Loose Change

[Pardalis]

So if I follow your train of thought geggy, the US government knew about the attack and let it happen so that they could do their own damage. The supposed controlled demolition was planned beforehand, the FBI planned their demolition in accordance with their intelligence about the Al Qaeda plot so that the demolition would happen at the same time as the plane attacks. So the Al Qaida attack was a smoke screen for the demolition of the WTC.

But if they just had let the Al Qaida attack happen without the demolition, the end result would have been the same right? Hundreds of Americans would have been killed anyway.

 

[geggy]

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation

 

[Pardalis]

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation

Can you post this quote in it's original context please?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?

They weren't "ridiculously overengineered", they were properly engineered. The designers and builders used appropriate factors of safety in selecting their building materials. The NIST statement said merely that we can rule out corner-cutting or poor material selection in the construction of the towers to account for their collapse.

They were engineered to withstand impacts orders of magnitude smaller than a fully-loaded 767 at cruising speed.

 

[CurtC]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?

I don't see how this response of yours addresses his question, at all. You posted a lengthy excerpt which made the point that the steel used in the towers was up to spec. We point out that this in no way implies that the fire explanation is lessened. You then respond that there were 47 steel columns in the towers. What the hell is your point?

 

[geggy]

Can you post this quote in it's original context please?

Yes...


June 2001

The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

 

[geggy]

I don't see how this response of yours addresses his question, at all. You posted a lengthy excerpt which made the point that the steel used in the towers was up to spec. We point out that this in no way implies that the fire explanation is lessened. You then respond that there were 47 steel columns in the towers. What the hell is your point?

Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...

 

[Gravy]

Yes...


June 2001

The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

Geggy, you need to read the whole statement about that NORAD change in policy. For all "NON-IMMEDIATE RESPONSES" they would be required to go through the SecDef. The old rules of engagement still applied after June, 2001 for any urgent situation in the air.

 

[rwguinn]

Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...

Translation:
"I didn't have a point, but I'll see if I can manufacture one"

 

[chipmunk stew]

Translation:
"I didn't have a point, but I'll see if I can manufacture one"

I don't know, I guess an endless string of non sequiturs is just as good as a logically coherent theory, right?

Who needs evidence and sound reasoning when you can weave a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies?

 

[delphi_ote]

I don't know, I guess an endless string of non sequiturs is just as good as a logically coherent theory, right?

Who needs evidence and sound reasoning when you can weave a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies?

Hmm...
*grabs his dictionary, flips through a few pages*
conspiracy theory - n. a specious tapestry of insinuations, half-truths, and outright lies

 

[CptColumbo]

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

 

[Belz...]

Heh, you guys crack me up...

Yeah, people usually giggle when exposed to things they don't understand.

With all the warnings the US government had received, why did they not notify the Air Force about the heightened alert in NYC, just in case they should as well be on alert?

Haven't been listening, have you ?

You want math???

8:13 AA11 last transmission with Boston ATC.

8:13 to 8:20 AA11 goes off course and is hijacked.

That's not maths. Those are times.

 

[Belz...]

Uh that the buildings were ridiculously overiengineered, including the 47 steel central columns in each of the towers...is that what you wanted to know?

You have any evidence for that ? Since when do people over-engineer something ? And second, is that like over-assuming ?

 

[Belz...]

More timeline here...

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617

That's your problem, giggle. You have timelines, and nothing else, and you expect us to draw YOUR conclusion based on that. Der.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ha. I'll have to get back to you on that when I can...

Conspiracy theorist's getting to the point is like Ross and Racheal getting together on "Friends". You're always anticipating it, but in the back of your mind you KNOW it's never going to happen.

I think there's many reasons for this. Part of the fun, for them, is that the riddle is never quite solved. Also:

1. It doesn't require any thinkin' and math and stuff.
2. They don't have to defend their point. Any argument can be dismissed by saying, "But look at all the EVIDENCE!"
3. Intellectual cowardice. They can always counter with, "I never SAID that!" because they never say anything of substance.
4. There IS no logical point that can be derived from their "evidence".

 

[aggle-rithm]

You have any evidence for that ? Since when do people over-engineer something ? And second, is that like over-assuming ?

Over-engineering occurs AFTER a disaster occurs. For instance, I bet the new WTC is over-engineered.

The walkway that collapsed in the Hyatt twenty-odd years ago was re-built with huge columns that could support twenty times the maximum required weight.

But the old WTC? Not a chance.

 

[chipmunk stew]

(Happy birthday, aggle-rithm!)

 

[geggy]

The "old" WTC 1 and 2 was built in the late 60's/early 70's so it's hardly "old". WTC7 was built in 1985 so that is hardly "old".

Chimpmunk reminded me about this thread in that other thread. So chimpmunk would you kindly copy and paste in this thread the brief summary of what I've posted in that thread.

 

[geggy]

Denial: 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial.