QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 06:57 PM)
Quote;yesitdid
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
sheesh, the point is that Hoffman's energy deficit requires that we have an enormous amount of explosives loaded into the building. Either they were OR Hoffman's calculations are not correct and there is NOT the energy deficit he says there is.
Another problem with explosives is that there were explosive sniffing dogs in the buildings until soon before 9/11 leaving a small window of opportunity in which to install such devices, their ignitors and their control devices.
To get around this he at one time postulated a giant MASER that was used to input the required energy into the system. He has backed off from that. Well he should since using the technological equivalent to invoking magic is far from valid.
Others wish to invoke other exotics such as mini-nukes. Yet such a device has other problems since it cannot be shown that a fusion device that does not require a fission initiator exits and any fission device would require radioactive material that would leave a distinctive signature. It also cannot be shown that the shock wave from such a device could be placed in the towers such that it would cause the collapse in the fashion observed and again it begs the question of how it was installed undetected.
In short I am saying that I do not believe that Hoffman's approach is correct, period.
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
sheesh, the point is that Hoffman's energy deficit requires that we have an enormous amount of explosives loaded into the building. Either they were OR Hoffman's calculations are not correct and there is NOT the energy deficit he says there is.
Another problem with explosives is that there were explosive sniffing dogs in the buildings until soon before 9/11 leaving a small window of opportunity in which to install such devices, their ignitors and their control devices.
To get around this he at one time postulated a giant MASER that was used to input the required energy into the system. He has backed off from that. Well he should since using the technological equivalent to invoking magic is far from valid.
Others wish to invoke other exotics such as mini-nukes. Yet such a device has other problems since it cannot be shown that a fusion device that does not require a fission initiator exits and any fission device would require radioactive material that would leave a distinctive signature. It also cannot be shown that the shock wave from such a device could be placed in the towers such that it would cause the collapse in the fashion observed and again it begs the question of how it was installed undetected.
In short I am saying that I do not believe that Hoffman's approach is correct, period.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 30 2006, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 06:57 PM)
Quote;yesitdid
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
exactly.
lies always get tangled in their own web, as long as they 'keep talking', lol!
This is the stupidest contortion of of logic I've seen so far. He tells you an impossible ammount of exposives would have been needed to produce the effect you atribute to explosives yet you say he is unknowingly advocating explosives were used.
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
exactly.
lies always get tangled in their own web, as long as they 'keep talking', lol!
This is the stupidest contortion of of logic I've seen so far. He tells you an impossible ammount of exposives would have been needed to produce the effect you atribute to explosives yet you say he is unknowingly advocating explosives were used.
QUOTE (newton+Jan 30 2006, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 06:57 PM)
Quote;yesitdid
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
exactly.
lies always get tangled in their own web, as long as they 'keep talking', lol!
Yep, sure looks that way. Nice try at putting the burden of proof on yesitdid. The burden of proof is on you, to show that Hoffman's energy deficit has anything to do with reality. So far,
1. It requires 1000C temperatures that simply were not observed.
2. It requires an unbelievable amount of explosives.
So, because it requires an unbelievable amount of explosives to make up the deficit Hoffman claims, you now claim that yesitdid is lying for pointing that out? Good try. Eat any pretzels lately, sport?
Here's a straight-line conclusion: Hoffman's estimate of the energy needed to drive the clouds is off by one or more orders of magnitude (which for the brain-dead means he porked the pooch by ten times or more). This is supported by the two facts above, it's what yesitdid said, and it has nothing to do with what's gushing out either of your yobs.
Now, the paradox here is how you want to stick to the energy deficit, but don't want to discuss the amount of energy involved. This is lying, and nothing more or less. Stop.
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
exactly.
lies always get tangled in their own web, as long as they 'keep talking', lol!
Yep, sure looks that way. Nice try at putting the burden of proof on yesitdid. The burden of proof is on you, to show that Hoffman's energy deficit has anything to do with reality. So far,
1. It requires 1000C temperatures that simply were not observed.
2. It requires an unbelievable amount of explosives.
So, because it requires an unbelievable amount of explosives to make up the deficit Hoffman claims, you now claim that yesitdid is lying for pointing that out? Good try. Eat any pretzels lately, sport?
Here's a straight-line conclusion: Hoffman's estimate of the energy needed to drive the clouds is off by one or more orders of magnitude (which for the brain-dead means he porked the pooch by ten times or more). This is supported by the two facts above, it's what yesitdid said, and it has nothing to do with what's gushing out either of your yobs.
Now, the paradox here is how you want to stick to the energy deficit, but don't want to discuss the amount of energy involved. This is lying, and nothing more or less. Stop.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 01:53 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 30 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 29 2006, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 29 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 29 2006, 10:46 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 29 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 29 2006, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 29 2006, 05:42 AM)
Something not seen in any of the internet photos of 7 I've seen is the very large gouge on the south side. I'm not talking about the 18 story gouge in the south west corner. There is a much bigger gouge in the center of the south face of the building. Something like this but worse...
Its the Bankers Trust but so what.
Anyone YET explained how such a large section of the tower REACHED this building?
Is there an answer within the official tale?
Or is Foxx right again -
"Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that..."
When you can explain how a bomb pulls steel in toward it...
No need for me to explain -"how a bomb pulls steel in toward it..."
YOUR picture of the Bankers Trust building shows very clearly that the result was large sections of the steel ended up over 600 ft away.
How can this happen?
As Foxx says -
"Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that..."
Hi everyone!
I'm curious. Does anyone know from WHERE (which levels) of the tower those perimeter wall sections came? It looks like it struck the pictured building higher up and then 'cut' its way down (along with the debris it created higher up, of course). Or was there more/larger wall-section(s) involved which broke up or are out of picture?
That's it. Anyone?
Be back through here, later today. Cheers.
RC.
.
That gash doesn't go all the way up the building, RC.
Which brings up another question. How does a bomb eject debris farther and farther the lower in a building it goes..
Gotcha, understood Sensable. However, I should have made myself clearer about where the INCOMING debris-wall came FROM...was it walls from high in the TWIN TOWER ,or middle, or lower? I want to get a feel for whether that tower-perimeter-wall section came from the initial top-on-bottom 'crunch' and sudden compression-decompression 'burst' of glowing-hot material, gases and wall-segments; OR from lower-down SIDEWAYS blowouts (on the way down) OR when the EVEN-GREATER hot/burning rubble-mass AGAIN all came to a sudden compression-decompression 'crunching' STOP at ground level (I note that in some of the other images of the tower collapse rubble, some of the remains of the lowest perimeter-wall segments are leaning OUTWARDS as if they were 'blown' out by the final 'crunching burst' when the final compression heating/decompression happened at ground level).
If it was the 'lighter' wall segments that hit the above building, then they were flung out from the initial HOT-CRUNCH when the top collapsed (especially if the wall segments were PARTS of the TOP per se...because sudden pressure at the 'crunch' points would 'blow' these 'upwards and out' since THEY were 'covering' the crunching process at that early stage in the collapse).
And if they were 'intermediate-level' wall segments, they must have been flung out sideways by the explosive-compression/decompression pressure-waves from the intermediate collapse levels.
That's what I was trying to get a handle on, see?
RC.
.
Reality Check, what about this theory that answers some other anomolies?
IF the highjackers were Sufi muslims this would go some ways explain their drinking, strip clubbing and generally bizzare behaviour not fitting the picture of muslim extremists.
Sufis are also known as the Whirling Dervishes so if if they continued DERVISHLEY WHIRLING after the crash the CENTRIFUGAL FORCES coupled with your HOT CRUNCH would explain the large sections of steel being thrown 600ft or MORE.
AND, it could even explain the passport.
This physics lark is easy peasy.
Hehehe. Thanks for the humour with my morning cuppa, brian! Cheers!
Its the Bankers Trust but so what.
Anyone YET explained how such a large section of the tower REACHED this building?
Is there an answer within the official tale?
Or is Foxx right again -
"Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that..."
When you can explain how a bomb pulls steel in toward it...
No need for me to explain -"how a bomb pulls steel in toward it..."
YOUR picture of the Bankers Trust building shows very clearly that the result was large sections of the steel ended up over 600 ft away.
How can this happen?
As Foxx says -
"Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that..."
Hi everyone!
I'm curious. Does anyone know from WHERE (which levels) of the tower those perimeter wall sections came? It looks like it struck the pictured building higher up and then 'cut' its way down (along with the debris it created higher up, of course). Or was there more/larger wall-section(s) involved which broke up or are out of picture?
That's it. Anyone?
Be back through here, later today. Cheers.
RC.
.
That gash doesn't go all the way up the building, RC.
Which brings up another question. How does a bomb eject debris farther and farther the lower in a building it goes..
Gotcha, understood Sensable. However, I should have made myself clearer about where the INCOMING debris-wall came FROM...was it walls from high in the TWIN TOWER ,or middle, or lower? I want to get a feel for whether that tower-perimeter-wall section came from the initial top-on-bottom 'crunch' and sudden compression-decompression 'burst' of glowing-hot material, gases and wall-segments; OR from lower-down SIDEWAYS blowouts (on the way down) OR when the EVEN-GREATER hot/burning rubble-mass AGAIN all came to a sudden compression-decompression 'crunching' STOP at ground level (I note that in some of the other images of the tower collapse rubble, some of the remains of the lowest perimeter-wall segments are leaning OUTWARDS as if they were 'blown' out by the final 'crunching burst' when the final compression heating/decompression happened at ground level).
If it was the 'lighter' wall segments that hit the above building, then they were flung out from the initial HOT-CRUNCH when the top collapsed (especially if the wall segments were PARTS of the TOP per se...because sudden pressure at the 'crunch' points would 'blow' these 'upwards and out' since THEY were 'covering' the crunching process at that early stage in the collapse).
And if they were 'intermediate-level' wall segments, they must have been flung out sideways by the explosive-compression/decompression pressure-waves from the intermediate collapse levels.
That's what I was trying to get a handle on, see?
RC.
.
Reality Check, what about this theory that answers some other anomolies?
IF the highjackers were Sufi muslims this would go some ways explain their drinking, strip clubbing and generally bizzare behaviour not fitting the picture of muslim extremists.
Sufis are also known as the Whirling Dervishes so if if they continued DERVISHLEY WHIRLING after the crash the CENTRIFUGAL FORCES coupled with your HOT CRUNCH would explain the large sections of steel being thrown 600ft or MORE.
AND, it could even explain the passport.
This physics lark is easy peasy.
Hehehe. Thanks for the humour with my morning cuppa, brian! Cheers!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 30 2006, 06:59 PM)
I have no need to lie, the truth works just fine.
Watch.
The POINT of the previous post was that in JUNE 2001 the DOD rule was changed to put Rumsfeld as the pointman for any authorizations.
IE part of the CONSPIRACY.
The summary of changes however SHOW this is not so.
You also left out the EXCLUSION for DOD approval:
The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Thus the Otis fighters WERE scrambled without Rumsfeld even being aware of it.
But ALL OF THIS IS MOOT.
THEY DID NOT HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO SHOOT DOWN A CIVILIAN PLANE THAT MORNING.
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PENTAGON FLIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF LUCK OR A CRYSTAL BALL.
THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN FLIGHT 93 HAD IT NOT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE. THE REASON BEING IS THAT ATC HAD MOST OF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND BY THEN AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALONE IN THE SKY AS IT APPROACHED DC. STILL, GIVEN ITS SPEED AND LOW ALTITUDE IT HAD A DECENT CHANCE OF AVOIDING INTERCEPT.
Arthur
By your previous standards you are indeed a liar - if only by ommission.
What exactly is "authorized by reference d"?
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11..... During the hearing, a furious commissioner Bob Kerrey raised his voice and asked the FAA what the 'hell' had been going on."
13 Minutes: Fed's Stunning Hijack Blunder
New York Post, 18 June 2004
-----
"In [FAA] Headquarters, Air Traffic Services set up an additional situation room in the front office that was occupied by DOD [Department of Defense] liaison officers who worked on the Air Traffic Services Headquarters staff.... At the FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center, the military officers assigned to the Air Traffic Services Cell became immediately involved in coordinating FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center actions with military elements."
Jeff Griffith, FAA Deputy Director of Air Traffic on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Written Statement
----
"... at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.... They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military."
Ben Sliney, FAA Command Center’s National Operations Manager
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
-
No wonder the tapes were dismemberd and disposed of in diffferent locations eh?
Watch.
The POINT of the previous post was that in JUNE 2001 the DOD rule was changed to put Rumsfeld as the pointman for any authorizations.
IE part of the CONSPIRACY.
The summary of changes however SHOW this is not so.
You also left out the EXCLUSION for DOD approval:
The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Thus the Otis fighters WERE scrambled without Rumsfeld even being aware of it.
But ALL OF THIS IS MOOT.
THEY DID NOT HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO SHOOT DOWN A CIVILIAN PLANE THAT MORNING.
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PENTAGON FLIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF LUCK OR A CRYSTAL BALL.
THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN FLIGHT 93 HAD IT NOT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE. THE REASON BEING IS THAT ATC HAD MOST OF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND BY THEN AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALONE IN THE SKY AS IT APPROACHED DC. STILL, GIVEN ITS SPEED AND LOW ALTITUDE IT HAD A DECENT CHANCE OF AVOIDING INTERCEPT.
Arthur
By your previous standards you are indeed a liar - if only by ommission.
What exactly is "authorized by reference d"?
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11..... During the hearing, a furious commissioner Bob Kerrey raised his voice and asked the FAA what the 'hell' had been going on."
13 Minutes: Fed's Stunning Hijack Blunder
New York Post, 18 June 2004
-----
"In [FAA] Headquarters, Air Traffic Services set up an additional situation room in the front office that was occupied by DOD [Department of Defense] liaison officers who worked on the Air Traffic Services Headquarters staff.... At the FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center, the military officers assigned to the Air Traffic Services Cell became immediately involved in coordinating FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center actions with military elements."
Jeff Griffith, FAA Deputy Director of Air Traffic on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Written Statement
----
"... at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.... They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military."
Ben Sliney, FAA Command Center’s National Operations Manager
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
-
No wonder the tapes were dismemberd and disposed of in diffferent locations eh?
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 30 2006, 06:59 PM)
I have no need to lie, the truth works just fine.
Watch.
The POINT of the previous post was that in JUNE 2001 the DOD rule was changed to put Rumsfeld as the pointman for any authorizations.
IE part of the CONSPIRACY.
The summary of changes however SHOW this is not so.
You also left out the EXCLUSION for DOD approval:
The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Thus the Otis fighters WERE scrambled without Rumsfeld even being aware of it.
But ALL OF THIS IS MOOT.
THEY DID NOT HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO SHOOT DOWN A CIVILIAN PLANE THAT MORNING.
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PENTAGON FLIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF LUCK OR A CRYSTAL BALL.
THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN FLIGHT 93 HAD IT NOT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE. THE REASON BEING IS THAT ATC HAD MOST OF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND BY THEN AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALONE IN THE SKY AS IT APPROACHED DC. STILL, GIVEN ITS SPEED AND LOW ALTITUDE IT HAD A DECENT CHANCE OF AVOIDING INTERCEPT.
Arthur
By your previous standards you are indeed a liar - if only by ommission.
What exactly is "authorized by reference d"?
Sorry, didn't realize you were so "challenged".
From the original
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”
Google Search
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...97/d302515p.pdf
4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following
ways:
4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.
All better now?
The point was no one waited for Rumsfelds approval to Scramble that morning.
So what?
They didn't have authorization to shoot anyone down, and there is NO WAY they could have got the first jet and only with 20/20 hindsight could things have happened fast enough and with deliberate intent to get the second jet. So trying so say there was a "Stand down" or that Rumsfeld prevented the shoot down of these jets is a LIE.
Arthur
Watch.
The POINT of the previous post was that in JUNE 2001 the DOD rule was changed to put Rumsfeld as the pointman for any authorizations.
IE part of the CONSPIRACY.
The summary of changes however SHOW this is not so.
You also left out the EXCLUSION for DOD approval:
The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
Thus the Otis fighters WERE scrambled without Rumsfeld even being aware of it.
But ALL OF THIS IS MOOT.
THEY DID NOT HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO SHOOT DOWN A CIVILIAN PLANE THAT MORNING.
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
THEY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PENTAGON FLIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF LUCK OR A CRYSTAL BALL.
THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN FLIGHT 93 HAD IT NOT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE. THE REASON BEING IS THAT ATC HAD MOST OF THE OTHER AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND BY THEN AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALONE IN THE SKY AS IT APPROACHED DC. STILL, GIVEN ITS SPEED AND LOW ALTITUDE IT HAD A DECENT CHANCE OF AVOIDING INTERCEPT.
Arthur
By your previous standards you are indeed a liar - if only by ommission.
What exactly is "authorized by reference d"?
Sorry, didn't realize you were so "challenged".
From the original
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”
Google Search
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...97/d302515p.pdf
4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following
ways:
4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.
All better now?
The point was no one waited for Rumsfelds approval to Scramble that morning.
So what?
They didn't have authorization to shoot anyone down, and there is NO WAY they could have got the first jet and only with 20/20 hindsight could things have happened fast enough and with deliberate intent to get the second jet. So trying so say there was a "Stand down" or that Rumsfeld prevented the shoot down of these jets is a LIE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
No one can put something on my website except me, Schneiby...(well... except some clever hacker, I suppose).
Uh huh.
You have made a commitment to remove any picture that is my copyright. Well, it's still there. As I have repeatedly said, you are a liar; your word is worth squat. Prove me wrong. Remove it. See the link below.
You have made a commitment to remove any picture that is my copyright. Well, it's still there. As I have repeatedly said, you are a liar; your word is worth squat. Prove me wrong. Remove it. See the link below.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I don't have time for your bs
Did you actually READ the user agreement when you established that oceanmirage site? Like I said last night, I hope it doesn't affect your business site.
As far as it being "bs," see the link below. I notice you keep putting it up and taking it down off the frontpage for oceanmirage. Which is very cute, but not just a really great idea considering you have a post on this thread that links to the image. I'm betting the admins of this board gave you a warning, and told you if you violated it again you were gone. I'm betting if I send them a link to that post, you're done. You wanna find out? Keep screwing around with me. But that's not even my last move.
As far as it being "bs," see the link below. I notice you keep putting it up and taking it down off the frontpage for oceanmirage. Which is very cute, but not just a really great idea considering you have a post on this thread that links to the image. I'm betting the admins of this board gave you a warning, and told you if you violated it again you were gone. I'm betting if I send them a link to that post, you're done. You wanna find out? Keep screwing around with me. But that's not even my last move.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I have no idea what photo you are referring to, and I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats.
We'll see how concerned homestead is with their copyright policy. Most providers don't screw around about copyrighted material violations.
And then there's the fact that you've lied so far SIX TIMES in this post. Maybe you couldn't get any more lies in because you were in such a hurry?
Lets detail them:
1. "No one can put anything on my site except me" Lie, if the provider does nightly backup-and-restore, and you make a change while the verify stage of the backup is in progress, then your change will be wiped out by the restore. I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was what had happened. That is an act of good faith on my part, which you have spurned with a lie.
2. "I don't have time for your bs" Lie, it's not BS, the link is right there.
3. "I have no idea what photo you are referring to" Lie, your website provider has already contacted you about it and you linked to it in a previous post.
4. "I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats" Lie, or if it's not, you're pretty stupid, because they aren't mock threats, and if you piss me off enough you could have trouble getting on the 'Net, lose your web site provider, and lose your posting privileges here.
5. "puppets lined up on the bed" Lie, they're stuffed animals.
6. "I have no problem in removing it" Lie, it's still there.
Here it is.. You better fix that, Foxx.
And then there's the fact that you've lied so far SIX TIMES in this post. Maybe you couldn't get any more lies in because you were in such a hurry?
Lets detail them:
1. "No one can put anything on my site except me" Lie, if the provider does nightly backup-and-restore, and you make a change while the verify stage of the backup is in progress, then your change will be wiped out by the restore. I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was what had happened. That is an act of good faith on my part, which you have spurned with a lie.
2. "I don't have time for your bs" Lie, it's not BS, the link is right there.
3. "I have no idea what photo you are referring to" Lie, your website provider has already contacted you about it and you linked to it in a previous post.
4. "I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats" Lie, or if it's not, you're pretty stupid, because they aren't mock threats, and if you piss me off enough you could have trouble getting on the 'Net, lose your web site provider, and lose your posting privileges here.
5. "puppets lined up on the bed" Lie, they're stuffed animals.
6. "I have no problem in removing it" Lie, it's still there.
Here it is.. You better fix that, Foxx.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
However, as I said, if you are claiming a copyright to any image on my site, give me the properties of that image, and I have no problem in removing it.
There it is, it's a link, Foxx, or do you still not know how to follow a link? NOW we find out whether Foxx is a liar or has integrity. Remove it, Foxx. Now. I'm gonna give you until tonight, and if it's still there, homestead starts getting some more email traffic from me. I'm sure they're already not very happy, and they're going to be unhappier yet if you keep messing with me.
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11.....
Talk about taking things out of context.
Which, when done KNOWINGLY is a LIE.
I assume you are aware of the CONTEXT.
But if not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun17_3.html
THOMPSON: This is a question for everyone on the panel to the extent they can answer it.
If everything had gone perfectly on the morning of September 11th, if all the information from the controllers -- and I assume you now accept the staff statement of the timeline of all of these things as correct.
THOMPSON: Let's start from that premise.
If everything had gone perfectly, if all the information that the controllers had had gone smoothly to FAA command centers, if all the information the FAA command centers had gone smoothly to the military, the vice president's authorization to shoot down intruding aircraft had been communicated to the pilots, would it have been physically possible for the military pilots to have shot down the airplane that hit the first tower, the airplane that hit the second tower, and the airplane that hit the Pentagon?
Assuming everything had gone perfectly, everybody was perfectly prepared, focused inward, scrambled, armed, all the authorization there, all the information there, would it have been physically possible for the military to have intercepted those three aircraft before they completed their terrible mission?
EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation that you've outlined, which we think is a situation that exists today, because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.
So the question is asked if it had all gone perfectly that day could they have shot down the planes, but that is NOT the question that Eberhart answers.
No, he says TODAY, because of the FIXES, the REMEDIES put in place (since 9/11) we would be able to shoot down the aircraft.
He NEVER answers the actual question, if it had all gone perfectly on 9/11 could we have shot down the planes?
But its clear, the answer is even if things had gone perfectly the answer is NO, because the order from the VP was not issued until after the second plane had hit.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The 'puppets lined up on the bed' photo was removed
Foxx has not had much to do with women, so he doesn't know that some women like to have stuffed animals. My wife has a collection of them. She keeps them on top of the headboard. She is by no means the only woman I know of who does so; the fact that you have never seen a woman collect stuffed animals is probably a clue to things about you that I really have no interest in knowing. The fact that you don't know the difference between a stuffed animal and a puppet says some pretty disturbing things about the nature of your childhood. I REALLY don't want to know about that.
Given the number of lies you managed to pack into a single post, and the squirming you are doing here, I'm guessing that you were previously insincere. Considering the insult to my wife implicit in your discussion about her stuffed animals above, I think the case on that is closed.
You have screwed up AGAIN, lied AGAIN (not once but six times in a single post) and having fixed it so your cable modem doesn't connect to my system any more, and being in the process of making your web site provider aware that you're violating their copyright policy, my next move will be toward your cable provider, and I will claim harassment and give segments of this thread and my server logs to prove it. I have firewall logs, Foxx, and web server logs, and I've already saved the needed portions of this thread (despite them being deleted by the site). They're all I need. I'd suggest you make sure your crap isn't touching my site. Your last attempted access was at 8:28:51 last night. I'd make it the last EVER if I were you.
Given the number of lies you managed to pack into a single post, and the squirming you are doing here, I'm guessing that you were previously insincere. Considering the insult to my wife implicit in your discussion about her stuffed animals above, I think the case on that is closed.
You have screwed up AGAIN, lied AGAIN (not once but six times in a single post) and having fixed it so your cable modem doesn't connect to my system any more, and being in the process of making your web site provider aware that you're violating their copyright policy, my next move will be toward your cable provider, and I will claim harassment and give segments of this thread and my server logs to prove it. I have firewall logs, Foxx, and web server logs, and I've already saved the needed portions of this thread (despite them being deleted by the site). They're all I need. I'd suggest you make sure your crap isn't touching my site. Your last attempted access was at 8:28:51 last night. I'd make it the last EVER if I were you.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 04:49 PM)
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11.....
Talk about taking things out of context.
Which, when done KNOWINGLY is a LIE.
I assume you are aware of the CONTEXT.
But if not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun17_3.html
THOMPSON: This is a question for everyone on the panel to the extent they can answer it.
If everything had gone perfectly on the morning of September 11th, if all the information from the controllers -- and I assume you now accept the staff statement of the timeline of all of these things as correct.
THOMPSON: Let's start from that premise.
If everything had gone perfectly, if all the information that the controllers had had gone smoothly to FAA command centers, if all the information the FAA command centers had gone smoothly to the military, the vice president's authorization to shoot down intruding aircraft had been communicated to the pilots, would it have been physically possible for the military pilots to have shot down the airplane that hit the first tower, the airplane that hit the second tower, and the airplane that hit the Pentagon?
Assuming everything had gone perfectly, everybody was perfectly prepared, focused inward, scrambled, armed, all the authorization there, all the information there, would it have been physically possible for the military to have intercepted those three aircraft before they completed their terrible mission?
EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation that you've outlined, which we think is a situation that exists today, because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.
So the question is asked if it had all gone perfectly that day could they have shot down the planes, but that is NOT the question that Eberhart answers.
No, he says TODAY, because of the FIXES, the REMEDIES put in place (since 9/11) we would be able to shoot down the aircraft.
He NEVER answers the actual question, if it had all gone perfectly on 9/11 could we have shot down the planes?
But its clear, the answer is even if things had gone perfectly the answer is NO, because the order from the VP was not issued until after the second plane had hit.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 30 2006, 11:39 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 06:57 PM)
Quote;yesitdid
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
sheesh, the point is that Hoffman's energy deficit requires that we have an enormous amount of explosives loaded into the building. Either they were OR Hoffman's calculations are not correct and there is NOT the energy deficit he says there is.
Another problem with explosives is that there were explosive sniffing dogs in the buildings until soon before 9/11 leaving a small window of opportunity in which to install such devices, their ignitors and their control devices.
To get around this he at one time postulated a giant MASER that was used to input the required energy into the system. He has backed off from that. Well he should since using the technological equivalent to invoking magic is far from valid.
Others wish to invoke other exotics such as mini-nukes. Yet such a device has other problems since it cannot be shown that a fusion device that does not require a fission initiator exits and any fission device would require radioactive material that would leave a distinctive signature. It also cannot be shown that the shock wave from such a device could be placed in the towers such that it would cause the collapse in the fashion observed and again it begs the question of how it was installed undetected.
In short I am saying that I do not believe that Hoffman's approach is correct, period.
You are being evasive on this issue. Although your statement is indeed applicable to post collapse, conservation of energy issues, those that share your overall views, discredit CD on the grounds of logistical infeasibility.
Arthur believes this as well and he has commented many, many times about the difficulty of bringing that much ordinance into the building to initiate a CD.
You are in agreement with arthur. Right?
My point is the dilemma implied in this dialog:
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
Wouldn't the logical extension be:
If the building can collapse by gravity alone, then only a limited application of assistance, for insurance purposes only, would be required.
Caveat: Until the evidence persuades me otherwise, I'm still holding on to a MIL-HOP view. I therefore assume that an extensive structural analysis, using the original blue prints, was completed long before 911. They looked for and found the "Achilles heel". The rest is a pyroclasticly, clouded history.
90% of those are CT sites are lying about what they heard. In one quote they say a fireman heard "Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom" suggesting bombs going off but if you SEE the fireman saying what he saw, you see him using his hands with each "Boom" as in heaing the pancaking of floors.
Many people say the sound of a tornado is like a train running through their living room. Using CT logic that means an actual train ran through ther living room...
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." -- paramedic Daniel Rivera
“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” -- Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11.....
Talk about taking things out of context.
Which, when done KNOWINGLY is a LIE.
I assume you are aware of the CONTEXT.
But if not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun17_3.html
THOMPSON: This is a question for everyone on the panel to the extent they can answer it.
If everything had gone perfectly on the morning of September 11th, if all the information from the controllers -- and I assume you now accept the staff statement of the timeline of all of these things as correct.
THOMPSON: Let's start from that premise.
If everything had gone perfectly, if all the information that the controllers had had gone smoothly to FAA command centers, if all the information the FAA command centers had gone smoothly to the military, the vice president's authorization to shoot down intruding aircraft had been communicated to the pilots, would it have been physically possible for the military pilots to have shot down the airplane that hit the first tower, the airplane that hit the second tower, and the airplane that hit the Pentagon?
Assuming everything had gone perfectly, everybody was perfectly prepared, focused inward, scrambled, armed, all the authorization there, all the information there, would it have been physically possible for the military to have intercepted those three aircraft before they completed their terrible mission?
EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation that you've outlined, which we think is a situation that exists today, because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.
So the question is asked if it had all gone perfectly that day could they have shot down the planes, but that is NOT the question that Eberhart answers.
No, he says TODAY, because of the FIXES, the REMEDIES put in place (since 9/11) we would be able to shoot down the aircraft.
He NEVER answers the actual question, if it had all gone perfectly on 9/11 could we have shot down the planes?
But its clear, the answer is even if things had gone perfectly the answer is NO, because the order from the VP was not issued until after the second plane had hit.
Arthur
Further lies by ommission Arthur - tut tut its becoming serial.
Why leave out
"In [FAA] Headquarters, Air Traffic Services set up an additional situation room in the front office that was occupied by DOD [Department of Defense] liaison officers who worked on the Air Traffic Services Headquarters staff.... At the FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center, the military officers assigned to the Air Traffic Services Cell became immediately involved in coordinating FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center actions with military elements."
Jeff Griffith, FAA Deputy Director of Air Traffic on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Written Statement
----
"... at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.... They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military."
Ben Sliney, FAA Command Center’s National Operations Manager
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
-
No wonder the tapes were dismemberd and disposed of in diffferent locations eh?
-----
Was it because it does not sit well with your and Erbhart's obfuscations?
There was no need for fixes or remedies, the protocols were well established and followed, they were just not acted upon. This inaction allowed supposed highjacked planes to wander US skies with impunity.
Who then goes onto state that it was probably electrical sparking.
Who then goes onto state that it was probably electrical sparking.
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
Many witnesses state that it was a staccato sound which is consistent with a pancaking event.
This accurately describes what one would see as the initial collapse started. Once again I ask, just what would this sound like? Certainly not a whine or poof. NO, it would sound like a boom as the top section hit the next lower floor.
This accurately describes what one would see as the initial collapse started. Once again I ask, just what would this sound like? Certainly not a whine or poof. NO, it would sound like a boom as the top section hit the next lower floor.
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
As I explained before there were multiple paths by which some would hear the sound of the initial collapse, direct through the air, via the building steel to ground and echos from the surrounding buildings.
In other words they did not even look up at the first sounds but when they did the tower was already coming down.
In other words they did not even look up at the first sounds but when they did the tower was already coming down.
"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." -- paramedic Daniel Rivera
See above.......
See the first of the above quotes since this is the same guy.
See the first of the above quotes since this is the same guy.
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
,,, and Cpt. Deshore is again describing what one would see as the building shook itself violently as the collapse ensued breaking lights and causing electrical arcing..
Close to the building this is what people said. With the dust and debris they simply could not see the top section moving.
You leave out the firemen who say that there was flashing as the windows broke out and the sun was reflected off the falling glass. Sorry no link, I saw a fireman say this in an interview on TV.
Well, it's obvious that you don't have a website or know how web-addresses work.
It has nothing to do with 'servers'.
The 'webmaster' (owner/originator) of a website makes his own specific 'address'... let's say... http://YID.com
That is the home address of the particular website. The 'owner/originator' then decides to add further 'pages' to the website... on different areas or topics...let's say a page on flying saucers. The page is then registered on the web as...
http://YID.com/flying saucers.
add a page on kangaroos and it becomes...
http://YID.com/kangaroos
NO ONE Else can make up a web-address "http://YID.com/ flying saucers" because the first address after the "http://" is registered to ONE person, and no one else can duplicate that initial address... (YID.com)
Again I say... there does not appear to me to be anything 'fishy' about the video.
I think it is excellent and shows graphically evidence of 'Controlled Demo'...
but... There IS something VERY FISHY about the address where this video originates from.
IF the Urology website owner has copied the video from another source... where did it come from?
Again... I suspect this is from the NIST 'secret' (unpublished) files.
If so... I'd really like to see ALL they have. The one video shown is definitely an excellent one.
"website' then Foxx instead of "server"
The fact that the video was on a page of the website of a urology practice is no more suspicious than having photos of 9/11 on the website of a company that builds watercraft.
The idea that I am giving out personal information about you is laughable given the number of times YOU, yourself, Foxx, have shown links to those sites and stated that it is what you do for a living. The self-serving umbrage is hypocritical nonsense and you (should) know it.
oh, and the YID.com ,,,, very nice but no thanks , I am happily married to a shiksa(SP?)
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You realize the paradoxical nature of your statement, don't you?
The buildings fell down with out the assistance of any explosives. If however, explosives are considered, then the entire contents of several warehouses would be required.
Joe can walk 5 miles in one hour. If he runs, he can do it in five days?????????????????
That is the equivalent of what you are saying.
sheesh, the point is that Hoffman's energy deficit requires that we have an enormous amount of explosives loaded into the building. Either they were OR Hoffman's calculations are not correct and there is NOT the energy deficit he says there is.
Another problem with explosives is that there were explosive sniffing dogs in the buildings until soon before 9/11 leaving a small window of opportunity in which to install such devices, their ignitors and their control devices.
To get around this he at one time postulated a giant MASER that was used to input the required energy into the system. He has backed off from that. Well he should since using the technological equivalent to invoking magic is far from valid.
Others wish to invoke other exotics such as mini-nukes. Yet such a device has other problems since it cannot be shown that a fusion device that does not require a fission initiator exits and any fission device would require radioactive material that would leave a distinctive signature. It also cannot be shown that the shock wave from such a device could be placed in the towers such that it would cause the collapse in the fashion observed and again it begs the question of how it was installed undetected.
In short I am saying that I do not believe that Hoffman's approach is correct, period.
You are being evasive on this issue. Although your statement is indeed applicable to post collapse, conservation of energy issues, those that share your overall views, discredit CD on the grounds of logistical infeasibility.
Arthur believes this as well and he has commented many, many times about the difficulty of bringing that much ordinance into the building to initiate a CD.
You are in agreement with arthur. Right?
My point is the dilemma implied in this dialog:
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
Wouldn't the logical extension be:
If the building can collapse by gravity alone, then only a limited application of assistance, for insurance purposes only, would be required.
Caveat: Until the evidence persuades me otherwise, I'm still holding on to a MIL-HOP view. I therefore assume that an extensive structural analysis, using the original blue prints, was completed long before 911. They looked for and found the "Achilles heel". The rest is a pyroclasticly, clouded history.
QUOTE (Sensable+)
90% of those are CT sites are lying about what they heard. In one quote they say a fireman heard "Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom" suggesting bombs going off but if you SEE the fireman saying what he saw, you see him using his hands with each "Boom" as in heaing the pancaking of floors.
Many people say the sound of a tornado is like a train running through their living room. Using CT logic that means an actual train ran through ther living room...
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." -- paramedic Daniel Rivera
“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” -- Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 30 2006, 09:26 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 04:49 PM)
The rest of your waffle is at odds with Gen. Ralph Eberhart
Who Hijacked The Protocols On 911?
"Air Force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring toward the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11....
The never-heard-before declaration by Gen. Ralph Eberhart [Commander of NORAD on 911] stunned the hearings on the terror attacks..... 'If the FAA told us as soon as they knew, then, yes, we could have shot down the planes,' said Eberhart......'We would have been able to shoot down all three . . . all four of them,' said Eberhart, who was named commander of NORAD after Sept. 11.....
Talk about taking things out of context.
Which, when done KNOWINGLY is a LIE.
I assume you are aware of the CONTEXT.
But if not:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004Jun17_3.html
THOMPSON: This is a question for everyone on the panel to the extent they can answer it.
If everything had gone perfectly on the morning of September 11th, if all the information from the controllers -- and I assume you now accept the staff statement of the timeline of all of these things as correct.
THOMPSON: Let's start from that premise.
If everything had gone perfectly, if all the information that the controllers had had gone smoothly to FAA command centers, if all the information the FAA command centers had gone smoothly to the military, the vice president's authorization to shoot down intruding aircraft had been communicated to the pilots, would it have been physically possible for the military pilots to have shot down the airplane that hit the first tower, the airplane that hit the second tower, and the airplane that hit the Pentagon?
Assuming everything had gone perfectly, everybody was perfectly prepared, focused inward, scrambled, armed, all the authorization there, all the information there, would it have been physically possible for the military to have intercepted those three aircraft before they completed their terrible mission?
EBERHART: Sir, our modeling, which we've shared with the staff, reflects that giving the situation that you've outlined, which we think is a situation that exists today, because of the fixes, the remedies put in place, we would be able to shoot down all three aircraft -- all four aircraft.
So the question is asked if it had all gone perfectly that day could they have shot down the planes, but that is NOT the question that Eberhart answers.
No, he says TODAY, because of the FIXES, the REMEDIES put in place (since 9/11) we would be able to shoot down the aircraft.
He NEVER answers the actual question, if it had all gone perfectly on 9/11 could we have shot down the planes?
But its clear, the answer is even if things had gone perfectly the answer is NO, because the order from the VP was not issued until after the second plane had hit.
Arthur
Further lies by ommission Arthur - tut tut its becoming serial.
Why leave out
"In [FAA] Headquarters, Air Traffic Services set up an additional situation room in the front office that was occupied by DOD [Department of Defense] liaison officers who worked on the Air Traffic Services Headquarters staff.... At the FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center, the military officers assigned to the Air Traffic Services Cell became immediately involved in coordinating FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center actions with military elements."
Jeff Griffith, FAA Deputy Director of Air Traffic on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Written Statement
----
"... at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.... They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military."
Ben Sliney, FAA Command Center’s National Operations Manager
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
-
No wonder the tapes were dismemberd and disposed of in diffferent locations eh?
-----
Was it because it does not sit well with your and Erbhart's obfuscations?
There was no need for fixes or remedies, the protocols were well established and followed, they were just not acted upon. This inaction allowed supposed highjacked planes to wander US skies with impunity.
rawfoodman,
I found my mistake and modified my post.
There is however another problem with your calcs.
You have the building pancakeing from the top.
The collapse started much lower down. For instance if the top 20 stories fell as a block onto the 21st from the top then the reduction in velocity would be 1/20 th of the free fall velocity for that first drop. You can go from there to the bottom and then calc the time for the upper 20 floor section to free fall from that time over a distance of 12 X 20 =240 feet(the initial velocity of which would be the final velocity of the pancaking sections.)
So redo the calcs for a distance of 90 floors and get a final velocity for that then it is free fall for another 240 feet with an initial velocity equal to the final velocity of the 90 floor drop.
I found my mistake and modified my post.
There is however another problem with your calcs.
You have the building pancakeing from the top.
The collapse started much lower down. For instance if the top 20 stories fell as a block onto the 21st from the top then the reduction in velocity would be 1/20 th of the free fall velocity for that first drop. You can go from there to the bottom and then calc the time for the upper 20 floor section to free fall from that time over a distance of 12 X 20 =240 feet(the initial velocity of which would be the final velocity of the pancaking sections.)
So redo the calcs for a distance of 90 floors and get a final velocity for that then it is free fall for another 240 feet with an initial velocity equal to the final velocity of the 90 floor drop.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 06:57 PM)
My point is the dilemma implied in this dialog:
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
So, you're claiming a SMALL amount of explosives was used? OK, then where did all the energy to drive the pyroclastic clouds come from?
All going perfectly to plan -
"Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC.... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on."
Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
"Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC.... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on."
Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 10:32 PM)
All going perfectly to plan -
And this proves that they had authority to shoot the planes down because... ?
And the fact that Cheney had to GIVE AN ORDER to shoot shows that they already had that authority because... ?
And this proves that they had authority to shoot the planes down because... ?
And the fact that Cheney had to GIVE AN ORDER to shoot shows that they already had that authority because... ?
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 30 2006, 05:51 PM)
My point is the dilemma implied in this dialog:
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
Wouldn't the logical extension be:
If the building can collapse by gravity alone, then only a limited application of assistance, for insurance purposes only, would be required.
But what you are missing is the buildings were TOAST.
They would never be re-occupied even if they didn't collapse.
At MINIMUM there was going to be a partial collapse, everyone can see that the towers both fail at point of impact, there was no way to fight the fires they would have consumed most of the buildings, eventally it would have looked like the Madrid towers.
Gordon and some others claim it shouldn't have progressed to a Global collapse.
BUT
Following a partial collapse and fires that burn until they run out of fuel, they would have had to bring the towers down anyway.
They were beyond salvaging.
The loss of life would have been a bit less, maybe 300 or so, but still well over 2,000.
Thus the placing of explosives is ALL DOWNSIDE RISK.
Chance of exposure, chance that one of the hijacked planes would crash, chance that one of the explosives would not go off and be found. Chance that clear evidence of an explosion would be captured on film or be deduced from the wreckage.
Like I said, all downside risks.
No upside.
Arthur
The buildings can collapse without explosives, but if they were were used, the deployment logistics would be so overwhelmingly extensive, that it could not be accomplished with out detection.
Wouldn't the logical extension be:
If the building can collapse by gravity alone, then only a limited application of assistance, for insurance purposes only, would be required.
But what you are missing is the buildings were TOAST.
They would never be re-occupied even if they didn't collapse.
At MINIMUM there was going to be a partial collapse, everyone can see that the towers both fail at point of impact, there was no way to fight the fires they would have consumed most of the buildings, eventally it would have looked like the Madrid towers.
Gordon and some others claim it shouldn't have progressed to a Global collapse.
BUT
Following a partial collapse and fires that burn until they run out of fuel, they would have had to bring the towers down anyway.
They were beyond salvaging.
The loss of life would have been a bit less, maybe 300 or so, but still well over 2,000.
Thus the placing of explosives is ALL DOWNSIDE RISK.
Chance of exposure, chance that one of the hijacked planes would crash, chance that one of the explosives would not go off and be found. Chance that clear evidence of an explosion would be captured on film or be deduced from the wreckage.
Like I said, all downside risks.
No upside.
Arthur
QUOTE
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Who then goes onto state that it was probably electrical sparking.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory |
Who then goes onto state that it was probably electrical sparking.
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
Many witnesses state that it was a staccato sound which is consistent with a pancaking event.
QUOTE
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
This accurately describes what one would see as the initial collapse started. Once again I ask, just what would this sound like? Certainly not a whine or poof. NO, it would sound like a boom as the top section hit the next lower floor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers |
This accurately describes what one would see as the initial collapse started. Once again I ask, just what would this sound like? Certainly not a whine or poof. NO, it would sound like a boom as the top section hit the next lower floor.
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
As I explained before there were multiple paths by which some would hear the sound of the initial collapse, direct through the air, via the building steel to ground and echos from the surrounding buildings.
QUOTE
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
In other words they did not even look up at the first sounds but when they did the tower was already coming down.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen |
In other words they did not even look up at the first sounds but when they did the tower was already coming down.
"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? That's exactly what--because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." -- paramedic Daniel Rivera
See above.......
QUOTE
“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” -- Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
See the first of the above quotes since this is the same guy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.” -- Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory |
See the first of the above quotes since this is the same guy.
