Yet More Comedy at the Loose Change Forums
The geniuses over there have hit on the brilliant idea of writing the insurance companies that insured the World Trade Center in the hopes of getting them to appeal on the basis that Silverstein was in on the plot.
if someone were to send all research data to this insurance company. They would have an open and shut case. Imagine the amount of exposure building 7 would get. for the insurance company it's either one of two things. Use our research and open a new can of worms or kiss 4.5 billion dollars goodbye.
Update: Truthers aren't very in tune with the real world; a number of them have commented that this is a great idea. It might be, if it weren't for the fact that the insurance companies paid off on WTC 7 a long time ago, and the building has recently been rebuilt. DOH!
posted by Pat @ 3:29 PM
36 comments
36 Comments:
for the insurance company it's either one of two things. Use our research and open a new can of worms or kiss 4.5 billion dollars goodbye.
Another logical fallacy! (Saying there are two choices, when there are more.)
These guys are in LOVE with them.
As expected, I think you are have a very odd sense of humor to make fun of a genuinely good idea.
So the story goes, when he said "pull it", he was ordering the contingent of firefighters to abandon WTC7, thereby resulting in its total collapse (hey, this is the 'official story, don't yell at me because it's ludicrous).
If you were to do research you'd see "pull it" isn't a demolition term, but a firefighting one (in reference to evacuating a structure). How that's ludicrous is beyond me.
As expected, I think you are have a very odd sense of humor to make fun of a genuinely good idea.
It's not a good idea when it has no support.
Let me point out that apparently you guys are under the impression Silverstein hasn't received the money for WTC 7. In fact he has and the new building was recently (like last week) completed.
From the Yahoo story:
"Have you seen John McCain's speech at the New School? He'll never get elected by anybody over sixth-grade education!" said the rocker.
The New School is full of political infants, much like Emerson (where I went to school). Hell, I don't like Ann Coulter, put her essay about the debacle was absolutely spot-on. A bunch of rich, spoiled, bratty kids thought they could look bad ass by speaking out against the most moderate member of the Republican party. "Freedom of speech is ok, unless you're conservative" - the American Left.
Lou Reed, I'm smarter than you, and if McCain runs, he's getting my vote again. And if you're going to the New School, you obviously didn't get much out of that sixth grade education.
Yeah, let's see roger twist and squirm his way out of this one.
He'll probably just make something up, it's his stock and trade.
So the story goes, when he said "pull it", he was ordering the contingent of firefighters to abandon WTC7, thereby resulting in its total collapse (hey, this is the 'official story, don't yell at me because it's ludicrous).
Right! The FEMA report states that the firefighters made the decision early on to abandon firefighting efforts at WTC7 very early on and not with Silverstein's authorization as he falsely claims.
These guys are in LOVE with them.
Like I pointed out, you guys like finding them where they don't exist because the though making process is somehow stunted by lack of official propaganda.
Like I pointed out, you guys like finding them where they don't exist because the though making process is somehow stunted by lack of official propaganda.
They do exist. I haven't once incorrectly pointed out a logical fallacy on this blog.
Are you one of those postmodern thinkers that thinks logic is useless?
Roger, you're bending over backwards so much your head is firmly in your ass. "Pull it" has only been used as a firefighting evacuation term (until WTC 7 nuts picked it up), so you go into some longwinded explanation to justify your idiotic and ignorant statements earlier in the thread.
You are a fountain of flawed logic, profoundly ignorant but you have obviously studied the art of soundbyting.
I'm reminded of the chromatic properties of two kitchen utensils.
Longwinded? 4 paragraphs?
Longwinded in the sense that you even tried to defend it, let alone for more than a paragraph. You were wrong, admit it. Live with it.
Oh...that's right, you read the Cliffs notes in the American spectator.
Oh...right, I read Chomsky's actual writing (which you obviously have yet to do). Stop projecting your faults onto me, it's getting tiring.
Woops, logical fallcy or something.
Ah, so now we attack logical thought. Your arrogance knows no bounds.
And your wrong about the term, there's a thread on LC forum with have a dozen references on the term "pull it" from firefighters, controlled dem experts, as well as official demolition technical manuals expplainingh proper ways to pull buildings.
Is that before or after the thread about thermite?
And no I won't go find it for you, Junior, I've done enough of your homework for one day.
If by doing my "homework" you mean "didn't look up a thing and parroted something I read a random website", then good for you. Hell, you couldn't even go from Wikipedia to Chomsky's own work.
At least I dropped your retarded faith in the JFK conspiracy theory.
Besides, explain how bombs would survive fire on every floor? Demolitions are a delicate and calculating process. Even a slight error can mess up a clean demolition and turn into a big hazard.
Mark, we're fountains of flawed logic. I guess we should stop while we're behind. The resident geniuses will use their postlogical reasoning to explain it to us, surely.
You just look dumber and dumber every time you respond to my posts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Look up "irony".
Man, I love when people far dumber than I could be if I tried call me dumb. It's the height of hilarity.
The Soviet Union was a bastion of liberty!
Back to the left, rob!
Rob, when you gonna show me how the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? I'm waiting with glee.
ramble on...you're showing your age...
And you know how old I am? It'd be sad if I were younger than you, what with actually have understanding of burden of proof, logic, and critical thinking.
Again, why do you believe JFK was killed in a conspiracy? Why the belief in 9/11? No person who understands logical discourse or things like burden of proof could believe in either. Yet you pretend to be an intelligent, thinking individual. I'd like to see the leaps you make to support mutually exclusive stances.
having an understanding*
They do exist. I haven't once incorrectly pointed out a logical fallacy on this blog.
The insane usually have a hard time admitting they are insane too.
Silverstein said it wasn't worth the risk of losing lives to save the building. The odds were against the firefighters and Silverstein simply stated to the fire chief in duty that he didn't need to risk his men.
This is wrong. According to FEMA, Silverstein was out of the loop. The FDNY, after the first two collapses, decided not to risk anyone else in any "incidences" at the complex on that day. They stood down after the first two towers collapsed.
Demolitions are a delicate and calculating process. Even a slight error can mess up a clean demolition and turn into a big hazard.
So unequal fires from jet fuel are perfectly efficient to have brought down the towers but a few well placed explosives might not have been? Does that really make any sense at all? And besides, if we're talking about plastic explosives and thermite, they are very stable unless intentionally detonated through the mechanism that detonates them. I've even heard accounts of C4 being shot at and not exploded, look it up.
If I had to guess, I'd say 12. But you're very bright for your age!
You're one to talk. You don't even know basic history.
But continue to be in denial, and when are you going to show me the JFK assassination was a conspiracy?
The insane usually have a hard time admitting they are insane too.
You guys REALLY need to look up "irony".
Roger, has officially jumped the shark. He can't even make a cogent argument so he has to resort to grade school insults like "ur 12 lol".
Well I'm off to work (because I'm part of the System, you see, and so they big bad government can steal my paycheck to fund another massive terrorist attack).
You guys REALLY need to look up "irony".
I reiterate! :D
According to firefighters there were five trucks fighting the fires in WTC 7 but they eventually saw it as a lost cause and in danger of collapse due to all the structural damage so by around 10:30 am they removed all firemen from WTC 7.
"Firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires ... Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded"
"World Trade Center Building Performance Study"
How does that help your demolition theory?
It brings "pull it" into context.
You still have yet to answer how would explosives manage to survive fire on almost every floor.
Unless you're asleep, I answered that already.
Cool, people with real jobs get Memorial Day off. You'll get there someday. Meanwhile, remember to upsell the supersize value meals!
I do have a real job (the place I work at isn't open today, but that doesn't mean work doesn't need to be done).
It's not a McDonald's (or any other fast food place for that matter).
Nice ad hominem, though. Seems you really have jumped the shark (psst ad hominem is actually a logical fallacy).
It brings "pull it" into context.
Arguing the consequent. You're saying pull it refers to demolishing the building, thus lending support to your demolition theory.
Arguing the consequent. You're saying pull it refers to demolishing the building, thus lending support to your demolition theory.
Yeah, Silverstein said that "pull it" was referring to "pulling the firemen out" when in actuality there were no firemen to pull. It was a Freudian slip of the tongue and the original meaning is the appropriate one, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
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.
That quite obviously means evacuating the building. What? You think I wouldn't hunt down the quote?
That quite obviously means evacuating the building. What? You think I wouldn't hunt down the quote?
I don't disagree this is what Silverstein said. The problem is he claims to have said this near the time the building collapsed ("and we watched the building collapse") when the firefighters had already made the decision to pull their firefighters early on (hours before?). His comment is meaningless in the context he LATER changed it to. The FEMA report backs this conclusion.
You implied that the firefighters did not fight the fire at WTC 7. So does the quote above. Other CTs have also claimed that no firefighters fought the fire in 7 when that's untrue.
Maybe you're not in that CT belief crowd, who knows? You guys' theories are all over the page and I don't have the time to track what every single one of you thinks.
I didn't state the firefighters didn't fight the fires in WTC7, the FEMA report says that. Click the link and see for yourself, it comes from a .gov so you guys will believe that better than anything else.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
One thing the CTs always avoid addressing, if he is talking about destroying the building, why would the decision be contingent on the fact that they have had a terrible loss of life?
Silverstein was informed about 12:30 and the structure didn't collapse until 5:20pm. If Silverstein gave the order, what took so long?
The FEMA report doesn't say anything about Silverstein giving any orders. Silverstein claims he gave orders. Get it straight.
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
One thing the CTs always avoid addressing, if he is talking about destroying the building, why would the decision be contingent on the fact that they have had a terrible loss of life?
Same reason they pulled all the rest of the building after the fact. Why would they leave them standing? It's obvious he was "in the know" that the building was going to HAVE to be demolished that day. His words there are just cover for what was decided long before any planes hit the complex. Whether he made that statement intentionally or not, doesn't take away from the fact that building 7 was indeed demolished.
http://tinyurl.com/qvxkb
Notice how that looks nothing like the three buildings that collapsed that day. There are COUNTLESS flashes as opposed to the one or two you see on 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home