Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
W Tell

Talking Turkey

901 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Strange world we live, c. 2012 :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I see numerous potential ways that you can connect the Vice President to nanothermite so I don't find the above very curious or indicative of anything on it's own. The Secret Service had an office in WTC7, the military I'm sure already has plenty of nanothermite available, why bother with a civilian company? One of the tenants I believe is the Zim-Israeli Trading Corp, clearly Zionists, no? The only real question is, what is the evidence that this former WH staff person and co. install nanothermite in WTC?

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.

How have you measured what 'year the truth movement' went mainstream in order to designate this 'same year' connection? Several Loose Change videos were released, from 2005 through 2009, the Truth movement has been around since I believe 2004.

And you know the masses would have swallowed it whole.

We know no such thing, after all, there are no shortage of people on the net that haven't swallowed it whole. I think I saw a reference to a poll that said around 20% of Americans think the buildings were demolished; that's a big chunk out of our 'masses'.

I have yet to see any risk to those responsible.

You've involved 20-70 people in this conspiracy, and I think we can both agree that those numbers are pretty much the minimum required. These 20-70 people trust each other implicitly, none of them feel like the head conspirators might off them just to ensure their silence? Maybe some of these conspirators squirreled away some good evidence as an insurance policy? I'm sure no Democrats would be interested in pinning 9/11 on the Republicans...

Anyway, we seem to be pretty much shooting the breeze with our opinions on alternate histories. I'm not sure if W Tell is coming back, and I've read a little on WTC7, so maybe that would be a good thing to focus on if you are willing. I read your link and most of what you are talking about there is your disagreement with the NIST report. I'm glad that you pointed me to that as it was informative. I'm entirely willing to say that the NIST report is in error and reached wrong conclusions, which is entirely understandable as they didn't have much to go on. What then is the evidence for demolition? There seem to be a few firefighters who were actually there, unlike anyone who compiled the NIST report, and they sure seemed to indicate that they thought the building would collapse, and do talk about some pretty significant damage done and the prevalence of fires. They also said that they saw structural deformation before the collapse, such as a bulge between a couple of the floors. What is your theory then on WTC7 and why do you believe it? One question I'd have is if they were going to demolish it, why let it stand so long and thereby increase the chance that evidence of the demolition might become apparent? On the link, you said that it is blatant that WTC7 was demolished, so again, they seem to have botched up their master plan. Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell? You could hardly see the building because of all the dust, that would have been the opportune time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since on that day there was no example of a modern steel building collapsing from fire, I wonder upon exactly which experience those firemen based their fears that the building was going to collapse? Did the training they had been exposed to include scenarios in which a modern steel building collapses at free fall speeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

Why do you assume anyone knew WTC7 would be impacted by the tower debris?

I was hoping that manworm would follow up on this, as I think he raises a valid point. Given that he hasn't, I'll take a stab at why he may have asked the question.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that WTC7 had to go according to the predominant conspiracy theory. Let's also assume that it went essentially unscathed by the collapse of the North Tower. What would then be the 'excuse' for its collapse? In our hypothetical scenario WTC7 wasn't hit by any falling debris, which of course isn't what happened, but let's assume that by some happenstance it did.

Had that been the case, how would our conspirators have explained the collapse?

Also, LG raises another extremely compelling point along another hypothetical path... Why indeed wouldn't they have just demolished WTC7 immediately after or even during the North Tower collapse, as it was being hit by debris or as it was shrouded in smoke and dust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a question I have always wondered about Boo.

Why wait until 5 in the afternoon?

The irony is that I quit watching TV that day after the towers fell. Just turned around and went home and left the TV off. Never knew for 4 years that 7 fell.

There must be a compelling reason, what with Silverstein's comical statements. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of argument, let's assume that WTC7 had to go according to the predominant conspiracy theory. Let's also assume that it went essentially unscathed by the collapse of the North Tower. What would then be the 'excuse' for its collapse? In our hypothetical scenario WTC7 wasn't hit by any falling debris, which of course isn't what happened, but let's assume that by some happenstance it did.

