Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The Woolworth Building and 9/11.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WowBaggerOffline
Grey
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Total posts: 24
Location: UK
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-02-2010 20:11    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just watched the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pandora's black box films, and now I feel sick.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zilch5Offline
Vogon Poet
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Total posts: 1568
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 03:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look at the link below and go to Picture 57 - you can clearly see birds flying away but no missiles. I think this one is busted.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/282415/Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 05:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?


Wembley your last posts quote previous comments I made prior to my reply to my reply to Wowbagger, which you still do not seem to have read.

The Science Daily report you linked to claimed there was anywhere between 100 and 100 tons of potentially toxic chemicals and an unspecified quantity of glass fibres ( and I think it fairly safe to assume it wasn't much) - out of 100 000 tons of dust.
Quote:

Because it's such a good example of the way conspiracy theorirsts throw up wild theories without evidence and without checking. That's been the story ever since 9/11.

Evidence? Checking? I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete and the ScienceDaily report doesn't even come close, and was addressing the toxicity issue anyway. It's failed debunkings like this that have characterised the story of 9.11 analysis.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 05:36    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!


I know what you mean. The whole thing is seriously feasible.

Quote:
I just watched the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pandora's black box films, and now I feel sick.

Impressive, aren't they? Good luck with the graphics stuff.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 10:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:

- out of 100 000 tons of dust.


There was over 700,000 tons of concrete in the towers. What happened to the rest?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 12:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was 100 000 tons of dust. How did that get there?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 13:02    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
There was 100 000 tons of dust. How did that get there?


It was left over from when those massive yet curiously silent explosives vapourized 600,000 tons of concrete into thin air.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 13:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

You don't say? Funny old things these labyrynthine false flag corporate fraud concealing fake terrorist plots. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile 
Dr_Baltar
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 13:54    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Funny old things these labyrynthine false flag corporate fraud concealing fake terrorist plots.


You're not kidding! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 241
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 16:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
Again, what witness reports are there for missiles?


Wembley your last posts quote previous comments I made prior to my reply to my reply to Wowbagger, which you still do not seem to have read.


Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?


Bigfoot73 wrote:

The Science Daily report you linked to claimed there was anywhere between 100 and 100 tons of potentially toxic chemicals and an unspecified quantity of glass fibres ( and I think it fairly safe to assume it wasn't much) - out of 100 000 tons of dust.


Which goes to show how wrong your assumptions tend to be:

"Another study (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html) found that half or less of the dust in their samples was concrete, and the other half was fibers of various kinds"




Quote:
I was expecting a thorough debunking of the idea that the dust was predominantly concrete


Why? I never suggest that the dust was not predominantly concrete, just that much of it was not.

You, on the other hand, did suggest that most of the concrete turned to dust, a claim which you have not yet sunstatiated: it looks like another one of your unwarranted wild assumptions.

As far as I can tell the total mass of dust was some tens of thousands of tons (detailed calculations here - http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM ) - a small percentage of the total mass of the towers.

Now, about those missiles - any sign of any witnesses at all?

And is there any reason to think that those lights were anomalous?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Timble2Offline
Imaginary person
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Total posts: 5358
Location: Practically in Narnia
Age: 59
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 10-02-2010 17:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

These pictures are supposed to be newly released, they should keep the conspiracists going for another nine years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1249885/New-World-Trade-Center-9-11-aerial-images-ABC-News.html


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7022280.ece

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow?id=9763032

Haven't found them anywhere else yet.

Edit: They're spreading across the interweb fast...
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 11-02-2010 03:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?


No I wouldn't. Why keep banging on about this when you don't bother reading my posts?

Quote:
The dust has been analysed in great detail.
See, for example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021224091033.htm

Lots of glass fibre, asbestos, organics etc - what you would expect from a normal building.

Quote:
(though actually a lot of the dust is not from concrete).


Lots of glass fibre? Lots of the dust not being from concrete?

Quote:
Actually, a lot of the concrete in the World Trade Center was in the base. The floors were about 8 cm thick and supported by steel sheets and a truss system, so the actual amount in the towers was quite a bit less.

A lot less. An awful lot less. The foundations were concrete, sunk 65 feet into landfill. With the floors being only 8cm thick and foundations of 65 feet it's pretty obvious where most of the concrete was - out of the way of the collapses, and not liable to be turned to dust.
Most of the concrete from the towers really was turned to dust. Most of that dust, nearly all of it, was from concrete. The proportion that wasn't is barely worth commenting on and certainly not enough to contradict the claim that most of it was concrete.

Quote:
Which goes to show how wrong your assumptions tend to be:

Who's assumptions and how wrong? Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt. Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.
Back to top
View user's profile 
wembley9Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 14 May 2009
Total posts: 241
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 11-02-2010 19:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigfoot73 wrote:
Quote:
Would you care to copy anything you think is relevant?


No I wouldn't. Why keep banging on about this when you don't bother reading my posts?


I've read your posts.
Would you mind answering?


Quote:
Most of the concrete from the towers really was turned to dust.


Would you care to provide some support for that claim? (go on...)

Quote:

The proportion that wasn't is barely worth commenting on and certainly not enough to contradict the claim that most of it was concrete.


I wasn't contradicting that - I simply said that a lot of it was not concrete. And that the proportion of glass fibre was very much higher than you assumed.

Quote:
Yet another ineffectual debunk attempt.


You'd have to have some facts to support that.

Quote:
Don't bother asking me about lights or missiles again.


I assume that means you have given to trying to make any defence of either.
The evidence suggests that no witnesses reported missiles, it was simply something that was cooked up afterwards.
Ditto 'mysterious lights'.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Bigfoot73Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 May 2009
Total posts: 1109
Location: Leeds
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-02-2010 07:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Would you care to provide some support for that claim? (go on...)


That pseudoscience article you linked to was just that. It fudges the issue of exactly how much concrete was in the actual towers by conceding "a lot" of the concrete was in the bases i.e. the foundations, probably because the authors recognized the implications for the sceptics' claims re: the concrete dust issue.Nowhere do they actually crunch the numbers on how much was above ground level.
The volume of the landfill material removed to lay the foundations was 1.2 million cubic yards: even allowing for voids such as underground car parks it's pretty obvious where most of the concrete was. I don't feel burden of proof can be placed on me when you have nothing to support your claim that most of the concrete in the towers was not turned to dust.

You're still trying to claim that "a lot" of the dust wasn't from concrete when the corresponding statistics just don't justify using the term.
I never made any claims regarding the proportion of glass fibres other than referring to the Science Daily report you linked to.
Quote:

I assume that means you have given to trying to make any defence of either


Well, yes. If you had actually read my response to Wowbagger then you would have noticed that I did exactly that. I am not as dismissive of the witness statements as you are, but accept that the available evidence falls far short of reasonable proof.
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-03-2010 06:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

WowBagger wrote:


Quote:

As for what actually went on and how they pulled it off, many if not most people would find it very hard to conceive of how such a labyrinthine plot could be fomented and executed with- in my opinion - so very few people actually being on the team or knowing the whole story. Most of those involved in the nuts and bolts stuff were just doing their everyday jobs unaware of anything sinister. The only ones with anything to blow the whistle about are those who wanted it to happen, and they're not telling.


I agree, and if this kind of strategy works for terrorist cells, drug pushers, and the mafia hit men, then there's no reason that a double blind heirarchy won't work in government. By double blind i mean the idea of you not knowing who you are working for or what part you are playing, and the people that work for you have the same deal all the way down the chain. I'm sure there's a nice term for this but can't think of it right now!


Agreed. I would add that a mafia hitman confessing spontaneously is certainly an occurence of the rare'st kind. I don't understand why officialists expect that perpetrators would come out.
Now they are driven to withdraw to their usual last resort arguments (how did they bring the explosives, it takes months to... etc...). Or to speak of spontaneous combustion. This will lead nowhere. But for those who are interested, I'm coming back to the 'hijacked hijacking exercise" theory.

There was a wide array of military tests this very day : Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Amalgam Warrior, Global Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Crown Vigilance... Involving simulations of attacks from foreign military planes or missiles, crash on a federal building, hijackings... The four airliners were part of these exercices, as a simulation of a terrorist hijacking. And a test of terrorist countermeasures, i.e. taking control of an hijacked plane at distance. Air companies, pilots, some passengers, traffic controllers and military staff were involved. It would help to account for their lack of reaction. When they understood that things were not happening as planned, it was too late.

This was heavily contested, but tests of remote controlling devices were fulfilled prior to 911 :
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=raytheon

Quote:
October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary
A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that "the technology is pretty much there" but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] An aviation-security expert at Jane's Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs "in the realms of science fiction." [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research "new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control." [New York Times, 9/28/2001]


This theory also accounts for the unusual proportion of people from the aeronautical industry and the militaro-industrial complex among passengers, in shark contrast with the unusally low filling rates of the flights. Notably, there were a number of Raytheon employees. Raytheon specializes in remote-control techniques. And they possess a number of A3 Skywarriors. From various sources, it seems too they had an office in the South Tower, 91th floor ... http://911review.org/Alex/RAYTHEON_TRW_Able_Danger_9-11.html ; http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html ;

Plus they build laser-guiding bunker-busting bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-were-raytheon-employees-on-every.html :

Quote:
Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.
This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.
Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.
And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.

Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.
Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.


Other people from the militaro-industrial world were also present. On AA77, this was put in evidence by investigator Pino CABRAS in his book Strategie per una guerra mondiale :

John D. Yamnicky Sr, former military pilot, Veridian Corp aeronautic engineer, involved in missiles and fighter projects.
William E. Caswell, US Navy physicist, involved in highly classified projects.
William Flagg, US Navy admiral, and pilot for American Airlines. Despite being retired, he still had an office at the Pentagon, where he gave technical advice.
Bryan Jack, analyst and director of DoD Tax Economy Division.
Chandler Raymond Keller, engineer for Boeing Satellite Systems.
Dong Lee, engineer for Boeing Co.
Ruben Ornedo, engineer for Boeing.
Robert Penninger, engineer for BAE Systems, a Pentagon contractor.
Robert R. Ploger III, software engineer for Lockheed Martin Corp., and his wife Zandra Cooper.
John Sammartino, executive from XonTech Inc., mil.-ind. company specialized in missiles and military sensors.
Leonard Taylor, from XonTech.
Charles F. Burlinghame III, pilot of the flight, former US Navy pilot, alledgely previously involved in a number of tests.
Plus a number of Republican collaborators, like Barbara Olson.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 22 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group