RE: These rats are responsible for the torture...

RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 10:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The WTC was a white elephant...nobody wanted it or to move into it or stay in it. It was an old office building not equipped for the modern office. You're wrong on every single count but this one is so dead wrong as to be ludicrous. Tower 1 and 2 office space was the top dollar spaces in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. The upper floors with the really spectacular views were home to some of the richest financial firms in the world. For instance Cantor Fitzgerald, one of the largest bond traders in the world, had their headquarters in tower one on the 101st to 105th floors. They lost 658 people in the attack. My best friend from growing up wasn't killed simply because he was on flex time and didn't get to work until 9:30AM. Their offices were a model of high tech integration and were a model for securities traders everywhere. So please stop spreading lies about things you clearly haven't even bothered to actually look into.

Owner59 -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 10:33:08 AM)
Someone needs to start a truther/debunker thread........

Politesub53 -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 11:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The WTC was a white elephant...nobody wanted it or to move into it or stay in it. It was an old office building not equipped for the modern office. You're wrong on every single count but this one is so dead wrong as to be ludicrous. On this point though, there is some merit, for two reasons. In the seventies when the Towers were built, there wasnt such a thing as everyone having a computer terminal. Many office blockes in London built in the late 70s and early 80s had to be revamped. Partly to take the extra weight, but more importantly to deal with the increased heat from terminals, and power usage. I also read every link that was posted on here, and associated links, trying to get some evidence. I must have spent, or wasted hours, whichever way you look at it. One thing i did read was that the buildings had many floors vacant, causing a loss of revenue. So its not unbelievable that the owners wanted shot of the buildings. Some points, like the pentagon photos, do indeed defy logic, the hole in the Pentagon building DOES look way too small for a plane to not only have struck, but the plane disintegrate. On the two main towers, i think the reason they fell was poor construction, and maybe design flaws. The steel beams which held the outer walls were critical so they fixings needed to be correct, using smaller bolts could indeed have been enough to cause failure. Likewise with the flame retardent materials, if not sprayed on to the steel evenly and to the specified depth, they would have been next to useless. The main point i dismiss the conspiracy claims are these. Firstly, you have enough decent people in office, that its unthinkable that not one person would have gone public with some evidence. Secondly, Bin Laden and co have been well documented in a book by Jane Corbin, i think it is titled " The Base " It is highly detailed and shows the complete failure of your security forces to work together as one unit. Different departments letting info out on a need to know basis, hampered other departments. For instance, one of the highjackers was questioned on entering the US via Canada, for a motoring offence. His details were not on a general database even though the CIA had received warnings about him. Plain and simple, an error in the system allowed him into the US. All it needs is for one intelligence officer to look at some evidence and think its not important, and everything breaks down. My own thoughts remain that this was nothing but poor construction and failed intelligence, which allowed this disasterous attack to happen.

DomKen -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 11:39:15 AM)
When these claims were first being made I checked around, including talking to my friend who had worked there, and there weren't vast stretches of floors empty. There were individual floors empty since the building was leased out by the floor so when someone did move out it left a whole floor empty. But I can assure you that Cantor Fitzgerald had more than simply a single desktop computer on every desk. They definitely were not struggling with inadequate office space. The partners valued the view and the prestige address but they were certainly intent on staying on top and they couldn't do that hampered by unusable offices. Neither could Morgan Stanley or Aon both of which had major operations in the two towers.

DomAviator -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 11:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Forgive my misspelling of the explosive, DA. And when I referred to the DC 9 as a commuter, I was intending to point out that the aircraft is used for short hops anymore, not long haul. However, the decks of navy ships in ww2 were indeed wood, over armour plate. But that is actually beside the point. Another point, that the consparacy theorists have forgotten or ignored is that two F15's were scrambled after Air Traffic Control lost the transponder signals. They arrived in NYC airspace after the second impact. Another thing, in a situation like 9/11, those aircraft could not have been shot down without the express orders from NORAD. NORAD needs a weapon release from the JCS. And the JCS is not about to make a decision on that magnitude without knowing all the facts, which takes time. The DC-9 is not a "short haul" aircraft depending on the series and configuration it has a 1600 - 1800 mile range. It is a 30 year old fuel guzzler that doesnt meet noise abatement standards so its pretty much not used at all - not used as a commuter. The only US carrier using them is Northwest and they are replacing them as quicky as Airbus A-319's come in. Everyone else went to B737's and Airbus A-320's. The decks were not wood over armor plate... they were wood over nothing or wood over sheetmetal. Many WW2 ships were lost due to the change in naval warfare tactics (the switch to Naval aviation rather than broadside gun volleys) which left the decks vulnerable to attack from above. There is actually a story from an WW2 era carrier about a nugget making a hard landing, and putting one of his main gear through the deck and into a (fortunately unoccupied) bunk. The switch to armored steel decking was a post ww2 development, arising from the decline of naval gunnery and the switch to air power. The Navy actually teaches us this shit... [:D] If you want to see a wooden deck I suggest going to LaPorte and having a stroll around the battleship Texas.. Well with the $5 or $7 or whatever it was... Finally, as I said in my earlier post - prior to 9-11 only the President could order the downing of an airliner. Fighter / Interceptor pilots can NOT (at least prior to 9-11, I dont know about now) be ordered to down an airliner by NORAD. The NORtha American Air Defense command is a TRACKING station they monitor the skies for things that shouldnt be there, and send people up to have a look if they find something anomolous... NORAD can launch an intercept, but they can not order anything to be done, unless there are standing orders and protocols in place such as "Incoming ICBM's" . Many of the people at NORAD arent even in the US Military and rest assured my O-4 US Navy ass would NOT engage and down a US registry civil airliner in US Airspace on the orders of some 21 year old Canadian 2nd Lt who happens to be the duty officer. The Joint Chiefs wouldnt make the decision either. Neither would the SECNAV, the CAG, my mom, or the pope... Prior to 9-11 there was nothing in place for this. I would have done it had a recieved an order from the President authenticated via the EAM / NCA system BUT even then I would have been doing so solely on the basis of Presidential authority.... They can decide if it was legal later, thats between him and the attorney general..... Otherwise, my weapons stay on the hard points, if they were even there in the first place because as I said previously - generally when I flew intercepts in the various ADIZs the only weapons on the aircraft was the pisto and knife in my survival vest. The point is to VISUALLY IDENTIFY not to engage. The flight plan says its a Quantas 777? You got it? Tally ho! I see a B777 in Quantas livery at 3 o'clock low ...Roger that. Mission accomplished. Lets go home, theres pussy waiting for us at Trader Jons! Its not nearly as glamorous or dramatic as people think... 99% of the time they dont even know they have been intercepted because we "approach no closer than necessary to identify" and "try not to alarm the passengers or flight crew".

DomKen -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 2:48:59 PM)
Actually some WWII US warships did have armored decks. The Essex class carriers had 1.5" of armor under the hangar deck. The Iowa class battleships had in excess of 8 inches of armor under the wood. Having been on the USS Alabama a couple of times I'm quite sure she, and presumably her sisters, had armor under the teak as well. BTW how precisely did this nugget manage to get his gear through the hangar deck from the flight deck to actually reach a bunk? I've done some checking and can't find any US carrier that didn't have a through hangar deck under the flight deck.

DomAviator -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 3:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen BTW how precisely did this nugget manage to get his gear through the hangar deck from the flight deck to actually reach a bunk? I've done some checking and can't find any US carrier that didn't have a through hangar deck under the flight deck. I dont know, the oldest one I ever served on was CV-61 which was Forrestal Class and I have never been aboard anything earlier... (I take that back the Intrepid was Essex class but thats a tourist trap not a ship anymore LOL) Considering that some of the early ones only carried a relatively tiny number of aircraft I would say the hangars were much smaller and they stuck racks wherever they can. The accomadations on WW2 era ships left something to be desired... Looking at the Battleship Texas made me say "holy shit I cant believe they stuck berthing spaces here." On the USS Ling, they actually have racks stuck in between torpedos and in the engine room... How you could sleep there when not on electrics I dont know... Why dont you ask your "JAG Prosecutors" who told you about the Presidents "felonies under the UCMJ" or the guys who let you wander about the reactor plant spaces and who trained you on the reactor when you werent a gloworm about that one Ken? However, yes they did ultimately recognize the vulnerabilities of air attack and moved to heavy armor and dispensed with the teak - much to the dismay of generations of future plank owners. Even an inch and a half of plate can hardly be considered "armored" as it will protect against little more than small arms fire....

DomKen -> RE: These rats are responsible for the torture... (7/1/2008 8:48:53 PM)
Why don't you simply admit you were wrong and accept that you don't know everything about everything. Ships laid down as early as 1939 had armored decks under the wood and the Essex carriers were armored as much as you may try and dismiss one and a half inches of plate which BTW will stop quite a bit more than small arms fire or it would never have been installed since that inch and half thick deck ran under the hangar deck adding many tons to the displacement of those carriers. BTW I never claimed to know anything about plant operation. I was trained on DC in and near reactor spaces. After checking around so were guys who served on the Bainbridge (CGN-25) and the South Carolina (CGN-37). As to JAG prosecutors, I invite you to fly up here and bother the guys who have it on their resumes or go to D.C. and bother the guys who are doing the job right now.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125