9/11 NORAD tapes released...
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10691
PAGE 10 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Heya CTS,
I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.
The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line. And he kept pushing it and pushing it, when, y'know, if you're fears of conspiracy are true, then the house is rigged and no amount of money wagered on the truth coming out is worth spit. When I ask someone a question and instead of answering me, they ask me if I'm "a bettin' man," I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.
But what would SoupCatcher have to sell and why would he suddenly turn used car salesman on us, after years of thoughtful analysis and inquiry on this board? Heya Soups, what gives?
Okay. Now that I'm back from meetings let me explain what I was trying to accomplish.
I'm tired of conspiracy theories. To me, it's like arguing about the existence of a higher power or whether or not we even exist. At some point, everything is possible. If someone appears to dismiss the informed opinion of one who has studied and spent their professional life working in a field but then gives what I perceive as more credence to something coming out of left field then it's hard for me to have a discussion.
What I was trying to do was get CTS to replace possibility with probability. I was hoping to get CTS to put a number, any number, on the likelihood of an alternative theory. In the final judgement, I don't care how they arrive at that number. I thought I could do that with the money angle. It doesn't look like that attempt was too successful.
edited to add: Oh. And you're right about the building 7 part. My lack of response on that point is because I don't know any of the details. The presentation I went to was focussed on the two towers and that's the part I remember. So I have nothing to add (eta: by focussed I mean that there were numerous slides on the structure of the two towers and the damage and what potentially happened. I don't remember any corresponding set of slides for building 7. IIRC, there was a brief mention, but it was more speculative than the rest of the presentation).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.
Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.
Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
-----------------------------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
one of the Forsaken TM
I heard he was suing the insurers for over 5 billion dollars...That said, I don't buy this. It would have had to have been rigged to be pulled well in advance. What type of person would take that risk. The potential loss of life would be enormous and potentially costly. No one ever mentions that there were 6,000 + Gallons of fuel in the building. Could go boom! It has been stated this has a low probability. But what is the alternative? He knew 911 was going to happen? Sure.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i apologize for coming off abrasively, i have had this debate so many times that ive become emotionally attached and committed.
there is no rhyme or reason why building 7 came down after 6 hrs or whatever, while Bankers Trust, closer to the Twin Towers than bldg 7, remained intact, yet recieved even more damage. it just doesnt add up; that would have been the first steel building in history to collapse due to fire; and it housed a DoD, IRS, and CIA or FBI office..so this wasnt just some random accident.
is that alone not cause for question? there is no good excuse for this that ive heard...so what really constitutes a "smoking gun"? do we need to have the CIA come out and tell us they were in on it?
you were asking how they could have pre-wired 7 in 45 minutes? they didnt, they did it in the weeks or maybe months before the events..just like the Twin Towers. understand, BYU took samples of the debri and CONFIRMED the existence of incendiary devices...this is not just speculation.
we can beat around the details about the WTCs all day; i dont believe they both coincidentally fell at next to free fall speeds in a period of hrs. i dont believe i can throw away the hundres of reports of explosions and initial reports of potential explosives..given the near perfect implosion of the buildings; or even that the firemen were under the impression that they could have the fires out with 2 lines reportedly.
im not willing to accept that so many odd events just coincidentally happened that day, given the undeniable evidence that this was not out of the blue; we had plenty of warning from foreign and domestic intelligence officials.
however there should be no doubt about building 7. Juliani was even told before-hand that the building was coming down, he admitted this in an early interview. how did they know this stuff? how were avg NYs warned not to go downtown that day; who warned the pentagon officials to cancell trips, who called FEMA in on the 10th. there are all these anomolous events that NEED to be explained, because to me they point to comlicity
and why is it, that in the case of the Pentagon footage, along with security cameras in surrounding business..the pictures are being intentionally withheld and classified; all but the few frames where you cant make out the craft. why? what are they hiding that happened that day that we dont already know about from the news?
i think their are wayy to many questions that have simply gone unanswered. if we know that as recently as July of '01 Usama was visited in a hospital in Dubia by American intelligence officials...while he was currently wanted by authorities for the U.SS cole and embassy bombings...why was he not ceased?? how suspicous is that when he was a known CIA assett for the past 2 decades.
if our entire wordlview and Policies are based on faulty or doctored information, is that not worthy of exposing if indeed it is true??
tell that to Fox news, who has, to my knowledge, never given a fair and balanced review of the facts of 9/11. am i supposed to change my mind about a degree of media complicity under these circumstances?
if you have a reporter stationed at the Pentagon..is it not a fair guess that they are giving a fair degree of disinformation?
throughout history, governments have staged false flag operations against their own people, always to fullfill a prior motive. Operation Northwoods, Gladio, the gulf of tonkin incident..some would even argue Pearl Harbor, since it can be verified that Roosevelt had forwarning of the attacks and never notified our hawaii bases; Hitlers Reichstag fire. so its been proven that governments have done this in the past, what makes us, and now, any different, when soo many clues can be given indicating complicity and envolvement?
is it absurd to think that Alqaeda can pull of a 9/11, but not an elite element of the intelligence community? to think that Bush had to know, therefore everyone knew is an assumption; this could have been a highly compartmentalized operation.
im not
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
Where did you get that building 7 came down in 45 minutes? The first towers were down in the morning, building 7 went down at roughly 5:20 PM - and thats like WAY more than 45 minutes.
