Cannonfire is leaving

[orz]

What I'm saying is how much more wrong could it have gone? (not entirely rhetorical!)

It already did collapse in a pretty messy way damaging various other WTC buildings in the process after all...

There's a certain logic to wanting it to not do too much damage, but then again if you''re criminal enough to blow up the WTC i wouldn't think you'd worry that much if a couple of the neighbors got knocked over too?... doesn't really effect your insurance scam or whatever, and you CLEARLY don't care who gets killed in the process,... the more the merrier for New Pearl Harbor purposes right?

[Iroquois]

Well, not ALL complications can be overcome surely, there are limits such as time, laws of physics, etc.

As I used the term above, to refer to operational difficulties not immutable laws of nature, yes they can.

There's a certain logic to wanting it to not do too much damage, but then again if you''re criminal enough to blow up the WTC i wouldn't think you'd worry that much if a couple of the neighbors got knocked over too?... doesn't really effect your insurance scam or whatever, and you CLEARLY don't care who gets killed in the process,... the more the merrier for New Pearl Harbor purposes right?

There are many possible explanations to that question. Use some of that imagination of yours to figure a few out for yourself. Here's a one:

One of the operational objectives was to achieve a certain level of destruction that could not have been achieved from toppling over at or near the sites of the impacts, even if those impacts were at the base of the towers. The top down destruction may have been needed to hide massive overpressure to churn evidence in the main sections to confetti or the real target may have been in the basements.

From a few posts back: the cables and asymmetrically set explosives of a conventional demolition designed to topple a building are a method designed to ensure the direction of the fall. The point of the article was that toppling is easy. Going straight down takes precision.

And, don't say that too much mass fell outside of the footprints, that gets the gravity theorists in a tizzy. They need that mass to go straight down so it can overcome the increasingly robust structure of the lower floors.

Here a couple of riddles for you Orz. If the terrorists were so bent on doing as much damage as possible. Why didn't they hit the towers lower points? They would have trapped far more people that way. And, for that matter, why didn't they wait and hit the buildings a few hours later when there would have been more people inside?

Edited twice in attempts to improve clarity.

[Occult Means Hidden]

What Jeff is saying is that CD isn't as important of an issue to bring up when trying to open people's eyes as compared to Hopsicker issues or the anthrax attacks, etc.

I disagree completely. I'm also somewhat disappointed that some take this as a cue to dismiss CD. Its also argued that its distractionary. Only to a point.

Jeff, I believe, thinks that its easier to communicate certain issues instead of bickering over tower fall physics. I say the opposite is true. I say, because you can't hold people's attention long enough you instead have to appeal to their intuition first. Then when the correct amount of scepticism is reached, introduce other issues, of which books upon books have been written.

Sure, I can tell you that a certain person was employed by a certain company who did this at a certain time. But compared to appealing to their physical intuition, it has no parrallel.

What's amazing to me is that something happened in front of a billion eyes across the globe, and only a small percentage realized what they saw. No wonder the PTB consider us unfit for rule.

[MASONIC PLOT]

All things considered I think Joe Cannon is basically right. People in the truth movement are being spoon fed bullshit.

Does that mean it wasnt an inside job? Of course it doesnt.

[orz]

The top down destruction may have been needed to hide massive overpressure to churn evidence in the main sections to confetti or the real target may have been in the basements.

Evidence of what? I'm sure you don't mean that they set up CD to disguise the evidence of CD?

that gets the gravity theorists in a tizzy. They need that mass to go straight down so it can overcome the increasingly robust structure of the lower floors.

Like i said above I don't have a problem with a bit of both happening.

Why didn't they hit the towers lower points?

Uh well it's hard to fly a plane on the ground!

More to the point if They somehow really needed the buildings to come down, why not orchistrate a sequel to the old 1993 job with bombs in the basement? Then there would be no problem with people recognising it as CD; in fact that would be the plot, terrorists infiltrated the building as staff and planted demolition charges at key points... why bother messing around with planes?

