9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Hahahahaha. Yeah, right. Have you actually read this (and every other identical) thread?fela fan said:
Coming from you I'll wear that as a badge of honour
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Considerably, yes. Just trying to fit in hereeditor said:
We live in a world of conflicting national regulations, shell companies, numbered accounts, bearer bonds and banking secrecy. Are you really going to defend the pretense that financial dealings can only be transparent?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
look again said:
You can have cold fire. It may sound odd, but it depends on the chemicals being burnt. I think the poster is trying to say that the aviation fuel (paraffin) does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. I think that's fairly well accepted.RaverDrew said:How the fuck does that work ???
I hasten to add it's also pretty irrelevent. There was lots of other material, both inside the buildings and on the planes
that oxidises at much higher temperatures. Heck, even iron will burn, if it gets hot enough (in the presence of sufficient oxygen, of course).Maybe, maybe not (if it actually happened, of course).look again said:
You are aware of the international protocols regarding the use of evidence from pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. in relation to Air Accident Investigation aren't you? They are aimed at ensuring that the people involved can talk freely without the fear of their evidence being used in any Court proceedings, in order to ensure that there is no barrier, real or perceived, from them telling Air Accident Investigators exactly what happened so that steps can be taken to avoid it happening again.
Whilst these protocols should not have impacted on this investigation, I suspect that the controllers involved knew of the "usual" procedures and processes (in which destruction of the interview records once the Air Accident Investigators have finished with them may well have been part) and the mention of the union official being involved strenghens that possibility.
As the protocols were not designed for a world in which aircraft were deliberately brought down, there is probably scope for a review of their application.
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Jonti said:
My point essentially revolved around the fact that these are "Exchange Traded Instruments".
In order to buy/sell something like this, the buyer/seller has to have an account with a broker.
For an account to be set up with a broker, a lot of checks are made re bank a/c details, verification of identity (coporate and personal accounts) etc.
Anyway, client gives order to broker.
The broker must be regulated to transact business on behalf of client accounts on that exhange (again, a lot of paperwork/cost involved in setting yourself up as a broker).
Broker transacts client order on the exchange. The other side of the transaction (obviously for every buyer there is a seller) is known as the counterparty. Depending on the exchange, the counterparty may be another
broker or a "market maker" (essentially a company acting on it's own behalf in the market in order to provide liquidity). Note that the advantage of the exchange system is that the exchange guarantees the deal if one side or the other goes bust/defaults.
At each stage of the trade conducted in the market there is an electronic trail re: who did what plus, in this day an age (early 1990's in London to my certain knowledge) all broking/trading phone lines are taped.
So, to find out the ultimate client who gave the order to buy the puts an buy the stock would be trivial. In this case the client turned out to be a mutual fund.
conflicting national regulations . . . not so much these days.
shell companies . . . with the intelligence resources available to the US I'd have few doubts that the ultimate beneficiary could be found if thay wanted to
numbered accounts . . . not sure what you mean by this but pretty sure that Swiss numbered accounts for example are "unsafe" these days,
bearer bonds . . . This is the 21st Century. Anyone walking into a bank with a load of bearer bonds and expecting them to be cashed without questions being asked would be in for a surprise + US bearer bonds are, iirc, required to be registered under what is known as Rule 144a
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
He's a shit pilot then - I used to live next door to a guy who flew Tornados with the RAF then flew Jumbos for a living. I asked him about these "it would have taken a highly skilled pilot" claims years ago and he reckoned it was a piece of piss.look again said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
All those claims about being highly skilled sound exactly like the 'No one could reload the gun and shot accurately' comments after JFK...until it was shown by some 60 yr old dude who was capable of kicking off 4 shots in the time allowed!
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Thanks, that's better. I've gotten very wary of a certain style of robust posting which offers no information, but seeks to bait traps instead. Your first post rang those alarm bells -- hence my hostile response. I am interested in the topic, and thanks for posting your thoughts.A Dashing Blade said:
Yes, these days things are rather different. But even today, tracking down where money has gone is not always possible, I think you must allow. Otherwise, you will have to defend the proposition that all financial dealings by everyone are always auditable. And I doubt you would want to defend that corner
That kind of reasonableness test may strike you as unfair. After all, nothing is for certain in this world, and I doubt you think otherwise. What matters is how possible or likely it is that folk would have thought they would get away with this kind of insider dealing. And that comes down to a judgement call, as indeed you acknowledge
In a situation where the integrity of intelligence (and the possibility of rogue elements) is itself an issue (no WMD in Iraq; no involvement in 9/11 by Saddam Hussein; no yellowcake plot etc) the final words quoted take on considerably greater import.
Tell you what. Bung me a bearer bond for a few million, and I'll see if I can open a bank account (somewhere in the world) with it, OK? If I succeed, I keep the dough. Otherwise, you get it back. Fair enough?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
WouldBe said:That article states thermate contains barium nitrate not potassium nitrate.
So now not only do we need 2 types of 'explosive' to bring the towers down but we have to specially manufacture the thermate (using potassium nitrate) instead of purchasing ready made stuff.
E2A: not to mention 2 sets of fuses and timers for each floor that need to be synchronised to make it work.
From http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON
This is quoted in the article with ref to destroying ammunition.
1. It takes 8 seconds for thermate to burn a 7/8" hole through a 1" steel plate.
2. Thermate is easilly capable of destroying other explosives so the second charge required to break the weakened steel and the windows to allow the 'identifiable' white Al2O3 ash to escape would be destroyed or go off prematurely.
3. As the steel support colums get thicker towards the bottom of the building you would have to set the thermate off in a highly complex manner. With lower charges being set off before higher charges so that it had time to burn through and weaken the lower steels so that the building collapsed in the manner and speed observed.
4. The article also states that loosely contained thermate (680g) is only capable of burning a hole through 1/8" steel which is highly unlikey to cause any structural problems to the steel columns. Considering how many floors these 'telltale' plumes of Al2O3 were seen coming out of you would need tons of the stuff.
What are you trying to do though Jonti? So far you just seem to have shown up your lack of knowledge about trades and provide a salutory example of why folks shouldn't go believing any old conspiracy tale at face value. Put bluntly, the more you know about the 'insider trading' revelations, the less striking or telling the trades appear.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
WouldBe said:
Conspiraloons take note - a post which references a credible website, backed up with scientifically verifiable facts.
Try it sometime
Jonti
what the dormouse said
If one argues that financial trades, in general, can always be investigated to reveal their beneficiaries, then one is saying that the mega-wealthy *cannot* hide their wealth (at least while continuing to be able to benefit from it).tarannau said:
That's not a position I've heard argued seriously before.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
The trouble with the "controlled demolition" hypothesis is that it is unnecessary.
The central question is this: did rogue elements within the US state and other security services had foreknowledge of the attacks?
Of course, if WTC1/2/7 were pre-wired with explosives, then that would establish that the answer to the central question is positive. But it could be positive whether the buildings were pre-wired or not.
So focusing on that question is profoundly unhelpful, for it effectively "raises the bar" for any proof.
And it's not even the topic of this thread
The central question is this: did rogue elements within the US state and other security services had foreknowledge of the attacks?
Of course, if WTC1/2/7 were pre-wired with explosives, then that would establish that the answer to the central question is positive. But it could be positive whether the buildings were pre-wired or not.
So focusing on that question is profoundly unhelpful, for it effectively "raises the bar" for any proof.
And it's not even the topic of this thread
WouldBe
Dislicksick
beesonthewhatnow said:Conspiraloons take note - a post which references a credible website, backed up with scientifically verifiable facts.
Try it sometime
I think that link came up as the third entry on a google search for thermate so not as if I had to spend days trawling through the interweb to find it either.
Jonti said:
Nobody is getting anywhere close to suggesting that are they? It's another Jonti strawman
There again, you're more than severely mistaken if you believe that trading high profile stocks in the run-up to a highly visible terrorist atrocity would be a simple way of making a quick, anonymous buck. There are so many easier ways to launder cash and hide wealth.
Occam's Razor comes into it again. Why try and 'hide wealth' by making high visible transactions bound to come under scrutiny? Where's the logic in that?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
No matter.WouldBe said:
You have them in different locations.
Just out of interest WouldBe - Why? What would happen if you didn't do this?
I don't accept this - the Brainiac video shows a flowerpot of thermite cutting through a car engine (Can't seem to get video to work at the moment, but google it)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
