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)

124

Comments

  • #92
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    bonkey wrote: »
    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.

    Apparently the suggestion is that Larry was talking to a fire chief about the operation of saving building 7.
    Appartently, according to the fire chief, you don't talk to the owner of the building when you're in control of the operation.
    Which raises the question, is Larry just a big fat liar?

    Who was in building 7, to make it such an interesting target?

    So Larry owned building 7 before he bought the towers, he owned the building that had some interesting people in it got hit by a car and bought the towers from a hospital bed.

    This stuff happens ever day right?


  • #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    Apparently the suggestion is that Larry was talking to a fire chief about the operation of saving building 7.
    Appartently, according to the fire chief, you don't talk to the owner of the building when you're in control of the operation.
    Which raises the question, is Larry just a big fat liar?

    Huh a few posts ago you were insisting that the only explanation was that Larry was admitting his part in the conspiracy.
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    Who was in building 7, to make it such an interesting target?
    Why would it matter who was in the building when you can't provide a scrap of evidence to show the building was demolished?

    Are you going to address the points raised by paddyirishman85 or just ignore them in the name of truth?


  • #94
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    King Mob wrote: »
    Are you going to address the points raised by paddyirishman85 or just ignore them in the name of truth?

    Are you always so demanding?

    The points raised by paddyirishman85 are his beliefs and he's welcome to them.
    In the name of truth, I ask the questions and look for the answers myself and from other people. If I think the answers presented don't fully answer the question, then I leave the question open.
    If the person providing that answer then continues to shout louder, stomp their feet and generally become apparently angry that their answer isn't sufficient to convince someone else. Then it's probably best if they just move on and take their tantrum elsewhere.


  • #95
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    Are you always so demanding?

    The points raised by paddyirishman85 are his beliefs and he's welcome to them.
    In the name of truth, I ask the questions and look for the answers myself and from other people. If I think the answers presented don't fully answer the question, then I leave the question open.
    If the person providing that answer then continues to shout louder, stomp their feet and generally become apparently angry that their answer isn't sufficient to convince someone else. Then it's probably best if they just move on and take their tantrum elsewhere.

    So that's a no then?

    Have you ever thought your answers don't fully answer the question?
    Cause paddyirishman's points kinda show they don't.

    Maybe before you move on to bigger picture stuff you should focus on the details.
    What's the point of looking at the big picture when none of the details support it?


  • #96
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    Are you always so demanding?

    The points raised by paddyirishman85 are his beliefs and he's welcome to them.
    In the name of truth, I ask the questions and look for the answers myself and from other people. If I think the answers presented don't fully answer the question, then I leave the question open.
    If the person providing that answer then continues to shout louder, stomp their feet and generally become apparently angry that their answer isn't sufficient to convince someone else. Then it's probably best if they just move on and take their tantrum elsewhere.

    The points I raised aren't my beliefs, the only personal belief I had was questioning if the fire chief would have had the authority to order a building to be demolished rather than ordering his men to pull out and let it burn because it was no longer structurally sound.

    The rest is pretty much either fact or the only logical explanation


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    The points I raised aren't my beliefs, the only personal belief I had was questioning if the fire chief would have had the authority to order a building to be demolished rather than ordering his men to pull out and let it burn because it was no longer structurally sound.

    The rest is pretty much either fact or the only logical explanation

    and indeed it is your logic and I respect that.
    But just because one answer is given and no other can be formally given as fact, does not mean the one answer given is correct. Which allows those that wish to (like myself) to remain with the question.


  • #98
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    hkcharlie wrote:
    In the name of truth, I ask the questions and look for the answers myself and from other people. If I think the answers presented don't fully answer the question, then I leave the question open.

    Lets just look at the question you asked....
    hkcharlie wrote:
    Larry says himself that they brought it down

    That doesn't look like a question...
    hkcharlie wrote:
    So the owner of the buildings said he did it

    That doesn't look like a question either...

    I've just re-read the entire thread, and nowhere have you asked whether or not Silverstein may have meant "demolish" when he said "pull". You have clearly stated (twice) that this is what he meant, and then defended that single interpretation against all suggestions that there are other possibilities.

    How, exactly, is that leaving the question open?

    Me...I don't know if Silverstein told the truth. I don't know if he spoke to the fire chief at all. If he did, I don't know if he had any input in the decision making process or was simply told what was happening. Its possible that he made suggestions and was given the impression that they were being taken on board because they happened to be in line with what the real decision-makers were doing. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that if the building was demolished, and Silverstein was in on it, that this was some Freudian slip.

    What I do know is that it is far from clear that "Larry says himself that they brought it down". It is certainly open to question as to whether or not "the owner of the buildings said he did it".

    Despite repeated insistences that the word "pull" just isn't used in this context, Merriam-Webster list one meaning of the word as "to remove from a place or situation". Dictionry.com list a meaning as "to withdraw or remove". This seems a consistent theme in the dictionaries I've checked. Those that list demolition as a usage of teh word are pretty-much unanimous in the usage of the term "pull down".

    At best, I would say that if one could show that WTC7 was a planned demolition, then this comment would be sufficient grounds to ask whether or not Silverstein had advance knowledge and/or was party to the conspiracy.

    Otherwise, it seems to me that the argument is little more than "if we assume this is how his comment should be interpreted, then WTC7 was demolished"....which in turn is no different to saying "if we assume WTC7 was a planned demolition and Larry was in on it, then we can conclude that WTC7 was a planned demolition".


  • #99
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Another point I'd like to raise is the fact that we don't know if the term "pull it" was actually used in the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief. He said "... and we made the decision to pull it..." etc, but we don't know if that term was actually used in their conversation as there is no recording of it. In the interview where he says "pull it", he is summarising the full conversation in a sentence or two, so it is obvious that he would have said things differently in the full conversation.

    I'm not saying he didn't say "pull it" to the fire chief, but we don't know if it was actually said in their conversation.


  • #100
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    The final, and I hate to say it, blindingly obviously flaw in the "pull it" as a command for the demolition of WTC 7 is this.

    For it to be true not only does it mean that Larry Silverstein is involved in the murder of 3,000 Americans, possibly the greatest criminal conspiracy in the history of the world, as well as insurance fraud on a staggering scale, but that he just went and confessed to all of this on national television weeks after committing these crimes. Therefore making him the dumbest evil criminal mastermind in the world.


  • #101
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Exactly, and funnily enough, he didn't seem too bothered about it after he just "admitted" it on televion for the World to see


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    I thought WTC7 was as good as empty when it went and so the "pulling" of building 7 wouldn't immediately be incriminating of Larry. It is of course the can of worms that it opens, if that's what he did mean.

    Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
    The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.


  • #103
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    I thought WTC7 was as good as empty when it went and so the "pulling" of building 7 wouldn't immediately be incriminating of Larry.

    Yeah, but to go back you can't prep a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition using cables or explosives in an afternoon.
    It is of course the can of worms that it opens, if that's what he did mean.

    The story has always been that the building was damaged by debris from the tower's collapse and uncontrolled fires burnt throughout all day.

    You're trying to suggest that they orchestrated one of the greatest criminal frauds in history but didn't decide to get their stories straight before being interviewed on camera.

    Really?

    Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
    The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

    Except that this wasn't a garden shed on fire. It was a 47 store building with a unique structure, built over a Con Ed power substation and a subway stop. It also contained the city's emergency management office. As such I imagine that the building's owner would be an invaluable resource to a fire chief, with Silverstein's knowledge of the building, and therefore be kept in contact for consultation.


  • #104
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
    The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.

    Exactly. So how would it be possible for Silverstein to order the building to be demolished if "pull it" did indeed mean to demolish the building? Since it is entirely the fire chiefs operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner, then anything Larry Silverstein said in that conversation is irrelevant.

