9/11 NORAD tapes released... by Dayve

ARE YOU GUYS CRAZYYYYY!!!!!!! do most you realize that you are parroting that exact same story that was given within moments of the attacks(before ANY real investigating)?? youve accepted the official version that is soo full of wholes you could literally have flown the CIA planes (doing drills that same morning of crashing into the WTC buildings)through it.. i mean give me a freakin break!

my biggest problem about you neo-con propoganda mouthpieces is that YOU ARE IGNORING VOLUMES OF DATA to fit a pre-conceieved notion.

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

----your telling me that this day was different. that the WTC fell AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, regardless of the lower portions of the building beings perfectly intact; nevermind that Bushs BRO headed the security company for the towers; never mind that INCENDIARY samples were recovered from the scene..never mind that building 7 wasnt even hit by a plane. (for example..the Madrid building fire burned for 17 hrs at white hot temperatures, and yet remianed standing...only we're supposed to believe that half a tank of jet fuel did it on 3 seperate occasions..all the same day)??

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

---how is it possible that the FBI would find a perfectly preserved Mohammed Atta passport, miraculously intact through the fireball of the plane collision?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

----let me guess, the pancake theory? Demolition experts even admit that the WTC collapses were a work of art! let alone just some random collapse! let alone the pools of molten steel remaining in the basement of the complex weeks after the incident.

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

----nevermind that the fuel was not burning optimally, most of it exploded outside the building on 1 impact, and it was meeting resistance with carpet, office supplies etc. there were people even standing outside the impact zones..

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

----indeed? apparently al-qaeda is using superior Soviet cold war technology huh

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

---or that the initial impact of the plane was the circumference of the fuselage, with no sighting of the rest of the plane?? or any corroborating tapes for that matter. what about terrorists training at US air bases, and instructors who claimed they could barely fly cessnas

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

----explain that you Nazi sympathizers, or why he was given authority months prior to the attacks. read the PNAC documents already for the LOVE OF GOD!

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

---plain and simple..maybe it was SHOT DOWN?? ask the numerous eye withnesses who report this very thing..whos testimonies were never reported by the 9/11 whitewash commission

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

--of course, we never heard such a thing!! this was a suprise attack! its not like the numerous european spy agencies, including the Egyptians and even the Taliban didnt try warning us

and on and on and on.....

if you guys are right, explain away these anomolous events that point in the direction of comlicity and prior knowledge!! how about an entire archive, try and refute away all these mainstream news sources http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

and WHO HAD THE MOTIVE!!! is it not convenient that the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the War in Iraq, were all either on the drawing board, or in early forms, prior to the events?? does that not imply pre-emptive planning??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:12 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

First, you need to take a chill pill and stop shouting. We are not deaf, nor are we stupid. I would venture to say that many of us have IQ in excess of 160.

Secondly, Take a LARGE BUILDING and COLLAPSE the TOP FLOORS and regardless of the structural integrity of the floors below it will collapse.

Thirdly, take another chill pill.

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:18 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

When exactly did the BBC report that five of the alleged hijackers showed up alive and well in Saudi Arabia? I watch the BBC news all the time, and I don't ever remember seeing that. A story like that would have made headlines for weeks on end in the UK and Ireland.

I've checked their website and can't find any reference that says they're alive. Can you give me a date I should look for? When did the story break?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
They could have been noticed and given permission by building authorities to do "construction work"?

It's MAJOR construction work. Its move everyone out of the building major construction work, not sign a few forms then everyone working there doesn't mention a damn thing construction work. People working there would be very aware of the work going on, and there are plenty of survivors, none of whom have said "You know I thought it was funny when they started removing the structural supports and planting demolition charges."

Quote:
God, when did I ever say unbelievable?

It's amazing how much the meaning of a sentence can change by the virtue of excluding a large portion of it. You said (or words to that effect) that you find the idea of it being a controlled demolition more believable, so why is a controlled demolition more believable than the buildings collapsing because of being hit by planes?

Quote:
I said I had hard hitting questions that haven't been answered to my satisfaction. I said other plausible explanations have been summarily dismissed but not reasonably ruled out. I said it smacks of propaganda.

Because the idea of it being a controlled demolitions is neither a hard hitting question nor a plausible explanation.

Quote:
Uh, how did you get from "gasoline fires" to "no planes"? I don't know where you learned logic, but you should get your money back.

Well the insult aside it’s actually extremely simple:
Position:
“Fires are the wrong colour for Jet fuel fires.”
Implication:
They weren't jet fuel fires.
Meaning:
No Jet fuel was present
Reasoning:
No Jets hit the building (Since Jets tend to have jet fuel in them).

If you didn't intend to imply that there wasn't a Jet fuel fire what was the whole fire being the wrong colour thing in aid of?

Quote:
I have questions, and I have guesses. Until my questions are answered seriously, I can't conclude anything.

What I resent is the implication that asking these questions is wrong and ridiculous. That only conspiracy crazies ask questions. That experts can't be influenced to ignore explanations incongruent with their ideology.

I am answering your questions, and in response I get snarky comments and personal insults. No one has implied you are a nut or a conspiracy theorist, the closest I got was implying that your demolition theory was a conspiracy theory.

Well I'm sorry if it upsets you but IT IS a conspiracy theory. You're theorising that a group of people came up with a plan, a conspiracy if you will, to bring down the two towers through controlled demolition but make it look like they'd been brought down by plane strikes.

Beyond that no one has implied you're a crazy conspiracy nut, so the implication is entirely yours, obviously you are expecting that reaction, but just because we happen to believe that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by planes doesn't mean we immediately tar anyone asking questions as crazy conspiracy nuts with our jackbooted propaganda.

Quote:
They discussed how much it looked like a demolition job. The engineer, who is a strong Bush supporter and fully endorses the official story, said, "Yeah, that does look like a demolition job, doesn't it? Well, wanna go out and get lunch?" My hub, being the social and polite fellow that he is, didn't press it.

So? The official explanation of how the buildings failed is similar to how you attempt to force failure in a controlled demolition. You don't see any demolition charges fire though, watch a video of a demolition, you can see some of the charges fire.

Let me ask a few questions, since simply attempting to debunk it means I’m calling you a nut.

Why? Why did they bother? If its terrorists demolishing the buildings their task is complete by demolishing them, they don’t have to fly planes in to make it look good.

The only possible explanation is that it was the government that did it, because they’re the only entity that requires the destruction to look like it wasn’t a controlled demolition.

But even so the demolition of the buildings is not at all a requirement, planes hitting buildings are a strong message, and if those buildings hadn’t collapsed they would probably have been bought down anyway, a plane strike is catastrophic, if the building doesn't fall it's condemned. The message is served by the plane strikes, the collapse is eye candy. So what’s the point in making the whole demolition thing? An operation far more complex and far more likely to be discovered than the attacks that actually sends the message?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The demolition one. 67.587% of my family's assets.

Edited to add: Mind you, this is like saying:
If I had to buy a car right this second, I would pick this car. But I have a lot of questions about this car and other cars that haven't been answered yet. My choice might change after I get more information.

Fair enough.

For me, personally, I see a plan that involves demolition as being unneccessarily complex. It requires a level of coordination that I don't think al Qaeda could have pulled off with the resources they had available to them so far from their home base. If I had to categorize my thoughts on the lead-up I'd fall more into the LIHOP camp that SignyM mentioned.

* edited to add: Crap. It looks like I'm cribbing off Citizen's homework. Damn cross-posting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I just wanted to point out that sodium burns orange. Anything solid is well-contaminated with sodium, it's everywhere. All the flame has to do is pass over sodium (solid materials) to turn orange. (For the record, lithium turns flame a beautiful magenta.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I would venture to say that many of us have IQs in excess of 160."

For the record, I will state I am NOT one of those people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
When exactly did the BBC report that five of the alleged hijackers showed up alive and well in Saudi Arabia?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Also see:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/inv.suspects/
Scroll down and look for "possible case of stolen identity."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just wanted to point out that sodium burns orange. Anything solid is well-contaminated with sodium, it's everywhere. All the flame has to do is pass over sodium (solid materials) to turn orange. (For the record, lithium turns flame a beautiful magenta.)

Thank you Rue. There, another question answered to my satisfaction. 33 more to go.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm going to add another $0.02.

One of the things that impressed with how the WTC towers dropped was that the failure was so simultaneous on all sides that it didn't introduce any sway. My feeling (I'm not an engineer) is that once sway is introduced it would put asymmetric strain on the shell and accentuate sway even further.

But OTOH, I know of structures that pancaked during earthquakes... large buildings in Mexico City and Kobe and the double-decker freeway near San Fran. Heck, under THOSE circumstances there would be a HUGE amount of side-to-side motion and you would expect buildings to fall over sideways and many didn't. So maybe that is just the nature of that particular building design and a normal, expected mode of failure.

BTW, if you want a both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy evidence evidence in one fell swoop, all you have to do is look at the El Al cargo jet crash in Amsterdam. Like the Pentagon crash, it left no indentifiable aircraft outside of the building. But polic videotapes, the plane's manifest, and the "black box" all disappeared or were destroyed. Queen Beatrix was allowed to tour the site. It wasn't until years later that someone leaked a copy of the cargo manifest, revealing that the jet was carrying Sarin precursors.

www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4277/exposure.html

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I would venture to say that many of us have IQs in excess of 160."

For the record, I will state I am NOT one of those people.

I'm not either. I don't even know what that means.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I draw the analogy to earthquakes and pancakes.

Those living in an earthquake zone know about tilt-up-structures and pancaking-buildings. In a tilt-up structure, during construction the tall walls are propped up, then tied upright in place by the horizontal members (floors), usually with brackets. Once the sidewall support is gone due to an earthquake, the floors pancake.

The twin towers were the equivalent of a tilt-up structure, in that structural support was from the outer walls. (It was a different style of construction from normal.) Once the supports that tied the floors and walls together were gone, the buildings pancaked. IMHO

Edited to add: DANG ! SignyM You must think and type faster than me. I sound like a parrot, without all the interesting stuff about sway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
First, you need to take a chill pill and stop shouting.
...
Thirdly, take another chill pill.

I wouldn't, I took a chill pill along with as many happy pills as AntiMason has taken once...

Really. Damn. Trippy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:00 AM

Ignore.

