Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:^You mean 'Four Lions' wasn't a documentary

LOL

Cheers,
Shafique

Well I'm sure in the minds of some it WAS

Icenic wrote:

I can't be arsed to look at your propaganda.

Oh and Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all those networks are completely unbiased and include no propaganda whatsoever? The US government is infamous for the spreading of propaganda, but in the case of 9/11 they are telling the truth right? That is why they have so many 9/11-related documents locked up and disclosed.

"If there is a lie, and someone covers up that lie, then they are part of the lie."

I don't think anyone could present any info that would change your mind anyway.

There's the bias right. If you don't want to accept that your thoughts may be wrong, then you will never change your mind, of course. As I said before, I am willing to have my mind changed, but no one thus far has provided enough proof for me to do so.

No really, the media is biased? Governments have secrets? My world is shaken upside down.

This is Ahmadinejad, when he was young! So what s the next quesion Icenic? "Who believes Holocaust was real?"

melika, I was wondering if that question would come next. I mean, there are "scholars" who have evidence that it didn't happen! We are sheep to believe that it did!

I provided my opinion and provided the information that influence that opinion. No one was able to provide any proper, plausible counter-argument. Joe and I asked questions that remain unanswered. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. And how is that like Ahmadinejad when he was young? I'm stating facts and not making false accusations. Why don't you answer my questions with the proper support to those answers, rather than mock me? Since I started this post, my questions have been avoided, or replied with personal opinions, and the "evidence" I have provided has been ignored. In this scenario, I think I have a stronger and more detailed argument and opinion than the other side thus far. As I said before, I'm willing to have my opinion changed, but there has to be enough proof to outweigh what I that which I have given. FD was stuck on one point this whole thread, and ignored the entire list of questions we've had. Eh was also stuck on one or two points, also ignoring the list of questions. So now, kanelli has resorted to mocking me, and I think that's because you are out of logical arguments. You call my data propaganda, but have no basis for that claim. As I said before, if you're not willing to look at the information I've provided, then you shouldn't be part of the debate. If you really are that set on believing that 9/11 was done by terrorists, that's fine, but why not disprove my opinion, and have more people believe that as well? All it would take is to watch the videos, and comment on them with proof to back you up. If you "can't be arsed" to do so, then just stay out of the debate.

Peace.

K wasn't it you who said that you are very reasonable and willing to change your views if enough credible points were made in a discussion, then why 180 here ? Or were you lying eleswhere.

Anywhoo let me get back to the topic. This is what happens when a building fails naturally



You have to have charges timed to the milisecond for a structure to come down in its own footprint. A delay of even a second means the falling building will tilt over and "spill over" into the streets or adjacent buildings

This is what should have happened if we are willing to make the leap of faith that every suppourt beam in the WTC failed at exactly the same milisecond yes milisecond as if they failed even seconds of with in each other there would have been massive " spillage"



At best the WTC would taken out a few more floors and eventually come to stop or toppled over down into the street. Not turn into a pile of dust, and that phenomena took place three times that day. Something that had never before and has never happened again in human history

Look at this. The Bejing TV center tower 156 storeys completely and I mean head to toe engulfed in flames for 6 hours and yet did not collapse ?



Also that you need a huge demolition crew to bring down the building is not correct. There is a team of four or five people, who do the laying out of charges and setting up the whole thing. The talk of jack hammers and so much work needed to prep the building is only true to reach the rebar encased in concrete. The WTC core columns were not encase in concrete. To cut a steel beam demolition style all you need is det cord or detonation cord ( explosives encased in plastic tubing. Which is the same thicknessand looks just as inane as any electrical wire.

To do the prep work one does not have to be on site as most of the prep work is done using building blue prints as in which columns are load bearing and need to go etc etc. In case of other traditional buildings on site works needs to be done as explained earlier to reach the steel and weaken the concrete columns.

I'm sorry, did you say your data? You are viewing and reading second-hand info from the video and internet compiled by people who may or may not be experts in the subjects. Suddenly you are an expert? I'm not out of logical arguments, and there is plenty of support for my arguments which I'm sure you have seen, but it doesn't persuade you like the conspiracy versions of the events.

I already watched some conspiracy stuff before and I won't waste my time on it again. I stated logical points about why I think people are ignoring the obvious simple explanation and instead looking for exceptions and elaborate conspiracy explanations for those. That is a valid part of the debate. However, you are right that I am not willing to view the specific video to answer those specific questions you recently posted about tower 7, so I won't comment further.

Icenic wrote:have more people believe that as well?

Why would anybody want to do that? I have no intention of forcing my believes upon anybody else. Anybody is free to believe what they want. no matter how dumb. When asked for my opinion, like you did in the OP, I might give it, but I have no reason why I should want to change yours.

kanelli wrote:I'm sorry, did you say your data? You are viewing and reading second-hand info from the video and internet compiled by people who may or may not be experts in the subjects. Suddenly you are an expert? I'm not out of logical arguments, and there is plenty of support for my arguments which I'm sure you have seen, but it doesn't persuade you like the conspiracy versions of the events.

I already watched some conspiracy stuff before and I won't waste my time on it again. I stated logical points about why I think people are ignoring the obvious simple explanation and instead looking for exceptions and elaborate conspiracy explanations for those. That is a valid part of the debate. However, you are right that I am not willing to view the specific video to answer those specific questions you recently posted about tower 7, so I won't comment further.

Ok in an honest attempt to discuss,

I didn't get many of the questioned you ask, if you will be kind enough to list them again, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. But keep in mind, as I've said before the lack of an alternate version/theory doesn't confrim the official version.

So other than that your are free to ask anything. I will read or see anything you present or have to say. But then I also expect the same from you.

Go ahead make me a believer that a few extrememist Mulsim hijacked 4 planes, managed to run two of them in to the world trade center because of which both of them collapsed and that world trade center tower 7 was damaged by debri and later fell itself. And that another plane also was flown into the pentagon and one crash landed in a field.

The floor is yours.

"A few extremist Mulsims hijacked 4 planes, managed to run two of them in to the world trade center because of which both of them collapsed and that world trade center tower 7 was damaged by debris and later fell itself. And that another plane also was flown into the pentagon and one crash landed in a field."

You got it!

Ok, listen. Let's toss all the conspiracy stuff aside. Let's just examine the story that was told to us by the media, the same one that DDS mentioned.

Just explain to me why the buildings collapsed in a demolition-like manner. Let's tackle this issue point by point. How can a building that was hit by a plane and thus damaged by fire collapse vertically without falling to the side?

kanelli wrote:"A few extremist Mulsims hijacked 4 planes, managed to run two of them in to the world trade center because of which both of them collapsed and that world trade center tower 7 was damaged by debris and later fell itself. And that another plane also was flown into the pentagon and one crash landed in a field."

You got it!

I asked for specific questions. That wasn't a question, it was a statment with even a shred of proof for backing it up.

Or shall I believe you are just pretending or simply lying ?

kanelli wrote:And zonker, people can change their minds after discussion. It has happened to me many times. From having good discussions I have personally reflected on some of my own views and have learned to check alternative sources to try to get a larger perspective on an issue.

Thats what I meant to do, not neccasarily to change your mind but encourge discussion and maybe put my point across aswell, that anyone who believes in the contrary is not a tin foiler and has valid unanswered questions.

But what you have demostrated and said in this thread is totally against what you said above in another. So what is it really then ?

Pull the building not the firemen.

Here's the quote from Silverstein:

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.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm

Amazingly, the quote was taken by 9/11 truthers to refer to Silverstein giving the orders to implode buildings 7:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives...

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Building 6, BTW, was taken down by cables, so to say 'pull' was quite literal.

Anyways, I won't argue anymore on Buildings 7 and the Silverstein quote. If you actually believe Silverstein admitted on a PBS documentary that he was behind the destruction of building 7 and part of the 9/11 conspiracy, there's probably nothing more I can say to convince you otherwise.

What this does show is how the truthers are scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean really.

EH -

You have posted other things on different threads and I for one have had the courtesy to reply to you and not mock you so please work with me here. Why is the silverstein quote scraping the bottom of the barrel? You just posted the silverstein quote and he said its about pulling the building. What am I missing? He admitted that the building was demolished.

Also I believe you replied to my previous question and agreed that the buildings looked like the were demolised. If that is correct does that seem odd to you?

That would make a lot of sense EH but there is one fundamental problem with that explantion. Silverstein did not own or hold a lease on WTC 6, so why would anybody ask Silvertien about WTC 6 ? Infact he never even bid for WTC 6.

Can I order your car to be crushed ? Or would anybody ask me for permission to crush your car ?

desertdudeshj wrote:That would make a lot of sense EH but there is one fundamental problem with that explantion. Silverstein did not own or hold a lease on WTC 6, so why would anybody ask Silvertien about WTC 6 ? Infact he never even bid for WTC 6.

Can I order your car to be crushed ? Or would anybody ask me for permission to crush your car ?

Silverstein didn't mention building 6. He said 'pull', as in go 'ahead and pull your men out of building 7'.

Alex Jones mentioned the building because one of the workers at the site of building 6's demolition used the term 'pull' to refer to the pulling of cables to bring down building 6.

Alex Jones was the one to make the connection between a worker who said 'pull' to bring down building 6 (using cables, not explosives) to Silverstein's comments of pulling firefighters out of building 7.

I mean, come on. Your 'proof' of Silverstein's involvement was that he incriminated himself on a PBS documentary.

But that's ignoring that 'pull' for Silverstein - and the context is clear - was used in a conversation with a fire chief that his men were going to evacuate building 7 and Silverstein agreed saying it was best to pull your men out before the building collapses. Again, this was on a PBS documentary.

and not mock you so please work with me here.

Actually, I was mocking Alex Jones who has mislead others with these quotes.

Why is the silverstein quote scraping the bottom of the barrel?

1) Because the context is clear

2) Silverstein would be incriminating himself on a documentary

3) Because the firefighters would had to have been on it

4) Because 'pull' for building 6 actually meant using cables to bring down building 6, not explosives as Alex Jones misleads his readers

Anyways, I'm really surprised anyone is still putting any stock in that quote.

You just posted the silverstein quote and he said its about pulling the building. What am I missing? He admitted that the building was demolished.

Here's his 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.

Didn't you just say the term pull it was being applied to WTC 6 ? Even if not

How does this

"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.

Equate to this ?

event horizon wrote:He said 'pull', as in go 'ahead and pull your men out of building 7'.

No he said pull "it"

If what you were try to say was even remotely correct, the correct usage would be "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull them ( out/back)." followed by then they pulled out and we watched......

Now you are trying very hard with verbal gymnastics to squeeze you elaborate explanation in one single word "pull" which itself is an out of context partial quote. The term used was "pull it"

And even if we make that huge leap of faith and accept what you are saying. Why would a fire chief be consulting Silverstien on how do his job. Was Silverstien incharge of fire and rescue operations happening at Ground Zero that day ? And all of this is IF we accept your POV which is almost impossible to swallow in the first place

Now your previous explination would have made sense if Silvestien was referring to WTC 6 which was pulled down, but again WTC 6 has nothing to Silverstien

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Do I need any more evidence that 9/11 truthers scrape the bottom of the barrel?

It should speak volumes that one is now an agnostic after reading their arguments, perhaps he's as equally convinced that Silverstein incriminated himself with a quote to a journalist where he is talking to a fire chief that 'pull it' means pulling a building down with cable rather than the obvious that 'pull it' is another way for him to say 'end it'. (BTW, is the fire chief convinced that 'pull it' meant demolish the building or is he in on it too?)

As in, 'Mr. fire chief, there's already been a severe loss of life, you have my blessing to end it rather than risk the lives of any more men'.

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Yes, that means, in the documentary, Silverstein told the fire chief that because there's a risk to the safety of his men, he ought blow the building up. That makes sense to me.

Not as Silverstein's blessing for the fire chief to end the operation and evacuate the building and let the building burn or anything like that.

And, of course, the clincher in all of this is that 'pull it' must mean to demolish the building because someone at Building 6 used the same phrase as Silverstein to refer to Building 6 being pulled down with cables. Yup.

For 9/11 truthers, a quote from Silverstein to the fire chief is a green light to demolish the building

'Pull it', taken from a worker at building 6 referring to bringing the tower down with cables becomes a phrase used to describe demolishing a building with explosives.

So, Silverstein, saying that the fire chief should 'pull it' because his men have suffered heavy losses and to prevent future deaths, turns into Silverstein telling the fire chief that he will be demolishing the building.

Of course, Silverstein and the fire chief weren't concerned of loss of life for WTC 1 & 2, but hey, why let common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?


Oh, and here's video proof of Silverstein admitting his own guilt!

Now your just rambling on and totaly incoherent ? Two essays ( one whch does not make any sense at all ) to explain your context of the term pull it.

Anyways this is beyond your capabilties, letes see how you explain this.

How do you explain the BBC reporting WTC 7 has collapsed almost half an hour before it actualy does ? When its visible clear as day, in broad daylight in the back ground. ?

As I said:

Do I need any more evidence that 9/11 truthers scrape the bottom of the barrel?

BTW, did you watch the video of Silverstein admitting that he told the fire chief to demolish building 7?

Pretty convincing stuff.

Oh wait, I'm just rambling, never mind.

Hi EH

As per my previous question - if the buildings that fell on 911 all looked like they had been demolised to you does that make you at all suspicious? You seem like a clever guy and stated in one of your previous posts that the way that they fell was like a controlled explosion. If that is the case what do you make of it?

Well I have to say, I'm now having doubts that Silverstein was in fact issuing an order to demolish the building. The term "pull it" could also mean "pull the squad out". Then again, the fact that WTC6 collapsed in a demolition-like manner seems coherent with the idea that Silverstein issued the order.

EH, what do you think about the way that WTC6 collapsed? Why do you think it was so much like the demolition?

You mean WTC 7, ok fine i'll bit too and give EH one hadicapped point on Silverstein. But still there is there is the BBC news clips reporting the WTC 7 collapsed with the WTC 7 visible in the back ground. 26 min earlier than it actually did. And how did isolated fires bring it down, ignoring the fact it caved in on its own footprint, perfect demolition style. Also how does a building collapse from fire ? When the video posted earlier show the 100+ floor Bejing cultral center tower is burns head to toe for over 6 hours and still stands.

Too many anomalies too few answers.

???

I take a pretty simple view on the conspiracy theories.
I don't give the US enough credit to pull it off.
Covering up a few mistakes here and there, yeah but thats all.
It might be possible somewhere like China or North Korea, but not in the US.

^ That's pretty much where I was at the start of this thread:

shafique wrote:I don't believe the conspiracy theories - I don't think the US government or Mossad are competent enough to pull off such a cover-up if they were behind it.

I also said that I found some of the spin fishy - and I still do. Now I'm a bit more agnostic about the whole thing - perhaps there's more to the conspiracy theory than meets the eye!

Ironically, I think the best way to cover up a conspiracy is to seed some even greater conspiracy theory stories which can more easily be dismissed, then the core conspiracy can be covered up in the process. Eg - perhaps the Philly plane was shot down by the US and didn't crash when passengers overpowered the hijackers. The authorities could have covered that up.

Also, it is an amazing coincidence that the two WTC towers pancaked exactly like a planned demolition, WT7 also collapsed in a similar fashion and the pilot of the plane that flew into the pentagon managed to pull of a near impossible manoeuvre (skimming the lawn feet off the ground, and flying into the side of a building and having the plane disintegrate, including the usually indestructible engines..) - but sometimes amazing coincidences do happen.

But amazing coincidences are hard to believe.

Cheers,
Shafique

It is utterly ridiculous to compare the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

kanelli wrote:It is utterly ridiculous to compare the Beijing Cultural Center to the World Trade Center towers. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

As usual, you select one small point and comment on it, but fail to answer the question.

Eg - perhaps the Philly plane was shot down by the US and didn't crash when passengers overpowered the hijackers. The authorities could have covered that up.

Except there was no debris field and the black box confirms the terrorists brought the plane down at the time the passengers were kicking the door in.

and having the plane disintegrate, including the usually indestructible engines..