Had that been the case, how would our conspirators have explained the collapse?

Excellent question Boony, as always. The planned demolition only makes sense under the cover of damage being inflicted and the multiple fires. They made a lucky guess? What if enough of the debris had fallen and essentially flattened WTC7? They then take the risk of someone in the recovery process finding these undetonated demolitions. I know Q has essentially said that this is no risk, they'll just assert Al Q planted it, which assumes of course that no investigation will be able to ascertain that it may actually have been Cheney's friend's company or whomever. Silverstein wasn't worried at all that if anything went wrong, he'd be the most likely to be exposed as a conspirator, served up as a Zionist extremist? And I don't know if nanothermite was also supposedly used on 7, but the necessity to include nanothermite anywhere in the demolition works against a proposed Al Q demolition operation; how did, and is it believable that, Al Q got a hold of nanothermite? It seems to be a pretty scarce compound, please correct if I'm wrong about that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see numerous potential ways that you can connect the Vice President to nanothermite so I don't find the above very curious or indicative of anything on it's own. The Secret Service had an office in WTC7, the military I'm sure already has plenty of nanothermite available, why bother with a civilian company? One of the tenants I believe is the Zim-Israeli Trading Corp, clearly Zionists, no? The only real question is, what is the evidence that this former WH staff person and co. install nanothermite in WTC?

You have gone on a slight tangent/missed the point - perhaps that's my fault for providing too much information. You started out by suggesting a risk that the demolition setup could be uncovered. The information I provided, in particular the last remark, "that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation" was intended to address your concern. If there was potential for the demolition unit to have unhindered access to the core structure under guise of legitimate work, there is no reason the setup should be uncovered - the problem you envision is void.

Your question, "why bother with a civilian company?" further seems to indicate that I wasn't clear the first time around. The reason we bother with Turner Construction is that the company held the contract for the ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation - this would provide the access required. As mentioned previously, we cannot just send in a team of military/intelligence 'Men In Black' to sneak around the building installing demolition charges.

Regarding Zim-Israeli Trading Corp... if you can link them to the White House Neocons, plus military and demolition contracts, perhaps show some significant company restructuring in the couple years prior 9/11, and prove those employees had unhindered access to the buildings' steel structure... (all in the same way as Turner Construction)... then sure I'm interested... otherwise we cannot lump them into the mix purely on the basis they were Israeli and happened to be present.

Now regarding any of this as evidence of the WTC demolitions... that is not the intention. What this is evidence of, is the possibility of the setup. Unless we can firmly close doors like this through investigation, there is no basis to claim the setup could not be achieved without detection.

How have you measured what 'year the truth movement' went mainstream in order to designate this 'same year' connection? Several Loose Change videos were released, from 2005 through 2009, the Truth movement has been around since I believe 2004.

In part, I lived it...

It was Loose Change: 2nd Edition that went viral in 2006 and raised awareness to new heights on internet forums. I'm not sure how to prove this to you, but I found this reference: "Since it appeared on the Web in April 2005, the 80-minute film has been climbing up and down Google Video’s "Top 100," rising to No. 1 this May [2006], with at least 10 million viewings."

Apart from that, there was a noticeable increase in television coverage and media articles surrounding the truth movement that year. I think this due to the discussion generated by documentaries like Loose Change: 2nd Edition, amongst others and the creation of the two largest, coherent, professional groups, to which I referred: Scholars for 9/11 Truth (founded 2006 by Steven Jones) and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (founded 2006 by Richard Gage).

Also Pilots for 9/11 Truth were another significant group founded 2006... but we don't like to talk about them.

Absolutely that year marked a very visible step-up in the public awareness, distribution of evidence and expert led discussion, particularly around the WTC demolitions. Then toward the end of the same year, Bush comes out with this new information about how 'Al Qaeda' operatives planned to plant explosives high up in buildings... nice one... what's that saying about politics and coincidence? There was no coincidence - it appears the Neocon group were worried about losing the public mind and set to pre-empt that. They need not have worried - counter intelligence operatives did a fine job of splitting the truth movement from within (former Bush employee Morgan Reynolds with his 'no plane at the WTC' theory, pffft, brilliant).

We know no such thing, after all, there are no shortage of people on the net that haven't swallowed it whole. I think I saw a reference to a poll that said around 20% of Americans think the buildings were demolished; that's a big chunk out of our 'masses'.

I would suggest the same 80% from that poll who did not initially accept the WTC buildings were demolished would have happily conformed to an official declaration that 'Al Qaeda' actually planted explosive charges to bring the buildings down. It is clear that most people (defined as "the masses") accept the government and media word without question - that is the reality they are content to live in. But then this is a whole other subject.

You've involved 20-70 people in this conspiracy, and I think we can both agree that those numbers are pretty much the minimum required. These 20-70 people trust each other implicitly, none of them feel like the head conspirators might off them just to ensure their silence? Maybe some of these conspirators squirreled away some good evidence as an insurance policy? I'm sure no Democrats would be interested in pinning 9/11 on the Republicans...

Are you saying that you think those responsible would talk? If so, then you are not in the head of these people. It makes no sense for any to talk - it would be a stab in the back to any benefit their work could derive; everything they most believe in and hold dear - there are deep-rooted patriotic, religious and racial ideals involved here. It is not about 3,000 people, sad as it may be, the loss of those lives had no lasting effect in the grand scheme of global history... it is about the pre-eminence of the United States and Israel, or perhaps better put, the West and aligned nations. You are thinking like yourself on an individual level, instead of like them in directing the largest scale events. Their loyalty is not to the individual, but the long term greater good of the state.

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. ... By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

~Adolf Hitler, Oct. 7, 1933

Much like suggestion at the risk of the WTC demolition discovery, this concern of those responsible speaking out really has no merit. No individual would be participating in the operation in the first place if they did not believe in what they were trying to achieve; only those with the required philosophies and values inbuilt are selected.

Anyway, we seem to be pretty much shooting the breeze with our opinions on alternate histories. I'm not sure if W Tell is coming back, and I've read a little on WTC7, so maybe that would be a good thing to focus on if you are willing. I read your link and most of what you are talking about there is your disagreement with the NIST report. I'm glad that you pointed me to that as it was informative. I'm entirely willing to say that the NIST report is in error and reached wrong conclusions, which is entirely understandable as they didn't have much to go on. What then is the evidence for demolition?

To begin, the complete failure of the official study to explain the collapses through the damage and fire scenario - that alone is quite huge evidence of an alternative method employed. After that, all the collapse features of demolition and none of a fire based process - that should be speaking volumes to us. Here we are talking about the sudden/rapid onset, the lack of prior obvious gradual deformation, the virtual symmetry, the near freefall, the completeness of collapse, the lack of partial collapse, the foreknowledge of the event (more on that below). What is not the evidence for demolition? All of this, regarding the physical features, is a case of using one's eyes and comparing to previous examples of building fires/demolitions. Which best matches that witnessed on 9/11 in the case of WTC7? There is no contest based on precedent/experience.

Whilst WTC7 is the most visually obvious demolition, it is perhaps with the twin towers that most physical evidence exists. Where should I start? The molten (thermite immitating) flow from WTC2 in the 7 minutes prior collapse? Please see the pictures here. How is that not evidence indicative of thermite in the tower? The match could not possibly be better. What do you think LG? Are you of the group that claims this must be anything but thermite, despite the match? I mean, what better indication could there reasonably be?

How about another of my favourites - the Israeli intelligence agents detained on the scene on 9/11 for celebrating the tower collapses with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives were carried in the mens' van? How much do you know about them? Would you fall into the group that claims they must have been anything but involved in the collapses? Again, what better indication of complicity should there reasonably be? What evidence must be come up with to convince people?

Heck, back to the physical collapses, the official study even demonstrates within the bounds of reality a large (majority) impact and fire range where the towers would not collapse - whilst admitting this non-collapse range was the best match to video/photographic evidence, the collapse range actually found was never even proven to be within the reality witnessed on 9/11 - NIST had no right to put the collapses down to inputs/a degree of damage which never existed on the day.

Then did you know that the complete failure of the official study, the match to examples of demolition but not damage/fire, the WTC2 thermite immitating flow and the Israeli intelligence agents, etc, etc, etc, can all be explained through a single answer: demolition. And there's more and more, a huge body of evidence/observation which can always be accounted for in that one answer, opposed to the myriad of disparate and coincidental solutions which the official theory must continuously invoke. And some dare say that Occam's Razor is not on the demolition theory's side: "a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect". There is only one assumption I need to make to comprehensively account for all evidence, observation and circumstances (issues the official theory prefers not to view in its selective usage) - that demolition charges were placed in the WTC buildings.

There seem to be a few firefighters who were actually there, unlike anyone who compiled the NIST report, and they sure seemed to indicate that they thought the building would collapse, and do talk about some pretty significant damage done and the prevalence of fires. They also said that they saw structural deformation before the collapse, such as a bulge between a couple of the floors.

Please see the thread I started: WTC7 Foreknowledge of Collapse (it would be worth reading a few pages into the thread to get the drift). Essentially none of the firefighters predicted the collapse of their own independent judgement - the collapse warning filtered through their ranks from unnamed independent individuals on site. The accuracy of the collapse prediction sourced from that third party individual, miraculously including severity and timing of the WTC7 collapse in a case where no conceivable engineering rationale existed, is evidence of foreknowledge; a pre-planned event.

One question I'd have is if they were going to demolish it, why let it stand so long and thereby increase the chance that evidence of the demolition might become apparent? On the link, you said that it is blatant that WTC7 was demolished, so again, they seem to have botched up their master plan. Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell? You could hardly see the building because of all the dust, that would have been the opportune time.

I like your thinking - having WTC7 taken down under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud would appear to be the opportune moment and exactly how I would have gone about it also. So what happened? I wonder, what effect did that large, unpredictable chunk of WTC1 debris have on the WTC7 demolition setup? Could it have knocked out the central charges or disrupted the pre-set sequence? Perhaps rather than a blessing to cover of the WTC7 demolition as official story adherents (including booNy above) always assume, it was actually a curse, which delayed the building fall until the setup was reconfigured in the afternoon.

Elsewhere we have mentioned the presence of the Secret Service in that building, and indeed the maximum deflection (collapse initiation level) of the column failure was on the floor occupied by that unit... coincidence too I suppose, it always is. The official narrative states that no one was killed during the WTC7 collapse... though the Congressional Record tells different... the death of U.S. Secret Service Special Officer, Craig Miller, during the collapse. Is the demolition reconfiguration the reason this individual was the last left in the building?

The official investigation never addressed these questions, never asked Silverstein a thing, did not seek out the individual with 'on the money' foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse which so influenced and deterred the FDNY. I mean, what is there to argue against here, an empty political/propaganda driven narrative? I don't understand why anyone would accept the official story in lieu of a competent investigation and with so much evidence suggesting an alternative version of events. Has the world lost its mind or just doesn't care that we went to war on this pretext?

Anyhow, I'm jumping from point to point on this post with too much to talk about. Please pick out any points/evidence you wish to discuss and I'll try to focus/drill down to the detail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks as always for the thorough reply, Q. I agree, we've got too much to talk about here and I have a lot of comments and some disagreements with you, but I'm going to try and comment briefly and then try and focus on WTC7 in isolation. I know I'm responsible for so many topics going on, so I'm going to just focus on 7, and if possible, let's not talk about the towers unless we need it for some evidential point.

