PhD Kevin Barrett in an interview with Russia Today RT about who really did 9/11

Sooner or later they will have to admit it.

reply to post by Danbones


That is just one link. You asked for one, I gave you one.

It is UP TO YOU to keep looking, finding other sources. As I pointed out. Of course, nitpicking on one little aspect, of a very long article that is full of the very information you "dared" people to provide??

Hypocrite much?

Because, not only is most of the "truth movement" stuff easily shown to have flaws that can be nitpicked out, like you did....real flaws, not the puny one you seemed to have focused on. They have dozens and hundreds, usually, in every piece they write, or video they promote.

This OP's video, for instance. In just the first two minutes, at least five or six blatant lies and distortions, said by the "Ph.D" fella. He is quoting from, and apparently bought into "hook, line and sinker" the many oft-repeated mantras of the "truth movement" websites...the same false and inaccurate and distorted claims.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Judge_Holden

 

i provided a credible demonstrrtion of the common usage of the term "pull it' as it is used in the demolition industry.
what proof have you provided to counter it
NONE
poop or get off the pot
deny ignorance and all that

If you think that Larry Silverstein publicly announced deliberate demolition of WTC 7 by explosives on tv; why do you suppose Industrial Risk Insurers paid out $861 million for the rebuild ?

Is it your experience that insurance companies fall over themselves to pay out vast sums even when there is, according to you, a glaring and obvious reason to deny liability ?

reply to post by Alfie1

If you...

Is it...

Hypothetical questions which you have not backed up with proof don't count a statements of proof in any way shape or form
LandP
have a nice day

reply to post by Danbones


I have made no claims that need to be corroborated with evidence. However, in regards to your "pull it":

That term (in the demolition industry) refers to literally "pulling" a building down through controlled demolition, via numerous cables that are usually attached to cranes. In fact, that very PBS documentary you site talks about how building 6 was "pulled" because of its impending collapse. If Silverstein was using the term "pull it" to describe this type of demolition for building 7, where are the cables? Would it even be possible to pull down a building of that height? I hope we can both agree that it would not be.

As far as Silverstein is concerned, and this has been corroborated through numerous interviews with individuals who talked with the man himself, he was speaking in regards to the firefighters that were in the building. At that moment in time, he thought it was unneccesary to attempt to save the building when it was such a risk to do so. So, he decided to have everyone pulled from the building.

Do you really think that Silverstein would admit to giving orders for a controlled demolition in a PBS documentary? If he were attempting to cover up a conspiracy, why would he make such a damning comment? Surely one of the masterminds behind the whole conspiracy would be smart enough to not let something like that leak out of his own mouth, right?

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Alfie1

 

If you...

Is it...

Hypothetical questions which you have not backed up with proof don't count a statements of proof in any way shape or form
LandP
have a nice day

edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: fixed quote box

That Industrial Risk Insurers paid out $861 million dollars in respect of WTC 7 is fact, not hypothetical.

However, I can understand your reason for not wanting to deal with it.

reply to post by Alfie1


Perfect example of a truther being asked a question too big for their flawed theory.

He will not answer it.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


just to prove you wrong again I will answer it

boy you sure are batting zero today aren't you
get off the pot
it makes a person slow on the draw

A major insurance company is holding back from paying Larry Silverstein insurance money he says he is still owed from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the question is why?

Reuters is reporting:

Mr Silverstein, who leased the downtown site destroyed on September 11, 2001, claims Allianz still owes him $US553 million ($A708.57 million) and that a second insurer, Britain's Royal & Sun Alliance, owes him $US250 million ($A320.33 million). He said their reluctance had slowed rebuilding at the site.

It now seems that Allianz is being forced to back down as Brooklyn-Queens Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up.

As reported by Reuters
www.infowars.net...

reply to post by Danbones


A problem with insurance returns proves NOTHING.

Try again.

And please use a relaible source next time. Infowars makes me laugh.

reply to post by Alfie1

If you think that Larry Silverstein publicly announced deliberate demolition of WTC 7 by explosives on tv; why do you suppose Industrial Risk Insurers paid out $861 million for the rebuild ?

Is it your experience that insurance companies fall over themselves to pay out vast sums even when there is, according to you, a glaring and obvious reason to deny liability ?

You are right and I did hear many asked why the claim was paid so fast..
Fact is, those that agreed to the payment don't actually pay out of their own pocket..
It's the shareholders that pay...Ahhh, follow the money..A phrase that never gets old..

could you boys call your mother ?
maybe she is adult enough to maintain a reasonable debate?
if there is something worth while to rebut Ill consider it
I'll be around

reply to post by Judge_Holden


NOTE THAT THE INSURERS WERE THREATENED TO FORCE THEM TO PAY
naw you missed that little detail

Perfect example of a truther being asked a question too big for their flawed theory.
He will not answer it.

eat own words much?

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Judge_Holden

 

just to prove you wrong again I will answer it

boy you sure are batting zero today aren't you
get off the pot
it makes a person slow on the draw

A major insurance company is holding back from paying Larry Silverstein insurance money he says he is still owed from the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the question is why?

Reuters is reporting:

Mr Silverstein, who leased the downtown site destroyed on September 11, 2001, claims Allianz still owes him $US553 million ($A708.57 million) and that a second insurer, Britain's Royal & Sun Alliance, owes him $US250 million ($A320.33 million). He said their reluctance had slowed rebuilding at the site.

It now seems that Allianz is being forced to back down as Brooklyn-Queens Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up.

As reported by Reuters
www.infowars.net...

edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: to spell slowly AS REPORTED BY REUTERS for the peeps

Can you point out to me please just where that addresses my point about Industrial Risk Insurers paying out $861 million in respect of WTC 7, which you allege Larry Silverstein publicly admitted was deliberately demolished ?

NOTE THAT THE INSURERS WERE THREATENED TO FORCE THEM TO PAY

reply to post by Danbones


I choose not to listen to unsubstantiated claims made by the laughable "news" website, inforwars.net.

That is the type of thing that despicable alternaitve news sites like infowars does; cite reputable sources, then make their own spin on it.

I used to be a truther until I realized that, even though there may have been some for within the government, there isn't enough evidence to say the government did it.

What I think is happening here is that there is the truth in the middle and 2 sides trying to feed exaggerations, intelligence/counter-intelligence. What this does is it prevent people from reaching that middle point. It would only make sense for the other side to say the government did it, as the government to say the other side did it.

I think there was some rash decision from the government. The reason for that is they needed to act fast because a "I don't know who did it" answer wouldn't suffice in this situation.

It would only make sense for American enemies to exaggerate some points to destabilize the region. If you think that enemies of the US wouldn't do that than you really have no clue how intelligence works. The same coin indicates that the people who helped perpetrate this would feed exaggerated intelligence to help throw the nation in a confused state. With the help of powerful allies they could sway nations to get on board in defending your freedoms and rights. Really though we are giving up our freedoms and rights rather than defend them.

reply to post by Alfie1


let me explaiin alfie since you seem to have over looked another little detail
the money was paid out to silversein AND the port authority to REBUILD the buildings based on the evidence of the day

Since then a total of nine insurance companies have continued to pay Silverstein as the legal wrangle continues. The only ones who have resisted in any way have been Allianz.

it aint over till it is over

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1

 

If you think that Larry Silverstein publicly announced deliberate demolition of WTC 7 by explosives on tv; why do you suppose Industrial Risk Insurers paid out $861 million for the rebuild ?

Is it your experience that insurance companies fall over themselves to pay out vast sums even when there is, according to you, a glaring and obvious reason to deny liability ?

You are right and I did hear many asked why the claim was paid so fast..
Fact is, those that agreed to the payment don't actually pay out of their own pocket..
It's the shareholders that pay...Ahhh, follow the money..A phrase that never gets old..

Sorry but that is a typical truther response. When awkward facts are raised resort to plan B and draw them into the conspiracy. I take it that you are suggesting Industrial Risk Insurers are part of the conspiracy and to hell with their shareholders ?

Can you suggest why they should be happy to be milked of $861 million dollars and to remain forever silent ?

reply to post by Alfie1

to remain forever silent ?

you missed the part where it says" the legal rangling continues"
AND
the bit about pressure from the regulators?
hah hah woooh

reply to post by Danbones


While I am not doubting that there could have been a controlled demolition in WTC7 the evidence can work both ways. The renovation could have been done poorly and not to withstand such vibrations and debris from WTC 1+2.

I think there needs to be an unbiased investigation.

The only thing I thought was very fishy was the way the buildings all fell. I would have thought with the force of an airplane, the buildings should have favored against the side the airplanes hit. Even though the debris was spread out you would think the size of those buildings would have shifter to one side rather than debris being launched from all sides.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The only claims of "thermite" come from a man named Stephen Jones,

absolutely bunk

9 scientists from 3 countries
including the peer-reviewed paper of Dr. Niels Harrit of the
University of Copenhagen

www.newschief.com...

they found both used AND unused thermite residue
which means some of it didn't ignite or burn.

Now u can add Steven Jones on top of that
and you got 10 scientists.

How many scientists does it
take to change a light bulb?