Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

New 911 Documentary

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And for further confirmation. Go to this page and go to the link where Larry Silverstein, the owner, admitting that they "pulled" WTC7.

    http://www.colorado911visibility.org/building7.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See that makes loads more sense, as your video shows they just felt it was too unstable and decided to bring it down under advice from the Fire Department, especially since they were certain it was empty. Mystery solved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    And for further confirmation. Go to this page and go to the link where Larry Silverstein, the owner, admitting that they "pulled" WTC7.

    http://www.colorado911visibility.org/building7.html

    Except, of course, that Silverstein is quoting the fire department - and the account for that I have heard is that 'pulling' is nothing to do with demolishing, it is pulling the firefighters from the building. That makes a lot more sense in the context of the tape - why would you destroy a building simply because it contains an out of control fire? It's much more likely you would pull the firefighters from it, as their efforts were not helping.

    And as another poster wrote, of course all the buildings would have been connected, and of course being hit by two hoofing great aeroplanes is going to cause something close to a sysmic event, destabilising the foundations of building 7, perhaps to the extent that it collapsed later that day. I also think it's very sensible to think that they were designed to collapse into their own footprint - of course, the design is to withstand any collapse at all, but no architect is going to completely ignore the possibility of collapse. By collapsing into their own footprints rather than sideways, a lot of extra loss of life and expensive damage was avoided.

    The whole conspiracy theory thing just seems so incredibly laboured and unlikely - although of course it's something we're probably never definitely going to know one way or the other. It just seems that, 5 years on, probably the highest profile 'conspiracy' of all time would have been uncovered - especially with so many people so convinced it is one. Any concrete evidence would be jumped on in a heartbeat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    See that makes loads more sense, as your video shows they just felt it was too unstable and decided to bring it down under advice from the Fire Department, especially since they were certain it was empty. Mystery solved.

    But how do you 'bring down a building'? And I'm not being facetious, if there really is a way, then it makes it more likely (although I'm still not convinced as then why would this not be public knowledge?).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    So not only was the US Government involved but they also happened to mention what they were planning to friendly property owners in case they wanted to cash in?

    Why the disconnect ?

    The biggest corporation in the world are the men and women d.b.a. "US Government". Perhaps that`s why there are so many lobbyists in Washington ? If you don`t want competition you seek help from the business with the most guns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    See that makes loads more sense, as your video shows they just felt it was too unstable and decided to bring it down under advice from the Fire Department, especially since they were certain it was empty. Mystery solved.

    Yeh but don't you think it's a bit weird that they had explosives in it in the first place? They obviously had prior knowledge to such an attack. Plus, the building would have survived anyway, loads of buildings suffered severe fire damage and they still manage to put the fires out. Apparently the WTC7 building was also the headquaters of some top intelligence agency and it would have had lots of info on terrorist activity and other things. It was taken down for more than the reason he gave.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LucieLu wrote:
    Except, of course, that Silverstein is quoting the fire department - and the account for that I have heard is that 'pulling' is nothing to do with demolishing, it is pulling the firefighters from the building. That makes a lot more sense in the context of the tape - why would you destroy a building simply because it contains an out of control fire? It's much more likely you would pull the firefighters from it, as their efforts were not helping.

    But if you listen carefully, the police officers didn't say to pull it. Larry himself said it, and to "pull" is a word used to take down buildings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll have to listen again - to my ears it sounded like he was quoting a conversation he had with the firefighter captain or whatever these people are called, in which the captain said he would be 'pulling it' e.g. the attempt to put out the fire. Hmmm. I reckon it was the commies anyway. (/jk)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LucieLu wrote:
    But how do you 'bring down a building'? And I'm not being facetious, if there really is a way, then it makes it more likely (although I'm still not convinced as then why would this not be public knowledge?).

    I'll bet you've all stopped work in the office now to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Stopped what now?? :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Why the disconnect ?

    The biggest corporation in the world are the men and women d.b.a. "US Government". Perhaps that`s why there are so many lobbyists in Washington ? If you don`t want competition you seek help from the business with the most guns.

    Yes that's right you're planning mass murder of your own citizens so it makes sense to invite all and sundry to have discussions about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just watched the WTC 7 bit on the video again. I am absolutely positive that it was a controlled demolition. (one of the reasons is that the building collapsed inwards which is how controlled demolitions happen)
    What Larry is saying is: "I remember getting a call from the Firefighting Commander saying that he thinks they will not be bale to contain the fire, that there's been an incredible loss of life already and that it needs pulling. So they decided to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

    It's exatcly what I've said before.

    Yerascrote, no one said the explosives were there before that day, where did you get that?
    To those of you who might think it would have been better to let the fire burn, you have to think about the proximity of the surrounding buildings and the possibility of the fire spreading.

    Why isn't it public knowledge? Who knows...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Yerascrote, no one said the explosives were there before that day, where did you get that?

    Is it possible to carry out such an operation, especially considering the circumstances
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    Is it possible to carry out such an operation, especially considering the circumstances

    Absolutely. There are always emergency procedures in place. And like LucieLu said, if buildings were designed so they would collapse in their footprint, than surely a plan would be in place to deal with any emergency like the 9/11.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    See that makes loads more sense, as your video shows they just felt it was too unstable and decided to bring it down under advice from the Fire Department, especially since they were certain it was empty. Mystery solved.



    Actually if you follow up the story the lease holder denies that pull meant to pull down the building but pull out the firefighters - the government website given also states that their theory is that building 7 collasped cos of some central supporting columns that were weakeaned by the fire - so the official word is there's no demolitians for any of the 3 buildings - it's up to each person to weigh up the facts as to whether or not they believe this is true or not



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

    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html


    9/11 conspiracy theories

    Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

    Among the 9/11 conspiracy theories is belief that 7 World Trade Center was deliberately destroyed. Conspiracy theorists cite a 2002 PBS documentary America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein used the term "pull it". These conspiracy theorists believe the term is industry jargon used in controlled demolition.

    "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."

    Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

    "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."

    McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [2].

    In recounting the day's events, Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22 also uses the term "pulled" in discussing the evacuation of the firefighters contingent from 7 World Trade Center. [12]

    Controlled demolition experts with Protec Documentation Services state that they have never heard the term used to describe demolition of a building with use of explosives. Though, the term "pull" can be used to describe the act of weakening and physically pulling down the frame of a building with cables — something that is only possible for small buildings, and physically impossible for such a large building as 7 World Trade Center.[13]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Absolutely. There are always emergency procedures in place. And like LucieLu said, if buildings were designed so they would collapse in their footprint, than surely a plan would be in place to deal with any emergency like the 9/11.

    Do you think he said the same thing in relation to WTC1 and 2?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    Just watched the WTC 7 bit on the video again. I am absolutely positive that it was a controlled demolition. (one of the reasons is that the building collapsed inwards which is how controlled demolitions happen)
    What Larry is saying is: "I remember getting a call from the Firefighting Commander saying that he thinks they will not be bale to contain the fire, that there's been an incredible loss of life already and that it needs pulling. So they decided to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

    It's exatcly what I've said before.


    See US Government link

    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

    It states there was no controlled explosion - it was due to a weakened suport column .. so you have to ask yourself - do you believe them or not?

    This would make WTC 7 the first sky scraper to fall from fire (excluding any other building that got hit by planes as well)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See US Government link

    http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

    It states there was no controlled explosion - it was due to a weakened suport column .. so you have to ask yourself - do you believe them or not?

    This would make WTC 7 the first sky scraper to fall from fire (excluding any other building that got hit by planes as well)

    MY view is clear. I suggest you have a look at some videos of controlled demolitions and compare them.
    The columns in those buildings were tested at some point at 2500 degrees fahrenheit and they lasted for 6 hours and were still unscathed.

    Also, to pull a building does mean to take it down. Term "pulling a building" comes from the '30's when ropes were used to pull buildings down in a controlled fashion. Although today the term pulling doesn't technically mean doing it with explosives it is widely used in the building industry.

    Furthermore, to answer your question, Yerascrote, the 2 Towers were different collapses than WTC7. Why? Because the collapse started at the point of impact, not in the basements. That is clearly visible from the video footage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Yes that's right you're planning mass murder of your own citizens so it makes sense to invite all and sundry to have discussions about it.

    No idea what you are talking about.:confused:

    I was pointing out that "big business" has many connections,and the biggest business is the "US Government".

    Silverstein purchased the WTC only 6 weeks before it collapsed/exploded.The only time it had ever changed legal ownership. The previous owner ? ? A subsidiary of the "US Government" corporation,namely "New York Port Authority".

    Mr. Silverstein was also very fortunate in that the collapse/explosion has netted him an estimated $500 million profit from the insurance payout.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    MY view is clear. I suggest you have a look at some videos of controlled demolitions and compare them.
    The columns in those buildings were tested at some point at 2500 degrees fahrenheit and they lasted for 6 hours and were still unscathed.

    Also, to pull a building does mean to take it down. Term "pulling a building" comes from the '30's when ropes were used to pull buildings down in a controlled fashion. Although today the term pulling doesn't technically mean doing it with explosives it is widely used in the building industry.

    Furthermore, to answer your question, Yerascrote, the 2 Towers were different collapses than WTC7. Why? Because the collapse started at the point of impact, not in the basements. That is clearly visible from the video footage.


    Hello I agree with you ... that I also think it was a controlled explosion in tower 7 (but I think they were preplanted and you don't ..right??)

    But the US governemnt is telling YOU that there wasn't any controlled exposion at all - THE GOVERNMENT said that

    YOU said - maybe they went in whilst it was on fire

    The government said no it collasped on it's own

    You don't even seem to be able to follow your own arguements

    Here's a nice offical government PDF for you on the falling of WTC 7
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Makoto wrote:
    It wouldn't suprise me if this is true. When the Cuban missile crisis was around the US Gov't had planes to shoot down a US airliner and blame it in on Cuba. I cannot remember the name of the files, but they are now declassified and you can find them on the net which details it all.

    The video I saw a few weeks talked about the above and also how corrupt the US Gov't is with it's cases of money laundering a mass drug dealings, as well as 9/11.

    I'll try and fnd the video.

    Operation Northwoods.

    The PNAC documents (the Project for the New American century being a think tank with Perle, Cheney et al on board) also call for a "catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbour" in order to speed up the strategic process which, otherwise, they say will be incremental.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    See that makes loads more sense, as your video shows they just felt it was too unstable and decided to bring it down under advice from the Fire Department, especially since they were certain it was empty. Mystery solved.

    ...and it fell pretty much in the exact same fashion as buildings one and two.

    Mystery re-opened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah well, worth a try!

    *returns to Anything Goes* :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's Operation Northwood got to do with anything?

    It was a planning document which was rejected by the Government in 1962, hardly evidence of a plot in 2001.

    It also doesn't suggest shooting down an civilian aircraft, but the faking of such
    It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
    convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
    a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
    Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
    be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
    The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
    holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
    support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

    a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
    numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
    aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
    Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
    subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
    loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
    carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
    aircraft would be converted to a drone.

    b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
    aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
    Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
    aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
    into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
    have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
    aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
    meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
    over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
    national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
    is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
    will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
    be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
    has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
    "sell" the incident.

    They also mention potentially sinking a boat of cuban refugees and the wounding of Cuban refugees in the US and the planting of explosives 9but with no hints that these should be designed to kill people). The sinking of the US ship is followed with the idea of mock funerals.

    Dodgy stuff perhaps, but nots what's claimed by some and with limited bearing on 9/11 especially given that it was rejected and there is no evidence it got beyond a blue skies planning document and in fact it a paper released by the US Government is kinda strange if they were planning to update it and use it a the template for further attacks,

    You can read the whole document here

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps the buildings were designed to collapse straight downwards and thus minimising any damage to surrounding buildings in the case that they needed to be demolished, or there was an earthquake. I remember seeing something (most likely on Newsround :blush:) about how tall buildings in Japan (?) are designed to flex in the event of an earthquake. No reason why a building can't be designed to collapse downwards. After all, why make a huge mess when you can make a small one? It's less to clean up after...

    I think your theory sounds like the way they design crumple zones in some cars or trains, but with sky scrappers you're also fighting the force of gravity - whilst crumple zones run horizontal.

    If you do some research you'll fin that never in the history of skyscrappers have any buildings totally fell before as they did on 911 - so buildings falling down isn't a major problem - the only sky scrapperthat was widely recognised as being in danger of falling over was the citi corp building

    You can read about it here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

    Oh and this is a good example of how you can make major modifcations to a sky scrapper and keep it secret

    The building was in danger of falling over in high winds, but this was only discovered years after being built, and so the owners decided to have engineers go in at night and strengthen the building little by little each day - but not telling the poeple in the building so as not to panic them.




    http://earthdude1.tripod.com/citibank_tower/citibank.html

    Citibank knew that the problem had to be kept a secret to avoid panic. Yet, they needed to come up with a way to evacuate midtown Manhattan in a moments notice.

    Three organizations were contacted - The Red Cross, the National Weather Service, and the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.

    The Red Cross calculated that a catastrophic collapse could result in a domino effect that would effect up to 156 city blocks of midtown. They secretly proceeded to map out all of the activities of the people around the Citicorp Tower. To collect these demographics, the Red Cross volunteers were told that they were doing a marketing survey. In these days before high speed computers, the Red Cross volunteers had to catalogue the city street by street and block by block using only clipboards. They had no idea what they were really collecting the data for.

    On Tuesday, August 8th, Citibank posted notices stating that the wind bracing system was going to be reinforced and that the engineers on the project had assured them that there was no danger.

    Construction began.

    As soon as the office staff left each night, the crews ripped of the fireproofing gypsum off the wall so that the welders could install the 2 inch thick plates. By 4 A.M. the welders stopped and the clean-up crews came in. By the time the office staff came back in the next day, one could hardly tell that any work had been done - everything was practically back to normal.

    But one strange effect could be seen across the city skyline. One could easily see the glow of the welders diagonally up and down the chevrons. This strange sparkling glow was initially reported by the Wall Street Journal on August 9th, but no follow-up was done. Everything was still a secret.

    That was until The New York Times called LeMessurier's office inquiring into what was going on. LeMessurier realized that the cat was about to be out of the bag. However, he lucked out. When LeMessurier went to return the phone call at 6 o'clock, he heard a message that said that The New York Times had gone on strike just at that moment. The secret remained.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hello I agree with you ... that I also think it was a controlled explosion in tower 7 (but I think they were preplanted and you don't ..right??)

    But the US governemnt is telling YOU that there wasn't any controlled exposion at all - THE GOVERNMENT said that

    YOU said - maybe they went in whilst it was on fire

    The government said no it collasped on it's own

    You don't even seem to be able to follow your own arguements

    Here's a nice offical government PDF for you on the falling of WTC 7
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

    NO, I don't think they were pre-planted. ( The only way that could have happened is if they had introduced some kind of law that all the buildings in the financial district need to be preloaded with dinamyte in case they need to be taken down)

    You might have realized by now that I don't think the government's evidence is credible.

    I think they went in while SOME parts of the buildings were on fire, however, I've previously states that I don't think there were fires in the basement section...

    I am quite able to follow my argument (cunt ;))....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    NO, I don't think they were pre-planted. ( The only way that could have happened is if they had introduced some kind of law that all the buildings in the financial district need to be preloaded with dinamyte in case they need to be taken down)

    You might have realized by now that I don't think the government's evidence is credible.

    I think they went in while SOME parts of the buildings were on fire, however, I've previously states that I don't think there were fires in the basement section...

    I am quite able to follow my argument (cunt ;))....


    A law to preload buildings with dinamyte ?

    :lol:

    BTW Nice use of language

    So according to you - the government is lieing and the Fire Dept., FBI, and other officials on the scene allowed people to walk ito a burning building whilst with explosives in their hands .. start placing them all over the building, setting wires, etc with the eyes of the entire world now watching several hours after the first tower was hit - with all the world's camera's now there and blow it up but is telling the world it fell naturally?

    And they managed to get all that done in the space of say 5 hours, know exactly where to place the explosives so the building wouldn't topple over into another

    ....Now that's got to be the most unbelievable 911 story yet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A law to preload buildings with dinamyte ?

    :lol:

    BTW Nice use of language

    So according to you - the government is lieing and the Fire Dept., FBI, and other officials on the scene allowed people to walk ito a burning building whilst with explosives in their hands .. start placing them all over the building, setting wires, etc with the eyes of the entire world now watching several hours after the first tower was hit - with all the world's camera's now there and blow it up but is telling the world it fell naturally?

    And they managed to get all that done in the space of say 5 hours, know exactly where to place the explosives so the building wouldn't topple over into another

    ....Now that's got to be the most unbelievable 911 story yet.

    Right. The government is not lying (if I say that I can be sued for libel). The government is not giving us the truth and nothing but the truth. FDNY has pulled (;)) out their people before explosives were placed. If the decision was in fact to pull WTC7 then FBI got nothing to do with it.
    Also, to bring a building down, you don't put explosive sticks all over the building, but just in the foundation columns that supporting the building. And you don't need wiring. They can be remote detonated (like I said before ;) and also if they were pre-planted with wires, don't you think someone would notice?).
    Everyone was evacuated from Lower Manhattan, there were only the services present and obviously the FBI. And possible FEMA.
    Also the official report doesn't say anything, in fact it states that the government is not entirely sure how the building came down and why.

    Also, there was 6 hours and 50 minutes between the fall of the North Tower and the collapse of WTC7. That is enough time to go in with a certain number of explosives experts and plant explosive sticks in foundation columns.
    I also mentioned that the foundation level would have been already weakened by the collapse of the nearby towers to which it was connected directly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Out of all the things that happened that day there's only one thing the public know - that there is video tape of the WTC Buildings and of the Pentagon Being Hit.

    We've seen lots of video's of the WTC buildings and they bring up a lot of questions for people who believe either side of the argument.

    But of course the Pentagon being the most heavily protected building in the world MUST, simply MUST have video to once and for all prove or disprove whether a missle or plane went into the side of it.

    All the reports said that there was even a Gas Station that had a security camera that would have proved it either way - but the FBI came and took the tape within 10 minutes of the crash

    I do think if there was a plane that really crashed into the pentagon all the US government would have to do is show it and it would help put an end to the uncertainly. All they've ever shown was a fireball, that could be either a plane or a missle.

    There are eyewitness that saw they saw one or the other - video evidence for me would settle it once and for all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Having watched the film mentioned on this thread and others on Google video.
    They rais a lot of good points, Building No7 and the fact that they all fell at free fall speed are the biggest questions I feel.
    The case for a conspiracy is not helped by the more outlandish claims made cause if "they" can discredit one aspect that discredits the whole.
    I think there are enough people in theAmerican Military and secret service who are either supportive of any such plot or just do as their told dont ask any questions and dont talk for it to have been done with out anyone involved going public,
Sign In or Register to comment.