And, for that matter, why didn't they wait and hit the buildings a few hours later when there would have been more people inside?

Fair point, I don't really have much of an answer except that it doesn't really make any more sense for an inside job than for terrorists. The way I see it, once you're willing to kill 3000 random people (and of your own kind at that, big business + money) then you're willing to kill any amount and as i said, the more the merrier for fake terror purposes.

[Iroquois]

Evidence of what? I'm sure you don't mean that they set up CD to disguise the evidence of CD?

No, I postulated that the buildings were demolished vertically rather than toppled, despite the difficulty, because the planners believed that would either provide a better method for destroying the contents of the upper floors more thoroughly and/or because there was a need for the parts of the buildings well below the impact sites to be destroyed, like the basements.

Uh well it's hard to fly a plane on the ground! Smile

The buildings could have been hit at lower points. I argue the lower the better if the goal is mass murder.

More to the point if They somehow really needed the buildings to come down, why not orchistrate a sequel to the old 1993 job with bombs in the basement? Then there would be no problem with people recognising it as CD; in fact that would be the plot, terrorists infiltrated the building as staff and planted demolition charges at key points... why bother messing around with planes?

In that scenario, the company and/or people responsible for security as well as the company that took the terrorists on as staff could be held liable for the collapses. But, if too many tough questions were asked, such a scenario could always be offered later.

Recall the following quote from George W. Bush.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

You can read more about it here: http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/09/secr ... t-man.html

I am doing a sincere job of trying to answer your questions, Orz. Please offer me the same respect when answering some of mine. I still haven't seen any serious, imaginative responses to the questions I asked above.

Assuming that the attacks were fostered by inside agents and that pre-planted explosives brought down the towers:

What reason or reasons can you imagine that the buildings might have been brought straight down instead of toppled?

Why were the buildings not hit at lower points?

Why were they not hit later in the day when there were likely to be more people inside?

And, I'll add to the list your new question. Why did the official story not state that the terrorists pre-planted explosives in the buildings to explain the following collapses?

[orz]

In that scenario, the company and/or people responsible for security as well as the company that took the terrorists on as staff could be held liable for the collapses

Good point... and if the attack was too similar to the first attempt then certainly the gov would be in hot water for not preventing an attack that they should have been prepared against based on past experience.

What reason or reasons can you imagine that the buildings might have been brought straight down instead of toppled?

I don't belive they could really 'topple' in the sense of falling dramatically sideways, so the question is kind of meaningless to me. But certainly it's possible that they for whatver reason wanted to protect one or more specific buildings from harm...

Why were the buildings not hit at lower points?

Good question but I don't really have any knowledge about flying planes and the feasibility of where the buildings could be hit. I suggest that if there were no bombs and the "terrorists" didn't expect the towers to collapse when hit, then it doesn't matter to them where it hits. Higher is more dramatic if anything.

Why were they not hit later in the day when there were likely to be more people inside?

Like i said no real idea for this. But I don't see that it has much bearing on anything... Both the alleged terrorists or the inside job planners have the same goal which is to cause mass death and fear, so it's strange that they didn't wait longer whoever was responsible.

The implication that it's evidence of an inside job because the US Gov wouldn't want to kill too many of their own people just makes no sense to me I'm afraid. If you're gonna kill an unknown number of people without any real guarantee who is or isn't in that building, in order to further millitary action that will kill vast numbers of US troops, then I'd say you don't care how many are killed. so why try and minimise damage?

And, I'll add to the list your new question. Why did the official story not state that the terrorists pre-planted explosives in the buildings to explain the following collapses?

This is a real 's advocate reply so please don't get too worked up please: How about this: there were no explosives or real evidence of demolition so it never crossed the minds of the 'officials' putting out the story that anyone would think there were.

[Iroquois]

The implication that it's evidence of an inside job because the US Gov wouldn't want to kill too many of their own people just makes no sense to me I'm afraid. If you're gonna kill an unknown number of people without any real guarantee who is or isn't in that building, in order to further millitary action that will kill vast numbers of US troops, then I'd say you don't care how many are killed. so why try and minimise damage?

The only answer I have thought of so far is that perhaps there were a small number of key people who work in the towers that the planners did not want killed. And, while having them all show up a bit late for work that morning would not necessarily have looked too suspicious, having them all absent at peak hours may have raised some red flags if there had been an actual investigation.

My best theory for the location of the plane strikes is that they were determined at least in part by what floors in each of the towers the operators would have had some special type of access needed to prepare for the following demolition. My second best is that, in a similar vein to the theory above, there were some targets that they wanted to avoid in the initial minutes of the strike in order to give certain people a chance to escape or to allow some important transactions through computers on certain floors to be completed. On second thought, I like the latter explanation a little better.

Neither theory feels entirely satisfying to me, however. I think my mind is just too mired in causal reality these days to allow it the creativity needed to come up with answers to the Why's of 9/11. Not to mention, my knowledge of parapolitics is not really on par with many of the other posters at this site. That's also why I, and perhaps a few others, concentrate more on answers to the How.

My thought is, if we can all work together, perhaps we can generate a group synergy that would allow us to solve some of the puzzles of 9/11 that no single researcher or even group of more like-minded researchers could hope to do. Of course, that would require that we trust each others' research.

[orz]

to avoid in the initial minutes of the strike in order to give certain people a chance to escape or to allow some important transactions through computers on certain floors to be completed. On second thought, I like the latter explanation a little better.

Interesting but it seems way too risky to me! In terms of insiders in the building if i were planning such an attack I'd make sure that anyone important either knew about it and stayed home, regardless of how suspicious that might be, or was expendable. If you really care that they survive then it's a too insanely big a risk to hope that they manage to escape in time and that the planes hit the right spot and don't do unexpected damage to the floors they're on... or the elevators, fire stairs etc. I like your first explanation better.

[sunny]

Perhaps it's just me and my termperamental dial-up, but Cannonfire is blank except for the links to the left, the title graphic, and one cartoon.

[Avalon]

I looked, it's there just fine for me.

Joseph Cannon's currently doing an "opus."

I'd thought that the verb "to opus" came from the penguin, but it seems it may be an acronym for a "human resources" term: "Online Payroll Update System (OPUS)," which needs to be updated when an employee resigns or is fired.

The term is used on the Internet in this way (I'll modify one definition I've found):

Opus -- The mother of vanity posts, an opus is a long rambling resignation from a web forum, listing all the offenses and wounds (real or imagined) that have provoked the resignation, in the misguided idea that somehow the ones who "wronged" the resignee will be sought out and pilloried for causing the magnificent and dramatic wounds. Of course the poster of the opus hangs around in his or her death throes for days replying to the opus thread, provoking the usual "so GO already" responses. There has already been the obligatory aria from an unimpressed poster, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you go."

Many opus posters are thought to still be on the forum they say they rejected posting under new nicks anyway. Most opuses are written in the following form -- "So-and-so called me a name and I've had it with (__forum name__)." This is where a poster, in a pique of rage, goes on a rant about how the forum has changed since they first came onboard, and the flame wars are out of hand, yada, yada, yada. They must announce it to everybody that they are leaving, and aren't coming back. Sometimes the drama will be repeated by the same person every 6 months or so.

Cannon's made the threats that he's going to walk away from his website, but he's still there. In the comments, which he hasn't turned off, people are busy telling him how much they love him. And you know how good that feels.

If anyone there goes for the usual entreaties of "Illegitimi non carborundum est" that are customary upon this occasion, it seems that it is actually faux Latin according to poster Smokey Stover:

For a time there was a fad for identifying the pseudo-motto "Illegitimi non carborundum est" with the pseudo-translation, "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Or "wear you down." Carborundum is a commercial product used for grinding, and the word was probably unknown to the Romans. Moreover, the syntax of the supposed motto is even more improbable. However, a less preposterous version is offered on a web-site of which I have forgotten the name: "Non illegitimis carborundum est." It is not to be ground down by the bastards.

According to Safire's New Political Dictionary, this is "a pseudo-Latin phrase meaning 'don't let the bastards grind you down'. Small signs and plaques carrying this message have appeared in U.S. business offices and army posts for at least a generation, since General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell used it as his motto in World War II. Carborundum is a trademark for silicon carbide, a leading commercial grinding substance...In politics, the motto was popularized by 1964 Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, who hung the sign in his office." (--from Safire's New Political Dictionary, p. 353)
Source: Safire, William Safire's New Political Dictionary : The Definitive Guide to the New Language of Politics Random House, New York, 1993. (R 320.03 Sa1)

Opusing is sometimes justified, if it brings out legitimate complaints about where the forum is headed. When people just quiety slip away and don't look back, there isn't the feedback that might lead the admins to realize that most of their good posters have left.

It's fairly unusual for the owner of a site to go for the drama like this. Cannon's got a good site, and it would too bad to have it go under. But handling it this way is just making him look like a hotheaded fool, and may lead people to question how good his judgement is in other areas.

[Avalon]

That's odd, his latest thread now is back to only 3 comments, and there had been about a dozen on it. Blogger having a glitch?

[MASONIC PLOT]

Ive read every single post AND comment on the cannonfire site over the last few days. What exactly is it that he has said that is wrong? He is actually right on all counts if you really read what the man is saying with an open mind and do not let your emotions and biased attitude towards the CD arguments get in your way. Granted it could be a planned "opus" as one poster here has suggested, or it could also likely be that Joe Cannon is just and tired of the idiots who frequent his website and attack him for questioning their pseudo scientific arguments regarding the demolition of the towers on 9-11.

I believe it is very likely that CD was used to bring the towers down, but that is just based on my own observation of the event itself, it LOOKS very fishy to me. I will not attempt to argue this fact with anyone because frankly I do not think it is going to get us anywhere. I think the 9-11 truth movement is full of new age loons who are themselves controlled by those who fund them. If you want to know the truth, follow the money and forget the thermi(a)te.

As for Hopsicker, whereas I do not think his approach to the matter was the best possible way to handle it, he too is right. The 9-11 truth movement is being taken apart at the seams by a few well placed disinfo agents who are leading everyone into the pit of fire.

[rocco33]

The guy has done nothing but deny just about everything that is discussed here at RI. He believes in the 19 hijackers, he vehemtly defends Chomsky and refuses to acknowledge Noam's zionist roots, he discounts Israel terrorism at every turn, he poo-poos all forms of zero-gravity as well as any and all theories about UFO's, and the coup de grace... he's one of those guys that LOVES to throw out the "anti-semite" accusation at every turn. I say good riddance.

As for all the 9-11 CD attacks Cannon has engaged in in recent months... aside from the CD issue, he also discounts WTC7, the eyewitness testimonies of explosions in WTC6, the Morgan Stanley, Marsh-Mclellan connections, the many, many FLight 93 lies that are documentated at the Killtown blog, the 10 different eyewitness testimonies of Shanksville citizens claiming to have seen a figher jet before and immediately after the "explosion", the 4 videos that are now released showing no plane at the Pentagon, the testimony of Pentagon employees that say they witnessed and/or heard a bomb explosion BEFORE the plane supposedly crashed, and many more discrepencies. The guy is unable to deviate from what he thinks is fact.

[sunny]

rocco, that's not quite fair. He has been a harsh critic of Israel, as well as of the tactic of throwing around the term "anti-semite" towards critics. Also, he calls Chomsky a "purist" and boy does he hate purists. In fact, my strongest criticism of him is that he hates people who stand on principle, such as those who are demanding impeachment and damn the political consequences to the Dems. His biggest flaw is his support for the party, damn the principles.

(not that I agree Chomsky is a purist, Joe's term for the man.)