AuthorTopic: US Government Blames 9/11 On Iran, Fines Iran $10.5 Billion; Iran Refuses To Pay  (Read 7671 times)

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Funnily enough, I AGREE that the acceleration cased by the force of gravity is 32 feet/second/second.  What is expecting was some kind of accurate timing of the fall to show that it actually DID fall with that acceleration.  Probably the videos run at 25 frames per second (whatever it is, it will be known by the TV station), and then YouTube may modify that, quite possibly cutting that in half.  Nevertheless that's as accurate a clock as we are going to get.

Then we know the height of the building, and each floor (corrected for the angle of view).  So we should be able to measure off the distance travelled (downwards) and time (in frames) and show whether it does or doesn't obey s = (1/2)*g*t2I'm asking you to give me a link to where that has been done sufficiently well for me to check it.

Does it look to you like it falls at a constant speed?  It does to me.  But that's NOT what gravity does - it makes things fall faster and faster.

It may surprise you to know that I have been through this in detail before, and know more about it than a TV news reporter.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11653
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Quote
Don't say you weren't warned when you lift the lid on the crazy box.

I know.   ;)
I am completely open to being persuaded that the conspiracies are true, but it has to be based on evidence, not joining the dots.
I am completely up to speed on this, and have no doubt I will NOT be given evidence.
Abuse, certainly, especially from AG.

I could always spend my time on some other blog - moonofalabama has far fewer crazies on it.

I'm so sorry you feel so abused by the Law of Gravity and its "stubborn" applicability to the physics involved in the demolition of WTC 7. The last time I checked, New York City is on the surface of the Earth and WTC 7 was there too. The force of gravity there is 32 feet per second squared for ANY object, or part of one, in free fall. I was taught that "free fall" acceleration cannot be achieved when something is in the way of that free fall. When any part of a building being demolished is in the way because it ain't broke yet, you CANNOT achieve free fall.

And, in order to break all that stuff in the way OUT OF THE WAY in order to achieve FREE FALL, you need a very precise demolition sequence on EVERY support column, not just one or a few, that supports the building NEAR THE BASE OF THE BUILDING (where, in WTC 7' s case, there WERE NO FIRES). It takes at least two weeks ( rush job) to rig that demolition sequence. 

I guess you have other special knowledge about how to get around the laws of physics that you would like to enlighten us with.  ;)

As for MKing, it is expected that he would label "crazy" anyone that understands and can accurately measure what an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared is. That is what propagandists devoid of any ethical constraints whatsoever do to defend the propaganda lies they are paid to push.  :evil4:

But if you pair of propagandists want to push this bullshit effectively, I suggest you switch from fallacious debating techniques like appeals to authority or arrogant puffery to some really clever mendacity like, for example  :evil4:,  claiming the following video below has been "doctored" to make it look like the building fell at free fall speeds. You really ought to do that because, as long as you agree that the following video was not "doctored", you expose, for all to see, your serial mendacity. 

Who are ya gonna believe, Palloy and MKing, or yer own lyin' eyes?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hycank4AxBo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/hycank4AxBo</a>
 

Funnily enough, I AGREE that the acceleration cased by the force of gravity is 32 feet/second/second.  What is expecting was some kind of accurate timing of the fall to show that it actually DID fall with that acceleration.  Probably the videos run at 25 frames per second (whatever it is, it will be known by the TV station), and then YouTube may modify that, quite possibly cutting that in half.  Nevertheless that's as accurate a clock as we are going to get.

Then we know the height of the building, and each floor (corrected for the angle of view).  So we should be able to measure off the distance travelled (downwards) and time (in frames) and show whether it does or doesn't obey s = (1/2)*g*t2I'm asking you to give me a link to where that has been done sufficiently well for me to check it.

Does it look to you like it falls at a constant speed?  It does to me.  But that's NOT what gravity does - it makes things fall faster and faster.

It may surprise you to know that I have been through this in detail before, and know more about it than a TV news reporter.

Quote
Quote
ACCELERATION at 32 feet per second squared was DOCUMENTED in WTC 7

That's something we can discuss.  Would you like to start, with the documentation?

I don't believe you, Palloy.
I believe you will read the following HARD EVIDENCE of 32 feet per second free fall acceleration and immediately question the link, instead of addressing the EVIDENCE. K-Dog has your number. So do I.

If we are wrong, prove it by admitting that the WTC 7 evidence of a preplanned demolition is irrefutable. I know MKing will never admit the truth. Perhaps you will. 


Quote
World Trade Center Building #7
A QUESTION OF PHYSICS

THE FACTS:

At 5:21 PM on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds. This 47‐story building fell rapidly into a compact pile.

With several video cameras focused on Building 7, at the time of the onset of its collapse, the descent of the building is well documented.

This symmetrical and rapid descent of the entire upper portion of WTC 7 through the path of greatest resistance, poses a very significant physics question.


The entire upper portion of the building, for a period of 2.24 seconds, covering the vertical descent of 100 feet or 8 stories, accelerated in its descent at the rate known as “free fall”. The National Institute of Standards and Technology confirmed this in their final report on the collapse of WTC Building 7.



OUR UNDERSTANDING:

As we understand the laws of physics, this rate of free fall acceleration is only
possible in the absence of any significant resistance to the descent.

The rate of the building’s downward acceleration is, to us, proof of the simultaneous removal of the internal structures that would have offered resistance to the collapse of WTC Building 7.


http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html



« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 04:02:27 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
That clearly says that 8 stories fell at free-fall speed, although the tiny jpg image:



shows that it was anything but that.  The chart has time in seconds across the bottom, and velocity (measured with upwards as positive and downwards as negative) on the left.

You can clearly see that only the section between 0.7 and 3.2 seconds has constant acceleration.  It is much more difficult to make out (why such a tiny image?, and why jpg ? - the worst format to display charts) but I think you can see that in fact the fall is in a series of steps.  For short periods of time there is NO acceleration - this would be the time in which the steel is crumpling. 

Now when the acceleration stops and restarts, it is not the same as being under free-fall conditions (continuous acceleration).  The difference is small at first, but much more noticeable as the falling velocity picks up.

And what of the periods [0 - 0.7] and [3.2 - 6.5] seconds?  They didn't fit the free-fall pattern at all.

If you can find a better image of this chart, please show it, as it will prove my point better.

So "WTC-7 fell at free-fall speeds" is FALSE.

And I should add, to save time, that you don't need to reach the temperature of melting steel for steel to lose its strength - there numerous videos that prove this.

Next.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 05:16:41 PM by Palloy »
The State is a body of armed men

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11653
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Quote
Don't say you weren't warned when you lift the lid on the crazy box.

I know.   ;)
I am completely open to being persuaded that the conspiracies are true, but it has to be based on evidence, not joining the dots.
I am completely up to speed on this, and have no doubt I will NOT be given evidence.
Abuse, certainly, especially from AG.

I could always spend my time on some other blog - moonofalabama has far fewer crazies on it.

I'm so sorry you feel so abused by the Law of Gravity and its "stubborn" applicability to the physics involved in the demolition of WTC 7. The last time I checked, New York City is on the surface of the Earth and WTC 7 was there too. The force of gravity there is 32 feet per second squared for ANY object, or part of one, in free fall. I was taught that "free fall" acceleration cannot be achieved when something is in the way of that free fall. When any part of a building being demolished is in the way because it ain't broke yet, you CANNOT achieve free fall.

And, in order to break all that stuff in the way OUT OF THE WAY in order to achieve FREE FALL, you need a very precise demolition sequence on EVERY support column, not just one or a few, that supports the building NEAR THE BASE OF THE BUILDING (where, in WTC 7' s case, there WERE NO FIRES). It takes at least two weeks ( rush job) to rig that demolition sequence. 

I guess you have other special knowledge about how to get around the laws of physics that you would like to enlighten us with.  ;)

As for MKing, it is expected that he would label "crazy" anyone that understands and can accurately measure what an acceleration of 32 feet per second squared is. That is what propagandists devoid of any ethical constraints whatsoever do to defend the propaganda lies they are paid to push.  :evil4:

But if you pair of propagandists want to push this bullshit effectively, I suggest you switch from fallacious debating techniques like appeals to authority or arrogant puffery to some really clever mendacity like, for example  :evil4:,  claiming the following video below has been "doctored" to make it look like the building fell at free fall speeds. You really ought to do that because, as long as you agree that the following video was not "doctored", you expose, for all to see, your serial mendacity. 

Who are ya gonna believe, Palloy and MKing, or yer own lyin' eyes?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hycank4AxBo" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/hycank4AxBo</a>
 

Funnily enough, I AGREE that the acceleration cased by the force of gravity is 32 feet/second/second.  What is expecting was some kind of accurate timing of the fall to show that it actually DID fall with that acceleration.  Probably the videos run at 25 frames per second (whatever it is, it will be known by the TV station), and then YouTube may modify that, quite possibly cutting that in half.  Nevertheless that's as accurate a clock as we are going to get.

Then we know the height of the building, and each floor (corrected for the angle of view).  So we should be able to measure off the distance travelled (downwards) and time (in frames) and show whether it does or doesn't obey s = (1/2)*g*t2I'm asking you to give me a link to where that has been done sufficiently well for me to check it.

Does it look to you like it falls at a constant speed?  It does to me.  But that's NOT what gravity does - it makes things fall faster and faster.

It may surprise you to know that I have been through this in detail before, and know more about it than a TV news reporter.

Quote
Quote
ACCELERATION at 32 feet per second squared was DOCUMENTED in WTC 7

That's something we can discuss.  Would you like to start, with the documentation?

I don't believe you, Palloy.
I believe you will read the following HARD EVIDENCE of 32 feet per second free fall acceleration and immediately question the link, instead of addressing the EVIDENCE. K-Dog has your number. So do I.

If we are wrong, prove it by admitting that the WTC 7 evidence of a preplanned demolition is irrefutable. I know MKing will never admit the truth. Perhaps you will. 


Quote
World Trade Center Building #7
A QUESTION OF PHYSICS

THE FACTS:

At 5:21 PM on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds. This 47‐story building fell rapidly into a compact pile.

With several video cameras focused on Building 7, at the time of the onset of its collapse, the descent of the building is well documented.

This symmetrical and rapid descent of the entire upper portion of WTC 7 through the path of greatest resistance, poses a very significant physics question.


The entire upper portion of the building, for a period of 2.24 seconds, covering the vertical descent of 100 feet or 8 stories, accelerated in its descent at the rate known as “free fall”. The National Institute of Standards and Technology confirmed this in their final report on the collapse of WTC Building 7.



OUR UNDERSTANDING:

As we understand the laws of physics, this rate of free fall acceleration is only
possible in the absence of any significant resistance to the descent.

The rate of the building’s downward acceleration is, to us, proof of the simultaneous removal of the internal structures that would have offered resistance to the collapse of WTC Building 7.


http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/344-building-7-implosion-the-smoking-gun-of-911.html





That clearly says that 8 stories fell at free-fall speed, although the tiny jpg image:



shows that it was anything but that.  The chart has time in seconds across the bottom, and velocity (measured with upwards as positive and downwards as negative) on the left.

You can clearly see that only the section between 0.7 and 3.2 seconds has constant acceleration. It is much more difficult to make out (why such a tiny image?, and why jpg ? - the worst format to display charts) but I think you can see that in fact the fall is in a series of steps.  For short periods of time there is NO acceleration - this would be the time in which the steel is crumpling. 

Now when the acceleration stops and restarts, it is not the same as being under free-fall conditions (continuous acceleration).  The difference is small at first, but much more noticeable as the falling velocity picks up.

And what of the periods [0 - 0.7] and [3.2 - 6.5] seconds?  They didn't fit the free-fall pattern at all.

If you can find a better image of this chart, please show it, as it will prove my point better.

So "WTC-7 fell at free-fall speeds" is FALSE.

And I should add, to save time, that you don't need to reach the temperature of melting steel for steel to lose its strength - there numerous videos that prove this.

Next.


So, you wish to deny the NIST report with your own private hairsplitting interpretation of ONE GRAPH?

And Palloy, did you just say CONSTANT ACCELERATION? YES YOU DID!  ;D

THAT is what GRAVITY gives you at 32 feet per second squared, not CONSTANT SPEED. Your double talk about "continuous" not being "constant" is hair splitting of the most pathetic. CONSTANT ACCELERATION will give you a higher velocity at each point in a downward plot.

You KNOW that the PLOT for a 32 ft/second squared acceleration is EASILY predicted. WTC 7 FITS that plot almost EXACTLY.

If some debris prevented a perfect plot, that certainly does NOT give you the excuse to claim ONE deformed girder could justify the PLOTTED building collapse. But you gave it the old college try with your "continuous" versus "Constant" bit of baloney. :evil4:

NOBODY, not the NIST, nor anyone else, has come up with the fool assumption that the building DID NOT ACCELERATE throughout its descent EXCEPT YOU. It DID. The PLOT proves it.

The ONLY STRAW you have left to cling to is to assert that the ACCELERATION (which is NOT in question by the authorities) was LESS than 32 ft/second squared. YOU have not DARED give a lower value because you know you will be laughed off the stage.  ;D

If, however, you are privy to some OTHER VALUE FOR CONSTANT ACCELERATION that NIST is unaware of to enlighten us with, by all means do so.  ;)

You obviously do not want to face the truth
. So, please continue your laughably pathetic efforts at 9/11 "The Evil  Ayrabs did it" propaganda. The more you post, the clearer it becomes that YOU, like MKing, are totally bereft of objectivity.   

You have wasted enough of my time today. Nevertheless, I'm sure you will try to bob and weave your way around the next two videos. WHATEVAH, Mr. Failed Propagandist.

Dots? What "dots"?  :icon_scratch: Try Parade of  ELEPHANTS!  :o


9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You  :evil4:
What a COINCIDENCE that the words "NEW PEARL HARBOR" (see: 1998 neocon document  :evil4: )are mentioned as a QUOTE from a government official...

NOTE: Must be watched at U-Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_0eC3uns3pA


Your Tax Dollars at Work on the Pentagon Lawn on 9/11 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TG3SlyABrBk" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TG3SlyABrBk</a>
Obviously they must have been looking, not for missile fragments  ;), but for the Al Queda passports (those dad gum passports have an amazing ability to survive explosions and steel melting fires  :evil4:).




« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 06:57:04 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
That clearly says that 8 stories fell at free-fall speed, although the tiny jpg image:



shows that it was anything but that.  The chart has time in seconds across the bottom, and velocity (measured with upwards as positive and downwards as negative) on the left.

Next.

You have already heard the key words Palloy..."I don't believe you".

That is what matters, their belief, not the empirical evidence. Physical laws of the universe are worth NOTHING when the other side just says "I don't believe you"...because they MEAN it. Graphs proving your point don't matter, coincidence isn't allowed, no one made a mistake that day, or got scared and said or did something silly, nope, they KNOW. There is no stochastic scheme here, it was planned down to the micro-second by TPTB. Unless of course they can use some law of physics, such as gravity, to attempt to sway those who really know nothing about the kind of empirical evidence you've just provided showing why they don't have the ability to do what I suggested earlier.

But it is fun to watch as long as I don't have to waste time on spinning my wheels, so enjoy what you get when you pop the lid on crazy! Oh, and keep up the good work, I hadn't seen that graph before.
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
I can't help it if you know nothing about mathematics, and I appreciate that you don't know that you don't know, but you ought to then keep your ignorance to yourself. 

For those that want the truth:
It is not hair-splitting to say the stepped fall shown in the chart is not free fall.  In the formula s = (1/2)*g*t2 , "t" is time since the falling started, and increases continuously in a free fall situation.  But with stepped fall, "t" resets to zero each time, so it is like replaying the start of the fall over and over.  And the chart shows unambiguously that it was not free fall outside of the [0.7 - 3.2 second] period.  Even the chart's caption is not claiming that.

Other dots:
I'm sure we are all agreed that there is intense rivalry between CIA and FBI, even to the point of outright skulduggery which threatens security.  I agree with the reporting that says CIA tried to keep FBI in the dark, and that if they hadn't done that, FBI might have prevented 9/11.  But it is a giant leap to then say

Quote
K-dog: By the end of 1999, the NSA had the names of three of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi.  The NSA and CIA knew of Mihdhar's association with Al Qaeda, yet he was able to obtain a U.S. visa repeatedly.

911 was allowed to happen by the highest levels of our government ...

How did we get from CIA knowing something to the highest levels of government knowing it?  This is a complete non-sequitur. This is what happens when you join dots without any evidence.  When the entire conspiracy is wrong, there have to be many such illogical joinings of the dots to make things fit.  If you scrutinise the dots and the connections, not much of it joins up at all.

In the Stubblebine video he admits that a lot of the points he can't prove, yet he says them just as forcefully as he says "I can prove it wasn't a plane, but a missile".  And where is the proof?  - he "analysed" a photo no one has ever seen.  And what were the results (as opposed to the conclusion) ?  - he doesn't say.  This is his big chance to tell us, and he DOESN'T SAY.  And yet the video is the first piece of "evidence" put up here, as if you all believe it.  None of you are critical thinkers.

K-dog says he used to be the only search hit for "K-dog".  Do you believe that without checking?  Searching "K-dog" now gives thousands of hits, including a radio station, a singer in a band, a game designer, a dog accessories company, numerous variations of dog washing/walking services, and on and on.  It is true that urbandictionary.com has an entry on K-dog, but it is a site where ANYONE can put up entries about ANYTHING.  Does that entry apply to OUR K-dog or one of the others?  Does it mean the entry was put there by the CIA to defame the noble K-dog?  Apparently K-dog thinks so, but then he is a bit paranoid, wouldn't you say?

And how can I be accused of supporting the deep state, when it should be clear from everything I have written on DD that I absolutely detest them.  Oh, I know, I must be a deep state agent planted here to spread confusion - duh.   If anything it is you lot that are the ones who have been duped - duped by a conspiracy theory that doesn't actually hold together.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3314
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
I can't help it if you know nothing about mathematics, and I appreciate that you don't know that you don't know, but you ought to then keep your ignorance to yourself. 

For those that want the truth:
It is not hair-splitting to say the stepped fall shown in the chart is not free fall.  In the formula s = (1/2)*g*t2 , "t" is time since the falling started, and increases continuously in a free fall situation.  But with stepped fall, "t" resets to zero each time, so it is like replaying the start of the fall over and over.  And the chart shows unambiguously that it was not free fall outside of the [0.7 - 3.2 second] period.  Even the chart's caption is not claiming that.
You've convinced me, the building was not in free fall.

I do have a couple questions, though... do skyscrapers that collapse due to fires normally fall down all at once like that?  or can that question not even be answered, because except on that day, skyscrapers never have collapsed due to a fire?
Quote
In the Stubblebine video he admits that a lot of the points he can't prove, yet he says them just as forcefully as he says "I can prove it wasn't a plane, but a missile".  And where is the proof?  - he "analysed" a photo no one has ever seen.
Presumably he means a photo like this:

or this:

Of course the caption on that does make it intriguing: the hole that the plane couldn't have fit through was on the middle ring of the building, as shown here:


So, plane not fitting, completely debunked.  But, how did a plane have the force to punch through so many walls?


I definitely agree on one point:  I think the more extreme conspiracy theories were put out as a deliberate disinformation campaign to completely muddle the truth about what happened on September 11th.

Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3314
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
And, in order to break all that stuff in the way OUT OF THE WAY in order to achieve FREE FALL, you need a very precise demolition sequence on EVERY support column, not just one or a few, that supports the building NEAR THE BASE OF THE BUILDING (where, in WTC 7' s case, there WERE NO FIRES). It takes at least two weeks ( rush job) to rig that demolition sequence.
But why does it take that long?  My guess is that it is because of liability concerns.  They have to make sure that the controlled demolition of a building does not damage any surrounding buildings, or they could be liable very some very substantial damages.

But that is a civilian concern.  Do you think the military worries about such things in a war zone?  If they took two weeks to set up a demolition, it would never get done.  I'm sure their experts can do it in a matter of hours.  And when you conveniently have terrorists to blame for all damages, you don't need to worry about liability.  Now, it might not go as smoothly as a well-planned civilian demolition, with little hiccups as parts of the building that weren't completely destroyed briefly give some resistance, but it would still bring the building down quickly.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Quote
But, how did a plane have the force to punch through so many walls?

How would a missile do any better?  Aren't they designed to explode on impact?  Don't they weigh less than a 757?
And if it wasn't AA-77, where is the plane?
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Quote
They have to make sure that the controlled demolition of a building does not damage any surrounding buildings, or they could be liable very some very substantial damages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
When the first 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable.[53] A revised plan called for demolition in 2009 and completion of the new Fiterman Hall in 2012, at a cost of $325 million.[54][55] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion.[56]

Quote
If they took two weeks to set up a demolition, it would never get done.  I'm sure their experts can do it in a matter of hours.

I remember seeing a TV program about demolitions experts demolishing a stadium built before WW2, that HAD to be dropped in its own footprint.  The first thing they did was knock out the internal walls enough so they line-of-sight on the places where all the charges were laid, and to shorten the detonator chord length which is critical for timing.  The whole thing took months.

Maybe someone can remember which stadium it was, it was an iconic place, and find it on youtube.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14499
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
I agree with the reporting that says CIA tried to keep FBI in the dark, and that if they hadn't done that, FBI might have prevented 9/11.  But it is a giant leap to then say

Quote
K-dog: By the end of 1999, the NSA had the names of three of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi.  The NSA and CIA knew of Mihdhar's association with Al Qaeda, yet he was able to obtain a U.S. visa repeatedly.

911 was allowed to happen by the highest levels of our government ...

How did we get from CIA knowing something to the highest levels of government knowing it?  This is a complete non-sequitur.

The reporting that conclusively demonstrates that the CIA had foreknowledge of the presence of at least three of the hijackers in the US months prior to 9-11 does not care whether you agree with it or not.

Before you go too far down this particular rabbit hole, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the details of the Able Danger program, a military intelligence data mining operation that was supressed and its data destroyed. For starters. There is plenty more.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
You seem to have misread what I wrote.

I said I AGREED that the CIA knew.  Part of that is the Able Danger stuff, which the CIA was obviously trying to keep secret from the government/media/public, probably because their methods of data gathering were illegal (at the time).

What I am saying is just because the CIA knew some of the players doesn't mean that "government at the highest level" knew.  They might have known, but it doesn't follow that they did.

This is the danger of not thinking analytically - you WANT to believe in this conspiracy, so you collect lots of dots, but there are no lines connecting the dots.  No Deep Throat has come forward in 15 years to spill the beans, so I doubt they ever will.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
So, plane not fitting, completely debunked.  But, how did a plane have the force to punch through so many walls?

The beauty of kinetic energy.



Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog

K-dog says he used to be the only search hit for "K-dog".  Do you believe that without checking?  Searching "K-dog" now gives thousands of hits, including a radio station, a singer in a band, a game designer, a dog accessories company, numerous variations of dog washing/walking services, and on and on.  It is true that urbandictionary.com has an entry on K-dog, but it is a site where ANYONE can put up entries about ANYTHING.  Does that entry apply to OUR K-dog or one of the others?  Does it mean the entry was put there by the CIA to defame the noble K-dog? Apparently K-dog thinks so, but then he is a bit paranoid, wouldn't you say?


BITE ME
And just anyone would be able to keep it as top definition with (lets check right now).

7 vote up and 14 votes down.

Twice as many down votes as up votes and still it sticks as the top definition.  There is only one group in the world with those kinds of hacking skills; and they are not hackers!  Beyond this pointing out of the obvious to the less observant, the scurrilous heartless filth directed against me deserves no further comment. 

« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 09:41:01 AM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14499
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
You seem to have misread what I wrote.

I said I AGREED that the CIA knew.  Part of that is the Able Danger stuff, which the CIA was obviously trying to keep secret from the government/media/public, probably because their methods of data gathering were illegal (at the time).

What I am saying is just because the CIA knew some of the players doesn't mean that "government at the highest level" knew.  They might have known, but it doesn't follow that they did.

This is the danger of not thinking analytically - you WANT to believe in this conspiracy, so you collect lots of dots, but there are no lines connecting the dots.  No Deep Throat has come forward in 15 years to spill the beans, so I doubt they ever will.

If the pattern of dots describes a picture, are we to deny the picture for lack of lines? Im am no mathematician, but I thought a line was a series of points.

As to the lack of "Deep Throats," one of them ended up at the bottom of thousands of tons worth of WTC on 9/11/01: John Patrick O'Neill, who worked as a special agent and eventually a Special Agent in Charge in the Federal Bureau of Investigation until late 2001.  O'Neil  retired in favor of a higher-paying job in the private sector, as chief of security at the World Trade Center.

O'Neill started his new job in August 2001.In late August, he talked to a friend who said, "At least they're not going to bomb it again," a reference to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. O'Neill replied, "They'll probably try to finish the job."

On the other hand, CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, who is said to have created and served as the chief of the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center called O'Neill and Richard Clarke "two principal authors of September 11. According to the recently mentioned Alex Gibney doc, Scheuer was the person responsible for keeping the details of the CIA case file on Al Qaeda in the US OUT of the hands of the FBI.

And plenty of others are no longer with us.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Iran

Started by WHD Geopolitics

3 Replies
664 Views
Last post November 30, 2013, 02:38:13 PM
by RE
1 Replies
487 Views
Last post June 11, 2015, 03:30:52 AM
by Surly1
0 Replies
289 Views
Last post January 18, 2016, 07:47:05 PM
by Palloy