Full Version: 911
Not involved but negligent. A military intelligence taskforce called Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta's cell a couple years before, and wanted to pass the information to the FBI, but was blocked from doing so by DoD lawyers. In my view, that's sheer idiocy and incompetence at best. The question is how high up did it go? SecDef William Cohen admitted there was such a policy at the time, so it was at least cabinet level.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...pt_11_hijackers
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...pt_11_hijackers
I think the airpeed of the responding aircraft is grasping for straws.
Of course these planes can go supersonic and beyond. But it takes lots of fuel to support those speeds. At higher speeds than cruise, they probably would have needed to refuel as soon as they got there. It's not like they had time to install aux tanks or anything. So, what do you do? Get there quick and be able to do nothing because you're out of gas, or hope that you can get there in time and have enough fuel to do something about it?
Somebody needed to make a decision on a lose-lose proposition and did the best they could. Could you imagine the outrage if they got there in time, but were out of gas?
Of course these planes can go supersonic and beyond. But it takes lots of fuel to support those speeds. At higher speeds than cruise, they probably would have needed to refuel as soon as they got there. It's not like they had time to install aux tanks or anything. So, what do you do? Get there quick and be able to do nothing because you're out of gas, or hope that you can get there in time and have enough fuel to do something about it?
Somebody needed to make a decision on a lose-lose proposition and did the best they could. Could you imagine the outrage if they got there in time, but were out of gas?
I will try again to present my case that the government's official record for 911 is full of holes and false.
I attempted this last evening and after 1 hr and almost finished along came thunderstorms and electricity was lost. Alas all of my post that was almost completed was gone. Maybe an omen, who knows?
I believe there was a demolition of the twin towers and probably also WTC 7.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm#rest
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
The above site continues to tell what the WTC were made out of and how much steel, and the technical stuff about stresses,etc. It was built to withstand hurricane winds of 115 miles an hour.
The official versions of FEMA is that the fires from the fuel from the planes weaken the structure beams enough to cause a pancaking effect. This is one floor giving away and collapsing on the floor below, and so forth to ground level.
One reason this doesn't sound reasonable is the timespan that it took for the twin towers to completely collapse to the ground.
Each tower took approximately 15 seconds to fall.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
In essence, for this to happen the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least 6 floors per second. This is the same as free fall. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause.
Also concerning WTC 7.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition
Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph [at right].
Also in WTC 7, the collapse took only 8 seconds, which is the same as a free fall. Remember the building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the collapse of the twin towers earlier.
I attempted this last evening and after 1 hr and almost finished along came thunderstorms and electricity was lost. Alas all of my post that was almost completed was gone. Maybe an omen, who knows?
I believe there was a demolition of the twin towers and probably also WTC 7.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition.htm#rest
QUOTE
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
The above site continues to tell what the WTC were made out of and how much steel, and the technical stuff about stresses,etc. It was built to withstand hurricane winds of 115 miles an hour.
The official versions of FEMA is that the fires from the fuel from the planes weaken the structure beams enough to cause a pancaking effect. This is one floor giving away and collapsing on the floor below, and so forth to ground level.
One reason this doesn't sound reasonable is the timespan that it took for the twin towers to completely collapse to the ground.
Each tower took approximately 15 seconds to fall.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm
QUOTE
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
In essence, for this to happen the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least 6 floors per second. This is the same as free fall. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause.
Also concerning WTC 7.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm
QUOTE
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition
Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph [at right].
Also in WTC 7, the collapse took only 8 seconds, which is the same as a free fall. Remember the building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the collapse of the twin towers earlier.
Ok, let's go through this one step at a time. I'm not going to go through all of the weight claims contained on your cited website because quite frankly without the actual structural details, which your website acknowledges it doesn't have, they are worthless. But, let's look at what you present....
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers. The designer of the WTC stated on that program that the towers had been designed to withstand the impact of a 707 arriving in New York, not an aircraft nearly full of fuel. Both aircraft that hit the towers were on a flight from Boston to the west coast. That's a lot of jet fuel. Keep in mind the towers lasted for quite awhile after the impact before they imploded. It was the fire inside of them that brought them down, not the impact.
If this person had done a rigorous analysis of the collapse timeline, and that would be possible with the video, they would not have attempted to average it out over the entire period. Rather they would have looked at it floor by floor and I suspect determined that each successive collapse was faster than the previous one. The kind of structural failure seen in the lower floors is almost instantanous. It's like snapping a tow rope by yanking on it instead of applying the load gradually. Given the nature of the design of the WTC, that's a pretty close analogy. The stringers used for structural support were hit with a high instantenous load and never had a chance to "give" (ie. stretch) and instead broke,
I haven't examined the evidence on the WTC 7 tower very closely. I'll check into that. However, the primary structure of all of the WTC buildings was in the center of the building and a fire there would not necessarily be visible from outside.
QUOTE
QUOTE
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers. The designer of the WTC stated on that program that the towers had been designed to withstand the impact of a 707 arriving in New York, not an aircraft nearly full of fuel. Both aircraft that hit the towers were on a flight from Boston to the west coast. That's a lot of jet fuel. Keep in mind the towers lasted for quite awhile after the impact before they imploded. It was the fire inside of them that brought them down, not the impact.
QUOTE
Each tower took approximately 15 seconds to fall.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm
QUOTE
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm
QUOTE
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
If this person had done a rigorous analysis of the collapse timeline, and that would be possible with the video, they would not have attempted to average it out over the entire period. Rather they would have looked at it floor by floor and I suspect determined that each successive collapse was faster than the previous one. The kind of structural failure seen in the lower floors is almost instantanous. It's like snapping a tow rope by yanking on it instead of applying the load gradually. Given the nature of the design of the WTC, that's a pretty close analogy. The stringers used for structural support were hit with a high instantenous load and never had a chance to "give" (ie. stretch) and instead broke,
QUOTE
QUOTE
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition
Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph [at right].
At 5:22 p.m. on September 11th 2001, the 47 story building number 7 of the World Trade Center Plaza came down in slightly over 8 seconds. The building had not been hit by any plane, nor sustained any significant damage from the "collapse" of the Twin Towers seven hours earlier, nor was there any major fire in the building at the time. The video clearly show that it was brought down as result of a synchronized demolition
Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph [at right].
I haven't examined the evidence on the WTC 7 tower very closely. I'll check into that. However, the primary structure of all of the WTC buildings was in the center of the building and a fire there would not necessarily be visible from outside.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Aug 20 2005, 06:59 PM)
I believe there was a demolition of the twin towers and probably also WTC 7.
Demolition experts planted enough explosives to collapse the WTC, while undetected, and chose the location where the planes would hit, which was the point at which it collapsed? Remember all of that smoke billowing out of the WTC at the point of impact? Is it your assertion that the pilots were trying to hit some sort of small predetermined target on the building, or that the explosive planters were psychic...and the survivors didn't report hearing secondary explosive charges, and their stories coincided strangely with the FEMA findings. The FBI, police, firefighters, FEMA, and military were then bribed and or threatened into using data which supported the "official story", and all evidence of explosives detonation surreptitiously removed from the rubble?
QUOTE(popeye47)
The official versions of FEMA is that the fires from the fuel from the planes weaken the structure beams enough to cause a pancaking effect. This is one floor giving away and collapsing on the floor below, and so forth to ground level.
Which would seem to be a far more realistic explanation than someone, somehow sneaking around the (highly secured since 1993) WTC, rigging explosives, without being seen, or anything out of the ordinary being noticed. Not to mention the fact that explosives leave trace evidence. For it not to found considering the amount that would have been needed is not very likely. For the multitude of local, state, federal and private agencies involved in the investigation of the collapse to agree to cover-up this evidence is impossible to believe.
