| 0 |
Subject: Former CIA official speaks out about 9/11
Posted by: ukula
- [487511510] Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 11:55
Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979.
Another Nutbag, Whackjob? |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 47551520
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 23:24
|
Uke: You still don't get it. The story I linked to was satire. A joke. But you aren't perceptive enough to even get that The Onion is a joke web site (haha type of joke. Not "joke" as in lame).
|
| 37 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418
Tue, Aug 15, 2006, 23:32
|
WTC7 collapsed because of fire. I know this because the 9/11 commission said so.
There is no mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 commission report.
|
| 38 | Tree
ID: 4742165
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 06:47
|
aww, PD, you ruined it.
i was going to see how many posts into this thread it was going to take for the light bulb to go on.
|
| 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 2270168
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 09:02
|
After 13 & 34 I just couldn't do it anymore. Although who knows--maybe the game is still afoot. Feel free to jump in, if so.
:)
|
| 40 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:07
|
I just cannot that one can't know The Onion is satire. That's more inconceivable than the planet Zerg attack MC pointed out. Dang! I missed that attack! I must've been away.
- walk
|
| 41 | biliruben
ID: 535193010
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:10
|
Personally, the Protoss scare the bejezus out of me. Zerg? Target practice.
Ukula is simply reading the footnotes in World Net Daily articles a bit too carefully, and assuming if The Onion is a good enough source for them it's good enough for him.
|
| 42 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:13
|
The Protoss, bili? Isn't he your closer in Seattle? No, it's your dodger closer. Hard to keep those aliens and closers straight.
- walk
|
| 43 | biliruben
ID: 535193010
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:16
|
He's a legal alien, Walk.
And he promised never to bring a gun to a knife fight.
|
| 44 | biliruben
ID: 535193010
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:19
|
(excuse the obscure starcraft references, if you aren't savvy to the best game ever.)
|
| 45 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:30
|
I'm not, and it's clear then that you don't have kiddies yet. Aaaaaaaaar. I could go a spin around that game though. Surely beats breakout on my blackberry.
How about Saito & Putz though!
- walk
|
| 46 | biliruben
ID: 535193010
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:36
|
What? Violence is bad for kiddies? Shiznet.
I have been slumming it over on the linux side of my machine the last month, and have re-awakened to the awesomeness that is Tetris (or KSertit, as it is called in gnome). Will I still be able to play that in 5 months?
|
| 47 | biliruben
ID: 535193010
Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:37
|
Saito and Putz are very, very pleasant surprises.
Fantasy-wise by eggs were in the Gagne and Soriano basket, so bittersweet.
|
| 48 | ukula
ID: 157581120
Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 00:52
|
Actually the joke is on you clowns. Of course I know The Onion is satire. I responded to the 'single plane theory' the way pd, sarge, etc... respond to any post about 9/11 discrepancies - and that is with the classic stock phrase "That was debunked in a previous thread". No matter what topic about 9/11 someone brings up you hear "That was debunked in a previous thread". Don't believe me? see post 8 or any other 9/11 thread.
I guess it just shows that I'm one step ahead of you guys - man you're slow....
|
| 49 | Perm Dude
ID: 267261615
Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 01:18
|
We're only slow because we actually take the time to read the references and links...
|
| 50 | Tree
ID: 13744175
Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 06:50
|
ukula - i'm pretty sure that every single person in this thread knew you would come back with the "Of course I know The Onion is satire. I responded to the 'single plane theory' the way pd, sarge, etc... respond to any post about 9/11 discrepancies" style of response.
the fact you are telling the truth about the above is equally as likely as the single plane theory being true...
|
| 51 | ukula
ID: 157581120
Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 22:22
|
You just can't admit that I burned you. Bad.
|
| 52 | Tree
ID: 5173206
Sun, Aug 20, 2006, 22:59
|
You just can't admit that I burned you. Bad.
you're right. and i triple dog dare you to see if your tongue sticks to a frozen metal pole in the winter.
|
| 53 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 15:09
|
Watched abit of a documentary last night on 9/11. They showed the footgae again of the two towers collapsing.
1st...the falling debris was well outside the skeletal framework of the building. In a controlled detonation, the building collapses in on itself. That is NOT what happened with these two towers.
2nd..There were "skeletal" remains still standing after the tower had collapsed. Perhaps 2-3 stories in height from the appearance of things. Again, this does not happen with a controlled demolition.
Some of the conspiracy whackos out there, make a big deal out of the fact that no fire had brought down a building like this before. I would submit, that no building like this had been brought down before. These buildings, essentially had exoskeletal frames. The support for the building, existed primarily (from my understanding) around the outer perimeter of the buildings. With comparatively only cursory support within the interiors of the structure, once one floor went, I'd think it reasonable to see how the floor beneath would be unable to handle the impact and the additional weight, and thus it went, then the next, then the next, then the next. Especially, when one considers that the floor being fallen upon, had what supports there were, weakened by the fires and the impacts.
|
| 54 | The Treasonists
Donor
ID: 171572711
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 15:22
|
Had you dropped a brick off the top of one of the towers at the same time the tower started to collapse; they would have arrived at the bottom at the same time. To repeat: The tower dropped at the same speed as a free-falling brick.
One would think that this pancake theory would take extra time to fall on the lower floor, damage the supports, fall on the lower floor, damage the supports, etc. It just seems reasonable that it would take extra time to do this and that it would be difficult to arrive at the bottom at the same time as a free-falling brick.
|
| 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 17252111
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 16:53
|
Well, Treasonists, how long would it have taken to fall if the "official version" conditions were true?
We cannot make an assumption that something else must have happened if we can't demonstrate that the official version was clearly wrong. I haven't seen anyone state, with any certainty or facts, that the "official" version was wrong on the facts because of a factually-based rebuttal of the fall timing. Though we do get a lot of "it is too incredible to be true" responses.
|
| 56 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 17:47
|
There is no logical 'official version' of building 7's collapse.
|
| 57 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 17:49
|
Not if multiple floor joists gave at or about at, the same time. Then you'd have sufficient flooring, furniture, filing cabinets etc etc, falling, that the floors below would have offered up virtually no resistance at all to the collapse. Additionally, as the upper floors fell down and out (as is clearly shown on tape), it would have pushed the exoskeleton away from the building, leading to the lower floors beginning to give way even before the weight from above impacted them.
Really, all one has to do, is watch the video shot live by multiple film crews, and it becomes clear that the buildings were not deliberately "blown in place".
|
| 58 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 17:55
|
Alright, what logical reason would there be for all building 7's supports to give out at the same time? Or at any time for that matter?
|
| 59 | The Treasonists
ID: 571192610
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 18:45
|
Boldwin, the clones have no answer to Building 7. Same as the government and the 911 Commission. No explanation. Their best chance is a complete news blackout re: WTC Building 7. And its working pretty well. Most people have no clue that there even is another 47 story building in addition to the twin towers that collapsed on 911. A huge office building that was not hit by a plane. Too bad for them, I bring it up every time 911 comes up.
One would think, that with all the anomalies surrounding Building 7, that the local paper might assign one of there, oh 900 reporters, to the story. Apparently not newsworthy. Actually the NYT is going to do a story on WTC 7 as soon as they report some eyewitness accounts of TWA 800.
|
| 60 | Perm Dude
ID: 17252111
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 18:48
|
Speaking of no answers...
|
| 61 | Boxman
ID: 34751126
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 18:49
|
What would be the reason to detonate Building 7? I would imagine that if there was an actual 9/11 conspiracy that was carried out, they could destroy their tracks (laptops, files, etc. containing incriminating data) without blowing up an entire building.
|
| 62 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 18:52
|
Frankly, I find it rather odd that Treasonsists and Boldy gather such conviction for their conspiracy theory, because this TX located F&I Manager cant offer up a viable explanation for the collapse of a building I had never seen, in a city I had never been to (except for the airport) some 5 years ago.
Yep...sarge cant 'splain it...must be a govt spiracy.
|
| 63 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 18:54
|
I took my task (someone, I don't recall who now, appointed me official investigator of WTC-7 destruction because I used to work there) seriously, and did a lap around the new building going up in the spring.