And trust me, I can tell time cause my IQ IS is in excess of 160.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
People died when Building 7 came down. A couple of workers unaccounted for. And probably, the official reason for taking it down was that it had too much structural damage. Not saying it did, just saying that is my bet.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He was just repeating the question I asked--can a building be rigged for demolition in 45 minutes? It was sort of an arbitrary number just to illustrate that he would have had to be very very quick in his demolition job to start after the WTC towers collapsed and have it completed by the afternoon. Regardless of the number of minutes, the question is, did he plan the demolition in advance?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Where did you get that building 7 came down in 45 minutes? The first towers were down in the morning, building 7 went down at roughly 5:20 PM - and thats like WAY more than 45 minutes.
Quote:All I did was ask some questions. You can't just ask questions, apparently. You have to "pick a side." So I picked a theory reluctantly, because I was asked to. The next thing I know I'm the button-pusher who is upsetting people with her senseless conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Rue:
CTS does seem to be a contrarian at heart, and pushed the wrong buttons at the wrong time in people who were already primed on other issues.
As far as being a contrarian, I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as that label implies. I walk on the beaten path regarding many issues--I agreed with everyone on the overpopulation thread! Heck, I eat at MvDonalds from time to time. You just don't get more conformist than joining the billions served.
Where I differ from many others is that when someone disagrees with the consensus, I listen to the argument. I look it up. If it isn't supported by the evidence, I dismiss it. If it points to anomalies that aren't explained by the consensus, I withhold judgment (agreement or disagreement with ANYONE) until I get more information. This was what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.
I just want the govt to answer some questions. I want to hear the answers. It's not a trick to "catch" them stuttering. I really want to know how they would explain these claims and judge if those explanations hold water.
I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.
Heya HK. It is my impression that Americans have been very emotional and tense about such issues for several years. 9/11, Al-Qaeda, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Iraq. It seems to me there is very little patience for opposing viewpoints on these issues anymore. There is no room for true dialogue, only "us" vs "them."
Quote:That's what I should have done. Once I was pinned to a theory, everything I said was dismissable, because I was associated with "that" theory. Live and learn.
The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line... I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.
Quote:I'd also be more conspiracy minded if I believed the government was competent enough to pull off a conspiracy. At the same time, I also think Al-Qaeda, at the time, was rather low-rent. It's like having the usual suspects: the criminal with the record, or "the man" with the power. No one is looking for any more suspects. But I don't think the investigation should be over. For me, there are too many puzzles that don't fit, for either suspect.
And finally, as the last 5 miserable years have shown, the incompetence, shortsightedness, calousness and willingness to cover their own asses no matter what the cost to their integrity of the current admin. makes the case for gross neglegence on every side by far the most plausible to me right now. That's where I'd put my money.
But, I'm just a contrarian button-pusher, so what do I know. Thanks for your input.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some flowers only grow in the dark.
The reason many so-called 'conspiracy theories' exist, is because simple, open-and-shut things are so completely obfuscated by individuals attempting to protect themselves or thier reputations, what-have-you.
Case in point being TWA800, in all probability destroyed by unfortunate accident of naval incompetence - yet there is no proof.
What caused things to get flaky ? endless coverup attempts stepping on each other and making no sense until the official story was such obvious bullshit that no one could swallow it anymore.
What DID happen ? likely we will never know.
But if the truth were presented up front, that issue would have turned out differently, wouldn't it ?
Theories erupt when the facts do not fit with the "official story" - it's human nature to speculate what *might* have happened, in light of obvious lies and obfuscations.
And no, 911 has never been investigated by a proper set of experts with (lemme repeat the most important damned point, again) NO POLITICAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME - unfortunately that also excludes Mr. Rivero, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Rense - all of whom are semi-competent amateur investigators, but have a political stake and thus should not be relied on without proper crosscheck and confirmation of the facts with other sources.
They themselves will tell you the same thing, do your own investigating and don't accept anything at face value simply because of who tells it to you - find out for SURE, or as sure as you can possibly become with your own resources.
Anyhow, when it boils right down to it, such theories only exist when the "official story" is an obvious and blatant load of bovine excretement.
Only gonna address two points here, myself, since someone else brought up the obvious contradictions of Bldg#7.
#1 Where is the evidence that Bin Laden (who passionately denied it) had any hand in this act ?
Why the hell do we take it as a given, when it was told to us by someone we know is fulla shit, has repeatedly lied to us, and never showed us one whit of evidence to back the claim ?
Why is that question not asked, never asked, by anyone but me ?
#2 They use such primitive gear to defend our damned country, but spend the very best of it spying on US... isn't that nice ?
I want value for my Tax Dollar, whether by complicity or incompetence (and on a strictly financial basis, I do not care, mind.) or even gross negligence, things went situation-FUBAR that should not have, and in lieu of a refund for all that money they take from our payrolls for so-called national defense, which we all know ain't gonna happen....
I wanna know who is responsible, and I want them held accountable - is this so much to ask ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
All I did was ask some questions. You can't just ask questions, apparently. You have to "pick a side." So I picked a theory reluctantly, because I was asked to. The next thing I know I'm the button-pusher who is upsetting people with her senseless conspiracy theories.
As far as being a contrarian, I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, as that label implies. I walk on the beaten path regarding many issues--I agreed with everyone on the overpopulation thread! Heck, I eat at MvDonalds from time to time. You just don't get more conformist than joining the billions served.
Where I differ from many others is that when someone disagrees with the consensus, I listen to the argument. I look it up. If it isn't supported by the evidence, I dismiss it. If it points to anomalies that aren't explained by the consensus, I withhold judgment (agreement or disagreement with ANYONE) until I get more information. This was what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.
I just want the govt to answer some questions. I want to hear the answers. It's not a trick to "catch" them stuttering. I really want to know how they would explain these claims and judge if those explanations hold water.
I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
I have to admit that I was ticked when I wrote my response to the lego comment (not yours). How I interpreted it was, "I built a tower of legos and pushed it and it fell to the side. The WTC didn't fall to the side. See." And it smacked of laziness to me. When you responded to my response I think I transferred that ticked-off-it-ness to your post. My bad, that was not cool. So let me backtrack and explain a little bit why I think my reaction was the way it was.
There are some assumptions behind the demolition theory (I'll just focus in on that one) that I don't like. But first, I'm not even sure I understand the demolition theory in its entirety. Who set the charges? When were they set? Why were they set? If it's an al Qaeda operation then I don't see how you get around assuming that the security at the WTC were either complicit or incompetent. That every single person who may have seen what was going on was either clueless or incompetent. I almost see it like a blame the victim thing. And, for reasons that Citizen pointed out, I don't buy that al Qaeda would've felt the need to add another layer of complexity to an already risky operation.
Who else could've done it? Well, one possibility is that the decision was made on the scene to drop the buildings rather than risk them collapsing in any other manner. If you go that route then you have to assume that the charges were placed after the planes hit. And that the decision was made to write off everyone still in the towers, both workers and emergency personnel. And the main reason I could see to make that decision would be to protect the properties surrounding the WTC. Who would you get to set those charges, knowing that score?
Another possibility is that the government knew that al Qaeda would fly the planes into the towers and wanted to make sure the towers collapsed? I don't understand what this buys you.
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other possibilities. But what I'm trying to figure out is the motivation for demolishing the buildings and who would've done it and when. I just don't see how you answer any of those questions without assuming that there were Americans, potentially large numbers, who would condone or abet mass murder of fellow Americans. I'm not willing to go down that road yet.
Which is interesting because I have no problem believing that there are large numbers of Americans who are actively working to deprive other Americans of the franchise. But for some reason I draw the line at mass murder. We can't have created that many Timothy McVeigh's, can we?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well let me tell you Cantakesky:
i for one appreciate your openmindedness.
Bush told everyone after 9/11 "and let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concering the events of september 11" and that "your either with us, or your with the terrorists"..i believe attorney general Ashcroft made similar comments.
we were constantly told "support our troops, support the war", anything else is un-patriotic and anti-American.
apparently questioning your government, holding the establishment accountable, seeking the Truth despite its unpleasantness...those are qualities not sought by George Bushs America.
were supposed to shut up and like it, believe everything were told, go back to your daily lives and go shopping! remember that?..dont worry about those terrorists, just sit back...we got 'em.
meanwhile 5 years later, our Borders are still wide open, we have a multi-trillion dollar deficit, a war in Iraq with no sight of an exit strategy, a never ending war on terror, set to encompass everyday Americans and their liberties theyre fighting to protect; or so we thought.
it just gets more and more ominous..is this America 2006, or Orwells 1984??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME