Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does anyone remember 4 off course planes in the air at the same time,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:19 PM
Original message
Does anyone remember 4 off course planes in the air at the same time,
and our military sits on the ground for an hour and forty-five minutes doing nothing.

A few days ago someone in a flying something, small enough to land in a driveway gets lost and they send up the whole east coast!

What gives? All I can think of is that rovecheneyrummy didn't plan this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am reading the extended version by David Ray Griffin
you don't know what you know until you know it. I know that doesn't make sense but the book does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I'm reading that book too....
I can't put it down. And it makes me furious that nobody does anything about this criminal administration...

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meppie-meppie not Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. what book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. No shit, and the M$M can't shut about it all day long. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. All you need is 550 C for steel to sag.
Edited on Fri May-13-05 02:33 PM by hack89
A simple model for the WTC would be:

1. Big plane hits and penetrates the building, damaging internal support structure (core steel columns, outer wall, and floors supports). Also blows away fireproofing material on steel columns.

2. Resulting damage leads to stress loading from weight of building to shift, overloading remaining supports. (very simple - same weight but fewer supports)

3. Fuel explosion from impact ignites fires over very large area. Fuel burns off very quickly but tons of combustibles in office spaces burn fiercely.

4. Resulting heat weakens steel support columns (steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°C (1022°F) while smoldering combustion in a regular house(office in this case) fire can reach 600°C (1112°F)) and steel sags. http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

This Canadian site http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire / says
"Steel, for instance, quickly loses its strength when heated and its yield point decreases significantly as it absorbs heat, endangering the stability of the structure (Graph 1). An unprotected, conventional steel joist system will fail in less than 10 minutes under standard laboratory fire exposure test methods"


5. Steel supports overloaded in steps 1 and 2 are stressed beyond their weight handling capability and give way. As the weight of the building is dynamically transferred to remain support members, there is a chain of failures until there is nothing to withstand the immense weight of the building and it comes straight down.

Read this excellent report by the Canadian research council on the role of fire resistance in the WTC http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466 ....

Comparison to any other steel building in nonsense unless that building suffered structural damage too. The fires in the WTC would not have caused a collapse without the accompanying loss of structural integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. And once...
And once it starts "sagging" ,it soon goes into near free fall with all the core columns being chopped up into nice convrenient smaller pieces to be quickly hauled away?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Weren't the core columns made of smaller pieces bolted together?
would it not be logical that they would fail where they were joined together? I don't see the point you are trying to make. Imagine taking a piece of spaghetti - you hold the middle between your palms while someone else pushes the ends together. What happens when you open you hand? The spaghetti bows and then breaks. Now imagine the core columns supporting the entire weight of the tower above them without the horizontal bracing provided by the floor joists. They too would bow and then break.

If it was controlled demolition, it would depend on the principles I outlined - they would use small amounts of explosives to weaken the structure such that gravity does all the work. I don't know how many tons of explosives a fully loaded 767 represents but I have to believe it is a lot. The WTC was all about weight and gravity overloading a weakened building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. some answers and questions
And you believe gravity would be accountable for the speed and voluminousity of the dust clouds,expanding to upwards to five times the circumferance of the buildings and speeding along at near 30 miles an hour through lower Manhattan? Those characteristics don't even occur in a controlled demolition scenario.

The massive amount of steel in the building would conduct the heat away from the trauma points.

Would not the four inch thick cement floors tear themselves away from the columns before the columns would buckle and break?

How do you explain the extreme hot points in the rubble pile? This cannot be explained by the temperatures attainable in a jet fuel fire.

With the South Tower,the upper section is disintegrating,still suspended above the lower section. Where's the "hammer" to pulverize the start of the lower section's collapse? And yet the floors immediately below the still suspended and disintegrated top section pulverize into dust particles less in thickness to a blade of hair?

How do you explain the consistent utter pulverization of the floors down to the base of the buildings when the upper section would be disintegrating as it falls and creating less and less of a hammer on the lower section as it proceeds downward?

How do you explain the total lack of resistance from the lower floors allowing the building to collapse in just a few seconds more than free fall?

How do you explain the squibs that are identifiable and occuring floors below the collapse point if it not something more than gravitational collapse?

How do you explain how the top sections can fall only 14 feet and create massive pulverizations consistant with what is seen throughout the entire collapse?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Wouldn't most of these apply to a controlled demolition?
We are discussing how the building lost structural integrity - no matter how that happened wouldn't it fall the same way? With so much mass falling so far, the resulting energy would be orders of magnitude greater than any explosives that might have been there.

