Ed Moving On is coming.
- Thread starter mrfreeze
- Start date
Did Larry know this?
a) Are you making fun of mentally challenged people?
1) Are you skeptics always saying that one of the main reasons it couldn't be a conspiracy of this size is that all couldn't keep their mouths shut? Well here's your proof.
2) a) He does? b) All of them? No. Some of them? Maybe.
3) Why do skeptics always think CT's always know every conspirator's motives?
4) Sure anythings possible, just like he could have possibly been referring to a singular object such as the building, right?
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Killtown,
Stop your attention whoring and threadjacking and move to the thread that has been created to discuss your nonsense separately.
Others,
Please accommodate this request by not responding to Killtown's attempts to hijack this thread for his own purposes. Another thread has been created for purposes of discussing Killtown's half baked, ill advised, unsupported tosh here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66498
It would be much preferable to keep this particular thread Killtown-free and on topic.
Last edited:
Are you an admin or mod?
Gravy,
I know you said, "Please read the firsthand accounts in my paper. If you do not, please don't bring this subject up again with me."
I am reading those and simultaneously putting a lot of thought into this while researching other articles related to it as well.
Trust me when I say I will honestly look into this in detail and be honest about my conclusion.
You may have some Information I do not have.
Are you familiar with the Sam Smith article in the NY Post? The article is no longer on the web in its original version: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33563.htm
A cached version I found here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...9/11+Ad+by+Loon+Tycoon+Sees&hl=en&lr=&strip=1
NY Post -November 7, Page 24
By Sam Smith
November 7, 2004 -- An eccentric California millionaire who believes the government conspired to blow up the Twin Towers is funding a nearly $2 million ad blitz to convince New Yorkers of his crazy conspiracy theory.
Since September, advertisements for his nonprofit "Re-Open 9/11" have been shown on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and other stations and in the Village Voice, the New Yorker, and The New York Times, calling for the government to launch a new probe into the attacks.
The man behind the ads, Jimmy Walter, 57, inherited his $11 million fortune from his father, James Walter Sr., the late founder of Walter Industries, a Fortune 500 homebuilding company based in Florida...
The younger Walter's first foray into high-profile advertising was in February 2003, when he placed a full-page, $125,000 ad in The New York Times calling Colin Powell a liar after his U.N. testimony regarding Iraq's weapons programs.
"It felt good," he said of running the ad. "I felt like, hey, I've done something here. No matter what happens I've made history, because future historians are going to see this in the paper."
Walter believes the attacks were financially motivated, putting military spending into the Pentagon and Halliburton and insurance money into WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's pockets.
"I won't go so far as to say Silverstein absolutely did this, but I do think he should be investigated," said Walter.
"It is unfortunate that this group is peddling grossly inaccurate conspiracy theories," said Silverstein spokesman Howard J. Rubenstein. "FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] conducted a detailed study and concluded that the collapse was caused by fires ignited by falling debris."
Walter says planes did fly into the towers, but they were most likely drones.
He bases his theories on a self-published book, "Painful Questions," which references photos and videos to make its claims of planted explosives and nonexistent planes.
It is claimed that Mr. Smith asked Mr. Silverstein's spokesman about the "pull it" comment but that it didn't make it into the article.
Not too long after, perhaps just a few days, I called the NY Post. I was put through to Sam Smith, a male reporter I can comfortably disclose, and spoke to him about his story concerning Jimmy Walter and Larry Silverstein. The story was a result of Jimmy Walter’s 9-11 Truth advertising campaign with many of the biggest newspapers and TV networks in the US.
I first explained to Smith that if he talked to people in the construction industry, he would understand that to “pull” a building is to professionally demolish it. [Please save your objections to this for later] He responded that he had never heard that before (presumably before Walter had brought it up) and that Silverstein’s people had explained that this was not what he meant by the remark. Smith did not explain to me how Silverstein’s spokesperson understood the expression “pull it”.
I then pointed out that Smith’s story did not feature Silverstein’s now infamous quote:
“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.”
Why, I asked, did he not include the quote in his story and let the reader understand what all the fuss was about and decide for themselves what they thought Silverstein meant. Smith replied “I didn’t feel it was crucial to the story.”
And you can take that quote to the bank.
Despite the CT source and the possible error/misunderstanding in the meaning of a demolition term this article seems reliable. I say error/misunderstanding since "pull" appears to at least be used for mechanical demolition as in building 6.
http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/ [Disregard all other information on the page for this discussion.]
This generates a couple of questions:
1) Why do you think it was not elaborated on if it was an innocent comment about an old firefighting tradition?
2) Why do you think after all this time Mr. Silverstein has not clarified it in general given the controversy? I would. Would you?
3) Have you tried to contact Mr. Silverstein's offices yourself?
Thank you,
Russell
I know you said, "Please read the firsthand accounts in my paper. If you do not, please don't bring this subject up again with me."
I am reading those and simultaneously putting a lot of thought into this while researching other articles related to it as well.
Trust me when I say I will honestly look into this in detail and be honest about my conclusion.
You may have some Information I do not have.
Are you familiar with the Sam Smith article in the NY Post? The article is no longer on the web in its original version: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33563.htm
A cached version I found here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...9/11+Ad+by+Loon+Tycoon+Sees&hl=en&lr=&strip=1
NY Post -November 7, Page 24
By Sam Smith
November 7, 2004 -- An eccentric California millionaire who believes the government conspired to blow up the Twin Towers is funding a nearly $2 million ad blitz to convince New Yorkers of his crazy conspiracy theory.
Since September, advertisements for his nonprofit "Re-Open 9/11" have been shown on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and other stations and in the Village Voice, the New Yorker, and The New York Times, calling for the government to launch a new probe into the attacks.
The man behind the ads, Jimmy Walter, 57, inherited his $11 million fortune from his father, James Walter Sr., the late founder of Walter Industries, a Fortune 500 homebuilding company based in Florida...
The younger Walter's first foray into high-profile advertising was in February 2003, when he placed a full-page, $125,000 ad in The New York Times calling Colin Powell a liar after his U.N. testimony regarding Iraq's weapons programs.
"It felt good," he said of running the ad. "I felt like, hey, I've done something here. No matter what happens I've made history, because future historians are going to see this in the paper."
Walter believes the attacks were financially motivated, putting military spending into the Pentagon and Halliburton and insurance money into WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's pockets.
"I won't go so far as to say Silverstein absolutely did this, but I do think he should be investigated," said Walter.
"It is unfortunate that this group is peddling grossly inaccurate conspiracy theories," said Silverstein spokesman Howard J. Rubenstein. "FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] conducted a detailed study and concluded that the collapse was caused by fires ignited by falling debris."
Walter says planes did fly into the towers, but they were most likely drones.
He bases his theories on a self-published book, "Painful Questions," which references photos and videos to make its claims of planted explosives and nonexistent planes.
It is claimed that Mr. Smith asked Mr. Silverstein's spokesman about the "pull it" comment but that it didn't make it into the article.
“I didn’t feel it was crucial to the story”
22nd June 2005
22nd June 2005
Not too long after, perhaps just a few days, I called the NY Post. I was put through to Sam Smith, a male reporter I can comfortably disclose, and spoke to him about his story concerning Jimmy Walter and Larry Silverstein. The story was a result of Jimmy Walter’s 9-11 Truth advertising campaign with many of the biggest newspapers and TV networks in the US.
I first explained to Smith that if he talked to people in the construction industry, he would understand that to “pull” a building is to professionally demolish it. [Please save your objections to this for later] He responded that he had never heard that before (presumably before Walter had brought it up) and that Silverstein’s people had explained that this was not what he meant by the remark. Smith did not explain to me how Silverstein’s spokesperson understood the expression “pull it”.
I then pointed out that Smith’s story did not feature Silverstein’s now infamous quote:
“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.”
Why, I asked, did he not include the quote in his story and let the reader understand what all the fuss was about and decide for themselves what they thought Silverstein meant. Smith replied “I didn’t feel it was crucial to the story.”
And you can take that quote to the bank.
Despite the CT source and the possible error/misunderstanding in the meaning of a demolition term this article seems reliable. I say error/misunderstanding since "pull" appears to at least be used for mechanical demolition as in building 6.
http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/ [Disregard all other information on the page for this discussion.]
This generates a couple of questions:
1) Why do you think it was not elaborated on if it was an innocent comment about an old firefighting tradition?
2) Why do you think after all this time Mr. Silverstein has not clarified it in general given the controversy? I would. Would you?
3) Have you tried to contact Mr. Silverstein's offices yourself?
Thank you,
Russell
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Mr. Pickering, I'm still waiting to hear your response to my questions:
I want to be sure that you understand the difference between "insufficient evidence" and "not our main suspect" and that these two conditions can exist independently of each other.
I want to be sure that you understand the difference between "insufficient evidence" and "not our main suspect" and that these two conditions can exist independently of each other.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Silverstein actually has dealt with this issue.
-Official spokesperson for Larry Silverstein.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
This would be the same Jimmy Walter from the Penn and Teller show?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVTKoPK7gaQ
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I have made no such claim about his comment, in my paper or elsewhere.
He did, through his spokesman, which is common knowledge. See posts above.
Yes. Last month I stood in the street outside 120 Broadway for an hour and shouted "It's okay, Larry: sane people know you're not a murderer!" to try to make up for the despicable chants of the "Truth Movement" on 9/11.
No, I didn't do that, but you get the idea of how I feel.
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
Here we go... if this, but that and what about the other...
It was a simple yes or no question, Killtown.
I believe your real response would be: as long as they agree with my conclusions, I would accept the results of the investigation.
I find it interesting that one of your criteria is "being under oath".
So, if Larry Silverstein swore under oath that he did not give the order to "pull" the building, would you accept that?
I think it would be a tremendous waste of time and money, but if a new investigation was established, I would have no problems with that - why would I?
ETA: Sorry guys - I forgot this was the Russell thread. Killtown, could you please respond to this post in the "of WTC7 and things being pulled" thread? Thanks.
Last edited:
Gravy,
I have found several references to the term "pull" in regards to demolition in relation to the use of explosives. You have already mentioned "pull" is used in conjunction with a mechanical demolition. The term "pull it" is not a demolition term but the term "pull" clearly is. The "it" is only to describe the object to be pulled like WTC7.
Here they are:
I'll stop here because I am tired of copying and pasting. This last one is very significant. The founder of Controlled Demolition Inc. himself conceived of the concept of pulling things down with explosives.
You asked me a question earlier, "You're not suggesting that Silverstein had any say in firefighting operations, are you?"
The real question is do you believe Silverstein did? The fire department commander allegedly called him.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3
I find it very heinous to even remotely consider that the fire department had any involvement and do not believe in any way that they possibly would. That is out for me. We agree on that. So now I have to ask if Silverstein is telling the truth about his alleged phone call. I am not ever aware of any situation in my experience of a Incident Commander consulting with a building owner as you have correctly pointed out.
This is somewhat confounding I admit. But no matter how many times I listen to that inflection in his "pull it" comment and visualize that little jerk of his mouth and the cock of his head and the direct juxtaposition of his comment to "and then we watched the building collapse", I can't imagine him referring to a small contingent of firefighters inside as "it". Watch it yourself.
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
The other key here is to recognize the use of the word "pull" without the "it" in it in the demolition industry as in the quotes above. Mr. Silverstein went on to say, "and they made that decision to pull". You notice he didn't say "it" this time? That would lead me to believe he was originally using the term "it" to define the building but here he just used the pure demolition term.
I also just found this:
I didn't realize the State Department had posted this on their site.
I have an email in to the NYFD History Museum for the history of their radio use. I am thinking now that even if the IC had used the term "pull it" from the old days, how did Silverstein so quickly adapt it and even throw in an inflection? Was that the inflection for tugging on a hose or demolishing a building? And why didn't they mention the old time saying in the State Department website?
The other realization that hit me is that if they even remotely considered the building structurally damaged enough to collapse they would not have had anybody inside trying to fight fires. Especially because of what had happened already that day. That degree of structural damage would have very evident right after the other collapses and would have been reported on any initial entry attempts in the size-up report.
I was willing to change my mind on this but the more I scrutinize it the more I can't get away from the tone and nature of his comment and the fact that the video of it just plain looks like a demolition. I mean even Dan rather and Peter Jennings said it looked like a controlled demolition immediately after watching it happen.
It would be much easier for me if Mr. Silverstein had said something like, "We had such a terrible loss of life already that day we decided to pull the firefighters out of the building and a couple of hours later the building collapsed."
Russell
I have found several references to the term "pull" in regards to demolition in relation to the use of explosives. You have already mentioned "pull" is used in conjunction with a mechanical demolition. The term "pull it" is not a demolition term but the term "pull" clearly is. The "it" is only to describe the object to be pulled like WTC7.
Here they are:
I'll stop here because I am tired of copying and pasting. This last one is very significant. The founder of Controlled Demolition Inc. himself conceived of the concept of pulling things down with explosives.
You asked me a question earlier, "You're not suggesting that Silverstein had any say in firefighting operations, are you?"
The real question is do you believe Silverstein did? The fire department commander allegedly called him.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3
I find it very heinous to even remotely consider that the fire department had any involvement and do not believe in any way that they possibly would. That is out for me. We agree on that. So now I have to ask if Silverstein is telling the truth about his alleged phone call. I am not ever aware of any situation in my experience of a Incident Commander consulting with a building owner as you have correctly pointed out.
This is somewhat confounding I admit. But no matter how many times I listen to that inflection in his "pull it" comment and visualize that little jerk of his mouth and the cock of his head and the direct juxtaposition of his comment to "and then we watched the building collapse", I can't imagine him referring to a small contingent of firefighters inside as "it". Watch it yourself.
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
The other key here is to recognize the use of the word "pull" without the "it" in it in the demolition industry as in the quotes above. Mr. Silverstein went on to say, "and they made that decision to pull". You notice he didn't say "it" this time? That would lead me to believe he was originally using the term "it" to define the building but here he just used the pure demolition term.
I also just found this:
I didn't realize the State Department had posted this on their site.
I have an email in to the NYFD History Museum for the history of their radio use. I am thinking now that even if the IC had used the term "pull it" from the old days, how did Silverstein so quickly adapt it and even throw in an inflection? Was that the inflection for tugging on a hose or demolishing a building? And why didn't they mention the old time saying in the State Department website?
The other realization that hit me is that if they even remotely considered the building structurally damaged enough to collapse they would not have had anybody inside trying to fight fires. Especially because of what had happened already that day. That degree of structural damage would have very evident right after the other collapses and would have been reported on any initial entry attempts in the size-up report.
I was willing to change my mind on this but the more I scrutinize it the more I can't get away from the tone and nature of his comment and the fact that the video of it just plain looks like a demolition. I mean even Dan rather and Peter Jennings said it looked like a controlled demolition immediately after watching it happen.
It would be much easier for me if Mr. Silverstein had said something like, "We had such a terrible loss of life already that day we decided to pull the firefighters out of the building and a couple of hours later the building collapsed."
Russell
For all this talk of independent investigation, I'm still not sure what this would be. To avoid derailing the thread, I've started a new thread for those who want to discuss this (killtown?)
Killtown, if the government conspired to kill thousands of Americans, do you really believe they wouldn't lie under oath (not to mention blackmailing, killing, whatever, those running any new investigation - to keep their 'secret' safe)? You can discuss this in the new thread, if you'd like.
Killtown, if the government conspired to kill thousands of Americans, do you really believe they wouldn't lie under oath (not to mention blackmailing, killing, whatever, those running any new investigation - to keep their 'secret' safe)? You can discuss this in the new thread, if you'd like.
Sword of Truth,
All I can say is that he is not wanted on the FBI website for 9/11.
Russell
Last edited:
Sure, some Commissioners and staff suspect, for example, that Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told them deliberate untruths; this seems quite feasible.
The problem, though, is that no investigation would be perfect. Without the 'truth' movement going into specifics as to what type of 'independent' investigation they'd want, I see no reason to think that any such investigation would be any better than the 9/11 Commission. Frankly, given the quality of the 'reasearch' produced by many who are making such calls, I'd suspect that a new investigation could be much, much worse.
Scientologist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 196
a) Yes I am. You are mentally challenged.
1) Ok that's absurd. You go so far to twist this man's words to have them shape your beliefs but a logical thought is impossible for you.
2) Yes, he does.
3) What conspirators? Name them. Provide evidence.
4) No, he couldn't have. He could not have been referring to "pulling" the building. Firefighters don't make decisions to blow up buildings to make old jews rich, sorry.
Scientologist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 196
Russell,
You are a woo.
Please stop disregarding the real evidence in search for random vague "pull it" references.
I will ask you again.
If this was such an elaborate, intricate plan, why would Silverstein admit it on air?
Thank you.
You are a woo.
Please stop disregarding the real evidence in search for random vague "pull it" references.
I will ask you again.
If this was such an elaborate, intricate plan, why would Silverstein admit it on air?
Thank you.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Russell,
You admit you've only read 60% of the 9/11 report (the cynic in me says your exaggerating)
You admit you haven't read, at all, the book you use to throw aside the 9/11 findings in the little that your read.
Gravy asks you to read his WTC7 documents before continuing discussion of WTC7
You admit you haven't, but find time to locate dozens of uses of the word pull related to CDs.
Yes, you are articulate and polite, attributes which make you fairly unique among the CTist, but like your CT brethren, you are intellectually dishonest. By your own admission you willingly refuse to research, in any depth, anything which might refute your entrenched, firmly held beliefs. You quote mine a word from Silverstein, a comment from Cheney, willingly ignoring everything else they say to support your fantasy. You cherry pick events and data.
You may spin your disingenuous "following for facts", charade anyway which makes you feel whole, but you can't obscure the fact that you have made up your mind.
Face it Russ, remove the pleasant, amiable facade and you are no different then killtown, merc or JDX.
You admit you've only read 60% of the 9/11 report (the cynic in me says your exaggerating)
You admit you haven't read, at all, the book you use to throw aside the 9/11 findings in the little that your read.
Gravy asks you to read his WTC7 documents before continuing discussion of WTC7
You admit you haven't, but find time to locate dozens of uses of the word pull related to CDs.
Yes, you are articulate and polite, attributes which make you fairly unique among the CTist, but like your CT brethren, you are intellectually dishonest. By your own admission you willingly refuse to research, in any depth, anything which might refute your entrenched, firmly held beliefs. You quote mine a word from Silverstein, a comment from Cheney, willingly ignoring everything else they say to support your fantasy. You cherry pick events and data.
You may spin your disingenuous "following for facts", charade anyway which makes you feel whole, but you can't obscure the fact that you have made up your mind.
Face it Russ, remove the pleasant, amiable facade and you are no different then killtown, merc or JDX.