|
Post by ktesibios on Jan 12, 2006 12:10:17 GMT -4
That seems like another bad analogy. You are a sentient being, while a building is not a living thing. In addition, in the medical care scenario, noone's life or safety can be at stake except your own, unless you happen to have a potentially epidemic disease.
The CT tries to assign the responsibility for the fate of WTC7 to Silverstein. Considering that deciding whether or not to continue fighting the fires involved balancing the lives of human beings against the value of property, and that the human beings involved were FD personnel, it just seems implausible that he would have played a truly decisive part in making that decision.
Your scenario is pretty much what I envisaged as being normal courtesy and a sensible desire to achieve consensus. The question is if he had said "no, I want you to give priority to saving my building", what the effect on the FD's actions would have been. Or, conversely, whether the FD would give up and pull out of a building they believed saveable at the owner's suggestion.
The CT tries to reach into a decision-making process which we don't know about and pluck out a Villain for everyone to gape at. With the designated villain being the layman in a situation where professional knowledge would be a critical input, the whole scenario smells fishy. That's why I think it would be useful to hear from people who know how such decisions are customarily taken.
Then again, there are so many layers of implausibility to the CT scenario that perhaps the question is moot.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 12, 2006 16:34:19 GMT -4
We all heard Silverstein say that it was a decision made by himself and the NYFD. I have also read that the decision was made by "government officials." I don't know who usually decides these things. The building had already been evacuated (excepting a few CIA agents), so we know "pull" doesn't mean "evacuate." The problem with WTC7 blowing up is that it supposedly takes weeks to lay the explosive materials properly. I refuse to believe that Muslim terrorists went in and out of WTC7 for weeks laying down their dynamite or whatever they used and didn't get caught. Does anyone believe our security forces are so stupid and negligent? I have more faith in them than that -- especially considering that the WTC had been the target of terrorist activity at least twice before.
So then Silverstein says that his earlier statement doesn't mean what everyone thinks (that the building was blown up). He must have realized that people would figure out that a building can't be demolished like that in a few hours. So he refused to explain what he actually did mean in his original statement.
It would take way more faith for me to believe the official explanation (that the building collapsed due to fire) than it does to believe that it was a well-planned insider job (meaning government agents). Come on now. Direct me to any information about any steel skyscraper anywhere in the world that imploded or collapsed from any magnitude of fire, let alone a few small random fires that only burned for a matter of hours.
Who's really straining at gnats here? Eventually CT bashers are going to have to come to the harsh realization that we're not the good guys anymore, that our government is corrupt and treasonous, that they're causing these catastrophes to get more power, take away our rights and institute global government--you know, the New World Order Daddy Bush told us about. The beast government that the Bible tells us about. The Lord said that the whole world would come under the rule of a global government and a single ruler. The U.S. was not excepted.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2006 17:03:13 GMT -4
So then Silverstein says that his earlier statement doesn't mean what everyone thinks (that the building was blown up).
1. Everyone doesn’t think this. Just a small number of conspiracy theorist that have a tenuous grasp on the reality of events on 9/11. You need to expand your circle.
2. What “everyone” thinks is not all that relevant. Rather more important is what can be shown to have happened.
It would take way more faith for me to believe…
Why is it a matter of faith when there is evidence is available? Your perceptions are so influenced by your eschatology that you fail to see the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 12, 2006 17:14:40 GMT -4
Can Turbonium or DH follow up with something please? I keep reading the "no other steel building.." blablabla, but has any other building of any kind ever experienced a SECRET DEMOLITION? If you want to wave around the "unique event" card for the "official" story, back it up with a counter example of any building ever being demolished in secret. Otherwise we have two equally unique possibilites.
Besides, just 'cuz something happens that never happened before, don't mean it didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 12, 2006 18:28:14 GMT -4
Good one, bughead. Of course if it were secret, we wouldn't have heard about it......
The problem I see, DH, is no matter who you have putting the explosives in, or when the explosives go in, you still end up with precision explosive devices in the middle of a large fire. If you went in after the fire started, you are packing in live charges while the bulding smolders around you. I'd want hazard pay for that! If you place the charges before the fire, you have to ask how they survive what is essentially random damage patterns (from the debris falling from the towers) as well as the only semi-predictable path of the following fire.
Your obvious recourse is to argue that the fire was all flash and no bang; that a couple windows burned for a few minutes so they could appear on photographs, but the building was otherwise untouched. The primary problem I have with this is that you NEED a fire that is capable of convincing several hard-headed people -- such as the insurance investigators! -- if you are going to pretend that fire instigated the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 12, 2006 21:35:25 GMT -4
So then Silverstein says that his earlier statement doesn't mean what everyone thinks (that the building was blown up).1. Everyone doesn’t think this. Just a small number of conspiracy theorist that have a tenuous grasp on the reality of events on 9/11. You need to expand your circle. 2. What “everyone” thinks is not all that relevant. Rather more important is what can be shown to have happened. It would take way more faith for me to believe…Why is it a matter of faith when there is evidence is available? Your perceptions are so influenced by your eschatology that you fail to see the truth. I think there's some crossed wires here. When I said "what everybody thinks" I was referring to the majority of people believing the building was destroyed by fire--not by demolition. Secondly, we saw what happened. All the evidence points to planned demolition. That's why it would take faith for me to believe the building was destroyed by fire. The evidence for the fire theory just isn't very good. As for perceptions, I could say the same about you--that you're so conditioned to believe the government story line that you can't see the evidence that's right in front of you.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 12, 2006 21:37:33 GMT -4
Can Turbonium or DH follow up with something please? I keep reading the "no other steel building.." blablabla, but has any other building of any kind ever experienced a SECRET DEMOLITION? If you want to wave around the "unique event" card for the "official" story, back it up with a counter example of any building ever being demolished in secret. Otherwise we have two equally unique possibilites. Besides, just 'cuz something happens that never happened before, don't mean it didn't happen. I don't know of any other "secret" demolitions in America. There's WTC1 and 2 which were also brought down by explosives and not fire. That's 3 in one day, but I guess that wouldn't count.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 12, 2006 21:41:11 GMT -4
Good one, bughead. Of course if it were secret, we wouldn't have heard about it...... The problem I see, DH, is no matter who you have putting the explosives in, or when the explosives go in, you still end up with precision explosive devices in the middle of a large fire. If you went in after the fire started, you are packing in live charges while the bulding smolders around you. I'd want hazard pay for that! If you place the charges before the fire, you have to ask how they survive what is essentially random damage patterns (from the debris falling from the towers) as well as the only semi-predictable path of the following fire. Your obvious recourse is to argue that the fire was all flash and no bang; that a couple windows burned for a few minutes so they could appear on photographs, but the building was otherwise untouched. The primary problem I have with this is that you NEED a fire that is capable of convincing several hard-headed people -- such as the insurance investigators! -- if you are going to pretend that fire instigated the collapse. No, I stated in an earlier post that the explosives would have had to be placed weeks before 9/11, relying on expert information that it takes that long to "wire" a building of that size. Only our own government or the people they hired would have the expertise and time to wire the buildings. Building security HAD to know what was going on, but building security was run by President Bush's brother. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 12, 2006 22:00:48 GMT -4
I covered that. So you wire the building. Then you set fire to it and drop part of another building on it. That isn't going to harm the explosives? Controlled demolitions is precision work. Even a professional "shoot" goes wrong quite frequently. This, however, had to be completely perfect; not only did it have to drop the building, but it had to look like it was caused by the existing damage and fire, AND it could not let even the slightest flash betray itself to the thousands of people nearby. Any slip-up; even one blasting cap left lying around afterwards, and every person involved in planning and doing that demo is in a world of legal trouble.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2006 22:59:00 GMT -4
As for perceptions, I could say the same about you--that you're so conditioned to believe the government story line that you can't see the evidence that's right in front of you.
I have your own statements in which your demonstrate a strong eschatological bias. You just assume people that disagree with you are victims of conditioning. What evidence do you present that I am really such a victim?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jan 13, 2006 1:04:31 GMT -4
Um....whenever I get medical care, those trained professionals consult me (the patient) before they do anything. Hrm. In those times I've needed to call upon the services of the police, they have asked me if I want to prefer charges, if I want to appear in court. Heck, in your example, if the choice for Mrs. Smith was herculean efforts resulting in a mental vegetable, or to let Mr. Smith die with dignity, I would certainly hope they DID consult Mrs. Smith. So your examples work against you here. The conversation characterized in the post above would, I think, be more along the lines of; "Mr. Silverstein, we don't think we can save your building, and making the effort is going to cost lives. Do you agree with our pulling out?" I think you may have missed my point. I posted the analogy to show how responsible people, well qualified in dealing with the life-or-death situations common to their professions (ie:a doctor or fire dep't commander), would not be so foolish and inept as to shirk their duties, at a time of utmost importance, to defer to the opinions of others who would have nothing relevant to contribute to the situation. Or to give them an "update" on the situation. The doctor in my example is consulting with Mrs. Smith when he should be in the OR coordinating the procedure to save Mr. Smith's life. Even in the situation you mentioned, the doctor would not be calling Mrs. Smith in the middle of the procedure. To wit, if Mr. Smith could end up a "vegetable", do you really expect the doctor to abandon his primary duty (saving a life) to call Mrs. Smith and ask her to make a split-second decision on whether they a) let her husband die or b) continue to save his life, which if successful will likely leave him as a vegetable? Now, looking at your analogy... "Mr. Silverstein, we don't think we can save your building, and making the effort is going to cost lives. Do you agree with our pulling out?" Again, for argument's sake we'll go with your interpretation of "pull it" to mean "pulling" firefighters out. First, it was Silverstein who claimed he was the one to suggest to the Fire Dep't commander to "pull it". The commander did not come up with the idea, nor ask for Larry's opinion on it. Further, the commander is not going to ask for Larry's opinion on whether or not he "agrees" with pulling the firefighters out because it may otherwise cost lives to continue the effort. If the commander thinks it's too hazardous to continue, then it will be the commander that makes that decision - without seeking the "approval" of the building owner, or building lease owner, or Giuliani, or Bush, or the Sultan of Brunei! Again, I want to stress that I don't see the Silverstein comments as a primary issue countering the official Gov't story of 9/11. It is of far less significance than the NIST and FEMA reports, 9/11 Commission report, and so on. But it is nevertheless another point to include with the numerous puzzles and anomalies of the overall 9/11 topic.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 13, 2006 1:40:05 GMT -4
Nomuse: Nothing dropped on WTC7. It was too far away. Watch the video I posted.
Echnaton: What's the difference between conditioning and bias? You think I'm brainwashed by my religious beliefs. I think you're brainwashed by the mainstream media. You're the pot calling the kettle black, but believe you're not guilty of conditioning because you believe I have a religious bias, and heaven knows, Christians are fair game these days. It's also poliltically correct to insult smokers--do you walk by them and cough and wave your arms to let everyone know that you don't smoke? Make fat jokes? Hmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2006 2:38:06 GMT -4
Okay, so what actual physical evidence do you have that explosives were used, or what eye-wittness accunts do you have that they saw explosive devices either being installed, or installed in the buildings?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2006 2:40:30 GMT -4
Nothing dropped on WTC7. It was too far away.
Please then explain the photos that show the damage to the top and removal of the southwest corner from the 9th floor down?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 13, 2006 3:41:54 GMT -4
Nothing dropped on WTC7. It was too far away.Please then explain the photos that show the damage to the top and removal of the southwest corner from the 9th floor down? Post then and I'll explain them.
|
|