And that is why, in a professional demolition, they don’t need to worry about timing their squibs? Just slap some high explosives and some diesel in one of the upper floors, and set it off?
And that, my friend, is how, if you are in a position to do so, you avoid a congressional investigation dismantling your agency brick-by-brick. You simply spread the story that he was crazy – he was extremely ill, correct? He wasn’t in his right mind.
Martyrdom?
1 Like
Pull the firefighters from the building, but don’t let facts get in the way.
7 Likes
“It” not “them”.
I love how you attempt to deceive by decontextualizing from the discussion of the firefighters. He was specifically discussing the decision to remove firefighters from the building.
This is all you have.
5 Likes
They try to control the demolitions so buildings don’t hurl wreckage all over the place. Just because the buildings at the WTC didn’t fall over like trees doesn’t mean it went down just like a carefully planned demolition. There wasn’t exactly any shortage of catastrophic damage all around ground zero.
I feel like all this has been discussed at length, so I’m going to bow out until someone who supports the “planes didn’t bring down the buildings” theory provides remotely plausible answers to the following questions:
-
HOW would conspirators have brought down the buildings with controlled demolitions? Those take months of preparation with a large team of full-time workers setting charges though empty buildings in broad daylight. No one at the WTC or elsewhere saw anything like this. And if you’re one of the “there were no planes” nutters then you also have to explain how someone created some kind of gigantic 3-D holograms outdoors in broad daylight.
-
WHY would conspirators have brought down the buildings with explosives if they wanted everyone to believe they were destroyed by planes? If the point of the thing was to blame terrorists for the destruction of the buildings then they could have simply bombed the buildings and blamed terrorists. Or just crashed the planes and blamed terrorists. There’s no reason to do one and make it appear as the other, that just leave more ways for the plan to go wrong.
Fourteen years of conspiracy rants and I’ve yet to hear a remotely plausible explanation for either the “how” or the “why,” let alone both.
8 Likes
Never argue with idiots…etc.
5 Likes
- Standard Liar-stock. See my answer waaay above. That answer is final, and I’m out of this thread.
- Why were almost all of the questions asked by the 911 commission not answered? Not even off-record. And why was the Bush/Cheney testimony not on-record? Therein may lay your answer to that.
On that note, can one unsubscribe from notifications on the mobile site?
Ah, Tracking > Muted.
1 Like
It’s a form of speaking specific to the industry. “Pull the building” means pull all the firefighters and their equipment out. Basically, give up, it can’t be saved…put the effort toward working to save the surrounding area instead.
If you hear someone in a restaurant saying “we were buried at lunch”, do you think they’re a zombie that clawed its way out of a shallow grave in order to come back for the dinner rush?
12 Likes
Also building-demolition lingo for the final event. Followed by “and we watched it fall”. That’s it, I’m really out.
Did you know that the Manhattan project had something like 8000 people working on it, yet only 50 or so knew what was going on? That’s called compartmentalization. It’s very effective in preventing intelligence leaks.
But the main problem in what you refer to as “people who would have talked” is the mainstream media. None of the MSM outlets well cover stories such as these. For instance, there were many who worked in the towers who complained about an endless racket on the floors above and below them in the several weeks prior to 9/11. There were also several people who saw night crews enter the building ostensibly to work on something for several weeks prior to 9/11. None of their stories got coverage.
The buildings were supposed to be undergoing “fireproofing”, however by 9/11, the only floors that had been completed were the floors 91-100 in WTC 1, and {forgotten range of floors} in WTC 2— floors in which the planes allegedly struck. These facts never got coverage.
My first point in response to your comment regarding the “someone would have talked” notion is that most people who may have assisted on some aspect in 9/11 did not know about what they were doing as it related to the overall event. Of course the much smaller group of people who do know everything were likely in favor of it occurring and won’t be talking (and if by chance they suddenly decrypted a conscience, they know their death souls not be the only consequence—their loved ones would be killed as well).
My second point is the group who aren’t involved directly, but learn or uncover something after the fact. If these people were prominent and/or particularly credible (and/or had very damaging information), they are killed. Other people who may be less well-known or less credible who have some information and try to go public with it can be easily discredited and/or ruined.
Off the top of my head, two persons from the “more credible group” who I believe were killed are Deborah Jeane Palfrey (back in 2004) and Phillip Marshall (in 2013), although there are more (feel free to research them, but I’d avoid the MSM).
Addendum: while looking up Marshall and Palfrey , I came across three other individuals I had forgotten about who most believed were killed as a result of their first hand witnessing of events on 9/11 which dramatically contradicted the official story and the Commission Report. They are: Kenneth Johannemann, William Rodriguez, and Barry Jennings.
1 Like
So, the chief of firefighters also works in the building demolition field on his days off?
Words and phrases can mean different things in different industries, even if they happen to sound the same to ignorant ears.
5 Likes
Really? You’ve had fourteen years to think about one of the fundamental questions surrounding the conspiracy theories - “why stage one kind of attack just to make it look like a different kind of attack” - and the best you can come up with is “go ask Cheney?” Nuts.
4 Likes
This was talking to a fire commander, not a demolitionist, so there’d be no reason to use inappropriate jargon to someone who didn’t speak it. Using the term “pull” to refer to pulling the fire-fighting operation out does make sense contextually. Using the term “pull” in demolition jargon means to use cables instead of explosives to control a fall to prevent damaging a neighboring building. In context the term makes literally no sense at all as a demolition term (no cables, WTC 7 debris did damage neighboring buildings, contextually inappropriate - “pull” doesn’t mean to start demolition but is a technique, et al.), while it makes sense if it’s describing a firefighting operation pulling out of a building in danger of collapsing.
But it doesn’t matter, since you want to believe you are special because of your pseudo-clever understanding - your conspiracy theory can let you believe you are much smarter than everyone else (the sheep), and morally superior to the “liars”. You’re so attached to imagining you’re both intellectually and morally superior to others with your delusional theory that you’re happy to ignore how incoherent, implausible, inconsistent, and ridiculous it is (as well as the dubious moral posture of accusing others of supporting an imagined monstrous crime) since it makes you feel better about yourself.
Maybe try finding a hobby that’s constructive or volunteer to feel better about yourself instead of espousing delusional ignorance that involves the jerkish behavior of accusing others of being both stupid and liars supporting covering up a fictional horrible crime?
3 Likes
No… He is right. Many floors were vacant. One of the big problems (and a huge liability for the Port Authority) was the frangible asbestos that filled the towers. They may have been cultural or architectural icons, but as far as commercial real estate, they were not exactly prime space.
This fact leads right into more mystery which lends itself to 9/11 being planned. Asbestos abatement was going to cost something between $80 million to $300 million for both towers— as you can imagine, this was a huge liability. The asbestos also prevented them from simply demolishing them.
But despite the low vacancy rate and all the asbestos, in July, 2001, in comes Larry Silverstein, a major real estate operator in Manhattan. Silverstein negotiates a rather inexpensive 99 year ground lease on the entire world trade center complex. I don’t recall the cost, but it was maybe $10 million per year. The very peculiar and incriminating aspect however is that Larry Silverstein, as part of the transaction, demands an extraordinarily high $3.5 billion insurance policy for the towers in case of destruction. Being a real estate lawyer myself, insurance for damage to the property is obviously common. What isn’t common is what an insurer will cover as it relates to causes of destruction. Secondly, if ground leased property is destroyed, the Landlord often has the right to rebuild (since he owns the land in fee).
In the case at hand, permitted causes for insurance for destruction are typically fire, lightning, and riot. Additional coverage for earthquakes, military action, nuclear accidents— given the extensive potential damage they could cause—are negotiated separately and cost extra. With the WTC, Silverstein wanted coverage in the amount of $3.5 billion for the virtually unheard of “loss caused due to ‘acts of terrorism’”.
Secondly, Silverstein insisted on the right to rebuild the property in case of destruction, with the additional right to expand the space allocated for retail (both rare terms for the tenant to demand). He got them both. However, the Port Authority couldn’t even find a single insurer to cover $3.5bn and it had to be syndicated among 25 separate insurers. Even by 9/11, the coverage had not been finalized. However Silverstein went to court not only to get the insurance prices, but to get it x2 because there were “two acts of terrorism”.
I’d suggest watching this very well put together video on “Following The Money” regarding 9/11 by James Corbett. https://youtu.be/n3xgjxJwedA
1 Like
SO many things wrong with this analogy. For one thing, even assuming those numbers are accurate it didn’t exactly take the additional 7,950 people more than 14 years to realize they’d been part of a secret government program to develop a super-weapon for the U.S. military.
9 Likes
Not only that most of academia was able to make a very educated guess (which they very definitely did) as oh look all our top nuclear physicists have magically gone away to a secret camp. Add in all the people in Hanford and Oak Ridge, and everyone at all 3 sites knew they were working on some sort of weapon/bomb just no specific idea of what kind.
10 Likes
Remember how amazing people say it is that the towers fell within their footprints? Now try doing that with workers who don’t know what they’re doing and wouldn’t be able to tell what their work was for, even in the face of video evidence. Now do this with three buildings, two of which are way taller than any building that has been detonated before, and one of which is blocked by another building - which is not only extra trouble and another part of the plot that could be discovered, but is completely unnecessary and will be used as the smoking gun of what really happened. Or maybe all of the buildings that fell were detonated? Now you need more skilled but clueless workers.
These workers would be in the less credible group, so presumably they wouldn’t be under as heavy control. Have any of them shown up on truther forums? (“Y’know, I did do some really weird work around the WTC in the weeks before 9/11. In fact, half the city’s contractors seemed to be doing work on those buildings at that time. They were really vague about what it was for, and we weren’t supposed to tell anyone about it”). Or maybe someone working for the chief firefighter? Who did he tell to “pull” the building, and how did they respond? If it’s so important that nobody knows that the building was detonated, why did he explicitly tell the MSM that this is what they’d done? That’s much more than a slip of the tongue, so why isn’t he dead?
3 Likes
