Rabbit,
I’ve got somewhat of a concession and somewhat of an apology to make to you.
I don’t have time right now, but will continue ASAP.
I can do the marketing thing too, see? ;-)
Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2005 at 10:10 AM
The suspense is making me crazy.
OK. Crazier.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2005 at 4:39 PM
That’s not a marketing thing Natalie, why always so cynical. It is meant as a courtesy when Rabbit posts thus and it is taken as one when you do also.
No apologies necessary and it is not a concession. So long as you pick up the ESSENTIAL matter of important facts, eg: Witnesses, upon your anticipated return.
Rabbit will miss Nat, but will find something to do in the emantime, have no fear. Stay safe and TRY to be good.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 17, 2005 at 6:38 PM
Quoting Natalie : ” It occurs to me that the Iraqis, even after all they
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:46 PM
There is nothing positive in that story about Iraqi children. It is nothing but a blatant emotional piece. So some kids get a few hours to play safely in the streets. Not as safely as they were able before their country was invaded of course. In a few hours they will be in danger of being accidently or intentioanlly bombed by Co-alition forces or Iraqi Puppet troops. They will be at risk of being blown up by roadisde bombs set by insurgents as well as false flag ops by co-alition forces, a now proven fact.
The election they have just held has brought Iraq even closer to a Muslim fundamentalist regime, something the IDIOTS cheering from the USA are yet to wake up to. So exactly what is the point of such a comparison Natalie and any other apologists for the illegal invasion?
Those same kids didn’t matter to you yesterday, while you were starving their country of food and medicines, they didn’t matter to you when you decided to spread Nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium all over their country. Those same kids won’t matter to you tomorrow when they will be once again reduced to collateral damage.
So F*CK OFF WITH YOUR HYPOCRITICAL CRAP.
Rabbit loves and cares for those MUSLIM Children as all children, yesterday, today and tomorrow….............. they are nothing to you but a symbol to be used and then discarded. Have a read up on how the hospitals are being wrecked by the US and Puppet troops, Children injured by “your weapons” are being refused help at hospitals because troops are demanding first treatment.
The abuses of human rights just go on and on. You answer it with a Fairy tale picture of Bambi like fantasy.
Nat you are at heart a Rat.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 17, 2005 at 10:10 PM
Here is another sad story you should read Natalie.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0331-08.htm
Seems that things are worse for Iraqi children since the war.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2005 at 10:59 PM
Good article on Iraq David. Rabbit has just finished reading your previous source. One seee a few good pieces on the WSW site.
This quote:
“These provisions written into the draft at Washington
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 12:29 AM
Rabbit,
After further analysis, I must concede that there is a compelling case to be made that the explanation put forth in official reports for the complete cause of the crash of flight 93 is incomplete, and that the whole truth may even have been purposefully kept secret.
I was unaware of the complete debris field story. After learning fully of it thanks to your explanation / links, in addition to other sources, I feel I must apologize for jumping to my conclusion regarding Popular Mechanics and the engine story. Although they may have addressed and debunked one peripheral “conspiracy” claim, that an engine or engine part was found much further away from the crash site than actually was the case, they failed to address the complete debris field story, and so can properly be criticized for indeed putting forth a straw-man argument in this particular case.
This does not, however, negate my previously stated belief that there was a revolt on board, which is evident from several independent recordings and communications. I am willing to accept the possibility that there was, in addition to this activity, other influences that contributed to the crash. Also the possibility that the passengers may have indeed been successful in taking back the cockpit only to find themselves up against an F-16. Yes, this would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the government in this case has lied to us. Or LIED, as you prefer to put it.
Of course it’s difficult or impossible to know for sure exactly what happened, just as it often is to determine the exact elements that led to an ordinary car wreck. Perhaps the plane suffered some kind of breach due to stress from the erratic maneuvers employed by the terrorists. There is an report of a passenger mentioning a gun in one of his communications with his wife. A shot fired into the floor might have caused a breach in the lower section carrying mail.
Where we differ fundamentally, though, is in our beliefs about motivations. If they did shoot it down, it seems to me that their motivation for doing so was honorable. It also makes a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret, given the mood of the nation at the time. (I would have advised them to be honest about it, if for some inexplicable reason they had asked me.) If they did shoot it down, they did it to save untold numbers of lives on the ground or in buildings (remember, possibilities at the time for WTC deaths were upwards of 50,000) and prevent further destruction to our already severely damaged institutions.
A shoot-down and its being kept secret, if it did indeed happen, makes sense and is consistent with what I have come to know about America, which is that it’s actions are generally well-intentioned. It is inarguably the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet, while still being made up of human beings and subject to not being perfect. It’s never sought to expand its territory, although it certainly could if it wanted to. It’s sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its own lives and expended billions of dollars defending ordinary citizens all over the globe (and itself of course) against the selfish ambitions of a few extraordinary maniacs. People die trying to come here and are always free to leave, but few choose to. If not for the U.S. and the U.S. military especially, I shudder to think what a dark and hopeless place this world most probably would be.
This is why I concur with your skepticism about flight 93, and strongly dissent from your theories about the deliberate demolition of our symbols and instruments of free-market economic superiority, and missiles being intentionally fired into our own five-sided fortresses. These theories are inconsistent with common sense, and inconsistent with what I know America to be all about. Keep pursuing them if you wish; you’ll be wasting countless hours.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 18, 2005 at 2:09 AM
As for Iraq, I’m disappointed at all the unrelenting negativity. Since the overthrow, the Iraqis have consistently expressed great hope for their future, usually in the neighborhood of 70% thinking their lives will be much better in 5 years. I’m sure if you took a poll at moveon.org or democraticunderground, you’d be lucky to get seven.
Talk to me in five years, maybe longer, about Iraq. It took America much longer than that to iron out all its disagreements and settle on a constitution. Transforming from a brutal dictatorship to a society where the average citizen has a little power of his own cannot be easy. Perhaps the Bush administration at one time wrongly thought it would be.
http://tinyurl.com/9ahaj
(warning: good news)
Posted by Natalie on Oct 18, 2005 at 2:10 AM
Natalie just a short one for now it is late and Rabbit will have more time tomorrow.
Just to clarify you don’t know what Rabbit thinks exactly happened to flight 93, or any motives, for I have not said anything about it. Rabbit is of the opinion that it was probably shot down, on the orders of somebody who was defying his superiors. As mentioned before the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner had belonged to Rank of General until about a month before 911 if my info is correct. Such an officer may have exceeded his authority, but for entirely good reasons as you have indicated. Rabbit fully understands why it would have been shot down and in fact they should all have been shot down, there was time and that was what was meant to happen under such circumstances. It is believed that Bush and crew were expecting Capitol Hill to go up, things were in place for it.
That is to say the whole thing was meant to go a step further. Rabbit shall see if he can locate the info which led to this conclusion.
There seems liitle doubt that the Jet broke up in midair though and the sort of things, papers, bodies etc which were falling out, do suggest a serious explosion onboard.
Due to the niggling questions of consistency and various details already covered I don’t believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there was a fight onboard. There is evidence to conclude that someone wanted this to be believed, but the calls don’t add up, that is significant since the calls are the only things which suggest there was a fight.
It is not of itself the most important detail of the day. It is important though and Rabbit will look further at what there is about possible shootdown.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 6:02 AM
The following is by an Iraqi woman.
“
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 6:03 AM
Try and have a look at this girl’s views, she is from Mosul, and has become more and more dissapointed with what is happening to her country.
http://astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/
Take note of the exceptional reasoning and common sense of these people. Read some of River’s earlier postings Nat, get a feel for the position these girls, not much different from you are in.
These are two of those supposed Muslim Extremists. You will see from theirs and others’ blogs how they are gradually being radicalised, maybe not River, she is an Angel, but the other sweetie is younger and you can see that she will be typical of many.
Such a rod you are maikng for your back, by making these proud and brave people hate you.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 6:10 AM
Natalie:
There is an old African-American saying that might apply to the Iraqis; been down so long, it looks like up to me. They are hopeful that things will get better because things couldn’t get much worse. As for the American left, the life of ordinary Americans could get a lot worse. Not much sign of things turning around before we tumble over the cliff created by our collective hubris. But we aren’t packing it in, either.
I’m happy for you that you are so idealistic about our government. It does seem you have a bit of a blind spot when you say we protect people from fanatics. We protect corporate business interests, and those oligarchic sycophants in foriegn countries who profit from US exploitation of their resources. (Can you say ‘satrapy’, Nat?) Folks like Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, the Saud family, the Amir Sabah of Kuwait, Roberto d’Aubuisson, Efrain Rios Mont, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Fernand Marcos, Reza Shah Pahlevi and other great heroes of the people. Did I forget Manny Noriega and Saddam Hussein, both insinuated into power by the CIA. No, I didn’t. Then there’s all the funny business with the drug trade from Air America to Eugene Hassenfus. Why exactly has the opium business blossomed so under our stewardship of Afghanistan? Hail, Columbia!
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 18, 2005 at 7:05 AM
# 2
The neo-cons had an agenda focused on taking over Eastern oil resources in place for many, many years before 9-11. In their own writings they explained that some type of “new Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to gain public support (financing) of such plans.
Yes, it is true that the whole truth may have been purposely kept secret. No one disputes that the current administration is the least transparent, the most secretive, and likely the most deceptive in our history.
And if the administration was deliberately negligent or complicit in the events of 9-11 it would indeed ‘make a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret’.
It is a stretch to claim that the U.S. has never sought to expand its territory. Are you in a stupor? We committed genocide to steal this country from the Indians who lived here. I remember something about Texas once being part of Mexico, etc.
But, to be modern, let’s just admit that the U.S. has spent a good bit of its public monies on a military that is spread throughout hundreds of bases across the world (who has done more military intervention than the U.S.)and on intelligence agencies who meddle in every body’s business, sometimes in some very nasty ways.
Let’s just say that our corporate-sponsored government has sought to expand its power, its control, its influence, and its GREED throughout the world.
It is not YOU, Natalie, that I rail against. Break out of the illusion! The military-industrial oligarchy that the government serves does NOT represent your ideals either. But it must work at keeping you enthralled to continue to pursue pursue it own greedy, selfish ends.
True, much of the world envies what we have. We have 5% of the world’s population and comsume over half of its resources. They want a piece of that… and freedom from concrete cruelties of repressive governments (sometimes sustained by the U.S.)and material hardships (sometimes resulting from the impact of U.S. economic policies). Yet have you ever wondered why so much of the world has a negative opinion of the U.S. regarding it foreign policies? Are you aware of the mis-match between our self-image and how the rest of the world sees the U.S. and feels about it?
Posted by whit on Oct 18, 2005 at 9:43 AM
Arghh!
My #1 post, an extensive bit of writing, didn’t make it to the forum when I submitted it. Man, that is frustrating. Screw it!
Nat, just give some thought to Luminous Beauty’s post. Okay? You seem to have little realistic knowledge and understanding of U.S. foreign policy, military intervention, and CIA activity.
You would be mistaken, Natalie, to think that I do NOT have a love and high regard for my own nation and people. I do. ‘And I have a very high regard for the founding ideals of this nation… they were truly enlightened.
My arguments with derive out of my desire to protect, preserve, and promote those ideals.
The principles laid out by our founders were devised primarily to protect our institutions from corruption from within, rather than threats from without. Freedom requires vigilance. Despots have long known that the best way to get ‘the people’ to take their eyes off of the ball is to ‘provide’ a exciting threat from without… real or imagined. The inviting lantern to the world is becoming a glaring policeman’s spotlight.
Patriotism is more than uncritical acceptance of and faith in anything your government does or tells you. I make take more than some PollyAnnish devotion, little plastic flags on you car, and keeping your head tucked securely in the dark place to determine a happy ending to the American story.
Our nation is badly off track, and you would do well to try to make some rational discernments about just what the intentions and motivations of military-industrial, corporate-sponsored government actually are.
Posted by whit on Oct 18, 2005 at 10:28 AM
I can’t for the life of me really understand how folks like Natalie can on the one hand be so cynical about any transparent and public use of government to actually improve the lives of its citizens, and on the other have such blind faith in the opaque and secretive National Security State.
It is a tribute to the human brain’s robust ability to sustain levels of cognitive dissonance one could reasonably infer would cause it to explode.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 18, 2005 at 10:49 AM
“It is a tribute to the human brain
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 18, 2005 at 11:25 AM
Whit, a word of advice. When typing up a lengthy post do it on WordPad or some such. You can copy and paste it and repeat it if the post doesn’t go through.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 18, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Latest:
Fake Terror War Ramps Up
Crimes of the State
crimesofthestate.blogspot.com
Coinciding with Bush’s big “War on Terror” speech, we have a subway threat HOAX that pushed further police state intrusions into New York City’s subway system, followed by this new purported letter from “al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi.”
But not even the alleged terrorists on the receiving end of it think it’s real. These are strange times.
Let’s see if we can make sense of this letter/non-letter. On John Negroponte’s website (Mr. death-squads-don’t-exist), we have the summary of points allegedly made by al-Zawahiri, yet rejected as “fake” by the possibly fictional organization “Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
CONTINUED:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
See also:
British Chief Police Investigator in Basra dies under mysterious circumstances
He was responsible for the investigation into the two Elite SAS men disguised as Arab “terrorists”
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051017&articleId=1100
Posted by johndoraemi on Oct 18, 2005 at 3:34 PM
PS
Natalie:
What Bush and Blair have done to Iraq isn’t new. It’s called an illegal war of aggression and a Crime Against the Peace, the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nazis were hanged in 1946 for the exact same offense.
“According to Oil Ministry officials, contracts will be signed with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006, opening the majority of Iraq’s oilfields to western companies for the first time in 33 years. (...) Thus the policy potentially allocates to foreign companies 64% of known reserves. If a further 100 billion barrels are found, as is widely predicted, the foreign companies would control 81% of the total, and if 200 billion were found, as some suggest, they would have 87%.”
—Iraq Constitution Lays Ground for Oilfield Sell-Off, globalpolicy.org
Posted by johndoraemi on Oct 18, 2005 at 3:39 PM
Good advice, David. I considered this myself after my submitted writing was AGAIN sent off into cyberspace instead of posted on our forum.
... Not to mention word processing first and then pasting the finished product for posting would provide a better chance of identifying and correcting my many confusing errors and mispellings.
Thanks!
Posted by whit on Oct 18, 2005 at 4:07 PM
Wonder if the kids killed by the F15 attack on Monday were the same ones who were playing hopefully in the streets on referendum day.
“Baghdad - A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a western provincial capital, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday”.
“Fuad said the dead included his 4-year-old son, Saad Ahmed Fuad, and his 8-year-old daughter, Haifa Ahmed Fuad.
Fuad said he was unable to find one of his 8-year-old daughter’s legs, and had to bury her without them.
Another boy, 6-year-old Muhammed Salih Ali, was buried in a plastic bag after relatives collected what they believed to be parts of his body, mourners said.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805J.shtml
Lets hope thosekids had a feeling of hope for the future before a BIG US bomb came and took away their future.
Do you know how to make Rabbit a Suicide Bomber? Kill his children like this.
Go to Hell anybody who supports this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL invasion. You have done nothing right, you are making it worse and your army is good for nothing. They cannot fight modern wars even when they break all the rules.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 5:14 PM
Rabbit is a man first an Australian second.
I will not follow a corrupt and evil cause even if is has my country’s name on it. Natalie is not a good person to those who are wondering how she can support the things she does. We know already that she is an apologist for using Depleted Uranium, ignoring the risks to US troops and she is absolutely un-interested in the effects on the civilian population.
Do not mistake her as being merely mis-informed, she answers by saying simply that DU is no more dangerous than lead and killing innocents is justified if the government says it is. She has argued using blatant tactics of SHILLdom, this is not just a deluded ditto-head here. Rabbit knows Nat and she is a Vampire. A practising follower of Dark Arts.
Notice the issues she chooses to defend are all acts of inhumanity. Some of these issues are those that even dittoheads avoid, knowing they have no chance. Not Nat, she is under orders.
Nat Rabbit is only becoming angry with you for bringing little innocent children into this discussion in the first place. The exmples you blatantly used did not and do not support your cause, they are damning witnesses against it.
It looks like someone holding up a child as a human shield. So stop it and Rabbit will stop biting. Rabbit is a father and he cannot accept you using the children you are arguing in favor of poisoning and killing, as some sort of “emotional” stunt. Ok you have poisoned and bombed the babies. You have killed their mother and allowed their father to be incarcerated without rights or charges and to be tortured.
Now you want us to feel somehow that these children are a witness to something you are doing right!
THE BANALITY OF EVIL.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 5:34 PM
Nat the polular mechanics article “MADE UP” the conspiracy theory they attacked about the engine part. This was as said one of their tactics. Address some small part of another theory while ignoring the overall theory and “ALL” the evidence which led to it.
The Popular Mechanics article was a hit piece and as such it was HISTORICALLY unsuccessful.
Now WITNESSES Natalie, how does Popular Mechanics account for witnesses? Of course it doesn’t and Rabbit is looking forward to Natalie explaining how William Rodriguez experienced what he did. Rabbit feels we should establish absolutely that the WTC’s were brought down with explosives. This is the biggest smoking gun, because it has been BLATANTLY covered up and because it would have required considerable setting up as well as the removal of BOMB sniffing dogs from the WTCs.
The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC the week before the attacks as it happens. What a co-incidence…........
A couple of flatbed trucks were used to remove all that GOLD BULLION which was in the WTCs just before the attacks too. What a co-incidence. Luckily they got all that gold out, just in the nick of time. There are lots of fascinating co-incidences like this, shall we examine them and speculate about them being possibly MORE than mere co-incidence?
Do you feel good about supporting the greatest criminals in world history?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 18, 2005 at 5:44 PM
One example of hundreds, Ms. Natalie:
Part #1
40 Years of Living Dangerously
by Joseph Nevins
The recent horrific bombings in Bali should not obscure a far larger, institutionalized Indonesia-associated set of horrors. It was born forty years ago this month when the Indonesian army initiated what the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency described as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century.” Four decades later, the failure to hold anyone accountable for the slaughter—or, in places like the United States, even to remember it—continues to have negative repercussions for human rights.
Under Major General Suharto’s leadership, the army and its civilian militia groups used an alleged coup attempt on October 1, 1965 as an excuse to round up and kill hundreds of thousands of members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), and of loosely affiliated organizations such as women’s groups and labor unions.
Despite the magnitude of the carnage, Marshall Green, American ambassador to Indonesia at the time, wrote that the embassy had “made clear” to the army that Washington was “generally sympathetic with and admiring” of its actions.
U.S. support for the killings was rooted in Washington’s longstanding wish to have unimpeded access to Southeast Asia’s great wealth of strategic resources such as oil, rubber, and tin. World War II, the disruption of European colonial rule, and the emergence of the United States as the post-war regional power provided the opportunity to realize that desire.
But new obstacles arose when the Sukarno government emerged upon independence in Indonesia—the country many in Washington saw as the region’s centerpiece. Sukarno’s domestic and foreign policy was nationalist, nonaligned, and critical of Western intervention. Moreover, his government had a working relationship with the powerful PKI, which Washington feared would eventually win national elections. For these reasons the Eisenhower administration conducted covert operations to destabilize Indonesia, efforts that culminated in 1965-66 with the PKI’s eradication and Sukarno’s effective overthrow.
U.S. policy had helped lay the groundwork for the killings through support for anti-communist elements of the military, and intelligence operations aimed at weakening the PKI and drawing it into conflict with the army. So when the army began the killings, the Johnson administration supplied it with weaponry and telecommunications equipment, and, once Suharto had formally assumed power, provided food and other aid. The U.S. Embassy also gave the names of thousands of PKI cadre who were subsequently executed.
The PKI’s destruction and Sukarno’s ouster resulted in a dramatic shift in the regional power equation, leading Time magazine to hail Suharto’s takeover as “The West’s best news for years in Asia.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy League’s publication gushed over Indonesia’s new role in Southeast Asia as “that strategic area’s unaggressive, but stern, monitor.”
Ten years later, Suharto’s “unaggressive” Indonesia invaded neighboring East Timor after receiving permission from the Ford administration. The war and almost 24-year illegal occupation cost tens of thousands of East Timorese lives. Within Indonesia proper, Jakarta’s military has committed myriad additional atrocities—from killing tens of thousands in independence-seeking West Papua to thousands more in the oil-rich Aceh region.
With Suharto’s resignation in 1998, significant political space has opened up in Indonesia resulting in competitive national elections, but the armed forces still loom large over the state apparatus. And no military or political leaders have been held responsible for the post-Sukarno-era crimes, thus increasing the likelihood of future atrocities and aggression—a source of continuing worry for Indonesia’s civil society and restless regions, as well as poverty-stricken, now-independent East Timor.
Posted by whit on Oct 19, 2005 at 9:40 AM
Part #2
Here in the United States, despite political support and billions of dollars in weaponry, military training and economic assistance to Jakarta over the preceding four decades, Washington’s role in Indonesia’s killing fields of 1965-66 and subsequent brutality has been effectively buried. Such “forgetting” has translated into a lack of accountability for U.S. complicity in these crimes, while enabling the Bush administration’s current efforts to further ties with Indonesia’s military, as part of the global “war on terror.”
The continuation of this dangerous alliance, and the impunity that underlies it, can only lead to further atrocities—in Indonesia and elsewhere—as it has for the last forty years.
Joseph Nevins is an assistant professor of geography at Vassar College and author of A Not-so-distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor (Cornell University Press, 2005).
Posted by whit on Oct 19, 2005 at 9:40 AM
Natalie,
The U.S. M/I corporacracy is very Machiavelian is its manner of operating. It’s ironic that in all the demonizing of Saddam and using his ruthless brutality as a justification for OUR military takeover of Iraq and its oil fields, one truly important, pertinent piece is left out of the big picture: With U.S. government and CIA backing Saddam would have never come to power or have been able to be the evil bastard that he was. When Saddam’s army were gassing the Kurds U.S. military “advisors” were providing coordinates for them. Saddam, our EX-ally was a creature of the CIA. Now HE is going to trial. But what about those who brought him to power, and used him as a pawn in the deadly game of controlling the world’s oil resources?
Of course, the Iraqi people deserved something better than Saddam. And they deserve something better than what the U.S. has done and is doing to them now.
Hitler, too, was just ridding the world of evil and making it a better, more glorious place. Many were those who had faith in him, and you should explore who they were.
Posted by whit on Oct 19, 2005 at 10:01 AM
That last post should read, of course, WITHOUT U.S. government and CIA backing…
Posted by whit on Oct 19, 2005 at 10:04 AM
Just because you say you would have resisted Nazism, does not make it so.
We are people who would have and do resist Fascism, if we say you are a NAZI, then you probably are. You would have been arguing for the Fuerer and the glorious third reich Natalie, and that is an absolute given..
Your soul is sold now, it would have been then.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 19, 2005 at 6:23 PM
Natalie : “(warning:good news)”
” Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ” Isaiah 5:20
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 19, 2005 at 7:51 PM
In case readers and commenters have not seen it on more recent threads :
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Luminous Beauty linked this on another thread and it is apt for this thread as well.
Some difficult questions, no fence to sit on. Polarizing but effective. Avoid knee jerk reactions unless knee jerk reactions are the reactions you actually have. hehe. I am usually skeptical / disdainful of
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 19, 2005 at 8:07 PM
David says:
“there is no right or wrong result”
Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 19, 2005 at 10:12 PM
My political compass readings:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
...nearest to Gandhi, which pleases me. Gandhi possessed great strenght of character, courage, integrity, honesty, and compassion. However, while my ‘positions’ may be similarly aligned, I cannot claim to be of the same high character.
Posted by whit on Oct 19, 2005 at 10:17 PM
” Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole. “
Please forgive my forgiving nature but maybe they are only deluded assholes. On the road to Damascus. And it is hard for them to kick against the pricks.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 19, 2005 at 11:05 PM
They are the pricks too, and they are not that hard to kick, Rabbit will keep kicking the PRICKS. HOWARD and BUSH were of course right there in the thick of it, they are both A*seholes and they are both Pricks. Therefore anybody in that field is both. Deluded? Of course they are bloody deluded, that is what makes them a*seholes and pricks. Self imposed delusions, WILLFUL IGNORANCE is not a defence, it is the CRIME.
Not up to Rabbit’s usual standard of logic, but why should one be excessively logical about wacking illogical creatures?
Wow Whit, Rabbit is impressed. Rabbit was personally a bit dissapointed about his ratings, being even a bit right of Ghandi.
Whit you are way out there in the big numbers. You should be an Anarcho-Socialist too, you could be our king, if we had kings, which we don’t of course.
Anarcho-Socialists do not have kings.
You can be a respected elder, a radical sage.
..........................................^^.................................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 20, 2005 at 1:05 AM
Mouse:
Why cannot people face the truth about 911?
Rabbit:
They would have to change all their ideas to allow for such a fundamental error of judgement..Mouse.
Mouse:
Is that all? Even Mouse can afford to change all his ideas.
Rabbit:
Yes mouse, but you don’t have many ideas to change after all…................. People have lots more ideas than a mouse.
Mouse:
What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Rabbit:
Rabbit does not know, Mouse…........... Rabbit does not know.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 20, 2005 at 8:55 PM
What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Indeed… Rabbit. It seems that in the service of the fragile ego people are willing to destroy themselves (insanity is alway based upon the avoidance of legitimate suffering) and others (onto whom they have projected what they cannot own about themselves).
Looks like this thread is dying out, doesn’t it Rabbit?
Whatever happened to Natalie?
Perhaps this thread has run its course, with no where else to go. No where else, that is, that the Nat and Jay types would dare to venture… far away from their well-beaten paths and heavily reinforced comfort zones.
That sounds a bit arrogant, I suppose. The truth is, I am saddened. Sad that such a deliberation couldn’t actually have been a mutually honest discovery voyage, and not just some right vs wrong pissing contest (it was more than that, actually).
They say that rabbits are highly ‘productive’ (reproductive, I guess) And you have certainly been amazingly productive in you contributions/participation in this exchange. Your efforts are appreciated.
Posted by whit on Oct 21, 2005 at 9:25 AM
Natalie, come back.
There is a test we would like you to take.
Please let us know your results. We want to help make you well.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 21, 2005 at 10:23 AM
Whit
You so often speak Rabbit’s heart for him and he will own all you say. Rabbit always hopes that these discussions will be mutually honest voyages of discovery.
This thread never really did gain a serious opposition. the facts was that the context was always too real and thus untouchable by mere faith based argument. Rabbit always knew this would be anathema to the GOD Squad, and was not surprised to see them all fall so quickly. Admittedly those who came were not true God Squad, but they held the same views which was always the most telling to those of us watching the overall pattern of the discussion.
Indeed the subjects have been contrived largely, but no less valid for that. The idea Rabbit sought was to put FAITH BASED argument up against factual argument and like all good ideas it has grown out from here and given force to other efforts.
Natalie may yet return, Rabbit thinks she loves him at least. Rabbit loves Natalie too, which is why he’d like to see her take the Political Graph test.
Natalie may be a Shill or she may yet be a person who can be re-awakened, it is worth trying and Rabbit has learned some things from her of worth, there is bound to be more.
One thing is for sure, the 911 case is one hell of an easy one to fight. They just crumble when faced with the amount of evidence. We didn’t even touch the important issues, and the act of trying to introduce them to the discussion was enough to shut down the discussion.
WOW
Rabbit is waiting for an approriate thread, who will dare bring up 911 at this stage of the game?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 21, 2005 at 6:20 PM
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, “It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government.”
The rest of the story
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 22, 2005 at 1:31 AM
Rabbit,
OK I went to the Dr. Griffin account you included and there is no doubt the WTC was an inside job done with the cooperation of the U.S. government.
http://www.rense.com/general68/caseforWTCtower.htm
Case For WTC Tower
Demolition Sealed By Griffin
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition
is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
It even says right there in the title
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 22, 2005 at 1:08 PM
Touche, Whattheheck. Touche.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 22, 2005 at 3:58 PM
Just step back a bit here WTH and don’t make too much of a case on one seeming contradiction. We’re still trying to assess, everything considered, what the big picture converges on. It is a valid, don’t you think, to question why the government would have arranged to have the debris ‘immediately’ hauled away, and disposed of out of the country, before legitimate investigators had a routine and normal chance to inspect the remains to determine what had occurred? Do is make sense? What might it suggest?
I believe there were those who reported having seen discrete segments of beams, but I have less that a masterful command of all these various sites. ‘But if you’re searching for the truth you could research it. We all need to be doing that. There’s more at stake here than “Rah!, Rah!... for my team.” What good is it to pretend to prevail if the truth is obscured?
Posted by whit on Oct 22, 2005 at 5:45 PM
wtc was a demolition. I knew that the day I saw it come straight down .
who did it ,and why are answers not yet arrived at.
We all have our suspects ,but we can’t just point the finger without solid proof.
there is no shortage of people who would benefit from it.
Posted by skullker on Oct 22, 2005 at 5:57 PM
But the point belongs to Rabbit.
En Garde, Whattheheck.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 22, 2005 at 9:26 PM
WTH the small query of yours is valid, but jumping to conclusions about the answer is not. Let us seek an answer.
Griffin is well known and has a lot of credit for his books. He is not one but one of many who are writing such things and more. The fact of him being a theologian is of literally no consequence to rabbit or many other poeple, any suggestion that it is is ridiculous. What is the suggestion that some left wing conspiracy has selected such a man as a deliberate vehicle of misinformation or something?
Griffin happens to be one of the most sensible and simple approaches taken to the whole thing and he is one of Rabbit’s favorites in this regard. It has been evidenced above that there is much much more behind Rabbit’s understanding of 911.
Rabbit shall return with a comment about the 30 foot trusses, Natalie too mentioned them. The trusses are certainly in the plans for the WTCs. This was denied at the outset, but plans were mysteriously unavailable, being blocked I believe, but can’t quite recall. They were eventually uncovered and showed up where the engineers said they should be. It is a fact that the building would have been incredibly unsafe, without them, but it would not have withstood the winds it had withstood before and nor could it have even passed an inspection, anyway, they were there, more later.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 22, 2005 at 10:53 PM
Sorry Rabbti meant columns not trusses.
In searching for information about the columns Rabbit has found a gem. OK so they are obviously a little over thirty feet some of them, point is they are there, described by engineers who cleaned up the site.
<a href=“http://tinyurl.com/8vul7”>
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 22, 2005 at 11:16 PM
OM should be PM
Australian Prime Minister John Howard
Most Aussies doubt he is the father of his children, whoever they are, this is becase we don’t believe he’s ever had sex with Janet, his wife. ............................... He wouldn’t be unfaithful to George.
Note the assumption of Arse licker in an article by even a conservative commentator from a couple years back.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 22, 2005 at 11:47 PM
No the revised scores are where you would be if you were someone else.
The original answers were the most pure. Now for non-science minded people this may need to be explained, but to any scientific mind the answer is obvious.
You now know the test, the results and anything you do from here on to alter your original result is of absolutely NO use to the experiment. You are now ‘contaminated’, no longer a viable test subject…..be gone.
The experiment had a given set of criteria. The questions are applied to random subjects who have no preparation or knowledge of how the process is to proceed. Each subject gives his response under ‘equal’ conditions. This is the very critical isolation required to ensure true results.
All you are doing with the Strong answers or any other interference is altering the range. If you do it with any subject you will have to do it with THEM ALL. Which will only change the “RANGE” of comparison. You may move closer together in groups, but these will only be apparnet groupings, having lost the fine tuning in the ground between.
It is a simple logical argument, you cannot do what you are doing and call it a valid result. Rabbit KNOWS this, it is not an opinion. If anyone doubts this, Rabbit will scoff at their lack of scientific acumen, it is a clear cut thing.
By the way, has it not occurred to anyone that just because you answered something less strong the first time, that someone else would not have answered the strong one?
As it happens Rabbit’s answers were almost all STRONGLY AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE. That was MY natural first response. So by changing your answers to a strong one everytime, just means you may be IMITATING Me or somebody else.
This is called logic, it is based on scientific principles and if WTH really has ANY Universtity Psychology behind him as claimed, then he must see this as clear as day as well.
You get one chance and unless you answered dishonestly the first time, this is IT. Everything after is Tainted
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 23, 2005 at 5:16 PM
Dammit, something happened, this went on wrong thread, ...................................^^..............................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 23, 2005 at 5:18 PM
Now we’ve got ANOTHER theologian who couldn’t be more at odds with the first in his theories about who the enemy is. Having seen both in action, I wouldn’t conclude that David Ray Griffin is any LESS a “fundamentalist bully” than Pat Robertson, if we’re allowed to broaden the definition a bit: “Having rigid adherence to principles and being intolerant of other views”. One man irresponsibly urges assassination of a mildly murderous foreign leader, knowing that his remarks will be exploited by a hostile media to the thug’s advantage. The other must be at least AS irresponsible in accusing his OWN government of deliberately murdering its OWN citizens, surely knowing his words amount to no less than a defense of Al Qaeda. (btw, a defense they likely don’t appreciate….they seem pretty proud of what they pulled off that day)
Both men desperately want to persuade people as to their points of view. While one uses the Bible as his primary reference, the other has his own set of principles and guidelines as set forth by the prophets Rense, Jones and Meyer, the latter having had the benefit of hundreds of mind e x p a n d i n g experiences. (LSD) Perhaps the others have too; we don’t want to sell them short.
Both expect you to take it on faith that their truth is the one to set you free. One explains that even though you’ve never seen God or any direct evidence for his existence, if you first simply have faith, and then repeat certain scriptures enough times, you will be forever saved. The other relies on your believing that the American government is essentially EVIL as a prerequisite. This, along with reading enough times on enough cheesy websites that the WTC was brought down by explosives in 10 seconds or less and the pentagon was hit by a missile or possibly an airliner flown by remote control, will make you finally able to understand who are the true “evil-doers”.
After observing the complexities and precision of nature, I’m not confident enough to say there’s no such thing as God—but I have my doubts. However, the mere mortal happenings of 9/11 and the human tendency to believe some of the most far-out things if they happen to reinforce a world-view - even though they defy all common sense and logic - make me quite confident in my conclusion that 9/11 was indeed planned and executed exclusively by Al Qaeda.
This is not to say of course that agents of our government didn’t have their suspicions and failed to take the necessary preventative action for whatever reasons. But one of those reasons was not, by all evidence and reason, that they somehow WANTED it to happen. It’s reasonable to believe they may have “taken advantage” of the situation post hoc, but it’s not reasonable to suspect beyond that. In fact, to make such inflammatory charges in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary is simply ... well ... irresponsible.
Here is a debate between Griffin and Chip Berlet, who is certainly no man of the right and along with Amy, no friend of the Bush admin. The fundamentalism of Griffin is too much even for them, and they “confront” him:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I’ve got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the—
GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, I don’t have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
http://tinyurl.com/dkxjd
Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:17 AM
I’m not sure exactly what all the controversy is about the 30 foot columns. The towers were assembled from pretty much that length section, some more some less, and those same sections were found in the rubble pile. Here is an old movie showing how the towers were assembled. I’m afraid I don’t understand what the mystery is supposed to be.
http://tinyurl.com/8jw9t
My political compass results put me just below the center intersection, whatever that might mean. I’m closer to Ghandi than Thatcher, so I suppose that’s a plus in a lot of people’s minds. Individual results are one thing, but isn’t there a time for and a value to many different points of view? (not all, of course, sorry Stalin) The more people who would otherwise be pre-disposed to violence that can be influenced by a Ghandi approach, the better. But when it becomes necessary to confront those that can’t, I’m thankful for a Thatcher. I suspect a Ghandi might secretly be thankful as well.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:20 AM
No Natalie, the evidence is such that it is not irresponsible to call the US government complicit. It is irresponsible to defend them as it happens.
Griffin is not calling for the assaination of a democratically elected president, as is Chavez, he is calling for a “Proper and impartial investigation”. He and many many others are saying the same things and it is not some crazy conspiracy theory. The crazy conspiracy theory is the one you adhere to and which ahs long since crumbled on this thread.
That makes your comparison of Robertson ridiculous. Natalie, what nonsense is this you come back with.
We shall be going back to facts and not wasting time with your emotional dishonest claptrap.
Your whole rant against the various internet sites you list who are but a few of thousands of sites reporting on the facts. the evidence was being dealt with Nat and you have so far established only that the official line is wrong. We have presented a wealth of information to show this and also to support certain basic theories. We have succeeded so far.
You are such a sleazy one are you not?
The points you are now questioning again have already been dealt with and you lost them, now you come back for a second round just like with the depleted Uranium. Natalie you are a SHILL you cannot debate fair, you cannot stick to the facts you can only keep repeating your crap. You are cornered with the truth, you disapear. you return and start all over again when the dust has settled.
You are a whore. a sad liitle whore. Rabbit is sorry to put it thus, but you really are the biggest coward and a most unsatisfactory debating partner. You cannot stick to the facts, you want only to branch out into bombastic proselytising.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:09 AM
Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU. What a sleazy trick, what a low down dirty act. What is your problem? You have been given some very substantially backed information which contradicts your views. That is a fact, go back and read about it if you have not, others have and they have had their say. You have so far got nothing on each of the ACTUAL facts we were avble to discuss.
You pulled out in the middle of a discussion which was going famously badly claiming time constraints, now you come back to the same emotive, and totally opinion based ranting which Rabbit has already broken you of once.
Debabe the critical facts in an orderly fashion, or face a serious whipping. Griffin doesn’t make up any facts. He examined the reported and verifiable facts, like others and presents the findings. That is the end of that.
The findings can be challenged on the facts, but not at the man. Rabbit will find any number of experts and actual official documenst as necessary to prove anything he contends, no need to hold litlle innocent children up as a shield, or run and hide, or pretend you did read something when you did not.
LIAR. You are a big disapointment.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:17 AM
Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time? Frankly Rabbit is surprised natalie is wasting time on such things as a single person, except that it is standard SHILL tactics to attack the person if they don’t like what they are saying.
What facts are you questioning which have led to Griffin’s conclusions Natalie, What are the facts which he has got wrong?
Not one will come, we will go round in circles, the dance of smoke and mirrors the vampire so delights in. Yet she claims no time, still she spreads her slime, for many many lines. Nothing but venon is said, and nothing of substance atempted. How about you use your precious time to get back to the simple facts which show that the buildings were brought down by explosives, actually we’ve done that.
We are now due to look at the witnesses who reported explosions in the towers, that is what you ran away from as Rabbit recalls.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:28 AM
Rabbit guessed where you’d be on the political thing, you should see the discussion about it on Partisan thread, then you would understand that you are deluded and the graph proves it to anbody who can look objectively at it.
You are placed where you are, your stated politics is actually somewhere else altogether, because this is based upon delusions that it is more what you are.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:31 AM
If you want to discuss the graph results, then please join us on Partisan, but do so after having read the relevant postings since it was brought up by David Monk. It has fascinated Rabbit and he awaits for others to realise the true significanc eof what is a very interesting way of looking at an experimental analysis based on attidudes across a broader spectrum than normal Left - Right thinking can accomodate.
It would be interesting if Nat can use her mind for anything except avoidance and actually see the point Rabbit would like to share, but there, in context.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:40 AM
This guy has met you before Natalie.
<i>Time and time again, when I come across close-minded Bush supporters, I witness the effects of an unexplainable phenomenon: a highly dangerous variation of HIV
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 4:26 AM
<i>One man… urges assassination…of a foreign leader…
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 6:34 AM
Looks like Nat has resorted to guerilla tactics, hit and run.
Rabbit has been a bit sorry to have called Nat a whore, it would have been used in the same context to a man or mouse, but it was below the belt in a sexist way. It wasn’t meant to be a description of Nat as of her tactics of debate, or not.
.......................................^>.........................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 1:12 AM
“Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time?”
Surely Rabbit knows the name of the structural engineer that Griffin can’t seem to muster, putting aside the fact that he just got through writing an entire book on the subject.
What is that name, Rabbit? Can you help Griffin out?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2005 at 1:36 AM
Does it make any difference to the mass of facts presneted? Why should Rabbit use any time on such a petty liitle matter? What would it prove? Nothing. Even if there was no such strcutural engineer, natalie we have been through details which show it is not necessary even to understand such basic forces as those involved, it’s in the detail Nat, not the messenger.
when Nat can actually face direct facts of consequence and not waste time on Red herrings like whetehr or not griffin had a structural engineer, maybe such questions would be worthy of more attention.
The simple truth is that the sum total of ALL the evidence and WITNESS testimony all point to the same conclusion. and Nat wants to discuss who did the report, who made the coffee. What significant difference does it make, Natalie, when SO MUCH of the official story is SO full of holes. Only one major hole is enough to destroy such a crazy pack of lies, and we have dozens.
Why would Nat want to spend pages and pages attcking the credibility of just one, out of so many people who make claims rather than actually consider the claims themselves in detail? and she will folks she has done it before,
Did you read the quote above which refers to people with your illness Natalie? People with HIV?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 6:04 AM
Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about Griffin’s work or sources.
Griffin has written books but what has that to do with anything?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 6:06 AM
As a direct response to your Lousy inetrview with Griffin, is found the following.
This should sink your sieve.
<i>Dear Amy Goodman:
We, the undersigned, would like to state that the recent (5/26/04) appearance of David Ray Griffin on
Democracy Now! (DN) repudiates every principle of press freedom that you claim to represent. It was a
shameful betrayal to the movements opposing the Bush( ) Regime around the globe.
First of all, it is very revealing that you chose to have Griffin appear on your show in a hostile
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 6:47 AM
The letter continued.
Check the questions and sources too, can you answer them Natalie?
<i>Questions for Amy Goodman (6/2004)
Dear Amy Goodman:
1. In David Ray Griffin
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 6:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 7:03 AM
“Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?”
This is an example of YOUR illness….the inability to properly interpret information.
Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished. He is concerned, and perhaps rightly so, that more investigation of the evidence wasn’t done to determine exactly how the buildings collapsed.
He is concerned about other buildings that may have similar construction and not being able to find out which ones they are.
He is wary of the type of fireproofing they used in the WTC. He is suspicious that information is being withheld, not to hide a demolition plot, but to avoid liability from people finding out that improper fire protection measures may have been used in the WTC.
His full article in context:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
Another account:
http://tinyurl.com/7ehyq
We’re still waiting for the name of preferably the structural engineer that believes the buildings were brought down by a deliberate demolition.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:35 AM
“Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU.”
This is how….
http://www.serendipity.li/pm_bio.html
“Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about Griffin
Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Rabbit knows of this book, but why would rabbit have it? He is a poor Rabbit and cannot just go buying any book he wants.
Rabbit was not referring to the book at this juncture in time, and is surprised you would expect anyone to just know to what book you might be alluding after the amount of references and books which have been recommended to you so far and which you have so far refused to acknowledge.
Let’s stop pissing around with small unimportant things and talk about something of direct consequence. What Facts do we have, which cannot be disputed and how do we fit them into our respective theories about how they happened.
WITNESSES
Is Rabbit just imagining it or is that the nineteenth time he has remarked about the witnesses and not a word from Nat regarding them, no she would rather talk about books and then only if the talk is limited to the auther of the book. No thanks Natalie. It is your theory which is being challenged, not mine, Rabbit will make his theories clear and back them with suitable evidence once we have established that almost everything you believe about 911 is false.
Now ....................Witnesses........... Natalie, if you are incapable of dicussing basic physics without claiming it is too technical for you to understand. Let us discuss people, who they were and what they say they saw, and how much their differnet stories converge on one important detail. Explosions of BOMBS, before and after the Planes hit the WTCs. This will relate back to all the technical evidence of explosives, you have so far ignored, but it is there for others to follow. Others who will follow you natalie, perhaps rooting for you for a while, hoping you will support their beliefs against this upstart Rabbit. Come now you must put up a more inspiring effort, you are an embarrassment to the cause of willful ignorance. Even they can see that, and some of your followers are faltering already, saying as you are about to do, “,i>What witnesses is he talking about?</i>”, Natalie might say there are no such witnesses, it is all a conspiracy theory lie. Or she might say they are paid “Bush Haters”, Anti-Bush liars who have been brainwashed by Iranian terrorists?
come along now natalie, off your pathetic box and talk about something real, instead of calling people liars and denying they exist. ........................... WITNESSES
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:10 AM
Natalie it is you who has ignored most everything rabbit has said, especially the most signifivcant things, you disapear for a while rather than answer somethings directly, and b=never address thyem upon return. This is not a pissing contest, we are trying to establish actual facts which support or challenge your lunatic Government inspired conspiracy theory.
You do not have the moral stature in this debate due to the avoidance and refusal to acknowledge so much that has been directly addressed to you, and which refferred to FACTS of some consequence. You lack the stature due to such lowly behaviour, to dictate the subject at will. We are not interested in people but in the facts. Rabbit has said it before to you stupid woman…......What qualifications does one need to tell the truth?
WITNESSES
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:32 AM
Rabbit will never do another blockquote box thing, he hates them.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:35 AM
O.K., Rabbit, tell me more about witnesses. But when you say I’ve ignored everything you say, I don’t think that is accurate. I’ve taken you to task on several of the points you yourself have brought up. Speed of collapse, concrete to dust, why columns wouldn’t be left standing, etc. But when I press you on something, you say things like “why are you obsessed with this small point. It’s unimportant in the whole context” (paraphrasing)
I would be happy to learn about the witnesses. I would be happy to address them. I have not been ignoring the issue, It’s just that you haven’t really introduced much on it, except for the word “witnesses” and the janitor. I’ve read that even folks of your persuasion don’t think his suit is helping their cause.
I assume from your silence that neither you or Griffin have the name of a structural engineer that endorses your theory.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 26, 2005 at 9:54 AM
You’ve “taken Rabbit to task” on those issues have you Nat?
You have raised them, usually as a consequence of avoiding much more significant issues and Rabbit has turned each of your challenges into a rout for your cause, without even trying. You have consistently avoided a huge volume of evidence and are persistent in your desire to find individuals upin which to practise subtle and sometimes overt character assaination or smearing. Your tactics have been described with scientific precision in a quote above and what you all you are doing is conforming to a stereotypical SHILL performance. The things you press are not significant on their own most often, even if you could diprove any of them all you do is try and dent the credibility of the sources as they are presented. Despite the fact the source are many and varied you repeatedly name only one or two sites pretending that they are the originator of the bodies of evidence and opinion being shown here.
Don’t presume to lecture Rabbit on honesty or orderly debating. You have nothing so far, nothing to back up your Crazy Conspiracy theories Natal;ie. Rabbit and other have ammassed all that is so far on this thread. It would take you weeks to read through it all, and amongst it can be found the strongest case imaginable for the THEORY that the US government was behind 911, and that the WTCs were brought down with explosives.
But we have hardly begun as for what Natalie chooses to acknowledge, by challenging even in a peripheral sense.
The witness info has not been posted before now since Rabbit saw no point in just posting even more things for Natalie to ignore.
Rabbit would guess that Natalie has bugged out when it became apparent that we were going to have to face up to the witness tesimony, for new orders. She has had to be briefed in the tactics to be employed in this as yet seldom explored topic on internet debates. Many of us are waiting with bated breath, what will be the official response?
Rabbit expects it will be the same old same old, attack the man, each one individually, draw any and all doubt, show they also hate Bush, (as if that would not follow knowing the truth).
Natalie has already given up the game. Did we see that she has: <i>I
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 11:48 PM
Rabbit who has not ignored your points about engineers at all having referred to the matter in several posts since. Rabbit does not know or care if Structural Engineers collaborated on griffin’s book. As far as Rabbit knows the book establishes the known FACTS, and applies simple logic which doesn’t even require such expert evidence. The man is not the point, the facts are what they are, you have to make your theory fit the facts, not the other way around.
Rabbit did actually post references including Engineers who believe explosives brought them down, better read them and see. That they were not connected to Griffin only strengthens the case anyway.
Since Rabbit is feeling generous, he shall award you a free point. We shall say, that Griffin did not have a structural engineer to help him. (this may be corrected by another, rabbit doesn’t know) What difference does that make to the facts and how they relate to what happened? So you’ve shown not that Griffin is wrong or even that he is lying, but that he doesn’t have a structural engineers help in writing hois book. Rabbit doesn’t need a structural engineer to understand the simple facts which have been dealt with on this thread, nor does anyone.
So far we have established that there is scientific theory as well as seismic evidence and video evidence which suggests the buildings were collapsed with explosives. Now we shall consider the witenss testimony from people who saw and heard things which indicated explosives. this includes numeroues firemen. A janitor and another two dozen witnesses at the same place and reporters, maybe we’ll throw in a policeman or two for natalie to feel really safe.
Would Nat feel safe between a couple of policemen?
..........................................................^^..............................................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 27, 2005 at 12:01 AM
Hi, Rabbit, how’s yourself??
Liz is on the line again!!
I don’t know anything really about the controversy, ‘cept I hate Pat Robertson!! And all his ilk….
Somebody’s been nasty to me on another site, and I’ve gone off Christians anyway, even those (pretending) to be (semi)liberal; they’re all hypocritical and if it’s their blog or whatever, they delete your posts if they don[‘t like them and make out it’s “spam”! And this is if they’re pretending to be “liberal”!
I feel sad, Rabbit. I detect you have had similar experiences… but it was even worse, family members ‘n all, wasn’t it??
Oh, Rabbit. I don’t care about left or right or that funny fellow you said you liked. Is there any way in which we can give comfort to one another, oh furry one??
And, hey… this site has changed “look” again! It’s evolving all the time!
Could Rabbit please help with tips on formatting? (Some sites use simplified html and I never know which type they use!! At least with imdb they tell you how to use it!)
Is there a page here, to tell one?? Or some tools somewhere which help you put bold on it, and so on - do those boxes?
Where did you find that, Rabbit??
Can anyone tell me how to post a link properly??
Would be much obliged….
Posted by Liz on Oct 28, 2005 at 12:18 PM
I believe that the World Trade Center wasn’t crushed to confetti “by accident” or by natural forces, either…...
Posted by Liz on Oct 28, 2005 at 12:21 PM
And actually, this is the angriest I’ve ever seen the Rabbit on this forum (sorry I’ve been elsewhere for the past few weeks).
But the World Trade Center conspiracy makes me angry too, when I read about it….
Posted by Liz on Oct 28, 2005 at 12:41 PM
Hi Liz
Rabbit has responded joyfully to your renewed presence on another thread. The time came when Rabbit was tired of a particular poser who was saying nothing but saying it with falshy tricks and wizbangery. Rabbit does not have any more respect flashy things and whizzbangery than any technician of 15 years and Pyrotechnician would be expected to.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the labguage.
here is a tip….............Go to View in the top left of your screen. Left click, select SOURCE and then left click it. Look at the gobbledegook on that page with the following in mind. HTML commands start with <> and end with <> so if you duplicate that, and replace whatever is between the two with what you want…........... Voila…........
It is a simple way to grab little tunes and pretty goodies for one’s own web site etc. It is the way in which one looks under the Magician’s table.
It isn’t that Rabbit’s don’t mind sitting inside of hats for a while, if the hat is the right shape. It is just that you don’t actually pick up a full grown Rabbit by the ears, while it has been sitting quitely, in a hat, contemplating, and expect it’s attitude to be conducive to the illusion.
As for the rest, dear soul, touch Rabbit’s ears, and drop him a line.
..............^^..................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 1:18 AM
Sorry Dave and Liz, Rabbit is almost stream of consciousness keyboarding sometimes and this is why always he re-reads his posts. Occasioanlly it takes a twist most unwanted, as in the following case.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the language.
It is best that Rabbit clarifies this.
Rabbit meant that David wondered about Jay and his magic firesticks. Rabbit said no, it is just knowing the language of the electrons, or in this case a kind of Pidgin language of Electrons. Rabbit then grabbed the info from a google of “HTML codes” as an example of the versatility of the Internet. and posted them. The thing is right now Rabbit is trying to get an agreement going to NOT use Blockquotes, (Box Things). They, like Smilies are just wank. But it is one of those “fun” kind of protests, where the result is no more than a dunking in a cold water bath.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 1:27 AM
As much as I personally enjoy and admire your rambling stream-of-consciousness style, Rabbit (it is so rabbit-like; fuzzy and gentle on the outside, disguising a core of whip-like sinew and muscle underneath), I’m afraid your general critique of Natalie’s reasoning power may have left her with the idea that she has scored a point with her claim about the firemen. She says:
<i>Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 29, 2005 at 7:07 AM
Poor Nat, even when you get a freeby cause Rabbit let one past, some meany takes it away. Natalie got close to a point then even if by default. That was a personal milestone I think.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 7:27 AM
I don’t agree with your analysis, beautiful referee, and I must register a “challenge” to your call.
In a debate between Griffin and Berlet, Griffin could not cite the name of any bona-fide structural engineer that agreed with his contention that the towers were brought down by explosives, even after having recently written an entire book on this and related subjects. I asked Rabbit if he knew of any, could he help Griffin out?
Rabbit apparently thought he had found one:
“Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source. (article selectively quoting Manning)
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?”
The way I read this, Rabbit was saying: “here is an engineer that agrees with Griffin on the explosives thing” and I could see how Rabbit might think this from reading the selectively quoted article. But when you read in context what Manning has to say, you can’t in any way conclude that he subscribes to the implosion theory. You are correct, one could use his concerns to support the parts of their theory having to do with not being able to do a proper examination. But one could also conclude, and I think much more believably, that any attempt at hurriedly discarding the evidence was done to prevent people from finding out that perhaps the builders or designers of the WTC, or people that signed off on it (Port Authority) might be liable for some huge damages due to improper fire-proofing or even structural design. This makes a certain amount of sense, whereas deliberately destroying buildings and murdering people do not, so far as I can tell. (Actually, I think people were simply trying to clean up the mess as fast as they could because it was simply a horrible mess. Nobody likes a horrible mess in the middle of their city)
Manning is not saying “exactly” what Rabbit is saying. He is saying a small part of what Rabbit is saying, but on the main point of contention here, whether or not the towers were deliberately destroyed by someone other than a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists, (these are the real fundamentalists we should be criticizing, not the likes of Pat Robertson btw) Manning apparently doesn’t agree. Perhaps privately he does, but to use his words to imply that he does is disingenuous. Now if Rabbit indeed was only trying to say: “here is someone that’s saying the clean-up was too hasty,” I apologize for assuming too much, but I believe my assumptions were logical given the context of the discussion.
I suspect that the reason he “let one past”, is that he is smart enough to realize that indeed Manning doesn’t qualify as an engineer that could be cited as one that supports his and Griffin’s implosion theory.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 29, 2005 at 12:37 PM
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments on :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
This thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 12:58 PM
Rabbit,
Thanks for clarifying. Seems like Liz maybe likes the box things . hehe
The HTML is fun and useful. Thanks to Jay and Rabbit for being the pioneers for many of us in this wilderness.
Most importantly, for me, is that allows one to add nuance to one’s words that would otherwise not be there or at least difficult to convey.
I prefer a more personal and conversational tone to my comments so I don’t like the block quote boxes too much. Just a gut reaction .
Best of all , maybe , is the
hyperlinks .
Hyperlinks
allow you to provide clickable references for others.
Showing off a little there but am a wee bit proud of the new tricks. Curious Dave figured it out… with a little help from his friends.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 1:54 PM
That thread ... to be shut down soon .. comment while you can ..
Radioactive Wounds of War
... not this thread where you are now.
Clarification is good.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 2:07 PM
Sorry Nat,
All I can offer is the booby prize in the battle of opinion. You may well have desired Rabbit to name an engineer that believed as his professional opinion that Griffin’s theory was correct. However, Rabbit didn’t bite. Rabbit has said regularly and often that he is concerned with fact, not opinion. Rabbit made zero claims about Manning’s opinion. Rabbit’s challenge was for you to debunk his contention that the facts of Manning’s complaint supported Griffin’s theory. You have admitted that it could. Your idle ad hoc speculations of what else it could mean doesn’t change the fact that Manning fingers FEMA, not the Port Authorities or the owners or construction company or anyone else, as responsible for actions that made proper analysis impossible. That FEMA is politically corrupt is no longer particularly controversial. Nice try though. After my first read, I really thought you got me.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 29, 2005 at 4:59 PM
Now come on, Lume, you’re imagining what you think Rabbit was intending by his post. He said no such thing as “I challenge you to debunk the fact that this fire engineer’s complaints support Griffin’s theory.” He simply challenged me to debunk Manning. (I think) After reading his article IN CONTEXT, I realized I had no quarrel with Manning, only with the implication left by Rabbit that this particular engineer endorsed the implosion theory. Whether Rabbit intended that or not, I thought it important, given the context of the discussion and the lack of clarity by Rabbit and the article he cited, to make clear that Manning does not.
Bill Manning in context. Note that he specifically states that his theory is based on questionable fire-proofing techniques, not on explosive charges, and has issues with several entities besides FEMA:
“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.”
To summarize, I don’t think it likely that Bill Manning would be called as a witness for the prosecution in the matter of “the alternative theories community” v GWB.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 29, 2005 at 8:05 PM
All that stuff is vaguely interesting, Nat, but it’s all pretty much bye the bye. The fact under contention here is not whether Manning agrees in any general way with Griffin, or Rabbit likewise agrees with Griffin, or Griffin with Manning or Manning with Rabbit or me with you; but with whether the steel beams were hauled away lickety-split to China without any skilled teams of assessors sent in with notebooks, lasers and measuring sticks to make what are uncontroversially routine and essential examinations and measurements of any unexpected catastrophe approaching a fraction of this magnitude. It seems that we all are in agreement about that. Time to move on, Natalie, dear.
You seem old enough to realize
gotcha games are a futile exercise.
You wrote:
<i>Now come on, Lume, you
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 29, 2005 at 9:37 PM
“Your opinion and welcome to it. That and $4.65 will get you a viente mocha frappaccino at Starbucks. Treat yourself, you deserve it.”
No, not opinion, FACT, or as close as we can come to it from the testimony provided:
“THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES” .....Bill Manning….Professional Engineer.
It think it’s fairly safe to say that Bill Manning and every other genuine engineering professional that has contributed to the WTC post-mortem does not suspect or have any reason to suspect that the buildings were deliberately demolished. Until I learn otherwise, as Rabbit has promised and has so far not delivered on, I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety.
“My inference from the style and character of your argumentation is you are being much too single-mindedly partisan. This is not a court of law, it is a consensual conversation. In any case, It
Posted by Natalie on Oct 30, 2005 at 12:10 AM
Uh…......................Natalie….....Rabbit would like to point out that this is a thread and it allows the matter of what Rabbit was saying and what he was not saying, about engineers, to be settled in a moment. Rabbit was as you would by now know, busy burying your bony backside along with a stake through your wizened heart, alongside Ramjet the Dragon of Death.
Now to what was said, nd notice how many times Griffin is mentioned in the following…..........
<bloclquote>Now there will be more on Structural Engineers shortly, but for now this should remove this small impediment to your understanding, the interview was crap, Rabbit read it. The other guy was pathetic, never mentioning anthing which seriously challenged Griffin. He just said it was obviously too crazy to be tru like you. You are too crazy to be true actually from where we sane and logical people are sitting.
Go back and read the italicised post about your illness, HIV as it is defined there.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up. </blockquote>
Luminous Beauty has set you to rights at least for the sake of all rational observeres, about the others issues, and Rabbit expects what he has as yet unread is mainly Natty being a Shatty Little Batty, and blathering as is her custom about silly things, the name on a mailbox instead of who lives in the house, for example.
Rabbit shall reply of course if he feels Nat has earned anything beyond what Luminous Beauty has given thee. It seems likely since your post is the last one, that Rabbit will be back to wack the Nat on the crack, of truth.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 2:22 AM
Bugger…........................HTML is a silly language, electrons could if we knew how to tell them.
Now there will be more on Structural Engineers shortly, but for now this should remove this small impediment to your understanding, the interview was crap, Rabbit read it. The other guy was pathetic, never mentioning anthing which seriously challenged Griffin. He just said it was obviously too crazy to be tru like you. You are too crazy to be true actually from where we sane and logical people are sitting.
Go back and read the italicised post about your illness, HIV as it is defined there.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.
Anything about Griffin? Rabbit actually said you could have the point that Griffin may not have had a structural engineer to confer, but as pointed out, so what? Does this alter the claims? How about we look at them in detail, they are not theory, in as much as the details are there to be verified. the theory is like all theories not forbidden to “common men”.
Griffin could be a Janitor and it would not affect the validity of a theory based on verifiable facts. The proof is in the message not the messenger. Nat you are trying to isolate the deabe into Character assainations and yet have gone to great lengths to keep your own person secret. Not that Rabbit cares, he knows who you are, but he thinks your personal attacks are so predictable, the same was true of the Radioactive Wounds Of War Thread. You used the tactic there and it was a spectacular pile of Sh*t. You should perhaps try to review your tactics, try and find something more subtle.
Due to popular demand the Rabbit shall do just this. Rabbit will now cease to be a ghost. It is the SHILLS, Nat the Bat and Dodgy Rodgy who made it necessary to speak as a Rabbit from the grave. Rabbit is hoping to be reborn any moment, he hears his name being called…...............ULTRA RABBIT…...........................^^...............................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 2:35 AM
Natalie:
Please, you are insulting only your own intelligence. After making such a big deal about putting Manning in context you do this:
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Now, if I were corresponding with any ordinary reasonable person, I would only have to show this statement to them and they would realize immediately that saying the capitalized portion represents the speaker’s
opinion is the most egregious sort of deceptive quote mining. But in your case I feel this preternatural necessity to explain everything as explicitly as possible, much as one does to a very small child. To wit; What, you Natalie, are claiming as Manning’s opinion is diametrically opposite to what he is actually saying. I put the operative language in bold so you can see clearly that this is the case. This is more than just intellectual dishonesty, Natalie. In plain language, it is a lie. You are no child. It is well past time for you put away childish things.
I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety
As long as you put your faith only in accepted authority, you will be incapable of thinking for yourself. You make yourself a slave to other’s opinions. I perceive those who step outside conventional wisdom on any matter to represent the noblest form of courage. Even if they are mad as hatters, they really are putting their reputations on the line and if they are professionally employed in that field risk their livelihood, sometimes even their freedom and their lives. Worse yet, they risk harm to those they love. Such is the nature of conventional vengeance. This cannot be said of those who merely and meekly follow the herd. It is what I was raised, in a very conservative home, to believe the USA was supposed to represent; the innovative mind, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of truth, the pioneering spirit, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson, etc. Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 30, 2005 at 9:04 AM
It baffles me that someone capable of such linguistic magnificence would buy into such nonsensical theories as have been presented here, ironically below an article about a crazy fundamentalist.
Thanx for the compliment, I guess. I make no bones about my biases, do you? Are you willing to take the test and honestly report the results?
CLICK HERE Come on in. The water’s fine.
You are in error to think I am buying into anything. I am only curious. I have had my questions about these matters, but until this conversation, really haven’t focused on them. There are so many curious matters in these ‘interesting times’. As with any mystery, it is the unanswered questions that are of the most interest. It is plain that Rabbit has expended considerable time and effort pursuing answers to those questions. You know, doing the actual research. For that he has my respect and gratitude. It is plain there are many more unanswered questions, and to me it seems reasonable to encourage Rabbit and those others, visible and invisible, engaged in this pursuit to continue seeking answers rather than try to convince them to give it up just because you, in your uneducated opinion, believe it is ‘nonsense’. It is Rabbit who is making sense and you are just making poo-poo in your diapers.
“Oh! The irony…the irony.”
Col. Klink
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 30, 2005 at 9:06 AM
O.K., Sir Wordsmith, I thought you might latch onto that rather selective quote. You’ll notice however, that I reproduced the entire quote just a couple or so posts back. That’s certainly a far more accurate picture of Manning’s true mindset than was given in Rabbit’s original article.
You misunderstand if you think I was attempting to quote Manning out of context in an attempt to turn his opinion into fact. All I’m trying to say is that it is a FACT that Manning’s theory, and yes I know, theory, what else do we have?, is that the buildings collapsed due to inadequate fireproofing. Deliberately placed explosives do not appear to even be on his radar screen. I’m satisfied to simply establish this FACT about his CURRENT THEORY, lest there be any confusion. And yes, I’m well aware that his theory may have been different if he had his way and the steel had been sequestered in some huge warehouse, football stadium or field.
My apologies to Rabbit if indeed he was only attempting to illustrate that there was a rush to re-forge, for whatever reason, and was fully aware that Fireman Manning didn’t necessarily agree with him about explosives.
You seem to discount the value of professional opinion in this matter, even to the point of painting them as “the man”. It makes me wonder who you go to for surgery, or legal advice, or to design your home so it won’t collapse until it’s time for deliberate implosion.
You and Rabbit seem to have little regard for the engineering professionals who have thus far ignored far-fetched theories about deliberate mass-murder.
Can you type at me with straight fingers and claim that you wouldn’t be proud as a peacock to reproduce in big bold print the certified opinion of a genuine well respected structural engineer of national or world renown stating his firm belief that the only way those buildings could have collapsed was due to pre-placed explosives?
Oh, but it looks like maybe you’re not quite so sure about the murder theory as is Rabbit. I didn’t discern that before. Perhaps Rabbit needs to do the typing. Wise, you, perhaps, not to jump into either camp until the dust has cleared. I along with the ever confident Rabbit have chosen to take the leap. One of us will end up looking foolish, but at least we’re not afraid to commit.
I’ve taken the political compass test, as I stated earlier. I ended up on the centerline right/left, and slightly below center, maybe a quarter inch, up and down.
I put about as much relevance in a test like this as I do in next month’s weather report. But what fascinates me is how the “anarchists” here are so eager to line up to be classified, stamped with a number, and emerge to boast about it like some Sneech on a beach. This seems wholly at odds with their normal resistance to being put in boxes and labeled, lest that label not accurately represent their whole complex make-up. Perhaps it’s a way to make sure you’re not becoming your parents, and make the necessary corrections?
“Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy”
What did you do, or want to do, that was found to be in such bad form? That may be too personal; nothing assumed by your choosing not to answer.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 30, 2005 at 2:10 PM
See the Sneech on the Beach .
Scroll down near bottom for the Sneech pic.
But the Seuss poem near the top is worth the trip too.
Excuse the interruption. Please continue.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 30, 2005 at 4:06 PM
A was a nice trip down memory lane with Dr. Seuss. Thanks Natalie.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 30, 2005 at 4:26 PM
correction ... It was a nice trip ..
Natalie,
... and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the Political Compass.
I will point out that people from the other side of the spectrum, or their perceived side of the spectrum, were lining up for the Sneech Machine too and were trying to get a star and/or scratch off the star they got.
Nice analogy though. You get a star on your belly. hehe
But, enough digression, for me, today, at least.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:03 PM
sorry, another correction, this one more important ...
and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the reactions of some people to Political Compass results .
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:32 PM
Natalie the Ex German defense minister, believes they were4 brought down by explosives and a whole lot more to. You are being WAY to presumptive about what we can and cannot produce regarding witnesses, and opinions.
Your presumption that we cannot is wrong, Rabbit is assembling another knock down case for you along these very lines, have no fear.
In the meantime there are a couple of far more important matters. The first is that, whether or not any specific type of person said that explosives is the only answer, that doesn’t change all the EVIDENCE which you are ignoring for this smoke and mirror game. The evidence itself is so easily interoreted that the whole idea of demanding more and more expert opinion, is beside the point. That is a start, you were actually given a point for free and you would rather try and do a victory dance on the spot for a page than to discuss real significant issues. Do you or not understand that, even if Griffin was to turn out to be a complete lunatic, and he wrote the whole book while on an acid trip, it doesn’t refute the actual argument. Now do you have any of griffins conclusions, based upon the facts as he applies them?
Luminous Beauty, has told you even more clearly than can Rabbit, where and why you are going wrong. Luminous has a fine mind, and that is what you are only partly acknowledging in your babbling. You are like a petulant child and Rabbit also finds it hard not to treat you with condescension. You are not building any sort of argument, you are only Dissembling and indulging in shameless Character Assassination. Even this is failing.
It must be hard being a SHILL. Rabbit has seen it before. You have got an impossible task. Keep a lid on something this big, and make it seem natural.
Rabbit sees Nat as like a Girl, who is given the task of camouflaging a Pink Elephant, which has taken up lodging in the living room, after falling through the roof. Nat has been given two Bathtowels and a box of tissues to achieve it and she must somehow do this and keep the guests who may be arriving any minute from looking up and noticing the hole in the roof. Even if she can somehow disguie the elephant, she can’t afford the people looking up and wondering why that hole is in the roof.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:09 PM
Thanks for adding that dimension about the Sneeches, David. It looks like the correct spelling may be Sneetch, although both spellings are used. I don’t remember for sure if they were actually on a beach, but I do remember the feelings the story invoked, even way back then.
It’s true that right as well as left took the test; I did, and I know that Jay did. But I would charachterize our attitude about it as reluctant and skeptical.
It seems to me that being categorized is something that “progressives” hate, even more than most people do, so I was surprised at their apparent eagerness to take such a test.
Just a mild observation, very possibly being devoid of even the slightest bit of validity.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 30, 2005 at 7:53 PM
There ain’t nobody here but us Sneeches
There ain’t nobody here at all.
So calm yourself
And stop your fuss
There ain’t nobody here but us.
apologies to Louis Jordan and Dr. Seuss.
Nat, I appreciate knowledge; expertise and experience, professional skill and professional ethics. I don’t assume anyone in a professional position or position of authority necessarily bears any or all of those characteristics. Most everyone in every workplace I’ve ever been in also has a keen awareness on what side their bread is buttered. Manning strikes me as a pretty straight arrow, trying to do his best with what he is given. What he is given is a big emptiness where the evidence is supposed to be and a crap piece of theory (hypothesis really) from the Feds. It most clearly and unambigiously is not a theory he believes. He is very politic in how he says it. I do my own engineering and design work. I completed the AA requirements, but never took a degree. I’m mostly a autodidact. I don’t pretend to expertise for myself, but I have learned to recognize it.
What else don’t you know about anarchism? Besides everything?
The thing I did that was in bad form was to declare at the dinner table my opinion that Martin Luther King, Jr. was
hands down the greatest living American orator. Things went downhill from there.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 30, 2005 at 8:25 PM
Manning is not the issue here either Nat, he was presented as an Engineer who represents many others, and he doesn’t accept the government story, draws serious flaws to attention and the fact is that the insulation was in place, that was another red-herring you liars tried on while the plans were still missing to prove otherwsie. All debiunked now..
Now how about facts Natalie, which matter. Do you always try to understand what is going on in a matter by examining the direction birds fly and how the leaves fall? Why cannot we see exactly what it is you take exception to about Griffin’s theories? What Facts has he altered from truth and how has he flown in the face of logic or science?
Rabbit does not think it matters what Griffin had for breakfast, or whether or not everyone agrees with him. What matters is the body of evidence.
Now Rabbit has been busy but will give Nat lots of Important Opinions soon. So she can then ignore this issue and move onto something equally as inane. More tissues Natty more tissues. We can still see this huge elephant, and it’s very pink. Try putting the towels over its head. Don’t worry nobody is looking up yet.
Nat is a Dr Zeus character.
Natty the Batty.
It was noticed that the more deluded one is the more confused by the test results you are. Jay and you are as you say the most confused. You are in GREAT COMPANY there Nat. Jay and Nat agreat team. Jay is definately the brains of the outfit, but Nat has the claws.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 11:49 PM
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
<i>By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:24 AM
Read the article from above posting.
Not you Nat you have other things to worry about.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:26 AM
From the Conspiracy Channel
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=75
911: Govt-Media Suspends Laws of Physics
by J. McMICHAEL
“.......................................But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of
the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the
official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your
ignorance.
Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html)
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.
Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane’s collision
with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke
continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would
indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still
burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire
with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen
—or
both.
http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58_4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg
But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html).
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled
oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
—200,000 tons of it (see
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
for stats). I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup
onto a plate: you can’t get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying
to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can
get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat
brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but
the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment
you stop.
When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat
stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.
If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take
104 minutes to reach the critical temperature?
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html).
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 1:41 AM
[url=“http://tinyurl.com/bxf6h”]The Collapse of the WTC Not Caused by Jet Fuel
KEVIN RYAN / Underwriters Laboratories 11nov04[/url]
<i>The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team’s report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:14 AM
The more….............
<i>We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team’s August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to “rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.” The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 2:16 AM
Hi all,sorry I’m late. I’ve been reading these posts on and off,I’m a slow reader,I’ve read for around 12 hours,and STILL havent read everything.But I think I have a pretty good feel for the thread….
I’ve been thinking about WHY people refuse to believe anything but the official conspiracy theory,and why certain people defend it so rigorously.
check this out: It’s a bit long but a very interesting read
After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as “conspiracy theory” and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.
So please, bear with me a moment here and let’s apply a little logic to the problem.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word “conspiracy” evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a “conspiracy theorist.” It just isn’t “acceptable.” It’s “un-scientific” or it’s evidence of mental instability. Right? That’s what you are thinking, isn’t it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong “recoil?” After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in “high places” thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves…. .....Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about “conspiracy” in the following way:
“The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, “interest groups,” and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. “Conspiracy,” in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world’s military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world’s most awesome weapons in complete secrecy… [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It’s an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term “national security state” to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:33 AM
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America’s military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the U.S. Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the C.I.A. was engaged in a variety of off-the-record “business” activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the C.I.A. with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the C.I.A.. The F.B.I. must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America’s nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America’s nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld’s most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within U.S. borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution… [...]
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:33 AM
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, “Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?” The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don’t hold your breath.
This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection.” [Richard Dolan]
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:34 AM
As an atheist, I agree with Moyers about fundamentalism but his moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity is appalling. As a Christian, Moyers should know that the New Testament supersedes the Old as a New Covenant is established with the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the more peaceful example of Jesus
Posted by JasonPappas on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:56 AM
Just at the start of your fist post here KVK, Rabbit just dropping down the page to say this and Hi. Always great to see you, An honest and thoughful “Kid” if ever there was one.
Rabbit is a fast reader, but a thoughful one, often reading a single sentence four or five times while contemplating, so replies will be whenever. Late Monday arvo, Boats cooking in the oven and quite a good time for a Jacks to quieten out the nerves and think a bit. God Squad are the last things on Rabbit’s mind while 911 is always a shadow.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 11:24 PM
Kaw Valley Kid, Rabbitreading between the lines, suspects you have at least read the words between Mouse and Rabbit. Here is something which might also be of interest.
It is a perspective, a valuable one.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 11:27 PM
Thanks David and Rabbit for your HTML tips. Much appreciated. Rabbit, the View - Source code particularly clever; never thought yet to try that!!
You know, guys, I have sent off and read those books (usually by the non-Bushite Christians, is the only way I can think of describing them - you know, all those kind who are into conspiracies)... and the DVD… I think it might be the one advertised on conspiracyplanet.com…. it’s got a free DVD about child abuse rings with it - ick! Anyway, it’s very good value for money, glossy too, only cost me a few dollars to have that lot sent to GB… however, since I am so bad at remembering names, I would have to go back and look it up again. I agreed with most of what it said. I was particularly taken by - why no huge jet engines found among debris at Pentagon? Building not high enough to crush engines as may well have happened at WTC. Therefore - Pentagon “aircraft” smaller drone, no??
Has to be!!
Lots of long posts on this thread, though… take me days to plough through the arguments on each page!
Posted by Liz on Oct 31, 2005 at 11:29 PM
Hi Liz, you are welcome.
Rabbit, thank you for the warped history link.
Kaw Valley Kid, thanks for posting the conspracy theory essay.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 31, 2005 at 11:40 PM
Liz, there are amongst these many links, a few which cut to the chase, and really make the case, that is the best Rabbit can say and the least.
KVK is ploughing through and is a chapion for this reason, Rabbit who has posted many things a bit carelessly awaits any and all critique from KVK for thgis reason. Rabbit is of the Opinion only that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon, was a smaller jet at least, and was preceded by a missile, or it was pre-comstructed to break the re-inforcing of that particular part of the wall. Therre doesn’t appera to be any reason to believe that it was flight 77, for sure. The most disturbing part of the whole picture is always, and Rabbit dreads the answer, what happened in reality to the Passengers. Sometimes I go to sleep at night wondering and restless about this.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:38 AM
Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! Don’t know who he is but he sounds like a Neo-Nazi… for some reason, some people who hate Bush are - you’d think they’d be the best of pals!
Yes - all this about “White Trash, Black Trash and Brown Trash”... what right has he got to call any group of people, or part of a nation, trash??
Nobody is trash: they are just people with fewer economic opportunities, is all. If Hufschmid understood proper economic theories, ie the left-wing sort, he’d know that!
According to HIM, Australia could be founded on “trash”!!
Oh dear…
Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:58 PM
I wonder about the passengers, too.
Maybe some of them have ended up on a sort of Witness Protection program… And they’ve been told they’ll be assassinated if they “split”.
Posted by Liz on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:59 PM
Liz wrote:
<i>Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! Don
Posted by Natalie on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:11 PM
The story about Barabara Olson turning up alive in Germany or at least on the border, was almost certainly disinfo, the source himslef is possibly a disnfo agent, there are those who suspect so. But it could still have had more to it than has yet cometo light as well. It is not as if the story involving her phonecalls was standing up to any scrutiny after all, and a lot of the Gov’t theory rests on the somewhar contradictory evidence of her calls.
Has Liz seen the interesting paasenger list from the Flight 77? Very high percntage of people who would have had to have known about a lot of what was done to pull off the big day. Surprising number of people who researchers would like to talk to are on that list, if rabbit recalls correctly.
Trying to locate the xact link you referred to, could you re-post it please.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:12 PM
No it is OK, Rabbit found it, yes well it is only an opinion piece, but not altogether a bad article thought I still. Like his argument that truth doesn’t need laws to protect it. In the given context.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:15 PM
Now for some serious opinions which Rabbit feels deserve attention.
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President George W. Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the 110-storey twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 is ‘bogus’, saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. According to Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX: “If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.” Reynolds who is now a professor at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s ‘next to impossible’ that the supposed 19 Arab terrorists outfoxed the mighty U.S. military. He added that the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
This is a good artccle and Rabbit has referred to it before. Natalie should enjoy attacking Mr Reynolds.
............................more
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:25 PM
Morgan Reynolds further states: “Getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because American explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11. From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard-pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation. Critics say the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11. Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
—Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.
—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
—New York fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw.—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that “none of the fire chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”
—Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
—The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
—WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
—WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
—In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that “maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”, slang for demolish it.
—It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. There is no hard evidence to fully substantiate the official theory since the structural steel was quickly removed before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, the government had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place. And even more doubt is cast over why the Bush Administration acted so swiftly, since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II”. Besides the quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
There is more than the one issue here, but it has the above article in full too.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:29 PM
This is also on the above link.
9/11 Aircraft Parts as a Clue to Their Identity
<i>The following article is by George Nelson, Former American Air Force Official that appeared in the opinion column of Tehran Times on Wednesday, September 21, concerning the highly suspicious aircraft that plowed into New York
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:33 PM
Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11, 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts. United Airlines Flight 93: This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four supposedly Arab hijackers who had allegedly taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field. Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have been literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the US government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.
American Airlines Flight 11: This flight was reported by the US government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had allegedly hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings. Again, the US government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175: This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC. Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77: This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, it would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment at this crash site within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
Last bit coming up.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:37 PM
Conclusion: The US government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of about 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode. With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the US government’s 9/11 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle. As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in their own country’s history.
Neither of these people mentioned Griffin…..................... Natalie…............................if you are still around.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:40 PM
Neither of these people mentioned Griffin…..................... Natalie…............................if you are still around.
You’re the one who mentioned Griffin, Rabbit, first. I only addressed him per your accusations that I ignore what you present. I’m amused that you apparently now wish to wash your hands of him. Am I reading you wrong on this? These people may not have mentioned Griffin, but did Griffin mention them? I would guess that he probably has. Not that it matters, of course. “Even if Griffin was on LSD when he wrote his book, it still wouldn’t change anything.” I think you may be on to something there.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.
Opinions? What of FACTS now? First you jettison Griffin and now you embrace opinions?
Posted by Natalie on Nov 2, 2005 at 12:50 AM
Check that. Actually, it looks like Reynolds mentions Griffin a lot.
Like nine times in this article alone.
“I was never attacked by the press, but, on the other hand, the administration didn’t let me out that much.” .... Morgan Reynolds
Posted by Natalie on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:29 AM
Please tell me you just didn’t realize what you were looking at. Please tell me you’re not trusting information posted on this website.
This is strangely reminiscent of citing studies by scientists in Saddam controlled Iraq claiming a rash of birth defects was due to what else…..Depleted Uranium.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 2, 2005 at 1:55 AM
Well what do you know you got that right.
What does it proove?
Rabbit thought you might have sailed with the Radioactive Ship of State, so you want to stay here and give us an object lesson in professional diversionary tactics.
The following is indeed a mention of Griffin, has Natalie any answers to these questions?
<i>Griffin (pp. 25
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 2:04 AM
The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of “softening”; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
Photos and videos of the collapses all show “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions” along floors (blast sequences).
According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in “hot spots” that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on “access control” and as security specialist Wayne Black says, “When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything.” Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 2:06 AM
<i>Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 2:19 AM
Watch out liz, she is a bat, but
NOT a nice MOONBAT.
A bad Vampire Bat.
Back soon.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 2:36 AM
What NataLIE doesn’t realize,is MOST of the “working class” public here in the U.S. KNOW the Official version is a bunch of crap.Its common knowledge sweetie.Yep,those of us that work out in the real world KNOW how things work,how things burn how they fall, we that lay our hands on the world around us KNOW the nature of things.What we don’t know is what to do about it!the Office workers and Lawyers and such are the ones who are still fooled.Also, those that want to believe so badly in the american dream(lie)!The elderly,who can’t imagine good ole Uncle Sam being involved in such a thing. Yep,we KNOW, and we are VERY scared! Were not scared of “them danged terrorist"Like were supposed to be,we know that is crap too.Well it was before the evil PNAC neocons running things invaded Iraq,giving the entire Muslim community reason to hate America and possibly Become terrorists!And please don’t confuse the insurgents for terrorists,they are fighting off an invasion! If we are there to bring democracy and freedom,then both they and we are paying a mighty high price!Yes WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW ! Thousands upon thousands upon millions KNOW! go tell your handlers the word is out!The one thing you shills have going is all that glorious torture propaganda.All the worker bees are scared to death they will be swooped up in the night if they Start talking about it.But rest assured WE KNOW,yes and we ARE talking to each other,and our wifes and kids ARE those office workers and Lawyers and watresses and such.Are all learning the truth too You can run but you can’t hide!Yes Yes, and we are telling our parents and grand parents too!the house of cards is falling falling,WE see through the LIES. Have a nice evening.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Nov 2, 2005 at 10:22 PM
KVW, you move me to song, man. To Natalie. May she have ears to hear, and eyes to see.
<blockquote>Across The Borderline
(ry cooder/john hiatt/james dickinson)
There
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:27 AM
Let’s get back to Kevin Ryan, shall we? Rabbit, do you have anything more on this guy other than what he has contributed with his now omnipresent email? He seems to have gone underground since he was fired. Why does he not exercise his strength of conviction and speak out? There’s money to be made! Could it be that he was just a low-level flunky that worked for a mere division of UL and had no real connection with the investigation UL proper was contributing to and simply decided to take advantage of the fact that he was technically an employee of the visible and notable UL?
I’m not sure exactly why you left out the following two paragraphs of his email. Could it be becaue you knew they would call into question Ryan’s credibility and bias?:
“There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or <b>we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and
Posted by Natalie on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:52 AM
Griffin is not a central player he is one of many. He is just the one of at least a hundred equally or even more respected people who you have decided to latch onto like the Fat Blood Sucking Leech, I mean Vampire you are.
You Natalie have a history of attacking individuals, as a way forwrd when you have NOTHING of substance to give up.
Since Nobody is biting on the character assasinations, Rabbit aint and nor is anybody else, you might as well pack it in. Rabbit has many thousands more words of far more import than a SINGLE personality in the 911 truth movement.
So far all you do is say a man’s name and keep on repeating that in itself is an attack. You have been and are being told to grow up, get some serious facts which are being misrepresented or explain where the facts are being interpreted wrongly. You are of course only do this to try and keep the witness reports out of it, and you have never shown you comprhend the fact that a suicide bomber cannot be still alive and called a suicide bomber. There are seven such out of the “official” conspiracy theory list of nineteen.
Don’t start blathering on about Ryan. If you doubt him and who he is, how about YOU look it up and prove something for a change, you are gutless, and sleazy as hell, Nat, Rabbit doesn’t even think of you as a female anymore, you are a terrible, mishapen beast, a lover of death and hatred and a nasty little dirt slinging gutter snipe is what you are.
You are a SHILL, NOBODY on this site doubts it, you couldn’t hide it if you tried, you are so onviously the official in house Shill. This is different from trolls, trolls are amateurs and always have a quirk or two, Shills are towing the line, manning the trenches, in it for the long haul. There were other issues with which a Shill could have been enticed from Depleted Uranium priority numero uno with the Big House of Murder and Mayhem, but this was it, you gave it away on the DU thread, when you started adding the Missile theory of the Pentagon to your gratuitous attacks on somebody else, Rabbit cannot remember who now. (See Natty that is how unimportant these individuals are to the overall truth. You are so busy trying to defend your one gate, but you can’t do anything about the fact that there is no fence connected to either side. Truth is as assessible as it gets, and anybody who has reached this point on the internet, (with a few exceptions WTH and Jay) knows how this is so. You don’t even have any real lies with the official theory, because it is based on almost NOTHING. No evidence has been produced and all the most important evidence is witheld or known to blatantly contradict the OFFIAL LIE. If you don’t mind Natalie, I think we have come far enougfh that we needn’t fool ourselves any longer. the Offical theory is not even believed by half of Americans. Now let’s face it Natty Americans will believe almost anything, if is is shown on TV, and yet they still don’t believe it, for reasons eloquently outlined by the Kid from Kaw Valley. .......You ain’t foolin de people mon. ........The rest of the world is not even close to half convinced, most individuals and many governments even have expressed disbelief.
Now that Nat is your starting point. You actually only belong to a minimum of people who don’t laugh the official story out of court. That group includeds all the most inform3ed and intelligent people, this site is a typical example but you can find a similar mix of a minimum of people from almost idiot to half an clue, who push the official line and poorly against huge odds. The other side is invariably made up of the top three quarters of society as far as brains and ability to reason are concerned. The odds on the net are about ten to one against anbody being a believer of the LIE actually and therefore rabbit is allowing for the fact that the majority of people who believe the lie are not even on the internet.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:50 PM
Natty you ask why rabbit brought Bill Manning into the debate, and yet it has already been pointed out to you. He does obviously not accept the official explanation and he is especially critical about the way the things was COVERED UP, because there is no other word for disposing of “All” the evidence of a crime before an investigation. The reason natty since you have forgotten, is because the ONLY THING Rabbit is doing in this phase of your destruction is destrying the Official Lie. The other theories are entered into because the same evidence which destroys the official lie is what unfailingly gives rise to some other theories. there is no way of looking at some things, without concluding the official lie is just that, a LIE.
The rate of fall of the buildings is proof in itself that the buildings could not have been brought done by the offiical LIE. Gravity alone could not do it and that is Physics, we’ve been there and even you affected the belief that Gravity is too complicated for ordinary mortals to understand, that did not make it so. You just came off as you usually do, as an incredibly dense and stubborn person with a fixation disrupting an intelligent train of dicussion. It is only because it is mildly amusing annoying someone like you with the TRUTH, because it does annoy you, that I bother with you. You cannot hold back the flood, as KVK indicates. You cannot convince anybody of anything, because you have NO facts to offer in defence. You ahve a Fairy story, which is laughable, and looking more so daily. You cannot even back it up without emotion and sweeping statements without reference to anything except the same small bundle of re-cycled report which ahs been thoroughly debunked here and everywhere it has been examined.
You need to address the serious issues and stop the character picking, coming from you a character slur sounds like a pretty fair compliment about someone’s decency and honesty. Rabbit never took too much notice of Griffin before but since Natty recommends him so highly it looks like Rabbit shall have to purchase his book. Not that Rabbit needs it, but Books are the best way to teach the older generation who are not on the NET, and Rabbit has lots of contact with lots of people, of all generations. Rabbit is in contact with dozens of people a week and many people come back a couple of times, Rabbit talks a lot and loans books to people too. Griffin must have written a pretty good book, thankyou for recommending him so warmly. Rabbit cannot afford too many books Natty, so don’t go attacking too many more people, just stick to the most important ones on your list, there won’t you, Natty.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 10:06 PM
You are so right, Rabbit. I am a beast. Check out my author number for confirmation.
Gosh, I thought you’d be in a little better mood, what with getting a new computer and all. Being an equal opportunity consumer, I patronize the good liberals at Apple, finding that their operating system provides very near total immunity from such worrisome things as viruses, worms, spyware, adware and outside hacking, even from “In These Times”. But that’s another topic.
You realize, of course, that if your case actually gets to trial, all the WITNESSES you’ve been talking about are going to have to stand up to intense scrutiny. The mere pittance that I am able to dig up is microscopic compared to what will be discovered by professional researchers. Instead of spewing inacurate albeit entertaining insults at me, I would suggest that you might actually THANK me for giving you a small preview of what to expect if the time comes that your theories actually have their day in court.
I know it doesn’t matter, because even if I were to discredit ALL of your sources and witnesses, (I know, I haven’t touched them…evidenced by your calm and polite reactions) the World Trade Center was STILL intentionally destroyed by the American Government. I’ve come to realize that this is a faith, a religion, an unshakable fundamental belief among those such as yourself, and to expect that you would see otherwise would be like asking Pat Roberson to become an athiest.
Even though it doesn’t matter, here is the letter of support Mr. Reynolds recieved from his friends at the University:
Texas A&M
So it looks like the report:
“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.” Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, “It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7”.
....might be a little suspect considering Reynolds apparently doesn’t have an office at Texas A&M. I would suggest that someone bragging about an impressive office that he doesn’t really have is an indicator of someone prone to further misrepresentations or shall we say creative thinking.
Now we know that many people think that there’s things about 9/11 that are suspicious, and certainly even I have questions about some aspects, as many people do after any extraordinary event…..JFK assassination, attack on Pearl Harbor, going to the Moon or Mars, the Germans murdering millions of Jews, Saddam Hussein murdering hundreds of thousands of his beloved citizens, etc, etc.
But as I’ve asked you before…....Is there an American poll that is specific as to whether or not one believes that the WTC was intentionally brought down by explosives? If there is one, please post it. Until you do, and that poll results in a majority believing the murder theory, painting me as being in some kind of minority is just so much….creative thinking.
“at least a hundred qualified people”
Who are the two or even four most qualified people that you would put up as witnesses if the janitor trial is heard?
I hunger.
Collapse time
Posted by Natalie on Nov 4, 2005 at 1:57 AM
Natalie the actual Facts Rabbit is not going to play your personal attack Shill games anymore, because it is only Dissemling. You don’t have an moral stance from which to preach to others. You are the most morally corrupt person on this site, and we have the history to prove it. A professional liar is no good without a good lie, so you have to stick to Avoidance which isn’t going down. You have been allowed to swriggle a bit up to now, Rabbit has indulged your petty points, none of which contribute to anything even if you had anything. Every examination of your petty points usually yeilded an even stronger case that the offial lie is kaput. The best result any of your queries could give is a neutral result. You need more than that. You will not be indulged anymore. You will answer the issues raised in order of Priority. That means HOW SIGNIFICANT the issue is.
There is an American Poll, it has been posted already among the many you ignored.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 4, 2005 at 6:03 PM
That Texas A&M link tells us nothing of importance Natalie. Why post it? There is no actual statement of import challenged by trhis and even if Reynold said he had an officem which is not indicated, so what? Sorry Nat, the letter, which Rabbit shall take at face value, it may be false, or only one opinion, but Rabbit doesn’t care. It doesn’t change anything, and the conclusion of the letter is not even scientific. It is the sort of emotional garbage you thrive on. Actually I want more proof that the persona nd letter you just posted is who he says he is. That was not the letter of an educated or scientific mind. It also seemed to be written under coercion, from the look of that last line. So now it’s your turn. Reynolds didn’t claim anything wrong which I can see, but I don’t trust that letter you just posted anyway.
Anyway Natty what about the ex German defence minister? Want to put some dirt on him, knock yourself out.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 4, 2005 at 6:10 PM
The Collapse time link you provided is called a Disinfo site, it is not not factually accurate. More about it shortly. It is a government sponsored site and set up specifically for the use of SHILLS like Natalie. The collapses have been given coverage and there is no doubt about them. They are visible clearly in REAL time on many copies of videos. You are sprteading red-herrings and that is all. The issue is covered above for any who wish to check.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 4, 2005 at 6:13 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Rabbit,
I’ve got somewhat of a concession and somewhat of an apology to make to you.
I don’t have time right now, but will continue ASAP.
I can do the marketing thing too, see? ;-)
The suspense is making me crazy.
OK. Crazier.
That’s not a marketing thing Natalie, why always so cynical. It is meant as a courtesy when Rabbit posts thus and it is taken as one when you do also.
No apologies necessary and it is not a concession. So long as you pick up the ESSENTIAL matter of important facts, eg: Witnesses, upon your anticipated return.
Rabbit will miss Nat, but will find something to do in the emantime, have no fear. Stay safe and TRY to be good.
Quoting Natalie : ” It occurs to me that the Iraqis, even after all they
There is nothing positive in that story about Iraqi children. It is nothing but a blatant emotional piece. So some kids get a few hours to play safely in the streets. Not as safely as they were able before their country was invaded of course. In a few hours they will be in danger of being accidently or intentioanlly bombed by Co-alition forces or Iraqi Puppet troops. They will be at risk of being blown up by roadisde bombs set by insurgents as well as false flag ops by co-alition forces, a now proven fact.
The election they have just held has brought Iraq even closer to a Muslim fundamentalist regime, something the IDIOTS cheering from the USA are yet to wake up to. So exactly what is the point of such a comparison Natalie and any other apologists for the illegal invasion?
Those same kids didn’t matter to you yesterday, while you were starving their country of food and medicines, they didn’t matter to you when you decided to spread Nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium all over their country. Those same kids won’t matter to you tomorrow when they will be once again reduced to collateral damage.
So F*CK OFF WITH YOUR HYPOCRITICAL CRAP.
Rabbit loves and cares for those MUSLIM Children as all children, yesterday, today and tomorrow….............. they are nothing to you but a symbol to be used and then discarded. Have a read up on how the hospitals are being wrecked by the US and Puppet troops, Children injured by “your weapons” are being refused help at hospitals because troops are demanding first treatment.
The abuses of human rights just go on and on. You answer it with a Fairy tale picture of Bambi like fantasy.
Nat you are at heart a Rat.
Here is another sad story you should read Natalie.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0331-08.htm
Seems that things are worse for Iraqi children since the war.
Good article on Iraq David. Rabbit has just finished reading your previous source. One seee a few good pieces on the WSW site.
This quote:
“These provisions written into the draft at Washington
Rabbit,
After further analysis, I must concede that there is a compelling case to be made that the explanation put forth in official reports for the complete cause of the crash of flight 93 is incomplete, and that the whole truth may even have been purposefully kept secret.
I was unaware of the complete debris field story. After learning fully of it thanks to your explanation / links, in addition to other sources, I feel I must apologize for jumping to my conclusion regarding Popular Mechanics and the engine story. Although they may have addressed and debunked one peripheral “conspiracy” claim, that an engine or engine part was found much further away from the crash site than actually was the case, they failed to address the complete debris field story, and so can properly be criticized for indeed putting forth a straw-man argument in this particular case.
This does not, however, negate my previously stated belief that there was a revolt on board, which is evident from several independent recordings and communications. I am willing to accept the possibility that there was, in addition to this activity, other influences that contributed to the crash. Also the possibility that the passengers may have indeed been successful in taking back the cockpit only to find themselves up against an F-16. Yes, this would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the government in this case has lied to us. Or LIED, as you prefer to put it.
Of course it’s difficult or impossible to know for sure exactly what happened, just as it often is to determine the exact elements that led to an ordinary car wreck. Perhaps the plane suffered some kind of breach due to stress from the erratic maneuvers employed by the terrorists. There is an report of a passenger mentioning a gun in one of his communications with his wife. A shot fired into the floor might have caused a breach in the lower section carrying mail.
Where we differ fundamentally, though, is in our beliefs about motivations. If they did shoot it down, it seems to me that their motivation for doing so was honorable. It also makes a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret, given the mood of the nation at the time. (I would have advised them to be honest about it, if for some inexplicable reason they had asked me.) If they did shoot it down, they did it to save untold numbers of lives on the ground or in buildings (remember, possibilities at the time for WTC deaths were upwards of 50,000) and prevent further destruction to our already severely damaged institutions.
A shoot-down and its being kept secret, if it did indeed happen, makes sense and is consistent with what I have come to know about America, which is that it’s actions are generally well-intentioned. It is inarguably the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet, while still being made up of human beings and subject to not being perfect. It’s never sought to expand its territory, although it certainly could if it wanted to. It’s sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its own lives and expended billions of dollars defending ordinary citizens all over the globe (and itself of course) against the selfish ambitions of a few extraordinary maniacs. People die trying to come here and are always free to leave, but few choose to. If not for the U.S. and the U.S. military especially, I shudder to think what a dark and hopeless place this world most probably would be.
This is why I concur with your skepticism about flight 93, and strongly dissent from your theories about the deliberate demolition of our symbols and instruments of free-market economic superiority, and missiles being intentionally fired into our own five-sided fortresses. These theories are inconsistent with common sense, and inconsistent with what I know America to be all about. Keep pursuing them if you wish; you’ll be wasting countless hours.
As for Iraq, I’m disappointed at all the unrelenting negativity. Since the overthrow, the Iraqis have consistently expressed great hope for their future, usually in the neighborhood of 70% thinking their lives will be much better in 5 years. I’m sure if you took a poll at moveon.org or democraticunderground, you’d be lucky to get seven.
Talk to me in five years, maybe longer, about Iraq. It took America much longer than that to iron out all its disagreements and settle on a constitution. Transforming from a brutal dictatorship to a society where the average citizen has a little power of his own cannot be easy. Perhaps the Bush administration at one time wrongly thought it would be.
http://tinyurl.com/9ahaj
(warning: good news)
Natalie just a short one for now it is late and Rabbit will have more time tomorrow.
Just to clarify you don’t know what Rabbit thinks exactly happened to flight 93, or any motives, for I have not said anything about it. Rabbit is of the opinion that it was probably shot down, on the orders of somebody who was defying his superiors. As mentioned before the authority to shoot down a civilian airliner had belonged to Rank of General until about a month before 911 if my info is correct. Such an officer may have exceeded his authority, but for entirely good reasons as you have indicated. Rabbit fully understands why it would have been shot down and in fact they should all have been shot down, there was time and that was what was meant to happen under such circumstances. It is believed that Bush and crew were expecting Capitol Hill to go up, things were in place for it.
That is to say the whole thing was meant to go a step further. Rabbit shall see if he can locate the info which led to this conclusion.
There seems liitle doubt that the Jet broke up in midair though and the sort of things, papers, bodies etc which were falling out, do suggest a serious explosion onboard.
Due to the niggling questions of consistency and various details already covered I don’t believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there was a fight onboard. There is evidence to conclude that someone wanted this to be believed, but the calls don’t add up, that is significant since the calls are the only things which suggest there was a fight.
It is not of itself the most important detail of the day. It is important though and Rabbit will look further at what there is about possible shootdown.
The following is by an Iraqi woman.
“
Try and have a look at this girl’s views, she is from Mosul, and has become more and more dissapointed with what is happening to her country.
http://astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/
Take note of the exceptional reasoning and common sense of these people. Read some of River’s earlier postings Nat, get a feel for the position these girls, not much different from you are in.
These are two of those supposed Muslim Extremists. You will see from theirs and others’ blogs how they are gradually being radicalised, maybe not River, she is an Angel, but the other sweetie is younger and you can see that she will be typical of many.
Such a rod you are maikng for your back, by making these proud and brave people hate you.
Natalie:
There is an old African-American saying that might apply to the Iraqis; been down so long, it looks like up to me. They are hopeful that things will get better because things couldn’t get much worse. As for the American left, the life of ordinary Americans could get a lot worse. Not much sign of things turning around before we tumble over the cliff created by our collective hubris. But we aren’t packing it in, either.
I’m happy for you that you are so idealistic about our government. It does seem you have a bit of a blind spot when you say we protect people from fanatics. We protect corporate business interests, and those oligarchic sycophants in foriegn countries who profit from US exploitation of their resources. (Can you say ‘satrapy’, Nat?) Folks like Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, the Saud family, the Amir Sabah of Kuwait, Roberto d’Aubuisson, Efrain Rios Mont, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Fernand Marcos, Reza Shah Pahlevi and other great heroes of the people. Did I forget Manny Noriega and Saddam Hussein, both insinuated into power by the CIA. No, I didn’t. Then there’s all the funny business with the drug trade from Air America to Eugene Hassenfus. Why exactly has the opium business blossomed so under our stewardship of Afghanistan? Hail, Columbia!
# 2
The neo-cons had an agenda focused on taking over Eastern oil resources in place for many, many years before 9-11. In their own writings they explained that some type of “new Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to gain public support (financing) of such plans.
Yes, it is true that the whole truth may have been purposely kept secret. No one disputes that the current administration is the least transparent, the most secretive, and likely the most deceptive in our history.
And if the administration was deliberately negligent or complicit in the events of 9-11 it would indeed ‘make a certain amount of sense that they might try to keep it secret’.
It is a stretch to claim that the U.S. has never sought to expand its territory. Are you in a stupor? We committed genocide to steal this country from the Indians who lived here. I remember something about Texas once being part of Mexico, etc.
But, to be modern, let’s just admit that the U.S. has spent a good bit of its public monies on a military that is spread throughout hundreds of bases across the world (who has done more military intervention than the U.S.)and on intelligence agencies who meddle in every body’s business, sometimes in some very nasty ways.
Let’s just say that our corporate-sponsored government has sought to expand its power, its control, its influence, and its GREED throughout the world.
It is not YOU, Natalie, that I rail against. Break out of the illusion! The military-industrial oligarchy that the government serves does NOT represent your ideals either. But it must work at keeping you enthralled to continue to pursue pursue it own greedy, selfish ends.
True, much of the world envies what we have. We have 5% of the world’s population and comsume over half of its resources. They want a piece of that… and freedom from concrete cruelties of repressive governments (sometimes sustained by the U.S.)and material hardships (sometimes resulting from the impact of U.S. economic policies). Yet have you ever wondered why so much of the world has a negative opinion of the U.S. regarding it foreign policies? Are you aware of the mis-match between our self-image and how the rest of the world sees the U.S. and feels about it?
Arghh!
My #1 post, an extensive bit of writing, didn’t make it to the forum when I submitted it. Man, that is frustrating. Screw it!
Nat, just give some thought to Luminous Beauty’s post. Okay? You seem to have little realistic knowledge and understanding of U.S. foreign policy, military intervention, and CIA activity.
You would be mistaken, Natalie, to think that I do NOT have a love and high regard for my own nation and people. I do. ‘And I have a very high regard for the founding ideals of this nation… they were truly enlightened.
My arguments with derive out of my desire to protect, preserve, and promote those ideals.
The principles laid out by our founders were devised primarily to protect our institutions from corruption from within, rather than threats from without. Freedom requires vigilance. Despots have long known that the best way to get ‘the people’ to take their eyes off of the ball is to ‘provide’ a exciting threat from without… real or imagined. The inviting lantern to the world is becoming a glaring policeman’s spotlight.
Patriotism is more than uncritical acceptance of and faith in anything your government does or tells you. I make take more than some PollyAnnish devotion, little plastic flags on you car, and keeping your head tucked securely in the dark place to determine a happy ending to the American story.
Our nation is badly off track, and you would do well to try to make some rational discernments about just what the intentions and motivations of military-industrial, corporate-sponsored government actually are.
I can’t for the life of me really understand how folks like Natalie can on the one hand be so cynical about any transparent and public use of government to actually improve the lives of its citizens, and on the other have such blind faith in the opaque and secretive National Security State.
It is a tribute to the human brain’s robust ability to sustain levels of cognitive dissonance one could reasonably infer would cause it to explode.
“It is a tribute to the human brain
Whit, a word of advice. When typing up a lengthy post do it on WordPad or some such. You can copy and paste it and repeat it if the post doesn’t go through.
Latest:
Fake Terror War Ramps Up
Crimes of the State
crimesofthestate.blogspot.com
Coinciding with Bush’s big “War on Terror” speech, we have a subway threat HOAX that pushed further police state intrusions into New York City’s subway system, followed by this new purported letter from “al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi.”
But not even the alleged terrorists on the receiving end of it think it’s real. These are strange times.
Let’s see if we can make sense of this letter/non-letter. On John Negroponte’s website (Mr. death-squads-don’t-exist), we have the summary of points allegedly made by al-Zawahiri, yet rejected as “fake” by the possibly fictional organization “Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
CONTINUED:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
See also:
British Chief Police Investigator in Basra dies under mysterious circumstances
He was responsible for the investigation into the two Elite SAS men disguised as Arab “terrorists”
by Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051017&articleId=1100
PS
Natalie:
What Bush and Blair have done to Iraq isn’t new. It’s called an illegal war of aggression and a Crime Against the Peace, the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Nazis were hanged in 1946 for the exact same offense.
“According to Oil Ministry officials, contracts will be signed with foreign oil companies during the first nine months of 2006, opening the majority of Iraq’s oilfields to western companies for the first time in 33 years. (...) Thus the policy potentially allocates to foreign companies 64% of known reserves. If a further 100 billion barrels are found, as is widely predicted, the foreign companies would control 81% of the total, and if 200 billion were found, as some suggest, they would have 87%.”
—Iraq Constitution Lays Ground for Oilfield Sell-Off, globalpolicy.org
Good advice, David. I considered this myself after my submitted writing was AGAIN sent off into cyberspace instead of posted on our forum.
... Not to mention word processing first and then pasting the finished product for posting would provide a better chance of identifying and correcting my many confusing errors and mispellings.
Thanks!
Wonder if the kids killed by the F15 attack on Monday were the same ones who were playing hopefully in the streets on referendum day.
“Baghdad - A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a western provincial capital, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday”.
“Fuad said the dead included his 4-year-old son, Saad Ahmed Fuad, and his 8-year-old daughter, Haifa Ahmed Fuad.
Fuad said he was unable to find one of his 8-year-old daughter’s legs, and had to bury her without them.
Another boy, 6-year-old Muhammed Salih Ali, was buried in a plastic bag after relatives collected what they believed to be parts of his body, mourners said.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805J.shtml
Lets hope thosekids had a feeling of hope for the future before a BIG US bomb came and took away their future.
Do you know how to make Rabbit a Suicide Bomber? Kill his children like this.
Go to Hell anybody who supports this ILLEGAL and IMMORAL invasion. You have done nothing right, you are making it worse and your army is good for nothing. They cannot fight modern wars even when they break all the rules.
Rabbit is a man first an Australian second.
I will not follow a corrupt and evil cause even if is has my country’s name on it. Natalie is not a good person to those who are wondering how she can support the things she does. We know already that she is an apologist for using Depleted Uranium, ignoring the risks to US troops and she is absolutely un-interested in the effects on the civilian population.
Do not mistake her as being merely mis-informed, she answers by saying simply that DU is no more dangerous than lead and killing innocents is justified if the government says it is. She has argued using blatant tactics of SHILLdom, this is not just a deluded ditto-head here. Rabbit knows Nat and she is a Vampire. A practising follower of Dark Arts.
Notice the issues she chooses to defend are all acts of inhumanity. Some of these issues are those that even dittoheads avoid, knowing they have no chance. Not Nat, she is under orders.
Nat Rabbit is only becoming angry with you for bringing little innocent children into this discussion in the first place. The exmples you blatantly used did not and do not support your cause, they are damning witnesses against it.
It looks like someone holding up a child as a human shield. So stop it and Rabbit will stop biting. Rabbit is a father and he cannot accept you using the children you are arguing in favor of poisoning and killing, as some sort of “emotional” stunt. Ok you have poisoned and bombed the babies. You have killed their mother and allowed their father to be incarcerated without rights or charges and to be tortured.
Now you want us to feel somehow that these children are a witness to something you are doing right!
THE BANALITY OF EVIL.
Nat the polular mechanics article “MADE UP” the conspiracy theory they attacked about the engine part. This was as said one of their tactics. Address some small part of another theory while ignoring the overall theory and “ALL” the evidence which led to it.
The Popular Mechanics article was a hit piece and as such it was HISTORICALLY unsuccessful.
Now WITNESSES Natalie, how does Popular Mechanics account for witnesses? Of course it doesn’t and Rabbit is looking forward to Natalie explaining how William Rodriguez experienced what he did. Rabbit feels we should establish absolutely that the WTC’s were brought down with explosives. This is the biggest smoking gun, because it has been BLATANTLY covered up and because it would have required considerable setting up as well as the removal of BOMB sniffing dogs from the WTCs.
The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC the week before the attacks as it happens. What a co-incidence…........
A couple of flatbed trucks were used to remove all that GOLD BULLION which was in the WTCs just before the attacks too. What a co-incidence. Luckily they got all that gold out, just in the nick of time. There are lots of fascinating co-incidences like this, shall we examine them and speculate about them being possibly MORE than mere co-incidence?
Do you feel good about supporting the greatest criminals in world history?
One example of hundreds, Ms. Natalie:
Part #1
40 Years of Living Dangerously
by Joseph Nevins
The recent horrific bombings in Bali should not obscure a far larger, institutionalized Indonesia-associated set of horrors. It was born forty years ago this month when the Indonesian army initiated what the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency described as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century.” Four decades later, the failure to hold anyone accountable for the slaughter—or, in places like the United States, even to remember it—continues to have negative repercussions for human rights.
Under Major General Suharto’s leadership, the army and its civilian militia groups used an alleged coup attempt on October 1, 1965 as an excuse to round up and kill hundreds of thousands of members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), and of loosely affiliated organizations such as women’s groups and labor unions.
Despite the magnitude of the carnage, Marshall Green, American ambassador to Indonesia at the time, wrote that the embassy had “made clear” to the army that Washington was “generally sympathetic with and admiring” of its actions.
U.S. support for the killings was rooted in Washington’s longstanding wish to have unimpeded access to Southeast Asia’s great wealth of strategic resources such as oil, rubber, and tin. World War II, the disruption of European colonial rule, and the emergence of the United States as the post-war regional power provided the opportunity to realize that desire.
But new obstacles arose when the Sukarno government emerged upon independence in Indonesia—the country many in Washington saw as the region’s centerpiece. Sukarno’s domestic and foreign policy was nationalist, nonaligned, and critical of Western intervention. Moreover, his government had a working relationship with the powerful PKI, which Washington feared would eventually win national elections. For these reasons the Eisenhower administration conducted covert operations to destabilize Indonesia, efforts that culminated in 1965-66 with the PKI’s eradication and Sukarno’s effective overthrow.
U.S. policy had helped lay the groundwork for the killings through support for anti-communist elements of the military, and intelligence operations aimed at weakening the PKI and drawing it into conflict with the army. So when the army began the killings, the Johnson administration supplied it with weaponry and telecommunications equipment, and, once Suharto had formally assumed power, provided food and other aid. The U.S. Embassy also gave the names of thousands of PKI cadre who were subsequently executed.
The PKI’s destruction and Sukarno’s ouster resulted in a dramatic shift in the regional power equation, leading Time magazine to hail Suharto’s takeover as “The West’s best news for years in Asia.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy League’s publication gushed over Indonesia’s new role in Southeast Asia as “that strategic area’s unaggressive, but stern, monitor.”
Ten years later, Suharto’s “unaggressive” Indonesia invaded neighboring East Timor after receiving permission from the Ford administration. The war and almost 24-year illegal occupation cost tens of thousands of East Timorese lives. Within Indonesia proper, Jakarta’s military has committed myriad additional atrocities—from killing tens of thousands in independence-seeking West Papua to thousands more in the oil-rich Aceh region.
With Suharto’s resignation in 1998, significant political space has opened up in Indonesia resulting in competitive national elections, but the armed forces still loom large over the state apparatus. And no military or political leaders have been held responsible for the post-Sukarno-era crimes, thus increasing the likelihood of future atrocities and aggression—a source of continuing worry for Indonesia’s civil society and restless regions, as well as poverty-stricken, now-independent East Timor.
Part #2
Here in the United States, despite political support and billions of dollars in weaponry, military training and economic assistance to Jakarta over the preceding four decades, Washington’s role in Indonesia’s killing fields of 1965-66 and subsequent brutality has been effectively buried. Such “forgetting” has translated into a lack of accountability for U.S. complicity in these crimes, while enabling the Bush administration’s current efforts to further ties with Indonesia’s military, as part of the global “war on terror.”
The continuation of this dangerous alliance, and the impunity that underlies it, can only lead to further atrocities—in Indonesia and elsewhere—as it has for the last forty years.
Joseph Nevins is an assistant professor of geography at Vassar College and author of A Not-so-distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor (Cornell University Press, 2005).
Natalie,
The U.S. M/I corporacracy is very Machiavelian is its manner of operating. It’s ironic that in all the demonizing of Saddam and using his ruthless brutality as a justification for OUR military takeover of Iraq and its oil fields, one truly important, pertinent piece is left out of the big picture: With U.S. government and CIA backing Saddam would have never come to power or have been able to be the evil bastard that he was. When Saddam’s army were gassing the Kurds U.S. military “advisors” were providing coordinates for them. Saddam, our EX-ally was a creature of the CIA. Now HE is going to trial. But what about those who brought him to power, and used him as a pawn in the deadly game of controlling the world’s oil resources?
Of course, the Iraqi people deserved something better than Saddam. And they deserve something better than what the U.S. has done and is doing to them now.
Hitler, too, was just ridding the world of evil and making it a better, more glorious place. Many were those who had faith in him, and you should explore who they were.
That last post should read, of course, WITHOUT U.S. government and CIA backing…
Just because you say you would have resisted Nazism, does not make it so.
We are people who would have and do resist Fascism, if we say you are a NAZI, then you probably are. You would have been arguing for the Fuerer and the glorious third reich Natalie, and that is an absolute given..
Your soul is sold now, it would have been then.
Natalie : “(warning:good news)”
” Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ” Isaiah 5:20
In case readers and commenters have not seen it on more recent threads :
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Luminous Beauty linked this on another thread and it is apt for this thread as well.
