The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

Loose Ends - Open discussion split from Bulging/Leaning

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

Loose Ends - Open discussion split from Bulging/Leaning

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:40 pm

Moderator's Note:

This thread began as an off-topic digression in Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations? and subsequently took on a life of its own. There are many discussions contained herein, and a split to several different threads is appropriate but more of a pain in the *** than I'm willing to do right now. Maybe sometime soon.

So, in this first post, "this thread" refers to THAT thread, and any comments in the first 30 pages about being off topic or splitting the thread pertain to pre-split conditions.


If nothing else, this thread can serve to tie up some gossipy loose ends.

DGM, you just posted something interesting at ISF:

[quote="DGM"]I was around in the heyday and I find it telling you mention "Triforcharity" to be a legitimate example of a debunker. You do know he was not in NYC on 9/11 as he claimed? In fact, I can't actually think of anything he brought to the table.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11452921&postcount=77

I did not know that. I always suspected it; in fact I smelled ******** all over him in his first few posts. But he was accepted as-is and it went that way for a long time and I just assumed my BS meter was wrong. So, turns out I was right. What's the story on how triforcharity was debunked?

Why ask in this thread? Because my last barn dance at JREF was related to the subject of this thread. In fact, my last post at JREF was the subject of this thread. You can see it's been near and dear to me over the years. ****, Oystein, you just had to throw a wrench in it! :mrgreen:

triforcharity had said " ...I personally saw WTC 7 before it fell, and I knew it would fall. I saw the bulge myself. Building that are not in dire conditions do not bulge over ~10 storeys. "

I wanted to call him out as a liar, but that wouldn't have gone over well at all (especially as I was already fighting the mark of woo by not ***-kissing the regulars and reciting my articles of faith, and I had no proof), so I decided to try to tease information out of him, in a friendly sort of way, to trip him up. I didn't last long enough at JREF to bring that about.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby DGM » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:02 pm

[quote="OneWhiteEye"]If nothing else, this thread can serve to tie up some gossipy loose ends.

DGM, you just posted something interesting at ISF:

[quote="DGM"]I was around in the heyday and I find it telling you mention "Triforcharity" to be a legitimate example of a debunker. You do know he was not in NYC on 9/11 as he claimed? In fact, I can't actually think of anything he brought to the table.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11452921&postcount=77

I did not know that. I always suspected it; in fact I smelled ******** all over him in his first few posts. But he was accepted as-is and it went that way for a long time and I just assumed my BS meter was wrong. So, turns out I was right. What's the story on how triforcharity was debunked?



Not really much of a story. Your BS meter was spot on. LashL was the first to notice his inconsistencies that lead to his being outed and banned.

No question he was playing a part and people accepted that as fact and credibility.

The house was cleaned and as you likely see I have no problem supporting a person that may not toe the line with others. I'm not worried, I like tilting windmills.............. :D
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby DGM » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:22 pm

I know it's off topic here but considering you are obviously watching ISF, What do you think of the new Jon Gold thread?
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby SanderO » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:56 pm

You refers to who?

I think he is a sort of truther light and his motivation is to help the victims families... somehow. There was a victim's compensation fund/ settlement which is like an insurance payout... Was it enough? Who knows. While this is no admission of liability... the implication may be that the US give paid because the expectation was that they were supposed to keep people in the USA safe from attacks... hijackings and so forth.

Was this possible at the time? Did they drop the ball? Are we taking LIHOP... or MIHOP or something else? Do we need to indict people from the GWB administration for negligence? Or worse?

He has no technical expertise... so all he can do is be political and follow the experts of his choosing.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Aug 21, 2016 10:13 pm

DGM wrote:I know it's off topic here but considering you are obviously watching ISF, What do you think of the new Jon Gold thread?

You had to ask... heh heh.

I'd say he came in spamming. I have no idea why he'd put in an appearance at ISF. It's a 'kick me' sign.

I try to refrain from participating in politically oriented 9/11 topics. I read them sometimes, or used to, but it's a realm of great uncertainty and not so amenable to the type of analysis I'm more comfortable with. I can't evaluate the correctness of most of the claims and just end up having to leave it in the low or no confidence realm - either way, official story (stories, really) or anti.

It seems all he's willing to cop to is LIHOP. Don't know if there's more under the surface but I don't think so. If so, he's got the good sense to keep it (say CD) on the down low. Keep it on the down low long enough, it might just go away on its own.

Do you see me tapdancing to avoid conclusions on the political spectrum? Yeah. All I can commit to on this front is - nothing about government/military/etc would surprise me too much. I have no qualms about saying our air defenses were completely ineffectual, and that's quite enough to get riled up as a taxpayer and citizen. Were they supposed to shoot them down? Irrelevant, they couldn't even find them. You know, that kind of sucks.

So, whether Jon Gold is onto anything or not isn't going to rock my worldview either way. The world is pretty strange, all in all.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Aug 21, 2016 10:30 pm

SanderO wrote:You refers to who?

Me, I'd suppose, since we'd just had an exchange.

I think he is a sort of truther light and his motivation is to help the victims families... somehow. There was a victim's compensation fund/ settlement which is like an insurance payout... Was it enough? Who knows.

I have no problems with helping the families, although there are all sorts of victims of human and natural calamity and they just keep coming. The victims of whatever tragedy are naturally focused on their cause as they should be. I have to take a higher level view of the situation. The only reason this victim demographic stands out to me is that the event was a shared experience. To the extent their aims may be aligned with my best interests I'm more attentive than in many other cases (e.g. Katrina victims), but not a great deal.


Did they drop the ball?

Yes. Unequivocally, yes. That's a separate matter from whether or not it could've been prevented at any time or any level.

I remember when AIDS was ravaging the gay community in the early 80's and during this time the San Francisco bay area radio stations ran a PSA saying it was okay to share toothbrushes. Aside from the fact that gums bleed when brushed so it wasn't okay, who the hell shares a toothbrush?

So, government.

Do we need to indict people from the GWB administration for negligence? Or worse?

Worse. But why stop with Bush?
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:19 pm

I will say this, paloalto is superficially cleaning up over there. 'Superficially' because, as I say, I'm not in a position nor possess motivation to evaluate the claims. In terms of debate conduct and presentation, kicking ***. An air of credibility amongst a stench of kneejerking.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:00 am

[quote="OneWhiteEye"]I will say this, paloalto is superficially cleaning up over there. 'Superficially' because, as I say, I'm not in a position nor possess motivation to evaluate the claims. In terms of debate conduct and presentation, kicking ***. An air of credibility amongst a stench of kneejerking.

I just posted a comment which is mildly faeces agitating.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st11453263

I have always tended to ignore paloalto because:
1) he writes "wall of text" material that is impenetrable to me (AU citizen).
2) It is always "socio-political" domain which I regard as:
(a) beyond debate on a forum;
(b) esp one which which operates mostly in "technical domain"

UNLESS the presenter has the skill to make it accessible - which paloalto has failed to do in my case - NEVER caught my attention.

Thanks OWE for what amounted to a hint which I took.

I deliberately made some "cryptic comments" about the structure of MIHOP, LIHOP and ignoring of LIHOOI. Any one familiar with my interests will know exactly what I am referring to. BUT I'm betting it raises ZERO comment or interest.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am
Top

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby Chainsaw » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:24 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:
SanderO wrote:You refers to who?

Me, I'd suppose, since we'd just had an exchange.

I think he is a sort of truther light and his motivation is to help the victims families... somehow. There was a victim's compensation fund/ settlement which is like an insurance payout... Was it enough? Who knows.

I have no problems with helping the families, although there are all sorts of victims of human and natural calamity and they just keep coming. The victims of whatever tragedy are naturally focused on their cause as they should be. I have to take a higher level view of the situation. The only reason this victim demographic stands out to me is that the event was a shared experience. To the extent their aims may be aligned with my best interests I'm more attentive than in many other cases (e.g. Katrina victims), but not a great deal.


