ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
No, I mean Jimmy Feltzer that drinks down at the Nag's Head and Ray Griffiths, the snooker player. Sheesh, don't u guys know anything????
Aa, you meant THOSE guys
John Kerry Regarding WTC7
- Thread starter The Doc
- Start date
Aa, you meant THOSE guys
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
... None of them realize that if Kerry was in fact talking about WTC7 then they are back to setting up the charges in a matter of hours instead of months inside a building that is on fire.Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Some more level-headed individual will eventually point that out and the party will disperse, as usual.
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition
2004 Presidential Candidate Says Weakened Building Was Brought Down Based on Danger Posed to Surroundings
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 22, 2007
Senator John Kerry was questioned concerning 9/11 during an appearance at Book People in Austin, Texas. Members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now asked Kerry about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7."
Kerry 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."
This matches statements by leaseholder Larry Silverstein regarding the collapse of WTC7 where he said. "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Furthermore, hundreds of police, fireman and other first responders have gone public reporting being informed of Building 7's controlled demolition prior to the building collapse, negating the government's official story that building collapse was due to fire.
Additionally, an EMT, who recently went public only under the name 'Mike', said that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
The BBC and CNN also both reported the collapse of Building 7 more than twenty minutes before it actually fell. The misreporting not only stands out as a glaring error-- with the WTC 7 building still visibly standing in the background of the shot, but begs the question: how did BBC, BBC 24 and CNN all know in advance that Building 7 would collapse, when no steel building has ever collapsed from fires alone?
Official reports from both NIST and FEMA state that they cannot explain why Building 7 fell, but maintain that it was related to a terrorist attack on the complex on 9/11. However, the FEMA report concludes that:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
A report by NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7 is officially underway, but such a report has yet to be published.
The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of WTC 7 whatsoever.
Senator John Kerry needs to disclose how he "knew" WTC 7 was brought down in a "controlled fashion" and who told him so. The official government story states no reason for the WTC 7 collapse. If Sen. Kerry has other information, he owes it to the victims, the families, who have been repeatedly lied to, and to the country at large to come forward with details that could answer outstanding questions.
Preparing to demolish even a moderate sized building takes weeks of preparation; a building as large as WTC 7-- a 47- story skyscraper-- must have taken at least as long. Therefore, the idea that the building was demolished in response to fires spread from the Twin Towers is not a satisfactory response, as the building could not have been set up for unexpected demolition in only a few hours, much less while fires burned inside.
Kerry was also asked about the research of Dr. Steven Jones, who has tested both samples of steel from the Twin Towers as well as recovered dust, which have both been tested positive for the chemical signature of Thermate, which is used to cut support beams in localized reactions during a controlled demolition.
Kerry stated that he was not aware of the research and is "open to hearing anything based in evidence."
MY NOTE
Kerry also said this - You're the first people anywhere in the country who've brought this to my attention"
*boggle*
2004 Presidential Candidate Says Weakened Building Was Brought Down Based on Danger Posed to Surroundings
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 22, 2007
Senator John Kerry was questioned concerning 9/11 during an appearance at Book People in Austin, Texas. Members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now asked Kerry about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7."
Kerry 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."
This matches statements by leaseholder Larry Silverstein regarding the collapse of WTC7 where he said. "We've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Furthermore, hundreds of police, fireman and other first responders have gone public reporting being informed of Building 7's controlled demolition prior to the building collapse, negating the government's official story that building collapse was due to fire.
Additionally, an EMT, who recently went public only under the name 'Mike', said that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
The BBC and CNN also both reported the collapse of Building 7 more than twenty minutes before it actually fell. The misreporting not only stands out as a glaring error-- with the WTC 7 building still visibly standing in the background of the shot, but begs the question: how did BBC, BBC 24 and CNN all know in advance that Building 7 would collapse, when no steel building has ever collapsed from fires alone?
Official reports from both NIST and FEMA state that they cannot explain why Building 7 fell, but maintain that it was related to a terrorist attack on the complex on 9/11. However, the FEMA report concludes that:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
A report by NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7 is officially underway, but such a report has yet to be published.
The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of WTC 7 whatsoever.
Senator John Kerry needs to disclose how he "knew" WTC 7 was brought down in a "controlled fashion" and who told him so. The official government story states no reason for the WTC 7 collapse. If Sen. Kerry has other information, he owes it to the victims, the families, who have been repeatedly lied to, and to the country at large to come forward with details that could answer outstanding questions.
Preparing to demolish even a moderate sized building takes weeks of preparation; a building as large as WTC 7-- a 47- story skyscraper-- must have taken at least as long. Therefore, the idea that the building was demolished in response to fires spread from the Twin Towers is not a satisfactory response, as the building could not have been set up for unexpected demolition in only a few hours, much less while fires burned inside.
Kerry was also asked about the research of Dr. Steven Jones, who has tested both samples of steel from the Twin Towers as well as recovered dust, which have both been tested positive for the chemical signature of Thermate, which is used to cut support beams in localized reactions during a controlled demolition.
Kerry stated that he was not aware of the research and is "open to hearing anything based in evidence."
MY NOTE
Kerry also said this - You're the first people anywhere in the country who've brought this to my attention"
*boggle*
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
Even do over Dylan isn't buying into this crap. He posted at lcf,
"Kerry was simply stammering and said what he could to sound like he knew what they were talking about.
My .02"
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7987&st=150
"Kerry was simply stammering and said what he could to sound like he knew what they were talking about.
My .02"
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7987&st=150
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,947
I believe by "the wall", Kerry was referring to the slurry wall (aka the Bathtub). Yes, I think he's just talking from the top of his head and doesn't really understand the timing issues (and may be referring to WTC 6 instead of 7).
Unfit4Command
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 730
Why would John Kerry know about the conspiracy? And since when to people refer to 47 storey buildings as "that wall." He's most likely just talking about the slurry wall (notice the word "wall" there) as others have said, or possibly the perimeter walls (again, "walls") left standing after the Twin Towers collapsed.
FactCheck
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 619
I suspect slurry wall. I suspect he saw the "Pull" video which talked about building 6 and the slurry wall. I bet he doesn't even know building 7 exists. That's just my opinion with the little information I have.
Free Thinkr
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 738
Good god. I know the Loosers are pathetic, but their garbage has been fairly successfully circulated throughout the media; our politicians are ridiculously incompetent. Him saying he was unaware of it almost vindicates the CTers, who claim that this nefarious conspiracy escaped the attention of "the sheeple."
Edit: yay, 100 posts!
Last edited:
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Well keep in mind that Twoofers think "pull" = "blow up"
So I guess it's perfectly logical for "wall" to mean "47 story building."
This Kerry/WTC7 thing reminds me of BBC knew/WTC7, "Mike" and the WTC7 countdown, "pull it" and a whole host of other nonsence that twoofers have stampeded over the cliff in pursuit of.
You'd think their solid evidence would be such that this idiocy wouldn't be needed. After all, WTC7 is their "smoking gun."
So I guess it's perfectly logical for "wall" to mean "47 story building."
This Kerry/WTC7 thing reminds me of BBC knew/WTC7, "Mike" and the WTC7 countdown, "pull it" and a whole host of other nonsence that twoofers have stampeded over the cliff in pursuit of.
You'd think their solid evidence would be such that this idiocy wouldn't be needed. After all, WTC7 is their "smoking gun."
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
What, the troofers aren't allowed to ask questions to people who don't know what the hell the troofers are even talking about in order to get a plum quote that can be twisted around to make it mean something the speaker didn't even intend? If that happens, they'll have nothing!
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
I was debating this with truthers, and finally I got this.
"Comments by our friend ref made me realize that the perps did in fact realize that WTC 7 was in danger of going down. Why? They knew it was wired with explosives, and that,eventually, the fire would set off the explosives.
It is a simple solution. It solves Silverstein's "pull it" comment. it solves why so many people were predicting WTC 7 was going to collapse, even though fire had never caused any steep-framed buklding to collapse, inclusing WTCs 1 and 2."
They always find a solution. Always.
"Comments by our friend ref made me realize that the perps did in fact realize that WTC 7 was in danger of going down. Why? They knew it was wired with explosives, and that,eventually, the fire would set off the explosives.
It is a simple solution. It solves Silverstein's "pull it" comment. it solves why so many people were predicting WTC 7 was going to collapse, even though fire had never caused any steep-framed buklding to collapse, inclusing WTCs 1 and 2."
They always find a solution. Always.
That's no solution. I'll accept that answer, despite its inherent stupidity...
If that's the Idiot Movement's new position, then they accept that WTC 7's collapse was unintentional. Never mind how those mythical explosives got there or why they didn't actually discharge, or why WTC 7 showed obvious signs of deterioration hours before it fell. What's important is that it removes WTC 7 from being part of Their plans.
One down, four to go.
If that's the Idiot Movement's new position, then they accept that WTC 7's collapse was unintentional. Never mind how those mythical explosives got there or why they didn't actually discharge, or why WTC 7 showed obvious signs of deterioration hours before it fell. What's important is that it removes WTC 7 from being part of Their plans.
One down, four to go.
Don't be down-hearted.
You corner them with facts and they slip away with fantasy.
But the fantasy gets more and more fantastical as they retreat from reality. So, while it may seem that the 'truthers' will always have a solution for the inconvenient facts you present to them, they simply become all the more absurd. And that does matter, because eventually even the 'truther' itself is going to say "Jeez, do I even believe this **** anymore?"
HawksFan
Muse
That Lucas character is a bit..on the edge, isn't he?
