9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

Taken from Loose Change thread to prevent repetition.

For puts on options: from 9/11 Commission.

I assume you'll snide at the 9/11 commision for being a white wash, but theres an answer to your claim.

NORAD stand down order article from Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

 

Ok Lodui...I have provided my evidence of AB brown and other companies involvement in Insider Trading, it is credible and i can find find other sources which i'll definitly include here...the problem that we come to when we talk about inside trading is the SEC holds all the files that we can find to prove who actually did all this, but unfortunutely all those files that were recorded were destroyed in the WTC7 building when that came down under suspicious circumstances because it was never hit by a plane. There were a FEW reports that were saved that point us in the direction we want but not enough. How do we know that in the 911 commission report (Which has 571 legitimate errors listed by Scholar David Ray Griffin) this man wasn't hired to do this for an even larger apparatus of companies and awarded a share so they could have plausible deniability? It all comes down to who you want to believe but we both have facts on our side to help our argument.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html
"Put options are essentially a bet that a stock's price will fall abruptly. The seller, having entered into a time-specific contract with a buyer, does not need to own the actual shares at the time the contract is purchased. Therefore, if a holder of the put option has a contract to sell a stock such as American Airlines for (e.g.) $100 a share on a Friday and the stock falls to $50 on Wednesday, they can purchase the stock, sell it on Friday and double their money. The person on the other end of the contract (the call) has an obligation to buy the shares at the agreed upon price. The bank handling the transaction as a broker is the only entity knowing the identities of both parties."

"FTW also revealed that the A.B. Brown (Alex Brown) investment arm of the banking giant Deutschebank/A.B. Brown had been headed until 1998 by the man who is now the Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. In fact, Krongard is but one name in a long history of CIA interconnections to stock trading and the world's financial markets."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading
"August 6, 2001: Suspicious Trading of Companies Affected by 9/11 May Begin by This Date

Insider trading based on advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks may have begun on this date (August 6th, ended on September 11th), if not earlier. Investigators later discover a large number of put option purchases (a speculation that the stock will go down) that expire on September 30 at the Chicago Board Options Exchange are bought on this date. If exercised, these options would have led to large profits. One analyst later says, “From what I’m hearing, it’s more than coincidence.” [Reuters, 9/20/2001]"



As for the Standdown order, I am actually not completely a believer of it, although there is evidence to show it happened, the strongest being the Norman Mineta Testimony which, mind you, was not even INCLUDED in the 911 report. I actually believe myself the Norad and FAA controllers meant well but screwed up because of all the drills and wargames going on enacting the EXACT same thing as 911.


So, knowing I am not really a "standdown order" believer, I just want to state that I want Cheney to come forward about this ON TV AND UNDER OATH so we can figure out what the hell he was talking about, if he continues to keep silent conspiracy theories will only thrive about this. Atleast larry silverstein came public about his "pull it" comments and said he meant different then demolish, and guess what? after he retracted his statement, even know it could be shown he meant demolish (I don't believe he did mean demolish) "Loose Change" took it out of their movie.


So...If Dick Cheney just wants to give more scenes to "loose change", more cannon fodder for 911 truthers, and more questions for them to ask... he can go ahead, or he can come forward and atleast LIE TO US and make up something...but he continues to hide in the shadows and do his 911 commission testimony with GWB in secret with no cameras or reporters, and under no oath...and this doesn't sound like a criminal to you. Also, I am using a Transportation Secretary at the Pentagon's testimony and your using a Vanity Article, I honestly would expect something better then that to tell me that the standdown order didn't happen. I read this article and they make no mention of Norman Mineta's Testimony and they have not made a reason for why Cheney would have told him "the orders still stand" yet the plane still hit the building. They also claim that the order to shootdown a plane would need to come from the commander and chief, But this is just not true...


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/FAA_9-11.htm
"procedures are fully in place for NMCC commanding officers and the DOD to order such shoot-downs, when it's obvious an attack of some kind is underway."

According to Robert Bowman who was an intercepor pilot for a long time of his life, A Norad Intercepor on Cheyenne Mountan or Langley or anywhere else does not need ANY confirmation or order from the commander and chief, the secretary of defense, or the vice president. BUT, on June of 2001 there was an order signed which put Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in charge or Flight Interceptions (Of course they left dumb george out of it haha). This order is entitled CJCSI 3610.01A. Don't believe me? Here is the document itself.


http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
"In the event of a Hijacking. The NMCC (National Military Command Center) will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the secretary of defense for approval.


And you can cleary read at the top of the article this was signed into effect on June first 2001, a few months before the attack. To me, that sounds like a smoking gun.


Your article is also filled with quotations about "is this real world or exercise" and "Man, I've never seen this much real world during an exercise". This is evidence that the Norad controllers were not in chaos and had no clue what to do, it shows thye were confused because there were wargames of WTC 1 and 2 being hit, and the pentagon being hit by an aircraft, and then when someone comes on the interceptor and tells them that they don't want to give a shootdown order for an wargame exercise that the military is doing.

 

You think securities exchanges are kept on paper?

Do you think when it's made it's only stored on one computer? I know you aren't that gulliable angel. Security exchanges are among the most well documented transactions in the world, and everything you posted for suspicious airline exchanges was from 2001, well before an investigation could be conducted.

As for WTC7 it was hit by thousands of tons of burning falling debris. Already talked about that earlier.

David Ray Griffin is a philosphy professor, who was involved in the 'truth movement' prior to the 911 commision reports, so I would contend a huge bias and lack of credentials to anaylse this data.

You're right, we both do have contentions, although I don't think I'll ever be able to convince you that the government didn't do this, because I will never be able to uncover a document saying that this was a surprise, because if it was a surprise, no such document would have been created.

You might be able to get your hands on a document that says the governments plans to crash an airplane into the WTC and the pentagon, although if there was such a plot, I doubt you'd be able to get your hands on it no matter how good you were at reporting.

So I'm going to try and avoid getting into the whys because we'll never be able to convince each other that way, which is where the other thread was going.

Lets just agree to disagree on the why, because that will just go around in endless circles.

We can still discuss the technical elements.

Mineta said he didn't have specific knowledge of shoot down orders. Then he said that 77 was to be shoot down, while the other non strategic (thought at the time) ones were not ordered to be shoot down.

Norman Minetas a resectable guy, so I'm not contending with any of this, it's just not clear from his interview what his knowledge of the NORAD events were exactly.

It's not a very good claim, since pulling a building is not a demolision term for implosion, and pulling a building the size of WTC7 wouldn't work.

Moreover, a developer wouldn't have the autority to order a building be demolished during a fire. It's further detailed in the article I posted.

You're nto even agreeing with the this aspect of the conspiracy while I provided NORAD transcripts hosted on Vanity Fair.

The article mentions the limited number of planes in the air at that time, and how they were busy tracking 93, it only took an hour for 77 to be downed. There was never any order to shoot down 77. They were also chasing ghost planes (planes believed to have been hijacked, but were not.

77 was only in the air for a little more then an hour.

Wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/06/18/AR2005040311317.html

"Pursuant to the president's instructions, I gave authorization for them to be taken out," Cheney told Rumsfeld

NORAD has authority to bring down hijacked planes, not shoot them down. Bringing down means to force a landing. Only the commander and Cheif has the authority for shoot downs. You're article mentions secret sources and brings up Lewinsky. It's hardly credible.

Right, NORAD doesn't need presidential autority to order a plane to be brought down.

That was long standing policy, not a change, and again, it's talking about autority to bring down, not shoot down flights, a power granted to the Commander and Cheif.

It was a change to existing laws, not new rules. How is that a smoking gun?

How do not in chaos and no clue what to do relate?

Use specific quotes please.

 

Rat

“People have explained to you everything you've asked them to the best of their ability”

People have but you and Angel and some others haven’t.

If by this statement you were trying to claim YOU have explained YOUR views, it would be a lie.

You have claimed many times before to have answered some question or other that I’ve asked that you clearly haven’t and my is always – where have you supposedly answered - and at that point you usually run away or call me a name.

**

“Since you claim I cannot back my claims up -- which I have done numerous times”

Now that is a lie.

Where have you supposedly successfully backed up your claims? If there are numerous occasions then you must remember one and link to it?

This is another flawed viewpoint that is common in US politics (that make Rat such a fascinating subject) the belief that if an untruth is repeated enough times then it can be turned into a truth. The problem is that a lie told often remains a lie, just a much-repeated lie.

**

“maybe YOU could actually explain your stance on what YOU believe (which you have never done)”

Rat my friend I’ve given my opinion and explained it on many subjects, from taxation to media regulation and on to electoral reform. I can link to many of them, but I’ve got nothing to hide, if you want to ask a political question go ahead I’ll try and answer it to the best of my ability.

If you want a political discussion just begin a thread, I love having open and honest debates about politics. But remember it only works if both sides are open and honest and I’m afraid to say that you haven’t been open or honest for most of your time on this forum.

Here are just a few threads I’ve started in which I give my opinion

Is Socialism the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of an all-powerful state
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179448

The lefts better argument
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169214

Tear up the US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146334

Lessening elite media influence?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146728

Are all left wing views communist?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143894

Politics, to do something or not to do something?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145798

**

For example you ask - “So have YOU explained how Left wing politics lessen the power of the few and increase the power of the people?”

But I said clearly seven months ago -

“Get money out of politics

Increase taxes on rich individuals and corporations

Join international bodies to plug tax evasion.

Regulate media companies (break them up and give licencing priority to community groups or co-ops)

Move away from a militaristic society

Use the money from above to build a social infrastructure society.

Scrap the present constitution and re-write one for the 21st century (allowing PR and international co-operations)

All these would in my opinion would work toward diminishing the influence of the wealthy elite”
Politics, to do something or not to do something?
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145798

And although that was written over seven months ago, it was just putting in list form things I’d talked about many times before (and since).

I’ve been asking you what kind of policies you would like to bring in to tackle the wealthy elite for a lot longer than seven months and I’m still very little the wiser. I mean you have championed right wing libertarianism but refuse to discuss it, I’ve tried
Tribute to Immigration's Terry Anderson
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87769&page=4&pp=10
But all I got was insults.

**

I began the “Rat "I am willing to debate you" thread” http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112948&page=1&pp=10

On the 22nd August 2005 yes a year ago and still many of the question (if not all) remain unanswered.

“To recap -

Rat seems to support the type of policies that would favour the wealthy elite.

Rat seems to say that voting isn’t worth it, which favours the wealth sponsored political parties.

Rat seems to say that it isn’t worth organising for change, which gives the wealthy elite a free hand to organise for changes that favour them.

Rat seems to claim that all left wing political thinking is controlled (in fact was invented) by the conspiracy he believes in and therefore should not be supported. Which favours the wealthy elite.

Now why is it that Rat (and others like him) who claim to be so against the wealthy elite, seem to be supporting so much that would favour the wealthy elite and make their position stronger?”

I was asking those questions then and I’m still asking them.

 

You say that Rat supports the type of policies that would favor the elite...what would favor the elite more than this?

"Scrap the present constitution and re-write one for the 21st century (allowing PR and international co-operations) "

you saying things like this makes me question YOUR credibility, the consitution and bill of rights are the only things we have left in this country.

 

Running a jumbo jet into a structure like the towers is capable of destroying them. We know that now. No CD is needed.

I do agree with you that more of the debris should have been saved and studied carefully. There was debris that was collected initially by the civil engineering group ASCE, but it was an unofficial type of activity.

The government has literally put shattered vehicles back together after pulling the debris from the ocean piece by piece, such as the Challenger and Flight 800 off of Long Island. The WTC debris should have been collected carefully and studied and used to design better buildings.

.

 

"The WTC debris should have been collected carefully and studied and used to design better buildings. Unfortunately, what was left of the WTC is now in the engine blocks of our SUVs that are made in China."

Lol...see shaggie you are a truther at heart but you don't buy controlled demolition, and thermate, etc. WHY do you think that even know there were still intact firefighters under the rubble, giulianai, who used to be a former prosecutor (so he knows about the trouble you get for DESTROYING A CRIME SCENE) called the operation a "scoop and dump" operation and shipped ALL the steel and remains to china as fast as possible...because someone from the top knew what would happen if that steel was examined. If there was nothing to cover up they could have searched from the bodies longer and not rushed everythng out to China. Even if they did scoop it up and dump it as fast as possible why did they not leave any except VERY small petite amounts for a memorial? There is too much shady buisness going on for you to not atleast think that the Bush Administration LET IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.

 

Thank you Angel

“You say that Rat supports the type of policies that would favor the elite...what would favor the elite more than this?
"Scrap the present constitution and re-write one for the 21st century (allowing PR and international co-operations) "
you saying things like this makes me question YOUR credibility, the consitution and bill of rights are the only things we have left in this country”

It is a great subject and this gives me an opportunity to bump up the ‘Tear up the US constitution?’
(http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146334 ) thread.

I’ll put your comments in it and answer you there

Once again thanks.

**

As to Rat, I’m sure it’s not just me that has noticed that once more he has run away from explaining the many and varied contradictions in his views.

Just as I’m sure people have noticed that you Angel, still haven’t answered the questions directed at you.

 

ok...post every question in THIS thread that you want me to answer...balbus the problem is that when you ask me a quetion, i answer my opinion on it, and then you don't agree so you claim I didn't answer your question, so just post every one you want me to answer in this thread and i will try my best to answer them, I don't know how much more open I can be with this. Plus...who the hell are you to tell us that we should tear up our constitution when you don't even live in our country. Maybe you Europeans are used to having no sovereignty but here in the US we like sovereignty and we aren't about to lose it to a bunch of globalist corporations, and give them the ability to rewrite the constitution, it sounds like you are speaking FOR those globalists by saying that.

 

I was breexing over what I had already posted, and realised I hadn't adressed one of thetechnical assertions.

He said the dark color of the flames implied it was a smouldering fire, there are however, many reasons to think the fire was still raging.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

How else could the fire be the color it was? Probably tons of burning plastic (polycarbonates) which are known to give smoke a dark black color.

The NIST report also concludes that the fires were almost out by the time of the collapse.

 

The 911 cleanup of personal belongings such as rings and licenses was done very meticulously. The metallurgical cleanup was what could have been done much better.

The metal was moved to the landfill sites so quickly that there wasn't a chance to document where the pieces actually came from. For example, the eroded steel specimen analyzed by MIT that formed a eutectic of iron sulfide and iron oxide was believed to have come from WTC7, but the report didn't say they were sure if it came from there. That's the problem with moving debris quickly from ground zero to another place. You don't know if a piece harvested from a landfill is indigenous to a particular building unless the beam or column had a serial number on it that was readable and still connected to the harvested piece.

BTW, the steel specimen that formed a eutectic has been erroneously claimed by conspiracy groups to have melted at the melting point of steel, which it didn't. Steel melts at about 1450 C. The eutectic that formed near the surface of the steel specimen melted at about 500 to 600 C, well within the temperatures of a hydrocarbon fire.

The fringe claim was that intentionally placed thermate melted the steel at its melting point of 1450 C. It's clear that didn't happen. The microstructure of the eroded steel would have looked very different from what was observed.

One of the characteristics of a eutectic is that it's melting point can be lower than its constituents. Solder is a good example. 60/40 lead-tin solder melts at about 183 C, but its constituents lead and tin melt at 327 C and 232 C, respectively. For the eroded steel specimen, the constituents were iron sulfide and iron oxide, analogous to the lead and tin of solder.

There was oxygen and sulfur available for the eutectic to form in the steel. Sulfur sources included diesel fuel, rubber in car tires, polymers, and the gypsum powder from drywall (calcium sulfate).

.

 

Black smoke doesn't mean oxygen starved or smoldering fires. Lay out a plate of oil and set it on fire. It will generate plenty of black smoke and burn hot. Fuel-rich or oxygen-limited would be a better description. Black smoke makes a fire within a structure hotter by acting as an insulator, something that people don't seem to be aware of. It also blocks the site of the fire making it appear from the outside that the fires aren't that bad.

The windows on the towers were about 22 inches wide yet the towers were 208 feet across. Clearly, it won't be possible to see the full extent of the fires from the outside with that type of geometry. Conspiracy groups are quick to try to capitalize on that fact and claim that the fires weren't that bad, even though the east side of the south tower bowed in slowly and steadily over time, another indicator of the weakening of the steel at elevated temperature.

The amount of smoke, its color, and its bouyancy would be three factors that could be used to estimate the intensity of the fires in the towers. People who are expects in fire science would know more about this.

The amount of smoke, its dark color, and bouyancy in the WTC7 fire increase in the afternoon hours up to its collapse. It's difficult to explain that in terms of office materials burning. They would have burned up in an hour or so for a particular floor, yet the fires remained nearly all day on the 5th to 7th floor levels and worsened toward the collapse. It's difficult to explain that without the diesel fuel sources aiding the fire.

.

 

That's typical of truther claims. It was supposedly 'something else' that caused it but no details are given. The towers and WTC7 fell without any explosions.

There wasn't any controlled demolition and the conspiracy groups haven't shown any evidence of it. The towers collapsed as a result of the aircraft damage and fires. WTC7 collapsed due to damage from debris from the north tower and the resulting fires coupled with the unusual design of WTC7.

I encourage anyone to check out the WTC7 videos of Steve Spak. He was across the street during mid-day taking video of the fires in WTC7. The amount of smoke coming out of WTC7 was huge, billowing out of just about every floor on the south side. It's something that you don't get a handle on by looking at stills in the NIST report. If you watch the videos you will understand the extent of the fires in WTC7 and the damage they were capable of doing.

Everyone should do some research on the structure of WTC7 at the 5th to 7th floor levels. There was a system of load transfer trusses and girders that made the structure vulnerable to collapse in a situation where fires burned for a long time. It's usually not mentioned on any of the truther sites.

The transfer system was the result of building the WTC7 highrise over the ConEdison electrical substation which didn't permit a direct path of the load-bearing columns to the ground. The new WTC7 that is currently under construction will have a concrete core to prevent this vulnerability.

.

 

Angel

Oh it seems that once again I need to explain the nature of debate. Someone puts up an opinion, others ask questions, seek clarification or ask for explanations and put up criticisms, the person (or persons) that put up the opinion answers the questions, gives explanations and defends their views from criticisms.

These in their turn throw up new questions and new criticisms.

In this way an idea is seen to stand up (or not) to scrutiny.

**

In your own words you dislike this idea, you have said you don’t like to talk to people that think your views wrong you only want to talk to “likeminded” people, and you have stated that no criticism or scrutiny of your viewpoint is going to change your mind (Post 15 above)

I tried to explain how silly that was in Post 18 and how it was the opposite of what debate is about.

You didn’t reply.

In Post 21 I posted some questions and criticisms of your views (from another thread) you hadn’t replied to in answer to a post by Lick.

You still didn’t reply to them (in this thread or the other) in fact your only comment was I believe the sarcastic “Balbus wow you really must not have any time on your hands bro...” (post 24).

In post 28 I again tried again to explain the nature of debate.

Again you didn’t reply to any of the criticisms levelled at you and replied with another sarcastic comment “I think Balbus literally just spends his whole day writing LONG, Drawn out worthless threats...”(post 30)

Still no answer to the questions or criticisms some first raised on the 10 JULY in the Alex Jones thread (post 17 http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175494&page=2&pp=10)

But in Post 105 you attack me for a statement from a completely different thread that I’d reproduced in something directed to Rat .

None the less in line with common courtesy I replied to your comment on the US constitution in the appropriate thread (In which you haven’t replied) and I informed you of this here in Post 108. As an aside I also made the comment that you seem reluctant to answer questions on you views or reply to criticisms of them.

Look again at this history are you really saying you are willing to answer questions and criticisms of your views when you have been evading doing so for 40 days while posting some 50 posts on other subjects ?

The fact is that this is not uncommon there are many instances of you running away from questions or criticism and all the threads are still open so if you truly have decided to begin having open and honest debates you can easily return to them.


**

 

LOL

“Plus...who the hell are you to tell us that we should tear up our constitution when you don't even live in our country.”

And who the hell are you to say I can’t give my opinion on any subject I want in an open forum on the web?

**

“Maybe you Europeans are used to having no sovereignty but here in the US we like sovereignty and we aren't about to lose it to a bunch of globalist corporations, and give them the ability to rewrite the constitution, it sounds like you are speaking FOR those globalists by saying that”

You really didn’t understand did you or have you not read the posts in the US constitution thread?

I’m actually saying that the “globalist corporations” should have less power, and the best way to combat that power is to make the people’s voice stronger.

As I’ve said come on over to the US constitution thread and we could talk.

 

I got sent this from a guy named Zoomer, who can't post here yet.

These small parts didn't contribute much to the demolition aspects, but several of the writers lost friends in the WTC. I wouldn't be surprised that they find the claims unsound and somewhat insulting.

I don't know exactly how they feel, but I assume getting asked the same basic questions is fustrating.

So you dismiss any expert analysis which is critical of your ideas.

Thats a very common dodge in the conspiracy movement. Claiming that the source is biased, so therefore they don't have to address the facts the experts present.

It's called Ad Hominem.

I did provide several examples of other fires causing progressive collapse in steel buildings however. There are many too look at.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

Actually parts of that building did collapse. The steel beams which did lose support, lost it after only an hour and a half of fire.

It was also constructed completly differently from the WTC, using a concrete steel reinforced center, other then the tube within a tube deisgn the WTC used.

The engineers and fire crew who worked on the domlition, said they were amazed how well this design held up to the fires.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150
It was a completly differently structured building which performed so well under the fires, engineering crews are looking into that design to build more buildings.

It also didn't have giant airliners crash into it and spill thousands of tons of jet fuel.

Drawing an analysis between the two is dubious.

I'll leave it at that.

 

Whoops, didn't mean to take his thing out of context. Heres his whole post.

 

I am not completely up to date on the timeline of 9/11 events, but you are saying that NORAD stood down? Please explain (include liked reports if available).

Note: I am getting in on this thread a little late, but it seems the boards have been somewhat slow lately so I decided to unearth this thread to arouse some discussion.

 

Balbus, I dont feel as an american that I need to listen to your useless rambling about your views on the AMERICAN constitution. We all know you europeans don't even let your own citizens carry guns, how much more fascist can you get? the last thing I wanna hear is some europeon on these forums trying to tell me and my fellow americans how we should run our country and that our constitution should be rewritten, go screw yourself, the american constitution is what has saved us from corruption and fascism like you europeans have for years, and were trying to preserve that.

 

Your blind. You will never know the truth about 9/11....therefore you waste my time. Keep moving on in your life with rose colored glasses...oh wait they aren't rose colored anymore they are just pitch black, you ignorant fool.