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 2, 2005 0:26:24 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. What do you make of the comment "the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning ...there would be many more fighters like his son" he is no longer saying anything about his son being alive. The pasage was indeed an indirect quote, I don't understand why you'd say it wasn't, In the first few days Atta's dad was probably in denial and/or wanted to disassociate his son from one of the most savage crimes in history. It is unlikely he would have called his dad. If he was a patsy and had "gone missing" the CIA/NSA etc would have been bugging/tracing calls on his dad's phone. The "leap" to bin Ladden is based on Atta's and other hijackers connections to Al Queda Tartaglia had no basis for his claim, how would he know? No one besides him mention 2 passports. Why didn't the Guardian reporter who was obviously a CTist say anything about the 2nd passport? Why would a respected CT site and other media outlets say that the claim that Atta's passport was found were wrong? You said that 2 passports being found next to each other was part of one the ridiculous claims of the US Government. The 9/11 Commission provides information contradicting this.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 2, 2005 0:31:40 GMT -4
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?
I didn't make the claim - Tartaglia did in the interview. Don't try and pin the statement on me. He and the other rescue worker did witness this, as I recall from the interview. Listen to the entire interview, then if you want, bring up specific parts you care to respond to.
As to the Pentagon debris, who even says all the people carrying it have to know what is under the tarp? They could just be under orders to move it out.
And why should it even be covered up? Why did they take the time to hide this debris from view?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 2, 2005 0:37:21 GMT -4
In the first few days Atta's dad was probably in denial and/or wanted to disassociate his son from one of the most savage crimes in history.
The interview was a year after 9/11, not a few days after: look at the article date - Sept.2, 2002. He is adamant his son was alive a year after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 2, 2005 10:55:02 GMT -4
Don't try and pin the statement on me. He and the other rescue worker did witness this, as I recall from the interview.
You drew our attention to that particular claim. You apparently believe it is salient. Please explain why?
And why should it even be covered up? Why did they take the time to hide this debris from view?
Proof by indirection. If you're to make this kind of argument then you have the burden of proof to show that all conceivable legitimate reasons do not apply. If you expect others to prove the alternatives, then this amounts to begging the question.
Keep in mind the Pentagon is America's military headquarters. It will likely contain objects or equipment that might need to be removed from a damaged building, but not in full view of the public. You seem to think it's unexpected or improper for things to be removed securely from the Pentagon, such that the only reason for doing it would be somehow connected to the crash itself.
|
|
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 2, 2005 13:51:13 GMT -4
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?I didn't make the claim - Tartaglia did in the interview. Don't try and pin the statement on me. He and the other rescue worker did witness this, as I recall from the interview. You're exact words were Later you told us he said the body bags were being removed from an area they didn't have access to ipso facto he couldn't have known what was inside. Either you said he said something he didn't or he said he saw something he couldn't have seen. At best you could say he said he saw them removing body bags that he thought/assumed/imagined contained "seconded debris ". However you look at it the claim is unsubstantiated. They guy takes to long to make a point, he talks about walking around with one boot on and talking to his friend's on the phone and loading up the truck etc, I don't care about any part of what he said other than what you're citing. If you tell me which part of which interview to fast forward to I'll listen. I have better things to do than listen to him drone on for 2 hours. Also I think you were a bit deceptive when you told us he was at ground zero and thought the collapses looked liked controlled demolition. That gives the impression that he actually witnessed the collapses which he didn't. How could the FoD [Forces of Darkness] be sure none of them wouldn't take a peak? If they had something like "anyone looking up the tarp will be sent to the brig for 10 years we will have people watching you" this would have drawn a lot of suspicion. Also the object is obviously very heavy so what ever it is it would have taken several men to put on the giant 'tray' You haven't answered my other questions yet. How do we even know this photo was taken anywhere near the Pentagon or on 9/11? Can you prove that it was or are you making an unsubstantiated claim? I will hold you to the same absurdly high burden off proof you are demanding regarding the passports. If the photo was taken near the Pentagon on 9/11 Jay already gave a very good explanation Another possible explanation is that it's evidence and it was covered to protect it from contamination. It the FOD wanted to keep this secret it wold have been removed into the bowels of the Pentagon, far out of camera range of any photographer who wasn't using a telephoto lens. The would have barred the press from the entire area
|
|
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 3, 2005 14:05:44 GMT -4
In the first few days Atta's dad was probably in denial and/or wanted to disassociate his son from one of the most savage crimes in history.The interview was a year after 9/11, not a few days after: look at the article date - Sept.2, 2002. He is adamant his son was alive a year after 9/11. OK I take it back. For the first year or two "Atta's dad was probably in denial and/or wanted to disassociate his son from one of the most savage crimes in history" Interestingly the journalist had a similar impression While I certainly feel much more symathy for people who lost innocent loved ones I do feel some sympathy for Atta's dad. Reminds me of the widow of one of the July 7 London suicide bombers or the Hungarian [?] who working on his post graduated degree in History discovered his dad had been a Nazi collaborator blamed for the de3aths of thousands of people. It seems that by the time he was interviewed by the CNN producer he had "come to terms with his 33-year-old son's death or with the huge crime laid at his door". in 2002 he was already sympathetic to such tactics I also think it's interesting in the 9/1/2002 interview he didn't say anything about his son having contacted him since 9/12/2001, and in the 2005 CNN interview he didn't saying anything about his son being alive of having contacted him. Mr. Atta's story doesn't make any sense. If the CIA or Mossad etc had set up 9/11 and panned to use the younger Atta as a fall guy, they certainly would have killed him first or at least had custody of him. If he had somehow maneged to escape why would have told his dad he didn't know anything? Why would he have called his dad at all knowing the risk that would be?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Nov 3, 2005 14:29:43 GMT -4
In the early 80's I worked at a civilian weather station in the high Arctic that was located on a military station. The military station does radio research. My background is in electronics and the head of the weather station also had some technical education. A few physicists from Ottawa came up to carry out atmospheric pollution testing while we were there. The group of us asked for a tour of the military ops. These tours do take place but they must be arranged for well in advance, can be cancelled with out explanation and must be approved by DoD and if granted absolutely NO photos may be taken, much of the equipment is covered by a heavy black tarp, and the visitors must remain on one side of a line on the floor. Stepping over that line immediately ends the tour. We were denied a tour with no explanation as to why. My supposition is that because ,as a group we might be able to surmise too much from what we did see that any non-technical person would not. Another explanation would be that at the time there was too much data of a sensitive nature being collected and they could not interrupt this for our tour. Yet another explanation would be that DoD headquarters was extra skittish about access to sensitive areas for some reason.
Point is that DoD operates in very secretive ways. this is done of course , to make it harder for any,ANY, information to get beyond DoD control unless it has been thoroughly cleared. DoD does not explain its actions either as a matter of course since doing so may supply information as well.
So the fact that several DoD personell are carrying a tarp draped object from the USA's DoD headquarters building is absolutely not unusual in any way. It is the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 8, 2005 2:45:54 GMT -4
The keeping of secrets by DoD or CIA doesn't always have to make sense to an outsider. If it was something classified secret or higher, and had to be removed, that's exactly what I would expect. Heck, I wouldn't doubt that if it was just filing cabinet full of secret folders, some security zealot at the 5 sided puzzle palace might order it covered with a tarp while in public view.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 9, 2005 18:12:22 GMT -4
The reverse would be absurd. Here's a piece of evidence that the Pentagon attack was faked. It's so clear and obvious a single telephoto picture would blow the entire coverup. Hey, let's throw a tarp over it and have a bunch of airmen carry it out of the building on their shoulders. Riiiiiight.
|
|
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 10, 2005 9:05:21 GMT -4
The photo appears to be taken from fairly close by not with a long telephoto lens. It's SOP for crash sites [even when criminal activity is not suspected] and crime scenes to be cordoned off, even to the press. If some thing was amiss how did the photog. get so close?
There appears to be civilians and ordinary [not military] police and paramedics in the area. The road off to side looks like normal city street. Heck there's even a VW Bug behind the people carrying the what ever it is and last I checked yellow Beetles weren't standard issue military vehicles.
Hmmm, why would they be carrying this top secret shrouded "smoking gun" into an unsecured civilian area?
Presuming they had something to hide. Even if it [what ever it was] already was outside the Pentagon or had to be hastily removed from the impact area, it would have been carried as close as possible to the buildings perimeter to the nearest usable entrance
Still no evidence that this photo was taken near the Pentagon on 9/11
|
|
|
Post by ShowCon on Nov 10, 2005 11:41:29 GMT -4
Anybody know where this picture came from? It would be nice to see a higher-res version. The text on the side of the ambulance would probably give us a good idea about the location of the shot.
Also, that picture has me all curious. Whatever they are carrying is roughly cylindrical, very big, and very lightweight (or the attachment to the crane that is taking the weight is not visible, not likely, though).
Whatever it is is probably covered because it is classified a secret. Just because something is classified doesn't mean it is actually secret. I once shot a fireworks show at a local Air Force base. We had to go through a whole declassification process to get a line drawing of an F-16 for reference. It isn't called The 5-Sided Puzzle Palace for nothing.
Doug Orlando, FL
|
|
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 10, 2005 14:56:11 GMT -4
This is my reply to part of one of foxx's posts from the other thread but I thought it more appropriate to reply here since it fits with the original topic of this thread.
Maybe I should have said "yet to adequately respond". The question is not subjective. No architects or civil engineers have publicly stated they have any doubts the collapse theory. All the experts who studied the case came to the same basic conclusion. These are facts not an opinions. You have not come close to demonstrating that “group think” is a factor here.
“Group think” does not adequately explain this unanimity of opinion. The history of science is full brave souls who weren’t afraid of scorn and put forth theories that were greatly at odds with accepted beliefs. Many it turn out were wrong and are now “footnotes” but others like Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, Freud etc “rewrote the science books”. There are many less famous examples: the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine disagreed with prevailing opinion about the causes of ulcers, there are medical researchers who don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, they are pariahs in the research community but they persist. Recently astronomers, physical anthropologists an undoubtedly scientist in other fields have gone against prevailing opinion.
