Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
WTC Demolition Conspiracy II
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  

After all of our discussions, do you now think that 9/11 was the work of:
Al Qaeda
38%
 38%  [ 25 ]
The US security services
6%
 6%  [ 4 ]
Al Qaeda, US security knew but totally screwed up
27%
 27%  [ 18 ]
Al Qaeda, US security knew and let it happen
23%
 23%  [ 15 ]
Al Qaeda and US Security fully cooperated
4%
 4%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 65

Author Message
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 17-02-2010 22:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was referring to the need to find a credible and specific account of what the fire chief said to Silverstein and when. The account you quote is lacking in specific time references.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 17-02-2010 22:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
I can't find anything in that pdf that says when they left WTC7. They went in, and withdrew not long after. Nothing in that testimony contradicts my claim that the firefighting operation was over when Silverstein was claiming it was him that called it off. There's nothing for it, we're going to have to trawl through Twinstar's archive link !


Silverstein never claimed that he called off the operation.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 17-02-2010 22:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether or not Silverstein was calling it off or just giving his assent, the operation was already over. Unless of course the fire chief's account , wherever it is, says otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 17-02-2010 23:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Whether or not Silverstein was calling it off or just giving his assent, the operation was already over. Unless of course the fire chief's account , wherever it is, says otherwise.


So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?

Or do you think it's more likely that he let the fire chief make the decision whether or not to pull his team - currently involved in another operation in and around WTC 7 - away from the building before giving the order for it to be destroyed by explosives?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 00:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?


That is yet another construction that could be applied to his remarks I suppose, but I suspect there is nothing as innocent as memory failings behind them.
I suspect that Silverstein took no part in the decision to withdraw, because he wasn't asked for one.
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1255
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 13:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

just to back up bigfoot here a little

I do remember the video of Silverstein saying something about pulling the building, something was said, i'm not exactly sure of the wording tho
Back to top
View user's profile 
Mal_ContentOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Total posts: 801
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 13:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only one big problem with the WC7 demolition theory:
lack of massive amount of explosives being set-off and resultant shockwaves.
much as it looks like a controlled demolition, the theory simply don't stand up.
much like WTC7.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 243
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 14:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
You can infer that some firefighters were outside, but that doesn't mean that none were inside.


So if there were any inside why isn't it their observations that are referred to in the Wiki entry? You might expect some account of what they were doing and when they withdrew. There isn't much they could have been doing apart from monitoring the spread of the fires and the developing damage to the fabric of the building, so where is their testimony?


You would have to ask whoever wrote the wiki entry.

There is certainly testomony of firefighters inside WTC7 - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF
- but you would have to comb through it all to find out when the last one left.


Quote:

How close would they have been anyway given that the towers had collapsed unexpectedly and they weren't trying to put the fires out ?


This is a safety issue. In that situation you can't simply assume that people are safe, pulling them out of the area would be the correct thing to do.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Twin_StarOffline
Profane, Harsh, Unharmonious
Joined: 05 May 2009
Total posts: 206
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 14:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the "smoking gun" section of the BBC news output for 9/11.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

If you read the posts at the bottom of the embedded video, then you will see the organiser of the archive.org tries to lay out a timeline for the events.

But just briefly, here we go:

The first mention of "Salamon" building collapsing is 16.55EDT. That is about 3.30 minutes into the clip. The collapse is mentioned again about 4 minutes later. About 13.30 minutes into the clip (ie about 17.10EDT) Nicholas Witchell confirms the report that the building has collapsed. Thats 10 minutes before it did in real life. Look, i dont know what to make of that, but the ABC archive for the same period is not available - the only time on 9/11 that has happened in fact.

Richard Porter is / was the head of the BBC world news output and he claims it was a simple mistake. he contends it was an unprecedented day and so some reports from "sources" - he doesnt state of what type, proved to be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/27/index.html

Thats his blog statement. Where, interestingly, he explains BBC has lost the original transmission. "cock-up", not conspiracy his explanation. I guess the good news is someone could track down his contact details at the BBC and send him the archive.org link via email. 3 years down the line may not ellicit a response, however

My overall view of 9/11 is that something odd happened. Finding Atta's passport *in the rubble* was just so lamentably obvious. More than that, i really wouldn't know.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 15:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
but you would have to comb through it all to find out when the last one left.


I've already done that, it's the same pdf that Timble linked to, and there is nothing specific in it.

Quote:
This is a safety issue. In that situation you can't simply assume that people are safe, pulling them out of the area would be the correct thing to do.


I agree, it is a safety issue, but not one requiring consultation of the building's owner. The fire crews were already out so it was just a matter of pulling them back further, risk of collapse would have been assumed but there was no immediate danger apparent.
Twin Star, I am yet to hear an explanation of who it was fed the BBC's NY reporter, Jane Standley, that WTC7 had just collapsed when it was still standing on the skyline behind her.
Mal Content, I think the nanothermite explanation involves lots of widespread small explosions which might not register on seismographs.
Apparently it can even be 'painted' on with a brush. No big charges, no seismic imprint
Back to top
View user's profile 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 7132
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 16:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
...I've already done that, it's the same pdf that Timble linked to, and there is nothing specific in it.


Ted_Maul, linked to that I linked to something different.

And BTW, nanothermite (at least in the way the Truthers describe it) belongs with adamantium and kryptonite in the comic books....


Last edited by Timble2 on 18-02-2010 18:12; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1106
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 16:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for correcting me Timble.
The editorial boards and readers of the peer reviewed journals that have published the nanothermite report may disagree with you about it's qualities.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 17:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
So, just to be clear, do you think it's possible that Larry Silverstein confused the details of a conversation with the fire chief in his recollection?


That is yet another construction that could be applied to his remarks I suppose, but I suspect there is nothing as innocent as memory failings behind them.
I suspect that Silverstein took no part in the decision to withdraw, because he wasn't asked for one.


Well, that construction relies on Silverstein claiming that he took part in the decision. He doesn't - he merely says that he stated his opinion. He doesn't claim that he told the fire chief what to do or that the fire chief made a decision based on his opinion.

That aside, can we now reasonably assume that you don't believe the 'pull it' quote is relevant to any claims concerning a conspiracy to destroy WTC 7?
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 17:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jonfairway wrote:
just to back up bigfoot here a little

I do remember the video of Silverstein saying something about pulling the building, something was said, i'm not exactly sure of the wording tho


I'd be surprised if this were true. Given how little his 'pull it' comments amounts to I'd expect youtube would be awash with this footage (at present it's only the comments discussed here which seem to be available).
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4877
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2010 18:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twin_Star wrote:
This is the "smoking gun" section of the BBC news output for 9/11.

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

If you read the posts at the bottom of the embedded video, then you will see the organiser of the archive.org tries to lay out a timeline for the events.

But just briefly, here we go:

The first mention of "Salamon" building collapsing is 16.55EDT. That is about 3.30 minutes into the clip. The collapse is mentioned again about 4 minutes later. About 13.30 minutes into the clip (ie about 17.10EDT) Nicholas Witchell confirms the report that the building has collapsed. Thats 10 minutes before it did in real life. Look, i dont know what to make of that, but the ABC archive for the same period is not available - the only time on 9/11 that has happened in fact.


Except it wasn't the first time that the building had been announced as collapsed or collapsing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Would it be speculative to suggest that this 'announcement' is usually overlooked because it lends credibility to the notion that the BBC simply misreported incomplete information which was already out there? And if it doesn't then why is the BBC report considered worthy of excited dissemination whilst the CNN report is not?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group