The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

That's cute.

Weird timestamps, in different fonts and very close to other colors on the screen, that show up in just the right place to "prove" a wacky 9/11 theory.

Any rational person would ask why the BBC never puts a timestamp like this in any other places (like the one one shown in the first post in this thread)?

That sounds like a plausible conspiracy... do you think the government is involved.

This is so ridiculous.

0 Replies

Bullshit.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Cyclo,

I haven't watched the video yet. I will watch it tonight.

Yes, there are different "flavors" of conspiracy theories... some of which are not as wacky as others. But, let me see the video and post my reaction then.

Thanks. It's only a thirty-second clip.

I saw the whole original documentary, and it isn't a '9/11 truth' or anything like that. The documentary itself doesn't posit anything different than the official story; I just found it interesting that so much time has been spent explaining how WTC7 fell, and then watching Silverberg talk about how he and the fire dept. decided to 'pull' the building. I can't imagine how he could say such a thing if it wasn't true.

Cycloptichorn

I watched the video, and my first reaction was that, although the term was puzzling, this didn't suggest any conspiracy.

I mean what conspiracy would this prove-- Silverstein was obviously recounting a decision made in a time of stress that wasn't planned in advance. The phrase 'pull it' was part of a story where he was lamenting the tragedy of the day. This is not the kind of story that would be told by someone who was part of a plan where he knew what would happen in advance.

The communication he was recounting was between him and a fire chief. It is difficult to believe that the fire chief would have been part of a government plot. It is even more difficult to believe that in a government plot two civilians would be in control of these detonations (instead of some government/military person).

After I saw the video, it took me about 5 minutes to sift through all the conspriacy theory sites (which I actually looked at to see what they said). Ironically none of the conspiracy sites offered an explanation that would explain why Silverstein recounts how he made this unexpected decision under stress, or why non-government civilians would be in a controll.

The only logical explanation was that he was making the pained decision to pull the rescue efforts.

I would be open to hearing how two civilians factor into the overall explanation of how the alleged conspiracy worked- except in all this time, I have yet to hear an over explanation. This happens to be the reason I am so confident that these conspiracies can be dismissed out of hand by anyone with any sense.

That's not what 'pull it' means in this concept. It means dropping the building before a fire gets out of control.

Silverstein made the decision because it was his property in question, after all.

I don't think that Silverstein was part of any plot to fake 9/11; you are getting the wrong impression. What I do think happened is that a decision was made to pull WTC7 down, and that this was later blamed on terrorists by a wide variety of people.

The way that networks bent over backwards to prove how WTC7's collapse - which looked exactly like a controlled demolition, in ways that the two towers never did (despite theories to the contrary) - happened because of the fire. But that's just plain bull. You don't admit to 'pulling' a building which is collapsing on its' own due to fire.

Here's wikipedia's page on building collapses -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

Remember that this is the same fellow who tried to claim that 9/11 was two seperate attacks, so he could get double insurance monies. Not exactly a sterling character, Silverberg.

Ebrown, I find it difficult to believe that you would simply take the Bush admin's word for what happened on 9/11. Even if you discount conspiracy theories, what makes you believe that an admin who has lied about each and every other thing they've ever been a part of, would tell the truth about this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,

You are tying to have it both ways in your explanation. Please make up your mind.

Either you are claiming that Silverstein knew that the government has place the alledged explosives in his building... in which case he was certainly a part of the conspiracy.

Or you are claiming that Silverstein the government placed the alleged explosives in his building without his knowledge... in which case the phrase "pull it" could not have had anything to do with the conspiracy (which he would have known nothing about).

Which is it? I don't think the first option makes any sense whatsoever, and the second option is just as likely if there were no explosive (i.e. the building was a side effect of the terrorist attacks).

But, when you make up your mind, we can discuss it.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

That's cute.

Weird timestamps, in different fonts and very close to other colors on the screen, that show up in just the right place to "prove" a wacky 9/11 theory.

Any rational person would ask why the BBC never puts a timestamp like this in any other places (like the one one shown in the first post in this thread)?

That sounds like a plausible conspiracy... do you think the government is involved.

This is so ridiculous.

All your questions have been answered on the BBC (hundreds of other sites) website by the people. Instead of me wasting my time on flag waving 'jingoists'. You should make time to read them. Here are the links..I've got better things to do.

BBC comments

More here (scroll right down)

More (Scroll right down)

Another 6,000 comments at - http://digg.com/

0 Replies

To answer your second question-- I believe the 9/11 conspiracies are a crock, because not one person has been able to give me a coherent alternative explanation to what has happened that doesn't have huge logical or factual contradictions.

What you are calling the "official" version is the only one that makes sense to any rational person. The conspiracy theories are all put forward by people who have something to prove and have made very weird claims about other things as well.

I have made the challenge before and I have repeated it in this thread. I defy Zippo or Blueflame or anyone else to put up a alternative theory (i.e. not the "official" version) that can stand up to my questions based on the facts.

No one has taken me up on this... and I doubt they will.

You are also wrong to equate Bush with the "official" version. You are right that I believe that Bush has lied on other things.

The problem with 9/11 is that it was seen and witnessed by thousands. The airlines would have had to have been involved. The building owners would have had to been involved. The flight schools; The pilots who would have had to give up their lives.

9/11 conspiracy theories just don't make any sense. Add to this the sociological phenominon of conspiracy theories... that they always spring up after disaster... and the extremist political goals of the people who are making this stuff up.

These theories are annoying, and I obviously feel the need to debunk and scorn them. But inventing these things is apparently part of human nature, and I guess in a free society, fighting them is futile.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cyclo,

You are tying to have it both ways in your explanation. Please make up your mind.

Either you are claiming that Silverstein knew that the government has place the alledged explosives in his building... in which case he was certainly a part of the conspiracy.

Or you are claiming that Silverstein the government placed the alleged explosives in his building without his knowledge... in which case the phrase "pull it" could not have had anything to do with the conspiracy (which he would have known nothing about).

Which is it? I don't think the first option makes any sense whatsoever, and the second option is just as likely if there were no explosive (i.e. the building was a side effect of the terrorist attacks).

But, when you make up your mind, we can discuss it.

First off, get rid of your attitude. I don't need someone sneering down at me.

I'm not alleging that the government had anything to do with the explosives in WTC7 at all. I think that the fire dept. and Silverstein came to a joint decision to pull the building b/c they felt the fire was out of control.

This is backed up by Silverstein's exact words he gave during the interview -

Quote:

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.

You state that maybe he meant 'pull the firefighters out.' From FEMA's report on WTC7, I haven't been able to establish that there actually ever were firefighters inside the building. In fact, here's what I found -

Quote:

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

I ask again - why do you believe the official stories in the case of 9/11, given by a proven bunch of liars?

You don't have to believe the whole world is a conspiracy to not trust liars to tell you the truth....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Zippo,

My question is simple. The timestamp on the BBC video is obviously photoshopped in. The BBC doesn't put this timestamp any other place.

I scrolled through you links and didn't find an answer to this question.

Why are conspiracy theorists so eager to believe that they are willing to be fooled by a cheap trick like adding a timestamp to a video?

Come on! Even you can't be so blind.

0 Replies

Now you are confusing me Cyclo.

If Silverstein didn't know his building was rigged with explosives as part of this government conspiracy?

What did he mean by "pull it"? What was he asking them to do?

0 Replies

And one last thing... your argument "Bush is a liar. Bush says that 9/11 was caused by terrorists. Therefore the 9/11 conspiracy theory must be true." is a logical fallacy.

Bush also says that the US government isn't harboring UFOs and that stopping smoking can prevent cancer. Obviously this doesn't mean anything.

My trust in Bush is irrelevant to the question. Is it the lack of a coherent alternative explanation, even accepting the possibility that our government is corrupt enough to kill thousands, that proves these conspiracy theories are pure bunk.

I am still waiting for a coherent alternative explanation though.

0 Replies

ebrown_p, Consider this, If you were part of the 9/11 cover-up, and you knew that you were personally responsible for 3000 deaths as a direct result, and hundreds of thousands as an indirect result, would you come out and admit to having been a part of the cover-up? No, of course you wouldn't! You'd be so scared that you'd be publicly torn limb from limb - and you'd be right to be scared!

Also, there's a good chance that a lot of those who WERE in the know were the type of brainwashed military fanatics who believe everything their superiors tell them, to the point where they firmly believe that anything they do is for the greater good of the USA, despite the casualties. The greatest good of the greatest number, that's how a lot of people think, unfortunately. You know the type of people I mean - they constitute about 75% of Americans... "Our country is great, our country can do no wrong", etc etc; the type of people who regurgitate nationalistic, jingoistic bulls**t because they have been Brainwashed into believing that their whole life. There are a hell of a lot of Americans who firmly believe that even though, 9/11 WAS an inside job, however, it was a good thing for American, it provided the excuse for illegal Wars/Us hegemony/Imperialism/Destroying Islam for Israel/Oil...You know the rest...

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Now you are confusing me Cyclo.

It's a confusing thing. Let's go one step at a time.

Quote:

If Silverstein didn't know his building was rigged with explosives as part of this government conspiracy?

His building wasn't 'rigged' with explosives. It wasn't planned by the gov't. It didn't have anything to do with the gov't at all.

Quote:

What did he mean by "pull it"? What was he asking them to do?

If you read his quote, he didn't ask for anything - according to him, the FDNY suggested it to him. Here's the quote again -

Quote:

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.

The FDNY was concerned that the fires in WTC7 would get out of control, and perhaps spread further. After so many firefighters had died that day, and without any avaliable to actually go in the building to stop the fires, it wasn't even an extreme decision to drop the building.

This is consistent with pictures of the building's collapse - you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition.

I don't believe that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy to kill American civilians, but I believe that everyone who could has used 9/11 for every purpose they believe they could get away with. This has lead to a lot of 'conventional wisdoms' which most likely have nothing to do with reality at all.

I have presented you with an alternate theory to why WTC7 fell than the conventional theory. Not only is the theory sound from a logical point of view, there is evidence - word of Silverstein himself, on video - which directly supports this theory. It isn't crazy, not by any means.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

And one last thing... your argument "Bush is a liar. Bush says that 9/11 was caused by terrorists. Therefore the 9/11 conspiracy theory must be true." is a logical fallacy.

Yes, that is a logical fallacy. That's why I didn't make that argument at all. Try to avoid the strawmen plz.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Zippo,

I am still waiting for a coherent alternative explanation for the "official" events of 9/11 that can stand up to my questioning based on the facts. The fact that you people can't come up is my primary reason for being so confident you all are full of crap.

But just answer me this one thing. How many people do you believe are part of this cover-up?

The pilots (who died in the crashes)?
The families of those on board the airplanes?
The fire chiefs who lost their men?
The building owners?
The staff of the BBC (and presumably other news organizations)?
The private flight schools where the men on board the planes were trained?

Just how many of these groups were involved. Let's estimate the number of people would be holding on to this secret.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Zippo,

I am still waiting for a coherent alternative explanation for the "official" events of 9/11 that can stand up to my questioning based on the facts. The fact that you people can't come up is my primary reason for being so confident you all are full of crap.

But just answer me this one thing. How many people do you believe are part of this cover-up?

The pilots (who died in the crashes)?
The families of those on board the airplanes?
The fire chiefs who lost their men?
The building owners?
The staff of the BBC (and presumably other news organizations)?
The private flight schools where the men on board the planes were trained?

Just how many of these groups were involved. Let's estimate the number of people would be holding on to this secret.

It is entirely possible that there was a conspiracy on 9/11 - without any of the people you mention being involved at all.

A conspiracy to let something happen through inaction. A realization by the Bush admin that there actually is no downside to a 9/11-style attack, from a foreign policy standpoint.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bear with me Cyclo, this appears to me to be a contradiction.

Cyclo wrote:

His building wasn't 'rigged' with explosives. It wasn't planned by the gov't.

Later Cyclo wrote:

The FDNY was concerned that the fires in WTC7 would get out of control, and perhaps spread further. After so many firefighters had died that day, and without any avaliable to actually go in the building to stop the fires, it wasn't even an extreme decision to drop the building.

This is consistent with pictures of the building's collapse - you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition.

You are using this video as evidence of a government conspracy. I thought this government conpiracy involved rigging the building with explosives. I think in this case it implicates Silverstein and it certainly implicates the fire Chief.

But you first say "His building wasn't rigged with explosives" then you say "you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition". Doesn't the phrase "controlled demolition" imply that you think his building was rigged with explosives?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Zippo,

My question is simple. The timestamp on the BBC video is obviously photoshopped in. The BBC doesn't put this timestamp any other place.

I scrolled through you links and didn't find an answer to this question.

Why are conspiracy theorists so eager to believe that they are willing to be fooled by a cheap trick like adding a timestamp to a video?

Come on! Even you can't be so blind.

(Maybe a Brit can confirm where they had their timestamp in 2001, by watching past videos, of other news reports)

However, I've watched the FULL report. The news reporter starts of by saying 'Welcome to the 5'Oclock News' Smile

I'll find the video and post it, later...Which then continues to the WTC7 live report.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bear with me Cyclo, this appears to me to be a contradiction.

Cyclo wrote:

His building wasn't 'rigged' with explosives. It wasn't planned by the gov't.

Later Cyclo wrote:

The FDNY was concerned that the fires in WTC7 would get out of control, and perhaps spread further. After so many firefighters had died that day, and without any avaliable to actually go in the building to stop the fires, it wasn't even an extreme decision to drop the building.

This is consistent with pictures of the building's collapse - you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition.

You are using this video as evidence of a government conspracy.

No, I most certainly am not. I don't believe there was a gov't conspiracy involved with dropping WTC7 at all.

Quote:

I thought this government conpiracy involved rigging the building with explosives. I think in this case it implicates Silverstein and it certainly implicates the fire Chief.

But you first say "His building wasn't rigged with explosives" then you say "you couldn't ask for a better controlled demolition". Doesn't the phrase "controlled demolition" imply that you think his building was rigged with explosives?

The building wasn't 'rigged' with explosives prior to 9/11 occurring, by which I mean the planes impacting. It was dropped by the FDNY 7 hours later. They most likely used controlled explosives to do so (the pictures, videos, and words of Silverstein all support this), and it wasn't for sinister reasons - there literally wasn't anyone to fight the fire burning there.

I was consciously avoiding the word 'rigged' because it implies prior knowledge on someone's part.

Even though Silverstein admits deciding to pull the building with the FDNY - and even though there has never been a building collapsed by fire in the fashion WTC7 did, ever, in the history of skyscrapers - the official story is that WTC7 dropped due to fire. I find this to be highly uncompelling. There is a great deal of evidence that this is not in fact true.

There could be a variety of reasons why the truth hasn't come out about it, but I think the primary one is probably a case of CYA by several folks, including Silverstein, who naturally had an interest in claiming the terrorists dropped WTC7.

I don't see any positive reasoning to support the theory that the fires caused after impact from debris dropped WTC7, and therefore I don't believe it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,

I don't really get where you are coming from. You seem to be teetering on the edge of sanity with your posts.

The theories that are being implied by Zippo and crew are simply implausible (and insane).

You aren't really promoting Zippo's theories, but you haven't really said what you are promoting-- other than you have questions about the "official" version.

I have yet to see a plausible theory that involved US government officials (including Bush) planning the attacks, or even knowing about them before they happened. I keep asking for a coherent theory so I can test it, but I have yet to see one.

Questioning about whether Bush or US officials botched the response, or botched the prevention (i.e.) intelligence, and then lied to some degree to cover it up, is a different thing altogether. I would say that theories about this are at least plausible.

But, it is useless to continue this discussion unless you, or someone else is willing to put forward the alternative theory you think is possible.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Cyclo,

I don't really get where you are coming from. You seem to be teetering on the edge of sanity with your posts.

The theories that are being implied by Zippo and crew are simply implausible (and insane).

You aren't really promoting Zippo's theories, but you haven't really said what you are promoting-- other than you have questions about the "official" version.

I have yet to see a plausible theory that involved US government officials (including Bush) planning the attacks, or even knowing about them before they happened. I keep asking for a coherent theory so I can test it, but I have yet to see one.

Questioning about whether Bush or US officials botched the response, or botched the prevention (i.e.) intelligence, and then lied to some degree to cover it up, is a different thing altogether. I would say that theories about this are at least plausible.

But, it is useless to continue this discussion unless you, or someone else is willing to put forward the alternative theory you think is possible.

What would you say about someone who purports to put forward a theory for which they don't have much evidence, and claims that it is the authoritative truth?

I don't want to be that guy. I have suspicions and doubts about what happened on 9/11, but no alternative theories which are not without doubts as well.

I happen to agree with this that you wrote:

Quote:

Questioning about whether Bush or US officials botched the response, or botched the prevention (i.e.) intelligence, and then lied to some degree to cover it up, is a different thing altogether. I would say that theories about this are at least plausible.

With the tiny, tiny extension: this assumes that the intelligence, or the response to the intelligence, was botched in any way. I happen to think that given the nature of those at the top, and what they wanted to accomplish, that it wasn't botched.

In order for a conspiracy to happen, to allow something like 9/11 to happen, what had to be done? The answer of course, is nothing. When information came in that an attack might happen, absolutely nothing had to be done to stop it, if you don't mind it happening. This is also coincidentally what was done. I don't really believe in coincidences like this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The smoking gun of 9/11 that can not be disputed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know