|
9-11 Revisited (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN |
Here's the thing pkc, personally I feel that the government was somehow behind 9/11, but I accept that this is a theory at best which is why I don't bother arguing that with you guys anymore.
However, I do believe there has to have been some sort of supplementary forces aside from the plane impacts to bring those towers down, don't you?
In other words forget the conspiracy and just focus on the structural integrity of those towers rather than the speculation. Let's argue not about supposed government coverups, but rather the towers structural circumstance. Do you really believe planes can do such damage is the question? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
Here's the thing pkc, personally I feel that the government was somehow behind 9/11, but I accept that this is a theory at best which is why I don't bother arguing that with you guys anymore.
However, I do believe there has to have been some sort of supplementary forces aside from the plane impacts to bring those towers down, don't you?
In other words forget the conspiracy and just focus on the structural integrity of those towers rather than the speculation. Let's argue not about supposed government coverups, but rather the towers structural circumstance. Do you really believe planes can do such damage is the question? |
man, i really really do believe the planes caused enough damage to the structural integrity of the buildings, so that the ensuing fire weakened the structure, making it collapse. when i was watching the event unfold on late night TV, i even said id be surprised if there wasnt at least a partial collapse, given the amount of damage a plane travelling at such speeds could cause.
everything ive been able to read has stated that the the steel structure wouldnt need to melt, merely weakened enough for the load above to become too much to bear. and ive watched the vids over and over of the collapse, and i really do think it fell the way i would have expected it to, given where most of the damage was caused and where the fires were.
please read my most recent posts in the 9/11 thread as to why i think this is the case. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
man, i really really do believe the planes caused enough damage to the structural integrity of the buildings, so that the ensuing fire weakened the structure, making it collapse. when i was watching the event unfold on late night TV, i even said id be surprised if there wasnt at least a partial collapse, given the amount of damage a plane travelling at such speeds could cause.
everything ive been able to read has stated that the the steel structure wouldnt need to melt, merely weakened enough for the load above to become too much to bear. and ive watched the vids over and over of the collapse, and i really do think it fell the way i would have expected it to, given where most of the damage was caused and where the fires were. |
Fair enough, that's all i ask. :)
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
please read my most recent posts in the 9/11 thread as to why i think this is the case. |
Alright I'm on it. |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
I think what made me go :conf: was building 7. NO plane hit building 7 and yet it fell the same day...
According to the government, small fires leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.
and some of the tenants of building 7...
US Secret Service
CIA
Securities & Exchange Commission
Mayors Office of Emergency Mgmt
One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. 2 The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.
How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his Entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.
some building 7 info here
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.
Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million! link |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.
As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorist say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorist use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorist let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander
-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
He could be lying right? But here is the corroborating evidence...
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/...e/gz/boyle.html
This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories...
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/.../gz/hayden.html
It mirrors what Silverstein said.
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call.
More from another blogger…
RealityCheck
“(1) In your own quote we have a Fire Dept. COMMANDER saying: "....they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire......". How and why is everyone ignoring the fact that the COMMANDER, obviously based on his relevant/authoritative experience/knowledge, judges that the WTC7 fire is OUT OF CONTROL!
I ask any reasonable person to tell me WHAT POSSIBLE OPINION from ANY 'civilian' could have been persuasive enough to CHANGE THE COMMANDER'S MIND enough to continue with a 'lost cause'? [....the persistence with which 'lost cause' could only INEVITABLY have resulted in greater loss of life than if they "pulled back" NOW and leave it to burn out while concentrate on preventing its spread further afield, heh? ].
So, whatever Silverstein might have WANTED, in light of what the COMMANDER said, it is OBVIOUS to any reasonable person that Silverstein could have had little OTHER choice than to recognize and acquiesce/concur with the FIRE COMMANDER'S professional judgment Wouldn't you agree?
(2) As to the term "pull":
Given that the fire department is organized/regimented along semi-milaristic lines (evidence terms such as Battalion and Commander), would it seem unreasonable to find that OTHER traditional 'military' terms are used?......like withdraw[ or move out or PULL (back) etc. .......in such a structure/culture as in a FIRE DEPT. COMMAND STRUCTURE maneuvering/ordering about MANY 'troops' (firemen)? I for one would find it extraordinary if such an organization did NOT use such traditional and well understood/useful (and to the point) terms to ISSUE ORDERS WHICH COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD EVEN IN THE HEAT OF 'BATTLE' (remember the term "Battalion" which is part of their organizational/operational structure?).
RC.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
They are interviewing this woman with Building 7 in the background because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out.
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side to.
Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "In it's own foot print" you might ask. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much as a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
In the following image the east penthouse falls...
Now the west penthouse falls...
To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.
Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below
This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.
Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.
Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.
If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.
The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".
In some ones need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same or had it's lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see it's lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo they use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.
Thanks to ScottS and David B. Benson for their contributions. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| do you like apples dcougar99? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
perhaps, but what your side never confront the larger questions that have been asked (at least by me), such as why would a government carry out such a murderous conspiracy in such a convoluted way, when there are much easier ways to get the job done? the sheer scope of this conspiracy makes it risky as hell.
|
This issue has already been addressed by several people who support eighter one or a combination of:
A) the Goverment used 9-11 for their own political agenda
B) the Goverment knew about 9-11 and let it happen
C) the Goverment was complicit in 9-11
Dude, I'm sure you're heard of Project for a New American Century and their document "Rebuilding Americas Defenses." It's essentialy a call for Empire and American global dominance. And I'm guessing you already know that Cheney, Rummsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush are memebers. This isn't just "opinion." The neo-con's tell you exactly why themselves. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
I'll quote wiki for your conveniece:
| quote: |
The PNAC Web site states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are
* "American leadership is good both for America and for the world"
* "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
* "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
|
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
This issue has already been addressed by several people who support eighter one or a combination of:
A) the Goverment used 9-11 for their own political agenda |
completely irrelevant. that is evidence of nothing more than political opportunism.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
B) the Goverment knew about 9-11 and let it happen
C) the Goverment was complicit in 9-11 |
well, please elaborate for me. i still dont see why, if you wished to wage war based on a terror attack, youd go about it in this ridiculously problematic fashion.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The neo-con's tell you exactly why themselves. \"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor.\"
|
again, this isnt evidence of anything. you cant cant draw a straight line with only one point. either tackle how the buildings came down or stop posting random \"facts\" that dont really show anything.
but, since im here
| quote: |
[Home] [Others] [New Pearl Harbour]
The story...
A think tank called the Project for the New American Century, headed by people like Dick Cheney, revealed the thinking behind 9.11. www.911truth.org puts it like this:
\"The PNAC program, in a nutshell: America’s military must rule out even the possibility of a serious global or regional challenger anywhere in the world. The regime of Saddam Hussein must be toppled immediately, by U.S. force if necessary. And the entire Middle East must be reordered according to an American plan. PNAC’s most important study notes that selling this plan to the American people will likely take a long time, \"absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.\" (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)\"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php...040527220940331
Our take...
Plenty of people share this interpretation of the quote. Here’s a few other takes on it.
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12...l_harbored.html
The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a \"catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor\" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and \"regime changes\".
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html
There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor,3 in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank Legge, Journal of 9/11 Studies
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Demol20Legge.pdf
Fetzer: Jim do you know the exact part of the New American Century where that shows up?
Marr: Well, it is in there. Basically, and I am paraphrasing. Maybe at the next break I’ll have a chance to find that. It’s thoroughly covered in my new book “The Terror Conspiracy”. What it is, is that the authors of this report for the New American Century called “Rebuilding America” state that we need to invade Afghanistan, have a regime change in Iraq and increase military presence in the Middle East. Exactly echoing Cheney’s words, but they were a little bit astute, they said that this is going to be kind of a tough sell unless there is a “catastrophic and catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor”.
Fetzer: Like a New Pearl Harbor, exactly.
James Fetzer radio interview with Jim Marr(hour 2)
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html
So the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.
First, the actual full quote is this.
\"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor\".
The odd word here seems to be \"transformation\". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.
\"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence\".
So \"transformation\" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.
Now, it’s certainly true that Bush has continued to fund it, and with significant budget increases immediately post 9/11, but who says he wouldn’t have done so anyway? The reality is that the attacks themselves only give ammunition to hjs critics. And some of them had it immediately:
Some elected officials got the message. Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not \"putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks.\"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...INGQ58FN831.DTL
So how did 9/11 make Levin look wrong, and the Bush administration right?
Back to the PNAC, where there's still the \"Pearl Harbor\" aspect. What did they mean by that? We can get an indication from the one other sentence in the document that uses the phrase.
\"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age\".
The use of Pearl Harbour here means \"a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter\", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that \"the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings\". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.
What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be \"toppled immediately\". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?
\"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.\"
Not much demand for his removal there. What about Syria, Iran, or other countries that aren’t so popular in the White House?:
\"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad\".
And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist.
Now, we’re not saying that the PNAC didn’t see 9/11 as presenting opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did). It did deliver increased military spending, of course, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They’re after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. After the Pearl Harbor quote, for instance, the document reminds us it recommended a decision to “suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production”, and mentioned that the “Joint Strike Fighter... seems an unwise investment”. Yet as we write, 4 years on, neither issue is resolved:
Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier - the CVN 21 - which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...cs/13079279.htm
Where we do think people really oversell this quote is in portaying it as some spookily accurate piece of foreknowledge, that the “New Pearl Harbour” was to justify regime change, war in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. That really is a step too far, as you’ll find out if you download \"Rebuilding America's Defenses\" and read if for yourself.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/p...ionsreports.htm
|
link |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
one more post, just for you shaolin. coz it contains some stuff about shipping off the steel to china. but ill quote it in its entirety. i think since it mostly avoids technicalities beyond our comprehension, you might find it a good read.
| quote: |
The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations
James Bennett
[email protected]
Abstract
This is a rebuttal of the paper titled “9/11 Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions” (available at http://www.journalof911studies.com) by Frank Legge (Ph D) of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth. While no attempt can be made to address every single issue in his paper, I will proceed to show how his conclusions are based on the misrepresentations of evidence, unreliable accounts, and wild assumptions, as to how the US government, or some unnamed entity in control of US government agencies were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks.
1. PNAC
Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a plan produced by the group Project For a New American Century (PNAC). From the introduction to his paper:
It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, 3 in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
The footnote supporting this argument then points to:
3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) “The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”
While the somewhat edited quote1, is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only \"not proof of complicity\", this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is \"in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq\". The invasions of these two countries, however, are nowhere mentioned in the PNAC document, they are not even vaguely alluded to. It exists purely in the imagination of the person writing this paper. In fact the only time the paper mentions Iraqi policy at all, is in regards to continuing the containment policy around Iraq with regards to the no-fly zones2, not in invading it.
Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing.3 A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the \"process of transformation\" that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.4
It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.5
Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.
And regards to the Pearl Harbor reference, what precisely were they talking about? A sneak attack by terrorists using fanatical devotion combined with box cutters? Well, curiously enough, the PNAC document uses this Pearl Harbor reference in another part, which despite clarifying the meaning, didn’t manage to make Mr. Legge’s paper.
Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.6
They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.
An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq not only fails to assist them in their “transformation”, but it would most likely hinder them. In fact the study points to the increased operational tempo of the operations in the Balkans as detracting from needed R & D funds.7 It also discusses the difficulty of carrying out this transformation without impacting even the current international obligations. 8 Somehow we are to believe that two expensive and manpower intensive wars would improve this process.
Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:
The fact that the air attack on Afghanistan commenced on October 9, less than a month later, is not proof either, but does suggest the possibility that plans for the invasion were already in place.
This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.
In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.9 Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan.10 Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?
2. Denial of explosives
In a rather bizarre sequence, the author doesn’t use the allegations of explosives at the World Trade Center as evidence, but the fact that the government is “denying” there were explosives at the World Trade Center is the evidence. I am personally amazed at the circular argument. Assume someone committed a crime, and then prove it off of the basis that they give no evidence for the crime they have committed. The author argues:
How then was it possible that three substantial investigations could have been carried out without examining the possibility that explosives where used?
Could it be, because there was no indication that there were explosives? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has performed an engineering study, involving dozens of specialists, over the last 5 years. What do they have to say regarding this:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. 11
What about the 9/11 commission, who looked into the intelligence aspects of this. The online magazine Salon asks this question to Jamie Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official and member of the 9/11 commission:
I asked Gorelick if she believed the commission had been sufficiently open to investigating the idea that the government, and not terrorists, was behind the attack. \"I think it's fair to say that our assumption going in was not that the World Trade Center was blown up by our own government,\" she said, \"but had the facts led us there we would not have hesitated to go there. And we ourselves blew up lots of myths -- for example, that the 19 hijackers were undetectable, or that there was a relationship between 9/11 and Saddam.\" 12
One could logically make the argument that the investigation had flaws, but one must remember, if you are going to label this a conspiracy because of a “cover-up” of the use of explosives, you are not just accusing whichever body planned and carried out the attacks, you are also accusing those that participated in the aftermath. This would include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York Police Department, the New York City Fire Department, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Transportation Safety Board, the union ironworkers who worked on the clean-up, the bipartisan 9/11 commission, the list goes on.
3. The collapse of WTC2
In this section, the paper takes a bizarre twist into weird pseudo-engineering theories and compassionate mass murderers. Beginning with:
In the case of the north tower, WTC 1, sufficient time was allowed between the plane impact and the demolition for evacuation of the building, at least for the part below the impact zone. This did not happen however with WTC 2, the south tower, the top of which started to topple over. This building started to collapse downwards within one second of it starting to tilt, which suggests the timing of the demolition was under the control of a close observer. The collapse started long before evacuation was complete, causing much loss of life.
There are several logical and factual errors with this paragraph alone. First the idea that some secret observer was able to watch the towers, notice its slight lean through all the fire and smoke, make the decision to detonate it prematurely, activate whatever detonation device they were using, and have the demolition charges start the controlled demolition, all “within one second of it starting to tilt” is a bit much to accept.
Secondly, this requires the reader to accept completely contrary views regarding our unnamed conspirators. They are supposedly callous enough to hijack 4 airliners, make the passengers disappear in cold blood, crash those planes into skyscrapers, and kill thousands of people, then demolish those buildings for no logical reason, continuing on to demolish WTC7, also for no reason other than to make their plot appear more suspicious, but they were still kind enough to make sure as many people as possible had a chance to get out of the buildings first, even at the risk of exposing their plot. One gets the feeling that the author is stretching to make this theory, to put it kindly.
Thirdly, as the author says more specifically in the next paragraph, this “tilt” supposedly is going to lead to the top of the towers tipping over:
If the top of WTC 2 had tipped right over and had fallen to the ground the perpetrators would have found themselves in a dilemma.
This theory, however, shows no understanding of structural engineering or physics whatsoever. As Thomas Eager, Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering at MIT, explained:
It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.13
Zdenek Bazant, professor of Civil Engineering at Northwestern University explains this in more technical terms:
Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly (and of the North tower mildly). Some wondered why the tilting (Fig. ld) did not continue, so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a falling tree (see Fig. 4 of Bazant and Zhou 2002). However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto-plastic shear resistance of the story approximately 1O.3x14
And lastly, the fact that the building was on the verge of collapse, contradicts the assertions of just about every other 9/11 “skeptic” out there. I understand that Mr. Legge is under no obligation to endorse the work of every scholar researching in his field, but when his work directly contradicts the views widely held by his peers, such as those in the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”, many of whom whose work he draws on, it should at least merit a mention in the text. Not to mention a stern rebuke from his associates.
War Games in the Face of Warnings
This short section alleges that “[war games] would obviously have had the potential to cause confusion and thus appear to have been an essential part of the plan.” First of all, what is the proof of his speculation that the war games would have caused confusion? One could also speculate, with even more justification, that having exercises going on at the time would ensure that the command centers were fully prepared and staffed with senior personnel. If you want to slow down their response, wait until after a big exercise, when people go on vacation, and those remaining go back to their routines.
We are talking about trained military personnel here, their lives are on the line every day. They are trained in the difference between simulation and reality. Secondly, this event has already happened, if this was a factor then why is he talking about its “potential”, rather then the fact that it already happened. The reason is, because it had no affect. There was certainly a lot of confusion, the US had not experienced a hijacking in over 20 years, and the systematic response definitely needs improvement, but this had nothing to do with the exercises that were going on.
The assumption on the part of Mr. Legge’s paper is presumably that those in command were confused by whether this was a real life crisis, or part of the exercise, but the testimony during the investigation never supports that. For example, Major General Larry Arnold, a regional commander of NORAD at the time,
And I was upstairs in our facility, immediately went downstairs, picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, \"Is this part of the exercise?” Because quite honestly and frankly, we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time-to-time. But I realized that it was not – that this was real-life..15
So that was it. He asked if it was real, a quite reasonable question given how rare hijackings were, found out it was, and went back to work. Not much confusion involved.
Exclusions of independent observers
The very premise of this section is questionable, since when were independent observers supposed to investigate crime scenes, like Jimmy Carter certifying an election in Venezuela or something? The author goes as far as to allege The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had its investigation “hindered”. The source given for this is a conspiracy theory website 9-11 Review16, which mostly on the basis of an anonymous source, concludes that the investigation was poorly done. In fact, this website asserts, that rather than FEMA having its investigators hindered, it was in charge of the investigation.
FEMA themselves report extensive access to the site, and even produced the first report:
The Team conducted field observations at the WTC site and steel salvage yards, removed and tested samples of the collapsed structures, viewed hundreds of hours of video and thousands of still photographs, conducted interviews with witnesses and persons involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of each of the affected buildings, reviewed construction documents, and conducted preliminary analyses of the damage to the WTC towers.17
This also ignores the investigations conducted by the FBI, and the extensive, in fact it is still ongoing, engineering investigation being conducted by NIST18, as well as the Pentagon crash report done by the ASCE.19
Rapid removal of debris
This line of reasoning continues, by alleging that the World Trade Center steel was “shipped away for scrapping, mostly overseas”. Given the size of the World Trade Centers, an estimated 500,000 tons each20, it would obviously be impossible to just leave the debris there forever while they investigated, especially given there was a massive rescue operation going on for the first couple of weeks, and even after that, there was obviously no way to go over every piece of steel. Regardless, this ignores the fact that the steel was investigated; in fact NIST even dedicates a webpage to how they did this, with pictures of this steal which supposedly was shipped away without investigation.21
In any investigation, one could certainly argue that it needs to be done better, but there is a difference between questioning the methods of an investigation, and stating that it never took place at all.
Withholding the black box records
The author writes:
It was initially stated that no black boxes from the planes were found although workers reported otherwise. Later it was stated that some had been found but were not readable. Eventually some black box information was released. Given the chain of lies it is highly likely that the released material has been edited to the advantage of the official story and will not be reliable.
This account is so misleading and confusing it is difficult to figure out how to address it. First of all, the black boxes from the crashes in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon were found almost immediately, Pennsylvania on the 13th of September 22and the Pentagon the next day23.
His reference to “workers reported otherwise” only makes sense when you investigate the footnote, in which you notice he is citing an article in the neo-Nazi24 newspaper the American Free Press25, in which “honorary firefighter” Mike Bellone alleges that, while he was at ground zero with three federal agents, from agencies he apparently cannot even identify, he found 3 of the 4 black boxes. First of all, it should be noted that Mr. Bellone gave this interview in trying to promote a book he had written nearly 2 years after the fact, and to my knowledge he has never repeated these statements to the 9/11 commission, or any other investigators. Additionally, one has to wonder why a scholar in a “peer reviewed” paper is citing a tabloid newspaper, which among other things runs ads for “white heritage” websites, and sports inflammatory headlines like “Zionists Benefit From WTC Collapse”. 26 This would hardly be keeping with high academic standards for sources.
The credibility of the newspaper aside, Mr. Bellone himself is hardly the most reputable source. After making a reputation for himself running around the country making speeches and promoting his book, he was later deemed a “fraud” by New York Fire Marshal Conrad Tinney, and arrested for stealing fire department property.27 This is in addition to the fact that the story is illogical on its own merits. If shadowy federal investigators were to search for these black boxes in order to hide them as part of a cover-up, why would they bring along an “honorary” firefighter?
Then, after half-heartedly conceding that the black boxes were found, presumably referring to those at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, Mr. Legge immediately tries to ignore them as evidence. He does not point out even a single lie here, much less a “chain of lies” as he alleges, but then dismisses the evidence of black boxes as not being reliable on that basis. This is despite the fact that the black boxes were not only found, they were handled properly, analyzed by the NTSB, and introduced into evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.28 This court admitted evidence featured the tape recording from the cockpit voice recorder of men speaking in Arabic while flying a plane into the ground, hardly evidence of a government conspiracy.
Summary
In his summary, the author makes an allegation that is catching on in the conspiracy community as of late. It makes one think that this paper is based less on any type of scholarly research, than on whatever rumor happens to be circulating among his peers on the Internet. This allegation is that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified that Dick Cheney, who was in charge of the response on September 11th, indicated that he gave an order that the plane, which was in the process of crashing into the Pentagon, not be shot down.
This charge, however, is not only unsupported by an examination of Mineta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission, easily obtainable from their website, it is directly contradicted by it.
MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down. MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. 29,
Conclusions
There are more errors and misleading statements I could point out in this paper, but these are the main ones I will rest my argument on. While I do not have anything against people questioning what happened on September 11th, 2001, in fact I think people have every right to ask questions, they should be responsible about it. Making unsupported allegations based on quotes taken out of context, misrepresented evidence, unreliable sources and illogical conclusions, do not do a service to the victims of that tragic event. In fact it is an insult to their memories. Unfortunate wording regarding the pace of a technological project, does not constitute proof of a desire for an attack. The lack of findings in an investigation that support your theories, do not prove the corruptness of the investigation. Even an investigation which some people may consider to be poorly conducted, do not prove a cover-up. All these facts are especially true, if in order to support these charges, one must rely on the selective and improper use of evidence.
It is important that these events be preserved, not through inaccurate rumors and speculation cherry-picked off the Internet, but through logical analysis done in keeping with high academic standards of research, evidence, and logic. Speculations, suggestions, vague questions, and innuendo are not in keeping with these standards. A “peer reviewed” paper, conducted by an academic, should keep to these high standards, and not the specious standards of Internet chat rooms.
Endnotes:
1 This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses” available here http://www.newamericancentury.org/p...ionsreports.htm actually reads in full from page 51 “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. “
2 Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”
3 Ibid page 40
4 Ibid page 50
5 Ibid page 51
6 Ibid page 67
7 Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”
8 Ibid page 50 : The United States cannot simply declare a \"strategic pause\" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”
9 http://usinfo.state.gov/is/internat...y_bombings.html
10 http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
11 http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archi.../16-241966.html
12 http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/20...ies/index4.html
13 Nova, Why the Towers Fell, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html
14 Mechanics of Progressive Collapse June 26, 2006 http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...C-6-23-2006.pdf
15 http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/web...3.htm#panel_one
16 http://911review.com/coverup/fema_wtc.html
17 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
18 http://wtc.nist.gov/
19 http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/c...3/0203feat.html
20Scientific American, October 9, 2001 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...umber=3&catID=4
21 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
22 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/
23 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...9/14/se.42.html
24 The American Free Press was started by Willis Carto, a man the ADL refers to as “one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years”. This bias is also apparent from reading their website. http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/car...ed=2&item=carto
25 http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html
26 http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co...free-press.html
27 http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_s...10182005_10.asp
28 http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
29 http://www.9-11commission.gov/archi..._2003-05-23.htm |
link |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
just to compare a particular part of the differences in credibility between the conspiracy sites and their opponents, compare and contrast these two pieces of evidence.
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors. |
]
versus this 30 second clip:
| quote: |
And now for the best video evidence to date from our friends at 911myths...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
That alone should end this debate. The fire dept didn't have orders from on high. So that leaves the fire dept lying to cover up a demolition for Bush or the firefighters made a good call. |
even if we ignore all the particulars of each argument from both sides, theres still the fact that so many conspiracy sites have either repeated or provided certain pieces of evidence out of context in a DELIBERATE fashion. after having read some of the quotes, and then seeing them placed within the larger conversation context, i find them intellectually dishonest. if i had handed in pieces of research like that at uni i wouldve been kicked in the nuts. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
completely irrelevant. that is evidence of nothing more than political opportunism. |
Dude, did you even understand my post? This much is obvious to anyone. They more or less explicitly tell you that they can't get the American people behind this without a catastrophic event on American soil. That catasrophic event was 9-11, the "new Pearl Harbour." Qui bono? It's pretty damn obvious, wheather you believe it's opprtunism, foreknowledge and deliberate inaction, or complicity. I don't even need to argue who benefits from this since they themselves have published a document that explicitly tells you.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, please elaborate for me. i still dont see why, if you wished to wage war based on a terror attack, youd go about it in this ridiculously problematic fashion. |
It's not soley limited to the invasion of Iraq, Aghanistan, or even the Middle East as a whole. If much more than that. It's esentially an expansion of military spending (which is already insane), military and economic global dominance in accordance with "American interest and values." And America here isn't a refenrece to the people, but the state and the policy makers. And that includes military bases virtually all over the globe in key strategic areas.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
again, this isnt evidence of anything. you cant cant draw a straight line with only one point. either tackle how the buildings came down or stop posting random \"facts\" that dont really show anything.
but, since im here
link |
Who benefits? I think that's a rather important question to ask when considering making a list of suspects? Are you aware of the distinction between evidence and proof?
EDIT: Plus, your original question seemed to make the assumption that if they were behing it, then why?
EDIT: Another thing, there was no way in hell the Goverment could get away with stealing liberties from the American people (slowly moving towards a more totalitarian state) without 9-11. |
|
|
| venomX |
| I must say the evidence shown by pkc is very compelling, but even if the government was not behind the actual event, and it was indeed perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, the government did take advantage of the opportunity to advance their agenda. |
|
|
|
|
