Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition

Related threads:
Sept 11, 2001 - 10 yr anniversary thread (39)
BS: Remember 9/11 (123)
BS: Building What? 9/11 (68)
BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference (311)
BS: Did We Imagine 9/11??? (128)
BS: An Investent And Momento Of 9/11, Not! (12)
BS: The Legacy of 9/11 (25)
BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job (715)
BS: David Ray Griffin's 9/11 debunking book (1)
BS: 9/11 Solved-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confessed (121)
BS: 9/11 eyewitness in WTC sub-basement (23)
BS: Five years after 9/11 (88)
WTC survivor - virus (Hoax) (2)
BS: Did the FBI bomb the WTC in '93? (111) (closed)
BS: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (24) (closed)
BS: why did the wtc fall down (62) (closed)
BS: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Gay? (161) (closed)
BS: Great Collection of 9/11 Related Stuff (2) (closed)
BS: WTC Attackers: An Alternative View (14) (closed)
Is this the WTC? (19)


Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 02:25 PM
beardedbruce 24 Apr 07 - 02:29 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM
beardedbruce 24 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM
Peace 24 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 24 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM
beardedbruce 24 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 24 Apr 07 - 03:14 PM
dick greenhaus 24 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 05:13 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 24 Apr 07 - 05:25 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 05:31 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 06:26 PM
Donuel 24 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 24 Apr 07 - 07:21 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 24 Apr 07 - 07:53 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 08:01 PM
Peace 24 Apr 07 - 08:04 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 08:18 PM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Apr 07 - 08:41 PM
Peace 24 Apr 07 - 09:55 PM
Donuel 24 Apr 07 - 09:56 PM
Big Mick 24 Apr 07 - 10:27 PM
Donuel 24 Apr 07 - 10:34 PM
Peace 24 Apr 07 - 10:41 PM
Little Hawk 24 Apr 07 - 10:50 PM
Bill D 24 Apr 07 - 11:16 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 24 Apr 07 - 11:18 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 24 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Apr 07 - 04:18 AM
Greg F. 25 Apr 07 - 08:42 AM
Alice 25 Apr 07 - 10:02 AM
Peace 25 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 25 Apr 07 - 01:31 PM
Big Mick 25 Apr 07 - 01:40 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 25 Apr 07 - 02:08 PM
Peace 25 Apr 07 - 03:59 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 25 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM
Bill D 25 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM
Wesley S 25 Apr 07 - 05:07 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 25 Apr 07 - 05:11 PM
Wesley S 25 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 25 Apr 07 - 05:26 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 25 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 25 Apr 07 - 09:54 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 25 Apr 07 - 10:17 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:25 PM

It was apparently (and really, quite obviously) brought down by a controlled demolition.

There was not the time available to properly set up such a controlled demolition on 911. Not even close to the time available. No way they could have done it in the time available on 911.

If it had been a legit demolition operation done on 911 to protect lives and property we would have been introduced by now in the media to some of the professional "heroes", the explosives experts who did it and managed to pull it off successfully. We haven't been.

Figure out the rest for yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:29 PM

"It was apparently (and really, quite obviously) brought down by a controlled demolition."


Well, I did admit thet we... THE martians brought it down.

But other than THAT how did you find out? We... THEY need to do a better job if it was so obvious, given the lack of real information available.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM

WTC7 fell down because of fire damage...(there are pictures & videos of it from several angles, showing major fires.....if you look beyond the angles & vids the conspiracy folks provide)

'pull' is just a word...it can be used in many ways. "That building is in trouble..'pull' the guys out"...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM

Hush, Bill. You might wake the dreaming little ones..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM

"And Pull also means to get people out of a dangerous situation, such as a burning building about to collapse."