I didn't even one partially melted clandistine CIA badge. partially melted clandistine CIA badge. Sorry.
|
| 64 | The Treasonists
ID: 571192610
Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 19:24
|
Mr. Permdude: I didn't know there was a time limit. Sorry I didn't immediately drop everything and respond to your request. Here is a link. Why don't you actually read it..... Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
|
| 65 | Boxman
ID: 427471614
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 09:29
|
I honestly wouldn't mind an answer to the question I posted in #61. I find the WTC 7 collapse odd as well and worthy of discussion. I'm just trying to see if there's a theory out there discussing the why (specifically meaning blowing up that building instead of other ways to cover CIA tracks) instead of the how.
|
| 66 | The Treasonists
Donor
ID: 171572711
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 10:34
|
Insurance money, luckily the owner had bought terrorist insurance a few months before 911. It specifically covered acts of terrorism.
|
| 67 | Perm Dude
ID: 36726228
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 10:42
|
Well, that's not "terrorist insurance." Many forms of insurance include terrorist acts as a coverage, and no doubt the building needed insurance anyway. The fact that it covered terrorist acts doesn't mean anything unto itself.
|
| 68 | The Treasonists
Donor
ID: 171572711
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 11:29
|
Well, Treasonists, how long would it have taken to fall if the "official version" conditions were true?
For Building 7 it appears that it should have taken at least 8.3 seconds vs. 6.5 seconds under
this analysis. Click on WTC7: A short computation
Mr. Permdude: This should be just what you were looking for in post #55.
|
| 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 36726228
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 11:41
|
TY (really). I'm not being confrontational in asking for this information. Merely trying to look at facts rather than the usual pre-chewed conspiracy theories which rely more on the lack of evidence as proof rather than actual evidence.
And, as you might recall, I haven't changed my own belef (as stated in the earlier thread) that the destruction of the building was quite likely given the offices that were in there, plus the fact that the building was heavily damaged and on fire. Sort of like spyplanes when they are caught: Minimize loss of life, but destroy the secret material through any means, including destroying the plane.
|
| 70 | The Treasonists
Donor
ID: 171572711
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 12:15
|
Boxman, another theory is that the Penn. plane was earmarked for Bldg. 7 , but took a wrong turn near Cleveland or something. One thing I have never understood is why the 2 planes that did not hit NYC took so long to crash. You would think a prudent terrorist would hijack the plane as soon as possible and then crash it ASAP. But the Pentagon plane went into Kentucky, then turned around. And the other one went into Ohio. Then they went back near where they took off and crashed. Why give the gov't time to shoot you down. Did they have trouble with the initial hi-jacking? Why wait? I'm sure Big Media is fixin' to print a story on that also.
|
| 71 | Boxman
ID: 427471614
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 13:32
|
A lot of things about 9/11 we'll never know because the people who executed the attacks got vaporized that day.
I do take an open minded approach to the events of 9/11 and not buying into what the MSM says. That doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist, it means that I want to take in the collective evidence and make up my own mind. I want the truth and I want whoever responsible, who I believe to be OBL and Al Qaeda, put to death in public in this country.
Why the Pentagon? Did they actually think they would destroy it? Even an idiot who has only seen pictures of the Pentagon knows that it couldn't be destroyed by that type of attack. My opinion is they intended to target the White House or the Capital Building (opposite whichever the PA plane was intended to hit) and blew it big time. Could that plane have encountered some resistance from the passengers and thus the Pentagon was hit instead?
