1664 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 14 January 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

Okay, now you please tell me and everyone else...how exactly it is that plaster and windows were damaged in the lobby of a building when the initial damage was 70+ stories up!?  Could it be that the numerous reports of explosions at the base of the building had anything to do with that?

The firefighters first said they heard explosions at the base of the building, but they later determined the sounds they heard were crashing elevators.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.

P2OG

You might want to check out the Bojinka Plot because the CIA was also targeted by those terrorist.

Quote

The Bojinka Plot




Ramzi Yousef


Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Ramzi Yousef, was the person who bombed WTC1 in 1993 and whose uncle was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 911 attacks who later admitted his role in the 911 attacks.



Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 January 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

You might want to check out the Bojinka Plot because the CIA was also targeted by those terrorist.

you might want to read the book i mentioned before cut and pasting wikipedia.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.
P2OG

Nothing there that changed the reality of what I have posted.

Read what he has said about Pearl Harbor and the US military complex. Perhaps, he is not aware that the US military is facing a severe budget cutback, but cutbacks in goods and services have been occurring within the military for years after the 911 attacks, which simply means that book his not worth the paper it is printed on.

In regards to his comments on Pearl Harbor, Japan declared war on the United States and committed an act of war when it attacked our bases in Hawaii and in the Philippines. Our forces in the Philippines had warnings of an impending Japanese attack, but that didn't stop the Japanese from bombing our forces there and remember, German submariners rejoiced that United States declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I might also add that the Japanese attacked the British as well.

Now, what did he say in Chapter 3? Was he even aware that the Air Force set up CAP over Washington D.C., not over Shanksville? Was he aware that pilots of those F-16s out of Andrews AFB were not trained to shoot down airliners nor knowledgeable on NORAD's air defense protocol? Was he even aware that when F-16s took off from Langley AFB, the pilots were not aware of what was going on and why they flew the course that they did? There was nothing but confusion in the air which had nothing to do with a government conspiracy?

Ask Nafeez Ahmed why a Russian pilot had difficulty shooting down Korean 007, and I might add that my aircraft and crew was tasked to fly support and recovery equipment for the recovery of Korean 007 from Cubi Point, Philippines to Japan. We were crew-resting at Clark airbase, Philippines when we got our orders and my aircraft was a C-5A Galaxy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[socrates.junior]

Watched the ejected debris part. The problem I can immediately note is that he is matching the arc from his projectile example to an arc of debris that had clearly been initiated earlier. In addition, the debris doesn't appear to be moving in the same direction as the example he gives.

Another issue is why? Why would "they" explode anything when the tower has already started collapsing. The energy available at the beginning of the collapse has been calculated to be enough to finish the collapse.

EDIT: I'm also confused as to why he's talking about explosions projecting debris outward, when his evidence for WTC 7 demolition involves the debris falling neatly within the building's footprint. I may be completely off-base, but I thought that you direct demolition explosions inward, to destroy supports. That may or may not be very entirely based on Fight Club.

Edited by socrates.junior, 14 January 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Watched the ejected debris part. The problem I can immediately note is that he is matching the arc from his projectile example to an arc of debris that had clearly been initiated earlier. In addition, the debris doesn't appear to be moving in the same direction as the example he gives.

Another issue is why? Why would "they" explode anything when the tower has already started collapsing. The energy available at the beginning of the collapse has been calculated to be enough to finish the collapse.

EDIT: I'm also confused as to why he's talking about explosions projecting debris outward, when his evidence for WTC 7 demolition involves the debris falling neatly within the building's footprint. I may be completely off-base, but I thought that you direct demolition explosions inward, to destroy supports. That may or may not be very entirely based on Fight Club.

Thanks for watching!  I don't think matching up the Computerized version of Trajectory with the actual building collapse was meant to show anything other than what the Computer version was already showing...it just made it simpler to visualize.

If you notice...the 'ejected debris' doesn't happen until a good way down in the collapse.  This would be because it was necessary to use more explosives at that point because of the 'reinforced buffer zone' that was built in just for that reason...to avoid any kind of collapse in an Earthquake.   That is why you have 'ejected debris' at that point.  That's what I surmised anyway.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Babe...I don't know what to say. This nebulous "government" that you reference...what exactly do you mean? Every single engineer involved in the report? The Canadian academic who isn't even connected to the American government?

If you want to call them known liars, by all means, point out physical impossibilities in their reports. But until then, saying something doesn't make it so.

I know you like pointing out that Socrates would have done this or that, but let's be real. First, I'm the Junior, so I have some issues with my parent. Second of all, I, right now, am doing exactly what he said. I'm not trusting your nebulous "government", but the words of many engineers.

EDIT: You said the evidence contradicts the statements. How? By all means, feel free to refute the reports. Any of them.

Oh that's rich!   You don't trust the government, but you do trust its paid lackies!

You give Socrates a very bad name.

[socrates.junior]

Babe Ruth, on 14 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Oh that's rich!   You don't trust the government, but you do trust its paid lackies!

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?

Quote

You give Socrates a very bad name.

Incorrect.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?



Incorrect.

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

So are these people in on the conspiracy also?



Incorrect.

Probably not, but we cannot know for certain.  Clearly they are in on the coverup by generating false material.

[socrates.junior]

Babe Ruth, on 14 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Probably not, but we cannot know for certain.  Clearly they are in on the coverup by generating false material.

So they are possibly in on the conspiracy. Okay. The material they are generating is false? I would tend to say that if someone is producing false material to coverup a conspiracy, they'd have to be in on it, correct?

Edited by socrates.junior, 14 January 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

So they are possibly in on the conspiracy. Okay. The material they are generating is false? I would tend to say that if someone is producing false material to coverup a conspiracy, they'd have to be in on it, correct?

I would say that your critical thinking skills are giving Socrates dyspepsia in his grave.

It is easily possible that one could voluntarily participate in the coverup of an event WITHOUT having participated in the planning or execution of that event.

[socrates.junior]

Babe Ruth, on 14 January 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

I would say that your critical thinking skills are giving Socrates dyspepsia in his grave.

Not quite.

Quote

It is easily possible that one could voluntarily participate in the coverup of an event WITHOUT having participated in the planning or execution of that event.

How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 14 January 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

On the contrary, Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:
the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed
http://link.springer...X129006?LI=true

The keywords quoted in my previous post were "detailed study", which at a minimum when drawing conclusions, one would think, should include demonstrating a match to the effects seen in the WTC steelwork through experiment – of course this was never achieved.

Even when the authors placed the steel in direct contact with sulphur and heated it in excess of 1,000^oC, they discovered that, "the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h".  Therefore it is not a proven (or even 'good') match to the WTC steelwork which was thinned to a razor's edge, full of holes like Swiss cheese and in cases with sections vaporized completely.

The original authors clearly failed to meet their own requirement for a "detailed study" by 1) not demonstrating a match to the phenomenon at the WTC and 2) lack of consideration to plausible alternative mechanisms.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Not quite.



How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Not quite.



How? If they're producing material they know to be false, they're participating in the conspiracy. Nobody said they were involved in the planning...but they're part of the execution. Is the coverup not part of the execution?

No Socrates, it's not.  Did you do any time in the military?

I did, and took 4 years of Military Science in ROTC.

Military operations are planned in great detail, ideally.  Then, at some point after that, they are executed.

The coverup was certainly planned at the highest levels, but that was planning separate from the planning for the tactics to be used to accomplish the mission.

Strategy is one thing, tactics are another.

Wally Miller at Shanksville is a perfect example.  He did not plan or execute the events of the day.  Encouraged to be "a team player" he participated to some extent in the coverup.  That does not make him a conspirator, except possibly AFTER the overt acts of the main event had already taken place.

[socrates.junior]

I'm curious about something. When you talk about participation in the coverup, what does that mean? Based on previous posts, you seem to mean making false statements knowingly.

Why would someone do that? They wouldn't do it just to be a "team player", so what would motivate it?

Bear in mind, we're not talking about Wally Miller at Shanksville. We're talking about a large number of engineers here. Why would they all be attaching their name to false statements? (Bear in mind, you've done ZERO to prove that their statements are false.)

EDIT: Taking 4 years of military science isn't necessary to know what "planning" and "execution" mean. The coverup is a necessary part in the overall execution of the conspiracy. Otherwise it isn't a conspiracy. Quit playing word games.

Edited by socrates.junior, 14 January 2013 - 08:17 PM.