Sunday, July 16, 2006

Professor Fetzer Admits His Classes Are Bogus

I have discussed the subject of quote mining on numerous occasions, this is the practice where conspiracy theorists take a quote, or part of a quote, out of context and then apply their own interpretation to get the quote to mean something that supports their argument. This occurs not just in Loose Change, but the movement as a whole, the Larry Silverstein "pulling" quote, and Norman Mineta, among others. I figured, just for fun, that I would do the same to them, to make an example. From 2 minute mark of the second hour of the aforementioned radio program with Professor Jim Fetzer:

To have a course you got to have readings, you got to have a syllabus; you got to have exams, none of that is true of any of my undergraduate courses.

Well now that we have him on record admitting his classes are academic frauds, it makes his conspiracy theories that much easier to understand.

95 Comments:

At 16 July, 2006 13:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

Larry Silverstein "pulling" quote, and Norman Mineta, among others.

Come on! We have established this being a lie (the excuse) as he wasn't the one to make the call to "pull" the firefighters that were not in the building anyway. When he said "pull it" that's what he meant.

If the Minetta case, that is ONLY your opinion. What he said doesn't leave room for "supposition" of others, it is simple observation and not "quote" mining as you're assuming.

BTW, I see this blog still can't for a cohesive rebuttal in the official conspiracy's defense because a lie is pretty damn hard to defend with more lies.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:21, Blogger apathoid said...

BTW, I see this blog still can't for a cohesive rebuttal in the official conspiracy's defense because a lie is pretty damn hard to defend with more lies.

Damn, your back :(

I was starting to think that you might've checked into a psyc. ward for the treatment that you so badly need...
Its never too late Nessie, enough Mellaril will make the JOOs under your bed disappear.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:29, Blogger MarkyX said...

Nesync, why would Larry rebuild the WTC7 then?

Also why demolish several hours later?

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:30, Blogger shawn said...

Come on! We have established this being a lie (the excuse) as he wasn't the one to make the call to "pull" the firefighters that were not in the building anyway. When he said "pull it" that's what he meant.

Oh, so they attached cables to WTC7 and pulled it down? Because that's what "pull it" means when demolition people are using it.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:34, Blogger undense said...

Maybe Silverstein was just pretending to be talking to the Fire Chief, nesnyc. How do you know he wasn't really having gay phone sex?

Prove he wasn't.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:42, Blogger James B. said...

Also, why would the decision to "pull" be based on the fact that there was a large loss of life?

If we assume that he was referring to "pulling the building down" rather than "pulling the firefighters out" then we would have to conclude that if there were not a large loss of life then he would have left the building standing.

You assumption makes no sense in the context of his words.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:43, Blogger James B. said...

"your assumption" that is.

 
At 16 July, 2006 14:54, Blogger debunking911 said...

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

PROOF HERE...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

 
At 16 July, 2006 15:52, Blogger shawn said...

Nesnyc since you're back...I've been wondering.

How enraged are you now that Israel is finally striking back at the genocidal maniacs who kill their children every chance they get?

 
At 16 July, 2006 15:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Like I said before, Fetzer is the same guy that gets up in front of large crowds and OUTRIGHt lies to them...

eg. He states that the tape from the cockpit voice recorder of flight 93 used in the moussaoui trial has the voices of the passengers discussing hitting the cabin door with a drink cart (in front of a gathered crowd he says this). Yet his comment is catagorically wrong. The Trascript from the tape (The actual tape was played only once in court, and was not released to the public. The transcript is all that is available) does not, at any point, have passengers saying anything closely resembling what he describes.

He then goes on to "prove" the tape is fake because you shouldn't be able to hear such conversations on the cockpit voice recorder.

Well, they never said what you said they said, so your point is moot, and a LIE!!!

 
At 16 July, 2006 15:56, Blogger Killtown said...

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

Doesn't is sound by Uncle Larry's quote that they watched the building collapse soon after they made the decision to "pull"?

And why would they need to pull out firefighters when they were already "pulled" BEFORE the phone call to Larry?

10) Yes, Uncle Larry denies it. What did you expect him to say, "Yep, you caught me!"???

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:00, Blogger James B. said...

10) Yes, Uncle Larry denies it. What did you expect him to say, "Yep, you caught me!"???


Caught him? He casually talked about this. Why would he, in passing, calmy confess to the murder of thousands without anyone noting it until conspiracy theorists dig it up years later? Why would the firefighters be involved in the murder of over 300 of their comrades?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:02, Blogger shawn said...

Killtown, let's look at this like an intelligent person would:

"and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

"We made the decision to evacuate the area, and then watched as the building collapsed."

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:06, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

Since most of the dumbasses talking about the "pull it" quote have never bothered to read the actual quote, here it is:

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.

He specificaly states that "they made that decision to pull it". Never once does he claim that he ordered them to pull it. Nor does he suggest that they asked for his permission. AND he clearly states that he was speaking to a fire department official, and NOT a demolition company. So, no, he didn't order anyone to pull the building down, nor did he order the fire department to pull out of the building. All he really said is that he was having a conversation with the "fire department commander" in which he stated that in his opinion it might be a good idea to just pull out and leave the building to burn. Now, I'm just speculating here, but more than likely the conversation went something like this:

Fire Chief: Hello Mr Silverstein, I just wanted to keep you advised of the situation here with WTC 7.

Silverstein: Well, thank you, I appreciate that.

Fire Chief: So what we've got right now is a situation where the building has taken severe structural damage, and is engulfed in flames. It also appears to be tilting to one side. In addition to all that, we're having problems bringing in trucks and men, plus the water pressure to that area seems to be failing, so we're having a difficult time accomplishing anything at all. At this point we're considering simply pulling it, setting up a cordon to keep people a safe distance away, and then just leaving it to burn.

Silverstein: Well, yes, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do would be to pull it.

Fire Chief: Yes, that's what we're thinking. We'll keep you advised.

Silverstein: Thank you. Good luck.


At least, that's the way I'd imagine it would have gone. I find it much more likely than the CT version which would have gone something like this:

Silverstein: Allright there chief, listen, I know you're telling me you can put out this fire no problem, but I think I'm going to blow up the building.

Fire Chief: But....

Silverstein: No buts now. It's MY decision. Now let me get the demolition company on the phone.

*ring ring ring*

Demolition Chief: Hello?

Silverstein: Yeah, it's lary silverstein here. I want you to go ahead and blow up WTC7.

Demolition Chief: You mean with our magical explosives which don't require det-cord, and can survive for an hour in an active fire?

Silverstein: Yeah, those ones.

Fire Chief: What the hell....

Silverstein: Oh, are you still on the line? Yeah, you better start pulling your men out of the building because we're pushing that button any time now.

Demolition Chief: Just remember Mr. Silverstein, the next time you get interviewed, make sure you say that you had us "pull it". We wouldn't want the conspiracy nuts running out of material to accuse us with.

Silverstein: You got it! Now lets see a nice big BOOM!

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:09, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole...

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side


We have the eyewitness testimony of the firefighters, though.

CTers treat firefighters with near religious reverence when they say the word explosion.

If these incorruptable paragons of virtue are always flawlessly accurate when they report explosions then they must be just as honest and forthright when reporting other phenomena as well.

Therefore, under the standards of eveidence the CTers have set, we need no further evidence.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:14, Blogger James B. said...

LOL Good post Alex, we wouldn't want these theories to actually make sense, now, would we?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:18, Blogger Killtown said...

James B. said...
1)Caught him? He casually talked about this. Why would he, in passing, calmy confess to the murder of thousands without anyone noting it until conspiracy theorists dig it up years later?
2)Why would the firefighters be involved in the murder of over 300 of their comrades?


1) It was an accidentally slip. I doubt he even realized what he said until ways afterward. It's not like it was live, they could have redone the take if he caught himself slipping right after he did it.

2) Who was this "fire captain" Larry says called him?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:22, Blogger Killtown said...

Shawn, let's look at this like an intelligent person would:

"We made the decision to evacuate the area, and then watched as the building collapsed."

"They made the decision to pull the firefighters, even though they were already pulled back before I received that phone call, and about 5 hours later, we watched the building collapse."

I mean that's basically what Uncle Larry is saying according to you OCTs, right?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:28, Blogger Killtown said...

Let's see, CT version:

"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 [building 7]." And they made that decision to pull [building 7] and we watched the building collapse."

