John Kerry is Questioned on 911 Theories

Originally posted by deltaboy
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.

So now your saying one of the biggest demolition companies in the world uses the word pull when talking about bringing down a wall with explosives does not mean demolition?

Its not someone else from outside the demolition industry using the term its the company and their website using the term.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Read the name in the url.

Here is the home page in case you dont get it.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Arguing that the term pull is only used to bring down a wall verses a building is semantics and only shows your desperation.

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

Lets not forget your the one that brought it up on this thread with a link to your thread.

Frankly I have better things to do than debate with you and your incorrect definition of absolutism.

Guys, seriously, this isn't that hard is it? You're so close! All you have to do is get Kerry to confirm what you want to believe he said! Do this, and you'll finally have some tangible evidence for at least one of your beliefs!

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Lets not forget your the one that brought it up on this thread with a link to your thread.
Frankly I have better things to do than debate with you and your incorrect definition of absolutism.

I did that specific topic in it's own thread because the concept is universal, and I'm not trying to Red Herring this or any other thread for that matter. If I had my way there'd probably be an anti-Red herring policy where you start a new thread to link in or link in an existing thread for the Red Herring materials. I actually have the new topic post about this half written from earlier when I wrote that piece, but decided not to post it. What you're seem to be saying is I'm a bastard for trying to avoid fallacious / bad forum conduct.

You wont debate it there because you can't. Thanks for drawing out this "defintion" Red herring which is absolutely out of context with this thread.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

kerry.senate.gov...

Originally posted by Stiney
kerry.senate.gov...

In a related story, John Kerry's comments that Building 7 was deliberately demolished during an Austin Texas speaking event have gone viral since the You Tube video was posted and featured in our story on Monday.

Calls to Kerry's office for a further clarification on his comments were not returned.

Link

It appears people are already trying to contact him to no avail.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
So now your saying one of the biggest demolition companies in the world uses the word pull when talking about bringing down a wall with explosives does not mean demolition?

Its not someone else from outside the demolition industry using the term its the company and their website using the term.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Read the name in the url.

Here is the home page in case you dont get it.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Arguing that the term pull is only used to bring down a wall verses a building is semantics and only shows your desperation.

No it does not show my desperation, it shows the fallacy of using the word pull as demolition term to take down the building.

Lets look at the context...

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.

Now why would the website put quotation mark around the word "pull"? Its as if to emphasize the best description of the action. We know that buildings are not "pulled" but using the gravity and force of the explosion as means of taking down the building.

Even one of the websites that believes in the conspiracy that the U.S. govt. was involved agrees with the slang pull is not demolition term. Ironic that I would use this.

911research.wtc7.net...

The common assertion that "pull" is industry slang for demolition lacks support. A Google search for the term "pull" in relation to controlled demolition fails to return uses of "pull" meaning demolition outside of the widely circulated story of Silverstein's admission on 9/11 conspiracy sites. See the analysis on wtc7.net.
Even if "pull" were industry slang for demolition, there would be no reason to expect Silverstein to know this.
The above quote by a Ground Zero worker about pulling Building 6 is not evidence that "pull" means controlled demolition, since he was apparently referring to using cables to literally pull down portions of the building.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by deltaboy]

Not to mention that you are using the same source that also discredited the pull word, did you even read them?

www.wtc7.net...

A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

site:controlled-demolition.com pull
site:implosionworld.com pull
Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish:

City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building

A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
It appears people are already trying to contact him to no avail.

orly?

I called up Senator Kerry’s office and an aid that I spoke with knew of this article being circulated and he flat out told me that Senator Kerry never opined or stated that Building 7 was deliberately demolished. What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition.

Link



Dang!

Originally posted by Stiney

What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition.

Link

Dang!

One wall of WHAT BUILDING? That answer implies he meant one wall of WTC 7 needed to be taken down. That makes NO SENSE. Sounds like a dodged question to me if that is the EXACT quote. How do you take down ONE WALL of WTC 7? AND if he was talking about WTC 1 and 2 there would be wallS that needed to be taken down.

Semantics + politician = unending debate.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Bravo, Pootie, you figured it out! If it doesn't make any sense that he was talking about the wall of WTC 7, then it makes sense that he wasn't talking about WTC 7! He said he knew that there was a wall that needed to be demolished. He said he had never heard of what the questioner was asking before. There WAS a wall that needed to be demolished - the leftover from the tower's collapse. Why would Kerry know about WTC 7?

If you aren't sure of what was said on the phone, what the heck are you waiting for? Call the number that was given. Ask if he was referring to a wall of the Salomon Brothers building, or if he was referring to a wall that was left standing after the collapse of the towers. Ask if he was talking about an event that happened ON THAT DAY.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
Bravo, Pootie, you figured it out! If it doesn't make any sense that he was talking about the wall of WTC 7, then it makes sense that he wasn't talking about WTC 7!

According to your quote he said:

"What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition."

Taken literally, using proper English, this would mean one wall of WTC 7.

One wall... not the whole building.

You are implying he said something along the lines of:

"What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” from WTC 1 or 2 He never said that building 7 was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition."

See the difference?

You need to add a bunch of words for your interpretation to work. I don't.

A debunkers FAVORITE: OCCAM'S RAZOR!


[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

No, I need to add a bunch of words to help you understand why your interpretation is not the simplest explanation. You still haven't told me why he would know about WTC 7. If he heard "world trade center" he most likely thought of the twin towers.

Given that a wall of WTC 7 was not taken down, that a wall of the towers was taken down, that the latter is much more common knowledge than the fact that there even was a separate building called "world trade center 7", and that Kerry said he didn't know what the guy was talking about, what is the simplest explanation as to what he meant?

And if you need further clarification, call the number yourself. Put the argument to rest. It's easy.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by coven


A) more than likely you are right on this one


Coven Out

Please show me in that picture were the "danger is of destroying other things".

There is nothing left to destroy from that wall that is standing.

I am not an expert.. I was quoting him before his picture was shot down. Sorry to have involved myself in the discussion... Man 9/11 truth movement is SOOOOOOooo open!

Coven

I'm a little surprised at all the interpretive dialog here. When I first watched the video (and the 2nd time), it was perfectly clear what Kerry meant: he mentions concern about the wall, so they decided to do "IT" (motioning his hands inward) in a controlled fashion. Obviously he was talking about the entire building.

I think it's most likely that when he said he heard it was controlled, he cluelessly didn't realize the implications of that statement affirming that 911 was an inside job. He's too blase about his response to know what he's implying.

Having said that, I suppose it's also possible that he DID know the implications, and wanted to slip it out there in kind of a nonconspiratorial manner. Actually that would be a pretty sneaky way to reveal something inflammatory without getting burned.

So much debate re TWR 7. All buildings with a diesel fire drop at gravity speed. Science, as Popular Mechanics said. THEN..Do we assume that Kerry truly believes the rest of the story..That an Arab, last reported dying in A ME hospital of kidney failure, went to a cave in Afghan, and with his laptop shut down the half trillion dollar US air defenses, so that his boys would not be intercepted. Does Kerry believe that without being on the passenger manifest, therefore no tickets and no boarding passes they got onto to those planes, avoiding all boarding cctv, overpowered burly US flight crew with box cutters, found the secret air corridor between us and Canada that has NO NORAD nor FAA radar coverage, and then that they flew massive boeing jets at full speed to precisely hit buildings, without having practiced that on a simulator a dozen times. The Penta pilot couldnt solo a cessna 172 with 600 hours in his log book, but this supertopgun flight was a piece of cake for him. Before I flew airlines, (later becoming training captain on 4 engined jets), I taught beginners in flying school. They had no selection, no aptitude test, simply.. if they could afford it, they came into the planes and learnt. One in say twenty never made it. The tricycle undercarriage Cessnas, 150s 170s 182s etc are really childs play to land. Iif the student could do 3 good landings in a row, we would send them solo. If this guy couldnt solo, then in the air, he wouldnt have a bloody clue as to what is going on. Re Kerry not attacking GWB on this issue.... We all know Kerry is from the same Skull and Bones SS, so why would he challenge his buddy...

[edit on 23-7-2007 by ThomasT]

ThomasT.

this ENTIRE post is either false or a lie. Take your pick....

OBL Dying in a hospital?

Shutting down 1/2 trillion dollar A/D system with a laptop??

And then....

"overpowered burly US flight crew with box cutters"

Heck I can go on, but hopfully the members of ATS can sniff out the baloney that some post in here.

Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones along with GWB was he not? so how can you trust what he says anyway regardless if it was a slip of the tongue or not.


Bush and Kerry admitting, sort of, their connection to the secret society, which I'm sure many of you have seen before.

www.youtube.com...

1.22 min vid


Off topic, if you haven't seen this vid yet then check it out, right at the very end.


Barack Obama TALKS SHORTLY 2 Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

www.youtube.com...

3.23 min vid

Originally posted by tombangelta
Just this week i read that one of the architects is claiming that the twin towers were already rigged with explosives after the earlier bombing.

paul laffoley. he was on the architectural team, but not an actual architect. he says the bin laden construction company asked him what he thought the best place to put explosives was if they wanted to bring the building down. he thought it was a strange question.