The amount of related stock tradings the days leading up to 9/11, WTC 7, NORAD's lack of response, Ariel Sharon allegedly originally had plans to be in NY on 9/11 to speak to an Israeli support group, the locations of the war games conducted that day which mysteriously spread our air defenses extremely thin, and the timing of hitting the Twin Towers (Why not hit them at 11am or 2pm when there would be maximum occupancy? Some estimates have that number to be in the tens of thousands.) themselves are all suspect to me and require more investigation.
|
| 72 | ukula
ID: 167462213
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 15:21
|
I can't believe all this talk about conspiracy theories. Even sarge and pd are getting in the act. sarge is the last person I'd think would turn into a tin-foil-hat-wearing nutbag. Anyway, all of these conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked in previous threads. Bush told us what to believe a month after 9/11 (see below) - why does everyone forget that? He told us to forget about the conspiracy theories and yet five years later we still talk about them - it's unpatriotic! Do you forget that we sacrificed some of our freedoms in the name of freedom? Do you all forget that there are Muslims living in caves that hate America and want to kill us? Donald Rumsfeld has stated that these cave-dwelling Muslims are the most brutal enemy this country has ever faced! My suggestion to all is to turn the other way when confronted with these outrageous conspiracies. Ignore them and they simply go away. Our government would never lie to us, they talk calmly and wear suits, the Muslims wear robes and scream at us, right there you can tell who the killers are. Gulf of Tonkin? just a little misunderstanding. Operation Northwoods? C'mon, can't you guys take a joke? We waste too much time worrying about how buildings were blown up and not enough time fueling our fear and anger toward those Muslim killers.
"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
G.W. Bush speaking before the UN GeGeneral Assembly 11/10/2001
|
| 73 | sarge33rd
ID: 3622119
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 15:33
|
what was that annoying buzzing sound?
|
| 74 | ukula
ID: 167462213
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 15:57
|
Take off the tinfoil hat and see if it goes away..
|
| 75 | sarge33rd
ID: 3622119
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 15:59
|
there it is again...
|
| 76 | katietx
ID: 157591212
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 16:00
|
Hey, I made him that tinfoil hat!
|
| 77 | Boxman
ID: 427471614
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 16:25
|
Make him another one Katietx, I don't think it works all of the time.
|
| 78 | katietx
ID: 157591212
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 16:42
|
I have trouble making him wear it to work. I think it takes it off. ;-)
|
| 79 | Boxman
ID: 427471614
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 16:49
|
Oh wouldn't that be a trip? HA HA HA!!! I could just imagine when I bought my Mustang a couple months back if my salesman was wearing a tin foil hat when I first met him. Oh Dear Lord. What an uncomfortable test drive that would've been!
|
| 80 | Perm Dude
ID: 36726228
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 16:54
|
The problem, I suspect, is that sarge is wearing it like a cup. Perhaps his priorities lie elsewhere...
Or, maybe he needs a second, smaller, hat.
|
| 81 | katietx
ID: 157591212
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 18:31
|
A smaller hat? With his big head???? ROFLMBO
|
| 82 | Perm Dude
ID: 36726228
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 18:31
|
Er, I wasn't talking about that head...
|
| 83 | katietx
ID: 157591212
Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 18:32
|
hahaha - no comment
|
| 84 | Hannah
ID: 35955113
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 15:56
|
i totally agree with you, ukula.
people shouldnt look for other reasons for these tragedies.
too many people died for this to be a conspiracy. and all those little demolition theories?! Some morons just need to associate themselves with the jobs our country leaders do. they lie from time to time, but that has nothing to do with wanting to kill people. thats stupid and irrational, as it would require hundreds more people also willing to wantonly slaughter or be slaughtered in the collapse of these buildings.
without the two planes flying through the air with 200 people on them calling their family to say theyre crashing into the WTC witness statement anyone?
if you need a conspiracy as a reason to hate someone, you need to get a grip. find a better reason to hate bush or america. like, they dont pronounce iraq like the rest of the world. just dont say theyre killers akin to stalin, lenin, mussolini and hitler. Because that pisses me and a heck of a lot of other people off.
conspiracy bashers should look reality in the face. no demolition involves aircraft, falls outside a designated area, and causes ulterior buildings to collapse.
if they believe it does, then they clearly need to watch a demolition of that scale.
which unfortunately will not be happening.
as it got attacked by terrorists.
and killed many people.
pity, that isnt it?
|
| 85 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 16:20
|
two planes flying through the air with 200 people on them calling their family
I missed the news that day. Must have been camping.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|