9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7

topic posted Sun, September 9, 2007 - 7:39 AM by  Shasta
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
posted by:
Shasta
New Hampshire
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Priceless. They show Jowenko the slickly edited Loose Change. The cult tries to find an expert to agree by showing them their biased video!

    Bhaaa!!! Next.........

    Look what the truthers don't show from the interview

    www.youtube.com/watch
    • So how exactly does this take away from the original post?

      So your saying he is wrong in both videos?

      You cant have it both ways he either knows what he is talking about or he doesn't.


      Quick go ask your floor supervisor how to respond. :-)
      • He's saying the WTC buildings were not controlled demos which kinda demolishes the CD theory now doesn't it.


        It makes a lot of sense to demolish building 7, but allow the twin towers to fall due to structural damage and fires.


        Showing Jowenko Loose Change is hardly an example of good science. Their video of building 7 collapsing only shows the last 6 seconds. Duh!
        • I am surprised no one fro North Eastern or other US a schools has taken this up and a challenge.

          These guys seem pretty thoughtful and knowledgeable. and they are utterly dismissive of the mental defective boondoggle about planted explosives.
          But you know Brent the mental defectives won't be impressed by any amount of training and education so long as they have blind faith and ignorance on their side.
      • Shasta: "You cant have it both ways he either knows what he is talking about or he doesn't."

        Yeah Brent, you can't have it both ways, nomatter how hard you try to prevent us from seeing your meticulous cherry picking.

        Shasta: "Quick go ask your floor supervisor how to respond. :-)"

        ROFL!!
        • Cherry picking?


          I was pointing out that Jowenko was shown the Loose Change version of WTC 7 collapse. That one only shows the last 6 seconds. The fact is he watched the twin towers collapse and said they ARE NOT controlled demos.

          It's the truthers that cherry pick.
          • Exactly, they CUT OUT the very beginning of the collapse where the Penthouse collapsed first, paused, then the rest of the building came down. That is NOT how controlled demos work. In addition, any similiarity to a controlled demo is as a result of GRAVITY. Gravity pulls ALL things toward the center of the earth.
      • "You cant have it both ways he either knows what he is talking about or he doesn't. "

        Same goes for you. So relying on his authority, the Twin Towers couldn't have been a controlled demolition but on the exact same day that two planes take down the Twin Towers, somebody coincidentally plans an unscheduled controlled demolition of WTC7? Sure.
        • So relying on his authority, the Twin Towers couldn't have been a controlled demolition but on the exact same day that two planes take down the Twin Towers, somebody coincidentally plans an unscheduled controlled demolition of WTC7? Sure.
          >>>>>>>>>>>

          So he is wrong on all accounts is that what you are saying?
          • No

            On the one hand he gives an analysis to various elements of the Twin Towers' collapse. On the other hand he gives a seat of the pants judgment of WTC7 based on a cherry picked video.

            But in both cases, he's giving seat of the pants judgments that need to be taken with a grain of salt. I would defer to the systematic study done by the controlled demo experts that I linked earlier.

            So do you accept him in one analysis but reject his word regarding the Twin Towers? If so, why?
            • "So do you accept him in one analysis but reject his word regarding the Twin Towers? If so, why?"

              Is this yet another question that's going to be dodged? Maybe I should start compiling a list
              • "So do you accept him in one analysis but reject his word regarding the Twin Towers? If so, why?"

                Is this yet another question that's going to be dodged? Maybe I should start compiling a list
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                The real question is , do you Ron?
                • I already answered the question. Want to try answering it yourself, or is dodging difficult questions more comfortable for you?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    I already answered the question. Want to try answering it yourself, or is dodging difficult questions more comfortable for you?
                    >>>>>>>>>

                    No you didn't.

                    Do you believe his assessment that building & was imploded. You know like Silverstein said
                    • "No you didn't. "

                      Yes I did

                      "Do you believe his assessment that building & was imploded."

                      I presume you mean Building 7. No I don't. Do you believe his assessment that the Twin Towers weren't? Are you going to keep on dodging questions, hoping that no one notices?

                      "You know like Silverstein said "

                      Which, as you surely know, is a lie. Why do you feel the need to lie?
                      • I like how promoters of the official 9-11 mythology just up and declare things they dont like to be a lie.

                        I'm sure all the first responders that contradict Ron are part of a concerted effort to make him look bad.

                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".

                        Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

                        That account was backed up by another ground zero rescue worker who went on the record with her full name. Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

                        In addition, former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

                        Now another ground zero first responder has shed more light on how he heard the countdown moments before attempting to escape the collapse of Building 7 as a stampede ensued.

                        Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

                        In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.

                        "While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

                        "We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

                        "But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

                        McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

                        In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed. We will be releasing that tape over the next week. We also talked to other first responders who verified the story.

                        McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

                        The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

                        In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.

                        The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

                        In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

                        A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

                        To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

                        Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

                        Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?

                        We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.

                        This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

                        • <<Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse. >>



                          Here's sean with his standard lies again...
                          • <<Earlier this year, we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7,

                            I knew a guy who knew a guy who said he heard..... LOL!
                        • "an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change "

                          Oh yeah, that's credible.

