lord_casek Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 casek you never explained the differences between your views and juanfuentes'... i shouldn't have to. you guys see his posts and mine. i can name one right off hand, he believes the "no plane in the pentagon" thing. while i don't know for sure, i am thinking it was a plane, but i don't know if it was the plane it was said to be. and no, i don't know what happened to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 He admitted it on public tv. Again this is a quote and i just said i dont like quotes but he came on public tv and said "we decided to pull the building" It was roped off and came down. On bbc 20 minutes BEFORE it fell bbc said wtc 7 has fallen. do i need to pull up the video, its on one of the videos already posted in this thread. That is why NIST would not investigate or comment on wtc 7. That is also why wtc 7 is not in the 911 commision report. hook me up with another white square el mamerro.:) hey, to support your defense, go find thos evideos of the street side of wtc7 where the firefighters say "get back! get back! they're about to pull it!" and then the countdown on that one tape....at 1 they blew the building. how odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 ^^ yeah a plane definately smashed into the pentagon.thats a fact.That angers me that all these other ideas were thrown into the mix.just look at the facts... Its funny my mom never believed me when i talk about 911 and she listens to National Public Radio at work and her co-workers are bush voters. When this one lady laid down all the facts for 3 hours with out any bullshit, just the facts, you better believe everyone in that office was in full belief that wtc towers were demolished for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 i shouldn't have to. you guys see his posts and mine. i can name one right off hand, he believes the "no plane in the pentagon" thing. while i don't know for sure, i am thinking it was a plane, but i don't know if it was the plane it was said to be. and no, i don't know what happened to the people. yeah that's a lot to read -- parsing through your & juan's posts over the past year. i was hoping you could just give a quick summary. and secondly, i remember specifically juanfuentes admitting that a plane hit the pentagon. yes, he originally held the view that no plane hit the pentagon, but he did some research and changed his view. so i still don't know how you and juan differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 He admitted it on public tv. Again this is a quote and i just said i dont like quotes but he came on public tv and said "we decided to pull the building" It was roped off and came down. On bbc 20 minutes BEFORE it fell bbc said wtc 7 has fallen. do i need to pull up the video, its on one of the videos already posted in this thread. That is why NIST would not investigate or comment on wtc 7. That is also why wtc 7 is not in the 911 commision report. hook me up with another white square el mamerro. Argh, I know it's been posted... as well as the subsequent discussion about what the meaning of the term "pull it" is and whether it refers to demolition, which went nowhere. There is no way to prove that's what Larry meant. And he didn't say "pull the building" he said "pull it". He alleges that he meant "the firemen team", which in the context of the entire conversation, if you've heard the whole thing, could very well make sense. Which one it is, I don't know. But I do know that it is NOT a fact that he ordered the demolition, until proven so, which it hasn't. You just choose to believe that interpretation. My offer to delete your "fact" still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 The owner of the building admitted on public tv that wtc 7 was pulled in a demolition. It was also reported on bbc 20 minutes before it came down, that wtc 7 has fallen as well. He did not say that. He said that they made the decision to pull it, which is a pretty vague term AND NOT A DEMOLITION ONE. He was referring to get everyone out of the building. Why would he willingly admit to insurance fraud on national television. Then to bring the BBC in on this is absolutely ludicrous, implying like they knew about the whole thing before it happend. There were alot of unconfirmed and misinterpreted claims flying around that day. Also the wreckage of all the towers was removed within 72 hours which blows my mind Two 100 story office buildings were cleaned up in 72 hours? Sure. So when I was in NYC three months after it happend I was just imagining they were taking out all that debris on flatbeds? And I still have a chunk of steel that fell off of one of them when it drove by. In order to believe all these bullshit claims you have to believe that of all the thousands and thousands of people that were behind it, not one has a conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Argh, I know it's been posted... as well as the subsequent discussion about what the meaning of the term "pull it" is and whether it refers to demolition, which went nowhere. There is no way to prove that's what Larry meant. And he didn't say "pull the building" he said "pull it". He alleges that he meant "the firemen team", which in the context of the entire conversation, if you've heard the whole thing, could very well make sense. Which one it is, I don't know. But I do know that it is NOT a fact that he ordered the demolition, until proven so, which it hasn't. You just choose to believe that interpretation. My offer to delete your "fact" still stands. by law, if you pull a building you have to publicly admit it. dude,honestly.you really think he was talking about the fireman team.how did that paraphrasing get construed.oh my god...all the demolitionists in the world use "pull".c'mon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 He did not say that. He said that they made the decision to pull it, which is a pretty vague term AND NOT A DEMOLITION ONE. He was referring to get everyone out of the building. Why would he willingly admit to insurance fraud on national television. Then to bring the BBC in on this is absolutely ludicrous, implying like they knew about the whole thing before it happend. There were alot of unconfirmed and misinterpreted claims flying around that day. Two 100 story office buildings were cleaned up in 72 hours? Sure. So when I was in NYC three months after it happend I was just imagining they were taking out all that debris on flatbeds? And I still have a chunk of steel that fell off of one of them when it drove by. In order to believe all these bullshit claims you have to believe that of all the thousands and thousands of people that were behind it, not one has a conscious. wtc 7 was cleaned and removed and not sifted through. wtc 1 and 2 took 10 months to completely remove.it was highly sifted through. its the 2 terra bytes with no backup files that were lost in wtc 7. and that was not studied because the FUCKING BUILDING WAS PULLED! HE filed the biggest insurance claim in history a week before it happened! c'mon! it was in forbes magazine...coincidence?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 watch ScrewLoose Change. They debunk everything about conspiracy theorist's claims about Silverstein's the phrase "pull it". He was referring to pulling the entire operation; pulling fireteams and rescue workers out of the building. The building had already been evacuated of all civilians, and the fire was determined to be an unbearable task. There were fears reported from fireteam leaders on the ground that the building could collapse due to its extensive damage. Also, it makes no sense that a man you claim to be part of the "inside job" and coverup, would go on an interview that would eventually be televised, and simply tell everyone that he ordered the building to be demolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Yes when you pull a building you do have to "pull" the firemen and suvillians out considering your going to "pull" the building.guess where they got that phrase from.the final stage in demolishing a building.Pulling everyone from the site and the final phase in the pull is the demolitionists check in.say "clear" ,"pull".I'm suprised they weren't saying "pull" referring to the 15th century catapult the renissance festival leftover that was next to the starbucks, to launch thousands of little parachutes that have lil flags with "mission accomplished" written on them! an unbearable task? the fire started from generators?!?! generators?!?! wtc 7 fell in perfect demolition. These buildings were built to code of planes twice as big travelling 100 mph faster than those planes were traveling, carrying a fully capacitated tanks which are more than those planes have.Have you been apart of constructing a building? The codes they have to follow are gone through rigorous scientific testing and mathematical stats. The people invest millions of dollars to make sure this building will never fall.no matter what.tsunamis, earthquakes, planes crashing into them.EARTHQUAKES!,the fuck outta here. NIST was insanely vague.physics proves statistically that those buildings would never fall pancake style.demolitionists of the world agree. i guess we've forgotten about bush fixing the votes.nixon fixing the votes.the 50 wars we've been in for profit in the past 60 years.Hiroshima.John and Robert kennedy.Cheney's contracts.haliburton,honeywell, the awful non-accuracy of our susposedly perfected placement of missles in "shock in awe." the fact kuwait was side drilling in late 80's into iraq, straight stealing iraq's oil.Bush's family and best friends' buisness's. WAKE THE FUCK UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 PEARL HARBIOR...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 i lied about everything.idk if any one knows the truth,but i am truthful when i say dick cheney looks like a lizard... thats all i have to say on this subject, sorry casek your on your own.you may begin throwing rocks at me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 HE filed the biggest insurance claim in history a week before it happened! c'mon! it was in forbes magazine...coincidence?!?! Yes. That is exactly what it is. Ok, about two posts ago you said the wreckage of all the towers was removed in 72 hours. Now you say they didn't, make up your mind. Then you said, by law, he would have to publicly admit that he demolished those buildings. You really think he would be worried about that when he just pulled off a multi billion dollar insurance fraud? I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound. I think YOU need to wake up. Odds are after reading this you aren't going to think anymore logically but at least I'm trying. Listen, I am very skeptical of the government and in my opinion Bush should be put to death for treason, but your asinine theories just don't hold up to any real facts. You string coincidences together to make very poor thought out theory. PLEASE don't just read this and not think about it... for awhile. PEARL HARBIOR nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 i lied about everything.idk if any one knows the truth,but i am truthful when i say dick cheney looks like a lizard... thats all i have to say on this subject, sorry casek your on your own.you may begin throwing rocks at me... do what you want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 ^^ yeah a plane definately smashed into the pentagon.thats a fact.That angers me that all these other ideas were thrown into the mix.just look at the facts... Its funny my mom never believed me when i talk about 911 and she listens to National Public Radio at work and her co-workers are bush voters. When this one lady laid down all the facts for 3 hours with out any bullshit, just the facts, you better believe everyone in that office was in full belief that wtc towers were demolished for profit. some people dont hear what is coming out of someone's mouth, they see who is that person judged on age/religion/class/race/education/image/etc, and from there on they tune their minds into a close minded state, causing them to miss information which could be good for them. it happens to everyone. lets apply it here and everywhere. theo: what casek is saying, apart from what we differ, is that you should read the posts that are responded too, because they go directly to you. and read all not just see key words. like wtc7, gasoline, steel melting, thermite, pentagon and go for your sources to post here. read all what they say. about pentagon plane hitting, i am now not sure what exactly happened. i know a plane went there, flew right to it. but i dont think it crashed due to the debree that was nowhere to be found, and the damege to the wall(could be that it overflew and an explosion was set off, dont know). also i havent seen the tapes, something that should make anyone Know something ugly is being kept secret from the general public.(what some of you do to be happy and satisfied because they dont give us the tapes, i dont know, that's a serious issue) the no planes casek talked about is about me not being able to accept these videos that have things in them that cant be debuked and hasnt been debunked because the news channels will never compromise the real tapes. havent seen a debunk to it. the issues are not covered that much on the media. i mean, many 911 truthers say is to damage the movement, but i dont see how could it can damage the movement. the moment you pay attention to it you see all the weird stuff that goes on. the connections, who filmed them, where they were filmed, plane tragectories, all the good stuff. an introduction to tv fakery. hope yall take the time to analyze and find the faults(if yall see any), point them out here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prLrgAwPxyg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Freedom erodes like sand on the beach. I'm still dry, the waves can not reach. Those in the water, I don't understand. To get rid of them I'll give up some sand. I feel much safer when those people faulter Oh shit, this is it, now I'm treading water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the district Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I just wanted attention.I'll go away now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PITOFZOMBIES Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 why haven't you conspiracy theorists moved to europe or canada already? keep on dreaming.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 It's sad. Casek, let me ask you something. Are you trying to get people to believe your version of events, or are you trying to get them to examine ALL the evidence and make their OWN opinion as opposed to believing what they are told to believe? I want EVERYONE here to be skeptical. Those of you who are Americans...you have a RIGHT and a DUTY to question things, to make public statements without fear of repercussion. BE critical of the government, ask them why they're so desperate to make you believe their version of events. Ask them why they buried the evidence. Ask them why we went to war with Afghanistan, THREE YEARS before the 9-11 report was released. Ask them why we went to war with Iraq based on the flimsiest of evidence. Ask them why they STILL maintain they've done nothing wrong, even though people that worked at the highest levels of government are defecting and going public, saying this is one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Ask them why the vice president can blow the cover of a CIA agent and not be tried on charges of treason. Ask them why they cut tax breaks for telcos in exchange for free rein to wiretap anyone, anytime. You have a RIGHT- actually, no, you have an OBLIGATION- to question the leadership (or lack thereof) of this country. They only get away with shit like this because WE LET THEM. 9-11 was only the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 9, 2007 Author Share Posted December 9, 2007 shai: i don't want anyone to believe anything i say. that is why i post articles. i want them to see it for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 shai: i don't want anyone to believe anything i say. that is why i post articles. i want them to see it for themselves. Well, there you go. If you don't want to look into this, then that's cool. People like Casek and I do. I don't talk about it much, because at this point it doesn't really change anything. Something I liked to do- back in 2003- was when people would start saying things like, "Arabs blew up the WTC OMFG WTF"...I'd just show them the WTC 7 video. That would usually shut them up pretty quick. I mentioned on here before I dated a structural engineer for a while. She was VERY smart, went to Stanford...so, she worked for a company that built high rises and infrastructure. She was in NYC on 9-11. She said in a nutshell, "I don't know what happened. But, if three buildings pancaked that I helped to design from TWO of them being hit by an external impact, I would expect that the architect and the engineering team would be held partially responsible. But, hardly anyone's even asking questions about this." This was in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Freedom erodes like sand on the beach. I'm still dry, the waves can not reach. Those in the water, I don't understand. To get rid of them I'll give up some sand. I feel much safer when those people faulter Oh shit, this is it, now I'm treading water. bump Did you write that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 so noone is going to comment about the video i posted about tv fakery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Feast Island Man Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 that video is shite. and the trance oontzing in the background is vexing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 so noone is going to comment about the video i posted about tv fakery? stupid. he's suggesting cnn added cgi planes into their video, and that no plane actually hit. there were thousands of witnesses on the streets that saw the first plane go in, thousands more that saw the second one, and hundreds of amateur video that caught the second plane going in. there is nothing that really needs to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 stupid. he's suggesting cnn added cgi planes into their video, and that no plane actually hit. there were thousands of witnesses on the streets that saw the first plane go in, thousands more that saw the second one, and hundreds of amateur video that caught the second plane going in. there is nothing that really needs to be said. so, now do you see where juan and i differ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 yes. you're far more rational and sane than juan. juan is on another planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 yes. you're far more rational and sane than juan. juan is on another planet. i wouldn't go that far, he's just searching for a reason that makes sense to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 those videos arent fake, you know it, you saw it. keep denying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Juan how old are you? also where were you born and where do you live now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.