patrick.net

where was the strategic air command?

coriacci1 says

where was the strategic air command?

Where exactly do you expect it to be?

I've seen the tape from the pentagon security camera on the web. It wasn't hard to find. I find it hard to believe you weren't able to locate it. Due to the extreme speed of the plane, the wings were instantly folded back and crushed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The most important and secure building in the world, and the only video is 5 frames from a parking gate camera. I'm not talking about that video; we all saw it.

And no, the wings were not instantly folded back. I'm going to leave you there.

I for one, am absolutely certain hijackers flew airplanes into World Trade Centers 1 and 2. Having said that...it's a bit out of the box, but what if it weren't a long, laborious process to arrange a building demolition - but a matter of hours. I would say such technology is inevitable wouldn't you? Yet such a question frames the whole argument. Can you not imagine any reasons for destroying a sensitive financial or government-occupied facility, rather than leaving it exposed and wide open to thousands of rescuers, fireman, policeman, and low ranking military personnel?

What do you suppose the final line of defense of the Pentagon would be, if it were overrun by an enemy, for example? I imagine they would want it destroyed completely. I'm just throwing it out there, because I for one, refuse to look at every issue from only two points of view. There are always alternatives.

Automan Empire says

The most important and secure building in the world, and the only video is 5 frames from a parking gate camera. I'm not talking about that video; we all saw it.

I'll be sure to ask the hijackers to fly the plane slower next time so the camera can pick up more frames. What video were you expecting to see, and what would it contain? You mean the one with George Bush saying, "Ah planned the whole thing, heh, heh."? No matter what evidence you are given, you will always claim there should be more.

And no, the wings were not instantly folded back. I'm going to leave you there.

Oh, right - because it was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people, none of whom has ever talked about it. Sorry, I forgot.

coriacci1 says

where was the strategic air command?

In your ass, troll.

Probably the most conclusive evidence for there being a conspiracy to bring down the towers outside of OBL's guys is this: in a democracy, it's very hard to go to war. You can't just declare war on an unsuspecting country by fiat, and expect the populace to go for it. In both world wars, America was late in coming to the party because there was no desire for war among the general populace. We had to be seriously provoked (also debatable if those actions were legit) to get us to sign off on a war. In WWI, the Germans were set up to seem like they were trying to get Mexico to go to war against the US, and equip the Mexicans with guns as well. Then congress declared war.
In WWII we had pearl harbor, an event which enraged the populace and inspired warlike feelings. There are still serious questions about how the US government may have conspired to either encourage the japanese to do this or been so neglectful that it sort of had to happen.
So what's a bunch of warmongering power brokers to do when they really want to invade the middle east but need to persuade the public of that necessity?
Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."

Quigley says

in a democracy, it's very hard to go to war. You can't just declare war on an unsuspecting country by fiat, and expect the populace to go for it. In both world wars, America was late in coming to the party because there was no desire for war among the general populace.

You're joking, right? Populations can be easily led into wars by a bit of sabre rattling and media manipulation, most especially when said war doesn't actually involve anybody but the military having to fight. Look at the UK with the Falklands and Iraq. And it's not as if the general public actually has to get out of bed and vote on whether or not to go to war.

Bap33 says

I just want to point out that the same weight was there all the time. It does not matter if the upper "X" number of floors are 1,000' high, or if they are squished down to 20' high, they still only weigh as much as "X" number of floors.

Same mass, not the same force or energy. If one floor fails, and all the floors above it free-fall for 10 feet, and then are suddenly decelerated by the intact floor below, there will be a tremendous downward force.

Drop a bowling ball on your foot from 10 feet. How bad does it hurt? Rest the same bowling ball on top of your foot -- not so bad, huh?

lol .. I know. Really, I do. I was just fartin with Homeboy, but he's got his head stuffed in his ass too deep to see I was just poking fun. So to speak.

But, the falling building is awefully fast for there not to be some possible ground prep-work involved. I say if there was any help on the ground, it was all OBL, not GWB.

Quigley says

So what's a bunch of warmongering power brokers to do when they really want to invade the middle east but need to persuade the public of that necessity?
Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."

You're kidding, right? If you were going to orchestrate a phony attack as a pretext to invade Iraq, wouldn't you make it look like Iraq did it? Why would you make it look like guys from Saudi Arabia? Sorry but that's about the silliest theory I've ever heard.

Bap33 says

lol .. I know. Really, I do. I was just fartin with Homeboy, but he's got his head stuffed in his ass too deep to see I was just poking fun. So to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/v/JwRcbHtq2Ts&start=16

For what its worth, I happen to work in the new 7 World Trade and I don't know anyone in the building who believes any of the conspiracy rubbish. It's fun to read, though--kind of like hearing people in flyover country panicking about terrorism back in the Bush years.

Speaking of which, how is it that people in New York, the only place to actually suffer foreign terrorist attacks, took it cool and just got on with their lives while people at no real risk at all pulled the country into 8 years of "war on terror" imbecility? Just like when they planned to build that Muslim community center around the corner and idiots from all over the country came to protest while New Yorkers were like "WTF? Who gives a crap?"

Sometimes I think the Northeast should secede and form a new, intelligent country while the red states can do whatever the hell they want with their guns and baby Jesus. I can live without corn.

I would miss "Carhenge", though.

interested?

Join us for Groundbreaking 9/11 Anniversary Events
in New York, California and Maryland, September 8-12

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Bap33 says

But, the falling building is awefully fast for there not to be some possible ground prep-work involved. I say if there was any help on the ground, it was all OBL, not GWB.

So this time are you going to act like you're serious again and then when someone shows how wrong you are, pretend you were "just kidding around"? LOL

coriacci1 says

where was the strategic air command?

DIsbanded in 1992 after the end of the cold war. I'm sure that GWB arranged SAC to be disbanded while he was managing the Texas Rangers because when the secret cabal that really runs the country put him in office to attack the twin towers he didn't want SAC to interfere. I'm also sure if I click my heels three times I'll be back in Kansas.

coriacci1 says

interested?

Join us for Groundbreaking 9/11 Anniversary Events

in New York, California and Maryland, September 8-12

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I think you need help. Medical help.

thank you for the the detail. but you know what I meant. what about norad?

Homeboy says

Bap33 says

But, the falling building is awefully fast for there not to be some possible ground prep-work involved. I say if there was any help on the ground, it was all OBL, not GWB.

So this time are you going to act like you're serious again and then when someone shows how wrong you are, pretend you were "just kidding around"? LOL

my good man, have you never spent time on you-tube, reading and watching what the loons dream up that so desperatly want the whole thing to be an inside job by Repulican Americans? If you did/do, you will find they list such things as I have. THey also suggest the planes were just computer generated images. Really weird stuff.

You are getting a stiffy at the thought of having "proved me wrong" on a sentence I told you was not of my thought process nor belief system. I was jesting. What more does it take? You are jumping up and down with glee, not realizing that you are the only one on my side, or shall I say, the side of "reason", that bothers to take these loones serious. You are just as funny as they are. now. LMAO

Now, on the more serious point, how can OBL ground-work be disproved?

Bap33 says

Homeboy says

and the immense weight of the structure caused each floor to successively collapse as all that weight bore down on it

I just want to point out that the same weight was there all the time. It does not matter if the upper "X" number of floors are 1,000' high, or if they are squished down to 20' high, they still only weigh as much as "X" number of floors.

Homeboy said it was due to weight. He was wrong.
Bap33 pointed out weight did not change (other than plane weight minus exploded building and plane mass). He was right.
Homeboy then realized he needed to talk about force and velocity, not mass, so as to explain the energy realeased.
Bap33 laughed and said, "ya, no shit Sherlock, I was just playing along with the loones".
Homeboy does not accept this obvious fact, and does a TouchDown celebration in the endzone ... on a filed with nobody else there ... and an empty grandstand ... in the dark .... ya, you go boy! LMAO

p.s., the weight (that you mentioned) didn't change. Deal with it. If not, then, "the immense weight of the structure caused each floor to successively collapse as all that weight bore down on it" would have resulted in collaps on the day they completed the top floor, or if it was due to the additional weight from the plane contact then it would have happened right afier contact, and not an hour later.

p.s.s Mass accellerated by gravity falls toward the center of earth at 32.2 feet per second, per second. Force is Mass times Velocity. To find the work done look at the time/distance ratio. Don't forget to add the mass increased as the building collapse point moves lower and the pancake area collects more rubble. It is impressive to see just how much work was done to collapse the lower 50 floors so quickly, huh? Good day.

Wow, Bap33 flipped out.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/y5amSe9HlCM

And still trying to argue that stupid point. At least the other conspiracy loons have the balls to take a stand instead of faking they were just "playing along".

The world is flat stupid!

For me, mechanical engineer, involved in NYC high rise commercial real estate development and maintenance, it was obvious from day-one that buildings had controlled demolishing.
Answer; why?, came years later.

Actually, I'm the world's foremost authority on controlled demolitions, and I can tell you positively that those were not controlled demolitions.

Again the world is flat!

Homeboy says

Actually, I'm the world's foremost authority on controlled demolitions, and I can tell you positively that those were not controlled demolitions.

Can you tell the same with building #7 Collapsed in the same way. Magic?

I had an opportunity to meet Mr. Silverstein a few weeks after. He appears to be excited and happy.

Zlxr says

Follow the Money

Larry Silverstein was only leasing the buildings. But he had special Terrorist Insurance.

I question why he was the one paid Billions since the insurance had to pay twice since it was considered 2 incidents since 2 planes. He got legal help to force the insurance companies to pay double.

Why wasn't the owner of the buildings paid? Or was he?
Also Mr. Silverstein said that he made the decision to "pull" building number 7. It came down awfully fast and the explosives would have had to have been set previously.

Don't you have to get permission to set explosives in a building if you are only leasing it? What's going on and what does the original owner have to say about it?

If Mr. Silverstein rebuilds these buildings - do they now belong to him or to the original owner?

I also heard that there were important records stored in the buildings or parts of buildings that were destroyed.

I don't suppose that Enron or World Com or the Pentagon had anything to hide.

Did you have your tin foil hat on when you wrote that?

REpro says

I had an opportunity to meet Mr. Silverstein a few weeks after. He appears to be excited and happy.

That's impossible, because he was at my house drinking beer. And he told me he didn't talk to you.

REpro says

Homeboy says

Actually, I'm the world's foremost authority on controlled demolitions, and I can tell you positively that those were not controlled demolitions.

Can you tell the same with building #7 Collapsed in the same way. Magic?

I headed the investigation on Building 7. It collapsed because the structure was weakened due to debris hitting it and from fire. It might seem like magic if you're an idiot, but it wasn't.

Fox it up, they don't call it programming for nuttin homey!

coriacci1 says

thank you for the the detail. but you know what I meant. what about norad?

Norad pre 9/11 only tracked inbound nuclear warheads and drug smugglers in light planes. United Airlines commercial boeing jets don't qualify on either count.

Do you ever read anything other than 911truth.org?

Zlxr says

Follow the Money

Larry Silverstein was only leasing the buildings. But he had special Terrorist Insurance.

I question why he was the one paid Billions since the insurance had to pay twice since it was considered 2 incidents since 2 planes. He got legal help to force the insurance companies to pay double.

Why wasn't the owner of the buildings paid? Or was he?

Wow, don't bother with facts much do you?

Special terrorist insurance? It was part of the policy, nothing special about it.

Paid double? Final payment May 2007 4.55 billion, no double payment.

The owner of the property was the Port Authority. Silverstein was leasing. The terms of his lease make him on responsible for rebuilding to the tune of about 7.5 billion, which is why he gets the insurance. Tough to pay 7.5 out of 4.55 billion insurance payment. Politico's are still jerking around with what to build and how Silverstein is going to finance it.

Whoops, didn't finish typing before submitting.

Paid double? Not really, the 25 insurance companies were separated into 2 groups depending on the language on the policy. One group of 11 was found to only owe one occurence by the policy, this group held be bulk of the insurance liability. The other 14 lessor companies owed double. The face total value on the policies was 3.55 billion, the payout was 4.55 billion so the excess for the double payout was 1 billion.

Homeboy says

It collapsed because the structure was weakened due to debris hitting it and from fire. It might seem like magic if you're an idiot, but it wasn't.

Hahahahaha Very funny.

Zlxr says

With regards to records missing in the fires etc. I did see a video where Rumsfeld said there was $5 billion missing from the Pentagon just before 9/11. And then Lo and Behold something hit the Pentagon and destroyed part of it. I heard it was the Accounting Dept. Well that would be the easy way to get rid of all the Accounting Errors - If that is really what happened.

If the FBI had offices in the Twin Towers - it stands to reason that something got destroyed. Did each individual tenant also have to have terrorist insurance to cover their losses (body losses and loss of data). How can they follow up on investigations if they don't have their data anymore? Or do they save every little bit of info offsite somewhere? And do all the investigators record their thoughts every day as well?

Obviously you've never heard of off site backup. It's been around a very long time. Where do you work that doesn't back up their data and store copies off site?

Of course tenants have insurance, why would anyone even ask such a question? There isn't terrorism insurance. You add a terrorism endorsement to your regular insurance policy. Standard stuff.

Zlxr says

I didn't say I knew everything - but when one leases a building - doesn't it still belong to the original owner? Therefore - why wasn't the money given to the original owner to decide how to rebuild the building? Even if Silverstein is required to buy insurance - wouldn't he still owe the owner since it happened on his watch

http://www.answers.com/topic/larry-silverstein

It depends on what is in the lease. Obviously rebuilding was in Silverman's lease. Silverman and Port Authority renegotiated the lease in 2006 so the Silverman would build 3 buildings on the edge of the property and the PA built a tower. It was in all the papers, did you not catch it?

I have to ask, are you a college student or something? Your questions about what are common business practices indicate you've never worked day to day as a business person. There's nothing at all sinister or unusual anywhere in all this.

Jesus Christ! You guys have it all wrong.

The towers were brought down by a Decepticon attack lead by Starscream. Megatron wanted to use the towers as a space bridge to Cybertron to transfer the energon that Swindle obtained from the Iraq War. Luckily the Autobots managed to stop them before the space bridge was opened.

Zlxr says

If building 7 fell down by itself - then why did Mr. Silverstein say that he made the decision to "pull it"?

I don't know if you are just screwing around here, but on the off chance you are actually serious, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that Silverstein faked the 9/11 attacks, and that it wasn't actually terrorists who did it? Or are you saying that he somehow had the building he was leasing wired with explosives for no particular reason, and so he just happened to be able to blow it up when the terrorists attacked? And then are you saying he first admitted that he blew up the building when he said he told them to "pull it", but then later claimed that wasn't what he meant? If this was some sort of insurance scam, why would he admit it and then turn around and deny it?

Your theory makes absolutely no sense.

Zlxr says

I'm not saying Silverstein faked 9/11. All I'm saying is that according to a video I saw where he said he made the decision to pull the building because of the damage - and because it was a little late to go into the building and set up the explosives on 9/11 - that they must have set up the explosives ahead of time. Or he needs a better explanation of what exactly he did. Generally demolition experts don't go into burning buildings to set explosives. Everybody who is guilty almost always says they didn't do it. So - what - now we just take their word for it?

So then what are you saying? Are you saying he teamed up with bin Laden so he could get insurance money? Then why bother to fly planes into the buildings? Why not just blow them up and say bin Laden did it? And AGAIN you have not answered the question of why Silverstein would ADMIT he blew up the buildings after he did it.

It just doesn't seem like you're thinking this through. "I saw a video on the internet" isn't necessarily a good reason to believe something ridiculous.

Zlxr says

I don't know why you're going on about how there would have to be thousands of people in on it if it "was an inside job". Why would you say that and then believe that OBL and 20 guys or so could do it better?

I didn't say it would take thousands of people to destroy the buildings; I said 1,000's would have to be in on it. All the occupants, firefighters, police, engineers, inspectors, politicians, etc. who would have to be involved in order to pull off a controlled demolition with a terrorist attack as a ruse, would number in the thousands.

And again, if Silverstein gave an order to demolish the building, why would he admit that to the whole world?