Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great 9/11 Challenge.

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Yes. Does the president return to Washington, or go to secure location?

    What is going on in Washington?

    IS it even safe to be in the air?

    9/11 was a unique event wondering about how slow or fast the secret service reaction was in a pointless exercise. And trying to find some sinister motivation in how quickly they reacted is purely conjecture and speculation.

    There are indications that they knew a terrorist attack was under way prior to the second crash, but assuming they don't realise it's a terrorist attack till 9:02, they were a little slow on their feet leaving him there for 33 minutes.

    Not much of a security detail, IMO.


  • Options
    #63
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hookah wrote: »
    There are indications that they knew a terrorist attack was under way prior to the second crash, but assuming they don't realise it's a terrorist attack till 9:02, they were a little slow on their feet leaving him there for 33 minutes.

    Not much of a security detail, IMO.
    Which begs the questions: how long should they have taken, and why didn't go then so it would look real?


  • Options
    #64
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which begs the questions: how long should they have taken, and why didn't go then so it would look real?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


  • Options
    #65
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hookah wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    Yes, I know want begging the question is. You do it a lot.
    You're doing it now as you assuming the premise that the response is slow, thus begging the question, "how do you know it's slow?" Or to phrase it more conveniently, how long should it have taken?
    The second part is based on the assumed presumption that they were planning so it would look like a real attack, which begs the question: "Why didn't they make it look real by leaving at the right time?"

    These are very simple questions that surely you can answer if your position makes sense.


  • Options
    #66
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, I know want begging the question is. You do it a lot.
    You're doing it now as you assuming the premise that the response is slow, thus begging the question, "how do you know it's slow?" Or to phrase it more conveniently, how long should it have taken?
    Immediately they knew an attack was under way.
    The second part is based on the assumed presumption that they were planning so it would look like a real attack, which begs the question: "Why didn't they make it look real by leaving at the right time?"

    a) Oversight.

    or

    b) The assumption that with a lie that big, such minor discrepancies would go unnoticed.

    or

    c) Arrogance on their behalf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hookah wrote: »
    Immediately they knew an attack was under way.
    Which would have been around 9:30 when Dush had finished conversations with his staff and found out what was going on. So in reality they waited only an extra 5-6 minutes to address the public and have a moment of silence?
    Hookah wrote: »
    a) Oversight.

    or

    b) The assumption that with a lie that big, such minor discrepancies would go unnoticed.

    or

    c) Arrogance on their behalf
    And yet, other parts of the conspiracy go without a hitch....
    So they are both all powerful and only human again.

    All of that could have been avoided by simply not telling the SS and letting them act normally. So why exactly did they let yet more potential leaks into the conspiracy?


  • Options
    #68
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    1. There was nothing unusual about the Secret Service's behaviour.

    a) Thus, they had no prior knowledge of the attacks.

    b) Thus, they knew about the attacks and were deliberately acting normal so as not to draw attention.


    2. The Secret Service did not behave normally.

    a) Thus, they must have had no prior knowledge of the attacks, as they would have made sure to act normally so as not to draw attention.

    b) They did not act normally because they knew of the attacks and knew the president was in no danger.


    I really don't think the behaviour of the Secret Service can be used as an argument on either side here.


  • Options
    #69
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which would have been around 9:30 when Dush had finished conversations with his staff and found out what was going on. So in reality they waited only an extra 5-6 minutes to address the public and have a moment of silence?
    So, the entire world knew it was a terrorist attack after the second plane hit, and Bush and co. didn't realise until 9:30.

    Ok.


  • Options
    #70
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    And yet, other parts of the conspiracy go without a hitch....
    So they are both all powerful and only human again.

    You keep banging on about it couldn't have been a conspiracy because they'd never make mistakes like that, while on the other side people believe a conspiracy took place because of what they construe to be those very mistakes.

    A rather circular argument, don't you think?


  • Options
    #71
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Hookah wrote: »
    You keep banging on about it couldn't have been a conspiracy because they'd never make mistakes like that, while on the other side people believe a conspiracy took place because of what they construe to be those very mistakes.
    Has a single one of the thousands of people who organised this attack had a change of heart/found god/whatever and decided to come forward with any evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Has a single one of the thousands of people who organised this attack had a change of heart/found god/whatever and decided to come forward with any evidence?

    What thousands of people?


  • Options
    #73
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Hookah wrote: »
    What thousands of people?
    The thousands of people who would have been required to organise everything - the wiring of the WTC to explode, the people who were in charge of those people, the people who were involved in getting the planes to fly into the buildings/designing and operating the holographic planes, etc. etc. - obviously the thousands of people involved would depend on what flavour of the conspiracy you believe in.

