quote:

Originally posted by Fourbrick2:
It would seem to me that there are indeed conspiracy theories which seem unbelievable.
One conspiracy theory is that Iraq, Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were involved in the 9-11 atrocities. Unfortunately because this conspiracy theory is one proposed by the U.S. Government, it no longer is a conspiracy theory but a fact.Re-open the 9-11 Investigation

The idea that Iraq or Hussein were involved is one that much of the media has attacked and that many, many knowledgable people have spoken out against. Whatever Bush says, it is hardly a fully accepted theory anywhere.

The idea that Osama Bin Laden was involved is a historical fact, not a theory.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently.

"That Iraq Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were togther involved with the atrocities", was the Conspiracy Theory.
I suppose one could say that if one part of the conspiracy is proved to be wrong, it casts doubt on the rest of the Theory.

Read the web site.

Fourbrick is right that the administration pushed the idea that Saddam was linked to the attack on the US. Now, even though every stated link has been shown to lack factual basis and the administration has more or less dropped that claim, some people still think it true. The administration did such a good job of selling it before that many, if not most, Americans believe that Saddam was involved. Some on these boards still make that claim, as they do about Iraq'a WMDs. (Their "proof" that Iraq had WMDs even includes the "fact" that the WMDs aren't there is proof that they were because he must have moved them. If he moved them, Q.E.D., they must have been there in the first place. All that is missing is Costello yelling, "I know! Third base!")

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Fourbrick is right that the administration pushed the idea that Saddam was linked to the attack on the US. QUOTE]

Yes, and I am right that it has been openly questioned and discredited by a number of reputable journalists and researchers. The same is not true for the notion that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11.

Saying that Bush's incorrect link between Iraq and 9/11 lends doubt to the claim that OBL was behind 9/11 is like saying that the Soviet Union's overestimation of the number of people killed in the Holocaust lends doubt to the claim that millions of Jews were massacred by the Nazis. Sorry, I don't buy it. The Holocaust happened and Al-Qaeda attacked the US in 2001.

Sorry. I guess I misunderstood something. I don't think that there is any question that bin Laden and al Qeada were behind the attack, just as I don't feel that any reasonable person thinks that Saddam was involved. In my opinion, while Saddam may have been pleased at first, I suspect he very shortly realized that the attack was going to cause him more problems than whatever pleasure he got from them.

I agree with you, Dorian. I thought that since you responded to Fourbrick's post saying that he was right, that you agreed with his statement that

quote:

I suppose one could say that if one part of the conspiracy is proved to be wrong, it casts doubt on the rest of the Theory.

. As I said in my above post, I think there is ample evidence that there isn't any real link between Iraq and 9/11. However, I think there is very strong evidence to link between OBL and 9/11, which Fourbrick seems to be questioning.

When someone puts it as "You're either with me(us) or against me(us), as the administration seems to view things, he includes would-be friends, or even neutrals, among the "enemies". Often, that outlook becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dorian, I agree with what you wrote above, but don't see how it relates to the subject of conspiracies and whether the most accepted explanation for 9/11 (that Al-Qaeda orchestrated an attack against the US by hijacking passenger airplanes and flying them into the WTC and the Pentagon) is correct. Could you clarify?

I was specifically speaking to Fourbrick's comment about part of a conspiracy. What I said was more of an aside than part of the main subject.

(Feel free to ignore me when I don't make sense. Many do so even when I do.)

I'll try, Dorian. But I'm telling ya, I know I should ignore a LOT of people, but somehow I just keep getting my panties all in a bunch about people saying

the US never landed any man on the moon
the US attacked itself at Pearl Harbor
the US attacked itself on 9/11
the US attacked itself on the Lusitania
the Jews are lying about the Holocaust
the US and the Jews conspired terrible lies and/or world events in order to build Israel
etc
etc
etc
etc

Blah! Aargh! Blegh! Nyah!

Ignore me if this makes no sense.

Quote by Methos
"
Silverstein said he suggested to the fire department to "pull it." Now, given that this is a property owner talking to the fire department, does it make more sense to interpret this as pulling the firefighters out or using what seems to be some jargon of a field that it isn't clear either are involved with?

For what it's worth, Silverstein has said he meant pull the firefighters out."

Only trouble with that scenario is that the firefighters were all evacuated at 11.30a.m. Silverstein made his comment in the mid afternoon. Why "pull out" firefighters when there weren't any in there?

I think I'm giving up after this post - I have no interest in researching a conspiracy theory point by point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only source we have on the "pull it" comment is Silverstein himself telling the story that includes firefightres being in the building. Why do you believe him on the one specific point of an exact quote in the story but not on the rest of the story?

By the way, I would appreciate the information about that last bit - what time did Silverstein say this conversation took place? Where were the firefighters when the conversation took place? The conspiracy theorists can't seem to get their ducks in a row on this one as some claim, "Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed." (That sounds an awful lot like being pulled.)

Sorry to see that you are giving up, Methos.

With regard to your comment about the time Silverstein made the comment see the attached statement
" September 9, 2005 statement issued by Stilverstein Properties spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan:
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"

The statement says that there were still several firefighters in the building but this does not co-incide with the view of the Fire chief.(see below)

The FEMA report does not give an accurate time, only speaks of “... manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day...”, “... the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires...” (referring to WTC7, see http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf, page 5-21 and 5-23)

The fire-commander Frank Fellini said:
“We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.”
(see http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...ack=pdfdownload )

Incidentally,why did Silverstein say "pull IT" rather than "pull THEm " in regards to the firefighters? A slightly strange use of language.

"Incidentally,why did Silverstein say "pull IT" rather than "pull THEm " in regards to the firefighters?"

"Pulling the pin" used to be a common term for retirement, especially in police departments. The term may have spread, and he may have meant "Pull it" as in "end it." Words and phrases both migrate and evolve. "My bad" (a phrase that I detest, as it makes no sense) surely started a long time ago as "Am I bad" as used by Lou COstello* and Joe Besser, both of whom used the "little boy" schtick, especially Besser.


* Costello usually used "I'm a bad boy."

I'm still waiting to hear when this conversation took place, but who ever said they were in the building?

I've listened to the quote (that portion of it posted on conspiracy sites, at any rate) for myself, and he actually says that the firefighters decided to "pull it" because they didn't think they could contain it and it was dangerous. Of course, this is no problem for those who latch onto those two convenient words (with a specific but fanciful interpretation) but insist every other word of his story is false - I'm also still waiting for the rational behind that.

1.Question by Methos "I'm still waiting to hear when this conversation took place,"

According to Silverstein Spokesman statement, shown above.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center." (my emphasis)
Unfortunately there does not appear to be a record of the exact time he said it.

2. Question by Methos. "but who ever said they were in the building?"
(earlier quote by Methos questioning the "pull it" phrase. "does it make more sense to interpret this as pulling the firefighters OUT"(my emphasis). Out of where? Either they were in or they were out. If they were in, the decision (according to one theory) was to "pull it" to bring them out, or they were out, in which case why "pull it"? Which version would you prefer?

3. "I've listened to the quote (that portion of it posted on conspiracy sites, at any rate) for myself, and he actually says that the firefighters decided to "pull it" because they didn't think they could contain it and it was dangerous.

Agreed the Fire commander made the final decision, but only after Silverstein had suggested it.

Silverstein's actual words:
"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. I said, you know, we've had such loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do would be to pull it and they made the decision to pull it and we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein

There's the difficulty with trying to hold spoken, or even caually written, language to some sort of unrealistic standard. We pull out of competitions, battles, arguments, why not firefights? I wasn't referring to the building when I said out, but, by ignoring the way people actually use the language for some imagines grammatical correctness, my statement can be twisted. The same goes for Silverstein's words.

My apologies, I somehow missed the quote you're repeated about the afternoon (in fact, I somehow missed a largew portion of that post).

Nonetheless, this logic that Silverstein must have meant exactly this, and been telling the truth on this particular point, but lied about everything else, makes no sense to me. Add to that that you've got the firefighters somehow complicit in this. If they were really the ones who made the final decision to blow the building up, and therefore must have known about these supposed explosives that supposedly really brought down the buildings (becasue if they set offf the ones in building 7, what logic allows that they weren't involved with the ones in the Twin Towers?), why on earth did they let so many of their coworkers die? I have a little more respect for NYC firefighters than to think them capable of this.

Here is my explanation for how the quote may be taken out of context. I am not saying that this IS how the quote came to be but here is A possibility and I'm sure there are many.

When a search and rescue mission can not be completed it is usually due to structural instability. In the case of imminent building collapse (which can be predicted by trained experts within the fire department) the firefighters are pulled out of the building. I am sure there have been times when the phrase "Pull the plug" referring to pulling firefighters out is used. If this is the terminology that was being used by the commanders then the phrase "Pull it" would make perfect sense although it seems strange out of context.

"When do you want to pull the plug?"
"Now, pull it." and then they'd just watch the building collapse.

I don't see any reason to believe that they would blow up the building especially since I'm sure the last thing they wanted to do on September 11, 2001 was bring explosives into the area where two large buildings might be falling. It would be insane.

I came across some additional information about the mechanism of collapse of the WTC. I was browsing a used bookstore and found Pushing the Limits (Knopf, 2004) by Henry Petrosky, a noted civil engineer and popular writer on structural failures. The pertinent chapter, "The Fall of Skyscrapers", was reprinted from American Scientist 2002. Here are some excerpts:

As they had the [1993] truck bombing, the World Trade Center towers clearly survived the impact of the Boeing 767 airliners...The estimated twenty thousand gallons of jet fuel that each plane carried...has been estimated to have an energy content equivalent to about 2.4 million sticks of dynamite.

Steel buildings are expected to be fireproofed, and so the WTC toweres were. However, fireproofing is a misnomer, for it only insulates the steel from the heat of the fire for a limited period, which is nevertheless supposed to be enough time to allow for the fire to be brought under control, if not extinguished entirely. Unfortunately, conventional firefighting means, such as water, have little effect on burning jet fuel. In fact, the burning fuel is believed to have been consumed rather quickly, but the office furnishings and products that it ignited continued to burn, and water to fight that fire was unavailable after the crash. Thus the fire continued unabated.

Even if the steel did not melt, the effects of prolonged elevated temperatures caused it to expand, soften, sag, bend, and creep. The intense heat also affected the concrete floor, which, no longer adequately supported by the structure in place before the impact, began to crack, spall, and break up, compromising the synergistic action of the parts of the structure. Without the stabilizing effect of the stiff floors, the steel columns still intact became less and less able to sustain the load of the building above them...The tower that was struck second failed first in part because the plane hit lower, leaving a greater weight to be supported above the damaged area.

Within days of the collapse of the towers, failure analyses appeared on the Internet and in engineering classrooms. Perhaps the most widely circulated were the mechanics-based analysis of Zdenek Bazant of Northwestern University and the energy approach of Thomas Mackin of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Each of these estimated that the falling upper structure of a World Trade Center tower exerted on the lower structure a force some thirty times what it had once supported. Charles Clifton, a New Zealand structural engineer, argued that the fire was not the principal cause of the collapse. He believed that it was the damaged core rather thn the exterior tube columns that succumbed first to the enormous load from above. Once the core support was lost on the impacted floors, there was no stopping the progressive collapse, which was largely channeled by the structural tube to occur in a vertical direction.
--------------------------
I am posting this mainly to refute the outrageous claims that the buildings' dramatic collapse could only have occured as a "controlled detonation" in the same manner that condemned buildings are demolished with carefully placed and timed explosive charges. Engineering experts have no trouble accepting that the towers were brought down as a direct result of the airplane crashes and fires alone, and that there is no "mystery" to be solved by invoking convoluted conspiracies involving pre-placed explosives.