Some difficult questions, no fence to sit on. Polarizing but effective. Avoid knee jerk reactions unless knee jerk reactions are the reactions you actually have. hehe. I am usually skeptical / disdainful of
David says:
“there is no right or wrong result”
Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole.
My political compass readings:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
...nearest to Gandhi, which pleases me. Gandhi possessed great strenght of character, courage, integrity, honesty, and compassion. However, while my ‘positions’ may be similarly aligned, I cannot claim to be of the same high character.
” Anyone in the top right quadrant is an a*shole. “
Please forgive my forgiving nature but maybe they are only deluded assholes. On the road to Damascus. And it is hard for them to kick against the pricks.
They are the pricks too, and they are not that hard to kick, Rabbit will keep kicking the PRICKS. HOWARD and BUSH were of course right there in the thick of it, they are both A*seholes and they are both Pricks. Therefore anybody in that field is both. Deluded? Of course they are bloody deluded, that is what makes them a*seholes and pricks. Self imposed delusions, WILLFUL IGNORANCE is not a defence, it is the CRIME.
Not up to Rabbit’s usual standard of logic, but why should one be excessively logical about wacking illogical creatures?
Wow Whit, Rabbit is impressed. Rabbit was personally a bit dissapointed about his ratings, being even a bit right of Ghandi.
Whit you are way out there in the big numbers. You should be an Anarcho-Socialist too, you could be our king, if we had kings, which we don’t of course.
Anarcho-Socialists do not have kings.
You can be a respected elder, a radical sage.
..........................................^^.................................
Mouse:
Why cannot people face the truth about 911?
Rabbit:
They would have to change all their ideas to allow for such a fundamental error of judgement..Mouse.
Mouse:
Is that all? Even Mouse can afford to change all his ideas.
Rabbit:
Yes mouse, but you don’t have many ideas to change after all…................. People have lots more ideas than a mouse.
Mouse:
What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Rabbit:
Rabbit does not know, Mouse…........... Rabbit does not know.
What good does that do them if they are mostly wrong?
Indeed… Rabbit. It seems that in the service of the fragile ego people are willing to destroy themselves (insanity is alway based upon the avoidance of legitimate suffering) and others (onto whom they have projected what they cannot own about themselves).
Looks like this thread is dying out, doesn’t it Rabbit?
Whatever happened to Natalie?
Perhaps this thread has run its course, with no where else to go. No where else, that is, that the Nat and Jay types would dare to venture… far away from their well-beaten paths and heavily reinforced comfort zones.
That sounds a bit arrogant, I suppose. The truth is, I am saddened. Sad that such a deliberation couldn’t actually have been a mutually honest discovery voyage, and not just some right vs wrong pissing contest (it was more than that, actually).
They say that rabbits are highly ‘productive’ (reproductive, I guess) And you have certainly been amazingly productive in you contributions/participation in this exchange. Your efforts are appreciated.
Natalie, come back.
There is a test we would like you to take.
Please let us know your results. We want to help make you well.
Whit
You so often speak Rabbit’s heart for him and he will own all you say. Rabbit always hopes that these discussions will be mutually honest voyages of discovery.
This thread never really did gain a serious opposition. the facts was that the context was always too real and thus untouchable by mere faith based argument. Rabbit always knew this would be anathema to the GOD Squad, and was not surprised to see them all fall so quickly. Admittedly those who came were not true God Squad, but they held the same views which was always the most telling to those of us watching the overall pattern of the discussion.
Indeed the subjects have been contrived largely, but no less valid for that. The idea Rabbit sought was to put FAITH BASED argument up against factual argument and like all good ideas it has grown out from here and given force to other efforts.
Natalie may yet return, Rabbit thinks she loves him at least. Rabbit loves Natalie too, which is why he’d like to see her take the Political Graph test.
Natalie may be a Shill or she may yet be a person who can be re-awakened, it is worth trying and Rabbit has learned some things from her of worth, there is bound to be more.
One thing is for sure, the 911 case is one hell of an easy one to fight. They just crumble when faced with the amount of evidence. We didn’t even touch the important issues, and the act of trying to introduce them to the discussion was enough to shut down the discussion.
WOW
Rabbit is waiting for an approriate thread, who will dare bring up 911 at this stage of the game?
In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, “It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government.”
The rest of the story
Rabbit,
OK I went to the Dr. Griffin account you included and there is no doubt the WTC was an inside job done with the cooperation of the U.S. government.
http://www.rense.com/general68/caseforWTCtower.htm
Case For WTC Tower
Demolition Sealed By Griffin
Theologian Says Controlled Demolition
is Now a Fact, Not a Theory
It even says right there in the title
Touche, Whattheheck. Touche.
Just step back a bit here WTH and don’t make too much of a case on one seeming contradiction. We’re still trying to assess, everything considered, what the big picture converges on. It is a valid, don’t you think, to question why the government would have arranged to have the debris ‘immediately’ hauled away, and disposed of out of the country, before legitimate investigators had a routine and normal chance to inspect the remains to determine what had occurred? Do is make sense? What might it suggest?
I believe there were those who reported having seen discrete segments of beams, but I have less that a masterful command of all these various sites. ‘But if you’re searching for the truth you could research it. We all need to be doing that. There’s more at stake here than “Rah!, Rah!... for my team.” What good is it to pretend to prevail if the truth is obscured?
wtc was a demolition. I knew that the day I saw it come straight down .
who did it ,and why are answers not yet arrived at.
We all have our suspects ,but we can’t just point the finger without solid proof.
there is no shortage of people who would benefit from it.
But the point belongs to Rabbit.
En Garde, Whattheheck.
WTH the small query of yours is valid, but jumping to conclusions about the answer is not. Let us seek an answer.
Griffin is well known and has a lot of credit for his books. He is not one but one of many who are writing such things and more. The fact of him being a theologian is of literally no consequence to rabbit or many other poeple, any suggestion that it is is ridiculous. What is the suggestion that some left wing conspiracy has selected such a man as a deliberate vehicle of misinformation or something?
Griffin happens to be one of the most sensible and simple approaches taken to the whole thing and he is one of Rabbit’s favorites in this regard. It has been evidenced above that there is much much more behind Rabbit’s understanding of 911.
Rabbit shall return with a comment about the 30 foot trusses, Natalie too mentioned them. The trusses are certainly in the plans for the WTCs. This was denied at the outset, but plans were mysteriously unavailable, being blocked I believe, but can’t quite recall. They were eventually uncovered and showed up where the engineers said they should be. It is a fact that the building would have been incredibly unsafe, without them, but it would not have withstood the winds it had withstood before and nor could it have even passed an inspection, anyway, they were there, more later.
Sorry Rabbti meant columns not trusses.
In searching for information about the columns Rabbit has found a gem. OK so they are obviously a little over thirty feet some of them, point is they are there, described by engineers who cleaned up the site.
<a href=“http://tinyurl.com/8vul7”>
OM should be PM
Australian Prime Minister John Howard
Most Aussies doubt he is the father of his children, whoever they are, this is becase we don’t believe he’s ever had sex with Janet, his wife. ............................... He wouldn’t be unfaithful to George.
Note the assumption of Arse licker in an article by even a conservative commentator from a couple years back.
No the revised scores are where you would be if you were someone else.
The original answers were the most pure. Now for non-science minded people this may need to be explained, but to any scientific mind the answer is obvious.
You now know the test, the results and anything you do from here on to alter your original result is of absolutely NO use to the experiment. You are now ‘contaminated’, no longer a viable test subject…..be gone.
The experiment had a given set of criteria. The questions are applied to random subjects who have no preparation or knowledge of how the process is to proceed. Each subject gives his response under ‘equal’ conditions. This is the very critical isolation required to ensure true results.
All you are doing with the Strong answers or any other interference is altering the range. If you do it with any subject you will have to do it with THEM ALL. Which will only change the “RANGE” of comparison. You may move closer together in groups, but these will only be apparnet groupings, having lost the fine tuning in the ground between.
It is a simple logical argument, you cannot do what you are doing and call it a valid result. Rabbit KNOWS this, it is not an opinion. If anyone doubts this, Rabbit will scoff at their lack of scientific acumen, it is a clear cut thing.
By the way, has it not occurred to anyone that just because you answered something less strong the first time, that someone else would not have answered the strong one?
As it happens Rabbit’s answers were almost all STRONGLY AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE. That was MY natural first response. So by changing your answers to a strong one everytime, just means you may be IMITATING Me or somebody else.
This is called logic, it is based on scientific principles and if WTH really has ANY Universtity Psychology behind him as claimed, then he must see this as clear as day as well.
You get one chance and unless you answered dishonestly the first time, this is IT. Everything after is Tainted
Dammit, something happened, this went on wrong thread, ...................................^^..............................
Now we’ve got ANOTHER theologian who couldn’t be more at odds with the first in his theories about who the enemy is. Having seen both in action, I wouldn’t conclude that David Ray Griffin is any LESS a “fundamentalist bully” than Pat Robertson, if we’re allowed to broaden the definition a bit: “Having rigid adherence to principles and being intolerant of other views”. One man irresponsibly urges assassination of a mildly murderous foreign leader, knowing that his remarks will be exploited by a hostile media to the thug’s advantage. The other must be at least AS irresponsible in accusing his OWN government of deliberately murdering its OWN citizens, surely knowing his words amount to no less than a defense of Al Qaeda. (btw, a defense they likely don’t appreciate….they seem pretty proud of what they pulled off that day)
Both men desperately want to persuade people as to their points of view. While one uses the Bible as his primary reference, the other has his own set of principles and guidelines as set forth by the prophets Rense, Jones and Meyer, the latter having had the benefit of hundreds of mind e x p a n d i n g experiences. (LSD) Perhaps the others have too; we don’t want to sell them short.
Both expect you to take it on faith that their truth is the one to set you free. One explains that even though you’ve never seen God or any direct evidence for his existence, if you first simply have faith, and then repeat certain scriptures enough times, you will be forever saved. The other relies on your believing that the American government is essentially EVIL as a prerequisite. This, along with reading enough times on enough cheesy websites that the WTC was brought down by explosives in 10 seconds or less and the pentagon was hit by a missile or possibly an airliner flown by remote control, will make you finally able to understand who are the true “evil-doers”.
After observing the complexities and precision of nature, I’m not confident enough to say there’s no such thing as God—but I have my doubts. However, the mere mortal happenings of 9/11 and the human tendency to believe some of the most far-out things if they happen to reinforce a world-view - even though they defy all common sense and logic - make me quite confident in my conclusion that 9/11 was indeed planned and executed exclusively by Al Qaeda.
This is not to say of course that agents of our government didn’t have their suspicions and failed to take the necessary preventative action for whatever reasons. But one of those reasons was not, by all evidence and reason, that they somehow WANTED it to happen. It’s reasonable to believe they may have “taken advantage” of the situation post hoc, but it’s not reasonable to suspect beyond that. In fact, to make such inflammatory charges in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary is simply ... well ... irresponsible.
Here is a debate between Griffin and Chip Berlet, who is certainly no man of the right and along with Amy, no friend of the Bush admin. The fundamentalism of Griffin is too much even for them, and they “confront” him:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, again, I say I have got 40 pages of notes. I’ve got a lot of notes on that chapter, and so readers can go and see the—
GOODMAN: Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down.
GRIFFIN: I’m sorry, I don’t have that information at my fingertips right at this moment.
http://tinyurl.com/dkxjd
I’m not sure exactly what all the controversy is about the 30 foot columns. The towers were assembled from pretty much that length section, some more some less, and those same sections were found in the rubble pile. Here is an old movie showing how the towers were assembled. I’m afraid I don’t understand what the mystery is supposed to be.
http://tinyurl.com/8jw9t
My political compass results put me just below the center intersection, whatever that might mean. I’m closer to Ghandi than Thatcher, so I suppose that’s a plus in a lot of people’s minds. Individual results are one thing, but isn’t there a time for and a value to many different points of view? (not all, of course, sorry Stalin) The more people who would otherwise be pre-disposed to violence that can be influenced by a Ghandi approach, the better. But when it becomes necessary to confront those that can’t, I’m thankful for a Thatcher. I suspect a Ghandi might secretly be thankful as well.
No Natalie, the evidence is such that it is not irresponsible to call the US government complicit. It is irresponsible to defend them as it happens.
Griffin is not calling for the assaination of a democratically elected president, as is Chavez, he is calling for a “Proper and impartial investigation”. He and many many others are saying the same things and it is not some crazy conspiracy theory. The crazy conspiracy theory is the one you adhere to and which ahs long since crumbled on this thread.
That makes your comparison of Robertson ridiculous. Natalie, what nonsense is this you come back with.
We shall be going back to facts and not wasting time with your emotional dishonest claptrap.
Your whole rant against the various internet sites you list who are but a few of thousands of sites reporting on the facts. the evidence was being dealt with Nat and you have so far established only that the official line is wrong. We have presented a wealth of information to show this and also to support certain basic theories. We have succeeded so far.
You are such a sleazy one are you not?
The points you are now questioning again have already been dealt with and you lost them, now you come back for a second round just like with the depleted Uranium. Natalie you are a SHILL you cannot debate fair, you cannot stick to the facts you can only keep repeating your crap. You are cornered with the truth, you disapear. you return and start all over again when the dust has settled.
You are a whore. a sad liitle whore. Rabbit is sorry to put it thus, but you really are the biggest coward and a most unsatisfactory debating partner. You cannot stick to the facts, you want only to branch out into bombastic proselytising.
Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU. What a sleazy trick, what a low down dirty act. What is your problem? You have been given some very substantially backed information which contradicts your views. That is a fact, go back and read about it if you have not, others have and they have had their say. You have so far got nothing on each of the ACTUAL facts we were avble to discuss.
You pulled out in the middle of a discussion which was going famously badly claiming time constraints, now you come back to the same emotive, and totally opinion based ranting which Rabbit has already broken you of once.
Debabe the critical facts in an orderly fashion, or face a serious whipping. Griffin doesn’t make up any facts. He examined the reported and verifiable facts, like others and presents the findings. That is the end of that.
The findings can be challenged on the facts, but not at the man. Rabbit will find any number of experts and actual official documenst as necessary to prove anything he contends, no need to hold litlle innocent children up as a shield, or run and hide, or pretend you did read something when you did not.
LIAR. You are a big disapointment.
Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time? Frankly Rabbit is surprised natalie is wasting time on such things as a single person, except that it is standard SHILL tactics to attack the person if they don’t like what they are saying.
What facts are you questioning which have led to Griffin’s conclusions Natalie, What are the facts which he has got wrong?
Not one will come, we will go round in circles, the dance of smoke and mirrors the vampire so delights in. Yet she claims no time, still she spreads her slime, for many many lines. Nothing but venon is said, and nothing of substance atempted. How about you use your precious time to get back to the simple facts which show that the buildings were brought down by explosives, actually we’ve done that.
We are now due to look at the witnesses who reported explosions in the towers, that is what you ran away from as Rabbit recalls.
Rabbit guessed where you’d be on the political thing, you should see the discussion about it on Partisan thread, then you would understand that you are deluded and the graph proves it to anbody who can look objectively at it.
You are placed where you are, your stated politics is actually somewhere else altogether, because this is based upon delusions that it is more what you are.
A Commentary for Nat to look at.
Click it NATALIE, Rabbit has some new tricks.
If you want to discuss the graph results, then please join us on Partisan, but do so after having read the relevant postings since it was brought up by David Monk. It has fascinated Rabbit and he awaits for others to realise the true significanc eof what is a very interesting way of looking at an experimental analysis based on attidudes across a broader spectrum than normal Left - Right thinking can accomodate.
It would be interesting if Nat can use her mind for anything except avoidance and actually see the point Rabbit would like to share, but there, in context.
This guy has met you before Natalie.
<i>Time and time again, when I come across close-minded Bush supporters, I witness the effects of an unexplainable phenomenon: a highly dangerous variation of HIV
<i>One man… urges assassination…of a foreign leader…
Looks like Nat has resorted to guerilla tactics, hit and run.
Rabbit has been a bit sorry to have called Nat a whore, it would have been used in the same context to a man or mouse, but it was below the belt in a sexist way. It wasn’t meant to be a description of Nat as of her tactics of debate, or not.
.......................................^>.........................
“Your quote of the Griffin interview is a pretty naive attempt at propaganda. Did you think nobody noticed he merely did not have the information available at the time?”
Surely Rabbit knows the name of the structural engineer that Griffin can’t seem to muster, putting aside the fact that he just got through writing an entire book on the subject.
What is that name, Rabbit? Can you help Griffin out?
Does it make any difference to the mass of facts presneted? Why should Rabbit use any time on such a petty liitle matter? What would it prove? Nothing. Even if there was no such strcutural engineer, natalie we have been through details which show it is not necessary even to understand such basic forces as those involved, it’s in the detail Nat, not the messenger.
when Nat can actually face direct facts of consequence and not waste time on Red herrings like whetehr or not griffin had a structural engineer, maybe such questions would be worthy of more attention.
The simple truth is that the sum total of ALL the evidence and WITNESS testimony all point to the same conclusion. and Nat wants to discuss who did the report, who made the coffee. What significant difference does it make, Natalie, when SO MUCH of the official story is SO full of holes. Only one major hole is enough to destroy such a crazy pack of lies, and we have dozens.
Why would Nat want to spend pages and pages attcking the credibility of just one, out of so many people who make claims rather than actually consider the claims themselves in detail? and she will folks she has done it before,
Did you read the quote above which refers to people with your illness Natalie? People with HIV?
Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about Griffin’s work or sources.
Griffin has written books but what has that to do with anything?
As a direct response to your Lousy inetrview with Griffin, is found the following.
This should sink your sieve.
<i>Dear Amy Goodman:
We, the undersigned, would like to state that the recent (5/26/04) appearance of David Ray Griffin on
Democracy Now! (DN) repudiates every principle of press freedom that you claim to represent. It was a
shameful betrayal to the movements opposing the Bush( ) Regime around the globe.
First of all, it is very revealing that you chose to have Griffin appear on your show in a hostile
The letter continued.
Check the questions and sources too, can you answer them Natalie?
<i>Questions for Amy Goodman (6/2004)
Dear Amy Goodman:
1. In David Ray Griffin
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up.
“Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?”
This is an example of YOUR illness….the inability to properly interpret information.
Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished. He is concerned, and perhaps rightly so, that more investigation of the evidence wasn’t done to determine exactly how the buildings collapsed.
He is concerned about other buildings that may have similar construction and not being able to find out which ones they are.
He is wary of the type of fireproofing they used in the WTC. He is suspicious that information is being withheld, not to hide a demolition plot, but to avoid liability from people finding out that improper fire protection measures may have been used in the WTC.
His full article in context:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
Another account:
http://tinyurl.com/7ehyq
We’re still waiting for the name of preferably the structural engineer that believes the buildings were brought down by a deliberate demolition.
“Now Natalie starts talking about LSD? What nonsense is this? You now would mention drugs in connection with the names of entirely honest and respected men with no reason or context whatsoever. HOW DARE YOU.”
This is how….
http://www.serendipity.li/pm_bio.html
“Who wrote a book Natalie?
Rabbit has not and he has at no stage written about Griffin
Rabbit knows of this book, but why would rabbit have it? He is a poor Rabbit and cannot just go buying any book he wants.
Rabbit was not referring to the book at this juncture in time, and is surprised you would expect anyone to just know to what book you might be alluding after the amount of references and books which have been recommended to you so far and which you have so far refused to acknowledge.
Let’s stop pissing around with small unimportant things and talk about something of direct consequence. What Facts do we have, which cannot be disputed and how do we fit them into our respective theories about how they happened.
WITNESSES
Is Rabbit just imagining it or is that the nineteenth time he has remarked about the witnesses and not a word from Nat regarding them, no she would rather talk about books and then only if the talk is limited to the auther of the book. No thanks Natalie. It is your theory which is being challenged, not mine, Rabbit will make his theories clear and back them with suitable evidence once we have established that almost everything you believe about 911 is false.
Now ....................Witnesses........... Natalie, if you are incapable of dicussing basic physics without claiming it is too technical for you to understand. Let us discuss people, who they were and what they say they saw, and how much their differnet stories converge on one important detail. Explosions of BOMBS, before and after the Planes hit the WTCs. This will relate back to all the technical evidence of explosives, you have so far ignored, but it is there for others to follow. Others who will follow you natalie, perhaps rooting for you for a while, hoping you will support their beliefs against this upstart Rabbit. Come now you must put up a more inspiring effort, you are an embarrassment to the cause of willful ignorance. Even they can see that, and some of your followers are faltering already, saying as you are about to do, “,i>What witnesses is he talking about?</i>”, Natalie might say there are no such witnesses, it is all a conspiracy theory lie. Or she might say they are paid “Bush Haters”, Anti-Bush liars who have been brainwashed by Iranian terrorists?
come along now natalie, off your pathetic box and talk about something real, instead of calling people liars and denying they exist. ........................... WITNESSES
Natalie it is you who has ignored most everything rabbit has said, especially the most signifivcant things, you disapear for a while rather than answer somethings directly, and b=never address thyem upon return. This is not a pissing contest, we are trying to establish actual facts which support or challenge your lunatic Government inspired conspiracy theory.
You do not have the moral stature in this debate due to the avoidance and refusal to acknowledge so much that has been directly addressed to you, and which refferred to FACTS of some consequence. You lack the stature due to such lowly behaviour, to dictate the subject at will. We are not interested in people but in the facts. Rabbit has said it before to you stupid woman…......What qualifications does one need to tell the truth?
Rabbit will never do another blockquote box thing, he hates them.
O.K., Rabbit, tell me more about witnesses. But when you say I’ve ignored everything you say, I don’t think that is accurate. I’ve taken you to task on several of the points you yourself have brought up. Speed of collapse, concrete to dust, why columns wouldn’t be left standing, etc. But when I press you on something, you say things like “why are you obsessed with this small point. It’s unimportant in the whole context” (paraphrasing)
I would be happy to learn about the witnesses. I would be happy to address them. I have not been ignoring the issue, It’s just that you haven’t really introduced much on it, except for the word “witnesses” and the janitor. I’ve read that even folks of your persuasion don’t think his suit is helping their cause.
I assume from your silence that neither you or Griffin have the name of a structural engineer that endorses your theory.
You’ve “taken Rabbit to task” on those issues have you Nat?
You have raised them, usually as a consequence of avoiding much more significant issues and Rabbit has turned each of your challenges into a rout for your cause, without even trying. You have consistently avoided a huge volume of evidence and are persistent in your desire to find individuals upin which to practise subtle and sometimes overt character assaination or smearing. Your tactics have been described with scientific precision in a quote above and what you all you are doing is conforming to a stereotypical SHILL performance. The things you press are not significant on their own most often, even if you could diprove any of them all you do is try and dent the credibility of the sources as they are presented. Despite the fact the source are many and varied you repeatedly name only one or two sites pretending that they are the originator of the bodies of evidence and opinion being shown here.
Don’t presume to lecture Rabbit on honesty or orderly debating. You have nothing so far, nothing to back up your Crazy Conspiracy theories Natal;ie. Rabbit and other have ammassed all that is so far on this thread. It would take you weeks to read through it all, and amongst it can be found the strongest case imaginable for the THEORY that the US government was behind 911, and that the WTCs were brought down with explosives.
But we have hardly begun as for what Natalie chooses to acknowledge, by challenging even in a peripheral sense.
The witness info has not been posted before now since Rabbit saw no point in just posting even more things for Natalie to ignore.
Rabbit would guess that Natalie has bugged out when it became apparent that we were going to have to face up to the witness tesimony, for new orders. She has had to be briefed in the tactics to be employed in this as yet seldom explored topic on internet debates. Many of us are waiting with bated breath, what will be the official response?
Rabbit expects it will be the same old same old, attack the man, each one individually, draw any and all doubt, show they also hate Bush, (as if that would not follow knowing the truth).
Natalie has already given up the game. Did we see that she has: <i>I
Rabbit who has not ignored your points about engineers at all having referred to the matter in several posts since. Rabbit does not know or care if Structural Engineers collaborated on griffin’s book. As far as Rabbit knows the book establishes the known FACTS, and applies simple logic which doesn’t even require such expert evidence. The man is not the point, the facts are what they are, you have to make your theory fit the facts, not the other way around.
Rabbit did actually post references including Engineers who believe explosives brought them down, better read them and see. That they were not connected to Griffin only strengthens the case anyway.
Since Rabbit is feeling generous, he shall award you a free point. We shall say, that Griffin did not have a structural engineer to help him. (this may be corrected by another, rabbit doesn’t know) What difference does that make to the facts and how they relate to what happened? So you’ve shown not that Griffin is wrong or even that he is lying, but that he doesn’t have a structural engineers help in writing hois book. Rabbit doesn’t need a structural engineer to understand the simple facts which have been dealt with on this thread, nor does anyone.
So far we have established that there is scientific theory as well as seismic evidence and video evidence which suggests the buildings were collapsed with explosives. Now we shall consider the witenss testimony from people who saw and heard things which indicated explosives. this includes numeroues firemen. A janitor and another two dozen witnesses at the same place and reporters, maybe we’ll throw in a policeman or two for natalie to feel really safe.
Would Nat feel safe between a couple of policemen?
..........................................................^^..............................................
Hi, Rabbit, how’s yourself??
Liz is on the line again!!
I don’t know anything really about the controversy, ‘cept I hate Pat Robertson!! And all his ilk….
Somebody’s been nasty to me on another site, and I’ve gone off Christians anyway, even those (pretending) to be (semi)liberal; they’re all hypocritical and if it’s their blog or whatever, they delete your posts if they don[‘t like them and make out it’s “spam”! And this is if they’re pretending to be “liberal”!
I feel sad, Rabbit. I detect you have had similar experiences… but it was even worse, family members ‘n all, wasn’t it??
Oh, Rabbit. I don’t care about left or right or that funny fellow you said you liked. Is there any way in which we can give comfort to one another, oh furry one??
And, hey… this site has changed “look” again! It’s evolving all the time!
Could Rabbit please help with tips on formatting? (Some sites use simplified html and I never know which type they use!! At least with imdb they tell you how to use it!)
Is there a page here, to tell one?? Or some tools somewhere which help you put bold on it, and so on - do those boxes?
Where did you find that, Rabbit??
Can anyone tell me how to post a link properly??
Would be much obliged….
I believe that the World Trade Center wasn’t crushed to confetti “by accident” or by natural forces, either…...
And actually, this is the angriest I’ve ever seen the Rabbit on this forum (sorry I’ve been elsewhere for the past few weeks).
But the World Trade Center conspiracy makes me angry too, when I read about it….
Hi Liz
click here for HTML tips
ITT allows some HTML. Bold , Italic , Hyperlinks as shown above and a couple others.
Hi Liz
Rabbit has responded joyfully to your renewed presence on another thread. The time came when Rabbit was tired of a particular poser who was saying nothing but saying it with falshy tricks and wizbangery. Rabbit does not have any more respect flashy things and whizzbangery than any technician of 15 years and Pyrotechnician would be expected to.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the labguage.
here is a tip….............Go to View in the top left of your screen. Left click, select SOURCE and then left click it. Look at the gobbledegook on that page with the following in mind. HTML commands start with <> and end with <> so if you duplicate that, and replace whatever is between the two with what you want…........... Voila…........
It is a simple way to grab little tunes and pretty goodies for one’s own web site etc. It is the way in which one looks under the Magician’s table.
It isn’t that Rabbit’s don’t mind sitting inside of hats for a while, if the hat is the right shape. It is just that you don’t actually pick up a full grown Rabbit by the ears, while it has been sitting quitely, in a hat, contemplating, and expect it’s attitude to be conducive to the illusion.
As for the rest, dear soul, touch Rabbit’s ears, and drop him a line.
..............^^..................
Sorry Dave and Liz, Rabbit is almost stream of consciousness keyboarding sometimes and this is why always he re-reads his posts. Occasioanlly it takes a twist most unwanted, as in the following case.
Dave, who is a curious Monkey as it happens, was a bit impressed with the Moron with airs, so grabbed the info off google only to rememeber he used to speak the language.
It is best that Rabbit clarifies this.
Rabbit meant that David wondered about Jay and his magic firesticks. Rabbit said no, it is just knowing the language of the electrons, or in this case a kind of Pidgin language of Electrons. Rabbit then grabbed the info from a google of “HTML codes” as an example of the versatility of the Internet. and posted them. The thing is right now Rabbit is trying to get an agreement going to NOT use Blockquotes, (Box Things). They, like Smilies are just wank. But it is one of those “fun” kind of protests, where the result is no more than a dunking in a cold water bath.
As much as I personally enjoy and admire your rambling stream-of-consciousness style, Rabbit (it is so rabbit-like; fuzzy and gentle on the outside, disguising a core of whip-like sinew and muscle underneath), I’m afraid your general critique of Natalie’s reasoning power may have left her with the idea that she has scored a point with her claim about the firemen. She says:
<i>Bill Manning as far as I can find does not suspect that the WTC was intentionally demolished.
Poor Nat, even when you get a freeby cause Rabbit let one past, some meany takes it away. Natalie got close to a point then even if by default. That was a personal milestone I think.
I don’t agree with your analysis, beautiful referee, and I must register a “challenge” to your call.
In a debate between Griffin and Berlet, Griffin could not cite the name of any bona-fide structural engineer that agreed with his contention that the towers were brought down by explosives, even after having recently written an entire book on this and related subjects. I asked Rabbit if he knew of any, could he help Griffin out?
Rabbit apparently thought he had found one:
“Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source. (article selectively quoting Manning)
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?”
The way I read this, Rabbit was saying: “here is an engineer that agrees with Griffin on the explosives thing” and I could see how Rabbit might think this from reading the selectively quoted article. But when you read in context what Manning has to say, you can’t in any way conclude that he subscribes to the implosion theory. You are correct, one could use his concerns to support the parts of their theory having to do with not being able to do a proper examination. But one could also conclude, and I think much more believably, that any attempt at hurriedly discarding the evidence was done to prevent people from finding out that perhaps the builders or designers of the WTC, or people that signed off on it (Port Authority) might be liable for some huge damages due to improper fire-proofing or even structural design. This makes a certain amount of sense, whereas deliberately destroying buildings and murdering people do not, so far as I can tell. (Actually, I think people were simply trying to clean up the mess as fast as they could because it was simply a horrible mess. Nobody likes a horrible mess in the middle of their city)
Manning is not saying “exactly” what Rabbit is saying. He is saying a small part of what Rabbit is saying, but on the main point of contention here, whether or not the towers were deliberately destroyed by someone other than a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists, (these are the real fundamentalists we should be criticizing, not the likes of Pat Robertson btw) Manning apparently doesn’t agree. Perhaps privately he does, but to use his words to imply that he does is disingenuous. Now if Rabbit indeed was only trying to say: “here is someone that’s saying the clean-up was too hasty,” I apologize for assuming too much, but I believe my assumptions were logical given the context of the discussion.
I suspect that the reason he “let one past”, is that he is smart enough to realize that indeed Manning doesn’t qualify as an engineer that could be cited as one that supports his and Griffin’s implosion theory.
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments on :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
This thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.
Rabbit,
Thanks for clarifying. Seems like Liz maybe likes the box things . hehe
The HTML is fun and useful. Thanks to Jay and Rabbit for being the pioneers for many of us in this wilderness.
Most importantly, for me, is that allows one to add nuance to one’s words that would otherwise not be there or at least difficult to convey.
I prefer a more personal and conversational tone to my comments so I don’t like the block quote boxes too much. Just a gut reaction .
Best of all , maybe , is the
hyperlinks .
Hyperlinks
allow you to provide clickable references for others.
Showing off a little there but am a wee bit proud of the new tricks. Curious Dave figured it out… with a little help from his friends.
That thread ... to be shut down soon .. comment while you can ..
Radioactive Wounds of War
... not this thread where you are now.
Clarification is good.
Sorry Nat,
All I can offer is the booby prize in the battle of opinion. You may well have desired Rabbit to name an engineer that believed as his professional opinion that Griffin’s theory was correct. However, Rabbit didn’t bite. Rabbit has said regularly and often that he is concerned with fact, not opinion. Rabbit made zero claims about Manning’s opinion. Rabbit’s challenge was for you to debunk his contention that the facts of Manning’s complaint supported Griffin’s theory. You have admitted that it could. Your idle ad hoc speculations of what else it could mean doesn’t change the fact that Manning fingers FEMA, not the Port Authorities or the owners or construction company or anyone else, as responsible for actions that made proper analysis impossible. That FEMA is politically corrupt is no longer particularly controversial. Nice try though. After my first read, I really thought you got me.
Now come on, Lume, you’re imagining what you think Rabbit was intending by his post. He said no such thing as “I challenge you to debunk the fact that this fire engineer’s complaints support Griffin’s theory.” He simply challenged me to debunk Manning. (I think) After reading his article IN CONTEXT, I realized I had no quarrel with Manning, only with the implication left by Rabbit that this particular engineer endorsed the implosion theory. Whether Rabbit intended that or not, I thought it important, given the context of the discussion and the lack of clarity by Rabbit and the article he cited, to make clear that Manning does not.
Bill Manning in context. Note that he specifically states that his theory is based on questionable fire-proofing techniques, not on explosive charges, and has issues with several entities besides FEMA:
“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.”
To summarize, I don’t think it likely that Bill Manning would be called as a witness for the prosecution in the matter of “the alternative theories community” v GWB.
All that stuff is vaguely interesting, Nat, but it’s all pretty much bye the bye. The fact under contention here is not whether Manning agrees in any general way with Griffin, or Rabbit likewise agrees with Griffin, or Griffin with Manning or Manning with Rabbit or me with you; but with whether the steel beams were hauled away lickety-split to China without any skilled teams of assessors sent in with notebooks, lasers and measuring sticks to make what are uncontroversially routine and essential examinations and measurements of any unexpected catastrophe approaching a fraction of this magnitude. It seems that we all are in agreement about that. Time to move on, Natalie, dear.
You seem old enough to realize
gotcha games are a futile exercise.
You wrote:
<i>Now come on, Lume, you
“Your opinion and welcome to it. That and $4.65 will get you a viente mocha frappaccino at Starbucks. Treat yourself, you deserve it.”
No, not opinion, FACT, or as close as we can come to it from the testimony provided:
“THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES” .....Bill Manning….Professional Engineer.
It think it’s fairly safe to say that Bill Manning and every other genuine engineering professional that has contributed to the WTC post-mortem does not suspect or have any reason to suspect that the buildings were deliberately demolished. Until I learn otherwise, as Rabbit has promised and has so far not delivered on, I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety.
“My inference from the style and character of your argumentation is you are being much too single-mindedly partisan. This is not a court of law, it is a consensual conversation. In any case, It
Uh…......................Natalie….....Rabbit would like to point out that this is a thread and it allows the matter of what Rabbit was saying and what he was not saying, about engineers, to be settled in a moment. Rabbit was as you would by now know, busy burying your bony backside along with a stake through your wizened heart, alongside Ramjet the Dragon of Death.
Now to what was said, nd notice how many times Griffin is mentioned in the following…..........
<bloclquote>Now there will be more on Structural Engineers shortly, but for now this should remove this small impediment to your understanding, the interview was crap, Rabbit read it. The other guy was pathetic, never mentioning anthing which seriously challenged Griffin. He just said it was obviously too crazy to be tru like you. You are too crazy to be true actually from where we sane and logical people are sitting.
Go back and read the italicised post about your illness, HIV as it is defined there.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 25, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Yes Natalie, try and debunk
this source.
Engineers, enough for you, doubting Nat?
Rabbit is not finished pounding your spiteful little snippy thing, but you still feel free to talk about witnesses like Rodriguez and the Firemen who claim there were explosions, both before and after the planes hit.
Come on Nat, stop dissembling, make a claim and back it up. </blockquote>
Luminous Beauty has set you to rights at least for the sake of all rational observeres, about the others issues, and Rabbit expects what he has as yet unread is mainly Natty being a Shatty Little Batty, and blathering as is her custom about silly things, the name on a mailbox instead of who lives in the house, for example.
Rabbit shall reply of course if he feels Nat has earned anything beyond what Luminous Beauty has given thee. It seems likely since your post is the last one, that Rabbit will be back to wack the Nat on the crack, of truth.
Bugger…........................HTML is a silly language, electrons could if we knew how to tell them.
Anything about Griffin? Rabbit actually said you could have the point that Griffin may not have had a structural engineer to confer, but as pointed out, so what? Does this alter the claims? How about we look at them in detail, they are not theory, in as much as the details are there to be verified. the theory is like all theories not forbidden to “common men”.
Griffin could be a Janitor and it would not affect the validity of a theory based on verifiable facts. The proof is in the message not the messenger. Nat you are trying to isolate the deabe into Character assainations and yet have gone to great lengths to keep your own person secret. Not that Rabbit cares, he knows who you are, but he thinks your personal attacks are so predictable, the same was true of the Radioactive Wounds Of War Thread. You used the tactic there and it was a spectacular pile of Sh*t. You should perhaps try to review your tactics, try and find something more subtle.
Due to popular demand the Rabbit shall do just this. Rabbit will now cease to be a ghost. It is the SHILLS, Nat the Bat and Dodgy Rodgy who made it necessary to speak as a Rabbit from the grave. Rabbit is hoping to be reborn any moment, he hears his name being called…...............ULTRA RABBIT…...........................^^...............................
Natalie:
Please, you are insulting only your own intelligence. After making such a big deal about putting Manning in context you do this:
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, THE SUBSEQUENT CONTENTS FIRES ATTACKING THE QUESTIONABLY FIREPROOFED LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSSES AND LOAD-BEARING COLUMNS DIRECTLY CAUSED THE COLLAPSES in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Now, if I were corresponding with any ordinary reasonable person, I would only have to show this statement to them and they would realize immediately that saying the capitalized portion represents the speaker’s
opinion is the most egregious sort of deceptive quote mining. But in your case I feel this preternatural necessity to explain everything as explicitly as possible, much as one does to a very small child. To wit; What, you Natalie, are claiming as Manning’s opinion is diametrically opposite to what he is actually saying. I put the operative language in bold so you can see clearly that this is the case. This is more than just intellectual dishonesty, Natalie. In plain language, it is a lie. You are no child. It is well past time for you put away childish things.
I will continue to put my money on properly credentialed individuals in applicable fields who have put their names and reputations on the line, over those of a polar-opposite variety
As long as you put your faith only in accepted authority, you will be incapable of thinking for yourself. You make yourself a slave to other’s opinions. I perceive those who step outside conventional wisdom on any matter to represent the noblest form of courage. Even if they are mad as hatters, they really are putting their reputations on the line and if they are professionally employed in that field risk their livelihood, sometimes even their freedom and their lives. Worse yet, they risk harm to those they love. Such is the nature of conventional vengeance. This cannot be said of those who merely and meekly follow the herd. It is what I was raised, in a very conservative home, to believe the USA was supposed to represent; the innovative mind, freedom of conscience and the pursuit of truth, the pioneering spirit, Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson, etc. Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy.
It baffles me that someone capable of such linguistic magnificence would buy into such nonsensical theories as have been presented here, ironically below an article about a crazy fundamentalist.
Thanx for the compliment, I guess. I make no bones about my biases, do you? Are you willing to take the test and honestly report the results?
CLICK HERE Come on in. The water’s fine.
You are in error to think I am buying into anything. I am only curious. I have had my questions about these matters, but until this conversation, really haven’t focused on them. There are so many curious matters in these ‘interesting times’. As with any mystery, it is the unanswered questions that are of the most interest. It is plain that Rabbit has expended considerable time and effort pursuing answers to those questions. You know, doing the actual research. For that he has my respect and gratitude. It is plain there are many more unanswered questions, and to me it seems reasonable to encourage Rabbit and those others, visible and invisible, engaged in this pursuit to continue seeking answers rather than try to convince them to give it up just because you, in your uneducated opinion, believe it is ‘nonsense’. It is Rabbit who is making sense and you are just making poo-poo in your diapers.
“Oh! The irony…the irony.”
Col. Klink
O.K., Sir Wordsmith, I thought you might latch onto that rather selective quote. You’ll notice however, that I reproduced the entire quote just a couple or so posts back. That’s certainly a far more accurate picture of Manning’s true mindset than was given in Rabbit’s original article.
You misunderstand if you think I was attempting to quote Manning out of context in an attempt to turn his opinion into fact. All I’m trying to say is that it is a FACT that Manning’s theory, and yes I know, theory, what else do we have?, is that the buildings collapsed due to inadequate fireproofing. Deliberately placed explosives do not appear to even be on his radar screen. I’m satisfied to simply establish this FACT about his CURRENT THEORY, lest there be any confusion. And yes, I’m well aware that his theory may have been different if he had his way and the steel had been sequestered in some huge warehouse, football stadium or field.
My apologies to Rabbit if indeed he was only attempting to illustrate that there was a rush to re-forge, for whatever reason, and was fully aware that Fireman Manning didn’t necessarily agree with him about explosives.
You seem to discount the value of professional opinion in this matter, even to the point of painting them as “the man”. It makes me wonder who you go to for surgery, or legal advice, or to design your home so it won’t collapse until it’s time for deliberate implosion.
You and Rabbit seem to have little regard for the engineering professionals who have thus far ignored far-fetched theories about deliberate mass-murder.
Can you type at me with straight fingers and claim that you wouldn’t be proud as a peacock to reproduce in big bold print the certified opinion of a genuine well respected structural engineer of national or world renown stating his firm belief that the only way those buildings could have collapsed was due to pre-placed explosives?
Oh, but it looks like maybe you’re not quite so sure about the murder theory as is Rabbit. I didn’t discern that before. Perhaps Rabbit needs to do the typing. Wise, you, perhaps, not to jump into either camp until the dust has cleared. I along with the ever confident Rabbit have chosen to take the leap. One of us will end up looking foolish, but at least we’re not afraid to commit.
I’ve taken the political compass test, as I stated earlier. I ended up on the centerline right/left, and slightly below center, maybe a quarter inch, up and down.
I put about as much relevance in a test like this as I do in next month’s weather report. But what fascinates me is how the “anarchists” here are so eager to line up to be classified, stamped with a number, and emerge to boast about it like some Sneech on a beach. This seems wholly at odds with their normal resistance to being put in boxes and labeled, lest that label not accurately represent their whole complex make-up. Perhaps it’s a way to make sure you’re not becoming your parents, and make the necessary corrections?
“Imagine my dismay when I discovered in my adolescence that I was expected to believe in those things, but it was just bad form to act upon them. My first lesson in hypocrisy”
What did you do, or want to do, that was found to be in such bad form? That may be too personal; nothing assumed by your choosing not to answer.
See the Sneech on the Beach .
Scroll down near bottom for the Sneech pic.
But the Seuss poem near the top is worth the trip too.
Excuse the interruption. Please continue.
More Sneeches .
More Sneech info .
Good read here.
A was a nice trip down memory lane with Dr. Seuss. Thanks Natalie.
correction ... It was a nice trip ..
Natalie,
... and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the Political Compass.
I will point out that people from the other side of the spectrum, or their perceived side of the spectrum, were lining up for the Sneech Machine too and were trying to get a star and/or scratch off the star they got.
Nice analogy though. You get a star on your belly. hehe
But, enough digression, for me, today, at least.
sorry, another correction, this one more important ...
and Sneech on the Beach is a good analogy regarding the reactions of some people to Political Compass results .
Natalie the Ex German defense minister, believes they were4 brought down by explosives and a whole lot more to. You are being WAY to presumptive about what we can and cannot produce regarding witnesses, and opinions.
Your presumption that we cannot is wrong, Rabbit is assembling another knock down case for you along these very lines, have no fear.
In the meantime there are a couple of far more important matters. The first is that, whether or not any specific type of person said that explosives is the only answer, that doesn’t change all the EVIDENCE which you are ignoring for this smoke and mirror game. The evidence itself is so easily interoreted that the whole idea of demanding more and more expert opinion, is beside the point. That is a start, you were actually given a point for free and you would rather try and do a victory dance on the spot for a page than to discuss real significant issues. Do you or not understand that, even if Griffin was to turn out to be a complete lunatic, and he wrote the whole book while on an acid trip, it doesn’t refute the actual argument. Now do you have any of griffins conclusions, based upon the facts as he applies them?
Luminous Beauty, has told you even more clearly than can Rabbit, where and why you are going wrong. Luminous has a fine mind, and that is what you are only partly acknowledging in your babbling. You are like a petulant child and Rabbit also finds it hard not to treat you with condescension. You are not building any sort of argument, you are only Dissembling and indulging in shameless Character Assassination. Even this is failing.
It must be hard being a SHILL. Rabbit has seen it before. You have got an impossible task. Keep a lid on something this big, and make it seem natural.
Rabbit sees Nat as like a Girl, who is given the task of camouflaging a Pink Elephant, which has taken up lodging in the living room, after falling through the roof. Nat has been given two Bathtowels and a box of tissues to achieve it and she must somehow do this and keep the guests who may be arriving any minute from looking up and noticing the hole in the roof. Even if she can somehow disguie the elephant, she can’t afford the people looking up and wondering why that hole is in the roof.
Thanks for adding that dimension about the Sneeches, David. It looks like the correct spelling may be Sneetch, although both spellings are used. I don’t remember for sure if they were actually on a beach, but I do remember the feelings the story invoked, even way back then.
It’s true that right as well as left took the test; I did, and I know that Jay did. But I would charachterize our attitude about it as reluctant and skeptical.
It seems to me that being categorized is something that “progressives” hate, even more than most people do, so I was surprised at their apparent eagerness to take such a test.
Just a mild observation, very possibly being devoid of even the slightest bit of validity.
There ain’t nobody here but us Sneeches
There ain’t nobody here at all.
So calm yourself
And stop your fuss
There ain’t nobody here but us.
apologies to Louis Jordan and Dr. Seuss.
