900 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Oh have the first half...

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Let's not lose lose sight of what we are talking about here. We are not talking about the equivalence between the two scenarios and if they are the same, we are talking about whether the military response would have been significantly different.

I mentioned that the initial military response would be no different between W Tell's hypothetical and the actual events - so nothing to talk about there. I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall. The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation.

At the end of it all, what Neocon documents show is that a decades long driving force; a replacement to the Cold War threat; a history transforming event were required to maximise their policies. Whatever we personally think was 'enough' to secure this, what is for certain is that 9/11 achieved the end.

I'm going to use another excerpt from a document in a final attempt to convince you of the scale of attack on the Neocon mind, then believe what you will: -

CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY

Imagining the Transforming Event

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

http://www.hks.harva...n/terrorism.htm

I conclude again, the safe bet on their part, was that the towers should fall. And again, it doesn't matter what we think or would have planned given the task - it is only what the perpetrators thought that mattered.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

What I heard is that Silverstein wanted to take out 1.5 bill and was forced by lenders to take out the 3.5 billion; if Silverstein would have gotten what he originally wanted he'd be short insurance wise and possibly he and his lenders would take a significant loss. I'm not sure of the significance of the WTC transfer being a first time ever event. Likewise not sure how the fact that the closing of the deal was only 6 weeks before (it had actually been agreed to in April). Whatever the significance, how long would have needed to pass before it's not suspicious enough to merit mentioning? If the deal was closed 6 months before would we also be making sure to 'not let it pass'? A year?

I'm not sure that Silverstein was forced to increase the insurance or that the 'ins and outs' of the process are in the public domain for us to consider. What is for certain is that the final agreed figure was a significant increase on the existing policy.

Did you know that Silverstein was not the highest bidder, yet at the closing stages there was some complication and so he was still presented the lease by his Zionist associate and Chairman of the Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg? It was another Zionist connection, Ronald Lauder who recommended the towers be privatised in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole transfer to Silverstein was pre-arranged.

Incidentally, even now the insurance does not cover the rebuild project (as mentioned, this was not the aim). A large part of the funding has been covered by taxpayer bonds through the Port Authority, and this assistance actually led to Silverstein making a profit on the WTC7 phase of the rebuild.

To your question - had the transfer occurred prior to 1999 (this is when the 9/11 operation appears to have got underway), I'd have let it go. Then again... not completely. All indication is that the towers were demolished, which places Silverstein, as the building owner, in the spotlight.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

What then is the benefit to Silverstein again? It's not actually financial? The Port Authority owned the building before Silverstein I believe, a govt agency. 'They' couldn't have quashed these hypothesized lawsuits right there? Why can't they obtain the compliance of another govt agency? Most importantly, how do they prevent the insurance companies from bringing these uncomfortable lawsuits, regardless of the actual ownership?

The benefit to Silverstein is as the benefit to Israel. Do you understand how Neocon and Zionsit policies go hand in hand?

The control and compliance of a private individual is greater than a government agency board.

The insurance companies paid out on an act of terrorism - which it was anyway we look at it - I'm not sure there was anything for them to dispute on that matter. In my experience, it is decision of the policy holder to litigate responsibility leading to a claim, i.e. if Silverstein did not want to challenge who was at fault for the attack, there is nothing further the insurance companies could do.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Depends on which demolition expert you ask as far as how 'imitating it was', correct?

For sure there are some narrow minded demolition experts out there who cannot comprehend a necessarily non-conventional demolition. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolitions Inc. comes to mind. He believes the WTC buildings were not demolished due to lack of a loud chain of explosions immediately prior collapse and/or lack of miles of detcord found in the debris. Yes, because that would make for a superb covert demolition, fantastic reasoning - what a moron.

It seems that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures so much as anyone else. I use expert opinion in the most part to counter experts raised by official story adherents; to show there are experts on both sides.  I'd rather keep discussion between us... than take turns to see who can quote most experts in their favour, which the official narrative would lose anyway.

I will get to the rest, the building/damage features and characteristics, tomorrow...

[Babe Ruth]

Outstanding topic.

I thought it was about Turkey the country.  I should have checked sooner.  

The topic reminds me of the implications of Ike's Farewell Address--BEWARE, lest the government be taken over by cruel and greedy and belligerent special interests.

[Babe Ruth]

W Tell, on 28 July 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I'm not real sure where the conversation should go from here, since we've been talking motive. But I do want to talk about the buildings.

I suppose I'll start by asking a question. To LG directly, but anyone else that's interested.

Would our military response, that we justified by the actions of that day, have been the same if the buildings had stayed standing?

We would still of had the aftermath of jetliners hijacked and crashed. But if the buildings had stayed standing I don't think it would have had anywhere near the psychologil impact, and directly our military response would've been limited to Bin Laden and Al Quida. I doubt there would have been support for invading nations, replacing leaders, rebuilding them, the extreme loss of liberty at home, etc. I think those buildings had to fall. With people in them. Live on T.V. Seen around the world, to truly get the support needed.

I'm curious of what others think.

You're right about that WT.  Manipulating the public perception is explicit in the PNAC document.  Experts at manipulating the public perception were employed, obviously.

The buildings being struck by airplanes generated large amounts of psychic trauma to those watching.  Their collapse was icing on the cake.  But that does not necessarily mean that there were not OTHER reasons to bring the towers down.

The collapse of WTC7, which I did not see that day, served other purposes.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 30 July 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 30 July 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I mentioned that the initial military response would be no different between W Tell's hypothetical and the actual events - so nothing to talk about there. I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall. The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation.

Oh there are a few more very relevant differences.  First you are assuming that there is some concrete definition you can apply to the word 'Pearl Harbor scale attack' and declare what does and doesn't fit that description. Obviously the death counts are somewhat close, 9/11 is about 600 over (3000 vs 2400); my rough estimate is that we'd have roughly half the 9/11 casualties if the towers would have stayed standing.  You're telling me that if only 1500 people were murdered and the towers stood and we went into Iraq, that you wouldn't be referring to that alternate 9/11 as a PH scale attack and tie it to that reference in the document?  It also doesn't take into account that 9/11 was more terrifying to Americans than PH. There was already significant conflict going on when PH happened, and unlike PH, people in every major American city were scared that they could be a victim of terrorists immediately after 9/11; Chicagoans were not too worried that they were going to be bombed by the Japanese on 12/8/1941.

And again, you are taking a far more open approach to the PH quote than I am, which refers specifically to upgrading our technological capability; you see it as a reference to "a history transforming event" that was required "to maximise their policies".  Let's take 2 possible events:

- a fleet of Chinese new stealth submarines attack and sink an aircraft carrier and a several other ships with PH level casualties
- 9/11

Now which one of those scenarios better fits the 2 references to PH in the document?  I argue it's clearly the first, if you look at it in the context in which it is mentioned.  We don't necessarily need to upgrade our aircraft carriers and missle systems to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, they are nowhere near us technologically; stealth subs require the fast development of the types of things mentioned in the sections that refer to PH, and is analogous to the 1941 PH.  So you are then arguing that 9/11 is close enough to the PH reference if you agree that the sub scenario is a better fit.  Since we've already allowed some latitude to allow the less-better fit of 9/11, we have thus opened it up to that many more feasible events that we could retroactively deem close enough to the PH reference, and many of these feasible events may have absolutely nothing with our govt planning anything.  And that is my problem; there are all kinds of possible catastrophic events that fits within the latitude you are allowing this term to fit that our govt is not involved in, that would have the same connection to the PH quote.  Let's say that when 9/11 happened you immediately after pulled out this doc and said, a-ha, the new PH, that's evidence the govt arranged it.  But then after you investigate, you find some evidence that convinces you that the OCT is actually correct.  Since you can connect 9/11 to PH and thereby suspect the govt just on that alone, isn't the fact that you can do this under the scenario that Al Q committed it all by their lonesome and under the scenario that Cheney remote-controlled the planes into their targets give us some indication that this really isn't that great of evidence then?  (Dude, I'm sorry, I realize that the above is a ton of word salad; appreciate the challenging content here and I do have an objection to the post-hoc connect-the-dots close-enough method that I think is being employed here, but am not fooling myself that I'm doing a good job of explaining my objection.  It may coalesce into something more concise as we proceed).

I do like how we are proceeding by starting at the top and drilling to the detail, but the idea that 'they' were telegraphing, for some foolish reason since it was hardly covert, that they needed 9/11 to happen, to the detail that the towers needed to fall, is something that is given credence by other evidence I think.  To my knowledge, the document does not say that a PH attack is required for a years-long commitment; it says a PH attack is required for a quick upgrade of our military technologically.  I don't have a problem with you saying that the document is motive, but if we are now going to claims something to the level of 'horse's mouth', then I think it's reasonable that we stick pretty closely to what the document actually says, and not go by the many things that it suggests.

Quote

I'm going to use another excerpt from a document in a final attempt to convince you of the scale of attack on the Neocon mind, then believe what you will: -

I'll need a little help with your summary of what this document shows.  You're not actually surprised a document exists analyzing policy positions in response the threat of catastrophic terrorism, there are probably several, with different policy recommendations.  This document talks about WMDs; aren't those typically of a greater destructive scale than even 9/11, as long as we're connecting dots and questioning how close is close enough in these references?  One nuke pretty much anywhere in NY dwarfs 9/11.

Quote

I conclude again, the safe bet on their part, was that the towers should fall. And again, it doesn't matter what we think or would have planned given the task - it is only what the perpetrators thought that mattered.

Agreed.  I'm not sure the method being used to determine what the perpetrators thought is that valid, but I agree with your point.

Quote

I'm not sure that Silverstein was forced to increase the insurance or that the 'ins and outs' of the process are in the public domain for us to consider. What is for certain is that the final agreed figure was a significant increase on the existing policy.

Did you know that Silverstein was not the highest bidder, yet at the closing stages there was some complication and so he was still presented the lease by his Zionist associate and Chairman of the Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg? It was another Zionist connection, Ronald Lauder who recommended the towers be privatised in the first place. One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole transfer to Silverstein was pre-arranged.

The company that won the bid backed out apparently because of lease terms and tax liability.  One might reasonably 'suspect' that something was pre-arranged, but I think that's because the label 'Zionist' is doing a lot more work for you than it does for me.  There are lots of gradients of Zionist, and I don't know how many of those gradients are willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people.

Quote

All indication is that the towers were demolished, which places Silverstein, as the building owner, in the spotlight.

I'll be interested to see your 'all indication', as that would be what is required to make Silverstein compelling.

Quote

The benefit to Silverstein is as the benefit to Israel. Do you understand how Neocon and Zionsit policies go hand in hand?

'Muslim' does not equal 'someone willing to commit mass-murder in the name of Allah'; 'Zionist' does not equal 'someone willing to commit mass-murder for Israel'.

Quote

The control and compliance of a private individual is greater than a government agency board.

It's not a private individual, you've implicated at least 3 people.  I don't agree with the truth of the above anyway, it depends entirely on the situation.

Quote

The insurance companies paid out on an act of terrorism - which it was anyway we look at it - I'm not sure there was anything for them to dispute on that matter. In my experience, it is decision of the policy holder to litigate responsibility leading to a claim, i.e. if Silverstein did not want to challenge who was at fault for the attack, there is nothing further the insurance companies could do.

Hmmm, you're not sure there was anything to dispute?  How about that 'all indications is that the towers were demolished'?  I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect about the policy holder and litigation.  It's not like if you own a business and it burns to the ground, you can tell your insurance company you'd rather they not look into it and see if it's arson or not.  And that's what you are going to provide evidence of I believe, that Silverstein essentially participated in the desctruction of his own buildings; I don't think that's covered by the 'terrorism coverage' he bought.

Quote

It seems that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures so much as anyone else. I use expert opinion in the most part to counter experts raised by official story adherents; to show there are experts on both sides.  I'd rather keep discussion between us... than take turns to see who can quote most experts in their favour, which the official narrative would lose anyway.

I sincerely doubt that loss by sheer total of experts.  Regardless the number of experts isn't really that relevant, unless possibly it's lopsided; the better evidenced and reasoned argument wins.  We probably don't have the expertise to evaluate the statements of these experts, but there are other things we can argue concerning that.  (A little foreshadowing: you know who has a lot of money, loads of political power that spans the relative transiency of presidential administrations, and can get the best most credentialed experts?  Insurance companies).  I agree that experts are susceptible to bias and logic failures as much as anyone else... in fields outside of their expertise.  If they are that susceptible, then why are they experts?

Quote

I will get to the rest, the building/damage features and characteristics, tomorrow...

Great food for thought as always Q, definitely take your time, I'm going to have limited time during the work week and yours and W's points take a lot of getting up to speed on my part.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 31 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Obviously the death counts are somewhat close, 9/11 is about 600 over (3000 vs 2400); my rough estimate is that we'd have roughly half the 9/11 casualties if the towers would have stayed standing. You're telling me that if only 1500 people were murdered and the towers stood and we went into Iraq, that you wouldn't be referring to that alternate 9/11 as a PH scale attack and tie it to that reference in the document?

I have not specified a set number of casualties that were or were not required. What I have argued is that thousands of deaths and destroyed buildings meets the requirement more assuredly than hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings.

I think that your estimate, whilst quite possible, leans heavily toward the high side. There were an estimated 5,000 -7,000 people in each tower at time of the impact. If we divide that by 110 floors to assume a roughly equal spread throughout the towers, and multiply by approximately 6 floors in the impact zone... and add passengers of the four aircraft and those Pentagon victims... there is a potential for less than 1,000 casualties at the time of impact, i.e. in the hundreds.

This does not compare so favorably to the "Pearl Harbor" scale or "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands" quoted in my previous post.

Your argument is this: the towers did not need to fall because the lesser number of casualties and damaged buildings would be enough. This is like claiming that Hitler did not need 21 border incidents during Operation Himmler... because I personally think that 10 would have been enough. It doesn't matter what you or I think - only what the perpetrators thought.

When it comes to 9/11, the most confident way to determine what the perpetrators thought and would aim for is through their own words: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people... loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime... Like Pearl Harbor... "

The collapses guaranteed that outcome, and so the towers had to fall.

Liquid Gardens, on 31 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

And again, you are taking a far more open approach to the PH quote than I am, which refers specifically to upgrading our technological capability; you see it as a reference to "a history transforming event" that was required "to maximise their policies".

Yes I am approaching requirement for a "new Pearl Harbor" in the Rebuilding America's Defenses document more openly by accepting the context in which the technological upgrades were required, i.e. the wider aims which it was to support.

I have further supplied another Pearl Harbor quote above from a different Neocon authored document which has nothing to do with technological upgrades, but in fact forming "a watershed event in America’s history... as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible."

I should add again that I don't believe this is direct evidence those connected to the authors actually effected the attack, only strong evidence of motive to do so (which can exist whether they actually did it or not) and requirement of the scale witnessed.

Liquid Gardens, on 31 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

I'll need a little help with your summary of what this document shows. You're not actually surprised a document exists analyzing policy positions in response the threat of catastrophic terrorism, there are probably several, with different policy recommendations. This document talks about WMDs; aren't those typically of a greater destructive scale than even 9/11, as long as we're connecting dots and questioning how close is close enough in these references? One nuke pretty much anywhere in NY dwarfs 9/11.

The document once again shows the benefit that a large scale attack would provide to an aggressive foreign/military policy - an additional example of motive. Yes WMDs are referenced, as is "Pearl Harbor". Going back to what I said before, I just don't think that potentially hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings met the scale discussed in these documents.

Liquid Gardens, on 31 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

One might reasonably 'suspect' that something was pre-arranged, but I think that's because the label 'Zionist' is doing a lot more work for you than it does for me. There are lots of gradients of Zionist, and I don't know how many of those gradients are willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people.

I absolutely agree with everything above.

How familiar are you with the creation of the state of Israel and the history since? Zionist policies have led to the deaths of more than a few thousand people in their time, as have Neocon policies. I don't know why anyone would think the 3,000 in the towers warranted special treatment from those groups next to their agendas.

Liquid Gardens, on 31 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Hmmm, you're not sure there was anything to dispute? How about that 'all indications is that the towers were demolished'? I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect about the policy holder and litigation. It's not like if you own a business and it burns to the ground, you can tell your insurance company you'd rather they not look into it and see if it's arson or not. And that's what you are going to provide evidence of I believe, that Silverstein essentially participated in the desctruction of his own buildings; I don't think that's covered by the 'terrorism coverage' he bought.

When you crash a motor vehicle, you do not have to challenge that the other driver or a third party is at fault - just accept liability and make the claim. I still believe that if Silverstein did not want to challenge responsibility for the attack then the insurers had nowhere to go. And I'm not sure that Silverstein participated in the destruction of the buildings, rather facilitated the aftermath.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Huh, I'm not following you here. First, the source of the evidence for this phone call is a journalist relaying what police officers overheard, I'm sure the message and context and full meaning was communicated perfectly... And what is so unusual about this? WTC 7 is significantly damaged and on fire, sounds like there was some structural problems, you think it's unusual for the owner of the property to be discussing options with his insurer? I mean, come on, indeed.

Well we already have "motive" noted down for this group, there's no harm in adding "intent" - not only was there benefit to be had in the attack, there is also the building owner seeking to authorize the demolition.

Liquid Gardens, on 29 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

And I have to ask the question I usually do to points of this nature: if you think the way WTC 7 collapsed does not make sense, then tell me what should have happened? How should it have collapsed, or should it have withstood extensive damage and fires burning for hours? Most importantly, how do you know this? You seem to pretty clearly have made a prediction of what should have happened since something about the WTC 7 appears to be unusual to you. What is that prediction and how did you calculate it? Needless to say, it is an extremely complex calculation with large chunks of missing data, I'm wondering how anyone can say 'it shouldn't have happened that way'. I believe this type of analysis usually requires computer modeling, not sure if that exists and supports your alternate prediction.

To understand what should have happened, you can look at any example of fire or truss failure in modern, high-rise, steel framed buildings that has occurred before. What you will find is that none have ever led to sudden and complete collapse of the entire building. WTC7 should never have suffered the collapse witnessed at all taking all precedent into account.

And what extensive damage? There was no extensive damage prior collapse initiation. The official report accepts that neither the debris damage or heated columns had a bearing on the WTC7 collapse. The initial damage was superficial and the collapse a freak occurence due to the building design, according to the official report (susceptible to progressive collapse they said).

Can I ask, do you understand the process of the NIST collapse theory, how one event led to the next?

Oh computer modelling - it's amazing how flexible that can be. Did you know that for the towers the best estimate computer model of the buildings, damage and fires showed no collapse should occur? Of course, that was simple to manipulate with manual inputs until the only politically acceptable result was achieved.

The official 'investigations' were nothing of the sort - the conclusions were preconceived.

[Babe Ruth]

Q, you make an excellent point above.

That we must consider what the perpetrators thought.

Some years ago I embraced that completely, and then began thinking AS THOUGH I were planning the attacks.  How would I have done it?  Anything differently?  What are the logistics?  What would be the plan most likely to succeed, and most likely to fail?

All that because it WAS planned, and as you and I agree, it WAS a False Flag operation.

With that mindset, I cannot possibly see the advantage to risk having some clown like Hani attempt to strike the Pentagon, flying a Boeing for the first time in his life.  Why not simply precisely place charges, simulate a fly-by, maybe send in a small modern drone, and be done with it?

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 31 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

I have not specified a set number of casualties that were or were not required. What I have argued is that thousands of deaths and destroyed buildings meets the requirement more assuredly than hundreds of deaths and repaired buildings.

I might be able to give you 'meets the requirement more assuredly', and of course a WMD meets that even more thoroughly than that, and 9/11 fell short of.  I think what's being argued though is that the perpetrators thought that the towers must fall in order for them to meet their goals and that's what I'm disputing.  The original question was would the military response be that much different if the towers stood, and the answer to that question requires lots of psychological analysis with a paucity of data available, or just plain telepathy.  You seem to underestimate the govt's ability to exploit politically any event, and I think there's ample reason not to do that.  The important point we are sidestepping also is that ensuring by towers fall by demolishing them adds a huge new layer of risk for 'them', both in the involvement of yet more people and the fact that you now have necessarily left behind that much more evidence of the orchestration of the attack.  And is apparently something they thoroughly botched if 'all indications' are that they were demolished.

Quote

I think that your estimate, whilst quite possible, leans heavily toward the high side.

I guess that depends on how many people above the impact points in the WTC you think could be saved, we don't know what that number is.  I don't think very many would have survived, mainly due to the fires and the difficulty in combatting them, but I'm not sure.  In the North tower alone, 1355 people above the impact point were killed, 658 from the same company.  That doesn't count the other plane's passengers, the Pentagon nor the South Tower.

Quote

Your argument is this: the towers did not need to fall because the lesser number of casualties and damaged buildings would be enough. This is like claiming that Hitler did not need 21 border incidents during Operation Himmler... because I personally think that 10 would have been enough. It doesn't matter what you or I think - only what the perpetrators thought.

The collapses guaranteed that outcome, and so the towers had to fall.

My argument actually is that I think the endeavor of determining what the perpetrators thought, to the level of detail of ascertaining what damage threshold they thought would be too little to achieve their goals, is unrealistic.  Neither of us have any idea if the collapses 'guaranteed' anything, especially from the point of view of the perpetrators; they may have thought that it was absolutely required that 93 hits it target too.  We are guessing.  We have no idea if the towers standing would not have been enough for Bush to get the support for the foray into Iraq, defense spending growth, etc.  The way we are trying to determine 'what the perpetrators thought' I find very suspect also, which I'll address below.  Even if the towers had not collapsed you still have the most significant event in US history arguably since PH, so I'm not sure why you're fairly confident that it wouldn't be enough.

Quote

When it comes to 9/11, the most confident way to determine what the perpetrators thought and would aim for is through their own words: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people... loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime... Like Pearl Harbor... "
( I moved the above statement from earlier iin your post so I could address it with the below)

Yes I am approaching requirement for a "new Pearl Harbor" in the Rebuilding America's Defenses document more openly by accepting the context in which the technological upgrades were required, i.e. the wider aims which it was to support.

I have further supplied another Pearl Harbor quote above from a different Neocon authored document which has nothing to do with technological upgrades, but in fact forming "a watershed event in America’s history... as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible."

I should add again that I don't believe this is direct evidence those connected to the authors actually effected the attack, only strong evidence of motive to do so (which can exist whether they actually did it or not) and requirement of the scale witnessed.

Okay, who of the authors of the second document are part of the group of 'perpetrators'?  The more people we add the more and more unrealistic the silence of this conspiracy becomes, a decade plus on.  Like 'Zionist', I fear that we are trying to now let the label 'Neocon' do more work than is really justified.  The latest document seems like a normal analysis of the current global situation as far as our vulnerability to terrorist attack and what we should do to prepare for it; I don't know what you find so incriminating about them.

Again, I have trouble believing that the were the towers not to fall and around a 1000 people were murdered that you wouldn't refer to the PH quote anyway, perhaps by noting that the terror inflicted by 9/11 was more widespread and immediately threatening than 1941 or that again, it would still be the most significant event since PH.  When you approach the PH reference more openly, you necessarily then make the number of events that can 'fit' this more numerous.    When you open up the number of things that you can connect to the PH reference, let alone the other things in the document, then necessarily any of those events happening looks a lot less 'curious' and suspiciously coincidental as far as that connection; there are too many things you can possibly connect to it.  The PNAC document says, "the new strategic center of concern appears to be shifting to East Asia.".  There's a whole other region of people and potential terrorists, or events, or anything that you think reaches the 'scale' of PH; if we ramp up our presence in East Asia as a result, that counts as 'what the perpetrators wanted'.


I can respect and appreciate that you are tempering what you are saying and recognizing that this is not direct evidence and goes to motive, and I haven't disputed many of the PH comments you have included in your posts as I accept it vaguely as a possible part of some motive.  This statement by you though indicated to me that you seemed to be trying to get somethin more detailed out of the quote than I thought was justified:

"I then extended the discussion to consider long term public support - that is the reason I believe the towers had to fall.  The only difference between our opinion there, is that I accept from the horse's mouth that a new Pearl Harbor scale attack was deemed the requirement, whereas you try to impose your own requirement on their operation."

I'm not seeing any direct quote that supports the idea that they thought a new PH was a requirement for 'them' to achieve their goals of long term public support.  We are taking a reference to PH out of it's detailed context, which is undeniably referring to technological upgrades and what is necessary for a fast upgrade, and arguing that in some (I'd argue 'much') broader context this it is actually saying that they indicated that a new PH was required for them to achieve what they wanted.  I'm not seeing anywhere where they say, 'and it is imperative that we have a fast upgrade technologically' and actually recommend a decades-long approach, yet your statement above makes it seems like you're just passing what they plainly clearly said and are not adding anything of your own to it.

The difference between our opinions here is more accurately that you are favoring a certain intepretation of these statements in these documents and making connections between them differently than I am.  On the PH quote, I have the advantage of what it literally says and what it is specifically referring to in my favor, which is supported by the fact that this specific context is a better fit for the real PH, as far as adding in the technological upgrade connection. You have the advantage of looking at the document more as a whole and how this section concerning tech upgrades fits in with the whole document and all the recommendations that they were making, which is cool too.  The point being, when you say 'horse's mouth' you set the bar pretty high as far as requiring much more direct quotes and evidence that I don't think you are meeting.  You seem to be positioning it with your statement like I'm just kinda guessing what was meant by these statements and adding lots of my own opinion while you are just faithfully passing on what they said without layering on loads of interpretation yourself.  Neither of us can get around the fact that they certainly could have said something far more directly to support either of our viewpoints, and they didn't.  They could have been far more clear if they really were trying to say, 'there's no way we're going to meet our goals short of a PH style attack'; they didn't even say that a fast upgrade of the technology is what they wanted.

Not trying to belabor this point, and I'm fine again with the fact that the desire to increase defense spending counts to some extent as motive.  I don't know if I for sure agree with anything much more detailed than that at this point, however I allow that your guys' further evidence of direct involvement may add additional evidence to support your intepretation.  This may be one of the points that we're just going to disagree on, which I think we all expected were going to exist.

Quote

How familiar are you with the creation of the state of Israel and the history since? Zionist policies have led to the deaths of more than a few thousand people in their time, as have Neocon policies. I don't know why anyone would think the 3,000 in the towers warranted special treatment from those groups next to their agendas.

I'm somewhat familiar at a very high level; I think I understand the ultimate reasons for the never-ending conflict.  'Those groups' is way too vague for me; you might as well say why 3000 would warrant special treatment from 'the Muslims'.  There are several agendas and vast degrees of fanaticism within most good-sized groups.

Quote

When you crash a motor vehicle, you do not have to challenge that the other driver or a third party is at fault - just accept liability and make the claim. I still believe that if Silverstein did not want to challenge responsibility for the attack then the insurers had nowhere to go. And I'm not sure that Silverstein participated in the destruction of the buildings, rather facilitated the aftermath.

At some point it is not the decision of the insured; if the insurer is going to pay a claim, it has every right to sue to reclaim some of that payment.  If I'm uninsured and crash my motor vehicle into your house and damage it, and you get your insurer to pay it based on a policy you hold with them, I'm pretty sure they can then sue me for reimbursement of what they had to pay with or without your permission.

Quote

Well we already have "motive" noted down for this group, there's no harm in adding "intent" - not only was there benefit to be had in the attack, there is also the building owner seeking to authorize the demolition.

To understand what should have happened, you can look at any example of fire or truss failure in modern, high-rise, steel framed buildings that has occurred before. What you will find is that none have ever led to sudden and complete collapse of the entire building. WTC7 should never have suffered the collapse witnessed at all taking all precedent into account.

And what extensive damage? There was no extensive damage prior collapse initiation. The official report accepts that neither the debris damage or heated columns had a bearing on the WTC7 collapse. The initial damage was superficial and the collapse a freak occurence due to the building design, according to the official report (susceptible to progressive collapse they said).

Can I ask, do you understand the process of the NIST collapse theory, how one event led to the next?

Oh computer modelling - it's amazing how flexible that can be. Did you know that for the towers the best estimate computer model of the buildings, damage and fires showed no collapse should occur? Of course, that was simple to manipulate with manual inputs until the only politically acceptable result was achieved.

The official 'investigations' were nothing of the sort - the conclusions were preconceived.

Computer modeling can indeed be flexible, but it gives you far more to work with than 'precedent', as if any two fires are identical.  Most importantly, computer modeling requires that you actually work through the physics and engineering, and gives other engineers specifics to analyze and potentially dispute.  It's tough to just dispute interpretations from precedent.  And I need to press pause on this one and need to do some more research on WTC7.  I was basing my 'extensive damage' by the diagram on the wiki page which seemed to show a good size gouge out of the side of the building, but I haven't read up on the details of the collapse and am probably wrong with my assumption concerning the damage.  Just the above took quite a bit of research and getting my thoughts together, so you guys give me some time to look into this.  Also W Tell, please jump in and steer anytime, don't be deterred by Q's and my verbose back-and-forth.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

I might be able to give you 'meets the requirement more assuredly', and of course a WMD meets that even more thoroughly than that, and 9/11 fell short of. I think what's being argued though is that the perpetrators thought that the towers must fall in order for them to meet their goals and that's what I'm disputing. The original question was would the military response be that much different if the towers stood, and the answer to that question requires lots of psychological analysis with a paucity of data available, or just plain telepathy. You seem to underestimate the govt's ability to exploit politically any event, and I think there's ample reason not to do that.

A WMD attack goes beyond the minimum scenario discussed in the documents.
The actual attack guaranteed the minimum scenario would be met without overkill.
Had the towers not fallen, this risks coming short of the minimum scenario discussed.

Of the above possibilities, the 9/11 attack was best fit to the scenario discussed.

On the military response I think we agree - the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could have gone ahead with a lesser scale attack. I think we also agree that the actual attack "meets the requirement [for greater/continued support] more assuredly".

I do not underestimate a politician's ability to exploit events, though that event is needed to begin.

Anyhow, as you say, I think this area has been labored enough and the points made on each side - I will try to leave motive for a false flag attack behind and focus more on evidence for the building demolitions.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

The important point we are sidestepping also is that ensuring by towers fall by demolishing them adds a huge new layer of risk for 'them', both in the involvement of yet more people and the fact that you now have necessarily left behind that much more evidence of the orchestration of the attack. And is apparently something they thoroughly botched if 'all indications' are that they were demolished.

I don't see the demolition had to be a risk... what uncontrollable risk do you perceive? I'm sure I will be able to find a solution.

I'm not sure about 'botched' though there were physical factors which were unpredictable during the impacts, fires, collapses and aftermath. It is much of this evidence held up as a case for demolition.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

I guess that depends on how many people above the impact points in the WTC you think could be saved, we don't know what that number is. I don't think very many would have survived, mainly due to the fires and the difficulty in combatting them, but I'm not sure. In the North tower alone, 1355 people above the impact point were killed, 658 from the same company. That doesn't count the other plane's passengers, the Pentagon nor the South Tower.

The fires in both towers were diminishing of their own accord, especially in WTC2. The firefighters had reached the impact zone in WTC2 and were requesting hoses to begin extinguishing the pockets of fire existing. The firefighters envisioned they would make an escape route and evacuate everyone before any partial/limited collapse of the upper block took place hours later. Given this information, which is all contained in the NIST report, firefighter testimony and emergency responder recordings, it appears that a high percentage of those above the impact zones would have been saved if not for the collapses.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Even if the towers had not collapsed you still have the most significant event in US history arguably since PH, so I'm not sure why you're fairly confident that it wouldn't be enough.

Because it was not written, 'the most significant event since Pearl Harbor', it was written 'like Pearl Harbor'. Arguably the 1993 WTC attack could be the 'the most significant event since Pearl Harbor', yet that was not sufficient to generate the military response discussed in the Neocon documents. And that is not a bad comparison, I should have thought of it before... the same group, the same building, a terrorist attack, six killed, 1,042 injured, damaged building... zero response generated... the next attempt had to be of a considerably greater scale than deaths and damage to guarantee its effect.  Sorry, I just got back onto 'motive', don't know how that happened!

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Okay, who of the authors of the second document are part of the group of 'perpetrators'? The more people we add the more and more unrealistic the silence of this conspiracy becomes, a decade plus on. Like 'Zionist', I fear that we are trying to now let the label 'Neocon' do more work than is really justified. The latest document seems like a normal analysis of the current global situation as far as our vulnerability to terrorist attack and what we should do to prepare for it; I don't know what you find so incriminating about them.

None of the authors of the second document have to be part of the group of perpetrators and I agree there is nothing untoward about the analysis. It is only that working within the same Neocon circle and general policies as the perpetrators, the motive and scenario for a false flag can be derived.  Those who follow the official narrative often have a habit of adding more conspirators to alternative theories than were ever necessary (they imagine thousands, which to me is but a defense mechanism to accepting the theory).  I have thought about this in some detail and will say now that I believe the operation could be conducted with no more than twenty individuals of U.S. nationality and fifty foreign agents fully aware - it could have been less.  If you think it had to be more then please explain their role and why it was necessary.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

There are several agendas and vast degrees of fanaticism within most good-sized groups.

Yes, and the fanaticism of Zionist and Neocon groups eclipses most - this is seen in their penchant for war involving hundreds of thousands of deaths to secure their aims. Three thousand lives are less important than their global vision. I've asked this a few times on the forum and never received a direct answer... it is an extreme example but proves the point... if there was an opportunity to exchange your life for the potential continued global pre-eminence of America and prosperity of Israel... which would the likes of Netanyahu and Cheney choose? It won't be you. Or how about this... you think these people are prepared to commit hundreds of thousands to death in their wars (many thousands their own citizens) in pursuit of their agendas... yet not a lesser three thousand to get there? Putting it into this perspective, we should not doubt there are individuals 'willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people'.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

At some point it is not the decision of the insured; if the insurer is going to pay a claim, it has every right to sue to reclaim some of that payment. If I'm uninsured and crash my motor vehicle into your house and damage it, and you get your insurer to pay it based on a policy you hold with them, I'm pretty sure they can then sue me for reimbursement of what they had to pay with or without your permission.

Even assuming you are correct, do you think it realistic that the insurers take on the U.S government, indeed near the entire political establishment, to this degree? You really think they have the desire and clout to investigate and drag the government, business, military and intelligence services (including that of foreign countries) into a necessary court case? I think that the idea this could be successful is insane.  Even the notion of going ahead with this could see the insurers reputation completely destroyed before the investigation got off the ground.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Computer modeling can indeed be flexible, but it gives you far more to work with than 'precedent', as if any two fires are identical. Most importantly, computer modeling requires that you actually work through the physics and engineering, and gives other engineers specifics to analyze and potentially dispute. It's tough to just dispute interpretations from precedent.

Yes, computer modelling can be brilliant - but we have to understand exactly what we are simulating, the inputs, and accept what the unbiased results reveal. And in the case of the towers, that is in probability that the buildings, as demonstrated by NIST's best estimage computer simulation, should not have collapsed. It was only in adapting the simulation, beyond the physical reality witnessed on 9/11, that the computer modelling reached a collapse initiation point. The method of the WTC7 modelling was different, though given the simulation method used to produce the tower collapse initiations, I have no faith whatsoever in the politically driven conclusions of NIST.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

And I need to press pause on this one and need to do some more research on WTC7. I was basing my 'extensive damage' by the diagram on the wiki page which seemed to show a good size gouge out of the side of the building, but I haven't read up on the details of the collapse and am probably wrong with my assumption concerning the damage. Just the above took quite a bit of research and getting my thoughts together, so you guys give me some time to look into this.

I can assist - please see response to second quote box in my post #30 here for explanation on the effect of the WTC7 debris damage.

Edit: -

it would also be useful if you could confirm for yourself the official theory collapse process: -

• An expanding floor truss fell off its connection.
  
• This caused a cascade of the eight floors below to also give way.
  
• The now laterally unsupported column 79 buckled.
  
• This led to progressive buckling of the two local columns…
  
• And progressive failure of every other core column east to west.
  
• The remaining external shell of the structure then came down as one section.

Yes, a single initial truss disconnection led to this entire huge building entering freefall collapse 10 seconds later.

Because skyscrapers rely on a single floor to prevent the building entering 'domino' collapse, don't they?  The claim all the more untenable when considered WTC7 was designed with, “enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity”, as the New York Times quoted Larry Silverstein in 1989.

We must realise how bizarre this claim is; it was with reason that NIST described their own theory as “extraordinary”.

And all the while avoiding the real possibility of demolition.

Liquid Gardens, on 02 August 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Also W Tell, please jump in and steer anytime, don't be deterred by Q's and my verbose back-and-forth.

I second that.

Edited by Q24, 02 August 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

In your False Flag scenario, have you any theories regarding who the planners were?  Do you think that those who planned it were the same as those who executed it?

What's your take on Dov Zakheim in either of those roles?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 02 August 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 02 August 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

In your False Flag scenario, have you any theories regarding who the planners were? Do you think that those who planned it were the same as those who executed it?

The planners were those whose ideology would benefit from the attack and were in a position to act on the pretext - primarily those from the PNAC who took up power in the Bush administration come 2001. Those who executed the operation were different to the planners in most areas - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al obviously did not configure the aircraft nor setup the WTC demolition for instance - this element carried out by intelligence services (the dancing Israelis you know about). Though there is indication the first individual mentioned, from the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre, had direct input to ensuring the Pentagon impact.

Babe Ruth, on 02 August 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

What's your take on Dov Zakheim in either of those roles?

Dov Zakheim is a likely planner - PNAC, Neocon, Zionist rolled into one - DoD career, 2001 Under Secretary of Defense - from the same group as those individuals mentioned above. I don't think him more significant than the rest, and less important than some - I don't see that he needed full knowledge of the operation at all, though he must be high on the suspect list.

I don't dare ask what you think of his involvement - with respect, I'd prefer not to get into 'no Boeing/Pentagon flyover' theories here.

[Babe Ruth]

As I understand it, Zakheim owns numerous companies that do business mostly with the defense industry, including TriData which played a role in the 1993 attacks at WTC.

Some of his companies are very much into autopilots and sophisticated guidance systems for drone aircraft.

Apparently it was one of his Israeli companies that modified and delivered to the USAF at MacDill, a group of about 25 767 aircraft modified to comply with USAF specs regarding a new generation of tankers to replace the KC-135 and KC-10.  That delivery was in the 90's.

An ordained rabbi, he apparently went to work at Pentagon during Reagan's tenure.  IMO, he is one of the major players in at least a part of the False Flag preparations.  My theory is that the second Boeing to strike the towers was one of those tanker aircraft.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 02 August 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

I will try to leave motive for a false flag attack behind and focus more on evidence for the building demolitions.

In all fairness to you, it's not that I see nothing compelling about the evidence for motive you have presenting.  I'm just hesitant at this point to say that there was direct evidence of motive for 9/11 for the reasons I explained, while admitting that a false flag attack is one of the possible ways for them to fulfill their clear motive of wanting to increase defense spending and spread our military might.  I suspect to some extent the other evidence that you are aware of concerning a possible conspiracy makes this specific point more convincing to you also; if I were you I know I would have difficulty trying to 'unknow' other evidence to try to see this topic from my more ignorant point of view.

Quote

I don't see the demolition had to be a risk... what uncontrollable risk do you perceive? I'm sure I will be able to find a solution.

I'm not sure about 'botched' though there were physical factors which were unpredictable during the impacts, fires, collapses and aftermath. It is much of this evidence held up as a case for demolition.

Hmmm, this seems pretty obvious to me, we might not be talking about the same thing.  The risk is that the demolition or it's set up is discovered; that shifts the whole scene as far as who the culprits are unless you think a very convincing argument can be made explaining how Al Q managed to get into the WTC and set them up.  Good evidence for a demolition cranks up the fishiness factor dramatically, especially since this demolition was apparently purposely set up to be very covert and indetectable to many (a majority?) of experts (referring mainly to the towers here, need to look into how the consensus falls on WTC7.  It's botched because you have an argument that all indications were that they were demolished, so their attempt at covering this up was not very effective.  I don't think you're arguing that 'they' didn't care if the demolition was obvious or not?

Quote

The fires in both towers were diminishing of their own accord, especially in WTC2. The firefighters had reached the impact zone in WTC2 and were requesting hoses to begin extinguishing the pockets of fire existing. The firefighters envisioned they would make an escape route and evacuate everyone before any partial/limited collapse of the upper block took place hours later. Given this information, which is all contained in the NIST report, firefighter testimony and emergency responder recordings, it appears that a high percentage of those above the impact zones would have been saved if not for the collapses.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.  I was basing part of my assumption on the number of jumpers and the density of smoke, assuming that even before the fire reached them the smoke would have gotten to them. Thanks for the correction.

Quote

Because it was not written, 'the most significant event since Pearl Harbor', it was written 'like Pearl Harbor'. Arguably the 1993 WTC attack could be the 'the most significant event since Pearl Harbor', yet that was not sufficient to generate the military response discussed in the Neocon documents. And that is not a bad comparison, I should have thought of it before... the same group, the same building, a terrorist attack, six killed, 1,042 injured, damaged building... zero response generated... the next attempt had to be of a considerably greater scale than deaths and damage to guarantee its effect.  Sorry, I just got back onto 'motive', don't know how that happened!

Ha, no problem, feel free to discuss and make further points concerning motive, I don't mind and I am listening.  And it's a valid point:  assuming I grant all the prerequisitie "if's" for a moment, then it makes sense that the perpetrators would need something larger than the '93 attack which had already been absorbed by the American psyche.  Motive, means, and opportunity are only a part of the equation though, it really comes down to the evidence directly linking the perpetrators to the crime.

Quote

None of the authors of the second document have to be part of the group of perpetrators and I agree there is nothing untoward about the analysis. It is only that working within the same Neocon circle and general policies as the perpetrators, the motive and scenario for a false flag can be derived.  Those who follow the official narrative often have a habit of adding more conspirators to alternative theories than were ever necessary (they imagine thousands, which to me is but a defense mechanism to accepting the theory).  I have thought about this in some detail and will say now that I believe the operation could be conducted with no more than twenty individuals of U.S. nationality and fifty foreign agents fully aware - it could have been less.  If you think it had to be more then please explain their role and why it was necessary.

Fair enough, I was taking this fairly literally: "When it comes to 9/11, the most confident way to determine what the perpetrators thought and would aim for is through their own words".  You mean 'their fellow neo-cons' words.  I only note this nitpicky point because the fact that you have all those officials of the Bush Administration signing on to the PNAC document is used as evidence of 'what they are thinking'.  We are now quoting words of other people whose relationship to the actual perpetrators I at least am unaware of, and saying they are their 'own'.  Not trying to pedantic, I catch your drift, just trying to give this connection it's proper weighting.

I certainly haven't thought about the composition of the conspiracy as much as you have so I have no basis to dispute your analysis.  I also am not sure of the specifics of the theory so can't have an opinion of my own yet on how many people would be required.  Thanks for the info though.  I do agree that thousands of direct conspirators seems way large.

Quote

I've asked this a few times on the forum and never received a direct answer... it is an extreme example but proves the point... if there was an opportunity to exchange your life for the potential continued global pre-eminence of America and prosperity of Israel... which would the likes of Netanyahu and Cheney choose? It won't be you. Or how about this... you think these people are prepared to commit hundreds of thousands to death in their wars (many thousands their own citizens) in pursuit of their agendas... yet not a lesser three thousand to get there? Putting it into this perspective, we should not doubt there are individuals 'willing to get involved in the murder of a few thousand people'.

The loaded word in your question is 'potential'; how 'potential' and more importantly, how great is the risk?  That's the problem with the war example, we are ignoring the personal risk to the perpetrators, they are not stupid.  Wars in the US go on with at least the tacit approval of the population; yes, we blame our presidents for them but that blame is actually always shared with the populace, with some concerted effort, we could end our wars rather quickly no matter what the govt wanted.  It's difficult to imagine believable scenarios where a President would be at risk of being prosecuted for treason for a war; wars are not, in the typical legal sense anyway, 'crimes'.

