I suppose this is my biggest question.

[readmoreoften]

First a few comments:

I have watched 9-11 revisited. I have read the refutations of the BYU CT professor by the civil engineering professor at BYU. However, the offhanded refutations of Steven Jones seem even more suppositional than challenges to the official story. Have any of them done a hard scientific analysis that refute the CD theory for towers 1 & 2? Right now I am more convinced by the 9-11 truth movement than anyone else. I am completely open to looking at all critiques.

I don't believe that the journal of 9-11 studies meets rigid "peer review" standards. I also don't think that that necessarily means that the science isn't compelling. There are many reasons why scientists may not want to challenge the official story that have nothing to do with "collusion." Despite the usual rhetoric and the attention paid to a few high profile leftists, academia is inherently conservative. Tenure exists to insure that a younger scholar will be able to debunk the entire life work of a more respected scholar. The instinct of the university is to preserve the status quo. The territory wars within many departments would put corporate America to shame with their vicious invective. Other departments get around this by being "nice" departments and pretty much making sure that no one ever does anything controversial in any direction. Even professors with tenure have excellent reasons to impress the top Administration and the Trustees (who are often corporate execs at private universities.) They can be awarded "chairs" and "endowments." Departments that tow-the-line are often financially rewarded. I have seen academics avert their eyes on lesser moral issues. I have seen them even go against their own beliefs to climb the academic latter: OFTEN. To challenge the official version of 9-11 is nothing short of a complete career stopper.

I don't know anything about the quality of smoke, the melting point of steel. I don't know anything about structural engineering at all. But here is my big question. I DO know that building 7 was demolished. I know this because Larry Silverstein has admitted to it on video. This seems suspicious to me because there were only fires on two floors. (1) Why demolish a skyscraper for such a reason? But my BIG question is (2) Is it possible to set the charges for a orderly demolition of a skyscraper in a matter of hours when it normally takes multiple weeks to set such charges? While the building is on fire? While all resources were diverted to rescuing people from the rubble (we know how that played out) why would they divert critical resources for this inessential effort? If it is possible to do this safely in a few hours, why do crews usually take weeks? Isn't this a waste of the companies' resources?

If it is not possible to set the charges for an orderly demolition of a sky scraper in a matter of hours while two entire floors are on fire, then, with Silverstein's admission, it stands to reason that those charges had to have been set prior to 9-11. This seems like incontrovertible evidence to me.

Please educate me if I am wrong.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

1. well said

challenging the official version of 9-11 is a career stopper in almost any profession; much easier to dismiss as absurd and move on. this must be taken into consideration when attempting to awaken those that may not think twice about the details of the event otherwise.. herd mentality is a tough code to crack.

[BuddyYoung]

2. You've touched on the problem of "if this, then this" reasoning re: 911

Too many people focus on trying to determine if the WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition. The problem with this approach is the tendency to leap to the unwarranted conclusion that if the buildings collapsed due to controlled demolition then the case for 911 being an inside job has been proven. Even if the buildigs were imploded, that doesn't mean 911 was necessarily an inside job. It's not unreasonable that there may have been a "good" reason to implode the buildings after the attacks.

Much better, in my opinion, to focus on the larger question of whether or not 911 was an inside job.

I have only the highest regard and respect for those researchers who have worked hard on the issue of whether or not controlled demolition was used, and I'm personally convinced that the buildings WERE brought down by controlled demolition and that 911 was an inside job. But, I don't base these conclusions on the persuasiveness of the arguments for controlled demolition. I will say that in my opinion, the dispositive evidence of controlled demolitions as proof that 911 was an inside IS very compelling.

[readmoreoften]

3. Building 7 was brought down by CD. That is on record.

The question is--is it possible to set the charges for and execute a successful implosion inside a skyscraper with fires raging on two entire floors? According to basic information on building implosion, it takes weeks to prepare the building for implosion. If the building was already prepared for implosion before 9am on 9-11, then whoever ordered the implosion would have to have known that it was already prepared to be exploded.

There is no way around it. If it is not possible to call in a specialized demolition crew, set the charges inside the burning building, and implode it properly in a matter of a few hours, then the charges were pre-set. If the charges are pre-set, and Larry Silverstein authorized the pull, which he admits to, it would have to be an inside job.

Even if it is possible to bring in a crew to implode a burning building in a matter of hours, it is still a questionable act anyway. But even on Wikipedia under "demolition," it says that implosions take weeks of preparation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

"A building takes several weeks to be prepared for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, insulation that can cover a wide area, and other materials also must be removed. Selected columns are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in explosive cables. The goal is to use as few explosives as possible, and only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick plastic and fencing to absorb flying debris."

Okay, so let's say that Silverstein didn't want to strip the copper wiring. Even if the area was contained, if the reason why you are pulling the building is "safety" it would make sense to remove the glass. It certainly would make sense to remove the insulation, which could be toxic. The question would remain: is it possible to conduct the rest of the demolition within a few hours?

*****


That withstanding, I am also concerned about why the "official" story maintains that the building was not imploded. The leaseholder has said in VIDEO INTERVIEWS that he and the chief of police order that the building be imploded. Why then is this the official story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no mention of 7 World Trade Center.

"In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has conducted a three-year, $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study included not only in-house technical expertise but also drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)."

On April 5, 2005, NIST released its report on 1 WTC and 2 WTC. <4> On June 20, 2005, NIST asserted in a press release that its report on 7 World Trade Center would be released "at a later date." <5>


Why did all of these organizations spend 3 years trying to figure out how the building collapsed when the leaseholder has very publically stated that he imploded it? And why didn't they come to that conclusion immediately?

[sabbat hunter]

4. WTC 7 brought down by demolitions?

oh it was? do you have some inside information about the building being wired that we dont?

larry silverstein has not ever admitted to blowing up WTC 7. listen to the full audio of what he said and the subsequent interviews.

[readmoreoften]

5. He explained that he & someone from FDNY decided to pull 7 on this video

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

Interview with Silverstein, timecode starting 52.09

EXACT SILVERSTEIN TRANSCRIPT: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is just 'pull it'. And they made that decision to pull. And we watched the building collapse."

[wildbilln864]

6. r m o, you may soon hear that ...

later in interviews, Silverstein explains that what he meant by "pull it" was for them to get everybody out.
No kidding, they actually believe it.
He had a $8 billion insurance claim if it was hit by terrorists and coincidentally he just aquired the buildings shortly before the 911.

[readmoreoften]

7. Oh my word. That's patently ridiculous. That's freeper level logic.

Do you mean to tell me that Larry Silverstein said, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is get everyone out of the building.' And they made that decision to get everyone out of the building. And we watched the building collapse."

That is an irrational paragraph. A "fire commander" would not call a leaseholder to get permission to evacuate a building that is on fire. A fire commander would not even wait to evacuate people inside a burning building to make a conference call on whether or not "maybe" it would be a good idea to save people's lives.

FURTHERMORE, that concept is made even more illogical because everyone would have been long evacuated by late in the afternoon. The whole thing is patently absurd. That's freeper level analysis. It's embarrassing.

[BuddyYoung]

8. Best explanation of this important issue I've ever seen. Thanks. nt

nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. Oh my word..."freeper Logic"???

A "fire commander" would not call a leaseholder to get permission to evacuate a building that is on fire. A fire commander would not even wait to evacuate people inside a burning building to make a conference call on whether or not "maybe" it would be a good idea to save people's lives.

He was refering to the Fire Fighting Effort. There was FDNY in Building 7 when he said to "pull it" (which to refers to the pre-radio method of communicating a withdrawl to fire fighters in a building in danger of collapse...pulling on the hose).

that post was embarrassing.

[petgoat]

25. What FDNY personnel were in WTC7 when, according

to Mr. Silverstein "they made the decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse"?

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Captain Boyle said he got to the site about 11:00. He immediately
joined a group of four engines and three trucks to fight the fire
in WTC7. When they got there a hose was already running. They looked
around, and before they could go into the building they were ordered
by Butch Brandies and later by Deputy Chief Visconti to stay out of
the building.

Now Visconti says he first heard from Frank Fellini that 7 was going to
collapse, but Visconti was still over at the Winter Garden. Visconti
says told the men that building 7 was going to collapse. I think he'd
referring to rescue workers at the WTC1 site here:


"I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we�ve still got people here, we don�t want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn�t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn�t get hit by a plane, why isn�t somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

[mhatrw]

93. And your evidence for this assertion is?

I'm curious.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. There's no calling for permission happening there.

Read it again.

The FDNY commander is calling to say why they are about to abandon the building. Silverstein is offering a voluntary concurring with that decision that FDNY alone could make.

You need to be careful with the freeper term around here.

[readmoreoften]

29. The people who are most ardently proposing this notion of

"pulling people out of the building' are on Sean Hannity's site. I believe that they would be considered freepers.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. What an extraordinary statement.

You are familiar enough with every message board on the Internet to even try to make an all-encompassing statement like that?

I doubt it.

You should be careful throwing around the term "freeper" here. It's not considered civil discussion.

[readmoreoften]

37. No, I did a google search.

The first site that comes up regarding the issue of "pull" as a firefighter term is www.hannity.com.

Most of the "debunking" of WTC CD seems to be coming from such sites. Googling saves me the time of having to visit ever single site. But you're right I shouldn't say that it freeper logic regardless.

[Jazz2006]

38. "Pull" is not a firefighter term except in the sense of pulling people

i.e. firefighters, out of dangerous situations. Firefighters are not in the demolition business, after all. Neither was Larry Silverstein, as best I can tell.

Can't speak for your google skills, but in the real world, "pull it" is not a controlled demolition term despite the repeated, silly and unsubstantiated assertions by tinhatters.

[wildbilln864]

64. or so says jazz and...

bolo at least.
I would think that they would say "pull them" not "pull it".

[Jazz2006]

65. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

[mhatrw]

95. Feel free to provide evidence for your assertions.

[Jazz2006]

106. It's well known and undisputed that it is not a firefighter term

So if you wish to dispute that, please do so.

Moreover, it's CTers who keep pretending that "pull it" is a demolition term (which it is not) or that it is a firefighter term (which it most certainly is not).

Therefore, it's up to your fellow tinhatters to prove that it exists (it doesn't).

So, have at it.

Edit: typo grrr.

[mhatrw]

112. What? That "pull it" means to evacuate a building?

Please show me several examples of the term "pull it" used in this manner.

I'll bet you can't find a single instance. I sure couldn't.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

129. OK. So it's not a firefighter term in your opinion.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t91345.html

[Jazz2006]

132. It's not just my opinion... it's a fact that

'pull it' is not a firefighter term for conducting a controlled demolition.

[mhatrw]

141. It's also not a firefighting term for evacuating a building.

But it is a demolition team term for demolishing a building:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pull+it%22+demolition+-9%2F11+-WTC+&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

[vincent_vega_lives]

163. Not Quite

Not a single one of those links refer to 'pull it' as a demolition term...except as song lyrics.

[mirandapriestly]

144. R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Want to give us some proof of your "fact"? bet ya can't

[vincent_vega_lives]

165. I think the assertion here is that

"pull it" is PROOF that WTC-7 was demolished...by explosives I assume. So I would think that PROOF would require more evidence than a refutation of that claim.

But thats just my silly logic.

[Jazz2006]

196. Reading comprehension ~

The fact that "pull it" is not a firefighting term at all is demonstrated by its absence in any firefighting manual, any firefighting discussion, any firefighting publication, etc. Personally, I believe this to be true because my beau is a fire captain and he thinks that anyone who says "pull it" is a firefighting term is full of crap, let alone those who say that it's a firefighting term for conducting controlled demolitions, which he would say is simply looneytunes.

If "pull it" was a firefighter term, there would be all kinds of evidence of that. If you wish to assert that it IS a firefighting term, feel free to do so but that would be a positive assertion on your part, and which you'd have to demonstrate by positive evidence.

The fact that "pull it" is not a firefighting term for conducting controlled demolitions, which is the fact that your post actually takes issue with, is even more pointedly demonstrated by the absence of any such reference anywhere. In case you hadn't noticed, firefighters are not in the controlled demolition business. They risk their lives to try to preserve the lives and property of others, and they are not in the business of destroying buildings on purpose.

Firefighters do, on the other hand, refer to being "pulled" from buildings, being "pulled out of" dangerous situations, being "pulled" from their stations or other locales to another location, etc. They are "pulled" in such scenarios, but it remains true that there is zero evidence that the term "pull it" is a firefighter term used to describe controlled demolitions, which is the fact that you seem to be demanding proof of.

[mirandapriestly]

145. Proof, please. Thank you

[mirandapriestly]

239. "well known and undisputed"

can I see some proof?

[Jazz2006]

263. See #196

[mirandapriestly]

278. I must have a different version of DU than you

I didn't see any "proof". Or is the information from your firefighting fiance?

[vincent_vega_lives]

162. "Drop it"

Why would "pull it" refer to demolition? You would "push it/ hit it" (trigger) or "drop it" (the building), but "pull it"?

Context is everything.

[BuddyYoung]

164. Ask people in the demolition industry, if you really want to know.

Why would you arrogantly assume that anyone HERE cares about your "pull it" SPIN?

[vincent_vega_lives]

167. I have no Idea why I would 'arrogantly assume' anyone

HERE cares about whats real and whats BS.

So why don't YOU ask people in the demolition industry since I aint the one throwing assertions around, just questioning them.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. I came from Smirking Chimp.

I love being the exception to your prejudice.

[readmoreoften]

52. I guess apologies aren't enough for you are they?

You're going to continue to be nasty even when I'm being pleasant. Duly noted.

"But you're right I shouldn't say that it freeper logic regardless."

[Bolo Boffin]

57. How I do love back-handed apologies.

You see? I can assign negative emotions to words on an internet post the same as you.

[readmoreoften]

60. Uh, you called me "prejudiced". Negative emotions go with that.

It wasn't a backhanded apology. I apologized for calling you a freeper. How is that "back-handed"?

When I said that the quote was "freeperlike" the only comment so far had been that "pull it" meant to pull "people" (not firemen) out of the burning building. Anyone who believed that the fire chief was calling Silverstein to discuss the possibility of removing trapped occupants from the building-- I think you might agree that that is seriously lacking in logic.

The idea that "pull it" meant that they were ending operations seems more plausible to me. I'm not convinced that that's what he means, by a long stretch, but I can understand why someone would.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. How many times can you say the word "freeper" in your apology?

You know, the way Instapundit can publish all those "gay" rumors about Markos, while decrying them?

Or the way Rush can bring up the rumors about Hillary offing Vince Foster, while apologizing for it?

Back-handed.

[readmoreoften]

79. Wow, I have never had an apology rejected so many times on DU.

There is nothing backhanded about me apologizing for calling you a ----.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Demonstrate to me that the apology is sincere.

Let's put it this way: I've been burned by politeness before in this forum.

[readmoreoften]

85. I think clarifying that I apologize over at least 3 posts shows sincerity.

And I also think that it's rare for someone to go through such lengths on a message board to prove an apology.

[Bolo Boffin]

123. You've posted at DU over 3000 times.

I doubt very much that you were unaware of the rule against throwing the term freeper around before you started posting here in this thread.

Because you're a reader.

[mirandapriestly]

147. ooh "smirking Chimp"

sounds like a "real" democrat site.

[Bolo Boffin]

184. That's said with all the class I've come to expect from you, miranda

n/t

[Norrin Radd]

143. Are you going to admonish Jazz for the frequent use of the uncivil

epithet "tinhatters," as well?

[Jazz2006]

191. You'll have to take it up with the admins if you think that's "uncivil"

I doubt that they would have included the :tinfoilhat: smiley here if they thought it uncivil.

[petgoat]

195. You're supposed to use the tin hat smiley to refer to yourself,

Jazz. Honestly--you and bolo: "If God didn't want us to beat up our neighbors,
why did he give us fists?"

[Jazz2006]

197. Says the petgoat commission report. Well, that settles it.

[mirandapriestly]

153. Your friend Jazz's very first post here called people "crazy"

I remember it. So, pot meet kettle.

[Jazz2006]

190. Yet another lie, miranda. How predictable.

[mirandapriestly]

234. I believe the word was "nuts" which is worse. eom

[Jazz2006]

247. Oops.. got your lie wrong?

That happens when you tell lies, it's hard to keep them all straight.

You're still wrong, but thanks for proving yet again the theory that liars have a hard time keeping their lies straight.

[mirandapriestly]

258. What lies have I ever told?

Still up? Don't you have a big day at the "law firm" tomorrow? heh heh heh

and here is just one post:


To repeat something I posted a few minutes ago on another thread.....
Edited on Fri Apr-14-06 08:58 PM by Jazz2006
While the production is better done than most of the conspiracy nuts manage, it is still full of crap and is blatantly dishonest at times....

[Jazz2006]

261. Several, as have been set out here previously...

and as the mods are well aware of, so there is no need to repeat them here.

Nope, no work for me tomorrow, if it's any of your business. It's my birthday, actually, and I have plans that do not involve work.

[mirandapriestly]

280. Every day is Jazzy's birthday

Because you are on here every night all night...

[mirandapriestly]

281. I posted the proof

for what I said. So why are you calling me a liar?

[WI Independent]

24. Actually it makes pretty good sense...

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they going to be able to contain the fire."
The commander called to update him on the status of the fire. By the way, this also contradicts the assumption (that you seem to be taking as fact) that it was a small fire. FDNY can't contain a small fire???

I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is get everyone out of the building.'
This was in the context of preventing further loss of life. What would demolishing a building have to do with preventing loss of life? He seems to make a suggestion that they get the fire fighters out of the building.

"And they made that decision to get everyone out of the building."
The final decision was made by FDNY. Since when do they decide to demolish burning buildings?

And we watched the building collapse.
This part of the statement does seem somewhat out of context. I think he's implying that because they quit fighting the fire and let it burn, the building eventually collapsed. At any rate, we either have one out of place statement here or three above (size of fire, loss of life context, FDNY decision). I'm inclined to believe the scenario with the least inconsistency.


Finally, if his statement is as blatantly obvious as you seem to think it is, why would the insurance company pay the claim? I assume they did since I haven't seen any news about them not paying.

[sabbat hunter]

16. insurance

considering the buildings were hit before by terrorists, wouldnt it make sense to you if he insured them against getting hit again?

[mhatrw]

92. My guess is that Larry REALLY wanted his insurance money.

And he agreed to pull his "pull it" quote only after his insurance claim was settled in his favor.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Lord Jesus.

So you're saying that Silverstein gave the insurance company precisely the information they needed to deny his claim in an effort to force them to pay his claim.

Just explain how you think that worked. Never mind producing any actual evidence - I know you don't have any. Just explain how that works.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

117. Really? Please explain how Silverstein lost money on 9/11.

This should be good.

[mirandapriestly]

146. S/he doesn't feel a need to explain her/his pronouncements

Pretty funny for an alleged lawyer? eh?

[mhatrw]

116. I clearly said it was a guess.

Sometimes a squeaky wheel gets greased to stop it from squeaking.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Objection, your Honor! Begging the Question!

Objection sustained.

[Ka hrnt]

156. Simple really...

"Just explain how that works."

You just suspend the use of logic and common sense... ;)

[Brainster]

23. Uncle Fetzer Gets It Wrong Again

Jeez, is this guy just a clown or what? Note that just before the Silverstein quote, Fetzer says that Silverstein said he was talking to the "Chief of Police". Immediately afterwards, they have Silverstein say, "I remember getting a phone call from the Fire Department Commander..."

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Bullshit.

Why did all of these organizations spend 3 years trying to figure out how the building collapsed when the leaseholder has very publically stated that he imploded it? And why didn't they come to that conclusion immediately?

The leaseholder has not ever publicly stated that he imploded it. NIST came to the conclusions it did based on the evidence.

[pauldp]

33. So I guess it was what ... WEIRD SLANG?

Silverstein never once refers to firefighters in the building or a group of people.
If that is what he was referring to when he said "PULL IT" and "PULL" then he was using some sort of
bizarre slang of his own making in a National television interview. Weird slang that just so happened to include the
demolition industry term for controlled demolition... and hey guess what... all the video footage just happens
to look exactly like a controlled demolition! What a coincidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Please provide examples of this "demolition industry term for CD".

While you search, I'll provide some of my own for your reading edification.

"I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street."

"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."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/19/ltm.10.html

"The -- as we spoke to the incident commanders and different fire officials, rescue officials, they're now considering the debris pile to be a hot zone, which indicates their is the presence of hazardous materials, and whenever that happens, they begin to pull firefighters, rescue people off the pile. And unfortunately, I think that probably signals the fact that this recovery effort will end soon."

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/fire/thirtymile-article-2.html

"O'Neal said he does not believe firefighters ignored safety rules on July 10. In fact, he said, they did a lot of things right leading up to the deadly blowup that day. Supervisors went over the required safety points in the morning. They also made a good decision to pull firefighters back from the fire's edge at 3 p.m., and to use the road as a fire block"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyauwega_derailment

"At this point, a decision was made by the fire chief to pull firefighters back from the derailment, because of the risk of a BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). This evacuation of personnel was two blocks for one hour, then 1 mile, and finally 1.5 miles; the initial evacuation was done so quickly that fire hoses in use were abandoned and froze where they lay."

http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/Talk_of_the_Gown.asp

The team realized that tracking personnel was just as important—if not more important—than monitoring the fire itself. In the past two fire seasons, wildfires have claimed 38 firefighters’ lives nationally. FireBug will enable commanders, away from the heat and the hacking, to spot danger and pull firefighters out before it’s too late.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/10/28/news/breaking/0_10_28_035_52_00.txt

"Firefighters pull back in San Diego County"

[pauldp]

49. Here ya go.

"Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls."

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824

'Implosion is a process where a small amount of explosives is used to disrupt selected supports in a building. This allows gravity to pull the structure down in a controlled manner. '

http://www.ulm.edu/universityrelations/news/sept04/dust.html

Stacy Loizeaux: "No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Also the same documentary in which Silverstein made his comments, the comment " we are getting ready to pull building 6" is made
in reference to the demolition of building 6.

In all these cases the proun "IT" would be appropriate - IT is being pulled on top of itself etc. - I don't believe that would be true in the cases you mentioned - in those cases it's all
"pull them back, pull the firefighters back etc" - certainly not the way Silverstein used it.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. You've got four quotes, I've got several hundred so far

Really! Google "pull" and "firefighters".

For added fun, google "pull" and "building". I went down twenty pages - the only reference to pulling a building was CT pages refering to Building 6, and I added several more quotes about pulling firefighters from buildings!

Go on, try it!

[pauldp]

89. perhaps yours is bigger...

but my four are pretty good ones - from the industry standard company AND
their heir apparent daughter. And hey guess what, in all my examples if you replace
the noun - the wall, the building, etc. with the correct pronoun, that pronoun turns
out to be... IT! ...PULL IT. In yours the pronouns would be THEM, HIM, US etc.
Size isn't everything!
:D

Wikipedia says implosion has to do with gravitational pull :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

"This allows gravity to pull the structure down"

Maybe Larry S. can't speak English, and maybe he used some weird slang in that interview
but why didn't he just admit that instead of avoiding the question for 2 years?

[mhatrw]

97. Show us all your examples of "pull it" meaning to clear all firefighters

from a burning building.

Check how many google hits this search returned:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=your+post+was+meaningless&btnG=Search

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Sure thing, mhatrw.

Go to Google.

Google these two terms: pull firefighters

Look at the number of hits.

The quotes I posted (except for the first two) all came from the first two pages of the Google search. Just the first two! With that kind of success ratio in play, there are easily several hundred quotes concerning pulling firefighters out of a burning building.

Have fun!

[mhatrw]

105. I didn't say "pull." I said "pull it."

Please show me several examples of firefighters using the phrase "pull it" to signify evacuating a building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

169. Please show me several examples

of "pull it" refering to demolishing a building.

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm

Listen to the statement here, if he ment to demolish the building...why did he say "watch the building collapse" rather than "be demolished". Context is everything.

[mhatrw]

180. Just go through 5-6 pages of this google search ..

http://www.google.com/search?hs=jW&hl=en&q=demolition+%22pull+it%22+-11+-911+-WTC+-%22pull+it+off%22+-%22pull+it+away%22&btnG=Search

[vincent_vega_lives]

182. I Did

We got home improvment and song lyrics.

Any reference to demolition involves mechanical demolition, in which case "pull it down" would make sense. As in pulling down a wall.

"Pull it" in reference to controlled demolition still does not make sense in the context of the statement.

[mhatrw]

289. Here you go.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22down+away+from+adjacent+properties%22&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22the+ide+of+an+implosion+is+to+blast+out+the+building%27s+supports%2C%22&btnG=Search

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

[greyl]

290. Oh boy. Are you intentionally misleading?

That quote doesn't meet the requirements at all, especially in context.

Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

NOVA: How do you do that?

SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done.

From the same interview:

SL: For some reason people think that they can stand right next to a building coming down and that they're going to be OK. We've pulled people out of manholes that were 15 feet from the building, pulled people out of trees right next to the building.

SL: My uncle and my father worked quite a bit in Mexico City in '85 following the earthquake and they had helped pull bodies out there.

Here's my index finger.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

48. I agree that people's assumptions about the political implications

of CD keep them from considering the issue objectively.

What CD would prove is a coverup by the officials (possibly of the failure
of the Marvin Bush security company to prevent an explosive attack) and
the need for a new investigation.

[petgoat]

9. Remember, the official story claims that asymmetrical

structural damage and random fires caused the building to collapse pretty much in its
own footprint. If this is so, then explosives and/or thermate placed in a few places
could have done the same thing.

Taking out the transfer trusses would do a lot to bring the building down.

[dailykoff]

10. What "rigid peer review standards"

does the 9-11 studies journal fail to meet, specifically?

[readmoreoften]

11. Well, here's the deal.

It definitely meets the standard of "peer review" if the "peers" who are doing the reviewing are experts in the field of "9-11 studies", which is not generally viewed as an academic field as of yet. (In five years, it might be the hottest field going, though!) It is normal for a physics paper to be reviewed by only physicists, biologists by biologists, philosophers by philosophers, media studies folk by media studies folk. A philosopher wouldn't be considered a "peer" of a structural engineer in reviewing an article on structural engineering. A materials scientist would not be permitted to review the value of a paper on psychology.

By that definition is not, let's say, "traditionally" peer reviewed. Maybe rigorous isn't necessarily the right word. But the effort is interdisciplinary, and that is part of its strength. As I said before, I think that this is basically a straw man argument, to delegitimize this information because it hasn't appeared in large peer-reviewed journals. There are political reasons why papers don't get into top peer reviewed journals. To think otherwise is naive. Academia in its larger sense is inherently slow and conservative. It probably won't treat this topic with the gravity it deserves until after it is all but decided that 9-11 is an inside job. Academics tend to play it safe. That's why they call it the ivory tower.

[dailykoff]

12. Prestige and peer review are two different things.

The claim that it doesn't meet some "rigid" standard of peer review is false. Its content is technical, its editors hold PhDs in relevant technical fields, they teach at established research universities, they have an editorial board whose relevant credentials are published, and the articles are thoroughly documented.

[readmoreoften]

13. Great then.

To hell with the naysayers. I've seen more cogent arguments from the 9-11 scholars than from the "official story" folks, who never seem to do a thorough job proving how 9-11 happened. So far, I've only seen them debunking the most minor issues, while the glaring issues aren't dealt with. Their mode of operation seems to generally be calls for "reason" without providing analysis. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks without much substance. I didn't want to add to that attack, I was just under the impression that different types of scientists were reviewing outside the areas of their expertise. If that's inaccurate, even better.

I was just trying to point out that academia isn't some utopia where people leap to defend obvious truths. Just because the majority of academics in major journals aren't salivating to defend the 9-11 scholars doesn't mean much. The majority of academics are hardened careerists.

My biggest question doesn't even take a Ph.D.: is it possible to implode a building that is on fire within a few hours? If it is not, then 9-11 is irrefutably an inside job because the charges were laid before hand and the people who called for the demolition knew this.

[HornBuckler]

14. You're spot on

I think you have it pinned. You ask/tell "is it possible to implode a building that is on fire within a few hours? If it is not, then 9-11 is irrefutably an inside job because the charges were laid before hand and the people who called for the demolition knew this."

I believe WTC 1,2 and 7 were pre-wired before 9/11 hit. I can not prove this - but I can not see how someone can honestly beLIEve these buildings fell from plane collision/fire alone. It's absolutely absurd. Keep asking the right questions and hopefully we will see the truth.
There are folks here that spend a lot of time in this forum that believe these buildings came down by the plane collisions/fire themselves (including bldg 7 - which was never hit by a plane/probably some debris but much less than other surrounding buildings((not owned by Larry BTW)). It bothers me to no end the close-mindedness of a lot of people to question the official story. In the past 50 years I can not think of a more absurd story that the public has whole heartedly swallowed (elections of 00 and 04 maybe?)

Keep it up and share anything you may discover.

[petgoat]

17. The Flying Elephant gave them a black eye, though, IMHO nt

[Bolo Boffin]

18. It absolutely fails any test of peer review.

Your statements to the contrary are all lies.

[dailykoff]

26. Such as?

Time's up already.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Reprint of my post in the actual thread talking about this

First, check out Wikipedia. The article on peer review is pretty decent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. It is used primarily by publishers, to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of monies for research. The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

Stephen Jones has written a paper on 9/11, but he never even submitted it to actual experts in the field who worked for his university. Here's what they had to say when they got their hands on a copy:

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/...

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&pag...

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Now that's peer review. People with doctorates in the field under consideration in the paper are saying Stephen Jones's 9/11 paper is full of shit. He has no business writing papers in this field, much less serving as the editor for a scholarly journal that reviews these kinds of matters. Plus the damn thing isn't even published - it's electronic only. Evidently Jones can't even get the BYU press to put the words down on paper, and college press are supposed to be publishing the works of their professors.

That's Jones. How about the other editor: Prof. Judy D. Wood - Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

Quote: She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), IADR (International Association for Dental Research), and the Academy of Dental Materials.

Therefore she's not qualified to review any scholarly paper for a peer-reviewed scholarly magazine. She's an assistant professor! At least Stephen Jones has tenure, for God's sake.

So much for the editors of this travesty of a "scholarly journal". How about the Advisory Editorial Board, the "referees", as it were, the ones reviewing the works for publication? They are listed as follows:

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Alex Floum, Marcus Ford, Derrick Grimmer, Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore, Robert Moore, Diana Ralph, Kevin Ryan, Robert Stevens, Lon Waters and Paul Zarembka.

Who are these people? Most of them are listed on this page:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Alex Floum (Attorney), Marcus Ford, (Humanities, NAU) Derrick Grimmer (Derrick P. Grimmer, Physics, Alternative energy), Richard McGinn (Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University), Kimberly Moore (listed under Society Associates - no given profession; Robert's wife?), Robert Moore (Attorney, Member, Connecticut Pro Bono Network), Diana Ralph (Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry), Kevin Ryan (Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories), Robert Stevens (not listed here), Lon Waters (High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory) and Paul Zarembka (not listed here).


Attorneys? Software engineers? Linguistic professors? Humanities professors? Physics professors? These people have no business reviewing these types of "scholarly" papers.

Plus, the bulk of these people cannot claim neutrality to these topics - they are, with only two exceptions, listed on an advocacy website! This doubly disqualifies them from reviewing these papers - they are advocates, not neutral referees, and they have no post-graduate degress in the necessary fields to review these papers!

Therefore, this scholarly journal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Claims that these articles are "peer-reviewed" are out-and-out lies.

[petgoat]

51. Oh there you go again.

That idiot Firmage has doesn't even know what the NIST report is about, and all he's
read of the FEMA report is the summary. Then he cites the aircraft damage which,
if he knew what he was talking about, he would know was negligible. Then he cites the
time-temperature curves for steel in apparent ignorance of the fact that there is NO
NONE NOT ONE piece of core steel in NIST's possession showing heating about 250 degrees C.

Then that idiot Miller weights in with a bunch of windy platitudes and no specifics
whatsoever.

Are those the best experts you can find Bolo? No wonder you have such funny ideas!

[dailykoff]

67. And still no missing criteria.

He must be getting dizzy from all that spinning.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. I refer you to the Princess Bride. n/t

[dailykoff]

110. Thanks for your gracious concession. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

115. You use those words. I do not think you know what they mean. n/t

[dailykoff]

142. They mean you're wrong.

That clearer?

[Bolo Boffin]

185. I know you are, so what am I? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

15. Bump

This is a worthwhile thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Silverstein admitted no such thing.

Far more than two floors were on fire in WTC 7.

Those are the two most important places where your opinion is completely wrong in the facts.

The Silverstein admission is the only thing you base your belief on CD of WTC 7 on. The Silverstein admission does not say what you think it says. Therefore, your "wired in two hours" argument is moot, because it requires the Silverstein admission to say something it doesn't say.

[readmoreoften]

28. Let me break it down for you, if you didn't get it the first time.

It is possible that Silverstein was just going along with what another official was telling him. But he is clearly stating that the building was pulled. I am not making any assertions. I am stating a fact that Larry Silverstein said that the building was pulled. Everything else is either a deduction from that statement or an opinion or a hunch-- which, by the way is also about the only thing you are going on as well. You seem like a reasonable person. So I'm going to repeat this for your benefit:

EXACT SILVERSTEIN TRANSCRIPT: I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is just 'pull it'. And they made that decision to pull. And we watched the building collapse."

Let's go through this sentence by sentence, word by word:

1) "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they going to be able to contain the fire."

What this proves: Larry Silverstein claims he remembers getting a call from a fire official. The official of Silverstein's memory asserts that they are not "sure" that they can contain the fire.

2) "I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is just 'pull it'."

What this proves: Larry Silverstein is admitting to responding to the fire official. He admits that he suggests to the fire department that "pulling it" may be a smart thing to do.

3) "And they made that decision to pull."

What this proves:

"AND"--The operator "and" is synonymous to "thus" or "so" within the syntax of this paragraph. Its existence suggests a temporal order to the occurence of the events. The "and" shows that the decision followed Silverstein's suggestion to pull. I am not making a judgement on what influence he had on the "pull", I am just showing the timeline of the reported events.

"THEY"--Silverstein is stating that they, which can only mean the FIRE DEPARTMENT in this context, made the decision. The fact that the "commander" called Silverstein for his opinion before "making the decision" strongly suggests that Silverstein had "some" imput into that decision, even if the authority lies elsewhere.

"MADE"--This shows that there was choice, the decision was decided.

"THAT"--This "that" is referent to his suggestion to pull. Note does not say "a later decision to pull" or "something like a", there is no qualifier. It is THAT decision to pull.

"DECISION"-- A course of action was chosen.

"TO PULL"-- "PULL" would have to mean, a course of action that you take upon, in this case, a building ("it") that is on fire. It cannot mean "contain the fire" because the commander has said that they cannot do that. "Pulling" is also something that must be decided upon by officials. Officials do not sit around and decide whether or not people should be evacuated from a building that is on fire. It cannot be that. It must be a way of stopping a fire, that is a difficult enough decision that two or more people discuss it (they).

"IT"-- This refers to the building. It cannot refer to "people" for reasons already stated above. It is a singular pronoun.

4) And we watched the building collapse

"AND"-- Let's look at what dictionary.com has to say about the word "AND"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and

1) Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.

2) Added to; plus: Two and two makes four.

3) Used to indicate result: Give the boy a chance, and he might surprise you.

The word "and" indicates a connection to, a continuation of, and a linkage between, in this case, the earlier clause. "And they made that decision to pull. And we watched the building collapse." There is not a DISCONNECTION between events. If there were a DISCONNECTION between these events, the conjection Silverstein would have used would have been "BUT". As in "And they made that decision to pull, but then we watched the building collapse." I.E. The collapse of the building and the decision to pull are not connected by cause and effect. The word AND admits a CONNECTION between these two clauses.

"WE"-- Silverstein and others

"WATCHED"-- witnessed, aver, saw

"THE BUILDING"-- WTC7

"COLLAPSE"-- Go from being a building on fire to a pile of rubble.

*****

To contest this is about as embarrasing as Clinton's that depends on what the word "is" is. To argue with this is to deteriorate into gross sophistry. If your belief in the meaning of words is so tenuous, you may want to rethink posting on a forum because obviously language always betrays.

There is no way to argue that Silverstein didn't say what he said. You can however argue that he didn't mean what he said. For example, you can argue that he is a pathological liar. You can argue that he said something else in another interview, which means that he is lying in one of the interviews. But you cannot argue with what he said.

I am not saying that this means that Larry Silverstein blew up the WTC single-handedly. I am not saying that Silverstein masterminded it. I am saying that he said what he said, and that what he said is an eye witness testimony that WTC7 was "pulled."


Let's be reasonable here.

[Ka hrnt]

32. Hmmm...

"Another conspiracist, Alex Jones, writes on his web site, "Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted ... that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7." (Leave aside how unlikely it would be for the government to include Silverstein in a treasonous conspiracy, or that the NYFD was in on it, too.) ... Jones continues: "The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives." In fact, a Nexis search for a three-year period fails to find one American reference to "pull a building" without the preposition "down" when referring to intentional destruction. An alternative explanation would be that given the lack of water and the number of injured and missing firefighters, the NYFD decided to pull workers from Building 7 to concentrate on search and rescue at the fallen towers."

Emphasis my own.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/37647/

[readmoreoften]

34. Nexis compiles legal, academic, and corporate info-- not slang.

I'm sure there's not a lot of firefighter or building demolition slang on Nexis. It mostly compiles white papers, academic papers, legal documentation.

On Google you also won't find any information that isn't directly invoking Sept. 11th where firemen talk about "pulling a building." You also won't find demolition folks saying "pull it" either online without the preposition down or in. A pull generally refers to moving a building inward and away from other buildings nearby. Written slang and spoken slang are different animals. Women who work at stripclubs often say "I got two couches" when they worked two couchdances. You probably won't see that occupational slang on the net either. As a teacher, my colleagues and I say, "I got an 8am" all the time to indicate that we are teaching 8am classes. Find an instance of "I got an 8am" online without the word "class" or "exam" attached to it. Does that mean that it isn't an industry reference? Or does it mean that when we write, we tend to be more precise with our terminology.

As far as Silverstein's involvement goes, that is an issue I will not speculate on. Nor will I speculate on any other officials. Any speculation-- whether it be that they are honorable or dastardly is simply fiction.

[Ka hrnt]

46. It searches more than that...

Pick up Franken's "Lies" for examples of it being used to search things as mundane as newspapers.

I don't see much evidence that "pulling" was referring to demolishing the building.

Regardless, the point I highlighted was the one I really wanted to get across, and you've made your point clear on that.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. You're so good to me.

And I hardly even deserve it.

3) "And they made that decision to pull."

What this proves:

"AND"--The operator "and" is synonymous to "thus" or "so" within the syntax of this paragraph. Its existence suggests a temporal order to the occurence of the events. The "and" shows that the decision followed Silverstein's suggestion to pull. I am not making a judgement on what influence he had on the "pull", I am just showing the timeline of the reported events.

"THEY"--Silverstein is stating that they, which can only mean the FIRE DEPARTMENT in this context, made the decision. The fact that the "commander" called Silverstein for his opinion before "making the decision" strongly suggests that Silverstein had "some" imput into that decision, even if the authority lies elsewhere.

"MADE"--This shows that there was choice, the decision was decided.

"THAT"--This "that" is referent to his suggestion to pull. Note does not say "a later decision to pull" or "something like a", there is no qualifier. It is THAT decision to pull.

"DECISION"-- A course of action was chosen.

"TO PULL"-- "PULL" would have to mean, a course of action that you take upon, in this case, a building ("it") that is on fire. It cannot mean "contain the fire" because the commander has said that they cannot do that. "Pulling" is also something that must be decided upon by officials. Officials do not sit around and decide whether or not people should be evacuated from a building that is on fire. It cannot be that. It must be a way of stopping a fire, that is a difficult enough decision that two or more people discuss it (they).

"IT"-- This refers to the building. It cannot refer to "people" for reasons already stated above. It is a singular pronoun.

Let's note that Silverstein didn't use the word IT right here, although you've included it in your exegesis.

Let's also note that the term "pull" is indeed a term used by firefighters to talk about getting firefighters to abandon their efforts to fight a fire. Evacuating people from a burning building? Not a decision, and no one has ever claimed that it was one. Stopping the effort of firefighters from fighting the fire or searching for survivors, for their own safety? That IS a command decision. That IS something that the commander would call Silverstein about, to inform him of what's about to happen. And that IS something that Silverstein, in the light of the day's events, would absolutely concur with.

Effort is, I believe, a singular noun. You will educate me if I'm incorrect, there, won't you?

[readmoreoften]

43. I'm not really "educating" you. I'm carefully reviewing the material.

Something people, including myself, ought to do more often.

1) The "it" was already covered in Larry's previous statement, not essential to my analysis for it to be their anyway. At that point the "it" would've been redundant. But, hey, thanks for actually watching the link.

2) I researched and found no instances of "pull it" being used by firefighters *outside of a 9-11 context*. I only found 1 firefighter site where a fireman said that "pull it" is a term (and he said that it is an antiquated term) *ever* used by firefighters. This was in the context of a 9-11 based question, too. Other firefires chimed in and said that they'd never heard of the term "pull it".

3) I don't know why you bring up the word "effort". Silverstein does not use the word effort. An effort is singular. Efforts is plural. Neither are pronouns. The point?


You said: <<"Evacuating people from a burning building? Not a decision, and no one has ever claimed that it was one.">>

"They made the decision to pull"

You're the one who is saying that they're talking about removing people from a burning building. Certainly Silverstein is saying that a decision was made. He said "they made the decision".

[Bolo Boffin]

45. You are letting your own definition of the word "it"

stand in the way of every other single bit of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse.

That's not a careful review of the evidence. That's called "ignoring the evidence".

[readmoreoften]

50. How am I letting my own definition of the word "it"

stand in the way of "every other single bit of evidence"???

What "every other single bit of evidence"???

Show me the "evidence" at WTC7??? Even the official story is silent on that!

Listen, I'm sorry that I am skeptical that "pull" a building means to evacuate. But you haven't given any evidence, you're just arguing.

And why didn't you answer the questions I asked you?

Are you just going to criticize my answers and never answer what I ask you?

Listen, I'm trying to be civil and really have a discussion, but you're being rude. I even apologized for overreacting and calling the comments freeper-like.

Answer my questions or I'm done answering yours.

[petgoat]

53. Pull doesn't mean evacuate the building because they never

went in the building.

[readmoreoften]

55. Hey Petgoat

Can you confirm that with a link or two? Or point me in a direction?

[petgoat]

70. Sure.

Take a look at the FEMA report on WTC7:

"It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

Check out the section on WTC7 in Dr. David Ray Griffin's essay "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

"Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out."

Read the testimony of Captain Boyle. When he first got to Ground Zero he was ordered to WTC7.
He saw one engine running one hose, said nothing about anyone in the building. Said they were
ordered not to go in.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Read the oral histories of the firefighters

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I haven't seen any evidence that they ever made any serious effort to fight the fire in WTC7.

I'm going to have to read the oral histories, and that's going to be a chore, but I'm starting to
think that they didn't fight the fire because they were warned by OEM that the building was going
to collapse and after the other two collapses, they feared the building might have been wired with
explosives.

Then after the building did collapse and you weren't allowed to talk about explosives any more,
they had to to explain why they walked away and let an $861 million building burn to the ground.
So they exaggerated the structural damage. Captain Boyle said there was a 20 story gash.
Chief Fellini said it was a four-story gash from 3 to 6. Deputy Chief Hayden said it was a bulge
between 10 and 13. FEMA apparently didn't believe any of it. They downplayed the reports of
structural damage and ascribed the collapse to fire.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Your own quote has firefighters in the building you say they didn't go in.

Lame.

[petgoat]

119. I knew I could rely on you to jump on that. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

125. I'm your huckleberry, petgoat. n/t

[readmoreoften]

77. So, according to a Captain on the scene there was no one in WTC7

"So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody?s going into 7, there?s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned."

[Bolo Boffin]

78. "after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out."

From his own quote.

I mean, damn.

No doubt readmoreoften will now regale us with an essay on how "nobody" cannot possibly mean "nobody else".

[readmoreoften]

83. Boyle never said "after which the firefighers were told to get out."

It's nowhere in the article.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Neither did Little Orphan Annie.

"Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out."

Read much?

[readmoreoften]

87. Read much? Yeah I do. How about you?

My quote was from Capt Boyle and I was talking to Pet Goat, if you have something to say to Pet Goat about someone he quoted reply to Pet Goat, not me.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Petgoat claimed no firefighters were ever in the building

and then posted a quote saying that firefighters were in the building.

And yet you still wanted to run with petgoat's information.

:shrug:

[readmoreoften]

104. I posted from an eyewitness account of a captian who said nobody went in 7

I read all the evidence. For and against. I read the letters that you posted from BYU professors and found them valuable. If you have an issue with my post, post about it. If you have an issue about someone elses post, post them. If you have an issue with me evaluating all the links possible on this topic, then you're going to have a lot of issues with me.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

130. Would you for once in your life provide some authority for your

pronouncements?

In the court of my head unsourced assertions of anonymous internet posters are
inadmissible.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

134. In other words, you won't provide any authority for your

breezy assertions. On freeper boards when someone says "and you know it"
they're saying something of extremely doubtful veracity.

Have you checked out the lounge lately?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5418130

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

139. So you're claimed authority is some other thread you can't link? nt

[Jazz2006]

135. Since you'll probably whine to the mods about that post, here's

another before I go to bed.

What on earth is your problem? You know full well that there were firefighters in WTC7 before they withdrew and subsequently set up a collapse zone, so why are you pretending otherwise on this thread?

Sheesh.

[petgoat]

128. That's what I did. And I did it knowingly, and I did it knowing

you would be all over it like flies on poop. It's not an eyewitness account bolo.
It's a quote about information that came from OEM to the effect that they should
not fight the fires. It's not eyewitness testimony that there were firemen in the
building. There is no evidence that there were firemen in the building, except that
FEMA reports that a fireman walked the south side of the ninth floor.

Boyle reports one hose set up across the street.

Be my guest--comb through the oral histories and the firehouse magazine interviews, and
maybe you'll find something.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/

But a general quote from the Union President is hardly proof that there were firemen
in the building, AFAIK there weren't.

[petgoat]

121. It's a vague, third-hand quote which contradicts all the other

statements and you seize on it as the truth.

Have you no tolerance for ambiguity, bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

124. I demand category compliance from my categorical statements.

I expect you feel the same way.

[petgoat]

133. So you think they went in there when there was no water?

When Boyle got to Ground Zero, the first thing he did was get assigned to
Building 7. He got there and one hose was running. He didn't say anything
about anybody in the building. He was ordered in, and then the order was
cancelled. Nobody was to go in the building.

There is no evidence that they ever went in there except the vaguest kind of
conclusion, which appears to have been drawn by the writer Dean Murphy, and
is not ascribable to a quote from Currid.

You can check Murphy if you're so inclined, for authority for your view that
he said there were firemen in the building.

Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Yes, they did. n/t

[Jazz2006]

86. Nah, that's more bullshit from goat (got milk?) ...

firefighters were most certainly in the building.

Goat just likes making things up and later pretending that that's not what s/he said.

[petgoat]

136. What is your evidence for firemen in the building? nt

[Jazz2006]

198. We've been through this before. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Trying to get those dvd and tee shirt sales up?

[petgoat]

201. When have we been through this?

You can't provide a three-sentence summary of your info off the top of your head?

Why not? What evidence is there of firemen in the building?

FEMA doesn't have it. I don't see it in the oral histories or the firefighters'
magazines. Where is it? Are you driven to insist on the existence of something
that doesn't exist?

[Jazz2006]

202. My best guess is within the past 14 - 21 days... memory problems?

Perhaps even up to a month ago, but certainly no longer than that.

Go ahead and search it if your memory is so lacking.

[petgoat]

204. Go ahead and recap it, unless your memory is lacking. nt

[Jazz2006]

205. I don't do command performances. Look it up yourself. You were there.

[petgoat]

206. That statement is not consistent with the truth. nt

[Jazz2006]

208. Nonsense. nt

[petgoat]

211. Failure to support your propositions is abuse of DU bandwidth. nt

[Jazz2006]

212. You're just being lazy.

You know that we've had this discussion before and you're pretending that we haven't.

[petgoat]

216. You're not supporting your own propositions and then blaming

the lack of support on me. That's another freeper tactic I learned from open forums:
stay on the case and get the last word, accuse the opponent of lying, tell him you're
right and he knows is, always keep that doubt doubt doubt in mind.

I don't know we've had this discussion before. That's just a variation on the freeper
"and you know it" ploy.

[Jazz2006]

219. Nonsense.

If you don't remember prior threads, don't blame me. You're the one utilizing freeper tactics, not me.

[petgoat]

220. There are no such prior threads. You are mentally confused. nt

[Jazz2006]

222. Nonsense. It is you who is confused.

and I'm being polite in calling you "confused".

You know full well that we've had conversations about the firefighters in the buildings very recently ~ why you pretend otherwise now is beyond my comprehension.

[petgoat]

225. Your refusal to link support for your allegations defies comprehension. n

[Jazz2006]

227. Not nearly as strange as your refusal to look it up yourself when you were

personally involved in the threads mentioned.

[petgoat]

229. Prove it, spammer. This entire subthread is proof of your waste

of DU resources.

[Jazz2006]

232. Oh, that's particularly cute coming from you....

It appears that when you can no longer respond rationally, you resort to silliness.

I didn't start this ~ funny that you suddenly feel the need to call me a "spammer" when you can no longer refute the facts.

[petgoat]

233. I can not prove a negative--that we never discussed what you

claim we discussed. Your refusal to prove your own case
brings to mind the weaknesses of the official story.

[Jazz2006]

236. Nonsense.

You have search capability which will prove everything I've said to be accurate.

The fact that you choose not to do so is very telling.

[petgoat]

238. What is your evidence for firemen in the building? nt

[Jazz2006]

242. Same as it was a couple of weeks ago... do you "forget" those discussions

too?

[petgoat]

245. I forget those alleged discussions. Do you forget them so you can't

simply say "Boyle said this, Visconti said that, FEMA said this."

I can do that. Why can't you? Are you incapable of learning?

Need I suggest to you the DU addiction recovery group?

[Jazz2006]

249. No, I just refuse to play your silly game... because you know full well

that we've had this very discussion and you are perfectly capable of linking to it yourself. You don't because you know that you were wrong then and you're wrong now. I don't because I prefer that people research for themselves, even when I know that if they do so, the results will back up what I say and not what you say.

[petgoat]

252. You keep repeating empty assertions that are indefensible. nt

[petgoat]

254. Please, mods, put this entire subthread out of its misery. nt

[Jazz2006]

259. I can understand why you'd want it to disappear, goat,

given that it exposes much that you'd prefer not be seen in public.

Me, I prefer that all posts stand as written - which is why I never complain to the mods even when CT tagteamers write all manner of ridiculous, insulting, pathetic and outrageous lies about me - I've always preferred that they stand for everyone to read because I have a firm belief in the ability of the vast majority of readers to see them for what they are.

CTers, on the other hand, seem to like to have posts deleted a lot.

[petgoat]

260. This entire subthread is spam, total waste of time, because of you. nt

[Jazz2006]

255. Not me. But you sure do.

[petgoat]

256. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Is that so burdensome a request? nt

[Jazz2006]

262. It's all been provided before. Your faux request is silly because

you know that.

[petgoat]

264. Is that what you say to the judge?

"Oh we already provided it."

Send it again. The neutral observer is the judge.

The neutral observer is not aware of these alleged
prior statements.

[Jazz2006]

266. Nonsense.

In this forum, the neutral observer can see the evidence previously presented for themselves. It is silliness on your part to pretend that it ought to be posted over and over again in the same forum.

Why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

Why do you continue to pretend that this discussion has not been had before and that it is not easily found by a simple search?

[petgoat]

268. The "evidence previously presented " in this subthread is zilch.

We've had forty posts here: Nothing but your assertion that it's
already been dealt with before, and my requests for evidence.

If the search is so simple, please do it! It is not my job
to provide the evidence for your assertions.

[Jazz2006]

270. Only because you've refused to search on the very thread that you know

exists.

Don't blame me for your failure and refusal to expose your prior ridiculous posts. You should thank me for not bothering to do so.

[petgoat]

271. Your assertion that I know of the thread supporting your position

is not consistent with the truth.

When you waste the time of everyone who reads you or writes to you,
we have to question your motivations.

[Jazz2006]

273. If you don't know of it, that illustrates only your own failure

since you were there, and it all's available on these very threads.

Go ahead, do a search.

Sheesh.

It's not me who is wasting people's time and it is not my motivations which are questionable.

Psst... how many dvds and tee shirts have you sold tonight?

[petgoat]

275. Despite multiple requests you refuse to provide evidence. Liar? nt

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

287. You are wrong about that.

as with everything you post about.

[BuddyYoung]

56. Your voice and your intelligence are needed here. Please be careful.

Regardless of your statement "Answer my questions or I'm done answering yours.", take a deep breath so you don't accidentally give anyone an excuse to try and get your posts deleted and cause you to get banned. For some odd reason those things happen far more often to Truth Seekers than it does to others here.

[readmoreoften]

63. I'm sorry if that comes across as rude.

I'm just being polite and answering the questions of someone who isn't answering mine. I'm just stating a fact. I'm not going to be bated into being the one to account for my statements when the person I'm talking to isn't accounting for his/her own.

Thank you for appreciating my posts, though. I plan to stay :)

[mirandapriestly]

223. Yes, please do!

Buddy's warning was because there is an effort from obvious posters to upset people so that they say things that will get them banned or will distract them from posting with "real" posters, etc... You noticed the double standard, I see: A poster who demands "proof" from you, but won't give it for any of his/her statements.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Why do you think Silverstein is so precise about who made the decision?

Could it be because he knows the insurance companies are watching?

That's why the decision is couched in terms of saving lives. That's why he casts the whole thing as being the impetus of the fire commander. He is concerned about any appearance of having contributed to the fall of the building and jeopordizing his claim.

And you think that while he was being so precise for insurance claim purposes that he ACTUALLY ADMITTED TO DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING???????

Your interpretation of the word "it" is bullshit.

[readmoreoften]

90. Huh? I'm not saying that Silverstein authorized the pull.

I said that Silverstein said that a fire commander authorized it and he agreed. And what does any of that have to do with the word "it" in the sentence I parsed?

"He is concerned about any appearance of having contributed to the fall of the building and jeopordizing his claim."

So, basically, are you saying that Silverstein is trying to credit the fire commander with responsibility for collapsing the building?

Why would an insurance company hold Silverstein responsible for the fire department's decision to "pull firefighters" out of a building? That is no legal decision that he can make. But he can make a decision to demolish a building. That would not be the fire commander's call.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Fire departments don't demolish buildings.

Particularly when they're trying to find survivors in collapsed buildings and fight fires in building they can save.

To get his building demolished, Silverstein should have called a demolition expert.

Silverstein is making it clear that the impetus and final decision for abandoning the fire, while understandable, did not come from him. That is a message to the insurance company. Have you had much experience with insurance companies? They seize on any excuse they can not to pay a claim, and a leaseholder outright CLAIMING TO HAVE DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING would have been plenty of excuse to deny Silverstein's claim.

[readmoreoften]

99. I agree that he's trying to get insurance money.

But he'd be trying to deflect responsibility no matter how the building came down. In fact, even more so if it was demolished because it is a conscious act.

"To get his building demolished, Silverstein should have called a demolition expert."

I have no idea whether he did or didn't. Note that he says the "fire commander" called HIM, not the other way around. Of course if Silverstein is really innocent, and there actually was a CD, and their was a larger conspiracy going over Silverstein's head, one could speculate that the person was not a "fire commander" at all. It's speculation, and wild specuation at that.

My only point has been that Silverstein said-what-he-said. Who he was "really" talking to, what his "real" motivations for talking about this are, what he "really" knew or did not know.... all these things are pure speculation. I could speculate all day, and possibly in a different direction than your speculations, but we would both be wasting our time :)

[Bolo Boffin]

101. So explain how admitting demolition gets Silverstein insurance money.

Pretty please?

[readmoreoften]

107. Well, that's easy.

"There had been such a terrible loss of life" that the "fire commander" made the decision to "pull it". He went with the wisdom of an "authority" that the building was foregone and that it needed to be taken down to avoid further liability.

I don't know Silverstein's motivations in this interview, but I don't see how "pull" meaning CD or "pull" meaning "get crew out and let it burn" would effect his culpability.

[jberryhill]

159. That's absurd

Whether Silverstein intended to destroy the building or whether the FD intended to destroy the building is not material to whether the insurance company would conclude that the building was not intentionally demolished.

It's utter nonsense that Silverstein "admitted" the buidling was intentionally demolished - BY ANYONE - and then collected insurance.

[petgoat]

161. I don't think the issue was "intentionally demolished".

The issue would be whether the building was intentionally demolished by FDNY
because it was totalled and a serious danger to other buildings and to people,
as opposed to demolished by a conspiracy involving a leaseholder who stood to
receive $861 million payment for a building in which he'd invested $386 million.

Of course the official position appears to be that the building fell due to fire,
and some as-yet-unsubstantiated structural damage.

It's too bad the insurance carriers didn't put a couple million into an
investigation, but I'd guess they preferred not to get any anthrax letters. The
stealth threat of the anthrax was not the deaths, it was the potential for
contaminating large buildings so they'd have to be abandoned. Suicide
powder-spreaders could easily do this simply by dropping powder from their shoes
in the elevators so it would be tracked all over the building. (Of course they
wouldn't have to know they were going to die, and they wouldn't even have to know
they were wearing trick shoes.) I don't know how the coverage might be interpreted
but the potential exposure to insurance companies is staggering.

[jberryhill]

166. WTF?

So the insurance companies just went along with the scheme because they were being threatened with anthrax?

Why destroy a building then? You could just threaten with anthrax and collect payments.

[petgoat]

176. The important point was that it wasn't demolition per se that

would have cost Mr. Silverstein the payment (let's assume the policy covered a totalled
building that had to come down for safety reasons).

It would only be a conspiracy to demolish the building for unauthorized reasons that
would cost him the $861 million.

The anthrax is a subsidiary issue that I conflated there only because it occurred to me
on the spot.

Why destroy the building? The possible reasons are many. SEC records, int'l banking
records, CIA and IRS and DoD and OEM records are all possible targets. There may have
been reasons to demolish Rudy's emergency command bunker.

I'm not sure demolition would necessarily have been such a difficult thing to pull off,
given the opportunity to study in great detail the blueprints and to conduct computer
simulations. Destruction of the transfer trusses could allow a few substantial charges
to inflict a great deal of damage.

I'm not postulating that the threat of anthrax was an element in an insurance scam.
I'm postulating that the threat of anthrax may have been a factor in inducing the
insurance company to pay off (with lightning speed!) and not spend the four or five
million dollars on an investigation that the claim would seem to warrant. The threat,
even in the insurance executives' minds, would have been rationalized rather than
acknowledged. "It's important in these times that we all pull together and get on
with the business of fighting terror and rebuilding our economy."

[BuddyYoung]

177. Are you willing to state whether or not you believe the buildings were

brought down by CD, and if they WERE, was it done as part of a conspiracy allegedly led by OBL, or was it part of an INSIDE JOB conspiracy?

[petgoat]

178. I don't know why you should care what an anonymous

internet poster's opinion is.

I have insufficient data to have an opinion.

A conspiracy allegedly led by Osama bin Laden is not necessarily inconsistent
with an inside job conspiracy IMHO.

I think it's possible that Islamic or Russian terrorists outsmarted WTC7
security and planted bombs in the building unbeknownst to US authorities.

I think it's possible that structural damage caused the buildings to collapse.

Slipshod investigations (and, here, the deliberate hampering of the investigators
by the authorities through denying them site access and through destruction of
the evidence) are corrosive to democracy.

[BuddyYoung]

188. Actually, I DON'T care. I just wanted to confirm something. Thanks. nt

nt

[jberryhill]

183. I have to believe you are doing this as performance art

Bottom line - if the building was intentionally demolished by Silverstein or the FD acting with Silverstein's consent & knowledge, he wouldn't collect the insurance. Period, end of story.

The insurance company is more strongly motivated than anyone in this forum to demonstrate that the building was brought down by Silverstein and/or the FD. I guess some of the linguists here need to hire out their services in order to recover the insurance payment from Silverstein on the ground of fraud.

[mirandapriestly]

251. "utter nonsense" ?

It happens all the time.

[petgoat]

257. The insurance payout was in 2/02. The "pull it" statement was 9/02. nt

[jberryhill]

277. It doesn't matter

And the statute of limitations on fraud in NY is, uh, what?

No, petgoat, you can't collect an insurance payout and then several months later admit that you defrauded the insurance company.

That's just plain stupid, and your comment suggesting otherwise indicates that this is simply an infantile game for you.

People collect insurance payments and the fraud is uncovered much later ALL of the time.

[mirandapriestly]

285. Insurance companies stand to gain immensely

by "terrorism". Their premiums will go up to cover the money given to Silverstein. Oh and btw he is suing them to get the money, he is having a hard time getting it from them (see below) It is in their best interest to not expose that 911 was not done by terrorists, it would destroy all the "crisis" risk insurance and other rackets that are pulling in billions of $ since 9-11.
If you paid attention you'd know this and the same arguments would not occur over and over, but no....

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=14001
Silverstein, Port Authority sue for WTC funds

(AP) — The World Trade Center developer asked a court Monday to declare that a recent reshuffling of the rebuilding plan will not allow insurers to back out of billions in payments on the destroyed twin towers.

Developer Larry Silverstein and the owner of the site, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, filed a complaint in Manhattan's State Supreme Court alleging that several insurance companies -- which control billions of dollars in rebuilding funds -- have indicated they might not continue to make payments.

[jberryhill]

292. Logical Consistency doesn't bother you, does it?

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

The insurance companies, which Silverstein is suing for payment, WANT to pay him so they can raise premiums and sell other products.

So, uh, why aren't they paying him?

And you seem to have an argument with petgoat on the timing of the payout. I'll let the two of you sort that out.

[Grateful for Hope]

294. Good find, MP

Hmmmm, so the argument that insurance companies would not pay out if there were any question of demolition is...hey, wait! Looks like they really didn't fully pay out.

[mirandapriestly]

286. Oh, and destroying property for insurance?

Happens all the time in new York. When I lived there, it was a running joke every time we heard a fire engine in the east village that a landlord was burning down his building for the money. Every single day there would be something. Absurd? yes, but it happens all the time. Pull your head out of it's hole.
Check these out and this in just the last few years, note the one with the complicit insurer.:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/arson/index.html?query=LANDLORDS&field=des&match=exact

[jberryhill]

293. Yes, there is a lot of insurance fraud

People go to jail for it.

But under your logic of the economics of the insurance industry, then insurers LIKE it when they have to pay out huge damages.

[Grateful for Hope]

295. Comprehension problems?

MP is saying that it is in the best interests of insurance companies to promote the idea that there is the potential for terrorism to damage property, and they are making tons of money with "terrorism premiums". Given that the WTC damage was supposedly inflicted by terrorists, it would then be in the best interests of the insurance companies to pay for the losses.

But, since they are balking at the payouts, it may well be that they are questioning the real reasons that the towers (including WTC7) fell.

[jberryhill]

296. No comprehension problems here....

Reading ability too.

The current dispute is over the division of responsibilities in a settlement agreement in which the insurance companies DID agree to pay. Nobody is questioning the reasons why the towers fell in that proceeding.


it would then be in the best interests of the insurance companies to pay for the losses.

I see, and your calculations comparing "new" excess premiums to the payouts involved in these losses are, where?

[Grateful for Hope]

297. I suppose you have inside info

that none of the rest of us have?

I think you are asking questions of the wrong person. I was merely paraphrasing what MP said. You need to go to her with any questions you might have...preferably without the sarcasm...you get better results that way.

[jberryhill]

298. The "inside info" I have is that...

...insurance companies don't agree to pay you when you blow your building up, or arrange to have it blown up.

It's pretty simple. It's also pretty simple that WTC7 is unnecessary to any scare tactic in which the insurance companies are in on the deal. WTC7 doesn't make the 9/11 attacks any more scarier, and most people wouldn't even mention that building even IF they were dimly aware of its collapse on that day.

So, no, I do not see any incentive for the insurance companies to pay out on a fraudulent claim, and they have a significant incentive to determine whether Silverstein had his building blown up.

[vincent_vega_lives]

170. How EXACTLY

did they demolish the buidling? What is your theroy.

Pre-rigged prior to 9-11-01 right?

[Jazz2006]

102. yes, you could speculate all day... which is what you're doing... and

you'll still be wrong at the end of the day.

None of the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.

Pretty simple, that.

[wildbilln864]

109. or so says...

jazz anyway. Which is also just speculation.

[Jazz2006]

114. No, unlike CTers,

I deal with facts and evidence.

There are no facts and no evidence to support the controlled demolition theory.

Pretty simple, really.

[mirandapriestly]

149. You said one true thing about yourself

"Pretty simple, really" .

[Jazz2006]

192. Ho hum. Petty insults from the likes of you mean nothing to me.

I suspect that you'll grow tired of such childish behaviour eventually.

But until then, knock yourself out.

[BuddyYoung]

168. Here's a REAL fact: By definition, Y OU are a CT'er.

I can't prove that you are not a lawyer, but I do know 911 was a crime that was beyond the scope of being perpetrated and carried out by one person and that means there was a conspiracy.

[Jazz2006]

194. Here's a real fact.

You can't prove that I'm not a lawyer because I actually am a lawyer, and when you were called on it and when I offered proof of it, you suddenly realized that you were in over your head.

Here's another fact.

I've never seen a single person here who buys the official story in its entirety, but I've seen a whole lot of CTers claim that those who disagree with the "CT du jour" must be paid shills, covert rightwingers, and such.

Talk about lame.

Of course, there was a conspiracy among those who perpetrated the events of Sept. 11/01. But as you well know, the CT term refers, in this forum, specifically to those of you who dream up all manner of conspiracy theories surrounding those events, and has nothing to do with the legal definition of conspiracy.

Nice try, though.

[mirandapriestly]

244. The world according to "jazzy"

"But as you well know, the CT term refers, in this forum, specifically to those of you who dream up all manner of conspiracy theories surrounding those events, and has nothing to do with the legal definition of conspiracy."

Is that so?

[petgoat]

246. You'd think she'd at least provide Blackwell's definition of

conspiracy. But no-o-o-o-o-o, Jazz doesn't do authority.

What a crock.

[Jazz2006]

269. Oh, do get with the program, goat.

Do you really think that providing the legal definition of "conspiracy" in this forum would mean anything? It would only mean that a bunch of tinhatters would jump all over me saying, "wah wah wah, that doesn't mean anything! wah wah wah!"

And besides, being Canadian, I'd be more likely to quote Blacks than Blackwells.

[Jazz2006]

253. "Is that so?" Yes, that's so.

What part of it don't you understand?

[Jazz2006]

274. And, by the way, you do not have permission

to call me "jazzy".

So do kindly refrain from taking such liberties, would you?

[mirandapriestly]

279. Sorry, " Snazzy Jazzy"

I don't think I need permission, though.

[petgoat]

155. So says the Jazz Commission Report. Glad that's settled. nt

[Jazz2006]

207. Go ahead, prove it wrong.

[petgoat]

209. I already did. There's no evidence for it. nt

[Jazz2006]

214. You've done no such thing. But nice try. nt

[petgoat]

217. You refuse to provide evidence for your own propositions. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Also, you know the difference between passive and active, right?

Is the following statement passive or active?

"We watched the building collapse."

And yet "pull" is active. "Watched the building collapse"...that's an truly unusual way to describe demolishing it, don't you think?

However if "pull it" is referring to the effort, then pull gets to be active, and "watched the building collapse" gets to be passive.

[readmoreoften]

113. Watching always passive and pulling is always active.

Regardless of the meaning of the word "pull". It always implies action.

I don't think that "watched the building collapse" is an usual thing to say no matter what your level of engagement is. We all "watched the building collapse" passively.

Watching is always a passive activity no matter what your level of culpability in a situation. An arsonist could set a building on fire and then stand back and "watch it burn"

"Pull" is always active.

But I don't get what this has to do with the debate over what actually happened. Clarify if you want.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. :eyes:

They make the decision to pull (active).

We watched the building collapse (passive).

Not: We pulled the building.

Not: They pulled the building.

Not: They demolished the building.

Not: We demolished the building.

We watched the building collapse. IOW, we were wise to pull the effort from around the damaged burning building, because the damn thing fell down and could have killed even more emergency responders.

[wildbilln864]

127. a typo, me thinks...

They make the decision to pull (active).

should be "They make the decision to pull IT!(active)

[Bolo Boffin]

137. Not sure I agree with your editing work there, bill...

Go back and read that bad boy again.

[wildbilln864]

140. It's just nit picking...

bolo. It's irrelevant to me and it really doesn't matter whether you agree with anything. Obviously we disagree about a lot. Oh well.

[readmoreoften]

148. Your eyeroll is really obnoxious and uncalled for.

I don't understand what you are getting at. There's no need to roll your eyes at me.

Both of these verbs are in the active tense. Passive tense would be "the building was pulled" and "the collapse was watched". Making a decision is an active gesture, pulling is an active gesture no matter if it means firefighting or demolition. All of these things that you include as "NOTS" are also active tense as well as active behavior. SO WHAT?

No, Silverstein did not say "they pulled the building" so what? Did I say he said that? I did not. Do you think it's lost on me that he didn't say those exact words? I did not.

And everything after IOW is just pure conjecture, interpretation on your part, and reading into things exactly what you want. He said "WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE." The only thing that can extrapolated from that sentence for sure is that Larry Silverstein admits that he saw the building collapse and suggests that he was included in a group of people who saw the building collapse.

Yes, they made a decision to pull "AND" (next in the cause-and-effect line) he witnessed the building collapse.

Goodnight and Goodluck

[Bolo Boffin]

187. Perhaps you should email Skinner and have it removed from the smilies then

If it wasn't to be used, it wouldn't be there, correct?

The facts remain:

1. WTC 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the collapsing North Tower. We have video of the debris hitting the building (courtesy the CT film 9/11 Eyewitness). We have some pictures of the resulting damage - some damage to the roofline along the south, the extensive damage to the southwest corner. Another poster here has published a picture he says is from video coverage showing a wicked gash in the south face that corresponds to the roofline damage, but the picture is very grainy and the video coverage is available only as a freebie by purchasing some other CDs. We also have a couple of pictures of perimeter columns in and around the debris pile of 7 World Trade. We also have many reports of heavy damage to the south face of 7 from emergency personnel that were allowed in that area after the collapse of 1 World Trade.

2. Many fires were also observed and photographed in 7 World Trade, and they were allowed to burn unchecked. We know that there were a couple of huge diesel fuel tanks for emergency power generation in 7, and the pipes for at least one of these tanks is in the probable area of damage reported in point 1. Such tanks could and did fuel the seven hour plus fires that raged throughout the building.

3. WTC 7 had an unusual design to its structure because it was built over an existing Con Ed station. A key transfer point for stresses was in the center of the east side of the building. It supported exactly the column that NIST's preliminary report identified as the most likely to have first fallen.

4. Many have made much of the incredible sight of the building collapsing so smoothly. But counter to our initial perceptions, and so many things are, the collapse is demonstratably progressive, asymmetrical, and lasted for about 45 seconds. The spectacular collapse of the north wall is not when collapse initiated. The east mechanical penthouse drops several seconds before the west, followed by the north wall. It's clear from seismic data and video and audio recordings that the collapse begins internally well before the east penthouse falls into the building.

Against all of this evidence, you have your definition of the word "it", which is completely understandable in another way.

Face the facts, readmoreoften.

[petgoat]

189. I daresay ROFL and eyeroll were meant to be targetted at Bushites,

not at DUers.

1. The extreme telephoto aspect of the 911 eyewitness shots makes it impossible to know
if the debris pictured hit WTC7. There are no pictures of WTC1 perimeter columns in
the WTC7 debris pile. Reports of south wall damage are mutually contradictory and
highly suspect because if FDNY stayed out of WTC7 because OEM or CIA warned them to
stay out, or if they stayed out because they suspected it was wired with explosives,
they may well have been left holding the bag as to why they walked away from a $861
million building, and thus highly tempted to exaggerate the damage.

2. What diesel pipe are you talking about and what damage point?

Such tanks could and did fuel the seven hour plus fires

So you know what FEMA didn't know? How?

3. WTC 7 had an unusual design

That issue does not negate the possibility that it was demolished. If anything
it makes it LESS likely, because these massive transfer trusses would be LESS
vulnerable both to fires and to insults from flying debris than conventional
framing members would.

4. counter to our initial perceptions, and so many things are, the collapse is demonstratably progressive, asymmetrical, and lasted for about 45 seconds.

No one disputes that the collapse was progressive. The collapse was completely symmetrical
in terms of the e wall falling in synch with the west and the north with the south. That
the kink in the roof is off center is an artifact of the asymmetrical framing of the building--
the collapse was as symmetric as can be expected of an asymmetrically framed building.
The 45 second collapse notion is based on very unreliable seismic evidence. Seismic and
audio data is consistent with explosives going off in the building.


Face the facts

Try presenting some. That investigators were excluded from the site, that no photos of
WTC1 perimeter columns in the wreckage exist, that reports of structural damage are mutually
contradictory and were ignored by FEMA, that photos of wreckage that might have aided
analysis of the collapse mechanism were apparently not taken, that NIST has delayed its
final report eight months now, and that the wreckage was hastily shipped off to China for
no apparent good reason are all red flags. Anyone who can be complacent about these facts has
no claim to being "Mr. Common Sense". Only someone with a screw loose can be IMHO.

[mhatrw]

103. "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just 'pull it'."

Did Silverstein say this or not?

Can you present any evidence that "pull it" (and not simply "pull") means to get all firefighters to vacate a building?

No further questions.

[jberryhill]

160. Apply some common sense

"There's been such a terrible loss of life that"...

(a) we should get the living people out of there, or

(b) we should demolish the building.

What logical connection does demolishing the building have with the predicate concern of "terrible loss of life".

I can't believe that a casual statement made by anyone is getting picked over in this sort of detail, when it is clear from the overall context that he is talking about why they quit fighting the fire there - i.e. to avoid further loss of life.

It also strains belief that while there is an insurance company with a zillion bucks on the line, that people think this is some sort of admission the building was intentionally demolished.

The story itself makes zero sense - Silverstein wanted to collect the insurance payment, so he intentionally demolished (or instructed others to demolish) the building, and then he goes and says that? Uh... right.

[petgoat]

173. The "pull it" statement was made in 9/02

He'd received the $861 insurance award in 2/02. (Wow! They were sure in a hurry to
fork over the cash! Couldn't even wait for the FEMA report in 5/02!)

There was no fighting of the fire beyond the one hose that Captain Boyle reports--
unless you've read something in the oral histories

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

or the firehouse mag interviews that I don't know about yet.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Personally, I have never regarded Mr. Silverstein's ambiguous remarks as proof of
anything. It's entirely possible that he uttered them precisely to inspire a whole
bunch of "Jewish-bankers-who-run-the-world-dynamited-the-WTC" conspiracy theories
that could be easily dismissed as anti-semitic crap.

[Brainster]

283. "They" Made the Decision?

Let's really parse this, then, shall we? Silverstein said, "And they made that decision to pull."

Now, the "they" in this case is clearly the Fire Department, right? Well, the question then becomes, on what authority would the Fire Department decide to demolish a building? What methods does the Fire Department have for "pulling buildings"? Do they have their own demolition squad? Can you name, oh, say, five other buildings that have been "pulled" by the New York Fire Department?

Also, if the charges were in place, then why did they wait until 5:20 to "pull" the building? Wasn't the building considered a hazard to rescue workers trying to "pull" people out of the rubble of the two towers? Wouldn't it have been smarter to demolish the building as soon as the decision was made?

Hey, I'm just asking questions here.

[Bolo Boffin]

284. Good questions.

The emergency personnel were evacuated around 3. The building fell around 5:30.

Since the building "had" to have been prewired (per readmoreoften's assertation), why didn't they demolish the building and let those workers get back to work? Two and a half crucial livesaving hours wasted for what?

[Ka hrnt]

158. What I don't understand...

...is why this is being argued by some of the people here. I'm fairly certain some of the CTer's have been referencing this page (below) {as they practically quoted it}, yet they ignore its conclusion, which is: "It is clear that the case for Silverstein's admitting demolition is extremely weak."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

[dailykoff]

27. Larry proves the OCTers are correct:

in a conspiracy this big, somebody's going to blab.

[Ferry Fey]

30. The conspicuous silence of 9/11/01 war gamers

in a conspiracy this big, somebody's going to blab.

Like so many of those involved in the military exercises of 9/11 (or previous exercises where the testing involved planes flying into buildings) blabbed?

How many thousands of individuals were involved in those exercises that day who have refused to discuss it?

[dailykoff]

31. Good point.

I guess Larry got a bad case of loose lips.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

47. Never have anything productive to add to the discussion do you?

Do you hate "liberals" too? What about "queers"? Is election fraud a "tin hat" issue too?

I dare you to go on GD and start a post that states that anyone who tries to analyze the official story of 9-11 is a "tinhatter". And it's called an analysis, not a "tangent". So far you haven't proven that you know what an analysis is because all you do is post silly insults that add nothing to the discussion.

I have respect for anyone here who is honestly trying to understand the events-- even if they think the evidence points to the official story. But you're just a nasty troll with nothing to say. People who agree with you ought to be embarrassed to have you on their side.

Go ahead. Reply. You get one last word (you like the last word) and then you're on my ignore list.

Life's too short for vicious imbeciles who hide behind a keyboard and a monitor to take out their rage.

[Jazz2006]

61. Wow ~ talk about outrageous.

What on earth are you on about?

Don't blame me for the tinhat label - look to the mods for that. Take it up with them if you have a problem with it.

Having never had a discussion or exchange with you, not even once, in the past, I find it rather odd that you'd pounce all over me as you have in this instance. Your references to liberals, "queers", and election fraud is even more bizarre, given that I am, personally, liberal and bisexual, although I have no strong opinions about the election fraud issue.

Funny, though, some other tinhatter said the exact same things to me on these threads a while back, in response to an equally innocuous post. Could that have been you?

I have no idea what you *think* you're refuting here, (my guess is nothing), but it is, indeed, fun to watch tinhatters tell tall tales on these threads and post all manner of nonsense. It really is.

I have no idea where you came from or why you felt the need to whine about me, but hey, knock yourself out.

Ohh, and as for being on your "ignore list", gee, that really hurts. (I don't use the sarcasm smiley but presumably, even tinhatters can guess that it's firmly in place here).

[readmoreoften]

66. Where I came from? Why I'm "whining about you"? You responded to my OP

and in a really arrogant and pointless way.

See ya.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

69. All I see is a little black "ignored" sign that's unclickable

Keep firing away, can't hear ya! :hi:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

74. And by the way, there's no "little black "ignored" sign"...

that's unclickable... but nice try.

Edit for typo in subject line.

[mirandapriestly]

152. I did the same thing and s/he kept hurling insults at me, too.

Try not to be discouraged. They aren't "real" DUers.

[Jazz2006]

193. Give it a rest, miranda.

You've been peddling lies about me since I got here; I am as "real" a DUer as you are.

[mirandapriestly]

241. You are the only one who peddles lies

about yourself.

[Jazz2006]

267. Complete and utter bullshit.

I've never once said anything here that is untrue.

Your assertion is wholly without foundation.

[wildbilln864]

88. hey r m o, I think you analysis...

is spot on and as you see when your logic get's the best of them they can only resort to ridicule. It's quite funny IMO yet sad at the same time.
I come to this board frequently to see if any progress is being made to get the real facts of that terrible day out to the sleeping public. I notice that the same few keep coming back to try to debunk the theories and hypothesis of others who are just trying to figure out what happened. The government has not given an adequate explanation. That is obvious.
IMO, it is rediculous to believe that building 7 collapsed with no help, even though it wasn't hit by any plane and fires do not bring buildings down. Never have!
But they'll keep coming back to monitor any progress and ridicule all efforts to understand the truth.
It just doesn't make sense to, as someone else said, "hang out in the asylum" unless you have an agenda there.
Agents Provocatuer(siq)?

WELCOME to this forum and I look forward to your future posts!

BTW, It is obvious that Atta was a CIA asset if you follow the "Able Danger" angle which also is stonewalled at every turn.

[readmoreoften]

91. Thanks for welcoming me!

I'm just trying to figure out what happened since the government doesn't seem to be doing a very thorough job investigating. I try to keep an open mind. I'm not ready to "convict" yet, but it is clear that the official story is complete nonsense. Nowhere, to me, is this clearer than WTC7.

[mirandapriestly]

150. vicious imbeciles

You nailed it.

[Jazz2006]

199. Indeed.

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall..."

Edit: typo

[mirandapriestly]

250. "indeed" is such a pretentious

non word. It's what people say in place of real words when they are pretending to be , oh, professionals of different sorts...

[Jazz2006]

265. Perhaps it seems so to those of lesser intellect, but I assure you

that it is a "normal" word to most people.

[mirandapriestly]

288. Who is of "lesser intellect" Jazzy?

Do tell.

[petgoat]

54. That's a standard line from the freeper post book

"The laughs just keep on coming. You can't buy entertainment like this!"

[Jazz2006]

62. You would know, if anyone...

how are those tee shirt and dvd sales coming?

[petgoat]

71. I do know. I've spent a hundred hours on freeper boards. nt

[Jazz2006]

73. I've no doubt of that. nt.

[petgoat]

157. It was an educational experience. You can learn a lot about the

thinking (or at least the reacting) of a big chunk of America.

When you say something about Bush the usual counterargument is "Well the Dems
are just as bad." The idea seems to be that Republican and Democrat are the
two polarities of existence, and the sins of one cancel out the sins of the
other.

The other counterarguments are "You're supporting terrorism" and "Clinton's penis"
"9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11". Also "taxation is theft."

These were actually open forums that were dominated by Bushcists. I learned a lot
about phony authorities, too, the false personal anecdote, false credentials,
"gotchas", and the elaborate reaction-formation fantasies of Republicans about
the sex lives of those who oppose them.

[Jazz2006]

200. You can learn a lot about shilling dvds and tee shirts, too, I'm sure.

Is that where you picked that up?

[petgoat]

203. I told you where I learned what I learned from hundreds of hours

of interactions with crazed Bushcists.

[Jazz2006]

210. Yes, and I'm suggesting that's also where you learned your dvd and tee

shirt shilling skills.

[petgoat]

213. Which suggestion is absurd, because T-shirts and DVDs are

sold on the street, and open chat forums are on the internet.

[Jazz2006]

215. Not absurd at all, that's what you do by shilling for all of those

CT sites.

[petgoat]

218. What CT sites do I shill for that sell DVDs and T-shirts? nt

[Jazz2006]

221. Every one that you link to.

[petgoat]

224. So you refuse to provide specifics for your charge, or for

anything else, for that matter.

[Jazz2006]

226. Not at all...

But it's so easily searched by anyone visiting this forum that the "demand" that I provide links is ridiculous, and I refuse to engage in command performances at the behest of tinhatters.

[petgoat]

228. Not at all? You do refuse to provide specifics.

Your repetitive assertions are not credible to people who
have insufficient time to do the necessary searches.

[Jazz2006]

230. Your repetitve demands are not credible to people who

know that you were involved in the very threads that you claim not to recall, and if others can't be bothered to search, well, that says all that needs to be said about their commitment to "truthseeking", doesn't it?

[petgoat]

231. I only request proof of your assertions. nt

[Jazz2006]

235. And you've been provided with same over and over again...

The fact that you choose to ignore same is indicative of your strange proclivities to rightwing freeper type tactics.

[petgoat]

237. Your claim is inconsistent with the truth. Please just pull something

out of memory to support your statement. Paraphrase an argument, refer vaguely
to a source.

[Jazz2006]

240. Nobody of average intelligence or higher is fooled by your posts, goat....

A simple search will prove me right.

I'm more than content with that.

And more than content with watching you twist in the wind in the interim.

Edit to change "above average" to "average or above" in the subject line.

[petgoat]

243. Your being "content with that" is not the issue. What's at issue

is the value of this exchange for a neutral reader.

I think about that constantly. I write for the archives of a century from now.

That the value of this thread is about nil is not my doing.

[Jazz2006]

272. "I write for the archives of a century from now"

Oh, please.

Your posts are not even worthy of serious discussion today, let alone a hundred years from now.

From your own posts, you don't have any firm opinions about the issues at issue, and you won't commit to any position on a single issue.


So, purporting to be laying down a legacy for a century from now on that basis looks pretty silly.

[mirandapriestly]

151. "lunacy"?, yet you come here every single day and spend hours

and btw, a poll in GD has MIHOP over 60% and you people are at 11%. So who's the crazy tinhatter?

[vincent_vega_lives]

172. As far as I'm concerned

Hanging around here makes me feel intelligent.

60% of crazy tinhatters think the Apollo landings were faked too. I aint one of them either.

[petgoat]

174. You must have a great need to feel intelligent. Of course

outwitting a bunch of straw man is no great trick. Is it fun for you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

175. Of course its fun

This place could use a serious shot of scarecrow juice.

[mirandapriestly]

248. You think you are more intelligent

than I am, Vincent Vega? Tell me what makes you think so...Also do you consider me "crazy"? I'd like to know because I need to tell my 8 year old about it, How do you think that would make her feel?

[vincent_vega_lives]

291. Makes me FEEL intelligent, I said

I didn't claim to be more intelligent than anyone else. :hi:

Crazy? Dunno, don't know you well enough. I'm sure there are some "crazy" folks here though.


I'm sure your 8 year old would still love you if you told her you are crazy. :loveya:

[mirandapriestly]

299. You don't "feel" intelligent to me

so maybe you are the one who is crazy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

300. Really?

Sounds like I’m being sexually harassed! :woohoo:

[Norrin Radd]

154. I find it odd that Silverstein said "...and we watched the building

collapse," instead of something like and we saw the building collapse or and to our surprise we saw the building collapse. Wouldn't "watch" imply that it fell down slowly? Compare and we watched the building suddenly collapse to and we saw the building suddenly collapse. Unless the semantics of "watched" is different in his regional dialect than a standard dictionary definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=watch

[vincent_vega_lives]

171. I find it odd that if the building was demolished

he wouldn't have said "we watched the building be demolished".

[wildbilln864]

179. why would that be odd?

The wording to me suggests that they was not surprised that the building collapsed.

[vincent_vega_lives]

181. Not being surprised

is hardly the same as actively demolishing it.

Especially when you consider WTC-1 & 2, just collapsed and WTC5 partially collapsed, all due to damage/fire.

[wildbilln864]

186. misleading

"is hardly the same as actively demolishing it.

Especially when you consider WTC-1 & 2, just collapsed and WTC5 partially collapsed, all due to damage/fire."

1 and 2 were also hit by planes, WTC5 was very close to 1 and 2. # 7 wan't hit by anything so what cause the fires?
And BTW, fires have never caused a building to completely collapse to the ground. Not before 911 nor since!
You believe what you want though!

[vincent_vega_lives]

282. Oh Really?

And BTW, fires have never caused a building to completely collapse to the ground. Not before 911 nor since!
You believe what you want though!

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf#search='building%20collapse%20due%20to%20fire'