911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

Silverstein's one lucky dude, wouldn't you admit? Insurance policy two weeks prior with a tailored terrorism clause, didn't show up for work that day, his daughter didn't show up either, he calls 'pull it' 20 minutres prior to the building collapsing and low and behold, it resembles a controlled demolition. Amazing really, has there ever been a luckier guy?

As for 'pull it', yes it is used when a structure is pulled away from it's surroundings, whether that be through explosives or otherwise.

here's an explanation from Demolitionforum.com

"pulling" is a fairly generic term. You might hear a blaster say that he is going to design the blast to pull a particular wall away from an adjacent structure, so pulling is used throughout an imploded structure to get it to fall where the blaster wants it.

Yeah, crafty bloke insuring for terrorism! Hate to think the WTC would be a target for terrorists.....oh, wait! And was it 2 weeks before? I didn't know that. Lucky it wasn't 2 months before because then he'd be out of the "conspiracy timeframe" ....because there is some sort of timeframe isn't there?

""Pulling" is a fairly generic term". Sure is!

 

[tigersnake]

Silverstein's one lucky dude, wouldn't you admit? Insurance policy two weeks prior with a tailored terrorism clause, didn't show up for work that day, his daughter didn't show up either, he calls 'pull it' 20 minutres prior to the building collapsing and low and behold, it resembles a controlled demolition. Amazing really, has there ever been a luckier guy?

As for 'pull it', yes it is used when a structure is pulled away from it's surroundings, whether that be through explosives or otherwise.

here's an explanation from Demolitionforum.com

"pulling" is a fairly generic term. You might hear a blaster say that he is going to design the blast to pull a particular wall away from an adjacent structure, so pulling is used throughout an imploded structure to get it to fall where the blaster wants it.

This very topic was discussed at length Bullus, 10 or 15 pages worth. For your benefit I already summed up a bit above, the fact you ignored it says a lot. Also, as was mentioned repeatedly in the prev. discussion, but for your personal benefit, the WTC and the UN were previously attacked by terrorists, so it would actually be pretty dumb to NOT have a terrorism clause.

As for the explanation of the term 'pulling', are you fair dinkum? That is a tin foil hat special, even for this thread.

 

[bullus_hit]

This very topic was discussed at length Bullus, 10 or 15 pages worth. For your benefit I already summed up a bit above, the fact you ignored it says a lot. Also, as was mentioned repeatedly in the prev. discussion, but for your personal benefit, the WTC and the UN were previously attacked by terrorists, so it would actually be pretty dumb to NOT have a terrorism clause.

As for the explanation of the term 'pulling', are you fair dinkum? That is a tin foil hat special, even for this thread.

Ok, so he meant something else, he was obviously referring to all the imaginary firefighters inside the building whilst talking to the imaginary fire chief on his phone. Please forgive me, and may Silverstein pull in peace from this day on.

 

[tigersnake]

Ok, so he meant something else, he was obviously referring to all the imaginary firefighters inside the building whilst talking to the imaginary fire chief on his phone. Please forgive me, and may Silverstein pull in peace from this day on.

Yes. while patting his white furry cat.

I watched the LS vid. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that he meant pull out. Let it burn, too dangerous. Thats what he said and thats whet he meant. The video is pretty funny.

 

[Baloo]

Not quite "Pull It" but close enough.

[youtube]vCadcBR95oU[/youtube]

 

[bullus_hit]

I watched the LS vid. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that he meant pull out. Let it burn, too dangerous. Thats what he said and thats whet he meant. The video is pretty funny.

And yet Jeffrey Scott Shapiro from Fox News states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

 

[tigertim]

And yet Jeffrey Scott Shapiro from Fox News states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

So Shapiro said that some Con Ed workers said that they'd heard,Silverstein on the phone? Well my mums cousins neighbor said he never said anything like that.

And in what world does the buildings owner , in these circumstances have the say in demolishing a building?

 

[Rosy]

There's a few problems with that explanation,

I'm not making assumptions or claiming anything as fact. I used that to show your claim that the pull it comment was "clear cut" based on a 20 second out of context clip you posted simply wasn't true. Not clear cut at all. There could be various explanations. We are simply not qualified to know the facts yet some don't let that get in the way of a good story.

And yet Jeffrey Scott Shapiro from Fox News states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

Your attitude over this just reinforces my opinion that conspiracy theorists cherry pick bits and pieces to suit their agenda. You say the "pull it" comment is clear cut based on a 20 second out of context clip. Now you support that by quoting a journo's report. I wonder how you can be so confident the journo's recollection would be more accurate than the emergency services commander on the spot at the time?

Like suggesting there was no plane debris at the Pentagon yet so quickly changing your mind after a couple of responses on here to the contrary and a bit of extra research that could have been done before forming the opinion there was no plane.

Do you seriously believe if a building is unsafe and has to come down building owners and insurance companies would be the ones make the call and in the meantime "several" NYPD officers would pass time time discussing sensitive information with a journo?