Nat, I appreciate knowledge; expertise and experience, professional skill and professional ethics. I don’t assume anyone in a professional position or position of authority necessarily bears any or all of those characteristics. Most everyone in every workplace I’ve ever been in also has a keen awareness on what side their bread is buttered. Manning strikes me as a pretty straight arrow, trying to do his best with what he is given. What he is given is a big emptiness where the evidence is supposed to be and a crap piece of theory (hypothesis really) from the Feds. It most clearly and unambigiously is not a theory he believes. He is very politic in how he says it. I do my own engineering and design work. I completed the AA requirements, but never took a degree. I’m mostly a autodidact. I don’t pretend to expertise for myself, but I have learned to recognize it.
What else don’t you know about anarchism? Besides everything?
The thing I did that was in bad form was to declare at the dinner table my opinion that Martin Luther King, Jr. was
hands down the greatest living American orator. Things went downhill from there.
Manning is not the issue here either Nat, he was presented as an Engineer who represents many others, and he doesn’t accept the government story, draws serious flaws to attention and the fact is that the insulation was in place, that was another red-herring you liars tried on while the plans were still missing to prove otherwsie. All debiunked now..
Now how about facts Natalie, which matter. Do you always try to understand what is going on in a matter by examining the direction birds fly and how the leaves fall? Why cannot we see exactly what it is you take exception to about Griffin’s theories? What Facts has he altered from truth and how has he flown in the face of logic or science?
Rabbit does not think it matters what Griffin had for breakfast, or whether or not everyone agrees with him. What matters is the body of evidence.
Now Rabbit has been busy but will give Nat lots of Important Opinions soon. So she can then ignore this issue and move onto something equally as inane. More tissues Natty more tissues. We can still see this huge elephant, and it’s very pink. Try putting the towels over its head. Don’t worry nobody is looking up yet.
Nat is a Dr Zeus character.
Natty the Batty.
It was noticed that the more deluded one is the more confused by the test results you are. Jay and you are as you say the most confused. You are in GREAT COMPANY there Nat. Jay and Nat agreat team. Jay is definately the brains of the outfit, but Nat has the claws.
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
<i>By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn
Read the article from above posting.
Not you Nat you have other things to worry about.
THE MYSTERY OF THE WTC COLLAPSE
<i>The more one reads about the World Trade Center collapse, the more skeptical they should become of the
From the Conspiracy Channel
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=75
911: Govt-Media Suspends Laws of Physics
by J. McMICHAEL
“.......................................But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of
the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the
official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your
ignorance.
Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html)
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.
Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane’s collision
with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke
continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would
indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still
burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire
with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen
—or
both.
http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58_4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg
But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html).
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled
oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
—200,000 tons of it (see
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
for stats). I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup
onto a plate: you can’t get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying
to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can
get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat
brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but
the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment
you stop.
When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat
stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.
If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take
104 minutes to reach the critical temperature?
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html).
This is an incredibly comprehensive list of sources.
This 911 Research site has a good list with overviews of various sources of interest.
[url=“http://tinyurl.com/bxf6h”]The Collapse of the WTC Not Caused by Jet Fuel
KEVIN RYAN / Underwriters Laboratories 11nov04[/url]
<i>The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team’s report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel
The more….............
<i>We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team’s August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to “rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.” The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building
The link.
Hi all,sorry I’m late. I’ve been reading these posts on and off,I’m a slow reader,I’ve read for around 12 hours,and STILL havent read everything.But I think I have a pretty good feel for the thread….
I’ve been thinking about WHY people refuse to believe anything but the official conspiracy theory,and why certain people defend it so rigorously.
check this out: It’s a bit long but a very interesting read
After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as “conspiracy theory” and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.
So please, bear with me a moment here and let’s apply a little logic to the problem.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word “conspiracy” evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a “conspiracy theorist.” It just isn’t “acceptable.” It’s “un-scientific” or it’s evidence of mental instability. Right? That’s what you are thinking, isn’t it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong “recoil?” After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in “high places” thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves…. .....Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about “conspiracy” in the following way:
“The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, “interest groups,” and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. “Conspiracy,” in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world’s military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world’s most awesome weapons in complete secrecy… [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It’s an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term “national security state” to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America’s military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the U.S. Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the C.I.A. was engaged in a variety of off-the-record “business” activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the C.I.A. with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the C.I.A.. The F.B.I. must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America’s nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America’s nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld’s most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within U.S. borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution… [...]
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
[S]keptics often ask, “Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?” The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don’t hold your breath.
This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection.” [Richard Dolan]
As an atheist, I agree with Moyers about fundamentalism but his moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity is appalling. As a Christian, Moyers should know that the New Testament supersedes the Old as a New Covenant is established with the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the more peaceful example of Jesus
Just at the start of your fist post here KVK, Rabbit just dropping down the page to say this and Hi. Always great to see you, An honest and thoughful “Kid” if ever there was one.
Rabbit is a fast reader, but a thoughful one, often reading a single sentence four or five times while contemplating, so replies will be whenever. Late Monday arvo, Boats cooking in the oven and quite a good time for a Jacks to quieten out the nerves and think a bit. God Squad are the last things on Rabbit’s mind while 911 is always a shadow.
Kaw Valley Kid, Rabbitreading between the lines, suspects you have at least read the words between Mouse and Rabbit. Here is something which might also be of interest.
It is a perspective, a valuable one.
Thanks David and Rabbit for your HTML tips. Much appreciated. Rabbit, the View - Source code particularly clever; never thought yet to try that!!
You know, guys, I have sent off and read those books (usually by the non-Bushite Christians, is the only way I can think of describing them - you know, all those kind who are into conspiracies)... and the DVD… I think it might be the one advertised on conspiracyplanet.com…. it’s got a free DVD about child abuse rings with it - ick! Anyway, it’s very good value for money, glossy too, only cost me a few dollars to have that lot sent to GB… however, since I am so bad at remembering names, I would have to go back and look it up again. I agreed with most of what it said. I was particularly taken by - why no huge jet engines found among debris at Pentagon? Building not high enough to crush engines as may well have happened at WTC. Therefore - Pentagon “aircraft” smaller drone, no??
Has to be!!
Lots of long posts on this thread, though… take me days to plough through the arguments on each page!
Hi Liz, you are welcome.
Rabbit, thank you for the warped history link.
Kaw Valley Kid, thanks for posting the conspracy theory essay.
Liz, there are amongst these many links, a few which cut to the chase, and really make the case, that is the best Rabbit can say and the least.
KVK is ploughing through and is a chapion for this reason, Rabbit who has posted many things a bit carelessly awaits any and all critique from KVK for thgis reason. Rabbit is of the Opinion only that the aircraft which hit the Pentagon, was a smaller jet at least, and was preceded by a missile, or it was pre-comstructed to break the re-inforcing of that particular part of the wall. Therre doesn’t appera to be any reason to believe that it was flight 77, for sure. The most disturbing part of the whole picture is always, and Rabbit dreads the answer, what happened in reality to the Passengers. Sometimes I go to sleep at night wondering and restless about this.
Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! Don’t know who he is but he sounds like a Neo-Nazi… for some reason, some people who hate Bush are - you’d think they’d be the best of pals!
Yes - all this about “White Trash, Black Trash and Brown Trash”... what right has he got to call any group of people, or part of a nation, trash??
Nobody is trash: they are just people with fewer economic opportunities, is all. If Hufschmid understood proper economic theories, ie the left-wing sort, he’d know that!
According to HIM, Australia could be founded on “trash”!!
Oh dear…
I wonder about the passengers, too.
Maybe some of them have ended up on a sort of Witness Protection program… And they’ve been told they’ll be assassinated if they “split”.
Liz wrote:
<i>Hmm, I checked out that erichufschmid.net link you provided a couple of posts above, Rabbit - and I must say I was a bit over-boggled by this one! Don
The story about Barabara Olson turning up alive in Germany or at least on the border, was almost certainly disinfo, the source himslef is possibly a disnfo agent, there are those who suspect so. But it could still have had more to it than has yet cometo light as well. It is not as if the story involving her phonecalls was standing up to any scrutiny after all, and a lot of the Gov’t theory rests on the somewhar contradictory evidence of her calls.
Has Liz seen the interesting paasenger list from the Flight 77? Very high percntage of people who would have had to have known about a lot of what was done to pull off the big day. Surprising number of people who researchers would like to talk to are on that list, if rabbit recalls correctly.
Trying to locate the xact link you referred to, could you re-post it please.
No it is OK, Rabbit found it, yes well it is only an opinion piece, but not altogether a bad article thought I still. Like his argument that truth doesn’t need laws to protect it. In the given context.
Now for some serious opinions which Rabbit feels deserve attention.
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President George W. Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the 110-storey twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001 is ‘bogus’, saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. According to Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX: “If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.” Reynolds who is now a professor at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s ‘next to impossible’ that the supposed 19 Arab terrorists outfoxed the mighty U.S. military. He added that the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.
This is a good artccle and Rabbit has referred to it before. Natalie should enjoy attacking Mr Reynolds.
............................more
Morgan Reynolds further states: “Getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because American explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11. From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard-pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation. Critics say the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11. Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
—Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.
—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
—New York fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw.—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that “none of the fire chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”
—Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
—The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
—WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
—WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
—In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that “maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”, slang for demolish it.
—It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. There is no hard evidence to fully substantiate the official theory since the structural steel was quickly removed before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, the government had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place. And even more doubt is cast over why the Bush Administration acted so swiftly, since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II”. Besides the quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.
There is more than the one issue here, but it has the above article in full too.
This is also on the above link.
9/11 Aircraft Parts as a Clue to Their Identity
<i>The following article is by George Nelson, Former American Air Force Official that appeared in the opinion column of Tehran Times on Wednesday, September 21, concerning the highly suspicious aircraft that plowed into New York
Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11, 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts. United Airlines Flight 93: This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four supposedly Arab hijackers who had allegedly taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field. Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have been literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the US government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.
American Airlines Flight 11: This flight was reported by the US government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had allegedly hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings. Again, the US government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175: This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC. Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77: This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, it would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment at this crash site within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
Last bit coming up.
Conclusion: The US government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of about 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode. With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the US government’s 9/11 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle. As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in their own country’s history.
Neither of these people mentioned Griffin…..................... Natalie…............................if you are still around.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.
Neither of these people mentioned Griffin…..................... Natalie…............................if you are still around.
You’re the one who mentioned Griffin, Rabbit, first. I only addressed him per your accusations that I ignore what you present. I’m amused that you apparently now wish to wash your hands of him. Am I reading you wrong on this? These people may not have mentioned Griffin, but did Griffin mention them? I would guess that he probably has. Not that it matters, of course. “Even if Griffin was on LSD when he wrote his book, it still wouldn’t change anything.” I think you may be on to something there.
Of course these are not witnesses either, but their opinions are of consequence thinks the Rabbit.
Opinions? What of FACTS now? First you jettison Griffin and now you embrace opinions?
Check that. Actually, it looks like Reynolds mentions Griffin a lot.
Like nine times in this article alone.
“I was never attacked by the press, but, on the other hand, the administration didn’t let me out that much.” .... Morgan Reynolds
Please tell me you just didn’t realize what you were looking at. Please tell me you’re not trusting information posted on this website.
This is strangely reminiscent of citing studies by scientists in Saddam controlled Iraq claiming a rash of birth defects was due to what else…..Depleted Uranium.
Picky little electrons, aren’t they?
Depleted Uranium.
Well what do you know you got that right.
What does it proove?
Rabbit thought you might have sailed with the Radioactive Ship of State, so you want to stay here and give us an object lesson in professional diversionary tactics.
The following is indeed a mention of Griffin, has Natalie any answers to these questions?
<i>Griffin (pp. 25
The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of “softening”; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
Photos and videos of the collapses all show “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions” along floors (blast sequences).
According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in “hot spots” that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on “access control” and as security specialist Wayne Black says, “When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything.” Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush
<i>Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001
Watch out liz, she is a bat, but
NOT a nice MOONBAT.
A bad Vampire Bat.
Back soon.
What NataLIE doesn’t realize,is MOST of the “working class” public here in the U.S. KNOW the Official version is a bunch of crap.Its common knowledge sweetie.Yep,those of us that work out in the real world KNOW how things work,how things burn how they fall, we that lay our hands on the world around us KNOW the nature of things.What we don’t know is what to do about it!the Office workers and Lawyers and such are the ones who are still fooled.Also, those that want to believe so badly in the american dream(lie)!The elderly,who can’t imagine good ole Uncle Sam being involved in such a thing. Yep,we KNOW, and we are VERY scared! Were not scared of “them danged terrorist"Like were supposed to be,we know that is crap too.Well it was before the evil PNAC neocons running things invaded Iraq,giving the entire Muslim community reason to hate America and possibly Become terrorists!And please don’t confuse the insurgents for terrorists,they are fighting off an invasion! If we are there to bring democracy and freedom,then both they and we are paying a mighty high price!Yes WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOW ! Thousands upon thousands upon millions KNOW! go tell your handlers the word is out!The one thing you shills have going is all that glorious torture propaganda.All the worker bees are scared to death they will be swooped up in the night if they Start talking about it.But rest assured WE KNOW,yes and we ARE talking to each other,and our wifes and kids ARE those office workers and Lawyers and watresses and such.Are all learning the truth too You can run but you can’t hide!Yes Yes, and we are telling our parents and grand parents too!the house of cards is falling falling,WE see through the LIES. Have a nice evening.
KVW, you move me to song, man. To Natalie. May she have ears to hear, and eyes to see.
<blockquote>Across The Borderline
(ry cooder/john hiatt/james dickinson)
There
Let’s get back to Kevin Ryan, shall we? Rabbit, do you have anything more on this guy other than what he has contributed with his now omnipresent email? He seems to have gone underground since he was fired. Why does he not exercise his strength of conviction and speak out? There’s money to be made! Could it be that he was just a low-level flunky that worked for a mere division of UL and had no real connection with the investigation UL proper was contributing to and simply decided to take advantage of the fact that he was technically an employee of the visible and notable UL?
I’m not sure exactly why you left out the following two paragraphs of his email. Could it be becaue you knew they would call into question Ryan’s credibility and bias?:
“There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or <b>we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and
Griffin is not a central player he is one of many. He is just the one of at least a hundred equally or even more respected people who you have decided to latch onto like the Fat Blood Sucking Leech, I mean Vampire you are.
You Natalie have a history of attacking individuals, as a way forwrd when you have NOTHING of substance to give up.
Since Nobody is biting on the character assasinations, Rabbit aint and nor is anybody else, you might as well pack it in. Rabbit has many thousands more words of far more import than a SINGLE personality in the 911 truth movement.
So far all you do is say a man’s name and keep on repeating that in itself is an attack. You have been and are being told to grow up, get some serious facts which are being misrepresented or explain where the facts are being interpreted wrongly. You are of course only do this to try and keep the witness reports out of it, and you have never shown you comprhend the fact that a suicide bomber cannot be still alive and called a suicide bomber. There are seven such out of the “official” conspiracy theory list of nineteen.
Don’t start blathering on about Ryan. If you doubt him and who he is, how about YOU look it up and prove something for a change, you are gutless, and sleazy as hell, Nat, Rabbit doesn’t even think of you as a female anymore, you are a terrible, mishapen beast, a lover of death and hatred and a nasty little dirt slinging gutter snipe is what you are.
You are a SHILL, NOBODY on this site doubts it, you couldn’t hide it if you tried, you are so onviously the official in house Shill. This is different from trolls, trolls are amateurs and always have a quirk or two, Shills are towing the line, manning the trenches, in it for the long haul. There were other issues with which a Shill could have been enticed from Depleted Uranium priority numero uno with the Big House of Murder and Mayhem, but this was it, you gave it away on the DU thread, when you started adding the Missile theory of the Pentagon to your gratuitous attacks on somebody else, Rabbit cannot remember who now. (See Natty that is how unimportant these individuals are to the overall truth. You are so busy trying to defend your one gate, but you can’t do anything about the fact that there is no fence connected to either side. Truth is as assessible as it gets, and anybody who has reached this point on the internet, (with a few exceptions WTH and Jay) knows how this is so. You don’t even have any real lies with the official theory, because it is based on almost NOTHING. No evidence has been produced and all the most important evidence is witheld or known to blatantly contradict the OFFIAL LIE. If you don’t mind Natalie, I think we have come far enougfh that we needn’t fool ourselves any longer. the Offical theory is not even believed by half of Americans. Now let’s face it Natty Americans will believe almost anything, if is is shown on TV, and yet they still don’t believe it, for reasons eloquently outlined by the Kid from Kaw Valley. .......You ain’t foolin de people mon. ........The rest of the world is not even close to half convinced, most individuals and many governments even have expressed disbelief.
Now that Nat is your starting point. You actually only belong to a minimum of people who don’t laugh the official story out of court. That group includeds all the most inform3ed and intelligent people, this site is a typical example but you can find a similar mix of a minimum of people from almost idiot to half an clue, who push the official line and poorly against huge odds. The other side is invariably made up of the top three quarters of society as far as brains and ability to reason are concerned. The odds on the net are about ten to one against anbody being a believer of the LIE actually and therefore rabbit is allowing for the fact that the majority of people who believe the lie are not even on the internet.
Natty you ask why rabbit brought Bill Manning into the debate, and yet it has already been pointed out to you. He does obviously not accept the official explanation and he is especially critical about the way the things was COVERED UP, because there is no other word for disposing of “All” the evidence of a crime before an investigation. The reason natty since you have forgotten, is because the ONLY THING Rabbit is doing in this phase of your destruction is destrying the Official Lie. The other theories are entered into because the same evidence which destroys the official lie is what unfailingly gives rise to some other theories. there is no way of looking at some things, without concluding the official lie is just that, a LIE.
The rate of fall of the buildings is proof in itself that the buildings could not have been brought done by the offiical LIE. Gravity alone could not do it and that is Physics, we’ve been there and even you affected the belief that Gravity is too complicated for ordinary mortals to understand, that did not make it so. You just came off as you usually do, as an incredibly dense and stubborn person with a fixation disrupting an intelligent train of dicussion. It is only because it is mildly amusing annoying someone like you with the TRUTH, because it does annoy you, that I bother with you. You cannot hold back the flood, as KVK indicates. You cannot convince anybody of anything, because you have NO facts to offer in defence. You ahve a Fairy story, which is laughable, and looking more so daily. You cannot even back it up without emotion and sweeping statements without reference to anything except the same small bundle of re-cycled report which ahs been thoroughly debunked here and everywhere it has been examined.
You need to address the serious issues and stop the character picking, coming from you a character slur sounds like a pretty fair compliment about someone’s decency and honesty. Rabbit never took too much notice of Griffin before but since Natty recommends him so highly it looks like Rabbit shall have to purchase his book. Not that Rabbit needs it, but Books are the best way to teach the older generation who are not on the NET, and Rabbit has lots of contact with lots of people, of all generations. Rabbit is in contact with dozens of people a week and many people come back a couple of times, Rabbit talks a lot and loans books to people too. Griffin must have written a pretty good book, thankyou for recommending him so warmly. Rabbit cannot afford too many books Natty, so don’t go attacking too many more people, just stick to the most important ones on your list, there won’t you, Natty.
You are so right, Rabbit. I am a beast. Check out my author number for confirmation.
Gosh, I thought you’d be in a little better mood, what with getting a new computer and all. Being an equal opportunity consumer, I patronize the good liberals at Apple, finding that their operating system provides very near total immunity from such worrisome things as viruses, worms, spyware, adware and outside hacking, even from “In These Times”. But that’s another topic.
You realize, of course, that if your case actually gets to trial, all the WITNESSES you’ve been talking about are going to have to stand up to intense scrutiny. The mere pittance that I am able to dig up is microscopic compared to what will be discovered by professional researchers. Instead of spewing inacurate albeit entertaining insults at me, I would suggest that you might actually THANK me for giving you a small preview of what to expect if the time comes that your theories actually have their day in court.
I know it doesn’t matter, because even if I were to discredit ALL of your sources and witnesses, (I know, I haven’t touched them…evidenced by your calm and polite reactions) the World Trade Center was STILL intentionally destroyed by the American Government. I’ve come to realize that this is a faith, a religion, an unshakable fundamental belief among those such as yourself, and to expect that you would see otherwise would be like asking Pat Roberson to become an athiest.
Even though it doesn’t matter, here is the letter of support Mr. Reynolds recieved from his friends at the University:
Texas A&M
So it looks like the report:
“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.” Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, “It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7”.
....might be a little suspect considering Reynolds apparently doesn’t have an office at Texas A&M. I would suggest that someone bragging about an impressive office that he doesn’t really have is an indicator of someone prone to further misrepresentations or shall we say creative thinking.
Now we know that many people think that there’s things about 9/11 that are suspicious, and certainly even I have questions about some aspects, as many people do after any extraordinary event…..JFK assassination, attack on Pearl Harbor, going to the Moon or Mars, the Germans murdering millions of Jews, Saddam Hussein murdering hundreds of thousands of his beloved citizens, etc, etc.
But as I’ve asked you before…....Is there an American poll that is specific as to whether or not one believes that the WTC was intentionally brought down by explosives? If there is one, please post it. Until you do, and that poll results in a majority believing the murder theory, painting me as being in some kind of minority is just so much….creative thinking.
“at least a hundred qualified people”
Who are the two or even four most qualified people that you would put up as witnesses if the janitor trial is heard?
I hunger.
Collapse time
Natalie the actual Facts Rabbit is not going to play your personal attack Shill games anymore, because it is only Dissemling. You don’t have an moral stance from which to preach to others. You are the most morally corrupt person on this site, and we have the history to prove it. A professional liar is no good without a good lie, so you have to stick to Avoidance which isn’t going down. You have been allowed to swriggle a bit up to now, Rabbit has indulged your petty points, none of which contribute to anything even if you had anything. Every examination of your petty points usually yeilded an even stronger case that the offial lie is kaput. The best result any of your queries could give is a neutral result. You need more than that. You will not be indulged anymore. You will answer the issues raised in order of Priority. That means HOW SIGNIFICANT the issue is.
There is an American Poll, it has been posted already among the many you ignored.
That Texas A&M link tells us nothing of importance Natalie. Why post it? There is no actual statement of import challenged by trhis and even if Reynold said he had an officem which is not indicated, so what? Sorry Nat, the letter, which Rabbit shall take at face value, it may be false, or only one opinion, but Rabbit doesn’t care. It doesn’t change anything, and the conclusion of the letter is not even scientific. It is the sort of emotional garbage you thrive on. Actually I want more proof that the persona nd letter you just posted is who he says he is. That was not the letter of an educated or scientific mind. It also seemed to be written under coercion, from the look of that last line. So now it’s your turn. Reynolds didn’t claim anything wrong which I can see, but I don’t trust that letter you just posted anyway.
Anyway Natty what about the ex German defence minister? Want to put some dirt on him, knock yourself out.
The Collapse time link you provided is called a Disinfo site, it is not not factually accurate. More about it shortly. It is a government sponsored site and set up specifically for the use of SHILLS like Natalie. The collapses have been given coverage and there is no doubt about them. They are visible clearly in REAL time on many copies of videos. You are sprteading red-herrings and that is all. The issue is covered above for any who wish to check.
register a new account »Posting Security