    Larry Silverstein wouldn't have had the authority to "pull the operation", but that doesn't mean he couldn't have suggested it to the fire chief in order to ensure minimal loss of life.


  • #105
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    hkcharlie wrote: »

    Also surely "pull it" can't mean "pull the operation", refering to a conversation with the fire chief, because the fire chief doesn't talk to the owner of the building about doing such a thing.
    The fire chief says that once the building is on fire and they are dealing with it, it is entirely his operation and nothing to do with the buildings owner.
    And if you read the entire quote it says quite clearly the he thought it was a good idea to pull and that "they" made the decision to pull it not Silverstien himself.


  • #106
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Hkcharlie I have no problem admitting that when Silverstein said 'Pull it' I assumed he meant the operation to save the building. Since there was no evidence of controlled demolition pulling the operation made the most sense to me. Now this was an assumption on my part and as Bonkey rightly points out we don't know as fact what he actually meant at the time, although he has subsequently said he meant pull the operation.

    You might not believe this but I'm not fixed to any version of events here. For any version of events I read or hear I'm going to ask the practical questions first. With the controlled demolition version we should have residue of explosives, a way to plant the explosives, a reason they didn't go off in the crash and fires, seismic records etc. But we have none of these things, not even one. So we can't even get past the basics of the controlled demolition theory. What we have is an assumption that Silverstein openly admitted to the biggest CT in history on TV and a superficial similarity to a controlled demolition.


  • #107
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

    This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

    This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.


  • #108
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.
    So a week to set up all the explosives to take out a 70 story building?
    Sounds like a tough job.
    Anything like evidence for this?

    And you do know that this video claims thermite was used not explosives?

    Any back up for this story then?
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses.
    It showed no such thing.
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

    And the building was showing plenty of signs that it was going collapse well before it actually did. Of course it's impossible that a firefighter would use a poor choice of words or than this lady would mishear or misremember?
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.
    Look at that, a series of rapid explosions starting from the bottom on every floor followed immediately by the collapse of the building. Exactly what you don't see in the WTC7 collapse.

    And note how much work has been done on the outside of the demolished building.

    So really you're the one showing us an orange and calling it an apple planted by the government.


  • #109
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

    This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

    This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

    anyone else?


  • #110
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    anyone else?

    My answers not good enough or something?


  • #111
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This video questions a number of issues including why bomb sniffing dogs were removed and people evacuated from WTC7 a week prior to 9/11 for no apparent reason.

    Okay so. A heightened security alert was lifted prior to 911, as in extra security. They didn't take away the normal security in any way. See here. There was still at least one bomb dog at the complex. What specific evacuation are you referring to?
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This video has a nice close up of that ripple effect of explosions down one side of building seven just before it collapses. It also has a nice lady explaining that she was told that they were about to bring down the building and to leave the area.

    Yup there's a ripple of ropey video. WTC 7 had been making creaking sounds for a couple of hours before it collapsed. So let's go back to my suggestion of using the practicalities... most of the walls of WTC7 were glass but somehow during these explosions hardly any of the glass broke, pretty incredible eh. Was this glass even blown out at all? It would seem not...See here. More about 'squibs'.
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    This is an orange and shows the importance of everything to happen so very quickly at the same time for a building to colllapse all at once.

    So it does seem to me the guy in the video is showing us an orange but wanting us to believe it's an apple. Controlled demolition is very distinctive, there are no sign of that at WTC7. In the video you linked you can see the penthouse falling into the building before the main collapse starts and with no sounds of explosions. Look at all the stills and video.


    So we still have no residue of explosives, I've still seen no way to plant these explosives without anyone seeing, we still don't have a way the explosives wouldn't go off in the crash or fires and there are no sounds of controlled demolition. That summarise it?

