Ed Moving On is coming.

[Bell]

Are you an admin or mod?

Tadaaa...

I'm staying on topic (someting JREFers have a hard time doing). I've you'd like to ask me on off-topic question, do it in the appropriate thread.

 

[Pardalis]

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.

Russell, could you tell me what this animal looks like?



And also, please explain to me how controlled demolition crews could have possibly rigged WTC7:

- on 9/11, while it was on fire
- or before 9/11, while it was a working office building?

Thank you.

 

[Trifikas]

"Long before anyone else, he [Jack Loizeaux] had faith in the power of explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things down."

http://www.uga.edu/gm/399/FeatImp.html

I can see where you're comming from on this, but it is a bit of a stretch of the term "Pull" or "Pull it" to use it to mean "Pull it down with explosives". When support columns fail, anything that remains attached to it is dragged down with it, and it's this mechanical process that those quotes are referring to as being "pulled", not that the explosives are doing the pulling. And in the quote mentioned above, "Pull things down" is referring to what Gravity does, not explosives.

The thing about Larry's quote is that why would the Fire Chief need his okay to bring down the building? If it's believed that the explosives were already in the building, you've pretty much already commited to bringing it down. Since Larry wasn't on site at the time, then the Fire Chief would have had to have known where the explosives were wired to detonate them. If the fire chief was part of the Conspiracy, he wouldn't need Larry to tell him to pull it - would have to have known it was going to happen anyway.

You also really can't interpret it as him giving the direct command to pull it then, since aside from being out of context with the complete quote, it was still some hours after he made that statement before the building collapsed.

 

[uk_dave]

Gravy,

Have their remains been positively identified to positively confirm this?

Russell

Personally I am beginning to feel that this thread is becoming rather disappointing. I don't know who russell pickering is within the CT movement or why it is felt that he is worthy of a single thread upon which to debate these issues as, to be quite honest, I can see very little difference between mr pickering's thought processes and your average CT enthusiasts.

However, I would like to pose this question, regarding the issue of DNA matching.

A crime is committed in which the criminals are killed along with a large number of innocent people.

The criminals are initially identified via a paper trail which leads back to their country of origin.

DNA samples from the remains and from vehicles the criminals have used allow the authorities to seperate the remains of the criminals from those of the innocent victims.

Now, 19 men are identified as being the criminals.

These 19 men have families who either don't know where they are but don't believe they were the hijackers, or do know that they were the hijackers and that they are now dead.

The families of these men don't appear to be making any claims that their loved ones are being incorrectly identified as the hijackers.

No one else is claiming to know the identities of the hijackers as being different from the official version.

So, why would anyone want to check the DNA against the family members in saudi?
For that matter, why not check it against the DNA of every single person living in saudi? Or the world?

To know who to check the DNA against you have to know the identity of the remains in the first place. If you already know the identity, and the family members are not denying that the remains are who the OV say they are, and no one else has identified named individuals who might have been the hijackers, there is no point in doing the check.

Anyway, just thought i'd mention that.

As for russell, I hope he sticks around on the forum, but i do feel it would be a good time for him to start posting on a few other threads so that discussions here, such as the WTC7 Silverstein issue, are not redundant for having been (or being) dealt with on other threads.

Just my $4.21 worth.

 

[Killtown]

I can see where you're comming from on this, but it is a bit of a stretch of the term "Pull" or "Pull it" to use it to mean "Pull it down with explosives".

What difference does it make for what method you are going to use to pull a building down? I mean in the end, the building is going to be brought down.

 

[dirtywick]

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

"Just plain look like demolition"? Russell, what basis of comparison are using to make that judgement? For instance, how would you know that a building of that size falling from structural damage would look different than a CD?

Also, I agree that if Mr. Silverstein phrased it differently, then that quote wouldn't be used as some kind of smoking gun today. There's no question that choosing the best word or words is important to convey meaning. But it wasn't. So you have to analyze it more carefully.

For instance, why would he use demolitions expert jargon at all? He was a real estate mogul, not a CD guy.

Secondly, why would he use demolitions jargon in an interview where no one would be likely to understand it's meaning?

Thirdly, the word "it" doesn't necessarily reflect an individual or individuals, but the operation of putting out the fires itself. It's like the difference between if he had said "stop it" or "stop them" where both mean the same thing, but them refers to the firefighters and it refers to the act of firefighting.

And finally, pull has a number of meanings. Pull the plug, pull out. None of those contexts means wiring it up and destroying it. If a doctor were to say, referencing the common phrase of pulling the plug on a terminal patient, "pull it" would you assume they want to wire the guy up and blow him to pieces, or pull the plug on the life support?

 

[Pardalis]

For someone who doesn't have the confirmation bias that 9/11 was an inside job, the Silverstein quote "pull it" is insignificant.

I think this is very telling of our friend Russell...

 

[Trifikas]

What difference does it make for what method you are going to use to pull a building down? I mean in the end, the building is going to be brought down.

Down is down, true, but the point I'm making is the quotes he was using do not support the case for a deliberate detonation of a building, but rather describe some of the mechanical processes occuring as buildings fall. Even if that particular building described was detonated, the descriptions quoted are still mechanical "pulling" - Columns pulling down on the floors they're attached to, when their support is removed, and the floors in turn pulling nearby supports in towards the collapsing column.

It's a subtle distinction, but those people quoted aren't using "Pulled" as saying the buildings were detonated, wich is what is attributed to Larry's quote, but rather describing what forces were acting on different structures during the collapse. Those forces would be there regardless of how the building fell, not just demolitions done on purpose.

Trif

 

[celestrin]

Russ, let me also commend you on your non-abrasive aproach to the topic. While I don't agree with your basic claims, your site and research has, at times, proved useful when debating some hardcore CTers.

English is not my native language, but even I can spot some intelectual dishonesty in your collection of "pull" quotes.

First off, your quotes come from demolition experts. How does that compare with Silverstein?

Second, your demolition expert quotes always contain a pull direction, yet you fail to address this. Pull down, pull inwards, pull away, pull in. How does that compare with Silverstein's quote?

Third, you try to paint Silverstien as a demolition expert (using demolition jargon), yet you fail to address "pull" in the scope of his real expertese. He is the head guy of a large realtor business. As such he would be well versed in the use of "to pull" phrase. I'm sure that in his professional life, he had to pull some ads from papers, or some offers from the market.

Fourth, do you employ some argument from personal incredulity by comparing your firefighting experiences with WTC7 on 9/11? Did you really ever have to decide to abandon firefighting efforts on a 47-storey building? Do you think you wouldn't owe a courtesy phone call to building's rich and influential owner to explain the situation?

Fifth, even if Silverstein did in fact order the demolition, how does that fit into government LIHOP/MIHOP versions? What if he acted alone with the fire chief? If I understand your position correctly, you bring them up as support for a wider conspiracy, so you must have some evidence that it goes beyond them. Can you present it?

Sixth, did you check with the producers of the documentary to get the raw footage of the interview and settle the "it" discrepancy? What was he talking about prior to the aired quote? Your interpretation doesn't make sense to me gramatically. You don't use the pronoun "it" prior to defining what it is, do you? Do you "pull it, until the building collapses" or do you "pull the building, until it collapses"? What are you pulling in the first case and what are you pulling in the second case?

There might be more, but I see we're dogpiling on you already. And speaking of furry animals - yea, cute creatures, Pardalis!

What do those look like, Russell?

 

[MikeW]

What difference does it make for what method you are going to use to pull a building down? I mean in the end, the building is going to be brought down.

The cables or explosives issue was apparently important enough for you to raise it on your own site @ http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html . And, as I recall, on abovetopsecret, where you suggested your images showed "911myths.com was wrong. As usual". And yet this loses its significance when it turns out I was right all along?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword of Truth,

All I can say is that he is not wanted on the FBI website for 9/11.

Russell

Yep, that's all you can say.

You build so much out of it though.

 

[tsig]

DHR:

Thanks for the advice, although, (1) I wasnt the only one posting long replies to Russell at the time, (2) It was long because Russell had many comments. If you look at the length of each of my individual replies, they are not long, (3) I am not sure if you were joking or not, but I didn't see anyone get decalred moderator of post lengths here, and noone else seemed to complain of my post length. Also notice how long ago into this thread I posted that.

Care to tell me why you singled me out to make such a comment???????

TAM

TAM, TAM,

Sorry I tripped your trigger. However since you ask.

Because you have some of the longest replys to the shortest of questions.

 

[Trifikas]

All I can say is that he is not wanted on the FBI website for 9/11.

Russell

I bet they'd SURE like to question him about it, however...


Actually, the best analogy for this is Al Capone. Like OBL, Al Capone was so insulated against prosecution by the people surrounding him and a myriad of paper that they couldn't prove his guilt of organized crime. They knew it was him at the top of the pyramid, but finally had to prosecute him on tax fraud becuase the Murder / Robery / all that fun stuff couldn't be directly charged to him. OBL is similarly insulated, maybe more so if they people who could point fingers at him are willing to blow themselves up.

So the FBI not having 9/11 on his wanted poster isn't really surprising; he's wanted for enough other stuff that it doesn't really matter. And I'm gonna guess if we do find him, he won't make it to trial.

Trif

 

[tsig]

Perhaps I explained myself poorly. What I meant to say is that neither the skeptic nor the CT can invoke science in the case of determining whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy in the broader picture. Perhaps in the details of buildings and aviation except for the ability (or desire) to recreate it all.

Science also has a rule or something about repetition right?

Thanks for the clarification.

Russell, do you know what a force triangle is and how to resolve it?

Hint try Statics and Strength of Materiels I &II

 

[Gravy]

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

Russell, above you made a long post about Jimmy Walter and the phrase "Pull it." Now you make a long post about the use of the word "pull," and none of the quotes therein refer to "pull" or "pull it" as a term for explosive demolitions.

Should we trust your intuition about Larry Silverstein, or should we trust the experts? From pages 32 and 33 of my paper:

Is “Pull” Used by Demolitions Professionals to Mean “Demolish a Structure With Explosives?”

No.

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bull-dozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not col-lapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and vari-ous other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc


From the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts http://tinyurl.com/pkeqq

Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.

Is “Pull” Ever Used to Mean “Withdraw Firefighters from Danger?”

Yes.

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs de-scribe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 26 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting operations. 23 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 28 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” Details are in the appendix. My survey was by no means exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read:

People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires 35
People who specifically mention the extensive damage to WTC 7 25
People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area 92
Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers” 28
Number of people who use “Pull” to mean “withdraw rescuers” 16
Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected 28
Total 208

Now, what issue do you have with all the statements from first responders about the building's condition and its expected imminent collapse? I'm not asking your opinion, based on some videos you've seen. I'm not asking you what some news reporters in a studio said. I'm asking you about the reports from the experts who were there.

1) Please summarize what they said about WTC 7's condition.

2) Do you have any reason to believe that the accounts of WTC 7's condition are false?

From page 83:

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11?

Brent Blanchard of Protec:

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explo-sive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went." http://tinyurl.com/m5kf5

From page 10:

“...and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”

Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or was he saying,

“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent fur-ther loss of life”?

Be honest, CTs. Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site.

Which paraphrased statement to PBS makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

A) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or

B) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Which do you think Silverstein meant when he was calmly speaking to that documentary crew in 2002? Be honest. A or B?

It's quite frustrating to have spent the time to put my WTC 7 paper together and then to have to cut and paste sections of it. I think it was pretty clear.

 

[Gravy]

By the way, Russell, why in the world do you keep saying that Silverstein was deliberately using an antiquated firefighting term? Do you have any reason to believe that Silverstein was aware of that term?

 

[Pardalis]

Bump for Russell.

I'm really intrigued why he believes WTC7 was a CD. LIHOP I can see why he could have doubts, they are somewhat reasonable...

BUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

 

[twinstead]

Yea. Bump it is, indeed.

 

[Moving On]

Consider me on break for a while.

When the accusations of me being a liar and the resorting to animal pictures to express yourselve's ceases, somebody let me know.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

Did I ever call you a liar?

The picture of the animal is to prove a point BTW.

ETA: Russell, I'm pretty sure I never called you a liar, because I do not think you are. It's that simple. Unlike Killtown and geggy, I respect you.

I simply think you are showings signs of a confirmation bias, which is not lying.

The point I wanted to make with the picture of the hyrax is that you can't rely solely on what something looks like, especially when it involves a field you are not an expert in.