More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)

j1smithy

mysterious wrote: »

It's like you have to tell some people shocking reality slowly. It's like if I said all what I knew about 9/11 inside job 3 years ago, I would of been mocked and insulted and rediculed. Whereas now people are more aware, so people can register with this reality more. It not so shocking now. I remember my aunt's in laws(all muslims) were telling me years ago, 2002 jan. that it was inside job, I was going hysterical at these clams. This was the time we have been drummed so much fear of post 9/11 we were in shock. From someone who is aware and tells you that, is not always a bright thing to do.

But 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and theres not a shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny to suggest it was.

hkcharlie

j1smithy wrote: »

But 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and theres not a shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny to suggest it was.

Please note you cannot denounce these until you have seen them!

Loose Change Second Edition

In Plane Sight (there are 6 parts to this on youtube)

and this one Larry Silverstein is (I think) all you need to see to know that it's a conspiracy, right from the horses mouth.
That along with CNN and BBC confirms that there was controlled demolition at the world trade center complex.
Yes I know they say it collapsed, but Larry says himself that they brought it down, CNN and BBC report it before it happened. That's very clever!

meglome

hkcharlie wrote: »

Please note you cannot denounce these until you have seen them!

Loose Change Second Edition

In Plane Sight (there are 6 parts to this on youtube)

and this one Larry Silverstein is (I think) all you need to see to know that it's a conspiracy, right from the horses mouth.
That along with CNN and BBC confirms that there was controlled demolition at the world trade center complex.
Yes I know they say it collapsed, but Larry says himself that they brought it down, CNN and BBC report it before it happened. That's very clever!

Yawn

Or you could watch Screw Loose Change which points out the many flaws in loose change. Or read here

It has some balance, shock horror.

rockmongrel

In Plane Sight could be the most propagandist, psychologically manipulative piece of film I've ever seen.

hkcharlie

meglome wrote: »

Yawn

Or you could watch Screw Loose Change which points out the many flaws in loose change. Or read here
It has some balance, shock horror.

The people who made the "screw the loose change" miss the points being made by the film.
The fact that it has a title like "screw loose change" I think proves in itself the kind of person it was made by and their imbalance (as you like to put it).

I don't think you watched or listened to the original film, so I'm not going to enter an "is/is not" arguement about this, but if you want to make a constructive arguement against the facts surrounding WT7, I'm all ears.

hkcharlie

rockmongrel wrote: »

In Plane Sight could be the most propagandist, psychologically manipulative piece of film I've ever seen.

actually I thought it was pretty dull, how is it any different from any of the other films?

meglome

hkcharlie wrote: »

The people who made the "screw the loose change" miss the points being made by the film.
The fact that it has a title like "screw loose change" I think proves in itself the kind of person it was made by and their imbalance (as you like to put it).

I don't think you watched or listened to the original film, so I'm not going to enter an "is/is not" arguement about this, but if you want to make a constructive arguement against the facts surrounding WT7, I'm all ears.

You know if Loose Change was a documentary with a few errors or omissions then I'd agree with you. But it's full of errors and omissions so I think anyone gets to call it whatever they like. Calling it a documentary is being too nice even. There are literally pages of stuff wrong with it. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.

I did watch the original film and even then I could spot some of the errors in it. Anyway Screw Loose Change is the original film but with extra segments and text inserted, if they've added something you believe isn't true then feel free to point it out.

I've discussed 911 in here on many occasions. Maybe you should start this constructive discussion and I'll happily follow your lead. And let's not start with the 'bigger picture', let's try the details that should make up this bigger picture.

hkcharlie

meglome wrote: »

There are literally pages of stuff wrong with it. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.

..... and there's literally pages worth of what is wrong with what that site claims is wrong with it Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.

and as far as starting the discussion, I kind of did:

hkcharlie wrote: »

Larry Silverstein is (I think) all you need to see to know that it's a conspiracy, right from the horses mouth.
That along with CNN and BBC confirms that there was controlled demolition at the world trade center complex.
Yes I know they say it collapsed, but Larry says himself that they brought it down, CNN and BBC report it before it happened. That's very clever!

So the first arguement is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, something that apparently takes days to prepare in advance.


Secondly, the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, because that's what the eye witnesses, the firefighters that were right there said they saw.

So the owner of the buildings said he did it and the best witnesses you could possibly get at the scene said they saw it.

This is primarily why I lean towards this truth movemnt.

What are your views on that?

bonkey

hkcharlie wrote: »

So the first arguement is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, something that apparently takes days to prepare in advance.

Weeks to months, not days.

Also, preparing a building for demolition - if we were to base it on the normal explosive demolition - involves removing all windows, all contents from the building (including inner walls etc). It involves pre-cutting (partially or totally) support columns. It involves (literally) miles of cable to ensure that the (large amounts of visible) explosives are properly synchronised.

Are you suggesting that all of these things were present in WTC7, or that WTC 7 was an atypical demolition?

Explosive demolition has an unmistakable seismic signature - which was not present. It would typically also have an unmistakable audio signature - which was not present. So even if we get past the lack of cables, the presence of windows, and all the rest of it, we're still left with a problem that we need a completely-unheard-of explosive which doesn't have an explosive signature.

This, of course, is begging someone to mention thermite. Thermite, as we should all know, is not typically used in demolition. While some may theorise that it could be, this argument is just a way of rewording "WTC 7 didn't look like explosive-based demolition when you look a the details" so that it doesn't cause problems with the whole "it looks just like..." argument which is effectively key to the WTC7 argument.

So the owner of the buildings said he did it

The term "pull" is sometimes used in demolition when a building is rigged with cables and physically pulled off its center of gravity until it collapses. This is what was done with WTC6. Despite claims of it meaning "to demolish using explosives" being commonplace (here and elsewhere) I can honestly say that in the past 4 years (since I started discussing this) not one person has provided evidence of hte term being used for explosive demolition except in relation to WTC7.

So even if you don't accept any of the other possible interpretations of what Silverstein was saying, the reality is that his use of the word "pull" requires what is effectively a unique interpretation to understand it to mean "demolition by explosive".

and the best witnesses you could possibly get at the scene said they saw it.

No, they didn't. Threy said it went "floor by floor", which, strangely enough is what you'd expect to see when a building is collapsing because the top 15 or so stories are collapsing onto the rest of it. The said it was like there were detonators. Yes. It was like there were detonators. This doesn't mean there were detonators, nor did these firemen say "we think there were detonators[/i].

The video, at the end, asks if we should believe the firemen or the skeptics. I'm not aware of any skeptic who has said these firemen were wrong. The building did collapse floor by floor, and its reasonable to say that it was like there were detonators. So why does one have to choose? Why not allow that we believe skeptics and these firemen?

I can't remember exactly (but I'm pretty sure Diogenes will) - but I seem to recall that the firefighters in this video went on record afterwards saying that their comments were taken to suggest something they absolutely did not believe...that they did not, for one second, believe or suggest that explosive demolition was used.

I could be wrong on that, but let me ask you...if those self-same firemen have gone on record saying something to that effect...do you still find them a trustworthy and believable source?

hkcharlie

bonkey wrote: »

Weeks to months, not days.

Also, preparing a building for demolition - if we were to base it on the normal explosive demolition - involves removing all windows, all contents from the building (including inner walls etc). It involves pre-cutting (partially or totally) support columns. It involves (literally) miles of cable to ensure that the (large amounts of visible) explosives are properly synchronised.

Are you suggesting that all of these things were present in WTC7, or that WTC 7 was an atypical demolition?

The term "pull" is sometimes used in demolition when a building is rigged with cables and physically pulled off its center of gravity until it collapses. This is what was done with WTC6. Despite claims of it meaning "to demolish using explosives" being commonplace (here and elsewhere) I can honestly say that in the past 4 years (since I started discussing this) not one person has provided evidence of hte term being used for explosive demolition except in relation to WTC7.

So even if you don't accept any of the other possible interpretations of what Silverstein was saying, the reality is that his use of the word "pull" requires what is effectively a unique interpretation to understand it to mean "demolition by explosive".