Did they drop the ball?

Yes. Unequivocally, yes. That's a separate matter from whether or not it could've been prevented at any time or any level.

I remember when AIDS was ravaging the gay community in the early 80's and during this time the San Francisco bay area radio stations ran a PSA saying it was okay to share toothbrushes. Aside from the fact that gums bleed when brushed so it wasn't okay, who the hell shares a toothbrush?

So, government.

Do we need to indict people from the GWB administration for negligence? Or worse?

Worse. But why stop with Bush?


We can't, as was pointed out to me years ago, the problem wasn't with law enforcement it was with American law itself.
The Hijackers were suspects, but had committed at that time, no crime.
The laws didn't allow them to be arrested and stopped until caught in the act.
That is why the law was changed.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby SanderO » Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:21 am

Stopping a crime that hasn't been committed means charging the people with conspiracy. I don't the complexities of making a case stick... or keeping the supposed bad guys in jail until the case comes to trial. Bail and run? What constitutes a conspiracy case to send these guys away? Try to learn to fly?

I suspect that the approach would have been more along the lines of watch them "surreptitiously" and closely and catch them in the act.... or turn it into a sting with an agent who directs the illegal activity. My sense is that this is what was going on in 93, but it got out of control and they actually pulled it off.

Intel / FBI here and the equivalents abroad seem to not be able to connect the dots and these terrorist acts are repeated multiple times all over the place. Now they seem to think they need to mess around with some "bad" mosques... where these guys hang out. And also in prison where they meet, and get on with the recruitment. Eavesdrop on prison? Solitary confinement?

Terrorism is so low tech in so many cases that all the high tech measures seem to let it slip through the cracks. So I can predict with 100% certainty that there will be more attacks.. like Bataclan, Hebdo, Brussels' airport, Madrid, San Bernadino, Boston Marathon etc... And let's not forget that you have the lone nuts with access to guns and so on who want to take out people in a final desperate gesture of a failed life... and make a political statement in some cases.

Commercial jet as bomb(er) is less likely to happen... but at a huge expense to the public. The 911 attacks were a "success" with 4 commercial flights captured... more so when 3 got to hit targets... more so when they caused massive destruction to them... and loss of life.. more so when they messed up other buildings in lower Manhattan. The idiots in intel showed little to no imagination because historically plane hijackings were about "freeing" jailed "comrades" or political asylum. But they apparently knew about and thwarted Bojinka... so that to me is a red flag of DUMB for out trillion dollar national security state. So this sounds more like LIHOOI... The disgraceful thing is that little has changed except a tightening or personal freedom... no reduction is flooding the world with weapons... or ceasing from trying to mess with foreign governments, or ceasing or economic exploitation... The US continues to ally itself with the crazy Saudis... post the Bush Saud romance... supplying oodles of advanced weapons. For whose benefit?

Until we have a peace model as opposed to a war model for foreign policy... terrorism will continue.

And don't forget... without threat the national security state and MIC is without franchise...


You might want to read this:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... ntouchable
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:43 pm

[quote="Chainsaw"]We can't, as was pointed out to me years ago, the problem wasn't with law enforcement it was with American law itself.
The Hijackers were suspects, but had committed at that time, no crime.
The laws didn't allow them to be arrested and stopped until caught in the act.
That is why the law was changed.

I was referring to charging politicians and bureaucrats (with war crimes, actually) but, now that you mention it - cops arrest people all the time for trumped up ******** and always have. Ooops, that crumb of doughnut glaze on the car's floor is crystal meth! You're under arrest! We can hold you for 48 hours before releasing you and, what do you know??? In that time, you managed to hang yourself in the cell! Too bad for you.

Am I right or am I right? People end up dead in jail in this country for broken taillights. If law enforcement actually wanted any of these clowns to be taken off the street, they could've easily found a way. Even if charges had to be dropped and they had to be released, do you think they'd go forward with their plan after being thrown in the clink? I wouldn't and it's doubtful they would.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Top

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:45 pm

And like SanderO said, there's always been conspiracy as a charge.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:48 pm

That sort of stuff strikes me the same way as NORAD excuses.

"We were looking outward"

Then you weren't doing your fucking job in its entirety.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby DGM » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:22 pm

OneWhiteEye wrote:That sort of stuff strikes me the same way as NORAD excuses.

"We were looking outward"

Then you weren't doing your fucking job in its entirety.


We can discuss this in the proper thread but, I find this criticism to be without merit.

Fact is, the NORAD defense system was in fact geared to look outward. Internal defense was covered by the air-force divided into regional sectors. ATC has a much better picture of air traffic then the primary radar our defense was based on at the time (and largely still is today). They were actually tasked with assisting the air-force if the need arose. It was always assumed that if there was an intercept it would be an escort giving time to hopefully sort things out peacefully. You can't shoot down a commercial airliner over a populated area. I'm sure you know it's not going to make it disappear like in the movies.

On 9/11 the only plane they had any hope of intercepting would have be United 93. As we know the passengers intervened before the air-force got the chance.
DGM
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Bulging and Leaning Absent from NIST Simulations?

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:03 pm

Two things.

DGM wrote:Fact is, the NORAD defense system was in fact geared to look outward.

1) It may have been, but was that actually its mission, as in the whole of its mission? This is why I included the clause "in its entirety." If it was not executing the entirety of its mission, it wasn't doing its job. For this, I'll just lift a quote from paloalto:

paloalto wrote:On 6/17/2004, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick will question Gen. Myers about NORAD’s mission. “In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job.” […] “I would like to know, as the second question, is it your job, and if not whose job is it, to make current assessments of a threat, and decide whether you are positioned correctly to carry out a mission, which at least on paper NORAD had.” At the end of this exchange, Gen. Myers asks, “did I answer both questions?” Jamie Gorelick responds, “yes, and no, and my time has expired.” According to information collected by Dean Jackson, NORAD’s mission at the time, coincided with Jamie Gorelick’s understanding of it.


If NORAD's mission was not to "control of the airspace above the domestic United States", then I'm not the only one confused about it. If, in fact, I'm not confused - but they are - the argument holds.

2) To a large extent, it's irrelevant who is responsible for domestic air security. Someone was. Okay, so it's the Air Force. Where were they? What were they doing?

It's very easy to pass the buck. So let's pass it until it stops with the responsible agency and pose the question again: what were they doing?

At 1200mph, it takes less than 5 minutes to get from Cuba to US airspace over land. Am I supposed to believe that, once inside our airspace and absent an IFF transponder, such an incursion could go unchallenged for hours? They could go anywhere they wanted and do whatever? That it's expected and normal, and nothing can be done about it?

Maybe so. Then the trillions have been wasted, not on defense, but offense. I have higher expectations of people who soak me personally to the tune of several thousand annually for my "defense".

Internal defense was covered by the air-force divided into regional sectors. ATC has a much better picture of air traffic then the primary radar our defense was based on at the time (and largely still is today).

I would also call that not doing their job. It's like an oncologist who's happy to take your money but is nowhere to be found when it's time for chemo because they don't have the supplies on hand. How can they treat you without the materials on hand? Maybe they should have the materials on hand, or not take your money.

It was always assumed that if there was an intercept it would be an escort giving time to hopefully sort things out peacefully.

A bad assumption I'd also chalk off to not doing their job. The aforementioned example of incursion gives 5 minutes of warning.

You can't shoot down a commercial airliner over a populated area.

Neither can you shoot down a bomber without consequence. Hope that wouldn't stop them.

I'm sure you know it's not going to make it disappear like in the movies.

Yes, but as I say, talk of shootdown is irrelevant as it was never an option. It should have been.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred