Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2014 8:45 AM
59 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,764 Year: 27,605/28,606 Month: 2,662/2,244 Week: 66/710 Day: 9/57 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   The New Pearl Harbor
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 52 (223389)
07-12-2005 11:41 AM


Moving thread
This has expanded beyond the scope of Book Nook. Moving to coffeehouse.
  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 52 (223392)
07-12-2005 11:41 AM


Thread moved here from the The Book Nook forum.
  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 18 of 52 (223393)
07-12-2005 11:44 AM


Reminds me of an earlier conspiracy theory
Does anyone remember how, shortly after 9/11, there was the rumor making its rounds among the Muslim nations that the attack was actually a mossad operation? I think it was claimed at that time that Jewish employees mysteriously failed to show up for work that day.
Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 11:55 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 625 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 19 of 52 (223397)
07-12-2005 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
07-12-2005 11:44 AM


Evil jews behind it all.
funny you should mention that - I've been searching to see if it's turned up in regards to the London bombing yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories_(claims_about_Jews_and_Zionists)

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-Jul-2005 11:56 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2005 11:44 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 52 (223398)
07-12-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brad
07-12-2005 11:37 AM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Anyway, my point is that due to his airforce training my friend has become rathe skeptical of jet fuel's ability to take down the towers.

Okay, let's say for instance it wasn't just jet fuel combined with an enormous explosion on a structure under stress from its own weight and wind. It had to be something else... What else could it be?

Whatever else it had to be, had to have been placed pretty much throughout the structure (we know it wasn't bomb blasts located in just the basement or something like that). Indeed it had to have been placed throughout both structures.

So how exactly could such material have been placed in buildings crawling with people, including security, such that no one would have noticed? Wouldn't there be reports of mysterious vans unloading unknown material or something?

And then how was it triggered? It would have had to have been done before knowing whether the pilots would have been successful hitting the buildings. How would they know how to place all that material in such a way that a plane impacting teh building wouldn't disable the massive wiring job they'd have had to place?

Indeed, what would happen if the planes missed entirely. Since one plane went down, is there a building loaded with explosives sitting somewhere ready to be taken down in a few seconds? Or was it just the WTC towers that were rigged?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 11:37 AM Brad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 12:31 PM Silent H has responded

    
Brad
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 21 of 52 (223404)
07-12-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
07-12-2005 12:01 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
I wish I knew holmes. Like I said, I'm not big on the whole cinspiracy thing, and my airforce buddy is deployed to Qatar right now. But I will ask him what he thinks. I was just throwing it out there that yes jet fuel burns. But after several hours of burning it doesn't even really warp guns. I believe his exact statement to me was "As shown the towers shouldn't have come down, the jet fuel shouldn't burn that fast." I asked what else was going on, he told me "I'm not sure, but it seems like an important question to ask." So yeah, just my friend's $.02.

Brad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:01 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:38 PM Brad has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 52 (223407)
07-12-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brad
07-12-2005 12:31 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Just to let you know, I wasn't trying to be hard on you, just raising the next logical questions in general and putting them out there for anyone to answer.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 12:31 PM Brad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 2:05 PM Silent H has responded

    
Brad
Member (Idle past 1285 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 23 of 52 (223424)
07-12-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
07-12-2005 12:38 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Yeah, I understand. But on your list of things that need to be explained, how is the weight of the tower relevent when the planes struck so high? Just in my own observation, if this was a structural integrity issue, it would seem like part of the tower would fall over, but from the news broadcasts that I watched; the towers looked much more like implosions. Does anyone have any information on the physics of this?

Brad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:38 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 07-12-2005 2:12 PM Brad has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 2:13 PM Brad has not yet responded
 Message 26 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 4:51 PM Brad has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24946
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 24 of 52 (223427)
07-12-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad
07-12-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Sure.

The Twin Towers were basically held up by the strength of the attachments between the floors and the vertical structure. Each floor was hung from the interior and exterior vertical members. While the vertical support structure was strong enough in compression to support all of the floors, the devices supporting each floor only supported the weight of one floor plus occupants.

Once the support connections of one floor gave way, allowing that floor to fall down on the floor below, the collapse was assured. The heat of the fire did not have to destroy the integrity of any of the vertical members, only the links that supported one floor.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 2:05 PM Brad has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 52 (223429)
07-12-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad
07-12-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
the weight of the tower relevent when the planes struck so high?

The weight of the structure above the impact would cause stress on that portion above the impact. As it begins to falter of itself it would put greater pressure on the parts below it... I think.

Physicists and architects would be helpful at this point.

the towers looked much more like implosions.

I agree, but that is what was behind my questions. I have seen how intricate of setups implosions are to create, and it involves a lot explosives and wiring for those explosives to pull off. I don't see that going unnoticed.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 2:05 PM Brad has not yet responded

    
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 3263 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 26 of 52 (223449)
07-12-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad
07-12-2005 2:05 PM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Brad writes:

Does anyone have any information on the physics of this?

Well, FEMA does. The official report on the collapse is here:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

For an easier to understand take on the problem, I like this article

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The author of the article knows what he is talking about, the article is peer-reviewed, and it is not overly dry (unlike the FEMA official report).

He says that what caused the collpase wasn't the heat from the fire, but that the heat from the fire was uneven; this caused buckling of the main support beams which caused a level to collapse.

This might also have information; I saw the original program but have not checked out the web site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Chris Manteuffel


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 2:05 PM Brad has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 52 (223451)
07-12-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
07-12-2005 8:22 AM


If there was the slightest hint of some truth to this type of conspiracy over here, it would be routed out mercilessly.

Are you kidding? You can't even imply the word "conspiracy" and expect to be taken seriously. There's almost nobody who believes that conspiracies are even possible; which is why I come to the conclusion that they happen every now and then. The constant offhand rejection of conspiracy theories is the perfect cover under which to conduct a conspiracy, wouldn't you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 07-12-2005 8:22 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 52 (223452)
07-12-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
07-12-2005 8:52 AM


Wow. I didn't realize you were being serious.

Ok, so now we're two for two in regards to simultaneous wargame exercises. It blows my mind that they were training in exactly the "right" place at the right time.

Can anyone here tell me that this is just a coincidence? At this point there's only two realistic possibilities:

1) High-level Islamist infiltration of both our governments.
2) Collusion between our governments and Islamist terror.

I was prepared to believe that the terrorists were really lucky the first time. I'm not prepared to accept luck as an explanation for the London bombings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 8:52 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 5:43 PM crashfrog has responded

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 3263 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 29 of 52 (223455)
07-12-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 5:27 PM


Crashfrog, if you read the link that Mr. Knight posted you would see it was not a government excercise. In the transcript, Mr. Power refers to it as "an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London". No government. No wargame. No first responders. Simply a continuity management exercise for a company that was in a high-threat environment, using techniques similar to known AQ operations (e.g. Madrid). The company had its people ready to go, and was able to apply their continuity management program effectively because they were all keyed up, but there is no evidence of any government exercise on 7/7/05.

I've been involved in a corprorate continuity management exercises before (and I've been working full-time for just over a year), and they must happen fairly regularly for a company like Visor to remain in business, so something like this is not that unlikely.

Chris

This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 07-12-2005 05:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 5:27 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 5:54 PM cmanteuf has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 52 (223457)
07-12-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by cmanteuf
07-12-2005 11:30 AM


Could I have a source for this, CF?

Sure. Here's an article from the Associated Press:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

quote:
In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

I think Ted Olsen would like to disagree with you on this point.

It's too bad for the late Mrs. Olsen that nobody thought to include Ted in the plot. Or maybe they got the same warning Willie Brown got and didn't take it seriously.

Or they had a good plan, executed it well, and caught the US by surprise.

How could they have caught us by surprise, when Bush is reading memos about bin Laden attacking in the US and using airplanes as weapons? When the FBI is sending up red flags about people taking commercial pilot training and flunking the landing units? How were they able to schedule their attack on the exact day that a scenario sufficiently similar enough to cause confusion was being wargamed?

Coincidence? I would have believed it for 9/11 but not for both 9/11 and the London bombings. Surprise? I would have believed it if Bush hadn't consistently blocked the 9/11 Commission at the start of their inquiry, and if his testimony hadn't been unrecorded, held at the White House, and accompanied by Dick Cheney.

Look, at this point, the side that needs to overcome the greatest hurdle of incredulity and staggering coincidence is the side that posits no American complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The things that you're asking me to swallow are, on their face, simply unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 11:30 AM cmanteuf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 6:17 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014