Quote

Even assuming you are correct, do you think it realistic that the insurers take on the U.S government, indeed near the entire political establishment, to this degree? You really think they have the desire and clout to investigate and drag the government, business, military and intelligence services (including that of foreign countries) into a necessary court case? I think that the idea this could be successful is insane.  Even the notion of going ahead with this could see the insurers reputation completely destroyed before the investigation got off the ground.

As opposed to paying out billions?  And if they had the evidence and reasoning that has convinced you?  The only reason that their reputation would be destroyed is if the case for a demolition is not really that convincing.  They wouldn't be taking on the 'whole political establishment', some good convincing evidence would have politicians turning on each other quickly in mass damage control; you'd have tons of congressmen scrambling to align themselves with the enraged population, especially against only 20 native conspirators.  They'd get their money back and then some.

Quote

I can assist - please see response to second quote box in my post #30 here for explanation on the effect of the WTC7 debris damage.

Thanks for the link Q, just starting to look into the point-counterpoint concerning WTC7.

[Q24]

I have left out much of your post where I feel the discussion has run its course. Still plenty to say...

Liquid Gardens, on 03 August 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Hmmm, this seems pretty obvious to me, we might not be talking about the same thing. The risk is that the demolition or it's set up is discovered; that shifts the whole scene as far as who the culprits are unless you think a very convincing argument can be made explaining how Al Q managed to get into the WTC and set them up.

We are talking about the same thing - perhaps I have just planned it through and realised that the risks which might seem great at first glance are actually non-existent. Here we are not talking about Men In Black (or 'invisible ninjas' - another favoured defense mechanism of official narrative followers) sneaking around the building. In reality, the presence and movements of those responsible would appear entirely legitimate to any observer...

What if there was a former White House staff who had worked with Cheney et al and was regarded highly by Zionist lobby groups... and what if in 1999, during a merger and restructuring, he became CEO of a construction company... a company which contracted not only for demolition work, but also for the military unit which supplied the only reliable source of nanothermite in the United States... and what if that company rented offices in both WTC towers... and that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation?

I'm saying "what if" here, though the above is all factual.

Are you seeing the potential here?

The unit, of which I estimate twelve men is sufficient to setup the complete demolitions in under a month, under guise of genuine renovation works, with access to the core columns, simply remove drywall in the elevator shafts, place the prefabricated charge and make good. How exactly should the setup ever be discovered?

Oh yes, such renovation works had been carried out in the collapse initiation zones.

So the setup was airtight, but let's say some movement arises which gathers and presents in the following years evidence of demolition based on physical characteristics of the collapses, reaching its peak in 2006 with the release of Loose Change, significantly increasing public awareness, and experts like physicist Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage forming professional groups against the official collapse theory. Ok, that is a potential risk to uncovering the demolitions. So what then? You already guessed it - an "argument can be made explaining how Al Q managed to get into the WTC": -

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
~President Bush, Oct. 31, 2006

Let's get this straight - in the same year the truth movement go mainstream, immediately follows this pre-emptive counterpunch that the alleged Al Qaeda masterminds had "planned attacks" whereby "explosives" were placed at "high" points in buildings. Now, had any evidence of demolition been introduced which the official narrative could not provide some semblance of explanation for… it’s ok, terrorists planted the bombs that brought down the WTC buildings.

And you know the masses would have swallowed it whole.

I have yet to see any risk to those responsible.

Liquid Gardens, on 03 August 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

As opposed to paying out billions? And if they had the evidence and reasoning that has convinced you? The only reason that their reputation would be destroyed is if the case for a demolition is not really that convincing. They wouldn't be taking on the 'whole political establishment', some good convincing evidence would have politicians turning on each other quickly in mass damage control; you'd have tons of congressmen scrambling to align themselves with the enraged population, especially against only 20 native conspirators. They'd get their money back and then some.

There is irrefutable evidence that Saudi intelligence assisted the hijackers, yet rather than this being widely reported with politicians falling over themselves to oppose the established narrative and investigate, only one, Senator Bob Graham, has followed up on the lead and been met with a wall of silence - that's as far as it got.

The political pressure to remain silent on such issues and get on with the job is overwhelming - no one can go accusing U.S. allies and those internal without ironclad proof of who was responsible, and I do not believe that insurance companies have the power to investigate the administration officials and foreign sources required to pinpoint that. And what is the benefit to America anyway except watching the country tear itself apart and be discredited on the international stage in the most bloody political civil war - I think most politicians would not risk that.

Heck no, even I would not dare challenge the official narrative as head of an insurance group in this way - I know the politicians and officials I needed to co-operate would not be forthcoming - the U.S. government and wider establishment, followed by the unwitting public would turn to destroy and discredit the case before it even got started.  It would be disastrous, not for lack of evidence, but politics. I'm absolutely going to pay the billions, safe in the knowledge there are billions more where that came from.

Liquid Gardens, on 03 August 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Thanks for the link Q, just starting to look into the point-counterpoint concerning WTC7.

Ok, I look forward to your thoughts on any of that.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 02 August 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

As I understand it, Zakheim owns numerous companies that do business mostly with the defense industry, including TriData which played a role in the 1993 attacks at WTC.

Some of his companies are very much into autopilots and sophisticated guidance systems for drone aircraft.

Apparently it was one of his Israeli companies that modified and delivered to the USAF at MacDill, a group of about 25 767 aircraft modified to comply with USAF specs regarding a new generation of tankers to replace the KC-135 and KC-10.  That delivery was in the 90's.

An ordained rabbi, he apparently went to work at Pentagon during Reagan's tenure.  IMO, he is one of the major players in at least a part of the False Flag preparations.  My theory is that the second Boeing to strike the towers was one of those tanker aircraft.

I haven't been able to confirm a delivery of the KC-767 aircraft in the 90s to replace the KC-135 (I found reference to the later contract let in 2002). If you are correct then this could be a possible source for the aircraft used in the 9/11 operation, though there are numerous alternatives. I did come across another model I don't think I was aware of - the E-767 AWACS, which was in military service during the 90s. There are so many possibilities with Boeing 757/767 aircraft flooding the market. It's like finding a Ford Escort for a getaway car. We really needed a physical identification of any of the 9/11 planes to follow up on this. That this was not carried out means source of the aircraft should be considered with extreme caution, and one would hope, skepticism, though unfortunately we don't get that from official story adherents.

[Babe Ruth]

Yes, today's Skeptic takes any government statement at face value, rather like today's Christian supports torture.

Strange world we live, c. 2012