Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 There are videos of after the plane hit WTC1, but on that day I know of none that showed the plane hitting the building that appeared on the news. However, later, a photographer who was doing a photo-op with FDNY in that area came up with a hit-video. He heard the plane coming very low and automatically pointed his camera that direction. There were very large numbers of people with cameras taking photos that day. Besides journalists from every agency on earth, there were tourists, people who lived in nearby buildings, etc. Has there ever been a call "to the people" to come forth with their pics? to add additional evidence, even from different angles/perspectives, to help resolve the unanswered questions? NO!!!!!!!!! Why not? That which needs to be hidden must remain hidden, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Yes Jimi- I watched it live on Crapvision their studio is just across the Hudson. Plunger you so very correct about Norad, 17 years ago we were visiting an American Buddy who was an Officer with the Strategic Air Command, I won't say what state. On a Sunday morning he took me to the Base and on a tour of their facilities. Several levels below ground in a darkened room 6 men were monitoring a wall sized live Radar from Colorado Springs that showed every plane in the Air over the Western U.S. I got talking to one of the operators who told me they knew the identity of each blip as well as there air corridor and flight plan. I was stunned by the technology...think how advanced it is today. The Transponder argument is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 NBC was quick to get camera and crew focused on unfolding events at WTC from the heights of Rockefeller Center. Can't speak to the time line though the talking heads broke their programing to report a plane had hit a tower with camera showing smoke from the upper floors. Then the second plane entered the picture just before hitting the second tower. Camera angle was such that the towers blocked the impact images and damage. Must have been like the B25 that flew into Empire State Bldg on a foggy morn in '44 (?). Except this day was not foggy and NYTCA has firm control over all airtraffic...except those that turn off their transponder. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned RADAR? I know...ground clutter......well there is dated technology called Automatic Moving Target Indicator that greatly reduces 'ground clutter' and intensifies the moving target return. There are great weaknesses in ATC around major metro-areas. G. Gordon Liddy served in an Army Missile Battery on LI at the outbreak of the Cold War. WILL is the title of the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 The point is that Silverstein is being implicated on these websites as a co-conspirator, admitting to having greenlighted the pull down: Pull out, not down. As in the FDNY not the bldg/bldgs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 I, as a jew, get a little nervous when people start pointing fingers at jews without ANY proof. I have what I believe is proof that this was done by more than just Bin Laden. To say that the owner of the bldg's is resposible is crazy, IMHO. By the way, if it was Trump who owned the bldgs I would feel the same way. Silverstein did not benefit from the collapse, nor did he know about it before hand, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Futures up a bit. http://quotes.barchart.com/quote.asp?sym=SPU4&code=BDRSTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkst27 Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 so many topics.... the easiest thing for me to say is that from a strucutral engineering standpoint, everybody PLEASE PLEASE pretty please listen to the Jim Hoffman audio link I posted somewhere a couple pages back. He is far more informed from this perspective than any of us here could hope to be. to the tornado thing, I disagree completely. Tornadoes are a very concentrated force and the path of the tornado funnel cloud is basically equivalent to the path of visible destruction. Seismic shock radiates through the ground in all directions with little discrimination. I also doubt that the seismic shock at the ground impact was anywhere near a magnitude to damage the surrounding buildings - the towers were mostly dust already by the time they got to ground level. Again, why the absolutely picture-perfect implosions into their own footprints for all 3 WTC buidlings? There are so many other possible failure modes. Think of the dislocated buildings in San Fran 1989. If anything, the top of the one tower should have tipped over at an angle, as it appeared to be doing just before the entire structure gave way beneath it. Hoffman discusses this. Also, the buildings fell too quickly (i.e. too nearly equal the freefall velocity prescribed by the acceleration of gravity) given the floor after floor of internal resistance that should have been present to slow the collapse speed. This suggests internal demo explosives were present, i.e. additional