Did find this, which shows the construction of WTC7. It appears that the upper portion of the building was essentially supported on a framework that left alot of clear space at the bottom of the building. I think the end of the clip is trying to suggest that if you blew the internal columns on each of the floors (with the invisible explosives, placed by invisible workers, that could survive in a major fire presumably) that the building would collapse in the way that it did, though if the lower structure fails you would get the same effect and it doesn't need many columns to fail in the lower area.
BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
I think there is enough information about agent frustration, etc. to suggest that they were significant but I'm not at all sure everything else is public knowledge - there may well be (and probably is) a huge amount of stuff we don't know anything about that was being collected / analysed simultaneously.fela fan said:
I'm pretty convinced it was far, far more than was available in the UK re- the 7 July bombers but I'm not sure it's quite so obvious as you think!
editor
hiraethified
Is it more "damning" that the firemen and fire chiefs and the workers who were on the ground saying that it was going to collapse because of the damage and the fires?Jazzz said:
Your latest tactic of throwing up ill-explained, seemingly random Youtube links while refusing to answer questions related to your 'points' is getting increasingly irritating, btw.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
fela fan said:
You have yet to make an convincing argument as to the motive for deliberately murdering their own citizens, fela.
detective-boy said:
But take a look at the timelines man. You can't get more warnings. You can't get more intelligence, and from more sources - about 20 countries were warning of attacks. You simply can't get more warning.
Even schoolboys knew the attacks were coming!!
kyser_soze said:
I've made attempts before man. I've been on these threads for five years after all.
But you know, i think it more likely they are amoral enough to do this, rather than those who just cannot accept that they would kill their own.
I will add that elements of the US elites have no problem with hundreds of thousands of deaths of non-US citizens as a result of their foreign policy decisions. And that they have no worries at all about US citizens who happen to have signed up dying as a result of their war games and war crimes. Well, they do have some worries, but only with regard to the public turning against them and voting them out next election.
For me, there are those in power in the US who are totally amoral. They look at deaths as figures in their games of retaining and extending their power. They live on a planet far far away from us normal people. I'd say if they thought the rewards were high enough, and they thought they'd not get caught, then it's hardly a big step to kill their own citizens.
And look man, you've called the racism angle before: if other countries such as china, burma, saudi, n korea, a few african countries can kill their own, why not the americans?
And in fact they do just that with their capital punishment policies.
For me it's easy to imagine they'd kill their own, just so long as they thought they'd not get caught.
And with the simple words 'conspiracy theory', they have a big safety net.
The warnings vary in detail but there is enough there to merit a better response than appears to have happened, as I have accepted.fela fan said:
But the amount of warings is not my point. With hindsight we are able to trawl through and readily pull out anything which looks good and put it in a nice, unbroken timeline. My point is that this was not the ONLY intelligence being gathered / analysed at the time. We have insufficient knowledge of how much there was to make a proper judgement on whether this intelligence was as obvious as you believe.
I think that DB is saying that it's easy to see it from the timelines which has all the extraneous crap removed (though that Coop research site does repeat a lot of it), in reality there's going to be plenty of false leads and additional information. those timelines also include a lot of info that was gleaned AFTER 9/11 but put into the timeline at the point it happened.fela fan said:
From what I've read so far the information was scattered between the three primary agencies and they were utterly crap about sharing and co-ordinating information. If you think that can't happen even now look at the problems the Home Office had on entering data on just 200 or so individuals onto the Criminal Records.
MikeMcc said:
yeah well mike, we can all react to it the way we choose to. But what on earth do nations bother with intelligence gathering for??
For me i just wonder why the mainstream media have never bothered investigating this. No-one has been made responsible. If anybody is interested in whether elements of the US elites were in anyway complicit in the attacks then just take a look at the intelligence. As published in mainstream media in bits and pieces.
This is one of the reasons criminals in power in many countries get away with things, the odd incident is reported here and there, but never collated into one piece.
Cooperative research team have done that. And forgive me for saying this, but your reaction to all this intelligence seems to be just what so many accuse jazzz and others of doing.
detective-boy said:
And there's the problem with the conspiranoid modus operandi. Like mediaeval theology, it's concerned with documents and authorities, not with events in the world.
So if the security services were also looking at warnings of (a) simultaneous attacks on oil terminals at Sullom Voe, Long Beach and Bahrain; and (b) simultaneous attacks on US embassies in Copenhagen, Caracas and Canberra; and (c) a plot to bring down the New York Stock Exchange online trading system... of course they wouldn't be revealing the details, but that'd be a lot of haystack in which other warnings could hide.
You know, i've only ever heard two arguments against US complicity in the attacks:
they wouldn't kill their own.
too many people would have known, and how come no-one's come forward.