Steel does not like extreme heat. The planes, loaded with fuel for their 3000+ mile scheduled flights, hit the tower. The fuel poured into the tower. The fuel ignited (perhaps due to sparks from the crash, or broken electric lines or a careless smoker
). The fire was intense (to say the least). It burned for some time before the buildings collapsed. The collapse happened as a result of structural failure of the steel due to the extreme heat of the fire.As a former member of the US Navy with extensive Damage Control (AKA fire-fighting training and qualifications) I can say with absolute certainty that steel will loose structural integrity when exposed to extreme heat.
If you would like to examine the possibility I suggest you do a experiment at home. Goto the hardware store and purchase a piece of steel rebar and a propane torch (and thick, insulated leather gloves if you don't have any). Then, without applying heat, try to bend the rebar. Depending on the thickness of the bar you purchased (as well as your individual uper body strength) you might be able to do it, but it will be pretty tough. Now, apply heat to the center from the propane torch until the middle of the rebar glows red (or if you prefer, apply the heat for the length of time the fire burned in the WTC). Then (remember your gloves) try to bend the rebar again. It will be dramatically easier to do.
Recently I re-wired a home my mother purchased. #12 wire is not that pliable (though much more then say, a piece of steel rebar). I ran alot of wires through the attic (in the late spring and early summer
). I became concerned when I noticed how dramatically easier it was to manipulate the wire that had been in the hot attic for awhile vs. the wire that was elsewhere in the house. Of course the attic never got above 125 degrees. NOw, Copper is more susceptible to heat then steel, but the point is that metal is susceptible to heat, period. (BTW, to correct the problem (though it was likely not an actual safety issue) I installed an attic fan to exhaust the space of heat and keep it at or below 90 degrees).QUOTE( From JOM (link below))
it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
source (emphasis mine)Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
Steel looses strength with heat. Add to that variations in heat, loads applied that are outside the structural design (like a large plane being added to it), losses of several structural supports (from collision with a plane) that shifts in the load, and you get a combination of factors that leads to a catastrophic structural failure like what we saw with the World Trade Center.
Note: I found a link to the NOVA special mentioned by Aquilla earlier in the thread (at least I think it is the same one).
Now I have personally seen steel fail in a fire. When it goes, it goes fast. One minute a steel catwalk is sound, then next minute it crumbles from under you into a twisted pile of metal that looks more like spaghetti then a structure once designed to safely hold men. Considering the fact that I was in the same room as the fire when I rode this ride (though I was wearing "turn out" gear at the time) I think I safely assume that this can happen at relatively low temperatures.
The science behind the fact that the steel structure failed is valid. Some in the media chose to report this as the steel "melting" which is inaccurate, but the steel definitely failed due to heat combined with other factors resulting in bending, twisting, buckling, etc leading to the catastrophic collapse.
I welcome you to experiment with heat and steel (safely, and with good gloves). I look forward to hearing your findings.
I agree with Aquilla and Mrs. P. on this. I can't see how so great the logistical endeavour, wiring up the WTC buildings, could have been done without leaving any trace, before or after the explosions.
And really, whats the point? The dramatic loss of life was already of horrific proportions long before the buildings came down, so the actual terror element of the act had already been accomplished.
The buildings coming down seems impressive in that the sky line of Manhatten was changed for ever, but the death toll was already high enough before hand.
If there was any complicity in the acts, then I think it was in turning a blind eye to the understanding that a terrorist action was imminent, or in fostering the act from behind the scenes.
(By which I mean, Bin Laden could possibly be a glove puppet working for some one in the west or Saudi Arabia... not likely, but still possible)
There is one other detail I would point out that is not directly related, but poigniant nonetheless. Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it was hit. Provided we do not accept the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon, then it seems inconceivable that Rumsfeld would endanger himself in such a fashion.
And really, whats the point? The dramatic loss of life was already of horrific proportions long before the buildings came down, so the actual terror element of the act had already been accomplished.
The buildings coming down seems impressive in that the sky line of Manhatten was changed for ever, but the death toll was already high enough before hand.
If there was any complicity in the acts, then I think it was in turning a blind eye to the understanding that a terrorist action was imminent, or in fostering the act from behind the scenes.
(By which I mean, Bin Laden could possibly be a glove puppet working for some one in the west or Saudi Arabia... not likely, but still possible)
There is one other detail I would point out that is not directly related, but poigniant nonetheless. Donald Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it was hit. Provided we do not accept the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon, then it seems inconceivable that Rumsfeld would endanger himself in such a fashion.
Who is first? Ladies first.
Mrs. P
Demolition experts planted enough explosives to collapse the WTC, while undetected, and chose the location where the planes would hit, which was the point at which it collapsed? Remember all of that smoke billowing out of the WTC at the point of impact? Is it your assertion that the pilots were trying to hit some sort of small predetermined target on the building, or that the explosive planters were psychic..
No, my suspicions are elementary. My main thrust in this topic is the lack of the government telling the real truth. What the real truth is, is anyone guess. I have seen some guess that were so far out in left field, that even I quit reading them. There were some other theories that were more believable.
No,I don't believe they were trying to hit some target with the planes. The planes(with the supposedly Islamics) were supposed to hit the building and were supposed to be blamed for the terrorist attack and the deaths. There was a lot of effort in making sure the American public were aware that the ones piloting the planes were Moslems. Remember from one of the earlier posts that we don't know the nationality of the hijackers. There is absolute proof that at least 4 and as many as 7 hijackers are alive and living.
and the survivors didn't report hearing secondary explosive charges, and their stories coincided strangely with the FEMA findings.
But some survivors reported hearing explosive charges!
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.
It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:00am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.
Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
And to answer overlandsailor'squestion. I agree with you about the steel and bending and giving way. I agree that it helped the building start collapsing but the rate of speed of the collapsing is where I disagree. The demolition of the lower part of the building is what caused it to completely collapse.
Aquilla
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers
I don't know, but I would assume that when the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, they would take into account the fuel on a plane too. That I can't answer.
Have to go, but I will entertain all questions to the best of my ability.
Thanks everyone, for your questions.
This is also to my benefit to learn from this topic. My mind is not closed and I have changed my mind in the last 2 years after reading something that was unknown to me at the time.
Mrs. P
QUOTE
Demolition experts planted enough explosives to collapse the WTC, while undetected, and chose the location where the planes would hit, which was the point at which it collapsed? Remember all of that smoke billowing out of the WTC at the point of impact? Is it your assertion that the pilots were trying to hit some sort of small predetermined target on the building, or that the explosive planters were psychic..
No, my suspicions are elementary. My main thrust in this topic is the lack of the government telling the real truth. What the real truth is, is anyone guess. I have seen some guess that were so far out in left field, that even I quit reading them. There were some other theories that were more believable.
No,I don't believe they were trying to hit some target with the planes. The planes(with the supposedly Islamics) were supposed to hit the building and were supposed to be blamed for the terrorist attack and the deaths. There was a lot of effort in making sure the American public were aware that the ones piloting the planes were Moslems. Remember from one of the earlier posts that we don't know the nationality of the hijackers. There is absolute proof that at least 4 and as many as 7 hijackers are alive and living.
QUOTE
and the survivors didn't report hearing secondary explosive charges, and their stories coincided strangely with the FEMA findings.
But some survivors reported hearing explosive charges!
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
QUOTE
Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.
It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:00am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.
Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
And to answer overlandsailor'squestion. I agree with you about the steel and bending and giving way. I agree that it helped the building start collapsing but the rate of speed of the collapsing is where I disagree. The demolition of the lower part of the building is what caused it to completely collapse.
Aquilla
QUOTE
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers
I don't know, but I would assume that when the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, they would take into account the fuel on a plane too. That I can't answer.
Have to go, but I will entertain all questions to the best of my ability.
Thanks everyone, for your questions.
This is also to my benefit to learn from this topic. My mind is not closed and I have changed my mind in the last 2 years after reading something that was unknown to me at the time.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Aug 21 2005, 04:00 PM)
Aquilla
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers
I don't know, but I would assume that when the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, they would take into account the fuel on a plane too. That I can't answer.
