My Response to Paul Watson

[Kent1]

You inspired me to go and finish proofreading the remaining sections. They have now been sent.

Wow Awesome!

 

[dirtywick]

The much simpler question, is what else would the FIRE CAPTAIN be able to order "pulled" besides the firemen, or the firefighting unit, or the rescue unit.

TAM

I also still don't understand why they assume that anyone but demolitions experts would be familiar with demolitions lingo, let alone use it when speaking to others who clearly wouldn't be familiar with it.

It also really irks me that they think fighting the knife wielding maniacs would be an intelligent or natural thing to do. Clearly the passengers aboard the planes had no idea it was a suicide mission, so without that information there'd be little reason not to try and wait out the hijacking even if one were inclined to fight several trained soldiers armed with knives.

 

[Mince]

I also still don't understand why they assume that anyone but demolitions experts would be familiar with demolitions lingo, let alone use it when speaking to others who clearly wouldn't be familiar with it.

It also really irks me that they think fighting the knife wielding maniacs would be an intelligent or natural thing to do. Clearly the passengers aboard the planes had no idea it was a suicide mission, so without that information there'd be little reason not to try and wait out the hijacking even if one were inclined to fight several trained soldiers armed with knives.

I'd like to add that, on all of the flights, the hijackers threatened them with a bomb. Fundamentally, what you say, quoted here, and the threat of the bomb, was the whole foundation of 9/11's success (from the terrorist's perspective). Like you say, if the passengers think they will survive with passivity, there is no incentive to risk anything. But, and the terrorists must know this, this was a one time opportunity. Never again will they be allowed aircraft as devices of terrorism.



A common argument regarding Silverstein:

"Silverstein was telling the Fire Captain to pull his men out of the building."

CT: "There were no firefighters in the building."

"Silverstein thought there were firefighters in the building."

Jesus, just reason through his statement. I mean, without the "he's admitting to a controlled demolition" slant.

 

[LashL]

I'd like to add that, on all of the flights, the hijackers threatened them with a bomb. Fundamentally, what you say, quoted here, and the threat of the bomb, was the whole foundation of 9/11's success (from the terrorist's perspective). Like you say, if the passengers think they will survive with passivity, there is no incentive to risk anything. But, and the terrorists must know this, this was a one time opportunity. Never again will they be allowed aircraft as devices of terrorism.



A common argument regarding Silverstein:

"Silverstein was telling the Fire Captain to pull his men out of the building."

CT: "There were no firefighters in the building."

"Silverstein thought there were firefighters in the building."

Jesus, just reason through his statement. I mean, without the "he's admitting to a controlled demolition" slant.

You're quite right about the threats of bombs and quite right about the fact that passengers would respond passively in light of what everyone's expectations about hijackings were prior to that day. It was only because technology allowed the passengers on the delayed Flight 93 to learn of the fate of the other hijacked airplanes that they responded differently (and, in the circumstances, heroically).

You're also right that it was a one-time deal. Never again will hijackers be met with passivity. The rules have changed.

You're also right that tinhatters never reason through the Silverstein conversation. They don't "do" reason.

 

[Pardalis]

You're quite right about the threats of bombs and quite right about the fact that passengers would respond passively in light of what everyone's expectations about hijackings were prior to that day. It was only because technology allowed the passengers on the delayed Flight 93 to learn of the fate of the other hijacked airplanes that they responded differently (and, in the circumstances, heroically).

You're also right that it was a one-time deal. Never again will hijackers be met with passivity. The rules have changed.

I saw a documentary once about how people will do whatever the group decides. They take for example a fire a few decades ago that killed everyone in a restaurant because no one took the initiative to get out.

It's a shame I don't remember what the doc is at the moment, I'll definately try to find it, it was really interesting.

 

[LashL]

I saw a documentary once about how people will do whatever the group decides. They take for example a fire a few decades ago that killed everyone in a restaurant because no one took the initiative to get out.

It's a shame I don't remember what the doc is at the moment, I'll definately try to find it, it was really interesting.

That sounds familiar. Please do post it if/when you find it.

The psychology is the same. A group of people finding themselves in a victimized situation will tend to respond collectively to the situation in the way that the majority thinks is the correct response, and they do so on the basis of the conventional wisdom at the time. If and when subsequent events occur to change the "conventional wisdom", the previous "conventional wisdom" is seen, with 20/20 hindsight, as incorrect, and is replaced by a new conventional wisdom.

I don't think there is anything new about that, as much as tinhatters would like to believe there is when it suits their purposes to pretend otherwise.

 

[Mince]

You're also right that tinhatters never reason through the Silverstein conversation. They don't "do" reason.

Yeah. I probably wouldn't do reason either, if every time I did, it lead to the invalidation of my premise.

 

[LashL]

Yeah. I probably wouldn't do reason either, if every time I did, it lead to the invalidation of my premise.

Good point. The tinhatters have been shot down with reason so often that they no longer even pretend to utilize any.

 

[Muckar-duva]

What I don't get, regarding Silverstein and the endless nagging about his "Pull it", is: it's a mere innuendo, at best, and can't be proven to be ANYTHING. Yet hours and hours are spent on this tiny bit of information, instead of just proving, by simple science, the alleged facts surrounding the WTC CD theory.

So strange.