9/11 NORAD tapes released...

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10691
PAGE 8 of 14

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:21 PM

Hey CTS,

"Thank you Rue. There, another question answered to my satisfaction. 33 more to go."

I hope SignyM and I have added to the pile of information with our postings on pancaking buildings.

It does look like there was some identity theft going on. The other thing I was wondering about, since it's come up in other situations, is the apparent western confusion over Arab names. I'm really bad at names, but it had to do with the supposed meeting between an al-Qaida rep and an Iraqi, where it turns out it was a case of western intelligence confusing names.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's MAJOR construction work. Its move everyone out of the building major construction work

That is ONE way to demolish a building. Here is another, for example.

Quote:
This theory has the advantage over most other explosives theories of avoiding the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the Towers' cores, such as elevator shafts and cable shafts. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one on each floor. The devices could have been encased in impact- and heat-resistant containers similar to those used to protect aircraft voice and data recorders, so as to prevent accidental detonation from the aircraft impacts and fires.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermobarics.html

Quote:
You said (or words to that effect) that you find the idea of it being a controlled demolition more believable

There is a significant difference between less believable and UNbelievable.

Quote:
Well the insult aside it’s actually extremely simple:
Position:
“Fires are the wrong colour for Jet fuel fires.”
Implication:
They weren't jet fuel fires.
Meaning:
No Jet fuel was present
Reasoning:
No Jets hit the building (Since Jets tend to have jet fuel in them).

First, I apologize for the insult. I should have found another way to say your logic is flawed.

Fires are the wrong color for jet fuel fires.
They [the orange explosions] weren't jet fuel fires.
There were other fuels involved IN ADDITION to jet fuel.
Jet fuel fires could have been obscured by the orange fire.
(Rue explained the fires might have been altered, rather than obscured, by other combustibles, i.e.g sodium.)

It is an illogical leap to go from "not jet fuel fires" to "there was no jet fuel at all" and so forth. Just because there was another fuel (I said "gasoline") doesn't mean jet fuel isn't there as well.

Quote:
what was the whole fire being the wrong colour thing in aid of?

No aid. Just thought it was strange. Another question that I liked to see answered.
I have questions, and I have guesses. Until my questions are answered seriously, I can't conclude anything.

Quote:
You're theorising that a group of people came up with a plan, a conspiracy if you will, to bring down the two towers through controlled demolition...

Uh huh.

Quote:
...but make it look like they'd been brought down by plane strikes.

No, the govt did that by rejecting demolition right out. If it had been AlQaeda that attacked with both planes AND explosives, they wouldn't care if they got credit for both. The govt is the one that is saying, "It's planes. It's ONLY planes." Not the terrrorists.

Quote:
You don't see any demolition charges fire though, watch a video of a demolition, you can see some of the charges fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

Quote:
Why? Why did they bother? If its terrorists demolishing the buildings their task is complete by demolishing them, they don’t have to fly planes in to make it look good....So what’s the point in making the whole demolition thing?

Maybe they like to make an entrance? Maybe they don't just hate us a lot, but a lot a lot a lot? I don't know. I'm not a terrorist.

Quote:
The message is served by the plane strikes, the collapse is eye candy.

You're assuming you know exactly what the message is, what is sufficient to deliver the message, and what is superfluous.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

ANTIMASON

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:23 PM

and yet you all still deny that the Bushs have a longstanding relationship with the Bin Ladens, that Usama has been a CIA assett for the last 20yrs, that our FBI was denied by the WHITE HOUSE to further investigate Alqaeda prior to the attacks. that they were the only people flown from the country after 9/11, that cheif of the pakistan ISI wired ATTA $100,000 on 9/10, and then met with the CIA the morning of 9/11...i mean W in TF.

what does it take to get an objective opinion on the matter. i believed the government, until i actually looked into it..then i realized that 1000 anomolous events pointing to complicity couldnt be merely a coincidence...

im at a loss for words, how many times can you beat a dead horse about this subject, before people consider an alternate theory about those events. i realize that the media pounded in an impression immediately after the attacks, but that does not mean they were accurate!

this is the agenda! what do you think Bush had planned if 9/11 had never happened?? thats just it, he had no plans..the PNAC documents clearly outlayed the course of his administration prior to his even taking office, let alone the attacks...so wake up already!! we are losing our country to fascist neo Nazis~ and i can say that, because I CAN PROVE THAT BUSH, AND KERRYS SKULL AND BONES IS AN OCCULT ORGANIZATION RELATED TO THE NAZIS THULE SOCIETY!

honostly, some here who believes the media, i beg you, what is your explanation for these societies? how do you explain those ties??

i suppose these groups are just for show huh? grow up please, for the love of God and our country...how can you claim Bush is a Christian conservative when hes BEEN SEEN worshipping the occult?

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
how can you claim Bush is a Christian conservative when hes BEEN SEEN worshipping the occult?

OK, I'm leaving the real world now. It's been fun to visit.

But I'm leaving with a really good belly laugh, and wiping away tears. I do sincerely hate Dubya, but this is Out Of Control.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Even though this seemingly confirms my suspicions, I'm afraid I have more questions.

1. Is he admitting to insurance fraud? If so, why hasn't the insurance company pressed charges and gotten their money back?
2. Demolition isn't something you can do in 45 minutes, is it? If not, then how did he know 9/11 was going to happen, to rig up the demolition in advance? Or did he rig the building to blow up for a long time now, just in case a crisis opportunity presented itself?

Not saying you should have these answers. Just scratching my head.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:35 PM

I'm curious, how many of y'all have actually been up in the World Trade Center?
I was up in it twice, last time being in 2000. I also delivered computer parts into it at the street enterance that lead to the Batman-like tunnel that ended at the service elevator. I was always surprised that my ID was looked at so quickly, no James Bond retinal scan, and only one camera on me as I entered (that I could SEE, that is).

My take is that the planes did the job. Having been in most parts of the buildings, I often wondered what kept them standing without an attack. And I remember thinking seriously before 911, that if I worked in the Towers, or ANY other really big building for that matter, that I would DEFINITLY have a parachute hanging on my wall. Sadly, I must have been the only one who felt that way.

SNAFU from our trusted professional, Corporate-minded Government-types, that's all I see.

Generally, more conspiracy-minded Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:37 PM

antimason:
No ones denying Bush has links to the Bin Landens you fruit loop, its a documented fact.

CTS:
I'll get back to you in a bit, but now I've got to run.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:48 PM

For the record, the only thing I've personally concluded is that BUSH didn't know.

No amount of make-up could hide the sheer terror on his face during his broadcast. (Later when I saw how he sat, and sat, and sat - empty headed and directionless - a dummy waiting for the puppeteer - it only comfirmed it.)

RUE

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:00 PM

DesktopHippie,

http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Alkali-Metals.html

The usual method for detecting compounds of the alkali metals is with a flame test. A platinum wire is dipped into a solution of the unknown compound and then placed into a hot flame. The color produced is characteristic of the alkali metal present. The lithium flame is bright red; sodium, yellow; potassium, violet; rubidium, dark red; and cesium, blue.

While they say that a lithium flame is "bright red", in reality it is more of a rose to magenta color, depending on how much lithium is there. (One of my jobs was using an instrument to measure lithium by the intensity of the lithium color in a flame.)

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
*has an urge to burn lithium*

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:51 PM

Heya CTS,

I'm kinda surprised by the conduct of some of the folks who've argued with you today. I know it's hard to judge these things in print, but I certainly felt the contempt for your questions in a lot of these posts.

The big head-scratcher for me was SoupCatcher's whole "how much would you bet on it" line. And he kept pushing it and pushing it, when, y'know, if you're fears of conspiracy are true, then the house is rigged and no amount of money wagered on the truth coming out is worth spit. When I ask someone a question and instead of answering me, they ask me if I'm "a bettin' man," I know they're trying to sell me something and I better just walk away.

But what would SoupCatcher have to sell and why would he suddenly turn used car salesman on us, after years of thoughtful analysis and inquiry on this board? Heya Soups, what gives?

And I don't like the way folk handled the news that the owner of building 7 demolished it himself. The general reaction was no reaction. Up to that point in the conversation folks were lumping it in with the main two towers and calling it good, pancake this, pancake that. Then it's revealed that building 7 actually was demolished. And without skipping a beat, the story changes to "Yeah, see the owner demolished it, no conspiracy, nya!" But at the very least it suggests that the official story is untrustworthy and unfounded.

But it begs the question which you naturally ask, "How'd he demolish the building in 45 minutes?" If demolishing a building is indeed the herculean effort that citizen says it is, how'd this guy pull it off in under an hour?

I'm seeing a lot of psychology at work here. For some reason, even entertaining the idea that there was more to it than just a coupla planes crashing into a coupla buildings, is really upsetting to folks--seems to shut 'em down a little. Ordinarily reasonable, measured thinkers on this board start arguing like they're at a high school forensic league match(by which I mean, agressively trying to discredit the oppositing argument rather than answer honest questions and exploring the implications).

You'll see the same thing with the stolen election--plenty of evidence that the voting machines could be hacked, plenty of evidence that they were indeed hacked, but the thought that the GOP would do such a thing is so unthinkable that otherwise sane and inquisitive people just stonewall.

My two cents on the matter: I used to believe in all manner of conspiracies until I realized that the idea of an organized, intentionally evil enemy was much easier for me to accept than the idea that it was all just a big mistake. For me it goes back to childhood: negative attention is better than no attention at all. It's easier for me to think my Dad hated me, than to think that my Dad was barely aware I was alive. It's easier to blame Bush and hate him, than to blame human frailty and fear.

And finally, as the last 5 miserable years have shown, the incompetence, shortsightedness, calousness and willingness to cover their own asses no matter what the cost to their integrity of the current admin. makes the case for gross neglegence on every side by far the most plausible to me right now. That's where I'd put my money.

P.S.: I know some folks, like Rue, for instance have been able to maintain their equilibrium around these issues. Just talking about a general tone of the thread that should be evident to anyone who reads the posts without bias.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE