or "get them out" or words to that effect, but it is a demolition term.
Ah but lets say from the context it was clear he was referring to the operation to save the building. The it in pull it.You changed the words .......
........... sure it makes sense when you change the words. But he didn't say that did he.
With steel cables.it is a demolition term that means bring down the building.
You're not getting this at all.
You're claiming that it was an explosive demolition. A pulling demolition does not involve explosives. It's a completely different and specific type of demolition.
No you're inferring a meaning that plain isn't there.You keep changing the words Larry used, not me!
I offered a different and much more likely meaning.
You've yet to explain why he admitted his part in the conspiracy at all. Or why this has been no effort of suppress this documentary. Or why it was released in the first place.
You claimed that it was a demolition because it looked like one.Do you even no what the word demolition means?
It doesn't mean demolition means (strangely enough) to demolish something.
I pointed out it was missing several characteristics of a demolition.
You now claim that these characteristics where not there because it wasn't like a demolition. Again fantastic logic.
So how come none of the videos of the collapse show any of the signs of a demolition?0 -
pull is not used by itself and I certainly wouldn't describe people as "it" exclusively. "Pull them.." maybe or like you said "pull the operation", but can you find an example of this being commonly used.You claim that no one used the word "pull" to describe the removal of people from an area.
(And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse...........I like the way he puts it in the same sentence)
give me one example other than your make believe Larry example where "pull it" is used to say "lets get them out of here" or "get them out"This is not so.
No lets not say, you can't just keep changing the words that are used, you are rewriting what people said.Ah but lets say from the context it was clear he was referring to the operation to save the building. The it in pull it.
You're right, Im not getting it, please support it for me!With steel cables.
You're not getting this at all.
You're claiming that it was an explosive demolition. A pulling demolition does not involve explosives. It's a completely different and specific type of demolition.
I am at least using the words that he used, you are chnaging what he said.No you're inferring a meaning that plain isn't there. I offered a different and much more likely meaning.
You can't put the cat back in the bag. You can make sure everyone else shuts their mouths.You've yet to explain why he admitted his part in the conspiracy at all. Or why this has been no effort of suppress this documentary. Or why it was released in the first place.
Stick to the fact of the arguement, there were explosions, explosions which helped to bring down the buildings.You claimed that it was a demolition because it looked like one.
I pointed out it was missing several characteristics of a demolition.
You now claim that these characteristics where not there because it wasn't like a demolition. Again fantastic logic.
So how come none of the videos of the collapse show any of the signs of a demolition?
I have all the eye witnesses here on video saying they saw and heard explosions. We even hear in an explosion in one video.
Bombs bring down buildings.
Why do you refuse to recognise something that is right in front of you with your own eyes and claim it to be something else?
You're saying it couldn't have been bombs, because you can't see it happening in a way that you associate with buildings being brought down.
Please, explain the explosions for me.0 -
Bombs aren't the only things that cause explosions. It could of been a gas main. It could of been anything. The real fact is that people say they saw explosions. They do not know what caused them.0
-
The it refers to the operation. I've said this over and over again.pull is not used by itself and I certainly wouldn't describe people as "it" exclusively. "Pull them.." maybe or like you said "pull the operation", but can you find an example of this being commonly used.
(And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse...........I like the way he puts it in the same sentence)
give me one example other than your make believe Larry example where "pull it" is used to say "lets get them out of here" or "get them out"
Any I ask you again does it not make sense to believe the "it" he was referring to was the operation?
I didn't change the word I was putting context to them.No lets not say, you can't just keep changing the words that are used, you are rewriting what people said.
You're the one trying to it means to demolish every though it doesn't.
I honestly don't know how to explain it any clearer.You're right, Im not getting it, please support it for me!
Pulling it in demolition terms specifically and only refers to pulling a building down with steel cables. Not using explosives.
Can you supply one instance of someone referring to an explosive demolition as pulling?
And note that WTC6 was pulled down by cables before you claim anything else.
Again adding possible context. You're the one claiming it means something it can't mean.I am at least using the words that he used, you are chnaging what he said.
Or you could not sign the release that allows the interview to be shown. Or tie up the distribution.You can't put the cat back in the bag. You can make sure everyone else shuts their mouths.
Or you could not expose your plan on camera.
Do you seriously think that he would let it slip on a documentary about 9/11?
All that planning and , oops, he says the one thing he shouldn't have said.
You'd think it'd be top of the list of stuff to avoid.
And the explosions used demolitions are on every floor and go off in rapid succession with very visible flashes, and are followed immediately by the complete collapse of the building.Stick to the fact of the arguement, there were explosions, explosions which helped to bring down the buildings.
I have all the eye witnesses here on video saying they saw and heard explosions. We even hear in an explosion in one video.
Bombs bring down buildings.
Why do you refuse to recognise something that is right in front of you with your own eyes and claim it to be something else?
You're saying it couldn't have been bombs, because you can't see it happening in a way that you associate with buildings being brought down.
There are several views of WTC7 collapsing and in all of these the signs I mentioned should have been apparent. They are not.
The explosions you're talking about are singular and not in series, at different floors and in most cases were not seen. Thus not consistent with a demolition.
Electrical transformers, gas tanks/mains, collapsing sections any number of things could explain them.Please, explain the explosions for me.
Have you any other evidence to show that there were explosives used?
Videos of them going off? Forensic evidence?0 -
more witnesses of explosionsBombs aren't the only things that cause explosions. It could of been a gas main. It could of been anything. The real fact is that people say they saw explosions. They do not know what caused them.
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Sound of explosion
seems like a lot of explosions going on!0 -
more witnesses of explosions
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Sound of explosion
seems like a lot of explosions going on!
Or a number of people hearing the same few explosions.
But that wouldn't support your belief now would it?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I never said I don't believe them. I said I don't think the explosions they heard were caused by bombs. Most of them probably don't think so either.You don't want to believe these people. Actual, real people, with real experiences.
How can you be so apethetic?
There are other more likely explanations. Also it's likely that they are reporting the same few explosions.
But it must be because I'm apathetic.
Nothing to do with the complete lack of evidence at all.
Also it's a good sign for your argument that you now have rely on appeals to emotion instead of actual evidence.0 -
no, it doesn't !!!! For reason's I'm fed up repeating.The it refers to the operation. I've said this over and over again.
Any I ask you again does it not make sense to believe the "it" he was referring to was the operation?
So by putting them in context, you change the actual words he said? Well that's ok then.I didn't change the word I was putting context to them.
You're the one trying to it means to demolish every though it doesn't.
I asked you to support it, not repeat it. I don't find the word of King Mob gospel. And that doesn't mean asked your mates to back you up, you need to find an authority or something that explains it. A debunking site won't do. The conspiracy sites say "pull" means a demolition andthe debunking sites say it doesn't. What else do you have?I honestly don't know how to explain it any clearer.
Pulling it in demolition terms specifically and only refers to pulling a building down with steel cables. Not using explosives.
Can you supply one instance of someone referring to an explosive demolition as pulling?
And note that WTC6 was pulled down by cables before you claim anything else.Again adding possible context. You're the one claiming it means something it can't mean.
pointing the finger even moreOr you could not sign the release that allows the interview to be shown. Or tie up the distribution.
Or you could not expose your plan on camera.
I told you, it wasn't an issue until he said it. If he hadn't had said it, we wouldn't be talking about it now.Do you seriously think that he would let it slip on a documentary about 9/11?
All that planning and , oops, he says the one thing he shouldn't have said.
You'd think it'd be top of the list of stuff to avoid.
how many demolitions have you seen in a similar environment as that day?And the explosions used demolitions are on every floor and go off in rapid succession with very visible flashes, and are followed immediately by the complete collapse of the building.
There are several views of WTC7 collapsing and in all of these the signs I mentioned should have been apparent. They are not.
The explosions you're talking about are singular and not in series, at different floors and in most cases were not seen. Thus not consistent with a demolition.
you are happy to speculate, but you want more evidence.Electrical transformers, gas tanks/mains, collapsing sections any number of things could explain them.
Have you any other evidence to show that there were explosives used?
Videos of them going off? Forensic evidence?
As I have said, I have no reason not to believe the people that were there and said of the explosions and how they were like detenators etc etc etc etc
You don't want to even consider or explore that fact. You are not even interested to know if the "official report" explored these possibilities.
The whole point of the truth movement is that it hasn't been properly investigated and that those that should have done it properly first time round, didn't and chose not to look or talk about some VERY increminating witness accounts.
If there's nothing to hide then why don't they just do it?0 -
I noticed you were arguing.your argument
I am trying my best to reply to more than just you, if you hadn't noticed.
In the mean time I have to talk to you, who changes the actual words used in the quotes, so that they fit with your stories and speculate without evidence on almost everything you've said.
I'm making the point of the people that have spoken that were.
Larry's words you choose to change to fit your definition.
The other people are deluded and don't really know what it was that they saw, because you were obviously there and you know better than them.0 -
Bombs aren't the only things that cause explosions. It could of been a gas main. It could of been anything. The real fact is that people say they saw explosions. They do not know what caused them.
This is exactly the point. These were huge buildings full of things that would explode if left to burn, which they were.
HKCharile what your doing is completely ignoring exactly what a controlled demolition is actually like. I haven't the slightest problem with people saying stuff was like and explosion or that there was an explosion because that's what you would expect if a big building is left to burn. I haven't got the time now but I won't have any problem finding videos of fires with explosions that there were no explosives involved.
So back to what I actually said...- So do we find residue of explosives? No.
- Do we have any way all these tons of explosives could be planted? No.
- Can we figure out why they wouldn't go off in the actual crashes and fires? No.
- Do we have any recorded sounds or seismic record of controlled demolition? No.
There are no explosions whatsoever that sound like controlled demolition but you're insistent that's the only reason why there could be explosion in a big fire?0 -
It only doesn't make sense to you because you've already made up your mind.no, it doesn't !!!! For reason's I'm fed up repeating.
There are still questions your avoiding about your explanation.
Such as why would he be telling this to a firechief?
Yep that's right. Offering a possibility of what the "it" is changing the words.So by putting them in context, you change the actual words he said? Well that's ok then.
Again is it possible that he was referring to the operation the save the building?
No demolition experts have said that pull refers to all demolitions. It refers to demolition by pulling it with cables.I asked you to support it, not repeat it. I don't find the word of King Mob gospel. And that doesn't mean asked your mates to back you up, you need to find an authority or something that explains it. A debunking site won't do. The conspiracy sites say "pull" means a demolition andthe debunking sites say it doesn't. What else do you have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxlrcQL5Dk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fpull.htm&feature=player_embedded
Just like on a video you provided.
And you going to look at the stuff you've accused me of?pointing the finger even more
It wasn't an issue to admit, on camera, that he was involved with in plan 9/11?I told you, it wasn't an issue until he said it. If he hadn't had said it, we wouldn't be talking about it now.
Seriously?
Oh so they where using a completely different type of demolition that doesn't look anything like a normal demolition? But the reason you believe it is a demolition is because it looked like a demolition?how many demolitions have you seen in a similar environment as that day?
So why doesn't the videos show any of the signs of an actual demolition?
And there is no reason to believe the explosions where cause by bombs.you are happy to speculate, but you want more evidence.
As I have said, I have no reason not to believe the people that were there and said of the explosions and how they were like detenators etc etc etc etc
Why do you believe they were?
Have you considered that the government wasn't involved?You don't want to even consider or explore that fact. You are not even interested to know if the "official report" explored these possibilities.
The whole point of the truth movement is that it hasn't been properly investigated and that those that should have done it properly first time round, didn't and chose not to look or talk about some VERY increminating witness accounts.
If there's nothing to hide then why don't they just do it?0 -
I noticed you were arguing.
I am trying my best to reply to more than just you, if you hadn't noticed.
In the mean time I have to talk to you, who changes the actual words used in the quotes, so that they fit with your stories and speculate without evidence on almost everything you've said.
I'm making the point of the people that have spoken that were.
Larry's words you choose to change to fit your definition.
The other people are deluded and don't really know what it was that they saw, because you were obviously there and you know better than them.
Wow that's funny cause I didn't actually say "The other people are deluded and don't really know what it was" at all.
Maybe you should practice what you preach there.0 -
And yet no bombs, funny that...more witnesses of explosions
doctor says his patient said explosions
Willy
Explosions, explosions, explosions
Sound of explosion
seems like a lot of explosions going on!0 -
Reasons why it could not have been a controlled demolition:
1. The building would have had to have been under preparation for months. Explosives would have had to have been placed in holes drilled deep into the structural columns. This work could not have gone unnoticed.
2. Miles of cables connecting all the explosives would have to have been present. These cables would have been all over the place. This could not have gone unnoticed.
3. With the fires caused by the crash of the planes, the explosives would have been detonated instantly, which would have caused the towers to collapse within a maximum of about 5 minutes
4. There was no residue from the explosives. If explosives were used, there would have been chemical traces of the explosives.
5. Many firemen claim they heard explosives. It has been documented that when the plane hit the second tower, many firemen who were in the North Tower at the time thought an explosion had occured, as they could not see the South Tower and had not been informed of the second plane, and that firefighters who were in the North Tower when the South Tower collapsed, said it sounded like explosions. http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html
6. The term "pull it" is a demolition term, used when part of a building is pulled with cables. This did not happen on 9/11. No cables were used to pull any building. Larry Silverstein would not have had the authority to order something like this. The fire officer would not have authorised something like this if any of his men were still inside, and personally, I doubt he would have had the authority to order something like that either.
7. None of the collapses actually resembled a controlled demolition. The buildings fell down. A plane hit each tower, the impact of which would have damaged vital steel members and the fireproofing on the steel. The subsequent fires further weakened the steel, causing these members to fail. This places additional loading on undamaged steel members, loading and forces which they are not designed to take. This would cause these members to collapse, causing a collapse of the building. WTC7 was hit by debris and vibrational energy in the substructure due to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Subsequent fires further weakend the steel. A crucial steel member which was damaged and weakened by prolonged exposure to fire failed, causing an internal collapse before the outer structure, would have caused loud noises before the external structure began to collapse, which may have sounded "like an explosion".
Reasons why it could have been a controlled demolition:
1. Some people say they heard "what sounded like an explosion"
2. Larry Silverstein said "pull it"0 -
Advertisement
-
Larry's words you choose to change to fit your definition.
You are doing no different.
Despite asking people for evidence that terms are used they way they claim, you've yet to show a single example where "pull it" means "bring the building down using explosives".
All of this leads us to a simple conclusion...
There is no clear interpretation of what Silverstein meant. What he meant by the use of the word "pull" is not definitively clear. What he meant by the use of hte word "it" is also unclear.
This is at odds with your initial claim that Silvertein clearly stated that the building had been demolished.
You can argue that this is how you interpret his comments, but that's what it boils down to...an interpretation.0
Advertisement