See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 46390
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-262) not displayed.
.
.
.
#263. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#258)
BeOcho, For all your phase-shifting and overkill in distorting the context of details, the fact remains that three buildings controlled/owned by one person free-fell to the ground. There is no debate possible, as to all three being controlled demolition. Just follow the money. That didn't go to rebuilding the WTC properties; it went into Larry's pockets. In New York, arson is historically termed "Jewish Lightning." The "Dancing Art Students" attest to that, add the Irraeli-only warnings. No rational person dares to think otherwise. All your disinformation attempts can't change that. The audio is there, qualified observers reported the obvious and it was sufficiently captured on videotape. You're a fucking LIAR - BAC! Nothing is going to change that. You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you. You two are a perfect match - except for your disgust for women. America now has to fear War Crime charges which will eventually stick like super-glue; and you can't approve quickly enough. You're a slimy piece of shit, BAC!
I don't think any person should go to prison for their views alone. We should not outlaw free speech whether it is false/true or a combination of the two. Let's not copy the Zionists here.
God is always good! so fundamental
Here is a picture of a bridge in Lebanon that was hit with Israeli missiles last summer. Note, it fell further than the height of one floor of the WTC towers and had a missile propelling it down at a faster than gravity rate, yet the concrete did not turn to dust upon hitting the ground. Supposedly the concrete in the WTC towers turned to dust after falling the height of a mere floor's distance with only gravity pulling it down. And supposedly even though it turned to dust it somehow managed to sever all 47 core columns every few floors.
God is always good! Hey! Check out this song on WTC 7/911.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Great post. WTC 7 was 5 times higher than wide. A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
That makes it even more implausible. NIST states that the majority of the damage and heat was seen at that impact holes, but the "bowing" occurs on the opposite south face of WTC 1, where there was little damage or any evidence of "widely dislodged" fireproofing, and where the fires had only around 40 minutes to "sag" the trusses and "pull inward" the outer columns.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Never in any fire history of structural steel highrises has "bowing" caused a collapse of a building in 1/5th-1/6th of a second per floor. NISTs "bowing" causing the towers "poised" for "global, progressive, gravity" collapse, only exists in a virtual computer cartoon world.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
On another note. I've heard about the research you have done on Ron Brown. I would be interested in reading some, when I have some spare time.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Now, don't get worked up about this direct reply to you because it will be a one time only. Your 3 replies in this thread are the most sense you have made in months. Swarthyguy believes along the same lines as you, that the people/paper trail of 911 research is more proveable than the forensic side of 911. Thats fine. The more evidence the better. The difference between you and him is tactics. While he may not research the buildings etc., he feels that more effort should be in the paper/people trail. I have never seen him argue against the demolition/forensic side. Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done. The 911 Commission Report was a whitewash of the people/paper trail. The FEMA/NIST Report was a whitewash of the forensic evidence.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
not as good as 'Ten Second Freefall' by 3ShoesPosse, but great lyrics anyway.
Good catch Mark. ANother attempt by BAC to spin government BS.
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I am open to forensic evidence and I have yet to see any evidence that can't be explained via a non explosion/implosion/demolition theory. Also, you all who hold to the explosion/implosion/demolition theory are all over the place - if you make a charge that Enron investigation was jeopardized by the loss of evidence on 9/11 then prove it - let me see where you make such a claim from? When I made my claims I alway - always - always linked the source of such a claim.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
You are a shill who resorts to out and out lying. "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
yes - lots.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Looks like wet noodles to me.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If you look at what the Madrid tower did you will see that even in a "normal" failure tipping over does not occur. Tipping over has only ever occurred with very high magnitude Earthquakes, and even then it is only partial most of the time. If any floors on the towers did collapse due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires then it would not have caused tipping over or a complete collapse. It would have only resulted in some debris falling down the side of the tower from part of the floor crashing down to the one below it. I don't think a whole floor would have fallen in one piece anyway. As matter of fact I highly doubt that is even possible unless all the joints holding it up were all broken simultaneously, a near impossibility unless carefully planned. So a falling floor would not have come down parallel to the floor beneath it, but rather at an angle and even then probably only a partial piece. I highly doubt these floors were all one giant slab of concrete around the core, so it was probably at least 4 different segments, possibly many more, that made up one floor. Which of course makes the progressive collapse theory that much harder to be happen just by chance alone. BeAChooser does post some good material from time to time. Most of the time he seems unaware that he is providing material that does not help the government’s theory but rather hurts it. He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world. Those responsible for 9/11 are definitely in control of our media, so I would not be surprised if they also had a huge amount of control over people who depend on them for their livelihood, like most high-rise structural engineers do.
God is always good! What about skyscraper structural engineers who work for countries not on good terms with the USA like in Singapore or Venezuela or India or China and plenty of examples from nations where they don't care about Americans or America and are hostile to America? I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11. To me the demolition theories are like looking at a murder victim's body and having an argument over whether the bullet that everyone saw being fired killed the victim or if someone poisoned him before hand with a poison that only affected the victim just as the bullet entered him because the bullet wound would not have been enough to kill him.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Good point. And one of the oldest tricks in an agent provocateur's book is to accuse the people who question him of working for "The Man." That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
That is the theory I am operating under - though I leave open the possibility that the plot was found out and some elements allowed it to be carried out making sure that they were not blocked in their plot.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are pissy because your pet theories concerning the background of the hijackers is not as important to some people as the false flag operations involving th demolition of the pentagon and the World Trade Center? I submit that should what you say be true, there s room to explore both situations and investigate both. Nine Eleven was an inside job, and unmasking the lies the Bushies, Smirkies and Rumbos and getting to the bottom of the lies around nine eleven regarding the demolition will have a positive effect on finding th truth about your contentions concerning the back grounds of the hijackers.
I agree on that one too. The Israelis have a world-wide surveillance network of all telephone traffic and they especially focus on Arabic speakers. Israeli-owned companies like Amdocs have a near-monoploy on telephone surveillance in this country. Government agencies routinely give wiretap work to Israelis or Israeli- controlled businesses, partly because there won't be American "red tape" to go through to get warrants. It wouldn't have been too hard for them to listen in on Atta, put 2 and 2 together, share the information with a few carefully chosen supporters in the US MIC, and just sit back and wait for the fireworks.
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out,.... Notice that I'm the only qualified airline pilot illustrating the undeniable aviation fraud, involved in 9-11. Job security can silence a lot of voices. It's bizarre, for sure; but 'they' do have their ways. AND - that's scary as hell!
Re: Your analogy. First: Your assumption that conclusions other than that of ThsStateInc hinder any "real investigation" is disingenuous and stinks of psyops. The word shill comes to mind. Second: Bullets into a body will not necessarily kill the victim anymore than airplanes into a building will destroy it. Both are faulty assumptions, therefore, your anaology, and the point it attempts to convey are faulty. Neither scenario can be assumed without an autopsy, but without a body, or in this case the buildings [which were shipped off to China], no "post-mortem" can be conducted. Autopsies examine all possibilities, not just the obvious, as do criminal investigations, which never happened. Very convenient.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book. He has a disdain for Americans and their culture and a chip on his shoulder regarding warfare and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia's fractured set of states existing in the aftermath of Balkanization. And he has an arsonist's black fascination with the whole thing and tries to sow as much discontent and confusion regarding 9-11 as someone setting a fire would concerning their own crimes. I find him most useful in realizing how important it is to develop good profiles and attributes of the rank and file criminals involved in this set of serious crimes above and beyond th fact I realize there is no proof he was involved and realistically was not likely to have actually been there.
Or not share it...
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Mwahaha, muhuhahaha, muwhahaha, booWAHAHA!!!!!!!! Twirls my moustache....
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
Cobra Commander is a hard task master.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The Madrid fire is a bad example for both sides trying to prove a point. The entire design, material and steel used was very different from the WTC. As far as tipping, I was referring to WTC 7. The government position is that there MAY have been a giant scoop from 10-20 stories high and 1/4-1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7. NIST has handed the whitewash investigation of WTC 7 off to a DOD contractor. NIST is full of government paid engineers and outside engineers that have contacts in the energy industry. Here is my take in a nutshell of what will be found out about WTC 7. They will go ahead with the extensive damage theory, claiming massive structural damage to key primary girders, along with "widely dislodged" fireproofing, the pooling of diesel fuel burning for hours, "triggered" a "Rube Goldberg" effect that caused ALL the support within WTC 7 to fail, resulting in a symmetrical collapse of the outer perimeter in 6.5 seconds. Of course, none of this will have any scientific, forensic proof. It will be all done in computer modeling. Just as WTC 1 and 2 were. The NIST report has no scientific, forensic evidence to back its computer modeling. NIST treated its 20 million dollar, 3 year "investigation", as a research project.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
hi Corn Flake Girl, welcome to 4. it's nice to have another 911 truther on board. ;)
Thanks. I like your forum's courage and open realization of what is happening in this country that we need to be aware of and to address. Ignoring the crimes of 9-11 will not protect us and is not wise. And there is a disturbing -- and predictable -- trend in this country for the perps who did this to try to strong arm the truth from people by any means nessesary by the lackeys of those who are dismayed the truth is out there and that many have wised up to the crap going on nationally and internationally. Another forum I decided to get involved with is too mean spirited and has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy. I don't have time for that, so here I am.
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job. GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM 1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming? 2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away. 3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse? 4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels? 5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition? 6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point? 7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of such a coincidence occurring. MANIPULATIVE AND BIASED EDITING AND PRODUCTION 1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program, such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal? 2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents are asking the same questions as 9/11 skeptics? How can Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very hours after 9/11, the EPA toxic dust scandal, that is now responsible for the debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith's outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances? 3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced his personal bias months before the program is completed or aired? 4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle? Were such topics given dominant coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition, Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith's production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement? As the Angirfan blog states, "Imagine a historian trying to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory; and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support the Bush version of 9-11." 5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation. For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth community, would not be included in the final edit. 6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers. 7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called a "no nonsense, nuts and bolts" publication (when in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called an "evangelist" and Dylan Avery a "self-confessed dropout." Surely if this documentary was intended to have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer to make up their mind about the character of the individuals featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by the sardonic female narrator. 8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions seem wild and overexerted? As another blog points out, When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. t was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. 9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted any testimony from former government officials representing the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David Shayler? 10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world's leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged "confession tape" is a fraud and the individual seen in the video is not Bin Laden? I will now quote at length the excellent observations made by the 'Debunking the BBC' blog. This is just a sampling of the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported at the blog website. There was a strong 'anti-conspiracy' theme throughout the programme. The proponents on the official story were given much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions, and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents of the official story. Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having it's article disputed and debunked. The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however. There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter- scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden. When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else. Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories. Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters. It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism. There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout the show, like: "secrecy breeds conspiracies", it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking articles aren't liked by some as they take away those people's 'security blanket', and he said conspiracies are present because we've been lied to before, and that 'cynicism and hopelessness still infects us'. He also said 'we're all storytellers', compares conspiracy theory to 'myth', says conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are pleasing to certain people with a political agenda. The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was a murderous madman was 'acceptable' to conspiracists, but there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy theory as merely 'Chinese whispers' on the internet which quickly grew to ridiculous proportions. There was a camera shot of a worker outside the Pentagon; he said: 'flawed people need to make a name for themselves', regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that truth-seekers wanted fame alone. The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received hate mail from 'conspiracy theorists', who were overly 'emotional' and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest. There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet that this show 'predicted' 9-11, but only in response to official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special information. The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'. The 9-11 victim's families are themselves asking for an investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some victims to support it's hit piece whilst ignoring others. [20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe. [21] Many of the emergency service's dogs also suffered fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention this too. Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence. Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected? Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?
they are here as well: destro, agaviator, beachooser at the least
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Comments (303 - 467) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#264. To: SKYDRIFTER (#263)
You deserve to go to prison for all your attempted deceit - take Goldi with you.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#265. To: RickyJ (#261)
Notice the concrete is for the most part intact. It did not turn to dust like the WTC towers concrete did.
#266. To: BeAChooser (#258)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#267. To: christine (#265)
#268. To: RickyJ (#260)
#269. To: BeAChooser, Jethro Tull, *9-11* (#258)
#270. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, noone222, Ricky J., *9-11* (#255)
#271. To: BeAChooser (#252)
#272. To: Destro, Skydrifter, Ricky J., Christine, Angle, Formerlurker, Honway, *9-11* (#241)
#273. To: Kamala, ThreeShoesPosse (#267)
#274. To: Kamala (#269)
#275. To: Destro (#250)
Because your side has all t hose planes slamming into buildings built the same way to compare results - oops you don't.
#276. To: Kamala (#272)
Unlike you, who completely believes there were no explosions, demolitions, implosions etc..All research on both sides needs to be done.
#277. To: angle (#275)
(Edited)
The truth movement does not take the houses of sticks and straw built by the three little pigs and equate them to WTC either, like you are doing with your pathetic comparison.
#278. To: Destro (#277)
I made no comparison - In another thread I asked where the claim that Enron evidence was lost on 9/11 came from. Make a claim - back it up. Simple - I googled - saw no such back up - have at it. I never see any authoritatove people do any such think which is baffling.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#279. To: FormerLurker (#278)
You are aware that the SEC and their documents related to active investigations were housed in WTC7, aren't you?
#280. To: Destro (#279)
The charge was SPECIFIC to Enron had evidence against them there - so unless Enron was doing everyone a favor....
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#281. To: Destro (#277)
(Edited)
Here's your house of sticks.
#282. To: All (#281)
#283. To: FormerLurker (#280)
Have you seen any news reports concerning Enron AFTER 9/11?
#284. To: angle (#281)
Here's your house of sticks
#285. To: Kamala (#268)
(Edited)
A "normal" failure would have been that it would have tipped over, not a classic bottom up implosion in 6.5 seconds, or 1/8th of a second per floor.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#286. To: RickyJ (#285)
He does have a point about most structural engineers backing the government’s theory though. That is a mystery that I have still not figured out, but I am sure that it must have something to do with skyscraper structural engineers needing jobs that are partially or fully funded by the governments around the world.
#287. To: Destro (#286)
(Edited)
I keep saying that I feel the govt of the USA loves the demolition theory people because they help discredit any real investigation in the very real connections within our govt to the terror cells linked around 9/11.
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#288. To: AGAviator (#287)
That said, the USG did not direct and control the people doing 911 during 911. It was a case of 2 groups using each other for a number of years, and the group the USG thought it was using turned out to be more cunning than its supposed "masters."
#289. To: Destro (#286)
#290. To: Destro (#288)
(Edited)
Though I leave open the possibility that the plot was found out and some elements allowed it to be carried out
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#291. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#285)
#292. To: Destro, ALL, skydrifter, christine, honway, ROBIN (#286)
(Edited)
To me the demolition theories are like looking at a murder victim's body and having an argument over whether the bullet that everyone saw being fired killed the victim or if someone poisoned him before hand with a poison that only affected the victim just as the bullet entered him because the bullet wound would not have been enough to kill him.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#293. To: IndieTX (#292)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#294. To: AGAviator (#290)
It wouldn't have been too hard for them to listen in on Atta, put 2 and 2 together, share the information with a few carefully chosen supporters in the US MIC, and just sit back and wait for the fireworks.
#295. To: Ferret Mike, AGAviator, IndieTX (#293)
Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book. He has a disdain for Americans and their culture and a chip on his shoulder regarding warfare and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia's fractured set of states existing in the aftermath of Balkanization.
#296. To: Destro (#295)
Bistro Bistro Bistro! Destro is the man most likely to be a 9-11 demolitions blue collar worker in my book
Bozo List: (1) [D]angle, (2) Kamala
#297. To: AGAviator (#296)
And instead of enjoying your retirement in the lap of luxury, you're spending your spare hours posting on this forum....
#298. To: RickyJ, Skydrifter, *9-11* (#285)
#299. To: Corn Flake Girl (#289)
#300. To: christine (#299)
#301. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#260)
#302. To: Corn Flake Girl (#300)
has operatives whose game is to degrade the discussion on 9-11 into high school grade name calling or aggressive campaigns to advance the Bush crime syndicate's desire to degrade the truth as being mere conspiracy.
.
.
.