OCT version:

"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 [the operation]." And they made that decision to pull [the operation that had already been stopped] and we watched the building collapse."

OK, which makes more sense?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:31, Blogger shawn said...

I mean that's basically what Uncle Larry is saying according to you OCTs, right?

You idiot, there were still people who were close enough to be injured by a collapse. That's what "pulling" means. Get out of the area.

Odd a firefighter used the exact same term that day, huh?

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:33, Blogger Alex said...

Which one makes more sense? What are you smoking crack? The CT version makes absolutely NO sense because the fire department doesn't demolish buildings, nor would they make a decision to do so.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:43, Blogger Killtown said...

Shawn said...
1) You idiot,
2)there were still people who were close enough to be injured by a collapse. That's what "pulling" means. Get out of the area.


1) Love how you OCTs talk.

2) THAT's not what Uncle Larry said he meant by "pull it," now is it?!

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:44, Blogger ScottSl said...

A common error CT'ers also make is that they didn't realize there were some firefighters in building 7 pulling people out of the building during the afternoon.
They like to quote FEMA but they don't bother to check NIST later reports.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:46, Blogger Killtown said...

Alex said...
1) What are you smoking crack?
2)The CT version makes absolutely NO sense
3)because the fire department doesn't demolish buildings,
4)nor would they make a decision to do so.


1) No, are you?

2) You are right, I always refer people as "it".

3) Who says we think the Fire Dept demolished the building?

4) "They"? I thought just one "fire Captain" called him? (btw, who was that Fire Captain?)

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:49, Blogger shawn said...

1) Love how you OCTs talk.

You call a spade a spade, you call an idiot an idiot. It's how it works.

2) THAT's not what Uncle Larry said he meant by "pull it," now is it?!

He said to cease trying to save the building and evacuate the area.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:50, Blogger Killtown said...

ScottSl said...
A common error CT'ers also make is that they didn't realize there were some firefighters in building 7 pulling people out of the building during the afternoon.


A common error OCT'ers also make is that they keep changing the circumstances in which Uncle Larry's "pull it" allegedly meant!

Stick to ONE story.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:52, Blogger shawn said...

A common error OCT'ers also make is that they keep changing the circumstances in which Uncle Larry's "pull it" allegedly meant!

Do you tire of being wrong.

Stick to ONE story.

You're not really one to tell anyone that.

 
At 16 July, 2006 16:55, Blogger ScottSl said...

I'm not sure of all the "stories" out there but I could care less if some peoples ideas have changed over time with move evidance at hand or whatever.

I see your website makes the same error I just mentioned by the way. LOL!!

 
At 16 July, 2006 17:00, Blogger Alex said...


1) No, are you?

2) You are right, I always refer people as "it".

3) Who says we think the Fire Dept demolished the building?

4) "They"? I thought just one "fire Captain" called him? (btw, who was that Fire Captain?)


1) I know you are but what am I?

2) You are right, I always call the Fire Captain when I want to blow up a building. Also, I've NEVER used the term "pull it in" when I want my soldiers to fall back from their positions and come to my location. Obviously "pull it" can only mean "blow shit up".

3) You do. Silverstein says the fire department made the decision to "pull it". In other words, according to your beleifs, the fire department decided to either blow up the building themselves, or to have someone else do it.

4) Yes, "they", dumbass. Since it's obvious you've never been a part of a team in your life, I'll explain that to you. Most organizations, and especialy those involved in emergency management, have a chain of command, meaning one person always officialy rubber-stamps the proposed action, and accepts responsibility. However, any leader worth anything always consults his staff and subordinates, and comes to a logical conclusion that most of them agree on. So, yes, THEY made the decision. As to the identity of the person who spoke to Silverstein, I don't know, and I don't particularily care. It's obvious you don't care either, because even if every firefighter on the scene at the time were to testify that nobody ordered anyone to blow up the building, you'd just call them all liars and then start talking about a cruise missile hitting WTC7, and all the office workers being teleported to cleveland.

 
At 16 July, 2006 17:10, Blogger ScottSl said...

Killtown, your website also makes another error.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/hijackers.html

You have the wrong guy as Hanjour on the video.
GO here.
http://www.911myths.com/HanjourDullesNBC.wmv

 
At 16 July, 2006 17:17, Blogger Killtown said...

