9/11

PolyNewbie · April 27, 2007

I believe Silversteins because bin Ladens confession has been shown to be fake and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession included confessions to crimes that occured when he was in jail.

Silevrsteins admission that wtc7 was "pulled" cannot in reality be misunderstood and it was not forced.

See Silversteins quote here on YouTube.

Usama confession faked

Figleaf · April 28, 2007

Using logic, it's clear which one is the most likely to reflect truth:

Not Osama's propaganda. Not a coerced confession from the heart of the American gulag.

The mostly likely to be true is the unguarded statement of someone reacting naturally.

kuzadd · April 28, 2007

notice how quickly sheik mohammeds "confession" went away?

Heck that confession, inc. everything but the kitchen sink, even the Americano's were distancing themselves from it afterwards.

I mean the guy confessed to crimes (crime ) he couldn't have committed, because he was incarcerated.

What does that tell you?

That when tortured, someone will say anything to make the pain stop.

not credible.

Bin Laden's confession? laughable, since there were two of them, contradictory, so forget about that.

Silverstein confession was defintely the most credible, as it was freely acknolwedged.

obsidian · April 28, 2007

The Silverstein admission, imo, is definetly the most credible. If it wasn't what he meant, why else would he say it? Then on the other hand, if he had accidently blurted that out, why wouldn't he just do a retake, which he surely could.

I think there is too much propoganda on either side of the fulcrum to discern what really happened on that day. Not in my own mind, but for others.

A lie is 100% untrue, conversely a "good" lie is 90% truth.

PolyNewbie · April 29, 2007

9/11 can be shown to be an inside job without showing what actually caused the buildings to fall. Any explanation about this must be speculation since the evidence was destroyed.

kimmy · April 29, 2007

Oh yeah. Once again the "fake" Osama tape... based on screen-captures taken from a video that's been badly distorted and artifacted during conversion to digital.

I've asked this before, and never had a satisfactory answer, so here it is again: there are higher-quality screen captures of the "fake" video around, so why is it that the "Truthies" insist on using the digitally distorted and smeared snapshots to advance their argument?

But if you don't trust that tape, then what about Osama's 2004 video, authenticated and transcribed by our friends at Al Jazeera? http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archi...?ArchiveId=7403

Where he once again boasts that 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's confession doesn't actually contradict anything Osama has claimed. However, since he confessed to basically every notable terror act since the first WTC bombing, it's not very credible either.

"Pull it" refers to pulling the firefighting crew out of the building. Only people with the a-priori assumption that he ordered WTC7 to be demolished would interpret this to be a reference to a planned demolition. (is "pull it" supposed to be New Yawk Jew slang for blowing shit up?)

-k

Riverwind · April 29, 2007

9/11 can be shown to be an inside job without showing what actually caused the buildings to fall.

In other news: Polly cliams that that he can 'prove' the moon is made of green cheese and that 'it can be easily shown' that the easter bunny does exist by using the laws of thermodynamics....

gc1765 · April 29, 2007

Silevrsteins admission that wtc7 was "pulled" cannot in reality be misunderstood and it was not forced.

What exactly did that quote prove?

Let's pretend that "pull it" really does mean bring down the building.

You'll notice he said they made the decision to "pull it" AFTER the planes hit the buildings. Is it not possible that WTC7 was demolished because it was already badly damaged after the world trade centres were hit by al qaeda?

stignasty · April 29, 2007

Let's pretend that "pull it" really does mean bring down the building.
You'll notice he said they made the decision to "pull it" AFTER the planes hit the buildings. Is it not possible that WTC7 was demolished because it was already badly damaged after the world trade centres were hit by al qaeda?

Well you see, the tallest building ever to be brought down using controlled demolition was the 400+ foot J.L. Hudson Department Store. It took four months to wire with explosives while vacant. (There's nifty video of it here. Notice how this doesn't look anything like the collapses of 911) The conspiracy crowd rationalizes that to be able to "pull it" the building would have been wired prior to 911.

What they can't do is provide any evidence to support their claim. If it took four months to wire a vacant building with explosives - it must have taken much longer to wire an occupied building that was almost twice as tall. Why didn't anyone notice the detonation cables? How was this done? Why has no one come forward?

As long as anyone has to use the word "must," there is no case. "Silverstein said "pull it," so it must mean they blew it up." I think it's much more likely that "pull it" meant that they were going to give up any attempt at trying to actively fight any fires on a massively damaged building that was already evacuated that was already showing signs of collapse. Of course, since when is the least complex explanation the right one?

Figleaf · April 29, 2007

What year was the Hudson bldg demolition and what kind of explosive were they using?

stignasty · April 29, 2007

What year was the Hudson bldg demolition and what kind of explosive were they using?

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807

PolyNewbie · April 29, 2007

Why didn't anyone notice the detonation cables? How was this done? Why has no one come forward?

People have come forward to report strange occurances in wtc1 & wtc2 wrt moving offices around, drilling, dust laying around, bomb sniffing dogs removed, strange security shutdowns. In the case of wtc7 it was mostly a spook and IMF / tax collection building so its unlikely that anyone would come forward. No one came forward after the Oklahoma building to talk about the installation of bombs in that building - they were found unexploded after the Murrah building "terrorist attack".

As far as the above demolition goes, it doesn't look like the demolition of wtc7 but plenty of other controlled demolitions look identical to what was seen during the wtc7 collapse.

The movie 911 Mysteries Part1: Demolition shows the strange occurances in wtc1 & wtc2 months before the demolition as well as many examples of controlled demolition that look identical to the wtc7 collapse. Its the best 9/11 documentary done so far - see my link to it in my signature.

it's much more likely that "pull it" meant that they were going to give up any attempt at trying to actively fight any fires on a massively damaged building that was already evacuated that was already showing signs of collapse.

I don't think so. "Pull it" is a popular CD term - its doesn't mean "pull the firefighters" unless you need it to.

forrwen · April 29, 2007

Qui Buono?

(Who Benefits?)

Just ask who benefitted from 9/11 and you'll know the answer without even thinking about it further!

Listen and learn:

Richard Syrett has a show on CFRB 1010 a.m. (Toronto). For the last 8 Mondays, he has received guests and phone in challenging the official version of 9/11. You can listen live, Mondays at 11 p.m. EDT at www.cfrb.com. Back shows are available here: http://www.richardsyrett.com/audioarchive.htm

Here are the shows: (I copied the links, but they might not work, you might have to go to his site).

February 26 #1

OPERATION PEARL AND THE 9/11 DECEPTION

GUEST: Professor A.K. Dewdeny, The Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11... Episode One

March 5 #2

GUEST: James Fetzer, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota. An expert on The JFK Assassination and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11 Episode #2

March 12 #3

HOW THE MEDIA PARTICIPATED IN THE COVER-UP

GUEST: Barrie Zwicker, broadcaster, Director of The International Inquiry into 9/11, author of Towers of Deception; The Media Cover-Up of 9/11

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11 EPISODE #3

March 19 #4

HOW THE LEFT HELPED COVER-UP 9/11

Why did Noam Chomsky and other gatekeepers of the left drop the ball on 9/11? Are certain members of the media paid agents of disinformation

GUEST: BARRIE ZWICKER, Media Critic, Director of The International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11 and author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 911

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11 EPISODE #4: HOW THE LEFT HELPED COVER-UP 9/11

March 26 #5

THE MYSTERIOUS COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS AND WTC BUILDING SEVEN

GUEST: MICHAEL BERGER, Media co-ordinator of 911Truth.org and filmmaker, "The Improbable Collapse; The Demolition of Our Republic."

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

April 2 #6

First hour: FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS AND SYNTHETIC TERRORISM

GUEST: Webster Tarpley

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

Second hour: CALLERS DISCUSS RICHARD'S 9/11 SERIES

April 9 #7

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

EPISODE # 7: INDICTING THE FINANCIERS

GUEST: DON PAUL, author of 9/11: FACING OUR FASCIST STATE

April 14 - preempted by coverage of Virginia Tech shootings

April 23 #8

CHALLENGING THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

EPISODE #8: DID POPULAR MECHANICS SUCCESSFULLY DEBUNK 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

GUEST: JAMES HOFFMAN, Software engineer based in Alameda, California. He has published several websites presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories and material about the 9/11 attacks.

Riverwind · April 29, 2007

I don't think so. "Pull it" is a popular CD term - its doesn't mean "pull the firefighters" unless you need it to.

A more likely explaination is he mispoke and used the wrong word. People do that _all_ of the time and in most cases using the wrong word is simply a mistake and cannot be interpreted as some 'truth'. Even experience TV and radio personalities will blurt out the wrong word at times.

PolyNewbie · April 29, 2007

so he meant "it might accidentally fall" when he said "pull it". Well, OK then.

Riverwind · April 29, 2007

so he meant "it might accidentally fall" when he said "pull it". Well, OK then.

The context of the conversation makes it clear that he was talking about the firefighters which means he probably meant to say 'pull them out'. As I said before, even experienced media personalities will mispeak on the air. The comment means nothing.

stignasty · April 29, 2007

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boBq0jM6Mmo

Figleaf · April 30, 2007

That one is not particularly convincing. Some debris, even a large amount of it, from WTC1 would not be sufficient to cause the complete in-footprint collapse of a modern steel-frame building. Remember, the explanation for WTC1 and WTC2 was that the thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel melted the structure. There is no way even several tons of debris striking the face of WTC7 could create the kind of total structural compromise that was explained to be involved in 1 and 2.

If there had been sufficient debris to compromise WTC7, it could not have created a complete perfectly symmetrical collapse.

And this one ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boBq0jM6Mmo ... says nothing at all.

Figleaf · April 30, 2007

http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc

THIS GODDAM THING IS VIRUS!!!

Riverwind · April 30, 2007

If there had been sufficient debris to compromise WTC7, it could not have created a complete perfectly symmetrical collapse.

Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. This domino effect can cause all supports in a building to fail almost simultaneously which leads to a near symmetrical collapses like we observed on 9/11.

Figleaf · April 30, 2007

If there had been sufficient debris to compromise WTC7, it could not have created a complete perfectly symmetrical collapse.
Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another.

That's exactly contrary to what we were told abou these kinds of buildings before. The official line has been they are extremly difficult to knock down and WTC1 and 2 were anomalous BECAUSE of the jet fuel. So with WTC7, we have a symetrical collapse from assymetrical damage. It doesn't add up.

Riverwind · April 30, 2007

That's exactly contrary to what we were told abou these kinds of buildings before.

First, the debris included chunks of steel and concrete that weighed as much as an airplane but hit the building across a much wider area. Therefore, the debris could do more damage to a building than a plane alone.

Second, WTC7 had an unusual design because it was built on top of an existing electrical substation. So you cannot automatically assume that statements made about the WTC towers or the Empire State Building automatically apply to WTC7.

Lastly, what you have been told is some buildings could withstand and airline impact and remain standing. You have never been told what _should_ happen if the damaged exceeded the building's capacity. Once a collapse is triggered progressive failure of supports can lead to a symmetric collapse.

The only people who find the symmetric collapse 'unusual' are people who don't know anything about structural engineering.

stignasty · April 30, 2007

THIS GODDAM THING IS VIRUS!!!

Actually it's a 133 page Word document.

The video that you says shows nothing, shows them "pulling" a building. In the demolition trade, to pull a building means to attach cables and pull it over. That's why Silverstein wasn't referring to a demolition.

stignasty · April 30, 2007

That one is not particularly convincing. Some debris, even a large amount of it, from WTC1 would not be sufficient to cause the complete in-footprint collapse of a modern steel-frame building.

That's correct. That's why WTC7 did NOT collapse into its footprint (as was the case with WTC1 and WTC2). Look at the pictures after the collapse. There is significant damage to the surrounding buildings. In fact, one of the buildings adjacent to WTC7 had to be later demolished because of damage sustained when WTC7 fell on it.