Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:39 am

Byrne - regarding Romero: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Instead of letting the man speak for himself, the reporter keeps repeating the official explanation of why the WTC buildings collapsed, informing us that Romero accepts it. <hr></blockquote> He does speak for himself, in the Popular Mechanics article. He seems really tired of all the controlled demolition proponents who keep using his comments to justify their position. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Byrne** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:55 am

Qutb, The guy has obviously been leaned on. Romero's initial 'gut-feel' exclamations immediately after 9/11 were withdrawn as he was pressurised to change his story. That seems obvious to me!! & don't quote Popular Mechanics or any of that mainstream nonsense, including NG or Discovery Channel. They are hardly independent seekers of truth, more like dancepartners in the whole complicit affair. Qutb, What is your explanation of the 'squibs' visible in the video link that I posted before (you know my post, one of many that keeps getting knocked down by your rapid return postings. You are quick off the mark!!) Are they ACDC (Advanced Controlled Demolition Charges), or APF(Advance Pancake Farts)??????

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:24 am

Regarding Rodriguez - I'm not doubting his account, but how does an explosion in the basement seconds before the plane hits contribute to the collapse which happens much later? That's no indication of "controlled demolition". It's still interesting, though. There was of course an attempt to collapse one of the towers with a bomb in the basement in 1993. Could a similar attempt have failed again? Pants Elk - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Popular Mechanics report (which has been rightfully, in my view, debunked by too many sources to link here) These "explanations" are just what you'd expect from such sources, and no amount of "reasonableness" will convince me that these sources have anything other than a vested interest in propping up the official Commission Report<hr></blockquote> Firstly, the "debunking" I've seen of PM regarding the collapses has not been very convincing. Secondly, the "official Commission report" is not responsible for producing explanations of the tower collapses. Third, I'm not trying to argue "see what the experts are saying", but <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y" target="top">these</a> are the people that contributed to the PM article. Regarding NIST, I understand you think everyone who works for the US government in any capacity is willing to participate in covering up mass murder, simply because they work for the government. Let's say I don't quite share your worldview. And regarding "what you'd expect" from certain sources, couldn't the same be said, and with greater justification, about much of the "conspiracy" oriented subculture which thrives on the Internet? Because, frankly, I've never seen so much sloppy thinking, specious arguments, lazy fact-checking, tendentious cherry-picking of information, closed-mindedness, and outright lies and disinformation as I've seen on many of these sites. Yet I know that I don't get all the information I should about current events from the mainstream and "establishment left" media, and I always enjoy a different perspective, so I'm glad that this underground media "scene" exists. And after 9/11, when the mainstream media was converted into a propaganda tool for the White House, "conspiracy" sites were the only ones that pursued the "unauthorized" story of 9/11. From The Wilderness, in particular, did commendable work on 9/11, and Hopsicker's MadCow Morning News of course, and Paul Thompson at Cooperativeresearch, who collected mainstream articles from all over the world and connected dots which weren't connected in the mainstram. Sibel Edmonds' and Indira Singh's stories were mostly ignored by the mainstream and the establishment left, and I would never have heard about them if it weren't for "conspiracy" sites. At the same time, though, a plethora of new sites appeared, all dedicated to exposing how the towers had been demolished with explosives, no plane had hit the Pentagon, planes had been swapped, Islamist terrorists didn't exist, it was a conspiracy of truly massive proportions, and the omnipotent Zionists were of course behind it. And then the doofus professor of religious philosophy David Ray Griffin appears out of nowhere and all of a sudden becomes a leader of the "9/11 Truth Movement" without having contributed anything to it except a book which rehashed both the far-out theories and what had been uncovered by researchers such as Ruppert and Hopsicker and Thompson. Mixing in a little poison with the medicine... but of course, I'm the one who's spreading disinformation. So "mind your sources" kind of cuts both ways. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:38 am

Byrne - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Qutb, What is your explanation of the 'squibs' visible in the video link that I posted before (you know my post, one of many that keeps getting knocked down by your rapid return postings. You are quick off the mark!!) Are they ACDC (Advanced Controlled Demolition Charges), or APF(Advance Pancake Farts)??????<hr></blockquote> That's air and dust being pushed out of the collapsing floors. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:53 pm

Qutb, how very, very disengenius of you to imply, do i think a smoke machine was responsible for the smoke in the towers. I shall make this as simple as i can for you to understand, as you seem to have trouble understanding it the first time. You state there can be no smoke without fire. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your statement, by saying smoke can be made by a smoke making machine. Its happening up and down in most clubs every weekend, acres and acres of smoke and not one spark. I am not saying thats what happened in the towers. I find it hard to accept any government sponsored investigations, i remember only too well, the lies from the same people regarding saddams nookular weapons coming over in 45 minutes. Also the lies from the same government investigations regarding nigerian yellowcake/enriched uranium from nigeria? What about the lies from the same people regarding satelitte photos of mobile chemical labs...lol. What are your thoughts on William Rodriguez? A national hero, eyewitness, and not a sound out of you about his testimony or many others? What could have caused the loud explosions in the basement of the towers, seconds before the planes hit? explosions that burnt the skin off the hands and face of david felipe? no certainly not the planes or its fuel as it hadant impacted yet? Have you read any of william rodriguez's testimony?

by **Pants Elk** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:15 pm

"doofus professor of religious philosophy David Ray Griffin appears out of nowhere and all of a sudden becomes a leader of the "9/11 Truth Movement" without having contributed anything to it except a book which rehashed both the far-out theories and what had been uncovered by researchers such as Ruppert and Hopsicker and Thompson. Mixing in a little poison with the medicine... but of course, I'm the one who's spreading disinformation." Well, yes, in this case you are. Griffin shows - and shows clearly - how the official version of 9/11, the "explanation" of the Commission report, cannot be the truth. He studiously avoids coming to any conclusions as to what did happen - that's not his job here. And if he does any "rehashing of far-out theories", it slipped by me on two readings of both books. And as to his "leadership" status, give me (and him) a break! He wrote a couple of very important books! You're still using the phrase "conspiracy theorists" as if it somehow excluded the Administration, and your sneering description of Griffin as "doofus professor of religious philosophy" tells us more about you than it does about him. (As an aside, didn't you post the possibility of "microwaves" being used to collapse the buildings? Like to take that one a little further?)

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:17 pm

<a href="http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105713">www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105713</a> Snippets from the article. Linked for readers who are not engineers or controlled demolition experts. Monday, October 10, 2005 Local Time: 9:01:50 AM Former Army Sgt. Mark Johnson of Philadelphia is finished blowing up buildings and bridges, finished with the ugly work of a military demolitions expert. "I was trained to implode buildings, blow out bridges as well as being trained extensively in explosive booby traps of all kinds, but now the only thing I’ll be trying to blow out is more music to expose the lies and deceit involved in the neo con message." With his demolition training, Johnson has also taken up the cause of exposing the truth about 9/11, saying from his personal experience with explosives it appears the WTC fell from a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel like the government contends. "From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded," said Johnson. "What William Rodriguez , the janitor at the World Trade Center, recently said about explosions in the basement on 9/11 is true and indicates explosives were definitely used. Anyone with any kind of demolition training can see that!" Johnson is referring to the recent statements made by Rodriguez, a WTC survivor and janitor on duty the morning of 9/1, statements indicating he heard a massive explosion rock the basement of the WTC just seconds prior to jetliner striking the top floors of the north tower. <a href="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=2370&page=2">www.conspiracyplanet.com/...370&page=2</a> more snippets, "Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion." "He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below. "I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower. In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors. "I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors. "Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs." Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his descent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower. In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST). I WONDER WHY NIST IGNORED THIS EVIDENCE? 3 GUESSUESS ANYONE? "And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers. THEY JUST STARED AT HIM WITH BLANK FACES!!!! Regarding the media’s apathetic approach to his story, Rodriguez said immediately after 9/11 some newspapers picked it up but his words were never taken seriously and quickly forgotten. "During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it," said Rodriguez. "Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didn’t understand who I was dealing with. "I have been receiving this type of subtle harassment for years, but I keep telling everybody I can’t be intimidated because I am on a mission. Whenever someone asks why I keep talking or warns me that I could be killed, I just tell them I have nothing to lose. "I tell them I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now. I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:36 pm

<a href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_janitor_journalist_gov_targets.htm">www.infowars.com/articles...argets.htm</a> On the Heels Of Death Threats Coming Out Of Washington, WTC Janitor Has Jersey City Apartment Burglarized. Journalist Wayne Madsen has left Washington over death threats and William Rodriguez, 9/11 truth-seeker, had his apartment burglarized. Both fit the description of the person supposedly targeted by the government. Greg Szymanski | August 27, 2005 Rodriguez, who has damaging eye-witness testimony that bombs exploded in the WTC basement prior to the airplanes striking, said today his apartment was burglarized between 12:30pm and 7:50pm after retuning home and noticing his second-floor apartment door wide-open. Rodriguez expressed concern over the burglary since earlier in the day he received a “warning email” from contacts close to Washington investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who received credible information his life may be in danger. Rodriguez was notified because he also fits the description of the potential government target, as the inside intelligence source that leaked the information to Madsen said the target was not specifically mentioned by name, but fits the description of both Madsen and Rodriguez. “I just received this email this morning, warning that someone who fits my description is going to be targeted,” said Rodriguez, concerning the communication highly sensitve communication he received from John Caylor, a friend of Madsen who is spreading the word to others potentially in danger. Madsen, a former National Security Agency employee turned reporter, has been a thorn in the side of the Bush administration for his inside reports, revealing financial corruption linking the Bush administration to major foreign and domestic scandals, including 9/11. Rodriguez has also been highly critical of the Bush administration lately, spreading his message across the country in numerous public speeches about his story about the 9/11 cover-up has been withheld from the American people by a systematic censoring of his words by the government and the media. What makes his eye-witness testimony even more damaging to the government is that it can be corroborated by numerous eye-witnesses who have also been censored by the government and media. Although Rodriguez’s story has been told freely without censorship overseas in a number of foreign markets, the American media as well as the 9/11 Commission has seen fit to suppress his story, a story that very well could lead to pinning the Bush administration with high-crimes related to the 9/11 cover-up. The recent assassination threat coming from inside Washington has also been taken seriously by Rodriguez, who in the past has on numerous occasions turned down government bribes to keep him quiet But after being courted at the White House, Rodriguez quickly became a government target once officials realized he could not be bribed or bought-off.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:49 pm

To QUTB. You state that ''we dont know that they pulled the building'' I hope this clears up your confusion. <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html">www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html</a> Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following 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." [mp3] In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3] There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html">www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html</a> Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments. Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors. Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

by **Pants Elk** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:04 pm

NIST shill outs himself on mainstream physics board! by Piper I was reading a thread about the free-fall speed of the WTC towers' collapse called "Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse" on the phys.org forum, a mainstream physics board. The initial post includes a very good .swf file showing how the time of the collapses indicate that they had to have been caused by explosives, and the poster wanted to know the community's opinion on this, asking them to point out any error in his physics. As usual, a 9/11 apologist/shill (nick a_ht) starts defending the official story, and this goes on for a few pages until a very well informed post throws an accusation at him. farang on physorg.com wrote: It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events. I wish those finding fault in Mr. Johnson's conclusions would state specifically what those are, not keep referring to something not in the reply. Damn sure would like to see ANY logical rebuttal. In other words, I see no rebuttal to his statement that physics rules out a kerosene fire melting and collapsing three steel buildings in this manner. That's fairly straightforward, and should be simple to refute, yet I see nothing but anger, resentment, insults and false statements about the structural strength (or lack thereof) of the two towers (the core should have stayed upright, with plane parts stuck to it). Not to mention how one poster claimed modeling a 22 second free fall, then stated a 13 second free fall, without explaining his conflicting statements. Look, I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!! Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted. Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing. I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it. I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? a_ht, what caused that? Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct? Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball? What was it? Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel, explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what? Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!! Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office. Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only <14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see "small fires") and caused the beams to melt because the impact "knocked of the insulation". One reply to that: WTC 7. Not hit, there goes THAT THEORY. Melted steel bends. NEVER turns to dust. Never. No, not ever. Say, how about this for argument: From now on, CDI never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences, no, no no. We can simply use a_ht's rational analysis, pour @ 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition, right? Right, a_ht? or, are you incorrect here? a_ht, Mr. Jackson's British, I believe. Very polite, considerate. I am not, I am just a blunt American: I believe you to be an Israeli disinformation agent. Yes, obviously, the buildings were pre-rigged for controlled demolitions. I never thought I would see the day my country chased the rabbit down the hole...and I would wake up in a land where black is white, up is down, liars are heroes, and criminals in charge of our government, and 19 "Arab Terrorists" could make physics stand down while they attacked. Yet..... Physics don't "stand down" for anyone. Therefore, I believe 19 Arab hijackers flying planes into the towers did not bring down the buildings on 911. Obviously. And here is the reply: a_ht on physorg.com wrote: I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense. I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:42 pm

michael meiring - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Qutb, how very, very disengenius of you to imply, do i think a smoke machine was responsible for the smoke in the towers. I shall make this as simple as i can for you to understand, as you seem to have trouble understanding it the first time. You state there can be no smoke without fire. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your statement, by saying smoke can be made by a smoke making machine. Its happening up and down in most clubs every weekend, acres and acres of smoke and not one spark. I am not saying thats what happened in the towers.<hr></blockquote> So do you think that the smoke was created artificially, by other means than a smoke machine? Why don't you state what your theory is, then. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I find it hard to accept any government sponsored investigations, i remember only too well, the lies from the same people regarding saddams nookular weapons coming over in 45 minutes. Also the lies from the same government investigations regarding nigerian yellowcake/enriched uranium from nigeria? What about the lies from the same people regarding satelitte photos of mobile chemical labs...lol.<hr></blockquote> They are not the same people. The claims you mention were cherry-picked from old intelligence reports, stripped of all caveats, sexied up a little, and presented as facts by the Bush administration and the Blair government - despite repeated warnings from CIA intelligence analysts that they weren't true. The Pentagon's ad-hoc Office of Special Plans did much of the work. Some of the claims originated from a particularly dubious source codenamed "Curveball", the cousin of an aide to Ahmed Chalabi. They were never investigated. The tower collapses, on the other hand, have been investigated thoroughly by competent people who are not part of the intelligence community. You don't seem to understand the difference. Don't you think it's comme il faut that the government commissions a scientific investigation of an event like the WTC collapses? Who else should do it? "The Government" seems to be one big monolithic entity, in your imagination. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What are your thoughts on William Rodriguez? A national hero, eyewitness, and not a sound out of you about his testimony or many others?<hr></blockquote> I made a sound about Rodriguez above. I asked how an explosion which occurs seconds before the plane hits contributes to a "controlled demolition" which happens much later. I also wrote that I find this explosion in the basement highly interesting, but I would be careful about what conclusions I draw from it. Specifically, I don't see how it supports a controlled demolition scenario. Pants Elk - Griffin argues that it is impossible, or at least unlikely, that a 757 hit the Pentagon. How is that not being a doofus? How is that helping the 9/11 cause? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You're still using the phrase "conspiracy theorists" as if it somehow excluded the Administration<hr></blockquote> You know what I'm referring to, when I'm talking about a "conspiracy-oriented subculture which thrives on the Internet". The Bush administration has been peddling their own brand of conspiracy theories. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I'm not implying that conspiracy theories are wrong per se - they sometimes add valuable insight into what's going on in the world. Politics is conspiratorial in nature. 9/11 was a conspiracy. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that it was more than an isolated "al-Qaida" operation. I'm only saying that the irrational, sloppy, uninformed ones are unlikely to be true, and that many of them are concocted to support a specific agenda or worldview. And that some of them are created by masters of disinformation to distract inquiring minds away from inquiring into things they shouldn't know about, and to discredit those who do. Microwaves - I was only half serious about that. Serious, because nothing can be ruled out completely, not serious, because I have no need for that hypothesis, or controlled demolition. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:47 pm