Alex said...
1) I know you are but what am I?
2) You are right, I always call the Fire Captain when I want to blow up a building.
3) Obviously "pull it" can only mean "blow shit up".
4) You do. Silverstein says the fire department made the decision to "pull it".
5) Yes, "they"


1) Love the immaturity of OCTs.

2) And what was this "fire captain's" name again?

3) Yes, Controlled Demolition, Inc thinks that too!

4) No, you are ASSUMING Larry meant the fire dept made that decision.

See, you OCTs don't think out of the box much. Have you ever heard the expression "A few bad apples in the bunch"? Well what if a few firemen, policemen, FBI, Demolition company employees were in on it with Larry and the rest of the 9/11 perps. Wouldn't they all be referred to as "they"? Wouldn't that start to make some sense now that maybe, just maybe the Fire Captain was in on it and he called Larry to get the go ahead and then "they" made that decision to "pull" and that's why it sounded like Larry said that they all watched the building collapse soon after the decision was made?

Don't think conspirators are just going to come right out and tell you they were in on it.

 
At 16 July, 2006 17:19, Blogger apathoid said...

A common error OCT'ers also make is that they keep changing the circumstances in which Uncle Larry's "pull it" allegedly meant!


The fact that you guys still cling to this idiocy gives me a good understanding of how you guys think, and how all logic and reason escapes you.

"pull it" IS firefighter slang whether you can will yourself to believe it or not. Why did Silverstein use firefighter lingo?
Because he was talking to the Fire Chief who probably was telling him(as the owner) that he wanted to "pull it" because there was so much loss of life. Larry was just repeating the slang the firemen used.

But you guys, having your conclusions already drawn about WTC7 and looking for supporting evidence think that, in the context of the statement, Silverstein opted not to fight the fire and told the Fire Chief the best option is to demolish the building... WTF over?!?!
Did the firemen run into the building and set the charges in 5 hours?
Did they fight the fire in hopes of putting it out so they wouldnt have to blow it up.
Why is the Fire Chief involved?

Have you registered at firehouse.com and asked them what "pull it" means...

 
At 16 July, 2006 17:38, Blogger Alex said...

No, you are ASSUMING Larry meant the fire dept made that decision.

ASSUMING? What are you fucking BLIND? He SAYS that "they made that decision"! LOOK:

And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse.

My god man! What's wrong with you? You're the kind of idiot who would watch me say "2 + 2 is 4", and then turn to buddy beside you and say "you're just assuming he said 2+2 is 4".


Don't think conspirators are just going to come right out and tell you they were in on it.


Isn't that exactly what you're claiming silverstein did? Just casualy said "oh yeah, we decided it'd be fun to just blow up the building. no big deal."

Ofcourse, it was "just a slip". They asked him to explain what happened to the building, and, after going though these elaborate precautions to make sure there were no witnesses to his crimes, he somehow managed to forget that he's not supposed to admit to it in fron ot a camera. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:06, Blogger shawn said...

See, you OCTs don't think out of the box much.


hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
hahahahahahahahhhahahahaha

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:21, Blogger debunking911 said...

Killtown, are you calling the fire fighters liars? Are you? Because Cheif Nigro said HE made the decision to pull the fire fighters out. Others said they got the word as late as 2:30. Your working off one of your quote mining sites.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

If I had to guess who was lying I'b beat a million it's you.

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:22, Blogger debunking911 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:27, Blogger debunking911 said...

I'll try one more time...

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist
/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Just put them together in your browser

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:30, Blogger debunking911 said...

So now you can stop spreading the lie that there was no one to pull out. Now you know. If you repeat it again you're a liar.

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:35, Blogger dman said...

Killtown - you are a total A- HOLE!

Let me run down how the Fire
department operated at the WTC (I
got this first hand from FDNY and other fire department members on
the scene as well as listening to the radio transmissions from the
scene). At 10:30 WTC 1 (North Tower) collapses, debris strikes
WTC 7 causing major structural
damage and setting fires on
multiple floors. Collapse severs
many of the water mains in area
and destroys/damages 100 pieces
of equipment. Interview by
FIREHOUSE magazine reports how one crew was in operation - hose
stream barely reaches across
street. Chief in charge tried to
organize team to go into building
and fight fires. The interview
reflects this as Capt Boyd tries
to get ready - firemen were forced
to strip equipment from damaged or
disabled apparatus - aka Scott air
packs ("masks" in FDNY) and rollups
(50 ft section of hose). Also
search crews would have been
checking to see if anyone was
left in building. At this point
chief began to reconsider what to
do - no water, fire on multiple
floors, heavy structural damage
and heavy casualties to personnel
decided to "pull it" - get crews
out and away from building.
Because of structural damage
collapse zone would be established
Since WTC 7 was 47 stories - zone
would be 2 1/2 times height aka
over 1200 ft in all directions.
Was listening to radio from
scene as collapse zone was
establised and word passed around
to stay clear of WTC 7.

 
At 16 July, 2006 18:51, Blogger debunking911 said...

The other thing not known is how the lead in question was asked. Did the interviewer say "I heard Chief Nigro told you he wanted to pull the rescue and fire fighters out of the area. Basically he gave up on the building. Can you tell me how you felt about that?

In this or another context his "Pull it" is perfectly reasonable.

Do you realize that your whole argument lay on the word "It"? Do you and the other CT's realize the hell you're putting this man through on just one word?

I know hes a rich fuck and maybe screwed people over left and right but you or I don't know that for sure. He and his family doesn't deserve this BS. Rich or not.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:01, Blogger Killtown said...

ScottSl said...Killtown, your website also makes another error.
You have the wrong guy as Hanjour on the video.


I make the error??? don't you mean the media made the error?

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:07, Blogger Killtown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:08, Blogger ScottSl said...

KT Sure I can agree with you on that one

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:09, Blogger Killtown said...

Alex said...ASSUMING? What are you fucking BLIND? He SAYS that "they made that decision"!

So who is "they"? And don't assume.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:09, Blogger apathoid said...

I need to find a new OCT forum when more mature and intelligent people.

Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:13, Blogger Killtown said...

apathoid said...Did the firemen run into the building and set the charges in 5 hours?

I can't debate with people who say such ignorant things. That's just as ignorant as when some of you OCTs say "well what did you expect Bush to do, run out of the room screaming and scaring the kids?"

I need to find and OCT forum WITH more mature and intelligent people. Not one's who says such ignorant things like that and hurl personal insults all the time.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:14, Blogger apathoid said...

So who is "they"? And don't assume.

You have some kind of learning or comprehension disorder Killtown. I suggest you get tested, but heres a glimpse of The Truth

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:21, Blogger shawn said...

I need to find and OCT forum WITH more mature and intelligent people. Not one's who says such ignorant things like that and hurl personal insults all the time.

You say something ignorant every time you post. Stop projecting.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:21, Blogger Killtown said...

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop.


Hmmm...

"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

"Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." -New York Times (11/29/01)


Seems like we are getting all sorts of conflicting information.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:28, Blogger Killtown said...

"We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back."

Huh??? How did they know that? I thought the fire dept is not in the demolition business?

So let's see, Larry gets this call in the "afternoon" after they stopped their firefighting efforts:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center.

Then later on in the afternoon they knew the building was going to come down some how.

Must be another "coincidence," huh?

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:29, Blogger Killtown said...

dman said...Killtown - you are a total A- HOLE!

Yeah, why do you say that?

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:30, Blogger Killtown said...

Curious, how many of you have been banned from Loose Change forum and if you were, what was the reason?

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:31, Blogger debunking911 said...

I'm going to ask you again... Were the firemen lying? You seem to be saying they were.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you doubt the building had severe fires and then say the firemen weren't lying. THey said the fires were severe enough to think the building would collapse.

Are they lying? YES OR NO?

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:33, Blogger Killtown said...

debunking911 said...
Are they lying? YES OR NO?


Maybe as Miyagi said, "fraid a facts a mixed up."

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:34, Blogger apathoid said...

Huh??? How did they know that? I thought the fire dept is not in the demolition business?

Maybe because there were fires on nearly every level of the building. It was bulging, leaning, making ungodly noises and had an 18 story notch in one of the corners. Perhaps engineers had informed the firefighters that it was going through its death throes and in danger of collapse at any moment.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:35, Blogger debunking911 said...

I see you want to lie about what the quote says. You're not going to get away with the shit with me. The quote says "this building is going to come down," and not "We are taking the building down". I gave you the link on why he though that yet you quote mine.
_________________

This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:35, Blogger shawn said...

Curious, how many of you have been banned from Loose Change forum and if you were, what was the reason?

I've been banned thrice.

Once for bringing up the B-25 error.

Once for bringing up the first edition.

Once for destroying a bunch of CT claims.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:36, Blogger apathoid said...

Curious, how many of you have been banned from Loose Change forum and if you were, what was the reason?
I have not. I stay away from the LC forums because they make me cry for humanity and wish for Eugenics..

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:37, Blogger James B. said...

Dude, you don't have to do anything to be banned from the LC forum. Just argue against their inane theories and they will ban you within minutes. They aren't big on dissent over there.

Notice that we won't ban you. We find you amusing, but we are confident enough in our positions that you pose no threat to us. You just provide entertainment.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:45, Blogger debunking911 said...

Maybe as Miyagi said, "fraid a facts a mixed up."

You know about Miyagi don't you. Seems you just got waxed.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:45, Blogger Killtown said...

Shawn, I'd bet you got banned for being an asshole.


"apathoid said...I stay away from the LC forums because they make me cry for humanity and wish for Eugenics.."

Zieg Heil!


"James B. said...Just argue against their inane theories and they will ban you within minutes. They aren't big on dissent over there."

That may be true with a couple of admins over there, but for the most part, most OCTs got banned because they engaged in personal insults. The same way most OCTs act over at SLC forum.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:51, Blogger debunking911 said...

How quickly KT goes from wanting to address the facts to stupid, LAME attempts at humor. Hes about as funny and interesting as a Terri Schiavo video.

 
At 16 July, 2006 19:55, Blogger apathoid said...

Zieg Heil!

You are getting confused KKKilltown, but you confuse easily dont you? You are the Holocaust denying Nazi sympathizer on this blog(along with NesNYC)...not anyone else.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:01, Blogger Killtown said...

Yes, lets address some facts real quick. This has got my perplexed about the Shanksville crash.

Why was just the inside of the crater burned and that small section of forest burned, but nothing immediately outside of the crater's rim and nothing between the crater and the burnt forest section?

How did this fireball jump up and over the service road to burn the forest, but nothing else?

Also, why did the fireball's direction conflict with the path of the alleged plane?

See here for diagram.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:03, Blogger Killtown said...

apathoid said...You are the Holocaust denying Nazi sympathizer on this blog

Prove I denied the holocaust ever happened and prove I'm a nazi sympathizer.

If you can't, then you are a liar with NO credibility.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:04, Blogger debunking911 said...

Everyone here can see real time how quickly conspiracy theorist quote mine. I post a quote and KT tries to take a small part out of context.

The mark of a con men. The whole 9/11 "truth" movement is filled with this kind of crap.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:06, Blogger debunking911 said...

NO, you don't get to change the subject when you're caught until you finish the subject before it. You aren't going to use those CT tactics here. Leave them for the LC forum.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:07, Blogger debunking911 said...

We're talking about Silverstein and "Pull It".

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:13, Blogger Killtown said...

debunking911 said...NO, you don't get to change the subject when you're caught until you finish the subject before it.

1) Stop whining.

2) what exactly is your question?

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:20, Blogger debunking911 said...

Ah, krustytheclown is back.

Are the fireman lying?

Do they know how to use a transit or do they just put it up on buildings for the hell of it?

I expect another classic krustytheclown reply.

You're as easy as homeless whore.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:20, Blogger apathoid said...

That may be true with a couple of admins over there, but for the most part, most OCTs got banned because they engaged in personal insults. The same way most OCTs act over at SLC forum.

Didnt they nearly ban you too for crying out loud? And you are defending them?
Ever wonder why you are met with such hostility here(as well as there), Killtown?

Ever wonder why you are the common denominater for inciting general disdain wherever you go?

Prove I denied the holocaust ever happened and prove I'm a nazi sympathizer.

Gladly...