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
,,, and Cpt. Deshore is again describing what one would see as the building shook itself violently as the collapse ensued breaking lights and causing electrical arcing..
QUOTE
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
Close to the building this is what people said. With the dust and debris they simply could not see the top section moving.
You leave out the firemen who say that there was flashing as the windows broke out and the sun was reflected off the falling glass. Sorry no link, I saw a fireman say this in an interview on TV.
Here we are
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 06:32 PM)
All going perfectly to plan -
"Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC.... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on."
Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
Helps to NOT take this stuff out of CONTEXT.
The question was about FLIGHT 93, the one that crashed in Penn.
It also helps to know that the most recent hijacking had been 8 years before.
MR. BELGER: The short answer is no. You are right that prior to 9/11 the protocol was get the airplane on the ground and start a negotiation with the hijacker -- make sure the airplane is on the ground safely and start a negotiation process. That worked throughout the years prior to 9/11.
I'm not aware of any particular scenarios or exercise that we went through to test that protocol against the type of intelligence that you talked about which, quite frankly as I said before, wasn't getting to the FAA.
MS. GORELICK: So, one can note that that protocol was changed by the passengers and the crew of United 93. They threw that protocol out the window in real time.
MR. BELGER: Yes.
MS. GORELICK: Our Staff Statement reflects a very long, 39- minute gap in between when the FAA became aware of the United 93 as a hijacking and when the military was notified at 10:07, which was of course after they impact into the Pentagon. And I want to give you all an opportunity to explain why that occurred -- I'm sorry, not impacted the Pentagon --
MR. BELGER: Well --
MS. GORELICK: -- impact into the ground in Pennsylvania.
MR. BELGER: Right. The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC. That's still frustrating for me to understand how that -- I know how it's supposed to work, but I have to tell you it's still a little frustrating for me to understand how it actually did work on that day. It is clear I think in the record that at 9:20 the FAA operations center did call the National Military Command Center and add them into the hijacking net. The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time. That's the purpose of the hijack net. There are other nets off of that, which some are classified and some are real technical command type of discussions. But the fundamental primary source of information between the FAA, DOD, FBI, Secret Service, and which every other agencies -- the airlines would probably be on that net -- is the FAA hijack net. That was activated with the NMCC at 9:20. It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time.
MS. GORELICK: Did you do anything to ensure that your assumption, a costly one, was correct?
MR. BELGER: No. I did as I was -- I was real busy that morning. I did not ask specifically is the NMCC on. And I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else.
MS. GORELICK: At some point, however, in the course of that call you became aware that the military was not involved in any meaningful way. Is that correct? We heard some rather colorful language came from your mouth at that point.
MR. BELGER: I don't doubt that. Yeah, I mean later in the morning, as I had time to not just react to everything and think, I believe I did ask, you know, Are they on? -- and make sure.
MS. GORELICK: And when you found out that they weren't?
MR. BELGER: No, I wasn't very happy.
MS. GORELICK: I guess I'll leave this to my colleague, Senator Gorton.
MR. KEAN: Senator Gorton?
MR. GORTON: Mr. Belger, I want to go back to one of Commissioner Gorelick's subjects. You very clearly describe the protocol with respect to hijacking that was in effect on 9/11. But we have a rather troubling note from the staff that I will share with you and ask you to comment on. Most managers at FAA headquarters have little or no recollection of the protocols in place on 9/11 with respect to their roles and responsibilities on a hijacking. With the exception of a few individuals from the Security Division, there appear to be little or no training at FAA headquarters or Command Center regarding hijacking procedures. Indeed, when asked to identify who the hijack coordinator was on 9/11, it was difficult to find two witnesses who identified the same individual. At the Command Center, no one could remember any training or exercises regarding the role that the center would play in a hijacking. Is that a fair statement?
MR. BELGER: Well, from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario. I think Mr. Griffith was the senior air traffic person in the headquarters. He probably has more direct knowledge of what the air traffic people knew than I did, and maybe he could answer that.
MR. GORTON: Fine.
MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you. As Mr. Belger stated, from my point of view I'm absolutely sure that our field managers know -- knew on 9/11 what to do in the event of a hijacking. The procedures are very cleared. The procedures are trained as a matter of refresher training in our operational facilities every year, and it surprises me to hear that someone would think that our field managers would not know what to do in the event of a hijacking. There are protocols, there are check lists, there are folders that are kept in operational positions where people have responsibility for reporting. And through the years -- not only for hijackings, but aircraft accidents and other incidents -- reporting is a very high priority. So it surprises me that people would think our managers didn't know how to report.
MR. GORTON:Well, Mr. Sliney, you were at the Command Center. As a matter of fact, you were in your job -- it was your first day on this particular job. In your statement, "At the Command Center no one could remember any training or exercises regarding the role the Command Center would play in a hijacking" -- correct?
MR. SLINEY: I don't believe it's correct, no. I believe that the FAA or the Command Center personnel understood that the protocol was in place that the center that reported the hijacking would notify the military. And I believe we have already outlined -- or Mr. Belger has already outlined that the usual practices of handling hijacks -- I go back to 1964, where I began my air traffic career, and they have always followed the same protocol. So I think that Command Center personnel were at least in tune to that aspect of the protocol. Now, whether they're aware of a specific protocol that involved NMCC, that I do not know. I could say I did not know.
MR. GORTON: Mr. Belger, how promptly after 9/11 was the hijacking protocol revised?
MR. BELGER: The next morning I asked for several things to be done.
Arthur
"Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC.... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on."
Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 911
9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence
Helps to NOT take this stuff out of CONTEXT.
The question was about FLIGHT 93, the one that crashed in Penn.
It also helps to know that the most recent hijacking had been 8 years before.
MR. BELGER: The short answer is no. You are right that prior to 9/11 the protocol was get the airplane on the ground and start a negotiation with the hijacker -- make sure the airplane is on the ground safely and start a negotiation process. That worked throughout the years prior to 9/11.
I'm not aware of any particular scenarios or exercise that we went through to test that protocol against the type of intelligence that you talked about which, quite frankly as I said before, wasn't getting to the FAA.
MS. GORELICK: So, one can note that that protocol was changed by the passengers and the crew of United 93. They threw that protocol out the window in real time.
MR. BELGER: Yes.
MS. GORELICK: Our Staff Statement reflects a very long, 39- minute gap in between when the FAA became aware of the United 93 as a hijacking and when the military was notified at 10:07, which was of course after they impact into the Pentagon. And I want to give you all an opportunity to explain why that occurred -- I'm sorry, not impacted the Pentagon --
MR. BELGER: Well --
MS. GORELICK: -- impact into the ground in Pennsylvania.
MR. BELGER: Right. The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC. That's still frustrating for me to understand how that -- I know how it's supposed to work, but I have to tell you it's still a little frustrating for me to understand how it actually did work on that day. It is clear I think in the record that at 9:20 the FAA operations center did call the National Military Command Center and add them into the hijacking net. The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time. That's the purpose of the hijack net. There are other nets off of that, which some are classified and some are real technical command type of discussions. But the fundamental primary source of information between the FAA, DOD, FBI, Secret Service, and which every other agencies -- the airlines would probably be on that net -- is the FAA hijack net. That was activated with the NMCC at 9:20. It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time.
MS. GORELICK: Did you do anything to ensure that your assumption, a costly one, was correct?
MR. BELGER: No. I did as I was -- I was real busy that morning. I did not ask specifically is the NMCC on. And I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else.
MS. GORELICK: At some point, however, in the course of that call you became aware that the military was not involved in any meaningful way. Is that correct? We heard some rather colorful language came from your mouth at that point.
MR. BELGER: I don't doubt that. Yeah, I mean later in the morning, as I had time to not just react to everything and think, I believe I did ask, you know, Are they on? -- and make sure.
MS. GORELICK: And when you found out that they weren't?
MR. BELGER: No, I wasn't very happy.
MS. GORELICK: I guess I'll leave this to my colleague, Senator Gorton.
MR. KEAN: Senator Gorton?
MR. GORTON: Mr. Belger, I want to go back to one of Commissioner Gorelick's subjects. You very clearly describe the protocol with respect to hijacking that was in effect on 9/11. But we have a rather troubling note from the staff that I will share with you and ask you to comment on. Most managers at FAA headquarters have little or no recollection of the protocols in place on 9/11 with respect to their roles and responsibilities on a hijacking. With the exception of a few individuals from the Security Division, there appear to be little or no training at FAA headquarters or Command Center regarding hijacking procedures. Indeed, when asked to identify who the hijack coordinator was on 9/11, it was difficult to find two witnesses who identified the same individual. At the Command Center, no one could remember any training or exercises regarding the role that the center would play in a hijacking. Is that a fair statement?
MR. BELGER: Well, from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario. I think Mr. Griffith was the senior air traffic person in the headquarters. He probably has more direct knowledge of what the air traffic people knew than I did, and maybe he could answer that.
MR. GORTON: Fine.
MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you. As Mr. Belger stated, from my point of view I'm absolutely sure that our field managers know -- knew on 9/11 what to do in the event of a hijacking. The procedures are very cleared. The procedures are trained as a matter of refresher training in our operational facilities every year, and it surprises me to hear that someone would think that our field managers would not know what to do in the event of a hijacking. There are protocols, there are check lists, there are folders that are kept in operational positions where people have responsibility for reporting. And through the years -- not only for hijackings, but aircraft accidents and other incidents -- reporting is a very high priority. So it surprises me that people would think our managers didn't know how to report.
MR. GORTON:Well, Mr. Sliney, you were at the Command Center. As a matter of fact, you were in your job -- it was your first day on this particular job. In your statement, "At the Command Center no one could remember any training or exercises regarding the role the Command Center would play in a hijacking" -- correct?
MR. SLINEY: I don't believe it's correct, no. I believe that the FAA or the Command Center personnel understood that the protocol was in place that the center that reported the hijacking would notify the military. And I believe we have already outlined -- or Mr. Belger has already outlined that the usual practices of handling hijacks -- I go back to 1964, where I began my air traffic career, and they have always followed the same protocol. So I think that Command Center personnel were at least in tune to that aspect of the protocol. Now, whether they're aware of a specific protocol that involved NMCC, that I do not know. I could say I did not know.
MR. GORTON: Mr. Belger, how promptly after 9/11 was the hijacking protocol revised?
MR. BELGER: The next morning I asked for several things to be done.
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 06:56 PM)
Here we are
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
Brian,
You've seen those videos, are you REALLY going to say that you think "a couple of hoses" would put out those fires?
As to Silverstein, you think he's PROFITING from this?
I mean you realize that he has to REBUILD and in the MEANTIME he still has to PAY RENT to NY, the fact that he has NO TENANTS to collect from is HIS problem.
As far as taking them down, yes it would have been cheaper. WTC 7 wouldn't have been lost for one thing, not to mention about 300 or so lives (value = what, a billion or so?)
Arthur
.
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
Brian,
You've seen those videos, are you REALLY going to say that you think "a couple of hoses" would put out those fires?
As to Silverstein, you think he's PROFITING from this?
I mean you realize that he has to REBUILD and in the MEANTIME he still has to PAY RENT to NY, the fact that he has NO TENANTS to collect from is HIS problem.
As far as taking them down, yes it would have been cheaper. WTC 7 wouldn't have been lost for one thing, not to mention about 300 or so lives (value = what, a billion or so?)
Arthur
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 30 2006, 07:00 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
Now its just a guess , based on previous posters who have done similar things, that someone concerned with this urology practice has used the server to post images concerning 9/11.
Now its just a guess , based on previous posters who have done similar things, that someone concerned with this urology practice has used the server to post images concerning 9/11.
Well, it's obvious that you don't have a website or know how web-addresses work.
It has nothing to do with 'servers'.
The 'webmaster' (owner/originator) of a website makes his own specific 'address'... let's say... http://YID.com
That is the home address of the particular website. The 'owner/originator' then decides to add further 'pages' to the website... on different areas or topics...let's say a page on flying saucers. The page is then registered on the web as...
http://YID.com/flying saucers.
add a page on kangaroos and it becomes...
http://YID.com/kangaroos
NO ONE Else can make up a web-address "http://YID.com/ flying saucers" because the first address after the "http://" is registered to ONE person, and no one else can duplicate that initial address... (YID.com)
Again I say... there does not appear to me to be anything 'fishy' about the video.
I think it is excellent and shows graphically evidence of 'Controlled Demo'...
but... There IS something VERY FISHY about the address where this video originates from.
IF the Urology website owner has copied the video from another source... where did it come from?
Again... I suspect this is from the NIST 'secret' (unpublished) files.
If so... I'd really like to see ALL they have. The one video shown is definitely an excellent one.
"website' then Foxx instead of "server"
The fact that the video was on a page of the website of a urology practice is no more suspicious than having photos of 9/11 on the website of a company that builds watercraft.
The idea that I am giving out personal information about you is laughable given the number of times YOU, yourself, Foxx, have shown links to those sites and stated that it is what you do for a living. The self-serving umbrage is hypocritical nonsense and you (should) know it.
oh, and the YID.com ,,,, very nice but no thanks , I am happily married to a shiksa(SP?)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 30 2006, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 06:56 PM)
Here we are
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
Brian,
You've seen those videos, are you REALLY going to say that you think "a couple of hoses" would put out those fires?
As to Silverstein, you think he's PROFITING from this?
I mean you realize that he has to REBUILD and in the MEANTIME he still has to PAY RENT to NY, the fact that he has NO TENANTS to collect from is HIS problem.
As far as taking them down, yes it would have been cheaper. WTC 7 wouldn't have been lost for one thing, not to mention about 300 or so lives (value = what, a billion or so?)
Arthur
.
What fires? The fires that the evidence my eyes tells me were dying and the expert opinion of the firemen at the scene say needed only a couple of hoses? Them fires?
Silverstein bought the WTC only months prior to September 11 - the twin towers were a liability in that the asbestos in them meant prohibitively costly work was required - or super costly demolition.
We see the extent of corruption, collusion, call it what you will, when the insurance companies liable disregard all the evidence of controlled demolition and pay out. Pay out when we know insurance companies the world over will renege on minor sums over a technicality, here we have billions and NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I ask you.
No loss what a friend gets eh.
This misrepresentation of what the fire fighters said AGAIN??
The FF's in question were on the 78th floor of a building that had taken the brunt of the impact a few floors up from there. On the higher floors one would find much greater fires.
Arthur
Why were the media able to get a helicopter in the air to film the second impact then ?
Arthur's reply.....06-01-2003 06:01 AM
The funniest thing is, although the evidence that points to a larger, more technologically advanced group is mostly circumstantial, there is no legally acceptable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that even Al-Quaeda was even involved in the attacks. Why is that ?
Yeah, I do have to work at being dense, that's why I'm not going to lower myself to your level with puerile insults.
The funniest thing is, although the evidence that points to a larger, more technologically advanced group is mostly circumstantial, there is no legally acceptable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that even Al-Quaeda was even involved in the attacks. Why is that ?
Yeah, I do have to work at being dense, that's why I'm not going to lower myself to your level with puerile insults.
What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
You asked why, if the media could get copters into the air in time for the second impact, could there not be fighters in place before that plane got to NYC and implement a shoot down.
The question is patently stupid. Do you not see that?
First, as I point out, NYC is covered by news people in place to capture vents as they happen as soon as possible, in NYC. Manhattan is home to all the major American networks and many of the foreign press as well.
Second, as pointed out before the military has to be scrambled and vectored to an intercept course once the plane has been identified as hijacked, and military assistance is requested.
Third, no pilot is going to shoot down an airliner without explicit orders to do so. those orders were certainly not going to be in effect in time to shoot down the plane before it gets to NYC. Shooting it down while over a densely populated area may well be worse than letting it hit its intended target. At this point no one knows that the buildings will fail.
Riight
So will you admit that the actual question you asked is silly?
You notice that this demands that everything go exactly right and even then the fighters arrive over NYC with 6 minutes to find and get into position behind the aircraft and receive and carry out an order to shoot.
One wonders how many things have to happen in order to add enough delay into the system? Were the pilots told they could go supersonic? Were they told that they may be awaiting orders to shoot a civilian airliner down?
What would be the public fallout of a shoot down of an airliner 6 minutes from Manhattan?
Were the people in charge still expecting demands from the hijackers? Along the lines of, "Satisfy these demands or we will crash this plane into Manhattan just as our brothers did. You know we are not bluffing."
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
Total BS.
You can't fly anywhere near maximum speed of 1,875 with EXTERNAL STORES, i.e. Drop Tanks and Missiles.
You can't fly anywhere near maximum speed of 1,875 down low. That speed is only at very high altitudes (near 50,000 ft).
To get to NY you GO HIGH, traffic down low is horrendous and you can't be arriving into NY air space at a rate of 16 miles a minute down in the haze (if you've ever flown < 3 or 4,000 ft in NE you know how bad the pollution haze is)
Top speed was probably about 1,200 mph. Avg speed was probably closer to 700. You can't stay supersonic long or you run the tanks dry.
They were NOT heading towards Kennedy, they were heading to a Military Op area off of Long Island. The one place they can turn and burn and not worry about other high speed pieces of aluminum.
The Jet pilots could only talk to NEADS. The NEADS controllers needed the FAA to locate the aircraft. The Jet pilots had no ELECTRONIC means of identifing the aircraft.
They arrived off of LI about the time the second plane hit.
Wouldn't of mattered if they had arrived ahead of time though.
They couldn't Identify the plane.
They didn't have orders to shoot
Arthur
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs put the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
Why are they LYING if it's TRUE???
lost in a dream
round in circles sailing.
------
The towers were toast - a couple of hoses should do it.
They would end up like Madrid - a couple of hoses should do it.
They were beyond salvaging.- a couple of hoses should do it.
No upside - except the squillions of dollars it would have cost to dismantle them.
Its an ill wind Mr Silverstein eh?
Brian,
You've seen those videos, are you REALLY going to say that you think "a couple of hoses" would put out those fires?
As to Silverstein, you think he's PROFITING from this?
I mean you realize that he has to REBUILD and in the MEANTIME he still has to PAY RENT to NY, the fact that he has NO TENANTS to collect from is HIS problem.
As far as taking them down, yes it would have been cheaper. WTC 7 wouldn't have been lost for one thing, not to mention about 300 or so lives (value = what, a billion or so?)
Arthur
.
What fires? The fires that the evidence my eyes tells me were dying and the expert opinion of the firemen at the scene say needed only a couple of hoses? Them fires?
Silverstein bought the WTC only months prior to September 11 - the twin towers were a liability in that the asbestos in them meant prohibitively costly work was required - or super costly demolition.
We see the extent of corruption, collusion, call it what you will, when the insurance companies liable disregard all the evidence of controlled demolition and pay out. Pay out when we know insurance companies the world over will renege on minor sums over a technicality, here we have billions and NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I ask you.
No loss what a friend gets eh.
QUOTE (brian+)
Further lies by ommission Arthur - tut tut its becoming serial.
Why leave out....
Because I'm dealing with your OUT OF CONTEXT quotes ONE at a TIME
Now the third one is a written statement which I have no context for.
But the final statement is AGAIN out of context.
They were talking about the GROUND STOP orders.
Sheesh.
MR. GORTON: Okay. Let me go on to you, Mr. Sliney, with a few questions. When you on your first day on the job made two decisions on 9/11, that at one level at least weren't yours to make, did you not? First, that no one should take off; and, second, we should take all civilian aircraft out of the air. Is that not correct?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct.
MR. GORTON: And would you describe how you came to that decision and why you felt it imperative enough to make that decision without going through the usual command structure?
MR. SLINEY: I believed I had the authority to do those things on that day. I was charged with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system. The ground stop -- the national ground stop was, one, a matter of scope, not of unfamiliarity with the remedy, but a matter of scope. And had -- since we had already put in place ground stops that covered Boston, New York, and essentially the East Coast, and those -- we still had more reports of aircraft whose course or altitude or other aspects of their flight made them suspicious in light of the crashes. The national ground stop was just a natural extension of the smaller scope ground stops.
As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order.
MR. GORTON: Was your career in the FAA either enhanced or hurt in any way by making those decisions as promptly as you did?
MR. SLINEY: I would say in neither respect, sir.
MR. GORTON: On 9/11, the Command Center effectively was the nerve center for information on suspicious aircraft. Yet as I understand it the Command Center had no defined role with respect to obtaining military assistance, fighter assistance. Is that correct? And, if so, why weren't those authorities combined?
MR. SLINEY: Available to us at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.
The normal protocols for the events that were transpiring then -- that is to say hijacked aircraft, which requires a notification to NORAD -- those, at least I was given to understand, were made promptly -- the notifications on each hijack. The --
MR. GORTON: You understood that they were made promptly?
MR. SLINEY: That's correct.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't you -- it wasn't your responsibility to do so?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct. I believe I am correct in stating that that responsibility devolves upon the air route traffic control center in whose jurisdiction that hijack occurs. I was given to understand that all such notifications were made. I had no reason to believe they were not.
The -- I'm getting away from your question, though. You ask me if we had a procedure in place to deal with such an event -- is that what you're asking?
MR. GORTON: At the Command Center.
MR. SLINEY: With -- well, I just want to be clear on this aspect of it. Dealing with aircraft that would be hijacked and used as weapons?
MR. GORTON: No.
MR. SLINEY: No. Dealing with hijacked --
MR. GORTON: Dealing with direct notification to the military or request for assistance from the military.
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
MR. GORTON: By the Command Center?
MR. SLINEY: Correct.
MR. BELGER: Senator, can I just respond?
MR. GORTON: Yes, you certainly can.
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't the formal protocol for Mr. Sliney to have gotten headquarters permission before he put in these ground stops?
MR. BELGER: I don't agree with that personally. I think -- I agree with Mr. Sliney completely. I think they had the authority to make that decision. I think they made the right call.
MR. GORTON: No question about that.
MR. BELGER: They make those -- not into scope obviously -- but they make ground-stop type decisions on a daily basis. And I think the folks there, the folks in Boston, the folks in the facilities -- and frankly at the same time that the people in the Department of Transportation were coming to that same conclusion, at the same time they all made the right decision.
MR. GORTON: So no one criticized Mr. Sliney for having made it without getting permission from headquarters?
MR. BELGER: I never criticized him. Absolutely not. To the contrary.
MR. GORTON: That's not quite the answer to my question. Do you know whether anyone else did?
MR. BELGER: I don't know.
MR. GORTON: Mr. Sliney?
MR. SLINEY: I only -- I was not criticized directly by anyone for making that decision at all. I say that unequivocally. I could say I heard anecdotal information that someone was surprised that we had made that decision, but that was the extent of it. No one has criticized me directly for doing either of those -- making either of those decisions.
MR. GORTON: Well, that's probably as much as we are going to get out of you on that one, so we'll let it go.
Arthur
Why leave out....
Because I'm dealing with your OUT OF CONTEXT quotes ONE at a TIME
Now the third one is a written statement which I have no context for.
But the final statement is AGAIN out of context.
They were talking about the GROUND STOP orders.
Sheesh.
MR. GORTON: Okay. Let me go on to you, Mr. Sliney, with a few questions. When you on your first day on the job made two decisions on 9/11, that at one level at least weren't yours to make, did you not? First, that no one should take off; and, second, we should take all civilian aircraft out of the air. Is that not correct?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct.
MR. GORTON: And would you describe how you came to that decision and why you felt it imperative enough to make that decision without going through the usual command structure?
MR. SLINEY: I believed I had the authority to do those things on that day. I was charged with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system. The ground stop -- the national ground stop was, one, a matter of scope, not of unfamiliarity with the remedy, but a matter of scope. And had -- since we had already put in place ground stops that covered Boston, New York, and essentially the East Coast, and those -- we still had more reports of aircraft whose course or altitude or other aspects of their flight made them suspicious in light of the crashes. The national ground stop was just a natural extension of the smaller scope ground stops.
As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order.
MR. GORTON: Was your career in the FAA either enhanced or hurt in any way by making those decisions as promptly as you did?
MR. SLINEY: I would say in neither respect, sir.
MR. GORTON: On 9/11, the Command Center effectively was the nerve center for information on suspicious aircraft. Yet as I understand it the Command Center had no defined role with respect to obtaining military assistance, fighter assistance. Is that correct? And, if so, why weren't those authorities combined?
MR. SLINEY: Available to us at the Command Center of course is the military cell, which was our liaison with the military services. They were present at all of the events that occurred on 9/11.
The normal protocols for the events that were transpiring then -- that is to say hijacked aircraft, which requires a notification to NORAD -- those, at least I was given to understand, were made promptly -- the notifications on each hijack. The --
MR. GORTON: You understood that they were made promptly?
MR. SLINEY: That's correct.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't you -- it wasn't your responsibility to do so?
MR. SLINEY: That is correct. I believe I am correct in stating that that responsibility devolves upon the air route traffic control center in whose jurisdiction that hijack occurs. I was given to understand that all such notifications were made. I had no reason to believe they were not.
The -- I'm getting away from your question, though. You ask me if we had a procedure in place to deal with such an event -- is that what you're asking?
MR. GORTON: At the Command Center.
MR. SLINEY: With -- well, I just want to be clear on this aspect of it. Dealing with aircraft that would be hijacked and used as weapons?
MR. GORTON: No.
MR. SLINEY: No. Dealing with hijacked --
MR. GORTON: Dealing with direct notification to the military or request for assistance from the military.
MR. SLINEY: In direct response to your question was FAA headquarters primarily through the security organization to request assistance from the military. We had no process in place where a Command Center would make such a request for a military assistance. I believe the military was involved, and you know I suppose in hindsight it's too simplistic to say that they all look alike to me. If you tell the military you've told the military. They have their own communication web that I think defeated some of the notification processes, as I've been listening to today. But in my mind everyone who needed to be notified about the events transpiring was notified, including the military.
MR. GORTON: By the Command Center?
MR. SLINEY: Correct.
MR. BELGER: Senator, can I just respond?
MR. GORTON: Yes, you certainly can.
MR. BELGER: Just in direct response to your question, the protocol on that day -- the official protocol on that day was for the FAA headquarters, primarily through the hijack coordinator, who is a senior person in the security organization, to request assistance from the NMCC if there was a need for DOD assistance. I mean, that was the formal protocol that day.
MR. GORTON: It wasn't the formal protocol for Mr. Sliney to have gotten headquarters permission before he put in these ground stops?
MR. BELGER: I don't agree with that personally. I think -- I agree with Mr. Sliney completely. I think they had the authority to make that decision. I think they made the right call.
MR. GORTON: No question about that.
MR. BELGER: They make those -- not into scope obviously -- but they make ground-stop type decisions on a daily basis. And I think the folks there, the folks in Boston, the folks in the facilities -- and frankly at the same time that the people in the Department of Transportation were coming to that same conclusion, at the same time they all made the right decision.
MR. GORTON: So no one criticized Mr. Sliney for having made it without getting permission from headquarters?
MR. BELGER: I never criticized him. Absolutely not. To the contrary.
MR. GORTON: That's not quite the answer to my question. Do you know whether anyone else did?
MR. BELGER: I don't know.
MR. GORTON: Mr. Sliney?
MR. SLINEY: I only -- I was not criticized directly by anyone for making that decision at all. I say that unequivocally. I could say I heard anecdotal information that someone was surprised that we had made that decision, but that was the extent of it. No one has criticized me directly for doing either of those -- making either of those decisions.
MR. GORTON: Well, that's probably as much as we are going to get out of you on that one, so we'll let it go.
Arthur
QUOTE
What fires? The fires that the evidence my eyes tells me were dying and the expert opinion of the firemen at the scene say needed only a couple of hoses? Them fires
This misrepresentation of what the fire fighters said AGAIN??
The FF's in question were on the 78th floor of a building that had taken the brunt of the impact a few floors up from there. On the higher floors one would find much greater fires.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 30 2006, 07:28 PM)
What fires? The fires that the evidence my eyes tells me were dying and the expert opinion of the firemen at the scene say needed only a couple of hoses? Them fires?
Watch the video of WTC 2's demise.
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence the fire was going out, its clear instead that the fire is GROWING based on the volume of smoke and the increasing velocity of the rising hot air.
Two hoses my arse, not to mention another quote taken out of context.
Arthur
Watch the video of WTC 2's demise.
There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence the fire was going out, its clear instead that the fire is GROWING based on the volume of smoke and the increasing velocity of the rising hot air.
Two hoses my arse, not to mention another quote taken out of context.
Arthur
Farcical does not suffice -
Who's in Charge Here?
--The National Military Command Center (NMCC) inside the Pentagon was the nerve center of the military’s response to the attacks on 9-11. But the lead military officer that day, Brigadier General Montague Winfield, told the commission that the center had been leaderless.“For 30 minutes we couldn’t find [Secretary Rumsfeld].” Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton,--
http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html
This mob ran for re-election on keeping America safe.
Who's in Charge Here?
--The National Military Command Center (NMCC) inside the Pentagon was the nerve center of the military’s response to the attacks on 9-11. But the lead military officer that day, Brigadier General Montague Winfield, told the commission that the center had been leaderless.“For 30 minutes we couldn’t find [Secretary Rumsfeld].” Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive account of 9-11.”
“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”
“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.
Was the commission comfortable with the fact that the country’s Secretary of Defense was not in the chain of command or present in the Pentagon’s command center until all four suicide hijacked planes were down?
“I’m not going to answer that question,” said Hamilton,--
http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html
This mob ran for re-election on keeping America safe.
Arthur
QUOTE
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
Why were the media able to get a helicopter in the air to film the second impact then ?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 30 2006, 11:39 PM)
Arthur
Why were the media able to get a helicopter in the air to film the second impact then ?
Do you have to work at being dense?
The media in NY City? Where all the major networks have thousands of cameras and dozens of ENG personnel?Where the events actually took place, where the smoke could be seen rising from one of the tallest structures in the world? The NYC media that has helicopters available to film fires, police chases and rush hour traffic? You know 'rush hour' don't you? Its that time of day when there is a greater amount of traffic on the roads , like say the first few hours around the beginning of the work day.
QUOTE
THEY COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE FIRST TWO JETS NO MATTER WHAT.
Why were the media able to get a helicopter in the air to film the second impact then ?
Do you have to work at being dense?
The media in NY City? Where all the major networks have thousands of cameras and dozens of ENG personnel?Where the events actually took place, where the smoke could be seen rising from one of the tallest structures in the world? The NYC media that has helicopters available to film fires, police chases and rush hour traffic? You know 'rush hour' don't you? Its that time of day when there is a greater amount of traffic on the roads , like say the first few hours around the beginning of the work day.
QUOTE
Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq."
link"In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq."
Arthur's reply.....06-01-2003 06:01 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions." "In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq." |
link
Arthur's reply.....06-01-2003 06:01 AM
The war was not about oil and it wasn't about Halliburton and it wasn't about revenge for Bush's dad.
I do think the world is a whole lot better off than it was.
Arthur
Arthur continues with no messin, no fessin mobile labs story !!!
Arthur's reply.....06-01-2003 06:01 AM
The war was not about oil and it wasn't about Halliburton and it wasn't about revenge for Bush's dad.
I do think the world is a whole lot better off than it was.
Arthur
Arthur continues with no messin, no fessin mobile labs story !!!
QUOTE
Of course they found the two Mobile Bio Labs (as per Powell's speach to UN)
And a new U.S.-led team of international experts is heading to Iraq to intensify the search for weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. Army general heading the effort, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, said Friday that his team would change the focus from sites identified as suspicious before the war and instead concentrate on areas where documents, interviews with Iraqis and other new clues suggest biological or chemical weapons could be hidden.
Before the war, the United States drew up a list of more than 900 "suspect sites" where weapons of mass destruction or evidence of such programs might be found. Military teams have visited more than 200 of those sites. (That's about 7 per day since the war ended, at that rate it will take three more months just to get to all the suspect sites we knew about BEFORE the war)
I don't think the US lost credibility with the rest of the world. I'd argue it gained it. Some nations might not like what we did or how we did it but I don't think they find us less credible, in fact a number of them will likely take our warnings a tad more seriously than before. (note change in NK)
As to the impact on terrorism. I think its pretty simple, the US over the last several years has physically reduced the number of trained hard core terrorists, with the coalition it has put a serious dent in their financing and face it, the terrorist organizations have been forced to scatter and remain in deep hiding. We have made it clear that we won't tolerate countries that support terrorism and so I suspect that any number of countries are starting to consider such groups as persona non gratis. As to the terrorists themselves, if you spend much of your day worrying about being caught it simply makes it that much harder to plan and carry out complicated international terrorist activities. You say we are more at risk but we are nearing the second anniversary of 9/11 with no new attacks in the US. This is not a guarantee that another attack will not occur, but one can't build the case for us being less secure in the absence of an attack.
And a new U.S.-led team of international experts is heading to Iraq to intensify the search for weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. Army general heading the effort, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, said Friday that his team would change the focus from sites identified as suspicious before the war and instead concentrate on areas where documents, interviews with Iraqis and other new clues suggest biological or chemical weapons could be hidden.
Before the war, the United States drew up a list of more than 900 "suspect sites" where weapons of mass destruction or evidence of such programs might be found. Military teams have visited more than 200 of those sites. (That's about 7 per day since the war ended, at that rate it will take three more months just to get to all the suspect sites we knew about BEFORE the war)
I don't think the US lost credibility with the rest of the world. I'd argue it gained it. Some nations might not like what we did or how we did it but I don't think they find us less credible, in fact a number of them will likely take our warnings a tad more seriously than before. (note change in NK)
As to the impact on terrorism. I think its pretty simple, the US over the last several years has physically reduced the number of trained hard core terrorists, with the coalition it has put a serious dent in their financing and face it, the terrorist organizations have been forced to scatter and remain in deep hiding. We have made it clear that we won't tolerate countries that support terrorism and so I suspect that any number of countries are starting to consider such groups as persona non gratis. As to the terrorists themselves, if you spend much of your day worrying about being caught it simply makes it that much harder to plan and carry out complicated international terrorist activities. You say we are more at risk but we are nearing the second anniversary of 9/11 with no new attacks in the US. This is not a guarantee that another attack will not occur, but one can't build the case for us being less secure in the absence of an attack.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
Arthur
Do you have to work at being dense? The media in NY City? Where all the major networks have thousands of cameras and dozens of ENG personnel?Where the events actually took place, where the smoke could be seen rising from one of the tallest structures in the world? The NYC media that has helicopters available to film fires, police chases and rush hour traffic? You know 'rush hour' don't you? Its that time of day when there is a greater amount of traffic on the roads , like say the first few hours around the beginning of the work day. |
The funniest thing is, although the evidence that points to a larger, more technologically advanced group is mostly circumstantial, there is no legally acceptable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that even Al-Quaeda was even involved in the attacks. Why is that ?
Yeah, I do have to work at being dense, that's why I'm not going to lower myself to your level with puerile insults.
Yes it did, why don't you prove that you are right rather than trying so hard to prove that everyone else is wrong?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:05 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
Arthur
Do you have to work at being dense? The media in NY City? Where all the major networks have thousands of cameras and dozens of ENG personnel?Where the events actually took place, where the smoke could be seen rising from one of the tallest structures in the world? The NYC media that has helicopters available to film fires, police chases and rush hour traffic? You know 'rush hour' don't you? Its that time of day when there is a greater amount of traffic on the roads , like say the first few hours around the beginning of the work day. |
The funniest thing is, although the evidence that points to a larger, more technologically advanced group is mostly circumstantial, there is no legally acceptable evidence, circumstantial or otherwise that even Al-Quaeda was even involved in the attacks. Why is that ?
Yeah, I do have to work at being dense, that's why I'm not going to lower myself to your level with puerile insults.
What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
You asked why, if the media could get copters into the air in time for the second impact, could there not be fighters in place before that plane got to NYC and implement a shoot down.
The question is patently stupid. Do you not see that?
First, as I point out, NYC is covered by news people in place to capture vents as they happen as soon as possible, in NYC. Manhattan is home to all the major American networks and many of the foreign press as well.
Second, as pointed out before the military has to be scrambled and vectored to an intercept course once the plane has been identified as hijacked, and military assistance is requested.
Third, no pilot is going to shoot down an airliner without explicit orders to do so. those orders were certainly not going to be in effect in time to shoot down the plane before it gets to NYC. Shooting it down while over a densely populated area may well be worse than letting it hit its intended target. At this point no one knows that the buildings will fail.
The Morning of September 11, 2001
As the sun rose on September 11, 2001, NORAD was already taking part in the Vigilant Guardian war game, which had begun a few days before. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02, Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02, Code One Magazine, 1/02] As a result, NORAD was in peak form. It was fully staffed and alert, and senior officers were manning stations throughout the US when the first hijacking was reported. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Because of the war game, NORAD “had extra fighter planes on alert.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NORAD's Northeastern US sector, said, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/02]
American Airlines Flight 11
All four of the hijacked planes were scheduled to take off within several minutes of 8:00 a.m., though Flight 93 was delayed on the runway for 40 minutes. Flight 11 from Boston was the first plane to get hijacked. Edited transcripts of the cockpit transmissions show that the last routine communication between Flight 11 and Boston's air traffic control was at 8:13 a.m. and 47 seconds. [New York Times, 10/16/01 ©] The loss of communication was quickly noticed—flight controllers can be heard discussing it at 8:15. Furthermore, “just moments” after the radio contact was lost, the transponder was turned off as well. [MSNBC, 9/15/01] The transponder is the electronic device that identifies the jet on the controller's screen, gives its exact location and altitude, and also allows a four-digit emergency hijack code to be sent. Boston air traffic manager Glenn Michael later said, “We considered [Flight 11] at that time to be a possible hijacking.” [AP, 8/12/02]
Normally, pilots press the ELT (emergency locator transmitter) button as soon as they suspect a hijacking is in progress. This button is within easy reach. However, the pilot of Flight 11, Captain John Ogonowski, did not press this button, and nor did the pilots on Flights 77 and 93. There has been speculation that this may have been because hijackers were already in the cockpits when the hijackings began, posing as a guest pilot sitting in the cockpit's extra seat. [Fox News, 9/24/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] This would explain, for instance, why Flight 11's radio contact and transponder signal were both lost at about 8:14, while two stewardesses calling from the flight indicated the hijackers in the passenger section didn't get out of their seats until about 8:21. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, ABC News, 7/18/02] But Captain Ogonowski was clever. He began turning the talk-back button off and on, which enabled flight controllers to hear what was being said, and also showed them that something was wrong. One controller said, “The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York,” and continued until about 8:38, so he must have started not long after 8:14. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01, MSNBC, 9/15/01]
Flight controllers suspected something was wrong, but perhaps were confused because the ELT button had not been activated. But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01], and the plane also was clearly off course by that time (see adjacent flight path map). As a result, at “about 8:20” Boston flight control decided that Flight 11 had probably been hijacked. [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 9/15/01 ©] However, it did not notify NORAD or anyone else of a possible problem.
This is when the failure of America's air defense system began. FAA regulations in force at the time state, “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.” [FAA regulations] They also state, “If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” [FAA regulations] Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is “considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour” and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01] But, as ABC News later put it, around 8:20, “There doesn't seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There's a gap there that will have to be investigated.” [ABC News, 9/14/01]
If there still was any doubt Flight 11 had been hijacked, that doubt was removed at 8:24. Because Captain Ogonowski was periodically holding down the talk-back button, beginning at 8:24 and 38 seconds, Boston flight controllers heard the hijackers in the cockpit broadcasting a message to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport.” A flight controller responded, “Who's trying to call me?” The hijacker continued, “Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 ©] A Boston flight controller later said that immediately after hearing this voice, he “knew right then that he was working a hijack.” [Village Voice, 9/13/01] At 8:25 exactly, seconds after hearing this message, Boston flight control notified other flight control centers of the hijacking. But, supposedly, once again it did not notify NORAD. Incredibly, NORAD asserts that it wasn't told of the hijacking until 8:40—a full 15 minutes later! [NORAD, 9/18/01]
These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let's say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, “Go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later” [ABC News, 9/11/02], so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.
QUOTE yesitdid
Q:What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
A:Context
As the sun rose on September 11, 2001, NORAD was already taking part in the Vigilant Guardian war game, which had begun a few days before. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02, Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02, Code One Magazine, 1/02] As a result, NORAD was in peak form. It was fully staffed and alert, and senior officers were manning stations throughout the US when the first hijacking was reported. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Because of the war game, NORAD “had extra fighter planes on alert.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NORAD's Northeastern US sector, said, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/02]
American Airlines Flight 11
All four of the hijacked planes were scheduled to take off within several minutes of 8:00 a.m., though Flight 93 was delayed on the runway for 40 minutes. Flight 11 from Boston was the first plane to get hijacked. Edited transcripts of the cockpit transmissions show that the last routine communication between Flight 11 and Boston's air traffic control was at 8:13 a.m. and 47 seconds. [New York Times, 10/16/01 ©] The loss of communication was quickly noticed—flight controllers can be heard discussing it at 8:15. Furthermore, “just moments” after the radio contact was lost, the transponder was turned off as well. [MSNBC, 9/15/01] The transponder is the electronic device that identifies the jet on the controller's screen, gives its exact location and altitude, and also allows a four-digit emergency hijack code to be sent. Boston air traffic manager Glenn Michael later said, “We considered [Flight 11] at that time to be a possible hijacking.” [AP, 8/12/02]
Normally, pilots press the ELT (emergency locator transmitter) button as soon as they suspect a hijacking is in progress. This button is within easy reach. However, the pilot of Flight 11, Captain John Ogonowski, did not press this button, and nor did the pilots on Flights 77 and 93. There has been speculation that this may have been because hijackers were already in the cockpits when the hijackings began, posing as a guest pilot sitting in the cockpit's extra seat. [Fox News, 9/24/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] This would explain, for instance, why Flight 11's radio contact and transponder signal were both lost at about 8:14, while two stewardesses calling from the flight indicated the hijackers in the passenger section didn't get out of their seats until about 8:21. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, ABC News, 7/18/02] But Captain Ogonowski was clever. He began turning the talk-back button off and on, which enabled flight controllers to hear what was being said, and also showed them that something was wrong. One controller said, “The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York,” and continued until about 8:38, so he must have started not long after 8:14. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01, MSNBC, 9/15/01]
Flight controllers suspected something was wrong, but perhaps were confused because the ELT button had not been activated. But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01], and the plane also was clearly off course by that time (see adjacent flight path map). As a result, at “about 8:20” Boston flight control decided that Flight 11 had probably been hijacked. [Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 9/15/01 ©] However, it did not notify NORAD or anyone else of a possible problem.
This is when the failure of America's air defense system began. FAA regulations in force at the time state, “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.” [FAA regulations] They also state, “If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” [FAA regulations] Furthermore, MSNBC explained that a significant course deviation is “considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour” and leads to fighters being quickly dispatched to see what the problem might be. [MSNBC, 9/12/01] But, as ABC News later put it, around 8:20, “There doesn't seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There's a gap there that will have to be investigated.” [ABC News, 9/14/01]
If there still was any doubt Flight 11 had been hijacked, that doubt was removed at 8:24. Because Captain Ogonowski was periodically holding down the talk-back button, beginning at 8:24 and 38 seconds, Boston flight controllers heard the hijackers in the cockpit broadcasting a message to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport.” A flight controller responded, “Who's trying to call me?” The hijacker continued, “Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 ©] A Boston flight controller later said that immediately after hearing this voice, he “knew right then that he was working a hijack.” [Village Voice, 9/13/01] At 8:25 exactly, seconds after hearing this message, Boston flight control notified other flight control centers of the hijacking. But, supposedly, once again it did not notify NORAD. Incredibly, NORAD asserts that it wasn't told of the hijacking until 8:40—a full 15 minutes later! [NORAD, 9/18/01]
These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let's say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, “Go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later” [ABC News, 9/11/02], so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.
QUOTE yesitdid
Q:What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
A:Context
They managed to have FEMA in town the NIGHT BEFORE - I know, I know, just another coincidence.
The Posse Comitatus Act legally inhibits the military from shooting down a hijacked civilian aircraft unless the hijackers can be proven to be foreign military. Hijacking is a civil law matter, and must be dealt with by the civilian authorities, not the military.
A declared state of emergency by the President allows the use of military assets in law enforcement; Cheney, being in a position to give the order and finding an existent state of emergency due to likely attack on the White House or Capitol building, recommends to Bush that he give a shoot-down order, and Bush replies in the affirmative. Cheney then communicates that order to the National Military Command Center at 10:14AM, but the command does not reach the pilots; the last of the four planes, Flight 93, has already crashed in Pennsylvania.
Timeline.
A declared state of emergency by the President allows the use of military assets in law enforcement; Cheney, being in a position to give the order and finding an existent state of emergency due to likely attack on the White House or Capitol building, recommends to Bush that he give a shoot-down order, and Bush replies in the affirmative. Cheney then communicates that order to the National Military Command Center at 10:14AM, but the command does not reach the pilots; the last of the four planes, Flight 93, has already crashed in Pennsylvania.
Timeline.
QUOTE
QUOTE yesitdid
Q:What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
A:Context
Q:What is it that you think you are gaining by changing the subject?
A:Context
Riight
So will you admit that the actual question you asked is silly?
Quote Brian
Sorry Brian, something that could be explained as a slip of the tongue, or a simple error (like the Silverstein "Pull it" quote) don't really add up to much. Contextual information like below is much more reliable and more rigid in it's meaning and interpretation.
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
QUOTE
They managed to have FEMA in town the NIGHT BEFORE - I know, I know, just another coincidence.
Sorry Brian, something that could be explained as a slip of the tongue, or a simple error (like the Silverstein "Pull it" quote) don't really add up to much. Contextual information like below is much more reliable and more rigid in it's meaning and interpretation.
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
yesitdid Jan 31 2006, 12:42 AM
Why on earth do you think I would justify myself to anyone except me ?
hasta manyana
QUOTE
So will you admit that the actual question you asked is silly?
Why on earth do you think I would justify myself to anyone except me ?
hasta manyana
I signed up recently for - Google Alert for: investigation "September 11"
Not expecting much worthwhile so was pleasantly surprised today with -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1846
Also today - new to me
Are US Citizens As Gullible As The "Good Germans" Were?
by Philip Greenspan
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/pgreen81.html
Not expecting much worthwhile so was pleasantly surprised today with -
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1846
Also today - new to me
Are US Citizens As Gullible As The "Good Germans" Were?
by Philip Greenspan
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/pgreen81.html
QUOTE
These 15 minutes are vital. As mentioned previously, NORAD guaranteed that its fighters could take off within 15 minutes of being given the order to scramble. It must also have taken a few minutes for NORAD to confirm the situation and pass the word to the pilots. Let's say this takes five minutes (in actual fact, when Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's Command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, first heard that Flight 11 had been hijacked, he said, “Go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later” [ABC News, 9/11/02], so pilot notification could have happened very quickly). It would then have taken another 15 minutes at most to get the fighters in the air. A NORAD spokeswoman said that fighters from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] So, adding this up, 8:25, plus 5, 15, and 12 minutes, means that the fighters would have reached New York City by 8:57. This would have been too late for Flight 11, which crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46, but it would have reached New York six minutes before Flight 175, which crashed at 9:03.
You notice that this demands that everything go exactly right and even then the fighters arrive over NYC with 6 minutes to find and get into position behind the aircraft and receive and carry out an order to shoot.
One wonders how many things have to happen in order to add enough delay into the system? Were the pilots told they could go supersonic? Were they told that they may be awaiting orders to shoot a civilian airliner down?
What would be the public fallout of a shoot down of an airliner 6 minutes from Manhattan?
Were the people in charge still expecting demands from the hijackers? Along the lines of, "Satisfy these demands or we will crash this plane into Manhattan just as our brothers did. You know we are not bluffing."
frater plecticus, if it was a slip up Mayor Giuliani gave it staying power in his testimony -
"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0406/S00031.htm
I realise that these "hundreds of people" may have been just a whole 24 hours early for their stated purpose and in no way does it constitute proof of anything, its just another question mark in the bigger picture.
"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0406/S00031.htm
I realise that these "hundreds of people" may have been just a whole 24 hours early for their stated purpose and in no way does it constitute proof of anything, its just another question mark in the bigger picture.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 30 2006, 08:42 PM)
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
Total BS.
You can't fly anywhere near maximum speed of 1,875 with EXTERNAL STORES, i.e. Drop Tanks and Missiles.
You can't fly anywhere near maximum speed of 1,875 down low. That speed is only at very high altitudes (near 50,000 ft).
To get to NY you GO HIGH, traffic down low is horrendous and you can't be arriving into NY air space at a rate of 16 miles a minute down in the haze (if you've ever flown < 3 or 4,000 ft in NE you know how bad the pollution haze is)
Top speed was probably about 1,200 mph. Avg speed was probably closer to 700. You can't stay supersonic long or you run the tanks dry.
They were NOT heading towards Kennedy, they were heading to a Military Op area off of Long Island. The one place they can turn and burn and not worry about other high speed pieces of aluminum.
The Jet pilots could only talk to NEADS. The NEADS controllers needed the FAA to locate the aircraft. The Jet pilots had no ELECTRONIC means of identifing the aircraft.
They arrived off of LI about the time the second plane hit.
Wouldn't of mattered if they had arrived ahead of time though.
They couldn't Identify the plane.
They didn't have orders to shoot
Arthur
QUOTE
“I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski |
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt
What do you expect the floors to sound like as they drop, one next to the other? If it didn't SEEM like explosions I would worry we weren't on earth.
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
QUOTE
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera |
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DONT KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDNT FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOWTHAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF
First notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? They BLOW SHIAT UP. So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse if this odd combination.
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION...
QUOTE
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski |
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these lairs put the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case.
These CT sites are dishonest.Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
QUOTE
“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore |
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
QUOTE
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
This is pulled straight out of someones a$$. There is NO Paul Isaac on the record saying anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
Why are they LYING if it's TRUE???
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:13 AM)
Yes it did, why don't you prove that you are right rather than trying so hard to prove that everyone else is wrong?
There, I PROVED I'M RIGHT.
There, I PROVED I'M RIGHT.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:33 AM)
But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01]
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 30 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:33 AM)
But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01]
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 30 2006, 05:36 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 30 2006, 11:20 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 30 2006, 10:31 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 30 2006, 05:43 AM)
I cannot accept Hoffman because he stipulates that the 'pryoclastic flow' had to be so damn hot yet people who were caught by the dust cloud or who hid under vehicles survived, vehicles and other objects near the towers were not scorched by this supposedly very hot cloud.
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You claim that engineering explanations cannot address the 'anomalies' yet you are quite willing it seems to accept anomalies in the theories of others. Why is that?
As for the 'spire', why is it so anomalous that it could only stand for (IIRC) 30 seconds after the rest of the building crashes down? I find nothing wrong with this highly unstable section of columns failing to keep itself upright. Is it anomalous that it did not collapse with the rest of the building? Yes, and it is also anomalous that one section of one stairwell survived and that several people lived through the collapse. Is that supposed to then be evidence that a force field of some sort was set up around them? No, it is evidence that in chaotic systems odd things can occur.
I have already requested, TWICE, for somebody from your side to plot the height of the top every .1 second. I now do so for the THIRD time.. The absurdity of the "it just fell down" or "it just got knocked down" points of view are easy enough to illustrate. But first, we have to agree on where the spire is during it's "collapse".
Where, indeed, is it?
If you tell me where it is, perhaps I can see it also. If I can see it, also, then I can compute the speed of it's drop. Also, by comparing the height of when it was last seen to the minimum height in which it could have been seen, we can calculate it's minimum average velocity during that last frame. (We need to compute the frames per second, also.)
That's simple enough, isn't it?
Just to make it perfectly clear, you need to use a video that shows most of the spire. We are trying to establish a minimum downwards velocity during the frame just after it was last visible, therefore we want to be able to see the maximum amount of the distance that the top must have tranversed during that part of the "collapse"
We also want to establish it's position at that point. I have described the collapse as telescoping. Let's verify or debunk that description.
Of course, we also want to produce a graph of the top's downward velocity as a function of time, and see if we notice anything unphysical.
That certainly is not clear.
Are you asking for the speed of the collapse of the spire or of the top of the building?
Nevertheless, what does the speed of the collapse of the spire have to do with anything? I am stating that the portion of the building that remained standing, which is known as the 'spire' could not possibly continue to remain standing for long due to its inherent unstablity. You have said before that it looks to be a portion of the perimeter columns. That would make it essentially a two dimensional tall structure in that it would have no lateral support in a direction perpendicular to the perimeter columns. The very top part of said spire is a lone column, essentially a one dimension column with no lateral support in any direction. However for there to be such a lone column it would have to have been stripped of the other columns and wide braces of that perimeter section. That means a LOT of buffeting and since those welds were snapped one can hardly assume that the lone weld holing that top of the spire onto the rest is in perfect condition.
You seem to be concentrating on the fact that the steel of the 'spire' is difficult to make out as it collapses. So what? You are looking at magnified video shot from a long ways off, through dust and smoke of the building collpase and as the 'spire' falls it too sheds dust further obscuring the sightline to the actual steel.
Rather than believe that the problem is optics or obscuring dust you wish people to believe that some type of weapon must have turned the spire to dust. That is way too sci-fi for me.(the operative bit there is that the 'fi' in sci-fi stands for 'fiction'.
I am concentrating on the fact that the top of the spire is not overly difficult to make out, until it disintegrates, and that's because it's not visible, as a solid body, at all. (And not because it's being obscured) It's very easy to put the lie to the verbal pseudo "explanations" of what happened by examining the evidence. The failure of those who claim that there was nothing exotic about the spire's "collapse" to oblige my very simple request speaks to the fact that they are scared to be shown obscuring the issue.
If I'm wrong, and you are not scared to have your explanation of the spire's collapse debunked, please tell us where the top of the spire was, every tenth of a second, from the onset of collapse, for as long as you could see it.
If you claim that the video was so clouded up that it obscured the spire after a certain point, we can simply compare frames to see if our eyeballs agree with yours.
Even better (if you can do this) separate out the frames, number them, and give us a specific number.That may not be easy for you to do unless you have a background in manipulating video files. Then again, now that I think of it, one of the spire videos was a rotating gif, and it may easily show all constituent frames.
You are missing most of the point if you think I am just focussing on whether the spire collapses downward or not. It did collapse downward, in a telescoping fashion, which was weird enough. But what was much weirder was the disintegration into dust. Claiming the dust is so thick that it hides the spire is something that not just your eyes, but other peoples' eyes, in general, should also be able to see. Do you agree with this statement, or not? If you really believe this, you should have no problem presenting the specific video frames (or screenshots within .1 second of these optimal frames) which will back up your claim.
As for the speed of collapse: we can calculate that speed from the video evidence. We can also calculate the implicit, phenomenal 'acceleration' of the collapse, by simple high school physics, based on what you tell us is the last point at which we could see the spire, but rejecting your notion that it is merely hidden, afterwards.
I have no doubt that, even if you oblige me, you will simply claim that the spire is "really there", but obscured in such a way that only you and some popes will claim to be the case, but I am quite willing to bet that most people will see what I see. But perhaps I'm being presumptuous.
The ball is in your court.
I cannot accept Hoffman because his 'energy deficit', if fulfilled by explosives, would require such an enormous quantity of explosives be distributed throughout the building.
You claim that engineering explanations cannot address the 'anomalies' yet you are quite willing it seems to accept anomalies in the theories of others. Why is that?
As for the 'spire', why is it so anomalous that it could only stand for (IIRC) 30 seconds after the rest of the building crashes down? I find nothing wrong with this highly unstable section of columns failing to keep itself upright. Is it anomalous that it did not collapse with the rest of the building? Yes, and it is also anomalous that one section of one stairwell survived and that several people lived through the collapse. Is that supposed to then be evidence that a force field of some sort was set up around them? No, it is evidence that in chaotic systems odd things can occur.
I have already requested, TWICE, for somebody from your side to plot the height of the top every .1 second. I now do so for the THIRD time.. The absurdity of the "it just fell down" or "it just got knocked down" points of view are easy enough to illustrate. But first, we have to agree on where the spire is during it's "collapse".
Where, indeed, is it?
If you tell me where it is, perhaps I can see it also. If I can see it, also, then I can compute the speed of it's drop. Also, by comparing the height of when it was last seen to the minimum height in which it could have been seen, we can calculate it's minimum average velocity during that last frame. (We need to compute the frames per second, also.)
That's simple enough, isn't it?
Just to make it perfectly clear, you need to use a video that shows most of the spire. We are trying to establish a minimum downwards velocity during the frame just after it was last visible, therefore we want to be able to see the maximum amount of the distance that the top must have tranversed during that part of the "collapse"
We also want to establish it's position at that point. I have described the collapse as telescoping. Let's verify or debunk that description.
Of course, we also want to produce a graph of the top's downward velocity as a function of time, and see if we notice anything unphysical.
That certainly is not clear.
Are you asking for the speed of the collapse of the spire or of the top of the building?
Nevertheless, what does the speed of the collapse of the spire have to do with anything? I am stating that the portion of the building that remained standing, which is known as the 'spire' could not possibly continue to remain standing for long due to its inherent unstablity. You have said before that it looks to be a portion of the perimeter columns. That would make it essentially a two dimensional tall structure in that it would have no lateral support in a direction perpendicular to the perimeter columns. The very top part of said spire is a lone column, essentially a one dimension column with no lateral support in any direction. However for there to be such a lone column it would have to have been stripped of the other columns and wide braces of that perimeter section. That means a LOT of buffeting and since those welds were snapped one can hardly assume that the lone weld holing that top of the spire onto the rest is in perfect condition.
You seem to be concentrating on the fact that the steel of the 'spire' is difficult to make out as it collapses. So what? You are looking at magnified video shot from a long ways off, through dust and smoke of the building collpase and as the 'spire' falls it too sheds dust further obscuring the sightline to the actual steel.
Rather than believe that the problem is optics or obscuring dust you wish people to believe that some type of weapon must have turned the spire to dust. That is way too sci-fi for me.(the operative bit there is that the 'fi' in sci-fi stands for 'fiction'.
I am concentrating on the fact that the top of the spire is not overly difficult to make out, until it disintegrates, and that's because it's not visible, as a solid body, at all. (And not because it's being obscured) It's very easy to put the lie to the verbal pseudo "explanations" of what happened by examining the evidence. The failure of those who claim that there was nothing exotic about the spire's "collapse" to oblige my very simple request speaks to the fact that they are scared to be shown obscuring the issue.
If I'm wrong, and you are not scared to have your explanation of the spire's collapse debunked, please tell us where the top of the spire was, every tenth of a second, from the onset of collapse, for as long as you could see it.
If you claim that the video was so clouded up that it obscured the spire after a certain point, we can simply compare frames to see if our eyeballs agree with yours.
Even better (if you can do this) separate out the frames, number them, and give us a specific number.That may not be easy for you to do unless you have a background in manipulating video files. Then again, now that I think of it, one of the spire videos was a rotating gif, and it may easily show all constituent frames.
You are missing most of the point if you think I am just focussing on whether the spire collapses downward or not. It did collapse downward, in a telescoping fashion, which was weird enough. But what was much weirder was the disintegration into dust. Claiming the dust is so thick that it hides the spire is something that not just your eyes, but other peoples' eyes, in general, should also be able to see. Do you agree with this statement, or not? If you really believe this, you should have no problem presenting the specific video frames (or screenshots within .1 second of these optimal frames) which will back up your claim.
As for the speed of collapse: we can calculate that speed from the video evidence. We can also calculate the implicit, phenomenal 'acceleration' of the collapse, by simple high school physics, based on what you tell us is the last point at which we could see the spire, but rejecting your notion that it is merely hidden, afterwards.
I have no doubt that, even if you oblige me, you will simply claim that the spire is "really there", but obscured in such a way that only you and some popes will claim to be the case, but I am quite willing to bet that most people will see what I see. But perhaps I'm being presumptuous.
The ball is in your court.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 30 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:33 AM)
But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01]
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
Don't "PERIOD" me, you banksters shill.
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
-------------------------------------
The gov't CT's go amazingly quiet.
next post...
Schnensable - Jan 29 2006, 06:46 PM
Over 12 hrs later...a new record for silence from the government CT's
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59331
-------------------------------------
The gov't CT's go amazingly quiet.
next post...
Schnensable - Jan 29 2006, 06:46 PM
Over 12 hrs later...a new record for silence from the government CT's
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59331
Video proof BEYOND A DOUBT the columns were pulled in...
Proof the trusses sagged and pulled in the columns
http://65.217.248.202/911columns.wmv
This shows (or showed) a four second edited clip from a very long video...
Once it was exposed that 'that' 'edited' video clip was coming from a very strange... 'provider' ... (an Urology website...), mysteriously...
A day later the above Urology link no longer works and this message pops up...
------------------------------------------------------
Foxx replied to 'proof beyond doubt' Jan 30 2006, 3:18 a.m.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59455
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Foxx replied to 'proof beyond doubt' Jan 30 2006, 3:18 a.m.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59455
-------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cosmo - Jan 30 2006, 04:46 am
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59485
Even more interesting, the video has suddenly disappeared.
I guess the shill supervisor would only let them post 4 seconds of the video for a short time. Maybe if they beg their boss, they can get them to cough up a photo of the super-duper fire-proof passport.
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyone catch the 'hillbilly' tone to Schnensable's statement...
"So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site."...
Of course 'Schenensable' seems to be so enamoured with his hero the Schneibster, he just 'copies' the traits of 'Schneibster'.
Of course, other copycat traits are the constant references to ROVE...
the money-making 'alternative' sites references which 'sickens' both of them...
the constant referrals to anus-fixations and 'smelly things' when characterizing opponents...
the 'demolition CT's' are trying to 'damage' the real conspiracy (which of course neither 'character' wishes to elaborate or spend any time at all ON, other than to make constant references to some other vague "REAL' Conspiracy...
and on, and on...
Anyone catch the 'hillbilly' tone to Schnensable's statement...
"So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site."...
Of course 'Schenensable' seems to be so enamoured with his hero the Schneibster, he just 'copies' the traits of 'Schneibster'.
Of course, other copycat traits are the constant references to ROVE...
the money-making 'alternative' sites references which 'sickens' both of them...
the constant referrals to anus-fixations and 'smelly things' when characterizing opponents...
the 'demolition CT's' are trying to 'damage' the real conspiracy (which of course neither 'character' wishes to elaborate or spend any time at all ON, other than to make constant references to some other vague "REAL' Conspiracy...
and on, and on...
by Schnensable
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Double Heh! ... No you didn't.
You took a brief edited clip from a long expose video (A very good one, I might add)...
clipped out the majority of that video...edited to suit your own slant... (actually your clip was 'taken out-of-context')...
You then Cleverly 'somehow' took that edited clip and placed it on an un-named server somewhere, where it could be accessed for 'your' purposes... (using the index page of an Urology site as the truncated source of that edited clip...just in case anyone was slick enough to attempt to find that server).
You were caught doing this and quickly had to dissolve the server location where that brief clip was cached.
You then had no choice but to reveal the entire video, and attempted to save face by claiming that you had 'proved' something using the video cached on a CT site.
I will admit that this sleight of hand was a very tricky and clever manuver, Schneiby.
Please tell us how 'Homeland Security/gov't shills' can hijack an index page from an Urology site and pull this off...
or is the 'unusual' index page (consisting of nothing more than an IP address), simply a spook 'front'?
I haven't yet had time to study this entire video in depth, but near the beginning is again video proof that there was an explosion at the base of WTC 2 (which was zoomed in on), moments prior to the actual collapse (as is evidenced by the WHITE SMOKE rising from the base even before the 'collapse' began}.
There are many other videos of this and witness testimony which concurs.
I can understand why 'spooks' and gov't shills would want to truncate the brief 4 second video you originally posted to edit out the rest of the video.
-------------------
Now regarding your panties-too-tight shrill threats regarding 'your copyright' image which you allege is on my 'website'... I returned your PM when I first arrived home. Did you not read it?
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Cheers
Now, I'm going to watch the full video (which you tried to hide in the first place).
Thanks, and manyana.
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
Don't "PERIOD" me, you banksters shill.
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
- Jan 29 2006, 06:21 AM
The Bankers Trust expose.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59251
- Jan 29 2006, 06:21 AM
The Bankers Trust expose.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59251
-------------------------------------
The gov't CT's go amazingly quiet.
next post...
Schnensable - Jan 29 2006, 06:46 PM
Over 12 hrs later...a new record for silence from the government CT's
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59331
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx - Jan 29 2006, 06:21 AM The Bankers Trust expose. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59251 |
-------------------------------------
The gov't CT's go amazingly quiet.
next post...
Schnensable - Jan 29 2006, 06:46 PM
Over 12 hrs later...a new record for silence from the government CT's
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59331
Video proof BEYOND A DOUBT the columns were pulled in...
Proof the trusses sagged and pulled in the columns
http://65.217.248.202/911columns.wmv
This shows (or showed) a four second edited clip from a very long video...
Once it was exposed that 'that' 'edited' video clip was coming from a very strange... 'provider' ... (an Urology website...), mysteriously...
A day later the above Urology link no longer works and this message pops up...
QUOTE
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
------------------------------------------------------
Foxx replied to 'proof beyond doubt' Jan 30 2006, 3:18 a.m.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59455
-------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. |
------------------------------------------------------
Foxx replied to 'proof beyond doubt' Jan 30 2006, 3:18 a.m.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59455
-------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cosmo - Jan 30 2006, 04:46 am
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59485
Even more interesting, the video has suddenly disappeared.
I guess the shill supervisor would only let them post 4 seconds of the video for a short time. Maybe if they beg their boss, they can get them to cough up a photo of the super-duper fire-proof passport.
--------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
[i]Originally posted by Schnensable - Jan 30 2006, 4:46 am
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59489
Now you'll have to just download the video yourself.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59489
Now you'll have to just download the video yourself.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Anyone catch the 'hillbilly' tone to Schnensable's statement...
"So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site."...
Of course 'Schenensable' seems to be so enamoured with his hero the Schneibster, he just 'copies' the traits of 'Schneibster'.
Of course, other copycat traits are the constant references to ROVE...
the money-making 'alternative' sites references which 'sickens' both of them...
the constant referrals to anus-fixations and 'smelly things' when characterizing opponents...
the 'demolition CT's' are trying to 'damage' the real conspiracy (which of course neither 'character' wishes to elaborate or spend any time at all ON, other than to make constant references to some other vague "REAL' Conspiracy...
and on, and on...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [i]Originally posted by Schnensable - Jan 30 2006, 4:46 am http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59489 Now you'll have to just download the video yourself. http://novakeo.com/?p=337 The clip is from 30:00 into part one. So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site. It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh! |
Anyone catch the 'hillbilly' tone to Schnensable's statement...
"So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site."...
Of course 'Schenensable' seems to be so enamoured with his hero the Schneibster, he just 'copies' the traits of 'Schneibster'.
Of course, other copycat traits are the constant references to ROVE...
the money-making 'alternative' sites references which 'sickens' both of them...
the constant referrals to anus-fixations and 'smelly things' when characterizing opponents...
the 'demolition CT's' are trying to 'damage' the real conspiracy (which of course neither 'character' wishes to elaborate or spend any time at all ON, other than to make constant references to some other vague "REAL' Conspiracy...
and on, and on...
by Schnensable
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Double Heh! ... No you didn't.
You took a brief edited clip from a long expose video (A very good one, I might add)...
clipped out the majority of that video...edited to suit your own slant... (actually your clip was 'taken out-of-context')...
You then Cleverly 'somehow' took that edited clip and placed it on an un-named server somewhere, where it could be accessed for 'your' purposes... (using the index page of an Urology site as the truncated source of that edited clip...just in case anyone was slick enough to attempt to find that server).
You were caught doing this and quickly had to dissolve the server location where that brief clip was cached.
You then had no choice but to reveal the entire video, and attempted to save face by claiming that you had 'proved' something using the video cached on a CT site.
I will admit that this sleight of hand was a very tricky and clever manuver, Schneiby.
Please tell us how 'Homeland Security/gov't shills' can hijack an index page from an Urology site and pull this off...
or is the 'unusual' index page (consisting of nothing more than an IP address), simply a spook 'front'?
I haven't yet had time to study this entire video in depth, but near the beginning is again video proof that there was an explosion at the base of WTC 2 (which was zoomed in on), moments prior to the actual collapse (as is evidenced by the WHITE SMOKE rising from the base even before the 'collapse' began}.
There are many other videos of this and witness testimony which concurs.
I can understand why 'spooks' and gov't shills would want to truncate the brief 4 second video you originally posted to edit out the rest of the video.
-------------------
Now regarding your panties-too-tight shrill threats regarding 'your copyright' image which you allege is on my 'website'... I returned your PM when I first arrived home. Did you not read it?
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Cheers
Now, I'm going to watch the full video (which you tried to hide in the first place).
Thanks, and manyana.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 30 2006, 03:56 AM)
Gotcha, understood Sensable. However, I should have made myself clearer about where the INCOMING debris-wall came FROM...was it walls from high in the TWIN TOWER ,or middle, or lower? I want to get a feel for whether that tower-perimeter-wall section came from the initial top-on-bottom 'crunch' and sudden compression-decompression 'burst' of glowing-hot material, gases and wall-segments; OR from lower-down SIDEWAYS blowouts (on the way down) OR when the EVEN-GREATER hot/burning rubble-mass AGAIN all came to a sudden compression-decompression 'crunching' STOP at ground level (I note that in some of the other images of the tower collapse rubble, some of the remains of the lowest perimeter-wall segments are leaning OUTWARDS as if they were 'blown' out by the final 'crunching burst' when the final compression heating/decompression happened at ground level).
If it was the 'lighter' wall segments that hit the above building, then they were flung out from the initial HOT-CRUNCH when the top collapsed (especially if the wall segments were PARTS of the TOP per se...because sudden pressure at the 'crunch' points would 'blow' these 'upwards and out' since THEY were 'covering' the crunching process at that early stage in the collapse).
And if they were 'intermediate-level' wall segments, they must have been flung out sideways by the explosive-compression/decompression pressure-waves from the intermediate collapse levels.
That's what I was trying to get a handle on, see?
RC.
.
Sorry I didn't respond to this before RC.
I'm sorry, I don't know where the debris came from exactly that hit the building.
A layman's guess is the top of the building peeled away due to the lateral pressure produced by the debris. The further down the collapse went the faster the floors collapsed and the faster the air and debris (Office furniture, gypsum and the concrete and steel of the building itself) between the floors would compress and blow out the sides. There is also the steel segments which are leaning over on top, one ontop of the other and you would expect the top to lean away from the building before it fell. Maybe it's a combination of the two. This is what I make from the video evidence anyway.
If it was the 'lighter' wall segments that hit the above building, then they were flung out from the initial HOT-CRUNCH when the top collapsed (especially if the wall segments were PARTS of the TOP per se...because sudden pressure at the 'crunch' points would 'blow' these 'upwards and out' since THEY were 'covering' the crunching process at that early stage in the collapse).
And if they were 'intermediate-level' wall segments, they must have been flung out sideways by the explosive-compression/decompression pressure-waves from the intermediate collapse levels.
That's what I was trying to get a handle on, see?
RC.
.
Sorry I didn't respond to this before RC.
I'm sorry, I don't know where the debris came from exactly that hit the building.
A layman's guess is the top of the building peeled away due to the lateral pressure produced by the debris. The further down the collapse went the faster the floors collapsed and the faster the air and debris (Office furniture, gypsum and the concrete and steel of the building itself) between the floors would compress and blow out the sides. There is also the steel segments which are leaning over on top, one ontop of the other and you would expect the top to lean away from the building before it fell. Maybe it's a combination of the two. This is what I make from the video evidence anyway.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 30 2006, 01:25 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
No one can put something on my website except me, Schneiby...(well... except some clever hacker, I suppose).
Uh huh.
You have made a commitment to remove any picture that is my copyright. Well, it's still there. As I have repeatedly said, you are a liar; your word is worth squat. Prove me wrong. Remove it. See the link below.
You have made a commitment to remove any picture that is my copyright. Well, it's still there. As I have repeatedly said, you are a liar; your word is worth squat. Prove me wrong. Remove it. See the link below.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I don't have time for your bs
Did you actually READ the user agreement when you established that oceanmirage site? Like I said last night, I hope it doesn't affect your business site.
As far as it being "bs," see the link below. I notice you keep putting it up and taking it down off the frontpage for oceanmirage. Which is very cute, but not just a really great idea considering you have a post on this thread that links to the image. I'm betting the admins of this board gave you a warning, and told you if you violated it again you were gone. I'm betting if I send them a link to that post, you're done. You wanna find out? Keep screwing around with me. But that's not even my last move.
As far as it being "bs," see the link below. I notice you keep putting it up and taking it down off the frontpage for oceanmirage. Which is very cute, but not just a really great idea considering you have a post on this thread that links to the image. I'm betting the admins of this board gave you a warning, and told you if you violated it again you were gone. I'm betting if I send them a link to that post, you're done. You wanna find out? Keep screwing around with me. But that's not even my last move.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
I have no idea what photo you are referring to, and I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats.
We'll see how concerned homestead is with their copyright policy. Most providers don't screw around about copyrighted material violations.
And then there's the fact that you've lied so far SIX TIMES in this post. Maybe you couldn't get any more lies in because you were in such a hurry?
Lets detail them:
1. "No one can put anything on my site except me" Lie, if the provider does nightly backup-and-restore, and you make a change while the verify stage of the backup is in progress, then your change will be wiped out by the restore. I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was what had happened. That is an act of good faith on my part, which you have spurned with a lie.
2. "I don't have time for your bs" Lie, it's not BS, the link is right there.
3. "I have no idea what photo you are referring to" Lie, your website provider has already contacted you about it and you linked to it in a previous post.
4. "I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats" Lie, or if it's not, you're pretty stupid, because they aren't mock threats, and if you piss me off enough you could have trouble getting on the 'Net, lose your web site provider, and lose your posting privileges here.
5. "puppets lined up on the bed" Lie, they're stuffed animals.
6. "I have no problem in removing it" Lie, it's still there.
Here it is.. You better fix that, Foxx.
And then there's the fact that you've lied so far SIX TIMES in this post. Maybe you couldn't get any more lies in because you were in such a hurry?
Lets detail them:
1. "No one can put anything on my site except me" Lie, if the provider does nightly backup-and-restore, and you make a change while the verify stage of the backup is in progress, then your change will be wiped out by the restore. I was in fact giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was what had happened. That is an act of good faith on my part, which you have spurned with a lie.
2. "I don't have time for your bs" Lie, it's not BS, the link is right there.
3. "I have no idea what photo you are referring to" Lie, your website provider has already contacted you about it and you linked to it in a previous post.
4. "I am completely unconcerned with your mock threats" Lie, or if it's not, you're pretty stupid, because they aren't mock threats, and if you piss me off enough you could have trouble getting on the 'Net, lose your web site provider, and lose your posting privileges here.
5. "puppets lined up on the bed" Lie, they're stuffed animals.
6. "I have no problem in removing it" Lie, it's still there.
Here it is.. You better fix that, Foxx.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
However, as I said, if you are claiming a copyright to any image on my site, give me the properties of that image, and I have no problem in removing it.
There it is, it's a link, Foxx, or do you still not know how to follow a link? NOW we find out whether Foxx is a liar or has integrity. Remove it, Foxx. Now. I'm gonna give you until tonight, and if it's still there, homestead starts getting some more email traffic from me. I'm sure they're already not very happy, and they're going to be unhappier yet if you keep messing with me.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The 'puppets lined up on the bed' photo was removed
Foxx has not had much to do with women, so he doesn't know that some women like to have stuffed animals. My wife has a collection of them. She keeps them on top of the headboard. She is by no means the only woman I know of who does so; the fact that you have never seen a woman collect stuffed animals is probably a clue to things about you that I really have no interest in knowing. The fact that you don't know the difference between a stuffed animal and a puppet says some pretty disturbing things about the nature of your childhood. I REALLY don't want to know about that.
Given the number of lies you managed to pack into a single post, and the squirming you are doing here, I'm guessing that you were previously insincere. Considering the insult to my wife implicit in your discussion about her stuffed animals above, I think the case on that is closed.
You have screwed up AGAIN, lied AGAIN (not once but six times in a single post) and having fixed it so your cable modem doesn't connect to my system any more, and being in the process of making your web site provider aware that you're violating their copyright policy, my next move will be toward your cable provider, and I will claim harassment and give segments of this thread and my server logs to prove it. I have firewall logs, Foxx, and web server logs, and I've already saved the needed portions of this thread (despite them being deleted by the site). They're all I need. I'd suggest you make sure your crap isn't touching my site. Your last attempted access was at 8:28:51 last night. I'd make it the last EVER if I were you.
Schneibster, how did you get the moderators to let you continue to post after threatening to kill Foxx? I saw you changed” I will find you and I will axe you” too “I will find you and I will axe your connection” before it was removed and history was rewritten by the moderators. Did you tell the moderators you PULLED a SILVERSTIEN and it was Just a typo. You act as if copyright violations are comparable to threatening to kill someone.
Given the number of lies you managed to pack into a single post, and the squirming you are doing here, I'm guessing that you were previously insincere. Considering the insult to my wife implicit in your discussion about her stuffed animals above, I think the case on that is closed.
You have screwed up AGAIN, lied AGAIN (not once but six times in a single post) and having fixed it so your cable modem doesn't connect to my system any more, and being in the process of making your web site provider aware that you're violating their copyright policy, my next move will be toward your cable provider, and I will claim harassment and give segments of this thread and my server logs to prove it. I have firewall logs, Foxx, and web server logs, and I've already saved the needed portions of this thread (despite them being deleted by the site). They're all I need. I'd suggest you make sure your crap isn't touching my site. Your last attempted access was at 8:28:51 last night. I'd make it the last EVER if I were you.
Schneibster, how did you get the moderators to let you continue to post after threatening to kill Foxx? I saw you changed” I will find you and I will axe you” too “I will find you and I will axe your connection” before it was removed and history was rewritten by the moderators. Did you tell the moderators you PULLED a SILVERSTIEN and it was Just a typo. You act as if copyright violations are comparable to threatening to kill someone.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 31 2006, 03:00 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 30 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:33 AM)
But at 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its IFF (identify friend or foe) beacon signal [CNN, 9/17/01]
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
Don't "PERIOD" me, you banksters shill.
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
What's this, another idiot sock puppet working for Rove? Is this what they do with Jack Abramoff money? Send shills to push a Conspiracy theory fantacy so they can point to liberals and laugh? What a waste of money.
This is what I want you to do... Go to Roves office, ask him to sit down, tell him you are very sorry but you can't continue to work for him because you're a fu<king a$$hole.
EHHHH ! ??? I must've missed that one, he was going to kill me
With an axe, no less hehehe... what did he plan to do axe his computer monitor or keyboard to death?
Such temper tantrums this one has...
Look out Google... he's coming to 'get ya'.
http://images.google.ca/images?q=Schneibst...G=Search+Images
Yosemite Sam lives (on the internet)... and in his own mind
Face the facts, Schneiby... you've become the laughing stock of this thread.
So the planes had IFFs installed? That's an interesting point if confirmed.
All U.S. civilian passenger jets have IFF. FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting.
Not much use in US airspace though as so many aircraft don't have transponders.
To a jet, every plane at a distance is just a blip. In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips.
The problem is the Conspiracy gang is applying POST 9/11 mindset to PRE 9/11 activities.
There was NO POST 9/11 mindset until AFTER the first plane struck the towers.
The people at the FAA were not the first to recognise this however as all they have is scopes. Even after the FIRST crash most were not in true POST 9/11 thinking. To many this was just a bad accident.
Only when the second plane struck did everyone switch to POST 9/11 mindset.
Pre 9/11 mindset, no one is going to shoot down a civilian jet.
PERIOD.
Arthur
Don't "PERIOD" me, you banksters shill.
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
What's this, another idiot sock puppet working for Rove? Is this what they do with Jack Abramoff money? Send shills to push a Conspiracy theory fantacy so they can point to liberals and laugh? What a waste of money.
This is what I want you to do... Go to Roves office, ask him to sit down, tell him you are very sorry but you can't continue to work for him because you're a fu<king a$$hole.
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
Schneibster, how did you get the moderators to let you continue to post after threatening to kill Foxx? I saw you changed” I will find you and I will axe you” too “I will find you and I will axe your connection” before it was removed and history was rewritten by the moderators. Did you tell the moderators you PULLED a SILVERSTIEN and it was Just a typo. You act as if copyright violations are comparable to threatening to kill someone.
Schneibster, how did you get the moderators to let you continue to post after threatening to kill Foxx? I saw you changed” I will find you and I will axe you” too “I will find you and I will axe your connection” before it was removed and history was rewritten by the moderators. Did you tell the moderators you PULLED a SILVERSTIEN and it was Just a typo. You act as if copyright violations are comparable to threatening to kill someone.
EHHHH ! ??? I must've missed that one, he was going to kill me
With an axe, no less hehehe... what did he plan to do axe his computer monitor or keyboard to death? Such temper tantrums this one has...
Look out Google... he's coming to 'get ya'.
http://images.google.ca/images?q=Schneibst...G=Search+Images
Yosemite Sam lives (on the internet)... and in his own mind
Face the facts, Schneiby... you've become the laughing stock of this thread.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 29 2006, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 29 2006, 02:46 PM)
Video proof BEYOND A DOUBT the columns were pulled in...
Proof the trusses sagged and pulled in the columns
Excellent.
Wonder what pretzel logic the CDers will try to explain this away with?
Arthur
Proof the trusses sagged and pulled in the columns
Excellent.
Wonder what pretzel logic the CDers will try to explain this away with?
Arthur
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 30 2006, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 30 2006, 04:58 AM)
Now you'll have to just download the video yourself.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:46 AM)
yesitdid Jan 31 2006, 12:42 AM
Why on earth do you think I would justify myself to anyone except me ?
hasta manyana
So, that's a 'no' then.
I thought not.
Seems that you blushed when you saw that the statement was silly and quickly tried to change the subject.
How you justify this to yourself I don't know, or care, but it is indicative of your mindset..
QUOTE
So will you admit that the actual question you asked is silly?
Why on earth do you think I would justify myself to anyone except me ?
hasta manyana
So, that's a 'no' then.
I thought not.
Seems that you blushed when you saw that the statement was silly and quickly tried to change the subject.
How you justify this to yourself I don't know, or care, but it is indicative of your mindset..
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 31 2006, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 30 2006, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 30 2006, 04:58 AM)
Now you'll have to just download the video yourself.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
As I said... more anus-fixations.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
As I said... more anus-fixations.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 04:44 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 31 2006, 04:28 AM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 30 2006, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (Sensable+Jan 30 2006, 04:58 AM)
Now you'll have to just download the video yourself.
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
As I said... more anus-fixations.
More like observation
,,,, and do what when they get there? Shoot the plane down? OK, if the order to shoot was given, if the pilots got in close enough to positively(ie. visually) identify the airliner.
Why not fly at supersonic speed? They were NOT heading to a shoot down. There was NO shoot down order. Their mission would be to identify and shadow the airliner, to try to make contact with the pilot and indicate that the plane is to land ASAP. With this in mind it is contra-indicated to burn up a lot of fuel in supersonic flight. With NO shoot down mission this is still a hijacking in which demands are expected to be made by the hijackers.
However, if the order to shoot had been issued and the fighters pushed hard to intercept and did positively identify the airliner and shot it down then , yes, several hundred lives in the WTC south tower would have been spared. One wonders how many would die where it did go down. How many people would be in a 20 story apartment building? A shopping mall? A hotel?
http://novakeo.com/?p=337
The clip is from 30:00 into part one.
So much for the gubament mens supa sercrt spy wub site.
It seems I used a 911 conspiracy video to prove no conspiracy. Heh!
Priceless!!
"Secret NIST videos", indeed.
Heh....
Quit while you're behind, Foxx.
Pull real hard Faux. You may get your head out yet...
As I said... more anus-fixations.
More like observation
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 03:11 AM)
Now regarding your panties-too-tight shrill threats regarding 'your copyright' image which you allege is on my 'website'... I returned your PM when I first arrived home. Did you not read it?
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
Hi billybats. Having a little trouble with your image site there, sport? Gee, I wonder how THAT happened?
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 30 2006, 11:00 PM)
Don't "PERIOD" me, you banksters shill.
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
BS
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
http://aea.faa.gov/airspace/NYNJPHL_Airspa...ass_b_chart.htm
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
We're quite fed up with your endless lies.
"In NY airspace there would be a LOT of unidentified blips."
SHEESH! Who do you think you're going to fool with such idiotic, false, statements ?
NY airspace is (and was "PRE 9/11") class B, there's no way you can enter without a transponder (unless you're al CIAda of course).
Get a honest life.
BS
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
http://aea.faa.gov/airspace/NYNJPHL_Airspa...ass_b_chart.htm
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 04:44 AM)
As I said... more anus-fixations.
Kinda hard to avoid them when dealing with something like you, Faux.
Kinda hard to avoid them when dealing with something like you, Faux.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 05:22 AM)
BS
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
<image snipped>
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
Two words: Posse Comitatus.
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
<image snipped>
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
Two words: Posse Comitatus.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfil...eComitatus.html
I believe this was the same reason the governor of Louisiana couldn't give the state national guard to Bush during Katrina. If she did they wouldn't be able to arrest looters.
I believe this was the same reason the governor of Louisiana couldn't give the state national guard to Bush during Katrina. If she did they wouldn't be able to arrest looters.
QUOTE
Lies and Contradictions
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
Thus, had the FAA not delayed its notification of NORAD, the approximately 620 people killed in the World Trade Center's South Tower might have been saved. [New York Magazine, 9/02] Had the FAA reported its suspicions at 8:20 or even around 8:14 (when a hijacking was already suspected), the fighters would have had another 15 to 21 minutes to reach New York City and decide what to do. But is it true that the FAA did in fact wait so long before notifying NORAD? As a matter of fact, a later ABC News report says that the FAA notified NORAD employee Lt. Colonel Dawne Deskins at 8:31 a.m., not 8:40. [ABC News, 9/11/02] A different version of that ABC report states, “Shortly after 8:30 a.m., behind the scenes, word of a possible hijacking reached various stations of NORAD.” [ABC News, 9/14/02] Even such a late notification around 8:30 would have given the fighters from Otis a fighting chance to reach Flight 175 before it crashed, especially since NORAD says the fighters only took six minutes to get ready and take off, instead of the maximum 15. [NORAD, 9/18/01]
NORAD claims that after being told of the hijacking at 8:40, it waited six minutes to give the scramble order to the Otis pilots. It then took another six minutes before the pilots took off. So, at 8:52, two fighters took off toward New York City. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before he took off a fellow officer had told him, “This looks like the real thing.” Duffy later said, “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower meant the fighters were going as fast as they could go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later said, “As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” Their target destination was the airspace over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02]
So even if the late notification of 8:40 is true, these fighters still should have been able to reach New York City before Flight 175 as long as they traveled 1100 mph or faster—far below their maximum speed of 1875 mph. In fact, Major General Larry Arnold says they did head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 ©, Slate, 1/16/02] Yet, according to NORAD, the journey took 19 minutes, meaning the fighters traveled below 600 mph, and below supersonic speeds. [NORAD, 9/18/01] Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, thus made the absurd statement, “The pilots flew ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] At that speed, Flight 11 would have been traveling faster than the fighters!