energy release that sped the freefall by removing resistance. Hoffman discusses this as well. The buildings could have been laced years ahead of time. Much has been made of the WTC7 building being turned into a fortress for the NY Mayor's office (or whoever). Obviously that allowed some sort of window of opportunity. The WTC was attacked in 1993 could have been an opportunity there. Who knows? There could be plenty of possibilities. Threadbare - you're right, if there was ever a time for martial law and rescission of civil liberties, it would have been in the immediate aftermath of 911, to try to get some answers by any means necessary. Instead, we the people lose rights in perpetuity. One final thing, and I know this will be controversial, but I'd say that the plane impacts did little structural damage to those buildings, certainly not enough to touch off picture-perfect implosive demolition. Planes are built like papier meche compared to steel-frame skyscrapers. They have to be or else they couldn't get off the ground without wings the span of a football field. Those planes basically melted into the structure when they hit. The engines could certainly have taken out some building columns by themselves, but not very many as the engines are small relatively speaking. Maybe the engines took out enough columns in an unbalanced way to cause the angling of the one tower top. Hoffman discusses however why the action that initiated collapse was not the "unzipping" of the floor supports, nor the heat of cold-burning black-smoke unpressurized jet fuel flames, nor the plane impacts themselves, as the popular theories suggest. whatever, I know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 "Russia to send 40,000 troops to Iraq" Remember that Stratfor breaking news item? Some here saw a Putin/AstroBoy grand scheme to control the planet,as Putin "knuckles under" in subserverience to the USSA behemoth. Wrong,ya got's to take Stratfor with a large grain of salt,they like to dream stuff up on slow daze. I'm one here who saw a shrub/Pukin scheme, and I still see it as quite likely. Just because Pukin is not sending troops right now and is insinuating he has no plans to, does not mean that he won't in the future. His commitment to the "new Iraq," however the hell he may have chosen to word it, is enough to include sending troops, if deemed necessary by some future turn of events. What is a "future turn of events" the justifies deploying Russian troops? Whatever the hell Pukin says it is whenever the hell he says it, that's what. It only makes sense. Russia needs to team up with somebody, and now their banking system is in real trouble. The EU seems unwilling, in a turning up of the noses sort of way. The Chinese? Yeah, the Russians sell them a lot of oil and they've been working together a lot lately. I just don't know if the Russians want to trust them; too many centuries of history there. Now there's the U.S., desparate for economic reasons in its own right, just like Russia. It only makes sense they would team up, and we do know they have. Pukin's comment a few weeks back about providing shrub with a solid, confirmed, undeniable link between Hussein and bin Laden before the Iraq invasion is just laughable. Had Pukin provided this intel back then, shrub certainly would have been bullhorning it at 120 decibels, back then. This is simply a joke. The shrub regime obviously dealt something for that comment, and obviously what they dealt was a bailout of the Russian banking system. Now that's one hell of a deal for the Russians; receiving a national banking system bailout in exchange for merely one or two sentences of verbiage out of Pukin. Sure, shrub himself is no doubt petty, self-centered, and just plain stupid enough to make this deal, but his puppet-masters sure as hell aren't. The 'Merkuhn Plutocracy, with certainty, wants something more in exchange from Pukin than just a few sentences of hot air. What is that? While I can't be sure, I can take some high probability guesses. For example, while Russia works with the new "Iraqi"government, they can spin the relationship for the consumption of the Russian population, from there say how wonderful it is, etc. At some point, something nasty will happen to a Russian citizen, then maybe a few more, and then .... You should all be able to figure out the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Fair Value numbers-Spoo's-1085.07, Nutsduck-1378.09 at the mo Spoo one and change above f/v-NutsDuck 4 above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiding Bear Posted July 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Months behind Doc and forum members, apparently a few organizations are starting to see the mortgage debt bubble for what it is - a time bomb: US homebuyers risk rates 'time bomb' By Jenny Wiggins in New York Published: July 25 2004 17:04 | Last Updated: July 25 2004 17:04 A red hot housing market and higher interest rates are pushing increasing numbers of US homebuyers into the most risky kinds of mortgages, spelling trouble for financially stretched consumers in years to come. The Consumer Federation of America will on Monday release a report warning of a potential financial "time-bomb" due to an increasing interest among low-income consumers in adjustable-rate mortgages at a time of rising interest rates. "People are saying: 'The only way I can afford to get a house is to get an adjustable-rate mortgage,'" said Joseph McKenzie, deputy chief economist at the Federal Housing Finance Board, adding that there are no signs yet of significant price declines in the booming US housing market. Adjustable mortgages are initially cheaper than fixed mortgages, making it easier for consumers to buy homes. The percentage of adjustable mortgages taken out has more than doubled over the past year, rising to 36 per cent of all loans closed at the end of May, according to the housing finance board. Economists say consumers typically favour adjustable mortgages in periods of rising interest rates because fixed mortgages become more expensive. However, mortgage anal cysts are worried by the increasing numbers of low income borrowers with poor credit quality that are taking out adjustable loans. The payments on these loans will increase as interest rates rise, possibly creating financial stress. "There are some borrowers who are selecting these products not out of desire but out of necessity and it may come back to haunt them," said Keith Gumbinger, vice-president at HSH Associates, an independent mortgage research firm. "Some of the products that are being originated today will turn into the foreclosures of tomorrow." http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727088 Some poor credit risks will turn into foreclosures? How about millions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Recall: Thanks to the questions raised here, I sat back and re-examined my recall of that morning/day, also what factors were influencing my perceptions. I had forgotten some key things. When the Pentagon was hit, our immediate concern was for a group of people who took a very early flight to deliver an early briefing at the PENTAGON. We had no idea of where they were, or their safety. People frantically searched for home phone #s to call their families. My Proj Engineer, Chief Engineer and some senior officers were among them. Concern for the safety of our fellow workers overrode the shock and horror of what we watched on TV. (Their flight was delayed a long time in air and after they landed, they caught a bus thru Pennsylvania and got back to Detroit.) The following day, we were all sent home for the rest of the weekl. When we returned, there were armed soldiers/guards/barriers/checkpoints all over the place. The barn had been thoroughly locked after the horse was stolen. Everybody had a slightly different version of what they thought had happened, depending on which TV channel they had been watching. As we put our thoughts and perceptions together and try to find evidence that will satisfy the many unanswered questions about 911, I want to thank all of you for sharing your ideas/links and since none of us really yet know the truth, we need to have much patience with each other when dissenting views occur. Hopefully, we will get at least some of the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Kean Says 9-11 Panel Wants to Release At Least Four More Reports, With Classified Documents Sun Jul 25 2004 10:16:28 ET New York ?Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 panel, tells TIME the panel hopes to release at least four more staff-written reports, some of which contain classified documents, on such topics as aviation and border security and terrorist financing. ?Interested parties may have to sue the government? to see them, according to TIME. U.S. officials tell TIME that reports from agents and ?code talk? picked up from extremists? e-mail point to a possible al-Qaeda attack before the Nov. 2 election. Says a CIA official, ?We have some fairly specific information that al-Qaeda wants to come after us.? http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Sherlock, Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 As we put our thoughts and perceptions together and try to find evidence thatwill satisfy the many unanswered questions about 911, I want to thank all of you for sharing your ideas/links and since none of us really yet know the truth, we need to have much patience with each other when dissenting views occur. To be fair, the truth may in fact already be known, but simply not accepted by some. Without even prejudicing which truth it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfield 8 Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Brian - are you sure about seeing the first plane hit? Plunger is correct - the only video of that plane ever shown was released the following day. It is the video with the fireman in the foreground and very blurry. Cameras from all angles caught the second plane, and aired that round the clock that day. I am just confused by this , as I have never seen it, and it shows up on no website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.