There was an article in Maxim just months (maybe a year) before the attack that listed a few likely terror scenario's from a "CIA" source. One of the scenario's was hijacking planes and using them as weapons themselves.
Tom Clancy's "Debt Of Honor" in 1994 had a Japanese pilot flying a 747 into the White House.
After 9/11, the USA government asked Hollywood script writers to use their imaginations and come up with scenarios whereby America might be attacked by terrorists . . . . .
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Tom Clancy's "Debt Of Honor" in 1994 had a Japanese pilot flying a 747 into the White House.
After 9/11, the USA government asked Hollywood script writers to use their imaginations and come up with scenarios whereby America might be attacked by terrorists . . . . .
Cowperson
don't forget that the Simpsons had prior warning of 9/11 as the episode where Homer visits New York happened before the terrorist attack
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
This post is in regards to those that think the government knew an attack was coming but did nothing about it.
Of course they knew they were a target, there were several attacks and threats before 911. The fact they knew in advance was blatant and was never denied. What was not known was the date or the exact type of attack. Israel attempted on several occasions to tie in the rocket attacks in their own country with a wider terrorist threat, but the world calmly ignored them.
So if the government knew an attack was coming, without knowing the date or time or methodology, why didn't they at least do something? Because it took an event as catastrophic as 911 for the US to make moves to prevent major attacks from happening, and even with this history, there are people saying the government went to far. Go to Israel to see the extent a government will go to protect it's citizens.
Had 911 not happened, the people would have been against waiting in line at the airport a little longer, or having a watch list or the government listening to phone calls. The truther crowd in one sentence will say that the government did nothing prior to 911 and then follow up with how their rights are currently being taken away by the government.
To make this side of the world much more secure, I think the general public will think we have gone to far. And then another attack will happen, and we will bump our security up another notch. On it goes.
Tom Clancy's "Debt Of Honor" in 1994 had a Japanese pilot flying a 747 into the White House.
After 9/11, the USA government asked Hollywood script writers to use their imaginations and come up with scenarios whereby America might be attacked by terrorists . . . . .
Cowperson
There is also Black Sunday by Thomas Harris. Written in 1975.
Quote:
The first novel from the bestselling author of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, Black Sunday is the story of Michael Lander, the most dangerous man in America. He pilots a television blimp over packed football stadiums every weekend. He is fascinated with explosives. And he happens to be very, very crazy. That's why a beautiful PLO operative has seduced him. That's why, on Super Bowl Sunday, the world will witness the bloody assassination of the U.S. President and the worst mass murder in history. Unless someone discovers what Michael Lander plans and can kill him first. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
In regards to this debate... can there be any more of a tolerant person as someone who is skeptical of 9/11 et al conspiracy theories, yet time and time again, politely sits back and listens to the best arguments of the "truthers" only to interject now and then with a slight issue with one of the many glaring logical problem?
Honestly, I applaud many of you in this thread, I would have taken the ad hominem route on page 1.
Reading conspiracy theory posts are the best way to sharpen your logical fallacy skills. There is lots to choose from.
When I am responding to those posts I am not trying to convince the poster (although that would be ideal) but someone who is reading this thread and is on the fence. Truly believers are very hard to sway from their position for a number of reason. But there are always people on the fence.
Clancy know's alot of intelligence and military people, he must have some very interesting conversations around the pool table.
Clancy has had some interesting theories in his day, and a lot of them could in theory be based on real life events that either occured or occured after
Red Rabbit - The assasination of the Pope was facilitated by then KGB head Yuri Antropov in response to John Pauls support of the solidarity movement in Poland. He strung together the involvement of the KGB and Bulgerian Intelligence services based around the murder of Georgy Markov on the streets of London.
The Hunt for Red October - Could be based around the fire and destruction of a Soviet Golf Class Submarine off of the coast of Cuba, I believe B-103. There were conflicting thoughts that this sub was either trying to defect and sank by its political officer, or it was being used by the KGB to launch a nuclear warhead at the U.S. to provoke a war between America and China
Cardinal of the Kremlin - The main spy Character was probably based losely around a KGB agent named Dmitri Polyakov who was executed by the KGB for spying on the Soviet Military for the CIA.
The Sum of all Fears - Based around the real life Rumor that Israel had lost a nuclear weapon during the 7 day war (I think)
Debt of Honor - The suicide crash enough said there.
He does some interesting research, Red Storm Rising which he wrote in conjunction with another excellent writer Larry Bond is probably the best theoretical WW3 book that I've ever read.
The other interesting Tidbit was that Clancy was called into a presidential briefing after the publication of the Hunt for Red October and he's disclosed very little about that conversation.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
This is the root of many problems, and again is a well known cognitive bias. We but FAR too much trust in our mental models of the world around us. In the same way that Newton's theory of gravity only works with specific ranges of reality, our mental models of reality are informed by a limited subset of reality.
This is because evolved and grew up dealing with situations where the material strength far exceeds the stresses placed on that material by gravity and mass (for example). Our experiences do not equip our common sense to deal with extreme situations. This is easily seen by the hilarious videos on youtube where people try to move or lift heavy things.
This cannot be overstated, and this is why math is used to build buildings, not "I think this will work" guessing, and this is why math MUST be used to analyze the collapse of the structures as well.
VASTLY different. This is exactly what I mean, your experience is informed by small things, and you extrapolate (as any reasonable person would) out based on that. The problem is things don't extrapolate like that. Acceleration due to gravity is a square relationship. Mass and volume have a cube relationship. These aren't things we model very well mentally.
So in the case of the tops of the buildings, even though the planes were quite big and going quite fast, the actual energy involved still wasn't that big compared to the sheer inertia of the building. In order for something to tilt you have to overcome the inertia of the part that's tilting, and you have to have something rigid to support one side of the tilt as one side rotates and not the other.. the building was not designed so that the supports on one side of the building could fully support the weight of the above structure while the other side were 100% compromised (which is what would be required to have the top tilt). When the mass is so huge and the forces due to acceleration due to gravity dwarf all the other forces, straight down is pretty much the only option.
The structural strength of the lower 93rd floors is pretty much irrelevant in this case.
The reason the whole building collapsed is because one single floor collapsed, that's it. Again without math it's hard to understand because we don't usually deal with the kinds of forces involved in every day life, but this is one case where I can use an analogy that we do deal with.
Take a 25lb bag of sand. If I'm holding it in my arms, I'm stopping it falling right? That load on my arms is its static load. Now if I pass that to you and you take it, nothing bad happens because we do it in a way to make sure the dynamic load is minimized. But if I raise that bag 10 feet in the air and drop it
into your arms, are you going to try and catch it? Of course not, because you know the dynamic load is going to be enough to injure you.
So same thing here. We've got 14 floors of building putting a static load on the next floor down. The fires burn, steel weakens, the floor trusses expand and sag, and eventually enough structural integrity for one floor erodes that the top 14 floors drop. Once this happens it's all over, because remember the sandbag; the forces involved due to acceleration of that mass due to gravity FAR exceed the structural integrity of the next floor fully built.
I've worked through the math on this one myself and even taking into account the support of partially compromised steel supports, the dynamic load on the floor below as a result of the 14 floors above falling just one floor is more than 30 times the static load.
So unless the 92nd floor can support 30 times the force it normally has to deal with, it will collapse. It does, and its mass is added to the falling mass, the mass accelerates further through the 92nd floor, and the 91st floor has to deal with even MORE force, which it can't, etc etc..
Feynman said this: "One part of the force between moving charges we call the magnetic force. It is really one aspect of an electrical effect."
Magnetism is what you get when you combine electricity and special relativity. Lorenz transformations across inertial frames of reference and all that stuff I don't understand nearly as well as I wished.
You are good at math photon, but this entire post is garbage.
You know when a collapse happens, the falling material tends to take the path of least resistance. The floors beneath the impact point sure didn't put up much resistance, judging by the near free-fall speed of the collapse. The WTC7 collapse was confirmed (even by NIST) to be at free fall speed for 3.5-4 seconds. This is only possible if all support members below the impact point are taken out simultaneously.
Also, you don't find the symmetry of the "collapses" the least bit suspicious?
I'm not sure a "collapse" can laterally eject massive beams (weighing in the hundreds of tons) with such force as to embed them into neighboring buildings.
There are actual engineers/architects (Ron Avery, Richard Gage) that can break down this "collapse" for you, not that you will bother putting the time in to review it.
..and at the end of the day there was molten metal found in the rubble weeks after the event. This cannot be explained. Something has to produce the kind of heat to make that happen.
I just cannot believe people can look at the collapse of Building 7 and convince themselves that was the result of some magical combination of fire and some minor asymmetrical debris damage at ground level.
It is an insult to the media to call the crap you read "media".
Like any other cult, truthers build and reinforce delusions within their own small group.
The mainstream media laughs any talk of 9/11 conspiracy away.
Not once has any of the talking head morons who call themselves "journalists" actually had a debate on the facts with a qualified person like Richard Gage. All they do is put out crap articles here and there like Popular Mechanics did.......
If you think the mainstream media is so great, you should google "Operation Mockingbird". This happened many years ago, but to assume it doesn't happen today is sadly naive. News networks are funded by giant corporations who have their own interests.
An example of this is MSNBC, who is owned in part by General Electric. They manufacture parts for General Dynamics, which builds weapons and war machines....so why would their journalists be allowed to speak out against the war on terror? Kind of a conflict of interest.
You are good at math photon, but this entire post is garbage.
You know when a collapse happens, the falling material tends to take the path of least resistance. The floors beneath the impact point sure didn't put up much resistance, judging by the near free-fall speed of the collapse. The WTC7 collapse was confirmed (even by NIST) to be at free fall speed for 3.5-4 seconds. This is only possible if all support members below the impact point are taken out simultaneously.
Also, you don't find the symmetry of the "collapses" the least bit suspicious?
I'm not sure a "collapse" can laterally eject massive beams (weighing in the hundreds of tons) with such force as to embed them into neighboring buildings.
There are actual engineers/architects (Ron Avery, Richard Gage) that can break down this "collapse" for you, not that you will bother putting the time in to review it.
..and at the end of the day there was molten metal found in the rubble weeks after the event. This cannot be explained. Something has to produce the kind of heat to make that happen.
I just cannot believe people can look at the collapse of Building 7 and convince themselves that was the result of some magical combination of fire and some minor asymmetrical debris damage at ground level.
Jesus christ. I don't even know what to say.
The physical happenings can easily be proven by simple maths. Stick with the motives/failure of intelligence angle. At least then we can't prove you wrong (other than using reason and logic).
Not once has any of the talking head morons who call themselves "journalists" actually had a debate on the facts with a qualified person like Richard Gage.
So a few engineers and architects are crazy enough to buy into the demolition theory, yet hundreds of thousands don't.
I'm not sure a "collapse" can laterally eject massive beams (weighing in the hundreds of tons) with such force as to embed them into neighboring buildings.
First it's a freefall straight down into it's own footprint then it's beams and debris shooting out like missiles from the sides of the buildings... people might give this nutbar conspiracy stuff a little more attention if you guys could come up with a narrative that didn't contradict itself and wasn't easily disproved by the facts of what happened.
You know when a collapse happens, the falling material tends to take the path of least resistance.
The material is going to take the path dictated by all the forces acting upon it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
The floors beneath the impact point sure didn't put up much resistance, judging by the near free-fall speed of the collapse. The WTC7 collapse was confirmed (even by NIST) to be at free fall speed for 3.5-4 seconds. This is only possible if all support members below the impact point are taken out simultaneously.
So you will have no problems showing your math then? I look forward to you showing mathematically how it's only possible if the support members are taken out simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Also, you don't find the symmetry of the "collapses" the least bit suspicious?
What factors would cause it to be asymmetrical? By how much? Show your work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I'm not sure a "collapse" can laterally eject massive beams (weighing in the hundreds of tons) with such force as to embed them into neighboring buildings.
Of course you're not sure, unless you've worked out some of the math it's all guessing and hand waving. How much does a beam weight? How much does the building weight? How much potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when it all falls? How much energy would be required to propel a beam?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
There are actual engineers/architects (Ron Avery, Richard Gage) that can break down this "collapse" for you, not that you will bother putting the time in to review it.
So? There are actual scientists that think the earth is 6000 years old. Like I said before, beliefs aren't always well reasoned and are often founded on something other than knowledge.
Ron Avery describes himself as a licensed architect and interior designer... most actual architects I know don't describe themselves that way, at least not the ones that work in big buildings. How many sky scrapers has Avery worked on? Avery also describes himself as a Hyperspace Alien, and lets us know Jesus is an alien too.
Gage at least is respectable (though that's probably what the hyperspace aliens want us to think), but again, there's always going to be a group of people who believe something to be different, and Gage's "conversion story" sounds very much like that, like a religious conversion rather than a intellectually honest investigator being convinced against their will by the evidence.
So ignoring Avery for the moment (even though Avery being a hyperspace alien SHOULD make him smarter than everyone), you accept what Gage says about what happened, but reject what many more engineers and other relevant experts say. What do you base this preference on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
not that you will bother putting the time in to review it.
Ah yes, big man throwing around the passive aggressiveness. That doesn't impress anyone you know, let alone convince anyone of anything.
I've already put in my time reviewing this.. when the truthers come out with a coherent narrative that explains all the observations and information and is self consistent I *might* pay attention again, but year after year of the exact same unanswered questions and coincidences is pretty pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
..and at the end of the day there was molten metal found in the rubble weeks after the event. This cannot be explained. Something has to produce the kind of heat to make that happen.
Sure there was.
Even if there was, have you calculated the energy being converted from potential to kinetic energy yet? Are you aware of the laws of thermodynamics? Where does all that energy go as the debris hits the ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
I just cannot believe people can look at the collapse of Building 7 and convince themselves that was the result of some magical combination of fire and some minor asymmetrical debris damage at ground level.
I cannot believe people can look at something complex and convince themselves they have enough knowledge to be able to tell exactly what's going just from a few videos and pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect at work!). I also cannot believe people think their personal incredulity constitutes an argument worth paying any attention to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
You are good at math photon, but this entire post is garbage.
Well your post is garbage, because it's filled with weasel words and fallacious arguments. But there was no math, so I've asked you for some, you now have the chance to redeem yourself.
Unless you too are a hyperspace alien, in which case I expect to be abducted or something very soon.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
One of my favorite parts was almost 20 minutes in when he's talking about how pieces of the wall fell 600 ft laterally at 60-70 mph. While it's interesting that this contradicts the whole "perfectly down into it's own footprint" mantra that he and people of his kind spew at other times, that's not what gets me. What gets me is what he says next: "I don't know the conversion there" which refers to the conversion into metric units.
You are telling me, mikey, that the most highly praised person in the truther movement who has done all the research into the hard scientific evidence and is super qualified, hasn't and apparently can't convert between miles and kilometers. Not even enough to give a rough estimate?
