3292 replies to this topic

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 11 January 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Very good analysis Q, as usual.  Because of so many variations in what and how people think about the events of the day, strict categorization is difficult.

As far as your apparently unquestioning acceptance of the Myth Of Abbottabad (unless I'm misreading you), not so much.

As for the question of whether passengers were placed into Witness Protection, I have long noted that it IS pure speculation on my part, but I still consider it plausible.

That’s where I think Kludge and LG get confused – between which parts of the theory are evidence and which are speculation.  We are all working to the same evidence and broad conclusions that come of it, only having different solutions in the underlying detail where evidence is lacking – which as I mentioned, given the lack of investigation we decry, is not so important.  On the other hand, I don’t think that OCTs have the right to speculate for a second – too many lives depended on it.

Also, I’m hardly ‘unquestioning’ of events at Abbottabad.  The compound exists, I’ve seen pictures of the dead guards, the downed helicopter and the room where bin Laden was said to be assassinated, I’ve read accounts of the marines, much of which is corroborated by Pakistani media and witnesses.  I’m not going to say the whole thing did not happen – I don’t accept such levels of fakery can take place without too great a risk.  No, something major happened there.  That’s just part one.

Then we look at the circumstances of the compound which ideally match a prison to hold someone of importance/circumstance of house-arrest (I’ll provide the detail and sources if required) and is agreed on by numerous media commentators.  This background makes no sense in context of a staged operation.  If it were that, then the aim would be to make it look like a hideout (perhaps one of bin Laden's remote, underground, cave complexes which Rumsfeld spoke so fondly of), not the prison that it was.  I am forced to accept the prison was real, not a nonsensical part of a staged story.  That’s part two.

After that, we apply everything we know about bin Laden, his communications (real and/or not) and movements, prior to that date.  We look at the agreement reached between the Taliban, Pakistan and what the U.S. knew shortly after 9/11.  We consider what would most benefit the perpetrators of that attack – that bin Laden remain alive - and how they let him escape Afghanistan when he could have been captured (see my last post).  Ideally, we will take into account the close, overlapping relationship between the CIA and ISI.  And with all of this, boy does the official line on bin Laden's assassination from the Obama administration ever fit and make sense.  That’s part three.

This idea that bin Laden’s death was a staged event contradicts logic in too many places, casts doubt on much before and obscures a clear version of events.  Come up with something that actually fits and I’d consider it.  The Neocons in Washington wanted bin Laden contained and alive, to use him and fuel their military ideology.  And that’s what happened for a decade.  Fortunately, President Obama is not a part of the same cabal and eliminated their prize asset.  I’m not unquestioning – it simply makes perfect sense; all fits in this context; every single piece of information we have, incorporated, in place and explained.

Edit: -
I should have noted, given recent discussion: this is an example where myself and BR disagree, but again the broad conclusion is clearly shared that bin Laden is not the main player in events, the evidence of this is simply lacking.  I’ve just perhaps taken a step further than BR, in moving from questioning everything and believing nothing/little, to determining what did happen, based on everything we do know.

Edited by Q24, 11 January 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I accept that the compound was as described, and I accept that a US raid took place.

I do not accept that he was there.  I believe that he has been dead for many years, whether assassinated or death by natural causes from his kidney disease.

I must admit that the story that he even HAD kidney disease might be misinformation, though in all the pictures and videos he does not look to be a healthy man.  A candidate for Marfan's Syndrome perhaps?

So, assuming that he actually was a dialysis patient, the odds of his surviving all those years on the run in high desert are slim.  Are we to see him as Jean Valjean?

The possible political motives to break this story when they did are many and strong.  Mighty Mouse Obama to the rescue, yessir!  And let's change the subject PLEASE away from the many Obama errors.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 11 January 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

What a bizarre and misguided thing to say.

Why? President Clinton made it known that one of his regrets was not getting Osama bin Laden.