How many tons of explosives do you really think were involved? How much space would they have required? If weight and gravity were the prime movers, it seems to me that the laws of physics dictate only one way to collapse.

If you had read my links, you would have seen that the jet fuel was burned off within minutes of the impact. It's role was that of an accelerant to set all the combustibles in the build on fire. How do hot spots equal explosives? Explosives cutting charges do not generate large amounts of heat - they use pressure. Even thermite charges don't create large amounts of heat - they produce a focused jet to cut through thick steel.

If steel is such an effective radiator of heat how is it possible for a blacksmith to bend and shape steel? Could it be that if the heat applied is larger than the radiant capacity of steel, the steel will absorb that heat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. re: explosives et al
Explosives produce a great deal more heat than a gravitational collapse. But I'm considering the possibility of microwave technology as a possible means. You see these massive plumes jettisoning upwards..the heat involved would have been tremendous. Would gravitational collapse account for this? But we have nothing to compare gravitational collapse with as the three buildings that fell that day were the first three steel structures in history to collapse.

You are assuming that the core columns would collapse all together in mass to bring about a continous free fall basically straight downward. Why wouldn't the South Tower in particular tilt towards the area that was severely compromised? But the top section actually is completely severed from the base and tilts away from the crash point. And then it begins to disintegrate before it plunges into the base section. Meanwhile the top floors of the base section row by row explode outwards with apparently little help from that top section.

How do hot spots at the temperatures they reached account for fires of office supplies and furniture in the basement floors? There is nothing in a conventional jet fuel started fire to account for this. Microwaves? What accounts for the afterglow just after total collapse? What physical phenomenon in a gravitational collapse would account for this?


Just think of the massive amounts of steel in the structure. Can you compare this with a blacksmith setting where the amount of steel and oxygen are controlled? The firemen in the South Tower had the fires under control. This was basically a routine situation for them. And the people looking down from the North Tower peering out from the crash site...this doesn't intimate high heat. The billowing black smoke...???

Even if I can't explain the event effectively to you..you have a big problem with gravitational collapse...the heat produced. I refer you to http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N Dec15th with Jim Hoffman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Microwaves??
Give me a break!

I don't understand your point on how the building fell. How would explosives make it fall differently? The explosives would only sever the steel columns - not add any significant energy to the building's fall. Weight and gravity would seem to dictate how the building fell regardless of how the collapse was initiated.

High heat was not required to weaken the structure - as I showed in my first post, there was plenty of heat to weaken the steel. You have to explain the hot spots - for example, just how hot were they? What report details these hot spots (link please). Once you give me a better idea what you are talking about we can discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. So how do explosive cause these extensive hot spots?
How would Microwaves cause such hot spots? what do they prove?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. you explain..
Was it thermite? Was it a mini-nuke? Was it microwaves? I really don't know. But you explain to me how it was gravitational collapse. That makes no sense at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Controlled demo = "gravitational collapse"
explosive can't accelerate the downward motion of the building. Whether fire or squibs once it starts to fall it would be all the same. What other kind of collapse is there besides gravitational? Do some collapse defy the laws of gravity??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. you know what I mean
OK. I'll word it differently. Gravitational collapse due to fire and structural damage. You know what I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Can you please explain me
how Guiliani could possibly have been told that the WTC crashed before the first tower collapsed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. I have no idea what you are talking about - link please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Here you go
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x37080

How can the person that warned him have foreseen the collapse?
Who was it?
Why didn't the Independent Commission ask any question on this?
Why weren't the firefighters warned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Is there audio ?
Was Guiliani merely told "there is a possibility that the tower will collapse, we think it wise you move your command post" ? I guess my question is what was the exact form of this warning? There must have been plenty of witnesses with Guiliani so it shouldn't be too hard to get the exact wording. These witnesses should also be able to identify the person who told Guiliani - I mean after all, isn't he the key link to the conspiracy here? Why the apparent lack of interest on this board over such a key witness - if you can't even ferret out his name how do you expect to solve 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Quote
is from Lexis Nexis.

ABC on 911 at 1 p.m.

JENNINGS: Now you're talking about the--did you go immediately to the Office of Emergency Management?

Mr. GIULIANI: I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building , so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.

This is pretty clear. It is not maybe, it is possibe but the WTC was going to collapse

What the exact words of the warning were that Guiliani received is of course unknown.

Why didn't the Independent Commission simply ask him?
And how do you explain this warning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Again, why don't you care who told him?
Why are glossing over the important questions to focus on the superficial? Your post makes it clear that Giuliani had no knowledge of the 9/11 conspiracy prior to him being warned of the collapse.

I have no idea why the independent commission did not ask him.

Without knowing what was actually said, how can you or I explain anything? I think it was a precautionary warning on the lines of "it is too dangerous to keep your command post here - the building MAY collapse". You believe differently but just like me, you have only personal speculation and can't prove anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. No.

Guiliani did not say :
"They told me that the building could collapse"

Guiliani did say :
"We were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."

That is a big difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. So who told him and what did he say?
Thats all I want to know - with all the people around Guiliani someone must be able to reconstruct this scene with relative ease. Now that would be a true smoking gun instead of trying to parse what "was going to collapse." really means. Come on - would you take this to court? If you are unable to name one low level conspirator why should you be take seriously? You will NEVER convict Bush with out first discovering the lower level guys. Show me some names and I will believe you. No names means no proof to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Proof
Thanks for your answer.
I take it that you agree that it was impossible to foresee that the WTC would collapse.

It's a clear fact that Guiliani was told that the WTC would collapse. It's a direct quote. He said it only a few hours afterwards on 911.
That's a fact. And the fact is that somebody told him. The proofs is there.
But who was it. I think you don't honestly expect us to provide you with an answer. We do know that it was someone but only Guiliani himself can answer this question.

Why wasn't he asked in person by the Independent Commission when he was under oath? Do you agree that this is a case of conscious ignorance? The Commission certainily must have been aware of this quote. And why didn't Guiliani come forward himself with the info (if he himself has nothing to hide)?
And the key: The importance of the question: It's not only a smoking gun it simply is asking accountability for the unnecessary loss of firefighters life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Hmmmmmmm.
Edited on Wed May-18-05 05:19 PM by seatnineb
Seems like there were a lot of unamed people who predicted and subsequently gave warnings to others that the towers would fall.......

"I was just walking down the street when someone
shouted: 'The building is going to collapse! It's
going to come down!' So I had to run. Then I heard an
explosion above my head, and that was it - it was
coming down
- and I had to run in the other direction,
back the way I came.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4254892-110340%2C00.html.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Good finding!
seatnineb!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROH Donating Member (521 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Before the first WTC tower falls...
These events are taking place before the first WTC tower falls...

From Paul Thompson's Timeline (www.complete911timeline.org):

(Before 9:59 a.m.)

"Between 9:25 and 9:45, one senior New York fire chief recommends to the Fire Department Chief that there might be a WTC collapse in a few hours and therefore fire units probably shouldn't ascend much above the sixtieth floor. This advice is not followed or not passed on. Apparently no other senior fire chiefs foresee the possibility of the WTC towers falling. <9/11 Commission Report, 5/19/04> However, New York City Mayor Rudoph Giuliani recounts, "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us." <ABC News, 9/11/01 (D)> As can be seen by another account of similar events, this happens before the first WTC tower falls, not the second. <Independent Commission, 5/19/04> It isn't clear who tells Giuliani to evacuate when no fire chiefs were considering the possibility of an imminent collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROH Donating Member (521 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Audio link:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. Thanks a lot for the link!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. That fire didn't penetrate any of the steel supports like a plane did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Those buildings were designed to w/stand massive windsheer
and compared to windsheer force w/ the force of the planes hitting the building is nothing. Buildings like this are built to w/stand events such as planes hitting them.

We can argue all day about the 2 towers hit by planes. What I want is an explanation about WTC7.

The best response I've gotten is: "The ground was shaken so much from the other 2 towers, it brought WTC7 down" - Mind blowing in it's stupidity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. So how many buildings have you heard of that got hit by a 747 and didn't
fall? Oh wait, it never happened before so all you are doing is speculating on how much force a plane has.

I didn't look in to the WTC7 incident deeply but the ground shaking is a pretty reasonable argument to me; as far as I know buildings in new york aren't built to actually withstand powerful earthquakes; this would have been one hell of an earth quake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. NO skyscrapers anywhere have ever gone down as a result of fire.
Look--they removed the evidence before the investigation. There was no real investigation. That's all I need to know they fixed it.

Everything they told us about 9/11 is a lie. Also, they suppressed and covered up twice what they released. Do you not think an evil man would lie to rule the world? Then you don't know history.