Have to go, but I will entertain all questions to the best of my ability.
Thanks everyone, for your questions.
This is also to my benefit to learn from this topic. My mind is not closed and I have changed my mind in the last 2 years after reading something that was unknown to me at the time.
QUOTE
According to the NOVA report, the experts that examined the WTC collapse concluded that it wasn't the energy of the impact that brought down the towers. Rather it was the massive fire fueled by the jet fuel on board the aircraft that struck the towers
I don't know, but I would assume that when the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, they would take into account the fuel on a plane too. That I can't answer.
Have to go, but I will entertain all questions to the best of my ability.
Thanks everyone, for your questions.
This is also to my benefit to learn from this topic. My mind is not closed and I have changed my mind in the last 2 years after reading something that was unknown to me at the time.
The fire thing is a fair question and was addressed in the NOVA program. Although the members of the investigative team were very impressed with the design of the WTC in general, some of them calling it "brilliant", there was concern expressed that the stringers and specifically their attachment points to the main structural columns were not coated with a fire resistant insulation. This, even though the columns themselves were. I suppose one could call this the "fatal flaw". The design was made to withstand the impact of a large airliner, but it was never envisioned that that airliner would be full of fuel.
I have that program around here somewhere on tape and I wish I could legally stream it to you, Popeye, but failing that I can give you a link to the report on the investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. These people are some of the top engineers and scientists in their field, and they are not political type people at all. I would urge you to read through some of this report. It may serve to answer your doubts.
Edited to add a part from that report......
QUOTE
• The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter
frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact.
The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact,
avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was
intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In
each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural
components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers
withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged
insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter
frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact.
The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact,
avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was
intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In
each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural
components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the
building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
Edited again to add my own comments about this.....
This is a classical description of a catastrophic failure of this kind of structure. In a somewhat simplified fashion one could consider the WTC towers' design as similar to a suspension bridge, say the Golden Gate Bridge . If you view the picture I linked, you will see two main structural support columns. Think of those as the inner columns and outer columns of the WTC towers. Between those columns are a couple of main steel cables with a series of smaller cables running vertically attached to the bridge. Each one of those smaller vertical cables transfers the load of the bridge structure to the main cable which in turn transfers that load to the main structural columns. That is what a stringer does and how the floor loads in the WTC towers were transferred to the main columns. Now, if one begins to cut those smaller cables as the fire did in the WTC, the distribution of the loads is partially moved to the other cables and to the floor structure itself. Once it reaches that breaking point...... This is what happened. Tragic - yes. Mysterious - No. Solid science.
Aquilla
I appreciate the site from NIST. It is a good constructive discussion. It has some good valid points. I will take them into consideration. Thanks.
I appreciate the site from NIST. It is a good constructive discussion. It has some good valid points. I will take them into consideration. Thanks.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Aug 21 2005, 10:30 PM)
Aquilla
I appreciate the site from NIST. It is a good constructive discussion. It has some good valid points. I will take them into consideration. Thanks.
It's best to keep these types of one-liners for the PMs. Please remember to be constructive. I appreciate the site from NIST. It is a good constructive discussion. It has some good valid points. I will take them into consideration. Thanks.
TOPICS:
To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?
I don't know if any of you caught it, but there was an excellent documentary on this traegedy on the National Geographic Channel these past two nights that really went into the minutia of each event. It helped explain how confusing and frantic the entire situation was, as well as how the buildings collapsed.
They will probably be replaying it. I recommend watching.
They will probably be replaying it. I recommend watching.
QUOTE(Goldblum @ Aug 23 2005, 08:16 AM)
I don't know if any of you caught it, but there was an excellent documentary on this traegedy on the National Geographic Channel these past two nights that really went into the minutia of each event. It helped explain how confusing and frantic the entire situation was, as well as how the buildings collapsed.
They will probably be replaying it. I recommend watching.
They will probably be replaying it. I recommend watching.
I watched this program and I agree with Goldblum, it is an excellent documentary. I was actually going to link to it yesterday, but I was otherwise occupied.
There are quite a number of things there including a timeline of the events of 9/11 that may prove useful for this thread.
Note to Popeye (despite Jaime's admonition
):My pleasure sir
How quickly does a military fighter accelerate? I assume by the calculations presented here, the pilot presses the ignition and is instantly moving at mach 1.5. Is that the case? How long does it take a military fighter to climb to cruising altitude? Military airspeeds are measured at 30,000 feet. By your calculations the pilot presses the ignition and is instantly moving at mach 1.5 at 30,000 feet. Lets not forget to add time to turn onto the right course, get instructions, and all the other minutiae your calculation ignores.
Stand up a house of cards. Now knock over the middle of the house, and count how long it takes for the house of cards to fall. You will notice it takes about the same amount of time as one card falling in freefall. Buildings are constructed as self-supporting, self-reinforcing units, catastrophic structural failure of one large section will destroy the structure of the whole building, there was in fact NO other way for the building to collapse once the top floors caved in but in near free-fall. Even basic observation will tell you this, watch a building being demolished. They do not take out every support on every floor, they take out a few key supports, most of the building is quite intact, yet it falls in freefall.
None, I repeat none of the reports say that ‘9/11 hijackers are alive and well’. What they do say is that some of the people who were initially suspected to have been hijackers turned out to be alive, and thus the authorities were wrong to have suspected them. Allow me to also point out that the oft-quoted BBC article is dated September 23rd, 2001, 12 days after the attacks when nobody knew anything for sure.
How exactly is spending your last evening on earth drinking and getting lap dances NOT the profile of suicide bombers? For that matter, how on earth can you even begin to speculate what the last minute actions of deep cover suicide bombers should profile as? And as destroying the Koran is a terrible sin, I think leaving it behind is quite reasonable.
Oh, and by the way, can we PLEASE not keep bringing up the utterly fabricated and COUNTLESS times disproven bit of lunatic-fringe theorising that the US had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbour?
Stand up a house of cards. Now knock over the middle of the house, and count how long it takes for the house of cards to fall. You will notice it takes about the same amount of time as one card falling in freefall. Buildings are constructed as self-supporting, self-reinforcing units, catastrophic structural failure of one large section will destroy the structure of the whole building, there was in fact NO other way for the building to collapse once the top floors caved in but in near free-fall. Even basic observation will tell you this, watch a building being demolished. They do not take out every support on every floor, they take out a few key supports, most of the building is quite intact, yet it falls in freefall.
None, I repeat none of the reports say that ‘9/11 hijackers are alive and well’. What they do say is that some of the people who were initially suspected to have been hijackers turned out to be alive, and thus the authorities were wrong to have suspected them. Allow me to also point out that the oft-quoted BBC article is dated September 23rd, 2001, 12 days after the attacks when nobody knew anything for sure.
How exactly is spending your last evening on earth drinking and getting lap dances NOT the profile of suicide bombers? For that matter, how on earth can you even begin to speculate what the last minute actions of deep cover suicide bombers should profile as? And as destroying the Koran is a terrible sin, I think leaving it behind is quite reasonable.
Oh, and by the way, can we PLEASE not keep bringing up the utterly fabricated and COUNTLESS times disproven bit of lunatic-fringe theorising that the US had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbour?
Vermillion
None, I repeat none of the reports say that ‘9/11 hijackers are alive and well’. What they do say is that some of the people who were initially suspected to have been hijackers turned out to be alive, and thus the authorities were wrong to have suspected them. Allow me to also point out that the oft-quoted BBC article is dated September 23rd, 2001, 12 days after the attacks when nobody knew anything for sure.
This is the list that the FBI presented naming the hijackers.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/15/whunt15.xm
Seven pilots were among 19 hijackers
By Ben Fenton and Toby Helm
(Filed: 15/09/2001)
NINETEEN men, including seven trained pilots, were named by the FBI yesterday as being responsible for hijacking the four American airliners to destroy the two World Trade Centre towers and damage the Pentagon.
The 19 hijackers were Marwan Al Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Al Shehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Al Ghamdi on United Airlines Flight 175 which destroyed the World Trade Centre; Waleed M Al Shehri, Wail Al Shehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami on American Airlines Flight 11, which also destroyed the World Trade Centre; Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed on the Pentagon; and Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi on United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
I have not been able to find an amended list of hijackers by the FBI. Have you? If not , then the list is the same. And it still remains that up to 9 of them are still living? And that doesn't raise any questions?
And not one hijacker appears on the passenger list for any of the hijacked flights.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...11.victims.html
We don't even have proof that any of the hijackers were on the planes.
QUOTE
None, I repeat none of the reports say that ‘9/11 hijackers are alive and well’. What they do say is that some of the people who were initially suspected to have been hijackers turned out to be alive, and thus the authorities were wrong to have suspected them. Allow me to also point out that the oft-quoted BBC article is dated September 23rd, 2001, 12 days after the attacks when nobody knew anything for sure.
This is the list that the FBI presented naming the hijackers.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/15/whunt15.xm
QUOTE
Seven pilots were among 19 hijackers
By Ben Fenton and Toby Helm
(Filed: 15/09/2001)
NINETEEN men, including seven trained pilots, were named by the FBI yesterday as being responsible for hijacking the four American airliners to destroy the two World Trade Centre towers and damage the Pentagon.
The 19 hijackers were Marwan Al Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Al Shehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Al Ghamdi on United Airlines Flight 175 which destroyed the World Trade Centre; Waleed M Al Shehri, Wail Al Shehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami on American Airlines Flight 11, which also destroyed the World Trade Centre; Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed on the Pentagon; and Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi on United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
I have not been able to find an amended list of hijackers by the FBI. Have you? If not , then the list is the same. And it still remains that up to 9 of them are still living? And that doesn't raise any questions?
And not one hijacker appears on the passenger list for any of the hijacked flights.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...11.victims.html
We don't even have proof that any of the hijackers were on the planes.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Sep 10 2005, 03:01 AM)
Seven pilots were among 19 hijackers
By Ben Fenton and Toby Helm
(Filed: 15/09/2001)
By Ben Fenton and Toby Helm
(Filed: 15/09/2001)
This is a list of suspects, released FOUR DAYS after the bombings took place. As I said before, nobody knew anything then, this was a list of suspects, a list that was clearly laternot entirely accurate.
The fact that you personally in a web search have not been able to find a revised list of suspects means nothing. It is possible that the list of suspects had errors in it, it is also possible that they had the names right, but that the actual people were the victims of identity theft.
QUOTE
(CNN) Sept.21, 2001 -- FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people.'
QUOTE
And not one hijacker appears on the passenger list for any of the hijacked flights.
Good Heavens, You mean when CNN chose to release a list of the victims of the attack on their webpage, they chose to exclude the murderers from the list of victims? Good god, that would be shocking, stunning, in fact it would be... Standard policy.
When reporting suicide attacks, the US follows the Israeli model and never lists the suicide bomber among the victims, never has.
Look the problem is not 'are there any possibly, maybe unclear questions out of September 11th'. Of course there are. There are out of any large scale operation which was conducted entirely in secret.
The problem is when people take possible questions and make lunatic conclusions from them. The initial FBI list of suspects released 4 days after the bombing turned out not be be exactly accurate? (Which is why they were called 'suspects') OH MY GOD, Bush Jr and the Roswell Grays collaborated with the Neo-Nazis to destroy all of central New York!!!!!!!
If there was a conspiracy, one that MUST have involved HUNDREDS of people both in the administration and on the ground, then provide a tiny bit of evidence that such a conspiracy existed.
So much conspiracy theorising tends to come from the ignorance of the theoriser rather then actual reality. Somebody who watches a feather fall slower then a bowling ball when dropped, so would rather conclude that 'Gravity is a government conspiracy and does not exist' rather then trying to figure out if there might be a reson why the items fall at different speeds.
One last point about this, and most conspiracy theories. They all tend to assume that the government was capable of pulling of a massive secret conspiracy involving hundreds of people and a dozen agencies without anyone knowing, but also assumes they made utterly retarded mistakes a child could avoid.
The hijackers names were not on the passenger list? So the conspirators managed to hijack four aircraft and demolish the world trade centers all without anyone knowing, and yet were not clever anough to plant the names of their patsies on the passenger lists? Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is another FAR more simple explanation?
Vermillion
The problem is when people take possible questions and make lunatic conclusions from them. The initial FBI list of suspects released 4 days after the bombing turned out not be be exactly accurate? (Which is why they were called 'suspects') OH MY GOD, Bush Jr and the Roswell Grays collaborated with the Neo-Nazis to destroy all of central New York!!!!!!!
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Since I have serious doubts about the official story of 911, now I am a Neo-Nazis fanatic.
Apparently there are 6 of us now, from the poll.
As for Vermillion and others that think the government would never undertake an event such as 911.
In 1962 and event somewhat similar to 911 in nature was called "Operation Northwoods"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
Also a copy of the document
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
2 years ago, I would never have thought that our government was involved in 911. Now I have my doubts.
Call me a "lunatic" or "insane",Vermillion. That would be a compliment.
QUOTE
The problem is when people take possible questions and make lunatic conclusions from them. The initial FBI list of suspects released 4 days after the bombing turned out not be be exactly accurate? (Which is why they were called 'suspects') OH MY GOD, Bush Jr and the Roswell Grays collaborated with the Neo-Nazis to destroy all of central New York!!!!!!!
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Since I have serious doubts about the official story of 911, now I am a Neo-Nazis fanatic.
Apparently there are 6 of us now, from the poll.
As for Vermillion and others that think the government would never undertake an event such as 911.
In 1962 and event somewhat similar to 911 in nature was called "Operation Northwoods"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
QUOTE
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
Also a copy of the document
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
2 years ago, I would never have thought that our government was involved in 911. Now I have my doubts.
Call me a "lunatic" or "insane",Vermillion. That would be a compliment.
Let's stop with the name calling and belittling comments. Debate in a civil fashion, please.
TOPICS:
To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?
TOPICS:
To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Sep 11 2005, 03:09 AM)
Vermillion
The problem is when people take possible questions and make lunatic conclusions from them. The initial FBI list of suspects released 4 days after the bombing turned out not be be exactly accurate? (Which is why they were called 'suspects') OH MY GOD, Bush Jr and the Roswell Grays collaborated with the Neo-Nazis to destroy all of central New York!!!!!!!
QUOTE
The problem is when people take possible questions and make lunatic conclusions from them. The initial FBI list of suspects released 4 days after the bombing turned out not be be exactly accurate? (Which is why they were called 'suspects') OH MY GOD, Bush Jr and the Roswell Grays collaborated with the Neo-Nazis to destroy all of central New York!!!!!!!
QUOTE
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Since I have serious doubts about the official story of 911, now I am a Neo-Nazis fanatic.
Please explain to me the staggering logical maze you went through to determine that my OBVIOUSLY humerous and sarcastic comment above was ACTUALLY me genuinely calling you insane and a nazi. I have to say, I am very curious to know how you got from point A to point B there.
Please stick to the debate at hand, I dont think I am being unreasonable when I say that assumption of yours is baseless and silly, to say nothing of unecessary.
Back to the topic at hand:
I have read about Operation Northwoods, it was never implemented by the way, but even so exactly what does that have to do with any of the points at hand? I do not deny there are unanswered questions about the bombings, though far gewer than some people seem to believe (as I addressed above) but my point, still unabswered was that it is logically unsound to see a few small inconsistencies, entirely reasonable when trying to npiece together an operation done in complete secrect, AND when we ourselves are not privy to all information available on the toipic, and to thus assume based on little or nothing, that it MUST have all been a government conspiracy.
I would like to challenge the notion that "there are some unanswered questions" concerning 9/11. As far as I'm concerend there are HUGE disparities between the official story and common sense, the laws of physics etc...
While there are creepy conspiracy theorists in every website that supports the idea that we have been lied to there are also good, constructive thinkers trying to find answers. I suggest people look at the work of Gerard Holgren concerning the attack on the Pentagon. There are many confusing issues supported by our government:
1.) The huge plane managed to poke a 20 foot hole into the side of the building which later became a 120 foot hole when the walls came down. The plane is 120 feet wide I believe.
2.) The explosion and ensuing fire managed to completely evaporate the plane but they DNA of 63 of the 64 passengers was somehow recoverable. No completely identifiable parts of the plane, however, were recoverable. Also, the lawn just feet from the impact was green and untouched in many photos. The DoD, however, did see fit to cover the entire area with sand and gravel in short order, for no apparent reason.
3.) The tapes from the parking garages and the gas station that could clearly depict what happened were confiscated by the government within minutes of the impact and have been kept secret for "national security". Likewise the voice recordings from flight 77 (the supposed plane of impact) have been kept secret for the same reason.
4.) MANY eyewitnesses described something "like a rocket or jet" that streaked past. Those who claimed to see AA flight 77 saw it in amazing detail, while they were driving, as it streaked by at 600 MPH. The governments main witness, fire fighter Alan Wallace, changed his story a variety of times and finally admitted an hour afterward that he really didn't see the "plane". The government still quoted him.
As a counterpoint to all of this I think people should give this article a read. This is an effective rebuttal to all of these arguments.
It is not perfect however. There is little explanation of how they managed to get the DNA of the passengers in a fire that disintegrated an aluminum plane. This is similar to the terrorist passport being found in the rubble of the WTC.
There are certainly enough confusing aspects to the offical story to give us cause for concern if, for no other reason, than to be incensed that perhaps this administration used those unfortunate events to fabricate some bloodlust in the American people in order to justify solving the problem their way.
While there are creepy conspiracy theorists in every website that supports the idea that we have been lied to there are also good, constructive thinkers trying to find answers. I suggest people look at the work of Gerard Holgren concerning the attack on the Pentagon. There are many confusing issues supported by our government:
1.) The huge plane managed to poke a 20 foot hole into the side of the building which later became a 120 foot hole when the walls came down. The plane is 120 feet wide I believe.
2.) The explosion and ensuing fire managed to completely evaporate the plane but they DNA of 63 of the 64 passengers was somehow recoverable. No completely identifiable parts of the plane, however, were recoverable. Also, the lawn just feet from the impact was green and untouched in many photos. The DoD, however, did see fit to cover the entire area with sand and gravel in short order, for no apparent reason.
3.) The tapes from the parking garages and the gas station that could clearly depict what happened were confiscated by the government within minutes of the impact and have been kept secret for "national security". Likewise the voice recordings from flight 77 (the supposed plane of impact) have been kept secret for the same reason.
4.) MANY eyewitnesses described something "like a rocket or jet" that streaked past. Those who claimed to see AA flight 77 saw it in amazing detail, while they were driving, as it streaked by at 600 MPH. The governments main witness, fire fighter Alan Wallace, changed his story a variety of times and finally admitted an hour afterward that he really didn't see the "plane". The government still quoted him.
As a counterpoint to all of this I think people should give this article a read. This is an effective rebuttal to all of these arguments.
It is not perfect however. There is little explanation of how they managed to get the DNA of the passengers in a fire that disintegrated an aluminum plane. This is similar to the terrorist passport being found in the rubble of the WTC.
There are certainly enough confusing aspects to the offical story to give us cause for concern if, for no other reason, than to be incensed that perhaps this administration used those unfortunate events to fabricate some bloodlust in the American people in order to justify solving the problem their way.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Nov 8 2005, 06:33 PM)
2.) The explosion and ensuing fire managed to completely evaporate the plane but they DNA of 63 of the 64 passengers was somehow recoverable. No completely identifiable parts of the plane, however, were recoverable. Also, the lawn just feet from the impact was green and untouched in many photos. The DoD, however, did see fit to cover the entire area with sand and gravel in short order, for no apparent reason.
*snip*
It is not perfect however. There is little explanation of how they managed to get the DNA of the passengers in a fire that disintegrated an aluminum plane.
*snip*
It is not perfect however. There is little explanation of how they managed to get the DNA of the passengers in a fire that disintegrated an aluminum plane.
Actually that doesn't surprise me. The plane didn't "completely evaporate", there was a lot of plane rubble (Rumsfield keeps a piece of it on his desk I've heard). DNA requires very little tissue sample, bone, hair, or blood to make an identification. Here is an explanation of the forensic feat. Of course, all of the forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel might have lied. But, really, what would be the point? Does anything political hinge on 50 forensic scientists' ability to identify a slew of dead bodies in the rubble?
Actually, while there might be some questions, these are not any of them. What these are is clever tales put on normal events by wild conspiracy theorists who then go on to update their 'alien autopsy' and 'we never landed on the moon' webpages.
Actually, the webpage you listed easily rebuts all the concerns. very esily in fact, considering some of the 'conspiracy clues' people come up with are either bafflingly illogical or outright lies..
(sigh)
-There were literally hundreds of identifiable parts of the aircraft. For example, a nearly complete turbine from one of the engines, and thousands of other pieces. This is the problem with reading conspiracy websites; paranoia, over-imagination
There will be questions about 9/11 as long as people keep inventing questions and ignoring the answers.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Nov 9 2005, 02:33 AM)
There are many confusing issues supported by our government:
Actually, the webpage you listed easily rebuts all the concerns. very esily in fact, considering some of the 'conspiracy clues' people come up with are either bafflingly illogical or outright lies..
QUOTE
It is not perfect however. There is little explanation of how they managed to get the DNA of the passengers in a fire that disintegrated an aluminum plane. This is similar to the terrorist passport being found in the rubble of the WTC..
(sigh)
-There were literally hundreds of identifiable parts of the aircraft. For example, a nearly complete turbine from one of the engines, and thousands of other pieces. This is the problem with reading conspiracy websites; paranoia, over-imagination
There will be questions about 9/11 as long as people keep inventing questions and ignoring the answers.
My reporting that there were almost no remains of the plane were from a reporter from CNN who reprted that very same thing while standing outside the Pentagon. For a 100 ton plane to be reduced to tiny fragments...well, that's a LOT of kinetic energy.
The seeming disappearance of the plane was explained, rather scientifically, as an effect known to happen to aluminum in which it collapses into itself, causing to get denser very quickly and prompting it to ignite and essentially evaporate.
This is the government's explanation. It is scientifically acceptable but it has not been proven, as far as I know, with huge passenger planes.
Either way, my point with my previous post was that the second link DID successfully disprove a number of the claims (if not most) of the conspiracy group. There is, however, at least the question of the government's use of the mystery passport and the DNA information from the plane. As you pointed out Mrs. P, that DNA informaiton is hardly earth-shattering or vital, so why the big deal? Why all the press about the search for the lost people in that crash? Why also, can I find no reference to possible DNA of terrorists found at the same site? IT is possible that I am simply not searching well, but I would guess that such info would be made "Classified" for no good reason.
I personally believe that a plane was the likely weapon used against the Pentagon but there seems to be so much deception around the issue. Simple things like video from secutirty cameras (of the plane streaking toward the pentagon) are classified and protected from public view. Why?
My real question is in the culpability of the armed forces (or the administration) in letting the plane hit the Pentagon at all. According to this, admittedly, one-sided article there is NO WAY the military could have been unaware of the hijacking until 9:30. Apparently, when the transponder on Flight 77 was turned off at 8:56 NORAD is automatically informed of this, not by phone. Likewise, there is a built in procedure for responding to just such a situation in the rules oif the FAA (linked in that article). When a transponder goes off it is to be immediately contacted. If, after two minutes, there is no communication the military is to be dispatched to rendezvous with the plane. Flight 77 flew unmolested and unreported for nearly a half hour. The planes were finally sent out to investigate it only seven minutes before it hit.
The issue about failure to use "primary" radar, which does not require a trandsponder is also interesting. I'm not going to say that a UFO or missle of something hit the Pentagon, but there are plenty of questions about how and why flight 77 managed to get so far for so long without being investigated.
I don't think I need to don my tinfoil hat in order to ask those basic questions. This could as easily be answered as a complete failure of the system...either way it is pretty scary. Bush has yet to address that issue at all.
The seeming disappearance of the plane was explained, rather scientifically, as an effect known to happen to aluminum in which it collapses into itself, causing to get denser very quickly and prompting it to ignite and essentially evaporate.
This is the government's explanation. It is scientifically acceptable but it has not been proven, as far as I know, with huge passenger planes.
Either way, my point with my previous post was that the second link DID successfully disprove a number of the claims (if not most) of the conspiracy group. There is, however, at least the question of the government's use of the mystery passport and the DNA information from the plane. As you pointed out Mrs. P, that DNA informaiton is hardly earth-shattering or vital, so why the big deal? Why all the press about the search for the lost people in that crash? Why also, can I find no reference to possible DNA of terrorists found at the same site? IT is possible that I am simply not searching well, but I would guess that such info would be made "Classified" for no good reason.
I personally believe that a plane was the likely weapon used against the Pentagon but there seems to be so much deception around the issue. Simple things like video from secutirty cameras (of the plane streaking toward the pentagon) are classified and protected from public view. Why?
My real question is in the culpability of the armed forces (or the administration) in letting the plane hit the Pentagon at all. According to this, admittedly, one-sided article there is NO WAY the military could have been unaware of the hijacking until 9:30. Apparently, when the transponder on Flight 77 was turned off at 8:56 NORAD is automatically informed of this, not by phone. Likewise, there is a built in procedure for responding to just such a situation in the rules oif the FAA (linked in that article). When a transponder goes off it is to be immediately contacted. If, after two minutes, there is no communication the military is to be dispatched to rendezvous with the plane. Flight 77 flew unmolested and unreported for nearly a half hour. The planes were finally sent out to investigate it only seven minutes before it hit.
The issue about failure to use "primary" radar, which does not require a trandsponder is also interesting. I'm not going to say that a UFO or missle of something hit the Pentagon, but there are plenty of questions about how and why flight 77 managed to get so far for so long without being investigated.
I don't think I need to don my tinfoil hat in order to ask those basic questions. This could as easily be answered as a complete failure of the system...either way it is pretty scary. Bush has yet to address that issue at all.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Nov 11 2005, 10:06 AM)
My real question is in the culpability of the armed forces (or the administration) in letting the plane hit the Pentagon at all. According to this, admittedly, one-sided article there is NO WAY the military could have been unaware of the hijacking until 9:30. Apparently, when the transponder on Flight 77 was turned off at 8:56 NORAD is automatically informed of this, not by phone. Likewise, there is a built in procedure for responding to just such a situation in the rules oif the FAA (linked in that article). When a transponder goes off it is to be immediately contacted. If, after two minutes, there is no communication the military is to be dispatched to rendezvous with the plane. Flight 77 flew unmolested and unreported for nearly a half hour. The planes were finally sent out to investigate it only seven minutes before it hit.
This is a total fabrication, LHR. Trust me, even after 911 the military isn't contacted two minutes after a transponder goes out. The FAA considers it an "emergency" if a transponder goes out because of the potential for a mid-air collision. It would be a waste of resources to contact the military and send out a jet every time this happens. I can't explain to you how many times I've heard this fabrication and how ridiculous it sounds. It costs thousands of dollars to get those jets off of the ground. The proposition above would cost billions upon billions EACH YEAR to implement with dozens of pilots sitting on alert 24/7 (there were 8 in the entire CONUS on 911). Transponders go out all of the time. Back then, they did't contact the military unless it was a confirmed hijack situation, and that confirmation took time. The only time NORAD jets were "scrambled" for interception in that type of instance were when aircraft were entering certain areas that were restricted (like the ADIZ). They are quoting the head of NORAD out of context. What you are looking at is splicing information from several different sources combined to try to make you conclude something 180 out from reality.
I agree with LHR that there are some unanswered and conflicting stories concerning flight 77 and the pentagon on 911.
Hani Hanjour was reported to be the hijacker that crashed into the Pentagon on 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
The plane was hijacked, and Hanjour was given the controls to pilot the plane into the Pentagon at 9:37 am in a high-speed dive that required a great deal of skill many have ruled suspicious given his repeated failures and inability to fly even simple Cessna simulators. Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
But notice the skill it would have taken to make these maneuvers.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-26.html
At 9:34,Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Ser-vice of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House.Amer-
ican 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a
330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet,
pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington.The hijacker pilot then
advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon
Also these comments from instructors where Hanjour was learning how to fly.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAC0894DA404482
ABSTRACT - Hani Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted airliner that crashed into Pentagon on Sept 11, was reported to Federal Aviation Administration in Feb 2001 after instructors at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine; FAA examined Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate; his name was not on list of Arab men identified by FBI agent in Phoenix office as suspicious in July 2001; Marilyn Ladner, vice president at flight school, says staff never suspected that Hanjour was hijacker but feared that he posed safety hazard if he flew commercial airliner; Pan Am International is one of largest pilot schools in nation; it also operates flight school in Minnesota where instructors' suspicions led to arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, man who authorities have said was intended to be 20th hijacker; photo (M
And the approach to the Pentagon was very smooth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
This is just one small detail of the flight 77 crash that just doesn't fit.
As LHRmentioned, there is the cameras from two places that the public has not seen. Also the one very brief video from one pentagon camera doesn't show proof one way or the other.
Are you trying to tell me that is the only camera from the pentagon that caught the crash, and so briefly. That would be a insult to any american intelligence, if the government expects you to believe that.
My main problem with flight 77 crash, is the government being so secretive. What is so secretive letting the American public see a video of the plane crashing into the pentagon, whether it is from the pentagon's camera, the hotel's, or the gas station's.
Keeping secrets only makes the public more curious.
Would this adminstration ever try to lie or cover up anything. NEVER!
Hani Hanjour was reported to be the hijacker that crashed into the Pentagon on 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
QUOTE
The plane was hijacked, and Hanjour was given the controls to pilot the plane into the Pentagon at 9:37 am in a high-speed dive that required a great deal of skill many have ruled suspicious given his repeated failures and inability to fly even simple Cessna simulators. Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
But notice the skill it would have taken to make these maneuvers.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-26.html
QUOTE
At 9:34,Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Ser-vice of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House.Amer-
ican 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a
330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet,
pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington.The hijacker pilot then
advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon
Also these comments from instructors where Hanjour was learning how to fly.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAC0894DA404482
QUOTE
ABSTRACT - Hani Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted airliner that crashed into Pentagon on Sept 11, was reported to Federal Aviation Administration in Feb 2001 after instructors at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine; FAA examined Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate; his name was not on list of Arab men identified by FBI agent in Phoenix office as suspicious in July 2001; Marilyn Ladner, vice president at flight school, says staff never suspected that Hanjour was hijacker but feared that he posed safety hazard if he flew commercial airliner; Pan Am International is one of largest pilot schools in nation; it also operates flight school in Minnesota where instructors' suspicions led to arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, man who authorities have said was intended to be 20th hijacker; photo (M
And the approach to the Pentagon was very smooth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml
QUOTE
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
This is just one small detail of the flight 77 crash that just doesn't fit.
As LHRmentioned, there is the cameras from two places that the public has not seen. Also the one very brief video from one pentagon camera doesn't show proof one way or the other.
Are you trying to tell me that is the only camera from the pentagon that caught the crash, and so briefly. That would be a insult to any american intelligence, if the government expects you to believe that.
My main problem with flight 77 crash, is the government being so secretive. What is so secretive letting the American public see a video of the plane crashing into the pentagon, whether it is from the pentagon's camera, the hotel's, or the gas station's.
Keeping secrets only makes the public more curious.
Would this adminstration ever try to lie or cover up anything. NEVER!
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 13 2005, 08:03 AM)
Would this adminstration ever try to lie or cover up anything. NEVER!
Of course it doesn't matter whether or not the "administration" would lie. The bottom line is the fantastic hoops and impossible hurdles "they" would have had to leap through to accomplish what you are accusing them of. Strangely thousands of experts and government employees were fooled, but not those conspiracy theorists who have been able to piece together "evidence" from quotes taken out of context in numerous newsources (ironically usually from the aforementioned experts) to "prove" their allegations.
For example, what does the above "prove"? What does it even imply? The pilot was an expert, paid by the government to fly into a building and die? The plane was a secret (as of yet nonexistent) billion-dollar drone passenger prototype? The entire airline industry was "paid off" to play along? I give up.
MRS. P,I am not implying any of the things that you accused me of.
In my last post I mentioned that the government is being secretive. No where does that imply that a drone,secret plane or airline personnel being involved.
I only implied that it would be nice to have the government give a few answers.
Are you implying that this government is not secretive.?
I don't have any of the answers(just questions), only the government does.
In my last post I mentioned that the government is being secretive. No where does that imply that a drone,secret plane or airline personnel being involved.
I only implied that it would be nice to have the government give a few answers.
Are you implying that this government is not secretive.?
I don't have any of the answers(just questions), only the government does.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 13 2005, 10:54 PM)
In my last post I mentioned that the government is being secretive. No where does that imply that a drone,secret plane or airline personnel being involved.
I only implied that it would be nice to have the government give a few answers.
I only implied that it would be nice to have the government give a few answers.
Here is the trick of course. Is the government being secretive? The actual answer is, no more than in any other investigation of this nature. The government has answered every legitimate and realistic question that has been put to it.
The questions you ask are just questions for the sake of questions. 'Why can we not see this specific camera angle which we hear might have been confiscated by the government?'
The answer is, why should you? You are not asking to see it for any reason, you are just asking to see it so you can see it, and you posit that because you have NOT been allowed to see it, therefore the footage MUST show aliens, or the CIA, or the Mossad or some other solid proof that some nefarious agency managed to pull of a spectacular and impossible hoax under the watchful eyes of about a hundred thousand people.
If the best 'unanswered questions' available are simply 'why have we not been sllowed to see every single aspect of every single detail of every single piece of potential or possible information and evidence?
Well, you have seen the vst majority, and it takes a real die-hard conspiracy nutcase to presume that the remaining 5% might somehow impossibly contradict the other 95% of information we have all seen.
Here is a thought. Perhaps the reson the tape has not been released to CBS is because it was pointing the wrong way. Would CNN pay to obtain, or for that matter broadcast a tape showing empty sky? You (or top be fair, the conspiracy pages you quote from) presume that since you have not seen it splashed on CNN, therefore nobody has seen it and it is in Bush Jr's personal vault.
Yes, I admit there are some niggling questions unanswered, but the scale and importance of those questions makes them essentially irrelevant.
Allow me to metaphorise:
There is some historical debate about the nature of the prisoners the Nazis dressed up and executed, and then used as a pretext to invade poland., They dressed up and shot a dozen men in Polish army uniforms, claimed they had crossed the border, and used this as a justification to Invade Poland. We don't know who they were, if they were German political prisoners, jews, or perhaps actual poles captured on a raid. It is an unanswered question.
Does that unanswered question therefore mean that we have cause to doubt the existence of Hitler?
QUOTE
The questions you ask are just questions for the sake of questions. 'Why can we not see this specific camera angle which we hear might have been confiscated by the government?'
I disagree. It is not for the sake of questions. It is the publics right to see the videos, as long as it doesn't concern the nations security. Why can't the government give a reason for not showing the public, these videos.
QUOTE
The answer is, why should you? You are not asking to see it for any reason, you are just asking to see it so you can see it, and you posit that because you have NOT been allowed to see it, therefore the footage MUST show aliens, or the CIA, or the Mossad or some other solid proof that some nefarious agency managed to pull of a spectacular and impossible hoax under the watchful eyes of about a hundred thousand people.
Now who is exaggerating in this situtation. I am only questioning some answers by the government and in the same sentence you assume that I am a conspiracy nut seeing the CIA,aliens, or Mossad being involved.
As you have been careful to ask me before how I have made a jump from point A to point B.
QUOTE
Please explain to me the staggering logical maze you went through to determine that my OBVIOUSLY humerous and sarcastic comment above was ACTUALLY me genuinely calling you insane and a nazi. I have to say, I am very curious to know how you got from point A to point B there.
Please stick to the debate at hand, I dont think I am being unreasonable when I say that assumption of yours is baseless and silly, to say nothing of unecessary.
Now I wonder how I got from point A to point B this time. But as usual, you will be in self-denial and with a little snide snicker cast the blame elsewhere. But that is to be expected.
QUOTE
Here is a thought. Perhaps the reson the tape has not been released to CBS is because it was pointing the wrong way. Would CNN pay to obtain, or for that matter broadcast a tape showing empty sky? You (or top be fair, the conspiracy pages you quote from) presume that since you have not seen it splashed on CNN, therefore nobody has seen it and it is in Bush Jr's personal vault.
As for the conspiracy pages that I quoted from. If you will check, they are all MSM and reputable. This was just for you, since I assumed in advance that you would use that same old tired excuse.
Just for you,here are the sites that I quoted from in that post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-26.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAC0894DA404482
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml
QUOTE
Yes, I admit there are some niggling questions unanswered, but the scale and importance of those questions makes them essentially irrelevant.
As an American citizen you have the right to say these questions are essentially irrelevant. But just because you think that way,doesn't imply that if someone else thinks otherwise, that they are wrong.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Nov 14 2005, 04:09 AM)
I disagree. It is not for the sake of questions. It is the publics right to see the videos, as long as it doesn't concern the nations security.
Is it? Oh thats my bad then, I did not realise the public had the RIGHT to see privately owned CCTV footage which may have been part of a federal criminal investigation. Perhaps you could point me to the relevant passage of the bill of rights on this one?
There was CCTV footage used in the John Gotti trial as well, I asume you have the RIGHT to see that too?
Oh, and by the way, even if it WERE a right (which it is not) you neatly state in your next sentence that this 'right' would not apply in a case of national security. Hmmmm... can you think of a reason why 9/11 might, just might involve a case for national security?
QUOTE
Now who is exaggerating in this situtation. I am only questioning some answers by the government and in the same sentence you assume that I am a conspiracy nut seeing the CIA,aliens, or Mossad being involved.
OK, to be fair, you have nowhere stated that it might be aliens, the CIA or the Mossad. (though many conspiracy webpages making the same points as you do). So perhaps you could explain to me, since you claim you do not want to see the tape simply for the sake of seeing the tape... why DO you want to see it? What do you expect to see exactly?
QUOTE
As for the conspiracy pages that I quoted from. If you will check, they are all MSM and reputable. This was just for you, since I assumed in advance that you would use that same old tired excuse.
Just for you,here are the sites that I quoted from in that post.
OK, now I am confused. The four sites you mention seem to have no problems with the incident as reported by the government, the investigations committees, the police and every single eye witness, including a Pentagon security camera. You make some attempt to 'prove your case' by citing reputable sources, for which I commend you, but all of the sources YOU quoted seem to entirely disagree with your point. None of the four are calling for (or even mntion) this supposedly missing CCVT footage, none of them shed or even mention any doubt on the official version of events.
It's not a 'tired old excuse' if its valid...
QUOTE
As an American citizen you have the right to say these questions are essentially irrelevant. But just because you think that way,doesn't imply that if someone else thinks otherwise, that they are wrong.
For what it's worth, I'm not an American citizen, but thats irrelevant. As for your second point, actually you are mistaken. You ARE wrong to presume that these questions are relevant unless you can supply some reason for them to be so. Unless you can give me some reason why these niggling (not to mention illogical) questions matter at all to the topic of the 9/11 attacks. As I said, considering the truly vast weight of evidence supporting the oficial version of events, what exactly do you expect to gain from this supposed, unconfirmed missing CCTV footage?
I guess the answer, Vermillion, is that the government has come forth with mounds of useless "Evidence" for consumption by the media and the American people but has refused to supply any of the information that would carry weight.
The CCTV footage from the hotel and the gas station was requested under the Freedom of Information Act and initially the FBI said it didn't exist. After appeal (proving it existed with anecdotes from the people from whom it was taken) the FBI then said it was important for the case against Zacharias Moussoui and could not be released.
The FBI showed up literally minutes (less than ten) after the crash in large numbers. In five minutes they were taking the footage from the manager of the gas station whose cameras caught the accident. Then they deny the footage exists. This is strange.
when combined with all of the other inconsistencies and oddities one is left with only one real conclusion:
They are hiding something. Perhaps they aren't hiding a national scandal, but they are definately lying about things that should not have required lying.
You could employ Occam's Razor and say that, for lack of contradictory evidence, we must accept the simplest answer for that days events. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You could also employ Occam's Razor to say, When people are covering up so routinely and so completely then they have something to hide.
Perhaps they aren't hiding a huge scandal..but could it be they are hiding their massive mistakes?
I stil lwant to know how those agents knew to get that CCTV footage less than five minutes after the crash. That is some amazing fieldwork.
The CCTV footage from the hotel and the gas station was requested under the Freedom of Information Act and initially the FBI said it didn't exist. After appeal (proving it existed with anecdotes from the people from whom it was taken) the FBI then said it was important for the case against Zacharias Moussoui and could not be released.
The FBI showed up literally minutes (less than ten) after the crash in large numbers. In five minutes they were taking the footage from the manager of the gas station whose cameras caught the accident. Then they deny the footage exists. This is strange.
when combined with all of the other inconsistencies and oddities one is left with only one real conclusion:
They are hiding something. Perhaps they aren't hiding a national scandal, but they are definately lying about things that should not have required lying.
You could employ Occam's Razor and say that, for lack of contradictory evidence, we must accept the simplest answer for that days events. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You could also employ Occam's Razor to say, When people are covering up so routinely and so completely then they have something to hide.
Perhaps they aren't hiding a huge scandal..but could it be they are hiding their massive mistakes?
I stil lwant to know how those agents knew to get that CCTV footage less than five minutes after the crash. That is some amazing fieldwork.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Nov 14 2005, 07:29 PM)
The CCTV footage from the hotel and the gas station was requested under the Freedom of Information Act and initially the FBI said it didn't exist.
You have shown no evidence that the FBI initially denied the existence of that footage. There is nothing provided in the link that would indicate this (except the words of the conspiracy web-writer). IN fact, the link you provided would indicate the contrary:
QUOTE
A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only video available of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash.
QUOTE
The FBI showed up literally minutes (less than ten) after the crash in large numbers.
Well....FBI headquarters are in Washington DC.....Apparently, according to the cited source (Arlington after-action report), the FBI that showed up this early were working with the fire department. It also doesn't say anything about the FBI "arriving in five minutes in large numbers". Some arrived early, then more arrived and that came to a large number of agents eventually.
QUOTE
Arlington County’s training, exercises, and shared experiences earned the Pentagon
after-action report’s praise under the category of capabilities others should emulate. Particularly noted was the well-established relationship between the fire department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which began in 1998 when the FBI Washington field office established a fire liaison position to work specifically with local fire departments.
Special Agent Christopher Combs volunteered for the job. With eight years of experi-
ence as a volunteer firefighter in Freeport, New York, and New Berlin, Wisconsin, he was
a natural choice. “Everyone in my family is in the fire service,” Combs says. “Even the guy who married my sister.”
Combs, who was on the scene at the Pentagon within six minutes of the September
11 attack, says the message from the FBI top brass to all its field offices is to get better
connected with the fire service, particularly the local haz-mat teams.
after-action report’s praise under the category of capabilities others should emulate. Particularly noted was the well-established relationship between the fire department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which began in 1998 when the FBI Washington field office established a fire liaison position to work specifically with local fire departments.
Special Agent Christopher Combs volunteered for the job. With eight years of experi-
ence as a volunteer firefighter in Freeport, New York, and New Berlin, Wisconsin, he was
a natural choice. “Everyone in my family is in the fire service,” Combs says. “Even the guy who married my sister.”
Combs, who was on the scene at the Pentagon within six minutes of the September
11 attack, says the message from the FBI top brass to all its field offices is to get better
connected with the fire service, particularly the local haz-mat teams.
QUOTE
In five minutes they were taking the footage from the manager of the gas station whose cameras caught the accident.
I couldn't find this time reference in the link you provided. The gas station manager said they confiscated the tape "within minutes". Not five, it could have been 20, and I would guess that there might have been a bit of a distraction going on so it might have been more than his vague estimation. Also, there is nothing to indicate that the gas station cameras necessarily even caught any footage. I am truly beginning to understand what is ment by the term "anatomy of a rumor".
I think the US government knew some kind of terrorist attack was in the works, however I do not think they ever had any clue to what extent 9/11 would result in and for that I think that our government is headed in the right direction because we now know how vulnerable our country is and that we are not invincible.
QUOTE
To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?
I feel comfortable that no one in the government knew exactly the what and when of 9/11 but on the other hand I believe we should have known much more. The warnings were loud – if not always clear.
See the John O’Neil story below. Freeh who ran the FBI had a closed mind al la citizens of Saudi Arabia potentially being involved in supporting Bin Ladin. We all know how bad the communication was between agencies helped of course by the stupid law passed under Clinton making the sharing of information illegal.
The testimony of the head of the CIA and FBI after 9/11 also made it clear that although there was talk of preventing terrorism in the Clinton Administration and early Bush no one supplied anywhere near the agents the CIA and FBI requested to get the job done. Foolishly we relied on satellite data as opposed to personal data collected by field agents. We got what we paid for – 9/11.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
[QUOTE][quote=Ted,Jan 18 2006, 01:44 PM]
[quote]To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?[/quote]
I've spent over 30 years in various parts of the intel community. Very rarely can they say that X will happen at Y on date Z.
However, there are reams and reams of "targets", and lots of X things that will likely happen at lots of Y places sometime or other, and that the consequences will be W's at various levels of bad to horrible. These they knew very, very well.
I did several of these studies. Bush knows some and told us he wouldn't tell us about, or the existence of them.
I'd like to know what are the fixes for the W's that eventually certainly will happen, and how come that's not in "the state of the union address", his Administration Programs, the Homeland Defense Dept., FEMA, etc.
The likelihood, to my thinking, of at least one of these many things happening is way higher than catching a baddie in the Mideast somewhere, and perhaps then stopping the one or a few of them that are being planned/pursued!
That is a really scarry choice that is being made!
[quote]To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?[/quote]
I've spent over 30 years in various parts of the intel community. Very rarely can they say that X will happen at Y on date Z.
However, there are reams and reams of "targets", and lots of X things that will likely happen at lots of Y places sometime or other, and that the consequences will be W's at various levels of bad to horrible. These they knew very, very well.
I did several of these studies. Bush knows some and told us he wouldn't tell us about, or the existence of them.
I'd like to know what are the fixes for the W's that eventually certainly will happen, and how come that's not in "the state of the union address", his Administration Programs, the Homeland Defense Dept., FEMA, etc.
The likelihood, to my thinking, of at least one of these many things happening is way higher than catching a baddie in the Mideast somewhere, and perhaps then stopping the one or a few of them that are being planned/pursued!
That is a really scarry choice that is being made!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.