• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

of WTC7 and things being pulled

The key thing to remember about Killtown is that his entire goal is to shock. If believing the official story were somehow more shocking and offensive to people, and would let him level more murderous accusations against innocents, then that's what he would believe instead.

He promotes the "no plane" in Shanksville theory specifically because it lets him photoshop feces onto the grave site of heroes. That shocks, that offends, that makes him feel powerful and strong. He had an affect on you. It's the same mentality of every misbehaving 13 year old: "I shocked you, therefore I am more powerful than you."

This is why he went on the LC board and denied the Holocaust, this is why he says the FDNY was in on the murder of more than 300 of their own firefighters, this is why he says witnesses and hundreds of workers in the clean up crews near Shanksville are all murderous liars. It's the single thing that lets him do the most damage to the most people in the least amount of time.

Whether or not you believe in evil or if you believe that some people are simply misguided, just five minutes of reading Killtown's posts makes it strikingly clear that his primary motivation is the pleasure he takes from doing harm to others. He enjoys getting to throw out vicious accusations from behind the cover of anonymity, enjoys the thought of common people having to scramble to clear their names. It's fun for him. He'll never have to answer for it. He'll never have to prove what he's saying. Just keep throwing bombs and smirk as he watches people run.

That's how he earned the right to be the only poster I've ever put on ignore, that he's the one who made me go looking for an ignore function. I've spoken with lots and lots and lots of 9/11 deniers, but of all of them Killtown seems to be the only truly toxic person I've run into. You could make a very strong argument that his mind is more fundamentally broken than Christophera's is.

You people who are taking the time to debunk him are doing a selfless thing, because on one hand it's important to let lurkers know that nobody is buying it... but on a personal level there is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing to be gained from talking to a person like that. You guys are truly doing sewage cleanup here and I admire it. Because I don't have the stomach for it.
 
Sorry for the de-rail, but I'd like to ask Killtown what the point of this statement in his signature is:

Quote from JREF admin on 10/19/06 to me: "You are under no different or additional restrictions then any other Member as to what you may discuss."

It seems like you are trying to make some kind of point, but I'd be buggered if I know what it is. :confused:

I now return you to your scheduled debunking.
 
Here's a question I asked troofer1234, but he failed to respond:


Me said:
What I really want to know from troofer1234, and it is something that has yet to be explained to me by any other troofer, is how they see Mr. Silverstein's role in their conpiracy fantasy from the planning stage, through execution and afterwards. For example, I cannot see why the Fire Commander would be ringing Silverstein at all. The CT has it that the the demise of WTC7 is pre-planned (destruction of sooper sekrit documents or destruction of operational bunker, take your pick). So, troofer1234, can you notch up a first for the troof by explaining Silverstein's role?.

Perhaps Killtown will take a shot at it.
 
[Killtown mode]
Why do you think I'd take a shot at it?
[/Killtown mode]

Excellent impression, Brainache. You sound just like him. If you don't ask, you don't get. But I don't hold out too much hope for a response.
 
Excellent impression, Brainache. You sound just like him. If you don't ask, you don't get. But I don't hold out too much hope for a response.

[KT mode]
Sound like who?
Don't get what?
Response?:boggled:
[/KT mode]

Aww I miss the little scamp.
 
1. Buy WTC 7.
2. Insure it for far less than rebuilding cost.
3. Blow it up.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Can a CTist here explain what is involved in step 4?
 
Here is my take on "Pull It", sorry if it's repeat material, but I'm new here:

Most of the "pull it" nonsense comes from two sources. Obviously the first is the infamous Silverstein "pull it" phrase. Second comes from a PBS short where CTrs assert that WTC 6 was "pulled" by the demo crew working GZ. The first has been discussed ad nauseam, but here are some questions I have:

  • Why would firemen be involved in the execution phase of a CD?
  • What specialized knowledge would a fireman have to conduct such a dangerous operation?
  • In a CT in which every complicit party has been completely silent (those who planted bombs, detonated them), why would its main architect Sliverstein be so absent minded as to admit his culpability in the biggest act of mass murder in American history? Generally greedy hatemongers are better with secrets than that...
  • Why will no CD expert attest that the phrase "pull it" is a common trade term?
There is not one instance of any CD expert attesting that the phrase "pull it" is EVER used in conjunction with CD. Rather it has a SPECIFIC useage, in that it is exclusively used to describe a situation where a building is physically pulled down with cables and machines, as was done with WTC 6.

WTC 6

The second assertion is more sinister on the part of CTs. They love to take the PBS clip and play it over and over where the demo crew is saying we're getting ready to "pull" building 6. They attempt to say this is the proof that "pull it" was used by demo experts to say WTC 6 was pulled with explosives. The only problem is that 6 was actually physically pulled down with machinery as is seen on the PBS footage. So down that goes.

Bottom line:

No CTer can answer any of these questions I have posted, but that never stops them from regurgitating this garbage.

o_PullMyFinger.JPG
 
Let's see if this scenario makes sense:
FC: were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire
LS: You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull [them]?
FC: oh gee, now why didn't I think of that? Thanks Mr. Silverstein. You so smart.

Yes, I think that scenario makes sense, except for the last part that you added. The fire department's job is to protect lives and property. WTC7 was a huge office building, a jewel in Manhattan. The firefighters were not going to be able to fight the fires in that building, and they thought it was going to collapse. This much we know for sure, based on statements by all the firefighters. Now what would the Fire Chief do in that situation? He'd call the property owner and tell him the status, and any person with decent communication skills would guide the conversation in a way that the owner, based on that status, comes to the reasonable conclusion. From Silverstein's POV, he would be jointly making the decision with the Fire Chief to abandon the building. And that's exactly what Silverstein relates in his PBS interview.

That's not only plausible, it is just what you would expect each person to do in the "official version" of events. On the other hand, compare that to the idea that Silverstein conspired with the Fire Chief to detonate the explosives that they both knew had been planted in the building, and Silverstein admitting it in a PBS interview, or even granting a PBS interview.
 
I feel compelled to admit that while I was typing my response earlier I was eating a bagel. I know that may cast doubts upon my ability to discuss Jewish collusion over 9/11 with impartiality because I am a shill for their delicious pastries. I apologize.
 
Oh, sasasasorry. here:

"But he did [use/say] "it" which is consistent with referring to what they watched collapse right after the gave the order to "pull"[; the building]."


Let's see. Killtown can't write an undertandable sentence even given a second chance to edit it.

Yet he criticizes Silverstein over one word ("it" vs "them") and puts so much CT weight on one word and refuses to accept the possibility that Silverstein was speaking extemporaneously and did not carefully consider how his exact words might be misconstrued months later.

The irony is delicious here.

Lurker
 
The key thing to remember about Killtown is that his entire goal is to shock. If believing the official story were somehow more shocking and offensive to people, and would let him level more murderous accusations against innocents, then that's what he would believe instead.

He promotes the "no plane" in Shanksville theory specifically because it lets him photoshop feces onto the grave site of heroes. That shocks, that offends, that makes him feel powerful and strong. He had an affect on you. It's the same mentality of every misbehaving 13 year old: "I shocked you, therefore I am more powerful than you."

This is why he went on the LC board and denied the Holocaust, this is why he says the FDNY was in on the murder of more than 300 of their own firefighters, this is why he says witnesses and hundreds of workers in the clean up crews near Shanksville are all murderous liars. It's the single thing that lets him do the most damage to the most people in the least amount of time.

Whether or not you believe in evil or if you believe that some people are simply misguided, just five minutes of reading Killtown's posts makes it strikingly clear that his primary motivation is the pleasure he takes from doing harm to others. He enjoys getting to throw out vicious accusations from behind the cover of anonymity, enjoys the thought of common people having to scramble to clear their names. It's fun for him. He'll never have to answer for it. He'll never have to prove what he's saying. Just keep throwing bombs and smirk as he watches people run.

That's how he earned the right to be the only poster I've ever put on ignore, that he's the one who made me go looking for an ignore function. I've spoken with lots and lots and lots of 9/11 deniers, but of all of them Killtown seems to be the only truly toxic person I've run into. You could make a very strong argument that his mind is more fundamentally broken than Christophera's is.

You people who are taking the time to debunk him are doing a selfless thing, because on one hand it's important to let lurkers know that nobody is buying it... but on a personal level there is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing to be gained from talking to a person like that. You guys are truly doing sewage cleanup here and I admire it. Because I don't have the stomach for it.

and nominated.
 
What the freaking f-ing hell is wrong with these nutters!

from Gravy's WTC7 paper said:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

When did Silverstein said this? Exactly this? On 9/11?

No!

He said this while being interviewed for the documentary. He was recalling the events and conversations of that aweful day. How the hell do we know Silverstein used those exact same words on that day?

First, it is important to know what question by the interviewer Silverstein was responding to.

Could this sort of question make sence?

Could you tell us about the firefighters and the rescue operation at WTC7?

Second, as stated before, how do we know Silverstein used the exact same words? He could have said it in a different way.

Something like this:

We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull the operation.

These faq-ing nutters keeping on accusing Silverstein of giving the order to blow up WTC7 and yelling 'murderer' outside his office are REALLY PISSING ME OFF! :mad:
 
What the freaking f-ing hell is wrong with these nutters!



When did Silverstein said this? Exactly this? On 9/11?

No!

He said this while being interviewed for the documentary. He was recalling the events and conversations of that aweful day. How the hell do we know Silverstein used those exact same words on that day?

First, it is important to know what question by the interviewer Silverstein was responding to.

Could this sort of question make sence?



Second, as stated before, how do we know Silverstein used the exact same words? He could have said it in a different way.

Something like this:



These faq-ing nutters keeping on accusing Silverstein of giving the order to blow up WTC7 and yelling 'murderer' outside his office are REALLY PISSING ME OFF! :mad:

<Killtown>
You know that Silverstien is a joo, don't you?
</Killtown>
 
<Killtown>
You know that Silverstien is a joo, don't you?
</Killtown>

It's good you made that post, not Killtown himself. I have him on ignore as of just yet. I'll only peak if he is answering stateofgrace and my post in this thread. Read from stateofgrace' (3rd) post :mad:
 
Here's the mistake in your logic. Can you see it?

Silverstein was involved in an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was keen to cover up the plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was using the interview to promote lies. Therefore...
Silverstein would have felt under pressure. Therefore...
Silverstein cracked and slipped up. Therefore...
Silverstein's comments reveal an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was involved in an evil plot.
More like this:

Silverstein was involved in an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was keen to cover up the plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was asked to do an interview where he would have to reassert his lies. Therefore...
Silverstein would have felt under pressure. Therefore...
Silverstein accidentally slipped up. Therefore...
Silverstein's comments reveal an evil plot. Therefore...
Silverstein was involved in an evil plot.
 

Back
Top Bottom