Police "pulled" WTC 7 ?

That is what Fetzer states on the tape "September 11th Revisited"! Think he would know who Silverstein told to "pull it", by now?

www.911revisited.com...

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Duhh]

Duhh, that is a 59 minute video you have just linked to

Could you provide a bit more commentary/info/opinion and perhaps the times (eg 05:30, 37:16) in the video you are most interested in discussing?

Cheers

The statement by Jim Fetzer is near the end.I think it was after the 50:00.I will look again later,down loading another show right now.

Originally posted by Duhh
The statement by Jim Fetzer is near the end.I think it was after the 50:00.I will look again later,down loading another show right now.

No worries - I'll probably watch the whole thing when I get chance, but just wanted to know what I was looking for and when

It isn't too long, an hour I think. How long has this been out? Anybody? I'll research more later. It looked like the same Jim Fetzer rant. Nothing juicy!
Except ,for his recollection of what Silverstein told him!

You watched this one hour video, full of witnesses saying they heard explosives and
that the concrete was pulverised, and you focus on one miss-spoken word?

Let's all just ignore the facts and dismiss the whole thing from one miss-spoken word, yeah that's smart

It's pretty obvious what your agenda is...

Edit; corrected 'opinion' to miss-spoken word, my mistake.

[edit on 26/7/2006 by ANOK]

Hearing explosions was nothing new. People who have researched are quite aware!
The only thing new on this video was Fetzers remarks. Look who is complaining about agenda! Pot, this is Kettle,you're black.

I'm not even gonna respond to that Duh...I think most members here will know what I am saying..obviously you missed it, like all the other evidence that is right under your nose that you can't refute.

So typicaly you reduce to trying to discredit the messengers.

I think most ppl here are smart enough to see through your BS.

Explosions could have been cause by anything though. How else are people going to describe a loud sudden noise? Explosion, of course.

The things that make you think is when they don't use the word explosion but secondary device.

I would assume to hear loud sudden noises seconds before the buildings collapses because things give way. The one reporter said it was 10:30 when she first heard the explosions, which is close to the time that the building actually collapsed.

As for the topic of this thread, so the guy mixed up police chief with fire chief, big deal. I know what he meant to say if it gets down to knit picking like this it becomes a waste of time to argue.

Oh yeah ANOK no disrespect but if you are talking about people's agenda's here yours shows too, just glance at your avatar. hehe

[edit on 26-7-2006 by DoomX]

Yet, knit picking semantics is what Fetzer loves to do. That is why this is soooo funny. He attacks a man about the word pull, then forgets who he was talking to.That is a good one. The rest of the film is the same tripe put out every time.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Duhh]

Originally posted by DoomX
Explosions could have been cause by anything though. How else are people going to describe a loud sudden noise? Explosion, of course.

What do you mean by anything? We need more than that to dismiss all the evidence of explosives and pulverised concrete.

It wasn't ppl just saying they heard big bangs People were injured in the sub basement by these 'anythings'...Watch the video.

I agree this thread is a waste and nothing but a weak distraction...

Tripe? So witneses that were their, and people with professional knowledge are tripe.

What gives you the authority to make this claim? Your paycheck?

Not all those people saying they heard explosions were in the sub levels. And weren't the sub level explosions supposedly before the planes even hit? Not right before when the building was collapsing?

The fact that there isn't anything new on this video to tear apart is unfortunate!
Fetzer and crew are rehashing debunked ,yet again. Secondary devices is simili as well. I liked in the News cast , where they claimed BYU was on board with Jimees claims. They of course were told that by JF! LOL!!!!!!

I guess you are right secondary device can be a fancy way of saying explosive.

Originally posted by Duhh
The fact that there isn't anything new on this video to tear apart is unfortunate!

I have yet to see you 'tear' anything apart

You act like you are so smart and knowledgeable, but all we read from you is twisted opinions, laim attempts at discrediting both posters and experts, and your total ignoring of facts. You are nothing but a troll, I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you. Your other troll buddies are on ignore.
Where are the mods? This guy is not contributing to the board at all...

If you really want to contribute intelligent discussion start with this, explain the concrete being pulverized into dust...

Wrong thread ego boy! You are barking up the wrong tree Jr. Take your smarts to someone who cares. Concrete is answered else where smartee pants. Thought you all knowing could see that. I thought for sure you would find the police theory somewhere, your boy said it.

Semantics. Nothing more, nothing less. I find it funny how they find a dozen or so witnesses that seem to support a theory that is scrambling for any shred of validation, while tossing 100s & 100s aside. Witnesses & victims from car accidents, shootings, tornados, etc. use the unscientific word “explosions” and subjective phrases like “what sounded like an explosion” all the time. Do people look for controlled demolition when a truck runs a stoplight (with witnesses & video) into a building? Do people require video (in addition to hundreds of witnesses) to believe a car crashed into a bus instead of a box of tacos?

I realize this is getting off topic... but why would expect the concrete to be anything but pulverized? Would you want to see large chunks? Wouldn't that look odd? Is pulverized concrete the best evidence anyone can find?

WTF are you babling about?

Man I can't wait till school goes back.

In my 2 yrs of being here I've put maybe one person on ignore, I've put 4 on this week...LOL

Edit: Actualy it's 5, I just looked...

[edit on 26/7/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
but why would expect the concrete to be anything but pulverized? Would you want to see large chunks? Wouldn't that look odd? Is pulverized concrete the best evidence anyone can find?

No, concrete does not pulverize and yes you would expect to see chunks, maybe not large, but definitely not a fine powder.

What pulverized the concrete? Think about it....In fact you could easily go and try it for yourself, then you would know for sure wouldn't you?

But it was more than just the concrete, did you watch the video at all?
You believe your lying government over people who know what they're talking about?
I don't get that.
Do you have any clue who those people are in that video?
They are not your lying politician, or corporate elite, who'll stop at nothing to increase their control and power.
They are professionals with a LOT to lose by telling what they are, think about it!