You have gone on a slight tangent/missed the point - perhaps that's my fault for providing too much information. You started out by suggesting a risk that the demolition setup could be uncovered. The information I provided, in particular the last remark, "that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation" was intended to address your concern. If there was potential for the demolition unit to have unhindered access to the core structure under guise of legitimate work, there is no reason the setup should be uncovered - the problem you envision is void.

It's the 'so happened' that I disagree with if you are asserting that this is somehow unusual; I'm utterly unsurprised that you've found some way that perhaps nanothermite may have been placed in the building; Silverstein leases the building, right there alone we have myriad alternatives for introducing these explosives unseen. Also, you've been mentioning 'coincidence' a lot, which, speaking of 'void', is essentially how I find such arguments. As usual, someone else says it better than I:

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Exactamundo. Most people's brains are really not well suited for dealing with large numbers, let alone accurately assessing probabilities without training. On 9/11, we have tens of thousands of people, hundreds of companies, hundreds if not thousands of people that Cheney and co. are 'friends' with or exert influence over, involvement of people at all levels of govt, Israel... there is a mammoth constellation of points available here to make connections and note coincidences. Let's change your connection to Turner Construction to be not the whomever person who was on Cheney's staff, but that person's brother. Is it fair to say that you would still bring this up, it's close enough? Because by doing that you have just doubled the number of connections you can make from this company to the supposed conspiracy, 'coincidentally'.

The reason we bother with Turner Construction is that the company held the contract for the ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation - this would provide the access required. As mentioned previously, we cannot just send in a team of military/intelligence 'Men In Black' to sneak around the building installing demolition charges.

Turner Construction held the contract I thought because they were going to be part of the conspiracy; I thought I saw some documents from Dec 2000 talking about the renovation work or whatever, but maybe that wasn't when they got the contract. You're making it sound like our conspirators had no choice but to go through Turner because they already held the contract, is that true? This company was awarded contracts based on nothing having to do with 9/11, and they also had access to nanothermite?

Regarding Zim-Israeli Trading Corp... if you can link them to the White House Neocons, plus military and demolition contracts, perhaps show some significant company restructuring in the couple years prior 9/11, and prove those employees had unhindered access to the buildings' steel structure... (all in the same way as Turner Construction)... then sure I'm interested... otherwise we cannot lump them into the mix purely on the basis they were Israeli and happened to be present.

What was Silverstein's link to the neocons, I thought it was just because he's a Zionist. I have a bad feeling you're going to connect him to Wolfowitz because they are both Jewish. Regardless, Zim-Israeli with offices in the building would also have access to the structure, and you underestimate the capabilities of our Black Ops military units. In addition, I just found this on wiki: "ZimAmerican Israeli Shipping Company was on the 16th floor and officially moved out of the World Trade Center to Norfolk, Virginia on Sept. 4, 2001. However, some computer systems were still in use in WTC at the time of the attacks." Ah-HA! (No, not 'ah-ha'...)

Are you saying that you think those responsible would talk? If so, then you are not in the head of these people. It makes no sense for any to talk - it would be a stab in the back to any benefit their work could derive; everything they most believe in and hold dear - there are deep-rooted patriotic, religious and racial ideals involved here. It is not about 3,000 people, sad as it may be, the loss of those lives had no lasting effect in the grand scheme of global history... it is about the pre-eminence of the United States and Israel, or perhaps better put, the West and aligned nations. You are thinking like yourself on an individual level, instead of like them in directing the largest scale events. Their loyalty is not to the individual, but the long term greater good of the state.

I don't know if we're still just talking about 'possibility' or if you are actually suggesting something about the actual conspirators. Assuming it's the latter, I'm not in the head of these people but you are?! How do you know this? These head conspirators just 'know' who's faithful to the cause, how exactly? None of these conspirators are in it mostly for the money? There are ample precedents for that as I'm sure you know (yeesh, this is America...) as well as for conspirators turning on one another.

Much like suggestion at the risk of the WTC demolition discovery, this concern of those responsible speaking out really has no merit. No individual would be participating in the operation in the first place if they did not believe in what they were trying to achieve; only those with the required philosophies and values inbuilt are selected.

You don't know anywhere near this level of specificity what it would take for an individual to participate in the operation, all individuals are unique. Please suggest some way that 'they' can tell, with certainty, that their chosen accomplices had the required philosophies. And I literally mean 'with 'certainty', which is of course a bar you cannot feasibly clear. I only demand this certainty because of what I find to be your unrealistic assertions that the risks were 'non-existent' and have 'no merit'. This is absurd, that is not the way this reality works. You can argue that the risk may be less than we may initially think, and you've suggested some scenarios where the risk is lessened, which is a credit to your knowledgability on this topic. But it took one curious security guard to blow open Watergate. And the downside of this crime being discovered doesn't get any worse for those involved.

Ha, so much for commenting briefly. I have more detailed points concerning WTC7 based on what you've posted and the link to the earlier discussion about 'foreknowledge', but I'm going to break those out separately when I get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To begin, the complete failure of the official study to explain the collapses through the damage and fire scenario - that alone is quite huge evidence of an alternative method employed. After that, all the collapse features of demolition and none of a fire based process - that should be speaking volumes to us. Here we are talking about the sudden/rapid onset, the lack of prior obvious gradual deformation, the virtual symmetry, the near freefall, the completeness of collapse, the lack of partial collapse, the foreknowledge of the event (more on that below).

Technically, the failure of the official study to explain the collapse adequately shows that they failed to explain the collapse adequately. At best, it removes one possibility from the zillions of alternatives that could have occurred (not just 'employed'). I've found references to witnessed structural deformation, that it was leaning (I'll discuss your 'foreknowledge' below), and I thought the video shows that the south side collapsed first (virtual symmetry?). What should be speaking volumes to us is the fact that there are, what, thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, material scientists, physicists, who are staying silent about this 'blatant' demolition.

What is not the evidence for demolition? All of this, regarding the physical features, is a case of using one's eyes and comparing to previous examples of building fires/demolitions. Which best matches that witnessed on 9/11 in the case of WTC7? There is no contest based on precedent/experience.

What is not the evidence for demolition? The lack of any evidence to differentiate the collapse of WTC7 due to fire and damage from your proposal that it was demolished. The lack of any good need to demolish 7, we are way far-removed from any Pearl Harbor tie-in here with piddly irrelevant WTC7. The disagreement of many experts concerning the demolition scenario. The possibility of debris from the twin tower not damaging WTC7 and thus ruining that plot (conspirator risk #4,764,393). The main point of your evidence seems to be that some experts disagree, from watching a video, that the way the collapse occurred 'looks like' a demolition and they disagree with the idea that the building only collapsed from fire and damage. Unfortunately, lots of other experts disagree; not sure how you plan to resolve that between us, I'm not an engineer. I think I can make a good case though that MIT experts > Brigham Young experts.

Not sure why 'precedent' is even being brought up, unless you have several examples of buildings suffering unknown damage and extensive fires burning for several hours matching the approximate parameters of the WTC7 construction. By definition, precedent has limited applicability to the unprecedented.

Are you of the group that claims this must be anything but thermite, despite the match? I mean, what better indication could there reasonably be?

An indication that somewhere in some universe it has been shown that we can have confidence in the determination of the chemical composition of a molten compound based on watching a video taken from hundreds of feet away. I am of a group that claims that what you are seeing is possibly thermite, and possibly several other things. I'm sure you've read up enough on this to know what these several other things can be.

How about another of my favourites - the Israeli intelligence agents detained on the scene on 9/11 for celebrating the tower collapses with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives were carried in the mens' van? How much do you know about them? Would you fall into the group that claims they must have been anything but involved in the collapses? Again, what better indication of complicity should there reasonably be? What evidence must be come up with to convince people?

I can find references to this but nothing indicating they are 'intelligence agents'. Are these the same 'agents' who then later filed suit because of their mistreatment during their detainment? How covert.....

Heck, back to the physical collapses, the official study even demonstrates within the bounds of reality a large (majority) impact and fire range where the towers would not collapse - whilst admitting this non-collapse range was the best match to video/photographic evidence, the collapse range actually found was never even proven to be within the reality witnessed on 9/11 - NIST had no right to put the collapses down to inputs/a degree of damage which never existed on the day.

I thought we were throwing away the NIST study, now we want to selectively pick the things out of it that support our theory but dismiss the things that don't agree?

Regardless, even if we accept some of what the NIST study says, I think you inadvertantly touched on the weakest link in both your and the official explanation: the video/photographic evidence, or lack thereof. It is my understanding that there are almost no shots that clearly show the extent of the damage to 7 prior to the collapse, how then could the NIST or CTs or anyone say for sure what did or did not happen? That is a huge amount of possible variability, and it appears that WTC7 was specifically vulnerable to progressive collapse. Even me taking this as working against what I think is likely to be true also, that the building collapsed from damage and fire, and thus moves me to the neutral position which is 'we don't know have enough information to know how and why exactly WTC7 collapsed the way it did', I'm still miles away from 'blatant demolition'.

Then did you know that the complete failure of the official study, the match to examples of demolition but not damage/fire, the WTC2 thermite immitating flow and the Israeli intelligence agents, etc, etc, etc, can all be explained through a single answer: demolition. And there's more and more, a huge body of evidence/observation which can always be accounted for in that one answer, opposed to the myriad of disparate and coincidental solutions which the official theory must continuously invoke. And some dare say that Occam's Razor is not on the demolition theory's side: "a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect". There is only one assumption I need to make to comprehensively account for all evidence, observation and circumstances (issues the official theory prefers not to view in its selective usage) - that demolition charges were placed in the WTC buildings.

Again, if the official study failed this is not evidence that your theory is correct, it means we still don't know. All the plaster footprints, all the grainy videos and photos, the numerous worldwide sightings and encounters throughout history can all be explained through a single answer: Bigfoot. And that has got to be hyperbole, 'only one assumption', come on. You are making a giant assumption that the experts you are agreeing with based on their analysis of loads of incomplete data are actually correct in their assessments.

Essentially none of the firefighters predicted the collapse of their own independent judgement - the collapse warning filtered through their ranks from unnamed independent individuals on site. The accuracy of the collapse prediction sourced from that third party individual, miraculously including severity and timing of the WTC7 collapse in a case where no conceivable engineering rationale existed, is evidence of foreknowledge; a pre-planned event.

Here was your response to being provided a list of quotes from WTC7 eyewitnesses:

"The comments you posted display a lot of confidence that collapse was imminent. There are other comments still which I have posted previously and put prior knowledge in even more certain terms. This all meshes perfectly well with the anonymous advisor(s) on scene disseminating information which prepared everyone to expect complete collapse. Unfortunately for you, not a single statement demonstrates firefighter observation alone led them to determine with certainty that the building would collapse, not one. Of course there isn’t, there was no physical observation apparent which could lead to such a dead-set conclusion."

Now that was one helluva long thread I didn't read through all of it, so my criticisms here you may have already dealt with. I'm having trouble picking up from the thread posts the relevance that 'certainty' has to do with anything, but you do seem to trying to make some point concerning the fact that it wasn't purely the firefighters assessment that the building was going to collapse because of the unknown person. You have not shown that the source for every quote concerning indications of collapse comes from this one unknown person. Most importantly, the existence of this anonymous source does not explain the eyewitness accounts of the structural deformation they saw, that you just above said the lack of which was evidence of the demolition. You're not suggesting that this source also planted the idea about the bulge, that it was leaning, the whole corner of the building is missing, didn't look straight, and was creaking? That sounds like structural deformation to me.

You said this in reply to Boony and laid out your timeline concerning how FDNY was 'unconcerned' prior to talking to conspirator #19 (12 for the setup, Silverstein and his two Zionist buds, I'm going very light and only counting Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy in the govt; ah I guess our mystery source could be only #18, maybe one of the 12 is doing double duty):

"The FDNY were not concerned of collapse before the warnings from ‘unnamed’, i.e. they were influenced"

Right, I'm sure that unnamed source was a much larger influence than the fact that they were standing in the rubble and debris from two other buildings-turned-graveyards they also didn't think were going to collapse. In spite of that, I'm supposed to believe that they were still feeling confident about their collapse risk assessments?

I like your thinking - having WTC7 taken down under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud would appear to be the opportune moment and exactly how I would have gone about it also. So what happened? I wonder, what effect did that large, unpredictable chunk of WTC1 debris have on the WTC7 demolition setup? Could it have knocked out the central charges or disrupted the pre-set sequence? Perhaps rather than a blessing to cover of the WTC7 demolition as official story adherents (including booNy above) always assume, it was actually a curse, which delayed the building fall until the setup was reconfigured in the afternoon.

Really, you wonder about the demolition setup? Why aren't you wondering what effect that large, unpredictable chuck of WTC1 debris had on the structure of the building? Wouldn't that be the first assessment to thoroughly complete, since we're sure that actually happened? As long as we're bantering about Occam's cutlery and all that. It's an assessment that's going to be tough to complete given the questionable veracity of the NIST study and the few pictures/videos we have though. And our conspirators were feeling pretty confident they could reconfigure the setup in the middle of a large buildlng fire, unseen? Come on, man, at least give me a tiny back-off from 'non-existent' risk.

Edit: Also, I got this all off my brain in one dump since I'm likely not going to have time to post over the next few days, stupid work interfering with fun stuff. Take your time. And W Tell, where are youuuu?

Edited by Liquid Gardens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there. Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there. Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

No one planted thermite in the WTC buildings. Check it out, because Steven Jones goofed again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there. Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

Wow... and who would've thought that "nano-thermite" is the only possible way for there to be aluminum, sulfur and iron residue present at the collapse of two of the worlds largest office towers built with exterior cladding made of aluminum, steel interior structure that required welding which produces iron residue, and dry wall / sheet rock that produces sulfur residue when burned not, to mention the sulfur residue created when steel is heated for extended periods of time(even though the tests that allegedly confirm the presence of "nano-thermite" didn't perform the proper test(s) to see if what they had was actual "nano-thermite" or thermite of any kind)....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

You don't seem to understand that CZ is correct. Have you ever wondered why thermite is not in widespread use by the demolition companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

You are SUCH a joke, BR...

You seem to be under them impression that I have something to prove, when it is YOU that is making the claim that requires proof.

YOU are the one claiming to have been able to determine that the "tail was too small" just by looking at the picture of AA77 from the Pentagon parking lot security camera.

YOU are the one who has not produced ANY evidence to back up that claim.

YOU are the one who has to earn credibility by showing your work.

So I will ask you once again (since you ignored it in the thread it was originally posted in):

Are you going to fulfill your burden of proof and produce evidence - showing how you used proper photogrammerty techniques and calculations based solely on the one photograph that the "tail was too short" for it to have been a 757 - to defend your position or not, BR...?

Yes or No...?

That's the only question that needs answering right now.

If yes, then please, show your work.

If no, then please stop the handwaving, red herrings, intellectual dishonesty and all the other distractions and just admit that you have no evidence to back up your claims and no intent of providing any.

Time to crawl out from under that bridge you live under and either back up your claim for once or admit you can't / won't prove it.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

LG and Q have developed this into the most functional thread here, and I am enjoying reading it. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.