9/11 poll

For_England · 17-02-2008, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

That's not taken out of context that's exactly what he said.

Silverstein's Quote: (again !

)

"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."

Yes, it's a quote of what someone said - evidence cannot be based upon poor grammar or anything else - clearly the 'it' that was pulled can easily refer to the Fire Department. I am of the opinion that we should only be using evidence that is totally irrefutable - I mean we are speaking of an idea that does sound very crazy - the idea that Bush and his cronies were behind 911. We need to make a very good case, and using questionable evidence, or evidence that can be interpreted in more than one way, will not help. That's my opinion.

Quote:

How thick do you think we are ?!!

(I don't mean the "911 truth movement", I mean the people who voted yes on this thread)

Well since I'm one of those who voted 'yes' too, then not very thick - quite the opposite. However I do think we need to keep ourselves to a very high standard. There is alot about that building that is very suspect - we should concentrate on what we can prove.

youcanhandlethetruth · 17-02-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by For_England

Yes, it's a quote of what someone said - evidence cannot be based upon poor grammar or anything else - clearly the 'it' that was pulled can easily refer to the Fire Department. I am of the opinion that we should only be using evidence that is totally irrefutable - I mean we are speaking of an idea that does sound very crazy - the idea that Bush and his cronies were behind 911. We need to make a very good case, and using questionable evidence, or evidence that can be interpreted in more than one way, will not help. That's my opinion.

Well since I'm one of those who voted 'yes' too, then not very thick - quite the opposite. However I do think we need to keep ourselves to a very high standard. There is alot about that building that is very suspect - we should concentrate on what we can prove.

Depends on your definition of what constitutes "proof".
For anything you can prove, there is always someone that can ignor or disprove it, if they want to.

youcanhandlethetruth · 17-02-2008, 06:39 AM

Mike,

You say Larry Silverstein never admitted ordering the demolition of his building.
That isn't ridiculous when you read his quote, but that's what we're arguing the toss over here isn't it ?

You also argue that because the whole building was not US government then it was not a US government building.

Whether it is or not doesn't alter the fact there was(as you and the document you posted admits) "US Secret Service" there, but that alone proves nothing in isolation of the rest of the evidence.

You're creating a smokescreen situation by asking for "Reputable sources" without defining what is reputable and what isn't reputable to YOU.

But who are you to decide what is reputable and what isn't ?

What is "reputable" is a subjective belief because evidence can come not only in documented written form but also from testimony from people.

So in courts(for example) we the jury, ultimately decide if we believe the testimony we hear and base our verdict on it.

But of course that's the whole point of how you can dismiss anybody elses argument isn't it ?

For example, I could present to you what I think constitutes evidence of (for example) insider trading
Profits of Death - Insider Trading and 9-11

with dead links to newspaper articles, "supposed" interviews with people etc

and you could argue it is not "reputable" and say that they are only "claims" made and it does not constitute proof.

But if I posted a British newspaper:
Mystery of terror 'insider dealers' - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk

you would probably sit up and take notice a bit more.......

So what is actual proof ?
How do you know whether to trust anything that it printed at all ?
Are you saying that only "official" "government" documents can be trusted ?
Or maybe that only officials in government can be trusted when under oath in a court of law ?

Well that's quite a convenient argument that can cover up charges of govt or state corruption isn't it ?

Are you saying that if an individual writes an article based on testimony he has gathered from sources that it does not prove anything because it cannot be trusted to be "genuine" ?

Well if you've adopted that approach, why should you decide to trust government records, commitees, daily newspapers or even BBC news ?

You seem quite happy to pick the first quote you see that proves the point you've decided you want to make.

Whichever way you spin it, you're creating a phoney argument and for that reason, I suggest you do your own research and make your own mind up what it reputable and what is not.

You've already shown you've made your mind up on this thread ironically by not examining all the other evidence that no doubt you refute too.

As for the link I posted, where you ask "reported by whom" why don't you ask that question to the author of the article ? I merely posted the link, I didn't actually write the article.

You might be suprised to learn that I do not accept at face value a lot of the claims it makes in the article, about millions of gold and silver without other evidence to support it.

Equally I do not "hypothesise" like the author or you do about the chain of events.
Personally I do not believe there were any hijackers on those planes but that doesn't lead me to ask why something totally hypothetical did not occur.

I was using one example of where doubts have been raised and other cirumstancial evidence has been presented to allow people to make their own mind up about what did occur.

There is one heck of a lot of evidence that you could find if you wanted to, but too much for me to give you in 1 soundbite.

Prison Planet - 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive

Unfortunately, once all the evidence has been gathered, and when it is ultimately the government who get decide to whether the government are guilty or not, then it is hardly going to be reputable or unbiased is it ?

But on the subject, there are a lot of people who doubt the 911 commisions findings and want an independent investigation

Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack

Yes I know you don't see them as being "reputable"........

Mikeuk · 17-02-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

That's not taken out of context that's exactly what he said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Silverstein's Quote: (again ! )

"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."

So Mr Silverstein, not content with making the entire Fire Department aware of his conspiracy to demolish the building, decided to tell the whole world as well?

That was a pretty dumb thing to do, wasn't it?

Of course that is utter rubbish. Which of these statements makes sense and which doesn’t?

(1) "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 demolish the building.' And they made that decision to demolish the building and then we watched the building collapse."

(2) "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 out the firefighters.' And they made that decision to pull out the firefighters and then we watched the building collapse."

(1) makes no sense at all. How would demolishing the building reduce the loss of life? Why was the alleged final decision made, not by 'chief conspirator' Silverstein but by the Fire Dept? Are you seriously suggesting that the courageous firefighters of New York City were conspirators in a vile plot to murder thousands of innocent people?

Here's the truth:

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds.

Mr. Silverstein said: I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

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.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

Mikeuk · 17-02-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You also argue that because the whole building was not US government then it was not a US government building.

Of course it wasn't. When I worked for the Inland Revenue I frequently worked in buildings that were also occupied by non-governmental organisations.

They weren't government buildings.

Quote:

You're creating a smokescreen situation by asking for "Reputable sources" without defining what is reputable and what isn't reputable to YOU.

But who are you to decide what is reputable and what isn't ?

It's a matter of commonsense. If any of these things are facts reported by (eg) the BBC, NBC, The Times, the New York Times, Newsweek etc they deserved to be looked at seriously.

If they are allegations posted by some anorak on his conspiracy blog they do not.

Quote:

But if I posted a British newspaper:
Mystery of terror 'insider dealers' - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk

you would probably sit up and take notice a bit more.......

Yes of course, but the allegations reported in The Independent do not in any way prove your theory.

Quote:

Are you saying that if an individual writes an article based on testimony he has gathered from sources that it does not prove anything because it cannot be trusted to be "genuine" ?

One would have to assess the weight that deserved to be attached to those 'sources'

Quote:

You seem quite happy to pick the first quote you see that proves the point you've decided you want to make.

Pots and kettles?

Hartlepool · 17-02-2008, 12:40 PM

The list of occupants of all WTC Buildings can be found below,including 7WTC which is part of this debate.

7 WTC (Small Tower) Tenants by Floor - WTC Info - WorldTradeAftermath.com

Roland · 17-02-2008, 01:06 PM

Quick challenge to all those who believe the official 9/11 story.

Why when the pentagon is surrounded by cameras. One of the most secure buildings in the world will the US government not release the footage of a plane flying into the building?

They could shut us all up simple as that. So why don't they?

mkpdavies · 17-02-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Quick challenge to all those who believe the official 9/11 story.

Why when the pentagon is surrounded by cameras. One of the most secure buildings in the world will the US government not release the footage of a plane flying into the building?

They could shut us all up simple as that. So why don't they?

You could also say, why would an organisation so evil to attack its own people, wouldn't just fake some footage and release it to shut people up.

I find it odd, but I find the conclusion just as odd.

Roland · 17-02-2008, 02:10 PM

I have pondered upon the same question.

The only conclusion i can come to is it just became to risky to do this.

When I first looked into all this stuff as some one who did not believe the conspiracy theorists. A lot of the footage I watched claiming a missile had been fired into the twin towers or the plains had no windows I quickly debunked as fake footage.

Further looking into the situation I found out some thing which explained some of the fake footage.

Straight after the attacks the media wanted as much footage as they could get, the latest picks etc.. This obviously became a good money spinner and hard as it is to believe people started making films of planes hitting the tower because of the money involved.

It is a good point and one I struggle to find a good solid answer to.

mkpdavies · 17-02-2008, 02:18 PM

I have the same trouble with WTC7 to a degree.

Why make it look so bloody obvious that it was CD? However the bottom line for me, is the building collapsed in a way that just isn't possible from the official story.

Considering the scale of the crime, the scale of the investigation simply wasn't good enough at the time.

View Poll Results: Was 9/11 an inside job ?
Yes	15	36.59%
No	22	53.66%
Not sure	4	9.76%
I haven't examined the evidence yet	0	0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

17-02-2008, 06:39 AM	#123 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,180	Believe absolutely nothing at all ? Mike, You say Larry Silverstein never admitted ordering the demolition of his building. That isn't ridiculous when you read his quote, but that's what we're arguing the toss over here isn't it ? You also argue that because the whole building was not US government then it was not a US government building. Whether it is or not doesn't alter the fact there was(as you and the document you posted admits) "US Secret Service" there, but that alone proves nothing in isolation of the rest of the evidence. You're creating a smokescreen situation by asking for "Reputable sources" without defining what is reputable and what isn't reputable to YOU. But who are you to decide what is reputable and what isn't ? What is "reputable" is a subjective belief because evidence can come not only in documented written form but also from testimony from people. So in courts(for example) we the jury, ultimately decide if we believe the testimony we hear and base our verdict on it. But of course that's the whole point of how you can dismiss anybody elses argument isn't it ? For example, I could present to you what I think constitutes evidence of (for example) insider trading Profits of Death - Insider Trading and 9-11 with dead links to newspaper articles, "supposed" interviews with people etc and you could argue it is not "reputable" and say that they are only "claims" made and it does not constitute proof. But if I posted a British newspaper: Mystery of terror 'insider dealers' - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk you would probably sit up and take notice a bit more....... So what is actual proof ? How do you know whether to trust anything that it printed at all ? Are you saying that only "official" "government" documents can be trusted ? Or maybe that only officials in government can be trusted when under oath in a court of law ? Well that's quite a convenient argument that can cover up charges of govt or state corruption isn't it ? Are you saying that if an individual writes an article based on testimony he has gathered from sources that it does not prove anything because it cannot be trusted to be "genuine" ? Well if you've adopted that approach, why should you decide to trust government records, commitees, daily newspapers or even BBC news ? You seem quite happy to pick the first quote you see that proves the point you've decided you want to make. Whichever way you spin it, you're creating a phoney argument and for that reason, I suggest you do your own research and make your own mind up what it reputable and what is not. You've already shown you've made your mind up on this thread ironically by not examining all the other evidence that no doubt you refute too. As for the link I posted, where you ask "reported by whom" why don't you ask that question to the author of the article ? I merely posted the link, I didn't actually write the article. You might be suprised to learn that I do not accept at face value a lot of the claims it makes in the article, about millions of gold and silver without other evidence to support it. Equally I do not "hypothesise" like the author or you do about the chain of events. Personally I do not believe there were any hijackers on those planes but that doesn't lead me to ask why something totally hypothetical did not occur. I was using one example of where doubts have been raised and other cirumstancial evidence has been presented to allow people to make their own mind up about what did occur. There is one heck of a lot of evidence that you could find if you wanted to, but too much for me to give you in 1 soundbite. Prison Planet - 9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive Unfortunately, once all the evidence has been gathered, and when it is ultimately the government who get decide to whether the government are guilty or not, then it is hardly going to be reputable or unbiased is it ? But on the subject, there are a lot of people who doubt the 911 commisions findings and want an independent investigation Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack Yes I know you don't see them as being "reputable"........

17-02-2008, 02:18 PM	#130 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	I have the same trouble with WTC7 to a degree. Why make it look so bloody obvious that it was CD? However the bottom line for me, is the building collapsed in a way that just isn't possible from the official story. Considering the scale of the crime, the scale of the investigation simply wasn't good enough at the time. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-02-2008, 12:40 PM	#126 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,639 Party: Other	The list of occupants of all WTC Buildings can be found below,including 7WTC which is part of this debate. 7 WTC (Small Tower) Tenants by Floor - WTC Info - WorldTradeAftermath.com

17-02-2008, 01:06 PM	#127 (permalink)
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 857	Quick challenge to all those who believe the official 9/11 story. Why when the pentagon is surrounded by cameras. One of the most secure buildings in the world will the US government not release the footage of a plane flying into the building? They could shut us all up simple as that. So why don't they?

17-02-2008, 02:10 PM	#129 (permalink)
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 857	I have pondered upon the same question. The only conclusion i can come to is it just became to risky to do this. When I first looked into all this stuff as some one who did not believe the conspiracy theorists. A lot of the footage I watched claiming a missile had been fired into the twin towers or the plains had no windows I quickly debunked as fake footage. Further looking into the situation I found out some thing which explained some of the fake footage. Straight after the attacks the media wanted as much footage as they could get, the latest picks etc.. This obviously became a good money spinner and hard as it is to believe people started making films of planes hitting the tower because of the money involved. It is a good point and one I struggle to find a good solid answer to.