You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

The place to be for all Conspiracy Theories, photoshopping of pictures, IVF and Multiplie Babies, and many more other theories

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Takealook » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:49 pm

bomaris wrote:let's see if this post survives after the last one was mysteriously pulled by "control" as the conspiracy is known.

For all you conspiracists out there - take a look at this and then start living your life again.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101773


I took the time to take a look and I am glad that I did. It is a good example of an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the uninformed.

This is a response to the link from Bomaris that leads to a new video called World Trade Center not a demolition. It is on the Randi debunking site but I have provided a link, at the end of what I want to say, that leads directly to the video. It is an attempt to discredit the effort of those seeking the truth.

Last year I heard William Rodriguez tell of his 911 experience on local radio and concluded that this was the testimony of an honest man. Therefore I decided to hear him live. If you go to Youtube and type his name you will find a multitude of testimonial videos. The content is always the same (that is consistent)

The main emphasis of World Trade Center not a demolition made by Mark (Gravey) Roberts is that in the footage of the WTC collapse no explosions could be heard on the audio track. However the Gravey video gives many examples of controlled demolitions to illustrate the amount of noise generated by explosive charges. This is supposed to be their proof that no explosions took place. More on that later.

At 07.40 into the Gravey video a clip from NBC's Today Show depicts Hursley Lever explaining that he was on B4 level in WTC when he heard a bomb go off. The Gravey video makes pains to convince the viewer that it is only a figure of speech and that there was no such bomb.

However also in the basement at the same time were three other survivors who indeed heard the bomb and witnessed its effect. William Rodriguez together with his Supervisor Anthony S. were on B1 and Felipe David who was on B2 suffered the full effects of the blast with horrific injuries.

Here is a transcript of the relevant section of William Rodriguez testimony. The full transcript can be viewed via the link immediately after.

Also use this link to see the video testimony of Anthony S. http://www.911keymaster.com/

Late to Work on the Morning of 9/11
I went to work late'I really believe that there was a mission for me that day because if I was there at the regular time'8 am; I would have been at the top of the building by Windows of the World,[13] and I would have died.
I came in late'8:30 am. I'm on the basement'the basement has six levels of basement; B1 to B6. On the B1 level were all of the support companies that dealt with the World Trade Center'mine was ABM (American Building Maintenance).[14] That company had the structural, painting, and mechanical contracts.
I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 am and all of a sudden we hear a very loud "BOOM!"
An explosion so hard that it pushed us upwards! Upwards [pointing up with his fingers for emphasis]. Now, 20 years in the building, and it came from the basement between the B2 level, and the B3 level.[15] At that moment I thought it was the mechanical room where they have all the pumps and the generators for the building'that I thought maybe a generator had just blown up on the basement. Now 20 years in the building'you know the difference between something that comes from the bottom and something that comes from the top [audience laughter].
At that moment everyone started screaming'the explosion was so hard that the walls cracked'the ceiling fell on top of us. The sprinkler system got activated.
When I was about to say out loud "it was the generator" we hear "BOOM"'The impact of the plane on the top of the building.
Two different events. Two different times.[16]
Later on, I thought that they probably didn't synchronize it well. That came out in the investigation that this explosion was probably to weaken the base and the foundation of the building'to be synchronized with the plane at the top so that it would fall automatically'which it didn't.
Now when this happened screams everywhere'a person comes running into the office and starts yelling "explosion, explosion, explosion!"' [Warning: graphic content. Skip ahead to avoid reading] His hands were extended and his skin was pulled from under his armpit... all the way to the top of his fingerprints and it was hanging on both hands. I didn't know what it was. I thought it was a piece of clothing. And then I realized it was his skin and I said "what happened? What happened?" and when I looked at his face'I could see that he was missing pieces of his face.
Felipe David,[17] from Honduras'who I didn't know'was located on the B2 level when this explosion happened.[18] He covered his face with his arms because there was fire. That's how his arms got burned.[19]
I said: "don't move"'I was going to pick up the phone to call the emergency medical unit (EMS) that was located at Building 2, the South Tower.[20] Building 1 and building 2 are connected through the basement and when I go to pick up the phone I hear another explosion.[21] And it was so hard that the building oscillated and the walls cracked again.
"People thought that it was an earthquake."
People went under the door frames thinking that it was an earthquake and I said'"No! I think it's a bomb." And the reason I said that was because I survived the 1993 bombing.[22] I was stuck in an elevator in 1993 for four hours. They had to break through a wall to get us out. So'automatically, I thought it was a bomb. I said "we gotta get out"'so I took those 15 people and led them out of the office, through the loading dock, through a hill, outside the building, with Mr. Pelipe David on my back until I saw an ambulance. I stopped the ambulance and put Mr. Pelipe David inside. He goes into a coma. There was a security guard standing right next to me, and his radio was reporting "a plane hit the building! A plane hit the building!
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... BOOM!_BOOM!

________________________________________________________________________


There are several points to mention related to audio levels.

In the Gravey examples you can see that onlookers are waiting in silent anticipation and are relatively quite close. In a quiet ambience the automatic gain control on an automatic camera will hunt for a level and place it at the top of the gain. A professional camera man will be aware of the capabilities of his equipment and set it manually at healthy level to exploit full dynamic range without distortion. When there is loud ambient sound such as that produced by helicopters, generators etc the recording levels will be reduced.

Also these are legitimate demolitions so no need to conceal the deed. Therefore you can see explosive charges detonated on external columns. Notice that in each case the windows have been removed in preparation for each controlled demolition. The sound therefor is free to reach the microphones unimpeded through free air. No obstructions.

The WTC Building.

Anybody who has seen a 3D schematic diagram of the WTC Building construction will know that the bulk of the support structure lies within the core of the building together with the elevator shafts. If explosive charges are detonated here the sound would be absorbed by the surrounding brickwork. Stud walls and gypsum as well as air spaces provided by office floor space. This is very similar to the principles of sound reduction in music recording studios. That is heavy structures to control low frequencies and lighter materials to absorb and lose higher frequencies.

We know explosions were heard from within the basement area because testimony shown in the Gravey video and the transcript of William Rodriguez testimony say so. What I am curious about is did any body in the vicinity outside of WTC hear an explosion just prior to the plane striking. In other parts of the full testimony William tells of hearing pah, pah. Pah. Indicating that less audible explosive devices were used.

Another point to note is that ambient noise levels would be high so recording levels would be reduced. The camera position would be far away to accommodate the height of the building, and perspective suggests that a telephoto lens was used also which would mean being further back.

Also to be considered is the decibel level produced by a falling building of such height at freefall speed.
If multiple detonations were going off at the time of the fall then there are certainly no survivors from within the building to testify.

This is the direct link to the Gravey video.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread322340/pg1
Last edited by Takealook on Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Takealook
New In Town
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Tripz » Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:17 am

Excellant post Takealook.. :)

Image
Last edited by Tripz on Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Celtic fairy » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:07 am

A very moving testimony from Mr Rodriguez. It does capture what must have been sheer terror on the day. He's a very brave man.

There are so many good experienced architects and engineers who oppose the official version of the WTC collapses, especially WTC7 which was in itself the first steel framed building to collapse from fire. The twin towers collapsed very quickly - WTC1 at the speed of freefall. The other alarming thing was the short time span from impact to total destruction and collapse. Something doesn't add up.
'That's so plausible I can't believe it.' Leela Futurama
Celtic fairy
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:12 pm
Location: dark side of the moon

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby azrael72 » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:47 am

on the firefighter's 9/11 dvd, one is quoted as saying "it looked like the plane hit the lobby" they put it down to ignited jet fuel coming down the lifts....a person was burnt as they walked in but the building wasnt on fire anywhere.....or any sign of it being on fire....

on the collapse of the south tower....and if my question is in the doc's that are on here and i have missed it please let me know......the tower starts to fall over, towards the damage that the plane made...looking at pictures it actually looks like the top half of the building is going to just break off....but then it free falls down on to its footprint.....as i dont understand the dynamic's of collasping building it just always seemed strange to me......the north tower fell straight and the core system went first because you can see the mast go a split second before the building......

even watching those tower's collapse now, nearly 7 years on......its amazing and unbelievable that it happened.....
User avatar
azrael72
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Takealook » Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:51 am

azrael72 wrote:on the firefighter's 9/11 dvd, one is quoted as saying "it looked like the plane hit the lobby" they put it down to ignited jet fuel coming down the lifts....a person was burnt as they walked in but the building wasnt on fire anywhere.....or any sign of it being on fire....

on the collapse of the south tower....and if my question is in the doc's that are on here and i have missed it please let me know......the tower starts to fall over, towards the damage that the plane made...looking at pictures it actually looks like the top half of the building is going to just break off....but then it free falls down on to its footprint.....as i dont understand the dynamic's of collasping building it just always seemed strange to me......the north tower fell straight and the core system went first because you can see the mast go a split second before the building......

even watching those tower's collapse now, nearly 7 years on......its amazing and unbelievable that it happened.....


