De grote 9/11 topic

[Yog Sothoth]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

Ten eerste is er natuurlijk helemaal geen "Iraans Kernprogramma' maar alleen de illusie er van. Iran werd en wordt gewoon dedeominseerd, dus daar gaat ie al.
en natuurlijk willen ze deze technieken niet in het openbaar gebruiken. Dan zouden mensen wel eens vragen kunnen gaan stellen.

Wat is dat voor onzin? Een demonstratie met dergelijk superwapen, en je wereldheerschappij is verzekerd. Wat kan een superschurk zich nog meer wensen?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

maar je hebt mijn vraag niet beantwoord.

Toch wel

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Enerzijds kan de CIA/NSA/FBI dus wel decennia op voorhand plannen maken in duizelingwekkend detail waarin tienduizenden mensen precies doen wat ze moeten doen op de centimeter en minuut nauwkeurig (cfr de CD-theorie voor WTC1 en 2) , maar anderzijds hebben ze dus het strategisch inzicht van een emmer moerasblubber.

verklaar aub

[Yog Sothoth]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

nee je hebt mijn vraag niet beantwoord en ten tweede zijn er al duizenden mensen (uitvinders) echt vermoord omdat ze met dergelijke zaken naar buiten kwamen.

Zoals wie bv?

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

Jouw vooronderstelling is dat we in een vrije staat leven, niets is echter minder waar. Maar...er wordt aan gewerkt. Gelukkig begint en de meeste onzin op te ruimen zoals de evolutietheorie de Einsteinonzin, de Global warming hoax en het gaat maar door,,,'

Ja blijf jezelf dat maar wijsmaken dat jouw waanzin veld aan het winnen is.

[Yog Sothoth]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

waslijsten! zoek gewoon eens op 'surpressed inventions"

Vreemd, zoveel moeite doen om dat geheim te houden, en dan staat die informatie zomaar op internet? Je zou toch denken dat ze zich wat beter zouden indekken...

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

duh? waar schrijf ik dat?

Een paar posten terug. Kort geheugen misschien? Ik zal het even opfrissen:

Gelukkig begint en de meeste onzin op te ruimen zoals de evolutietheorie de Einsteinonzin, de Global warming hoax en het gaat maar door,,,'

[Yog Sothoth]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

door internet komt nu idd veel naar buiten wat men geheim had willen houden.
Dat is ook de reden waarom men graag internet dicht wil timmeren.
Men verzint wat pedofielen en... voila! spijker door het hout!

vreemde reacties van je hoor.

Waarom was internet dan niet van het begin af aan dicht getimmerd? Komaan, die schimmige figuren hadden toch kunnen weten dat dat zou gebruikt worden om hun boosaardige complotten te onthullen? Toch wel dom, he, dat ze daar destijds niet aan gedacht hadden?

[Yog Sothoth]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

idd dom ja ik vermoed echt dat ze een inschattingsfout hebben gemaakt ja.
Ze wilden al onze 'data' electronisch.
Kijk, ze zijn niet perfect hoor.

Zo zijn er nog wel meer blunders. Overal hun symbolen aanbrengen en zo, terwijl ze zo graag geheim wil blijven. Dat noem ik toch al een stuk erger dan "niet perfect", ik noem dat een bende amateursamenzweerders!

[Havanna]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TseTse

onderzocht heb je blijkbaar niets. Er is namelijk, vanuit hun gezichtspunt, een zeer goede reden deze symbolen te gebruiken. en amateurs?? Nouuu ik weet niet hoor, ze hebben je al laten trappen in de evolutiehoax, de einstein hoax, de vaccinatie hoax, de global warming hoax, de banken hoax, de pffff ga maar door...
dus amateurs? nee, kwaadaardig? absoluut!

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Yog Sothoth

Ja, ik heb er al van gehoord. Gewoon te knetter om waar te zijn. Eens zien, wat hebben we al gehad? Kruisraketten met hologrammen, micro-nukes, nanothermiet, en dan die mysterieuze superwapens... Wat nog? De Death Star misschien?

heu ufo's zijn de revue al lang gepasseerd

[Micele]

Dixietroll is back, lachen geblazen !

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

lachen geblazen !

uitlachen van troefers inderdaad

[Dixie]

ik vraag me af waarom pinNar steeds moet terugkomen

[Havanna]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

ik vraag me af waarom pinNar steeds moet terugkomen

Tse Tse vlieg krijgt men ook niet uitgeroeid?

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

verklaar aub

Wel, volgens jou (en nogal wat klassieke Conspiracy theorien ivm WTC7) was de motivatie voor het opblazen van WTC7, om 'iets' te vernietigen dat het daglicht niet mocht zien. Volgens sommigen ging het om het controlecentrum voor de (gestuurde) 9/11-aanslagen.

OK, tot daar aan toe, maar dan moet je toch vaststellen dat de MANIER waarop men dat gevoelige 'iets' heeft vernietigd elk rationeel bevattingsvermogen tart, nietwaar?

Om te beginnen de brand en schade door instorting WTC1 of 2 (weet het niet meer vanbuiten). Lijkt me lastig te plannen.

Daarnaast krijg je dan ook het oog van de wereld (en later de volledige conspiracy gemeenschap) op dat gebouw.

Het lijkt mij dus toch wel een contradictie (en strategisch fiasco) om iets dat men heimelijk wil vernietigen zo onder de aandacht te brengen als WTC7.
Moest ik -als amateur- dergelijke operatie leiden, je zou niet eens weten dat er iets als WTC7 bestond. Minimaal strategisch inzicht.

[praha]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Daar gaat het hem net om, wat was er in WTC 7 aanwezig dat deze vast en zeker moest vernietigd worden?

tiens tiens ... daar zeg je me zowat
Wat was er in al die prullenbakken rondom 1 & 2 aanwezig dat deze vast en zeker moest vernietigd worden ?

Volgens mij zaten ze propvol met uiterst geheime documenten en moest dat daar dringend weg.
Daar het zeker argwaan zou oproepen dat de vuilniskar die dag een tweede ronde hield heeft men maar besloten airliners in die twee gebouwen te laten vliegen

[Antoon]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door praha

tiens tiens ... daar zeg je me zowat
Wat was er in al die prullenbakken rondom 1 & 2 aanwezig dat deze vast en zeker moest vernietigd worden ?

Volgens mij zaten ze propvol met uiterst geheime documenten en moest dat daar dringend weg.
Daar het zeker argwaan zou oproepen dat de vuilniskar die dag een tweede ronde hield heeft men maar besloten airliners in die twee gebouwen te laten vliegen

that wraps it up

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door praha

tiens tiens ... daar zeg je me zowat
Wat was er in al die prullenbakken rondom 1 & 2 aanwezig dat deze vast en zeker moest vernietigd worden ?

Met WTC 1 & 2 raakten ze de ziel van de Amerikaanse burger
WTC 1 & 2 zaten ook vol asbest en het zou veel meer gekost hebben dan de kost van het officiële onderzoek naar 9-11 om deze asbestvrij te maken

WTC 7 had totaal andere redenen

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door praha

Volgens mij zaten ze propvol met uiterst geheime documenten en moest dat daar dringend weg.
Daar het zeker argwaan zou oproepen dat de vuilniskar die dag een tweede ronde hield heeft men maar besloten airliners in die twee gebouwen te laten vliegen

Just

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Wel, volgens jou (en nogal wat klassieke Conspiracy theorien ivm WTC7) was de motivatie voor het opblazen van WTC7, om 'iets' te vernietigen dat het daglicht niet mocht zien. Volgens sommigen ging het om het controlecentrum voor de (gestuurde) 9/11-aanslagen.

OK, tot daar aan toe, maar dan moet je toch vaststellen dat de MANIER waarop men dat gevoelige 'iets' heeft vernietigd elk rationeel bevattingsvermogen tart, nietwaar?

Om te beginnen de brand en schade door instorting WTC1 of 2 (weet het niet meer vanbuiten). Lijkt me lastig te plannen.

Daarnaast krijg je dan ook het oog van de wereld (en later de volledige conspiracy gemeenschap) op dat gebouw.

Het lijkt mij dus toch wel een contradictie (en strategisch fiasco) om iets dat men heimelijk wil vernietigen zo onder de aandacht te brengen als WTC7.
Moest ik -als amateur- dergelijke operatie leiden, je zou niet eens weten dat er iets als WTC7 bestond. Minimaal strategisch inzicht.

Eerst en vooral parcifal,

Die brand hoeft niet van WTC 1 of WTC 2 te komen, in de chaos van de dag kan die ook 'zomaar ontstaan'

Jij en ik weten dat WTC 7 op 9-11 is neergevallen, 99% van de wereldbevolking weet dat niet (meer) en denkt dat het slechts 2 torens waren

Er is totaal geen aandacht geschonken aan WTC 7 in the MMM waardoor het op zich een non event is geworden, goed gezien toch van die strategen?

Dank, maar deze post was eigenlijk geen verklaring voor:

Enerzijds kan de CIA/NSA/FBI dus wel decennia op voorhand plannen maken in duizelingwekkend detail waarin tienduizenden mensen precies doen wat ze moeten doen op de centimeter en minuut nauwkeurig (cfr de CD-theorie voor WTC1 en 2) , maar anderzijds hebben ze dus het strategisch inzicht van een emmer moerasblubber.

[Antoon]

Aan Gun, exodus en vrienden : werk voor de boeg :

WT7




Update:
Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
* http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf *

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:

The second paragraph above has been challenged by conspiracy theorists. For more information on this and a rebuttal read the update around the middle of the page.



Below is a photo of the Bankers Trust building



As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.

WTC 7 - Pull means pull with cables

Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:

“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?

Here’s why:

Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.



“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”



Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorists let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.



The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski * http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt *

Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

* http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...gro_Daniel.txt *

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

* http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...C/Cruthers.txt *

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

* http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...an_William.txt *

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html
(Broken Link Cached here: http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d )


And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

That alone should end this debate. The fire department didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire department lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.

More from another blogger…

RealityCheck

“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!

I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].

So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?

(2) As to the term "pull":

Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).

RC.

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?

There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Conspiracy Theorists have once again hung their hopes on a word. Now the word is "it". Because I did not include the word "it" - as in Pull "it" - I am purposelly changing the the phrasing of his statement which implies complicity. I will include his argument and insert the word to show how silly his argument is.

CT: On your WTC7 page you should truly quote what Silverstein said which is "Pull it"

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 it" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

I still have a valid argument. Why would Silverstien use a term that a demolition expert would use to discribe pulling a building away from other buildings with cables when speaking to a firefighter? Including "it" doesn't change that fact.

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

Pull "it" - the attempt to save the building - is far more believable than "it" being the demolition of the building. The true error I made was to use the word "teams". He was obviously talking about the attampt to save the building and not so much the teams involved in carring that out. Here are both in context...

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (blow the building up).' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is blow the building up??? That makes sense to someone??? Now read it in context below...

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (the attempt to save the building). And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

I'll let you decide.

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

Here this conspiracy theorist is adding an "it" to the quote. "they made that decision to pull" not 'they made that decision to pull it'. In any event, the context doesn't change with the phrase.

CT: "When you add the correct phrasing and not the convenient one it sounds quite a bit different."

When you add the correct context and not the conspiracy theorist one it sounds a bit different than what conspiracy theorists suggest.

.....

vervolg

BRON

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Die brand hoeft niet van WTC 1 of WTC 2 te komen, in de chaos van de dag kan die ook 'zomaar ontstaan'

het is algemeen geweten dat de instorting van WTC 2 de oorzaak was van de branden in WTC 7...

toen men vroeg of indien men de branden zou laten het gebouw uiteindelijk zou intorten wist een ingenieur dit reeds met zekerheid te vertellen meer dan 5u op voorhand ...

[Yog Sothoth]

"Pull" is trouwens helemaal geen slopersjargon, de gebruikelijke termen zijn "blow" of "shoot"