The Woolworth Building & 9/11
- Thread starter Cavynaut
- Start date
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Bigfoot73 said:
And yet the people who were responsible for the conspiracy - Rumsfeld and the neo-cons - were not responsible for the previous decades of mis-spending. So in order to save their own bacon from a charge which wouldn't have come to light unless they announced it and wouldn't have been levelled against them in any case they killed thousands of people and fired a missile at the pentagon? Presumably it didn't occur to them to destroy the evidence surrepticiously or silence the handful of anonymous people who knew about the discrepancies?
That doesn't rely on coincidence - that relies on a level of intelligence being displayed by the plotters which would barely see them graduate from playschool. And yet they've been able to hoodwink the majority of the public for nearly a decade?
There's a bit more to it than that. This could lead to me going through this conspiracy theory, and you responding in the usual manner. This will not result in either of us , or anybody else, changing their minds.
I find a lot about the follow-the-money angle to be credible and doubtless you don't
I find a lot about the follow-the-money angle to be credible and doubtless you don't
How does my quoted statement lead you to the conclusion you then reach?
All I was doing was conceding that there is little by way of evidence for the existence of large scale hologram projection equipment, and indeed there may not be any.
Would you care to be more specific about my further improbable assertions , and why they are so?
All I was doing was conceding that there is little by way of evidence for the existence of large scale hologram projection equipment, and indeed there may not be any.
Would you care to be more specific about my further improbable assertions , and why they are so?
Here's something I just stumbled upon and hadn't heard before:
And if by coincidence or not, the events of the next day would make sure that this was never discussed in the media again. Wow.
Here's a youtube clip of that moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
That sort of money missing certainly could motivate someone to firebomb their own office. Especially as the wing being blown up was just being renovated...
And if by coincidence or not, the events of the next day would make sure that this was never discussed in the media again. Wow.
Here's a youtube clip of that moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
That sort of money missing certainly could motivate someone to firebomb their own office. Especially as the wing being blown up was just being renovated...
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Zilch5 said:
Would it not be better to make sure it never got discussed in the media again by not discussing it in the media in the first place? If you knew that the evidence of your wrongdoing was about to be destroyed the very next day why on earth would you go public with it? This charge makes no sense on any level.
If anything this announcement would suggest that Rumsfeld - and presumably others in the administration - was completely in the dark about the attack. Unless of course they only did this to make us think otherwise etc etc and on and on ad infinitum.
Well Ted, it was in a report by the Inspector General, who as far as I can work out, acts independently of the Administration of the day. So they can't sweep it under the carpet that easily - unless you create a news story that is bigger than 2.3 Trillion Dollars that we sorta, kinda can't track at the moment... :?
Of course - this is pure speculation. I have no idea what really happened either. But you can't explain away that this is a truly bizarre turn of events, to say the least. And there are many inconsistencies in the official story.
Either the people in charge were completely incompetent or incredibly callous. I really don't know what to make of it all - but it beggars belief.
Of course - this is pure speculation. I have no idea what really happened either. But you can't explain away that this is a truly bizarre turn of events, to say the least. And there are many inconsistencies in the official story.
Either the people in charge were completely incompetent or incredibly callous. I really don't know what to make of it all - but it beggars belief.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Zilch5 said:
Then perhaps this might help:
Rumsfeld, 9/11 and $2.3 trillion
Given that it was already in a report by the Inspector General then it what sense did Rumsfeld make this 'announcement' or 'admission'? Especially when he had already discussed it publicly before?
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,306
ted_bloody_maul said:
Well, 9/11 was, as someone in the British Government admitted, "a good day to bury bad news".
You see, at the same time as asking all departments for a 15% cut, and admitting that $2 trillion dollars was missing, Rummy was also asking Congress for an 11% increase. All to be transferred toward the private companies which would be taking over functions previously done in house by the DoD of course.
Under normal conditions, surely every newspaper, radio and television channel would have carried the story. Of course, given the events of 9/11, it's perfectly understandable that the story all but vanished.
This is purely speculative, but could it be that Rummy knew that the story about the deficit was about to break, but knew that it would be pushed into the background? In that case, it would be well within his interest to admit the deficit, knowing that he could legitimately point to his admission in any future investigation.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Cavynaut said:
They did had 24 hour news channels back then and a number of web sites and newspaper titles did publish stories about it. However, the whole idea that it needs buried is predicated on the notion that the story was particularly controversial. On the contrary attacking red-tape, wasteful spending and encouraging private enterprise is exactly the kind of rhetoric that the American right thrives on. It quite often goes down well with the public too. Rumsfeld didn't come out with such a grandstanding speech for it to be ignored - on the contrary he probably got his speech writers in to come up with something bold to sell to the press and public.
Cavynaut said:
But he'd already 'admitted' to it and it was already known about before his admission (if indeed acknowledging something whilst attacking it can ever be considered an admission).
Looking further into it - what Rummy was doing
a) complaining that the Pentagon didn't get enough money
b) that they had no idea where some of the existing funds were going
In his defense (and I don't like defending him at all) he was new in the portfolio and basically blaming the previous administration for not giving the military enough funds and not knowing where the existing funds were going.
Well, they fixed that pretty soon.
a) complaining that the Pentagon didn't get enough money
b) that they had no idea where some of the existing funds were going
In his defense (and I don't like defending him at all) he was new in the portfolio and basically blaming the previous administration for not giving the military enough funds and not knowing where the existing funds were going.
Well, they fixed that pretty soon.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,306
ted_bloody_maul said:
When Bush, Rummy and the rest took office, the privatisation mania of the 80's and 90's was largely over. What was left in public hands, the 'core' according to Naomi Klein, was "those functions so intrinsic to the concept of governing that the idea of handing them to private corporations challenged what it meant to be a nation state: the military, police, fire departments, prisons, border control,covert intelligence, disease control, the public school system and the administering of government bureaucracies". *
Even in the USA, it was accepted amongst most of the population that there were some things that only big government could do. If you wanted to make sure that you could successfully sell the idea of privatisation of these core functions to the public, how would you do it?
Shock and awe Ted, shock and awe.
* Klein, Naomi, The Shock Doctrine (Penguin, 2008), p. 258
Zilch5 said:
Then the failed completely because the media have been discussing it ever since - here's CBS from Jan '02
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/ ... 5985.shtml
Bigfoot73 said:
You said:
"It still leaves all these strange lights to be accounted for, and all the witness reports of a missile fired from the Woolworth Building,"
Yes, there were lots of inconsistent witness reports,as there are with any major incident (I remember at the time one witness swearing it was an F-16 which had flown into the WTC). It's easy to try and read too much into them, and there are many websites doing that for a passtime.
Zilch5 said:Looking further into it - what Rummy was doing
a) complaining that the Pentagon didn't get enough money
b) that they had no idea where some of the existing funds were going
In his defense (and I don't like defending him at all) he was new in the portfolio and basically blaming the previous administration for not giving the military enough funds and not knowing where the existing funds were going.
Well, they fixed that pretty soon.
You must be reading a different Rumsfeld speech than me. He was arguing that
a) the Pentagon wasted too much taxpayers money on its bloated bureaucracy which could be better spent on training and equipment, and
b) it was hard for the auditors to efficiently track spending because of the Pentagon's antiquated financial systems
Bigfoot73 said:
The debunking of the door sensor data was as follows:
This was in turn debunked by someone claiming that all FDRs had been updated on all planes prior to 9/11 due to legislation introduced by the FAA. However, from what I can find, there is no evidence to suggest that the new parameters required by the pre-9/11 legislation included the door sensor data on the type of FDR fitted on Flight 77. To further back this up, Flight 93's FDR did not record the door sensor parameter so there is no need to assume that the FDR on Flight 77 would have been required to.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Cavynaut said:
Personally I'd wait 'til after a catastrophic failure by the department of defence resulted in a few thousand deaths to push home the point that the current set-up wasn't fit for purpose but that's just me, I guess. I'm not an evil genius. :cry:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,306
ted_bloody_maul said:
I'm not sure if I've put the point that I'm trying to make across quite clearly enough.
There was a definite motive for the Bush Administration to either ignore warnings of an attack, or indeed initiate a false flag operation.
Klein says that the privatisation mania was mainly over by 2001. For private business to be able to extract more cash from the government, then certain 'core functions' would need to be effectively privatised. The only way in which the public could be railroaded into going along with this was by a combination of spectacle and fear. They got both with the televised attack on the WTC.
If, after a devastating physical and psychological attack on your society, you were told that parts of the very department that you looked to for your defence were about to be hived off to the private sector, how would you feel? Without being presumptious, I'd guess that you wouldn't be very happy. But after 911, by the time you knew about it, it was done.
That's what I mean by shock and awe.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
Well, you can make the argument that it was neccessary for 'shock and awe' to get the public to accept this privatisation although it's entirely speculation. It seems to me in the aftermatch of 9/11 the American public were probably not that interested in the accounting and business model of their department of defence. Indeed you could argue that having just being dealt a massive military blow (and remember it was the alleged conspirators who determined it to be a military matter) that suddenly weakening military accountability and oversight would be a harder sell, not an easier one.
In any case that doesn't explain why Rumsfeld would need to trumpet it in advance when - according to the argument you outline - his case would be made for him 24 hours later.
I'll be starting Klein's book fairly soon - does she really argue that the privatisation mania had ended by 2001? It would seem fairly obvious that during the years of Democrat government under Clinton it would have receded but then it's worth pointing out that the Democrats were hardly given a ringing endorsement at the 2000 election (which arguably they won but given the relative stability, particularly economic, of the previous 8 years one might have expected a stronger vote for Gore).
In any case that doesn't explain why Rumsfeld would need to trumpet it in advance when - according to the argument you outline - his case would be made for him 24 hours later.
I'll be starting Klein's book fairly soon - does she really argue that the privatisation mania had ended by 2001? It would seem fairly obvious that during the years of Democrat government under Clinton it would have receded but then it's worth pointing out that the Democrats were hardly given a ringing endorsement at the 2000 election (which arguably they won but given the relative stability, particularly economic, of the previous 8 years one might have expected a stronger vote for Gore).
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,306
ted_bloody_maul said:
Which is why you need to administer the shock. The point is that a society will either not notice or will accept that such changes are needed because they are in a state of psychological shock.
Covering his arse maybe? In the event of an investigation, he could come out with the same argument you make. "Why would I have said that if I'd have known what was going to happen 24 hours later?"
I think you'll enjoy it.
No, Klein says that the privatisation mania had sold off those non-core sectors such as rubbish collection, power supply and highway management by the late 80's/ early 90's. Her point is that they had run out of things to privatise, a shock to the public psyche was necessary in order to grab the rest, the core sectors.One other thing, the page number I referenced was wrong. It's actually page 288, not 258. Damn this crap lighting and my knackered eyes!
Dr B : - sorry it has taken so long for me to respond. I've just checked the spreadsheet again and it says 'closed' at the relevant intervals. Thus there was a sensor checking it.
As for Flight 93, this is news to me and i will now go and check it out.
As for Flight 93, this is news to me and i will now go and check it out.
Doc, I've got as far as a Pilots for... thread of 27th Nov '09 but they were yet to investigate 93's door sensor.
Wembley, my claims about the lights are only improbable if a more convincing everyday explanation can be found, and there isn't one. I have seen these lights in other videos and they need explaining.
So one witness thought it was an F16? They were wrong. Several witnesses saw a missile being launched from the Woolworth Building, and what would they have been misidentifying ?
Wembley, my claims about the lights are only improbable if a more convincing everyday explanation can be found, and there isn't one. I have seen these lights in other videos and they need explaining.
So one witness thought it was an F16? They were wrong. Several witnesses saw a missile being launched from the Woolworth Building, and what would they have been misidentifying ?
Bigfoot73 said:
I don't know, and it's hard to see wny it might matter.
Is there any actual evidence that a missile was launched from the Woolworth building? Anybody in the building would certainly have noticed, and they would leave some significant burn marks and other evidence.
Well, it might matter in as much as it would enable people to judge whether the object witnesses saw was a missile or not.
Shoulder-launched missiles are propelled from their launch tube by compressed air, so as not to burn the person holding it. Thus there would be no scorch marks.
Shoulder-launched missiles are propelled from their launch tube by compressed air, so as not to burn the person holding it. Thus there would be no scorch marks.
Spookdaddy
Cuckoo
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 8,020
- Location
- Midwich
Bigfoot73 said:
That's simply not true. Or, maybe I should say, not as universally true as this statement implies. There are plenty of shoulder launched missile systems that will leave scorch marks on anything, or anyone, too close to the backblast.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,306
wembley9 said:
There is supposed to be a picture of damage to the Woolworth building roof. It's pretty bloody elusive though!
If you accept the video as reall, it's pretty certain that something happened on the roof. That puff of smoke indicates that something was going on.
Scorch marks or no scorch marks (scorch-avoiding missile or not scorch-avoiding missile) it is highly unlikely we will find out anything new now, unless the photo Cavynaut mentions turns up.
However there was definitely something very odd going on around the Woolworth Building that is not explained by the official story.
However there was definitely something very odd going on around the Woolworth Building that is not explained by the official story.