9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

I dont even bother with it anymore since its well understood the level of illiteracy required to come away with that version. I did once completely dissect it grammatically but they were incapable of understanding it. They teach the meaning and use of conjunctions in second grade you know. You would think they would not push it to the extent others would have to actually had to point that out LOL



ah how about that! First guess and I found it:



I am shocked they would discredit themselves to the extent they do.

 

Agree, it's bad enough some of these fakers try to convince people these were natural collapses as a result of the events but they also want to convince people that English grammar maintains that singular and plural are one and the same. I believe that was a kindergarten level concept back when I attended grammar school, although these days, they probably first teach that in college. Then again, the OCT is a just above kindergarten level.story. You know, "they hated us for our freedoms", "no one could have imagined ...", the 100 virgins story, the mastery of ace pilot Hani Hanjour, the poor sap confessed to doing 9/11 "from A to Z" after being sprinkled with a few drops of water on his face, "My Pet Goat", etc.

 

So you don't believe the FDNY claim? Why? Do you have any evidence the statement is incorrect? No. Dismissed as a crank response.

 

I agree, because 9/11 truth do not understand that when Silverstein said when he said, 'They' made the decision to pull the men out. It's even in your meme ad you didn't get it. 'They' = the FDNY, I don't see why it is difficult for truthers, unless they are being disingenuous (What? Truthers? Never! LOLOL),. or they are just dense. It is amazing how poor comprehension creates a lying meme for 10 years among the uneducated. Predictable though, as 9/11 truth is all about obfuscation, misrepresentation, lies and libel. Facts be damned!

'They' is an important collective pronoun in this context. However, I don't expect truthers to understand, but the lurker will.

 

yep ... Lucky Larry has the keys to the whole day ... he was obviously running the show with no advisers telling him to keep his communications to a minimum ...

*squawk* "Hey Larry , let's hold off on calling the insurance company" ... lolol ... He's a Jew of course so he had to make sure as soon as possible that he was going to get paid ... pffft ...

 

It wasn't a FDNY claim, it was one firefighter's claim, period. I can ask you the exact same question. This fire marshall said at 1:15:

"The building did come down in complete classical controlled demolition"

[video=youtube;nQrpLp-X0ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&feature=youtu.be[/video]

And respond in YOUR terms.

So you don't believe the FDNY claim? Why? Do you have any evidence the statement is incorrect? No. Dismissed as a crank response.

And that's exactly why I posted:

OK crank hypocrite? Go peddle your fake garbage elsewhere, you have NO point as always. The difference between you and I is that you twist every claim and opinion you don't agree with in order to fit your OCT fantasy whereas when I said the above I was 100% correct and truthful.

 

You just can't get over the fact that "9/11 truth" is not a human being with one mindset, no wonder you believe the OCT fairy tale. Regardless, no matter how much you want to argue about the pronoun "they", there's no "they" in PULL IT, and that's what's being discussed, the term PULL IT, not the pronoun "they". Always validating my points about you.

 

Lucky Larry used the term PULL IT, the above stale comedy routine has nothing to do with anything being discussed in that context.

 

But you all evince a singular mindset AND you all promote the illogical notions of groups that contain the term 9/11 truth in their labels. Furthermore, you all make the same mistakes in logic and you all evince a poor knowledge of the subject. Moreover, you all employ the same despicable and mendacious tactics. If you don't like the collective term that may of your ilk embrace, why should I care? Seriously, you waste so much space on silliness, and nonsense. If you posted regarding the subject as much as you do in your attempts to distract, this thread would be half its size.

"They made the decision to pull it" Revise comprehension, as your claim is simply retarded. 'They' being the pluralised subject of the previous sentence which was whom exactly? Chief Nigro, that's who. I truly can't believe I have to teach basic English grammar to truthers. How dense can they get? What next?

This has to be the dumbest time wasting effort you've produced thus far. But then, I have no doubt that time wasting is the goal (see my sig).

 

Goal post shift, and mendacity noted. This is irrelevant to my point, as you already know. You replied to my post and highlighted a statement. I asked if you didn't believe the statement from the Battalion Chief:

"Arthur Scheuerman, retired Battalion Chief from the New York City Fire Department and author of 'Fire in the Skyscraper', talks about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001. Arthur was there, and saw the terrible damage the building had sustained from falling debris, the huge prolonged fires, and made the professional decision that the building was probably going to collapse.

And you reply with the idiocy you posted above? WTF?

The Battalion Chief's command confirms the Silverstein quote that so may are unable to comprehend. That is the subject at hand. I hope that helps your comprehension.

- - - Updated - - -

This canard is so brain dead I don't even think they believe it.

 

There is no such thing as a "singular mindset" among multiple people and "9/11 truth" is still not a single human being with one mindset no matter how desperately you want to promote your fantasy. And yes I understand many label themselves as "truthers" or "9/11 truth" just as many label themselves "debunkers". It's irrelevant, everyone is different and thinks differently. Even within the universe of those who don't buy the OCT, some do believe it was 3 natural collapses but also believe the US government lied and others believe it was UFOs. There are all kinds. Lumping everyone into the same mindset is sheer nonsense. The closest thing to a single mindset would be those who bought the OCT lock, stock and barrel. They have nothing other than the OCT to go on, no imagination, no independent thinking, just robotic repetition of the party line.

Non sequitur as explained above, you speak for no one but yourself and post nonsensical claims that you constantly insist on attributing to a single mindset (i.e. my "ilk").

So then why are YOU spending so much energy wasting time responding to those you believe are "retarded" because they don't think like you? That has to be the dumbest time wasting effort YOU engage in daily. If you believe the OCT is fact then you should also believe it stands on its own merit and doesn't require a cheerleader such as yourself to defend it daily. You bring nothing to the table at all in any discussion about 9/11. Everyone who posts here is fully aware of the OCT and no one needs YOU to regurgitate it daily.

 

No it's perfectly right on.

The Battalion Chief OBVIOUSLY believed the building was going to collapse strictly from damage and fire, which is exactly what the OCT claims. It's not a matter of whether I personally believe his claim or not, HE believes it. And I showed you a video of a Fire Marshall who believed it was a controlled demolition and not a collapse strictly from damage and fire. It was HIS belief as well. So because you asked me if I believed Scheuerman's claim I asked you if you believed Dent's claim. Why is one firefighter's claim believable to YOU but not the other firefighter's claim?

That's 100% incorrect, the two quotes are independent. Regardless that Scheuerman believed the building was going to collapse for HIS stated reasons, the decision HE made to pull firefighterS out of the building is NOT the same as Silverstein's claim that the decision was made to pull IT. You can sing and dance all you want but English is English and requires no convoluted explanation from YOU.

I hope that helps YOUR comprehension.

 

Glad there is some agreement- one thing, do we really need to caps lock words to make our points? If I need to stress a word I just put hyphens around it (like -this-), or underline it, which I see you have done in atleast one case (along with the caps). Anyway, I think the thing that no one has paid much attention to is the fact that Silverstein is not a demolition expert. So it's perfectly reasonable that he would use a term that demolition experts only use for literally pulling the framework of a building; non experts tend to mess up terms. It's the context in which he said it that is so damning. For an in depth explanation of why OCT explanations fall flat, I think the following page is pretty good: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

 

We all have our individual posting styles, you have yours and I have mine. To emphasize certain key points/words, I personally use a variety of options, including caps, bolding, italics, underline or a combination. My last post emphasized individuality because Blues63 almost always attributes opinions to invented group-think entities.

 

True enough. I have just found that caps locked words is the textual equivalent of shouting.

Group think entities?

 

Whatever, Bob. I'm over your crap. You rave, rant, distort, obfuscate, lie, misrepresent, play semantic games, feign outrage with every other post, and to be quite frank, I'm bored with reading it. I'm sick of accommodating your requests, while you continue to be objectionable, so I no longer pay any mind to your whinging and endless complaints. You will try anything you can to avoid the subject and evidence, and to be perfectly frank, I'm bored with such low level thinking in your responses. Go waste someone else's time with your nonsense.

If you the use of 'they' can be interpreted as 'we' in trutherland, then there is no point discussing it with you, as it is moronic and you have no desire to allow your belief system to accommodate simple logic. You can't explain a simple premise (molten metal), yet you believe it without question; you can't interpret a 4-D graphic, so you immediately post 'Fake!'.

There's no point in discussing a subject with such an individual so predisposed.

 

Yeah, whatever, you assume 'they' means 'we', and that is moronic. Sorry, your argument is baseless and stupid-there is no way to dress it up. The rest was irrelevant to my point, which you don't seem to be even trying to understand, so I won't even bother with it any longer.

 

Why do you assume that Silverstein had the authority? This is the elephant in the room. Furthermore, there is ample evidence already posted which confirms the quote is to be interpreted as 'the FDNY ordered the men on-site to abandon the operation and 'pull back'.

Why would anyone interpret the quote to mean ,'We ordered to building to be pulled down'. Given the legal problems (he had no legal authority), a lack of physical and testimonial evidence (from those who laid the supposed charges), and the fact that Nigro was in control of the situation, how do reconcile the probability here between the two interpretations?

Basically, this claim implicates the FDNY in insurance fraud, and that's absurd. With this interpretation being in the public domain for over ten years, why then did the insurance company not challenge his claim? This is the reality here. All these stories and claims don't make any sense in light of this reality.

You respond as a reasonable individual, and I respect that, therefore, I'd be interested in how you interpret the quote, and why.

 

LOLOL. Your feigned outrage is noted. If you don't identify as a truther, or a follower of 9/11 truth, why do you continually post material, memes, and events that originated from the following sites?

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth (most of your claims are from this source)

Scholars for 9/11 truth

Pilots for 9/11 truth

Of course, in true non-academic fashion, you don't actually attribute your ideas to these sources, but it is universally known among those interested that all of the claims your publish here are from these sites, or similar.

In light of the obvious, I find your feigned outrage absolutely ridiculous, and I don't see this guy whinging about it:



Anyway, I'm beyond caring about your delicate sensibilities, as you'd whinge no matter what I posted.

 

As well as emphasis.

Truthers, truth movement, conspiracy theorists, debunkers, etc.

 

There's no point in discussing any 9/11 subject with such a fake.

Ok with me, this line of discussion is over, at least for me. I made my point ... several times and I didn't make it to try to convince YOU of anything.

 

PC prats still making it up as they go along I see.
Odd how it's always to protect Islamist and Jihaidst atrocities, note
At this rate, their victims will be cutting off their own heads, and deliberately burning themselves alive
Meanwhile they rant anti-Semitism to also please the same rabid nutters, as currently being seen in UK with the Labour party
.....with even LESS truth

 

You see Phoenyx how your post is so incredibly twisted to fit this person's narrative. It's what he does, always. I understood it exactly as written, in English.

 

Where did you get the notion that I thought Silverstein had the authority? No one had the legal authority to demolish WTC7, that's why it had to be kept hidden. That being said, it seems Silverstein didn't get the memo based on what he said. I think we should get back to basics. First, let's start with what Silverstein actually 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." Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

Silverstein states that "they" made the decision to pull, so clearly he isn't saying that he made the decision. Now, assuming for a moment that Larry did in fact mean pull it as in bring the building down, what would -really- be interesting is if there is any evidence whatsoever that a fire department commander actually called him. The New York Times reports that "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons", so presumably he would be the one to have called Silverstein. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...p;ei=5070&amp;amp;amp;oref=login&pagewanted=2)

Yes, there is. That being said, there is more to it then that. From the whatreallyhappened article mentioned previously:
**Let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7:
"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."**
Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was probably something like '7 World Trade is about to blow up. Clear the area.'

Who is this Nigro fellow?

I have not stated that the FDNY was complicit. Here is what we know so far: Silverstein claims to receive a call from "the fire department commander". Based on the article from the New York Times, it appears that the fire department commander in question would have been Frank Fellini. Assuming that Silverstein is being honest about receiving a phone call from a fire department commander, it would suggest that Frank Fellini would be the commander referred to. From the New York Times article, "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." Why did Frank Fellini feel that WTC 7 required firefighters away from WTC 7 for safety reasons at 11:30am? It didn't collapse for another 6 hours.

A good article on the subject of foreknowledge from AE911:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/682...foreknowledge-of-building-7s-destruction.html

An excerpt from another:
**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".**
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm

Thanks, I try

 

Thank you. Sense at last. Many believe that Silverstein 'ordered' the demolition (revise this very thread for evidence of my point), or that he was complicit in ordering the demolition. This is the canard I've been discussing. Did you not get that?

And compare and contrast with the many accounts I supplied previously that do NOT confirm your point. Did anyone even bother to read all that testimony? I don't believe for a moment that the FDNY knew the building was going to explode. Most accounts refer to 'collapse' and the evidence supports this notion.

That is highly speculative and based upon selective interpretation of quotes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_A._Nigro

It is he that many feel Silverstein was talking to, and it was he who gave the order to evacuate.

You don't have to. All the hypotheses posited thus far implicate the FDNY as complicit in insurance fraud and illegal demolition. There is no dancing around this one.

Who could have 'pulled' the building? The FDNY

Who was in a position to place the explosives? The FDNY

Who knew the explosives were going to be triggered? The FDNY

To state the explosives were placed prior to the collapse is absurd, as the whole plan relied upon 1WTC debris igniting and damaging 7WTC.

a). We don't know what time he received the call.

b). It is believed that the call was to Nigro who replaced Ganci after his death, not Fellini. The NYT article disagrees with most sources on that one.

c). The order was given at 2:30.

d). The surveying instruments were directed upon the building at 11:30, thus denoting instability.

See my many previous posts on this subject for the evidence.

Yes, I've read it, but it contains much speculation, and asks the reader to accept too many premises without question, and all the points have been addressed adequately.

Yes, I've read this claim several times, and it is rarely corroborated:

"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."

I'm sorry, but this means very little in actual terms. He is relating unattributed hearsay, therefore, I don't give it much credence. It's all too 'convenient' and vague.