Answers About 9/11 That Conspiracy Theorists Don't Want to Hear

Okay :?. These eye witness accounts haven't been disproved... have they?

ownage_denied

To put simply, a site like that isn't interested in disputing their claims.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

AHUGECAT

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

You have yet to define what a credible source is.

Basically you want to pick and choose what suits you best. If it agrees with you, it's credible. If it does not, it is not credible.

Read my posts before you post...

[QUOTE="phillo99"]

Crazy conspirators and their shenanigans...

AHUGECAT

I know! I can't believe people actually think that a few men with BOX CUTTERS were able to hijack 4 planes with well over 60 people (and many military people) and crash them into 3 major US buildings.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

This automatically means every eyewitness is a liar, right?

Did you hear about the Holocaust survivor that lied about his story? He even had a book deal with Oprah and movie deals. See what I am saying?

ThePlothole

No. But what it means is that people can lie. And not only that, but they often exaggerate the situation to make their stories seem even more incredible. However the one problem is that ultimately their stories don't hold up. And that is why the mainstream media, who despite their own biases, at least tries to verify the stories. Sites like this don't. Conspiracy theorist don't care about facts. They only want to hear things that fit into what they believe. They're not all that different from say a "Biblical Scientists".

Well I tend not to believe eyewitnesses until I see documented evidence supporting their testimonies, but define "credible" please.

How is he supposed to know what is credible if you do not tell him what is?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

ownage_denied

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

And I'm saying why should I have to find another source when the information from the source I've all ready provided can't be disproved.

Because I do not trust the information presented on that source, because the site is not credible.

Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

chessmaster1989

And I'm saying why should I have to find another source when the information from the source I've all ready provided can't be disproved.

Because I do not trust the information presented on that source, because the site is not credible.

Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?

You read it from some random guy on the internet, so it must be true ;)

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

chessmaster1989

And I'm saying why should I have to find another source when the information from the source I've all ready provided can't be disproved.

Because I do not trust the information presented on that source, because the site is not credible.

Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?

Yep, members of the WTC Staff, firefighters, policemen, and many more people who aren't even connected decided to FABRICATE all of this in order to make the government look bad :roll:.

Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site.

"Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?" And just because you don't like the name of the site it doesn't make the information it provided false :?.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="phillo99"]

Crazy conspirators and their shenanigans...

thepwninator

I know! I can't believe people actually think that a few men with BOX CUTTERS were able to hijack 4 planes with well over 60 people (and many military people) and crash them into 3 major US buildings.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

And I'm saying why should I have to find another source when the information from the source I've all ready provided can't be disproved.

ownage_denied

Because I do not trust the information presented on that source, because the site is not credible.

Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?

Yep, members of the WTC Staff, firefighters, policemen, and many more people who aren't even connected decided to FABRICATE all of this in order to make the government look bad :roll:.

Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site.

"Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?" And just because you don't like the name of the site it doesn't make the information it provided false :?.

I never said it was false. I said I want to see this evidence presented from a credible source.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

I know! I can't believe people actually think that a few men with BOX CUTTERS were able to hijack 4 planes with well over 60 people (and many military people) and crash them into 3 major US buildings.

Mind_Mover

Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...Mind_Mover

They might be designed to withstand an old prop plan incident, ala the Empire State Building, but not a speeding jetliner. There would be no reason. Under normal conditions there is practically no chance of an accidental collision at high speed.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] Until the terrorist attacks, hijackings occurred every now and then, and the rule of thumb was to let them do what they wanted to do, as struggle could have endangered the lives of the passengers. Before 9/11, no one thought that planes would be used as giant missiles.thepwninator

Yeah and the explosion in the towers wouldn't even be able to take out a small hotel, much less a 110 story building.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Because I do not trust the information presented on that source, because the site is not credible.

Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?

chessmaster1989

Yep, members of the WTC Staff, firefighters, policemen, and many more people who aren't even connected decided to FABRICATE all of this in order to make the government look bad :roll:.

Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site.

"Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?" And just because you don't like the name of the site it doesn't make the information it provided false :?.

I never said it was false. I said I want to see this evidence presented from a credible source.

"Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site."

^That's my response to what you just typed.

Well I tend not to believe eyewitnesses until I see documented evidence supporting their testimonies, but define "credible" please.

How is he supposed to know what is credible if you do not tell him what is?

AHUGECAT

Again, credible means a source that at least attempts to fact check.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...AHUGECAT

Yeah and the explosion in the towers wouldn't even be able to take out a small hotel, much less a 110 story building.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...ThePlothole

They might be designed to withstand an old prop plan incident, ala the Empire State Building, but not a speeding jetliner. There would be no reason. Under normal conditions there is practically no chance of an accidental collision at high speed.

And if they were intelligent, they would have had hijacked planes in mind when they designed it.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

Yep, members of the WTC Staff, firefighters, policemen, and many more people who aren't even connected decided to FABRICATE all of this in order to make the government look bad :roll:.

Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site.

"Just because it appears on a website doesn't make it true :?" And just because you don't like the name of the site it doesn't make the information it provided false :?.

ownage_denied

I never said it was false. I said I want to see this evidence presented from a credible source.

"Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site."

^That's my response to what you just typed.

You don't have to accept what I think is credible. I'm just saying, I don't trust that site's credibility, and, therefore, I don't trust it's content.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...Mind_Mover

They might be designed to withstand an old prop plan incident, ala the Empire State Building, but not a speeding jetliner. There would be no reason. Under normal conditions there is practically no chance of an accidental collision at high speed.

And if they were intelligent, they would have had hijacked planes in mind when they designed it.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] Until the terrorist attacks, hijackings occurred every now and then, and the rule of thumb was to let them do what they wanted to do, as struggle could have endangered the lives of the passengers. Before 9/11, no one thought that planes would be used as giant missiles.thepwninator

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Well I tend not to believe eyewitnesses until I see documented evidence supporting their testimonies, but define "credible" please.

How is he supposed to know what is credible if you do not tell him what is?

ThePlothole

Again, credible means a source that at least attempts to fact check.

I'm almost positive that you can prove what you just typed by showing ANY evidence that the site I provided doesn't fact check... cant you :?.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...Mind_Mover

They might be designed to withstand an old prop plan incident, ala the Empire State Building, but not a speeding jetliner. There would be no reason. Under normal conditions there is practically no chance of an accidental collision at high speed.

And if they were intelligent, they would have had hijacked planes in mind when they designed it.

Why would they have? No one had ever tried to ram a commercial airline into a building! Let alone such a large one.

And here is some food for thought: The people that built the Titanic were very smart too.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

They might be designed to withstand an old prop plan incident, ala the Empire State Building, but not a speeding jetliner. There would be no reason. Under normal conditions there is practically no chance of an accidental collision at high speed.

thepwninator

And if they were intelligent, they would have had hijacked planes in mind when they designed it.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Alot of sky scrapers are designed to withstand plane crashes...Mind_Mover

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]What matters is the idea behind those designs, that it was possible for a plane to crash into the building.

And if they were intelligent, they would have had hijacked planes in mind when they designed it.

Mind_Mover

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I never said it was false. I said I want to see this evidence presented from a credible source.

chessmaster1989

"Damn, I missed the part in this thread when we all voted and decided that you get to choose what's credible even though you can't disprove a single thing on that site."

^That's my response to what you just typed.

You don't have to accept what I think is credible. I'm just saying, I don't trust that site's credibility, and, therefore, I don't trust it's content.

Debates don't work like that though. When someone gives a source, you can't just say I don't trust this site so I won't believe anything on it without proving that it isn't credible.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] This is true. In fact, IIRC, the WTC towers were designed to withstand crashes from 707's. However, a 707 is a far cry from a 767, which is what crashed into said towers, and when "designing to withstand crashes", the engineers also assumed that the plane would be in its somewhat slower takeoff/landing speed, while the planes that hit the twin towers were going pretty much as fast as they could.thepwninator

Yeah and the explosion in the towers wouldn't even be able to take out a small hotel, much less a 110 story building.

That fire wouldn't even be able to burn a piece of paper, lmfao.

Anyways, your theory is easily disproved because it requires all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures past 1500 fahrenheit,and thus would cause the columbs to buckle and fall down on each other. But as you see from my picture above the fires were not hot enough to soften the steel in either towers.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Yeah and the explosion in the towers wouldn't even be able to take out a small hotel, much less a 110 story building.

AHUGECAT

That fire wouldn't even be able to burn a piece of paper, lmfao.

Anyways, your theory is easily disproved because it requires all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures past 1500 fahrenheit,and thus would cause the columbs to buckle and fall down on each other. But as you see from my picture above the fires were not hot enough to soften the steel in either towers.

Do you not see that half of an entire side is missing? Do you not realize that the floors on fire were filled with paper, as all office buildings are, and paper burns quite well? Have you not seen the massive plumes of smoke coming from the buildings?

See how large the plume of smoke on the tower that had been hit by the first plane is (the tower on the right in the second picture)? Plumes of smoke of that size and that color are caused by infernos, my good sir. A fire of that magnitude would have been more than enough to soften the steel shell-soften, not melt, as softening is all that is necessary-of the WTC buildings, which was its primary support. Add to that the fact that half of a side was missing for a few floors, and you have an inevitable collapse.

That fire wouldn't even be able to burn a piece of paper, lmfao.

Anyways, your theory is easily disproved because it requires all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures past 1500 fahrenheit,and thus would cause the columbs to buckle and fall down on each other. But as you see from my picture above the fires were not hot enough to soften the steel in either towers.

AHUGECAT

First of all, "lmfao"? Please try not to say stuff like that. It does not help your cause one bit.

And second of all, steel does not need to reach its melting point before it starts to soften. (edit: oy, I keep getting beaten to the point. :roll: )

People will believe all sorts of crazy stuff. In fact, most people do.

But I won't go into that cos I don't want to get modded for upsetting someone's fragile feelings.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="thepwninator"] All it would need to do, thanks to the Twin Towers' unique design (its main structure was actually on its shell rather than part of its core), is eliminate a portion of its shell in such a way that a single floor wouldn't be able to support the floors above it. Once this occurs, a cascading effect would take place, thus destroying the building. What could do this, I wonder? A plane, mayhaps, speeding into a side of the building at 500 MPH?thepwninator

That fire wouldn't even be able to burn a piece of paper, lmfao.

Anyways, your theory is easily disproved because it requires all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures past 1500 fahrenheit,and thus would cause the columbs to buckle and fall down on each other. But as you see from my picture above the fires were not hot enough to soften the steel in either towers.

Do you not see that half of an entire side is missing? Do you not realize that the floors on fire were filled with paper, as all office buildings are, and paper burns quite well? Have you not seen the massive plumes of smoke coming from the buildings?

See how large the plume of smoke on the tower that had been hit by the first plane is (the tower on the right in the second picture)? Plumes of smoke of that size and that color are caused by infernos, my good sir. A fire of that magnitude would have been more than enough to soften the steel shell-soften, not melt, as softening is all that is necessary-of the WTC buildings, which was its primary support. Add to that the fact that half of a side was missing for a few floors, and you have an inevitable collapse.

You post the initial collisions - which of course would have fire (not that much, by the way), but then the black smoke shows that the fire has died down though something was still burning (not even close to 1400 degrees - maybe around 120) thus the soot in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen.

The fire was not hot enough tomake the structure weak enough to collapse because it would take 1,022F degrees worth of heat to make it collapse, and the fire was nowhere near that hot.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

That fire wouldn't even be able to burn a piece of paper, lmfao.

Anyways, your theory is easily disproved because it requires all of the columns on a story to reach temperatures past 1500 fahrenheit,and thus would cause the columbs to buckle and fall down on each other. But as you see from my picture above the fires were not hot enough to soften the steel in either towers.

AHUGECAT

Do you not see that half of an entire side is missing? Do you not realize that the floors on fire were filled with paper, as all office buildings are, and paper burns quite well? Have you not seen the massive plumes of smoke coming from the buildings?

See how large the plume of smoke on the tower that had been hit by the first plane is (the tower on the right in the second picture)? Plumes of smoke of that size and that color are caused by infernos, my good sir. A fire of that magnitude would have been more than enough to soften the steel shell-soften, not melt, as softening is all that is necessary-of the WTC buildings, which was its primary support. Add to that the fact that half of a side was missing for a few floors, and you have an inevitable collapse.

You post the initial collisions - which of course would have fire (not that much, by the way), but then the black smoke shows that the fire has died down though something was still burning (not even close to 1400 degrees - maybe around 120) thus the soot in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen.

The fire was not hot enough tomake the structure weak enough to collapse because it would take 1,022F degrees worth of heat to make it collapse, and the fire was nowhere near that hot.

Silverstein's "Pull it" refered to demolishing WTC7. It did not refer to firefighters.AHUGECAT

No, it referred to firefighters. Unless you take it out of context. :lol:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

3.Question: Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon?

Answer: There was plenty of wreckage found at the Pentagon. In addition to the wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts from people working in the Pentagon that day of a large airplane hitting the building.AHUGECAT

There was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

The pictures you show are not wreckage in the Pentagon. For example:

There is no proof that this image even came from the Pentagon. No source has ever been given.

Did you ignore the other images? Yes. :roll:

AHUGECAT

Yep. They just don't wanna hear it.

I gave you the entire Silverstein quote along with videos and context--you ignored it.

I gave you entire explanations for insurance fraud accusation.

And what do you give back? Repeats of the same crap.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Theokhoth

Yep. They just don't wanna hear it.

I gave you the entire Silverstein quote along with videos and context--you ignored it.

I gave you entire explanations for insurance fraud accusation.

And what do you give back? Repeats of the same crap.

Theo, I'd recommend you don't bother trying to reason with AHUGECAT.

I've tried to on other topics, and he's the kind of person who just ignores everything you say... :?

Nice thread, but there are still questions left unanswered, like how did one of the terrorists passport survive the crash and what about the terrorist that was alive, and why did they let the Bin Laden family fly out of the country when all planes where downed, etc.one_on_one

The passport survived because it survived. It's like asking "Why did a penny survive" or "why did a person survive." They survived because they were in the right place on the plane when it crashed; nothing more.

They probably let the Bin Laden family leave because the Bin Laden family are not terrorists. They did the same thing with people with the last names of Hitler back in WWII; it's to protect them.

I don't know what you mean by the terrorist still alive.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

3.Question: Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon?

Answer: There was plenty of wreckage found at the Pentagon. In addition to the wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts from people working in the Pentagon that day of a large airplane hitting the building.Theokhoth

There was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

The pictures you show are not wreckage in the Pentagon. For example:

There is no proof that this image even came from the Pentagon. No source has ever been given.

Did you ignore the other images? Yes. :roll:

What happened to the rest of the nose that supposedly punched this hole out the size and shape of itself and why isn't it burnt?

Where are the other 2 rims for the plane?

Once again a source for this image is never given. They claim they got it from VATF-1 workers but never explain how they got them.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Silverstein's "Pull it" refered to demolishing WTC7. It did not refer to firefighters.Theokhoth

No, it referred to firefighters. Unless you take it out of context. :lol:

Actually, it makes more sense in context.

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the firefighters]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the building]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

If he meant pull the firefighters, would've said "pull them out." Not a demolition term. Usually when people refer to people they do not call them "it." But I am sure a building is an "it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html

"We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse."

"Pull it" is a demolition term that can be confirmed by Controlled Demolitions Inc. (which helped ground zero). Not to mention during the rest of the PBS documentary where Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition guys use the word "pull" again as they demolish the rest of the somewhat standing building frames.

Even FEMA referred to the collapse of WTC7 with the term "pull."

i don't necessarily believe that 9/11 was plotted by the CIA but i do think they did nothing to stop the attacks. i cannot believe that the most powerful nation on earth with warnings from the itallian, israeli and british did not know what was going to happen i think the american government ained more by letting the towers fall than they would have had the towers still stood and whether or not the government had anything to do with the collapse is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, but, which would you think is safer, trusting and following people you do not know with your freedom or doubting in the the moral and human integrity of politicians.

the european world could not believe it when Napoleon attacked europe, to them is was out of context to their day and age. just as the world thought of the holocaust, and probably how rome felt towards Attilla the Hun. Humankind always attempt to negate the possibility of horror for that of a kinder, easier perspective

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Silverstein's "Pull it" refered to demolishing WTC7. It did not refer to firefighters.AHUGECAT

No, it referred to firefighters. Unless you take it out of context. :lol:

Actually, it makes more sense in context.

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the firefighters]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the building]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

If he meant pull the firefighters, would've said "pull them out." Not a demolition term. Usually when people refer to people they do not call them "it." But I am sure a building is an "it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html

"We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse."

"Pull it" is a demolition term that can be confirmed by Controlled Demolitions Inc. (which helped ground zero). Not to mention during the rest of the PBS documentary where Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition guys use the word "pull" again as they demolish the rest of the somewhat standing building frames.

Even FEMA referred to the collapse of WTC7 with the term "pull."

Hmm, parsing words, are we?

You left out part of the phrase: "...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it."

Now, given that word, and the fact that he was speaking with the fire department, I think there is little doubt that it was not meant as a demolition command.

9/11 conspiracy theorist are an amusing bunch. Are they still actively pushing their ideas to the main stream public? I remember a couple years after it happened they were receiving some attention but I thought most people brushed them aside as tinfoil hat wearing loons.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, it referred to firefighters. Unless you take it out of context. :lol:

chessmaster1989

Actually, it makes more sense in context.

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the firefighters]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the building]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

If he meant pull the firefighters, would've said "pull them out." Not a demolition term. Usually when people refer to people they do not call them "it." But I am sure a building is an "it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html

"We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse."

"Pull it" is a demolition term that can be confirmed by Controlled Demolitions Inc. (which helped ground zero). Not to mention during the rest of the PBS documentary where Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition guys use the word "pull" again as they demolish the rest of the somewhat standing building frames.

Even FEMA referred to the collapse of WTC7 with the term "pull."

Hmm, parsing words, are we?

You left out part of the phrase: "...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it."

Now, given that word, and the fact that he was speaking with the fire department, I think there is little doubt that it was not meant as a demolition command.

I googled it, and I didn't find the word "just" anywhere.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, it referred to firefighters. Unless you take it out of context. :lol:

chessmaster1989

Actually, it makes more sense in context.

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the firefighters]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the building]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

If he meant pull the firefighters, would've said "pull them out." Not a demolition term. Usually when people refer to people they do not call them "it." But I am sure a building is an "it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html

"We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse."

"Pull it" is a demolition term that can be confirmed by Controlled Demolitions Inc. (which helped ground zero). Not to mention during the rest of the PBS documentary where Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition guys use the word "pull" again as they demolish the rest of the somewhat standing building frames.

Even FEMA referred to the collapse of WTC7 with the term "pull."

Hmm, parsing words, are we?

You left out part of the phrase: "...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it."

Now, given that word, and the fact that he was speaking with the fire department, I think there is little doubt that it was not meant as a demolition command.

He never said "just."

By the way, people always ask "If this is such a conspiracy, how can so many people keep it a secret?"

Well Larry Silverstein answered that question.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Actually, it makes more sense in context.

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the firefighters]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull [the building]...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse..."

If he meant pull the firefighters, would've said "pull them out." Not a demolition term. Usually when people refer to people they do not call them "it." But I am sure a building is an "it."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/claes.html

"We were kept away from building 7 because of the potential of collapse."

"Pull it" is a demolition term that can be confirmed by Controlled Demolitions Inc. (which helped ground zero). Not to mention during the rest of the PBS documentary where Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition guys use the word "pull" again as they demolish the rest of the somewhat standing building frames.

Even FEMA referred to the collapse of WTC7 with the term "pull."

Dalo12345

Hmm, parsing words, are we?

You left out part of the phrase: "...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it."

Now, given that word, and the fact that he was speaking with the fire department, I think there is little doubt that it was not meant as a demolition command.

I googled it, and I didn't find the word "just" anywhere.

I'm just basing it off of what Theo posted.

In any case, I think the word "maybe" is a pretty strong signal that this was not a pre-planned demolition.

And, my point about him speaking to the fire department still stands.

[QUOTE="Dalo12345"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Hmm, parsing words, are we?

You left out part of the phrase: "...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it."

Now, given that word, and the fact that he was speaking with the fire department, I think there is little doubt that it was not meant as a demolition command.

chessmaster1989

I googled it, and I didn't find the word "just" anywhere.

I'm just basing it off of what Theo posted.

In any case, I think the word "maybe" is a pretty strong signal that this was not a pre-planned demolition.

And, my point about him speaking to the fire department still stands.

There were no firefighters in the WTC7 before it collapsed.

They were gone by 11:30 AM. WTC7 collapsed at 5:20PM.

Atleast seven of the 19 hijackers still named by the FBI turned up alive in the Middle East long after 9/11.

Al Qaeda, officially named as the prime suspect behind the attacks. This terrorist organization was a creation of the CIA, who had sent Saudis to Afghanistan in the 1980s to combat Russian incursion. They had renamed it from the older Muslim Brotherhood, a violence-prone group of Muslin radicals that had been taken over by Nazis during World War II.

They later were controlled by the CIA, which used this group to train & arm the Kosovo Liberation Army in the 1990s.

Robin Cook, Britain's foreign secretary from 1997-2001, has written that al Qaeda is a CIA creation & it's name (literally the base) actually means the CIA computer database of Arab mercenaries & fanatics rrather than some physical headquarters.

Atleast seven of the 19 hijackers still named by the FBI turned up alive in the Middle East long after 9/11.

Al Qaeda, officially named as the prime suspect behind the attacks. This terrorist organization was a creation of the CIA, who had sent Saudis to Afghanistan in the 1980s to combat Russian incursion. They had renamed it from the older Muslim Brotherhood, a violence-prone group of Muslin radicals that had been taken over by Nazis during World War II.

They later were controlled by the CIA, which used this group to train & arm the Kosovo Liberation Army in the 1990s.

Robin Cook, Britain's foreign secretary from 1997-2001, has written that al Qaeda is a CIA creation & it's name (literally the base) actually means the CIA computer database of Arab mercenaries & fanatics rrather than some physical headquarters.

TheFragcat