lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 28, 2005 19:21:31 GMT -4
WRONG The coordination between federal agencies was widely criticized because despite being on CIA [or was that FBI] list of suspected terrorists, they were able to get visas and enter the US without any problemsNo - they are said by the FBI tro have used fake passports to board the planes. And we have yet to see the actual flight manifests, but the FBI has made no claim that they show "Mohammed Atta" or "Satam Al Suqami " listed as names on the manifests. WRONG Even before 9/11 you needed gov't issued photo ID to board planes in the USAnswered above - no need to use their real passports, and the FBI has even mentioned that some of the hijackers may have used fake passports to enter the country as well. Turbonium - At least have the courage to admit you were wrong about the two passports being found next to each other. -Do you have any evidence to back your assertions. It's been four years and my memory might be failing me but I don't remember hearing they used aliases. - It's quite possible the writer for the Guardian got confused about whose passport was found. *She didn't say anything about a second passport *She didn't say anything about Atta's passport being under another name *She didn't say anything about Atta's passport being found in Boston *She definitely has a strong CT bias what she wrote was an opinion piece not a news article. Can you cite an article from a reliable news source that says 2 hijackers' passports were found near Ground Zero?
last question [in blue] added in edit
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 30, 2005 2:37:16 GMT -4
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical"
'appears' is not said by Romero. That word was added by the writer of the article. Note that the only direct quote is the partial "too methodical", not his entire response. All we can truly go on is his quoted reply, which we could put went something like this..
Interviewer: "Why do you believe the collapses were caused by placed explosives?"
Romero: "too methodical"
'resembled those of controlled implosions'
Again, not his words, but rather the article writer's
d] 'If explosions did cause the towers to collapse the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive'
Again, 'if explosions did cause....collapse' is not Romero's actual quote.
e] "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,"
This is Romero suggesting not that the collapses "could have" been from explosives, but rather how the explosives "could have" been placed to cause the collapses. Important difference.
So we have a writer/interviewer who places all three qualifying words to make the reader think Romero is saying that placed explosives are more of a suggested possibility than a definitive, assured opinion. 'Appears', 'resembled', and 'if' all added as qualifiers to his actual quotes.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 30, 2005 8:48:08 GMT -4
Given his subsequent retraction, the interviewer probably did him a favour.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 30, 2005 10:33:35 GMT -4
So we have a writer/interviewer who places all three qualifying words to make the reader think Romero is saying that placed explosives are more of a suggested possibility than a definitive, assured opinion.
So if this writer is to be considered a "filter" to Romero's original comments, then why cannot also the second article -- the one from which you claim there are "suspicious" omissions of detail -- be considered merely a filtered reflection of what Romero actually believed and said?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 30, 2005 10:52:45 GMT -4
So we have a writer/interviewer who places all three qualifying words to make the reader think Romero is saying that placed explosives are more of a suggested possibility than a definitive, assured opinion. 'Appears', 'resembled', and 'if' all added as qualifiers to his actual quotes. You have no basis for that assumption other than it better fits your version of events. Probably Romero some how indicated to the writer that each of those comments was "more of a suggested possibility than a definitive, assured opinion". It's a common journalistic device to summarize a persons comments as indirect quotes for clarity and to save space. It's not uncommon for people to ramble when being interviewed [esp when they don't have time to prepare and aren't public figures]. By suggesting that the writer intentionally misled the reader regarding Romero's comments you are attacking their integrity. Why don't you try tracking the reporter down and see what she or he has to say about it. Even some of the direct quotes hint that Romero was not sure he 'couched' his language: " My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," " It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," "My opinion","It would be difficult" [as opposed to impossible] You are continuing to 'cherry pick' or only reply to certain points. The most important Romero is an expert on one way that buildings fall down [through use explosives] but not on others, specifically what can cause structures to spontaneously collapse or the effects of the physical damaged caused by the impacts or the effects of fire on steel. Also he had only limited evidence to go on which is probably why he qualified his statements. Two of his most important comments weren't fully covered by his area of expertise. They were assessments that only a structural engineer could make definitively. 'The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures' "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," After consulting with other specialists ["conversations with structural engineers "] and having an opportunity to more closely examine the evidence ["more detailed looks at the tape"] and more time to think [10 days] he reassessed his original opinion. edit: forgot to spell check
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 30, 2005 10:56:20 GMT -4
Also we have yet to hear back from you about your "2 passports were found next to each other" claim.
If you no longer believe it's true you should say so.
If you still do you should explain why in light evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 1, 2005 2:42:34 GMT -4
-At least have the courage to admit you were wrong about the two passports being found next to each other.
-Do you have any evidence to back your assertions. It's been four years and my memory might be failing me but I don't remember hearing they used aliases.
- It's quite possible the writer for the Guardian got confused about whose passport was foundThe statement of the two passports found lying side by side was actually made by Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia in a radio interview at these audio links... shows.vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/911speaks1.mp3shows.vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/911speaks2.mp3The interview is with Tartaglia and Michael Silin, two rescue workers at Ground Zero involved in operations after 9/11. They are both convinced there were explosives planted in the towers that caused them to collapse. They witnessed the covert removal of seconded debris in a different type of "body bag" than was used for the remains of the victims at Ground Zero. As a counsellor, he also helped many survivors with trauma, and heard several of them tell of explosives in the towers. Tartaglia is also a firefighter, and received many decorations for his work at Ground Zero. He says in the interview “I do not believe those buildings fell due to the airplanes. I believe those buildings fell as a result of a controlled demolition.” He has witnessed over 20 controlled demolitions, due to his past training. He also says “If that wasn’t a demolition, I don’t know what it was. That wasn’t anything other than a controlled demolition.”As I said regarding the two passports, that was a comment he made in this interview. Is it true or not? At this point it's uncertain from what I have found to date. But, I think either way, it is not as important as the main information he and his co-worker have revealed about the explosives and what they were first person witnesses to at Ground Zero. As for the aliases, that was mentioned in several reports after 9/11. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stmThis link describes how the FBI believes many of the 19 hijackers used false identification, aliases, and possibly the id of innocent people still alive elsewhere. This article is from Sept.21/01. From just after 9/11 to the present there have been many other articles related to the issue of identities of the alleged 19 men. As for the Guardian article, I'm not aware of whether or not there was any error in the naming of Atta's passport as being one that was found. It may or may not be a mistake, but as far as I know there has been no correction to the article.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 1, 2005 11:18:52 GMT -4
They are both convinced there were explosives planted in the towers that caused them to collapse.
What are they able to offer to convince others?
They witnessed the covert removal of seconded debris in a different type of "body bag" than was used for the remains of the victims at Ground Zero.
And this proves what?
As a counsellor, he also helped many survivors with trauma, and heard several of them tell of explosives in the towers.
Actual witnessed explosives, or simply "loud noises"?
He has witnessed over 20 controlled demolitions, due to his past training.
That doesn't make him an expert in building structural mechanics, such that he would be able to discern a controlled demolition from a collapse.
He also says “If that wasn’t a demolition, I don’t know what it was. That wasn’t anything other than a controlled demolition.”
Yes, yes, you've established what he believes. Where is the evidence?
But, I think either way, it is not as important as the main information he and his co-worker have revealed about the explosives and what they were first person witnesses to at Ground Zero.
What have they "revealed"? Nothing. It's a lot of naked assertion and innuendo. I too have witnessed controlled demolitions, and unlike your witness I also have training in structural mechanics, and it's my opinion that the WTC were not controlled demolotions.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 1, 2005 14:48:01 GMT -4
The statement of the two passports found lying side by side was actually made by Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia in a radio interview at these audio links... shows.vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/911speaks1.mp3shows.vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/911speaks2.mp3The interview is with Tartaglia and Michael Silin, two rescue workers at Ground Zero involved in operations after 9/11. “I do not believe those buildings fell due to the airplanes. I believe those buildings fell as a result of a controlled demolition.” He has witnessed over 20 controlled demolitions, due to his past training. He also says “If that wasn’t a demolition, I don’t know what it was. That wasn’t anything other than a controlled demolition.”As I said regarding the two passports, that was a comment he made in this interview. Is it true or not? At this point it's uncertain from what I have found to date. But, I think either way, it is not as important as the main information he and his co-worker have revealed about the explosives and what they were first person witnesses to at Ground Zero. I started to listen to the interview, he is very long winded I only go through about 15 minutes. He wasn't any where near the Towers when they collapsed. He didn't leave Pennsylvania till some time after 10 AM he saw it on TV just like the rest of us. That the collapse [somewhat] resembles controlled demolition is under dispute. He may have witnessed 20 demolitions but how many spontaneous collapses has he seen? Does he have any training to distinguish between the two? As for survivors telling him they heard explosions that is nothing new. Exploding gas mains, jet fuel igniting, debris falling etc would all produce explosions or explosion like noises. Also only "explosions" heard immediately before each tower would be collapsed would be of any relevance. Why would the plotters set off explosives before they demo'd the buildings? Doing so would only increase the likelihood of being discovered. As for the passports I suggest he was mistaken if such a thing had happened it would have been widely reported in the press and you have been apparently unable to find any reports. I don't think his eye witness testimony proves little if anything. There's nothing in it that we haven't already heard before. The only exception is the part about "They witnessed the covert removal of seconded debris in a different type of "body bag" than was used for the remains of the victims at Ground Zero." - I didn't here that part was it in the 1st or 2nd interview? How many minutes into it [they are an hour long each] -If the removal was covert how come they [and presumably others saw it? -Putting debris into body bags esp ones noticeably different from the others would draw attention to what they were doing, why remove it in this way? -Might they have confused body bags with evidence collection bags? -I doubt only one type of body bag was used. It is unlikely that any one agency had enough. -Who supposedly did this That article only asserts that 4 of the hijackers MAY have used aliases. Another story linked of that page from Sept. 19 2001names Atta as one of the suspects.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544758.stm Atta entered the US under his real name. There was uproar about this latter because there was a wanted terrorist who had the same name. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al-Sayed#The_attacksSo try again to find reliable evidence that two passports were found near ground zero or that Atta was using an alias [on flight 11] or that his passport was found near ground zero or that he had two passports. If you can't do the honorable thing and admit you were wrong. Your trying to down play the claim but you were the one who made a big deal about it in the first place. If you still doubt if Atta and bin-Laden were responsible Atta's father all but admitted his son was involved and that "the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son" [indirect quote] www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.htmlThat the story was in error seems pretty obvious, I'll e-mail them. I'll inform the forum if I get a response.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 1, 2005 14:50:55 GMT -4
This is like the bare arm in the lunar photograph, isn't it? Two sides both pointing at the same imagery with one saying "Can't you see it?" and the other saying "We don't see it (it's also ridiculous and impossible)."
I lack any professional training (or even a detailed background) in structural mechanics, but my first instinct when I saw the images on television on the 11th was "Progressive collapse." I could practically "feel" the weight and inertia of that building crushing down on the lower floors, collapsing them as it went.
As I have read further and learned more details of the analysis I see I was in many ways mislead by my instinct. However. The one place my instinct never sent me was "Controlled demolitions."
Are our perceptions that colored by our expectations? An anecdote, if you will allow; on the show I'm working on now we had some medieval and mock-medieval tapestries printed out on 12' x 12' panels at a place in Houston. Somewhere between the designer's computer and the printer, though, two thumbtacks managed to slip into one of the images. They are at the edges of a decorated border and most of the cast and crew didn't notice them for weeks -- until they were pointed out by a sharp-eyed box office person. What is interesting here: when you lead someone to the thumbtacks they will stare for several minutes, still not seeing them. And then, suddenly, comes the "Aha!" moment. After that, they can't look at the tapestry in the old way ever again. Those thumbtacks are always there for them.
I don't know why it is, but I've had that "aha" moment several times looking at the lighting of a lunar scene, or the movement of an astronaut, or the videos of the towers. In each case, once I have that moment there remain no unexplained details; everything I see fits. I find myself wondering that for the "other" view of, say, the Armstrong pic, the CT is having to mentally mask out the details that don't agree with their theory. Or if, say when viewing the 9-11 collapses, the puffs of dust and the great mass of pulverized concrete and other supporting details weave for them an "Aha" that describes controlled demolitions with no gaps or anomolies.
All I know is I can kind of see it if I squint. With eyes wide open, I can't.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 1, 2005 22:39:33 GMT -4
From The Staff Statements of the 9/11 CommissionSuqami’s passport survived the attack: a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed.109 pg 16/39 109 The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001. pg 35/39 September 11. As the hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six used U.S. identification documents acquired in the previous months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in northern Virginia.202 Suqami, the only hijacker who did not have a state-issued identification, used his Saudi passport as check-in identification for American Airlines Flight 11.203 pg. 28/39 www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdfFrom the 9/11 Commission ReportThe FBI and CIA have uncovered no evidence that Atta held any fraudulent passports. www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htmFrom Cooperative Research a CT site September 12, 2001: Hijacker's Passport Found Near WTC The passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami is found a few blocks from the WTC. [ABC News, 9/12/01 ; Associated Press, 9/16/01; ABC News, 9/16/01 The Guardian says, “The idea that Mohamed Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.” [Guardian, 3/19/02 ] (Note that, as in this Guardian account, the passport is frequently mistakenly referred to as Atta's passport.) www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091201passportfoundI think the myth of the two passports is officially dead. Give it up Turbonium admit you were wrong
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 1, 2005 22:58:13 GMT -4
- I didn't here that part was it in the 1st or 2nd interview? How many minutes into it [they are an hour long each]It's from the second hour of the interview, as I recall. -If the removal was covert how come they [and presumably others saw it? As he describes it, the secondary "body bags" were carried away from restricted areas by military officials. But none of the members of his team or others apparently able to see what was put in these bags, nor why they were only handled by certain "authorized" personnel. -Putting debris into body bags esp ones noticeably different from the others would draw attention to what they were doing, why remove it in this way?Well, they would have to remove any debris, if it was indeed suspicious, by means such as this to keep it hidden from public view or from being seen by other rescue workers such as Tartaglia. A large item(s) was also removed from the Pentagon debris under cover of a large tarp, as well. This is a photo of the removal of the Pentagon "secret" debris.. -Might they have confused body bags with evidence collection bags?No - he is definite in his description of the body bags being used, not collection bags. -I doubt only one type of body bag was used. It is unlikely that any one agency had enough.He makes the distinction between only two types being used - the ones used for genuine removal of victims remains, and the specially used body bags. -Who supposedly did thisAs mentioned, and as I recall from the interview, it was specially designated military personnel who actually did this.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 1, 2005 23:30:11 GMT -4
If you still doubt if Atta and bin-Laden were responsible Atta's father all but admitted his son was involved and that "the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son" [indirect quote] Perfect example of what can be done by the author of an article to mislead the reader. What you claim as an "indirect quote" is nothing of the sort. Mohammed el-Amir Atta says nothing about his son being one of the "19 hijackers". In fact, he is actually quoted directly in denying his son was one of the 19. Here is a link where he says his son phoned him the day after 9/11- highlight entire url and copy to new window to link to it.... www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,784452,00.html "As I saw the picture of my son," he said, "I knew that he hadn't done it. My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that. "He didn't tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks." I don't know how you could also make the leap to conclusion that your link also implicates bin Laden, either. I think the myth of the two passports is officially dead. Give it up Turbonium admit you were wrongI don't think it is firmly established that only one passport was found. If The Guardian and Sgt. Tartaglia say they were mistaken then we can say for sure it was one, not two, passports found. If that happens, I will gladly take back that claim as unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 1, 2005 23:45:14 GMT -4
As for what the two rescue workers have said, I don't know if they have any hard evidence to back up their assertions. But the fact that two key people at Ground Zero are of the opinion that explosives were used is worthy of a longer look, as I see it. They seem certain in their views, and sincere in their character. To simply shrug them off as insignificant is extremely premature and ignores a possibly valuable avenue of investigation.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 1, 2005 23:57:16 GMT -4
-If the removal was covert how come they [and presumably others saw it? As he describes it, the secondary "body bags" were carried away from restricted areas by military officials. But none of the members of his team or others apparently able to see what was put in these bags, nor why they were only handled by certain "authorized" personnel. In other words he had no idea what was in the "body bags". You said "They witnessed the covert removal of seconded debris", so you've made yet another unsubstantiated claim! Did the other rescue worker say he saw this also? "Military officials" is pretty vague couldn't he identify what service they were from? Might they have been National Guard? In any case I don't think presence of the military or them restricting access to certain areas is in and of itself suspicious. IIRC Emergency personnel from all over the US were mobilized to work ground zero. Restricting access to crime scenes and accident cites is SOP. Also some areas might have been more dangerous and they might only want to allow personnel they knew had the proper training to enter. Also the idea that the "forces of darkness" amongst all the mess and chaos of the impacts and collapses would have known where to find and been confident of collecting all "smoking guns" before anyone else is ludicrous. -Since he doesn't know WHO was removing WHAT no assumptions can be made based upon his observations. -Don't you think if they had set up this elaborate plot they would have gotten the right kind of body bag so as to draw less suspicion? Idle speculation. -The presence of the military at the Pentagon is of course totally expected. -If they were doing this surreptitiously how did the photographer get so close? If they had roped off the area to the press few people would have asked any questions - How many people are carrying that thing? That's a lot of people to be "in on it" see above
|
|