I found this just weird. This engineer is watching the History channel and claims in some episode that he actually admits it. This is not the infamous "Pull it" comment from the PBS documentary. [video=youtube;8xdi0pXsSw0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdi0pXsSw0[/video] Good luck! Crazy if true. BONUS: Proof of Controlled Demolition Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Tons of news reporters commenting on their first time seeing the buildings collapse, all before they were told no more mentions of: controlled demolitions, explosions or bombs. Also, tons of eyewitness accounts of explosions and much more. Enjoy: [video=youtube;eO4TYrpf2Qs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO4TYrpf2Qs[/video]
Larry Silverstein had absolutely no authority to order a demolition. This canard has been dead for years, and only truthers keep resuscitating this dreck. 1). Private individuals (especially property owners) have no rights in an emergency situation, as it opens up a fire crew to claims of complicity in insurance fraud. 2). An individual 'claimed' to have seen this and now can't find it. I've read all sorts of stupidity like the History Channel is deliberately hiding it, but of course, only a fool would take that seriously. It simply may have never existed, but of course in truthertown, that isn't possible and it must be a nefarious plot.
The engineer in question is Tony Szamboti. Not sure as to the authenticity of a $1,500 reward, but AE911 has offered $200 to anyone who can provide a copy of the documentary: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=a49e41d742&e= Tony Szamboti is a member of this forum and has commented on this missing documentary here recently. Tony related the following in another forum: **The two things I remember distinctly was the new building design as it was the first time I saw it, and Larry Silverstein's reply in response to a question by the host of "What happened to seven?", as prior to that I was perplexed as to why building 7 had completely collapsed. Larry Silverstein apparently had been on an earlier episode of the same show (History's Business) in September 2002. Bill Veale did get ahold of a tape of that episode and nothing was said there about the new Freedom Tower design or what I am saying was said about building 7, so that is not the episode I am talking about. Two years later, after reading Steven Jones' paper and seeing that they were saying officially that WTC 7 came down due to fires, I did call the History Channel and try to get ahold of a copy of the show. I was told that series wasn't available to the public. A number of people have tried to inquire about it after I mentioned it and they have gotten nowhere. One person had gotten ahold of a producer of the show and then was sent an e-mail by an attorney saying to cease and desist about it unless they had a subpoena. Interestingly, when you look at the list for the History's Business episodes over the years a lot of them are missing.** Source: http://911blogger.com/news/2014-12-02/tony-szamboti-nists-911-sins-omission
Yes, Larry had "absolutely no authority to order a demolition". I imagine no one involved had "authority" to take down the towers on 9/11, but they were brought down just the same. As you may remember, Silverstein did actually request permission to demolish WTC 7: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...ook-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame.html I imagine he failed to get authorization. However, he may well have decided to do it anyway. Something that Fox News never bothers to ponder: if he was asking for authorization to demolish it, it would strongly suggest that he already had the building rigged to be demolished. That type of thing takes a fair amount of time to do.
Whether he requested a space shuttle is immaterial. Ok, that went a bit weird. Well, Fox probably dropped it as a lunatic idea owing to a lack of evidence, if they considered it at all. That is a filler story for a slow news day as it wouldn't be taken seriously, and it would be presented as a 'funny' story if at all.
If Osama bin Laden had requested to buy commercial aircraft before 9/11 and then 9/11 happened, would you also consider it to be immaterial? How so? Evidence doesn't grow on trees; you've got to -look- for it. Did they? I've certainly not seen anyone explore this in the mainstream media. On the other hand, when it came to a story the U.S. government -wanted- to believe, its standards for evidence were much lower. In 2006, the FBI -still- didn't consider it had enough evidence to convict Osama bin Laden of 9/11: "FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”"- http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623 That didn't stop the U.S. government from invading Afghanistan anyway mere months after 9/11. Ofcourse, what was I thinking? Silverstein makes a request to demolish Building 7, Building 7 then "collapses", Silverstein makes lots of money off of insurance claim, nothing to see here folks, move along...
Blues is actually one of the better OCT supporters. Atleast he's relatively civilized while he overlooks almost every lead suggesting the OCT couldn't possibly be true, though ofcourse he will suggest now and again that those who bother to point out all the suspicious points are the ones with "lunatic" ideas -.-. You just get used to it after a while...
You have a very liberal idea of "civilized". I guess it depends on who he's responding to. I usually am able to pick out only about 10% or less of what he posts that I care to respond to.
Yeah, I've seen that your relationship with Blues isn't exactly the best, laugh . I try very hard to try to be in Blue's shoes, or any anyone else I'm debating, and give them as much benefit of the doubt as I can, I think it helps to some extent.
I asked Blues63 to listen to an argument on a video and address it. He won't address the argument until I summarize it first when all he has to do is listen to it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452072&page=15&p=1066150743#post1066150743 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452072&page=15&p=1066163607#post1066163607 There's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry simply becomes ineffective so that's his way of avoiding having to try to obfuscate something that's simply too clear to try to obfuscate without looking silly.
I'm the type of guy who would probably transcribe a bit of it just to get him to see it. A long time ago, I realized that I didn't find preaching to the choir all that interesting. That being said, preaching to their opposite, those who completely support the OCT, is generally worse. You need to find people who are willing to walk a little into what I'd call a no man's land between those who firmly disbelieve the OCT and those who firmly believe it. In Blues' case, despite Blue's aowed nature as an OCT supporter, he actually supports some new investigations, notably on the Twin Towers, and possibly on other aspects of 9/11. He wants to see the 28 redacted pages and despite his statements that he finds nothing suspicious regarding a certain fireproof identity morphing passport, he seems a bit shaky in his belief that all the alleged 19 hijackers were truly responsible for hijacking 4 planes on 9/11. Whenever I find Blues staunchly defending some position that seems practically indefensible, I try to joke about it to some extent; you don't want to come down too hard on a person's belief set, that tends to simply get them to beef up their resistance to a different idea. The truth is, trying to persuade someone to change their mind on things that they generally believe strongly can be pretty hard, and can cause real pain to the person believing it if you succeed. Even getting close starts to produce cognitive dissonance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). I think the only way to do it is to try to plant small seeds of doubt in their beliefs and try to feed those doubts with more evidence if you find them to be receptive to it.
I think he's a disinfo agent who knows that 9/11 was an inside job as well at the truthers do. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html https://cultureofawareness.com/2012...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/ People in denial usually slink away when checkmated so often. Only disinfo agents unabashedly post silly stuff when checkmated. When checkmated, they try to bury that part of the debate to reduce the number of people who see it. When the issue blows over, they continue as if nothing had happened. That's why I put all the info in post number one when I start a thread; they can never bury it which is what they try to do when they can't obfuscate it.
I'm thinking that some disinfo agents pretend they agree with some minor questionable issue about 9/11 that may merit further examination. But that's probably so that they don't sound completely disingenuous. I just have a really difficult time swallowing that anyone genuine would fanatically defend the OCT and the storytellers nearly daily and question none of it and constantly attack/ridicule those who question/contradict it. It just makes no logical sense.
Fair enough. That being said, I think we should all remember the rule that most countries follow in a court of law: innocent until -proven- guilty. I think it would be awesome if we could have a slew of case studies of disinformation agents vs. bonafide OCTers, but the fact of the matter is, I only know of one confession from an alleged shill, and you just linked to it. Now I know he says there were more, but I think we should focus on the fact that we still just have his word alone for it. There is also something else- a true shill may -want- people to call them a shill, as he or she would then be able to report it and possibly get the name caller banned. The bottom line, in my view, is that we must strive to avoid doing what a true shill would do- to discredit the messenger instead of the message. I find that giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, whatever my suspicions may be, is the best for everyone. If they are innocent, I can be proud that I held my tongue as to my suspicions. If they aren't, I -still- think it's the best strategy, as I am focusing on the issues instead of the messenger, potentially derailing the thread and possibly getting myself banned. I am also constantly aware of the fact that without some pushback, that is, someone who supports the official story, the conversation can go stale. I've seen this happen many times in conspiracy forums. Saying "I think this happened" and having someone else say "I agree" is a conversation stopper. And this applies not just to some conspiracy forums, but also to forums that rejects people who disagree with the OCT too much at all; in that case, you simply tend to get people who will support the OCT and drive out those who disagree with it. You need to have both sides for this to work, and so long as there is a certain amount of respect between the 2 sides, I have found that it can be quite a productive conversation.
I sometimes think that we can overestimate our ability to determine what makes sense for -other- people. People are incredibly complex creatures. There is another aspect here as well- most of us here know so little about each other. I find that this isn't such a big deal when people agree with each other, but it can be lethal when they disagree. Bottom line, I have always found it to be very useful to give someone as much of the benefit of the doubt as I possibly can, while also ensuring that I still feel that it's worthwhile debating with them. More then once, I have had to take long breaks, from here and elsewhere, as a breather. I've found this place can be especially trying, precisely because we know so little about the people we disagree with. It's easy to come to the wrong conclusions when you don't know that much about a person.
