Popular Mechanics Drops the Ball

[NewKid]

This is a public relations disaster for them. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3" target="top">www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://911blogger.com/node/2245" target="top">911blogger.com/node/2245</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>P.S. For "pull it" afficionados, let me say I still find no convincing explanation for what is going on there. I also have to say that whether "pull it" is some defined demolition term in the demolitionists dictionary or not is quite irrelevant to the underlying question of what Silverstein is talking about. (It's also still by no means clear that demolitionists don't use this term. <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html" target="top">killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. And whether this might be limited to cranes and not explosives is not clear either.)<br><br>The other thing I can't seem to understand is why the fire commander is calling Silverstein at all if there are no firemen in the building to pull, and no firefighting operations to discontinue. ("'There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder [NIST head] says.'"<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y" target="top">www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->; "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY" <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf" target="top">www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->;"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?ex=1115092800&en=389855dfb7f35e3e&ei=5070&oref=login" target="top">www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?ex=1115092800&en=389855dfb7f35e3e&ei=5070&oref=login</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br><br><br>You don't need Silverstein's permission to pull firemen who are near the building; the fire dept is perfectly capable of ordering its firemen to safety who may be near the building without Silverstein's blessing. (And if it's the firemen he's referring to, were they really "pulled" just in the nick of time right before they watched the building collapse? That's the temporal impression one gets from listening to Larry.) <br><br>Is the argument then that "pull it" means not "pull them out" but "don't even send them in"? Translation, 'maybe the smartest thing to do is not even send them in, and then they made that decision to not even send them in, and then we watched the building collapse." I haven't really seen that argued, but I think it's straining the English language quite a bit to say that's what's going on. (It also directly contradicts the Silverstein office press statement. <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html" target="top">usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br><br>One thing I'm a bit surprised nobody seems to have done is examine the trial transcript or deposition testimony of Silverstein in the insurance litigation to see if he was ever cross examined about this comment. Why in the world would Silverstein make such an "admission" on tape (if that is in fact what he's referring to) when he was in litigation or at least in anticipation of litigation (and by that time knowing the official story did not have room for any building demolitions, whatever the OEM cover story for the day might have been)? Didn't his lawyers brief him before going on camera? Why the documentary people would leave it in is also quite strange. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/25/06 6:16 pm<br></i>

[isachar]

Newkid, you're onto something here. What is bizarre about the whole thing is that Silverstein would have anything whatsoever to do with directing fire-fighting operations at all. <br><br>While he might have been consulted by the FD to obtain some info about the building and its occupants, the idea that he, in the course of an ongoing catastrophic firefighting operation, would have anything to do with directing the course of those operations is absurd.<br><br>As to the insurance litigation, when I tried to pursue that avenue a year or so ago, I recall finding that the files had been sealed by agreement of all concerned parties and the court.<br><br>How convenient. <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

Popular Mechanics is a CIA front. I don't know if they own it outright, but they sure do have a cozy relationship. <p></p><i></i>

[stoneonstone]

Anyone else really intrigued by the massive push-back going on by the powerful and privileged on 9-11?<br><br>McCain's book...the attempt to grab kids on the net with the comic book 9-11...<br><br>Some nervous watching going on at the very least.<br><br>My gut says something big is brewing, and is probably being moved up before a dangersous number of Americans wake-up. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Stone---You don't think 30% is dangerous? <p></p><i></i>

[stoneonstone]

Enough for a push-back.<br><br>Not enough to be REALLY dangerous.<br><br>And not when nearly 30% don't know what year the September 11th farce happened. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Sadly, I think this push back is going on at very deep levels of the 9-11 truth movement--something Jeff warned about at least 8 months ago: The whole physical evidence stew pot is now becoming so contentious and muddy it obscures the real issues that in themselves PROVE guilt and involvement by Bushco: the money, put options, lack of real investigation, etc.etc. Now Reynolds and Jones at scholars for truth are fighting each other over Thermate and "no planes." Even insinuating the other to be some sort of shill. First they gain national attention and then pull us all to pieces. <p></p><i></i>

[cortez]

That popular mechanics guy was owned. And they were being nice to him in that interview.<br><br>Talk about movements falling apart, the official story is done.<br><br>Controlled demolition is going to be the most popular debate point for allot of reasons, but namely it is something that everyone can have input into, and reference for. As it is the shared experience of 9/11 for pretty much everyone to watch the devastation of those towers collapsing.<br><br>I believe 9/11 should not be the sole focus of 'truth movements'<br><br>Jeff's blog has been excellent in exposing the total corruption of this organized evil 'Franklin Cover up' etc.<br><br>But it seems only a minor handful of people are even looking that way. The noise from that should be as loud as the noise from 9/11. If we really want to stop these guys the whole truth has to come out about everything.<br><br>The fake divides should disappear on non core issues, or at least be treated with the relevance they deserve.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

DBD, I agree that the Reynolds+Wood vs. Jones fight has all the markings of staged disinfo "battle."<br><br>Kevin Barrett also seems problematic, often speculating about far out subjects rather than sticking to the subject matter as rationally as possible. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

Wow, had a whole post disappear.<br>"HTML comments are not allowed".<br>WTF. That sucks.<br><br>Gist of the post:<br><br>Any "truth scholar" who claims that no planes hit the WTC towers is a disnfo-spreading spook. Plain and simple. "Disinfo" and "plant" name calling can fraction a group, and could be a desirable effect to spook saboteurs. But sometimes it's imperative. Think of COINTELPRO. Yeah, the paranoia and name calling led to in-fighting, but it also led to outing some real infiltrators. We need to smoke these spook bastards out of their disinfo caves and humiliate them. If someone pushes "No planes hit the WTC" at you, then that someone is a spook. Period. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 8/29/06 5:23 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Stick dog isn't Kevin Barret dead? <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

This is the guy I'm talking about:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/guest/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=2">www.madison.com/tct/opini...98&ntpid=2</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>As for the no planes hit the WTC = spooks, probably. Spooks or people intent on shooting the 9/11 movement in the foot for whatever reason.<br><br>You think no planes hit the WTC but you don't press anybody about it, maybe you are being sincere. If you start picking fights with others within the "9/11 truth movement" who realize that the topic is a red herring at best, then you're either disinfo or severely mentally warped when it comes to seeing the forest for the trees. <p></p><i></i>

[FranklinCase Admin]

Anyone concerned about getting the truth out regarding 9/11 should be just as concerned about the movement itself. Since the 9/11 Symposium aired on C-Span the movement has grown in numbers and viewers. Almost weekly now there is at least 3 interviews with members of the 9/11 truth movement on national television. I remember just a couple of months ago when most of us were jumping up and down to see Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones on CNN Showbiz. <br><br>But when it comes to 9/11 truth should we subject ourselves to the publicity motto: any publicity is good publicity? Most of the time the interviews are a character assassination of the person and everyone related to the 9/11 truth movement. Another big issue on these national TV interviews is the fact that they single out 9/11. Meaning, they show a clip of the Stone film, and then say "look here are some conspiracy nuts who think 9/11 is an inside job." But in reality 9/11 is merely the most current piece of the puzzle, we have the OKC bombing, we have WTC 93' etc. <br><br>If the movement really wants to grow we need more events like the upcoming 9/11/2006 rally in New York City. In the 60s' protests worked partially because people were forced to gather in masses to protest against the global elite. Now we just do it over the Internet. In some ways this helps us grow in numbers, but at the same time I think it can hurt the movement, causing us to depend on technology rather than human relationships. <br><br>I live in Omaha, Nebraska where I estimate only about 3% (if that) of the population has woken up to the truth. My goal, get out and talk to as many people as possible in as many ways as possible. As a forum, what are some other suggestions for us seeking to get the truth out on a grassroots level?<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yes, the internet has served to both make us much better informed and far less visible.<br><br>But not having a draft to energize college students and parents is the real wet blanket because as soon as it is your ass on the line you get very active about it.<br><br>Just look at the millions on the street when that draconian immigration bill threatened to disrupt and criminalize people.<br><br>Organizing tactics which have been used for evil can also be used for good.<br><br>So to build up some Truth allies I recommend reading up on the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>grassroots organizing tactics</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> espoused by the Nazi's own Joseph Goebbels. The Nazis made lots of headway not just at the Hitler-centric rallies but by dispersed and localized organizing complete with 'How To' instructions from the party HQ.<br><br>For instance, every public gathering was seen as an opportunity to spread the party's message to the locals so we could pamphlet at every sports event and downtown at every concert parking lot and etc. etc.<br><br>Newspaper boxes- How about photos and pamphlets loaded into every USA Today and Wall Street Journal with the news that they are leaving out?<br><br>Because then you are actually targeting people who read daily in the first place.<br><br>Lots of possibilities.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Stickdog yeah that is the instructor in Madison. I personally like what he does. His theater antics have brought<br>t a lot of attention to the movement. I really doubt he is disinfo. I think his idea of a gathering of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim 9-11 truth people is important. Muslims MUST BE GIVEN A VOICE. Imagine how horrible to be from the Middle East and live here? They know the truth and keep silent fearing for their lives. Most Americans are just dim and believe their local flavor of corporate news brought to them in their own class/education level<br>wrappings. NYT says almost the same stuff as fox. Just a little more subtle. <p></p><i></i>