Gee I wonder what they are trying to hide now.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/09/terrorist...r.ap/index.html

Have I said how much I hate these people....

'Doc

Terrorists with laser beams huh

I can picture it now a group of arab men decend on the local Office Max and clean out all their laser pointers and then line up along a runway to blind pilots as they try to land.

Terrorists with optical lasers trying to shine the beams into the cockpit from the ground...

Yeah. Right.

Like their going to be able to find the cockpit to target it from the ground or stand on the runway or in a tall enough building to line up a cockpit shot.

I've heard of paranoia but this has crossed into stupid.

We have three... laser pointers.. one for each kittie! Ooops ... guess I shouldn't say that... now we will be suspects!

And the sad thing is, many people will believe this!

oh my god

i cannot believe my eyes-

because just ONE WEEK AGO i saw a laser light in the sky- it was so bizarre that i couldn't believe my eyes- i called my husband and son out to look at it, my son took photos- when he gets home today i'm gonna make him find the photos-

we tried to think of ANY explanation for what we saw, but couldn't think of ANYTHING that made sense- it was very clearly a distinct laser light shining across the sky.

i didn't hink anything else about it until i read this.

i live between fort benning and maxwell AFB-


this is just too big of a coincidence.

my concern is that our own government is up to something and is using this 'terrorist warning' as some sort of ploy...


-t-

btw- what i saw was not the small bright laser light of kid fame...

it was quite large, it looked very much like the light beacon at airports- BUT it didn't blink, was a steady stream, was no larger in diameter on one horizon than the other, it seemed to 'glow' a very light pink color, and it moved across the sky slowly- it took about ten minutes for it to move out of sight-

-t-

Wren's right; this is no laser. The beam would have to be intensely focused, and probably very slender at that. I'm guessing what you saw was nothing more sinister than a high-powered spotlight.

'Bina.

Lots of moral questions about the use of lasers as weapons.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/20/...ain578998.shtml

'Bina.

I dont know about lasers and 9-11 but it was a controlled collapse, id be willing to bet there was C4 in all the buildings.

Hell Silverstein admitted they "pulled" building 7.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a comemrcial jet airliner.

Building 7 was pulled Silverstein admitted making the call to pull the building on a PBS interview for the program called America Rebuilds

If no explosives were used how did building # 7 fall?

FEMA on Building 7
Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:

At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.

Fire research by the UK at the Building Research Establishment's Cardington Laboratory in 1996 found in one of their tests on unprotected steel beans

So how did building #7 fall Doc? Since that was my question.

Pulled AFTER 9-11, probably due to suspected structural damage. And/or a desire to avoid liability, AND/OR a desire to make a hefty insurance claim.

Does that answer the question?

'Bina.

Your correct Bina it was pulled at 5:20pm 8 hours after the crash into the towers but the fire in the building wasnt reported until 4:10 pm. Silverstein accordign to his interview said he made the call to pull the building at 4:30 becasue the fire department didnt have enough people to fight the fire.

So with less than an hour worth of planning on the single most stressfull day in US History they pulled the 47 story office building which was built between the Verizon Building and the Federal Building without any damage to the neighboring buildings in the middle of what appeared to be a war zone.

If they didnt have enough people to fight a fire how did they have enough people to go into a burning building and plant explosive charges?

yeah, yeah, conpiracies abound- next thing you know, you guys will be telling me that my PARENTS put all those presents under the christmas tree!!!

my question regarding the 'missile at the pentagon' and 'c-4' theories is this:

why? why would they do it? if the whole thing was a setup (which i have no trouble at all believing) and bush allowed it to happen to engineer his war... why would it be necessary to bring down the towers? it was bad enough for all the necessary effect anyway...

i have absolutely no problem believing that our government WOULD do such a thing.

don't forget pearl harbor.

i just don't know WHY they'd go to all the trouble to use C-4 or send a missile into the pentagon, when planes had already provided the necessary emotional shock to the american public...



-t-

Yep...that's what this incident was really all about. Emotional impact. How else to whip the public into an anti-Muslim frenzy (as prelude to an invasion of predominantly Muslim Afghanistan, Iraq, and God only knows where all else)? They NEEDED that visual appeal. Everyone who was even remotely human would gasp in horror and clap their hands to their mouth, as I did, and forget their own names for that horrid instant when their eyes were glued to the scene. And then they'd see the falling bodies tumbling down the sides of the building and want to cry out--just like me.

But if, unlike you and me, they had NOT been watching BushCo BEFORE it happened, and had no idea what kind of tyrannical, cynical, manipulative assholes this bunch were, they'd be more easily duped into screeching for blood, blood, Muslim raghead blood blood BLOOD!!! Which is, of course, the kind of reaction BushCo and PNAC were and still are banking on, behind their bland and dopily cheery faces. Whenever someone makes noises about Iraq having nothing to do with it, the Bushniks just holler "Remember 9-11, you fucking traitor!" and that, they think, should suffice to shut you up. And if there aren't enough people behind you saying "We DO remember, and we remember Iraq having nothing to do with it!", you're fucked. That's why we have to keep saying it and saying it. And pointing out the ways the government stood to gain from LETTING IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE. Not to mention the many ways in which they DID let it happen--and it's very hard to claim they could NOT have done it on purpose. (I keep saying "read Richard Clarke and you will know ALL"--can you do with a repeat?)

But let's face it--the "pulling" of WTC-7 is a red herring to this argument. It happened after the twin towers went down, and you don't have to be a fireman to pull a building; you need to be a demolition expert with the know-how to stage a controlled implosion, which is a different breed of cat. So the idea that the fire department pulled WTC-7 is implausible and not particularly relevant here. No one was there to videotape THAT coming down, because no plane crashed into it.

Let's not lose sight of what really happened, folks--or WHY.

'Bina.

Pulling of Building 7 is very very relivent. How did demo experts rig the building up in an hour? Its a 47 story building!!!!! That kind of demo takes days of planning not an hour its impossible to have such a clean demo in that confined of a space unless the building and let me put on my tin hat for this was pre-wired. Heres a link to a site with video of the vertical demolition http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

The planes into the buildings would have been enough temporarily to get people in the mood for war but the removal of a symbol of our country fallign to the ground over and over and over again in the minds of the sheeple is something they will never forget. If the buildigns werent taken down they would have been repaired in a few months and only a few hundred people would have died not syaign their loss would have ment nothign but Americans have short attention spans and all we'd have to do is look up at the towers all repaird and forget about the problems.

Bina your right about who stands to gain but if you let these guys slide by knowing this was gonna happen and you needed a new pearl harbor to drive home the sticking point wouldnt you take the precaution of wireing the building to take advantage of the situation and make it more catastrophic and memorable to drive your war mongering home?

If we intercepted the Japanese bombers before Pearl Harbor happened do you think we'd have gone to war? If only one ship was lost in that battle would we have gone to war probably but the public opinion and outrage wouldnt have been as strongly for it. Just like here they needed to drive the point home.

I dont belive the govt flew the planes via remote control or used dummy planes but I do belive they knew it was gonna happen and took advantage of it and possibly assisted to push their war agenda. Without the buildings falling it would have been another attack like the 1993 bombing and easily forgotten by middle america, not a usefull scare tactic and a blank check for an already planned war.

Update from Salon's "Ask the Pilot" column:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/1...t116/index.html

As for WTC7.. if this building was on fire and so intense to tackle it, I have one question......

HOW exactly do you turn a building on fire into one that falls EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, without going inside and putting in those charges to bring it down exactly like a controlled demolition? hmmmmmmmm Do you poke it with sticks? or run trucks into the base? pray? I cant really see how myself.