Author Topic: 9/11 truth movement topic (Read 438079 times)

Elvis Oswald · « **Reply #945 on:** September 19, 2008, 06:35:31 AM »

The first time is when he say's... that the fire dept commander said... THEY

That's hearsay
haha

and he was "quoting" the FDC.

so HE didn't say THEY

then - he only say's it one more time. Where do you hear the other one?

There's no evidence to link the two THEYs

There is a UH to link PULL and PULL IT

So he did mean PULL IT

and PULL IT means to PULL a building down.

Where did you get "pull it away with cables"?

PULL IT means pull the building down with explosives

madsen · « **Reply #946 on:** September 19, 2008, 06:55:29 AM »

Quote from: Elvis Oswald on September 19, 2008, 06:35:31 AM

The first time is when he say's... that the fire dept commander said... THEY

That's hearsay
haha

and he was "quoting" the FDC.

so HE didn't say THEY

then - he only say's it one more time. Where do you hear the other one?

There's no evidence to link the two THEYs

There is a UH to link PULL and PULL IT

So he did mean PULL IT

and PULL IT means to PULL a building down.

Where did you get "pull it away with cables"?

PULL IT means pull the building down with explosives

Here are the three times that I'm counting:

"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."

I don't see any reason to assume the "they"s refer to different things/people.

The quote concerning the cables is on this page:

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

about 1/10 of the way down. It's easy to find the quote if you just search the page for the word cables.

Elvis Oswald · « **Reply #947 on:** September 19, 2008, 07:52:14 AM »

yep. not every day you try and pull down a building using cables. You usually use explosives.

That's what he said. And that's what he meant. They pulled down building 6 with cables.

Your 'source' left off the end of the video - plainly seen at the link I posted - where they pulled the building down with cables.

So this proves that:

#1 - your 'source' is lying by omission.

#2 - "pull it" is a term in used by demolition professionals to mean - PULL DOWN A BUILDING (which is the very thing you were trying to prove false - thank you very much)

#3 - "pull it" is not a term used by demolition professionals to mean - pull a building away from another one during demolition.

That website stated the 'fact' and then showed you half the video evidence and you latched onto the 'fact' and you have defended it here until waaay too late.

You have been misled on this point. IMHO, it was on purpose.

What do you think?

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #948 on:** September 19, 2008, 07:58:02 AM »

I believe the term "pull it" in this context refers to "the plug" as in pull the plug on the entire rescue mission, and get the people out. (their people)

Otherwise, this does not make sense. Why would the fire department, if they were supposedly in on it, blow the building with their men inside? To make it look better? I don't think so. A jury would never buy this evidence. (In my opinion, sometimes, juries will buy anything)

At least you guys are looking at it in detail. Also, buildings that size would have taken over a month to plant demo devices for a professional job, and that is only if they had a large crew and TOTAL access to all the buildings 24/7 during that time. Just not possible. I think folks would have noticed 55 gallon blue plastic drums of explosives strapped to all of the main supports on all floors, not to mention the miles and miles of det cord connecting them all together. This is not even plausible.

Bill

madsen · « **Reply #949 on:** September 19, 2008, 08:27:58 AM »

Quote from: Elvis Oswald on September 19, 2008, 07:52:14 AM

yep. not every day you try and pull down a building using cables. You usually use explosives.

That's what he said. And that's what he meant. They pulled down building 6 with cables.

Your 'source' left off the end of the video - plainly seen at the link I posted - where they pulled the building down with cables.

So this proves that:

#1 - your 'source' is lying by omission.

#2 - "pull it" is a term in used by demolition professionals to mean - PULL DOWN A BUILDING (which is the very thing you were trying to prove false - thank you very much)

#3 - "pull it" is not a term used by demolition professionals to mean - pull a building away from another one during demolition.

That website stated the 'fact' and then showed you half the video evidence and you latched onto the 'fact' and you have defended it here until waaay too late.

You have been misled on this point. IMHO, it was on purpose.

What do you think?

What? I agree that they used cables to pull down WTC6.

Anyway, my understanding was the use of cables was the critical issue here---if you use cables to pull on the building in the process, you are "pulling". I admit that I don't have any experience in this area though. Have you done demolition before?

ETA: Regardless of where this debate over pulling ends up, Pirate88179 wins the thread.

madsen · « **Reply #950 on:** September 19, 2008, 09:51:20 AM »

Here's some more information I found concerning the use of the word "pull", for anyone who is interested. It's on page 36 of this document:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Is ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œPullÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œDemolish a Structure With Explosives?ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

No.

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with
his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.

The document also references a Popular Mechanics article in which 5 demolition and engineering experts support the above statement.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #951 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:01:57 PM »

Quote from: madsen on September 19, 2008, 06:55:29 AM

The quote concerning the cables is on this page:

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

about 1/10 of the way down. It's easy to find the quote if you just search the page for the word cables.

This is easy to see, that this picture was taken, when the construction workers cleaned out
the area from all the debris and it was not taken on 9/11.
Then there would have been smoke on the picture..

This website is a lying website made to lie to the public.

Just compare, with what smoke a building collapses versus
controlled demolition.

These 2 examples show it perfectly:

Collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xg-I0xSBWc

Explosive demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbelXy1JNWE

WTC7 and WTC1 &2 resemble totally the explosive demolition
where all concrete is blowed to extreme dust.

Never believe the story of a collapse for WTC7 !

hartiberlin · « **Reply #952 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:15:36 PM »

Here is another building collapse due to
bad building in India.

Watch how low the smoke component is,
when this building collapses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmEiKMbfMyI

Also it is in a very environment in India, where the concrete can break easily
and dust tends to stay long in the air.

But if you compare it to the pyroclastic huge smoke buildup from
explosion, you can see the difference, thatWTC7 was brought down due
to explosive demolition.

We canÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t live without the tuth people ! Wake up...

hartiberlin · « **Reply #953 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:34:00 PM »

WTC 7 controlled explosive demolition looked to me pretty simular
to this controlled explosive demolition:

CN Tower demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNtRbX_pxJs

WTC7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWXDlr8FRIE

Compare it, how the 2 buildings fell.

It gets very clear that WTC7 was also controlled demolition.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #954 on:** September 19, 2008, 03:02:57 PM »

Watch this Prof.Steven Jones analysis.

He is an expert and he summarizes it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ZkT8WlgMY

madsen · « **Reply #955 on:** September 19, 2008, 03:45:41 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on September 19, 2008, 02:01:57 PM

This is easy to see, that this picture was taken, when the construction workers cleaned out
the area from all the debris and it was not taken on 9/11.
Then there would have been smoke on the picture..

This website is a lying website made to lie to the public.

This is the demolition of WTC6, which occurred in December, IIRC, not the collapse of WTC7. No one says that cables were used on WTC7.

Elvis Oswald · « **Reply #956 on:** September 19, 2008, 03:58:41 PM »

@Madsen -

There is no evidence that the fire dept was in on it... and it's not clear who he meant THEY were...

I wouldn't have expected him to slip up and tell the whole truth anyways. This was a slip of the tongue. He used the term PULL IT.

Wouldn't you think that PM could round up some 'experts' to say whatever they wanted?
And isn't that a Hearst publication?
Remember the Maine?

For that matter - remember WMDs in Iraq?

How about the Gulf of Tonkin?

Seems to me the same old people that have lied over and over are going to great lengths to prove the official conspiracy theory.

Elvis Oswald · « **Reply #957 on:** September 19, 2008, 04:16:32 PM »

@Pirate - I agree. It makes no sense that the fire dept would blow up the building. But what we are talking about is the choice of words that silverstein used. The whole fire dept thing is a straw man that Madsen has been humping.

When Rumsfield said TWICE that a missile hit the pentagon... he didn't also spout out other things about it. It was a slip.

Bush didn't say he saw the first plane hit the WTC on a CIA CCTV feed... but he did say he saw it on tv.
And that made NO SENSE - because the footage of the first plane was not available that morning.
So do we argue over what Bush meant?
It wasn't the second plane... he was in the classroom when that happened.

Just like Rumsfield and the missile comments... and Silverstein with the "pull it"... Bush slipped up.

I do agree that your explanation makes sense. But when he say's, they made that decision - to pull, and we watched the building collapse... it seems that the collapse was a result of the decision. Another slip? I think so - especially given the broader picture.

It's a fact that Prescott Bush was part of a plot to overthrow the government and install a fascist dictatorship.
His son was CIA director and later the PUSA.
Clinton was part of the drug smuggling operation that Bush and the CIA ran and is now closer to papa than little george is...
And little George has the same group of people around him that his father had AND Nixon had...
and Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all expanded the power of the executive branch and moved us closer to the facist state that grandpa Bush wanted.
hmmmm.

Even if you don't think the CIA killed JFK... it is a fact that they tried to invade Cuba after he told them not to.
And this same agency presented Operation Northwoods - and who knows what else that as not been declassified yet.
This same agency used false flag terrorism - blowing up school buses and mosques in Iran (operation Ajax - declassified)
These same people are in the shadows of every "conspiracy theory' from JFK, RFK, MLK, to Tonkin to Apollo to watergate to Iran/Contra, etc. And they are the ones who made Al Queda.

In the broader scheme of things - it all makes perfect sense.

AS far as explosives and the time it takes to prepare... it takes months of planning for sure. And they had that. There was also the weekends they shut off power to run fiber optics.

madsen · « **Reply #958 on:** September 19, 2008, 04:36:50 PM »

Quote from: Nomen luni on September 19, 2008, 02:22:19 PM

@madsen:
At least one demolition expert disagrees with that:

http://www.musiconline.com.br/videos/index.php?ida=961&videoId=-mvDcgf3x3I

Can you tell me which demolition expert is disagreeing? Maybe I missed something, but it sounded to me as if people were agreeing that you use the term "pull" when you are using cables in a demolition (which did happen with WTC6, but not WTC7, AFAIK). OTOH, you wouldn't use the word "pull" when the job uses explosives only, and no cables. That's my understanding.

Quote

Also from that link, what does the term 'Blow up' as used by the policeman mean? In my language, 'blow up' used in reference to a building means to 'destroy or demolish with explosives'.

I myself have spoken out loud about the "bombings" of the WTC towers accidentally from time to time (which I don't believe happened, for the record), so it could be that he misspoke. If he actually meant the building was going to be imploded, then were the police in on the plot as well?

Quote from: Nomen luni

I find the 'Popular Mechanics' kid's reaction on the phone very strange. He doesn't seem to show any interest in the caller's assertion that he has demolition experts confirming that 'pull it' is used in reference to demolitions. Even if you don't believe professionals use this term, Silverstein's no demolision expert AFAIK.

So are you arguing that even if "pull it" is not special demolition jargon, it still probably means "blow up the building", precisely because Silverstein is ignorant about the demolition business??

Quote from: Nomen luni

In answer to your question as to whether I think the BBC is in on a conspiracy and how the could get the information that the building would be pulled, I would like to share a couple of things with you.

The first is anecdotal. I have a friend who works as a weather reporter on a fairly large radio station here in the UK. He told me how when some busses were blown up he saw a live stream cut and taken over by the security services of the UK. I'm talking about the video streams that alert the radio guys to what's going on so they can report it. In other words, if the security services choose to present disinformation, it requires no complicity from the press.

That sort of thing certainly seems plausible to a point, although I'm not sure we are set up for that here in the US. IIRC, the BBC clip involves a correspondent reporting live from New York. Now my personal opinion is that she likely got her (incorrect) information about WTC7's collapse from CNN or perhaps another news source. Do you think the security services were involved in that particular report?

Quote from: Nomen luni

The second is this,
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=611
Unfortunately, the video has been removed from youtube, but I did see it some time back before this happened. What is not mentioned in the story there, but was on the video, is that a former member of MI6 stood up and asserted that it was common practice for the agency to control the media and disinform the public, and asked if it was still the case today? Dearlove only answered with something to the effect that he couldn't possibly respond to a question like that. Maybe you'll be able to dig this video up elsewhere if you're interested.

My point is that it's well known that the media both here and in the US can be controlled by intelligence agencies when it suits them.

I do think that intelligence agencies and other organizations could control media to some degree. For example, Cap-Z-ro actually posted an interesting story about a possible episide of this concerning Hurricane Ike. The story was that a "no fly" zone was established over the affected areas in Texas, I believe, supposedly to keep the area clear for emergency relief workers. Of course you have to wonder if part of the reason for excluding media was to prevent pictures of devastation etc that would further alarm Americans and others during a week when our economy seems to be unraveling.

Anyway, I think we have to take these incidents on a case-by-case basis, and decide if it really is logistically possible for intelligence agencies etc to have exerted such control.

madsen · « **Reply #959 on:** September 19, 2008, 04:45:40 PM »

Quote from: Nomen luni on September 19, 2008, 04:14:03 PM

@madsen,
please come back on some of the comments I directed at you above.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
The 'debunking' page that you yourself quoted says that's what 'pull' means, and that page is directly addressing Silverstein's quote on WTC7.

Yes, I agree that "pull" means to use cables to demolish the building. WTC6 was pulled. No cables were involved with WTC7, though, correct? I guess I don't understand the issue.

BTW: I'll be traveling much of the day, so y'all will have to do without my posts at least until this evening, probably.

Have fun.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 9/11 truth movement topic (Read 438079 times)

Elvis Oswald

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

Elvis Oswald

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

Pirate88179

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

hartiberlin

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

hartiberlin

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

hartiberlin

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

hartiberlin

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

Elvis Oswald

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

Elvis Oswald

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic

madsen

Re: 9/11 truth movement topic