01-10-2013, 09:04 PM
Peter Presland Wrote:[quote=Jeffrey Orling]
Then I did misunderstand your position.
For a whole raft of evidence-based reasons, I cannot accept that ".... all of them together can and did do it". My own working hypothesis is that, at the very least, an external event additional to all those factors would have been required to initiate a possible progressive collapse, but that additional 'insurance charges' were probably also placed at strategic positions well below the impact zones. I accept that the evidence for this is open to different interpretations, but it is evidence nonetheless. Unless and until I come across something new that renders my 'working hypothesis' untenable, I really am not interested in exploring the existing public domain minutiae of the collapses any further, if only because I find the Kevin Ryan approach more challenging and potentially productive.
I have not listened to the Ryan interviews you mentioned. I do however accept that he is in the 'conspiracy' camp. He may well have been making the case you describe, but his book certainly does not set out to make that case. It simply marshals masses of factual information about people and their positions, responsibilities, actions etc, prior to and during the 9/11 events - and pretty startling stuff it is too.
Quote:I do believe that Ryan does not accept the fact that the collapses could manifest as they did IF there was sufficient heat present in the critical weak locations in the structure to kick off a progressive cascading series of failures leading to global collapse. In the recently closed thread it became clear that this critical data can not be derived by debate and accordingly more date (accurate) would be required to rule in or rule out heat as the energy which tipped the structures toward global collapse.
And that 'IF' is the crucial condition. I accept that your ROOSD is a well-grounded theoretical possibility were the above impact-zone sections to suddenly free-fall 10-15 stories onto the relatively undamaged floors below but, well-grounded or not, it has no bearing on the evidence Ryan has set out in his book. He says nothing about his belief (if he has one) about the post initiation collapse process.
Quote:I don't know that Ryan addresses whether he believes there is a basis to accept the notion that radical Islamists could pull of the 9/11 attacks.
He doesn't put it quite like that. Like myself, I think he would agree that a bunch of hard-drinking, whoring, 'Islamist' misfits were deeply involved in the events of 9/11. The questions he seeks to illuminate are 'who exactly protected, steered, facilitated, financed and controlled them?' and if they were indeed killed in those aeroplanes, 'did they know that was to be their fate?'. Also who traded foreknowledge of the events?' and who authorised the destruction of the remaining records that would have identified them
Collectively, the people Ryan identifies certainly did have motive means and opportunity. The Islamic misfits, as I would prefer to describe them, may well have been angry and disaffected enough to WANT to hurt 'The Great Satan', but they could not have pulled it off without either the sustained gross dereliction of duty of the entire US Military, Security, Intelligence apparatus, or the deliberate and determined facilitation of their dreams by elements of that same apparatus. My money remains on the latter.
Peter,
I do not want to steer this to another technical thread. Suffice it to say we witness buildings collapse and in the case of 7 the collapse is compared to a CD so obviously CDs collapse. The issue is what gets them to collapse. CDs typically rely on stored and then released gravity PE for something like 95% of the energy for the collapse/destruction. I don't know how this figure is derived but the take away is that it's a straw that breaks the camel's back concept or the weakest link can cause a mighty failure such as one 1" diameter corroded pin in the Miamus River Bridge which led to a massive section of the bridge to plunge into the river. How much energy did it take to corrode that pin? As I've maintained for years the issue to understand the collapses is how and which forces came together to overwhelm the capacity of the columns and permit tops to drop. And No... it does not take 10-15 floor masses to initiate ROOSD in THOSE structures.
Back to Ryan's guys.
Frankly I don't think the plot was terribly complex or sophisticated IF it was flying hijacked planes into huge targets. I concede that it would require luck and having a confused and non response air defense system would certainly go a long way to non stopping the planes.
However, using off the shelf technology of the day I believe any typical person could punch in the WTC coordinates as a waypoint into the plane's auto pilot after having manually guided the plane visually to the target. I am convinced that hitting buildings as wide as almost a city block was not as difficult as one might imagine and probably simpler.
I don't profess to know the mental state of the hijackers (assuming they did what were told). We do know that there were many suicide bombers in the past so the concept is nothing new. I also don't know nor trust much of the information about the hijackers but it wouldn't surprise me that they would be drinking etc. the night before they were going to commit suicide. Why not? If all they had to do was board a plane, cut some throats of unsuspecting passengers which would scare the sh*t out of the others and then storm the cockpit, do the same to the crew and punch in drive the plane visually to targets one can see from more than 100 miles away from the air before punching a some coordinates... a few drinks the night before would not seem to interfere much if at all. How many people drink and drive and fly planes? Plenty of them sadly. I really don't see this as hard to believe.
I do find it hard to believe and am pissed off that the air defenses was so unresponsive. I wonder if they were even prepared if they scrambled jets got close enough to shoot down the planes. Even if they could and all passengers and crew died as a result a huge plane crashing over an urban area could be quite a larger disaster. My hunch is that the air defenses were completely unprepared with a plan.
The coincidence of the war games is quite curious. This seems to be a convenient cover for the attack... literally do what was being gamed and the gamers would easily be confused. How could they not be? This seems to have been in play in London on 7/7 if I recall.
So if so what can one make of this? Did the terrorists have intel about when the exercises were taking place to use them as cover /confusion? Or was this insiders who wanted the strikes they had good intel on to succeed for their "new pearl harbor" and conducted the games on the date they knew the hijackings were to take place? No matter what this looks awfully fishy and that intel was playing with terrorists... sting operation? Or false flagging it with real Islamic patsies? or was intel blocked from moving the info to the right people do thwart the attack?
Attack twarting is sort of new territory in war... the so called pre emptive strike because you KNOW the enemy is going to launch an attack. You may recall some discussion about this tactic post 9/11. The W crew wanted *permission* from congress to engage in pre emptive warfare tactics. I don't think this was in the play book for 9/11. And so the 8/6 PDB was brushed aside because they may have not even know what to do if it was true.
Then there's the insider trading and the warnings not to fly which circulated to some officials before 9/11. Both of these smack of someone knowing something. I think the no flying was not because of being on a hijacked plane, but of being in the air with the ATC system down... which is kinda like driving in NYC rush hour when the traffic signals go out.
Whatever the admin and the DOD did or didn't do was not examined... or not examined closely enough. At the very least it appears that the system failed to prevent the attacks and was that because of poor procedures, or incompetence or both? Not a single person was held accountable for not preventing or not stopping in progress. That seems odd. But of course all they wanted to do is whip up hatred for the Islamic hijackers and leverage that into invading the ME... why would they want to distract and hold accountable the DOD who they would turn to to kick ass in the ME?
So at best I can see perhaps a LIHOP or LIHOI... because I do accept that Islamic fundies hated the US (with ample justification) and realized that only insurgency and asymmetrical warfare - terrorism would work for them. They had no other options. And those who wanted war in the ME clearly knew that imperial policies grows insurgencies and sooner or later it will strike back at the empire. That's for certain. The characters Ryan identifies were hawks and wanted to pillage the ME... and profit from war... that IS and WAS their business. Democracies don't start wars... they need just provocation and Empires grow provocation as reliably as unhygienic conditions promote disease.
Would these hawks conceive and carry out the false flag? Conceive yes? Would they or could they carry it out? Who knows? I don't believe they planted bombs or even needed the the WTC to be destroyed... 4 hijacked planes would have been a casus belli. Several struck towers even better... but destroying building 7 late in the afternoon? Hardly makes sense as a motive for anyone.
Ryan is a connect the dots guy. But they guys he connects are ... were... already well connected.. pun intended.