If you want to go on dreaming that the crap they've offered is a "reasonable" explanation for an event that was NEVER investigated, go ahead.They have NO evidence to go on, just speculation. Why are they more credible than me? Go ahead and look into WTC7. You might learn a few things.

There are many fools who still seem to believe the Pukkkes, perhaps because they just can't handle the idea that the coup actually happened, and we might as well be Germany in 1937. Well, it did, and we are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDebug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. WTC 7 was hardly touched and it had a small fire
Look into it. There's plenty of info about it and it'll become very clear that that building could never have collapsed. The ground shaking is not a reasonable argument and neither was the fire. The reasonable argument is that it was a controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. It wasn't a 747 and the empire state building survived this one no problem
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

Everything I've heard about the construction of the WTC was that they were some of the most soundly constructed buildings of any in modern time.

And about WTC7 - WFE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. No.
Edited on Fri May-13-05 03:39 PM by JackRiddler
The tremors from the Tower collapses registered at 2.3 and 2.5 on the Richter scale. Neither is enough to even qualify as an "earthquake," let alone a "powerful" one. So groundshaking is out as an explanation.

And WTC 7 collaped seven hours after the Towers. According to the official story, because of damage from debris weakening the structure and subsequent fires.

But it fell into its own footprint! And the three buildings were the first steelframe skyscrapers ever to suffer unplanned collapses at all, for any reason. So yeah, we are dealing with unprecedented events, any way you slice it.

The Empire State Building example mentioned above is also irrelevant. Smaller plane, different building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. The South tower plane
The South Tower plane didn't compromise the core columns. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. maybe this time they thought it was Payne Stewart's ghost?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. It took what, 20 minutes to get planes in the air for Payne Stewart?
It wasn't until after all buildings were hit that we launched interceptors on 9/11. Sounds like a winning plan for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. and IIRC, they had shoot-down orders too...
WITHOUT getting the Prez's pre-approval
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. It was one of my very first thoughts - but I knew immediately they'd say
this is what we've done to be ready SINCE 9-11 ---- and that 9-11 was SURPRISE!

Uh-huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-12-05 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
15. Before this thread gets moved to the 9-11 forum
Edited on Fri May-13-05 10:12 AM by hang a left
COINCIDENCE THEORISTS GUIDE TO 9-11


1) That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
2) That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
3) That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
4) That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
5) That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
6) That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
7) That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
8) The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
9) That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
10) That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
11) That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
12) That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
13) That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.
14) That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.
15) That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.
16) That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there's a good reason for it, quite possibly classified.
17) That FBI informant Randy Glass, working an undercover sting, was told by Pakistani intelligence operatives that the World Trade Center towers were coming down, and that his repeated warnings which continued until weeks before the attacks, including the mention of planes used as weapons, were ignored by federal authorities, is simply one of the many "What Ifs" of that tragic day.
18) That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments - including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others - of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need for a new Intelligence Czar.
19) That John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in July 2001 on account of security considerations had nothing to do with warnings regarding September 11, because he said so to the 9/11 Commission.
20) That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David Schipper’s pathetic need for attention.
21) That Garth Nicolson received two warnings from contacts in the intelligence community and one from a North African head of state, which included specific site, date and source of the attacks, and passed the information to the Defense Department and the National Security Council to evidently no effect, clearly amounts to nothing, since virtually nobody has ever heard of him.
22) That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a dubious character, notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims have since been proven true.
23) That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.
24) That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11 demonstrates only the value of being prepared.
25) The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
26) That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
27) Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan’s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn’t read anything about him in the official report.
28) That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.
29) That Goss's congressional seat encompasses the 9/11 hijackers' Florida base of operation, including their flight schools, is precisely the kind of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.
30) It's true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what's wrong with old colleagues catching up? And it's true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.
31) That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.
32) Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
33) That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.
34) That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it is a small world, after all.
35) That Lt Col Steve Butler, Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi's terms, was disciplined, removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain," is the least that should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.
36) That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend, smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical fundamentalist Muslim can be.
37) That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school, just three weeks after Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just bad luck. That Hilliard was not charged shows how specious the claims for conspiracy truly are.
38) That Hilliard’s plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorney before Seal’s murder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.
39) Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain nameless involved, and no terrorists, so the windfall profit-taking was merely, as ever, coincidental.
40) That heightened security for the World Trade Centre was lifted immediately prior to the attacks illustrates that it always happens when you least expect it.
41) That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.
42) That none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable even though they were located in the tail sections, and that until 9/11, no solid-state recorder in a catastrophic crash had been unrecoverable, shows how there's a first time for everything.
43) That Mohammed Atta left a uniform, a will, a Koran, his driver's license and a "how to fly planes" video in his rental car at the airport means he had other things on his mind.
44) The mention of Israelis with links to military-intelligence having been arrested on Sept 11 videotaping and celebrating the attacks, of an Israeli espionage ring surveiling DEA and defense installations and trailing the hijackers, and of a warning of impending attacks delivered to the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the first plane hit, does not deserve a response. That the stories also appeared in publications such as Ha'aretz and Forward is a sad display of self-hatred among certain elements of the Israeli media.
45) That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building; another, a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings – and took many interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a hoax, was a bizarre coincidence, but no less a coincidence.
46) That the National Military Command Center ops director asked a rookie substitute to stand his watch at 8:30 am on Sept. 11 is nothing more than bad timing.
47) That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ describing what they had witnessed, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building, is something no doubt that overzealous official wishes he could undo.
48) That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools to descend upon hours after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their federal agents are on the ball.
49) That a former flight school executive believes the hijackers were "double agents," and says about Atta and associates, "Early on I gleaned that these guys had government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose," and was visited by the FBI just four hours after the attacks to intimidate him into silence, proves he's an unreliable witness, for the simple reason there is no conspiracy.
50) That Jeb Bush was on board an aircraft that removed flight school records to Washington in the middle of the night on Sept 12th demonstrates how seriously the governor takes the issue of national security.
51) To insinuate evil motive from the mercy flights of bin Laden family members and Saudi royals after 9/11 shows the sickness of the conspiratorial mindset.
52) Le Figaro’s report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that the CIA met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.
53) That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11.
54) That at the battle of Tora Bora, where bin Laden was surrounded on three sides, Special Forces received no order to advance and capture him and were forced to stand and watch as two Russian-made helicopters flew into the area where bin Laden was believed hiding, loaded up passengers and returned to Pakistan, demonstrates how confusing the modern battlefield can be.
55) That upon returning to Fort Bragg from Tora Bora, the same Special Operations troops who had been stood down from capturing bin Laden, suffered a unusual spree of murder/suicides, is nothing more than a series of senseless tragedies.
56) Reports that bin Laden is currently receiving periodic dialysis treatment in a Pakistani medical hospital are simply too incredible to be true.
That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the foresightedness of America’s emergency response.
57) That the anthrax was mailed to perceived liberal media and the Democratic leadership demonstrates only the perversity of the terrorist psyche.
58) That the anthrax attacks appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot Act shows only that appearances can be deceiving.
59) That the Ames-strain anthrax was found to have originated at Fort Detrick, and was beyond the capability of all but a few labs to refine, underscores the importance of allowing the investigation to continue without the distraction of absurd conspiracy theories.
60) That Republican guru Grover Norquist has been found to have aided financiers and supporters of Islamic terror to gain access to the Bush White House, and is a founder of the Islamic Institute, which the Treasury Department believes to be a source of funding for al Qaeda, suggests Norquist is at worst, naive, and at best, needs a wider circle of friends.
61) That the Department of Justice consistently chooses to see accused 9/11 plotters go free rather than permit the courtroom testimony of al Qaeda leaders in American custody looks bad, but only because we don't have all the facts.
62) That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the commission didn't find for conspiracy it's all a non issue anyway.
63) That the 9/11 commission's executive director and "gatekeeper," Philip Zelikow, was so closely involved in the events under investigation that he testified before the the commission as part of the inquiry, shows only an apparent conflict of interest.
64) That commission chair Thomas Kean is, like George Bush, a Texas oil executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mafouz, suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.
65) That co-chair Lee Hamilton has a history as a Bush family "fixer," including clearing Bush Sr of the claims arising from the 1980 "October Surprise", is of no concern, since only conspiracists believe there was such a thing as an October Surprise.
66) That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national security, let us speak no more of her.
67) That, when commenting on Edmond's case, Daniel Ellsberg remarked that Ashcroft could go to prison for his part in a cover-up, suggests Ellsberg is giving comfort to the terrorists, and could, if he doesn't wise up, find himself declared an enemy combatant.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coinciden...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF
Ok non-tinfoilers

Tackle this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC