|
New site? Maybe some day. 
|
|
i love how the political threads never stop popping up. I predict name calling and insult throwing at its finest. |
|
|
i dont care.
if you havent watched it watch it... the guy is talking about how the world trade center and building 7 may have been delmolished since steel building wont collapse like that from a fire. like a big case of insurance fraud. check it. |
|
|
this is like a 10 minute section of that other 911 conspiracy video |
|
|
sorry? i probably didnt see it... |
|
|
Steel doesn't snap from just a fire. Steel does, however, warp from fire. That's what caused the towers to collapse. The fire didn't break the steel; it caused structural instability.
Building 7 collapsed because if you have two giant buildings collapse right next to a much smaller building, you're bound to have multiple building fragments collide and destroy the infrastructure of the smaller building. Not to mention the fact that all the WTC buildings were connected through an underground parking lot. So, with the parking lot underneath the buildings demolished, it's no surprise that building 7 collapsed. |
|
|
The towers were designed to take the impact of multiple 747 planes, not just one. This was specifically stated by the architects.
Also anyone that's ever smashed anything knows you gotta attack the base to knock the whole thing down. |
|
|
i just watched about 10 minutes of this. this guy is guilty of the same garbage michael moore is, passing conjecture and hearsay off as factual statistics, and manipulating the truth. You need a permit to video tape in the subway. You just do. I video taped on the north quincy t platform and a t cop asked me for a permit, then asked me to put my camera away. i hardly considered myself a political prisoner afterwards. |
|
|
Questions that need to be answered:
"Why was Dick Cheney in charge of NORAD on 9/11?
Why did the 9/11 commission OMITT any reference to building 7 falling on 9/11?
Why were George Bush, and Dick Cheney allowed to testify without being under oath for the 9/11 commission?
Why were so many trades made days before the events on 9/11 that involved pulling money OUT of American Airlines stock?
Why did Condoleezza Rice warn the mayor of LA not to fly on 9/11?" |
|
|
i didnt watch this but im betting its alex jones or something like that. |
|
|
I actually have the DVD...there are parts of it that are interesting. And then there's a ton of other stuff where he's just jumping to all sorts of conclusions from pieces of interesting evidence.
I don't know, it does raise interesting questions. |
|
|
sean: howd u guess that? :P
brian:think everyone should watch it?
i havent seen many documentaries on 911 but i still really can see this not being some kind of conspiracy. maybe not exactly what this dude or that dude says, but, something along the lines. |
|
|
With regards to NORAD, from Popular Mechanics:
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them. |
| Why were so many trades made days before the events on 9/11 that involved pulling money OUT of American Airlines stock? |
So what? Do we know who pulled those stocks? Isn't it common knowledge that plenty of islamofascists are also wealthy businessmen? Wouldn't they know about 9/11 ahead of time and simulatneously want to pull their stocks so they wouldn't lose any money from it? Just because stocks were pulled does not mean the government was involved in those stocks.
| Why were George Bush, and Dick Cheney allowed to testify without being under oath for the 9/11 commission? |
I'm not expert of legal procedures, so maybe someone can corroborate this for me. Does taking the oath mean that your testimony is recorded? If that were the case, then why would any president just willingly give testimony involving the very infrastructure of our defense systems when it would be made public? |
|
|
sxealex said: sean: howd u guess that? :P
brian:think everyone should watch it?
i havent seen many documentaries on 911 but i still really can see this not being some kind of conspiracy. maybe not exactly what this dude or that dude says, but, something along the lines. |
I think that if more people watched it it would be a good thing. At least to open people up to the dialogue that maybe we shouldn't just believe the stories that are force-fed to us. Should they believe Alex Jones' story? No, pretty much no. But another perspective isn't a bad thing as long as you take it for that. |
|
|
And, with regards to building collapse, also from Popular Mechanics:
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. |
|
|
|
sxealex said: sean: howd u guess that? :P
brian:think everyone should watch it?
i havent seen many documentaries on 911 but i still really can see this not being some kind of conspiracy. maybe not exactly what this dude or that dude says, but, something along the lines. |
i watched a few of his things before and the way everyone was talking about the person, i figured it had to be him. esp with the comment about him being more out there then michael moore, cause that was my thought about him when i watched those videos. he does have some interesting points he usually makes but he's way too out there for most people. |
|
|
This was horrible. The guy is annoying, I kept waiting for him to talk about body slamming Randy Savage or something, he sounds just like an annoying 'roid freak wrestler. Or one of those dicks selling stupid shit on TV at 4am.