                          Hearing explosions? Anticipation of WTC7 collapsing? We've been over that. That anonymous Loose Change guy is certainly a fraud, since no one else is reporting hearing that WTC7 was going to be "pulled" even though that anon guy claims that hundreds were told that, and "pull" doesn't mean demolishing a building, so the anon guy is obviously just a truther trying to give the Loose Change nuts some credibility.

                          And huge buildings on fire and about to collapse aren't going to do so quietly, so hearing loud explosions is no surprise. Let me know when you find someone who actually says they saw explosives.

                          And yes, many first responders reported thinking that WTC7 looked like it was going to collapse, so it's no surprise that people heard that it was going to collapse.

                          "A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed. "

                          And to imagine this happening under the noses of tens of thousands of workers without a single one reporting seeing anyone who looked like they were planning such a thing is stupid.
                          • <That anonymous Loose Change guy is certainly a fraud, since no one else is reporting hearing that WTC7 was going to be "pulled">

                            This is false, Indira Singh also claimed that she heard that Building 7 was going to be pulled.

                            "Debunkers" claim that "Truthers" are ignoring evidence, but as everyone can see, this is EXACTLY what Ron is doing here.
                            • Stickboy, can you demonstrate that the term "Pull" has ever been used in relation to demolishing a building with explosives? If not, then you have nothing to substantiate that using the term Pull was in relation to demolishing WTC 7 with explosives. Thus, you should stop making that assertion when it has no basis in fact.
                            • <<This is false, Indira Singh also claimed that she heard that Building 7 was going to be pulled. >>


                              Riiight. Since "pulled" isn't a term for CD with explosives that means the only explanation would be pulled out.

                              Indira Singh isn't a demo expert either, so how would she know what it means? Unless she's a truther too.
                              • Actually, Captain-No-Research, the specific term Ms. Singh relates that she heard was that 7 was going to be "brought down."

                                www.youtube.com/watch
                                • And of course being that it was structurally compromised and was assessed to be in danger of collapse by the Fire Fighters, it would have to of been brought down at some point. So it is really no surprise that she heard it was going to be brought down. The building was ruined.
                                • Too bad you didn't watch the opening few seconds Mr. Doesn't even watch his own video clips:

                                  <<..because builing 7 was going to come down or being brought down>>



                                  Now it's not possible at all that she misheard or was mistaken.
                                  • >>Too bad you didn't watch the opening few seconds Mr. Doesn't even watch his own video clips:

                                    Whatever makes you feel better, Ignant. Yeah... I skipped halfway through a 30-second video.

                                    Not that it would matter, being that as someone who actually bothers to take an honest interest in these things, I've listened to the whole hour-plus interview.

                                    <<..because builing 7 was going to come down or being brought down>>

                                    Jeebuz Kripes... talk about "cherry picking quotes."

                                    "Did they actually use the word 'brought' down, and who was it that was telling you this?"
                                    "The fire department... the fire department, and they did use the word 'we're going to have to bring it down.'"

                                    Pretty clear cut.

                                    >>And of course being that it was structurally compromised and was assessed to be in danger of collapse by the Fire Fighters, it would have to of been brought down at some point. So it is really no surprise that she heard it was going to be brought down. The building was ruined.

                                    Right... that's why they were told to move at 1 in the afternoon... because they figured eventually, in the next couple days, due to damage, it would have to be "brought down."

                                    Then we've got the footage of a police officer saying "That building's about to blow up,"
                                    video.google.com/videoplay

                                    ...and the firefighter saying "7 is exploding."
                                    video.google.com/videoplay

                                    Meh... they were probably mistaken. :-P
                                    • So obviously you believe the FDNY were in on it too.

                                      Ok got it.
                                      • Is defamation fun, or do you just enjoy looking like a fool?

                                        Considering the tenants of that building, it's quite possible that the FD was being told what to do, or being told what was going to happen, from the top down.

                                        Oh... and don't worry... nobody noticed how you ignored the other clips. Wait... only "truthers" "ignore evidence"... maybe you should get your monitor checked... there seems to be a blind spot. Dead pixels, maybe?
                                        • <<Considering the tenants of that building, it's quite possible that the FD was being told what to do, or being told what was going to happen, from the top down.>>


                                          Yes, no doubt the Illuminati called up the President and said: "Quick you better pull building 7! It's been burning for hours and we gotta make this look dramatic. Hopefully some kid with a website doesn't analyze footage and realize we used controlled demolition."
                                      • *************So obviously you believe the FDNY were in on it too. ****************

                                        You didn't know this??
                                        Those sneaky conspirator firemen had the best ruse to cover their tracks.
                                        The blew the building down on themselves making it impossible to ever get them to spill the beans.
                                    • P.S. WTC7 would have eclipsed any previously recorded professional urban demolition by almost %100 (especially in such a dense landscape), so a legitimate explosive demolition "at some point" would be highly unlikely.
                                      • Yeah, they would have PULLED it down with cables.
                                        • Ahahahahahaha.... right... they would have pulled a 47 story tower, which rose something like 10-20 stories over the surrounding buildings, with cables.

                                          So now *you're* the demolition expert?

                                          Cute.

                                          WTC6 was only eight stories *before* it was pummeled.
                                          • OK, you are right, that would not have been the selected technique. But the ONLY way that pull is EVER used in demolition is when done in conjunction with cables to physically pull a building down.. As a matter of fact, that is how they brought down building 6 AND they used the term pull in reference. From the documentary America Rebuilds.......

                                            Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

                                            Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

                                            Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”
                                            www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/index.html

                                            Can anyone demonstrate that the term Pull has ever been used in relation to demolition of a building with explosives?

                                            Fire fighters indicate in many places, recorded on video AND on dispatch indicating that WTC 7 could collapse. I have repeatedly posted the dispatch and fire fighter video. here is some more information.

                                            It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people.
                                            www.nytimes.com/packages/h..._Daniel.txt

                                            Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...

                                            This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that ís when 7 collapsed.
                                            www.nytimes.com/packages/h...William.txt

                                            ...the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. We were still operating the satellite at that point. We ran. It really didn’t come up to where the satellite was, but it came close enough.
                                            www.firehouse.com/terrorist...laich.html

                                            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.
                                            www.firehouse.com/terrorist...ayden.html

                                            I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
                                            www.firehouse.com/terrorist...conti.html
                                            • >>OK, you are right, that would not have been the selected technique. But the ONLY way that pull is EVER used in demolition is when done in conjunction with cables to physically pull a building down.. As a matter of fact, that is how they brought down building 6 AND they used the term pull in reference. From the documentary America Rebuilds.......

                                              REALLY? Is that how they brought down building 6? Gee... I totally didn't know that... it must have been a *complete coincidence* that I mentioned that building 6 was only 8 stories tall! Crazy!

                                              Newsflash! Nowhere in this thread, except in specific reference TO cables, have I made a single reference to the term "pull."

                                              It's fuckin' hilarious how desperately you have to go back to the whole "'Pull it doesn't mean explosives! It means cables! Look at my great research!"... so desperate that you bring it up even when I'm not even talking about it!

                                              >>Fire fighters indicate in many places, recorded on video AND on dispatch indicating that WTC 7 could collapse. I have repeatedly posted the dispatch and fire fighter video. here is some more information.

                                              Yes... we know. And yet it does absolutely nothing to explain how asymmetrical damage from fire and debris causes an even, symmetrical, straight-down collapse, as opposed to the logical collapse in the direction of the purported "extensive damage." It's not that, as you're wont to claim, what they're saying is being "ignored," it's that the collapse as observed does not jibe with a collapse caused by asymmetric damage. Perhaps it may have eventually collapsed of its own accord, but not in the manner observed. You want to talk about "ignoring evidence," go discuss with Brenty the best technique to dismiss the fire fighter saying "Seven is exploding" and the cop saying "The building's about to blow up." While you're at it, maybe you guys can find a creative new technique to dodge the testimonies of John Schroeder and Craig Bartmer.
                                              • <Newsflash! Nowhere in this thread, except in specific reference TO cables, have I made a single reference to the term "pull."

                                                I never intended to insinuate that you have, the quotes I posted were for the general audience being that this "Pull" myth keeps getting perpetuated as it did above.

                                                <<It's fuckin' hilarious how desperately you have to go back to the whole "'Pull it doesn't mean explosives!

                                                It is hillarious how you latch on to any excuse for derision, it is a large part of your debate technique. I did not go back to the term "Pull", Stickboy did. I was simply clarifying that Pull has never been used for demolition by explosion and that people should stop perpetuating that myth.

                                                <<Yes... we know. And yet it does absolutely nothing to explain how asymmetrical damage from fire and debris causes an even, symmetrical, straight-down collapse, as opposed to the logical collapse in the direction of the purported "extensive damage."

                                                The building was designed to redistribute loads if damaged. Combine that with the fact that gravity pulls everything toward the center of the earth, and that it did not collapse in to its own footprint...... it in fact collapsed partially across the road in to adjacent buildings and you have your answer. You are taking as evidence one video.....from one angle.....and using that as the basis for the whole theory that it collapsed perfectly when it in fact did not.

                                                Beyond that, however it can scientifically be explained... the fire fighter testimony and recordings would stand up in a court of law and your video from one angle would do nothing to change that. Fire fighters are trained in structural integrity. Is it your claim that WTC 7 was purposefully demolished, and even though those fire fighters colleques had died that day by this supposed Bush conspiracy that they somehow they all decided to be in on 9-11? Or if your claim is that they were mistaken, how could so many fire fighters be mistaken about something so important?
                                                • >>I never intended to insinuate that you have, the quotes I posted were for the general audience being that this "Pull" myth keeps getting perpetuated as it did above.

                                                  Right... because the "general audience" hasn't seen it a hundred and one times from you and Ron. Thanks for the reminder.

                                                  And if it wasn't intended to insinuate that I was making the claim, why did you provide such an extensive explanation in response to *my* post, (in)effectively veering off topic back to something the "debunkers" like to throw around as much as possible?

                                                  >>It is hillarious how you latch on to any excuse for derision, it is a large part of your debate technique. I did not go back to the term "Pull", Stickboy did. I was simply clarifying that Pull has never been used for demolition by explosion and that people should stop perpetuating that myth.

                                                  I deride where warranted. Tell me again how the easiest way out of an airport is on a plane, not out the front door.

                                                  Even Stickboy's only reference to "pull" was in a mis-quote of Indira Singh. The bulk of "pull" references in this thread are by you, Brent, and Ron. If in fact the anonymous EMT is correct in relaying that he heard "WTC7 would be pulled," this is an even clearer reference to a building, and not a rescue contingent.

                                                  >>The building was designed to redistribute loads if damaged. Combine that with the fact that gravity pulls everything toward the center of the earth, and that it did not collapse in to its own footprint...... it in fact collapsed partially across the road in to adjacent buildings and you have your answer.

                                                  Gravity pulls everything toward the center of the earth? Is this another "clarification" for the "general audience?"

                                                  Still, none of this accounts for the nature, both in symmetry and speed, of the collapse.

                                                  And again... even legitimate professional demolitions fall slightly outside their precise footprints, probably part of the reason such demolitions are not executed in dense urban environments, and especially not of structures this size (*again*, the record for explosive demolition is 26 floors). I went over all this in a thread a few weeks ago... you know... the one where you said pictures taken from an angle were "head on," and claimed your "leaning" video was from a "totally different side," a claim you failed to support. How quickly you forget.

                                                  >>You are taking as evidence one video.....from one angle.....and using that as the basis for the whole theory that it collapsed perfectly when it in fact did not.

                                                  Actually, there are at least two, maybe three videos. Again, this isn't the first time you've said "you're using one video," and I've corrected to say there are at least two. But it sure is dramatic to claim "only one video," kind of like the drama of saying "footage of them boarding the planes."

                                                  >>Beyond that, however it can scientifically be explained..

                                                  Then do it already. Please... scoop FEMA and NIST.

                                                  >>Fire fighters are trained in structural integrity.

                                                  How so? If they're so well trained in structural integrity, why weren't they evacuating WTC1 and 2?

                                                  >>Is it your claim that WTC 7 was purposefully demolished, and even though those fire fighters colleques had died that day by this supposed Bush conspiracy that they somehow they all decided to be in on 9-11?

                                                  No, it's not. And you know it's not. So why don't you stop channeling Brent already?

                                                  >>Or if your claim is that they were mistaken, how could so many fire fighters be mistaken about something so important?

                                                  Let's try a little analogy here. Say someone is chopping down a pine tree. They're hacking and hacking away at one side with an axe. Perhaps they've chopped about a quarter to a third of the way through the trunk. I say, "that tree is coming down." Ten minutes later, the tree plows straight down into the earth, crumbling to bits from the bottom up.

                                                  When I said, "that tree is coming down," was I wrong?
                                                  • To start off, please comment on this close up video of the WTC beginning its collapse. You can see it buckle beginning on the corner and there is no explosion that precipitates it. www.youtube.com/watch

                                                    <<Right... because the "general audience" hasn't seen it a hundred and one times from you and Ron.

                                                    If the truthers did not perpetuate the myth 100 times there would be no reason to respond to this continued false assertion about the term "Pull".

                                                    << why did you provide such an extensive explanation in response to *my* post, (in)effectively veering off topic back to something the "debunkers" like to throw around as much as possible?

                                                    You should really be speaking to Stickboy about veering off topic being that he was the one perpetuating the “Pull It” Myth in this thread. I responded to Stickboy’s veer off topic, then you responded to me in effect helping to perpetuate the “off topic” veer. My last response was to you saying “So now *you're* the demolition expert?”.

                                                    The simple fact is that there would be no need to “throw this around as much as possible” if the truthers did not throw around the myth as much as they do.

                                                    <<I deride where warranted.

                                                    I don’t think the facts support your “warranted” claim, I think you deride as a debate technique. Otherwise there would have been no reason for you to say the following when it is clear that I was not the one that initiated the “Pull it” aspect to this thread. “It's fuckin' hilarious how desperately you have to go back to the whole "'Pull it doesn't mean explosives! “ This is your M.O.

                                                    <<Tell me again how the easiest way out of an airport is on a plane, not out the front door.

                                                    Except you completely left out the fact that if they were filmed going in, they would be filmed going out. Since there is no film of them leaving, they either had to board the plane, or take an employee exit……run across the tarmac…..and then jump the fence all the while evading security. In addition, they were on the flight manifest.

                                                    <<Still, none of this accounts for the nature, both in symmetry and speed, of the collapse.

                                                    It did not collapse in perfect symmetrical manner, you are once again using video or videos that do not capture all angles of the collapse. Regardless, the fire fighter testimony and recordings debunk any controlled demolition theory for WTC 7. They can’t ALL be mistaken and yet exactly right at the same time.

                                                    <<How so? (fire fighters – structural integrity)

                                                    This is the point that if I were you I would use derision for you not knowing this, but I am not going to stoop to that level. Fire fighters are trained in structural integrity for safety reasons. It is important as a fire fighter to understand when a building becomes unsafe, they used that knowledge on 9-11, evacuated WTC 7 and saved lives

                                                    <<No, it's not. And you know it's not. So why don't you stop channeling Brent already?

                                                    It was a question, not a statement. What IS your assertion? What DO you believe happened to WTC 7?

                                                    And your analogy is piss poor. Please answer this question with a direct answer. How could all those fire fighters be mistaken and yet exactly right at the same time?
                                                    • I don't see much point in debating shameless liars.

                                                      "Actually, the real LIE is your distorted assertions of what I supposedly said. I said there is video of them passing through security, I never said there was video of them boarding planes. You are purposefully misleading."
                                                      uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...c16f5baa

                                                      "4.) Two of the hijackers were filmed boarding the plane."
                                                      uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...6f44bd98
                                                      • Nice evasion tactic. You know for a fact that I have asserted 99% of the time that they were filmed going through security and not filmed leaving, thus they either got on the planes or they ran across the tarmac. It has always been my assertion that for these reasons they must have passed through security where they were filmed and boarded the planes. What you are referencing is a mistake pure and simple, this is proven based on the history of my assertions in regards to the video at the airport. I have never intentionally asserted that there was video of them boarding the plane.

                                                        I was man enough to apologize for calling you a liar. At the very least you can stop relying so heavily on derision.
                                                        • >>You know for a fact that I have asserted 99% of the time that they were filmed going through security and not filmed leaving, thus they either got on the planes or they ran across the tarmac.

                                                          Nope. I know you like to say they were filmed boarding.

                                                          And I've never seen more flawed logic... the fact is that you haven't been *shown* a video. That in no way proves that such a video does not exist, and that it did not happen. The fact is also that the ticket agent described their attire differently from what is shown in the video. Do you even know if there are cameras pointed at the exits?

                                                          Perhaps Socrates can explain better than I:

                                                          "It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know."

                                                          Following your "reason and logic," you must doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon. After all, we haven't been shown any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, therefore such a video must not exist, therefore it is impossible to have happened.

                                                          >>I was man enough to apologize for calling you a liar. At the very least you can stop relying so heavily on derision.

                                                          Yeah, when you were busted for all to see. Thing is, just like when you claimed "I never used the word crusader," you immediately try to turn it around and use it to attack *my* integrity. Trying to say I'm being "purposefully misleading." I haven't engaged in any "purposeful deception," especially nothing like the deliberate deception you have with your doodled-on angled WTC7 pics (you never were able to counter my analysis of the angles from which the pics/videos were taken). Funny, though... you're so wrapped up in trying to impugn my integrity that you can't even seem to remember your own words. Too wrapped up in trying to prop yourself up as a "crusader for honesty and truth," for "logic and reason," that's done "extensive research." (BTW, you never did say which books on 9/11 you've read, despite your claim along the lines of "all the ones I've looked at are just assumption and conjecture").

                                                          Get over yourself already. Or go back to "clarifying" the meaning of "pull it." Whatever.
                                                          • <<Nope. I know you like to say they were filmed boarding.

                                                            Then you are being purposefully misleading. You and I have discussed this airport security video at length and you know exactly what I have asserted, regardless of you finding ONE instance where I said they were mistakenly said they were boarding the plane.

                                                            <<And I've never seen more flawed logic... the fact is that you haven't been *shown* a video. That in no way proves that such a video does not exist, and that it did not happen.

                                                            Why would the airport be selective with the video they released? Was the Airport secuirty in on 9-11 as well?

                                                            <<Do you even know if there are cameras pointed at the exits?

                                                            Of course there would be security cameras covering the ins and outs of the security area, that should be a no brainer.

                                                            <<Funny, though... you're so wrapped up in trying to impugn my integrity

                                                            Attempts at impugning integrity are your M.O. Abraxas, and I am bewildered why you feel the need to use that tactic being that you are a smart guy. I may be posting in a hurry sometimes and get a little sloppy, we all do it, but you flat out know what we discussed in regards to airport security, and yet try to use one post to indicate the body of my claims in regards to the video.
                                                    • Abraxas, see below how Stickboy is still perpetuating the "Pull It" myth?
                                                      • Fuck you, Jeff, you liar. I'm not perpetuating a myth. I'm countering Brent and Ron who are trying to say that "pull it" means nothing to demolition people. That's just not true.
                                                        • "I'm countering Brent and Ron who are trying to say that "pull it" means nothing to demolition people. That's just not true."

                                                          Here's a question/challenge that I'm sure Stickboy will dodge. Hey Stickboy. Can you cite a single demolitions authority that uses "pull it" to mean demolishing a building with explosives, or a single case or quotation of demo industry professionals using the expression to mean demolishing a building with explosives? Feel free to search all the online demo sites you wish, such as Implosionworld or anywhere else you can think of.

                                                          Now watch him dodge
                                                        • "I'm not perpetuating a myth. I'm countering Brent and Ron who are trying to say that "pull it" means nothing to demolition people. That's just not true."

                                                          Oh yeah right. This from the guy who claimed that he never suggested that "pull it" means demolishing a building with explosives in the demo industry. What a fucking fraud and liar.
                                                          • <What a fucking fraud and liar.>

                                                            Last response to Ron:

                                                            You're wrong, and FUCK YOU.
                                                            • And Stickboy still can't explain why he's interpreting Silverstein's comment of "pull it" to mean demolishing a building with explosives when he's admitted that it means no such thing to anyone other than "truther" lying nutjobs, and Silverstein never said he meant it that way (even though Stickboy previously dishonestly implied that it it did mean that in the demo industry - while later admitting that it doesn't).

                                                              What rational person interprets a word uttered to mean something that no one ever uses it to mean, particularly when the person uttering it never said he meant it that way?

                                                              Answer: No rational person. Only lying nutjobs
                                                        • <<Fuck you, Jeff, you liar. I'm not perpetuating a myth. I'm countering Brent and Ron who are trying to say that "pull it" means nothing to demolition people.

                                                          I have said it before and I will say it again, you don't have the temperment for this debate tribe being that you lose your temper over the slightest thing. Take a deep breath......and think of a happy place.... : )

                                                          The simple fact is that you have been trotting out this "Pull It" phrase as some sort of proof that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives. This is illogical being that the Pull It phrase has never been used in conjunction with a demolition by explosives.
                            • "This is false, Indira Singh also claimed that she heard that Building 7 was going to be pulled. "

                              Another bullshit lie. Show me where she used the word "pull." This is what she said:

                              "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down. "

                              Twice above she says "building 7 was coming down" and "Building 7 was going to come down." That's perfectly consistent with multiple reports of first responders saying that WTC7 was weakening and looked like it was going to collapse. You ignore those reports and focus on this one spin of what as really being said at the time - that the building looked like it was going to collapse. Since Singh also has a side hobby of trying to prove that the US government is involved in some huge conspiracy connected to Al Qaida, money laundering, child sex rings, etc. (www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/...1/pg1), it's obvious that she was predisposed to spin what she heard into something more sinister.

                              Once again, that anon guy was obviously a fraud since A. He claimed that hundreds were told that WTC7 was going to be "pulled." If hundreds were told that, then obviously there should be some people who would attest that the word "pull" was used. But there aren't. B. The expression "pull" or "pull it" doesn't mean to demolish a building. The claim that it is is a complete myth manufactured by the "truther" cultists. And since the expression is never meant to be used to mean demolishing a building, it would make no sense to tell hundreds of people that the building would be "pulled", since no one would understand what that means. Hence, again, it's obvious this guy is a fraud who's trying to give the "truth" cult myth of "pulling" WTC7 some credibility by "courageously" making some anonymous claim to the Loose Change nuts that, since it was anonymous, could have obviously been made by anyone.
                      • "No you didn't. "


                        >>>>>>>>>>>>
                        I presume you mean Building 7. No I don't. Do you believe his assessment that the Twin Towers weren't? Are you going to keep on dodging questions, hoping that no one notices?
                        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                        Not Dodging I think he might be right in both cases

                        >>>>>>>>>>>>
                        Which, as you surely know, is a lie.
                        >>>>>>>>>>>>>
                        Silverstein Lied?

                        >>>>>>>
                        Why do you feel the need to lie?
                        >>>>>>>>

                        I don't, the truth is on my side:-)
                        • "Not Dodging I think he might be right in both cases "

                          On the very day that two planes hit the twin towers, they coincidentally plan a controlled demolition of a next door high rise, and wait for it to burn for seven hours before setting off the detonations, hoping that explosives didn't get damaged in that fire that they let burn inexplicably for so long?

                          Wow

                          "Silverstein Lied? "

                          No, you're lying, since you know Silverstein didn't say anything about demolishing any building
                          • Silverstein said "pull it" in reference to building 7, and this video shows everyone getting back from building 7 because in the words of the cameraman "the building is about to blow up, moving back..." and then "we are walking back, because the building is about to blow up"

                            www.youtube.com/watch
                            • I have a couple of direction questions I would like direct answers to Stickboy.

                              1.) Can you demonstrate where the term "Pull It" has ever been used in conjunction with demolition with Explosives?

                              2.) If WTC 7 had explosives planted in it ahead of time by the govt.,. how it is that none of them went off during the extensive fire?
                              • 1) I think if it was ever used in reference to explosive demolition, it would have only been done by Larry Silverstein, who isn't familiar with demolitions terminology. What I have been trying to argue against, and you obviously don't understand, is that Ron and Brent have been trying to say that "pull it" wouldn't be understood by demolitions people, which is ridiculous. They would know exactly what it means, and it DOES refer to a type of demolishing a building.

                                2) How do you know that none of them went off?
                                • << I think if it was ever used in reference to explosive demolition, it would have only been done by Larry Silverstein, who isn't familiar with demolitions terminology.

                                  If he is not familiar with demolition terminology and Pull It is a demo term, then how do you know that is what he was referencing?

                                  << How do you know that none of them went off?

                                  Being that the fire was throughout the building, random premature detonation of precisely placed eplosives would have ruined any sort of demolition of WTC 7. Demolition by explosives is a precise technique that could not possibly survive a raging diesel fire.
                            • "Silverstein said "pull it" in reference to building 7"

                              Right. Pull rescue operations from building 7. And before you say "There were no rescuers there", I can cite numerous rescuers who were there and were upset that they were pulled from building 7 since they wanted to continue operations, plus a fire department commander acknowledging that fire department operations were pulled from building 7.

                              On the other hand, what YOU can't show is anyone in any context, in or out of the demolitions industry, using "pull" as a synonym for blowing up or demolishing a building with explosives, making your interpretation of Silverstein's comment dishonest. What sense would it make for him to use a term in a way that no one uses, and more pointedly, what sense does it make to INTERPRET a term to mean something that no one ever means it to use, particularly when Silverstein never said he meant it that way? Are you psychic and you heard Silverstein's thoughts as to what he really meant? And what sense would it make for Silverstein to use the term "pull it" that no one understands to mean demolishing a building and suggest it to a fire department commander, since the fire department doesn't have a demolitions team, and certainly doesn't demolish building that are on fire, and certainly wouldn't be a part of a conspiracy that not only killed 3000 Americans that they fought to save, but hundreds of firefighters as well?

                              I dare you to answer those questions
                              • If you're saying I'm wrong, then you're wrong, too. He never said "pull rescue operations from building 7."
                                • <Are you psychic>

                                  Are you a psychic, Ron? How do you know he was talking about pulling firefighting operations from building 7 when he never said that? You must be a mind reader.
                                  • "How do you know he was talking about pulling firefighting operations from building 7 when he never said that? "

                                    Typical. Evading a question by asking a question in response. To answer your question, because he later said that's what he meant. Is your best answer to a question a question? Do you have the courage to answer my question yourself?

                                    Do people, in any context or profession use the expression "pull" to refer to pulling people or operations away? Yes

                                    Do people, in any context or expression, use the expression "pull" to mean demolishing a building with explosives? No. If I'm wrong, then please cite any demo authority that contradicts me.

                                    You can't and you know it, which is why you're doing the standard "truther" evasion of questions, arguments and evidence you don't know how to answer.
                                    • "Do people, in any context or expression, use the expression "pull" to mean demolishing a building with explosives? No. If I'm wrong, then please cite any demo authority that contradicts me. "

                                      Third time asked and Stickboy desperately evades. I'm just going to keep on repeating the question until he either tries to link the nonexistent link of a controlled demo authority that defines the expression that way (which he won't be able to do since it doesn't exist), acknowledges that there is no basis for claiming that "pull it" means demolishing a building with explosives in the demo industry, or else let him stew in his silence so that everyone sees that he knows he can't answer the question and just doesn't have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it.
                                      • <"I've never said that demolitions authority use it to refer to explosive demolitions." >
                                        • <"I've never said that demolitions authority use it to refer to explosive demolitions." >

                                          Do anyone else? If not, then why would Silverstein use the expression to mean what you suggest? Why would you interpret him to mean that?

                                          I suppose that if someone says "I have a dog", they might really secretly mean "I have a goldfish", but if they say they didn't mean that, and no one uses the term "dog" to mean "goldfish", then why on earth would anyone interpret the expression "I have a dog" to mean "I have a goldfish?"

                                          No one uses the expression "pull it" to mean demolishing a building with explosives, so why on earth would any rational person interpret such an expression to mean that, particularly when the person who uttered the expression didn't say he meant that?
                                          • I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. You are just pissing me off calling me dishonest over and over, and I don't desire headaches from some asshole lawyer. So just drop it or face the reality that you're not going to get any more answers out of me no matter how many times you ask questions.
                                • "If you're saying I'm wrong, then you're wrong, too"

                                  Her said "pull", and the only conventional use of the term "pull" in this context is pulling rescue operations, since no one ever uses the expression "pull" to mean blowing up a building. Maybe in his mind "pull it" meant "Let;s go for pizza", but since no one ever uses that expression to mean that, then there's no reason to interpret the expression to mean that.

                                  The ONLY reason you're interpreting his comment to mean something no one ever uses it to mean is because you just reeeeealy want him to have meant that to support your idiotic fantasies
                              • <since the fire department doesn't have a demolitions team>

                                You should tell that to Jeff who just today was saying that they could have brought it down. Although that would be impossible given the shit that was going on on 9-11, unless the explosives were planted ahead of time, because it takes a long time to rig a building to be demolished.
                                • I don't know what Jeff said but can you provide any authority showing that the Fire department of New York has a demolitions team, and is it your position that the same fire department that lost hundreds of lives of fire fighters who tried to save lives in the Twin Towers were part of the conspiracy that killed so many of them and others?
                                  • Jesus Christ. No, I don't think the firefighters blew up the building. I think at most they got word that the building was going to be blown up, most likely from the people who knew what was going on in the mayor's emergency bunker in building 7.
                                    • "Jesus Christ. No, I don't think the firefighters blew up the building."

                                      Then what sense does it make for Silverstein to suggest to a fire department commander that they demolish WTC7, particularly using language that no one ever uses to mean demolishing a building?
                                      • As I said I think that the firefighters were in communications with the people managing operations, the people in the mayor's emergency bunker in building 7. This is all I'm going to say about the event, because I can tell you're just going to keep trying to smear me.
                                        • <<As I said I think that the firefighters were in communications with the people managing operations, the people in the mayor's emergency bunker in building 7.

                                          So, this would mean that although these fire fighters friends and colleques died on 9-11, they are somehow keeping it secret that WTC 7 was demolished by the govt? Why would ALL those fire fighters keep this a secret? You would think they would be outraged, and yet ALL of the fire fighters that were working IN WTC 7 fighting the fire indicate that it was structurally compromised and fell on its own. Do you think there is ANY amount of $$ in the world to pay all those guys off to keep their mouths shut considering the horrendeous grief they were experiencing?

                                          I will take the word of the grieving fire fighters, they are the most credible source I can think of.
                                • <<You should tell that to Jeff who just today was saying that they could have brought it down.

                                  No, I did not. I said that those that heard that "WTC is going to be brought down" could have heard people speaking about the fact that the building was ruined, would be condemned, and would have to be brought down on some unnamed date in the future.
                            • "Silverstein said "pull it" in reference to building 7"

                              Yes, as in pulling first responders back from building 7. "Pull" is understood by many to mean pulling back people and/or operations. "Pull" doesn't mean blowing up a building to anyone other than lying "truther" nutjobs who dishonestly invented that definition.
                          • No, you're lying, since you know Silverstein didn't say anything about demolishing any building
                            >>>>>>>>>>>>

                            Yes he did.

                            source.
                            video.google.com/videoplay

                            He said, we made the decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse.

                            You can pretend and debate what the legal definition of Pull it means, but Larry meant bring the building down if you cant register that in your narrow black and white mind then your a fucking idiot,

                            So stop you Ron your lying and move on to something you can debate dude.
                            • <<He said, we made the decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse.

                              You can pretend and debate what the legal definition of Pull it means, but Larry meant bring the building down if you cant register that in your narrow black and white mind then your a fucking idiot,

                              So stop you Ron your lying and move on to something you can debate dude.>>


                              Stop proving your idiocy.

                              First, Silverstein doesn't work in the demolitions field, secondly, the fire dept. doesn't work in demolitions. Thirdly, the firefighters on the scene were warning that it was leaning.

                              Why are you being so dishonest?
                              • "First, Silverstein doesn't work in the demolitions field, secondly, the fire dept. doesn't work in demolitions. Thirdly, the firefighters on the scene were warning that it was leaning."

                                Fourth, neither does anyone in the demo industry or any other industry use the term to mean that.

                                Only lying nutcase idiots who made up that definition do
                            • Oh geez, we're back on the "pull it" lie? You guys are robots. Stop embarrassing yourselves and start thinking like human beings.

                              Can you cite any other example of anyone other than conspiracy nutjobs using the expression "pull it" to mean demolishing a building with explosives? (I'll answer for you, since you don't want to answer that question. No)

                              What rational, intellectually honest person interprets a word to mean something that no one ever uses it to mean, particularly when the user of the term never said he meant it that way, and particularly when there are other interpretations of that word that actually do fit conventional usage?

                              Answer: None. Only lying "truther" nutjobs

                              Is the expression "pull" ever used to to mean demolishing a building with explosives (or demolishing anything with explosives) by anyone in any industry or any context by anyone other that "truther" nutjobs? No

                              is the expression "pull" used to mean pulling back people or operations? Yes

                              Rational people understand the implications of the above. Only idiots and ideological nutcases don't.

                              And before you lie and claim that there were no first responders to "pull", I can quote numerous first responders who were upset about being pulled from rescue operations around WTC7, as well as a fire department commander who said that fire fighters were pulled from WTC7.
                            • <<He said, we made the decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse.

                              It is completely logical, the building was on the verge of collapse and that is why they pulled fire fighters out of it. They pulled them out and then watched the building collapse. He did NOT say they watched the building be demolished. Pull has NEVER been used in conjunction with purposeful demolition with explosives. In addition, you are completely ignoring the fact that THEY DID pull the fire fighters out and when he said "Pull It" he was speaking to the FIRE CHIEF!

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Evolution Hummingbird 0 Today, 7:19 PM
Talking with Iran....WORKED.... Jeff 59 Today, 7:07 PM
Now Who is Politicizing Shooter Incident? onlineDan 33 Today, 7:07 PM
Texas military base shooting leaves 7 dead onlineBrent 29 Today, 6:56 PM