No, they didn't. Threy said it went "floor by floor", which, strangely enough is what you'd expect to see when a building is collapsing because the top 15 or so stories are collapsing onto the rest of it. The said it was like there were detonators. Yes. It was like there were detonators. This doesn't mean there were detonators, nor did these firemen say "we think there were detonators[/i].

The video, at the end, asks if we should believe the firemen or the skeptics. I'm not aware of any skeptic who has said these firemen were wrong. The building did collapse floor by floor, and its reasonable to say that it was like there were detonators. So why does one have to choose? Why not allow that we believe skeptics and these firemen?

I can't remember exactly (but I'm pretty sure Diogenes will) - but I seem to recall that the firefighters in this video went on record afterwards saying that their comments were taken to suggest something they absolutely did not believe...that they did not, for one second, believe or suggest that explosive demolition was used.

I could be wrong on that, but let me ask you...if those self-same firemen have gone on record saying something to that effect...do you still find them a trustworthy and believable source?

two of the guys are clearly saying :
"floor by floor it started popping out.
it was like, as if they had detonators
like they had planned to bring down the building"

Sure they are saying the word "like" because like you and me, they obviously don't want to believe what it is that they are saying.
But they clearly say "like they had planned" and you trying to change the words that they use and the way they deliver them, quite honestly is ridiculous!

I never heard about WTC6, but I found this as the first thing to come up in a search.

How would you like to explain CNN and the BBC?

Undergod

This highlights the importance of punctuation.

6th

Undergod wrote: »

This highlights the importance of punctuation.

Do you think that post is adding anything worthwhile to the thread?

Undergod

Yes, I'm saying that the quote given by hkcharlie is ambiguous, the was he's written the quote means in could be interpreted in at least two ways.

I can't watch the video at the moment, as I have no audio.

hkcharlie

Undergod wrote: »

This highlights the importance of punctuation.

You have to watch the video, that is why there is a video. You are right, the punctuation can change the way it's said and yes bonkey is trying to spin the words that were actually said (why, I don't know).

Also if you watch the video, you can see by their facial expression, hear their tone, watch there gesticulation and every other type of communication. You get from this that they categorically, without any doubt and no question mean that they thought there were explosives blowing up the building.

Watch it for yourself!

thecommander

hkcharlie wrote: »

Also if you watch the video, you can see by their facial expression, hear their tone, watch there gesticulation and every other type of communication. You get from this that they categorically, without any doubt and no question mean that they thought there were explosives blowing up the building.

Watch it for yourself!

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.

Undergod

In the linked video, he doesn't say "like they planned", he says "as if they planned", or "as if they were planted".

Penn

hkcharlie wrote: »

Also if you watch the video, you can see by their facial expression, hear their tone, watch there gesticulation and every other type of communication. You get from this that they categorically, without any doubt and no question mean that they thought there were explosives blowing up the building.

Watch it for yourself!

I'm sorry but that is one hell of a claim to make.

By reading someones body language you can tell a lot of things, but you can't "categorically, without any doubt and no question" tell what someone really means or thinks by body language in a video alone. I mean, why do you think lie detectors generally aren't used in courts, its because even by reading someones heartbeats, pulse, body temperature etc, you cannot prove with 100% accuracy what someone is really thinking.

Added to that the fact that they are being interviewed on-camera, about such a tragic and monumental event, I wouldn't be surprised if their body language was all over the place.

I'm not saying they're lying, I'm not saying they're telling the truth, as I haven't watched the video yet. But you can't say you can tell without a doubt what they really meant. You can't. I have seen 'Loose Change Second edition', and 'Loose Change The final cut' however, and I can safely say, they got a lot of stuff wrong, and people they interviewed for it have blasted them for misinterpreting what they said and making it seem like they meant something other than what they actually meant.

6th

hkcharlie wrote: »

You have to watch the video, that is why there is a video. You are right, the punctuation can change the way it's said and yes bonkey is trying to spin the words that were actually said (why, I don't know).

Also if you watch the video, you can see by their facial expression, hear their tone, watch there gesticulation and every other type of communication. You get from this that they categorically, without any doubt and no question mean that they thought there were explosives blowing up the building.

Watch it for yourself!

You you accept someone coming here and analysing your posts and making claims about you? Would you accept their results as fact?

bonkey

hkcharlie wrote: »

yes bonkey is trying to spin the words that were actually said.

I'm spinning nothing. I am saying that I disagree with your interpretation of the words. I interpret them differently. I am offering my reasons for my interpretation.

Also if you watch the video, you can see by their facial expression, hear their tone, watch there gesticulation and every other type of communication. You get from this that they categorically, without any doubt and no question mean that they thought there were explosives blowing up the building.

Again, we differ with our interpretation.

I don't believe its possible to determine the difference between what these men would behave like if they were describing running for their lives from a massive building which collapsed floor-by-floor as a result of impact from a plane and subsequent fires, and what they would behave like if htey were describing running for their lives from a massive building which collpased floor by floor as a result of impact from a plane, subsequent fires and the use of explosives.

We'll just have to differ on that one, I guess....but maybe you could point out how you think they would have behaved differently if all that was changed was the belief in the use of explosives...how they would have gesticulated differently or what tone they would have used if it was just one of the towers collapsing from impact-and-fire?

As I also said, my understanding is that the firefighters in that video subsequently stated that they in no way shape or form believed that there were explosives used, or that the building was collapsed using explosive demolition and that this video clip deliberately tries to misconstrue what they are saying.

How would you like to explain CNN and the BBC?

Same way I'd explain the news reports of the day about explosions on Capitol Hill. Confused reporting.

There were reports for hours that WTC7 was in danger of imminent collapse...that it was expected to fall. My guess is that somewhere along the line, something got miscommunicated and this became "it has fallen", which was duly reported ASAP by news stations who were reporting everything they were told.

As I said...there were reports that day about explosions on Capitol Hill...explosions that never happened. There were any number of conflicting and incorrect things reported that day. THats how news stations work in the middle of a disaster. You take the info and run with it straight away, and worry about inaccuracies later.

Seeing as you wanted to highlight that I didn't address this part of your post, how about you address my response on Silverstein. What reason do you have to interpret his use of the word "pull" as "demolish"?

I note, for example, that you had nothing to say about my response regarding Silverstein. Does this mean you accept the argument that when he said "pull" its highly unlikely that he was talking about "demolish using explosives"?

I'd rather we discuss the points already raised than just hop about all over the place. You raised what you said were

hkcharlie

Undergod wrote: »

In the linked video, he doesn't say "like they planned", he says "as if they planned", or "as if they were planted".

So by that interpretation, do you understand by their conversation that there were explosions that helped bring down the building?

Penn

An example of how words might be misinterpreted by media such as Loose Change

From Loose Change:

As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

From http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

hkcharlie

bonkey wrote: »

I'm spinning nothing. I am saying that I disagree with your interpretation of the words. I interpret them differently. I am offering my reasons for my interpretation.

They don't say it "it was like the building pancaked" etc the rest of your explantion you have filled in.

bonkey wrote: »

.how they would have gesticulated differently or what tone they would have used if it was just one of the towers collapsing from impact-and-fire?

They didn't, what you are suggesting is fictious. There is a video of them talking about explosions!

bonkey wrote: »

As I also said, my understanding is that the firefighters in that video subsequently stated that they in no way shape or form believed that there were explosives used, or that the building was collapsed using explosive demolition and that this video clip deliberately tries to misconstrue what they are saying.

Where is the video of that?

bonkey wrote: »

There were reports for hours that WTC7 was in danger of imminent collapse...

Imminent collapse from what?

bonkey wrote: »

What reason do you have to interpret his use of the word "pull" as "demolish"?

Answer that yourself

bonkey wrote: »

The term "pull" is sometimes used in demolition when a building is rigged with cables and physically pulled off its center of gravity until it collapses.

but otherwise you agree that the term "pull" is a demolition term for explosives. Either way it's a demolition term right?

And I suppose if it were relevent to being the use of cables like you say, they did this secretly and never spoke of it. Or for that matter ever present the real evidence to make this remark irrelevant. Whether it was with cables, explosives or anything else, why keep quiet about it and why did no one see it happen or speak about it. Other government spokes people have refused to comment on the fact that the building was "pulled" regardless of the fact that the owner said it himself.

Undergod

hkcharlie wrote: »

So by that interpretation, do you understand by their conversation that there were explosions that helped bring down the building?

No. I understand that what they saw was similar to a building being demolished with explosives.

To me, it seems like your version is more of a spin.

humanji

Here's a link to a lot of the quotes that were heard and what the people actually meant:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

uncleoswald

hkcharlie wrote: »

but otherwise you agree that the term "pull" is a demolition term for explosives. Either way it's a demolition term right?

You took the first sentence from bonkys explanation about the term "pull", which out of context can be used to back up your claims, and discarded the rest of the explanation that said:

bonkey: The term "pull" is sometimes used in demolition when a building is rigged with cables and physically pulled off its center of gravity until it collapses. This is what was done with WTC6. Despite claims of it meaning "to demolish using explosives" being commonplace (here and elsewhere) I can honestly say that in the past 4 years (since I started discussing this) not one person has provided evidence of hte term being used for explosive demolition except in relation to WTC7.

So even if you don't accept any of the other possible interpretations of what Silverstein was saying, the reality is that his use of the word "pull" requires what is effectively a unique interpretation to understand it to mean "demolition by explosive".

So either a) you only bothered to read the first sentence on the matter therefore calling into doubt your research capabilities. b) you did it on purpose to twist the argument in your favour (kinda fitting given your argument is in defence of Loose Change et all c) its a brilliant form of satire and you are in fact taking the piss out of the whole "truthers" movement or d) well, lets not say anything that might get me banned....

meglome

hkcharlie wrote: »

two of the guys are clearly saying :
"floor by floor it started popping out.
it was like, as if they had detonators
like they had planned to bring down the building"

Sure they are saying the word "like" because like you and me, they obviously don't want to believe what it is that they are saying.
But they clearly say "like they had planned" and you trying to change the words that they use and the way they deliver them, quite honestly is ridiculous!

You do understand what a simile is right?

We also seem to going back to the bigger picture very quickly.

meglome

hkcharlie wrote: »

..... and there's literally pages worth of what is wrong with what that site claims is wrong with it Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.

So we're just ignoring what we don't want to hear then?

hkcharlie wrote: »

So the first arguement is that World Trade Center 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, something that apparently takes days to prepare in advance.

Weeks and maybe months, in a full building. So other than it's basically impossible to actually do this in full building and have no one see anything?

hkcharlie wrote: »

Secondly, the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, because that's what the eye witnesses, the firefighters that were right there said they saw.

Links have been provided to show that's not the case.

hkcharlie wrote: »

So the owner of the buildings said he did it and the best witnesses you could possibly get at the scene said they saw it.

Using a term that has never been used for controlled demolition.

hkcharlie wrote: »

This is primarily why I lean towards this truth movemnt.

Well now that most of what you believe has been shown to be not as you thought, what now? More changing the topic?

I'm pretty sure that Larry Silverstien was referring to the operation to save the building when he said pull it. It's pretty obvious if you watch or listen to the entire interview and don't take the quote out of context.

Why else would he tell a firefighter to "pull it"?

Why would a firefighter be in charge of a controlled demolition while at the same time fighting a fire in the same building?

Oh and the fact it only very superficially resembles a controlled demolition but lack the actual characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Penn

Not to mention the fact that Larry Silverstein is not a contolled demolitions expert and would most likely not know of terms such as "pull it"

hkcharlie

Undergod wrote: »

No. I understand that what they saw was similar to a building being demolished with explosives.

To me, it seems like your version is more of a spin.

No spin and yes I agree with your interpretation enough for this instance.

hkcharlie

6th wrote: »

You you accept someone coming here and analysing your posts and making claims about you? Would you accept their results as fact?

No, I have never said their claims are fact, but I have said that they made a very strong suggestion that there were explosives. People that were right there and people that are professional enough to know what they are talking about and so there is every right to question the official report, as the official report did not include such exhibits!

As for your example, it does not allow anyone to quote my words as fact and it certainly doesn't allow anyone to make a suggestion that they or anyone else would make claims about me.

hkcharlie

humanji wrote: »

Here's a link to a lot of the quotes that were heard and what the people actually meant:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

We've already talked about the use punctuation and the interpretation of the written word.
That is why I provide the links to the videos at the start, because it's from the horses mouth for all to see.
Where is the section in that site that debunks the video's I put on display?

hkcharlie

uncleoswald wrote: »

You took the first sentence from bonkys explanation about the term "pull", which out of context can be used to back up your claims, and discarded the rest of the explanation that said:



So either a) you only bothered to read the first sentence on the matter therefore calling into doubt your research capabilities. b) you did it on purpose to twist the argument in your favour (kinda fitting given your argument is in defence of Loose Change et all c) its a brilliant form of satire and you are in fact taking the piss out of the whole "truthers" movement or d) well, lets not say anything that might get me banned....

The reason was, because I had another life outside of this one that was calling and I thought I wouldn't leave it unanswered, seeing as he sounded so desperate about it.

Yes you are right, I missed the full quote, I rushed my answer. However, the answer is there or there abouts.

The word "pull" has never been in my vocab before 9/11 to mean anything more than to grab something and bring it closer, a word used in launching clay pigeons, or something I would endeavor to do on a weekend with a pretty girl.
Which of these do you think Larry meant in relation to his building?

PS: keep d) to yourself and don't be so rude as to suggest it!

hkcharlie

meglome wrote: »

So we're just ignoring what we don't want to hear then?

no, you are ignoring the hundreds of arguements under each blog that save me or anyone else having to do it here.

meglome wrote: »

Weeks and maybe months, in a full building. So other than it's basically impossible to actually do this in full building and have no one see anything?

so you are saying that it came down of it's own accord then?

meglome wrote: »

Links have been provided to show that's not the case.

not exclusively, no they haven't. Links have been included to debunking sites, that debunk everything, but no one has been good enough to provide the video where the fireman say "you know what, actually it looked like it pancaked rather than exploded"

meglome wrote: »

Using a term that has never been used for controlled demolition.

Larry obviously thought that he was taking his building on a date, he does look a little crazy!

meglome wrote: »

Well now that most of what you believe has been shown to be not as you thought, what now? More changing the topic?

No one has changed the topic, but if you are convinced you have covered all bases, let me ask you this question:

Was the invasion of Iraq justified suitably at the time?

hkcharlie

King Mob wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that Larry Silverstien was referring to the operation to save the building when he said pull it. It's pretty obvious if you watch or listen to the entire interview and don't take the quote out of context.

Why else would he tell a firefighter to "pull it"?

Why would a firefighter be in charge of a controlled demolition while at the same time fighting a fire in the same building?

Oh and the fact it only very superficially resembles a controlled demolition but lack the actual characteristics of a controlled demolition.

If you can provide the full interview I'd love to see it again. I saw it once about 3 years back online and now I can't find it anymore.
If you can post here, I'd happily watch it again with an open mind.

*actually I've just watched a few clips of the same exert again and sorry, no, "lets pull it, they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" I'm pretty sure he meant demolish the building, but if you really think the rest of the interview disproves this, I'd still ike to see it.*

hkcharlie

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that Larry Silverstein is not a contolled demolitions expert and would most likely not know of terms such as "pull it"

Unless of course he had been talking to demolition experts.
Having said that, is it possible that a man that owns these kind of buildings might know the terms used to flatten one before building another?

hkcharlie

hkcharlie wrote: »

If you can provide the full interview I'd love to see it again. I saw it once about 3 years back online and now I can't find it anymore.
If you can post here, I'd happily watch it again with an open mind.

*actually I've just watched a few clips of the same exert again and sorry, no, "lets pull it, they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" I'm pretty sure he meant demolish the building, but if you really think the rest of the interview disproves this, I'd still ike to see it.*

Actually the full quote is :

Larry wrote:

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse."

From here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

To summarize:
He was talking to a fire department chief.
He was referring to the operation to save the building for the fire they were fighting.
He didn't make the decision to "pull it" it was most likely the fire chief he was talking to.

So why would he give the order to demolish a building to the FDNY?
Why would he refer to a loss of life when there was no one in WTC7 when it did collapse?
And most importantly, why would he admit this on camera for a freely available documentary?

Undergod

hkcharlie wrote: »

No spin and yes I agree with your interpretation enough for this instance.

So do you agree that the video you linked is not evidence of any sort that they knew the building was going to be demolished?

Penn

hkcharlie wrote: »

The word "pull" has never been in my vocab before 9/11 to mean anything more than to grab something and bring it closer, a word used in launching clay pigeons, or something I would endeavor to do on a weekend with a pretty girl.
Which of these do you think Larry meant in relation to his building?

PS: keep d) to yourself and don't be so rude as to suggest it!

To grab something and bring it closer:
Perhaps he was talking about the effort to put out the fires. 'Pull it' may have meant to pull the firemen out of the building and to let the fires burn and the building collapse with no people inside

Also, as someone already said, the only time 'pull' is used in controlled demolitions is when a building or part thereof is pulled off its axis by the use of large cables, something which obviously did not happen, as the building fell more or less straight down, and there were no rigs with cables attached to the building which would have been capable of doing so, particularly if the structure hadn't already been severely weakened by the fire and damage from falling debris. Rigs with cables to pull down such a structure would also have been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

so you are saying that it came down of it's own accord then?

Prolonged exposure to fire, damage from debris of 2 skyscrapers collapsing in the vicinity, flaw in the structural design. And these reasons are not mutually exclusive. It was a combination of all 3.

hkcharlie

Undergod wrote: »

So do you agree that the video you linked is not evidence of any sort that they knew the building was going to be demolished?

who is they ?
I think we are agreed "what they (the firemen) saw was similar to a building being demolished with explosives."
And if anyone should know what that looks like, the firemen should.

hkcharlie

hkcharlie wrote: »

who is they ?
I think we are agreed "what they (the firemen) saw was similar to a building being demolished with explosives."
And if anyone should know what that looks like, the firemen should.

Why would that be? Firemen don't demolish buildings.
And why is the collapse of WTC7 not like a demolition at all when you look at in anyway closely?

hkcharlie

So if he meant

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

to pull the firemen out of the building

do you think he would have said

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

pull the firemen out of the building

as opposed to "pull it"?
Or maybe he just meant "pull the other one"?

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Also, as someone already said, the only time 'pull' is used in controlled demolitions is when a building or part thereof is pulled off its axis by the use of large cables, something which obviously did not happen, as the building fell more or less straight down

... yes it fell more or less straight down into it's own footprint, exactly like a controlled demolition.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Prolonged exposure to fire, damage from debris of 2 skyscrapers collapsing in the vicinity, flaw in the structural design. And these reasons are not mutually exclusive. It was a combination of all 3.

.... and because of all three of these, it collapsed into it's own footprint, much the same as a controlled demolition, but it wasn't?

Undergod

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?

hkcharlie

hkcharlie wrote: »

So if he meant do you think he would have said as opposed to "pull it"?
Or maybe he just meant "pull the other one"?


... yes it fell more or less straight down into it's own footprint, exactly like a controlled demolition.

.... and because of all three of these, it collapsed into it's own footprint, much the same as a controlled demolition, but it wasn't?

Except it didn't fall on it's own footprint.


Or exhibit any characteristics of a demolition, like explosions for example.

Penn

hkcharlie wrote: »

So if he meant do you think he would have said as opposed to "pull it"?
Or maybe he just meant "pull the other one"?

All I'm saying is that the term 'pull it' can be interpreted in numerous ways. But focusing on that one term, which is taken out of context, which can possibly be attributed to one form of demoltion even though you claim he meant a different form of demolition, said by a man who has no experience in demolition who did not have the authority to order such a thing, is quite frankly ridiculous.

... yes it fell more or less straight down into it's own footprint, exactly like a controlled demolition.

.... and because of all three of these, it collapsed into it's own footprint, much the same as a controlled demolition, but it wasn't?

Again, some clarity is needed, I said more or less straight down. I was comparing the collapse relative to collapse by giant rigs pulling the building over by using cables. As King Mobs photos show, it didn't exactly collapse into its own footprint, as controlled demolitions are designed to do. We discussed in a previous thread how, iirc, the 2 neighbouring buildings later had to be demolished due to the damage sustained by the collapse of WTC7.

Do you not think that those 3 factors I stated could have caused WTC7s collapse?

bonkey

hkcharlie wrote: »

So if he meant
to pull the firemen out of the building

do you think he would have said
pull the firemen out of the building
as opposed to "pull it"?

By this logic, if he meant "demolish the building using explosives", don't you think he'd have said "demolish the building using explosives" as opposed to "pull it"?

... yes it fell more or less straight down into it's own footprint, exactly like a controlled demolition.

There's that word like again.

meglome

So we have some firemen and I assume others that compared aspects of what they heard to an explosion. Just like the head on car crash I witnessed some years back sounded like an explosion. I have no issue with people saying something was like an explosion. People use similes every day.

But the sounds of controlled demolition are quite distinctive, there are none of these sounds recorded in video, audio or indeed in the seismic record. There were no traces of explosives found in the rubble and the report that thermite was supposedly found is very dubious indeed.

Controlled demolition...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Now let's just say we ignore the lack of evidence for explosives and assume they were used. Let's just look at what the practicalities of using these explosives would be.

1. It can take weeks to months to prepare a building for controlled demolition so how do you plant tons of explosives in these large full buildings and run cables for these explosives but not one person sees anything?
2. Even if they could get the people out of the way for a short period of time how are the explosives and cables going to be hidden?
3. How do you get planes flying 490 and 590mph respectively to crash into the exact spot you've planted the explosives in?
4. How does this crash not immediately cut the control cables or set the explosives off?
5. With thermite a spark would set it off so how did the thermite not ignite in the fireball and subsequent fire?

I'm sure there are other practical questions but these are what came off the top of my head.

bonkey

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

We discussed in a previous thread how, iirc, the 2 neighbouring buildings later had to be demolished due to the damage sustained by the collapse of WTC7.

Not quite.

The Verizon building was repaired over 3 years, at a cost of 1.4 billion.
The Post Office was also repaired over 3 years. Not sure of the cost.
30 west Broadway - just north of WTC7 - was also badly damaged. Its renovation is still ongoing.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

the report that thermite was supposedly found is very dubious indeed.

It doesn't matter how dubious it is, to be honest.

We're led to believe that this collapse was an explosive-based demolition, with a large part of that argument being based on the similarities to same.

Thermite is not an explosive, and therefore not used in explosive-based demolition. There is no (known) equivalent "thermite-based demolition", meaning there is nothing thermite-based we can compare it to.

So for thermite to even enter the discussion, all parties must first agree that we are not talking about explosive-based demolition, but rather a form of demolition that we've never seen and have nothing to compare to....which then begs the question of how we can argue that it looks like such an event in the first place.

It also means that we must all accept that the various quotes etc. of people hearing things explode, or saying that something was like an explosion are all out of the game...because thermite isn't an explosive.

Penn

bonkey wrote: »

Not quite.

The Verizon building was repaired over 3 years, at a cost of 1.4 billion.
The Post Office was also repaired over 3 years. Not sure of the cost.
30 west Broadway - just north of WTC7 - was also badly damaged. Its renovation is still ongoing.

Really? Sorry, my mistake. I guess I didn't recall correctly

I'll have a look at the thread I thought I saw that in later, not enough time now.

bonkey

I posted a link at some stage...waaaaaay back...which had a nifty site showing what collapsed, what was demolished, what was repaired, and so forth.

I'll see if I can dig it up via search.