This was a little too ridiculous for me. I am well convinced 9/11 could have been prevented, but I don't buy into the whole Bush and Osama got together and planned this for corporate gain thing. |
|
|
The first thing that response to Popular Mechanics says is that PM used "straw man arguments." That's not true at all, whatsoever. Those claims are repeatedly made by multiple movies, and are repeated ver batim (spellcheck) on a daily basis by the fringe left. To say these are silly arguments that PM cherry picked just to look smart is, in itself, ludicrous. |
|
|
The first argument about the pod makes no sense. If you look at the picture that serendipity says PM uses (just to use serendipity's own argument against them), you can clearly see the anomoly that PM was discussing. PM also said that the expert they consulted concluded that the anomoly was a shadow. PM DID NOT, as serendipity claims, say that the expert neglected to see any anomoly at all.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=2&c=y
| After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching." |
|
|
|
Next, they try to dismiss PM by saying that for the NORAD story, they quoted a list of "experts" (their scare-quote, not mine). Well, gee, I guess quoting a NORAD official isn't expert-like enough.
And, when it tries to highlight a piece of NORAD's mission statement, it neglected to highlight the right part.
| NORAD continuously provides worldwide detection, validation and warning of an aerospace attack on North America and maintains continental aerospace control |
It does worldwide detection specifically because it looks for outward threats (Pre-9/11, anyway).
Then serendipity goes on to review the official plan for dealing with hijacked aircraft, as if that will somehow prove the sinister motive of PM covering up facts. Well, if you read the PM article, what they were talking about was the attempt by officials to follow the plan only to find that THEY FAILED. It wasn't an argument about policy. It was about how the federal beauracracy had failed us. This seemed to get ignored by serendipity. |
|
|
Then serendipity went onto the "window" argument. They reuse their belief that PM is cherry-picking straw man arguments that nobody really uses. When this article came out, that movie which was narrated by some hippie-looking Mr. Rogers wannabe used the windows claim as an argument. Granted, it wasn't as huge as the "pentagon has no debris" argument, but it was still argued by the main proponents of the fringe left.
However, since they didn't bother to really argue with PM's debunking of the window, they decided to attack FEMA by saying they faked a photo. To do so, they assumed, without any real evidence, that the two photos they compared were taken within minutes of each other. Since they then claimed that objects were conspiculously missing from the first photograph (nevermind shadowing caused by different angles and the fact that smoke doesn't always float in solid one color blocks), and that the coloring was brighter in the first photo (nevermind lighting angles and where the sun was at the time of each photo; oh wait, they must have been from the same time because they said so!) that FEMA was in on the plot. Give me a break. |
|
|
One more for the night.
PM talks about the one interception of a civilian aircraft in the decade before 9/11. Serendipity says that 67 incidents of interception occured. But they lump interception with alerts. They even admit that they're only "assuming" that intercepts were involved. Maybe a radio malfunction, guys? They also assume that all these flights were civilian. What about commercial or cargo planes? Then they quote some guy writing a letter talking about how practice procedures were commonplace for these kinds of incidents. Then he really goes loony when he says
Thousands of sorties run in response to threats, practice runs, false alarms, done weekly or daily over 20 years. Back in the late seventies the NY Post ran an article about the Port Authority bragging how their manned 24/7 response helicopter would be in the air within 4 minutes of an alert call going out per possible air threat to the WTC towers.
There is [only] one occasion that I am aware of, or in most probabilities that any one else is aware of, in this exemplary record of response to air threats covering a period of over twenty years that the intercepts did not launch and were told to stand down, after going on high alert within a minute or two of the threat, not from just one threat but then two. That date was 9/11/01. |
Where the hell did he manage to jump from point A to point B in that argument? Once again, the reason NORAD screwed up was precisely that: IT SCREWED UP. |
|
|
I stopped reading that article because 99% of all the links serendipity provided for a reference either linked to another serendipity article or an article on another conspiracy website. Thats usually a good sign that they never really checked anything they put up there. |
 
| [default homepage]
|
[print][ | 9:29:36pm Apr 27,2024
load time 0.03784 secs/12 queries] | [search] | [refresh page] |
|