    All the videos you're linking to contain no balance whatsoever. Do you wonder why they seem to leave out obvious problems with what they are saying and are very selective in using quotes? If they are so sure what they are saying is true why not actually tell the full truth?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    meglome wrote: »
    Okay so. A heightened security alert was lifted prior to 911, as an extra security.
    noted
    meglome wrote: »
    They didn't take away the normal security in any way. See here. There was still at least one bomb dog at the complex. What specific evacuation are you referring to?
    not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.
    As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

    (I have to say this has completely broken the ice in this conversation for me and well done!)


    I know I have more to comment on - but this is as much as I can muster for the moment, I got stuff to do.


  • #113
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    noted
    not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.
    As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

    (I have to say this has completely broken the ice in this conversation for me and well done!)


    I know I have more to comment on - but this is as much as I can muster for the moment, I got stuff to do.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explosion

    Explosion does not have to mean "the use of explosives".


  • #114
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    not incredibly clear is it? They do say "who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building" which adds to the what were they questions.

    WTC7 would have been hit by debris from the plane crashes and then hit hard from the collapses, not to mention the sound of the collapses. Anyone in the building at those times would have heard what they could have easily thought were explosions. However there is no controlled demolition I've ever heard of or seen that the explosives go off and some time in the future the building collapses. In all the controlled demolition videos I've seen a series of timed explosives go off then building collapses almost immediately.
    hkcharlie wrote: »
    As for the dog story, that's sad. I'm not sure quite what to make of it, especially when the rest of the site http://www.novareinna.com is so curious as to include Britanica the unicorn as one of the protectors to the citadel Penumbra. WTF!

    Sure not the first site I'd choose to use. But it's a starting point to say that there may well have been bomb dogs in the buildings.


  • #115
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?


  • #116
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?

    Yea pretty much.

    The dust was collected for analysis long after 9/11 and there was only four samples. So not very conclusive.

    The may well have been thermite like substances in the dust but that doesn't mean that thermite was used to demolish the buildings.
    Thermite is pretty much aluminum and rust exposed to fire. The twin towers had lots of aluminum and rust and a good bit of fire.

    And then there's the problems with the idea that thermite was used to demolish the buildings in the first place....


  • #117
    hkcharlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭hkcharlie


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Dont know if this was posted already but they found Nano-thermite in the dust of the towers. Was a Danish Study. Has this been debunked yet ?
    can you provide the sources?


  • #118
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    when did WTC7 catch fire in the timeline??

    Most people are saying that the damage was caused by the other towers falling in it, but then people are also saying that it burnt for hours and hours in the morning.

    Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane, and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

    Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

    So what caused the fires in WTC7, it wasnt debris from teh falling buildings was there that much debris created by the first plane impact??


  • #119
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane, and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

    so who's bodies were these then? how many wtc7 staff died that day?


  • #120
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    when did WTC7 catch fire in the timeline??

    After the collapse of the first tower.
    Most people are saying that the damage was caused by the other towers falling in it, but then people are also saying that it burnt for hours and hours in the morning.

    Yes the towers collapsed in the morning and the WTC collapsed late afternoon, I don't understand your confusion.
    Barry Jennings reported that he was evacuated pretty much after the first plane,

    No he didn't
    and that WTC7 was on fire at that point, and that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby, "we were told not to look down, but we knew we were walking over Bodies'.

    He latter publicaly stated he was misquoted.
    Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

    Source sigh etc etc..
    So what caused the fires in WTC7, it wasnt debris from teh falling buildings was there that much debris created by the first plane impact??

    Why wasn't it debris from the collapsing towers?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,191 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Hell they even exited the building through a hole in the side caused by some form of explosion, this was before the second plane hit apparently and well before any of the buildings 'collapsed'.

    I think I remember seeing something like that in a documentary, but I don't think it Barry Jennings, I'm pretty sure it was some other guy, cos I remember the fireman who was in the building with him was then invited to the mans daughters wedding, which they showed in the documentary, and they were both white. They exited through a hole in the side of the building and climbed down the rubble that was there. This is just going by recollection though, I don't have time now to search for the video.


Advertisement