Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » A Bush president problem (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: A Bush president problem
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Building 7 is special because a) it fell and b) it fell so throughly and smoothly.
I probably wasn't clear in my question. I'm looking at it from the perspective of Bush or a terrorist or whoever made the buildings fall. If I had motive to take buildings down, why would I pick #7? 1 and 2 are obvious. They are by far the tallest and hold great symbolic value. If you were going to argue that 9/11 had some value to Bush, WTC7 probably added the least value. Same goes for some Bin Laden follower. Either the terrorist was trying to destroy all the WTC buildings and failed with all but 1, 2, and 7, or 7 was more important than 3-6 for some reason, OR they really only were aiming to destroy 1 and 2 and 7 was just some bonus of luck.

Have the theorists come up with a theory for either why 7 was targeted above 3-6 or some reason why the attempts to destroy 3-6 weren't as successful.

Or am I wrong and were all the WTC buildings thoroughly destroyed?

Did a quick check on wiki and found:
quote:
n addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, five other buildings at the World Trade Center site, including 7 World Trade Center and the Marriott Hotel, two New York City Subway stations, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church were destroyed or badly damaged. In total, in Manhattan, 25 buildings were damaged and all seven buildings of the World Trade Center Complex had to be razed. Two additional buildings were later condemned: the Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex, due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower and Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway due to extensive damage in the attacks. These buildings are both (as of September 2006) slated for deconstruction). [1]
Do the conspiracy theorists have an explanation for the reason some buildings suffered more damage than others? In the end all 7 had to be razed but why weren't all seven spectacular collapses the way 1, 2, and 7 were? Did they attempt to do a demolition job on 3, 4, 5, and 6 but somebody spotted them and they had to take off? Or is 7 simply more important than those buildings and therefore they only bothered with 7 and not the others?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Building seven is where they keep the dead alien bodies. They destroyed 1 and 2 as cover for destroying building 7, and absconding with the bodies.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL] That is good!

However, WTC 7 housed some serious gov't offices - CIA, ATF, FBI, as well as a lot of the SEC servers.

Looking at all the put options on the airlines for that day, it wouldn't have been a bad idea to destroy the SEC records while you were at it...

If the little green men were into playing the stock market, of course.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, there you have it! CIA, ATF, FBI - all fronts for the alien's base of operations. And we HAD to stop them before they took over the world!

It's all clear now.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The tipping is one of the 'leanings' I would expect from such a collapse. It begins, then stops"

One problem I see in this analysis is they seem to treat the top 30 stories as some form of integral lever; but the building is made up of distinct structural as well as non-structural pieces, joined together by rivets, welds and essentially glue.

These pieces joined together were also engineered to withstand huge stresses in a vertical plane, but would collapse immediately under sufficient lateral forces.

But let's imagine what happened to those 30 stories for a moment. IF those 30 stories could be considered a single unit, the opposite side of the building should have also been moving towards the camera, but also upwards (imagine tipping over a cardboard box towards you - the near-side top moves towards you and down the far-side top moves towards you and up.)

In reality, this motion could not have continued for any appreciable amount of time. The stresses on the supporting girders and their connections would have been huge and they would have deformed and buckled almost immediately; however, many if not most of the far-side steel beams would still be connected to the near side ones. The end result would be that, once the vertical integrity of the far-side beams failed, they would pull the near-side beams back towards the center of the building.

It is actually completely expected that the footprint of a collapsing skyscraper would be not significantly larger than its foundation.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The best response I've ever seen to the 9/11 conspiracy theories...

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons

quote:
The fact that this man is alive...

<picture of Dylan Avery>

...is proof that "Loose Change" is bull****.

Here's why:

1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bull****. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

while I doubt the conspiracy theorys that arguement is rather silly. If there is a conspiracy the noise from conspiracy nuts make it more likely to not be caught, and bringing attention to conspiracy proponents (ie by killing them) who have it right increases the odds of getting caught, whereas it is simple to get them tarred with conspiracy nuts and hence ignored.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, so I asked around the office, and I wasn't the only one unaware of WTC7. I feel a little better but still terribly under-educated about this.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK LR, here's the kind of reading more to your liking I suspect...

quote:
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:

National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet
Popular Mechanics
Loose Change guide


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Picking up a couple of points:

Near Free Fall rate of collapse.

I'm no expert, but I've seen about a dozen movies of controlled building demolitions. In every case, the building fell at near free fall rates. In fact, that is implicit in the conspiracy theory case. BUT in controlled demolitions, only the lowest supports are removed to instigate the collapse. Internal bracing may sometimes be destroyed to ensure the building collapses onto its own site (ie, inwards) and have no effect on the rate of the overall collapse, which is entirely due to the stress induced by the building falling that first few feet.

Assuming the physics did not change just for 911, I would expect the twin tower collapses to also be at near free fall rates just as in controlled collapses.

"[T]he above-impact portion of the towers apparently weren't intact as it fell."

This is crucial to my argument, so if you could look at this picture of a controlled demolition of a skyscraper:
picture

And this image of the collapse of the South Tower:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/rotation.html

You will notice in the first image that the upper levels of the building are essentially intact, but that were the building meets the ground, there is a large amount of dust.

In the second images, you can see through the smoke the upper levels (above the impact site) of the tower still intact as it collapses. Look at the line of the corner, which is easy to pick out, and is clearly visible and intact in the third image. It is difficult to pick out in the fourth, but in the fourth the roof has already collapsed down to the level of the top of the dust.

Except for the slight rotation, and the obscuring smoke, this is almost exactly the same phenomena as seen in controlled demolitions. You remove the lower supports and the upper building remains intact as it falls, but disintegrates as it reachs a stationary support.

Of course, in a standard demolition, the only thing that can collapse are the floors above the initial demolition (because the initial demolition is at the ground floor). Because the top of the South Tower was collapsing onto the bottom of the South Tower, but the upper floors and the floors immediately below can collapse, and did. You will notice that most of the original dust is black either because it is mixed with sooty smoke, or was blackened by the fire. As the collapse progresses, however, the lower portion of the plane of collapse becomes shrouded with more and more white dust - ie, dust which was not associated with a fire. IMO this indicates the progressive collapse of floors below the impact site.

[T]he structure would succumb to a leaning tower of Pisa unruliness and fall elsewhere than through its ass into the basement commode.[/quote]

In fact, much of the towers did fall other than through their ass. That is why building three was virtually demolished by falling debris, and why building 7 recieved significant damage from debris as well.

Building 7

quote:
But in any case why should we accept from Jones that “no major persistent fires were visible” even if this has become the mantra of the counter-orthodoxy? Wouldn’t the eye-witness testimony of experienced New York firefighters count for more?



Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94) with 18 years of service with the FDNY gave this interview:

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

… We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html



Here is an extract from the testimony of Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, who had 33 years service in Division 1 to his credit:



Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?



Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.



Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?



Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.



www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html



I believe that the testimony of experienced fireman ought to give most sober-minded people very serious doubt about the CD hypothesis, in particular the account of the sagging of the building prior to collapse, the assertion by Hayden that it was a heavy fire, and the testimony regarding lack of water pressure to fight the blaze.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445987

To which I need only add, if fire crews were predicting 7 would collapse hours before it did, we need not invoke a conspiracy theory to explain it after the event.

EDIT BY ORNERYMOD TO FIX LINK WRAPPING

[ October 03, 2006, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Assuming the physics did not change just for 911, I would expect the twin tower collapses to also be at near free fall rates just as in controlled collapses."

Which physics? The physics whereby a each story's structural connexions are explosively severed by precisely sequenced detonations allowing free fall, or the physics whereby each story smashes into the next, expending energy to sever each connexion?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. TC, can you fix whichever link you posted that has stretched this thread page laterally so it's a bugger to read? I'd like to read the rest of your post but the physics are daunting [Wink]
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, the time in which I may edit my message has expired. I'll have to kick this on to the moderators if they are interested.

A shorter link to the photo is:

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=27129&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1452

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
's OK. I'll just cut'n'paste your text.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is not something I "believe", it's just speculation on my part and something I'm suprised I haven't heard advanced.

The WTC was a known terrorist target.

Now, if truck bombs of suffecient size were detonated in it's parking garage again, or someone flew a plane into it, or in some other manner managed to damage it so seriously as to make collapse likely ... and I think we can all agree that another attack was somewhat likely even without the value of hindsight ... wouldn't the damage and loss of life be far greater if had swayed during collapse?

Wouldn't it have been prudent to rig it for demolition?

It would make a cool movie plot, anyway.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is fun:

Debunbking 911 Conspiracy Myths

For the record, I never was disturbed by 'How the Towers Fell', for the amount of stealth work required to drop a building from the top down via timed sequential explosions was itself as daunting as any questions posed by natural explanations of the WTC collapse.

But WTC 7 *is* intriguing.

(I'm a 'where was NORAD that morning?' man myself [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh. Just to be very clear: TC, your analysis led me to look at other data which, at this point, have mostly laid to rest any suspicions I have about the manner of the towers' fall.

Your analysis makes sense and I agree with it now that I've pursued the topic a bit more...

But... can you explain why they found NO alien bodies? Huh? Huh? Huh? [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops. Thought I'd posted this already:

I'm no expert, but I've seen about a dozen movies of controlled building demolitions. In every case, the building fell at near free fall rates. In fact, that is implicit in the conspiracy theory case. BUT in controlled demolitions, only the lowest supports are removed to instigate the collapse. Internal bracing may sometimes be destroyed to ensure the building collapses onto its own site (ie, inwards) and have no effect on the rate of the overall collapse, which is entirely due to the stress induced by the building falling that first few feet.

Ah, I see.

I'd assumed (foolish me) that controlled demolitions involved charges placed at every level, or in less demanding cases, every structurally significant level, of the building to be collapsed.

This is not so, you say?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh. Just to be very clear: TC, your analysis led me to look at other data which, at this point, have mostly laid to rest any suspicions I have about the manner of the towers' fall.
Damn, and here is me having just spent an additional hour of research.

quote:
I'd assumed (foolish me) that controlled demolitions involved charges placed at every level, or in less demanding cases, every structurally significant level, of the building to be collapsed.
No, explosives are only used at a few levels, or at one. At the following site you can view videos of four explosive demolitions. Pembrooked is a demolition of a chimney stack, with explosives planted at the bottom and half way up. The other three are sky scrapers. You will notice that explosives are only placed at three or so levels. (Hackney is unusual because they also split the building into three parts vertically). You will also notice that on each level with explosives, the building is wrapped to prevent debris from the explosion from exiting the building. You will also notice that most of the dust is from the collapse rather than the explosions.
http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/web/explosive_home/explosive.asp

At this site you can find a slide show of the collapse of a twenty story building in which the explosives were only planted at the base. Notice again the amount of dust, and the lack of vertical components at the base. In this case, 11,450 tonnes of concrete was brought down by 48 kg of explosives. Obviously gravity did most of the work once the first floor was removed by explosives.
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=87123&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1452

Finally, this page has a slide slow of the collapse of the one of the WTC towers (frames 10 onwards). The point I want to make here is the relative speed of the point of collapse, which is indicated by the vertically ejected blocks at the top of the thickest section of the dust cloud, and the base of the dust cloud which is genuinely falling freely. It was also falling twice as fast as the point of collapse showing that there was resistance to the descent. Just not enough to slow it significantly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/flash/photo/attack/sequence/tower_sequence.htm

Finally, I enjoy the fact that the conspiracy theorists both claim that the lack of horizontal motion in the collapsed buildings shows it was demolished, and that the horizontal motion of building debris shows that there were explosives present. Come on, guys, was there or was there not horizontal motion?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am one who does not equate conspiracy theory with quackdom. Any reading of hi8story shows it riddled with conspiracies, some of them as eveil as can be imagined.

But I do weary of conspiracy theorists who lead not with healthy skepticism but with what I shall call 'dogmatic suspicion'. What I especially dislike about this tendency is that they so discredit themselves in the process that their inquiry taints all skeptical inquiry of 'official versions'.

I'll call it a 'smoking gun' fetish. Their desire to find a simple, easily understood, emotionally compelling, attention-grabbing expose, results in Pentagon missile-as-plane theories, and controlled demolition theories.

Why? I think that, in these cases, because they involve moving pictures. Moving pictures are easy; they do one's thinking for one.

Likewise, jumping to black flag/psych-ops interpretations require enormous justifications.

Me? Something smells wrong about the deal. Documented history shows that FDR went out of his way to encourage Japan to attack so he could gain public support for entering WWII. But conspiracy theorists on this topic are not content with mere manipulation; they are determined to prove that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

More later. Phone call interruption.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back from phone call. So the Pearl Harbor conspiracy camp largely wastes its energy looking for the smoking gun that will prove that FDR knew the Japs were en route to Pearl Harbor and silently let it happen. I'm not sure why they do this, for incontrovertible evidence via government documents shows that FDR WANTED the Japs to invade and took steps to entice/induce them to invade. The Japs had already shown they weren't shy of surprise attacks (I think it was in the Russo-Jap war?).

(History tells us that getting into the war sooner than later was best.)

Segueing back to 911 as abruptly as I'd jumped to Pearl Harbor, some would say that 911 was a blessing in terms of waking the American people up sooner rather than too late. And some will point to statements by 'the neo-cons' (a nicely vague term, yes?) that say 'something like Pearl Harbor' will be necessary to wake up the American people.

Perhaps 50 years from now a trail of manipulation surrounding 911, comparable to that of FDR and Japan, will be shown leading from government officials to 911.

BUt, I suspect, whether one will be inclined to take them seriously will have more to do with one's basic attitude toward domestic government authority than the available facts.

If history steadily discredits the 911 complicity/conspiracy theory, those who wish to suspect the worst of our government will not be convinced. And if history steadly adds support to the 911 complicity/conspiracy theory, those who wish to believe the best of our government will not be convinced.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this is wakeup here again
it seems that this little topic got very big
how do you feel about this
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
in emergency do you dail 911
coincidence...coincidence....coincidence
come on do you really think bush is sorry for
bombing the trade centers with all those
gerry springer loving cross dressers in there
think with your head americans not with your
teevee

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and another thing
i'm only saying bush killed 3.000 people
He actually did it!!! and thinks he got away with it with your help
who is the smart one here???

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hello gerry springers
this is wakeup at your service with facts only
the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
think...
think....
think......
my little gerry springer lovers

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bobdown
Member
Member # 3060

 - posted      Profile for bobdown         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God Bless All The Lost Souls
Posts: 6 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KL - there you go... The aliens, "Bush killed them all", the Illuminati and Trilateral commission and Knights of Malta planned it all in their underground moon base types throw off legitimate questions and legitimate threads of logic.

On WTC 7, those firefighter accounts are very damning to that Professor's ideas. I'd like to see how he would answer their comments. However, what's still troubling there is the lack of official investigation into WTC 7, as well as the official story from the 9-11 commission was fire destroyed that building, not structural damage as is what appears to be the case if we listen to those expert eye witness accounts.

Now, spending a lot of time in the Army, I do know how large bureaucracies tend to operate, and it's usually on the edge of chaos and inefficiency, so a lackadaisical report and half-assed findings is quite feasible, too. Our government was embarrassed, it was unpleasant, so they wanted to get past it as quick as possible.

Then again.... I think back to that JFK movie where the one character - I think it was Donald Sutherland's character - says something akin to "who had the power to allow it to happen".

As you said, where the hell was NORAD? 2+ hours with no response from the folks who can scramble a fighter in less than 1/8 that time? Anyone else remember Paine Stewart's plane? How quick did they have and escort on that one?

The official explanation was an exercise that day simulating hijackings, so they were confused and thought the reports were part of the exercise.

So, it's quite logical to think the terrorists had some good intel on our training operations and planned accordingly – that’s what I would have done if planning an attack.

However, to me, something stinks. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can't shake that feeling.

I too keep coming back to the FDR Pearl Harbor angle - especially when folks in the Bush administration are on record to saying we need another Pearl Harbor to get things moving. I find it quite feasible and likely that our government simply allowed it to happen.

Condi Rice saying they never foresaw using planes as missiles is total BS. Operation Boijnka, a plot foiled in 1995, showed us OBL and his minions were planning such things. To take her comment at face value is to believe that the friggin' National Security Advisor was unaware of a major terror plot. I’ve seen total incompetence in entire bureaucracies, but not like this and not from the obviously very smart people at the top.

If they are as smart and competent as they seem (regardless of how you feel about them personally), then they are not going to make such juvenile, asinine mistakes. Therefore, why did they allow such things to occur if it wasn’t by mistake?
I don’t know about conspiracy theories and such; I just don’t like to shy away from the tough questions, and I don’t worry about where the tough answers take us.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...However, what's still troubling there is the lack of official investigation into WTC 7, as well as the official story from the 9-11 commission was fire destroyed that building, not structural damage as is what appears to be the case if we listen to those expert eye witness accounts."

Well, as I understand it, hours and hours of raging fire are 'causatively associated' with the structural damage. But yes, as with all things 911, it is the lack of rigorous investigation, sandwiched with endless hyperbolic outrage at the event and non-stop political opportunism in its wake, that is most troubling.

Pearl Harbor investigations were similarly troubled and inadequate.

"As you said, where the hell was NORAD? 2+ hours with no response from the folks who can scramble a fighter in less than 1/8 that time? Anyone else remember Paine Stewart's plane? How quick did they have and escort on that one?"

I can offer first-hand testimony on this. Shortly after 911, various Air Force websites containing information regarding readiness and response pertinent to 911 were altered specifically in regard to this aspect. I forget the details, but I do recall seeing the cached versions of the sites before they were altered a few days or weeks after 911, and the altered versions live online after their alteration.

Proof of...? Proof of nothing but strong evidence of some level of Cover Your Ass.

"The official explanation was an exercise that day simulating hijackings, so they were confused and thought the reports were part of the exercise. So, it's quite logical to think the terrorists had some good intel on our training operations and planned accordingly – that’s what I would have done if planning an attack. However, to me, something stinks. I'm not sure exactly why, but I can't shake that feeling."

Well, there's at least the stench of incompetence to be endured. (Tom Swift and the Illuminati Honey-Buckets of Mars) Secondly, even the incompetence of initial confusion via simulated hijackings could have easily been dispelled by 'This Is NOT A Drill: Repeat: This Is NOT a Part of Simulated Exercise'.

"Condi Rice saying they never foresaw using planes as missiles is total BS."

She doth protest too much, even to this day. Like wise -- and more suspiciously, me thinks -- John Ashcroft.

Rather than imagine a grand scheme orchestrated from top down, a scenario that becomes absurd when one ponders the details, I wonder that, once the event happened, and the initial concidences and failures were pursued, blackmail didn't arise.

Bush and most of the neocons are highly vulnerable to blackmail.

"...the Illuminati and Trilateral commission and Knights of Malta planned it all in their underground moon base..."

Well, there's that too. [Wink] One never kows what those mysterious mental moonbeam are up to, do one?

'The Maltese Moonrock': a trubitary moonrock sent to the Bush dynasty heirs once a year from the Selenian Knights of Malta. Encrusted with diamonds, rubies, emeralds... (Sam Spade accent): "It's... the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like this page:

What A Real Conspiracy Looks Like

" Conspiracy theorists say this is proof that the administration needed to create a "Pearl Harbor". But if they did blow up the towers, why would they go to such great lengths to point to Bin Laden? Why not fix evidence to point to Saddam? Conspiracy theorists say they needed terrorism to perpetuate an endless war. To take away our freedoms to fight this war. But Bin Laden wasn't the only way to do it. "They" could have planted evidence suggesting Bin Laden was working for Saddam. Why not? Remember, if they are setting up Bin Laden then why not set up Saddam at the same time? He wasn't "a few Arabs in the desert." He had an army and millions from oil profits. Why allow people to say "Saddam wasn't the one to attack us"? There would have been far fewer players if they placed a nuclear device in the towers’ basements and took out lower Manhattan. The government could have blamed Saddam's fictitious WMD for the device and Bin Laden for the delivery. We would have reason to invade Iraq the next day. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe they chose a plan which involves thousands over smaller, more controllable plans."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AN ineresting thing about the Debunking 911 myths:

it is a site based on debunking myths, not debunking the official version. It is very easy to confuse the one with the other. For example, nowhere on the site have I yet found anything addressing the NORAD snail pace response.

Demolition theories and Pentagon missile theories are addressed, along with the absurd logistics of a massive government theory. But nothing, that I can tell, about the NORAD crawl.

I do like their comments on the infamous Zogby poll:

Zogby

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
As far as I know, firefighters have a pretty good track record of being reliable, trustworthy, and getting their facts straight.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then, on that note, I've seen some of those videos - mostly from those French guys that were there to film something else that day, IIRC - that show the firefighters talking about all the explosions going off around them... Many different people saying that. That was raw, unedited footage from 9-11, not interviews after the fact.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People, we are watching history being made. Not the events being made -- everyone sees that. I mean, the grooming of data to form historical theories.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good God, let's close this and not feed Sicko anymore. Worth a discussion, perhaps, but not on his thread.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thread's as good as another, ma'am. 'taint the meat it's the motion what rocks old mama's ocean...

[ October 04, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Eek!] the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
can you at least think about that
or has politics clouded your brain? [Confused]
if you don't question it
you are part of the problem
not the solution
sorry. [DOH]

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately the collapse of WTC Building 7 sheds new light on this subject.

Situated across Vesey Street and separated from the North Tower by Building 6,which did not itself collapse, even after sustaining extensive damage from fire and falling debris, WTC 7 showed no significant damage at all in photos taken just before it collapsed. There were a few internal fires, but they weren't large enough or hot enough to even break out the windows. Significantly, this 47-story monolith collapsed completely and uniformly straight down in less than seven seconds. Totally! The whole thing was sheared to the ground! The article states "NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated." Working hypothesis? Is that anything like a conspiracy theory? What evidence is offered to support this?

The unavoidable facts are that an airplane did not strike WTC
7, the discreet distance separating it from the North Tower protected it from falling debris, and there was absolutely no evidence of structural damage.

Conspicuous by its absence is any mention in the article about the stunningly short time span of the collapse. Quite possibly the under-seven-second swiftness was too much for even the "working hypothesis" to explain. Anyone with basic logic skills now knows that this was, in fact, a controlled demolition; and happily this reinforces suspicions about the towers too.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
naomi
Member
Member # 3091

 - posted      Profile for naomi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, but if the tower 7 didn't get hit by a plane, and din't fall because of terrorist action, then the American Government will be blamed for lying, won't other countries work that out and retaliate? Won't America be subject to more acts then ? Apparently America can't stop planes from entering their country and causing damage or any other terrorist attack - for crying out aloud the planes flew right by a nuclear plant- Please... America is not this stupid.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, don't missunderestimate our stupidity naomi.

It's quite possible there is some degree of CYA here, and that always feeds the conspiracy beast.

The debate gets framed into two or three possible position and discussion becomes impossible.

We wind up with a situation like the Kennedy Assassination, either you are expected to believe an impossible magic bullet theory, or you are expected to believe an impossible cover-up of a massive CIA-Mafia conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people.

Maybe, when George decided to let Uncle Dick illegally command our air defenses, he made a mistake. Maybe Uncle Dick just dropped the ball.

Maybe the sprinkler system in tower 7 wasn't operating correctly because some NYC inspector was bought off with tickets to Greet the Mets. Maybe it wasn't actually built to spec in the first place for similar reasons.

There are thousands of possibilities and thousands of people trying to cover their butts, many of them probably needlessly.

I don't expect to ever have all the questions answered.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1