Hi azrael72. While trying to find the firefighters 9/11 DVD I came across this link.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/911-f ... 2528849401

In this video not only dose it show the testimony of the firemen stating that explosives were being detonated but also a still photograph taken from a viewpoint behind the Empire State Building (no freefall video in this one). I have never seen this before but it clearly shows the top of the WTC building leaning to the right. There is footage elsewhere on the internet that clearly shows the Penthouse leaning momentarily then correcting its self before dropping in freefall.

To try to answer your question (I am not a structural engineer) the key lies in the way the building was constructed.

The core of the building consisted of a boxlike structure of massive steel girders all the way to the top. It was over engineered in response to the Empire State Building being struck by a plane, I believe, during the Second World War. So being struck by an airliner was already factored into the design.

From what I gather the rest of the building was constructed akin to a house of cards to put it simplistically. As long as the central core remained sound the structure would stay up. It was also designed to be very flexible to withstand high speed winds.

From video of its construction you can see that prefabricated sections of the outer wall comprising a lattice work of windows was hoisted into position, connected to adjoining sections and also to the central core via spanning girders that would also provide support for the floors.

My hypothesis is that not only is the girder construction at the core of the building the dominant strength it would also the dominant mass in freefall.

The six floors of the basement area would no doubt be constructed in the traditional manner and this would need to be weakened first to provide a place for the rest of the building to fall into. There is testimony to this effect and also evidence that the retaining wall at the Hudson River has been shifted out of place by the force of the blast.

From photographic evidence there is no sign of molten metal only of twisted girders.
Also girders that have been cleanly sliced through by thermalite. By the way it has been said that these girders were quickly shipped abroad to avoid inspection. Surely they could have been more useful smelted and used for American industry.

There is no way that the metal structure of the central core could drop at free fall speed without the assistance of slicing the girder sections first. I believe that this having been done provided the correcting force pull in the leaning sections and allow the building to fall vertically.
Takealook
New In Town
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Tripz » Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:40 am

That was from the first loose change video. i believe Dylan Avery's voice at the beginning

In to it's own footprint!!!! NEVER in the history of steel framed skyscrappers has this anomaly happenned but on one day 3 steel framed skyscrappers 4 planes conflicted with both the laws of physics and objective understanding, 4 passenger planes vanished. Nothing but unaccounted pieces of debris, caught on camera, when, who knows. The Pentasgon and shanksville (took the p***) in explanation to the masses (sheeple) Iraq was the goal OIL was it's aim...The rest is utter BS! WAKEY WAKEY!!! :idea:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby bomaris » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:33 am

Apologies for taking time to get back re WCT7 and the controlled demolition. I don't have a lot of time for research.

I;ve taken this off a conspiracy-debunking site which seems to me to answer clearly all the points raised (I'll give the address in a follow up post):

"As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn't look straight." He then says "It didn't look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?"

MY COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:

Seems to me that this conspiracy theory is one of the weakest ever told, on a par with Elvis isn't dead. It is NOT a JFK case. In the JFK case, which I examined in some detail, there were genuinely puzzling aspects, and the possibility of some sort of conspiracy does still remain. There were certainly bodies with a grudge who also had the means: e.g. the Mafia, the CIA, Cuba, or the KGB. Oswald could definitely have been acting for Cuba. However, this is not in any sense that sort of case.

I mention that because I want to make clear I am not opposed to conspiracy theories full stop. There was a conspiracy by the KGB/Bulgarian secret service to murder Pope John Paul II. Recently we had the successful Russian secret service conspiracy to kill the Russian dissident in the UK (sorry his name escapes me). Also in the Princess Diana inquest we have heard that the UK secret service were plotting to assassinate Slobodan Milosevic during the war in Yugoslavia - and that has the ring of truth. Again, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Diana was murdered. T

However, it seems clear to me that if you believe this 9-11 conspiracy nonsense, you would have to believe that the whole of the NYFD were in on the conspiracy, which is simply absurd. It is clear there WAS a huge hole in the building. There was a huge fire. There was a bulge in the building. People expected it to collapse. It did collapse but from the ground up, not as in a controlled demolition. There were no flashes as you get in a controlled demolition.

I can't believe that the conspiracists have placed such reliance on words like "pull" which obviously has a range of meaning (looks it up in a big dictionary - I shoudl think there will be at least 20 references) or on the cr** reporting by the BBC on the (admittedly confused) day.

The whole 9-11 conspiracy BS is a hoax which Islamists have encouraged for their own ends, just as Neo-Nazis cast doubt over the deaths of millions of Jews as a consequence of Nazi policy.
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby azrael72 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:58 pm

hello bomaris, is there not anything, that you as a person, feel uneasy about with the whole of this event......? from start to finish.....speaking for myself, i have great difficultly coming to terms with the fact that it could of been allowed to happen.....after all the info they knew before hand and the fact they were watching them learning to fly planes!!!, they didnt even highen checks at all airports.....this takes me back to Lockerbie, when Pam Am knew the risks and ignored the warings.....and that was 20 years ago.....Bush and his chimps are not people to be trusted.....and i know your not going to like me saying this because i cant do the quote thingy :D but he said a few hours after it had happen that he had saw the first plane hit the north tower....how could he??? they were still inside/at ground zero recording it......it wasnt released....i know its a small thing but place them all together you get something bigger......

takealook.....thanks for the answer....i have 9/11 on dvd.....would really like to see any unedited copy but dont think theres a hope in hell of that......the timeline on it is all over the place......the firefighters would know the difference between an explosion from fire and an explosion from another source.....and have to be listened to......they were their......and lost so many....
User avatar
azrael72
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby bomaris » Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:23 pm

Azrael -

You have to look at the legal environment prior to 9-11. It was very politically correct. Everyone was afraid of being accused of racial profiling and harassment. It's true the security services were watching some of these people (I don't think all) but there was no definite knowledge of a plot. In the UK now lots of people are being monitored. The security may even have partial knowledge of plots - doesn't mean there is a conspiracy because they don't immediately arrest them.

You say:

"but he said a few hours after it had happen that he had saw the first plane hit the north tower....how could he??? they were still inside/at ground zero recording it......it wasn't released...."

Well let's assume you are quoting accurately. I think anyone could be forgiven on that day - especially someone who has just fled the White House - for confusing North and South tower. I've no idea which is which. And Bush is renowned for his verbal slips.

Reagan claimed to have fought in World War 2. He didn't. He was confusing his movie roles with the real thing. But just because a President got something wrong doesn't mean that World War 2 was a phantom of our imaginations.

Please, please ask yourself some questions about this and answer them honestly. I feel Tripz is a hopeless case, but I feel you are genuinely looking for the truth here. I'll post that website address later.

Ask yourself:

1. If there was a conspiracy does it not mean that all (or at least the vast majority) of the fire personnel must be in on the conspiracy because they (a) talk about a big hole (b) talk about the building bulging (c) talk about people judging the building was going to collapse which is why it was evacuated and (d) dismiss any notion of controlled demolition? I think the answer's got to be yes. We aren't talking about one fire officer at the top supporting a nonCD line here.

2. Isn't it absurd (and repellent) to think that these brave firefighters whose lives were on the line would engage in this sort of conspiracy?
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby azrael72 » Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:06 pm

bomaris.... i'll give you Bush....i'm been highly amused by his bushism's for the last 8 years... :mrgreen:

answered honestly......
1, I may have got confused on the word "pulled"... pulled the building to me means demolish....i will allow you 1/2 a point...for making me question it a bit more.....

2, I dont think any of the brave personel who attended that day was in on it......the trouble i have is with the people who actually run the country....and thats not Bush, hes just a person who gets his lines wrong.....who think for the greater good things must be allowed to proceed....they think nothing of life, or how many could die and as i said before they are just C/D to them.....was there a greater good with this ???? and people sat back and did nothing.....Churchill did....and now pearl harbor is being questioned....and so that is why i go back to the point of, place it all together and you see how amazing/one in a million this whole thing was...
User avatar
azrael72
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Arbiter » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:37 pm

Bomaris,

You've been selective about what 'firemen' said about damage to the building...

anyway... please tell us why NIST felt the need to include THAT photo in it's report when it had hundereds if not thousands of others to choose from and are being kept from us.

Also... just exactly how did the know it was going to collapse? These types of buildings NEVER collapsed prior to that day.

How did the BBC and CNN know before it collapsed that it had collapsed considering that a collapse had NEVER happened before on those types of buildinngs prior to that day?

Why were firemen telling people to get away because it was going to 'blow up'?

What about the witnesses to contradict the statement you made in your post? Are they to be simply ignored?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Tripz » Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:22 pm

cough Madrid, and numerous in the US and one in Venezuela. Which all stood after far more intense heat and longer period. Madrid fire burnt for almost a day. But guess what Bomais, the steel framed building was burnt OK! but never collapsed into it's footprint.Explain the trouble we have accepting the 911 omissions report in regards to fire and steel framed skyscrapers. As always your eloquent rebuttals are welcome :lol:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby bomaris » Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:15 am

Arbiter-

"You've been selective about what 'firemen' said about damage to the building..."

MY COMMENT: So you're saying that half of the firemen were part of the conspiracy and half were not? Is that the idea? Seems a very dangerous way to organise a conspiracy.

"anyway... please tell us why NIST felt the need to include THAT photo in it's report when it had hundereds if not thousands of others to choose from and are being kept from us."

MY COMMENT: Can you clarify this. Are you saying the photo is a forgery? Are you really saying there are thousands of relevant photographs?

"Also... just exactly how did the know it was going to collapse? These types of buildings NEVER collapsed prior to that day."

MY COMMENT: This has been explained. There was a huge hole in the building. There were huge fires. And the firemen could see the building was bulging. They concluded - correctly - that it was going to collapse. It is not true to say that no other building of this type had ever collapsed. Where's your evidence for that?

"How did the BBC and CNN know before it collapsed that it had collapsed considering that a collapse had NEVER happened before on those types of buildinngs prior to that day?"

MY COMMENT: The building was evacuated because the fire service thought it was going to collapse. You know very little about humanity if you can;t see how - on such a tumultuous day with one incredible report after another - "is going to" becomes "has". Easy. Or else you are saying the hundreds of people involved in the news broadcasts were also part of this conspiracy. Is that what you really think? And isn't it a bit stupid for the conspirators to announce the collapse while the building can still be seen standing in the background.
Surely a conspiracy that involves thousands of people could do better than that.

"Why were firemen telling people to get away because it was going to 'blow up'?"

MY COMMENT: Either they believed it was about to or they felt this was the best way to get people out of the area. There were huge fires. Fierce explosions were a definite possibility.

"What about the witnesses to contradict the statement you made in your post? Are they to be simply ignored?"

MY COMMENT: Well you haven't quoted them specifically. We have already seen how the word "pull" has been misrepresented by conspiracists. But assuming there are such witnesses, you put them in the balance. Are they in the majority? Does what they say make sense? That sort of thing.
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby Tripz » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:09 am

Bomais, on this Q of Pull it. Please ref to the man L.Silverstein for the precise comment from himself. He states "To PULL IT" !!! Now would you use the term "it" in describing firefighters? NO! So stop avoiding the FACT he Bobboo on camera. :oops: :lol:

IT = Firefighter :x
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: You're a reporter for the BBC in New York on 9/11..

Postby bomaris » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:32 am

Tripz - Well you know nothing about the marvellous fluidity of the English language.

There are lots of constructions like this. You are obviously confusing the everyday "pull out of the building" with this specialist usage. Pull in this sense is used in other contexts - I think it's used a lot in the press "to pull something" means to drop the story. I certainly use it myself at work when we decide not to proceed with something. Here, the fire service are obviously referring to the operation, thinking of it in the abstract, as you do a story. So rather than saying "we are pulling out of the building" they are "pulling the firefighting operation" i.e. dropping it, discontinuing it. The "it" therefore clearly does not refer to firefighters. No mystery - plain to anyone with an unprejudiced mind and who sees the absurdity (and distastefulness) of imagining all these firefighters are part of a gigantic conspiracy.

"Pull" is a very common word used in all sorts of contexts in thousands of different professions. The fact that it is used by controlled demolition teams, among those many thousands of work contexts, is no evidence for a conspiracy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is one of the weakest conspiracy theories I've ever heard. It can't even flap its wings, let alone get airborne.
bomaris
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories - The Outer Limits - 911 (Day the World Changed)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron