spudit on February 15, 2011, 05:09:55 pm
Meanwhile,

back
on
Ceres
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Apollo-Soyuz on February 15, 2011, 06:35:07 pm

As defined, it cannot be tapped and it cannot be blocked. Of course, there are always other means, but not something that a government could defeat at anything less than astronomical costs.

Not directly addressing robustness, but significant to anti-government forces:

page=224  "Tanglenet cannot be eavesdropped on, traced, or jammed." "Any dissident group, rebels, smugglers, or even terrorists can communicate, share info and make plans in complete secrecy. "

page=486 Shows that tanglenet "ethernet cards" (interface between electronic equipment and the tanglenet) would be small enough and low power enough to implant in a human skull, so they could go into whatever is used for "smart phones" "PDAs" or desktop computers and hand-held cameras


J Thomas on February 15, 2011, 06:36:39 pm
Could we please go back to CERES ?

This whole 911 is not worth discussing for 4 reason :

1- The Towers was hit by an aircraft THEN subject to fire ... which more than enough to bring it down.

If you're right, that would be reason to stop discussing why the Towers fell. A very different thing from the whole 911 conspiracy.

Quote
2- The whole conspiracy is lunatic, how the charge could even survive the aircraft impact or explode RIGHT at impact time is beyond me.

If explosive charges did survive on the floor below the impact, that would be enough. But again this is just the "controlled demolition" argument that is a small hypothetical part of the whole conspiracy.

Quote
3- To invade Iraq the US had no need to to stage another attack ... Why taking down 2 tower in NY with airplanes and killing 3000 if you can have an US ship/aircraft put into danger and stage an incident.

You're arguing about the motives of crazy conspirators. Al Qaeda could have made their point by another attack on a US embassy or warship or something, they didn't need to do 9/11. Same argument.

One somewhat-plausible idea is that a lot of US citizens were getting fed up with Israel and getting somewhat sympathetic to the various arabs the Israelis kept bombing. Once we had our own big terrorist attack we got more racist about arabs and a lot friendlier to Israel.

And we sort of went crazy for some years there. We put up with a lot of things that Americans in say 1980 would not have thought that US citizens would ever agree to. We wouldn't have done that over say an attack on a US warplane over Iraq.

Quote
4- It is the GOVERNMENT ... I don't think they can pull off such level of efficient cover up.

Unfortunately, only the US government can effectively investigate the US government. How efficiently can the US government investigate itself? I think that one is a wash.

But it leaves us without resolution. The official government claims about what happened are obviously flawed. The various conspiracy theorists have a large collection of weird theories and no more than a few of them could be right at the same time.

There's a saying that you're entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. But most facts about 9/11 are in dispute. For example, there is the claim that Cheney ordered the interceptors to stand down and so prevented them from shooting down the airliners.

But we know that really Cheney did order the interceptors to shoot down the planes. We have his own word for that, though not under oath.
http://www.911reality.com/interceptingjets.html

This site claims that in the entire decade before 9/11 there was only one intercept by military aircraft over the continental USA. That military planes were in general not allowed to intercept aircraft that overfly anything in the USA, and that there are no reports of it ever happening. And so Cheney did not have to tell them not to do it, because they would never have done it anyway.
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

They point out that it would take only one report of an aircraft being intercepted by US warplanes over the continental USA to prove them wrong, and that conspiracy theorists have never been able to find a single one.

The claim is that before 9/11 if a plane wandered into a restricted zone it was ordered away by radio, and then when the plane landed on its own wherever it chose to land, the pilot lost his license.

I tried to imagine that procedure at Groom Lake, where the USA had various secret things we wouldn't want spies to look at. A quick look turned up numerous claims of planes being intercepted there. Unfortunately it was all from sites run by UFO enthusiasts, without links to reputable sources. There was a repeated claim about a british video where a plane headed toward Groom Lake and continued after being warned and did get intercepted by four warplanes and forced to land. They didn't have a link to the video, though. People who wouldn't accept personal testimony from truthers sure aren't going to take it from UFO theorists.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread282337/pg1

I remember reading when I was young that Washington DC was generally a restricted area for civilian aircraft, and pilots could get into a lot of trouble flying into there. But now I pick up internet sites that claim this was simply not true, that it was OK to fly over pretty much anything except a small area, and the White House depended on radar at National Airport to tell them about overflights and there was nothing whatsoever to stop it from happening. Sixty planes overflew the White House in 2 years and nobody did anything about it except argue afterward.
http://www.911myths.com/html/overfly_white_house.html

Things I thought I knew, things I remember, stop being true on the Internet. It's like they're down the memory hole. But of course I may have misunderstood all along, or I may be misrembering now. I don't right off have a paper trail.

And if I did people could probably look at the typescript and decide it was forged.

Maybe these days you are entitled to your own facts. Or you should give in and accept whatever the official sources say today.

Plane on February 15, 2011, 10:05:40 pm
Hmmm...


How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

I think this would be very difficult , and undependable ,if not impossible.

If charges were ever so carefully laid , the impact of an aircraft would make it likely that some ignition lines would be cut and unexploded charges would be discovered in the wreckage.

Trying to plan this as if it were an event in the future one runs into many things that make it likely to fail.

quadibloc on February 15, 2011, 10:34:31 pm
How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?
I don't think that's one of the flaws in the controlled demolition theory - which is the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" that has gotten the most attention. My understanding is that the things alleged to be anomalies in the Towers' collapse from the airplane impact alone would be dealt with by explosive charges planted in the core of the tower - perhaps from top to bottom, but most especially in the lower floors.

And since it is mainly the core that would need the charges, there's also no surprise that the people in the Towers don't remember anyone asking them to move office furniture out of the way in the months before September, 2001. Like other office buildings in one respect, the floorplan of the building is:

windows on the outside,
then offices,
then a hallway,
then the core, with the elevators in it

in concentric squares.

And the wall of the core was probably reinforced concrete behind the plaster.

So if someone was planting bombs for a surreptitious controlled demolition, they would get up on the roof of the WTC one fine day, go into where people go to service the elevators... and lower the bombs through ropes.

While I don't think highly of the heterodox theories, some people pointing out flaws have made mistakes too.

J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 05:15:56 am

How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?

That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

In my imagination, there would be explosive charges on every floor and they would be rigged to go off at the right times in sequence. If they get cut at the right floor that's better than starting at the top, and making sure they get cut at the right floor is the next thing that's hard to make sure of.

But I don't know much about controlled demolition.

I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work. And all it really gets the conspirators is to make sure the building doesn't fall sideways and make too much collateral damage, when as far as anybody knew it would probably not fall down at all.

On the other hand my argument that it should not be done that way has the fundamental flaw that it depends on the 9/11 conspirators (whoever they were) to be as sensible as I am. And if they thought like me, they wouldn't have done it at all.

mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 07:55:27 am
Quote
I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work.

But a lot less work, and a lot less expense, than remediating the Towers for asbestos.  (Someone earlier suggested that asbestos insulation was not completed, but even they didn't suggest there was no asbestos to be removed.)   And, given the insurance payout, on a new purchase (i.e., few payments had yet been made, so a small investment), probably a net income

And there still needs to be an energy source beyond sheer gravity to drop a weight through steel and concrete at nearly (you OK with 'nearly'?) the same speed as through empty air.  If the upper stories pulverized the lower ones, it cost energy to do so.  Therefore that energy was not available for acceleration. 

Quote
How could one ensure that the aircraft would strike the correct floor?  That is , the floor directly above the explosive charges?

?  I don't imagine a need for any such thing.  Afaik, demolition places charges on multiple floors in a tall building (especially lower ones), in order to, say, cut the I-beams into manageable pieces.  Place your charges (Q:  what was the security agency responsible for the towers and/or the complex?  If I was Kate Beckett, I'd want to know who they were and if they might have seen anything -- and who they had any financial or other relationships with) and arrange for a flashy event to captivate attention.

If the Towers were a human murder victim, the beneficiary of the victim's life insurance policy would at least warrant some suspicion.  If someone, prior to the murder, repeatedly said, "I very much want to do X and the only thing standing in my way is [victim],"  that someone would also be worthy of at least some suspicion.  Merely having incentive is, of course, proof of nothing, and I -- almost uniquely, as far as I can tell -- do not equate "suspicion" with "guilt".  And even so, I do want to at least investigate all possible suspects.  When the wrong person is convicted, the right person -- by definition -- is still at large and the threat to the community remains unabated. 

Those who rush to conviction are, it seems to me, accessories after the fact.

The FBI admits that "some" of the alleged hijackers "may have used" stolen identities; considering that some of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and some of them had passports stolen, we have to change "some may have used" to "some definitely used" stolen identities.  And if some were stolen, it's possible they all were (identified by DNA?  Where'd they get the original DNA to do the comparison?)  Thus we positively know that we do not know who the hijackers were.

Personal memory:  in the first few weeks after the event, when I still unquestioningly accepted the Arab-hijackers claim, I saw the original ObL video in which he praised the action -- and said he wished he had been responsible for it.  And for whatever reason,
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten (click on Osama's image) does not list 9/11 on his rap sheet.

Fair warning:  I will reply to any further mention of 9/11.  I won't make another one on my own and I won't ever start in on it -- but I will reply.

macsnafu on February 16, 2011, 09:17:23 am
As for Ceres, it looks like they're just going to monitor everything, so that when the action explodes, they will have a recording of the true events to counter whatever justification the UW intends to use.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 09:39:06 am
Quote
they will have a recording of the true events

Heck, broadcast it live.

UncleRice on February 16, 2011, 09:47:04 am
Shake it three times and you know...  :D

Pretty close and it certainly describes them.

I stick to my statement about the UW being the bandits from the Magnificent 7/ 7 Samurai. Little do they know they face Yul Brenner with a sword, so to speak.

And welcome, Uncle Rice, It's a good group but watch out for the guy with the robot.
I keep hearing about those movies, I guess I'll have to watch them one of these days.

I only really have two questions:

1: Who's this guy with the robot?

2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.
Stupid criminals put on a mask and rob people with a gun.
Smart criminals put on a suit, call themselves politicians, and rob people with writ of law.

sams on February 16, 2011, 10:13:06 am
2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.

From the first Arcs of EFT we know that the UW is low on funds, which is why they sent Guy there in the first place to have Ceres has a new source of revenue.

To press the UW Admiral Harris starfleet was sent to Ceres, which was soundly defeated and all ships lost. So the UW is not only low on funds, but they were humiliated and defeated by Cereans.

Being that the reason the UW high command want a pretext, is to compensate their low funds and low moral by rallying Earth populaces against Ceres.

macsnafu on February 16, 2011, 10:23:53 am


And welcome, Uncle Rice, It's a good group but watch out for the guy with the robot.
I only really have two questions:

1: Who's this guy with the robot?
Is that really a robot?  The guy whose icon shows his head next to a shiny thing is Sandy Sandfort, the writer of EFT.  He occasionally pitches in with comments and responses in the forum.
Quote
2: Even if the UW does get the justification they want, what makes them think they will fair any better than they did last time? It's like they have been listening to their own propaganda so long they believe it themselves.

That's the $64 question.  We know pretty much why they're trying it, but not why they think they'll do better.  They are trying something different, though, so they're not into that kind of stupidity.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

J Thomas on February 16, 2011, 11:21:49 am
Quote
I don't particularly care for the controlled demolition theory because it seems to me like too contrived a plot. Too much that can go wrong. Too much work.

But a lot less work, and a lot less expense, than remediating the Towers for asbestos.  (Someone earlier suggested that asbestos insulation was not completed, but even they didn't suggest there was no asbestos to be removed.)   And, given the insurance payout, on a new purchase (i.e., few payments had yet been made, so a small investment), probably a net income.

You have a deliciously evil mind! I never thought of that.

i vaguely remember seeing something about WTC not being profitable. I simply never imagined your idea. So here are the WTC owners faced with an umprofitable building that might need a lot more money sunk into it, and they arrange to hijack four airplanes and send one of them off to a decoy site. They intend to slam two or three of them into their building. They definitely mine the building first because they can't be sure it will fall down otherwise and they sure don't need even more expensive repairs. They blame the whole thing on arab terrorists and collect the insurance.

Breathtaking scale. They might have killed 30,000 or so people if the building evacuation didn't go well. If one of the towers had toppled anyway, more than that. 100,000? 300,000? They avoid the expense of removing asbestos by putting the asbestos into the air of NYC for everybody to breathe until it goes away by itself.

Audacious! And I never heard that anybody even suspected them until you did. Why didn't I think of that? I guess I'm just too innocent. That plan is so evil it never occurred to me. I can imagine killing a few thousand americans for the national interest, when there's no other way to get the country fired up. Pearl Harbor might have been that way. And it's no stretch for Israel -- they think if they ever lose a war they'll all be killed, and without US support they will lose. Killing a few foreigners to save the whole country is no issue at all. But to do 9/11 just for money? If it was me doing that I'd have nightmares the rest of my life.

Maybe that's why I'm not that rich.

Usually when people argue nobody ever changes their mind. You have shown me a gap in my thinking that's worth fixing. Thank you. If someday it turns out that on everything we've ever disagreed I was right and you were wrong, this more than makes up for it.

spudit on February 16, 2011, 11:29:22 am
It is good to be back on Ceres and topic.

Yep, it's a robot, I done blowed up the icon one rainy day and looked. Apparently, someone put him in charge of herding this bunch of cats.

Haven't seen The Magnificent 7, a top flight western, or Akira Kurasawa's first masterpiece the 7 Sams? Easy to cure in a mere 4 or 5 hours. How about A Bug's Life, same story but you guessed it, with bugs. The Locusts are the UW.

Broadcast it, does TN bandwith costs much? Here's another classic, Stranger in a Strange Land by some guy from Missouri. In it Jubal has cameras set up to send their government badguys in action to all the news services, but there is a technical glitch.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

mellyrn on February 16, 2011, 01:46:43 pm
Quote
You have a deliciously evil mind!

The reason I know, positively know, that there really are Illuminati-esque Emperor-Ming take-over-the-world wannabes in the world is that I see one every time I wash my hands at the bathroom sink.  The only thing saving the world from this specific one is, when it comes right down to it, I'm too busy reading online comics.

As to the size of 9/11 carnage, the timing was perfect to get more than just the overnight janitorial staff, which would have been sad but hardly outrage-producing, and yet the minimum of cubie dwellers.  Two hours later, when the late sleepers have arrived and no one's left for lunch yet?  Well, if I was wanting to do some real damage to the Great Satan, that's when I would have hit, to maximize the probable deaths in exchange for my own.  The way it actually went down, you'd think the perps merely wanted to "count coup".

Three of the alleged flights allegedly passed either directly over or within a minute or two of the Indian Point nuclear station.  I know (good and well) that nuke plants are designed to take hits like that but I don't know that they're designed to take three; still, I'd prefer that as a target -- if I really was a US enemy intent on harm.  I'd take explosives in my luggage, too -- which would at least give me a reason to take luggage on a suicide trip.  The plumes coming off the nuke plant would have made an adequate visual -- and the contamination spreading over New England would have really messed up and freaked out the most densely populated region my supposed enemy had, for a long time to come.

Quote
Maybe that's why I'm not that rich.

It's certainly why you're not a writer.  And if I ever need to attack a real enemy, I won't include you on the planning committee.

 

anything