Quote

Skyeagle, when in December 2001 CIA forces on the ground had hard intel of bin Laden’s presence in the Tora Bora mountains, and believed they could have captured him right there if U.S. Central Command had sent reinforcement as agents on the ground requested, why did the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, make the decision >>>not<<< to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape?  And, is this the action of an administration interested in getting bin Laden?

Check your military history. General Franks thought that Afghan forces could have captured Osama bin Laden, but he thought wrong. I knew he made a bad decision to rely on Afghan foreces to capture bin Laden and I was correct in my assessment. It was a mistake on the part of General Franks, not the CIA  nor President Bush..

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 11 January 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Thank heavens for someone who knows how to debate.

Considering you have offered no viable evidence to debate with, what more is there to say? Facts and evidence have proven you wrong time and again and you are not knowledgeable enough to debate anyone who has such knowledge to know what he is talking about--from molten metal to knowing the process of explosive demolition. You have shown that you are not knowledgeable enough to participate in a real debate and you have to know and understand the specifics of what the debate is all about.

You have consistently mislead yourself into thinking you knew what you were talking about and you should have been taking notes as what I was presenting and it should have been very clear to you as to why demolition experts, civil engineers, architects and investigators have said that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.Check it out.

Quote

Structural Fire Engineering
University of Manchester


It is worth noting that in the tube-frame system of the WTC towers, the lateral resistance or stability of the perimeter columns were provided by the composite floor truss system. This lateral restraint is reduced as the floor trusses weaken and sag in the heat.

In a multiple floors fire, it was expected the effective length of laterally unrestrained perimeter columns would increase at least twice or triple. In addition to the direct thermal effects, the compressive resistance of these columns eventually reduced until a point that they could not sustain the applied load and buckling occurred.

http://www.mace.manc...TradeCenter.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS)
World Trade Center Collapse

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

http://www.tms.org/p...eagar-0112.html

You failed to understand the significance when police and fire officials said that the WTC buildings were buckling minutes before they collapsed.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Think for a moment what that means! Those facts and evidence were prime examples that temperatures from the fires were slowing weakening the steel structures of the WTC buildings, but because you were not knowledgeable on those facts, you continued in your attempt to mislead readers, but I knew better.

If you are going to debate anyone, make sure you don't come to the debate table with an unloaded gun.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 January 2013 - 09:38 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 11 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

I accept that the compound was as described, and I accept that a US raid took place. I do not accept that he was there.

Osama bin Laden was there at the compound, and the fact that al-Qaeda and his family confirmed the death of bin Laden at the hands of U.S. special forces, is a confirmation that cannot be denied.

Quote

I believe that he has been dead for many years, whether assassinated or death by natural causes from his kidney disease.

Osama bin Laden couldn't have been dead for many years. Check out why.


June 3, 2009

According to a recording aired by Al Jazeera on June 3, Bin Laden made a statement against President Barack Obama

[socrates.junior]

From the last couple of pages, I noticed that Q is fairly erroneous in comparing people who accept what happened on 9/11 with CTs. The simple fact that people accept what happened based on a variety of possibilities is a logical step. It would silly to oversimplify.

But any good CT completely conflicts with almost every other CT.

You can't compare someone being intellectually honest about the variety of mechanisms possible in the collapse, with someone claiming that the planes were remote controlled, or shot down, or different planes, or missiles, etc. In the first case, there is no contradiction if a mechanism is not the cause, in the second case, there is clear contradiction.

So your comparison is completely invalid.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 06 January 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

First of all, you have to have the facilities, equipment, professionals such as engineers, mechanics, pilots, and the means to modify the aircraft without drawing attention from the airlines because there was no way to switch aircraft, and the list just keeps right on piling up.

The aircraft were tracked by ATC on radar and by other radar systems after takeoff so we know that all four aircraft were not drones nor switched. In addition, passenger and crew remains from those flights have been identified from those flights as well which further confirms the aircraft were not drones, and further confirmations came from the owners and operators of those aircraft.

No way!  Especially in 2001. As I have said, it takes many months to design, engineer and modify an aircraft and there was no way to modify and integrate such modifications into the systems of B-757s and B-767s unnoticed.

We are not talking about systems of the old B-707s and B-720s, we are talking advanced systems of the B-767 and the B-757. There was no way to install a camera on the aircraft unnoticed and to do so would have required modification of the airframe and installation of special brackets and other hardware, which would have drawn a lot of attention. A camera on a B-767 and the B-757 would have been clearly visible to anyone on the tarmac.

Air Force does not keep all of its aircraft records in one basket and such records are spread around the country amongst its many contractors who were responsible for building secret aircraft, which are not for your eyes to view..

You fail to grasp the basic concepts of a 'secret'. Maybe you just choose to ignore/deny it.

To say a 757 can't be modified a certain way, or that it can't be done secretly....is pure nonsense.

You think a project can't be done in secret for modifying a 757, but building advanced spy planes from nearly scratch can be done in total secret??

Do you think they can build a 757 from scratch, at least a reasonable fake one? They surely can. So it's a secret 757.

This was very do-able -  and they did it.   .

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 11 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

From the last couple of pages, I noticed that Q is fairly erroneous in comparing people who accept what happened on 9/11 with CTs. The simple fact that people accept what happened based on a variety of possibilities is a logical step. It would silly to oversimplify.

But any good CT completely conflicts with almost every other CT.

You can't compare someone being intellectually honest about the variety of mechanisms possible in the collapse, with someone claiming that the planes were remote controlled, or shot down, or different planes, or missiles, etc. In the first case, there is no contradiction if a mechanism is not the cause, in the second case, there is clear contradiction.

So your comparison is completely invalid.

And your post is completely incoherent.

[socrates.junior]

Babe Ruth, on 12 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

And your post is completely incoherent.

What is incoherent?

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 12 January 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

What is incoherent?

Your aforementioned post.

[The Silver Thong]

skyeagle409, on 11 January 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Why? President Clinton made it known that one of his regrets was not getting Osama bin Laden.



Check your military history. General Franks thought that Afghan forces could have captured Osama bin Laden, but he thought wrong. I knew he made a bad decision to rely on Afghan foreces to capture bin Laden and I was correct in my assessment. It was a mistake on the part of General Franks, not the CIA  nor President Bush..

Clinton didn`t kill him because Osama still had a job to do. Believe your propaganda dude but really.

[socrates.junior]

What in the post is incoherent?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 12 January 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

You fail to grasp the basic concepts of a 'secret'. Maybe you just choose to ignore/deny it.

It is a matter of reality, and remember, we are not talking Hollywood fiction.

Quote

To say a 757 can't be modified a certain way, or that it can't be done secretly....is pure nonsense.

How are you going to modify a B-757 in such a way and not attract a lot of attention? If you add a camera to the fuselage, the pilots will notice the camera on their pre-flight inspection. If you modify the avionics in such a way, the pilots will notice during their system checks. How are you going to integrate that modification with the auto-throttle, autopilot, FMC, FD, and other systems that cannot be detected by the pilots during their preflight system checks?

Quote

You think a project can't be done in secret for modifying a 757, but building advanced spy planes from nearly scratch can be done in total secret??

First of all, the B-757s and B-767s used in 9/11 attacks were not secret aircraft, they were properties of American Airlines and United Airlines. Secondly, there was no way to modify those particular aircraft and not attract attention. If you acquire a B-757, that will leave a paper trail that can be tracked. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series aircraft were built.

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have grounded its aircraft for many months for the purpose of allowing the government to illegally modify their airliners? The airlines lose a lot of money whenever their aircraft are sitting on the ground. A typical B-767 can crisscross the United States up to 18 times per week.

Quote

Do you think they can build a 757 from scratch, at least a reasonable fake one? They surely can. So it's a secret 757.

There is no way the government could have built a B-757 from scratch. Where do think the government acquires its secret aircraft, alignment fixtures, equipment, parts, engines, APUs,  etc? Private companies. If you want to see what it takes to build a large aircraft, visit the the Boeing Aircraft Co. facilities in Washington and understand what it takes to build large aircraft.

You have just highlighted how much you don't know on the way we do things in the real world of aviation.

Quote

This was very do-able -  and they did it.   .

From where does the government acquires its parts? Who builds secret aircraft for the government? Is the Boeing Aircraft company a government agency? No. Is Lockheed-Martin a government agency? No. The secret stealth fighter was not built by the government, it was built by the Lockheed Aircraft Co. The B-2 stealth bomber was not built by the government, it was built by Northrup Grumman. The government issued the contracts and did not build those aircraft. In fact, military aircraft, secret or otherwise, are not built by the government.

Let's take a look at the super-secret X-37. Who designed and built the secret spacecraft?

Quote

X-37B: US launches super-secret, orbiting, robotic plane

The X-37B is designed to stay in space as long as nine months and to collect electronic signals of all kinds in a way that other countries can't stop. The Air Force is not commenting on its mission.

http://www.csmonitor...g-robotic-plane

Boeing was the prime contractor for the secret spacecraft, not the government. You've got the wrong idea as far as the government's role and secret aircraft are concerned.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 January 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[skyeagle409]

The Silver Thong, on 12 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Clinton didn`t kill him because Osama still had a job to do. Believe your propaganda dude but really.

Let's take another look.

Quote

Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden
September 24, 2006


In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 12 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

How are you going to modify a B-757 in such a way and not attract a lot of attention? If you add a camera to the fuselage, the pilots will notice the camera on their pre-flight inspection. If you modify the avionics in such a way, the pilots will notice during their system checks. How are you going to integrate that modification with the auto-throttle, autopilot, FMC, FD, and other systems that cannot be detected by the pilots during their preflight system checks?

The additional features don't have any affect on their standard system checks. Do you know about electronics, its apllications re: variable circuitry, and so on? Do you know how easy it is to hide something in an aircraft when you have unlimited access to it? And we are also talking about small electronic components here, It's not exactly like trying to hide an 800 lb. gorilla! It's all very do-able.

skyeagle409, on 12 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

First of all, the B-757s and B-767s used in 9/11 attacks were not secret aircraft, they were properties of American Airlines and United Airlines. Secondly, there was no way to modify those particular aircraft and not attract attention. If you acquire a B-757, that will leave a paper trail that can be tracked. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series aircraft were built.

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have grounded its aircraft for many months for the purpose of allowing the government to illegally modify their airliners? The airlines lose a lot of money whenever their aircraft are sitting on the ground. A typical B-767 can crisscross the United States up to 18 times per week.

All sorts of paper trails are kept in secret. Look at the JFK paper trail - the government has sealed it until 2038. Do you wonder why it would take them 75 years!! before releasing it to the public?! Hmm...

skyeagle409, on 12 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

There is no way the government could have built a B-757 from scratch. Where do think the government acquires its secret aircraft, alignment fixtures, equipment, parts, engines, APUs,  etc? Private companies. If you want to see what it takes to build a large aircraft, visit the the Boeing Aircraft Co. facilities in Washington and understand what it takes to build large aircraft.

Any such project can be kept a secret from the public, and many have been. No matter where they get their parts from,  

skyeagle409 said:

From where does the government acquires its parts? Who builds secret aircraft for the government? Is the Boeing Aircraft company a government agency? No. Is Lockheed-Martin a government agency? No. The secret stealth fighter was not built by the government, it was built by the Lockheed Aircraft Co. The B-2 stealth bomber was not built by the government, it was built by Northrup Grumman. The government issued the contracts and did not build those aircraft. In fact, military aircraft, secret or otherwise, are not built by the government.

The contractors don't need to know what the parts are being used for. They just build, say, an engine to certain specs, and ship it off. The contractor isn't concerned with what happens to the engine after that point. No. They only care about being paid for it. Period.

skyeagle409, on 12 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Let's take a look at the super-secret X-37. Who designed and built the secret spacecraft?



Boeing was the prime contractor for the secret spacecraft, not the government. You've got the wrong idea as far as the government's role and secret aircraft are concerned.

Not at all. Military projects have many external sources, but the government has still managed to keep them a secret. Don't you see this?

.