|
Post by nomuse on Mar 18, 2007 0:51:07 GMT -4
Here's an interesting thought; why isn't the NiST report one page long?
I mean, since it is assumed by the CT's that it is part of an orchestrated cover-up, and that architects and engineers across the world don't care what actually happened (so they can learn from it and do better in the next tall building); since all the NiST report is supposed to be is "There were no explosives. Trust us; we're scientists (on government payroll), then why isn't it one page long? Why does it give the reasoning, the graphs, the numbers, the indices, the references, the authors, the citations......
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 0:58:11 GMT -4
Actually, thinking about it, this conspiracy of yours reads like what Roger Ebert called an "idiot plot." It requires not that the conspirators be especially clever, That simply isn't true. The conspirators had to be extremely clever to pull off 9/11. But it was not a perfect crime. The operation itself was conducted brilliantly, although imo the flight delays necessitated a change in plan for Flt. 93, and possibly Flt. 77. The main event, however, was a masterpiece - the second tower hit. but that everyone else in the movie be an absolute idiot. No, that's too harsh. I think it's best explained by cognitive dissonance. You require that everyone from firefighters to foreign architects be both incompetent and lazy; What? The firefighters, architects, etc. are not lazy or incompetent. nor is it something I "require". that evidence that should be obvious to a five-year-old is ignored by people whose job it is to find and use such evidence, Evidence was ignored, confiscated, suppressed, sealed, and destroyed. That is an absolute fact. The people whose job it is to find and use such evidence were simply not allowed to perform their jobs in the proper, thorough, unrestricted manner. that the behaviors of some of the largest structures humanity builds are so poorly understood.. No, they are throughly understood. That's why NIST has changed their theory of collapse over and over for the towers, and finally gave up on WTC 7, shuffling the problem off onto external companies. And that's why, over five years later, they still haven't provided a valid, satisfactory collapse theory for either the towers or WTC 7!! so poorly researched that a skyscraper can behave in magical ways without attracting the attention of anyone who builds the durn things! Not true. The collapses have attracted more attention from architects and engineers than any event in history. And yes, it's primarily because of the "magical ways" they behaved.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 1:15:17 GMT -4
Here's an interesting thought; why isn't the NiST report one page long? I mean, since it is assumed by the CT's that it is part of an orchestrated cover-up, and that architects and engineers across the world don't care what actually happened (so they can learn from it and do better in the next tall building); since all the NiST report is supposed to be is "There were no explosives. Trust us; we're scientists (on government payroll), then why isn't it one page long? Why does it give the reasoning, the graphs, the numbers, the indices, the references, the authors, the citations...... That's giving them far too much credit, in terms of the actual collapses. They spent the entire report trying to explain what happened just before it collapsed. WTC 1"Global collapse then ensued." WTC 2"Global collapse then ensued" A four-word sentence, repeated. There's more words in their letterhead. As for graphs, etc.? "Here's two models that we had to juice up the data for, to finally give us the collapse results we needed." "The actual data is not available to the public at this time. We sincerely apologize for any problems this may cause you."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 18, 2007 3:05:47 GMT -4
As I have attempted to point out to you in the past, there is no evidence that friendly casualties were expected or desired in any of the Northwoods scenarios. Any claim that friendly casualties were intended is clearly extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof. I'm curious.....Do you lurk here for months on end, hoping that somebody brings up Northwoods, or do you Google search "Northwoods" every day, waiting for a hit to finally come up to this forum? Just wondering.... These issues are off-topic, and we've discussed most of them already. You keep claiming that they had not expected or desired friendly casualties, because they don't say "Friendly casualties are expected". The Northwoods document is quite clear about differentiating between which action involves manned or unmanned vessels. They propose exactly these two alternatives on two separate operations... The first operation proposes a choice of either 1.sabotage a ship - create large fires, or 2. sink a ship with mock victims. The second operation proposes a choice of either a) blow up a US ship, or b) blow up an unmanned ship. Your argument is untenable. They propose blowing up a US ship or an unmanned ship How in the world can you seriously suggest both ships are unmanned?? Oh, I forgot - "Because it doesn't say blow up a manned ship." We can extend your "logic" into all sorts of things... 1. Detonate a bomb inside a bank at noon, or 2. Detonate a bomb inside a bank, pre-arranged to be vacant. Conduct funerals for mock victims. Since it doesn't actually say the first bank would have any people inside, it obviously must mean they don't expect or desire any casualties! 1. Shoot down a 747 flying over the Atlantic, or 2. Shoot down a drone (unmanned) 747 flying over the Atlantic. Once again, this is a no-brainer. The first 747 shot down would not kill anybody, because it doesn't specifically say people are actually inside the plane!! You can keep putting this utterly ridiculous spin on it, but the document is clearly proposing operations that will cause US casualties. The Maine was destroyed by an internal explosion that was almost certainly accidental. William Randolph Hearst elected to use the incident to whip up anti-Spanish feelings among the American public in order to sell more newspapers. Sure, that's why even the Northwoods document says A "Remember The Maine" incident could be arranged...Although it is definitely possible that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire ), it is by no means certain. It is also possible that the Nazis merely capitalized on a fortuitous event. There is little doubt this event was staged by the Nazis. The USS Liberty was attacked by the Israeli Air Force. Whether she was genuinely mistaken for an Egyptian vessel, as the Israelis claim, or she was attacked to keep her from seeing something the Israelis didn't want her to see, as has been alleged, how does this even qualify as a false-flag operation? Both the Liberty and the IAF aircraft in question were showing their true colors throughout the incident. It was a plan to blame Egyptian forces of attacking and sinking the Liberty, thus drawing the US in to support Israel in their war against Egypt. That's why Israel tried to kill the entire crew, going so far as shooting at them in their lifeboats - so there would be no witnesses surviving to dispute the cover story. Out of the 294 people onboard, 34 were murdered and 172 were wounded. The only reason we don't now believe that Egypt attacked us, is because of those who survived to tell us the truth. But what's truly disgusting is how elements within our own government have continued - even to this day - to cover up this incident. Cold-blooded murder of 34 Americans at the hands of Israeli forces, on the order of the Israeli government. It remains unaddressed by each and every US administration since the day it happened. Those Israelis responsible for the act are murderers. Those US government officials responsible for the cover-up and continued failure to address it are traitors and criminals.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 18, 2007 12:00:36 GMT -4
I'm curious.....Do you lurk here for months on end, hoping that somebody brings up Northwoods, or do you Google search "Northwoods" every day, waiting for a hit to finally come up to this forum? Just wondering....As usual, you're out of line, turbonium (but I've come to expect that, so it doesn't bother me that much anymore). First, I'm going to school full-time in engineering, plus doing free-lance CAD work. Work happens to be slow just now, so I've had a bit more free time. Second, as you may or may not be aware, bautforum recently banned discussion of non-space conspiracies, so I'm going to be participating here more often. Third, although I know a lot more about science, engineering, and Apollo than the average person, I still know a lot less than Jay and many others who regularly contribute here and on bautforum. My training is in history, so I naturally tend to have more to say on historical subjects such as Northwoods. These issues are off-topic, and we've discussed most of them already.Yet you continue to make demonstrably erroneous claims about the memo, along with your other demonstrably erroneous claims such as the Liberty incident's being a false-flag operation. Also, if Northwoods is off-topic, why did you bring it up? You keep claiming that they had not expected or desired friendly casualties, because they don't say "Friendly casualties are expected".Straw man. I claim that the lack of friendly casualties is implicit. For example, if friendly casualties are an option, why are there no scenarios involving shooting down a real airliner, or killing (as opposed to wounding) a prominent Cuban exile? The Northwoods document is quite clear about differentiating between which action involves manned or unmanned vessels. . . .
The first operation proposes a choice of either 1.sabotage a ship - create large fires, or 2. sink a ship with mock victims.
