|
Post by frenat on Oct 20, 2005 20:00:23 GMT -4
If he had said something that could have only one possible meaning, like "inverse tachyon beam", then we wouldn't need this conversation. Oh I don't know. I often use "inverse tachyon beam" to mean a finely cooked steak. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Oct 20, 2005 20:07:43 GMT -4
"Inverse Tachyon Beam" would also serve pretty well as a term for anything you wanted to go way over my head... I'm guessing it's a make-believe term based on what little I know about Tachyon theory, but...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 20, 2005 22:43:20 GMT -4
You mean something like the way "Reverse the polarity" became the all-purpose answer to a technical problem on Star Trek?
Not to get too far off the subject (too late!) but the gang I hang out with decided years back that "Flying the rat" was the all-purpose euphemism.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 21, 2005 1:26:07 GMT -4
This is the link to the FEMA report page with the following quote from it.... "In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities"At the below link, go to page 5-21 of the report, which is page 21 of 32 of the pdf file.... www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdfThis is the most important point, as I mentioned earlier. The firefighters decided "fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires". So they never went in WTC 7 to fight the fires, and made no attempt to fight the fires To wit - there was no "firefighting effort" that was ever initiated, hence no "effort" existed that would lead Silverstein to suggest that they "pull". "Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day.." is also significant within the context of Silverstein's remarks. Remember that he said "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" 1.We have no firefighting effort or firefighters in WTC 7 ever existing to inspire the suggestion and subsequent decision that they "pull" the effort or firefighters. No attempt.. 2. We also know that the fires progreesed throughout the day before the collapse. But, Silverstein says they decided to "pull" and "we watched the building collapse" in the same sentence, described as if they were sequential events. Even if we to were accept the falsehood that there was a firefighting effort underway, that "decision early not to attempt to fight the fires" was made hours before the collapse. If you'd like to now suggest that "pull" actually means "not attempt", the alternative view thus becomes.... "And they made that decision to not attempt it, and after several hours of watching the fires progress, we watched the building collapse." Hmmm.. .
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 21, 2005 3:34:29 GMT -4
Well, if you are going to hone the words down to that sort of edge; "...and we watched the building collapse..." is passive voice. It seems strange to me that a man who would take command of the situation, and make the hard decision to blow up his own building (and recount this decision during a recorded interview), would then describe the results as if they merely happened: an action without a named actor.
Setting off high explosives strikes me as an active move, not a reactive move. I can't imagine, personally, wiring up a runway full of improvised cratering charges then describing the result as "holes appeared in the runway." No, dammit, I blew up that runway! I did it, not some passive, unnamed force.
Your case, I would phrase as "We made the decision to shoot it and I had CDI collapse the building."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 21, 2005 9:30:47 GMT -4
This is the most important point, as I mentioned earlier. The firefighters decided "fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires". So they never went in WTC 7 to fight the fires, and made no attempt to fight the fires To wit - there was no "firefighting effort" that was ever initiated,
Then why did the fire chief call Silverstein? Just to chat? Are you saying it was impossible for there to have been firefighters in WTC 7 on the basis of that one statement in the FEMA report? Are you sure there aren't any other statements in the FEMA report or elsewhere suggesting that firefighters might have, at various times, entered the building?
But, Silverstein says they decided to "pull" and "we watched the building collapse" in the same sentence, described as if they were sequential events.
He was giving an interview, recounting several events of the day in three or four sentences. Why do you wish to take it literally only there?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 21, 2005 12:20:50 GMT -4
Turbonium,
-You are "cherry picking" others and I have pointed out various problems with your "Silverstein had WTC-7 'pulled' " theory which you have yet to respond to.
- The report said as you quoted it previously "the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities" Fairly of course means largely so there was some "automatic or manual suppression activities"
- I can't remember if it was you or another CT who pointed out that the firefighter had to move back just before the building collapsed. In other words there were firemen in close vicinity, even if they were doing little. By saying "pull it" he could have been giving his OK to the Fire Chief to free them up to be deployed elsewhere.
- It is possible he did mean demolish when he said "pull it", as you point out he's a layman, but even in this case it would have none sinister implications. He could have meant "I gonna have it demolished away go you can free up the firemen to be used elsewhere". He though it ironic that the building collapsed soon after.
- I asked you for the complete quote in context and you have yet to provide us with it. I did a Google search and couldn't find the complete quote which makes me believe in context sounds less sinister [otherwise the CTist would provide it]
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Oct 21, 2005 13:03:43 GMT -4
Would it be out of place here to point out that the "pull it" phrase comes from an interview with the media and that there isn't any record of Silverstein's dialogue with the firefighters' chief?
Somehow this whole long argument about semantics seems to me to be an example not of barking up the wrong tree but of barking up a shrubbery amd calling it a tree.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 21, 2005 13:27:29 GMT -4
The segment of the PBS program in which the statement appears can be viewed here infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMVLast month a spokesman for Silverstein confirmed that by "it" in "pull it" he was referring to a contingent of firefighters that was inside WTC 7, and that no controlled demolition was implied. The FEMA report mentions an "early" decision not to fight the WTC fires. It does not discuss whether that decision was reconsidered. But elsewhere it discusses eyewitness accounts of the damage to WTC from firefighters that were inside the building. Clearly there were people in the building from time to time. If there was "no attempt" to fight the fires in WTC 7, then why would the fire chief call Silverstein to discuss WTC 7? If there was no effort, why was there an incident commander for WTC 7? If WTC 7 was surreptitiously destroyed, why would Silverstein say as much on a popular national television program? History is mostly about reconciling apparently contradictory sources. Conspiracy theorists approach history by finding the one source that appears to agree with their beliefs and ignoring all others. Real historians and investigators try to weigh everything appropriately and decide what, of all possible outcomes, best fits the totality of evidence. The one general statement in the FEMA report has to be reconciled with other specific evidence that seems to indicate otherwise: 1. the admission in the same report that firefighters were indeed inside WTC 7. 2. the visual record of firefighters near WTC 7. 3. the statements by Silverstein's spokesmen that the fire chief reported having men in WTC 7. 4. the mere fact that the fire chief is interested in discussing WTC 7 with Silverstein. Similarly the theory of controlled demolition by explosives must answer the following: 1. If by "pull it" Silverstein intended to denote a controlled demolition by explosives, why did he say so knowing it would be widely broadcast? 2. If by "pull it" Silverstein intended to denote a controlled demotion by explosives, why would this be relevant to the fire chief? 3. Why do the conspiracists' ignore the 30 seconds of collapse evidence prior to the start of their video clips? If the collapse actually occurred in stages taking over half a minute, then it is not representative of controlled demolition. 4. Why are random "squib firings" on the upper floors relevant to a controlled demolition that would clearly have been undertaken on the lower floors? 5. How and when were the alleged explosives placed?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 4:14:44 GMT -4
1. the admission in the same report that firefighters were indeed inside WTC 7.
2. the visual record of firefighters near WTC 7.
3. the statements by Silverstein's spokesmen that the fire chief reported having men in WTC 7.
4. the mere fact that the fire chief is interested in discussing WTC 7 with Silverstein
1. The only mention of any firefighters inside WTC 7 I find in the FEMA report is on page 5-20 (pg.20 of 32 of pdf file) where it states "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner"
The firefighter was walking the 9th floor - not fighting any fires. In fact, no mention is made of any fires being reported by this firefighter - he only stated that there was facade damage at one corner of the building, on the 9th floor he was walking on. He surely wpuld have reported if any fires were occurring, as well as the damage he observed.
2. Please provide links if possible to these visual records. However, many firefighters could certainly be in the vicinity of WTC 7 - the entire area had emergency personnel running around in every direction amidst the chaos after the towers collapsing. This does not mean that the firefighters were engaging in an effort towards fighting the WTC 7 fires.
3. As to the Silverstein PR statement, I wouldn't exactly use the word "independent" to describe the source....
Independent - definitions....
- Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study. - often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization. - Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film. - Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
It can safely be stated that Silverstein's spokesman is not close to being an independent, impartial source. Further, what he says is unsubstantiated by media reports at the time and since then, and contrary to the FEMA report, which as I said, noted only one firefighter actually inside the building, walking the 9th floor.
4.The mere fact they are talking serves to support both sides of this argument. It doesn't strengthen one and weaken the other.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 5:35:22 GMT -4
1. If by "pull it" Silverstein intended to denote a controlled demolition by explosives, why did he say so knowing it would be widely broadcast?
2. If by "pull it" Silverstein intended to denote a controlled demotion by explosives, why would this be relevant to the fire chief?
3. Why do the conspiracists' ignore the 30 seconds of collapse evidence prior to the start of their video clips? If the collapse actually occurred in stages taking over half a minute, then it is not representative of controlled demolition.
4. Why are random "squib firings" on the upper floors relevant to a controlled demolition that would clearly have been undertaken on the lower floors?
5. How and when were the alleged explosives placed?
1.Why he said it ? Who knows? History has proven on innumerable occassions that one can 'put their foot in their mouth' at any time, with or without a camera recording it.
2. It would be relevant to the firefighters, because they would need to be informed by the commander to stay clear of the building; that it was going to collapse (they don't need to be told specifically why it was going to collapse, or why the commander would know this was going to happen.
Points 3, 4 and 5 are really not related to the "pull it" debate - so I'm starting a thread about specifically how and why WTC 7 collapsed. It needs it's own thread at some point, anyway - this seems like the appropriate time.
.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 8:44:01 GMT -4
Turbonium,
I asked you twice for the complete quote and you never provided us with it.
As I imagined the full quote doesn't fit your theory as much as a few words out of context.
Narrator: ”Seven had been cleared faster than the rest of the site, and there had been no bodies to recover. Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, Seven burned until late afternoon, allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.”
Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it, and they made that decision to 'pull,' uh, and we watched the building collapse."
I guess you were trying to "suppress" the full quote in order to "cover up" the truth.
Also you haven't yet addressed all the questions we have raised about your interpretation of the quote.
I'll add a few new points.
1] Explain the significance of the highlighted phrases in relation to your take on the quote.
2] Your slip of the tongue theory makes little sense because A] slips of the tongue normally happen when i] a person is under pressure ii] the person did not expect to be interviewed and had little time to prepare - Silverstein had plenty of time to think about what he was going to say B] Many of the most infamous "slips of the tongue" happen when the speaker thought the mic/camera/tape recorder etc was turned off C] He used the word pull twice D] I know this is subjective, but he didn't look embarrassed or ill at ease after he used the word pull as one might expect if some had inadvertently made such a damaging statement on camera E] Silverstein is a very slick character and is less likely than some one like Bush jr. or Reagan to make such a slip
3] Give us one comparable example another instance when during an on camera interview some one committed a slip of the tongue that implicated them in a serious crime.
Hopefully you'll be able to cite an example for which the participant had time to prepare, was not being badgered by the interviewer, repeated the slip, showed no reaction after the statement, was not made by someone prone to "putting their foot in their mouth"
4] Another question is why hasn't anyone other that a few CT nuts questioned the remark? If it really were so damning why haven't any members of the NYPD or NYFD who lost hundreds of friends and colleagues to raised hell? Have any journalists etc. questioned the remark?
edited to add narrator's comments
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 22, 2005 15:20:48 GMT -4
I am having this mental image now.
First Star Wars movie. Ben Kenobi and Luke standing by the shot-up Sandcrawler. "These blast-marks are too precise for Sandpeople," says Ben. "Only Imperial troops are so precise. Furthermore, the size and kind of scorching seen here is typical of the Mark IVb7 Blast Pistol, which is only issued to Imperial Stormtroopers on Outer Planets duty. We know that Stormtroopers have been seen in this area searching for that R2 unit of yours, and not only do Jawas trade and sell 'droids, this is the very sandcrawler you purchased your R2 at."
"Then the Imperials did this!" Luke says. "They'll trace it back to my folks!"
"Not so fast, young Luke," says Kenobi. "I just found a single white feather on the ground. Imperial Stormtroopers do not have feathers. There is no way to explain this feather. Now, I'm not saying that giant birds attacked this sandcrawler with their claws, but you have to admit the presence of this feather rather puts into question the whole 'Imperial Stormtrooper' theory."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 23, 2005 3:52:10 GMT -4
Well yeah, except that all Stormtroopers are issued with E-11 BlasTech blaster rifles regardless of where they served. ;P
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 24, 2005 9:26:01 GMT -4
It would be relevant to the firefighters, because they would need to be informed by the commander to stay clear of the building; that it was going to collapse (they don't need to be told specifically why it was going to collapse, or why the commander would know this was going to happen.
Ah, of course. The building can't collapse on its own (which is what the PCTs all say), so we won't arouse any suspicion by telling them to get out before it collapses. Nobody will think, "Hey! That building shouldn't have collapsed! And how did that guy know when it would happen!"
Also touching is the sudden concern for the firefighters by people who were so blithely willing to slaughter their brothers en masse in WTC 1 and 2.
This argument, in other words, not only lacks any evidence to support it, and is based on the most contorted and farfetched possible interpretation of somebody's words, but it isn't even consistent with the other claims. In that sense, it's perfect from a PCT point of view.
|
|