IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Popular Mechanics "researchers" Caught In A Lie

stallion4
post Dec 6 2006, 04:51 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 6-December 06
Member No.: 293



PM "Researchers" Benjamin Chertoff & Davin Coburn can't agree on what the term "Pull it" means

Audio from pumpshitout.COM:
http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/debunking...r_mechanics.mp3

From the pumpshitout.COM audio link above:
    Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on Coast to Coast AM - March 5, 2005:

    I'm glad somebody brought up the Larry Silverstein comment, because we certainly looked at that... What he says is "they decided to pull" which is referring to the fire department. And of course in some circles of the controlled demolition industry "Pull" is used to mean that you actually demolish a building.
Just over a year later, Popular Mechanics changes their story...

    Davin Coburn, Researcher for Popular Mechanics, on The Charles Goyette Show - August 23, 2006:

    Having spoken to any number of large controlled demolition firms... the term "Pull it" is not a demolition term... We have never heard it used that way and neither actually have the people who do this professionally that we spoke to.
I'm confused. A researcher from PM publicly admits that "Pull" IS a controlled demolition term -- however, a year later another PM researcher explains that it's not...?

Well, from looking at the information below, it appears that someone from PM's "Research" department is lying...
    Phone call from pumpshitout.COM to Controlled Demolitions Inc:

    pumpshitout: Is this Controlled Demolitions?
    CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS INC: Yes it is.
    PIO: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to breifly just to just ask a question I had?
    CDI: Well what kind of question?
    PIO:I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
    CDI: Ok what type of term?
    PIO: Well if you were in the demolition business and you said the term "Pull it", I was wondering exactly what that would mean?
    CDI: "Pull it"?
    PIO: Yeah.
    CDI: Hmm. Hold on a minute.
    PIO: Thank you.
    CDI: Sir?
    PIO: Yes.
    CDI: Pull it is when they actually pull it down.
    PIO: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.


    Audio: http://www.pumpshitout.com/phone_calls/con...demolitions.mp3
And here's an excerpt from an interview with controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who has almost twenty years experience performing CDs, also confirming that "Pull it" is a controlled demolition term:
I think it's long overdue that Mr. Silverstein get up in front of a courtroom under oath and explain exactly what he meant when he said...
    I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I 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.

    -Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein in the 2002 PBS documentary "America Rebuilds"

    Video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk
Thanks to pumpshitout.COM for helping expose the dishonest research practices of Popular Mechanics



Related:

Video clips of World Trade Center Building 7 being "pulled" on 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6_WRPZjIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th17YNqOCSk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmL9F-TSIes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewf3zYS-QkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzLqx_gjBAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uPfKghBIOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFsXzKa2ce0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

7 minute video presentation on the destruction of Building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...ed&hl=undefined

This post has been edited by stallion4: Dec 6 2006, 04:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Havey
post Dec 17 2006, 01:51 AM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 194



I have tryed to locate the calles to demolitoncompagnies to define the terme pull it, but I find the same. Its the one ending:
CDI: Pull it is when they actually pull it down.
PIO: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.

I have understood that there are two other calls?
I would like to hear them, becaus I'm making a coment on a 'documentary' about 911 here in Denmark where Benjamin apears, sadly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shug7272
post Aug 20 2007, 09:23 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 89
Joined: 18-August 07
Member No.: 1,750



I get tired of hearing debunkers say pull it meant pull the firefighters when we have proof that "pull" is used while bringing down rubble left by the wtc. Now if "pull" means to demolish (with demolitions) or pull it over physically, it is still linked to demolition of a building. We nutty conspiracy theorists have video of professionals saying they are getting ready to "pull" a building (meaning demolish).

Now I say to debunkers, back up your claim. Show me video of someone saying "pull it" when refering to fire fighters or really ANYONE being evacuated from anywhere for ANY reason. Just one video. Id like to see it but doubt I will.

I started researching 911 to prove conspiracy theorists wrong, and I would still love to be proven wrong MYSELF, then I could go back to my merry life before I realized how sinister some people can be. I hope this post made sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 20 2007, 09:53 PM
Post #4


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (shug7272 @ Aug 20 2007, 05:23 PM)
<s>
I started researching 911 to prove conspiracy theorists wrong, and I would still love to be proven wrong MYSELF, then I could go back to my merry life before I realized how sinister some people can be. I hope this post made sense.

Makes sense. Most everyone here knows exactly where you are coming from. Even ol' timers like me who knew from day one 'that dog don't hunt' have had to contend with this question of how much of our life we want to commit to this struggle. If I didn't believe the fate or the world depends on the outcome, I wouldn't be here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Jan 13 2013, 02:09 AM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



Thanks to a certain GL blog, I've learned that AE911Truth is now taking the stand that MAYBE Silverstein wasn't talking about controlled demolition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/...-building-.html

I would like to point the author of that FAQ to Jeff Hill's call from years back, where he reached CDI. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly since Hill later turned into the ultimate provocateur/shill/debunker, he has removed this phone call from the internet.

http://www.pumpshitout.com/phone_calls/con...demolitions.mp3

But once again for the record, here was the text:

Phone call from pumpshitout.COM to Controlled Demolitions Inc:
PUMPSHITOUT: Is this Controlled Demolitions?
CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS INC: Yes it is.
PIO: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to breifly just to just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
PIO:I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok what type of term?
PIO: Well if you were in the demolition business and you said the term "Pull it", I was wondering exactly what that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
PIO: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm. Hold on a minute.
PIO: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
PIO: Yes.
CDI: Pull it is when they actually pull it down.
PIO: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.

EDIT: You actually can still hear it if you take the URL and punch it into archive.org, and check out the capture from 2008

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Jan 13 2013, 03:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 13 2013, 12:20 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Kudos to Jim Hoffman, huh?

From the AE911T piece...

QUOTE
In 2005, Dara McQuillan, the spokesperson for Silverstein Properties, gave the following explanation for Silverstein's remarks:

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.

"Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "


Therefore, it is possible that when Silverstein said "pull it", he was not talking about demolishing the building or pulling firefighters out of the building, but was instead referring to pulling firefighters away from the area surrounding WTC 7. The problem is that Silverstein's comment is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to.


Ummm....whether the statement is "cryptic" or not is irrelevant. He was LYING about his conversation with Daniel Nigro. Ether that or Nigro is lying.

The piece even quotes Nigro

QUOTE
FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro also told the New York Times,
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.


Why didn't they quote Nigro's response to government apologists?

QUOTE
I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

-----------

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.

- FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander on 9/11)


Then they quote Bushite Shapiro on his claims that Silverstein was asking about CDing WTC7.

Why not reserve judgement until they get Silverstein, Nigro and Shapiro in the same room and ask them to repeat their statements?

Weak. But expected.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Jan 13 2013, 06:37 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



I personally don't think his statement is vague or cryptic at all. He slipped up and admitted that Building 7 was pulled. His entire statement, "and they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse" very clearly points to the building being pulled, not the (nonexistent) firefighters. His statement makes little sense with any other interpretation.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 13 2013, 11:20 AM) *
Kudos to Jim Hoffman, huh?


Yeah, who is this "Eli Rika," author of that FAQ page? Yet another person who views Jim Hoffman as the ultimate gold standard for research:

QUOTE
In addition, according to research performed by independent 9/11 investigator Jim Hoffman, the term "pull" is not widely used in the demolition industry to refer to the explosive demolition of a building.


rolleyes.gif

CDI Inc. admitted to Jeff Hill that "pull it" is an explosive demolition term, but the infallible Jim Hoffman insists otherwise. Kind of like how there are pentagon witnesses who were there, and bet their life on the fact that the plane was NoC. BUT... Jim Hoffman, from behind his computer 4,000 miles away, knows those witnesses have to be all wrong!

Where oh where would the movement be without Jim and Victoria, and their combined 350 IQ?

And from the Hoffman link Eli recommends:

QUOTE
A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.


To the contrary, WTC7 immediately makes "most people" suspicious precisely because it's well known how complex a job it is to wire a building for demolition. If the "absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people," then many people who are truthers would not be. They would easily accept the "safety measure" explanation and go back to sleep. As soon as people see WTC7 implode, they instantly see that the destruction of this building was planned well in advance. Sorry Mr. Hoffman, no sale. Larry Silverstein slipped up. It was LARRY who was probably thinking: "the absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people" when he spoke with the camera running for that PBS documentary. Perhaps within minutes after the interview was finished and the camera was off, he realized his mistake, and has had to go into overdrive mode with alternative explanations ever since, in order to spin the issue. And Hoffman seems to be aiding this hand in glove.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 13 2013, 09:39 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Thing is Adam, I had always thought that any truthseeker's mission was to gather all of the contradictions, demand a new inquiry and then put all of these contradictions on the table with all parties present.

Imagine Silverstein, Nigro and Shapiro in one room.

Q: Mr Silverstein, in one interview you said (run video)

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I 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."


Then in 2005, Dara McQuillan, the spokesperson for Silverstein Properties, gave the following explanation for your remarks:

"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."

What did you mean by "pull it" given the context of the question?

Silverstein: Yada, yada, fire contingency.

Q: Mr Shapiro, you claimed that

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

Shapiro: ummmm...

Q: It's on record Mr Shapiro..Can you please name those NYPD officers and Con-Ed workers? And how you were privvy to this information?

Shapiro: yada, yada...

Q: Mr Silverstein, is it true what Mr Shapiro has claimed?

Silverstein: ——fill blank—— Deny or confirm

Q: Mr Nigro, you were "ranking fire officer" at the WTC7 site. You are on record as saying

"I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone."

And..

"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it."

So you claim that Silverstein did not contact you the morning of 9/11?

Nigro: Correct, as far as I remember.

Q: 9/11 was a very stressful, confusing day but surely you would remember a phonecall from Mr Silverstein?

Nigro: He may have phoned somebody from FDNY.

Q. Please find the list of firefighter officers on duty that morning that would have received phonecalls from non first responder civilians and bring it here tomorow.

Nigro: I'll try but....yada, yada

Q. Mr Silverstein, Mr Nigro denies receiving this phonecall. Who gave you the phone number?

Silverstein: I don't remember.

Q: I want a transcript of all communications that day and phonenumbers called complete with timeframes.


Q: The three of you will return tomorrow with the necessary insformation, lists of names and we'll go over this again.


Can you imagine the squirming, denial and stories in that room? That's what we should be aiming for.

There's definitely a process in action whereby 9/11 contradictions from the Pentagon through to Manhattan are being whittled away and "conclusions" being made without having all of the information or a proper grilling of these lying ass bastards. "Conclusions" based on OCT propaganda.


I like the idea of an imaginary courtroom with alleged 9/11 perps and the brass covering their asses. It should be done more often. Can you think of three or four people who fully contradict eachother and who'd shit themselves if forced to repeat their stories in the same room?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 13 2013, 09:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 12:10 PM