Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 7th, 2008 #1041
Mark Kerpolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,718
Default

Did anyone see the ‘rebuttal’ thing on BBC2 yesterday?
 
Old July 8th, 2008 #1042
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie View Post
Are you suggesting Silverschwein said, 'Pull it' in this context? Cables attached to a bulldozer to pull down a 47 story skyscraper? He went on to say, 'and decision was made to pull and so we watched as the building came down'. Is that what you're suggesting? That THE BUILDING WAS "PULLED" DOWN BY BULLDOZERS?

Sounds like bull to me.
Of course it sounds bull if you regard it with the truther-premise, ie that Silverstein was talking about about blowing the building up. So I agree, which is why the demolition by explosives crap belongs in the truther-bin.

Quote:
Never? What you mean is you have not heard it used that way in your personal experience. Be accurate when you make a statement.

Or, do you mean "pull it" or "pull it down" is not a demolition term at all? If so, then I maintain that "fuck" is not a sexual term. You see, I've personally never heard it used in a sexual context. Never. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

While Building 6 was pulled by cables (eight stories), I have never personally heard of a building the height of Tower Seven being pulled (demolished) by cables.

Now without attacking the messenger, try to spin this:
Apart from what I just told Bernie, it is perfectly simple and you have all been handed this before, to which I recieved no on-point retorts but a ban instead.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The only context that "pull" has been used in demolition of any kind, aside from figures of speech or conversation like "pull the other one", were for small buildings where the construction crew could attach long cables in order to pre-weaken the given structure and literally pull it down with their bulldozers and so forth, had nothing to do with explosives.
There's no usage known to man were this has ever been in context ment to bring down a building with explosives.

*Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

*"Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote
Excerpt thereof;

"Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

"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." –Larry Silverstein

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon. Peter Ganci, Daniel Nigro.

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”

That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein essentially saying;

We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

Or was he saying;

We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”???

Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives?"

Did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that the Chief was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

It obviously refers to the recovery/rescue operation that they had to pull the plug on (pull it), that is why we saw how the firefighters got pulled out of the WTC7 almost immediately after that call and during the next two, three hours later the building was leaning, burning, tilting and finally came down after the top section floors had caved in (noticable by the east-penthouse cave in and the kink before it) etc.

*FDNY Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro; Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories.
*Structure Magazine; Single Point of Failure: "How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
*Physicist David Rogers; On the illogicallity of demolition claims for WTC 7.
*The Collapse of Building 7 (Jan., 2007, pdf); By Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise Fire Safety Director.


Quote:
Instead of the vertical beams terminating in the foundation, many of them terminate in these broad, horizontal trusses that span the width of the building. Because the building was basically hollow from the sixth floor down. It was built over this big Con Ed substation.

So those trusses carry these enormous loads far, far higher than we would see in a typical skyscraper. The combination of the falling debris - which greatly stressed the structure - raised the strain on these trusses. And then these fires that were fed in one case by a pressurized diesel fuel line, that raged for seven hours - and the current thinking of the engineers who investigated is more than enough to explain the collapse of the building.
And in fact when those trusses failed, what you would've seen was exactly what we did see, which is the building almost collapsing from the inside first.

-- Vincent Dunn, retired deputy FDNY fire chief and author of the textbook, "The Collapse of Burning Buildings",
 
Old July 8th, 2008 #1043
MOMUS
Doubts the official story
 
MOMUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Pineywoods
Posts: 4,974
Default

Jonoleth, while I can't help you with your predilection for lying, I can help you with your linguistic difficulties regarding the word "pull".

I looked up the word pull and found this under phrasal verbs:

pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
2. To reduce to a lower level.
3. To depress, as in spirits or health.
4. Informal To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pull+

Perhaps you're unaware that users of the English language tend to shorten verb phrases. For instance, just as an old building can be "pulled down" a floor or wall can be "shored up". Both words, down and up, are dropped from conversation as being otiose or redundant. Due to the "vector of gravity" there is really no other direction to pull an old building but down, no desirable direction to shore but up.

So, despite your lies, "pull" is used in the construction industry as a contraction for the verb phrase "pull down" just as shore is used in place of 'shore up"... no matter the means used; whether crowbars, cables, bulldozers, or explosives.

Get it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Of course it sounds bull if you regard it with the truther-premise, ie that Silverstein was talking about about blowing the building up. So I agree, which is why the demolition by explosives crap belongs in the truther-bin.



Apart from what I just told Bernie, it is perfectly simple and you have all been handed this before, to which I recieved no on-point retorts but a ban instead.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The only context that "pull" has been used in demolition of any kind, aside from figures of speech or conversation like "pull the other one", were for small buildings where the construction crew could attach long cables in order to pre-weaken the given structure and literally pull it down with their bulldozers and so forth, had nothing to do with explosives.
There's no usage known to man were this has ever been in context ment to bring down a building with explosives.

*Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"

*"Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote
Excerpt thereof;

"Larry Silverstein was the owner of the 47-story WTC building 7, which collapsed on 9/11, and he owns the new 52-story building 7, which opened in May, 2006 on the site of the old building. He was the leaseholder on most of the other WTC buildings, including the Twin Towers (the property is owned by The Port of New York and New Jersey Authority). He won the right to the 99-year lease only six weeks before September 11, 2001, after a long public bidding process.

During an interview in 2002 for the PBS documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, Mr. Silverstein said this about the fate of building 7 on 9/11:

"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." –Larry Silverstein

The conspiracy theorists (hereafter referred to as “CTs”) believe that Silverstein was ordering the FDNY to demolish, or to allow to be demolished, building 7.

In my experience, the CTs are in such a hurry to get to the “pull it” phrase that they neglect to read the statement carefully. While I will provide much evidence in this paper that’s intended to convince the most hardcore CT, all that’s really necessary is to apply a bit of logic to the Silverstein statement, so I’ll start by doing that.

The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip – twice, for a national TV audience – that he ordered his building to be demolished! Does that make any sense whatsoever? Can the CTs give an example of a similar “accidental confession” of a monumental crime in the history of the world? Keep in mind that if Silverstein thought he had said something wrong, he could simply have asked the crew to shoot that part again. Silverstein is a very smart guy who is in full possession of his mental faculties. He didn’t “slip up.”

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander...”
That was 32-year-veteran FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower. Silverstein was at home with his wife when he received the courtesy call from Chief Nigro in the afternoon. Peter Ganci, Daniel Nigro.

“...telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire...”

That’s correct, as we will see in great detail below.

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein essentially saying;

We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

Or was he saying;

We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”???

Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives?"

Did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that the Chief was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

It obviously refers to the recovery/rescue operation that they had to pull the plug on (pull it), that is why we saw how the firefighters got pulled out of the WTC7 almost immediately after that call and during the next two, three hours later the building was leaning, burning, tilting and finally came down after the top section floors had caved in (noticable by the east-penthouse cave in and the kink before it) etc.
__________________
Hmmph!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
 
Old July 8th, 2008 #1044
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MOMUS View Post


So, despite your lies, "pull" is used in the construction industry as a contraction for the verb phrase "pull down" just as shore is used in place of 'shore up"... no matter the means used; whether crowbars, cables, bulldozers, or explosives.

Get it?
As I said before;
The only context that "pull" has been used in demolition of any kind were for small buildings where the construction crew could attach long cables in order to pre-weaken the given structure and literally pull it down with their bulldozers and so forth, had nothing to do with explosives.
There's no usage known to man were this has ever been in context ment to bring down a building with explosives.

You do not pull down a building with explosives, the context makes no sense hence the "jargon" has never been documented to be used as so. If you disagree then stop posting bs I've already debunked and prove that it has been. Show me one documented case or one CD-contractor who says that "pull" has ever been used when they blow up a building.
If you fail, then you can't readily claim it to be a "jargon" to mean blowing up a building, since "pull" in demolition means to denote when you are actually physically pulling the structure down.

This old chestnut canard is simply one of the dumbest ever from the truther-camp. Mmm, as if "pull" ment by Silverstein as an admission (which he gave twice in the interview) that the FDNY blew the building up. I mean come on?!?
 
Old July 8th, 2008 #1045
Neil Hudson
Senior Member
 
Neil Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
*Structure Magazine; Single Point of Failure: "How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
According to this piece even though only a few out of many support columns were damaged by the pieces coming off of the other trade centers, the trade center 7 still collapsed because the support collumns did not go all the way from the top of the building to the botton and further below into the foundation but rather they stopped several floors above the ground floor and connected to some horizontal support pieces. This apparently made the building weaker and that's why it collapsed.

This topic is interesting. Does anyone have a counter point to this?
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #1046
MOMUS
Doubts the official story
 
MOMUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Pineywoods
Posts: 4,974
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
As I said before;
The only context that "pull" has been used in demolition of any kind were for small buildings where the construction crew could attach long cables in order to pre-weaken the given structure and literally pull it down with their bulldozers and so forth, had nothing to do with explosives.
There's no usage known to man were this has ever been in context ment to bring down a building with explosives.

You do not pull down a building with explosives, the context makes no sense hence the "jargon" has never been documented to be used as so. If you disagree then stop posting bs I've already debunked and prove that it has been. Show me one documented case or one CD-contractor who says that "pull" has ever been used when they blow up a building.
If you fail, then you can't readily claim it to be a "jargon" to mean blowing up a building, since "pull" in demolition means to denote when you are actually physically pulling the structure down.

This old chestnut canard is simply one of the dumbest ever from the truther-camp. Mmm, as if "pull" ment by Silverstein as an admission (which he gave twice in the interview) that the FDNY blew the building up. I mean come on?!?
As I said before, you're lying.
Common sense, knowledge of the English language, and this video prove it.
Watch it, jew.

__________________
Hmmph!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #1047
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Momus,

This clown, Jonoleth, is pulling(forgive the pun) this bulldozer nonsense word for word from a site run by a guy named Mark Roberts.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a


Mark Roberts lists his occupation as a New York City tour guide. And is known as the 911 truth movement debunker. I'm not really sure how giving guided tours of nyc qualifies him for anything other than tour guiding but that's probably an awkward question for Markie.

After perusing his site it's obvious he's either uninformed, blind or on the Payroll.
 
Old July 10th, 2008 #1048
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Look, I've debated alot of technically savy and qualified people of the truther-persuasion, none of which have given much creedence either to the "pull=blowing up building" idiocy. Even Richard Gage has stopped repeating it.

One would think the idea of Silverstein ordering the FDNY to do such a thing, after they had just lost some 300+ of their co-workers and friends in the previous collapse, would be stupid enough, but to go beyond this and claim that "pull it" means not only in the context given but in general to take down a building with explosives is incoherent.

Quote:
Common sense, knowledge of the English language, and this video prove it.
Watch it, jew.
No, the video proves that the word "pull" is literally used in its literal context, ie they are pulling the remnants of WTC-6 down with the bulldozers and cables attached to it. Either show me an example an actual example of this "jargon" being used to denote explosives, as opposed to the more obvious and literal interpretation, or pipe it with that old chestnut canard.

Quote:
This clown, Jonoleth, is pulling(forgive the pun) this bulldozer nonsense word for word from a site run by a guy named Mark Roberts.
Whoopsy daisies, a Sherlock Holmes in our midst. Was that hard for you to figure out, especially given the fact that I gave the excerpt notably from Roberts 9/11 site? heh

Quote:
Mark Roberts lists his occupation as a New York City tour guide. And is known as the 911 truth movement debunker. I'm not really sure how giving guided tours of nyc qualifies him for anything other than tour guiding but that's probably an awkward question for Markie.
Roberts doesn't talk from his own authority, he conveys the facts with thorough sourcing. If one would use your logic then anything Griffin says is bull since he's a theology guy and not a structural engineer... but of course you do not do that. Either way, Roberts is not offering his texts from a fallacy of authority, but from a stance of very very corroboratable, cross-referencable and actual facts. If it seems pesky to you then start with a point-on-point retort or stop whining.
 
Old July 10th, 2008 #1049
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post

No, the video proves that the word "pull" is literally used in its literal context, ie they are pulling the remnants of WTC-6 down with the bulldozers and cables attached to it. Either show me an example an actual example of this "jargon" being used to denote explosives, as opposed to the more obvious and literal interpretation, or pipe it with that old chestnut canard.
What is the point of debating this issue when your own website that you reference says:
Quote:
This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/is%2...tomean%22demol
Building 7 wasn't brought down by bulldozers. High rise buildings cannot be brought down by bulldozers and cables.So why would Silverstein use the jargon, "pull it" when he as owner of the building would be acutely aware that such a thing(bringing down a high rise building with dozers and cables) is impossible and even if it was would takes weeks if not months of pre planning to accomplish?
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1050
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Of course it sounds bull if you regard it with the truther-premise, ie that Silverstein was talking about about blowing the building up.
Hey Rumpelforeskin,

You say Silverschweinhund, when saying, "maybe the best thing to do is pull it, and so we made the decision to PULL and we watched as the building collapsed'', you maintain he was NOT suggesting to the Fire Chief that they (someone) should 'PULL' (the building down) because it (in Larry's opinion) was in danger of collapsing?

That's what you're trying to convince us isn't it?

What do you reckon he actually MEANT when he said this? That they should all go a lap dance session? Or have a steak sandwich? Has it crossed your mind that you might be insane?

That slimy, murderous old KIKE said in clear, plain English they blew the fucking buildings to the shithouse! The ink on his $7.2Billion dollar Insurance contracts had not dried when the greatest Insurance Hoax in history took place. He sits there and ADMITS they 'pulled' the building, HE was laughing at us and still is when he dances around the fucking golden calf and with his long, grasping fingers counting his ill gotten insurance shekels.

Jews, the 'inner party' did 911 and 3,000 innocent people were murdered in broad daylight for essentially two reasons: First was the costless demolition of financially troubled and structurally challenged buildings which were an albatross around the New York Port Authority's neck. Secondly the false flag which was 911 and even today the poor dumbed down Iowa farm boys over in Iraq getting their testicles shot off think Saddam Hussein did 911. Yet the despite the fact the Jewsmedia has failed to convince the taxpaying herd of American serfs 911 was done by 19 Arabs and box cutters they continue to prattle on about the 'official' version.

Drop dead.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1051
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
What is the point of debating this issue when your own website that you reference says:

Building 7 wasn't brought down by bulldozers. High rise buildings cannot be brought down by bulldozers and cables.So why would Silverstein use the jargon, "pull it" when he as owner of the building would be acutely aware that such a thing(bringing down a high rise building with dozers and cables) is impossible and even if it was would takes weeks if not months of pre planning to accomplish?
Only a complete idiot would think there could be an argument made that Building 7 was brought down by bulldozers. The point is that the "jargon" of "pull" is barely even jargon and also has nothing to do with buildings being brought down by explosives since it is not used in that context in controlled demolition at all. According to actual CD-experts it is used when you are SPECIFICALLLY "pulling" down a structure as aformentioned. If you disagree then show me a specific example or let this embarrising canard go which more and more truthers have been abandoning for the past years.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1052
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie View Post
You say Silverschweinhund, when saying, "maybe the best thing to do is pull it, and so we made the decision to PULL and we watched as the building collapsed'', you maintain he was NOT suggesting to the Fire Chief that they (someone) should 'PULL' (the building down) because it (in Larry's opinion) was in danger of collapsing?
It's "they made the decision", not "we". He was indeed talking to the FDNY Chief that, since there had been such terrible loss of life (certainly of firefighters as well) that perhaps the best thing would be to end, pull the plug, stop it, ie the recovery and rescue operation at WTC7.

Again as written earlier from the quoted article in my previous post;

Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein essentially saying;

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

Or was he saying;

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”

Quote:
That slimy, murderous old KIKE said in clear, plain English they blew the fucking buildings to the shithouse! The ink on his $7.2Billion dollar Insurance contracts had not dried when the greatest Insurance Hoax in history took place. He sits there and ADMITS they 'pulled' the building, HE was laughing at us and still is when he dances around the fucking golden calf and with his long, grasping fingers counting his ill gotten insurance shekels.
Still purporting one of the greatest and thoroughly debunked canards ever I see, of course. I've already debunked the insurance-argument several times to you before I got banned the last time, you weren't able to counter-argue with anything since the actual facts speaks for themselves. If Silverstein had this planned then why the heck did he insure the building for half and then subsequently had to spend years and years in court to get at least the minimum amount of the money required for it to be rebuilt?

Enough of the disinfo.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1053
ben shockley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
It's "they made the decision", not "we". He was indeed talking to the FDNY Chief that, since there had been such terrible loss of life (certainly of firefighters as well) that perhaps the best thing would be to end, pull the plug, stop it, ie the recovery and rescue operation at WTC7.

Again as written earlier from the quoted article in my previous post;

Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein essentially saying;

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

Or was he saying;

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”



Still purporting one of the greatest and thoroughly debunked canards ever I see, of course. I've already debunked the insurance-argument several times to you before I got banned the last time, you weren't able to counter-argue with anything since the actual facts speaks for themselves. If Silverstein had this planned then why the heck did he insure the building for half and then subsequently had to spend years and years in court to get at least the minimum amount of the money required for it to be rebuilt?

Enough of the disinfo.
Another joo.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1054
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben shockley View Post
Another joo.
Ah yes the classical retort of bla bla, as it is with antis and their "you must be KKK" or "you're a nazi".
I do not care how hard the general essembly have to be pounded, the extremes or irrationale are simply mirroring each others nonsense, regarding the other as the apocalyptical pest.

Whining sans on-point retort to given points = waste of space.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1055
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Still purporting one of the greatest and thoroughly debunked canards ever I see, of course. I've already debunked the insurance-argument several times to you before I got banned the last time, you weren't able to counter-argue with anything since the actual facts speaks for themselves. If Silverstein had this planned then why the heck did he insure the building for half and then subsequently had to spend years and years in court to get at least the minimum amount of the money required for it to be rebuilt?

Enough of the disinfo.
CANARD
Jewbrew word meaning:
Der goyim are on to us!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1056
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Only a complete idiot would think there could be an argument made that Building 7 was brought down by bulldozers. The point is that the "jargon" of "pull" is barely even jargon and also has nothing to do with buildings being brought down by explosives since it is not used in that context in controlled demolition at all. According to actual CD-experts it is used when you are SPECIFICALLLY "pulling" down a structure as aformentioned. If you disagree then show me a specific example or let this embarrising canard go which more and more truthers have been abandoning for the past years.
Ok, lets recap, shall we. You say that the term, "pull" means pulling down a building using cables and bulldozers. Then you say that building seven could not be brought down by bulldozers and cables. Since it has been established that no no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY and there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Then again, I ask you.....in what context is Silverstein using the jargon, "pull it" if it''s not in relation to demolition, bulldozers and cables or firefighting?
 
Old July 11th, 2008 #1057
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
It's "they made the decision", not "we". He was indeed talking to the FDNY Chief that, since there had been such terrible loss of life (certainly of firefighters as well) that perhaps the best thing would be to end, pull the plug, stop it, ie the recovery and rescue operation at WTC7.

Hey simpleforeskin,

That means Silberkikenstein used the word 'it' to describe a body of men whose occupation is that of a fireman. I don't think so. I suspect he had some brain fade and blurted out the truth which is the entire building seven, just as WTC1 and WTC2 was pre-rigged with thermate and when the Planes crashed into them, kaaaaabloodybooom!! Some slimy Jew was perched nearby with a remote detonator and as people were ooooohhhing and aaaahhhing, he presses a button and kills three thousand goys with two separate blows.

Anyone with half a brain can work out Jews benefited most from the inside job that was 911.

Wait until all the goy taxpaying serfs find out what happened on 911. Wait until they get smart and jew wise and there won't be enough lamp posts in the USA.
 
Old July 12th, 2008 #1058
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
Ok, lets recap, shall we. You say that the term, "pull" means pulling down a building using cables and bulldozers. Then you say that building seven could not be brought down by bulldozers and cables. Since it has been established that no no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY and there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Then again, I ask you.....in what context is Silverstein using the jargon, "pull it" if it''s not in relation to demolition, bulldozers and cables or firefighting?
Despite what you claim didn't take place, the corroborated evidence is that up until the order that pulled the firefighters out of WTC7 and then set up the safety perimiter, there were a lot of firefighters at WTC7.

It was expected to come down as the firefighters anticipated, they noticed the building had started to lean more and more, that the fires became too severe and widespread for them to handle and that there was an almost 10-story hole in the middle of the structure;

Quote:
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. -- Captain Chris Boyle on WTC7
*FDNY Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro; Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories.

Quote:
I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
Quote:
I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110469.PDF
Quote:
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html
As I said before, I've debated alot of technically savy and qualified people of the truther-persuasion, none of which have given much creedence either to the "pull=blowing up building" idiocy. Even Richard Gage has stopped repeating it.

One would think the idea of Silverstein ordering the FDNY to do such a thing, after they had just lost some 300+ of their co-workers and friends in the previous collapse, would be stupid enough, but to go beyond this and claim that "pull it" means not only in the context given but in general to take down a building with explosives is incoherent.

Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates says he's never heard "pull" in any context of controlled demolition, only when it has been literally talking about actually pulling down remnants of a building with bulldozers and cables. Since this isn't what happend at the WTC7, the "pull it" thingy even more clearly denotes the recovery & rescue operation a la pull the plug on it etc.
Ron Dokell, the ex president of Olshan Demolishing Company confirms the above as does Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, also Blanchard of Protec confirms the same.

"Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?
Excerpt:
Quote:
"It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.”"

..

In this video of smoke billowing from WTC 7, several men (presumably firemen judging from their conversation, their proximity to the site, and their radio calls) speak about WTC 7:
"It's hot enough for the [Inaudible]"
"That's why he's pulled everybody outta here."
"That building's 50 stories, definitely reaching over here."
"[Inaudible] get everybody outta there, that's for sure."
Recap;
It obviously refers to the recovery/rescue operation that they had to pull the plug on (withdraw it, pull it etcetc), that is why we saw how the firefighters got pulled out of the WTC7 almost immediately after that call and during the next two, three hours later the building was leaning, burning, tilting and finally came down.
 
Old July 12th, 2008 #1059
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie View Post
Hey simpleforeskin,

That means Silberkikenstein used the word 'it' to describe a body of men whose occupation is that of a fireman. I don't think so. I suspect he had some brain fade and blurted out the truth which is the entire building seven, just as WTC1 and WTC2 was pre-rigged with thermate and when the Planes crashed into them, kaaaaabloodybooom!! Some slimy Jew was perched nearby with a remote detonator and as people were ooooohhhing and aaaahhhing, he presses a button and kills three thousand goys with two separate blows.

Anyone with half a brain can work out Jews benefited most from the inside job that was 911.

Wait until all the goy taxpaying serfs find out what happened on 911. Wait until they get smart and jew wise and there won't be enough lamp posts in the USA.
After you've read my post on this matter, which I wrote to SteveB, could tell me how you find it to make sense that the FDNY who were ordered to blow up the WTC7 were ordered to pull the people out there but not in WTC1 or 2? They loose 375 of their co-workers in the WTC1-2 collapses, which they be default of your logic were involved in bringing down with explosives, and then get warned to clear WTC7 and blow it up as well?

What kind of disgusting slimeball would accuse the FDNY of first killing off 375 of their co-workers, their friends, involving a couple of Chiefs, only then to save a few dozen from the WTC7 collapse with pulling out? It DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE and it is a horrible accusation on those who sacrified their lives there. Think a bit before you accuse the FDNY of such atrocious acts, that's libel.

Quote:
Some slimy Jew was perched nearby with a remote detonator and as people were ooooohhhing and aaaahhhing, he presses a button and kills three thousand goys with two separate blows.
The basic problem that moronic CT'ers and truthers have is that they have no concistent, coherent and certainly not factual corroboration to their heiferdust. They play into the hands of the opposition so willingly, convincing themselves that they are somehow "fighting" the oppositon yet only ends up serving moreso than any garden variety anti could hope to do. It's repulsive, frankly, and nonsensical.

Again, whining sans on-point retort = tool for the opposition, for jewry. You are a devoted foot-soldier thereof, wether you are aware of it or not.
 
Old July 12th, 2008 #1060
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
The basic problem that moronic CT'ers and truthers have is that they have no concistent, coherent and certainly not factual corroboration to their heiferdust. They play into the hands of the opposition so willingly, convincing themselves that they are somehow "fighting" the oppositon yet only ends up serving moreso than any garden variety anti could hope to do. It's repulsive, frankly, and nonsensical.
What IS moronic is believing 19 Arabs who were never once captured on ANY Airport CCTV camera or listed on ANY passenger manifest and must therefore have made themselves invisible, hijacked FOUR Airliners which on average had around 56 Passengers and crew armed with nothing other than small knives.

What is even more moronic is actually believing this given each of the Airports had airport security run by an ISRAELI security company.

But wait, there's more:

These (invisible) Arabs were completely unable to fly a Cessna puddle jumper but they were able to manoeuvre HUGE passenger Jets at near speed-of-sound speed and fly them with unerring precision into the three targets.

There's still more!

Like Lazarus, at least SEVEN of these (invisible) Arabian supermen managed to SURVIVE the impacts because they kinda turned up in Arabia a few weeks after 911.

Still there's more!

Two planes hit TWO buildings in Jew York and ALL SEVEN buildings are destroyed. And the TAXPAYER picks up the the clean up tab! Lucky Larry gets the $7.2 Billion in Insurance fraud money and goes home to dance around the Golden Calf.

Seven years later, 250 Million Americans KNOW the official story is bullshit and there are still little fleas like you rattling away at the Keyboard attempting to cover up for BIG JEW by peddling the CRAP which is the BIG JEWISH LIE Hitler himself described so eloquently in his book.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, 911, c4l, gov, jew bs, jew vs jew, jews did 9-11, wtc

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 PM.
Page generated in 0.70048 seconds.