9/11 truth movement topic

[madsen]

This is easy to see, that this picture was taken, when the construction workers cleaned out
the area from all the debris and it was not taken on 9/11.
Then there would have been smoke on the picture..

This website is a lying website made to lie to the public.

This is the demolition of WTC6, which occurred in December, IIRC, not the collapse of WTC7.  No one says that cables were used on WTC7.

[Elvis Oswald]

@Madsen -

There is no evidence that the fire dept was in on it... and it's not clear who he meant THEY were...

I wouldn't have expected him to slip up and tell the whole truth anyways.  This was a slip of the tongue.  He used the term PULL IT.

Wouldn't you think that PM could round up some 'experts' to say whatever they wanted? 
And isn't that a Hearst publication?
Remember the Maine?

For that matter - remember WMDs in Iraq?

How about the Gulf of Tonkin?

Seems to me the same old people that have lied over and over are going to great lengths to prove the official conspiracy theory.

[Elvis Oswald]

@Pirate - I agree.  It makes no sense that the fire dept would blow up the building.  But what we are talking about is the choice of words that silverstein used.  The whole fire dept thing is a straw man that Madsen has been humping.

When Rumsfield said TWICE that a missile hit the pentagon... he didn't also spout out other things about  it.  It was a slip.

Bush didn't say he saw the first plane hit the WTC on a CIA CCTV feed... but he did say he saw it on tv.
And that made NO SENSE - because the footage of the first plane was not available that morning.
So do we argue over what Bush meant?
It wasn't the second plane... he was in the classroom when that happened.

Just like Rumsfield and the missile comments... and Silverstein with the "pull it"... Bush slipped up.

I do agree that your explanation makes sense.  But when he say's, they made that decision - to pull, and we watched the building collapse... it seems that the collapse was a result of the decision.  Another slip?  I think so - especially given the broader picture.

It's a fact that Prescott Bush was part of a plot to overthrow the government and install a fascist dictatorship.
His son was CIA director and later the PUSA.
Clinton was part of the drug smuggling operation that Bush and the CIA ran and is now closer to papa than little george is...
And little George has the same group of people around him that his father had AND Nixon had...
and Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all expanded the power of the executive branch and moved us closer to the facist state that grandpa Bush wanted.
hmmmm.

Even if you don't think the CIA killed JFK... it is a fact that they tried to invade Cuba after he told them not to.
And this same agency presented Operation Northwoods - and who knows what else that as not been declassified yet.
This same agency used false flag terrorism - blowing up school buses and mosques in Iran (operation Ajax - declassified)
These same people are in the shadows of every "conspiracy theory' from JFK, RFK, MLK, to Tonkin to Apollo to watergate to Iran/Contra, etc.  And they are the ones who made Al Queda.

In the broader scheme of things - it all makes perfect sense.

AS far as explosives and the time it takes to prepare... it takes months of planning for sure.  And they had that.  There was also the weekends they shut off power to run fiber optics.

[madsen]

@madsen:
At least one demolition expert disagrees with that:

http://www.musiconline.com.br/videos/index.php?ida=961&videoId=-mvDcgf3x3I

Can you tell me which demolition expert is disagreeing?  Maybe I missed something, but it sounded to me as if people were agreeing that you use the term "pull" when you are using cables in a demolition (which did happen with WTC6, but not WTC7, AFAIK).  OTOH, you wouldn't use the word "pull" when the job uses explosives only, and no cables.  That's my understanding.

Also from that link, what does the term 'Blow up' as used by the policeman mean? In my language, 'blow up' used in reference to a building means to 'destroy or demolish with explosives'.

I myself have spoken out loud about the "bombings" of the WTC towers accidentally from time to time (which I don't believe happened, for the record), so it could be that he misspoke.  If he actually meant the building was going to be imploded, then were the police in on the plot as well? 

I find the 'Popular Mechanics' kid's reaction on the phone very strange. He doesn't seem to show any interest in the caller's assertion that he has demolition experts confirming that 'pull it' is used in reference to demolitions. Even if you don't believe professionals use this term, Silverstein's no demolision expert AFAIK.

So are you arguing that even if "pull it" is not special demolition jargon, it still probably means "blow up the building", precisely because Silverstein is ignorant about the demolition business??

In answer to your question as to whether I think the BBC is in on a conspiracy and how the could get the information that the building would be pulled, I would like to share a couple of things with you.

The first is anecdotal. I have a friend who works as a weather reporter on a fairly large radio station here in the UK. He told me how when some busses were blown up he saw a live stream cut and taken over by the security services of the UK. I'm talking about the video streams that alert the radio guys to what's going on so they can report it. In other words, if the security services choose to present disinformation, it requires no complicity from the press.

That sort of thing certainly seems plausible to a point, although I'm not sure we are set up for that here in the US.  IIRC, the BBC clip involves a correspondent reporting live from New York.  Now my personal opinion is that she likely got her (incorrect) information about WTC7's collapse from CNN or perhaps another news source.  Do you think the security services were involved in that particular report?

The second is this,
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=611
Unfortunately, the video has been removed from youtube, but I did see it some time back before this happened. What is not mentioned in the story there, but was on the video, is that a former member of MI6 stood up and asserted that it was common practice for the agency to control the media and disinform the public, and asked if it was still the case today? Dearlove only answered with something to the effect that he couldn't possibly respond to a question like that. Maybe you'll be able to dig this video up elsewhere if you're interested.

My point is that it's well known that the media both here and in the US can be controlled by intelligence agencies when it suits them.

I do think that intelligence agencies and other organizations could control media to some degree.  For example, Cap-Z-ro actually posted an interesting story about a possible episide of this concerning Hurricane Ike.  The story was that a "no fly" zone was established over the affected areas in Texas, I believe, supposedly to keep the area clear for emergency relief workers.  Of course you have to wonder if part of the reason for excluding media was to prevent pictures of devastation etc that would further alarm Americans and others during a week when our economy seems to be unraveling. 

Anyway, I think we have to take these incidents on a case-by-case basis, and decide if it really is logistically possible for intelligence agencies etc to have exerted such control.

[madsen]

@madsen,
please come back on some of the comments I directed at you above.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
The 'debunking' page that you yourself quoted says that's what 'pull' means, and that page is directly addressing Silverstein's quote on WTC7.

Yes, I agree that "pull" means to use cables to demolish the building.  WTC6 was pulled.  No cables were involved with WTC7, though, correct?  I guess I don't understand the issue.

BTW:  I'll be traveling much of the day, so y'all will have to do without my posts at least until this evening, probably.     Have fun.