I mis-read.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:04 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Thanks, canttakethesky. I can't believe I missed that!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:09 AM

MAL4PREZ

Animason -

Read the thread before ranting, okay? Several of these questions you raise have been discussed in detail already, and answers have been supplied to a few of your problems. If you'll just take the time to listen...

Try that chill pill FMF is offering, read the posts, and join the discussion. We're reasonable. We discuss.

Back to the start of the thread - they're moving out of Norad I hear. I take this to be a very good thing!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

Wish I could be there. Though, for whatever reason, most drugs don't do anything to me except put me to sleep zzzzzzzz ......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:15 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

*has an urge to burn lithium*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
...IQ in excess of 160...

Let me put it this way... when they tested my IQ they refused to tell my parents what it was so that they wouldn't be discouraged. And heck, I was trying my hardest!

What I lack in native talent I make up for in ... with... uh...

{in a small voice} nevermind

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey CTS,

"Thank you Rue. There, another question answered to my satisfaction. 33 more to go."

I hope SignyM and I have added to the pile of information with our postings on pancaking buildings.

It does look like there was some identity theft going on. The other thing I was wondering about, since it's come up in other situations, is the apparent western confusion over Arab names. I'm really bad at names, but it had to do with the supposed meeting between an al-Qaida rep and an Iraqi, where it turns out it was a case of western intelligence confusing names.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:23 AM

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's MAJOR construction work. Its move everyone out of the building major construction work

That is ONE way to demolish a building. Here is another, for example.

Quote:
This theory has the advantage over most other explosives theories of avoiding the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the Towers' cores, such as elevator shafts and cable shafts. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one on each floor. The devices could have been encased in impact- and heat-resistant containers similar to those used to protect aircraft voice and data recorders, so as to prevent accidental detonation from the aircraft impacts and fires.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermobarics.html

Quote:
You said (or words to that effect) that you find the idea of it being a controlled demolition more believable

There is a significant difference between less believable and UNbelievable.

Quote:
Well the insult aside it’s actually extremely simple:
Position:
“Fires are the wrong colour for Jet fuel fires.”
Implication:
They weren't jet fuel fires.
Meaning:
No Jet fuel was present
Reasoning:
No Jets hit the building (Since Jets tend to have jet fuel in them).

First, I apologize for the insult. I should have found another way to say your logic is flawed.

Fires are the wrong color for jet fuel fires.
They [the orange explosions] weren't jet fuel fires.
There were other fuels involved IN ADDITION to jet fuel.
Jet fuel fires could have been obscured by the orange fire.
(Rue explained the fires might have been altered, rather than obscured, by other combustibles, i.e.g sodium.)

It is an illogical leap to go from "not jet fuel fires" to "there was no jet fuel at all" and so forth. Just because there was another fuel (I said "gasoline") doesn't mean jet fuel isn't there as well.

Quote:
what was the whole fire being the wrong colour thing in aid of?

No aid. Just thought it was strange. Another question that I liked to see answered.
I have questions, and I have guesses. Until my questions are answered seriously, I can't conclude anything.

Quote:
You're theorising that a group of people came up with a plan, a conspiracy if you will, to bring down the two towers through controlled demolition...

Uh huh.

Quote:
...but make it look like they'd been brought down by plane strikes.

No, the govt did that by rejecting demolition right out. If it had been AlQaeda that attacked with both planes AND explosives, they wouldn't care if they got credit for both. The govt is the one that is saying, "It's planes. It's ONLY planes." Not the terrrorists.

Quote:
You don't see any demolition charges fire though, watch a video of a demolition, you can see some of the charges fire.

Quote:
Why? Why did they bother? If its terrorists demolishing the buildings their task is complete by demolishing them, they don’t have to fly planes in to make it look good....So what’s the point in making the whole demolition thing?

Maybe they like to make an entrance? Maybe they don't just hate us a lot, but a lot a lot a lot? I don't know. I'm not a terrorist.

Quote:
The message is served by the plane strikes, the collapse is eye candy.

You're assuming you know exactly what the message is, what is sufficient to deliver the message, and what is superfluous.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:23 AM

and yet you all still deny that the Bushs have a longstanding relationship with the Bin Ladens, that Usama has been a CIA assett for the last 20yrs, that our FBI was denied by the WHITE HOUSE to further investigate Alqaeda prior to the attacks. that they were the only people flown from the country after 9/11, that cheif of the pakistan ISI wired ATTA $100,000 on 9/10, and then met with the CIA the morning of 9/11...i mean W in TF.

what does it take to get an objective opinion on the matter. i believed the government, until i actually looked into it..then i realized that 1000 anomolous events pointing to complicity couldnt be merely a coincidence...

im at a loss for words, how many times can you beat a dead horse about this subject, before people consider an alternate theory about those events. i realize that the media pounded in an impression immediately after the attacks, but that does not mean they were accurate!

this is the agenda! what do you think Bush had planned if 9/11 had never happened?? thats just it, he had no plans..the PNAC documents clearly outlayed the course of his administration prior to his even taking office, let alone the attacks...so wake up already!! we are losing our country to fascist neo Nazis~ and i can say that, because I CAN PROVE THAT BUSH, AND KERRYS SKULL AND BONES IS AN OCCULT ORGANIZATION RELATED TO THE NAZIS THULE SOCIETY!

honostly, some here who believes the media, i beg you, what is your explanation for these societies? how do you explain those ties??

i suppose these groups are just for show huh? grow up please, for the love of God and our country...how can you claim Bush is a Christian conservative when hes BEEN SEEN worshipping the occult?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:31 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
how can you claim Bush is a Christian conservative when hes BEEN SEEN worshipping the occult?

OK, I'm leaving the real world now. It's been fun to visit.

But I'm leaving with a really good belly laugh, and wiping away tears. I do sincerely hate Dubya, but this is Out Of Control.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
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.

Even though this seemingly confirms my suspicions, I'm afraid I have more questions.

1. Is he admitting to insurance fraud? If so, why hasn't the insurance company pressed charges and gotten their money back?
2. Demolition isn't something you can do in 45 minutes, is it? If not, then how did he know 9/11 was going to happen, to rig up the demolition in advance? Or did he rig the building to blow up for a long time now, just in case a crisis opportunity presented itself?

Not saying you should have these answers. Just scratching my head.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:35 AM

CHRISISALL

I'm curious, how many of y'all have actually been up in the World Trade Center?
I was up in it twice, last time being in 2000. I also delivered computer parts into it at the street enterance that lead to the Batman-like tunnel that ended at the service elevator. I was always surprised that my ID was looked at so quickly, no James Bond retinal scan, and only one camera on me as I entered (that I could SEE, that is).

My take is that the planes did the job. Having been in most parts of the buildings, I often wondered what kept them standing without an attack. And I remember thinking seriously before 911, that if I worked in the Towers, or ANY other really big building for that matter, that I would DEFINITLY have a parachute hanging on my wall. Sadly, I must have been the only one who felt that way.

SNAFU from our trusted professional, Corporate-minded Government-types, that's all I see.

Generally, more conspiracy-minded Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:37 AM

antimason:
No ones denying Bush has links to the Bin Landens you fruit loop, its a documented fact.

CTS:
I'll get back to you in a bit, but now I've got to run.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For the record, the only thing I've personally concluded is that BUSH didn't know.

No amount of make-up could hide the sheer terror on his face during his broadcast. (Later when I saw how he sat, and sat, and sat - empty headed and directionless - a dummy waiting for the puppeteer - it only comfirmed it.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 10:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DesktopHippie,

http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Alkali-Metals.html

The usual method for detecting compounds of the alkali metals is with a flame test. A platinum wire is dipped into a solution of the unknown compound and then placed into a hot flame. The color produced is characteristic of the alkali metal present. The lithium flame is bright red; sodium, yellow; potassium, violet; rubidium, dark red; and cesium, blue.

While they say that a lithium flame is "bright red", in reality it is more of a rose to magenta color, depending on how much lithium is there. (One of my jobs was using an instrument to measure lithium by the intensity of the lithium color in a flame.)

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
*has an urge to burn lithium*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 10:51 AM

HKCAVALIER

Heya CTS,

I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.

The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line. And he kept pushing it and pushing it, when, y'know, if you're fears of conspiracy are true, then the house is rigged and no amount of money wagered on the truth coming out is worth spit. When I ask someone a question and instead of answering me, they ask me if I'm "a bettin' man," I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.

But what would SoupCatcher have to sell and why would he suddenly turn used car salesman on us, after years of thoughtful analysis and inquiry on this board? Heya Soups, what gives?

And I don't like the way folk handled the news that the owner of building 7 demolished it himself. The general reaction was no reaction. Up to that point in the conversation folks were lumping it in with the main two towers and calling it good, pancake this, pancake that. Then it's revealed that building 7 actually was demolished. And without skipping a beat, the story changes to "Yeah, see the owner demolished it, no conspiracy, nya!" But at the very least it suggests that the official story is untrustworthy and unfounded.

But it begs the question which you naturally ask, "How'd he demolish the building in 45 minutes?" If demolishing a building is indeed the herculean effort that citizen says it is, how'd this guy pull it off in under an hour?

I'm seeing a lot of psychology at work here. For some reason, even entertaining the idea that there was more to it than just a coupla planes crashing into a coupla buildings, is really upsetting to folks--seems to shut 'em down a little. Ordinarily reasonable, measured thinkers on this board start arguing like they're at a high school forensic league match(by which I mean, agressively trying to discredit the oppositing argument rather than answer honest questions and exploring the implications).

You'll see the same thing with the stolen election--plenty of evidence that the voting machines could be hacked, plenty of evidence that they were indeed hacked, but the thought that the GOP would do such a thing is so unthinkable that otherwise sane and inquisitive people just stonewall.

My two cents on the matter: I used to believe in all manner of conspiracies until I realized that the idea of an organized, intentionally evil enemy was much easier for me to accept than the idea that it was all just a big mistake. For me it goes back to childhood: negative attention is better than no attention at all. It's easier for me to think my Dad hated me, than to think that my Dad was barely aware I was alive. It's easier to blame Bush and hate him, than to blame human frailty and fear.

And finally, as the last 5 miserable years have shown, the incompetence, shortsightedness, calousness and willingness to cover their own asses no matter what the cost to their integrity of the current admin. makes the case for gross neglegence on every side by far the most plausible to me right now. That's where I'd put my money.

P.S.: I know some folks, like Rue, for instance have been able to maintain their equilibrium around these issues. Just talking about a general tone of the thread that should be evident to anyone who reads the posts without bias.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 10:53 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
To all the shiny Americans out there who go about their daily lives, content in the knowledge that ours is the best, most highly trained military and intelligence gathering system in the world, perhaps you might not want to read the transcripts from NORAD's Northeast headquarters from September 11, 2001.

As has been widely documented, the events of that day were chaotic at the least and a down right cluster-f**k at worst. Obviously that day was a wake up call to the military as to the lack of coordination and cooperation between government agencies.

This is chilling stuff. The day starts out with a conversation about living room furniture and progresses to the point where the nations Air Defense Sector is actually getting its information from public news casts.

Now, before everyone gets all mad at me for disparaging the military, let me say that is not my intention. I have the utmost respect for all branches of the armed forces. I do, however, feel that somewhere up the chain of command, someone dropped the ball big time.

Follow the link below. It is taken from an article in the August edition Vanity Fair and written by Michael Bronner who was associate producer for the film United 93. His comments and editorials are included, but the transcripts speak for themselves. Also, the attempted cover-up of the agency’s ineptitude is included.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206Q.shtml

All this maybe true. But ours is the best, most well trained military, and intelligence gathering system in the world. At the time of 9/11 NORAD was used to track man made objects in space, track, validate, and warn about missiles and ENEMY aircraft that could be used to attack the US or Canada. It was not a mission goal to track domestic flights and view them as hostile. I would hope that has changed. And I'm sure it has.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:21 AM

DAYVE

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And finally, as the last 5 miserable years have shown, the incompetence, shortsightedness, calousness and willingness to cover their own asses no matter what the cost to their integrity of the current admin. makes the case for gross neglegence on every side by far the most plausible to me right now. That's where I'd put my money.

Thank you, HK; I think you clarified my original intent in posting this thread. Regardless of who was in charge at the time of this attack, “gross negligence” proved to be a major factor in this horrendous event. Not sure I’d lay odds, but if I were a betting man, my money would probably be in the same pool as yours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,

I think some people have just gotten a little frustrated with politics and it's spilling over into here.

For example, people are frustrated with Bush's approach to global warming. (I know this seems off track, but there's a conclusion up ahead.

) It starts out with scientists saying - the data is in that direction. Then Bush (actually, his proxies in big oil) say - but you haven't proven it yet ! And we have some studies that say otherwise ! Therefore, it's controversial. (Though they themselves built that controversy out of smoke and mirrors.) Then Bush says - well, as long as science has no proof I'll just ignore it.

It's the same thing with mercury pollution, the morning-after pill, intelligent design, etc.

As long as there is some vested interest screaming loud and long enough in dispute, what is fact-based gets transmuted into something 'controversial'.

CTS does seem to be a contrarian at heart, and pushed the wrong buttons at the wrong time in people who were already primed on other issues.

IMHO

For my part, I'm up to my eyeballs in some very frustrating union issues, so I'm not focused too hard on this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
ours is the best, most well trained military, and intelligence gathering system in the world.

That's must be why British, Australian and Israeli special forces are used in joint ventures over American, why the RAF flew the most dangerous and difficult sorties in both Gulf wars, because the other guys were better...

And of course why the American Intelligence agencies rely so heavily on British intelligence and SAS personnel.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:27 PM

BIGWOLF18

bush DID now, its all a conspiricy, and dont bad mouth conpiricy people because some of them, (like me), are normal people who like normal things like food, football, firefly.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:36 PM

HK:
What?

I'm doing my best to answer CTS's view that it was a controlled demolition without attacking. Yeah I think it's a little foolish, none of the players that could be involved gain anything from the two pronged approach, save perhaps the gov. and when I see a gov. that can pull something like that off without f

king it up I'll ring ya.

It over complicates the issue. All parties that could have perpetrated the attacks gain everything they could want from just the planes, irrespective of whether the buildings collapse.

Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist entity) gets to kill a hell of a lot of people and they get to show that they can attack the biggest baddest most powerful nation of the arguably most powerful hemisphere in the world right at its heart. They don't need to demolish the buildings, just show they can attack them in such a big spectacular way, job done. Why complicate and endanger a plan by sending in demolition crews?

The American Administration (or shadow puppets, skull and bones, any powerful internal governmental power group, stonemasons whatever) want to get the people to endorse their policies. They need to show the American people that they can be hit at home by the 'terrorist' bogey man. That is spectacularly served by flying two planes in to the symbol of American capitalism, just like with the Terrorists the buildings collapsing is a bonus but hardly one that would be worth endangering the entire plan for.

A rival government, say Syria or Saudi Arabia would likewise follow similar dictates to the above.

Occam's razor, logistics, and motivation all these point away from a controlled demolition. But holding that view and trying to point it out apparently means I have contempt and I'm using jackboot propaganda, so I'll just slink away back under the disgusting cess pool of a rock I came out from under.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

FWIW, I find your posts logical and to the point, and I learn quite a lot from them.

I think HK was trying to bridge the gap between you and CTS, that's all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 1:00 PM

DAYVE

Citizen...I just wanted to second what Rue said.... and that I appreciate all comments on this topic....

I would like to think that this country learned a hard lesson that day, but the war goes on and it seems that there are those among us who are hell-bent on nothing less than the total annihilation of the species....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 1:16 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
ours is the best, most well trained military, and intelligence gathering system in the world.
That's must be why British, Australian and Israeli special forces are used in joint ventures over American, why the RAF flew the most dangerous and difficult sorties in both Gulf wars, because the other guys were better...

And of course why the American Intelligence agencies rely so heavily on British intelligence and SAS personnel.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Point taken...rely would be the wrong word...take into consideration..as they use our intel to compliment theirs we use theirs to compliment ours That's what allies do. As far as the RAF flying the most difficult missions of the wars, There is no such thing as a difficult mission in the Gulf for the US air force. The fact is there is no real standing air force to fight against means no real threat. Air defences are an outdated joke.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Point taken...rely would be the wrong word...take into consideration..as they use our intel to compliment theirs we use theirs to compliment ours That's what allies do. As far as the RAF flying the most difficult missions of the wars, There is no such thing as a difficult mission in the Gulf for the US air force. The fact is there is no real standing air force to fight against means no real threat. Air defences are an outdated joke.

Well hmm as for Intel, that's a topic in and of itself...

The RAF thing was in reference to the most difficult and dangerous missions being the low level bombing raids, hugging the ground at maximum thrust in order to avoid detection against targets where the stealth bomber could not be used. They put in ordinance with accuracy that the US air force said was impossible.

The US air force is not equipped nor trained to take on low level combat flying like that, the RAF is.

It's the old thing necessity breeds invention, NASA spent millions on a space pen, the Russians used a pencil.

Air defences are far from a joke. Even the vaunted Stealth Bomber was not immune during the first Gulf war when Baghdad was heavily protected by AA. Modern air warfare isn't dog fights between fighters anymore.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Heya CTS,

I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.

The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line. And he kept pushing it and pushing it, when, y'know, if you're fears of conspiracy are true, then the house is rigged and no amount of money wagered on the truth coming out is worth spit. When I ask someone a question and instead of answering me, they ask me if I'm "a bettin' man," I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.

But what would SoupCatcher have to sell and why would he suddenly turn used car salesman on us, after years of thoughtful analysis and inquiry on this board? Heya Soups, what gives?

Okay. Now that I'm back from meetings let me explain what I was trying to accomplish.

I'm tired of conspiracy theories. To me, it's like arguing about the existence of a higher power or whether or not we even exist. At some point, everything is possible. If someone appears to dismiss the informed opinion of one who has studied and spent their professional life working in a field but then gives what I perceive as more credence to something coming out of left field then it's hard for me to have a discussion.

What I was trying to do was get CTS to replace possibility with probability. I was hoping to get CTS to put a number, any number, on the likelihood of an alternative theory. In the final judgement, I don't care how they arrive at that number. I thought I could do that with the money angle. It doesn't look like that attempt was too successful.

edited to add: Oh. And you're right about the building 7 part. My lack of response on that point is because I don't know any of the details. The presentation I went to was focussed on the two towers and that's the part I remember. So I have nothing to add (eta: by focussed I mean that there were numerous slides on the structure of the two towers and the damage and what potentially happened. I don't remember any corresponding set of slides for building 7. IIRC, there was a brief mention, but it was more speculative than the rest of the presentation).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 2:51 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 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 have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

-----------------------------

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

one of the Forsaken TM

I heard he was suing the insurers for over 5 billion dollars...That said, I don't buy this. It would have had to have been rigged to be pulled well in advance. What type of person would take that risk. The potential loss of life would be enormous and potentially costly. No one ever mentions that there were 6,000 + Gallons of fuel in the building. Could go boom! It has been stated this has a low probability. But what is the alternative? He knew 911 was going to happen? Sure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 5:26 PM

i apologize for coming off abrasively, i have had this debate so many times that ive become emotionally attached and committed.

there is no rhyme or reason why building 7 came down after 6 hrs or whatever, while Bankers Trust, closer to the Twin Towers than bldg 7, remained intact, yet recieved even more damage. it just doesnt add up; that would have been the first steel building in history to collapse due to fire; and it housed a DoD, IRS, and CIA or FBI office..so this wasnt just some random accident.

is that alone not cause for question? there is no good excuse for this that ive heard...so what really constitutes a "smoking gun"? do we need to have the CIA come out and tell us they were in on it?

you were asking how they could have pre-wired 7 in 45 minutes? they didnt, they did it in the weeks or maybe months before the events..just like the Twin Towers. understand, BYU took samples of the debri and CONFIRMED the existence of incendiary devices...this is not just speculation.

we can beat around the details about the WTCs all day; i dont believe they both coincidentally fell at next to free fall speeds in a period of hrs. i dont believe i can throw away the hundres of reports of explosions and initial reports of potential explosives..given the near perfect implosion of the buildings; or even that the firemen were under the impression that they could have the fires out with 2 lines reportedly.

im not willing to accept that so many odd events just coincidentally happened that day, given the undeniable evidence that this was not out of the blue; we had plenty of warning from foreign and domestic intelligence officials.

however there should be no doubt about building 7. Juliani was even told before-hand that the building was coming down, he admitted this in an early interview. how did they know this stuff? how were avg NYs warned not to go downtown that day; who warned the pentagon officials to cancell trips, who called FEMA in on the 10th. there are all these anomolous events that NEED to be explained, because to me they point to comlicity

and why is it, that in the case of the Pentagon footage, along with security cameras in surrounding business..the pictures are being intentionally withheld and classified; all but the few frames where you cant make out the craft. why? what are they hiding that happened that day that we dont already know about from the news?

i think their are wayy to many questions that have simply gone unanswered. if we know that as recently as July of '01 Usama was visited in a hospital in Dubia by American intelligence officials...while he was currently wanted by authorities for the U.SS cole and embassy bombings...why was he not ceased?? how suspicous is that when he was a known CIA assett for the past 2 decades.

if our entire wordlview and Policies are based on faulty or doctored information, is that not worthy of exposing if indeed it is true??

tell that to Fox news, who has, to my knowledge, never given a fair and balanced review of the facts of 9/11. am i supposed to change my mind about a degree of media complicity under these circumstances?

if you have a reporter stationed at the Pentagon..is it not a fair guess that they are giving a fair degree of disinformation?

throughout history, governments have staged false flag operations against their own people, always to fullfill a prior motive. Operation Northwoods, Gladio, the gulf of tonkin incident..some would even argue Pearl Harbor, since it can be verified that Roosevelt had forwarning of the attacks and never notified our hawaii bases; Hitlers Reichstag fire. so its been proven that governments have done this in the past, what makes us, and now, any different, when soo many clues can be given indicating complicity and envolvement?

is it absurd to think that Alqaeda can pull of a 9/11, but not an elite element of the intelligence community? to think that Bush had to know, therefore everyone knew is an assumption; this could have been a highly compartmentalized operation.

im not even Denying that their is legitimate terrorism...but what has stopped us from being attacked again? our borders are wide open, 10-20 million people are sneaking in annually, where are the terrorists?? a car bombing, anything..? something like that i can see, but an event on the scale of 9/11 is a whole nother matter.

i just ask that you look at the info WE have..we've all seen the governments side

scroll down this page, and tell me you can write all this off as irrelevent or inconsequential?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

im not agreeing, but it is within our capabilities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 5:43 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

HK

Where did you get that building 7 came down in 45 minutes? The first towers were down in the morning, building 7 went down at roughly 5:20 PM - and thats like WAY more than 45 minutes.

And trust me, I can tell time cause my IQ IS is in excess of 160.

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 5:46 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

People died when Building 7 came down. A couple of workers unaccounted for. And probably, the official reason for taking it down was that it had too much structural damage. Not saying it did, just saying that is my bet.

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Where did you get that building 7 came down in 45 minutes? The first towers were down in the morning, building 7 went down at roughly 5:20 PM - and thats like WAY more than 45 minutes.

He was just repeating the question I asked--can a building be rigged for demolition in 45 minutes? It was sort of an arbitrary number just to illustrate that he would have had to be very very quick in his demolition job to start after the WTC towers collapsed and have it completed by the afternoon. Regardless of the number of minutes, the question is, did he plan the demolition in advance?

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
CTS does seem to be a contrarian at heart, and pushed the wrong buttons at the wrong time in people who were already primed on other issues.

All I did was ask some questions. You can't just ask questions, apparently. You have to "pick a side." So I picked a theory reluctantly, because I was asked to. The next thing I know I'm the button-pusher who is upsetting people with her senseless conspiracy theories.

As far as being a contrarian, I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as that label implies. I walk on the beaten path regarding many issues--I agreed with everyone on the overpopulation thread! Heck, I eat at MvDonalds from time to time. You just don't get more conformist than joining the billions served.

Where I differ from many others is that when someone disagrees with the consensus, I listen to the argument. I look it up. If it isn't supported by the evidence, I dismiss it. If it points to anomalies that aren't explained by the consensus, I withhold judgment (agreement or disagreement with ANYONE) until I get more information. This was what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.

I just want the govt to answer some questions. I want to hear the answers. It's not a trick to "catch" them stuttering. I really want to know how they would explain these claims and judge if those explanations hold water.

I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.

Heya HK. It is my impression that Americans have been very emotional and tense about such issues for several years. 9/11, Al-Qaeda, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Iraq. It seems to me there is very little patience for opposing viewpoints on these issues anymore. There is no room for true dialogue, only "us" vs "them."

Quote:
The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line... I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.

That's what I should have done. Once I was pinned to a theory, everything I said was dismissable, because I was associated with "that" theory. Live and learn.

Quote:
And finally, as the last 5 miserable years have shown, the incompetence, shortsightedness, calousness and willingness to cover their own asses no matter what the cost to their integrity of the current admin. makes the case for gross neglegence on every side by far the most plausible to me right now. That's where I'd put my money.

I'd also be more conspiracy minded if I believed the government was competent enough to pull off a conspiracy. At the same time, I also think Al-Qaeda, at the time, was rather low-rent. It's like having the usual suspects: the criminal with the record, or "the man" with the power. No one is looking for any more suspects. But I don't think the investigation should be over. For me, there are too many puzzles that don't fit, for either suspect.

But, I'm just a contrarian button-pusher, so what do I know. Thanks for your input.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Some flowers only grow in the dark.

The reason many so-called 'conspiracy theories' exist, is because simple, open-and-shut things are so completely obfuscated by individuals attempting to protect themselves or thier reputations, what-have-you.

Case in point being TWA800, in all probability destroyed by unfortunate accident of naval incompetence - yet there is no proof.

What caused things to get flaky ? endless coverup attempts stepping on each other and making no sense until the official story was such obvious bullshit that no one could swallow it anymore.

What DID happen ? likely we will never know.
But if the truth were presented up front, that issue would have turned out differently, wouldn't it ?

Theories erupt when the facts do not fit with the "official story" - it's human nature to speculate what *might* have happened, in light of obvious lies and obfuscations.

And no, 911 has never been investigated by a proper set of experts with (lemme repeat the most important damned point, again) NO POLITICAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME - unfortunately that also excludes Mr. Rivero, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Rense - all of whom are semi-competent amateur investigators, but have a political stake and thus should not be relied on without proper crosscheck and confirmation of the facts with other sources.

They themselves will tell you the same thing, do your own investigating and don't accept anything at face value simply because of who tells it to you - find out for SURE, or as sure as you can possibly become with your own resources.

Anyhow, when it boils right down to it, such theories only exist when the "official story" is an obvious and blatant load of bovine excretement.

Only gonna address two points here, myself, since someone else brought up the obvious contradictions of Bldg#7.

#1 Where is the evidence that Bin Laden (who passionately denied it) had any hand in this act ?

Why the hell do we take it as a given, when it was told to us by someone we know is fulla shit, has repeatedly lied to us, and never showed us one whit of evidence to back the claim ?

Why is that question not asked, never asked, by anyone but me ?

#2 They use such primitive gear to defend our damned country, but spend the very best of it spying on US... isn't that nice ?

I want value for my Tax Dollar, whether by complicity or incompetence (and on a strictly financial basis, I do not care, mind.) or even gross negligence, things went situation-FUBAR that should not have, and in lieu of a refund for all that money they take from our payrolls for so-called national defense, which we all know ain't gonna happen....

I wanna know who is responsible, and I want them held accountable - is this so much to ask ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
All I did was ask some questions. You can't just ask questions, apparently. You have to "pick a side." So I picked a theory reluctantly, because I was asked to. The next thing I know I'm the button-pusher who is upsetting people with her senseless conspiracy theories.

As far as being a contrarian, I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as that label implies. I walk on the beaten path regarding many issues--I agreed with everyone on the overpopulation thread! Heck, I eat at MvDonalds from time to time. You just don't get more conformist than joining the billions served.

Where I differ from many others is that when someone disagrees with the consensus, I listen to the argument. I look it up. If it isn't supported by the evidence, I dismiss it. If it points to anomalies that aren't explained by the consensus, I withhold judgment (agreement or disagreement with ANYONE) until I get more information. This was what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.

I just want the govt to answer some questions. I want to hear the answers. It's not a trick to "catch" them stuttering. I really want to know how they would explain these claims and judge if those explanations hold water.

I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

I have to admit that I was ticked when I wrote my response to the lego comment (not yours). How I interpreted it was, "I built a tower of legos and pushed it and it fell to the side. The WTC didn't fall to the side. See." And it smacked of laziness to me. When you responded to my response I think I transferred that ticked-off-it-ness to your post. My bad, that was not cool. So let me backtrack and explain a little bit why I think my reaction was the way it was.

There are some assumptions behind the demolition theory (I'll just focus in on that one) that I don't like. But first, I'm not even sure I understand the demolition theory in its entirety. Who set the charges? When were they set? Why were they set? If it's an al Qaeda operation then I don't see how you get around assuming that the security at the WTC were either complicit or incompetent. That every single person who may have seen what was going on was either clueless or incompetent. I almost see it like a blame the victim thing. And, for reasons that Citizen pointed out, I don't buy that al Qaeda would've felt the need to add another layer of complexity to an already risky operation.

Who else could've done it? Well, one possibility is that the decision was made on the scene to drop the buildings rather than risk them collapsing in any other manner. If you go that route then you have to assume that the charges were placed after the planes hit. And that the decision was made to write off everyone still in the towers, both workers and emergency personnel. And the main reason I could see to make that decision would be to protect the properties surrounding the WTC. Who would you get to set those charges, knowing that score?

Another possibility is that the government knew that al Qaeda would fly the planes into the towers and wanted to make sure the towers collapsed? I don't understand what this buys you.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other possibilities. But what I'm trying to figure out is the motivation for demolishing the buildings and who would've done it and when. I just don't see how you answer any of those questions without assuming that there were Americans, potentially large numbers, who would condone or abet mass murder of fellow Americans. I'm not willing to go down that road yet.

Which is interesting because I have no problem believing that there are large numbers of Americans who are actively working to deprive other Americans of the franchise. But for some reason I draw the line at mass murder. We can't have created that many Timothy McVeigh's, can we?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:15 PM