Why should civil engineers and architects be any different? Frank Lloyd Wright, I.M. Pei, van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, those responsible for the WTC, Ingall's Building, Home Insurance Building etc. etc. were not afraid to break norms. I’m sure Jay and others could site many more examples. There was a civil engineer who publicly backed “Creationism” and Arthur Butz a professor of Electrical Engineering at Northwestern is a leading Holocaust denier. Although these positions have nothing to do with engineering I'm sure this doesn’t make them very popular with their colleagues. Butz will never be invited to address the IEEE [Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers]
The total membership of the ASCE and AIA is over 210,000. Are all of them so affected by group think that none of them perceive what you claim are obvious violations of basic laws of physics or don’t have the courage to come forward? Hard to believe
What about architects and civil engineers in other countries? There must be at least a million worldwide. Oscar Niemeyer is a national hero and an arch-Communist, he hates the US and continues to be a “think outside the box” architect well into his 90s, but he didn’t say anything, why not? What about architects and engineers from Muslim countries where IIRC about 80 % of the population believes 9/11 was an “inside job” or other countries hostile to the US? Surprisingly not one of them said anything. Saying the towers were demolished would not lead to them being ostracised, I would imagine quite the opposite.
The only way your rationalisation makes any sense is if architects and civil engineers were all gutless fools, which obviously they aren’t
What were you saying about “group think”? Radically divergent theories and group think are mutually exclusive. They do agree on the basics though. Show how “their theories as to the causes diverge radically”
|
|
|
Post by vyzygoth on Nov 16, 2005 10:35:33 GMT -4
Let's take it from the top: Can you believe our government is capable of sacrificing 3000 people to advance an agenda? If not, no sense in reading on. Wilson presided over the sacrifice of over 1000 on the Lusitania. Roosevelt presided over the sacrifice of 2300 at Pearl (for documentation: Ret. Adm. Robert Theobald's "The Final Secret of Pearl" and Robert Stinnet's [USN 42-45] "Day of Deceit.") Both men served during WW2 and knew what Roosevelt and his handlers had done. They were not happy campers after the war. Now, the Towers that day: Steel melts at 2,795 F. Think blast furnace. Steel turns molten at 5182 F. Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of 1800 F if the perfect proportions of air and fuel are mixed and sustained. Kerosene-based Jet B, paper, computers, drapes, aren't your combustibles of choice if trying to reach 2795 F. Thick black smoke is not indicative of a raging white-hot inferno. The North Tower is hit first, collapses second. It stood for 102 minutes. The South Tower is hit second, collapses first. It stood for 56 minutes. Why did the South Tower--which housed less jet fuel than the North did since most of the fuel went out the other side in that memorable fireball--get pulled first? Because the section above the crash zone was starting to tip over, having had one corner taken out by the oblique impact of the aircraft. If the top section falls intact, it refutes the melt theory, one nice big hunk of evidence for all to see. Interesting, too, the top section powderizes on the way down. Neat trick. So the section burnt to a crisp in less than the 10 seconds it took to hit the ground? Yet you could see it very well intact as it starts to topple over. That's one heck of an incendiary. The South Tower takes 10 seconds to fall. The North Tower takes 8 sec. Two freefalls created by melting gooey columns. If the floors pancaked, every one of the 110 would had to have snapped clean at either 1/10 or 1/8 of a second. That's precision ain't it? But it gets better: You can read in the New York Times three stories by Kevin Flynn and Jim Dwyer. Two in the late edition on November 9th 2002 ; one in the late edition on Nov. 12th 2002. Each story details NYFD and other personnel and people active in the South Tower throughout the first 78 floors, some elevators are working still. The NYFD's Palmer, Leavey, and Belson are communicating with no sign of hopelessness or panic. Then the transmissions end because the building collapses. So if this building is melting top to bottom and human beings are in there and quite alive, then why weren't they turned to toast. Melting metal but not skin. Can't have it both ways. Consult firetactics.com/meridian or search on "High-rise Office Building Fire" + "United States Fire Administration" and read of the 19-hour fire that ravaged 16 floors of the Meridian Plaza building of WTC circa vintage. The fire was so hot, the fire PFD had to leave the building. They thought it might pancake, but it didn't. There's photos of the fissured--not powderized--concrete and sagging steel beams, but it never fell down. What about the 2-day fire in Madrid in Ferbuary of this year. The entire Windsor skyscraper was gutted but the steel remained standing. Never fell down in dust. You can go to prisonplanet.com/911.htm and watch and listen to network video and audio from the likes of NBC New York's Pat Dawson, CNN, and other news agencies going on and on about explosions, not fire, but explosions and dust. Listen, too, to Ladder 7 personnel talking about explosions going of "as if they were detonations to bring the building down." You think these first-responding reports will ever see the light of day on mainstream media again?
|
|