Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Former Skeptics: What changed your mind?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 05:47 PM
Original message
Former Skeptics: What changed your mind?
Watching Silverstein (the owner of WTC-7 building) admit to a demolition of his building and its omission in the "official report" is what really convinced me. Besides that, WTC-7 had the same characteristics of the other fallen buildings.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

What changed your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. When did Silverstein admit to demolishing his building? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. This quote is stating plainly
he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7?

"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 we watched the building collapse."

That's not exactly plainly stating what you think it means, but hey if that convinces you, enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You missed my point.
The building was *demolished*. There is no uncertainty about it. Oh, and the insurance money was a great bonus. This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html#ref6


LARED, why are you trying to change the subject? It makes me wonder if you are doing it intentionally.

Note: disinformation tactic #17 -Change the subject-

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm#Change%20the%20subject

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. How are his posts changing the subject?
He is discussing the first sentence in your original post.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. My apologies
I should slow down my speed reading. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Change Of Subject Context: As If Demolition Did Not Explain WTC 7
One look at the images of the WTC and an person experienced with collapse and demolition would conclude demolition, that is if fear didn't prevent them.

The context of the original post in the thread assumes in the context of evidence, that the reader has some idea of what the differences between collapse and demolition are; and that silversteins statement is a veiled admission that fits the evidence.

LARED changes the context by ignoring ALL the forensic evidence showing the impossibility of collapse attempting to preclude the reasonable, dominant need for explanation of the murders of 3,000 killed on that day or that WTC 7 has significance in the overall scenario.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and fires just were not uniformly hot enough to effect anything like the fall seen, period. End of story. Just like a curtain falling on a theatrical act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Christopher
It's a real pleasure seeing you venture away from the concrete core "stuff".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
38. Changing The Subject Again! 3k Americans Dead And LARED Won't Comment On
his manipulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
32. I think "sabotaged" is the word you are looking for, adolfo.
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 04:48 PM by mirandapriestly
look at how successful he is at sabotaging this thread. Whenever you see his name as ever other name on the list of posters, you know the thread has been sabotaged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Pull = Demolish
We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. We also know the term "pull it" is used
in fireman's vernacular to mean pull out of a building. Which if you look at the context of what he said could only mean that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Full context
I'll let others judge for themself as to what Silverstein meant.

MP3 of Silverstein “Pull It” http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/letsroll911/Web/PullIt.mp3

Silverstein: (The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with explosives.

Silverman is talking about how a decision was made between him and the New York Fire Department to 'Pull' the building. And there is no doubt the meanings of his words, captured in context. He is admitting on public TV that a decision was made between him and the NYFD to use a controlled demolition to fell WTC 7 on 911. And all of this AFTER the official FEMA report, costing millions said otherwise, and they had all the experts.

In order to appreciate the severity of this evidence, you must first understand that demolishing a building is not something you can do in a few minutes by tossing explosives into a basement. It actually takes days of planning. First you have to pinpoint all the load-bearing structures, then you have to wire everything and set the cutting charges so they all go off in a pre-destined order. Which means that this demolition was planned long before 9-11!

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. If you want to believe the Silverstein
AND the NYFD preplanned the demolition of WTC 7, instead of believing they meant pull the firemen out of the building, be my guest. It's a free country, people believe all sorts of stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. LARED, how would you describe the reason for WTC7's free fall?
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 01:02 PM by adolfo
If belief in science is fantasy then I'm a leprechaun with a pot of gold.

Even if you disregard Silverstein's "pull it" comment that still does not explain the multiple explosions and free fall of building 7. Remember, it was not hit by a plane and had isolated pockets of fire.

(Video with basic physics described)

http://www.911truestory.com/911eyewitness3.wmv


LARED, since you obviously disagree with any evidence provided here. What do you think happened to WTC7?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Why are you sure it was free fall?
What was the theoretical free fall time for WTC 7?

What was the actual collapse time for WTC 7?

Can you actually backup your assertion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. It is all in the video
WTC7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds.


The first 13 minutes and 4 seconds of the video covers WTC7. There is a side by side comparison of a science model and the building's free fall. You can find the comparison example at 8 min, 59 sec into the video.

http://www.911truestory.com/911eyewitness3.wmv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Here is a report that says it took 8.2 seconds.
They link specific observable events to a timeline.

I would like to hear your technical critique of it (beyond the typical "look who wrote it. ")

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Uniformity And Speed Plain To See, Not A Collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Conclusion
..still impossible according to the "official" explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. We could aways wait for the Arup study..
it is an independent report done in a foreign country so we won't have to worry about the official report will we?

Of course they are convinced that it was fire that caused the collapse of all the WTC buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. What multiple explosions and free fall of building 7?
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 02:33 PM by LARED
The building did not free fall as indicated below and I see no evidence of explosions.

Please explain yourself

edit

My best guess for the collapse of WTC7 is an uncontrolled fire in a possibly damaged steel structure that had a very unique design.

The unique design is the culprit more than any other parameter IMHO. But we can also what for the report to be issued and find out what the genuine experts believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I'll wait for an independent report.
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 03:48 PM by adolfo
LARED,

The explosions are in the video.

So according to your theory,

1.) The steel was faulty.
2.) The following architects used a flawed design:

# Owner/Developer: Seven World Trade Company, Silverstein Development Corporation, General Partner
# Construction Manager: Tishman Construction Corporation of New York
# Design Architect: Emery Roth & Sons, P.C.
# Structural Consultant: The Office of Irwin G. Cantor, P.C.
# Mechanical/Electrical Consultant: Syska & Hennessy, P.C.
# Structural Consultant (Con Ed Substation): Leslie E. Robertson Associates

3.) An uncontrolled fire knocked down the whole building in a uniform manner from all sides. http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

Here are more details about WTC7 construction.
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Sorry, I'm sticking with Occam's Razor on this one.
http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor

Edit: link corrected
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Occam's Razor's is not your friend
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 03:53 PM by LARED
in this matter.

A less than adequate design of a very unique structure that was subjected to an uncontrolled fire for many hours is way, way, way simpler than WTC7 was rigged for demolition for no apparent reason just in case the WTC was attacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Do your research
Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse.

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Perfomance Study contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. In my research I discovered that not all steel buildings are
identical. In fact the WTC 7 building was very different from a typical steel frame building.

BTW, do you have a link to support this hyperbole?

Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Already posted enough links
>BTW, do you have a link to support this hyperbole?

Check out the link that was previously provided.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I did, you said research indicates .......
The link is not providing any research into steel frame buildings not collapsing when subjected to impossible superfires, hundreds of degrees hotter and more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. "they meant pull the firemen out "
What firemen were in? And how come they missed Craig Miller?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
33. "pull the firemen out"
that is hilarious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
46. Dude you are way beyond belief, delusional sure, your still thinking
your beliefs mean something.

Yes we are a country that allots for it's people to believe what they wish, that doesn't mean every floating turd of a suggested thought should be ingested as some reasoned reality. Your boarding dumb dumb land again.

The only pulling that is going on is the bullshit out of your ass.

We bring facts and you bring

Deny, Discredit, and of course when that fails distraction.

Your a moron btw,

He says 'pull it', I highly doubt 'it' is the FDNY plural, he would have used a word such as 'them'.

Are you an ESL student?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. I always appreciate well thought out arguments
Please give us more, as it only helps your credibility. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. Needless to say,
you're in for a long wait if you expect any from that particular crew.

:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferry Fey Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. What were firemen saying about Building #7?
It seems that there are very few photos of WTC 7 between the first impact of the towers, and WTC 7's fall. The ones I've seen have not shown what seems to be sufficient damage to cause its fall.

Is there a compilation of all known commentary by firefighters or other rescue workers (both at the time, and later) just regarding WTC 7, that would better put Silverstein's comments in context?

It's been often speculated that the fuel reserves for the Mayor's emergency bunker might have been a factor. But I would have thought that if there were any possibility of anything whatsoever causing that fuel to ignite (whether by natural, terrorist, or human error causes), that they'd have built in a demolition capability right from the start so that it could be brought down in a controlled fashion.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
42. This is what they said:
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.





http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.





http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

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.




http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

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/911/magazine/gz/boyl

Also there was this:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adolfo Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Alternative sources?
Edited on Mon Jan-02-06 01:29 PM by adolfo
Can you get better links than "offical" government sources? News reports from actual live participants while it happens would be nice.

Let's assume the statements are true. That still does not explain how a steel frame building fell down like a house of cards from *all sides*.

FREE VIDEOS! : (I highly recommend viewing 'In Plane Site')

http://www.question911.com/links.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. What if they don't exist?
This is not the Truman Show - not every event is recorded and not every document is on the internet. But of course you knew that! :eyes:

How is a firefighter website an official source?

There are several theoretical mechanisms for the building collapsing - if you don't like the NIST report then take a look at the Arup presentation. More studies will have to be done to determine exactly how WTC7 fell but you cannot argue that from an engineering perspective it is theoretically impossible for fire to cause the buildings to fall. You just can't without first demonstrating you are more knowledgable than the fire safety and construction communities - something you have yet to do.

http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Very good information
Too bad it will be be dismissed by the faithful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Except that they can't keep their stories straight.
Huge bulge? Huge hole? Hole on the edge? Hole in the middle? Come on fellas, earn those promotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Entire "smoking gun" threads in this forum..
are based on single quotes from anonymous witnesses and yet real eyewitnesses statements are nitpicked and ignored. Give me break!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. "Real eyewitnesses" who happen to be FDNY spokesmen.
Some people will do anything for a promotion. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Sure - if you say so.
your cynicism is breathtaking at times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. You can call it that.
But I prefer to think of it as integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. if you look at the context of what he said could only mean
Evacuate?

But they weren't fighting the fire. They had never fought the fire. So who was
"pulled"? And why wasn't Secret Service agent Craig Miller evacuated?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Right.
"Pull it" means pull it down, not pull everybody out. And Silverstein is no fireman.

It's astonishing what rubbish people are willing to repeat in the interest of helping catapult the propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The irony is wonderful
It's astonishing what rubbish people are willing to repeat in the interest of helping catapult the propaganda.

Happy New Year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Thanks, and likewise
A Happy New Year to you and yours. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
41. How many firemen.......
do you know that do building demolitions?

Silverstein was obviously planting a seed in saying what he said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. I didn't really doubt the official version until I read about
the "war games" on Micheal Ruppert's website. Then I started to wonder. I became more in doubt of the official story when I read about the time lag in the Norad response and the dismissal of various warnings such as the Phoenix Memo and the abominable treatment of FBI patriot John O'Neill. John O'Neill was quoted as saying that it was the oil companies that prevented the Bush Administration from listening to him, but the FBI tried to shut him down in the previous administration too. I started reading "Crossing The Rubicon" and I came to believe that the official story is a lie. That is all I know, I don't exactly what the truth is. I think the line between U.S. intelligence and terrorism is one that is not clear and the truth about who is really behind a lot of the "terrorism" and why they want the chaos/fear that results from it is where the truth lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. Here's my problem.
I think more than two jet planes were involved with taking out three buildings.

I think Silverstein could well have been in on some piece of it.

And I don't take that comment from him them the way you do.

At first I did. But then I considered that it referred to the firefighters and efforts to save the building.

As to your question, it was the 911 Families list of (largely, unanswered) questions that left me all but convinced that it was some sort of inside job.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

A touch of "Operation Northwoods" helped, as did the plausibility of explanations other than the "Official Story".

But no theory of what really happened that day do I find completely compelling, rather it's the holes in the 9/11 Commission report on which my assumption lies.

And when I talk to people about 9/11, I point them to those questions, asking why are they left unanswered. No tin-foil needed. And I'll add "Operation Northwoods" to introduce, but not necessarily suggest in this case, the plane swapping concept, and to help dispel any quaint notions harbored about Americans not hurting Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. Amazing how many of their questions
were either unanwered, or answered unsatisfactorily. So much for an "in-depth" examination of a major horrific event.

But, hey, the American people (not to mention the families of the 9/11 victims) don't have any right to answers since it is obvious that this administration thinks it owes us nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
12. When the Bush admin
tied Iraq to 9/11, I knew then that there was something very wrong with the official 9/11 story. In addition, the fact that Bush did not want a thorough investigation of 9/11 added weight to my thoughts.

I don't necessarily buy the 9/11 theories I see on the net, but, I maintain that the Bush administration (or neocons, to be more precise) stood to gain the most from this horrible event.

This current administration has been caught in so many lies (for starters, WMD anyone?), that I don't believe anything they say now, and I definitely do not believe their version of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. for me it was whenI got a copy of one of the many DVDs
it was the news footage of the Pentagon. What struck me was that after the collapse of the roof-- it was quite a clean break line in the concrete on the left side- with a stool and computers just sitting there.

I have read in this forum that there was an expansion joint at this location. But I am not buying that reasoning as to why the collapse was so perfect on the left side. IMHO in the 1940s masonary buildings were built monolithic. I have seen many buildings from that era, w/o expansion joints, that are perhaps 1000 or 1200 ft long on a face.

So, If I am right, that the Pentagon was built w/o expansion joints-- where is the steel reinforcing rod in the concrete? And if there was an expansion joint, where is the visual evidence of it? I have installed expansion joints in an 8 ft wide concrete road, prior to the pouring of the concrete. IMHO if the break occured at an expansion joint in the Pentagon, it would have allowed the collapse to look truly perfect.

thats when I went from "they let it happen" to "they made it happen".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthmove Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
53. reading the new pearl harbor
that's when i really crossed over. the evidence was layed out rationally and systematically and there was really no denying that the offical story is a joke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoping4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Hi truthmove
Welcome to DU. Glad you're here.:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Yes, that book is good because
he looks at the facts as given to us by mainstream sources and shows how unlikely it is that what we have been told is true. He doesn't jump to conclusions or create hard to believe theories. It was such a revelation to me, the unlikeliness that someone at the "top levels" didn't know what was happening , especially the way standard operating procedures were not followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. The New Pearl Harbor can be read online
(also cut-and-pasted, searched, and downloaded) here:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Thanks, petgoat
Definitely going to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
58. The failure to do something that had been routine under every possible
condition some 67 times in the year prior.

23The Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000; the FAA reported 67 scrambles between September 2000 and June 2001 (FAA News Release, August 9, 2002).

A fuckup I can believe but times 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
60. Learning there was no air defense for 90 minutes.
I'd always assumed the Battle of the Skies was over in half an hour
or so and that flight 93 had been shot down.

Then I learned that NORAD changed its story, and the 9CR changed NORAD's
story, and remembered that I'd always kind of wondered about Building 7
without exactly thinking about it. Then I read Dr. Benjamin DeMott's
essay "Whitewash as Public Service".


http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HornBuckler Donating Member (978 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
61. Wow - what an old thread - and still kicking!
I have to admit that I bought the official story. It's one of those things that I never could relate to until 9/11 - you know, the 'I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard JFK was shot'

I am not that old, but I know exactly where I was and what I was doing the morning of 9/11.

I was on the Pacific coast and was awoken by Howard Stern (as always, until his move to Sirius, which of course I ran out and bought - another thread another story) and thought at first - Jesus Howard, this is a really fucking nasty joke. I realized after 30 seconds he was not bullshitting me. I got up and ran to the TV. Sure enough there it was - Holy shit! I woke my girlfriend up at the time and said "WW3 is coming - look at the fucking TV!"

I showered and got ready for work, although I admit I didn't want to go and in retrospect shouldn't have gone. (another story)

I was at my shit hole job all day and was flabbergasted at the way my co-workers seem to view the day as indifferent, even the public was either in awe or just didn't seem to care much (I worked at a major bank)

I kept asking to go home so I could watch the tube and see what the hell was going on. I finally finished the day at normal time and hurried home. Then it hit me - At approx 6pm PST they already had who had done this - I said to myself - NO FUCKING WAY! how do they know this already? I called my folks up and reiterated my thoughts - they were dumbfounded. Ever since I have viewed that day with HUGE speculation and it has been building and building ever since - I am convinced of the LIHOP/MIHOP theory now - it really doesn't matter whether it's LIHOP or MIHOP they mean the same thing to me.

So, to answer the OP question - I knew it stunk something fierce from day one - but didn't make the conviction until the Iraq war was started - I think that was the coup de grace.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC