The Path To 9/11
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 589
this old and tired myth being brought up again it was not and as they (the palastinians) had to admit the Isrealis that carried out this over dramatised event and their is nio factual evidence the Lebanese carried it out either
the persians are not arabs iran means ayran nation
headstrong
[/QUOTE]
It's a fallacy btw that the 'Palestinians' owned the land in the Mandate - what was 'owned' belonged to two or three massively rich families or clans, in classic Arab fashion [as I know well, since I was once girlfriend of the heir to two of these families]. The ordinary working man was as poor and dienfranchised as he is now. And as I've pointed out before, it's the creation in perpetuity of refugee camps - which are in effect prison camps - on Israel's borders, rather than dispersing the displaced Arabs of Palestine, which has hugely contributed to the current Middle East impasse: this was a cynical decision of the surrounding Arab countries, not of Israel. It's not a b/w situation out there, at all, so let's not let our prejudices obscure the facts.
Wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility Kriz, afterall its a standard investigative technique to look to see who stands to benefit from any crime when trawling for suspects. I for one wouldn't like to say where the line is drawn when American corporate interests dovetail with those of the intelligence services and a reactionary administration. Lets not forget that it was LBJ who said no to a CIA plan to down an American airliner full of school kids over the Gulf of Mexico, blame it on Cuba, and use it as a pretext for mounting an American invasion. I really wouldn't like to say what they are capable of.
There are I believe a number of factors that point to the possibility, but as is so often the case they are shrouded in a degree of fog (a standard Black Op procedure anyway in order to confuse investigative threads and make the pursuers of them look half baked). The idea that a missile was fired at the Pentagon being the most obvious in this instance (imho).
There's the issue of what Bush is alleged to have said to a CNN crew in Florida on the morning, which if true would unravel a whole lot. Although I've read an account of it, (book called the 'The New Pearl Harbour' currently on loan and never likely to return I suspect) but that's all it is, no transcript no attributable named source etc. Mind you, the fact that he was allowed to continue reading stories about little goats is definately pecuiliar?. As was the fact that he was allowed to keep to his pre-published schedule, and even went and held a press conference in the school hall. One can only deduce that someone in the secret service knew he wasn't a target, and that it was more valuable to get him telly chastising "folks who do these things" as cowards, and beating the drum for venegence.
There's other things that look suspicious too, not least of all the apparent collapse of NORAD. Why were there only four unarmed F16's available to defend the Eastern seasboard on the morning of 9/11? and why did they take an eternity to scramble? and why did they have to fly out of USAF Otis, (I know this to be concern of a WTC survivor who spoke to once, and she just couldn't fathom this out - its something that wasn't widely reported int he UK) By contrast USAF Andrews is a matter of a few minutes from DC? If they'd flown from Andrews they'd have intercepted the aircraft.
There's supposed to be some seismology data from a university in New Jersey that records a reading of 2 on the Richter scale based on Lower Manahattan a matter of seconds before the North Tower collapses. Again I'd be more convinced if I'd seen this data, or at least a professorial or student type to confirm that they did indeed record this reading. Unfortunately again, all we're left with is a take it or leave it account.
Although I'm not a construction engineer there are question marks as to how the towers collpased to consider in line with this. Given that it was widley accepted that it involved series of trusses giving way, allowing one floor to collapse on to another and setting off an ever maginfying concertina effect. This should still have left the remanants of the concrete stub that was the central core pillar which the structure was built around, and a sizeable piece of engineering in its own right. Admittedly it wouldn't have stood 100+ floors high, due to a loss of integrity, but traces of it should still have been visible. Even if it sheered somehow, it had to come to ground somewhere (though in all likelihood between 10 - 20 floors of it should have been left at the point where the foundations could support its weight). Instead it seems to have disappeared into dust. Although unqualified to explain this, I can see its logic if the reasons for the collapse are as given.
In short I'd keep an open mind. Usually when conspiracy meets cock up, then the answers invariably to be found in the cock up theory. I just wonder whether there were elements involved however, which I might describe as wanton cock up
Prince, I do have some trouble reading your posts, but if I understand it, you believe that Phalangists with Israeli Army support did NOT massacre the helpless refugees in Chatila and Sabrah. Maybe you would enlighten this forum about the intelligence you possess as to who did, why, what they had to gain, and why no official rebuttal of the 'myth' that you call it has ever been made, to reapportion blame? If your remark about Iranians is aimed at me, it's actually a point I made myself. After over 20 years IN the Middle East, plus a visit to Iran, I do actually know that - plus, Brian put up the breakdown of their ethnic groups to help the forum even more.
Perhaps you'd also share with us your idea of how the Arab countries would solve the refugee problem? They would have to be as militarily well-equipped and professionally trained as Israel in order to do it, because it would require one or more of them to attack that country, damage it seriously enough, and force it back to its original and legal borders.
The only Arab country remotely well-enough equipped so far is Saudi Arabia, which is supported largely by Britain through BAe's training bases in the Kingdom, and the supply of warplanes, in addition to those sold to it by America. I don't see Britain being well pleased by that scenario, or America failing to continue to supply and back up Israel, do you? Gaddafi was almost assassinated by the USA in a bombing 'lesson' some years ago, so you won't get any support from that country; Lebanon has just been re-disabled by Israel; Kuwait and other Gulf states are far too small to be of any threat; Jordan has an air force but it's totally inadequate in all other military respects; Egypt is highly unlikely to bankrupt itself fighting a war which would see all of its tourism ruined, etc., etc. So, please, do tell us how the Arabs would 'solve' the refugee problem.
If you're going to suggest that the witholding of oil supplies to the West, in order to force Israel to toe the UN line, would do the job, then forget it. It wouldn't be two minutes before America would launch attacks on whoever came up with that bright idea. It is also the only commodity some Arab countries have to trade, and I think we might have learned the usefulness of oil embargoes from the previous attempt. Or have you forgotten the petrol panic in Britain at that time?
Perhaps you'd also share with us your idea of how the Arab countries would solve the refugee problem? They would have to be as militarily well-equipped and professionally trained as Israel in order to do it, because it would require one or more of them to attack that country, damage it seriously enough, and force it back to its original and legal borders.
The only Arab country remotely well-enough equipped so far is Saudi Arabia, which is supported largely by Britain through BAe's training bases in the Kingdom, and the supply of warplanes, in addition to those sold to it by America. I don't see Britain being well pleased by that scenario, or America failing to continue to supply and back up Israel, do you? Gaddafi was almost assassinated by the USA in a bombing 'lesson' some years ago, so you won't get any support from that country; Lebanon has just been re-disabled by Israel; Kuwait and other Gulf states are far too small to be of any threat; Jordan has an air force but it's totally inadequate in all other military respects; Egypt is highly unlikely to bankrupt itself fighting a war which would see all of its tourism ruined, etc., etc. So, please, do tell us how the Arabs would 'solve' the refugee problem.
If you're going to suggest that the witholding of oil supplies to the West, in order to force Israel to toe the UN line, would do the job, then forget it. It wouldn't be two minutes before America would launch attacks on whoever came up with that bright idea. It is also the only commodity some Arab countries have to trade, and I think we might have learned the usefulness of oil embargoes from the previous attempt. Or have you forgotten the petrol panic in Britain at that time?
Well, personally I'd prefer not to stray too far into Conspiracyland, Warbler. I'd rather stay with known facts and see how they stack up, than invent scenarios. I imagine that Bush was left with the schoolkids because if he leapt to his feet and made a hasty excuse, the school and the attending media would know instantly that something was seriously amiss, from which would spring conjecture and possible panic. I don't see any problem with the Secret Service wanting things to look like business as usual at that moment.
As for the collapse of the towers, I think that's been described and illustrated many times over in various programmes. It seems that there weren't a lot of permanently-built inner walls, for one thing. In one programme, it reconstructs survivors actually burrowing through a sheetrock wall, not solid brick. To their surprise, the building they'd worked in for many years was not made of solid construction internally. Clearly, sheetrock was no match for the weight of weakened structures above and below (and a big airliner would slice through more than just one floor on entry), and once burn-out had occurred across the affected floors, it wouldn't take too much to domino the floors down. I'm guessing here, but I imagine sheetrock walls were possibly built to better withstand the torque these very tall buildings experienced in high winds?
I would imagine that if an airliner were flown into a 1930s high-rise, the building would stand for longer and better, due to their more solid, traditionally built internal construction. But I'm only guessing.
As for the collapse of the towers, I think that's been described and illustrated many times over in various programmes. It seems that there weren't a lot of permanently-built inner walls, for one thing. In one programme, it reconstructs survivors actually burrowing through a sheetrock wall, not solid brick. To their surprise, the building they'd worked in for many years was not made of solid construction internally. Clearly, sheetrock was no match for the weight of weakened structures above and below (and a big airliner would slice through more than just one floor on entry), and once burn-out had occurred across the affected floors, it wouldn't take too much to domino the floors down. I'm guessing here, but I imagine sheetrock walls were possibly built to better withstand the torque these very tall buildings experienced in high winds?
I would imagine that if an airliner were flown into a 1930s high-rise, the building would stand for longer and better, due to their more solid, traditionally built internal construction. But I'm only guessing.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
I'm not sure what the CIA would have had to do with it.
From:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...06cardtellsbush
(emphasis mine)
"I realize I’m the commander in chief and the country has just come under attack.”
Yeah, George, and I think the kids will understand if you have work to do...
From:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...06cardtellsbush
(emphasis mine)
"I realize I’m the commander in chief and the country has just come under attack.”
Yeah, George, and I think the kids will understand if you have work to do...
And let's keep the bastards that way. [/b][/quote]
Definitely not my opinion Brian
Sorry not to respond to posts on this thread where adressed to remarks I have made; but I think people are coming from where they are coming from, and it's pointless to fall out over something so immensely complicated, when everyone obviously has entrenched views based on their own experience and research.
I've more respect for Judaism than for Islam, and I've spent much more time in Israel than in Muslim countries. My understanding of the roots of all this is in fact different from that of others; that doesn't mean I condone what is going on NOW; I don't. But the point I was making is that events should be taken in an historical context.
I'm going away on Sunday for almost three weeks and have a million things to do first so I'm bowing out of the discussion since I can't give any response the time it requires
Wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility Kriz, .... I really wouldn't like to say what they are capable of.
......... There's supposed to be some seismology data from a university in New Jersey that records a reading of 2 on the Richter scale based on Lower Manahattan a matter of seconds before the North Tower collapses. ........ Although I'm not a construction engineer there are question marks as to how the towers collpased to consider in line with this. ......... In short I'd keep an open mind. Usually when conspiracy meets cock up, then the answers invariably to be found in the cock up theory. I just wonder whether there were elements involved however, which I might describe as wanton cock up [/b][/quote]
I've read quite a lot on this since it happened, and there are indeed some very disturbing questions which won't go away. I read on one website several posts from construction engineeers who detailed at some length why the planes could not alone have caused the total collapse of the twin towers, and these guys cited some very worrying evidence that they were in fact brought down by explosions - as was the adjoining building which collapsed for no apparent reason. I too keep an open mind on this.
I came across the site [which is a kind of forum for people questioning the US Govt version of various things inc/esp 9/11 [I'll try to find it again maybe this weekend with London wifi] when researching the local response to the New Orleans floods viz a viz the Federal reaction, as I'd been having an exchange with Newsnight on the subject of overall responsiblilities. The site also has - with enhanced photos of the attacks - compelling evidence that at least one of the planes which hit the towers had a bomb or missile attached. How did this happen - why was it allowed to fly? There was a great deal to study and I spent a lot of time over several days reading it all, several times; some of it was too technical to understand properly but imo after Oklahoma etc I wouldn't put anything past certain elements of this administration [or any other - cf the mysterious "suicide" of Hilary Clinton's Whitewater lawyer, who is alleged also to have been her lover; it's impossible for the man to have shot himself given the position of the wound, and that of the gun and his body].
I'm also pretty certain that the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down by the military; and that's been covered up too in favour of an 'heroic myth'.
Everyone dismissed Kennedy conspiracy theorists as nutters for years, but now it's surely been demonstrated that there WAS more than one gunman, and that there WAS a cover-up after the President's death. People who were present at the autopsy and have been interviewed on film leave no doubt of that.
Btw I met a nuclear scientist working in an Eastern European country recently, at the races [he's an owner with a trainer I know slightly]. He'd been in Iran, and from tiny hints he threw out I'm certain is attached to the intelligence services. I asked him if he and other insiders thought that Dr David Kelly was murdered, adding that people I know in his village do believe so. After a pause he replied decisively "Without a doubt"; then added "Of course, he'd gone over. There were a lot of people who wanted him dead." Then he clammed up and I couldn't draw him on who he thought had done the deed - or anything else. But it was interesting to say the least...
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Check out http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
From The Power of Nightmares:
I'm sure the miiltary would have loved to have been able to shoot it down, but the fact is they couldn't without authorisation from Bush, who funnily enough they couldn't get in contact with...
How on earth would you get a missile 'attached' to a commercial airliner? What, did Attah just stroll out with a giant magnet and, with the help of the cargo forklift, just clunk it into place? Sometimes, it's more romantic to invent excuses for the event that's taken place, than to face up to all the holes in a country's complacent or multiply-confused secret/intelligence service. Holes which led to nationals being murdered en masse, and which would entirely destroy any faith in the organisations' ability to hold the place together in the face of further attacks.
Gareth, the CIA would probably be just a teeny-weeny bit keen to be involved in four planes being hijacked, don't you think? They would want to get a story ready for the Prez to present to the nation, to avoid panic spreading throughout the whole country. His aides would have no more of a clue than he at that time as to what was happening, and a carefully-worded address would be essential, not some off-the-cuff tomfoolery by a President notorious for sounding imbecilic. The CIA should have been able to collate the various data more quickly than the White House and thus bring it to one document. Pity about the reference to bad 'folks', but there, you can only take the boy out of Texas...
The problem I have with conspiracies is that they are often smoke sent up by those with interests in keeping the simple facts hidden, or, in a few others, to see who bites the bait and why. The more you muddy the waters, the less people can see the fish, Confuse-us say.
Gareth, the CIA would probably be just a teeny-weeny bit keen to be involved in four planes being hijacked, don't you think? They would want to get a story ready for the Prez to present to the nation, to avoid panic spreading throughout the whole country. His aides would have no more of a clue than he at that time as to what was happening, and a carefully-worded address would be essential, not some off-the-cuff tomfoolery by a President notorious for sounding imbecilic. The CIA should have been able to collate the various data more quickly than the White House and thus bring it to one document. Pity about the reference to bad 'folks', but there, you can only take the boy out of Texas...
The problem I have with conspiracies is that they are often smoke sent up by those with interests in keeping the simple facts hidden, or, in a few others, to see who bites the bait and why. The more you muddy the waters, the less people can see the fish, Confuse-us say.
BrianH
At the Start
Some people like to believe in conspiracy theories in the same way as others like to believe in religions
Well, they do have a lot of similarities! The truth is always hidden, except insiders know the way to it; there are all kinds of arcane signs and symbols which only an elite few can understand; the language is frequently oblique and just when you think you've got the point sussed, you're told that that's what you're supposed to think, but actually...
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 589
no kri
the iranian comment was not aimed at you or indeed anyone in particular
it was just a comment to anyone confusing iranians/persians as arabs
the iranian comment was not aimed at you or indeed anyone in particular
it was just a comment to anyone confusing iranians/persians as arabs
I'll try and take the various questions one at a time having just got in, and should say at the outset I don't know the answers but am familiar with some of the arguments (conspiracy and cock up theories, and those which I think are plain barmy) etc
In the first case Kriz, Bush doesn't make those decisions in the face of an immediate crisis. If the conspiracy theory has any currency he's little more than a maluable dupe in the equation and is told as much as he is on a, 'needs to know basis'. He won't make the decisions as to whether to evacuate or not, that clearly lies with the secret service, and he defers to them. Its their inaction which should be scrutinised, they could have been guilty of paraylisis? (evidence of the cock up theory?) Far from having these well drilled routines of Hollywood myth, they also panicked and froze? Equally they knew he wasn't a target and thus allowe dhim stay on station? It seems strange to me
As regards the possibility of panicking the school and the attending media to the unfolding crisis?. Well I think in the first case if I were a teacher/ child/ parent, I'd want him as far away from me (or any one for who had feelings etc) as possible, and surely their sensibilities shouldn't even have entered intot he calculations. As regards alerting the media, I think they were probably aware by 9.05 too. They were screening coast to coast feed of what was happening in NY whilst he was still reading stories about goats.
The idea of keeping the Commader in Chief in a visible and pre-arranged location is just so totally inconsistent with Secret Service training its unbelievable. Do you really think thats what went through their minds? Put yourself in their position;
"shit we're under atack" (I'm in charge of the President)
"better keep him where he is. Don't want to panic the mums and toddlers, or the media, in any case he's enjoying the story about the goat".
I'm seriously struggling to believe that's the thought process they will have gone through?
They should have en-acted something close to whats called the 'Doomsday Scenario' which involves scattering off to the Appalachians or somewhere similar, and going into immediate lock down. For an unprepared Secret Service agent (who we assume was equally shocked and taken by surprise) to make a decision on the spot, that the President was save and should go ahead with his pre-arranged broadcast at 9.30 was indeed....... brave bordering on reckless.
Again you payz your money youz takez your chance!!! Cock up or conspiracy? It's surely inconceviable that the secret service could have kept up some kind of pretext that its business as usual when pictures of both towers burning are being transmitted all over the globe?
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 589
are u suggesting that rather then building houses and feeding people in its territories the only awnser for the arabs is violence
now what did the pope say in his recent speech??
I think its well documented that much of the inner design (partioning) was of low quality materials, that were supposed to be fire resistant. They would survive an impact though, where they would have been obliterated. The structure however wasn't necessarily that weak. It was I understand it (and stand to be corrected) a concrete inner core (no brickwork) with a series of 8 smaller (but still substantial concrete pillar surrounding). These were interlinked by steel trusses that supported the floors. Photographs taken of the WTC under construction seem to bear this out (even I can see that!!!). These trusses were lined with some kind of fire retardant 'spray on' stuff that detriorates with time, and the South Tower was in particular need of a re-spray (explains why it was hit 2nd and fell 1st).
Concrete being non combustible wouldn't have 'gone' in the conflageration. It is however brittle, but this was a particularly thick and reinforced column. Because the floors fell onto each as a result of the steel giving way, that shoudl still have left a stub (in theory) of concrete at ground level that was supported by the foundations, as the floors will effectively fallen onto each other around it, rather than falling on to it. Admittedly, its integrity will have suffered for not having the trusses and 8 supporting columns to support it, but there shoudl still have been remanants of something.
I could really do with diagram (or someone who understand these things better than I). As I understand it, it wasn't the iner core that failed, but rather the steeel trusses that held floors linking the inner core to the outer pillars?
Meant to say as well, that a plane did fly into the Empire State building (I think it was a Dakota?) I seem to recall that 5 were killed? but then a DC3 prop is along way from a modern, fully fuelled passenger jet liner
As mentioned in response to Kriz Gareth, Bush wouldn't call the shots in a situation like this. I wouldn't look at Bush's actions for clues, but rather those who are responsible for his safety as being the more indicative. Its not what Bush did or didn't do that's important here (what he's alleged to have said is different)
I said I was familiar with most of the theories.... but this one is new to me
It actually bears a closer resemblence to what I was told in 1997 by way description, but I can't believe that it wouldn't have been easier to board a bomb onto a plane rather than fix one, and then guarantee it would stay on and detonate, or indeed bring one into the building (I know they had secuirty for tourists I've been through it) but if you work somewhere long enough you normally can learn how to exploit weaknesses in a screen which lets not forget had 50,000 people to check. Having said that. I can see that a rogue member of ground crew could discreetly fix one, but I'm struggling to envisage what additional munitional value it would have added on top of the aviation fuel which effectively turned the plane into a bombThis sounds more like a 'Black Op' misinformation exercise to me if you want to go down the conspiracy route. Sorry HS, I really can't have this one at face value. I'm assuming this refers to the second plane United 175?
The Clinton thing is interesting but probably the wrong thread. Certainly the number of people who both were involved with in setting up Whitewater (and a few other deals) who've met sticky ends under mysterious circumstances defies the laws of probability. Mind you, some of the explanations I've heard for it are equally fantastical (well more so). If there is anything in it, its likely to be good old corruption and power at play I think.
Any one interested put "The Clinton Body Count" into Google and make your own mind up
h34r:
BrianH
At the Start
FFS!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Those who produced the "compelling evidence" have obviously never studied aeronautics.
Flight 93 is a strange one. I've seen and heard accounts that could persuade me either way. My initial reaction was a shoot down, and there's certainly enough eye witness accounts of F16's in the area to suggest they were closing in on it.
The debris field (about 7 miles) suggests it broke up in mid air, but then that could also be attributable to it airframes integrity breaking up if put into a dive, as much as if it were shot up. The heroic action idea I believe, is also compounded by the fact that the US government would be culpable for massive compensation payouts in the face of litigation. (I should say I don't know how true that is - but US litigation is strange thing)
I'm aware of a theory that there was a commercial airline pilot on board as a passenger (in fact I believe this isn't disputed) who could have safely landed the aircraft were they able to regain it. The conspiracy theory runs along the line that they did indeed regain control of it, and faced with the prospect of CIA backed terrorists being taken alive (and denied their place as martyrs) they would have blagged etc The decision was thus taken to shoot down.
It took about a year before they eventually released the flight cockpit voice recording, and there is supposed to be a missing 30 seconds that doesn't correlate with the radar signatures and flight data recordings. Some of the families have also questioned the authenticity of the voices apparently. Personally I'm struggling to believe that the CIA would cock up to that level, if again they were involved in a black op. Apart from anything, I haven't seen this evidence or seen it demonstrated beyond someone reporting it. I keep an open mind, as I'm sure shooting down an aircraft under these circumstances isn't really that controversial? Indeed I've got a distinct recollection that, that's exactly what was reported initially, and later altered?
Kelly - nuff said
h34r:Sorry HS, I've got to agree with Brian on this one. It just doesn't make any sense. You're much more likely to foul things up by trying to sling a couple of pounds of semtex to what is already a pretty potent weapon if used as a guided missile.
x tons of metal flying at 500 mph with y gallons of aviation fuel on it. I really can't see what you'd gain by trying to strap a bit of explosive on the fuselage? All you do is run an unnecessary risk of getting caught, or some accidental detonation
And that finishes Warblers Warbling on the subject (for a bit) though I still believe there are questions that need answering, but so many of them are shrouded in popular myth its difficult.
The issue of the alleged seismology, Bush's alleged comment to the CNN crew, the fact that only 4, F16's were defending NORAD airspace on 9/11 (and non of these had weapons and were scrambled from Otis) I find the more compelling. The evidence about the collapse I can't be persuaded by either way. Bush's movements on the morning also look strange.
Its cock up or conspiracy I reckon - make your mind up?
The issue of the alleged seismology, Bush's alleged comment to the CNN crew, the fact that only 4, F16's were defending NORAD airspace on 9/11 (and non of these had weapons and were scrambled from Otis) I find the more compelling. The evidence about the collapse I can't be persuaded by either way. Bush's movements on the morning also look strange.
Its cock up or conspiracy I reckon - make your mind up?