    For example, what do you think happened to the hijacked planes, and how the buildings came down?


  • Options
    #74
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The thousands of people who would have been required to organise everything - the wiring of the WTC to explode, the people who were in charge of those people, the people who were involved in getting the planes to fly into the buildings/designing and operating the holographic planes, etc. etc. - obviously the thousands of people involved would depend on what flavour of the conspiracy you believe in.

    I believe in the Mossad flavour, with a little insider help from the Yanks, (the knowledge that NORAD were having exercises at the time). Perhaps, or perhaps not, co-opting and manipulating an already operative Al Qaeda cell.

    I'm not decided about the last bit.

    100 to 200 operatives max. And Mossad would have the motivation to keep stum.
    For example, what do you think happened to the hijacked planes, and how the buildings came down?

    ??

    I think the hijacked planes flew into the buildings and then it appears as if the buildings were brought down by explosives.


  • Options
    #75
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Hookah wrote: »
    100 to 200 operatives max. And Mossad would have the motivation to keep stum.
    Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

    Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

    CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store


    And thats for a building a tenth of the size of the world trade center.

    How do your 200 men accomplish much more, in a tighter time frame, in complete secrecy.


    Oh and there was no NORAD stand down.


  • Options
    #76
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »
    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store


    And thats for a building a tenth of the size of the world trade center.

    How do your 200 men accomplish much more, in a tighter time frame, in complete secrecy.

    All that to destroy a building and yet WTC7 just collapsed...


  • Options
    #77
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Hookah wrote: »
    All that to destroy a building and yet WTC7 just collapsed...

    After being struck by debris by a falling skyscraper, and having sustained fires raging uncontrolled throughout it over the course of the day.

    Yeah the WTC 7 just collapsed.......

    And the other skyscrapers in the WTC that sustained massive damage and that needed to be demolished in the months afterwards, thanks to damage sustained by the collapse of the WTC towers? Did you forget about them?

    You mentioned in the other thread that you're not someone who's signed on in April 2011. You've been here before. Please re read the threads on the WTC 7.


  • Options
    #78
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hookah wrote: »
    So, the entire world knew it was a terrorist attack after the second plane hit, and Bush and co. didn't realise until 9:30.

    Ok.
    No it took them till 9:30 for Bush to talk to people at the white house and learn what was going on and figure out what to do and where to go.
    Can you actually show anything other than your own personal, uniformed on matter of security and biased opinion that the secret service acted weird?
    Cause if you can't my similarly uniformed biased and therefore equally valid opinion is that they did not, meaning that you simply can't use their behaviour as evidence of a conspiracy.

    And can you provide a good reason for why they'd let the secret service in on it?
    Are they part of the 200-300 operatives who did everything?
    Hookah wrote: »
    You keep banging on about it couldn't have been a conspiracy because they'd never make mistakes like that, while on the other side people believe a conspiracy took place because of what they construe to be those very mistakes.

    A rather circular argument, don't you think?
    But you see, when we ask for particular evidence you'll argue that they were able to cover it up and leave no evidence to find. You can't have it both ways.
    Like for instance:
    Hookah wrote: »
    And Mossad would have the motivation to keep stum.
    You you believe that they didn't, because they sent agents who were dumb enough to dance around and draw attention to themselves.


  • Options
    #79
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Hookah wrote: »
    I believe in the Mossad flavour, with a little insider help from the Yanks, (the knowledge that NORAD were having exercises at the time). Perhaps, or perhaps not, co-opting and manipulating an already operative Al Qaeda cell.
    Ok - but before we get into details on manpower, do you realise that Mossad would be taking an existential gamble with Israel if they were behind this?


  • Options
    #80
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    You you believe that they didn't, because they sent agents who were dumb enough to dance around and draw attention to themselves.

    Indeed the conspiracy theory requires us to believe that these agencies are both monumentally clever and insidious, and at the same time possess agents who make basic erroneous errors for conspiracy theorists to spot from the comfort of their couches.


  • Options
    #81
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »

    You mentioned in the other thread that you're not someone who's signed on in April 2011. You've been here before. Please re read the threads on the WTC 7.

    Yes, I participated in one of those threads, and here I am still unconvinced.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ok - but before we get into details on manpower, do you realise that Mossad would be taking an existential gamble with Israel if they were behind this?

    Yes.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Indeed the conspiracy theory requires us to believe that these agencies are both monumentally clever and insidious, and at the same time possess agents who make basic erroneous errors for conspiracy theorists to spot from the comfort of their couches.

    And yet that's exactly what they did.

    They claimed on Israeli television they were there to record the event, yet they were still dumb enough to high five each other in plain view.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Hookah wrote: »
    Yes.
    Ok, thanks for addressing that :) - now do you think it likely that Mossad would gamble the future of their country and their people on an epic conspiracy like this?


  • Options
    #83
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ok, thanks for addressing that :) - now do you think it likely that Mossad would gamble the future of their country and their people on an epic conspiracy like this?

    A calculated risk at best, since they were conspiring with elements at the top level of the American administration, and with an American and world audience ready to lap up the Al Qaeda fallguys fiction.


  • Options
    #84
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Hookah wrote: »
    A calculated risk at best, since they were conspiring with elements at the top level of the American administration, and with an American and world audience ready to lap up the Al Qaeda fallguys fiction.
    But do you genuinely think that Mossad would roll the dice with the future of Israel? Can you imagine the reaction of the American public if compelling evidence of their involvement got out?

    It seems to me very, very unlikely that they would risk Israel's abandonment by the US, the ally that stands between them and oblivion.


  • Options
    #85
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But do you genuinely think that Mossad would roll the dice with the future of Israel? Can you imagine the reaction of the American public if compelling evidence of their involvement got out?

    It seems to me very, very unlikely that they would risk Israel's abandonment by the US, the ally that stands between them and oblivion.

    If it was a conspiracy, then I believe that in all probability Mossad were involved, and yes, they gambled with the future of Israel.


  • Options
    #86
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hookah wrote: »
    If it was a conspiracy, then I believe that in all probability Mossad were involved, and yes, they gambled with the future of Israel.
    And so they sent agents who couldn't sit still for an hour to film something that there was no benefit in filming.
    And yet that's exactly what they did.

    They claimed on Israeli television they were there to record the event, yet they were still dumb enough to high five each other in plain view.
    So what exactly did they say?
    Did they say they were part of the conspiracy to fake the attacks?


  • Options
    #87
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hookah wrote: »
    They claimed on Israeli television they were there to record the event, yet they were still dumb enough to high five each other in plain view.

    They said on Israeli television that they were just documenting the event - which isn't exactly news given that no-one disputes they were filming on the day. Everyone else who pointed a camera at the buildings was also documenting the event. Unless you're claiming that every photo and camcorder tape of 9/11 implies foreknowledge of the event (and I assume you don't) then theres nothing controversial in what they said on TV.


  • Options
    #88
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    They said on Israeli television that they were just documenting the event - which isn't exactly news given that no-one disputes they were filming on the day. Everyone else who pointed a camera at the buildings was also documenting the event. Unless you're claiming that every photo and camcorder tape of 9/11 implies foreknowledge of the event (and I assume you don't) then theres nothing controversial in what they said on TV.
    I would wonder, to be fair, what kind of recording equipment they were using. Was it something someone might casually be expected to have with them, or the type of thing a film crew would have?

    On the other hand, what benefit would Mossad derive from recording the attacks at all?


  • Options
    #89
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I would wonder, to be fair, what kind of recording equipment they were using. Was it something someone might casually be expected to have with them, or the type of thing a film crew would have?

    On the other hand, what benefit would Mossad derive from recording the attacks at all?

    They were using stills cameras - film ones. And not very good quality ones either if the ABC description of the actual photos is to be believed. The vantage point was pretty rubbish too - if espionage was your intent.


  • Options
    #90
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    alastair wrote: »
    They said on Israeli television that they were just documenting the event - which isn't exactly news given that no-one disputes they were filming on the day. Everyone else who pointed a camera at the buildings was also documenting the event. Unless you're claiming that every photo and camcorder tape of 9/11 implies foreknowledge of the event (and I assume you don't) then theres nothing controversial in what they said on TV.

    So they were just happened to be there, not having a clue the attack was about to happen, they recorded what was happening, and their reaction was to high five each other, and pose for photos with a lighter.

    Fairly odd behaviour for innocent bystanders, at least two of whom the FBI contend are Mossad agents, according to a Jewish newspaper.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Hookah wrote: »
    So they were just happened to be there, not having a clue the attack was about to happen, they recorded what was happening, and their reaction was to high five each other, and pose for photos with a lighter.

    Fairly odd behaviour for innocent bystanders, at least two of whom the FBI contend are Mossad agents, according to a Jewish newspaper.

    Worst secret agents ever.


Advertisement