Funny how one's feelings often do not reflect what is actual true!
Bozzio wrote:
Why not admit that you rely on exactly the same information as I about how a building should collapse or indeed how the WTC towers were constructed and behaved structurally.
What information? I have not seen any information that details how WTC should have collapsed under such conditions as they did.
Bozzio wrote:
This just reaffirms my point; when critics of conpiracy theories are also at a loss to explain problems in a story they just reinvent the rule book or start pushing pointless theories about pattern recognition and such like.
Do they? I haven?t noticed.
No one has produced any evidence to say that the WTC should or should not have collapsed the way that they did under the circumstances. Unless we have some verifiable tests done to show how the building should have behaved anybody making claims as to whether or not the building?s collapse was natural quite literal does not know what they are talking about. So, I reiterate my point; you need some verifiable facts to make such claims!
Vortex wrote:The number of posters who seem to be expert architects is stunning ... the buildings should have fallen up/sideways/in a spiral ... but certainly not the way that they did. I doubt these people are even vaguely qualified to make any asessments of building construction or collapse dynamics.
Hi Vortex,
I used to be an architect, does that help?
Oh, and type sqib into Wikipedia and see what you get.
Before you leave this debate and I do hope you are not leaving this forum altogether, you might like to check out this book "The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions" by David Ray Griffin which exposes using calm, sensible and logical research and thinking hundreds of annomolies with the official story. No nuttiness is expressed either.
Vortex, I hope you will continue to post and not call it a day......
We need discussion on these issues and achieve little without discussion. My previous post was in retrospect maybe a tad hash, so apologies if it caused any upset. You make some valid points that should not be ignored.
As for my own views on 911, I would say I am still open minded on it and am not convinced either way. I don't understand why WTC7 fell but I probably need to read more on the explanations.
It was certainly an earth shattering event for most of us and I remember being glued to the TV from 7pm to midnight for 5 nights in a row following the catastrophe.
But, in this day and age there is so much is at stake especially regarding energy. Reports and plans that various US political New World people had already published prior to 911, make it easy to see why so many thinking people conclude that we are not being told the truth by our Governments. One only has to look back at history to see what the Americans have got up to in the past - that was always denied at the time, to see that the truth is often witheld. Also their Foreigh Policy has swayed back and forth, between supporting various countries and dictators over the last 50 or 60 years, to an amazing extent.
People then try to understand and explain why certain events occured. If the official explanation leaves questions unanswered, then people will come up with their own conclusions. These may be right or wrong. I doubt they are ever 100% right or 100% wrong.
One thing you and Bozzio have in common is that you care! One thing you and I have in common, we both like bold!
Hope you didn't mean that you were leaving the forum when said you were going to call it a day. You're quite a fiesty fella and it would be too peaceful around here without you!
MacG wrote:
and the recognition is based on previous experiences. ... Pattern recognition *not* based on previous experiences would have been weeded out by evolution on the single cell stadies...
I disagree, to me evolution would select pattern recognition generally, not with the precondition of having to have had past experience. To our ancestors, erroneously recognising a non-existent danger is better than not recognising a real danger. Would our ancestors fail to recognise a man-eating tiger simply because they had no past experience of one?
Now it's me who disagree! Evolution is a tough bitch. Brings out the best in all of us. Pattern recognition which gives to many false positives would exhaust the host, and such systems would be weeded out. A couple of false posistives are better than one false negative, but if the false posistives get overwhelming, the host get paralyzed and unable to function. I'm pretty sure our systems are pretty well tuned - to a tribal life as hunter-gatherer-scavengers.
Vortex wrote: bozzio, are you perchance a male, under say 25, single, not very sporty, with quite a lot of spare time and a fairly thin social life? I bet you raise the WTC7 issue in many conversations each week. If you have time you'll probably show your chemical expertise (?) by discussing "cold" acetone peroxide explosions on 7/7. You might even bring in the theory that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile or perhaps the plane was under remote control. And don't forget the SAS caught in a "booby trapped" car in Basra
Please! I enjoy a good argument just as much as the other guy, but this particular passage feel a bit uncomfortable. Way to much ad hominem for my taste. Get bad taste in the mouth from seeing such a thing just hanging there. Sure, it did not come from a clear sky, there was some escalation involving other parties leading up to it, but anyhow... Would it be possible to find a way to actually discuss things like these? Or are we doomed to treat eachother as heretics?
MacG wrote:
and the recognition is based on previous experiences. ... Pattern recognition *not* based on previous experiences would have been weeded out by evolution on the single cell stadies...
I disagree, to me evolution would select pattern recognition generally, not with the precondition of having to have had past experience. To our ancestors, erroneously recognising a non-existent danger is better than not recognising a real danger. Would our ancestors fail to recognise a man-eating tiger simply because they had no past experience of one?
Now it's me who disagree! Evolution is a tough bitch. Brings out the best in all of us. Pattern recognition which gives to many false positives would exhaust the host, and such systems would be weeded out. A couple of false posistives are better than one false negative, but if the false posistives get overwhelming, the host get paralyzed and unable to function. I'm pretty sure our systems are pretty well tuned - to a tribal life as hunter-gatherer-scavengers.
I wouldn?t see that as a disagreement, I quite agree with that.
No, I'm not sat here seething over the heated debate of the past two days but thought some people might like to read this article in The Guardian today. It's not about PO and is about July 7th and conspiracy theories.
Bozzio wrote:No, I'm not sat here seething over the heated debate of the past two days but thought some people might like to read this article in The Guardian today. It's not about PO and is about July 7th and conspiracy theories.
Could someone give a credible link to a followup on the failed bombings a week later? Wikipedia only state that the perps are "held by the police". Whatever happened? Any CCTV images released? Who were they? Any tech info released? Similar explosive tech? Anything?
MacG wrote:
Could someone give a credible link to a followup on the failed bombings a week later? Wikipedia only state that the perps are "held by the police". Whatever happened? Any CCTV images released? Who were they? Any tech info released? Similar explosive tech? Anything?
From memory...
Same sort of explosive, home made, except it had 'gone off'. Apparently its unstable. Use it or lose it, and the batch used by the second bombers was too old. If it gets too old it wont go bang.
Thats all I remember. No links. Some CCTV images were released so you should be able to find them if you look hard enough.
Vortex wrote:
As for the Air Traffic Control confusion, don't forget that something like this had never happened before ... what would YOU have done if 4 planes went "off the air", but hadn't crashed? It would seem like a series of hijacks ... but nobody would be expecting suicide crashes.
Lets rely on what we personally actually know has happened before.
QUESTION
Looking back in history when was the first time that you can recall planes being used as bombs?
Clue number one - There have been countless hollywood films about it
Clue number two - It wasn't 9/11
Now, does it seem likely to you that the military/government/air traffic control didn't know that it could happen and had no sort of even vague plan for how to deal with that sort of emergency or tiny possibility? We already know that "terrorists" like to highjack planes (and that they are the current new enemy) - remember Lockabie - that was nasty terrorists wasn't it?
Pippa wrote:Tactics - never heard of them! (honest)
There is plenty of evidence to show that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) did not have full control of that day due to confusion over what was real and what was imaginary. To make matters worse, the person in charge of the FAA on 9/11 was Ben Sliney and it was his first day in the job although there is nothing to suggest that he was incompetent, just a point to bear in mind.
On 9/11 there were about 15 different exercises being run by the military and Pentagon which made assessing and separating the real time issues of that event more difficult. Michael Rupert, senior peak oil activist and author of the From the wilderness website details this issue in his book 'Crossing the Rubicon....'. A summary of the book and the exercises can be found here
War games & terror drills included live-fly exercises with military aircraft posing as hijacked aircraft over the United States, as well as simulated exercises that placed "false blips" (radar injects indicating virtual planes) on FAA radar screens. One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn't stop 9/11.
Tim Roemer was the only Commissioner to pose a question about military exercises running on the morning of 9/11. He opened by making reference to an 8:38 FAA communication to NEADS regarding a hijacked aircraft headed to New York. The response from NEADS was, "Is this real world or an exercise?" FAA response was, "No, this is not an exercise, not a test."
Pippa wrote:Tactics - never heard of them! (honest)
There is plenty of evidence to show that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) did not have full control of that day due to confusion over what was real and what was imaginary. To make matters worse, the person in charge of the FAA on 9/11 was Ben Sliney and it was his first day in the job although there is nothing to suggest that he was incompetent, just a point to bear in mind.
On 9/11 there were about 15 different exercises being run by the military and Pentagon which made assessing and separating the real time issues of that event more difficult. Michael Rupert, senior peak oil activist and author of the From the wilderness website details this issue in his book 'Crossing the Rubicon....'. A summary of the book and the exercises can be found here
War games & terror drills included live-fly exercises with military aircraft posing as hijacked aircraft over the United States, as well as simulated exercises that placed "false blips" (radar injects indicating virtual planes) on FAA radar screens. One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn't stop 9/11.
Tim Roemer was the only Commissioner to pose a question about military exercises running on the morning of 9/11. He opened by making reference to an 8:38 FAA communication to NEADS regarding a hijacked aircraft headed to New York. The response from NEADS was, "Is this real world or an exercise?" FAA response was, "No, this is not an exercise, not a test."
Ahww...
This is becoming to complex. I dont see how activists could reach into details like these. I'll stay with the dead simple unanswered questions (in order of relevance):
1) Building 7? Eh? One freakin big question that is!
2) Free fall speed of WTC 1,2 and 7. Just cant make ends meet-
3) Inconsistencies at the Pentagon.
4) Quoe Bono? Not any ragheads in caves in Afghanistan, that's for sure!
I prefer to leave it as questions. I have no idea whatsoever about who screwed up what. It could be simple insurance fraud. Buildings like these might be wired and charged for demolition all the time. The owners might want to be able to control the fate of the buildings to avoid damage claims from neighbourghs. I dont know. It's just open questions.
And then there were those exercises apparently being carried out in the London tube stations on 7/7.
Bozzio wrote,
"It was very interesting to note that on that day, at exactly the same time, there was an exercise being undertaken which simulated the exact same attacks on the exact same tube stations. I wonder what the mathematical probability of these two events happening together was? Strange how 9/11 also saw up to 15 military exercises being performed on that day, confusing the whole event for all those who were in control of the skies - skies that remained undefended for up to one and a half hours in a country with the most advanced military technology in the world."
