9/11 Final report.

raid517

Because I don't have the energy. If he read a good stuctural engineering book it might be a start.

Then maybe we can talk.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

Structural engineering, hmm like how a building can burn part of itself, weakening a side and then fall straight down like a controlled demolition? Perhaps the temperature that steel melts? What about the firemen inside claiming there was just smoke, no fire left, AND that they heard explosions just before it went down? Or the geological reports that showed a disturbance right before the building came down, similiar to that found in a controlled demolition? You can find the NY FD mp3's on the net listen to em before discarding them as paranoid delusions. Believe it or not your government LIES to you.

Roadee

That isn't fair and you know it!! Come on...be civil here. If you dont feel you have the energy for the discussion....then just sit back and let the rest of the people on here discuss it. Trying to dis credit someone straight off the bat will just keep others from joining the conversation then there wont be a PD forum due to lack of interest. Think about it


And I do believe that for once.....ONCE we came to an understanding on my topic of discussion. We agreed to dissagree!! You had some good points, as did I. I am done with this one until the next article comes out over todays precedings...though it may be in a different thread.

Roadee

You put alot of things out there all at once. Show us what you have for proof. You have a lot to discuss, give us something to chew on.

PoopyTheJ

oops edited gimme a moment....

PoopyTheJ

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/5116.php, nice article showing the controlled demolition of the second WTC tower.

http://www.rense.com/general39/points.htm, another good article about how the fires were under control in the buildings when the firefighters got there.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_..._seismic_.html Article talking about the siesmic spikes right before the buildings came down.

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_20a.../187259-1.html Destruction of evidence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html Very long article but it really has to be to go in depth showing the lies, inconsistencies and flat out contradictions of the twisted and complex official 9/11 story.

Complete testimony of Mindy Kleinberg, to
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States http://www.unknownnews.net/0331-1.html

An excerpt talking about standard procedures not being followed

FAA and NORAD

Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason — with heavily trafficked air space, airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian." This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."

Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.

Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 AM. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 AM. Between 8:13 and 8:20 AM, Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost — (although planes can still be seen on radar — even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 AM. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 AM — a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 AM, one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away.

Why?

So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-1.2, they would have reached New York City and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.

raid517

As I said, there is probably just too much there. It probably is best to leave it be. But put in simple terms, how anyone could imagine that two planes of that size could collide into these buildings and for them not to even stand a chance of collapsing is a concept to my mind that beggars belief. If you want to look at some of the statistics, just take a pen and paper and try a rough calculation of some of the stresses involved. (I'm sure you could look up some more accurate statistics on the web too). If you do this and study some of the reports given by experts who actually helped design and build the towers, it doesn't take you long to reach a far less fantastic conclusion.

But as I said these are the popular myths that have grown up around this event now. I could spend endless hours debating each of them one at a time, but ultimately it would be a pointless task, because changing the minds of people who and inclined towards such conspiracy theories is never an easy task - and even if you did it in this one instance - there is an element of society that always will go on believing them, because for some reason that is beyond most of us, that is simply the way their mind works.

Maybe you want to place yourself in this category too, lol? I hope not, you have often sounded fairly rational in your discussions here. But to gage if you are that kind of person, try making yourself a little meter on a scale of one to ten and clicking on each of those links, and then write down how convinced you are by each of them. If you score 0 to 5 on each story, then I think you are OK - but if you score above this - or even if you score 10 out of 10 in each instance - then I think you may have cause to worry.

You see the problem with a lot of debate is that people here (and increasingly in society at large) are becoming too dependent on the web as their sole source of information. They neglect to read any more, to watch or listen to news, or to follow genuine debate - or even to read anything beyond their favorite tabloid news papers. Goggle is a useful tool - but it may not always be as useful a friend as you imagine it to be.

As I pointed out previously it is possible using Goggle to 'prove' that Elvis was kidnapped by aliens and is living in an igloo on Mars. People have taken the idea that because some people are able to write words (although admittedly sometimes quite well) that this by itself is 'evidence' enough to prove that something was wrong with the official version of events. (Regardless of which events we are talking about). Unfortunately this is not what I - and the majority of other rationally minded people would refer to as evidence. Evidence to my mind has a little more substance to it.

But as I said earlier, clearly some people's standard of evidence is much lower than my own. Heck like I said too, sometimes people don't need any evidence at all. Having an opinion and finding someone who agrees with them, is often about as much as it takes.

But changing the minds of the Ufologists, spoon benders and conspiracy theorist of this world is not something I feel inclined to invest my energy in. They will continue to perpetuate their views, despite what we do or do not say here.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

I'm very saddened Raid, rahter than give me proof relating to my positions on the fraudulence of the 9/11 comission you find it easier and simpler to dismiss my rational as faulty and sick. Indeed, I haven't any doubt that it's possible for a building to collapse from a plane hitting it, however the circumstances surrounding this is rather fishy. No one will talk about it, it's ignored by the 9/11 comitte and by the government at large. Interestingly enough the threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". This is the Project for a New American Century that talked about 9/11 like this. If it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer

Roadee

That is ALOT of information, hopefully someone with more time will pick out something on it a go with it a bit. As for me, I watch, listen, and read my fair share.....but only once I find something that strikes personal interest, as you have seen in the past. I dont get involved in to many discussion in the PD, the research takes to much time to do this on a dailly basis with everything I have going on. I prefer the tech side of things for taking up my time

Last night I did see some interesting comments come out of James R. Thompson's mouth though. He flat out called all the news paper's and press in general LIAR's on what they printed about the report. Now this I did find VERY interesting. Basically he said that the press in general took the report and extracted tid bits from it and completely turned it around opposite of the facts that were contained within it. He went on to say that there was no direct link between Iraq and 9/11, but that it was over whelmingly proven and stated in the report that there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda....before, during, and after the 9/11.

Sorry Raid.....the words did come striaght out of his mouth on a TV interview. And now it looks like I will have to read the full report this weekend and then come back and discuss it more with you and the other's. On this one I will be forced to not pay attention to any press at all. I will just have to read the actual report....and that will take a while......LOL

raid517

@PoopyTheJ

A lot of your concerns can be answered in the simple assertion that the security services screwed up. At several levels when the opportunity existed the existing infrastructure failed miserably to function as an effective anti-terrorism force. But that was more a matter of incompetence and because the security services were just not set up to deal with terrorism on this kind of scale. They were still walking around looking for new enemies to replace the Soviet Union - because frankly they had no experience and little expertise in doing anything else.

The fact that they screwed up is bad enough. Why does it have to be any more complex or exotic for you than that?

I have seen actual structural reports detailing how the energy of the impact and the subsequent explosion caused several key supporting elements of the buildings to collapse. (It isn't necessary to melt steel, just to heat it up enough to cause it to warp). It was the weight of the upper floors of the buildings and the relatively weak metal frame design that brought these buildings down - and not some crazy black ops people sneaking in later with explosives and blowing them up.

There are questions that need to be answered - but they are questions of why the security services failed so disastrously in their duty to prevent an attack - rather than whether or not the CIA were in collusion with some kind of alien intelligence (be they from this world, or another). That is something that belongs firmly in the realm of a fictional TV show - it is not a view that is supported by any serious history book, nor by any serious researcher (that is anyone who was directly involved in any official investigation of the attacks) nor is it a view expressed by any serious politician or intelligence officer, or anyone having direct inside knowledge or information of the events that took place on that day.

In any case as I said I would prefer to save my energy for a more constructive argument. I am not trying to convince you - I am not interested in trying to convince you, as I don't think it is possible for you to be convinced.

But I personally cannot live in a world filled with so many half truths, misconceptions and ideologically motivated uneducated theories - I will take what evidence there is - rather than as you appear to prefer which is to gather the evidence there isn't - and I will draw my conclusions from that.

@Roadee, that would pretty much mean that the entire world's media was lying, or was engaged in a concerted effort to distort the truth. I read and watch several international news sources - and all of them pretty much reported the same things.

I haven't read the full report - but I have read an abridged list of the main points it made - and overall it didn't seem to give much credence to the idea that there was any substantive links between Al Quada and Saddam Husein.

But if you find anything interesting, let us know.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

If I hear a compelling argument as to how it's possible for the building to fall over in a controlled demolition style then I'll look into it. Interestingly enough, the debris from the WTC was shipped out of the US so fast it'd make your head spin, at a fantastic price for scrap metal as well, I was in the steel business and still have ties to it, I know what prices are like, so it's impossible to performa forensic test on the parts of the WTC to see if eithe theory holds up. I don't close my mind to possibilities other than what I currently believe. I'm constantly revising, rewriting and molding my view of the world and of it's goings on. I believe a closed mind is the most horrid sin, knoweledge should be gained and sought after zealously, even knoweledge which doesn't agree with what I believe. Try me give me a reason to disregard all the craziness that went on with 9/11. So far all I've heard from you is, Poopy you're a close minded lunatic dangerous to yourself and others who is a supernatural zealot and totally out of touch with reality. Sure you couch it nicely but thats what you're saying. Give me a reason to beleive you and the embedded politicians with reason, motive and desire to cover-up.

Proper Gander

speaking of motive, how about you supplying some motive for what you've alleged.
why would they do nothing to prevent the attack, or in the other case, why destroy the buildings themselves?

raid517

Well the argument these conspiracy theorists usually tout is that it's an attempt by government to grab more power for themselves. It is an attractive idea that many people shared in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks.

However while in some ways the September the 11th attacks did benefit the forces of American conservatism - I think if there had been any large scale plot of the kind that this guy is inferring that they would have pressed home their advantage much more forcefully than has been the case.

The ultimate culmination of any such plot has to be the instigation of some kind of dictatorship in America - quickly followed by a new world order. Or at least that is the logic that is used. But as I said, if that was their intention, they appear to have made a dogs ear of the whole damn deal. There isn't very much about this so called plot that appears to be going anything near to plan.

I sure don't see America lunging towards dictatorship (although this is an unfortunate period in American history, as this is undoubtedly one of the most authoritarian governments to have existed in that country) and I see even less a willingness to take over the rest of the world and to establish a new world empire. After having had their fingers burned in Iraq and after learning the true cost of what empire building entails I think that many people in the US would be anxious to avoid repeating the same mistakes again. There may have been an element of this originally - but it quickly evaporated in the face of stark reality and the facts that faced them when they saw exactly what it might entail.

I don't think it will happen either because I don't think ordinary Americans are willing to pay the wider cost. They enjoy the idea of supremacy, they like to wear the mantle of empire - providing they can have it without any form of responsibility. They project themselves in the world as though they were an empire - yet the people who are affected most by their policies see little of the benefits that an affiliation with a real empire would normally bring. Power without responsibility, empire without commitment that my friend is the genuine American way. Like the fast food and junk TV you enjoy so much, American foreign policy has at best little more than a 4 year spin cycle. 'Wash and go' my friend that is the extent and depth of real US ideology - the whole country suffers from a form of collective attention deficit disorder. This is why as I have said at this time it is the terrorists who hold the upper hand - because they have time - infinite time even - and a genuine clarity of vision on their side. They know what they want, they know what they are trying to achieve. The question is, does America and her citizens have an equally clear perspective?

My own position is not quite so odd. It is in fact quite close to that of my own Prime Minister. Blair thought that we he signed up to this whole Iraq deal that he could persuade America to bring about exactly that new world order that you appear to be so suspicious of. That together they could work to eliminate dictatorships and injustice wherever they might find them. Unfortunately many Conservatives in America were not very interested in Blair's idealism. They cared more about pursuing their interests in Iraq than they did about any genuine attempt to make the world a better place.

I don't see that changing any time soon.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

The motive for a cover-up can be as simple as that of not wanting to take responsibility for the phenomenal F-up of security. Another of course is the desire for more authoritarian control. Raid, try living here in the US, the once home of the free and then tell me it's not sliding towards an authoritarian dictatorship. You don't have to live here and watch Americans get arrested with no trial, not charged with anything and rot in prison without recourse to lawyer or writ of habeus corpus. You don't have to live over here and have unwarranted searches and siezures. Or unwarranted wiretaps. I've stated my position clearly and tried to engage in rational argument over the facts. However unfortunately it's much easier apparently for you to discredit my character, my rational and my interest in hearing the other side by , ignoring, misdirection and personal attacks. I'm not terribly surprised the ZD got so damn pissed at you. Rather than continue an inane conversation where my assertions are turned aside by your egotism and arrogance, I'll wait for someone who's actually willing to debat facts rather than make personal attacks.

OldBuzzard

PoopyTheJ:

As a pilot, I can clear up your (or the source that you used) misconception regarding Radar. Once the transponders were turned off, there was no way the the FAA's radar could have tracked the hijacked planes. The Transponder's function is to 'listen' for a radar pulse, and then to send out it's own pulse so that the radar can 'see' it. THe FAA's radar is designed around this capability, as it makes it a lot simpiler, and cheaper to operate since it doesn't need as much power to operate.

Given that, now that we don't know 'where' the hijacked planes are, how are any scrambled fighters supposed to find them? Also military and civilian aircraft use different radio frequencies, and that alone makes communications difficult.

We can do all the 'Monday morning quaterbacking' that we like, but in the end we have to understand that this was something that was new to us. All previous hijackings had been of the "Senior, we go to Havana" sort, and FAA policy was for the pilots to co-operate with the hijackers, and offer no resistanace which might put the aircraft and/or passengers in danger. These guys changed the rules, and we will/have changed our policies/procedures to to reflect that.

As for the way that the towers collapsed, you might try to find the PBS (who can hardly be described as a 'right wing' medium) documentary on that. They talked witht eh buildings designer, and other experts, and DID do some 'forensic' work on pieces of scrap. The scrap did NOT leave the US as fast as you would lead us to believe. Most of it was sent to NJ, and held seperate from other scrap, and not disposed of until MONTHS after 9/11.

PoopyTheJ

It was shipped as soon as the barges were full, I paid attention to this. It was held correct until the barges were full then they went. Some pieces of scrap were available, pieces I say, I just found an article about some tests done on it which I haven't gotten a chance to read yet. The price paid for the scrap was hihg, and insanely so since they were sending it overseas as well, not even mandrell scrap which is nice compact and neat, easy to deal with, but loose scrap which is a pain in the patoot to boot. You're argument about the transponder makes some sense, I am left to wonder though how you have multiple planes lose their transponders and no one is told about it till after 30-40 minutes well after it would've done any good.

raid517

Well I don't like conservatism. So I'm not going to say I feel any empathy for Bush's current tactics.

But I think it is a huge leap of the imagination to go from having some crazy Conservatives in temporary control of the Whitehouse, to having your government plot against its own people by flying planes filled with hundreds of innocents into some of America's most important national landmarks.

And don't go getting all touchy just because I disagree with you. I don't buy into conspiracy theories is all - and it just so happens that you appeared to pretty much break all forum records in a little over two posts by grouping more conspiracy theories together than anyone else here has ever previously managed.

Just because i don't buy it doesn't mean your not entitled to your view. If anything your views are a lot more harmless than a lot of the things ZD used to say - specifically because there is not many people willing to afford views like this very much credibility. Most conspiracy theories as well as being baseless are often harmless. So hey I'm not going to attack you - because as I said I see nothing of value in any of your statements that warrants such an attack.

I don't even buy that there was a cover up regarding the failures in security. If you look at all the records and all the statements that have been made it's blatantly obvious to everyone the extent to which the security forces failed in their duty. They screwed up big time - and there was no one who came out of it looking good though out that period.

To be honest you sound more pissed because I said I wasn't willing to invest my time debating these topics with you.

That isn't a personal attack, its just that I can't see anything there to debate.

GJ

Roadee

OK......let's all just chill on that one and start on this a bit fresh

Yes that was a lot to swallow.....granted. Conspiracy theory?? That is a matter of personal opinion....and to some can be taken as an insult. Maybe not a good choice of words?? Maybe it was just taken wrong?? No biggie.......I think that we are all mature enough to move straight on past that altogether....

raid517

Well it's what I call it. If someone else wants to call it something different then that's up to them.

Let's not dwell on it please.

GJ

Roadee

This is what sparked my attention within everything that he said Reason being...if you look up the temps..... That and the fact that I seen both tower's hit....LIVE.......the one had a small amount of flames in one corner......otherwise just a bit of smoke.

This does make one think. To be able to prove anything from it?? Can't see that happening. But it is something worth thinking about......where you take it from there is strictly up to one's own personal opinion.