John Kerry is Questioned on 911 Theories

I shudder to think about it but I think you may very well be right, ufo. My own tendancy is to give these people more credit for intelligence than they deserve. Kerry has always been such a straw dog.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I tend to make sure that what evidence is presented does not tend to be how shall we say misused.

So, you are like an unofficial attorney for the govt's story in this site? Why bother with it? Personal satisfaction? Soul saving? Patriotism?

I just don't get your motives.

Originally posted by deltaboy
O really?

Sorry, I have to do this, but it is my civic duty:

Originally posted by etshrtslr

So the questioner is putting words in Kerry's mouth?

Geez your making it sound like the questioner had some sort of control over what Kerry said. Talk about conspiracy.

Kerry is an educated intelligent person and he knows how to handle tough questions.

Kerry is the only one responsible for the words he speaks...no one else is and he used the word "they" when answering the question.

So I want to know who the "they" are that brought down the building in a "controlled fashion" as Kerry says.

You wanted to asked why he used the word "they" as if Kerry knows who he is referring too, Kerry mentions "they" because the questioner is telling him about "they". Its called a leading question. Don't ignore what he is telling him. The questioner also tells Kerry that Larry took down the building by using the the words pull for demolition term, which is a lie. The questioner is telling Kerry this as if it was a fact.

Are you just listening to Kerry's words only but not the questioner?

Maybe I should quote the questioner as well.

Look at the ketchup lady and her hands. She looks very nervous and tense.

Is it me or does she give a sort of nod towards end when Kerry is answering the question.

He clearly admits WTC7 was a CD, and i don't care what the disinformers in this thread say.

Originally posted by deltaboy


Are you just listening to Kerry's words only but not the questioner?

No....I listened to the whole question and the answer.

Kerry is an Ivy league educated attorney. I think he knows as well as anyone what a leading question is and how to answer one.

No one made Kerry say the words he said he did it on his own.

You are desperately trying to assert that Kerry was tricked into giving the answer he did because Kerry's answer will destroy your view of what really happened that day.

If blaming the questioner and saying he tricked Kerry to answer the way he did makes you feel better then hey Im not one to burst the fantasy bubble you live in.


[edit on 24-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Dammit you guys, stop getting my hopes up like this. Here I thought I was actually going to see John Kerry say he knew that WTC 7 was demolished!

First of all it's pretty clear that he's confused while listening to the question. He says it's the first time he's heard this stuff about Larry Silverstein. In his answer he says he knows that a wall was taken down - which is true. When I heard that I immediately thought of the leftover from the towers, which the-doc showed. How can WTC 7 be referred to as a "wall"?

You don't have a quote of Kerry saying "I know that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion." You interpret that as the meaning of "wall" (which makes no sense) just because the questioner said "world trade center seven" at the beginning. But let's be honest - does Kerry know what that means? Did he even pick it up? I think to most people "world trade center" is synonymous with "the twin towers", and they don't even know or consider that it includes other buildings.

See, here's what you guys need to do: Instead of using your keyboard and monitor to discover the answer to life, the universe, and everything, go out and look for some hard evidence either for or against your speculation. Actually seek truth. Get someone to ask Kerry specifically. A fair question would be: "Do you know anything about World Trade Center building 7, also known as the Salomon Brothers building? Do you know whether it was deliberately, and completely, demolished on September 11th by a group of professional demolition workers?"

If he says that it was, then you've got my attention. Chances are he won't have any idea what you're talking about.

But, you know, I don't think anyone wants to do this. I think you are comfortable in your beliefs, for whatever reason, and afraid of being disproven.

Not that it would ever convince you anyway. I mean, Silverstein has already clarified what he meant, but that doesn't stop you from spouting off your speculation of what "pull" meant and accepting it as fact. I expect this Kerry question will be advertised for months now, as "evidence" of an inside job. Even if Kerry says what he meant, a large group of people will call him a liar and refuse to abandon it, because it just feels too good to believe that you discovered this huge news, doesn't it?

You don't have a quote of Kerry saying "I know that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion." You interpret that as the meaning of "wall" (which makes no sense)

Kerry was specifically asked about WTC 7 and he responded:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."

What other wall was in danger of destroying other things?

The standing debris from WTC 1 & 2 shown in a picture on this thread had nothing left around it to destroy.

It was known that WTC 7 had damage to an outer wall and that is the reason sited in the offical 9-11 story as to why building 7 collapsed.

Now with he outer wall damage to building 7 common sense would dictate that it would topple over on the weakest side (i.e the side with the outer wall damage) much like knocking one leg out of a four legged table. It topples to the side without the leg.

Just by the fact that Kerry said there was a danger of the wall destroying other things could only mean he was talking about building 7. Beacuse like I said there was nothing left to destroy at the WTC 1&2 site.

Here is a over head view of the same picture posted on the first page.

Again please show me what that wall still standing was in danger of destroying.





Edit to add a better view.





Mods...I do not know how to re size the image can you please do it for me?

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Actually, there was of course a cleanup operation going on there. There were people there and cranes and stuff going all over the place. The wall was dangerous to have there, because it could potentially fall and land on them unexpectedly. How is this wall not dangerous?

It is clear that a "wall" was not demolished at WTC 7 - if it was a demo, it was the entire building.

This sort of discussion is pretty pointless, really. What you need to do is simple - Send Kerry this video, and ask him to name the building he was referring to.

Are you all afraid to do that?

If he did mean WTC7, I don't know how/why Kerry would know about this. But if he did, this would be pretty meaningful. You'd really be onto something this time. Come on guys, all you have to do is verify it.

This is very important on this subject:

Absolutism Terminology: Dont sound like an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...


PS: Dude you need to resize the WTC overhead image!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by etshrtslr

No....I listened to the whole question and the answer.

Kerry is an Ivy league educated attorney. I think he knows as well as anyone what a leading question is and how to answer one.

No one made Kerry say the words he said he did it on his own.

You are desperately trying to assert that Kerry was tricked into giving the answer he did because Kerry's answer will destroy your view of what really happened that day.

If blaming the questioner and saying he tricked Kerry to answer the way he did makes you feel better then hey Im not one to burst the fantasy bubble you live in.

So what? Bush is from Harvard and he talks about planes explosives when crashing into the towers and people used that proof that it was planned by the U.S. govt. This is just another case of flip flop by Senator Kerry even if he is from Yale. Especially someone who thinks and agrees that Pull is demolition term for taking down the building by explosives.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is very important on this subject:

Absolutism Terminology: Dont sound like an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...


PS: Dude you need to resize the WTC overhead image!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I asked the Mods to re size the image...thanks for the tip.


dictionary.com describes absolutism in the link below.

dictionary.reference.com...

In the link to the thread you provided all I see is your opinion on absolutism.

Nothing more nothing less than what has been provided on this thread

As far as Im concerned this site is about open and honest debate between people that are passionate about their respective beliefs and opinions.

Whether or not we agree with them is up to us individually to decide.

And as far as Im concerned all I have seen on this thread is passionate opinions being expressed. Nothing I have seen resembles your definition of absolutism.




[edit on 24-4-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by deltaboy


So what? Bush is from Harvard and he talks about planes explosives when crashing into the towers and people used that proof that it was planned by the U.S. govt. This is just another case of flip flop by Senator Kerry even if he is from Yale. Especially someone who thinks and agrees that Pull is demolition term for taking down the building by explosives.

deltaboy,

Let me first say I have enjoyed this debate with you! It has been civil and well spirited as far as Im concerned. And I think we can both agree we are not going to change each others opinions on this subject.

That being said lets get back to the debate.

This link was posted earlier on this site.
www.controlled-demolition.com...

Read what is says about pull in regards to explosive demolition.

Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls.

[Bold text added for emphasis]

So clearly here you have Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] using the term pull in reference to explosive demolition.

Please reconcille your above statement with the PR put out by CDI clearly using the term pull in reference to explosive demolition.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls.

[Bold text added for emphasis]

So clearly here you have Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] using the term pull in reference to explosive demolition.

Please reconcille your above statement with the PR put out by CDI clearly using the term pull in reference to explosive demolition.

Creating the desired lateral pull is not the same thing as saying demolished the building please.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is very important on this subject:
Absolutism Terminology: Dont sound like an idiot
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the link to the thread you provided all I see is your opinion on absolutism.

Nothing I have seen resembles your definition of absolutism.

My opinion? Your arguments here are literally apologist for baseless absolutism and logical fallacy use. I'm not trying to Red Herring this thread (I actually almost started a thread on rampant Red Herring's earlier). Please bring this disucssion to that proper thread.

Oh, it's in here believe me; it's on virtually (notice that's not an absolutist term) every page of every thread here at ATS and probably (notice that's not an absolutist term) any other forums anywhere. I could go thru quoting people but I really wasn't trying to embarrass people at this juncture. This is important on this topic not only because absolutisms are being thrown around in this thread, but the fountainhead where this video originated used it in titling the report, as I pointed out in the other thread.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Besides even the word "pull" as been quoted by the site itself as if showing that using pull word is the only explanation to describe their intention.

Thank you

I can't stress enough what a diservice this does to the movement.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My opinion? Your arguments here are literally apologist for absolutism and logical fallacy use.

I would like to know how given the fact your context and use of absolutism is not even text book.

It seems to me you are misusing a term to argue against some things you dont like seeing or reading on ATS.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

My opinion? Your arguments here are literally apologist for absolutism and logical fallacy use.

I would like to know how given the fact your context and use of absolutism is not even text book.
It seems to me you are misusing a term to argue against some things you dont like seeing or reading on ATS.

Take it to the other thread. I didn't post that link to create a huge Red Herring in here.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]