Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Peter Presland]

Please, Peter P., above, I hope you did not mean to place J. Orling in the camp of 911-Truth - even on the outer fringes. .....<snip>

Peter

I have no wish to place JO in any camp other than those with an understandable psychological need to believe in the basics of the OCT, but I do respect his professional qualifications and technical knowledge of WTC construction.

I am not agreeing that his ROOSD theory explains the post-initiation collapse of the towers in full, since I accept there is compelling evidence for 'insurance' charges further down. I do however accept that post-initiation ROOSD remains both a theoretical and practical possibility.

None of that diminishes an evidence-based verdict that the entire event was a US - and probably Israeli mediated - Deep State operation, because the precise mechanisms of the collapses are unnecessary to such a verdict.

Having said all that I confess I have not read much of JO's stuff in my absence. What I have experienced in that period are several accusations of being a paid troll for various interests on various sites and lists - the latest being 'The Energy Round Table' for daring to present evidence that the AGW alarmists have got it wrong. Those experiences persuade me that such accusations, made publicly, are almost always detrimental to an in-depth examination of relevant issues and usually diminish the site on which they are allowed to stand.

[Tony Szamboti]

[quote=Peter Presland] By the time the Twin Tower would have become visible to the 'pilot' of those planes, their altitude/speed combination, as descibed in the OCT, would have rendered them uncontrollable by even the most experienced of pilots.
[Quote]

Dynamic air pressure is a function of velocity squared and altitude since the density of air changes with it. Aircraft moving at 530 mph at sea level would experience pressure that is 11 times greater than landing speeds of 160 mph. The control surfaces are optimized for landing and takeoff speeds below 200 mph. So any little overshoot of movement on the controls by a human pilot would cause a major attitude change in the aircraft.

I have read that experienced pilots are lucky to hit those buildings 1 out of 10 times at the high speeds in a simulator.

It seems pretty clear that the aircraft were remotely controlled into the buildings by auto-pilot machines and homing devices. The south tower aircraft was actually heading towards NY City Hall until it was just two miles away from the building when it made a dramatic high speed turn towards it at five seconds away and then a precise adjustment just two seconds away. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a significant distance out.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lemkin,
That's pure ad hom. I have my own views informed by my own fundamental research as well as the usual quote mining from others pulled from the www.

You are lumping me as part of your enemy is a W'esque you're either with us or against simplification. Your wrong.

Peter,

SOME pilots may think the flying feat impossible. OTHERS think it was quite possible. Of course they cite the actual attack as one bit of evidence of this. This has been done in flight simulators by unskilled pilots.

I don't find that overly complex command and control systems can fail because of any number of issues. The Air Defenses seems to be one which is technology heavy and operationally a mess. Who knows? I would expect huge bureaucracies to work like a Swiss watch.

There are coincidences of events which don't have deep political origins... such as Deep Water Horizon, Fukishima, Katrina etc... and we see the same sort of official "response" behavior. You see all political events as being of deep political origin. ALL? DO you not see any political event which is not?

I don't consider insider trading as coincidence. It indicates some insider knowledge. But there has been evidence that intel was aware of the coming attacks if the following is to be believed (Is this BS or is it true or partially true?):

"The CIA, including George Tenet, Director of the CIA, Cofer Black head of the CTC section at the CIA, and Richard Blee, Chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and head of the Renditions unit at the CIA, were aware of the following information on August 22, 2001, when they (CIA officer Margaret Gillespie) informed FBI HQ , including Tom Wilshire Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit, Dina Corsi a FBI IOS agent working for Wilshire in the bin Laden unit under the ITOS unit, that both al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US:

That a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US.

That Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi would take part in this attack, an attack that they had been warned would cause mass US casualties, i.e. kill thousands of Americans.

That the person who was directing this attack was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. This information was given to the CIA on June 12, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report. The plan found on Hakim Murad's computer, Khalid Sheiks Mohammed's partner in the Bojinka plot, and that had been given to both the CIA and the FBI was to hijack multiple large commercial aircraft in the US and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the Capital building.

The CIA had been told in the summer of 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report "that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was recruiting al Qaeda terrorists to link up with other al Qaeda terrorists already in the US, who the CIA knew on August 22, 2001, were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, to carry out this attack.

The CIA had already identified Khalid Sheik Mohammed at the January 5-8, 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, along with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Walid bin Attash, identified after the Cole bombing as one of the main masterminds of the Cole bombing. At the time of this January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting, KSM already had a two million dollar FBI reward on his head for his role in the 1993 bombing of the WTC towers.

Tenet admitted he found out on August 23, 2001, that Minneapolis FBI had arrested Zacarias Moussaoui on August 15, 2001, while Moussaoui was attempting to take flying lesion on a B747 simulator, without even having a private pilot's license.

This was further corroboration that the plan was to hijack several large commercial airliners and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and US Capital building.

This was the information that Tenet had when he flew down to Crawford, Texas on August 24, 2001, for what was described right on the White House web site as a 6 hour long meeting with the President of the United Sates George W Bush.

If Tenet did not give this information to George W Bush then why did he lie about attending this meeting at the April 14, 2004 9/11 Commission public hearings. This interview is found on YouTube below. Tenet had 2 ½ years to prepare for this hearing plus had a detailed calendar of his meeting and even had his staff to prepare him for this meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIo33eVSKg

It is clear now that Tenet had deliberately lied to hide the fact that he had attended this meeting with the President of the US after just finding out about Mihdhar and Hazmi being inside of the US and that Moussaoui had been arrested by the FBI. Just knowing about Moussaoui had been arrested should have set off alarm bells in every office of the CIA and White House.

George Tenet, Cofer Back and Richard Blee had just been at the White House on July 10, 2001 going over with Rice, Hadley, and Clarke the large number of warnings the CIA had been receiving about a huge imminent al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that would cause mass casualties. Then he knows that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and the another suspected al Qaeda terrorist, Moussaoui has just been arrested by the FBI.

And why did Tenet, Black and Blee, refuse to give their spy at FBI HQ, Tom Wilshire permission to pass the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI (the Cole bombing investigators) after Wilshire's request on July 13, and July 23, 2001, requests to pass this information over to the FBI. In his July 23, 2001 request, Wilshire had even identified Khalid al-Mihdhar by name as the al Qaeda terrorist that would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.

After having this information, they never re-contacted Tom Wilshire to allow him to pass this information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, and in fact Wilshire, who was supervising Dina Corsi allowed Corsi to shut down Bongardt investigation when Bongardt found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and wanted to find them before they had time to carry out a massive al Qaeda attack. Corsi told Bongardt that he could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi because of a NSA restriction on a NSA cable in her EC to start an intelligence investigation for these terrorists that described the travel of these terrorists to the meeting where they had planed the Cole bombing with bin Attash. But on August 27, 2001 Corsi had already been given permission to pass this information to Bongardt and his team in New York by the NSA general counsel. When Bongardt protested and said that this NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant, the only reason he would be denied permission to have this NSA information, he ask if Corsi could get a legal ruling from the NSLU the legal unit at FBI HQ.

Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the lawyers had ruled that he could have no connection to any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. But the 9/11 commission report stated that the attorney Corsi had contacted, Sherri Sabol, told Corsi on August 28, 2001, that since the information in the NSA cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that he wanted. These two lies doomed almost 3000 people to be murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11.

When all of this information was known by the 9/11 Commission, and is now in the public domain, why did they cover this all over and refuse to identify the people and the real reasons the attacks on 9/11 had taken place."

The distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP may not seem significant to many... but it's the difference between knowing criminals are planning a crime and being the criminals who planned and carried it out. Both would be punishable under the law...

I don't understand how terrorist leaders induce suicide bombers to do their bidding, but they do. I can't presume to know what the motives and tactics of the leaders of Islamic extremists are. They clearly want to change the status quo and to do that they have to do SOMETHING. Empires don't consider the rabble's interests in their plans. Gandhi was able to make them pay attention as was MLK... who was offed for it and for raising the consciousness and courage of so many. Perhaps radicals abandoned peaceful non violent protest as ineffective because the protestors would be killed (violently) Occupy didn't fare too well did it? They send in the goon squads and bust it up. Why wouldn't hikjacking planes and targeting icon be a PR victory? Are you aware of how this is viewed by the oppressed Islamic people around the world? They seemed to approve.

Finally, your analysis always defaults to deep state motives of the participants. My approach looked at the possibility of a plane strike and ensuing building collapses. I find that plausible. I don't know who flew the planes... all that sort of "stuff" is outside my expertise. You either accept the facts that planes were hijacked or not. You do know that many planes have been hijacked over the decades and there was a Bojinka plan. Do you consider this part of the deep state to further the strategy of tension... or could it conceivably be a (desperate) tactic of the disenfranchised?

If you're a hammer you see everything as a nail. And I am sorry to say that this is the nature of many confirmation person's bias. I am not a deep politics hammer and so I don't see the world as deep politics. I do see that the elite is self serving and deceptive and criminal... just like the common person, but in a much bigger way with larger consequences. Everything is a conspiracy when you realize that collaboration is who humans work.

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Tony Szamboti][quote=Peter Presland] By the time the Twin Tower would have become visible to the 'pilot' of those planes, their altitude/speed combination, as descibed in the OCT, would have rendered them uncontrollable by even the most experienced of pilots.
[Quote]

Dynamic air pressure is a function of velocity squared and altitude since the density of air changes with it. Aircraft moving at 530 mph at sea level would experience pressure that is 11 times greater than landing speeds of 160 mph. The control surfaces are optimized for landing and takeoff speeds below 200 mph. So any little overshoot of movement on the controls by a human pilot would cause a major attitude change in the aircraft.

I have read that experienced pilots are lucky to hit those buildings 1 out of 10 times at the high speeds in a simulator.

It seems pretty clear that the aircraft were remotely controlled into the buildings by auto-pilot machines and homing devices. The south tower aircraft was actually heading towards NY City Hall until it was just two miles away from the building when it made a dramatic high speed turn towards it at five seconds away and then a precise adjustment just two seconds away. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a significant distance out.[/Quote]

Speculation... and where did you get 1 in 10? You just make facts up don't you?

If there were homing devices why were the tower's hit differently?

Why did the 4th plane not hit it's target?

Did or did not a plane hit the pentagon?

If *they* had so much control of avionics and control of the air defenses etc... why not have 4 strikes with perfect precision so everyone could watch it on live TV?

[Jeffrey Orling]

What is the DP reason that 7WTC was destroyed? Why not Banker's Trust? or the AmEx tower... or Verizon? Or 1 Liberty Place?

[Peter Presland]

There are coincidences of events which don't have deep political origins... such as Deep Water Horizon, Fukishima, Katrina etc... and we see the same sort of official "response" behavior. You see all political events as being of deep political origin. ALL? DO you not see any political event which is not?

Those are 3 very disparate events, none of which I judge to have been deliberately engineered in origin. However, official responses to all three do have gross and ongoing deception of the public in common.

I don't consider insider trading as coincidence. It indicates some insider knowledge. But there has been evidence that intel was aware of the coming attacks if the following is to be believed (Is this BS or is it true or partially true?):

Since I judge one or more SIS's to have been the architects of the attacks, I certainly do not believe it is BS - just smoke and mirrors.

The distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP may not seem significant to many... but it's the difference between knowing criminals are planning a crime and being the criminals who planned and carried it out. Both would be punishable under the law...

OK - it's a very fine line then. I just don't see the SIS's discovering any plot on the scale of 9/11 at the last minute (particularly considering the manner in which most of the alleged hijackers were supplied, outside of normal protocols, with entry visas from a single Saudi located office and subsequently protected from legitimate police and junior FBI officer inquiries) and then deciding to just let it happen. Far more likely that the SIS's either became aware very early on - or even more likely originated the whole thing in the manner already described - and then steered it to their own purposes. I just don't have them slated as stupid, incompetent or careless, that's all.

I don't understand how terrorist leaders induce suicide bombers to do their bidding, but they do.

Whilst living for an extended period in the US? Do they? That's a rather different situation to psyching up young, despairing residents of Palestine or Afghanistan with promises of martyrdom and paradise in exchange for donning a suicide vest and approaching a US or Israeli checkpoint. When apart from the alleged London bombers has it happened before?

Finally, your analysis always defaults to deep state motives of the participants.

Only for human engineered events with potential or after-the-fact major effects on both domestic and geo-politics.

I accept that I am inclined to IMMEDIATELY question the ON on ANY such major event and the reason is quite simple, even if painfully learned over an extended period of study: It is that ON's are demonstrably ALWAYS deceptive and the bigger the event the bigger the deception. I invite you to look at any and all such ON's from and including WWII to date' Without exception they are histories of the victors and largely a pack of self-serving lies. Look at Vietnam - what was that all about that 2 million plus innocent Humans lives are deemed to be acceptable? Same goes for the entire history of US involvement in South America - the realities of that are truly disgusting in their Machiavellian barbarity - but in the ON, good ol' Uncle Sam was just trying to save the poor downtrodden natives from Communism. Same goes for Korea - The entire peninsular was a Japanese colony; post war it became two agreed colonies, the Soviet and US ones, separated by an arbitrary straight-line on a map. The Soviets soon vacated; not so the US who killed far more Koreans than the Japanese in their Imperial arrogance ever did. Then we approach the Middle East with its oil; no more wicked Commies so something is needed to justify all that has since happened - enter the terrorism bogy-man, manufactured steered and controlled to hidden but in-your-face obvious purposes to those with eyes to see - and not unlike the witches of medieval times in their real purpose.

Frankly I am mystified how any intelligent American or Brit or other European for that matter can survey Post WWII history and remain so blind as to seriously believe that we have a terrorism problem that originates anywhere other than our own Deep State arbiters.

So yes, I do have default initial assumptions about these things - but with ample justification.

For a brief but enlightening description of the manufactured 'consensus reality' that we all inhabit and my own approach to dealing with it, see this article on Wikispooks , particularly the 'Modern Connotations' section.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The recent Nairobi attacks appear to have involved the *import* of *terrorist/fighters* to the mall to do the *operation* if this information is to be believed. Of course I can't verify that these reports are factual. But if true, these so called terrorist leaders recruited from Michigan (IIRC) to Kenya to engage in what would likely result in the fighter's death. I suppose soldiers and fighters accept this possibility when they sign on. Apparently some are prepared to die as were the kamikaze pilots and the bomb vest wearing Palestinians. Apparently being prepared to die for your cause is not that uncommon.

I suppose what I am suggesting is that terrorism and many of the actions we have seen over the years were genuine insurgencies... and tactics of asymmetrical warfare which is the only type of warfare the disenfranchised can wage. Of course they do attempt justice through the usual *diplomatic* channels using their supporters to advocate on their behalf... in actions such as UN resolutions to Rachel Cory to the Marmara.

Peter and others seem to dismiss terrorism as being *real* and being a tactic in play. And they definitely seem to question the scale of some attacks as being the handiwork of these rag tag terrorist groups. So was the Beruit barracks bombing a false flag or a real *terrorist* attack on US assets? Khobar towers? The Nairobi Embassy? The USS Cole? How about the disco bombings? The Achille Lauro? And the numerous plane hijackings? Was Lockerbee a flase flag or could it have been a terrorist operation?

I don't dismiss the concept of false flag ops and believe they have taken place. I do not justify or excuse ANY of the US gov's aggressive imperialists actions (atrocities) since WWII including the insane dropping or 2 nukes in Japan, bombing in the Balkans and all manner of proxy wars and CIA black ops. I do believe the Sandinistas WERE a real insurgencies against the ring wing Anastasio Somoza. And yes the Contras were a right wing insurgency funded by the CIA to topple the left wing Ortega government.

Terrorism is the blow back to empire. Why should this size of nature of the action be limited to guys running around in the jungle fighting in south Asia type actions? The so called brains behind radical Islam, if we are to believe what is out there... were intelligent, educated in the west and familiar with the west, and connected to a network of financial support. Was Zawahiri smart enough to engineer a big operation? Could he get the funding needed? Could be get the recruits? I think the answer is... why not? But this is simply based on information I get from the www. OBL apparently was an intelligent charismatic wealthy heir to a construction industry fortune from the US poodle Saudi Arabia. He claims to be pissed off that the US has polluted the Arab lands and props up the apartheid Israel and decided to fight against it. Didn't Che do much the same thing coming from a privileged background?

It may enable the US MIC to have terrorism as an enemy and an excuse for their aggression. But the US empire's actions will inevitably create this sort of enemy as all empires do. That's a reliable as the sun rising in the East. And does the police engage in entrapment and stings? You betcha. Why would the CIA and MIC do the same? But doing this does not mean all crime and all terrorists actions are the creation of insiders as false flags. To assert that ALL *terrorism* is deep state tactic is naive or blind to reality.

And that's how I see it and I don't represent anyone or any ideology other than my own.

The people in power with the ability to weave a self serving narrative will do it every time... and this goes back way beyond WWII. It's what those in power do to control. S P I N... deceive and lie. They concoct insane narratives like... fighting to protect our way of life or they hate us for our freedom justification for their own war atrocities and sadism. They always do. Few will justify sadism and violence for its own sake... an excuse is always created.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Conspiracy as a dirty word.

Well sure those who engage in criminality will use any tactic to dismiss their critics.... and one of them is to make the critic seem crazy... and use guilt by association.

Who cares if some conspiracy theories are nuts? That does not dismiss or should be deter anyone from describing the conspiracies which are all over the place but called collaboration which is the positive sounding word.

I don't care about the label... I care or pay attention to the content... the fine print. And so the nuke *conspiracy" re 9/11 I find non credible and perhaps the people who propose it are a bit *crazy*. They don't think so... but many crazy people... ones appearing crazy to me don't think they are crazy either. Crazy is a vague word with a negative connotation.

Yes media has turned the word conspiracy into bad word and it enables people to not look into the substance of the claim.

Of course when the substance of the claim is non credible speculation... the connotation has a bit of currency.

[R.K. Locke]

Anybody who looks at all of the evidence and concludes that 9/11 was anything other than MIHOP is simply not credible.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Anybody who looks at all of the evidence and concludes that 9/11 was anything other than MIHOP is simply not credible.

Locke,
That is your opinion. And clearly based on what you consider to be evidence of an inside job. I've been looking at the matter for more than a decade and at best the evidence for insider intent is ambiguous. There is not smoking gun and no confessions or leaks. it's all circumstantial connecting dots YOU want to see as being there and as evidence.

But you are entitled to your opinion... I consider my position credible.