well, I feel and so do some others, that its really weak in terms of using to say that oh look he admitted it.
I just feel that until someone has found decent enough answers for 911myths take on Larry's words... it just seems a bit out of date now, in the face of the following lines quoted from 911Myths.com
Quote:
Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?
Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.
Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.
Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?
Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?
Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?
Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?
There are a lot more stronger pieces of evidence to go on, such as no steel structure has collapsed from fire, such as Demolition Expert Jowenko's take on it, etc, etc.
I think the fact that he says he meant it was to 'pull' the firefighting effort makes the footage relevant.
Popular mechanics say there was no firefighting in WTC7 that day.
The NY Times says the building was evacuated at 11:30.
So if they 'pulled' the firefighters, then watched the building come down it seems weird not to mention the 6 hours in between.
It's a good example of problematic testimony, but not be portrayed as a confession. _________________ UK-based alternative news site:
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk
okay, right.... so as he said things which don't make sense when you compare with other evidence, ie - there is no other corroboration for him saying that there were fire fighters there that needed to be pulled out of the building.
So, its like he is making something up or covering something. Hmm... Yes that sounds a lot better.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: gems of evidence
Errrr... reality check!
Larry Silverstein was and is one of the biggest crooks in the world but like all those of such arrogance he makes mistakes and gives us gems of evidence.
The fact that he uses term 'pull it' also shows how friendly he was to controlled demolition experts - an accidental confession - from the horses mouth this time - trust your instincts and ignore Zabooka and anyone else who tries to jump on you.
The Silverstien quote was one of the many glaring ommissions in the BBC Conspiracy Files smear, don't do the same.
You've put a load of work into this, good luck. I think the Silverstein quote works fine - maybe even have some more choice quotes from Bush et al, maybe the Cheney slip about the missile? Condi about 'no-one could have predicted using planes as missiles'? Sure there must be loads.
Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 489 Location: Manchester
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:50 am Post subject:
i personally think the silverstein quote is still good evidence.
at the very least it is a very unusual way of saying 'order fire fighters to leave the building'.. very unusual. especially considering the appearance and speed of the 'collapse'.. not to mention testimony from emergency repsonders and observations from jowlenko and several structural engineers
been meaning to do a vid of my own about wtc7
will check yours out now marndin _________________ "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
the only way the 911 truth campaign is to progress beyond the grass roots and the small meeting halls to the mainstream is if things like songs, movies and celebs jump on board.
Today we live in an age where not many people give a damn about anything of any importance. Jade Goody, David Beckham etc.
So the only way to get the truth to be taken seriously is to play the media game, Most of the public 99% i guess believed the moon landings were real until capricon one the movie and the REM song man in the moon amongst other media events.
Now anyone who believes the moon landings to be genuine is considered a wacko by almost everyone.
So marndin i think you are doing a good job and i wish you success with the video. Obviously you have seen the remo conscious song, and a few others breaking through like a couple of rap songs. The only critism i would offer and i dont want to criticise you, but i did find it a little bland
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Zabooka wrote:
Hi... is it so wise to use the Larry Silverstein video footage?
Quote:
Why? Do you think it's a problem, and if so in what way
?
Great work Marndin.
Larry Silverstein's words are, imo, another smoking gun, I can see no harm for the 911 truth campaign in including that footage. _________________ Pikey
Okay, just to let you all know, I love the idea of the song. It goes very well with the video, yes its cheesy, however lots of cheesy songs are also the songs that people can not get out of their heads and sometimes thus can not stop talking about
Okay, the Larry Silverstein quote is cool. Just wanted to make sure that it can be used effectively and doesn't become have a straw man kind of effect.
Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 216 Location: West Sussex
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject:
I would like to add that I KNOW youtube and google are manipulating the viewing figures and ratings of the two posts on-line. I have voted myself from 3 different P.C's/IP addresses and different account names and only 1 rating was showing a day later!
Maybe when it's finished hopefully by next week. We could all e-mail a link to it to as many people as possible and get links on forums etc. Because whether or not it's your cup of tea. The message is strong, it's of broadcast quality. And should prove to be thought provoking to anyone who hasn't considered the bigger picture.
Judging by the feedback i'm getting it's working.
Two radio stations in the states are now playing it!
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 486 Location: Manchester
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject:
Great work. THe music may not suit many but then again rap doesnt sit well with many audiences either, so its well worth trying.
The Silverstein business is tricky but I think its valid to include it. Great work if the radios are playing it and we should definately do the emailing to spread it.
Kudos _________________ The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG
Having watched this 10+ times now (the music's great), I would like to add
the following constructive criticism.
"notice no fire damage this book is still intact" is a bit too obscure and/or confusing imho,
speaking as a bit of a 9/11 evidence geek.
Also it would be great if you could incorporate some edited BBC
foreknowledge material into the next version. Although I realise I
should probably be doing something, rather than suggesting things.
I'm also in favour of your decision to use Silverstein footage.
It is the latest in a long line of clips and compilations on WTC7. In it there are eye-witnesses being interviewed, with references, who say that they were told "brought down", and you hear people shout its going "to blow up", ... some may say that is because they knew about the diesel fuel generators. However once again, in that day of complete panic and where the firefighters walkie talkies were not functioning, how did these certain individuals get such intelligence communicated to them?
This is the kind of things I wanted to see and hear to strenghten the use of the Silverstein qoute.
GREAT TO HEAR its getting played on US RADIO! Lets all get people to view it on GOOGLE. Use it as a reply to all other youtube video clips, or something... something/anything to make people come across it.
Congrats! Great stuff!!
I joined this forum last night to say just that.
Any chance you could could include a quick screen from the just discovered BBC footage from the day (911) when building 7 is clearly visible still standing behind the lady reporter?
Whatever................ it's great!! _________________ Crossing the Rubicon
Can anyone point me to a hi quality download of the BBC announcement about Building 7 collapsing.
Also, is there moving image of Rumsfelds comment about a missile hitting the pentagon? If so where can I get it.
I have most of the DVD's about 9/11 but don't recall seeing Rumsfeld on one.
If anyone knows of other fottage of building 7 collapsing that may be useful.
I would like to start downloading these tonight if possible.
Many thanks
Martin
That was actually Rumsfeld in an interview for print, my mistake, recording doesn't seem to be around. I've dug out Cheney making a slip though, alluding to flight 93 'shot down'. youtube
Could tighten up the editing of the 'Lucky Larry' segment. So when he says "then we watched the building come down" you see the best clip of wtc7 right after. Other than that, some more variety on the tower collapses, you use the one with the antenna like 10 times The one from ground level when the cameraman runs is very good and more suspicious CD wise. Among others.
Good effort though, look forward to 2nd Edition Recut! _________________ Make love, not money.
Zabooka's listed problems are pseudo-issues based upon faulty analysis. Here are my responses to them:
Zabooka wrote:
well, I feel and so do some others, that its really weak in terms of using to say that oh look he admitted it.
I just feel that until someone has found decent enough answers for 911myths take on Larry's words... it just seems a bit out of date now, in the face of the following lines quoted from 911Myths.com
Here are those 'decent enough' answers.
Quote:
Problem #1, Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief, so why should we assume they’d be using slang demolition terms?
As the term 'pull' is slang that is widely known to and used by people from all walks of life, one hardly needs to be a demolition man in order to utter such a common word. It totally misrepresents reality to question why we have to assume Silverstein or the fire department chief would use the word.
Problem #2, Silverstein says "they made that decision to pull", for instance -- the Fire Department. If "pull" means "demolish", then he's saying the Fire Department may not have decided to bring the building down if they couldn't contain the fire, but because it was beyond them, they decided to blow it up. Does this make sense? Not in the slightest.
It's your statement that does not make sense. It's gobblygook. Except to the mentally challenged, I think it makes good sense to blow up a building if the Fire Department judged that it was going to collapse some time. No one is saying that fire fighters did this job. It was presumably handed over to specialists.
Problem #3, Silverstein is suggesting that the decision to demolish the building was optional. It might not have happened. Does this fit with the idea of a convenient insurance scam? No, not at all.
You have taken Silverstein at his word. That's very dangerous, as there is strong reason to believe that he was part of the plot. The plan was to destroy WTC 7 by flying a plane (Flight 93?) into it. When that option was denied, the plotters were forced into plan B. They had to pretend that the building had become so dangerous (an obvious lie in view of the lack of damage to it) that it had to be demolished. The order remained secret (although it got partially leaked out to a few onlookers) because Silverstein wanted to claim insurance damages on the building, which he obviously could not do if he had publicly admitted the true reason for the collapse of WTC 7. That's why he had to cover up his original faux pas over using the words "pull it" by later denying he had meant withdrawal of firefighters. This further exposes his duplicity because there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to remove in the middle of the afternoon, when he said the Fire Chief phoned him. They had all been withdrawn in the late morning, and there had been no attempt all day to put out the fires because of a lack of water, at least according to the NIST report. The true reason was because the plotters wanted WTC 7 to burn as strongly as possible so that its collapse would seem plausible.
Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?
Who says it did? The Fire Department was not to know that Silverstein would later state in his insurance claim that WTC 7 collapsed because of damage from fire and impact of debris from WTC 1 & 2.
Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?
Who says they do? Another straw man argument originating from the false assumption that the New York Fire Department was responsible for the controlled demolition of WTC 7.
Problem #6, and if it's so obvious that WTC7 was demolished, then why are the insurance companies not suing Silverstein for fraud?
How naive can you get? They know they cannot expose Silverstein's scam because this would open up the complete can of worms that is 9/11. They are as scared as the politicians and journalists are to say or DO anything about this mass murder.
Problem #7, and why would Silverstein admit this on television?
Umm. People make mistakes sometimes. They put their foot in their mouth.
There are a lot more stronger pieces of evidence to go on, such as no steel structure has collapsed from fire, such as Demolition Expert Jowenko's take on it, etc, etc.
What is strong evidence for one person is weak evidence for another. I am sure in a court case prosecuting Silverstein for fraud, he could, if he paid him enough, find a yes-man demolition professional to declare that he saw no evidence of a controlled demolition, thereby neutralising Jowenko's testimony. So much for the power of 'expert' testimony. The fact that no steel-framed building had collapsed before from fire did not impress that amateurish bunch of NIST investigators because they falsely claimed that it had been severely damaged from debris. For the same reason, this fact alone still does not make many civil engineers think twice about what they believe happened, despite the collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition. So that contentious argument would hardly help to convict Silverstein. What we need is irrefutable forensic evidence and for whistleblowers to come forward, not the disputable opinions of 'experts.'
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
THe music may not suit many but then again rap doesnt sit well with many audiences either, so its well worth trying.