Killtown @ LC
I've always had a problem with the claimed numbers of Jews that allegedly died there. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million." That alone is a HUGE discrepency. Some say the number was as low as 280,000. Suspecting what the Israeli/Palistine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."

Anti-semitism + Holocaust denial= Nazi sympathizer..

Dont be afraid to admit it. Most swastika swingers are proud of who they are...

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:23, Blogger shawn said...

Shawn, I'd bet you got banned for being an asshole.

Technically speaking, yes every time was for being an asshole. I purposely brought up the B-25 error. I purposely brought up the changes between the editions. And I purposely tore apart all their idiotic beliefs.

Zieg Heil!

Damn, the Holocaust denier can't even spell it right (sieg heil).

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:25, Blogger Killtown said...

debunking911 said...Ah, krustytheclown is back.

Was that directed at me?

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:30, Blogger Killtown said...

Nice "quote mining" apathoid. Would you like to show everybody what else I said, or do you distort and take things out of context like you accuse CTs of doing?


Ever wonder why you are the common denominater for inciting general disdain wherever you go?

Cause I ask unpopular questions?

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:33, Blogger undense said...

Cause I ask unpopular questions?

Ahhh. Now we get to the root of the problem. You seemingly can't distinguish between "unpopular" and "stupid."

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:34, Blogger shawn said...

Nice "quote mining" apathoid. Would you like to show everybody what else I said, or do you distort and take things out of context like you accuse CTs of doing?

See the humor is that the statements he quoted from you can't have any further context. You already said the number of dead in the Holocaust is an issue for you. Unless your next sentence was "Just kidding!" it won't matter what he adds.

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:35, Blogger debunking911 said...

Was that directed at me?

Is there another clown here?

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:43, Blogger Killtown said...

undense said...You seemingly can't distinguish between "unpopular" and "stupid."

debunking911 said...Is there another clown here?


Yes, more great immature personal attacks by the OCTs!

Why do OCTs engage a lot more often in personal attacks then CTs when debating? How do you think your credibility looks when you act so immature like this?

But hey, keep it up, it makes our side look better when we point out the language you guys use!

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:46, Blogger Killtown said...

Shawn said...You already said the number of dead in the Holocaust is an issue for you.

You are right! I now think MORE Jews died so I guess that DOES make me a 'Holocaust deniar' according to your guy's definition!!!

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:47, Blogger apathoid said...

Quote mining?
You DO project, dont you.

What part of....

I've always had a problem with the claimed numbers of Jews that allegedly died there. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million." That alone is a HUGE discrepency. Some say the number was as low as 280,000. Suspecting what the Israeli/Palistine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."

....was taken out of context?

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:48, Blogger apathoid said...

You are right! I now think MORE Jews died so I guess that DOES make me a 'Holocaust deniar' according to your guy's definition!!!

You make my head hurt dude....

 
At 16 July, 2006 20:48, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

hey KKKilltown.

What is your skin, hair and eye color?

 
At 16 July, 2006 21:04, Blogger debunking911 said...

Now who's whining..

 
At 16 July, 2006 21:12, Blogger undense said...

But hey, keep it up, it makes our side look better when we point out the language you guys use!

/looks at Killtown's avatar

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

guffaw

snicker

 
At 16 July, 2006 22:30, Blogger Killtown said...

apathoid said...What part of........was taken out of context?

When you forgot to include the rest of what I said.

 
At 16 July, 2006 22:53, Blogger Billythekid said...

So here's anorher riddle: If the idea was to pull WTC7 from the start, then why tell Larry Silverstein about it? Wasn't he the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than $ 7 billion? Wasn't he the guy that alledgely knew - according to CT claims - that this was coming?

 
At 17 July, 2006 03:11, Blogger shawn said...

Why do OCTs engage a lot more often in personal attacks then CTs when debating?

Yeah, we're the ones who don't prove our case, and then when no one agrees with us we call them "sheep" and "shills".

Oh...wait.

 
At 17 July, 2006 07:33, Blogger Manny said...

"Curious, how many of you have been banned from Loose Change forum and if you were, what was the reason?"

I'm currently doing a 28-day suspension for suggesting that the best way to counter criticism of the errors in LC is to correct them.

 
At 17 July, 2006 08:50, Blogger apathoid said...

When you forgot to include the rest of what I said.

To your credit, you did say this:

I'm not denying the Holocaust like some stupid nazi punk skinhead would

But, followed up with this:

One of the reasons I think the Holocaust has been totally exaggerated is the sheer hostility that you get if you dare question it. I mean when countries enact laws against questioning it, something's wrong!


I still think you fit the generally accepted definition of "Holocaust Denier". If you'd like, I'll just refer to you as a "Holocaust Revisionist". That'd be ok with you?

In another forum, someone had given a list of unsavory sites that CTers would do well not to link to. One of them was judicial-inc.biz.

In response, you asked:

What's wrong with judicial-inc.biz?

(Warning: Not work safe. Link contains graphic images and Nazi shit.)

Whats wrong with it???
Its a KKK/Nazi site, for God's sake!

If you dont see anything wrong with it, there's something very, very wrong with you.

 
At 17 July, 2006 17:14, Blogger shawn said...

What's wrong with judicial-inc.biz?

I just threw up a little.

 
At 18 July, 2006 05:03, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

What's wrong with "Judicial-Inc.biz"? HO HO!! How much time you got, buddy?

I have had MANY run-ins with the jackass that runs that site in forums where I debated the 9-11 issue. I have never seen conspiracy theories so poorly constructed, NEVER. I mean this guy doesn't even TRY.

Take ANY event in the news(terrorist, whatever). He'll find a way to tie the Jews and the Mossad into it.

His logical fallacies are so egregious they actually can rip holes in the space-time continuum. I remember this one time he posted this video taken by Iraqi snipers in Iraq, sniping US soldiers. He claimed(without any proof whatsoever), that the camera was mounted on the rifle. Then he showed that Israel indeed makes a camera that can be strapped to a rifle(of course this was mounted on an M4 and the Iraqi insurgent was most likely using a Tabuk).

PRESTO!!! The sniper MUST have been a Mossad agent! Yes that's right folks, he says that Israel was behind the war on Iraq, BUT, they are also behind the insurgency to drive the US OUT of Iraq!!

 
At 18 July, 2006 05:06, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

No wait...I'm not done with this fucker yet. I remember this page he put up claiming that Hamas and Hizbollah are actually "fake false flag" organizations that are nothing but Mossad agents. The fucktard shows a blurry picture of a masked Hizbollah guy with his collar open. He draws an arrow to the guy's chest hair that says "Star of David"(like he's wearing a pendant). No shit, he's THAT FUCKING STUPID!

Basically what the drooling moron was trying to get at is that you see all these masked gunmen but you don't see them in combat(well HE hasn't) so they must not exist!

Seriously, visit judicial-inc.biz. MARVEL at the sheer idiocy!

 
At 18 July, 2006 08:55, Blogger CHF said...

killtown or nesnyc.

I dunno who's more fucked up.

The Truth movement is dead in the water with believers like these.

 
At 23 July, 2006 23:56, Blogger Decider said...

I was listening to Bill Handle on the radio describe what was happening in New York, and later in the day he reported that they were going to pull WTC 7. So it was known on 9/11 what happened to WTC 7. With this "Liberal Media" I'm surprised more wasn't made of that.

 
At 02 August, 2007 04:47, Blogger lambstotheslaughter said...

Can you please explain the molten metal at the world trade center site? Why was there a stand down on the day of 9/11? Did you watch the video that is supposed to show a plane crashing into the pentagon?
Why are you people so hell bent on protecting those who are intent on taking away your civil liberties?
Benjamin Franklin once said "Anyone willing to give up essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security". Why dont you watch the 911 mysteries video so you can see the obvious. Go ahead and google it. Don't you understand that you are putting your faith in mere men, men that are flawed. How the hell can you not want to investigate? Im sure in your minds you think America is better than everyone else, you have this idiotic notion in youre mind that everyone else is evil. Just remember that Hitler had his people believing the same nonsense before he tried to kill the rest of the world. I for one believe in God and I am so happy that he sees and knows all, so even if you people are so blind he still sees the evil that you cannot. If you keep allowing these evil people to control you then you are complicit.
I bet if there is another "attack" you all will be clamoring for nukes to be used. Elections are coming soon can't wait to see what happens, another "catastrophic and catalyzing" event im sure.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home