Michael - this is a good example of what I'm talking about, regarding the intellectual sloppiness of much of the "conspiracy subculture". Silverstein is probably talking about pulling out the firefighters here. In any event - saying "there can be little doubt" about what he meant, is just silly. We don't know what he meant. And IF he really was complicit in the mass murder of 3,000 Americans, I don't think he would brag about it on TV. Seriously. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:35 pm

Actually, Qutb, I don't think that's a correct reading of silverstein. He was talking about WT7 and he specifically said they decided to "pull IT"..not pull them or whatever. It was quite clear from the context that he meant demolish it. However, he then says, "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" so it can be interpeted as they decided to demolish but it came down on its own right after they made the decision but before they could get it rigged themselves. It could also be interpreted as him saying they demolished it before realizing that the fact that WT7 looked a great deal like 1 and 2 that it probably wasn't a good idea to admit demolishing it. So, like much of this, it doesn't prove anything either way, but your take on it doesn't seem to match the context.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:55 pm

qutb Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following 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." [mp3] Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. How can you misunderstand this? its as simple as its going to get, how can, Larry Silverstein say, HE AND THE FDNY DECIDED TO JOINTLY DEMOLISH THE SOL BROS BUILDING (WTC7) , and you say you understand this to mean they decided to pull the firefighters out of the building? How can DEMOLISH THE BUILDING get translated to pull the firefighters out of the biulding by yourself? Silverstein says we decided to pull IT, , not pull THEM, if you cannot differentiate this most simplist of english terms, well. I hope not to come over too impolite here, but it seems no wonder you cannot grasp anything more intricate on the subject. You already say you believe what William Rodriguez says in his testimony, ie explosions from the basement, explosions on the 33rd floors and the 20th floors? or have these explosions got to do somthing with the pancakes and 'syrup' conspiracy theory put out by the government sponsored NIST org? they were funded by the government werent they?

by **firstimer** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:21 pm

still here QTUB? Definately on a payroll, or very, very lonely. Here's one for you: Who lied? Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, (except missle comment) Pataki, Guliani. NOVA (exclusive story) Every person/entity in that list is known to officially lie on behalf of the "war on terrorism" Do you really credit the WTC storytellers who support Bush and the war on terrorism's case so succinctly. Reality is not often that clean. Each player has their own motivation, the result of which is that plans don't go perfectly. The pancake theory is just such a situation. A stretch to explain causality that doesn't exist. The NIST doc proved that. BTW none of the building codes in NYC have been updated to take advantage of the 9/11 comissions's recc's. Surprised? Nobody else clings to such weak premises soo long. This means that you are either paid or lonely, both, all reasons for me to end this. However you are human, and that is forgiven. firstimer

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: All Puffed out........

Lean on me.............

Re: A National Hero's Testimony.

Re: Lean on me.............

very disingenious of you qutb

Doofus?!

Another whistleblower.

As predicted....

PULL THE BUILDING

Reposted from the Liberty Forum

Re: very disingenious of you qutb

Re: PULL THE BUILDING

Re: PULL THE BUILDING

why are you twisting and distorting everthing?

who lied?

Who is online