The second operation proposes a choice of either a) blow up a US ship, or b) blow up an unmanned ship.The second operation can also be read as a) blow up a non-drone ship, or b) blow up a drone ship. This reading is more likely to be accurate, as the word "unmanned" is a parenthetical clarification of the word "drone." Explain, please, turbonium, why, if friendly casualties are acceptable, the drone can be blown up "anywhere in the Cuban waters," but the non-drone has to be blown up in Guantanamo Bay. I contend that, your attempted twisting and hair-splitting notwithstanding, this option implicitly assumes that the crew would have been evacuated from the non-drone ship before it was blown up. The bottom line: a drone ship with no one aboard can go "anywhere in the Cuban waters," but a non-drone ship with no one aboard can only ride at anchor in Guantanamo Bay. Your argument is untenable. They propose blowing up a US ship or an unmanned ship. [emphasis original]As I mentioned, they in fact propose blowing up a drone ship or a non-drone ship. How in the world can you seriously suggest both ships are unmanned?? Oh, I forgot - "Because it doesn't say blow up a manned ship." [emphasis original]See above. To reiterate, your claim that friendly casualties are contemplated is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary proof. Therefore, even if your straw-man mischaracterization of my argument were accurate, the burden of proof would still be on you to show that friendly casualties were an option. Also, please explain why, if friendly casualties are an option, they can only occur in Guantanamo Bay. We can extend your "logic" into all sorts of things...
1. Detonate a bomb inside a bank at noon, or 2. Detonate a bomb inside a bank, pre-arranged to be vacant. Conduct funerals for mock victims
Since it doesn't actually say the first bank would have any people inside, it obviously must mean they don't expect or desire any casualties! [emphasis original] False analogy. The drone/non-drone ship scenario has a clear geographic restriction that strongly implies the non-drone wouldn't have had a crew aboard. 1. Shoot down a 747 flying over the Atlantic, or 2. Shoot down a drone (unmanned) 747 flying over the Atlantic.
Once again, this is a no-brainer. The first 747 shot down would not kill anybody, because it doesn't specifically say people are actually inside the plane!!False analogy. In the Northwoods airliner scenario, there is no option to shoot down a real airliner--only a drone. If friendly casualties are acceptable, why is this so? You can keep putting this utterly ridiculous spin on it, but the document is clearly proposing operations that will cause US casualties.As demonstrated, you are the one who is putting a ridiculous spin on the document, and any proposal for friendly casualties is only clear if you ignore other crucial details in the memo (such as the geographic restriction on the blown-up ship scenario, and the clear lack of friendly casualties in most of the other scenarios). Sure, that's why even the Northwoods document says A "Remember The Maine" incident could be arranged... [emphasis original]Handwaving. The effect on American (and world) public opinion of the mysterious explosion of the Maine would have been identical whether the explosion was due to an accident, Spanish sabotage, or a bomb planted by agents hired by W. R. Hearst. There is little doubt this event was staged by the Nazis.From the previously linked Wikipedia article: It was a plan to blame Egyptian forces of attacking and sinking the Liberty, thus drawing the US in to support Israel in their war against Egypt.No. You are merely uncritically parroting something you've read in Conspiracyland. Further, why would the Israelis need to take such an awful risk?? The Egyptians were in full retreat by June 8, and their air force had been almost totally destroyed. And why would the Johnson Administration have gone along with this plan?? That's why Israel tried to kill the entire crew, going so far as shooting at them in their lifeboats - so there would be no witnesses surviving to dispute the cover story.The crew never abandoned ship. Some survivors claimed that empty life rafts floating in the water were deliberately fired upon--without corroborating evidence, whether this perception was correct or not is unknowable. Out of the 294 people onboard, 34 were murdered and 172 were wounded. The only reason we don't now believe that Egypt attacked us, is because of those who survived to tell us the truth.Here are historian Michael B. Oren's comments on belief that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty (note that the more common conspiracy theory is that the ship was attacked in order to hide something--not to draw the US into the war). Further, Liberty's captain stated that the Israeli torpedo boats approached flying the Israeli flag, attempted to communicate by blinker, and did not attack until two of his ship's machine gunners mistakenly opened fire on them. Was he lying, turbonium? But what's truly disgusting is how elements within our own government have continued - even to this day - to cover up this incident. Cold-blooded murder of 34 Americans at the hands of Israeli forces, on the order of the Israeli government. It remains unaddressed by each and every US administration since the day it happened. Those Israelis responsible for the act are murderers. Those US government officials responsible for the cover-up and continued failure to address it are traitors and criminals.You have no real evidence of this--as usual, you are merely proclaiming the existence of a conspiracy. [edit: typo]
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 19, 2007 1:28:48 GMT -4
Interesting. You mention gunners but one of these browning's took matters into it's own hands, what are the chances of a machine gun opening fire all by itself right at that precise moment? Bad Browning.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 19, 2007 9:09:41 GMT -4
Interesting. You mention gunners but one of these browning's took matters into it's own hands, what are the chances of a machine gun opening fire all by itself right at that precise moment? Bad Browning.Typical conspiracist attempt to belittle the evidence and spread FUD. Any loaded firearm near a strong heat source (such as the numerous fires aboard Liberty) is susceptible to having its ammunition "cook off." As for its being "the precise moment," the torpedo boats arrived about 20 minutes after the last air attack. Initially, however, the Israelis attempted to communicate by blinker and otherwise identify the ship, including consulting their recognition manuals. So there was clearly a window of at least a few minutes where an accidental attack could have led the Israelis to believe Liberty was Egyptian. Even if the chances were "very slight," however, coincidence does not equal conspiracy (except in Conspiracyland, of course ). Further, you are clearly implying that this particular detail sounds "fishy." First, if it's so implausible, why include it in a "cover" story? Why not just state that one machine gunner opened fire due to misinterpretation of orders or excitement or fear? Who would question that? (Other than a conspiracist, that is.) Second, in 1967, all senior US Navy officers and some senior petty officers had served during World War II (not to mention the numerous retired and ex- officers and enlisted personnel). If all these veterans found it so implausible, why didn't anyone speak out?? Finally, here is an account written by a Liberty survivor: The official position of the USS Liberty Veterans Association is that the Israelis deliberately attacked the ship. Why would they host this account on their web page if they didn't believe it?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 19, 2007 10:35:59 GMT -4
Guys, please start a new thread if you want to discuss the USS Liberty. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 19, 2007 12:27:44 GMT -4
Is it possible for you to split these posts off into a new thread? Or do we need to start a new thread so you can merge them in?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 19, 2007 14:43:21 GMT -4
There's a shred of comfort in the CT world after all. Not only do fires never cause steel structures to collapse, but they don't cause ammunition to cook off. In the CT world, you could probably toss a loaded revolver into a bonfire...and retrieve it next day in perfect firing condition.
(Thought inspired by a recent visit to a gun store that had some very nice examples of hand arms that were extracted from the debris of a house fire).
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 19, 2007 15:29:56 GMT -4
Is it possible for you to split these posts off into a new thread? Or do we need to start a new thread so you can merge them in? Unfortunately this forum software does not have the ability to split or merge topics.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 19, 2007 23:30:38 GMT -4
There's a shred of comfort in the CT world after all. Not only do fires never cause steel structures to collapse, Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing.Can you explain why for these other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6 fires + damages does not produce collapse ?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 19, 2007 23:43:49 GMT -4
Can you explain why for these other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6 fires + damages does not produce collapse?
What type of structure and how tall were they? Compare that to the other three. Answer those two questions and you'll have your answer.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Mar 20, 2007 0:57:14 GMT -4
I seem to recall that 3 WTC was crushed by the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC, and 4-6 WTC were so extensively damaged that they had to be razed anyway. At any rate, it's not a valid comparison. 3 was a 22-story hotel, and 4-6 were low-rise office buildings. But I suspect that this is what PhantomWolf was getting at, and I just did feelfree's homework for him
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 20, 2007 1:49:53 GMT -4
...let alone where the damage was. If WTC 1 && 2 were hit in their top floors, it might have been that the top floors did not collapse (due to no weight from floors above) or that if they did collpase that the buildings would not have collapsed (as perhaps floor top-1 could cope with the weight of the top floor falling on it).
|
|