Uh, excuse me, but you just got onto my turf. Pull is NOT used by firefighters when there is a general order to evacuate a building. What happens is three sirens AND an order over the radio to evacuate immediately. (That is signaled by the speaker saying, "Emergency traffic, emergency traffic, emergency traffic". It's used to clear everyone off the radio net (keep them silent) until the emergent situation is transmitted.) The causes of an order like that are usually imminent danger of structure collapse or imminent danger of explosion or flashover.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM

Ta-tum-te-tum... (humming my little tune)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM

"Pull is NOT used by firefighters when there is a general order to evacuate a building."

I assume that is true. Did any of the firefighters use the word "pull" on 9/11?? The only person I heard utter the word was Silverman, who is not a firefighter as far as I know.

"It was apparently (and really, quite obviously) brought down by a controlled demolition."
No, it is not "really, quit obviously". That is your opinion, and I have yet to see evidence that it was controlled.

It seems that if we believe the "official" version we are goosestepping supporters of the current regime. If we do not believe the "official" version, we are wearing tin foil hats.   

What ever happened to common sense and logic?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM

Pull is NOT used by firefighters to indicate the controlled demolition of a building, either, is it?

It is used by demolition people. And "Pull" IS used by managers to indicate the resorces should be removed from a non-worthwhile effort.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:03 PM

Total lack of respect for other people's opinions is the rule when it comes to this subject. Note the tone of most of the posts on this thread. Ridicule. Smart ass jokes.

Don't be surprised when your total lack of respect for others ends up destroying longtime friendships and destroying even any further attempt to continue communicating with someone about something.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 03:14 PM

We forgive you for the "Ta-tum-te-tum"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

Haven't been convinced by any conspiracy theories so far, but I would like to hear a convincing explanation of how a building collapsed vertically after being damaged on one side. And please don't quote Pop Mechanics at me---I used to write for them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:13 PM

Thanks, Ron. ;-) You're a great guy.

It's the people who mention aluminum hats every time certain viewpoints they don't agree with come up that I was mostly referring to, not you. I'd like to shove an aluminum hat up their collective asses. Same goes for people who mention "little green men" or stuff about "Mars" in a context where it has no merit whatsoever.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:25 PM

I agree Little Hawk, and I do apologize for any "conspiracy nut" comments or the like that I may have mentioned in the past. I have respect for people like you and Peace who LOGICALLY look at the issues. While we may not agree on what we see, I think the search for the truth is very important.

My pet peeve is when people start lumping everyone who happen to agree with the basics of the "official" report along with the current regime.   It is not a support of Bush and his activities to believe that a group of people hijacked planes, crashed them into buildings, and the buildings collapsed. We may look at the evidence differently than you, but our search for answers is no different than yours.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:31 PM

Thanks again, Ron. We are in full agreement as to how the subject might best be discussed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM

"...a convincing explanation of how a building collapsed vertically after being damaged on one side. "

It HAS been given....the building was not just damaged on one side, it was engulfed by multiple fires on many floors. *I* posted the website with pictures taken from all sides, showing how extensive the problem was.... *sigh*...maybe I can find it, along with the explanations.

(and I believe Silverman has been quoted as DENYING that he asked for 'demolition'...maybe I can find that also.....I don't do this everyday....)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM

Look at this site.....there's a LOT there, you'll have to read for awhile. It has quotes from people on the scene, including firefighters. It explains in detail how & why WTC7 fell and what was said & what was MEANT by what was said...and who decided...and why WTC7 was different from 5&6...etc..etc...


...and read this...

""NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[1]

NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007".[9][10] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[11][12] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors"; he added "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[13]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who's Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can't worry about that. Facts are facts."[14] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[10]"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 06:26 PM

and it has diagrams, videos, pictures,..lots of 'em.

will it convince the conspiracy folks? Of course not! They have their entire credibility invested in the idea that someone not only used explosives, but planned it in advance.

It's hard to back down when you get WAY out on a limb, hmmm?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM

Yes I have personally heard those tapes.
First there were questions as to when to pull the building and there were several pauses followed by the order 'Yes pull it now'

The funniest thing (if funny can apply to media monopoly cooperation in criminal acts of mass murder) was when the BBC was reporting live the collapse of building 7 with their UK reporter on the scene while building 7 was still standing. Minutes later the building did fall.

Talk about propoganda over reaching.
Next time media better keep it local.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 07:21 PM

Donuel, I have to disagree with your "media monopoly" theory. Having worked in the business (which I guess would make me "suspect" in your eyes), I cannot see how this would be pulled off. There are simply too many people involved. I would bet good money that the BBC reporter was reading a teleprompter that was displaying a story written by a news associate who was getting information from another reporter or wire service.   If you remember the day, you will remember that WTC 7 was being discussed early on as being in danger of collapse. It is not at all surprising that the reporter gave out wrong information.

Having been in newsrooms when major stories are breaking, I can tell you that it is a scene of chaos and a question of trying to get the information out fast and first. Unfortunately, accuracy goes out the window. It is all a symptom of the times and technology.   In the past they would wait until the 6pm news, now they are on 24/7.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 07:53 PM

This will be the 6th attempt by NIST to address what happened at WTC 7. None of the reasons make sense. That's why they keep changing the story.

I can run the photos of WTC 5 & 6 again, if people need that. Burned out steels husks still standing until they were methodically demolished. WTC 7 has NO fire coming out of it on 9/11, when compared to 5 & 6, and the only difference between 7 and the others was that it was MORE sturdy than any other bldg in the complex.

Ebbie...for the tenth time I'll post this. It is such common knowledge now that it's even on your beloved Wikipedia govt brainwashing site:

The Real ID act started off as H.R. 418, which passed the House (261-161-11) and went stagnant. It was then attached as a rider on a military spending bill (H.R. 1268) by Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin (the author) and was voted upon (100-0). It was signed into public law (109-13) on May 11, 2005....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_id (click on the 100-0 link to see the names of the unanimous voters).

The Senate has voted 100-0 on several rights-killing laws, but look at the one above. Research it. The U.S. Senate voted unanimously that you won't be able to work, drive, have a bank account, enter a federal building, etc. unless you have your Nazi-style papers on you.

The Real I.D. Act is such a stinking turd that the U.S. govt ran this bit of terrorism the day after it was signed into law:

...As the plane approached, authorities evacuated the White House and other federal buildings.

"Run, this is no joke, leave the grounds," a Secret Service agent told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/evacuation/index.html

The plane incident was the thing that made believers out of the holdouts in my family (I'd convinced about half that govts through history terrorize their own to create support for policy, as the US military-industrial complex did on 9/11). And on May 12, 2005, those holdout members of my family were regurgitating on me tha "fact" that a "pilot" had flown a Cessna over D.C., and "you'd think after 9/11 that couldn't happen." So I printed out the story and had them read it. A FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR was in the plane (talking heads failed to mention that on TV), visibility was perfect, and the instructor was flying toward the most recognizable landmarks in the U.S. Zero possibility of it being a "mistake." Yet the feds got 35,000 federal employees to panic and run for the cameras the DAY AFTER A LAW WAS ENACTED TO FORCE NAZI INTERNAL PAPERS ON AMERICANS. And now, when I mention the Real I.D. Act to people, and they don't know about it, I ask if they remember the Cessna. They do. I pick up the story from there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:01 PM

The BBC has issued an explanation of their 'early' call! They simply had bad information from a VERY busy correspondent! They MADE A MISTAKE!

I do not get the impression that anyone, so far, has looked 'carefully' at the site I posted...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:04 PM

I have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:18 PM

ok...great. Any opinions?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 08:41 PM

I just might believe our friend Scary Kerry but for one thing - his need for being anonymous on every subject he posts here - and his need for a different handle for each one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:55 PM

I agree that the news people screwed up.

But, I had never seen that footage before a few months ago, Bill. Footage I did see way back when has Silverstein (? hope I'm not screwing up that name) saying, "we pulled it". Guilani said something similar. The expression IS used by blasters. (I have a good friend here who worked as one for years.) I know of few other uses for the term in that context. Professionals who have to drop buildings take their time. It does take days to get a structure to fall straight down. Gravity alone, and the so-called pancaking where one floor falls to the next (ad infinitum) makes a building fall straight down--well, three out of three times by chance? Nope, even physics doesn't explain that. The hard questions about 9/11 have been ignored. I will agree that many of the conspiracy theories out there are 'out there', but that doesn't mean that all the theories out there are 'out there'.

The thing that makes me distrust government studies and makes me believe that people can be convinced of anything is Kennedy's assassination. The puff of smoke from the bushes on the knoll has never been satisfactorily explained. It has caused people who ask about it to be ridiculed, but the question still remains. It is possible to tell people what they see, and I think the Rule of 48 proves that. The best intelligence services in the world do their thing and the best people get about 9/11 is that mistakes happened. Doh, yeah!

A normal DOT investigation into a plane crash can take over a year. The plane, as much as can be salvaged, is reconstructed and to the best of their abilities, the investigators determine what caused the crash. Hell, play this game!

It's another grassy knoll. We are told what we see (or DON'T see) is not there or is.

So, while I'll say I think the news story was a screw up as some of you have said, it was never that news story that made me think something just ain't right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 09:56 PM

Here is a short film about the media shift since 1970 and how it now works from the top down. http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.tv/orwellrolls.php

It works from the top down. A reporter's life may be the same on the street but getting his story past an editor is the test.


My point is that to coordinate such a "reichstad fire scenario" and cover it live trans Atlantic is virtually impossible...but the mistakes they made trying are hilarious in a macabre manner.


A good lawyer always asks "is it possible"

Could all the evidence I have seen, that is contrary to the offical 9-11 Commission reports, have been tampered with or spun out of whole cloth in seamless multimedia masterpieces?

Yes is it possible.

but martians posting as bearded bruce is also 'possible'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:27 PM

Peace and Little Hawk, if my tinfoil hat and mothballs comment offended you, I sincerely apologize. It was meant as a tongue in cheek comment, a poor attempt at humor. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and whether we agree or not, insults are not necessary.

And Bill, I don't think most of the folks here will take the time to read it, but it is important to have it in the record for those that will. Thanks for taking the time.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:34 PM

The only fools are the ones spreading a known lie for free. Its a quid pro quo market and nothins fo nothin anymore.

I would be surprised if even one of Bill's 125 private sector experts who claim that the collapse of 3 steel buildings is normal under the circumstances....did it for free out of the goodness of their hearts without any credit, accolades or money changing hands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:41 PM

"Peace and Little Hawk, if my tinfoil hat and mothballs comment offended you, I sincerely apologize."

Mick, no need for that on my account. Hell, I KNOW I'm crazy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:50 PM

That's okay, Mick. Understood.

Like Peace says...we're ALL crazy. Each in our own special way. And we all lose our temper now and then. I don't mind people being crazy as long as it's not dangerous-crazy....cos, after all, I'm crazy too, right? ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:16 PM

WT7 was not a standard steel building...it had a structure similar to WTC 1&2. WTC 7 did not fall 'straight down'...it leaned, then fell. It fell because heavy fires had burned in it lower floors for over 6 hours, and it had 30 floors ABOVE where the fiercest fires were...and, to repeat, it was NOT a standard steel structure.
That is what *I* learned from reading that extremely detailed site.

On the site are interviews/quotes from firemen saying that they 'knew' it was weak and gonna fall...NOT that they were going to MAKE it fall. Silverstein and the brigade commander were not demolition people...they were not using technical jargon. 'Pull' was an unfortunate word they used.

It is not reasonable to base such a huge, scary conspiracy on an out-of-context word usage when there is so much physical evidence pointing to the fires and building structure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:18 PM

Donuel, you are right - anything COULD happen. I could also win the lottery tonight, or get hit by lightning, or spontaneously combust. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Realistically, I will blow another couple of bucks on tickets, there are no clouds in the sky, and I'm not feeling the slightest bit warm. From what I know of newsrooms and the personnel involved, the government will not be able to plant stories of that magnitude.

I also heard Guiliani and Silverstein say "pull it". IF these individuals were involved in what would be a massive coverup, do you think BOTH would blow it by saying "pull it" - and no other strong evidence can be found to back up controlled demolition? Why would two of the most important people involved in the supposed coverup screw up on such a huge point? Why aren't fire fighters and other personnel who were in WTC 7 coming forward with any evidence? Why aren't we hearing ANYONE else come forward?    All the evidence I've seen supporting a coverup shows photographs or video footage that requires a leap of faith to support, a newsreporter who could easily have made a mistake (among the hundreds of errors that were reported that day), and two individuals saying the words "pull it" which can be open to a variety of interpretation.

Contrary to some of the reports, there is strong evidence that WTC 7 was making money.   Why "pull it"????

Given the difficulty in providing credible evidence and all the unanswered questions, does anyone understand why I find a conspiracy to demolish this building hard to accept?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM

WTC 7 had just undergone a 20 million dollar fix-up to reinforce it as a "command center." If the day was a government-op, chances are the on-site monitoring was done from the newly-fortified floor in WTC 7 that overlooked the complex.

Also, records had been pouring into WTC 7 for months. Most notably SEC records regarding hundreds of ongoing fraud cases (things like Enron). Lots of old treaties and land records had been placed in WTC 7 too. Lots of paperwork concerning court cases, ownership of real estate, etc. The BATF, FBI, CIA, etc. regional offices were in the bldg., and records concerning their murderous "screw ups" were located there. The reason for the takedown of the building could have been simply to do the biggest expungement of records in history.   

There were lots of reasons to bring down WTC 7.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:18 AM

"Pull it" is not a term used in demolition.
Who started that rumour?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 08:42 AM

I suppose some find it amusing 'debating' with lunatics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Alice
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:02 AM

Guest Scary, I truly encourage you to get a mental health check up. Belief in conspiracy theories is a sign of paranoia that you should take
seriously. Psychology Today, Conspiracy Theories


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM

The term 'pull it' was not in use before 9/11 by explosives people. It is now. The rumour was started when the buildings 'fell' and both Silverstein and Guilani used the term on camera.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:31 PM

So, what if I believed the "19 men with boxcutters" story? 4-5 men on each plane, each man with a one-inch razor. They got planeloads of Type-A American salesmen to cower in their seats, then (with the flight skills that got them kicked out of flight schools), the hijackers took the planes through maneuvers a jet pilot couldn't perform without a pressure suit. They also got NORAD to stand down over the buisiest airspace in North America for an hour and a half. If I believed THAT story, would I pass the mental health test?

The government version of 9/11 is a lie. We all know it. And the coverup in itself is a crime. If your house blew up and then you told the cops that you were in charge of investigating the event and they'd just have to accept your explanation, you'd be arrested. The people are starting to hold the criminals of 9/11 accountable. Bit by bit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:40 PM

Alice, I have been suggesting the same thing about this "Guest" for years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:08 PM

"If I believed THAT story, would I pass the mental health test?"

Probably.   

Your statements have a lot of question marks in them. First, we do not know what the passengers did on all the planes, except for one which they forced to crash. You say that the pilots flunked out of flight school, but they were not going for their license. You say they took the planes through manuevers that would require pressure suits - no evidence there. You say that NORAD was in "stand down", and that is simply not true.   You are making statements as if they are fact, when the REAL TRUTH is that you are only stating your opinions. You are doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse the goverment of doing - creating a coverup and twisting the facts to fit your story.

You really are scary, Kerry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:59 PM

"There is also the fact that NORAD-Northeast was conducting war game exercises that morning, a fact that has been very little talked about and certainly not reported to the general public. What's also not been reported, according to the information that I have, at least one of the scenarios they were considering in their war game exercises concerned hijacked aircraft being crashed into buildings. Now, this could explain the lack of response when the air traffic controllers began to report that four planes were off course..." - Jim Marrs, Author, Inside Job


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM

In my opinion, those who ridicule the "nineteen men with boxcutters" scenario are guilty of applying today's mindset to events that happened under a totally different set of rules. Yes, it's absurd to think that nineteen men with boxcutters could hijack four airliners and use them as flying bombs today, but it was far from absurd on September 11, 2001.

On that date, the accepted way to respond in a hijack situation was to go along with the hijacker(s). In all previous hijackings, the perpetrators' goals had simply been to make the plane go someplace other than it's original destination. Acceding to their demands was the safest thing to do. A hijacking was most likely going to be an inconvenience, not a deadly event, and actions which might turn one into a deadly event were simply not taken. Fighting back against a highjacker was considered foolhardy in the extreme. Those "type A businessmen" probably did not suspect for an instant that the outcome of what was going on in those planes would be anything more than an unscheduled detour to someplace like Tehran. The idea that people would actually take control of a plane and use it as a flying bomb was as foreign to the psyches of the people on board as the idea of an alien spaceship using a tractor beam to tow it to the moon.

Saying that the idea of a planeload of people not fighting back is absurd is like saying that a child being bitten by a poisonous snake because he didn't know how dangerous it was is absurd. People's reactions to threatening situations are in line with the perceived threat level, and the difference between the perceived threat level during a highjacking, should one occur today, and the ones that occurreed on 09/11/01 is astronomical. A hijacker with a boxcutter today would get the shit beat out of him by thirty people, even if it meant one or two people got their throats slit in the process. Better a couple of dead people than a planeload. That's simply not the way people thought before 9/11.

And those who think a boxcutter is not a deadly weapon are guilty of playing semantic games. The word "boxcutter" sounds harmless, and the exposed blade of a boxcutter may only be an inch long, but that blade is razor sharp and can cut through a person's trachea as easily as a surgeon's scalpel. If you don't think they're dangerous, call up your local hospital emergency room and ask how many store clerks' arms and legs they've stitched up this week due to accidental, self-inflicted boxcutter wounds. If people's jugular veins and trachea were in their forearms instead of their necks, stocking shelves would be the world's most dangerous job. If you'd like to see the six-inch scar in my own left forearm from when I was a nineteen-year-old grocery clerk, come visit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM

They killed at least one flight attendant and 'probably' a couple of pilots with those box cutters...(This is confirmed...not speculation)...calls were made, screams were heard..)...and they TOLD passengers they had bombs..what would you do? Those on the LAST plane did, after they understood.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:07 PM

And it's only because they were on the last plane that they had any idea what was going to happen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:11 PM

I don't mind starting at square one again.

First, who was in control of NORAD on September 11, 2001?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

It's only square one because that's where you're starting to prove your point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:26 PM

We know Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD because of the war games. Tell us where the "stand down" has been proven.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM

Cheney's control of NORAD on September 11, 2001 had nothing to do with wargames. All wargames before had been conducted without transferring control of NORAD from military to civilian control. NORAD had been in existence for half a century, always under military control, then on June 1, 2001 it was transferred to the Department of Defense with this order:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf

And this order transferred control of NORAD to the Department of Defense (Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), not to the White House.

Yet we know Dick Cheney was in control of the airspace because the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, testified to this before congress:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane is 50 miles out.' 'The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to 'the plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'"

This was the Pentagon plane Cheney ordered not to be shot down.

The video of this is on youtube, etc. It was broadcast live on C-SPAN.

So the above contradicts Olesko's statement, We know Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD because of the war games. Tell us where the "stand down" has been proven.

Please cite sources in the future, and if you have a source proving that we know Cheney was in charge of NORAD because of the wargames, please add a link to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:54 PM

Thanks Froth, you are correct - Cheney was not in charge and there was no stand down. Thanks for the link.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:17 PM

By the way Froth, if you read the whole testimony, it does appear that Mineta mentioned that flights were scrambled from Langley and had not reached DC. No mention of an order to "not" shoot the plane down:

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 21 September 11:26 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.