Not a very strong argument against lihop or mihop is it now?
Certainly not when put against all the intelligence that screamed out attacks.
And as for an inexperienced pilot who could fly a plane down to virtual ground level and into the pentagon, well fuck me, plenty of footballers can't even net a penalty...
they wouldn't kill their own.
too many people would have known, and how come no-one's come forward.
Not a very strong argument against lihop or mihop is it now?
Certainly not when put against all the intelligence that screamed out attacks.
And as for an inexperienced pilot who could fly a plane down to virtual ground level and into the pentagon, well fuck me, plenty of footballers can't even net a penalty...
laptop said:
With a post like that i'd not be surprised to find out you have an agenda behind your postings.
And no, don't come back with the obvious riposte. You've always been dodgy on this topic. Giving me all that 'mediaeval' bullshit. Only concerned with documents and authorities eh?? That exactly describes some of the most evil movements in recent genocidal human history, what with their love of documenting their crimes.
And so we should abandon intelligence should we, because it's not about 'real events' in the world.
What a weird post.
editor said:
Heh, you're a funny punter aren't you. Firstly you know full well i believe in no conspiracy, never mind any fucking 'religious need'. What you say here, as many times before, is disingeneous at best, and dishonest at worst.
Furthermore it is far more accurate to say that you yourself have a religious need to avoid investigating the possiblity of US complicity.
It's always funny watching you accuse others of the very things you do yourself.
Not really, I've just not seen anything so far that has convinced me otherwise. To look at coop research it seem blindingly obvious that they should have known more about it, but the procedures (information passing, cross-checking visas and the delayed checks of the watch-list) show that the intelligence gathering agencies were NOT working efficiently. But so far I still haven't see anything that suggests MIHOP or LIHOP. While I agree that politicians in general and leaders in particular are quite capable of accepting large number of casualties in the pursuit of their goals, there seems little to suggest any more than a series of cock-ups in this case.fela fan said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
fela fan said:
Leaving aside your assumptions that elites are homogenous, and your misrepresentation of my position on whether the idea was seeded (I was responding specifically to someone else's post), you need to find a more convincing motive for THIS administration specifically to allow this to happen.
The 'PNAC gives it away' argument has been shown to be false (the two pertinent quotations being taken from different essays, one with absolutely no relevance whatsoever to foreign policy); your comments are general rather than specific - they're powerful ergo they must have done it; you provide no convincing argument, support or evidence for motive beyond those general comments about killing overseas people (a very different prospect politically and for many a different prospect morally as well) etc.
Iraq wasn't the motive - the plans were already advanced and the intel smokescreen probably planned, but Bush was able to take advantage of a temporary new bogeyman (the Taliban); it also gave the US to test new tech (such as UAVs) before Iraq.
Afghanistan is a resource poor country; up until 9/11 the US, and the Bush administration, had never given a hint that despite the privations of the Taliban that they were interested in liberating the place, so why set up or allow to happen something that gave no long term strategic advantage, diverted resources and materiel from the main game and also led to the US fighting two assymetric wars at the same time? Al-Q (or the loose knit network that was to be called Al-Q) was to all intents and purposes a busted flush and seemingly no threat to the US - which is one of the reasons that from the outset the NSA under Rice regarded Islamist focussed intel as minor?
For all the research you've done on that website, these are questions that you haven't answered or in many cases attempted to answer, merely deflected them with stock responses about intel fatigue, how *that* much evidence *surely* means that it was LIHOP.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Bob Woodward makes it a central theme of his last book, which was serialised in the Washington Post, and quoted extensively in the UK and around Europe.
Once again, you make assumptions about what has and hasn't been reported outside of Thailand.
kyser_soze said:
Well mate, i'm at a disadvantage these days. I've not only researched that website, but i've done a lot of other reading down the years, books and ohter printed articles that is. And you're right in my general assertions, and this is where my disadvantage comes in: firstly my memory for details is not so good any more, and secondly i've never been a very good collator of stuff. Hence everything i read is subject to memory decay in not such a long time. However i did do a fair job, for me, in the last few years, but then a few months ago it all got zapped into the cyber ether when i lost my whole hard drive's contents. I used to be able to at least answer a few things before the big zap.
I'm often on these threads to try and show up the accusations of those who deried the 'cters' as relating to themselves too.
And to be honest, i no longer care about wanting the truth to out. The world is going insane, and i just wanna remain sane in it.
WouldBe said:
Yes i did the same in my first flying lesson.
And, which hijacker landed a plane on that day?? None of them. Landing a plane on a runway is not the same as being able to smash it into a plane at high speed. Landing speed is not the same as smashing into building speed.
Similar threads
