A friend pointed out to me that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling the firemen out, not actually admitting live on television that he had it demolished. I'm thinking now that my friend could
be right, even though blatant, psychotic admissions such as the following have occurred:http://criticalunity.org/videos/viewvideo/664/nwo-and-martial-law/cnbc-admits-we-re-all-slaves-to-rothschild-central-bankers-global-government.html
So, Larry could've been talking about demolition in terms of 'pull it' as well. - A double meaning. - Only way to know is to ask him personally, has anyone done this? It's slightly discrediting to push something that isn't necessarily what you're claiming it to be, and unfortunately people are already so closed minded that your weakest point is what is scrutinized, not the strongest evidence, due to cognitive dissonance.
It is therefore imperative to present the hardcore, irrefutable facts FIRST, then have a section for supposition, theories.
This is part of our conversation:
Friend: it [loose change] was pretty good but the one 30 second clip where larry silverman (or whatever the dude who owned the WTCs name was) says to pull it on building 7, that clip is shit dude. it's obvious he meant pull out the firemen
friend: but the others are good
friend: the shit with rumsfeld
me: people make mistakes, even reporters like Alex Jones, the thing is, a lot of the time we cover irrefutable evidence.... You can't discredit the entire film based on one clip in it
friend: look, you can choose to listen to me or not. if you wanna keep pushing good and bad evidence then do it but I am telling you, if you refine your evidence and throw away the stupid bullshit stuff like larry saying pull it, I would have a lot more confidence in your beliefs
me: so there's no thermite, buildings just fall at free faall when they have a few fires, etc...
friend: nah, I think there was thermite
friend: I don't think that what larry said is an admission, someone just found the clip, heard the wording and thought they could use it to their advantage
Friend: I believe in the 911 thing now
friend: I think it's awesome what you are doing. I'm sure you have seen the good evidence but the fact that you back this shitty evidence makes you lose credibility
me: i just said that ur right, thanks for pointing it out,
friend: this is just me trying to help you become more effective in your mission
me: but there still is the chance that he is actually admitting, cause they DO DO THAT.... but most probably not in this case, ....
me: OH, another open admission cause they think we can't do anything: cnbc-admits-illuminati-running-america-10-24-08
friend: yeah man, I just mean if you want people who are not into this to get into it, your arguments need to be solid as f**k not just "probably" stuff cause people are already very sketched about conspiracy theories and using any sketchy argument will just reinforce their negative stereotype on conspiracy theorists
me: The thing is it doesn't matter about the stuff that is probable, for it is not theory overall. It's more of an AGENDA... One can have their own ideas, but they can't have their own FACTS
me: and when u watch Endgame, you'll see a lot of quotes coming from the horses mouth
friend: ok but I just mean you are treating things that aren't facts as facts
me: but I know what you're saying, has to be all facts, that's why I have a section ONLY for speculation
friend: you need to just put out facts
ME- i know
friend: speculation is cool to hear but I mean, it usually makes the entire idea less credible
friend : your entire argument is only as strong as your weakest individual arugment
Me: Well said..... Unfortunately that is the case. Given the magnitude of importance of the subject, most people should still continue watching until the end before coming to any conclusion, but I don't suppose that happens sadly.