Interested to know what Disco and Harry think, based on that snippet, of the "pull it" claim and the cops casually chatting away with a journo while those who wouldn't be authorised to make the decision sorted out insurance details? Not just one cop but several of them?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

So Shapiro said that some Con Ed workers said that they'd heard,Silverstein on the phone? Well my mums cousins neighbor said he never said anything like that.

And in what world does the buildings owner , in these circumstances have the say in demolishing a building?

And why is it assumed he was talking about right then? He might have been talking about a contingency for weeks later if the building was compromised but still standing and would have to be demolished for safety reasons, mightn't he?

 

[tigertim]

And why is it assumed he was talking about right then? He might have been talking about a contingency for weeks later if the building was compromised but still standing and would have to be demolished for safety reasons, mightn't he?

And yet again this cunningly crafty man who has orchestrated the demolition of his own building ( for insurances purposes) not only goes on national tv "admitting" it but then calls up his insurance firm (in front of witnessess) and further discusses his cunningly successful plot!

Well is he the most stupid insurance fraudster ever or what?

He's sort of like the Homer Simpson of fraudsters:
"then I said "pull it" .....d'oh!!! No... i meant ...."Bullit" you know the Steve McQueen movie. Excuse me now, I have to make a secret phone call to my insurer to make sure I'm covered for this...even though only 2 weeks I insured for this....."

 

[Disco08]

Very Homerseque to profit $500M from a stuff up too. :hihi

Thats not what I said Disco. I said that to make the leap from [The US government is concealing details surrounding 9/11] to [it must be a conspiracy], is ludicrous. It is. Logically, it is ludicrous, way beyond drawing a long bow.

IYO. Others feel differently and like I said you're labelling their thinking as ludicrous. Your stance is one of classic intellectual superiority despite the fact many intelligent people disagree with you. You're also taking a very black and white view of a situation with a plethora of grey areas.

FWIW, as I see it there are all the trademarks of complicity. Unexplainably ignored explicit warnings. Reluctance to act during the event. Removal of evidence. Reluctance to investigate. Rigging the inquiry. Many victims eyewitnesses experts and officials who don't accept the OR. This proves nothing of course but it demands answers IMO. Even if it all came about through incompetence, shouldn't the focus be on understanding how and ensuring it doesn't repeat itself?

I've been trying to for quite a while now.

You don't accept evidence that challenges your hypothesis. You cherry pick evidence that fits your argument. You don't attempt to triangulate evidence. You reject the testimony of a bona-fide hyper-expert 8- like Noam Chomsky, who is in my book the most qualified person to provide a political analysis, and in particular his explanation of the nuts and bolts of why various 'facts' and coincidences might appear strange.

Seriously, if I have rusty pipes I call a plumber, if I want an unbiased analysis of a complex international political matter, Noam C is the man. Why stuff around with blogs and 'Truth' websites? Why take a Datsun 120Y when there's a Ferrari sitting there in the offing?

Wow. That's science to you? Ignore the evidence completely in favour of an appeal to Noam Chomksy?

I don't have a hypothesis. I don't cherry pick evidence at all, I try to look at the sum of the facts objectively when forming an overall opinion. I research what I see as the major points as best I can including reading as much as I can from the OR and apologist sites. Noam Chomsky wasn't there. He didn't testify, he gave an opinion. Are there any other hollow accusations you'd like to make mate?

If you need answers about engineering you go to an engineer. The more respected and experienced the better. Better still a group of respected and experienced engineers. You don't go to an intellectual philosopher no matter how good they are, it's just not scientific. You certainly don't ever abandon the scietific method if you're claiming to be scientific.

 

[Disco08]

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/9-11_truth_documentary

Mostly concerning the 9/11 commission.

Watched this and the full 84 minute doco last night. Can't recommend them highly enough.

Anyone else had a look? There's a section in the full doco about Paul Thompson who has constructed a narrative of the events purely from official mainstream media reports.

http://www.911timeline.net/directaction.htm

 

[Rosy]

Rigging the inquiry.

That's a pretty serious allegation. Which enquiry was rigged and how do you know that to be the case?

 

[Disco08]

The 9/11 commission. The best way to understand it is to watch the doco I linked too. This, like the AE objections to the NIST report on WTC7's collapse, is at the very heart of the truth movement's call for proper investigation. Being aware of these facts is crucial to understanding why many victims are still very upset.

 

[tigersnake]

IYO. Others feel differently and like I said you're labelling their thinking as ludicrous. Your stance is one of classic intellectual superiority despite the fact many intelligent people disagree with you. You're also taking a very black and white view of a situation with a plethora of grey areas.

No, its not an opinion Disco, get that out of your head, you're wrong, this is not an opinion, repeat, this is not an opinion, its logic 101, as I explained very simply and clearly, to make that leap, logically, is ludicrous. Its very clear logic in this case. Totally ludicrous. Even if there is a conspiracy, that is not the basis on which to form that view.

Wow. That's science to you? Ignore the evidence completely in favour of an appeal to Noam Chomksy?

I don't have a hypothesis. I don't cherry pick evidence at all, I try to look at the sum of the facts objectively when forming an overall opinion. I research what I see as the major points as best I can including reading as much as I can from the OR and apologist sites. Noam Chomsky wasn't there. He didn't testify, he gave an opinion. Are there any other hollow accusations you'd like to make mate?

If you need answers about engineering you go to an engineer. The more respected and experienced the better. Better still a group of respected and experienced engineers. You don't go to an intellectual philosopher no matter how good they are, it's just not scientific. You certainly don't ever abandon the scietific method if you're claiming to be scientific.

Referring to the big cheese was only part of my scientific approach. Its the first step in the research process, see what other credible, peer-reviewed sources have to say about the topic. Also, in this case, I have work, hobbies, a missus, its not feasible for me, or you i dare to venture, to undertake a scientific study of this.

Also, I'm not ignoring evidence. You've ignored the rest of that post, and also ignored and/or misunderstood the rest of my posts on this thread. If my approach to this thread has been to ignore evidence, I'll go he. You're just trying to set up a straw man to knock over. As I made clear, I turn to Noam C for an analysis of the macro, the big picture, the why. That is the main game here. While I have looked at conspiracy pieces of evidence, I see them knocked over 1 by 1, and i've seen the conspiracy supporters ignore that, and move on to the next spurious detail, and then work their way back to the start. and I'm over it, I think you can't see the forest for the trees. You really love this conspiracy, so I can see why you are resistent to Noam C. Being resistant to or dismissive of Noam C is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Its like being resistant or dismissive to Stephen Hawking's analysis if a black hole was forming above Ballarat,

 

[Disco08]

No, its not an opinion Disco, get that out of your head, you're wrong, this is not an opinion, repeat, this is not an opinion, its logic 101, as I explained very simply and clearly, to make that leap, logically, is ludicrous. Its very clear logic in this case. Totally ludicrous. Even if there is a conspiracy, that is not the basis on which to form that view.

It's not logic at all. You don't even know the nature of the conspiracy you're insisting must exist. How can it possibly be logical if you're purely speculating on matters you have absolutely no evidence of?

Referring to the big cheese was only part of my scientific approach. Its the first step in the research process, see what other credible, peer-reviewed sources have to say about the topic. Also, in this case, I have work, hobbies, a missus, its not feasible for me, or you i dare to venture, to undertake a scientific study of this.

Also, I'm not ignoring evidence. You've ignored the rest of that post, and also ignored and/or misunderstood the rest of my posts on this thread. If my approach to this thread has been to ignore evidence, I'll go he. You're just trying to set up a straw man to knock over. As I made clear, I turn to Noam C for an analysis of the macro, the big picture, the why. That is the main game here. While I have looked at conspiracy pieces of evidence, I see them knocked over 1 by 1, and i've seen the conspiracy supporters ignore that, and move on to the next spurious detail, and then work their way back to the start. and I'm over it, I think you can't see the forest for the trees. You really love this conspiracy, so I can see why you are resistent to Noam C. Being resistant to or dismissive of Noam C is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Its like being resistant or dismissive to Stephen Hawking's analysis if a black hole was forming above Ballarat,

Fine and agreed. You're approach is an appeal to an authority who isn't even an authority in any of the areas where actual evidence exists. SH is clearly an expert in black holes. NC is not an expert in engineering.

Have you watched the AE WTC7 doco? What about the 9/11 commission doco?

I don't love this conspiracy. What a ridiculous thing to say. I'm only using my sense of logic and reason to form an opinion. FWIW I can't see how accepting the OR in the face of so much evidence that says it was vastly inadequate is even close to logical. This is the murder of 3000 people we're talking about. Surely that's cause for the most thorough investigation in US history.

 

[Harry]

the apologists act like there's an agenda by these people against the govt. why would respectable professional decent people waste their time and energy if this is some conspiracy made up by some crackpots? heard a former NY journalist say that he's lost a lot of friends over his involvement in the 911 truth movement. the apologists defend the flawed evidence in the flawed investigation like it's their own findings and integrity that are at stake. How can you be so sure it's the truth. Unless you live in a dictatorship, everone has the right to ask questions, and there are many valid questions being raised. Why would the apologists want to deny the families of the victims a fair investigation and answers to their questions?

 

[tigersnake]

*smile* off with your 'apologist' *smile*. An apologist is someone who has a personal interest in defending a government or organisation. I don't, neither does Noam C, the opposite in his case.

The use of the term 'apologist' is a very unsubtle marginalising technique that does not wash here. I have no interest whatsoever in either view being discussed here. Show me some evidence and motive and I'll look at it.

 

[Disco08]

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/9-11_video

http://www.theage.com.au/tv/Documentary/911-Explosive-Evidence-4313104.html

 

[Azza]

It's amazing how heated this thread gets. I don't understand why people invest so much of a personal stake in it.