,,,, and do what when they get there? Shoot the plane down? OK, if the order to shoot was given, if the pilots got in close enough to positively(ie. visually) identify the airliner.
Why not fly at supersonic speed? They were NOT heading to a shoot down. There was NO shoot down order. Their mission would be to identify and shadow the airliner, to try to make contact with the pilot and indicate that the plane is to land ASAP. With this in mind it is contra-indicated to burn up a lot of fuel in supersonic flight. With NO shoot down mission this is still a hijacking in which demands are expected to be made by the hijackers.
However, if the order to shoot had been issued and the fighters pushed hard to intercept and did positively identify the airliner and shot it down then , yes, several hundred lives in the WTC south tower would have been spared. One wonders how many would die where it did go down. How many people would be in a 20 story apartment building? A shopping mall? A hotel?
Excellent link, Sensable.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 01:24 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 05:22 AM)
BS
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
<image snipped>
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
Two words: Posse Comitatus.
I'm not sure Posse Comitatus applies, I believe that has to do with the military acting as police, i.e. having arrest power.
This fighter pilots in the sky, hes got missiles and guns and probably only a vague awareness of Posse Comitatus.
What he is WELL AWARE of though is his RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and they don't allow him to shoot down a civilian airliner.
No one he's talking to at NEADs can give it to him.
No one at his base can give it to him.
The VP and above could, but they aren't in communication with him.
But now comes the tricky part, even if he got authorization, how do you positively identify the plane in question?
And it is this last fact which would keep any reasonable person from pulling the trigger.
Arthur
Right around the airports Class B extends to the surface, but just a bit away from it Class B rises. There are plenty of transition routes for non altitude encoding transponder aircraft to operate in NY airspace and plenty do.
<image snipped>
But this is ALSO a MOOT POINT.
There WAS NO EASY WAY to identify a specific commercial Jet without getting up close and more importantly the jets did not have authorization to shoot anyone down.
So if they could have identified the second jet, or as I point out, it is highly unlikely that they could, they STILL couldn't shoot it down.
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS KEY POINT?
Arthur
Two words: Posse Comitatus.
I'm not sure Posse Comitatus applies, I believe that has to do with the military acting as police, i.e. having arrest power.
This fighter pilots in the sky, hes got missiles and guns and probably only a vague awareness of Posse Comitatus.
What he is WELL AWARE of though is his RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and they don't allow him to shoot down a civilian airliner.
No one he's talking to at NEADs can give it to him.
No one at his base can give it to him.
The VP and above could, but they aren't in communication with him.
But now comes the tricky part, even if he got authorization, how do you positively identify the plane in question?
And it is this last fact which would keep any reasonable person from pulling the trigger.
Arthur
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 03:11 AM)
Now regarding your panties-too-tight shrill threats regarding 'your copyright' image which you allege is on my 'website'... I returned your PM when I first arrived home. Did you not read it?
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
Pffft... anyone buying this boogie woogie?
You are a real comedy Schneiby.
No site administrators from here have called upon me for ANY reason.
I haven't heard from Homestead, nor do I expect to.
Send away all the posts that you consider 'relevant' and let me assure you, anyone in their right mind will quickly see you are completely looney... a NUT CASE.
Get help !!!
How many people do you need to hear that from, before you take some good advise?
by the Schneib ..."Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?"
Quite honestly, not at all Schneiby.
I realize you need to build this all up in a post as a self-defense mechanism, so that you can feel you have 'taught' others some kind of 'lesson', but I'm sitting here laughing at this joke-post and just shaking my head.
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
All this boogie-woogie about how you are capable of doing this or that does NOT impress me or phase me at all.
HAhahaha... LMAO...What 'reaming'?
You call that silly collection of words something that someone should FEAR ?
BWaaahahahahahaha!
Keep up the good work, Schneiby... if nothing else you bring MUCH entertainment to this thread. I can assure you, I will giggle myself to sleep tonight with your words ringing in my ears.
Yosemite Sam is alive & well.
Thanks.
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
Pffft... anyone buying this boogie woogie?
You are a real comedy Schneiby.
No site administrators from here have called upon me for ANY reason.
I haven't heard from Homestead, nor do I expect to.
Send away all the posts that you consider 'relevant' and let me assure you, anyone in their right mind will quickly see you are completely looney... a NUT CASE.
Get help !!!
How many people do you need to hear that from, before you take some good advise?
by the Schneib ..."Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?"
Quite honestly, not at all Schneiby.
I realize you need to build this all up in a post as a self-defense mechanism, so that you can feel you have 'taught' others some kind of 'lesson', but I'm sitting here laughing at this joke-post and just shaking my head.
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
All this boogie-woogie about how you are capable of doing this or that does NOT impress me or phase me at all.
QUOTE
by the Schneibster
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
HAhahaha... LMAO...What 'reaming'?
You call that silly collection of words something that someone should FEAR ?
BWaaahahahahahaha!
Keep up the good work, Schneiby... if nothing else you bring MUCH entertainment to this thread. I can assure you, I will giggle myself to sleep tonight with your words ringing in my ears.
Yosemite Sam is alive & well.
Thanks.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 05:02 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 03:11 AM)
Now regarding your panties-too-tight shrill threats regarding 'your copyright' image which you allege is on my 'website'... I returned your PM when I first arrived home. Did you not read it?
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
Schneibster, does your keyboard look anything like this?
Frankly this does not look like a portion of the perimeter columns to me at all. The perimeter columns are distinctive but this is more grid like, more like the corner of the core.
In the first pic the lone column on top is straighter, actually leaning slightly to the viewer's right. In the second it is leaning more to the viewr's left and the next highest column is leaning to the right. the column attached to the high column is obviously bent.
The whole thing is swaying and quite obviously unstable. It is no shock that it could not remain standing.
As for timing the collapse, of course these stills are useless for that. I found one video of the spire taken from quite a distance away and useless. Many plaguepuppy videos returned a 'page not found' error.
It is late and I have no more time to search for more grainy video of a fast moving object in a dusty enviroment.
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
Seriously, Foxx.....
I really believe that if you could just manage to lay off the 'BC bud' for one day and read everything you've posted on this thread, that you'd never light up another spliff as long as you live.
I mean, really, read it.....
It's hilarious.
You're like what....
50 years old??
Those gummed up old synapses could really use a break.
"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information-processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate."
Do yourself a favor. Lay off of that stuff.
Of course I'd miss your lunacy, but.....
Just tryin' to be helpful, ole buddy.
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
So Foxx, did you talk your Mom Down from that Crank High?
Arthur
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
So Foxx, did you talk your Mom Down from that Crank High?
Arthur
Uhhh... no arthur... I looked him in the eyes and said...
"buddy, you're just havin' a paranoid delusion... happens all the time with that stuff. Take it easy now. I'm going to raise my hand slowly and direct that weapon away from my face... just so we don't have any accidents here. Look at you, your trembling... your finger on that trigger is trembling and you are not in control... you don't want any accidents to happen do you? I am your buddy. I'm going to help you through this paranoia."
By the time I had finished that statement, I had slowly (and ever so carefully) raised my hand, touched his and gently moved the weapon out of direct line of fire with my face.
After you face something like that, silly words such as Schneibster posts make me laugh.
Of course, I probably wouldn't have the same 'luck' with stone-cold sober 'spooks'.
But, hey... we all gotta go sometime.
"buddy, you're just havin' a paranoid delusion... happens all the time with that stuff.
Speaking of delusional paranoia.....
Remember that time I gave you a tip on a stock I'd been watching? You accused me of being a 'spook' trying to make you lose all of your money.....
When the stock went up 300% in a month, you accused me of being a 'spook' trying to buy you off.
You'll see that theme recurring throughout this thread, every time you're cornered.
As I read through the thread trying to catch up on all the obfuscations you have been casting about, I find you still nattering and crying that I am playing 'tricks' on you and the image is on-again off-again bla bla blah bla.
Email homestead all you like... email the mods here... call in your lawyer... call out the national guard!.
I told you... you blathering QUACK...
Your sickening image is removed from my site. Yet you claim it's still there!
Did you try refreshing your browser when the image comes up 'over & over' on YOUR screen? It's probably still in your own computer cache. SHEESH !!! TRY THAT...refresh your browser and let me know if your precious sickening image still comes up on your computer.
Contrary to the appearances of having an 'army' of supporters (puppets) who bolster your statements... you are NOT fooling very many here, Schneiby.
Looks like Fauxie got slapped by the site admins here, then got slapped by his web site provider, then when he tried to get on my site to gather some material to use for some more intimidation tactics, he had some funny little troubles, and friends, I ain't sendin RSTs or NACKs, you touch my site and you're not authorized, I HANG your crap. And my logs go back FIVE YEARS. And I log the site, and I log the firewall, and I log EVERY SINGLE PACKET comes onto my system from the 'Net. That's so I can catch smartasses like our Fauxie here and slap 'em good. And folks, I'm watchin those logs, RIGHT NOW, and for some time to come; whipped me up a quick log analyzer script. Lookin for someone messin with me. Don't let it be you. If I catch you, I'll have your 'Net access terminated.
Feelin a little defensive there, Fauxie?
I want you to keep something carefully in mind. It's simple, and it's easy. So far, I have not demanded site logs and sent you a bill for $100 per download, but Canada DOES have both a copyright treaty and an extradition treaty with the US, and for that matter, I'm close enough by to take it to Canadian court if I deem it wise to do so. You used my image without my permission, and I found out about it, and your liability is essentially unlimited. Your attitude here makes that really tempting. You might wanna consider whether you might still have a little problem there, Fauxie.
And I ain't even started to get in touch with your ISP. So if you think you got trouble now, why don't you mess with me some more? You will find out all about the 'Net, a whole bunch of things you didn't EVER want to know.
If you just renamed it and are figuring on whipping out another copy later on, let me advise you that that would be a REALLY BAD IDEA. It could cost you a LOT. And I mean a LOT. You're real vulnerable, Fauxie, and if you ain't good, you're gonna have troubles make a little spanking on an internet forum look like a piece of good luck. I got you by the short-n-curlies, son, and all your whining, weaseling, squirming, and yelling ain't gonna get you nothin but more trouble.
I hope your sociopathic little a$$ keeps this reaming in mind the next time you decide to screw around with someone. If I see it, you can bet I'll be reminding you.
You're a bully, Faux, and like all bullies, when someone stands up to you, you run away and cry. Go cry in your pillow some more, Fauxie, and learn a lesson before you end up in a situation where you'll be BITING your pillow, while Bubba has some fun with you.
Schneibster, does your keyboard look anything like this?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 05:38 AM)
I'm not sure Posse Comitatus applies, I believe that has to do with the military acting as police, i.e. having arrest power.
This fighter pilots in the sky, hes got missiles and guns and probably only a vague awareness of Posse Comitatus.
What he is WELL AWARE of though is his RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and they don't allow him to shoot down a civilian airliner.
No one he's talking to at NEADs can give it to him.
No one at his base can give it to him.
The VP and above could, but they aren't in communication with him.
But now comes the tricky part, even if he got authorization, how do you positively identify the plane in question?
And it is this last fact which would keep any reasonable person from pulling the trigger.
Arthur
While your point regarding ROE is forceful, the point of Posse Comitatus is that hijacking is a civil matter, which must be dealt with by the civilian authorities; what Posse Comitatus means is that a civilian officer of the law can temporarily draft anyone to assist in the apprehension of a criminal or the prevention of a crime. This is the common-law principle that sheriffs and marshalls in the late nineteenth century in the US frontier used to "round up a 'posse,'" and that last word came directly from the Latin legal terminology above.
What the Posse Comitatus Act did is make it illegal for that "anyone" to include military personnel.
This fighter pilots in the sky, hes got missiles and guns and probably only a vague awareness of Posse Comitatus.
What he is WELL AWARE of though is his RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and they don't allow him to shoot down a civilian airliner.
No one he's talking to at NEADs can give it to him.
No one at his base can give it to him.
The VP and above could, but they aren't in communication with him.
But now comes the tricky part, even if he got authorization, how do you positively identify the plane in question?
And it is this last fact which would keep any reasonable person from pulling the trigger.
Arthur
While your point regarding ROE is forceful, the point of Posse Comitatus is that hijacking is a civil matter, which must be dealt with by the civilian authorities; what Posse Comitatus means is that a civilian officer of the law can temporarily draft anyone to assist in the apprehension of a criminal or the prevention of a crime. This is the common-law principle that sheriffs and marshalls in the late nineteenth century in the US frontier used to "round up a 'posse,'" and that last word came directly from the Latin legal terminology above.
What the Posse Comitatus Act did is make it illegal for that "anyone" to include military personnel.
Keep askin for it, Fauxie, you'll get it. I'm drawing up the bill right now; I have the server logs. Considering what you've had of me the last thirty hours, I'm not sure why you don't think I'm going to just keep right on telling you what I'm going to do, and if you continue, doing it. You must not be very bright.
Your 'Net connection is next on the list right after the bill is mailed.
Your 'Net connection is next on the list right after the bill is mailed.
QUOTE (cosmo+Jan 31 2006, 05:48 AM)
Schneibster, does your keyboard look anything like this?
No, I don't use the 4a><><0r2 model you do, cosmo. I do this stuff for a living.
Have another bong hit.
No, I don't use the 4a><><0r2 model you do, cosmo. I do this stuff for a living.
Have another bong hit.
Excuse me, obfuscators... all this stuff about 'stand downs' etc certainly ties in to the events of THAT DAY, but please check again the title of THIS THREAD...
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
Frankly this does not look like a portion of the perimeter columns to me at all. The perimeter columns are distinctive but this is more grid like, more like the corner of the core.
In the first pic the lone column on top is straighter, actually leaning slightly to the viewer's right. In the second it is leaning more to the viewr's left and the next highest column is leaning to the right. the column attached to the high column is obviously bent.
The whole thing is swaying and quite obviously unstable. It is no shock that it could not remain standing.
As for timing the collapse, of course these stills are useless for that. I found one video of the spire taken from quite a distance away and useless. Many plaguepuppy videos returned a 'page not found' error.
It is late and I have no more time to search for more grainy video of a fast moving object in a dusty enviroment.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 06:08 AM)
Excuse me, obfuscators... all this stuff about 'stand downs' etc certainly ties in to the events of THAT DAY, but please check again the title of THIS THREAD...
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
None of those non-physics topics get raised by anyone other than those who do not believe in the official history of events Foxx. So, by ' obfuscators' you must mean frater or newton or similar.
So sorry if your buddies ruined a topic for you.
Is that a red whine you are having with that foot in your mouth?
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
None of those non-physics topics get raised by anyone other than those who do not believe in the official history of events Foxx. So, by ' obfuscators' you must mean frater or newton or similar.
So sorry if your buddies ruined a topic for you.
Is that a red whine you are having with that foot in your mouth?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 02:08 AM)
Excuse me, obfuscators... all this stuff about 'stand downs' etc certainly ties in to the events of THAT DAY, but please check again the title of THIS THREAD...
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
In this I agree with you, except the part about me wanting to muddy the waters.
I'm sure if you check back you will see I'm just responding to allegations made by CTers that are off topic.
I'm not going to start a thread in Physorg though.
This has ALL been hashed out before.
You can read all about it at airdisaster.com or pose your own questions.
I warn you though, the guys over there will rip you a new one if they post this tripe in an AVIATION forum.
There are Pilots, people who work ATC, NTSB and several Fighter Pilots who will square them away on what that day was like, on what an F/15 can and can't do, what Rules of Engagement are and why they are followed, etc etc
I'm really not going to do that again.
Arthur
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
It Seems that since I posted the expose on the Bankers Trust, and the expose on the inward bowing exterior columns suspicious truncated video... the obfuscators have been posting pages & pages of squirming to twist, avoid, and obfuscate those issues (which ARE relevant to this thread).
While I agree that these other issues are relevant to 9/11 topics... I don't feel they are... here on this thread.
Perhaps someone should start another thread to deal with 'stand-downs', 'shoot-downs', etc?
Our good buddy adoucette has much more experience in dealing with the aircraft issues than WTC engineering issues.
I suggest he starts it and everyone interested in discussing THOSE issues can post on that thread... (although I'm sure he would much sooner muddy the waters on this thread with unrelated aspects).
Don't kill ME... I'm just the messenger.
In this I agree with you, except the part about me wanting to muddy the waters.
I'm sure if you check back you will see I'm just responding to allegations made by CTers that are off topic.
I'm not going to start a thread in Physorg though.
This has ALL been hashed out before.
You can read all about it at airdisaster.com or pose your own questions.
I warn you though, the guys over there will rip you a new one if they post this tripe in an AVIATION forum.
There are Pilots, people who work ATC, NTSB and several Fighter Pilots who will square them away on what that day was like, on what an F/15 can and can't do, what Rules of Engagement are and why they are followed, etc etc
I'm really not going to do that again.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 05:45 AM)
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
Seriously, Foxx.....
I really believe that if you could just manage to lay off the 'BC bud' for one day and read everything you've posted on this thread, that you'd never light up another spliff as long as you live.
I mean, really, read it.....
It's hilarious.
You're like what....
50 years old??
Those gummed up old synapses could really use a break.
"Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory information gets into and is acted on by the hippocampus. This is a component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivations. Investigations have shown that THC suppresses neurons in the information-processing system of the hippocampus. In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate."
Do yourself a favor. Lay off of that stuff.
Of course I'd miss your lunacy, but.....
Just tryin' to be helpful, ole buddy.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 06:01 AM)
Keep askin for it, Fauxie, you'll get it. I'm drawing up the bill right now; I have the server logs. Considering what you've had of me the last thirty hours, I'm not sure why you don't think I'm going to just keep right on telling you what I'm going to do, and if you continue, doing it. You must not be very bright.
Your 'Net connection is next on the list right after the bill is mailed.
Ohhhh... Puulease...
as 'Clint' used to say...
"If you're gonna shoot... just shoot... don't just stand there tellin' me 'you're gonna shoot'."
Bring it on, Cowboy
You are hilarious schneiby!
Your 'Net connection is next on the list right after the bill is mailed.
Ohhhh... Puulease...
as 'Clint' used to say...
"If you're gonna shoot... just shoot... don't just stand there tellin' me 'you're gonna shoot'."
Bring it on, Cowboy
You are hilarious schneiby!
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 05:45 AM)
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
So Foxx, did you talk your Mom Down from that Crank High?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 31 2006, 06:23 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 05:45 AM)
You don't intimidate me at all. The government doesn't intimidate me. The 'spooks' don't intimidate me.
Actually NOTHING has intimidated me since I was twenty years old looking down the barrel of a '45 pointed at my eyes by the shaking hand of a seriously paranoid and highly-drugged meth-amphetamine freak.
So Foxx, did you talk your Mom Down from that Crank High?
Arthur
Uhhh... no arthur... I looked him in the eyes and said...
"buddy, you're just havin' a paranoid delusion... happens all the time with that stuff. Take it easy now. I'm going to raise my hand slowly and direct that weapon away from my face... just so we don't have any accidents here. Look at you, your trembling... your finger on that trigger is trembling and you are not in control... you don't want any accidents to happen do you? I am your buddy. I'm going to help you through this paranoia."
By the time I had finished that statement, I had slowly (and ever so carefully) raised my hand, touched his and gently moved the weapon out of direct line of fire with my face.
After you face something like that, silly words such as Schneibster posts make me laugh.
Of course, I probably wouldn't have the same 'luck' with stone-cold sober 'spooks'.
But, hey... we all gotta go sometime.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 31 2006, 06:51 AM)
"buddy, you're just havin' a paranoid delusion... happens all the time with that stuff.
Speaking of delusional paranoia.....
Remember that time I gave you a tip on a stock I'd been watching? You accused me of being a 'spook' trying to make you lose all of your money.....
When the stock went up 300% in a month, you accused me of being a 'spook' trying to buy you off.
You'll see that theme recurring throughout this thread, every time you're cornered.
I've checked on case law- surprising how much you can find out searching on the 'Net- and it looks like you're gonna pay my credit cards off, Fauxie. Assuming you're good for it and we don't have to attach your income or something. We'll see what the lawyer says tomorrow morning; I'm pretty sure there's a criminal case to be made here, as well. Have a nice evening, sport.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 07:12 AM)
I've checked on case law- surprising how much you can find out searching on the 'Net- and it looks like you're gonna pay my credit cards off, Fauxie. Assuming you're good for it and we don't have to attach your income or something. We'll see what the lawyer says tomorrow morning; I'm pretty sure there's a criminal case to be made here, as well. Have a nice evening, sport.
Be sure to tell your internet lawyer all about the death threats you've been making... sport.
Heh!
Be sure to tell your internet lawyer all about the death threats you've been making... sport.
Heh!
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 07:12 AM)
I've checked on case law- surprising how much you can find out searching on the 'Net- and it looks like you're gonna pay my credit cards off, Fauxie. Assuming you're good for it and we don't have to attach your income or something. We'll see what the lawyer says tomorrow morning; I'm pretty sure there's a criminal case to be made here, as well. Have a nice evening, sport.
Again, I just have to say....
What a great thread!
Information. Entertainment. Comedy.
And now...
Drama.
A classic! Thanks to all for a great read.
Again, I just have to say....
What a great thread!
Information. Entertainment. Comedy.
And now...
Drama.
A classic! Thanks to all for a great read.
QUOTE (JamesX+Jan 31 2006, 07:20 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 31 2006, 07:12 AM)
I've checked on case law- surprising how much you can find out searching on the 'Net- and it looks like you're gonna pay my credit cards off, Fauxie. Assuming you're good for it and we don't have to attach your income or something. We'll see what the lawyer says tomorrow morning; I'm pretty sure there's a criminal case to be made here, as well. Have a nice evening, sport.
Be sure to tell your internet lawyer all about the death threats you've been making... sport.
Heh!
How you interpret what I say, as opposed to how a reasonable person would interpret it, has no interest for me. If I were threatening someone's life or health, something I would not do, then I would be very clear about precisely what I had in mind. Looks like you've been reading too many funny posts and not paying enough attention to the DMCA. But then again, you're just a racist, redneck, militia hilljack, so I'm sure your opinion is going to carry great weight.
schneib searches for truth
with the shill-o-scope®
Schneibster
rank: Conscript
points: 27
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
biography:
I was born. I grew up; my growing pains were primarily due to my rebellious nature. I hacked. Now I play with software for a living. I go looking for sea otters to photograph when I get the opportunity, and miss my old home on the California Central Coast.
currently reading:
Quantum Field Theory: A Modern Introduction, Michio Kaku
Lectures on Physics, Richard Feynman
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
A Matter Of Gravity, Hal Clement
Sailing Bright Eternity, Gregory Benford
currently watching:
Star Trek Enterprise
The Sci-Fi channel (who have managed to catch my interest with a new crop of shows)
The bond market
The housing market
currently listening to:
Dinosaur rock
Jazz- mostly Ritenour and Carlton, but I have eclectic tastes too- Bela Fleck for instance.
Not much of anything anybody who’s NEW is going to consider very relevant. But then again, most of what’s NEW isn’t very relevant to my ear either, so I guess it’s a push.
Arthur's analysis from 2000 (found on a government website)
Arthur's analysis from 2000 (found on a government website)
Its obvious that JamesX is infatuated with Schneibster and now it appears that Frater is enamored with me.
I'm flattered. (but no, I won't swap spit with you)
Thanks for finding this piece of Doucette history.
I still agree with every sentence contained within it.
It was a small protest about what NASA and DOE were doing, i.e. risking the life of most of us in order to get better pictures of Saturn's Rings.
Its what you would expect from a Govt Shill right?
Arthur
Be sure to tell your internet lawyer all about the death threats you've been making... sport.
Heh!
How you interpret what I say, as opposed to how a reasonable person would interpret it, has no interest for me. If I were threatening someone's life or health, something I would not do, then I would be very clear about precisely what I had in mind. Looks like you've been reading too many funny posts and not paying enough attention to the DMCA. But then again, you're just a racist, redneck, militia hilljack, so I'm sure your opinion is going to carry great weight.
Keep on wigglin', big boy. You may be a miserable failure at disinfo buy you're a priceless comedy goldmine. Cheers!
By the way, posting a link to my picture on my web site is something you could have done that would not have violated my copyright. You might even have been creative enough to use a link to somewhere else I had previously posted it, where I couldn't control access to break the link. It might have pissed me off, but there wouldn't have been a thing I could do; case law says a link is not a use under copyright law. But stealing a copy of my picture and putting it on your server, or one you have rented space on? That's a real no-no. That's personal possession of stolen property, for your own private use, and if the copyright holder catches you, they can make you pay any reasonable use fee. There are also criminal laws against it, so depending on the circumstances, they might also be able to prefer charges against you.
One of the things that everyone observing should keep in mind is that if you're going to assert your copyright, you must do so vigorously. It's something I learned in a music law class I took, and the lesson was only reinforced by a book I bought on copyright law for my photography. I'm quite careful about other peoples' pictures as a result; I don't put anything on my web site I don't clearly own. I recommend the same practice to anyone who has the sense to listen. If you don't think copyright is important, you don't work in the software business; copyright is ALL WE HAVE. So in case it has escaped anybody's attention, I have three reasons to have made it my business to know a hell of a lot about copyright law.
Now I'll be frank; Faux might be right, and there might not be a thing I can do; but if I'm reading things right, the Feds are all hot about it just now and really looking to make some case law. If that turns out to be true, this could turn really, really ugly, depending on how Canada looks at it. As far as the civil law issues, the tort is clear: my property was taken without my permission, and used without my permission, and not only do I have no assurance that it will not again be so used, and no assurance that other copies of it don't exist in the possession of the individual involved, but this is property that is clearly of use to the individual, so much so that they engaged in stealing it. Therefore, it must be worth something, and I intend to claim my remuneration for whatever that something might be. How much it would be, IOW whether it would be worth it, and how this will work cross-border, and whether the recovery will be made easier by the fact that the material in question was in fact hosted inside the US, remains to be seen, but I intend to explore it thoroughly. If it's worth my while, I intend to pursue it vigorously.
And to top it all off, one of my work benefits is free legal advice. Gonna get me some a that. I'm betting the legal provider for a software company is gonna know plenty about copyright law.
Billybats might be a target too, but the image wasn't up long enough to make it worth my while to pursue. So removing it is sufficient. For obvious reasons I didn't leave it to hir discretion. Hope you didn't have anything else up there you wanted. NOT. Next time leave my property alone.
See, Faux, basically what you have done here is steal my stuff, insult my wife, and dare me to do anything about it. So, fine, I'm gonna see about doing something about it. You could have avoided this at any point by being polite and reasonable. You eschewed that course, and that's fine; in that case, you can pay for your unauthorized use of my property, at the rates I choose to charge you. I might not even have to take it to court; just write a bill, and if you don't pay it, put you in collection. But like I said, I'm gonna find out what the ins and outs of the situation are. More tomorrow.
One of the things that everyone observing should keep in mind is that if you're going to assert your copyright, you must do so vigorously. It's something I learned in a music law class I took, and the lesson was only reinforced by a book I bought on copyright law for my photography. I'm quite careful about other peoples' pictures as a result; I don't put anything on my web site I don't clearly own. I recommend the same practice to anyone who has the sense to listen. If you don't think copyright is important, you don't work in the software business; copyright is ALL WE HAVE. So in case it has escaped anybody's attention, I have three reasons to have made it my business to know a hell of a lot about copyright law.
Now I'll be frank; Faux might be right, and there might not be a thing I can do; but if I'm reading things right, the Feds are all hot about it just now and really looking to make some case law. If that turns out to be true, this could turn really, really ugly, depending on how Canada looks at it. As far as the civil law issues, the tort is clear: my property was taken without my permission, and used without my permission, and not only do I have no assurance that it will not again be so used, and no assurance that other copies of it don't exist in the possession of the individual involved, but this is property that is clearly of use to the individual, so much so that they engaged in stealing it. Therefore, it must be worth something, and I intend to claim my remuneration for whatever that something might be. How much it would be, IOW whether it would be worth it, and how this will work cross-border, and whether the recovery will be made easier by the fact that the material in question was in fact hosted inside the US, remains to be seen, but I intend to explore it thoroughly. If it's worth my while, I intend to pursue it vigorously.
And to top it all off, one of my work benefits is free legal advice. Gonna get me some a that. I'm betting the legal provider for a software company is gonna know plenty about copyright law.
Billybats might be a target too, but the image wasn't up long enough to make it worth my while to pursue. So removing it is sufficient. For obvious reasons I didn't leave it to hir discretion.
Hope you didn't have anything else up there you wanted. NOT. Next time leave my property alone. See, Faux, basically what you have done here is steal my stuff, insult my wife, and dare me to do anything about it. So, fine, I'm gonna see about doing something about it. You could have avoided this at any point by being polite and reasonable. You eschewed that course, and that's fine; in that case, you can pay for your unauthorized use of my property, at the rates I choose to charge you. I might not even have to take it to court; just write a bill, and if you don't pay it, put you in collection. But like I said, I'm gonna find out what the ins and outs of the situation are. More tomorrow.
schneib searches for truth
with the shill-o-scope®
Schneibster
rank: Conscript
points: 27
occupation: Computer Programmer
location: Seattle, US
biography:
I was born. I grew up; my growing pains were primarily due to my rebellious nature. I hacked. Now I play with software for a living. I go looking for sea otters to photograph when I get the opportunity, and miss my old home on the California Central Coast.
currently reading:
Quantum Field Theory: A Modern Introduction, Michio Kaku
Lectures on Physics, Richard Feynman
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
A Matter Of Gravity, Hal Clement
Sailing Bright Eternity, Gregory Benford
currently watching:
Star Trek Enterprise
The Sci-Fi channel (who have managed to catch my interest with a new crop of shows)
The bond market
The housing market
currently listening to:
Dinosaur rock
Jazz- mostly Ritenour and Carlton, but I have eclectic tastes too- Bela Fleck for instance.
Not much of anything anybody who’s NEW is going to consider very relevant. But then again, most of what’s NEW isn’t very relevant to my ear either, so I guess it’s a push.
QUOTE
Commentor No. 1687: Arthur Doucette
[SMTP:ADOUCETTE@*****************]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:21:23 PM
To: INFRASTRUCTURE_PEIS, NUCLEAR
Subject: Re_establishing production capability for Pu_238
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Re: Use of Pu_238 for space based power supplies:
I am totally against this for many reasons:
Considering what happened to the Mars Polar Lander it is
obvious that NASA's "one in a million" chance of the spacecraft
impacting earth was grossly overstated. What if the day after
Cassini crashed into the earth, impacting Manhattan, we all got to
read in the papers the next day: "OOPS, the contractor was working
in Lbs. and JPL was using Kilos". Prior to the Polar Lander, I'm sure
no one would have believed such a inconceivably silly mistake could
occur.
Since NASA must agree that the odds were really not one in a
million but with just one more data point added by the ill fated Polar
Lander more like one in a thousand then one must also agree that
NASA's extrapolation of potential risk which was partly based on this
estimate was also understated and that at least some of the
concerns of those opposed to the launch/flyby turned out to be well
founded.
I do not believe that anyone, including NASA or DOE, could or
has accurately simulated the forces exerted on a non_aerodynamic
6 ton spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 42,500 MPH. I don't
believe we have the technical ability to accelerate an object even a
fraction of the size and shape of Cassini to over 62,000 feet/sec. on
the earth's surface! As far as the forces involved, to put it in
perspective, Casinni's weight is almost the same as our Apollo
Command module. Apollo's re_entry speed was only about 1/2 of
Casinni's potential re_entry speed...(article continues)..
[SMTP:ADOUCETTE@*****************]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:21:23 PM
To: INFRASTRUCTURE_PEIS, NUCLEAR
Subject: Re_establishing production capability for Pu_238
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Re: Use of Pu_238 for space based power supplies:
I am totally against this for many reasons:
Considering what happened to the Mars Polar Lander it is
obvious that NASA's "one in a million" chance of the spacecraft
impacting earth was grossly overstated. What if the day after
Cassini crashed into the earth, impacting Manhattan, we all got to
read in the papers the next day: "OOPS, the contractor was working
in Lbs. and JPL was using Kilos". Prior to the Polar Lander, I'm sure
no one would have believed such a inconceivably silly mistake could
occur.
Since NASA must agree that the odds were really not one in a
million but with just one more data point added by the ill fated Polar
Lander more like one in a thousand then one must also agree that
NASA's extrapolation of potential risk which was partly based on this
estimate was also understated and that at least some of the
concerns of those opposed to the launch/flyby turned out to be well
founded.
I do not believe that anyone, including NASA or DOE, could or
has accurately simulated the forces exerted on a non_aerodynamic
6 ton spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 42,500 MPH. I don't
believe we have the technical ability to accelerate an object even a
fraction of the size and shape of Cassini to over 62,000 feet/sec. on
the earth's surface! As far as the forces involved, to put it in
perspective, Casinni's weight is almost the same as our Apollo
Command module. Apollo's re_entry speed was only about 1/2 of
Casinni's potential re_entry speed...(article continues)..
Arthur's analysis from 2000 (found on a government website)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 29 2006, 06:21 AM)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=59243
Oh really !
Got any pictures of this mythical south-side gash in WTC 7?
And did the Bankers Trust (130 Liberty Street) suddenly disintegrate in a perfect example of controlled Implosion Demolition?
The hole in Bankers Trust was virtually the same size as the alleged south side gash in WTC 7.
Check it out... count the number of stories the gash in Bankers Trust actually was...
VERY CLOSE to the Alleged damage to the center south face of WTC 7?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01untitled1.html
Here are some pictures of the inside view of the damage...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_002.html
Compare the relative damage between the post & beam Bankers Trust construction... to the post & beam central core construction in WTC 1...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_003.html
Yet, the twin towers AND WTC 7 disappeared in the previously un-heard-of phenomenon called 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
while the Banker's Trust still stands.
Nothing 'odd' here at all folks... move along now... nothing to see here... go home and watch Oprah.
Don't look too closely at the damage to Bankers Trust. This is not REGULAR peripheral damage from a falling building. Blast Damage seems apparent to me, in combination with high heat effects...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_004.html
Check out the FEMA report on this peripheral damage. It is apparent that some of the debris was on a horizontal trajectory as it smashed through low level windows at Bankers Trust which was 600 feet from the closest point of the south tower.
How does 'falling debris' enter a building 600 feet away on a horizontal trajectory?
Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that...
Explosive forces originating from low levels of WTC 2.
Thanks, Schneiby.
Seems the Foxx has greatly upset the henhouse.
Was it his abuse of Scheibsters property rights - oooohhh, or his persistent exposure of the ludicrous fairy tale?
Back to the physics it is then -
Hows about answering Foxx above? As frater plecticus has just shown, Arthur is not bashful regarding acceleration forces on spacecraft so perhaps he can tell us how such a large steel section accelerated to the Bankers Trust. In fact I have little doubt he can make a good stab at it but have no doubt he wont.
QUOTE
Something not seen in any of the internet photos of 7 I've seen is the very large gouge on the south side. I'm not talking about the 18 story gouge in the south west corner. There is a much bigger gouge in the center of the south face of the building. Something like this but worse...
Oh really !
Got any pictures of this mythical south-side gash in WTC 7?
And did the Bankers Trust (130 Liberty Street) suddenly disintegrate in a perfect example of controlled Implosion Demolition?
The hole in Bankers Trust was virtually the same size as the alleged south side gash in WTC 7.
Check it out... count the number of stories the gash in Bankers Trust actually was...
VERY CLOSE to the Alleged damage to the center south face of WTC 7?
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01untitled1.html
Here are some pictures of the inside view of the damage...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_002.html
Compare the relative damage between the post & beam Bankers Trust construction... to the post & beam central core construction in WTC 1...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_003.html
Yet, the twin towers AND WTC 7 disappeared in the previously un-heard-of phenomenon called 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'...
while the Banker's Trust still stands.
Nothing 'odd' here at all folks... move along now... nothing to see here... go home and watch Oprah.
Don't look too closely at the damage to Bankers Trust. This is not REGULAR peripheral damage from a falling building. Blast Damage seems apparent to me, in combination with high heat effects...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_004.html
Check out the FEMA report on this peripheral damage. It is apparent that some of the debris was on a horizontal trajectory as it smashed through low level windows at Bankers Trust which was 600 feet from the closest point of the south tower.
How does 'falling debris' enter a building 600 feet away on a horizontal trajectory?
Yep... you got it... ONLY ONE PHYSICS explaination for that...
Explosive forces originating from low levels of WTC 2.
Thanks, Schneiby.
Seems the Foxx has greatly upset the henhouse.
Was it his abuse of Scheibsters property rights - oooohhh, or his persistent exposure of the ludicrous fairy tale?
Back to the physics it is then -
Hows about answering Foxx above? As frater plecticus has just shown, Arthur is not bashful regarding acceleration forces on spacecraft so perhaps he can tell us how such a large steel section accelerated to the Bankers Trust. In fact I have little doubt he can make a good stab at it but have no doubt he wont.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 12:13 AM)
Yes it did, why don't you prove that you are right rather than trying so hard to prove that everyone else is wrong?
I posted a response to the fire fighter quotes, Sensable, expanded on what I had said. Between the two of us have we proved that the take on this that non-believers in the official history of events of 9/11 is in error? I believe so.
Think you can be specific and stay on topic and tell me what it is you want proven?
I posted a response to the fire fighter quotes, Sensable, expanded on what I had said. Between the two of us have we proved that the take on this that non-believers in the official history of events of 9/11 is in error? I believe so.
Think you can be specific and stay on topic and tell me what it is you want proven?
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 31 2006, 01:22 PM)
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
Theirs not an expert in the bunch. Not ONE structural/civil engineer. A writer, a teacher, and some others specializing in none structural/civil engineering fields. A bunch of charlatans and snake oil salesmen looking for 15 min of fame.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
Theirs not an expert in the bunch. Not ONE structural/civil engineer. A writer, a teacher, and some others specializing in none structural/civil engineering fields. A bunch of charlatans and snake oil salesmen looking for 15 min of fame.
re: Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
yesitdid,
if you will look at my spreadsheet a little closer you will see that i do model the collapse in 3 different ways. look at the bottom you'll see 3 different tabs- one for top-down, one for 93rd floor down and one for 75th floor down. i assume the pildrivers remain intact all the way down to speed up the collapse, and once they hit the ground all floors fall at the speed of gravity.
if you will look at my spreadsheet a little closer you will see that i do model the collapse in 3 different ways. look at the bottom you'll see 3 different tabs- one for top-down, one for 93rd floor down and one for 75th floor down. i assume the pildrivers remain intact all the way down to speed up the collapse, and once they hit the ground all floors fall at the speed of gravity.
QUOTE (Ron+Jan 31 2006, 02:15 PM)
re: Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
It's not an article, it's a press release. In this case it means it was written by/for the people mentioned in it.
It's not a report, it's an official statement of position. From people with interesting credentials, like Andreas Von Bulow who was Defense Minister of Germany.
There's very little chance you'll read about it in the times. Tell me about one sided opinions, lol. When has the times or any other mainstream propaganda tools honestly reported about the other side of the fairy tale they're selling to the lemmings?
(I said "honest", so chertoff's piece in popular mechanics is out of range)
"When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger" (Confucius)
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
It's not an article, it's a press release. In this case it means it was written by/for the people mentioned in it.
It's not a report, it's an official statement of position. From people with interesting credentials, like Andreas Von Bulow who was Defense Minister of Germany.
There's very little chance you'll read about it in the times. Tell me about one sided opinions, lol. When has the times or any other mainstream propaganda tools honestly reported about the other side of the fairy tale they're selling to the lemmings?
(I said "honest", so chertoff's piece in popular mechanics is out of range)
"When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger" (Confucius)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 31 2006, 06:06 AM)
QUOTE
Commentor No. 1687: Arthur Doucette
[SMTP:ADOUCETTE@*****************]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:21:23 PM
To: INFRASTRUCTURE_PEIS, NUCLEAR
Subject: Re_establishing production capability for Pu_238
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Re: Use of Pu_238 for space based power supplies:
I am totally against this for many reasons:
Considering what happened to the Mars Polar Lander it is
obvious that NASA's "one in a million" chance of the spacecraft
impacting earth was grossly overstated. What if the day after
Cassini crashed into the earth, impacting Manhattan, we all got to
read in the papers the next day: "OOPS, the contractor was working
in Lbs. and JPL was using Kilos". Prior to the Polar Lander, I'm sure
no one would have believed such a inconceivably silly mistake could
occur.
Since NASA must agree that the odds were really not one in a
million but with just one more data point added by the ill fated Polar
Lander more like one in a thousand then one must also agree that
NASA's extrapolation of potential risk which was partly based on this
estimate was also understated and that at least some of the
concerns of those opposed to the launch/flyby turned out to be well
founded.
I do not believe that anyone, including NASA or DOE, could or
has accurately simulated the forces exerted on a non_aerodynamic
6 ton spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 42,500 MPH. I don't
believe we have the technical ability to accelerate an object even a
fraction of the size and shape of Cassini to over 62,000 feet/sec. on
the earth's surface! As far as the forces involved, to put it in
perspective, Casinni's weight is almost the same as our Apollo
Command module. Apollo's re_entry speed was only about 1/2 of
Casinni's potential re_entry speed...(article continues)..
[SMTP:ADOUCETTE@*****************]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:21:23 PM
To: INFRASTRUCTURE_PEIS, NUCLEAR
Subject: Re_establishing production capability for Pu_238
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Re: Use of Pu_238 for space based power supplies:
I am totally against this for many reasons:
Considering what happened to the Mars Polar Lander it is
obvious that NASA's "one in a million" chance of the spacecraft
impacting earth was grossly overstated. What if the day after
Cassini crashed into the earth, impacting Manhattan, we all got to
read in the papers the next day: "OOPS, the contractor was working
in Lbs. and JPL was using Kilos". Prior to the Polar Lander, I'm sure
no one would have believed such a inconceivably silly mistake could
occur.
Since NASA must agree that the odds were really not one in a
million but with just one more data point added by the ill fated Polar
Lander more like one in a thousand then one must also agree that
NASA's extrapolation of potential risk which was partly based on this
estimate was also understated and that at least some of the
concerns of those opposed to the launch/flyby turned out to be well
founded.
I do not believe that anyone, including NASA or DOE, could or
has accurately simulated the forces exerted on a non_aerodynamic
6 ton spacecraft entering the atmosphere at 42,500 MPH. I don't
believe we have the technical ability to accelerate an object even a
fraction of the size and shape of Cassini to over 62,000 feet/sec. on
the earth's surface! As far as the forces involved, to put it in
perspective, Casinni's weight is almost the same as our Apollo
Command module. Apollo's re_entry speed was only about 1/2 of
Casinni's potential re_entry speed...(article continues)..
Arthur's analysis from 2000 (found on a government website)
Its obvious that JamesX is infatuated with Schneibster and now it appears that Frater is enamored with me.
I'm flattered. (but no, I won't swap spit with you)
Thanks for finding this piece of Doucette history.
I still agree with every sentence contained within it.
It was a small protest about what NASA and DOE were doing, i.e. risking the life of most of us in order to get better pictures of Saturn's Rings.
Its what you would expect from a Govt Shill right?
Arthur
QUOTE (Ron+Jan 31 2006, 02:15 PM)
re: Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
"that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about"
Is that not the official claim? Have they changed that now as well as the NORAD story etc?
The problem I have with this type of "news article" is that it's obviously written by someone sympathetic to the CT. Statements like "that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about" in the delivery of information looks more like propaganda than objective reporting. I would like to see the Times pick this up just so I could read a more investigative inquiry than another one-sided opinion (for either cause).
"that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about"
Is that not the official claim? Have they changed that now as well as the NORAD story etc?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.