9/11 NORAD tapes released...
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10719
PAGE 1 of 2
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 NORADs 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So much for the conspiracy nut case crowd and thier view that "Bush Knew!"
Quote:
The real story is actually better than the one we told," a NORAD general admitted to 9/11-commission staffers when confronted with evidence from the tapes that contradicted his original testimony. And so it seems.
Subpoenaed by the commission during its investigation, the recordings have never been played publicly beyond a handful of sound bites presented during the commission's hearings. Last September, as part of my research for the film United 93, on which I was an associate producer, I requested copies from the Pentagon. I was played snippets, but told my chances of hearing the full recordings were nonexistent. So it was a surprise, to say the least, when a military public-affairs officer e-mailed me, a full seven months later, saying she'd been cleared, finally, to provide them.
And then there was this....
Quote:
The problem, Scoggins told me later, was that American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots, they routinely go into information lockdown in a crisis.)
Sadly, we can expect some far fetched whackos to put a predictably long winded and exaustably lame spin on the facts, all in the name of 'speaking truth to power', or what ever the hell that's suppose to mean. :disappoointed:
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
]So much for the conspiracy nut case crowd and thier view that "Bush Knew!"
No, I never bought into the conspiracy angle, although you have to admit it's a growth industry. And as it has been pointed out before, truth is often stranger than fiction... fiction in this case being the conspiracy theory....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i disagree with the premise your presenting that it further validates the official story; if anything, it raises even more questions!
like what the mathematical probability would be that the CIA, would choose that very morning, to be running THE EXACT SIMULATION SCENARIO being played out, suspicously in the real world at that very moment?? it is next to impossible! yet we are to believe that it just happened to be that way..just a coincidence?? BS!
i mean...lets get real. ANYTHING out of the Pentagon is propoganda! period! the nature of politics, especially in the intelligence world, is spin and diception, and the official story of 9/11 is in my mind the conspiracy, so weak that only by pure ignorance and conditioning has it taken this long to gain exposure. the balance of evidence is in our favor to the extent that, i mean..where do you even start???
if you want, ask the pentagon to offer up some video footage other than the propoganda footage of the WTC towers..which were the only steel framed buildings to collapse in history due to fire, let alone in the same day, all three at next to free fall speeds, while building 7 wasnt even hit by a plane. its even been confirmed conclusively that thermate samples were recovered from the site; or rather, whatever evidence that wasnt immediately shipped to China void of examination. if that sounds crazy, ask the firemen who reported explosions, who are consequently under GAG orders currently.
incendiary devices imply prior knowledge. prior knowledge like criminal CIA insider trading prior to 9/11. all it would have taken is for any intelligence network, to usurp the security of Securacom(pretty easy when Bushs bro Marvin is a director), and plant the things! it has been reported that bomb sniffing dog searches were called off prior to 9/11, and that many employees were told not to show up that day. this included pentagon officials who cancelled trips to NY on the 10th. these reports were to the degree that msnbc investigate the urban legends..and found them to be TRUE!!
i could go on and on...its really sickening. doesnt anyone else find it alittle disconcerting that the Bush and Bin Laden families vacationed together?? that Bush jr. was a business partner with Salem Bin Laden? that Usama was up until recently a CIA asset, funded and equipped, to the extent that FBI officials were told to back of his trail?? or that prominant Bin Laden and Saudis were the only people flown from the country immediately after the attacks?
or even that an entire two terms, and Americas foreign and domestic policy have all been permanantly redirected into this global "war on terror", a war that is likely to never end, and will ultimately become a war on dissent? Bush leaves the border wide open, but tells us that our calls can be listened in on, that we need to be strip searched everywhere we go, and that we need ID cards with microchips to live mobily...but the borders wide open! aaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
i think its worth everyones time to investigate government sponsored terror. at the heart of this, think about it:
in retrospect, who had the motive to orchestrate 9/11? Alqaeda? knowing what they know now, they would never have attacked us if it meant bringing the might of the American military down upon them, permanantly. never. in many middle easterners eyes, we've permanantly engrossed upon their sovereignty...is this what Alqaeda wanted? surely they expected some retaliation..are they really so shortsighted? what is their motivation, their goal?
or rather, did this event provide the pretext for certain elitists in the American establishment, to fullfill an agenda which was many more years in the making than this alleged alqaeda plot.
it seems all you must do is admit incompetency, "we failed, we slipped up", and suddenly hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars find their way into the budgets of various federal agencies, like CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, the DoD etc. what is their incentive to succeed, when the Federal government is rewarded with m
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
unless you go beyond the mainstream, you will not be given the whole truth, period. the mainstream WILL NEVER accurately investigate the secret societies, and the corporate powers and officials who operate this machine destined for global totalitarian tyranny
Right, I got it. CIA/FBI/Fed Gov't = The Alliance.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're really not out to get ya!
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have no conclusion either way, but I do have two questions:
Does anyone know if the stories that air traffic control tapes were destroyed are true?
And does anyone know why building 7 came down?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look at the descent of the buildings.
okay? they went straight down. They did NOT fall to the side, one reporter even remarked on the fact that they greatly resembled controlled demolition.
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.
I'm no engineer, but I believe that the burning jet fuel was able to weaken the structural steel supports causing, in essence, a floor to 'dissapear'. The resulting weight of the collapsed portion easily overcame the maximum load able to be supported by the lower structural steel causing the downward collapse of the two towers.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
Look at the descent of the buildings.
okay? they went straight down. They did NOT fall to the side, one reporter even remarked on the fact that they greatly resembled controlled demolition.
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.
Dude.
"...one reporter even remarked..."
"If you build a tower of Lego blocks..."
You have to bring more to the table than that.
You just have to.
Dude.
Now that I've got that out of my system...
At the end of November 2001 I went to a talk by one of the engineers involved in assessing the performance of the WTC on September 11 ( http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html ). This was a preliminary talk, outlining the current state of understanding in an ongoing investigation. It drew quite a large number of heavy hitters from the engineering and hard science departments. The potential explanations that he presented were plausible. If they had not been plausible, he would've been ripped to shreds in the Q and A(If you don't believe me, you've never seen academics at conferences expressing disagreement).
You can bask in your paranoid little fantasy and think that every single person in that room was in on it. And you can continue to cite anonymous reporters and cutting edge lego reconstruction methods. But I call bullshit.
* eta: to change some singular to plural
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well I'm sorry but I'm not going to go digging through hundreds of thousands of sites just so I can bing up one obscure little thing that will be torn apart by you anyway, I have other things I want to do.
and the lego thing was an example of the physics involved in smashing something into a building
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, you don't want to put in the work to have an informed opinion.
That's understandable.
And that's why I called bullshit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
no, I just have more of a life than ppl who do that.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or people who have studied in that field.
* eta: I'll expand on my thoughts.
You expressed an uninformed opinion. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether highly informed or highly uninformed or somewhere in between.
Now how much credence to lend to that opinion? I lend zero credence to an uninformed opinion. That's why I called bullshit. I lend a lot of credence to an informed opinion. I pay attention to the opinions of those who have worked and studied in the field they are discussing.
You stated that you don't have the time to develop an informed opinion. As I said, that's understandable.
But don't expect me to give any credence to your proudly expressed ignorance.
If you don't want to put in the work don't expect to be taken seriously. It's as simple as that.
* edited: spelling
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
In other words, you don't want to put in the work to have an informed opinion.
That's understandable.
And that's why I called bullshit.
bwaahaa ahaha ahhaha haaa...
Here is my uninformed opinion...
If you punch a Lego building, your hand exerts much more force, to scale, on the Lego building. This allows for the entire Lego building to topple OVER.
But if your hand exerted less force... possibly immediately disintegrating upon impact (ouch) inside the Lego structure only taking out a block or two, you may get similar results. Also, if Lego blocks were not a solid blocks but rather platforms that attached to "poles" as an exoskeleton maybe we'd have a comparison. …and if your blood was a highly combustible fluid your Legos would melt into an indefinable disc lying on the floor. Much like the Simpson’s X-mas tree.
Guy, Is the life of which you speak of a high, per-day post count of randomness. Don' be hatin'!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
why is everyone argueing about legos?
frankly there is stuff we will never know being civilians. the goverment never lets us know the whole truth. to one extreme there is another and there will always be the people who think the goverment does everything wrong. we live in a pretty good country with a less than perfect society and a less than perfect goverment. we can only hope to fall in the middle. what happened was terrible. i would like to know what really happened but relize i probably never will. kinda like area 51, JFK, hell even Lincolns assassination but as long as people rule this earth there will be problems. maybe we can all start obeying the great and wise feline.
))<>((
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My first thought was...
"These yahoos are in charge of national air defense ?"
What a mess.
Afaik - no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire, and certainly not straight down like that, it's entirely suspicious and bears the one thing that has not occurred, an actual investigation.
What evidence and testimony that the public in general can get their hands on with a little work is in fact quite disturbing, but is no substitute for an actual investigation by folks who know what the hell they're doing and have no stake in the outcome.
Be it complicity, incompetence, exploitation of events, some stuff went very very wrong that day, and those responsible should be held accountable, instead of being allowed to obfuscate and delay till they're safely out of office... cause no way in hell *should* this have been able to happen, ergo, some folks screwed it up good, at multiple points on the chain of command.
It also bears thinking about that we spend X amount of our money on a national defense and crapload of alphabet agencies that don't do the job.. why reinforce and reward utter and complete incompetence, defeat, even ?
Why do we spend so much tax money on stuff so good at making our lives miserable, but so piss-poor at doing the job they're assigned to do ?
Until a full, impartial and professional investigation of events by folk not involved in the political process occurs, no resolution of this issue is going to happen, and *because* such a thing has not occurred, imma have to side with the folks who smell a rat - although without specifying the breed and size thereof, capisce?
Incompetence is no excuse, not on my tax dime it ain't.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
If you build a tower of Lego blocks, support it, and set out, then I come punch it it falls to the side, not straight down.
The building did not fall because of the impact of the planes. They fell because the heat of the fire produced from the burning fuel weakened the surviving(some were taken out by the planes) load bearing supports which allowed the weight of the floors above the fire to cause those floors to collapse. They pancaked down to the level of the fire and then overwhelmed to supports below the level causing the general collapse of the structure, floor by floor, straight down.
When a buidling is demolished they place the explosives on the load bearing supports which causes the building to collapse. Thats why the WTC collapse looked like a demolition, cause demolitions happen the same way (removal of the load bearing supports). In the case of the WTC the collapse was not immediate, as would have been the case were this a controlled demolition. Rather it was the sustained heat of the fire over a period of something like an hour or two.
Naw, it was the CIA and their invisible clone troopers.
Watched a Discovery Channel special.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi -
I've never posted in the real world before... it's very scary... *sticking in one toe carefully*
The lego analogy doesn't work because it wasn't the impact of the planes that took down the towers. If that had been the case, they wouldn't had stood for 15 and 45 minutes (or something like that...) before they collapsed. The buildings were engineered to withstand the impact from an airplane.
They were also built to handle fire. What the engineers didn't consider was this: the impact of the planes took some of the fireproofing stuff off of the steel beams in the center of the structure. The unshielded steel wasn't designed to handle the heat of jet fuel burning in a closed off space, and the beams collapsed. Then, as someone said above, the top of the buildings fell straight down. This is clearly visible when you watch the video.
So the impact on your legos is a fist from above, not from the side.
This is all part of the engineering report drawn up after the event. I'm sorry, I don't have a reference, but they made a public TV special about it, interviewing the man who built the towers and the people who picked through the rubble to identity the melted beams and figure out exactly what happened.
I'm a skeptic scientist and I totally bought the explanation. I don't know what does to the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy or not, GWB is EVIL and that's the end of my knowledge. 
EDIT: hero - just saw your post - too funny! So I guess it was a discovery channel thing... I saw it too, very convincing!
-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The aftermath of the collison of the planes into the buildings is a whole different can of worms... there will always be different opinions of what exactly caused the collapse, but the chaos at NORAD is there for all to see and, in my mind, indicates a very real lack of preparedness on the part of our government to live up to one of its most important jobs, which is to protect the citizens of this country.
"the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic"
edit: you'd think something like up-to-date equiment would be a priority....
"Radar is the NEADS controllers' most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, NEADS was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)
In order to find a hijacked airliner - or any airplane - military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss."
edit: If this is indeed the case; that a hijacker could turn off the beacon code and in essence "lose" the plane....i'm shocked that it wasn't done before this.
more from the article...
"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."
At this point in the morning, more than 3,000 jetliners are already in the air over the continental United States, and the Boston controller's direction - "35 miles north of Kennedy" - doesn't help the NEADS controllers at all.
On tape, amid the confusion, one hears Major James Fox, then 32, the leader of the Weapons Team, whose composure will stand out throughout the attack, make an observation that, so far, ranks as the understatement of the morning.
08:43:06 FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise. PLAY | STOP
edit: dosen't instill a lot of confindence
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do lego buildings often have concrete and steel foundations that go 100 feet underground?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
there will always be different opinions of what exactly caused the collapse
Yeah. Some will be the opinions of engineers...other will be from knuckheaded adults playing with legos and muttering 'Bush did it'.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I read the article. I didn't see any hard hitting questions reported. I'd like to ask some hard hitting questions myself. Maybe you can tell me if they were asked and what the answer was.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The potential explanations that he presented were plausible. If they had not been plausible, he would've been ripped to shreds in the Q and A(If you don't believe me, you've never seen academics at conferences expressing disagreement).
1. Is it possible that terrorists rigged demolition explosives to critical structures IN ADDITION to flying planes into the buildings?
2. Is it possible that the actual collapse of the buildings were caused by well-placed demolition explosives and NOT by fire?
3. Eyewitness testimony, firefighter transmissions, and video evidence claim there was no "inferno" in the WTC at the aircraft impact level. Do you have any OBJECTIVE and MEASURABLE evidence to counter these claims that would indicate what temperatures the fires reached and how long they burned at the maximum temperature?
4. Is it correct that the temperature needed to forge steel is 1100 degrees F, and the temperature needed to melt un-fireproofed steel is 3000 degrees F?
5. Frank Gayle of NIST found that 157 out of 160 perimeter panels did not exceed temperatures of 250 degrees. Is this temperature sufficient to cause the collapse of the steel reinforcements in the buildings? If so, how?
6. Analysis of one video showed that the core of WTC 1 fell while the perimeter walls at the top remained virtually intact. Is this consistent with the explanation that the trusses fell apart? How do you explain that the perimeter walls, which are not load-bearing, remained intact at the top after they lost all truss support?
7. In 1975, WTC suffered a fire on the 11th floor and burned for 3 hours. Obviously, the fire did not cause collapse. The fires spread to the other floors through cable shafts, but did not escape the shafts on the other floors, leaving other floors with only smoke and water damage. Firefighters reported extremely intense heat; it is claimed that this fire reached 700 degrees. How do you explain how a longer burning and possibly hotter fire did not cause the same damage as the aircraft impact fires? How do you explain that steel reinforced buildings burning for 17 or 20 hours present very different outcomes than the WTC buildings?
8. Is it correct that if you heat the midsection of a steel beam the top section bends sideways? How do you explain not seeing any sideways bending in the top of the WTC, if its steel buckled under heat?
------
Guy may not have time to put together the links, but here is a good starting point for looking at the inconsistencies.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
It isn't the first time that the official story doesn't make sense. Read what a military explosives expert had to say about the OK City bombing.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok2.htm
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." -- Douglas Adams
If it looked like a demolition job, acted like a demolition job, and sounded like a demolition job, we should consider the possibility that maybe there were demolition explosives involved, eh? It doesn't automatically mean Bush put them there--but would indicate the plane terrorists had some help. Who from is another question.
I don't know enough to jump to conclusions. But I do know enough to ask questions, and know that they aren't being answered.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Davye, thanks for sharing the article. I'd laugh it it weren't so sad.
My husband used to work as an air traffic controller. He is also a pilot, and knows lots of other pilots. He said one of his friends flew a little to close to the Seattle city limits one time and found himself suddenly "escorted" by 2 air force planes, telling him to turn around immediately or be fired upon. He was in a bi-plane! To my hub's knowledge, RESTRICTED air space has always been strictly and promptly enforced.
Something definitely went screwy on 9/11. NYC is without doubt restricted air space, and yet, not one but TWO, commercial airliners were allowed in. This is SO unbelievably incompetent that it is no wonder it feeds conspiracy theories.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I read the article. I didn't see any hard hitting questions reported. I'd like to ask some hard hitting questions myself. Maybe you can tell me if they were asked and what the answer was.
The article didn't touch on the Q&A after the talk (I think the author only mentioned one question). You missed the part where I was sitting in the audience. Based on my memory four and a half years later it's a safe bet that no one asked questions 5 and 6 on your list. So you're right. The Q&A session two months after the event was not as hard hitting as it could have been five years after the fact.
As far as asking about possibilities, those are lawyer questions. Of course something is possible. Probable? Not so much. Throw a number on it? Whole different thing.
So let's cut to the chase. Based on everything you've read about WTC and you had to wager on what was the most likely scenario, where would you put all your family's money?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
My first thought was...
"These yahoos are in charge of national air defense ?"
What a mess.
Afaik - no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire, and certainly not straight down like that, it's entirely suspicious and bears the one thing that has not occurred, an actual investigation.
What evidence and testimony that the public in general can get their hands on with a little work is in fact quite disturbing, but is no substitute for an actual investigation by folks who know what the hell they're doing and have no stake in the outcome.
Be it complicity, incompetence, exploitation of events, some stuff went very very wrong that day, and those responsible should be held accountable, instead of being allowed to obfuscate and delay till they're safely out of office... cause no way in hell *should* this have been able to happen, ergo, some folks screwed it up good, at multiple points on the chain of command.
It also bears thinking about that we spend X amount of our money on a national defense and crapload of alphabet agencies that don't do the job.. why reinforce and reward utter and complete incompetence, defeat, even ?
Why do we spend so much tax money on stuff so good at making our lives miserable, but so piss-poor at doing the job they're assigned to do ?
Until a full, impartial and professional investigation of events by folk not involved in the political process occurs, no resolution of this issue is going to happen, and *because* such a thing has not occurred, imma have to side with the folks who smell a rat - although without specifying the breed and size thereof, capisce?
Incompetence is no excuse, not on my tax dime it ain't.
-Frem
Fremd - You state that "no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire" - How many buildings with steel cores are you aware of that were hit by transatlantic sized planes, directly (or reasonably so) after takeoff and therefore heavily laden with airplane fuel? Have you ever seen a fire fueled by airplane fuel? Additionally, the design behind the WTC was such that once one floor went out and collapsed on the one below it, it would take the whole building down. This is certainly not something anyone in the early 60's would have considered happening.
You say there has been no investigation - funny, even from England I remember seeing engineering reports ad naseum on why it fell.
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm has some design info - "Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all" - go build a model to this design, get a butt load of airplane fuel, dump it on the model and ignite - lets see if the steel buckles or melts.
As far as the "Yahoo's in charge of military defense". Those "Yahoo's" do an outstanding job everyday with some of the crappiest, most outdated equipment I have ever seen. You have a problem with them - talk to Congress, the Senate and the Administration and get the ridiculous amounts of money spent - spent on what is needed, updated equipment.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn't miss that. That is why I asked you if those questions were asked in the Q&A and what the answers were.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You missed the part where I was sitting in the audience.
Yes, anything is possible. But why don't they include those possibilities in these expert analyses and explain why they are ruled out? Why don't they say, "We don't know for sure. Possibilities include Method A, B, and C. Methods B & C are ruled out because of these observations. Method A is the most likely explanation." No, instead, it is just a bombardment from all sources that "experts agree" Method A was what happened, and we are supposed to just accept their explanation. Anyone who questions Method A is a conspiracy nut. That smacks of propaganda and not science, to me. Makes me wonder why they feel the need to resort to propaganda.
Quote:If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.
So let's cut to the chase. Based on everything you've read about WTC and you had to wager on what was the most likely scenario, where would you put all your family's money?
Maybe it was more terrorists who are now walking around scott free because the govt refuses to investigate that scenario. I'd be less conspiracy minded if the govt would at least address this possibility. The govt's obtuse refusal to acknowledge the demolition theory at all is what makes me suspicious. Is the govt trying to hide complicity or gross incompetence by sweeping this possibility under the rug?
I dunno.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For those of us who are not engineers, this doc. explains things well in layman's terms.
"World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006AUH7/sr=8-2/qid=1154621849/ref=
sr_1_2/103-6527265-2263010?ie=UTF8
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is more outragous and far out there than them coming down from plane strikes. To make a controlled demolition work you don't just pile on a few tons of cemtex and push the plunger, you strategically weaken the structure (which takes weeks) and place explosives literally everywhere.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.
So for a controlled demolition we'd have to believe people working in those buildings just missed the hundreds of workmen removing and weakening support struts. That no one bothered to ask what the F
K the guys with the wheel barrows full of plastic explosives thought they were doing?"Err excuse me?"
"Routine maintenance, nothing to worry about."
"Erm, what's the boxes full with 'Danger: Explosive' written on the side for?"
"Rats, big Rat problem, big as dogs."
Come on, if you want a conspiracy theory what's wrong with saying the planes were really remote controlled by the CIA, or that they were flown by highly trained government super apes?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen! Well Said!
As for those that believe the conspiracy theory - this might help add fuel to your fire http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
I guess it doesn't matter what you believe, just believe......
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One reviewer wrote this:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
"World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse"
Quote:
This video is definitely a promo piece that works for the official story, but hidden inside this great documentary are interviews with professors that actually take the official story apart.
Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, is interviewed in this presentation during the segment on the British Steel Industrial Fire Test of 1995, where a 5 story building filled with office furniture, computers, paper, and other items, in a non-fireproofed environment was set ablaze and allowed to burn for several hours. And what happened? The building stood there with no chance of a collapse. The video footage of the test is interspliced with Barnett's interview, where he states: "When steel is bare -- when it heats up -- it gets weaker. It's not that it melts in a fire, in fact, fires--normal fires--are not hot enough to melt steel. Even if you were, for example, to use an unusual fuel -- like kerosene -- you cannot achieve temperatures hot enough to melt steel." He then adds, "In over 20 years I have not seen -- until recently -- a protected steel structure that has collapsed in a fire."
His statement might be meaningless to you if he was just some schmoe from around the way, but Professor Barnett was one of the chief investigators of the government's NIST/FEMA team that was tasked with determining what made the towers come down.
**It should be noted that the NIST/FEMA investigation even concluded that jet fuel cannot produce temperatures that burn hot enough to melt steel.
Another great interview/segment is with Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who is shown examining the steel wreckage of the WTC. He says, "What you see here is actually very critical - very, very important. Perhaps, this is the most important piece I have found so far. ...This is the inside face of [the] back columns. ...What you see here is, first of all, it bent. That was due to [an] explosion - but more importantly - this has a signature of [an] explosion. This has happened due to explosive material hitting this column and making that bulge. So this is [the] floor where [an] explosion happened, and the windows are blown away. Everything is burned. Even [the] fire-proofing on this floor is burned and glazed to the steel."
Any 9/11 researchers out there would be smart to grab this video and archive it. There are extraordinary CGI diagrams that show how immense the construction of the towers was, including the 47-steel core columns that made up the support for the buildings.
One conclusion is echoed over and over in this film, and that's on the morning of 9/11 everyone watching was amazed and shocked that the towers fell the way they did -- after all, NO ONE ever thought a steel skyscraper could collapse from just fire. Throughout the history of architecture, no steel structure has ever fallen due to fire, but on September 11th, "they" want you to believe that two 110-story buildings, and a third 47-story building did just that.
I might have to get this video.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me preface with I am open to being wrong on this. But given what I've read so far, I believe that is exactly what happened. A crew of workmen professionally demolished the buildings. They must have had the credentials to do their work unhindered. Maybe those credentials were very good forgeries, or maybe they were authentic and authorized by our govt. Maybe the crew was ignored by officials on purpose or because of incompetence. Who knows? The fact that demolition requires a crew doesn't rule out the possibility.
Originally posted by citizen:
So for a controlled demolition we'd have to believe people working in those buildings just missed the hundreds of workmen removing and weakening support struts. That no one bothered to ask what the F
Sorry, you'll have to do better than that to dismiss it.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
:hand sheepishly raised: I was just wondering - does anyone know if the atc tapes were confiscated and destroyed, and, does anyone know why building 7 came down?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.
Maybe it was more terrorists who are now walking around scott free because the govt refuses to investigate that scenario. I'd be less conspiracy minded if the govt would at least address this possibility. The govt's obtuse refusal to acknowledge the demolition theory at all is what makes me suspicious. Is the govt trying to hide complicity or gross incompetence by sweeping this possibility under the rug?
I dunno.
Okay. Now let's establish how much confidence you have in that position. What percentage of your family's assets would you wager that, "SOMEONE demolished those buildings"? Seventy-five percent? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent?
To address the first point you raised, let me walk you through my thought processes as I listened to the presentation and Q&A.
Are the presented alternatives plausible based on my own understanding? Check
Is this my field? No
What is the reaction of the civil engineering professors and graduate students in the audience and what are the nature of their questions and the nature of the responses? There is no indication that the professors and graduate students I recognize think the presented alternatives are implausible.
Repeat for those in material science, etc.
Now it's Rumsfeld time. Is it an appeal to authority? Absolutely. In my field it is important to be able to design products in domains that you may not have any previous experience with. You have to come up to speed quickly and develop enough of an understanding to identify who is and who is not an expert in that field and ask the experts intelligent questions. So my tendency is to watch the experts because there is no time nor need to become an expert myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jet fuel is kerosene. I've seen kerosene burn. It's not super magic fuel that nobody's seen before.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Have you ever seen a fire fueled by airplane fuel?
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
Ah, well. . .far be it for me to ask questions, ignorant little peon that I am. If the EXPERTS have decided, they must have thought of all these things already.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No I don't. Saying they had papers means nothing.
You can't just prepare a building for demolition without someone noticing. People would notice their building being cut to shreds, people in other buildings would notice. They'd be dragging shitloads of crap out of those buildings, dump trucks taking it away, where are all these off cuts? How come no one noticed them.
Why does coming up with such an impractical unlikely and unworkable theory make the idea of two buildings collapsing more believable than them collapsing after being hit by great big bloody planes?
How come a building collapsing after being hit by a plane is unbelievable but hundreds of workmen slowly deconstructing a building around the workers and drilling plastic explosives into the support struts right in front of them while no one thinks "hang on that's a little bit funny?" is more likely?
Quote:Hold on, this suggests no planes actually hit the WTC, those were some pretty amazing special effects...
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an aside, from what I remember, the jet fuel burned off rather quickly. Kind of like lighter fluid on charcoal. The lighter fluid burns off rapidly but serves the purpose of starting the fire. To assume that the jet fuel burning had little or no impact on the collapse is to assume the workspaces had nothing flammible in them.
And you don't have to melt the steel. Just compromise the structural integrity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:67.587%? Good grief, what's with trying to force me into a corner, just because I dare to ask questions?
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Now let's establish how much confidence you have in that position. What percentage of your family's assets would you wager that, "SOMEONE demolished those buildings"? Seventy-five percent? Fifty percent? Twenty-five percent?
Quote:There could be MORE THAN ONE plausible explanation. What I want to know is why only ONE of them is presented as the ONLY plausible explanation. Why do people who mention other plausible explanations immediately ridiculed as a conspiracy nut instead of having their questions answered?
There is no indication that the professors and graduate students I recognize think the presented alternatives are implausible.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Incidentally, kerosene burns blue. And the fires of WTC were bright orange, like gasoline fires.
But what color does wood burn? What color does drywall burn? What color does carpet burn or does it burn the color of the carpet?
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The whole 9/11 tragedy never fails to bring up sad memories as well as heated debate between the conspiracy and non-conspiracy crowds. My intent in starting this discussion was to point out the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Northeast command center of NORAD on the day of the attack, and to bring the recently released transcripts to everyone’s attention.
If you would rather discuss the engineering aspects of the building collapse or whether President Bush was in fact a major player in the most heinous act of aggression on American soil in recent memory, that’s fine I suppose, but it was the transcript of the that day that really got my attention. I believe there is an audio file on the Vanity Fair site if anyone is interested.
Personally, I would rather not get into the whole conspiracy aspect of the story. Hell, I’m still waiting for definitive evidence that Oswald wasn’t the lone gunman…..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
67.587%? Good grief, what's with trying to force me into a corner, just because I dare to ask questions?
...
There could be MORE THAN ONE plausible explanation. What I want to know is why only ONE of them is presented as the ONLY plausible explanation. Why do people who mention other plausible explanations immediately ridiculed as a conspiracy nut instead of having their questions answered?
What I'm trying to get at with the money question is to understand what level of credence you lend to the alternative explanations. At the abstract level, anything is possible. I have found that when people start tying their beliefs to real world results that impact their pocket book then they apply a different level of skepticism. For example, I'm confident that the collapse of the WTC was due to the impact from the planes (eta: shorthand for: initial structural weakening followed by further weakening due to fire followed by collapse). But I'm pretty risk adverse. So I wouldn't wager more than X percent of my assets on that position (where I haven't quite decided what X would be but it's a number << 25%). I would wager zero percent of my assets on any other position.
Are the alternatives really plausible? Or are they just possible.
*edited to add: Let me try this on for size.
"What do you think of that car?"
"Oh man. It's great. I love it. It looks so cool."
"Would you buy it?"
"Hell no. It eats up gas. Those things are always breaking down. You can only fit two people in it." etc.
"What do you think happened at the WTC?"
"Well, there's a bunch of theories floating around the internet that the buildings where demolished, the planes didn't really fly into the buildings, the planes were allowed to fly into the buildings, just a bunch of different things that could've happened that no one in a position of authority wants to talk about."
"Which one of those theories would you spend money on?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hi -......... I've never posted in the real world before... it's very scary... *sticking in one toe carefully*
Mal4prez... thanks for taking the plunge... go ahead and stick your whole foot in... and a leg to boot....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They could have been noticed and given permission by building authorities to do "construction work"?
Originally posted by citizen:
How come no one noticed them.
Quote:God, when did I ever say unbelievable? 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.
How come a building collapsing after being hit by a plane is unbelievable
The only time I even used the word "unbelievable" was regarding the uninhibited violation of restricted air space.
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.
Hold on, this suggests no planes actually hit the WTC, those were some pretty amazing special effects...
I don't know what the explanation is that the explosions upon aircraft impact were orange. I might speculate that those impact fires were "helped" by the same people who put demolition explosives all over the building. Or maybe those aircraft were carrying a lot of gasoline in addition to their jet fuel. Or maybe indeed, those planes had super magic fuel that no one has ever seen before.
Look, I'm not saying I know for a fact what happened. 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.
My husband showed a video of the collapse of Building 7 to a mechanical engineer colleague he highly respects. 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.
It is called confirmation bias. We pay attention to evidence that supports our biases, and ignore the rest. That is why I think the official investigation needs to be more objective and careful--to posit more than one explanation and systematically rule them out.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kerosene is used in the production of jet fuel, the resulting fuel burns at a maximum temperature of 1700 F. Jet fuel absorbed into carpeting, paper, drywall, curtains, (these items can increase the burning temperature to 2000 F) etc will burn longer than just a puddle of jet fuel - it will ignite the contents of the building and those things will add to the fire, factor in the fact that at that altitude the winds are a whipping around, you have a fire frenzy. Maybe not enough to cause molten pools of metal, but certainly enough to damage the integrity of those columns still intact.
Add all this to the fact that the World Trade Center was a HOLLOW TUBE - I have been there, the floors were wide open spaces with very little support in the center - all you have to do is fly a large plane into the building and take out most of one floor. Leave the extremely heavy aircraft, luggage, bodies etc. in the building and wait for the excess weight, residual damage and fire to make it all fall down and go boom.
This is what happened - some fundamentalist Radical, extremist Muslims didn't read history and were not aware that the UK actually gave Israel to the Jews. They assumed that the mighty, powerful and corrupt US did. Add to that the fact that the US tends to put their noses where it doesn't belong - and you have a good target for a lot of pissed off people. One of these pissed off people is an excellent reader of architectural drawings and understood that there were some inherent design flaws in the WTC.
Believe what you want - but base it on something more than a bunch of people interpreting what happened to fit their theories.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I mean to say, the initial explosion from the aircraft impact was bright orange.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
But what color does wood burn?
But, yes, maybe it means nothing at all.
I'm gonna duck before I get stoned. I asked my questions, and that's that.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Building 7 was "taken down". No conspiracy. It was demolished by the owner. He admitted it. I saw him say it.
And he made a hefty profit.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The demolition one. 67.587% of my family's assets.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
"Which one of those theories would you spend money on?"
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.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Interesting. Do you have a link or source or anything? I'd like to see it for myself.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Building 7 was "taken down". No conspiracy. It was demolished by the owner. He admitted it. I saw him say it.
If that is indeed true, then the earlier, official "plausible" explanations of why Bldg 7 went down were incorrect. What if the explanations for WTC are also incorrect? I just wished they had investigated more plausible explanations before settling on one.
And one more note for Citizen. Not all demolition theories are equal.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/index.html
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- Tsk tsk tsk. Where is your savoir faire with conspiracy theories? Don't you know that there are two major flavors of 9-11 conspiracy? They are Make It Happen On Purpose and Let It Happen On Purpose, known as MIHOP and LIHOP respectively.
If I had to choose a conspiracy it would be LIHOP: those in the know (by definition that would exclude Bush) simply refused to prevent an expected terrorist act.
Just my $0.02
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm gonna duck before I get stoned. I asked my questions, and that's that.
Canttakesky… I don’t think anyone here is throwing stones. I hope you will continue to post. There will be disagreements here, I know. We aren’t, after all, mindless automatons and disagreement is to be expected in this type of discussion. I had no intent to start a flame war. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and honest and open debate is crucial to finding the truth of a thing. Do I believe that our own government was duplicitous in the attack of 9/11? No. Do I believe everything our government tells us? No.
Will we ever know all the secrets our government keeps from us? I would like to think that, as citizens, we would be privileged to have all relevant information available to us. However, I am not naïve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before anyone reads my post they should note that I'm not American, not an engineer and most of my knowledge of this subject comes from watching The Discovery Channel.
The steel frames used to build the trade centre were made to be assembled very quickly. They were called trust beams, or trust frames. It's well documented that when they get hot the joints have a tendancy to collapse, which causes the roof/floor (depending on your point of view) to fall. Firefighters even have a saying - "Don't trust the trust."
To prevent this from happening, the WTC buildings were coated with fire preventing insulation. This ensured that the steel frames weren't exposed to naked flames or direct heat.
The stuff that was exposed directly to the jet fuel explosion probobly wouldn't have survived the fire, but the rest of the building should have been able to handle the more "normal" fire that burned on several floors. Except the insulation hadn't been replaced fully throughout the centre - it's pretty much a full time job to do it. The wreckage showed some frames still covered in insulation, and others where it had begun to wear thin, or had even worn away completely. This is what caused so many of the frames to collapse.
As the trust beams collapsed, they landed on top of each other. Floors would fall down flat onto other floors. The weight became too much for each succeeding floor to bear. You can't see it from the tapes, but both buildings were actually collapsing inside long before they fell. As each floor collapsed they were being hollowed out, until the outside frame couldn't cope (it was still on fire after all) and sank in on itself. This is why they didn't fall to one side. Tower two was hit lower down that tower one, which is why it fell first. It took longer for this process to take effect in tower one, but once the upper floors gave way the lower ones went pretty quickly.
I think the main reason this isn't talked about much in the media is because it's very difficult for the families of those killed to hear. The situation must have been truly horrific for those on the stairs trying to escape. The truth is many of them were crushed to death quite some time before the towers fell. Those who survived until the collapse itself would have endured burning rubble raining down on them, hearing each massive crash as the floors above them gave way and probobly even seeing the floors just above them starting to bulge and fall apart. It's not the kind of death anyone wants to think about, especially for someone they love.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 do
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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."
Originally posted by canttakesky:
They could have been noticed and given permission by building authorities to do "construction work"?
Quote: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?
God, when did I ever say unbelievable?
Quote:Because the idea of it being a controlled demolitions is neither a hard hitting question nor a plausible explanation.
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.
Quote:Well the insult aside it’s actually extremely simple:
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.
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 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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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 destructi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you Rue. There, another question answered to my satisfaction. 33 more to go.
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.)
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wouldn't, I took a chill pill along with as many happy pills as AntiMason has taken once...
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
First, you need to take a chill pill and stop shouting.
...
Thirdly, take another chill pill.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ignore.
I mis-read.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks, canttakethesky. I can't believe I missed that!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*has an urge to burn lithium*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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!
...IQ in excess of 160...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is ONE way to demolish a building. Here is another, for example.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's MAJOR construction work. Its move everyone out of the building major construction work
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:There is a significant difference between less believable and UNbelievable.
You said (or words to that effect) that you find the idea of it being a controlled demolition more believable
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:No aid. Just thought it was strange. Another question that I liked to see answered.
what was the whole fire being the wrong colour thing in aid of?
I have questions, and I have guesses. Until my questions are answered seriously, I can't conclude anything.
Quote:Uh huh.
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...
Quote: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.
...but make it look like they'd been brought down by plane strikes.
Quote:
You don't see any demolition charges fire though, watch a video of a demolition, you can see some of the charges fire.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
Quote: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.
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?
Quote:You're assuming you know exactly what the message is, what is sufficient to deliver the message, and what is superfluous.
The message is served by the plane strikes, the collapse is eye candy.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Even though this seemingly confirms my suspicions, I'm afraid I have more questions.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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...
Originally posted by kaneman:
ours is the best, most well trained military, and intelligence gathering system in the world.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 fking 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote: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...
Originally posted by kaneman:
ours is the best, most well trained military, and intelligence gathering system in the world.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well hmm as for Intel, that's a topic in and of itself...
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well let me tell you Cantakesky:
i for one appreciate your openmindedness.
Bush told everyone after 9/11 "and let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concering the events of september 11" and that "your either with us, or your with the terrorists"..i believe attorney general Ashcroft made similar comments.
we were constantly told "support our troops, support the war", anything else is un-patriotic and anti-American.
apparently questioning your government, holding the establishment accountable, seeking the Truth despite its unpleasantness...those are qualities not sought by George Bushs America.
were supposed to shut up and like it, believe everything were told, go back to your daily lives and go shopping! remember that?..dont worry about those terrorists, just sit back...we got 'em.
meanwhile 5 years later, our Borders are still wide open, we have a multi-trillion dollar deficit, a war in Iraq with no sight of an exit strategy, a never ending war on terror, set to encompass everyday Americans and their liberties theyre fighting to protect; or so we thought.
it just gets more and more ominous..is this America 2006, or Orwells 1984??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME