Americans love a conspiracy. According to a May 17 Zogby poll, 42 percent believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge—either for good (think gods) or evil (think Bush insiders plotting 9/11). Many people prefer to believe a Procrustean… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1979)THE ZOMBIE TERRORISTS
The manner in which banal circumstances mutate into shadowy mysteries under such conditions is evident in an odd story that caused Mzoudi’s attorney Rosenthal to engage in some speculation in court: the news that at least six of the alleged hijackers were supposedly alive and their voices were being broadcast live through various media outlets several days after the attacks.
On September 12th, a seventh man supposedly contacted his father. His name was Mohammed Atta. Atta Senior, a Cairo attorney, hasn’t heard anything from his son since then, and is convinced that he has been murdered by US killers. Whether or not it includes Atta, to self-proclaimed alternative investigators the zombie terrorist theory serves as key evidence of shady machinations on the part of US authorities.
“This,” say Bröckers and his co-author Andreas Hauß in what the blurb on the jacket calls a “meticulously” researched book, “has ... far-reaching consequences for the entire case, because it makes it entirely unclear as to who actually piloted the aircraft.”
Just how shaky this line of argumentation is becomes evident in a statement just three lines farther down the page. “We,” write the authors, “did not contact and personally interview them, nor have they been interviewed by anyone else recently.” The authors continue to state that it is quite possible that the undead are now in fact dead. In the authors’ opinions, if these men are alive, it must be perfectly understandable that someone who “is being accused of several thousand acts of murder” is likely to be in hiding “and unavailable for interviews.”
Bröckers and Hauß spend fifteen pages making their version of a tale of suicide assassins seem plausible. Bülow does the same thing in five pages. However, a few telephone calls are all it takes to destroy their zombie theories. What these investigative journalists should have done was to spend a little time listening to those whom they cite as “reputable” sources for their arguments. Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. “No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time,” he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: “That’s ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago.”
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called “survivors,” but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
cont…..
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 7:56 AM Batgirl you are also implying we must Imagine that Islamofacsists were responsible for 9/11. Without any proof this was so, and lacking even sufficient evidence for the FBI to charge him, this alos becomes an act of faith Natalie. That it is a whole lot of imagining you are asking us to do to try and support something which is supposed to be an officially sanctioned conclusion. Isn’t that just a whisper away from Faith, or even the same thing?
Rabbit has earned the right to ignore the moronic drivel of the undead Scorpse, he cannot dent Rabbit’s batle ship of truth and logic. I can easily lose half the things presented in my case and still have vastly more evidence for it than the official faith based story.
Your own words are dripping with self Irony Natty and it’s a pity you can’t enjoy the effect from where rational people stand. Its quite comical.
You ask me to imagine, you present debateable theories and make huge leaps of faith above all. You expect us to suspend the physical laws of the universe, ignore the evidence of our eyes and our ears. You expectm us to believe one thing for the first half of your fantasies, such as incredible luck and amazing co-incidences and another for the other part, unmatched planning and skills.
Everything you say, what little isn’t just pure prevarication and false claims made about sources you don’t even read or think we won’t, just would diminish a single solitary piece of evidence without ever once breaking the consistency and weight of the evidence amassed for our case. Like I say we could drop half the evidence and still have a very string case, proveable in itself even.
You on the other hand stand in the exact opposite position. You have nothing to lose, since you have nothing beyond speculation, and theory. Even about who did it or why. You have no factually based answers to any of this and what you propose is contradictory. You must build a case from scratch. So far you have a strong faith based comittment to a farcical scenario, which though it is historically enough to form a religion, it won’t convince us in this instance.
On the basis of his work and posting on the subject to date the rabbit feels entitled to ignore any more paltry requests for justification from a confused mental cripple like Corpse or a retarded moral vacuum like Natalie.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 24, 2006 at 7:59 AM pt. 2…...
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, “all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we’re dealing with are coincidentally identical names.” In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are “as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain.”The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of assassins.
Samman remembers his big story well. “That was a wonderful story,” he says. And that’s all it was. It had nothing to do with the version made up of Brockers’ and Bulow’s combined fantasies.
“The problem,” says Samman, “was that after the first FBI list had been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some point received official flight training in the United States.”
After Samman’s story was reported by the news agencies, he was contacted by CNN. “I gave them Ghamdi’s telephone number. The CNN people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said al-Ghamdi.”
When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI’s list of photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: “The Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke.”
The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this name. Brockers and Haub even noticed that the FBI had initially released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly suggests that there was a mix-up, but it’s also something that the conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.
In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari, the truth is even more obvious. At least Bulow had the opportunity to avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged assassin Shari “lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc.”
If Bulow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What’s a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.
Oh my mymarkx, don’t tell me you’re fourteen too!! Is this what I have to look forward to in another six years? (my son…..he’s…...eight now)
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:00 AM OK, Rabbit. I suspected you wouldn’t be able to suspend fantasy long enough to contemplate reality.
Sleep on it, perhaps. Take a walk on the beach. Ask yourself this simple question, over and over:
What if all those professional engineers are right and lil ‘ol average Joe me is wrong?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:09 AM Natalie
Natalie there is more than Jone’s scientific analysis of the Thermite residues, liar liar pants on fire.
MyMarkx
Natalie has long since been shown the proof of the living hijackers and conceded it. She then claimed that this just meant they used false IDs.
Which brings us the full circle, back to the second fake OBL admissionn tape which named all nineteen as per the official list and the lack of video evidence or even an appearance on the original passenger lists of their names.
Can anyone say cockup?
What if all those professional engineers are right and lil ‘ol average Joe me is wrong
Natalie I am supposing all those professional engineers, especially the non government employed ones, are right. Their opinions are quite good enough for me, and the science isn’t hard to understand and I do anyway. The opinions of the officially employed few, by far the minority of voices who are publically supporting either theory, are to me and any thinking person, irrelevant. Especially when the best they can muster is qualified theories which we can verify are based upon the selective censorship of important and certain facts.
So on the basis of an unbroken, interlocking chain of evidence, and supported by the preponderance of scholarly and qualified and independent commenters on the subject, the rabbit is going with 3 times controlled demolitions simultaneous with a crew of prepared patsies but overseen by the inimitable NeoCon/ MOSSAD connection. That’s got my vote and presumably of the population on this thread, not counting the undead.
The lagomorph jury is out about the Pentagon, but believe it is this aspect which involves most false disinfo as well as far reaching conclusions. Some very substantial actions have apparently been taken by units of one or two branches of the Armed services, but to what extent the speculation available is to be believed is harder to decide upon than the simple WTC collapses.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:11 AM First they told us it was Osama bin Laden.
Now they say it wasn’t Osama bin Laden.
Okay, so they made a mistake. Anybody can make a mistake.
Just because there was one case of mistaken identity, doesn’t necessarily mean that there were others.
Oh, but they’ve admitted that some of the torture victims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were also cases of mistaken identity.
Okay, just because there were many cases of mistaken identity, doesn’t necessarily mean that there were also a few more than they’ve admitted to.
But it does mean that they do make mistakes, they have made mistakes, they admit to having made mistakes, so it is possible that they made mistakes.
The FBI admitted to having known about some of the supposed hijackers before 9/11. I guess they made a mistake in not pursuing those investigations. Or in not heeding warnings from other countries. Or in not translating other warnings in time.
Somehow, I don’t have much faith in people who could make so many mistakes. In fact, in a wild leap of deductive reasoning, I think they’re actually capable of making mistakes.
But I don’t expect them to ever catch the people behind 9/11 or the anthrax killer. Their top priority is catching bunny lovers and tree huggers, people who have caused property damage but have never harmed an animal or a human. So the FBI’s goal must be to protect property, not people. In fact, if you kill people, they probably won’t direct as many resources at going after you as they will if you try to save animals from torture or trees from clearcutting. If all you do is kill people, they don’t seem to see you as a priority. Maybe they identity with people who kill people because they also do wet jobs. People who kill people must be the FBI’s friends and natural allies, just as people who try to stop torture and the destruction of the environment are their enemies. Even so, they still can’t be seen as very efficient or competent, as 9/11 didn’t just kill people, it also destroyed a lot of property. Maybe the reason ALF and ELF are top priorities is that they’ve destroyed property that wasn’t fully insured? That the owners didn’t want destroyed yet because they weren’t ready to collect on the insurance?
I’m really grateful to be able to idly speculate like this. Because at this very moment the FBI could be making a mistake that could obliterate my entire city. A mistake like going after tree huggers instead of after real terrorists. Some people have even speculated that the explanation is that the FBI might actually BE the real terrorists. That really terrifies me. I’d prefer to think they were just incompetent.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:27 AM You know it always amuses me to think that no matter how much the Gnat scrabbles away at trying to make something of the existence of these alleged hijackers, she cannot take such a thing beyond first base anyway.
So what if there were these magic arabs? It is known that some of them had connections to US intelligence and others lived on the same road as a number of Israeli intelligence operatives who were rounded up and expelled at the same time.
It is known that they were known about but the information always supressed. The flight schools and training is as closely linked with the military as the other great co-incidence of the proximity of the magic arabs to the MOSSAD agents, the removalists and art merchants.
It is known that all lacked any but the most rudimentary flying skills and couldn’t probably even turn a heavy jetliner, let alone fly it like a fighter plane.
Even then it doesn’t matter whether or not the nineteen patsies were in place, I’m sure some were or someone else like them. I suspect the reason that none of them were filmed getting on the planes (I assume they were not for they will not let us see any footage showing them getting on planes) is the same as the reason that none of them had their names on the passenger lists. A typical signature Neocon screwup. They bypassed the normal arangements to get these guys onboard in the first place, and they probably were armed with more than boxcutters in this case. Thus no names on lists, no video, and the need to toss a passport at the feet of some Kojak who was looking skyward at the time.
This would be entirely consistent with the scenario, and nothing about the explosive demolition contention is reliant in any way upon the means or manner in which the jets were commandeered to be flown into the buildings. That they did fly in is self evident. Exactly which jets in each case cannot be known with certainty and there is some genuine reasons to doubt the identities of at least two of the jets. Not one thing but several interlocking bits of evidence what is more. Witnesses and Video footage which suggest that different planes than those proposed were involved, and then the co-incidence of the weirdness with the de-registration detailed above. Even the fact that some evidence exists that one or more of these same planes was reported landing at a cleveland airport and evacuating its passengers into a secure facility.
The existence of some sort of magic arab diversion is not in dispute in an over arching sense. Rabbit frankly accepts it in principle. He doubts that any of the players in fact were directly related to OBL, beyond in a capacity as double agent. Even the involvment of OBL would not put a spanner in the works since we already know he is in every sense connected directly to the Bush family and is both created and to all intents and purposes controlled by the Bushling regime.
The controlled demolition contention is beyond being called a theory and can be used at least provisionally I feel. It earns this right more than some cockeyed mumbo jumbo with nothing but musings and faith to back it.
This fact exists independently of any Magic Arabs, or any means actually employed to get the planes to their targets, or which planes exactly did what, and where. The question has often been asked well what about the passengers, when we consider plane substitution.
I am surprised that anyone would be naive enough to even ask this at this stage. These people have gleefully and enthusiastically slaughtered close to a half million people and poisoned and maimed many more and you doubt they would baulk at killing another plane load or two more? They were already pulling off the controlled demos of the three towers, maiking mega bucks for Larry Silverstein and getting a big button to start any war they could think of almost, why worry about a couple hundred more?
Rabbit would not be surprised if many of those passengers might have ended up as guinea pigs in secret science experiments or something. Nothing would be too evil for these baby gobbling monsters in power no act too depraved. They jacked each other off in a coffin with a bunch of other rich perverts watching in debauched ceremonies as teenagers, they grew up in a society where Necrophilia and beastiality are adventures, rites of passage even. They don’t consider that any reality exists but the one they decree and pay to have spun.
In every important respect they, like you their eminent shill are wrong.
They are not more deserving, they are certainly not more intelligent or more competent. They are not better and they are not special in any way, beyond the fact they are the most loathesome dregs of the worst plague of racial degeneracy ever to encumber the human race. Their time is nearing its end, they are self consuming and incapable of building anything which lasts.
Power is not a thing which lasts longer than one takes to use it…......
Their lies like their empires will all be swept away in the end.
We know the story from here on in, we’ve been here before.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 24, 2006 at 9:11 AM Rabbit.
Have you started talking to the writer, Terry Allen?
Who will arrest the Fox anchors?
Posted by Diggins on Jul 24, 2006 at 9:33 AM Im really grateful to be able to idly speculate like this. Because at this very moment the FBI could be making a mistake that could obliterate my entire city. A mistake like going after tree huggers instead of after real terrorists. Some people have even speculated that the explanation is that the FBI might actually BE the real terrorists. That really terrifies me. Id prefer to think they were just incompetent.
Sleep with one eye open, perhaps. Stay away from trees as well, just to be on the safe side.
You really didn’t know that the “hijackers still alive” story was a myth, did you?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 9:49 AM I fail to see the relevance of the Amsterdam flat crash, wiley. Are you trying to say that because this structure didn’t totally collapse, it somehow means that the WTC towers shouldn’t have?
This was only a nine or ten story structure, obviously of completely different construction. Firefighters were on the scene immediately, and were likely able to reach the fire, even at the top. Actually, the part where the plane crashed into the building did collapse, or so it seems from the picture. The plane was certainly going very slow, as it wasn’t piloted by brainwashed islamic murderers.
The WTC towers had lightweight steel truss construction, and were nearly a quarter mile high. They were hit at 4-5 hundred miles per hour because the planes were piloted by brainwashed islamic murders. The fires were not accessible to firefighters. The insulation on the trusses, probably on multiple floors, was knocked off, or was flakey to begin with. Uninsulated steel fails.
What exactly are the big mysteries in all this?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 9:52 AM “Rabbit would not be surprised if many of those passengers might have ended up as guinea pigs in secret science experiments or something.”
I was thinking maybe that’s what happened to Jimmy Walter.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 10:01 AM “Even then it doesn’t matter whether or not the nineteen patsies were in place, I’m sure some were or someone else like them. I suspect the reason that none of them were filmed getting on the planes (I assume they were not for they will not let us see any footage showing them getting on planes.”
That’s the way it works, isn’t it? One of your myths is totally debunked and the response invariably is: “It doesn’t matter”Who’s really operating on faith here?
I seem to remember lots of footage of at least some of them getting on planes. Was I dreaming? Let me guess…..it was all faked by…..uh…..Norm Manetta!
“Natalie has long since been shown the proof of the living hijackers and conceded it. She then claimed that this just meant they used false IDs.”
First of all, what proof? More reports from a few days after 9/11? I don’t think I ever conceded anything relating to live hijackers. My question when you brought it up was why haven’t we seen video or even any pictures of these guys, who would surely want to clear their names.
Shortly after, I found proof that the whole thing was a big mixup, and that the stories coming out so soon after 9/11 were simply, and perhaps understandably mistaken.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 10:20 AM Nat spat:
>The fires were not accessible to firefighters.
So why did the lying mainstream media tell us that two of the firefighters had reached the fires, said that they were small and controllable, and asked that hoses be brought up?
>Thats the way it works, isnt it? One of your myths is totally debunked and the response invariably is: It doesnt matter
No, the way it works is that when several of YOUR fantasies are totally debunked, Nat, your response invariably is, “It doesn’t matter.”
With hurricane Katrina in New Orleans FEMA demonstrated complete ineptitude. With 9/11 our country’s air defenses failed totally. Our military appears bogged down in Iraq. The FBI still hasn’t caught the anthrax killer. The only way you can say that this isn’t one of the most evil regimes in history, is to say that it is one of the most incompetent. But if they’re so incompetent, how come they’re all so rich?
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 24, 2006 at 4:10 PM “The FBI still hasn’t caught the anthrax killer.”
paging Dr. Zack
the FBI would like to speak with you about your actions before you were fired from the anthrax lab.
it has come to their attention you entered the lab after you were let go.
Posted by Diggins on Jul 24, 2006 at 4:17 PM So why did the lying mainstream media tell us that two of the firefighters had reached the fires, said that they were small and controllable, and asked that hoses be brought up?
If they are liars, then apparently firefighters didn’t reach the fires, and the firefighters actually didn’t say anything about the fires, and they didn’t ask for any hoses. The firefighter in question didn’t reach the upper stories until late in the game, and the particular zone that he was in certainly didn’t represent the multi-floor inferno as a whole.
No, the way it works is that when several of YOUR fantasies are totally debunked, Nat, your response invariably is, “It doesnt matter.”
Still smarting about those zombie hijackers I see, to the point of demonstrating symptoms of projection.
With hurricane Katrina in New Orleans FEMA demonstrated complete ineptitude. With 9/11 our countrys air defenses failed totally. Our military appears bogged down in Iraq. The FBI still hasn’t caught the anthrax killer. The only way you can say that this isn’t one of the most evil regimes in history, is to say that it is one of the most incompetent. But if theyre so incompetent, how come theyre all so rich?
Putting aside the fact that most of this is about as true as hijackers still being alive, how does this in any way shape or form even begin to commence to prove the CD theory? Or, as I suspect, is it simply a lot of angry emoting that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. There hasn’t been an administration in the history of the Republic that hasn’t had its share of problems and controversies, and each and every one of them could quite easily be framed in such a way as to portray it as the most evil, or if it’s convenient, the most incompetent regime in history.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:02 PM Oh, Natalie, I’m not presenting any arguments or “evidence”. I’d rather have a bat tattoed on my ass than to “argue” or “debate” with you.
I was giving the other guys food for thought. You do understand life outside of constructing “arguments” and the futililty of “proving” something with them, don’t you? You apparently aren’t very persuasive, but a few people really enjoy picking through your buckets of weasel words and making sure that the challenges to the official story are still alive and kicking.
This editing option is great, btw.
Posted by wileywitch on Jul 24, 2006 at 8:43 PM “Oh, Natalie, Im not presenting any arguments or evidence.......I was giving the other guys food for thought.”
I suspected not, but I thought I’d check, just to be sure there wasn’t more beneath the surface. I see you were just feeding the skeptoids. Marky certainly gobbled up what you tossed him.
Any more yummy morsels?
Hmm…..that tatoo idea…...I like it!! (for me, I mean)
Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 9:43 PM Natalie
That’s the way it works, isn’t it? One of your myths is totally debunked and the response invariably is: “It doesn’t matter”
Rabbit shall try and use simple words for you poor bat. You are clearly only firing on two cylinders here. No it isn’t the way it works. The theorising about the hijackings is an entirely independent matter, from the collapses of the buildings, that my dear is simple logic. Say it over in your mind a few times, see if you can understand the meaning of the words in that order. How exactly the planes came to do what they did, is not part of the interlocking chain of evidence which proves quite convincingly that the buildings were brought down with explosives. You would try and find a red herring in a a packet of crisps my girl.
Who’s really operating on faith here?
You are Natalie, in case you forgot.
You are operating entirely upon faith. A faith so extreme you cannot even face your own profound errors, you skip nimbly past a string of contradictions and keep claiming your fairy tale is impregnable..
Your fairy tale has yet to gather a shred of convincing evidence, how much more hopeless can a case be?
Its a faith based fairy tale Batgirl, and it isn’t convincing anyone in case you have not noticed. Notice how people keep coming along and mentioning how they have realised the truth, or have learnt important new truth about 9/11 on this thead? Poor Natalie has still only got a church of one (Excluding the Corpse, of course), despite lots of faith. Come on people, Natalie has enough faith for you all, why doesn’t someone join Natalie’s church of the Magic Arabs? You just have to shut your eyes and think happy thoughts and then up up and away, you’ll be right beside Natalie in Never Never Land.
A Bat tattoed on your ass Natalie? Tell your rabbit, would it be a large Bat or a small Bat? How much canvas are we talking about here? You have so many metaphorical bruises on that ass my dear that I would have thought tatoos would be out of the question anyway. You should choose something more appropriate if you do, like a Deaths Head Skull with a Radiation warning over it..
Why do you even try to twist Wiley’s words to be some sort of neutrality or support for you even? You know the Witch is ours, and she loves you the same way we all do. Which is not at all.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 4:34 AM Now looking at your attempts to debunk the living Hijackers story.
Natalie, neither the first link nor the second are credited in such a way that they discredit the BBC report or the several other independent reports in other media which showed some of the hijackers to be alive.
You have failed to debunk this story, I can tell you outright. You are even coming off as a nut for still trying to do so. Compare the massively referenced articles the rabbit links to, with the mostly spurious rants without corroborating verification of anything, which Natalie relies on.
Now that site seems to be vastly more referenced and relevant to the surviving alleged Hijackers story than anything you are peddling, Batgirl.
I do hope you are not still taking that story about nineteen arabs armed with boxcutters and an acme learn to fly manual, as anything more than a myth now Natalie?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 4:54 AM Here’s a link to a page that has photos, quotes, and video links to major military and intelligence experts, and other respected people now voicing concern of possible U.S. government involvement in 9/11.
http://www.v911t.org/911MythWebsite.php
You just scroll down to the expert of your choice, click on the picture or the box, and it takes you right to the video. Enjoy!
Uh, Nat, you might want to check it out also, just to see the sort of folks you’ve been trying so unsuccessfully to disparage.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 25, 2006 at 4:59 AM “The theorising about the hijackings is an entirely independent matter, from the collapses of the buildings, that my dear is simple logic”
If these two aspects are so independent, why then is the theory that there were no hijackers so often invoked in conjunction with arguing for the presence of bombs in the buildings? Why is it that virtually all the truthies regularly knit stories of a well planned conspiracy, from the misinterpreted statements of the PNAC to the mythical stand-down to the invasion of Iraq, in order to advance the fantasy about bombs?
Could it be, perhaps, because it’s so laughably silly to imagine that our government actually conspired with the likes of Atta and Hanjor to fly their planes according to our instructions, and thereby the tempation is to simply deny the very existance of the hijackers?
No, there is a definite and undeniable connection here.
I didn’t bring up the supposed nonexistance of the hijackers. You did, and Marky did, in an effort to support bombs in the buildings:
Great picture, Wileywitch. Obviously, buildings which are more sturdily constructed with the specific intention that they would be able to withstand plane crashes, like the WTC towers, are less apt to remain standing than buildings, like that Amsterdam apartment complex, that are not. But only in Nats fantasy land.
As for blaming 9/11 on Islamic extremists, the FBI has disbanded the unit investigating Osama bin Laden because they found no evidence connecting him to 9/11. So it wasnt Al Queda. As for the supposed 19 hijackers, several of them are still alive...
————————
“How exactly the planes came to do what they did, is not part of the interlocking chain of evidence which proves quite convincingly that the buildings were brought down with explosives.”
LIke I said…...it doesn’t matter…...does it?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:24 AM Nice one MyMarkx
You do realise Natalie cannot take any of these people seriously, they are all obviously Bush haters.
By the way wasn’t it interesting to note the craven attempts to use Doug’s age against him when the Batgirl believed he is fourteen? Says a lot about our Bat that does.
If one is crippled by Depleted Uranium poisoning by Nat’s reasoning that makes your testimony invalid because you would thus be biased.
If one is not a Physicist then you cannot understand gravity is another of her conditions and of course if you are accusing the Bush administration of complicity in 911, then your opinion as a physicist is of no relevance, you are a Bush hater.
Natalie’s rules for acceptance of testimony.
1) Anybody who is a Bush hater has an interest in lying and cannot be believed.
2) Only officially qualified people can understand anything, for example, if you are not a plumber you cannot be expected to understand why the sink is blocked.
3) Anybody who questions the official story is a Bush hater. (see rule 1.)
4) Anybody who agrees with the official story is automatically qualified and trustworthy and anybody who agrees with any part of the official story is qualified to comment to that extent only, but anything else they say which doesn’t agree with the official story just shows they aren’t perfect.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:27 AM Why do you even try to twist Wileys words to be some sort of neutrality or support for you even? You know the Witch is ours…..
I really didn’t mean to say that I thought wiley was in any way aligned with the opinion of every relevant expert in the world, or me. You so easlily misinterpret things.
But then again, and perhaps I’ve forgotten or missed it, what exactly is wiley’s position on bombs in the buildings, and whether or not people on the current FBI’s list are still alive?
wiley? Cards on the table?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:34 AM Natalie
You are clearly not reading anything, your response times show you are not reading, not looking at a thing. Thanks for showing us you are a deceiver again. Ho hum..
Batgirl babbles:
If these two aspects are so independent, why then is the theory that there were no hijackers so often invoked in conjunction with arguing for the presence of bombs in the buildings?
They are independent by virtue of logical progression, you dumbass. Nothing about the demolitions of the buildings relies in any way shape or form upon who piloted the planes you feeble minded ninny. What part of that do you not understand?
No argument exists for removing the hijackers from the planes in conjunction wityh the explosive demolition contention. None at all you f**king moron! That is just how things get jumbled up in your puny little mind! We can clearly see from the execrable logic and total lack of reason why you would get these things so muddled up, but you need to understand it isn’t the world that is muddled, its you. This thread is the best proof we have gathered yet that you are inacapable of what is called reason by sentient creatures. You are braindead, or if you are a shill, then I guess you just haven’t got a chance in hell. You are left defending the walls, which long since fell down, and rotted away. As for why you hear both things often in the same contexts obviously the people concerned believe, or are merely interested in both apsects.
Could it be, perhaps, because it’s so laughably silly to imagine that our government actually conspired with the likes of Atta and Hanjor to fly their planes according to our instructions, and thereby the tempation is to simply deny the very existance of the hijackers?
No Natalie, it could not be. Everybody who can still think for themselves and who actually read what is presented finds the suggestion the government, especially THIS ONE would baulk at doing something like this to be laughable. We are not denying the existence of the hijackers you poor slow dull witted girl, merely their actual roles, their identities and many of the events surrounding their story. It all comes down to us only having to disprove the official story which we have done on all fronts, talk about overkill. Obviously if its the truth there is no limit to the growth factor, which is why he information and the supporters just keeps on consistently speaking to the same truth.
Even a good lie, should be able to muster a bit more evidence for itself than this load of codswallop the Junta has fed the world. This is just a bad lie. A poorly concieved and poorly executed BIG LIE, Hitlers Reichstag at least has managed to retain an ounce more credibility for it being the Communists sixty years on, but don’t count on the 9/11 fairy tale standing as long. The fable was stillborn as far as most of the world was concerned, and it is dead in the water even in the delusional paradise of the USA, as evidenced by the growing support for a new investigation, and ZERO growth of its (The Fairy Tale’s) supporter base.
Now Natalie, everone know the rabbit isn’t the one who misinterprets things. You know what you were doing, and I called you on it. You were making a shilly little effort to neutralise Wiley’s stance. Maybe you just didn’t know you were doing it. You probably tell lies in your sleep Natsky.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:47 AM http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=10929
GATHERING TO DEMAND THE TRUTH ABOUT 911
by Mike Ferner
June 10th, 2006
Over 500 people in the packed hall applauded eagerly when Dr. Bob Bowman stated he was an advocate of doctor-controlled, single-payer health care for all.They cheered louder still when the congressional candidate from Florida’s 15th District pledged that his first piece of legislation submitted in the House of Representatives would be articles of impeachment.
But they simultaneously jumped to their feet and roared approval when he leaned over the podium to say he was running with a group of Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Independents and non politicians “…who are all united by one thing. We want to bring our troops home from George Bush’s quagmire in Iraq and expose the lies that allowed him to send them there, including 9/11.”
Posted by Diggins on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:57 AM Batgirl lies:
Like I said…...it doesn’t matter…...does it
That was you taking things out of context, another deceitful shill trick.
It doesn’t matter relevant to the Explosive demolitions.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 5:58 AM Sorry for the space people but I think you’ll all forgive the rabbit this indulgence, we need to look at the Nat’s story since she doesn’t seem able to string it together coherantly herself..
Looniest Of All 911
Conspiracy Theories<u>By Gerard Holmgren</u>
1-31-6
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. ‘The CIA killed Hendrix’, ‘The Pope had John Lennon murdered’, ‘Hitler was half Werewolf’, ‘Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone’ etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So its hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about September 11th - and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs - is that it was carried out by nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they ‘hate our freedoms.’
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don’t even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organising them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA - the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It’s difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as ‘the fruit loop’ and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)ogical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, nineteen Arabs took over four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren’t any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID - but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities - they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
“Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?”
“A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get.”
“Very strange”, thinks the security officer, “that’s the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask…and why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess…”
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time , the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers’ passports were found at the crash scenes. “So there!” they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.
Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, “who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!” And so the whole loop starts again. “Well, why aren’t they on the passenger lists?” “You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!” And so on…
Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.
“Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? “The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.
This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The ‘improbability drive’, in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens - just about all the time in their world. There is a principle called ‘Occam’s razor’ which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam’s razor.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the nineteen invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.
Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that September 11th, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas - after they had attached their masks, obviously - but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of ‘our freedoms’, it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar - really impeccable Islamic behavior - and then got up at 5 o’clock the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there’s nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.
There weren’t any explosives. It wasn’t an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable, quite remarkable. Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically Kerosene, and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 degrees Celcius has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourising sixty-five tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around fifteen tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of Kerosene - let alone the boiling point - which is what would be required to vapourise a plane. And then there’s about fifty tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of Kerosene.
For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as ‘mumbo jumbo’. This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of Kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.
“Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact”, they state with pompous certainty, “watch any Bruce Willis movie.”
“Care to provide any documented examples? If it’s a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies?”
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.
“Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there’s no way of telling.” they counter with a sly grin. Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourised into nothing. “But not big planes, with that much fuel”, they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourise.
“Yes but not hijacked planes!” “Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?” “Now you’re just being silly”.
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don’t vapourise into nothing. What’s so special about a tower that’s mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. “It’s a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact.”
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a “well known fact” and that “its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to”, the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves - if not too many other people - that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop.
But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of Kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning Kerosene.
For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourising a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper’s steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn’t make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to:
- Completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft
- Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel - melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel
- Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building
This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourised. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you’re there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourised into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire - therefore not particularly hot - they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they’re already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. “Muslim terrorists stole my notes,Sir.” “No Miss, the Kerosene heater blew up and vapourised everything in the street, except for my passport.” “You see Sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms.”
Or perhaps they misunderstood the term ‘creative science’ and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly Kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can’t be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat - although 2000 degrees centigrade isn’t really required, 100 degrees centigrade will generally do the job. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.
That’s right, if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you’re in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you’re trying to sell at any particular time.
This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30-35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 foot diameter through three rings - six walls. A little later a section of wall about 65 foot wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155 feet, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
But hey, we’ve already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is ‘mumbo jumbo’. It conflicts with the delusion that they’re hooked on, so it ‘must be wrong’ although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.
Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourised by it’s exploding fuel load, and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. That’s a wonderful fruit loop. Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 foot deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building - even though the building shows no sign of such damage. As for what happened to the wings - here’s where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.
When it suits them, they’ll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly - ignoring the undamaged lawn - while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an ‘irrecoverable angle.’ How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.
Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.
As America gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it’s not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.
At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on September 11th, and the subsequent war crimes committed in ‘retaliation’ are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.
Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about September 11th.
It’s uncanny! It’s like he knows you personally Natalie.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 6:19 AM Peter Meyer (he’s the LDS….er…..LSD guy)
Re: No commercial airliners in 9/11 incidents
Interview w/ Gerard HolmgrenYou appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions…..
......At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?
No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved….....
......... And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis…...
........The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology…......
........Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?
No wreckage.
The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes….....
.......Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?
No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.
Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology....... (audience gasps)
OMFG people. What’s next? Space aliens caused the collapses with plasma cannons?
It’s really not that far a leap from here. Honestly, I could get more reliable information waiting to pay for my groceries.
I didn’t want to believe it, but they were RIGHT about Nick and Jessica. I’m so dissapointed in you two, but that’s another story.
How could I have been so blind? He’s in love…..with a MACHINE
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 7:15 AM Did something flap past?
Yes its via ALEX JONES, just to annoy the bat. Rabbit can hear her screeching in fury already.
Does anyone know why Batgirl is linking to pages like the last one she did, which is directly supportive of the substitution of planes among other things? Space aliens with plasma cannons is an odd title to give a link which has no such things too. Odd Bat is aiming carefully at its own foot again.
Would someone tell Batgirl for the rabbit, that debating any presumptions from the Gerald Holmgren article is pointless, it is given for its satirical value. You might also tell her the rabbit is responding selectively to her babblings as it pleases him now. A right he feels he has earned through tireless deflation of her all hat no horse fairy story. Selective responses are something she has of course always presumed to be her right, which was a presumption not based upon reality, as we know. Rabbits as well as Bats should be expected to show integrity if we are to be taken seriously, but the Batgirl has sacrificed her integrity to such a degree that no rabbit would feel obligated to respond to anything but the funniest of her rantings and self shots. Then only for his own personal amusement, and as the urge struck him.
Rabbit looks, with stampy foot, and angry eyes, at the dishonourable bat.
You are doing the fruit loop with the improbability drive on full revs. Stop it, you are making yourself dizzy, and going nowhere at all but with a lot of smoke and noise.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 8:10 AM The beastly Bat swoops past our eyes.
Drops like a loose brick from the darkening skies.
There on the place where reason weeps.
It covers the truth with its horny feet.Spinning a tangled web of dissembling lines.
Neo-con-man crimes, covered up with lies.
Metaphoric fangs are spreading poisons.
Personal insults and ugly aspersions.
Deriding on impulse and never replying.
To anything sending her fairy tale flying.
While the rest of us usually base ours on facts.
Faith is all that supports the story of Bats..
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 25, 2006 at 8:36 AM This is such a vast subject that I’ll limit myself to a small slice in order to get some feedback from you all. I’ve seen a number of 9/11 Truth related videos now and every one of them has the Silvrstein snippet where he says Building #7 was “Pulled”.
1. Why, despite silverstein’s comment, do some 9-11 Truthers talk about the impossibility of THREE buildings collapseing into their own foot prints? Isn’t it obvious to everyone that, accrding to the guy who leased the building, that this building was in fact professionally demoed? this would us with leave TWO miracle collapses.
2. Where is the whole interview of Silverstein? I think we’d all like to see it as perhaps he reveals some more interesting facts—like:
a. who was the company that did the job?
b. was it hard to demo a burning building during all the chaos of that day in, what would seem to me, record time?
c. was there police/goverment co-ordination involved to keep people away from the buildings demolition on that day? A feat in itself it seams!
d. were demo permits and all the other red tape shoved aside?These questions might seem off base but frankly, I’d like to hear from the guys that pulled that building; i’d like to see one news article on it. it seems bizzare that none exist—or do they? i guess if you’re myth-making you don’t want a bunch of details there to confuse the issue. But I think 9-11 truthers also need to constintly dig for more to keep their theorys from becoming stale myths that nobodies going to care about ten years from now either, like JFK, OK City, Pearl Harbor, etc, etc.
thanks in advance for any feedback
Posted by howler on Jul 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM What you’re again saying Rabbit, using way more words than are necessary, is that it doesn’t matter that Gerard Holmgren is a certifiable nut. (or perhaps, crazy like a fox, and just out to make some extra cash for a retirement motor home)
You make a false assumption about his “satire” piece, because although he writes it from an info-tainment “turn the tables” perspective, he is conveying non-the-less what he appears to actually believe. He actually believes that there were no hijackers. Or he actually believes that the planes were not the designated commercial airlilners we all saw that day, but substitutes with huge explosives on board. Or whatever it takes to deny the obvious. It doesn’t really matter.
So what do you do next? You call another certifiable nut as an expert witness.
Major General Albert Stubblebine: A key sponsor of the research internally at Fort Meade, he was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena, leading him to even attempt to walk through walls.
Art Bell, call your office!
“Relatives of the September 11 victims received some encouraging news this week with respect to the identification of victims. Early in the week officials made the first positive identification of a passenger from one of the two flights that struck the Twin Towers. They used DNA testing to confirm the identity of the passenger. The medical examiner’s office announced that the DNA testing to identify the victims should be completed approximately eight months after the cleanup is finished, or early next year.”
“The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.”
“A hand found in the rubble at ground zero was matched through DNA testing to Trentini, a 65-year-old retired schoolteacher from Everett, Mass., it was reported. Trentini and his wife, Mary, 67, were flying to Los Angeles Sept. 11 on Flight 11 to visit their grandchildren. It is the first time DNA has been able to verify the identity of any victims aboard the two planes that were flown into the World Trade Center, according to the report. The fingerprints matched Trentini’s, and his college ring, believed to be his Wofford ring, was still on his finger, Trentini’s sister, Patricia Malatesta, said. The Trentinis were to leave on Sept. 10 but changed their plans because James had jury duty. His wife has not been found.”
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 7:57 PM howler, read this page for a perspective you’ve probably not encountered on all the “truthie” sites you’ve visited.
Ask yourself: Why haven’t I heard this perspective if the “truthie” sites are simply searching so diligently for the truth, as their names so often imply?
And why are so many of the quotes I read on those sites consistently taken out of context, as I can plainly see now after reading them in full?
Would this be consistent with searching for the full truth?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 8:14 PM Natalies rules for acceptance of testimony.
1) Anybody who is a Bush hater has an interest in lying and cannot be believed.Not so. In fact, most of the growing number of 9/11 truth de-bunking sites are done by people who are not fans of Bush.
Now, if you can point me to someone who is a fan of Bush, who likes him and approves of his foreign policy, and also supports bombs in the buildings and missiles in Pentagons, then you might have half a leg to stand on here.
In fact, the site linked to in my previous post is run by someone who is also not a fan of Bush.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 8:27 PM Again, for illustration:
Chris Bollyn, who’s “journalism” is often published by AFP and Rense, manufactured this:
No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”
From the original:
“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.
Reminder: Manning’s editorial was only written in Dec., 2001. No detailed investigation had even begun. He was concerned by an apparent lack of concern for preserving steel for evidence, because he rightly suspected lack of fireproofing, but in no way expressed any support for, or even awareness of the CD theory. A year later, his writings still didn’t indicate any support for, or awareness of the CD theory. Strange that something so obvious to website designers, theologians and fourteen year olds escaped his expert eye.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 8:34 PM mymarkx,
I was checking out your collection of supposed experts on the events of 9/11. Notably absent were the professions of structural, civil, and fire engineering. I saw nobody represented that was actually at the pentagon crash site, or any of the dozens of people that saw an American Airlines jet pass overhead and crash into the pentagon. There was nobody there to represent the forensic teams that found DNA from passengers and some of the hijackers in the wreckage at the wtc, the Pentagon, and that Penn. field.
Why not?
I was interested in what Daniel Ellsberg had to say, because I was under the impression that he was somewhat honest, although misguided. It would appear that Alex Jones attempted to badly misrepresent his feelings about 9/11.
Before he got a call from Ellsberg, I’m guessing:
Pentagon Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11
After the call:
Correction:
The original headlines for the interview with Daniel Ellsberg posted on July 19, 2006, and parts of the story, incorrectly paraphrased the accompanying transcript (which is accurate) and inadvertently misrepresented his views. He did not, and does not, predict that the “Bush regime will stage terrorist attack to provide pretext for Iran, Syria invasion,” nor that “within days after a US military strike on Iran. Bush’s handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war.” Nor does he believe that the government “may have carried out 9/11” except in the limited sense that elements in the government have, in his opinion, the “psychological capability” to do so, as others, in his own experience, have had in the past.Typical.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 25, 2006 at 11:40 PM You find the scientists and structural engineers at the scientists and scholars for 9/11 truth sites. The video of the first mainstream media cameraman on the scene at the Pentagon is linked above. None of those forensic teams said there were any Arabs aboard the planes, and one specifically stated that there were none. And while some people may have thought they saw a commercial plane crash into the Pentagon, those with more knowledge and experience say it was not. Heck, even Cheney said it was a missile. Then he corrected himself—with so many lies to remember anyone can slip up now and then. When the plane was ten miles out he said the orders still stood. What orders, Nat? If they had been orders to shoot it down, the most well-defended property in the world would have shot it down. Only orders not to shoot it down could have permitted a hit on the Pentagon.
Rabbit’s right, Nat just doesn’t pay attention. Too busy thinking up more disinfo, I guess.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 26, 2006 at 12:11 AM OK Marky,
1) State the name of a certified structural engineer who is a member of “scholars” for 9/11 truth. Link me to him and verification of his credentials.
2) Whatever some cameraman happened to be able to shoot, I was talking about some of the first responders….firefighters, rescue personnel, etc. Why no interviews or quotes from them? Why nothing like this:
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”
3) No, there were sets of remains identified for all (or at least most, I believe) of the extra people (we would assume the arab hijackers) at the pentagon and at Pennsylvania. Nobody has come forward to provide DNA or dental records for confirmation of identities, but of course that is understandable. Their son or relative was a mass murderer, and they are very well aware of it. They have their son on video saying goodbye. I can link you to those videos, if you are interested in anything but propaganda.
4) I have a list of dozens of people and their testimony as to seeing an airliner, and many identified it specifically as an American Airlines jet. Do you have any quotes from anybody who claims they saw a missile? Not sounded like one, or seemed like one, but was one. There was a traffic jam near the Pentagon. Dozens of people who saw the jet testified about it to reporters, and likely hundreds of people saw it but were never asked about it.
Cheney never said it was a missile, unless perhaps he obviously misspoke.
I pay just fine attention, and I notice you are trying to pass off a bunch of laughable baloney here at In These Times.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 26, 2006 at 1:00 AM Howler
Many of the things you are questioning exist and have been linked to already above. No offence but most of your questions are redundant. The 9/11 truthers are constantly adding new information as it comes forward and there is plenty of energy going into the search for whatever is available. The Larry Silverstein speech is available in full, even the original footage of the interview, and there exists his effort to explain his comments away at a later date. Obviously he fails to convince anyone, since as I point out, no new converts have ever joined the faith brigade, they are a dying religion.
You are also falling into the trap of expecting the 9/11 truth movement to have all the answers. We don’t claim to, and are not obligated to. The government is the one claiming it has all the answers, we are merely proving they do not. We do not need to have even a fraction of what we do have, to justify claiming the official story is bunkum. The faith based fairy tale isn’t supported by any of the evidence, that’s as simple as it gets dude.
The 9/11 truth movement is evolving obviously, but it is getting more of the answers all the time, and it never ceases to convince peopl, by the simple expedient of presenting the known facts. We do not have to have all the answers. We have more than enough, and the huge amount of evidence which is being witheld constitutes a concerted effort to stop the truth being known after all. It isn’t as if people are working to get the truth in a world of openness and transparency after all. What is the point of the truth movement finding all the answers and presenting the argument anyway? Only a proper investigation can make the difference, and that is all anyone is saying must be done.
It is patently clear to anyone at this stage that anyone who would deny a new investigation seeks only to hide the truth. You can still believe the official fairy tale and yet feel there is so much doubt about things that aproper and independent investigation is needed. That position would at least be tenable. What is not tenable at this point is to deny a new investigation, one which this time did look at all the facts which have been ignored in the official reports so far, isn’t justified.
Only a complete fool would buy the claim that things are all hunky dory and no serious doubts are arising.
It is telling that those few who still buy the official fairy tale, are also totally wrong about virtually every major fact of our times as well.
Natalie the four rules ARE your rules, and Rabbit can apply them to any argument you make. One example is how you deny that Professor Steven Jones is qualified to speak the instant his study came out. You immediately attacked his character, and questioned his motives, all without even once reading his report or indeed having ever known of the man before. Chief among your maniacal atacks on Jones’ paper was that it wasn’t peer reviewed. Then it got peer review, and you never mention this again.
You post a report by Bazant however who is far lower in reputation than Jones from the start, you claim his report is actually so solid as to be proof in itself, a patently ridiculous claim as it turned out, and you refuse to even consider that his employment by the government is relevant, considering him to be automatically trustworthy compared to Jones who you automatically labelled a liar and incompetant. The fact that the Bazant paper, is not peer reviewed apparently is of no interest to you at all. That is what honest people call double standards Nat.
AND of course you are applying rule number 4 and a variation of rule 3.
You are also doing the Improbability driven Fruit Loop as Holmgren describes it.
Natalie’s rules for acceptance of testimony.
1) Anybody who is a Bush hater has an interest in lying and cannot be believed.
2) Only officially qualified people can understand anything, for example, if you are not a plumber you cannot be expected to understand why the sink is blocked.
3) Anybody who questions the official story is a Bush hater or on drugs. (see rule 1.)
4) Anybody who agrees with the official story is automatically qualified and trustworthy and anybody who agrees with any part of the official story is qualified to comment to that extent only, but anything else they say which doesn’t agree with the official story just shows they aren’t perfect.
I am not finding your babbling very funny anymore Batgirl, you bore me, so I’m ignoring most of your rubbish, not even reading it. This is unforgiveable in a debate with anyone, but I am no longer debating with you, others can waste their time if they wish, but my work is done I’d say, and basically, I own the argument. Don’t believe me go and read the first six posts. Rabbit has long since done what he set out to do.
* Demolish the official fairy tale using verifiable facts and information.
* Demonstrate that the official fairy tale is based upon outright fabrication and nothing else but faith.
* Show by example just how craven and dishonest are those who actually defend the official fairy tale.Thankyou for your help Batgirl, you have made the last two happen with only minimal help from the rabbit.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 26, 2006 at 4:00 AM 1) No way. Do your own googling.
2) You asked for somebody who “was actually at the Pentagon crash site.” You didn’t say that if he was a mainstream media reporter who also filmed what he saw it wouldn’t count.
Kilsheimer says he saw “the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building,” but since the hole is too small for the wings to have entered the building, why weren’t they on the lawn? In fact why was the Pentalawn (google that one also) so pristine if a plane had been flying that low over it.
3) You believe. That’s fine. You have a right to believe. In order to have credibility as a writer, of course, outside of strictly theological literature, you can’t just believe, you have to also think.
4) Of course Cheney misspoke. That’s what they always call it when he or Bush lies. As Bush joked when he was comparing himself to Schwarzenegger, some people think that neither of them can speak the language. But don’t misunderstimate his misspeaking prowess—he has misspoken more than any other political figure in history. Maybe Cheney also misspoke when, on the floor of Congress, he told Senator Leahy to go fuck himself. Maybe he misspoke when he said that the orders still stood. Maybe he makes mistakes a lot. Maybe if he hadn’t been the sole person in charge, this wouldn’t have happened. You can really make an excellent case for negligence, except that when people are excessively evil and greedy, the public tends to credit them with deliberate intent.
Instead of mobilizing the nation when we were attacked, the President sat listening to “My Pet Goat.” Instead of coordinating air defenses, the Vice-President just sat there and said that his orders still stood. Sad to say, but even you, Natalie, could have done better than that, so it really looks pathetic when you defend them.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 26, 2006 at 4:06 AM Umm, Natalie you may have people who reportedly identified the jet which hit the Pentagon, but that doesn’t mean they were correct. Here is one of your supposed witnesses and it seems he was misquoted.
You claim you have witnesses, but we cannot believe that you have any witnesses until you present them Nat. As it happens being a resourceful rabbit and not given to spurious claims of important material, like dishonourable bats, I have found for you a complete list of witnesses of the Pentagon incident.
“James R. Cissell” has his statement recorded in there in its original skewed form, and the link above shows that his words were completely distorted so we must not forget that the words as they are reported on the site are only hearsay, reported second hand by the media mostly.
Unfortunately an investigation of that list shows the following, facts about the witnesses themselves. One of the witnesses who was not mentioned on that site, and therefore whose own testimony was at least not tainted by potentially compromising circumstances, and did at least support the official account, is, surprise, James R. Cissell, who we now know had his testimony skewed.
Howler
Here is the full Silverstein story, look at it and see if you can maintain any doubts about it. It includes his full interview and staements since, as well as all the peripheral info which helps make the picture clearer.
Go here if you are seeking more information. It is very thorough.
The puzzle of the passenger lists
This is a brief and compelling analysis of the most glaring anaomalies of 9/11.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 26, 2006 at 5:02 AM From Holmgren’s analysis.
American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while on route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by 8.25 AM or earlier, and hit the Nth tower of the WTC at 8.46.
United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65 aboard , including the hijackers , was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while flying the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at about 8.55 AM and hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03.
The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.
American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with 64 aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs while on route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at 9.45.
United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with 45 aboard, including the hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF , was hijacked by 4 Arabs. It was known to be hijacked about 9.45, and crashed in PA at 10.10.
The incriminating anomaly in this timeline is that the US air force did not scramble a single fighter jet to intercept any of the hijacked planes.
A little research into aviation regulations and historical precedent demonstrates that every one of those planes should have been intercepted by jet fighters before it got anywhere near its crash destination. The failure to launch any intercepts is only explainable by a systematic nation-wide stand down of routine air defence procedures. FAA regulations state that if any plane deviates from its flight path, and fails to respond to ATC commands or communications, it is automatically declared an emergency. This is because is it has become a hazard to other planes - even if no malicious intent is suspected. If ATC is any doubt as to whether an emergency exists, it is to be considered as one.
........................The most spectacular example is that of the Pentagon strike. Two planes had already hit the WTC by 9.03 and yet this plane was allowed to fly for another 42 minutes, off course towards Washington, untroubled by the world’s most powerful air force. Only 10 miles from the Pentagon is Andrews Airbase, a huge installation which is responsible for air defence around the DC area, and maintains two squadrons of fighter jets on permanent standby for this very purpose, since the security of the White House, State dept, Capitol and the City of DC are also at stake. This was not an unforseen contingency. The Pentagon had twice in the last two years conducted drills specifically simulating a plane strike, and for decades, US security services had been wrestling with the potential problem of a hijacked airliner taking a suicide plunge into the Whitehouse.
On Sept 11, they had nearly an hours warning of the Pentagon attack - and grounded the entire air force - in violation of standard operating procedures that are automatically implemented even in the case of a single plane accidentally deviating from its course with no obviously hostile intent.
...........................By 9.05 Bush was listening to a little girl read a story about her pet goat, and his Chief of staff, Andrew card came into the classroom and whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC and that “America was under attack.” Bush nodded casually and continued with the reading class - for about another 25 minutes, smiling ,joking and cheering about the reading skills of the children. A reporter who suggested that he should be addressing himself to the situation in NY was sternly rebuked by Bush, who said that now was not the time to be talking about it. And at this time, Bush knew that there was at least one more plane at large - something which no-one else in the class knew.
At 9.30, with AA 77 still flying unescorted towards DC, Bush finished the reading class (on schedule) and then wasted more time with a pointless speech to the nation, already promising to “hunt down and punish those responsible”, while showing no interest in doing anything about the plane which was still at large, a danger of which his audience was unaware. He left the school about the same time that the Pentagon was hit.
Later, in an attempt to cover up the fact that he’d still gone to the school in spite of being aware of the crisis, Bush lied about his movements on the morning, inventing a story that he was already at the school when the first WTC strike happened. This lie has worked its way into the popular mythology in the mainstream media. In the scramble to find a cover story for his movements that morning, Bush also carelessly claimed that he’d seen the first crash live on TV at the school and had thought it was an accident. This is also a lie because the first strike was never broadcast live.
.....................Although the govt claimed to be completely taken by surprise, it somehow had no trouble in naming the alleged perpetrator - Osama Bin Laden - within hours, and immediately threatened to invade Afghanistan. What they neglected to mention was that the decision to invade Afghanistan had already been made by July 2001, and the specific war plans arrived on Bush’s desk on sept 9.
It a common myth that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the attacks but this simply isn’t true. He’s vigorously denied any involvement ,and according to some reports has condemned the attacks as un-Islamic. The myth of his confession is based entirely upon a video tape produced by the Pentagon which claims to show him laughing about how many innocent people he’s killed. This tape is a fake. In at least some of the clips, the person is not Bin Laden.
The US military conveniently “found” the tape in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon’s translation was immediately attacked by independent translators as misleading and incomplete. In response, the Pentagon effectively admitted as much, saying “it is not a verbatim translation of every word spoken at the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow.” The Dept of defense defended the translation thus . ” The translation is what it is .We never said it was a literal translation.”
Incriminating as all of this is, it only scratches the surface. The FBI managed to name the 19 Arabs involved within a few days, and their names, faces and biographies were promptly splashed across the mainstream media. Supposedly, their passports and suicide notes were found at the crash scenes in spite of fiery crashes which completely incinerated the planes - including the normally indestructible flight recorder boxes - and all the occupants. In another miraculous stroke of good luck for the evidence hunters, the luggage of alleged ringleader, Mahommed Atta, was somehow left behind at Logan airport and just happened to contain instructions to his fellow conspirators. And it seems that they learned how to fly the giant Boeings at the last minute by reading flight manuals on the way to the airport - because they conveniently left the manuals - in Arabic of course - in the cars they had rented.
How embarrassing for the FBI when some of the alleged hijackers started turning up alive, protesting their innocence! And even more embarrassing when the passenger lists provided by the airlines to CNN did not contain a single Arabic name. And none of the names on the passenger lists are alleged to be aliases for any of the Arabs. How did they get on the flights without being on the passenger lists, and if they were using false names, how were these traced to their real ID’s and why have none of the other names on the lists ever been identified as hijackers aliases ? 19 obviously Arabic men got on to planes with non Arabic false ID, with a 100% success rate? And why is there no airport security footage of them?
As the cover story quickly unravelled within a few weeks of “identifying” the hijackers, the FBI was then forced to admit that they actually had no idea who the hijackers were. In spite of this, the same 19 names and faces have been splashed across the mainstream media unchanged, as if this admission had never been made. The farcical “911 commission” treated the 19 Arabs as a fact, waffling about “missed intelligence warnings” in relation to their pre-Sept 11 activities.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 26, 2006 at 5:13 AM Holmgren still.
And in subsequent statements, the FBI buried the admission of doubt about the hijackers identities with an avalanche of increasingly ridiculous spin about the sinister pre- Sept11 activities of the 19 Arabs, seemingly forgetting that they admitted these IDs to be fictitious. For example, the FBI rather stupidly claimed that 9 of the fictitious Arabs had actually been searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. If they were using false names when they were searched, then surely the FBI must know which of those 9 people on the passenger lists were actually the hijackers incognito? And if they were not using false IDs, can we know why they’re not on the passenger lists? Clearly, the 19 Arabs are complete fiction.
Some critical thinking about how the hijacking is supposed to have taken place also reveals the story as a bad cartoon script. In the event of a hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit hijacking code - accessible from several different places - to alert ATC to a hijacking. So if 5 men were to try to take over a plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters, while it might be possible for them to be able to gain control of the plane, to do so without ATC first receiving a distress code is almost impossible. We are supposed to believe that they achieved the impossible 4 times out of 4.
In one of the phone calls allegedly made from AA 11, it was said that the crew locked themselves in the cockpit, and the hijackers attempted to lure them out by shooting and stabbing passengers. This is said to have gone on for 25 minutes. Why then no distress code from AA 11 ? Furthermore, the timeline of the alleged phone call indicates that the plane had already turned off course before the hijackers got into the cockpit!
............................official aviation records from the US bureau of transportation say that the alleged AA 77 flight did not exist. The BT keeps a record of details about every flight ever scheduled from a US airport - even cancelled flights. No such record exists of AA 77 on Sept 11. Early reports said that the incident at the pentagon was caused by a truck bomb. Witness reports are confused and contradictory, but some mention a missile or small fighter jet.
Now consider AA 11, the plane alleged to have hit the Nth tower at 8.46. This is not the plane shown in the dramatic, often replayed crash video, but the less frequently shown first crash - not broadcast until later, when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public’s mind. Whatever the object is, it is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet. When one views the video at full speed, one can only see a brief flash and then the explosion. Since we are always being told that its AA 11, the natural tendency is to think that its just too fast to see on the video. However a frame by frame analysis shows a very strange looking object, more like a flying pig than a plane. Certainly nothing like a Boeing 767 and way too small. It dive-bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to impossible for a large airliner.
Neither is there any witness evidence to support a large jet. All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile, or people who were looking right at the explosion and simply didn’t see any plane, and it only became a large plane after American Airlines issued a statement saying that it had lost AA11 in the crash.
The BT database also says that there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11. A close examination of the passenger lists published by the media for the alleged AA11 proves them to be fabricated, because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets.
Now the Sth tower crash, the one shown live on TV. Surely this was a real Boeing 767 because we saw it live, and at superficial viewing it certainly appears to be a large jet. However, a frame by frame examination of the video reveals that it is not a real plane. It shows impossible physical characteristics and behaviour. It passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts. The hole only appears well after the plane has entirely disappeared without disturbing the building. It exceeds the maximum speed of a Boeing 767 at low altitude while banked sharply and flying in the opposite direction to that in which its banking. It hip hops across the screen regularly alternating ,frame by frame, between supersonic speed and hovering motionless. It has a strange anomaly in the shape of the belly.
It is a fake. The plane is simply a movie. There are several shots of the cartoon plane that were aired by news agencies at the time One is undoubtedly a crudely faked video. In relation to the others, argument continues over whether they are also conventional faked videos or whether they are real footage of some kind of kind of holographic projection. Whichever is the case, it is not a real plane, because real planes don’t pass through walls without making holes and without breaking off any parts.
Witness evidence for a large plane hitting the Sth tower is as elusive as for the Nth Tower and the Pentagon. There is a police transcript of a report of someone firing missiles.
Aviation records from the FAA show that although UA 175 existed as a flight, unlike AA 77 or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned - N612UA - is still registered and valid. In other words, it never crashed. So we don’t know where it went, but we do know that it didn’t hit the WTC.
And finally UA 93 - alleged to have crashed in PA. Like UA 175, this was a bona fide flight, but the plane - N591UA - is also still registered as valid.
FAA records do show the planes to which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned - N334AA and N644AA as destroyed - but not until Jan 14 2002, when the FAA regulations state that the deregistration must be reported on the day that a plane is totally destroyed. So most likely these planes were ready for retirement and were taken away somewhere to be scrapped.
The rabbit is not saying that he is sure of everything that Gerard is saying, having not read this article before now. It is being offerred for consideration only.
The references for about half holmgren’s claims are already in this thread, the registration details and the passenger lists also, are a couple of posts up.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 26, 2006 at 5:35 AM I think it is interesting that during all the years of commerical aviation in the U.S., including many years in which we had Presidents who were accused of being soft on defense, it never took more than 10 minutes to scramble jets to intercept an off-course plane, not even a small private plane.
But as soon as we get the current administration, which is supposedly tough on defense, and somebody who is supposed to be extremely tough on defense, Dick Cheney, is put personally in charge of our air defenses, a plane is allowed to continue flying around for 50 minutes after it is known to be hijacked, until it supposedly hits the Pentagon.
I’m an old geezer, and I can tell you that I felt a lot safer under several soft-on-defense administrations than I do now. If something like 9/11 had happened during a soft-on-defense administration, they’d have been thrown out in a heartbeat. I don’t know about anyone else, but the next time I hear “tough on defense,” I’m heading for the nearest air raid shelter.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 26, 2006 at 5:55 AM In other words massive explosions recorded before the plane impacts, consistent with witness accounts of explsoions in the basements within the two towers before the planes struck. The seismic records have been known for a while and also the plane impact times have long been recorded very precisely in the reports. It just took someone this long to put the two together. Actually we have always assumed the seismic recordings were of the bombs, because the planes energy would have been dissipated too much before reaching ground level to be noticeable in seismic recordings.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 26, 2006 at 9:10 AM 1) No way. Do your own googling.
Translation: Marky knows there’s no structural engineers at scholars.
2) You asked for somebody who “was actually at the Pentagon crash site.” You didn’t say that if he was a mainstream media reporter who also filmed what he saw it wouldn’t count.
Fine. What reporter are you talking about and what did he photograph or report?
Kilsheimer says he saw “the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building,” but since the hole is too small for the wings to have entered the building, why weren’t they on the lawn? In fact why was the Pentalawn (google that one also) so pristine if a plane had been flying that low over it.
The wings folded and basically followed the main body into the building. Computer simulations confirm it. Why must the lawn be disturbed if the plane never made contact with it? Do you seriously believe that AA flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon? Seriously? Are you sure you wanna go down this road?
3) You believe. That’s fine. You have a right to believe. In order to have credibility as a writer, of course, outside of strictly theological literature, you can’t just believe, you have to also think.
I think you’re in denial. The question is why? Why is it so hard for you to accept the sad fact that terrorists with no conscience and morals got the better of a nation that relies on trusting free people to behave civilly and rationally?
4) Of course Cheney misspoke. That’s what they always call it when he or Bush lies. As Bush joked when he was comparing himself to Schwarzenegger, some people think that neither of them can speak the language. But don’t misunderstimate his misspeaking prowess—he has misspoken more than any other political figure in history. Maybe Cheney also misspoke when, on the floor of Congress, he told Senator Leahy to go fuck himself…...
No bias here. You do realize, don’t you, that you would be totally discredited as a witness if you were to break down in court and emote like this. This has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with whether or not the pentagon was hit by a missile, or a plane load of innocent passengers and a few brainwashed savages. It only exposes your ulterior motivations for your reckless accusations.
Instead of mobilizing the nation when we were attacked, the President sat listening to “My Pet Goat.” Instead of coordinating air defenses, the Vice-President just sat there and said that his orders still stood. Sad to say, but even you, Natalie, could have done better than that, so it really looks pathetic when you defend them.
Instead of repeating irrelevant truthie talking points, why don’t you actually provide some kind of actual evidence for what you claim? Someone who saw a missile. Someone who found an actual confirmed missile part. Some accused hijacker on video or in pictures, who is obviously alive today. Someone who saw someone actually plant bombs at the WTC. Just one of the many people that would have had to be involved coming forward with a guilty conscience, even anonymously. The burden is on you people. That’s the law. Thresholds of proof in our legal system are not teeny tiny speed bumps, they are at least moderately high hurdles.
Something. Something that actually proves what you’re claiming. Not something that could be proof of a dozen other things as well.
If someone were to falsely accuse you of murder, would you not expect that of them? Or would you roll over and accept the testimony of people who were not anywhere near the scene, and didn’t have the relevant expertise to speculate on your case? Would your attorney not examine the motives and biases of those testifying against you, or would he/she simply sit there and listen and say “no questions, your honor, they all seem like nice gentlemen”?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 26, 2006 at 12:09 PM Uh, Rabbit, the times set out in the NIST report are within 4 or 5 seconds of the seismographic data. You don’t set your watch from a seismograph. I did notice from the data, however, that the WTC7 event took 18 seconds total, not 6.6. That’s obviously subject to being off by a few seconds, because they’ve got one of the towers collapsing in 8 seconds. Like I said, don’t set your watch.
The technicians at the station in question are outraged that truthies have distorted and misconstrued their data time and time again, in order to manufacture a scenerio that has at least a thin veneer of “science”.
This doesn’t prove a dang thing, except that once again Rense is only giving you selected information. Translation: It’s a propaganda site!!
Posted by Natalie on Jul 26, 2006 at 12:30 PM Gordian Knot
Many things have been said on this thread. With the exception of Natalie and myself, most of the comments fall somewhere between irrelevant and absurd.
I hate to see all the ignorance and nonsense being circulated, but here is a guaranteed way to determine the truth.
Jones has several videos of buildings being demolished with explosives. If you look at the videos frame-by-frame, you see a pattern. The pattern is just what you would expect. You have a building rigged for destruction, there are a very rapid series of blasts, there are great clouds of dust immediately following the blasts, and then the building starts to collapse. Buildings are typically rigged with lower floors being detonated first, but the whole sequence is over in a fraction of a second.
There is a common sense element to this sequence. You would not expect the building to move before the demolitions were set off, now would you? And the great clouds of dust would not follow the fall of the building; small particles of dust have much less inertia than big steel and concrete structures. Is everyone straight on this simple sequence?
With this information and logic straight in your mind, now look at the extensive videos of the collapses of the WTC buildings. After the planes hit, there was a fire that died down over time. There was structural damage at the point where the planes hit. The structure was heat stressed and weakened from the burning jet fuel, and heat caused exposed structural elements to expand, stressing adjacent elements. The damaged area was flexing and buckling for several minutes before the final collapse.
One of the first actual structural failures was the collapse of the antennae on the roof of the first tower. There was no blast or great cloud of dust before the antennae started to sink into the structure. As the floors above the damaged zone started to move (maintaining their structural integrity), then there was a great cloud of dust at the point of failure in the damaged area, but no sign of blast, much less thermite. As the buildings crashed down, dust was generated by the fall, at the point of progress of the fall, but there was no sign of blast or great clouds of dust in the lower floors. This is just exactly NOT what is observed in controlled demolitions.
Buildings rigged for demolition require weeks of work by large numbers of people. Columns must be exposed, and charges placed and primed. Yet we have zero reports of such work, and no visible signature of such work in buildings that were occupied and functioning during the weeks when preparations for demolition would have had to be done.
Nor is there a single sign of explosives or thermite during the actual collapse of the buildings: no blast, no dust, no molten metal from thermite. The only great clouds of dust were from the tons of disintegrating concrete as the weight of the upper floors pancaked onto the lower floors.
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Posted by scorp on Jul 26, 2006 at 7:24 PM Scorp wrote:
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
I believe that’s a quote from Richard Pryor. I didn’t see the film, but I believe that his wife or girlfriend caught him in bed with another woman, and he said that to try to get out of trouble.
You couldn’t have picked a more apt quote.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 26, 2006 at 8:25 PM There ya go guys. One of the most basic planks of your faith pulled right out from under you.
“The Great and Powerful Oz does proclaim that the World Trade Center towers came down in an identical fashion to a controlled demolition.” Dorothy shudders in fear.
But Toto stealthily unties the Gordian knot with his small but precise little teeth, down comes the curtain, and the skeptoid is exposed as a supreme fraud. Red faced with embarrassment, he continues to bluster briefly, and then reluctantly comes to accept that the reality he created in his own mind was only there.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 26, 2006 at 10:11 PM NATTY the Shill,
Here are your own words——july 26 6.09AM—-
The wings folded and basically followed the main body into the building. Computer simulations confirm it.
Any reader who can imagine the two wingtips, and the wings right down to their roots in the fuselage, crashing into an armoured wall at c.300 knots, then going sideways at an average 90° along the that wall to follow the fuselage into a small hole——must be mad.
The fact that you can regurgitate such nonsense is yet one more proof that you must be a shill.
Posted by frog on Jul 26, 2006 at 10:27 PM Very interesting, particularly since I can see with my own eyes that a plane never hit the building. Whatever it was, it wasn’t a plane. And no plane could have caused that much destruction anyway, not in buildings specifically designed to withstand plane crashes.
While commercial demolition may differ in some ways from military demolition, this was demolition, not planes and fires. Planes don’t cause whole building to collapse, never have and never will. They only damage the parts of the buildings they hit. And no fires from anything in the planes or the buildings could have burned hot enough to melt steel.
I know a guy who simply can’t believe that our government was involved in 9/11. Happens that he’s a peace protester and he’s very upset about our government killing innocent civilians in Iraq. And he knows that Bush admitted that there was no connection between Sadaam and 9/11. Yet he can’t seem to grasp that a government that will kill innocent civilians over there, would have no qualms about killing innocent civilians over here as an excuse to let them do it over there. But it is right there in Operation Northwoods that was signed off on by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Okay, just because they’ve been planning this sort of thing for years doesn’t mean that they finally did it, but it certainly means that they’re capable of doing it, that they’ve established a M.O.
It is as if he is saying that just because they kill innocent people, doesn’t mean that they’d lie. And not just kill innocent people, but also torture them AFTER having ascertained for a fact that they’re innocent. What sort of justification can there be for that? That they’re just doing their job?
The thing about immoral, unethical, greedy, sadistic, fascists, is that not only will they torture and kill, but they will also lie, and they believe that the bigger the lie the better. And they usually have a Ministry of Propaganda to “catapult” the proganda, where they pay people to lie for them and to spread their lies, the same way Bush plants stories in the media using our tax dollars to lie to us, or left gatekeepers have people on staff to suppress the truth.
As Rabbit has said many times, there are enough holes in the official story to warrant a full, unbiased investigation. Trying to patch those holes with a few more lies here and there won’t do the trick.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 26, 2006 at 10:49 PM SCORP
Nobody said this was a classic demolition.
1 In those cases, there are a rapid series of blasts.
2 Building collapses.
3 Succeeded by great clouds of dust.You invert 2 and 3. Interestingly.
So no need for an initial great cloud before the antenna begins to descend. For some strange reason there was a catastrophic failure of the central core columns. No pancaking.
The subsequent huge clouds of dust at and WELL above the points of impact do not fit.
Nor does the size of the particles.
Posted by frog on Jul 26, 2006 at 11:23 PM Frog and Natalie,
I havent been able to get back here for a while. Whats with this description?
Any reader who can imagine the two wingtips, and the wings right down to their roots in the fuselage, crashing into an armoured wall at c.300 knots, then going sideways at an average 90° along the that wall to follow the fuselage into a small hole——must be mad.I watched my tape of 9/11 which begins long before the first crash on MSNCNBC. I was watching live from shortly before the host of Squawk Box, Mark Haines, is informed of the crash. Someone made the comment that apparently a small plane had hit one of the WTC towers they almost immediately (at 8:50 or about five minutes after it happened) showed the north tower. My immediate response was, That was no small plane! the outline showed it was way too large a hole.
I could see the general shape of the plane (including wings) at a slight tilt down to the left and off to the left side of the building. This was the first one at the north tower.
——————————— ;—-
And…. whats all this stuff about no planes and a fake video? Seems like Ive come back into a fairy tale in progress.Now we are supposed to believe the video of the planes crashing into the buildings were faked!?!
——————————— ;—-
This is way too far out even for the usual conspiracy crowd youve got to be putting us on.This would mean the cameramen at the CNBC program and unnamed other places were all in on it. This falls right in there with the moon landing being faked in the U.S. western desert somewhere. The holocaust never happening. And… (Now, I hope the little kids dont see this.) belief in Santa Claus.
This whole thread gets wilder all the time. See what happens when I dont get back for a while. :-)
Nobody will buy the movie rights for this bit. Not even Bruce Willis.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 26, 2006 at 11:44 PM WTF*** , HECK !
Natty was talking about the Pentagon.
She said.
<blockquote>The wings folded and basically followed the main body into the building. Computer simulations confirm it. <:blockquote>I found this unbelievable.
Unsurprising, she writes to order.
Posted by frog on Jul 26, 2006 at 11:57 PM Frog -
You give ignorance a bad name. I did not invert anything.
Look at a controlled explosive demolition frame-by-frame: blast, dust, building collapses.
Look at each of the three WTC buildings frame-by-frame: collapse, then dust, no evidence of blast at all.
Pay attention to what the videos show you, without trying to put your silly ideological interpretation on what was a simple mechanical failure.
Posted by scorp on Jul 27, 2006 at 12:54 AM Marx -
Ummm, actually the “lying eyes” quote originated with your cousin, Groucho. You can’t get the simplest thing straight, can you?
Very interesting, particularly since I can see with my own eyes that a plane never hit the building. Whatever it was, it wasnt a plane. And no plane could have caused that much destruction anyway, not in buildings specifically designed to withstand plane crashes.
While commercial demolition may differ in some ways from military demolition, this was demolition, not planes and fires. Planes dont cause whole building to collapse, never have and never will. They only damage the parts of the buildings they hit. And no fires from anything in the planes or the buildings could have burned hot enough to melt steel.
You don’t say, but I take it you are referring to the WTC towers, as opposed to the Pentagon. So your position is that the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft? Ver-r-r-ry interesting, as the little German used to say. You people are getting nuttier and nuttier. You and Lagomorph make quite a pair.
No one has ever said that the fires “burned hot enough to melt steel”. But a hot fire will progressively weaken steel, and will cause steel to expand. A sixty-foot truss, such as those at WTC, heated by a modest 750 deg F, will inexorably expand by over 3.9 inches. This will place great stress on adjacent unheated trusses, and on columns that are forced to bend outward. The only alternative is that the truss buckles, reducing its capacity to support the floor load and to stabilize the columns. The same relative expansion will be seen for the vertical columns, depending on the length and temperature of heated metal.
I do not know of any difference between commercial and military demolition, except the target: the principles are the same. But my point is that there is zero evidence of blast (or thermite) at WTC. Certain things happen when you set off large amounts of explosives, and there was nothing at all like that at WTC. There is absolutely no evidence before 09/11, on 09/11, or after 09/11, that there were any explosives or thermite in the WTC buildings. You may not like it, but there are the facts.
Posted by scorp on Jul 27, 2006 at 2:06 AM Batgirl says.
Uh, Rabbit, the times set out in the NIST report are within 4 or 5 seconds of the seismographic data. You don’t set your watch from a seismograph. I did notice from the data, however, that the WTC7 event took 18 seconds total, not 6.6.
This ignors the fact witnesses say bombs in the basements about 4-5 seconds before the plane impacts. This makes the most sense, and need the rabbit speak of Occams razor?The seismographic data, and times can be compared with the video evidence and seismographic data shows explosions occurring well outside of the observed collapse time. Thankyou we hadn’t gotten into that particular facet of evidence but you have highlighted it, Batgirl. Once again. The check will be in the mail excellent anti-shill.
What you are quoting, is the proof explosions were going off before the collapses, and have nothing to do with the times we are looking at here which is the plane impact times.
The seismic events we are talking about, didn’t include the plane’s impacts as a noticeable spike It is agreed among experts the impacts and dispersed explosions would never have registered at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory anyway due to their minuscule mass and energy compared with he mass of the buildings to absorb it.
The times were calibrated as it happens. You are using the improbability drive again dear and rule number 4) again. This time you are using rule number four on the NIST report itself which is always the most amusing of the uses of the Bat rule 4).
4) Anybody who agrees with the official story is automatically qualified and trustworthy and anybody who agrees with any part of the official story is qualified to comment to that extent only, but anything else they say which doesn’t agree with the official story just shows they aren’t perfect.
So your contention now is that the NIST report was only accurate to within a 30% margin of error? Over all those months, all those clever people who you like to claim as the virtual word of god, got this tiny detail wrong? Of course they also got the fall times correct to within about 30% error margin according to you as well. Tell us Nat, what other parts of the NIST report are innacurate, so we don’t go being fooled by it anymore will you?
The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University has its data precise to plus or minus one second, and just now I found that the 9/11 Commission based their times on FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.
http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.htmlBoing Boing!
Can anyone explain the logical progression to her, or the undead Scorpse? If your information on such critical issues is not accurate the conclusions based upon it will be useless as well. By trying to debunk the times we are using, which show the official report is flawed, you are debunking the very basis upon which the entirely theoretical conclusions of the report were made and thus the only basis for belief in the official fairy tale.
Voila! Official case destroyed in one huge feast of Bats feet.
Or of course, the times were correct taken as they were from the FAA radar data and air traffic control. I’m sure if an error like that existed in the FAA radar data and air traffic control software some evidence of this having been discovered will be available. Rabbit eagerly awaits the Fruit Bat’s producing such a thing if it exists.
By association you even manage to debunk the Bazant ramblings, because he used the official times at least in his untested suggestion his theorising would account for the fall times, which as I said he conveniently forgot to actually do, leaving us to figure out how to use his fascinating set of equations to do this.
The Batgirl has come full circle in her fruit loop once again. Finally the rabbit realises he has mis-identified Natalie as a Vampire Bat all this time. Actually it must be admitted she never actually killed or even wounded anything in all the time Rabbit has known her, except her own case by association.
She is obviously a Fruit Bat.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 27, 2006 at 4:29 AM Scorpse admits
I do not know of any difference between “commercial” and “military” demolition, except the target: the principles are the same.
Of course you don’t Scorpy, we wouldn’t expect you to.
Most people could probably guess the following two facts.
Military explosives are often inclusive of new types and forms, as yet not available on civvy street. The normal range of military explosives is also on average more powerfall. They have access to 700ms or more instant cord for example compared to the 500ms available to civilian demolitions when Rabbit last did such things.
Your claim that no evidence exists for thermite ignores the possibility that the some the photographic and video evidence may still show exactly what they appear to, which is the effects of Thermate cutting explosions. The most important evidence though is in fact Scientific analysis of steel samples taken from the WTC which show the unmistakeable effects of VERY HIGH temperatures and a chemical analysis consistent with THERMATE residues. Not once, but twice now. The links are above, and once again you are making a provably false, claim that something which is, is not. At the same time you insist on claiming what is not is in fact.
In FACT, a great deal of evidence, including chemical analysis exists which point to the observed phenomenon of explosive demolitions using Thermate cutting charges. Seismic evidence is consistent with numerous witness testimony which said bombs exploded in the basements a few seconds before the plane impacts.
Scorpse the undead now repeats Natalie’s earlier lost points.
No one has ever said that the fires “burned hot enough to melt steel”.
Yes they have! You faith brigaders have done so regularly, and the melted steel exists, so explain it!
There was molten steel under the buildings days after the collapses Scorpy go read about it, everyone else has. Lots of people are actually saying this and it isn’t in dispute except in the cases individuals without the sense to know better try to do so again, always with predictable results.
SCorpse in one of those acts of mental contortion for which he is famous gets this,So your position is that the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft? Ver-r-r-ry interesting, as the little German used to say. You people are getting nuttier and nuttier. ,
........from this caveat:
The rabbit is not saying that he is sure of everything that Gerard is saying, having not read this article before now. It is being offerred for consideration only.
The references for about half holmgren’s claims are already in this thread, the registration details and the passenger lists also, are a couple of posts up.
You should keep an eye on those nutty little germans dear Scorpy, but not be too swayed by their advice.
Actually no SCorpse I don’t “think” no planes hit the WTCs, but I am open to the conjecture that one or more of them were substituted.
I also don’t think it matters what all such details are; since we have more than enough to justify an independent investigation including the evidence being withheld by the parties who should be on notice, while such investigations are ongoing from what is already in the public domain.
This and more makes your posts complete raving garbage SCorpse. I think you may have been inhaling on that hose and not blowing smoke up it the way you are so fond of. Or you have swapped the ends of the hose, because for some reason or other you are talking shit.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 27, 2006 at 4:47 AM Rabbit,
FACT:“There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells PM. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”
The witnesses had the bombs in the basements about 4-5 seconds before the plane impacts.
What witnesses, exactly? We’ve explored Rodriguez, and found his testimony to be tainted by ulterior motivations, and of course by the fact that he could well have been mistaken about what and when he thought he heard and what its source was. But who else? There must have been dozens of people in the vicinity of Rodriguez, why is that we don’t have dozens of people coming forward and joining him on his world tours with Jimmy Walter?
Do you have anything coherant, organized, credible or official to present in the way of witnesses, other than the janitor? And oh gosh, I hope it’s not from Rense, Prisonplanet or “Global Conspiracies”.
Anything like all those accounts basically agreeing that they saw a passenger airlilner pass over and crash into the pentagon?
And again I ask you, because I’ve searched and I simply cannot find out what the status of Rodriguez’s lawsuit is. I thought you might get a newsletter, or something.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2006 at 6:50 AM We have not explored Rodriguez and found him to be tainted by ulterior motives! and his testimony is backed by another fourteen people you dribbling bimbo.
Your witnesses to a “passenger airlilner ” started out looking good but collpased into a heap. You claimed you had lots, but produced none. I found the entire list, and reduced it to no credible witness testimony which clearly identifies the plane types well enough to discount the possibilty that those other witnesses whe said they saw a missile were not correct. You didn’t even take part in that exchange fruit bat, it was done in your absense. Go select yourself three good witness reports to show us if you are not a rotting fruit bat.
You might as well stop with the popular mechanics quotes. That is definately old crap. You are doing the Fruit Loop again. We know all about Chertoff’s cousin, and while it’s touching to see a junior shill like Batgirl suck for a senior shill, it still doesn’t make for a gram of credibility between you. Shill one writes a spurious strawman hitpiece, shill two links to it as evidence. Good one.
Nobody cares what Lerner-Lam speculated about in relation to seismic results, which can be interpretated independently. The seismic results are being looked at for their timings so the speculations of the scientists is a complete red-herring. They do admit that no explanation is possible by the official explanation though. So once again you bombed out.
You are not altering the history of the thread, we have had more than a hundred witnesses detailed in above threads includng another janitor in the other building, firefighter, police and so on.
Thank you for that last post, its grovelling poverty of reason or integrity is most gratifying, the more you perform mind flips now the better, Fruit Bat, the more you prove you are a fake.
By the way that PM article you are linking to is hilarious. It is a collection of spurious claims, no sourcing mostly, just various rote answers to issues seemingly picked at random and invariably dealt with by deflection rather than actual answers. Is that sort of rubbish still the best you poor slobs can come up with after all this time? It is years old, carries no weight at all, it is too thoroughly debunked. I can’t believe you are still recycling that rubbish. Nearly every second day I can post some exciting new fact, often damning evidence consistent with the established truth, yet after four years you are still waving your taty old strawman Popular Mechanics, Chertoff’s cousin penned, hit piece. Tragic!
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 27, 2006 at 8:46 AM One of the major problems in this country, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just mentioned in an interview on bradblog.com is that we no longer have Ronald Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine. So unless you have a millionaire friend, nobody is likely to hear your testimony.
I’m sorry that people like you are dominating the media, Nat, and that it is backfiring on you because you can’t find important information. But the rest of us seem to manage, so it might also be partly due to poor research skills.
You probably don’t get much news about hurricane Katrina survivors still living in trailer parks either, because FEMA won’t let reporters in. They say that the Constitution doesn’t apply to them. I guess FEMA trailer parks aren’t considered to be part of the U.S., or perhaps FEMA officials have forgotten their oath of office.
These are strange times, Natalie. W’eve got a bunch of wealthy morons dominating the government and the MSM. Like you, they don’t believe in reason or ethics, just in winning by any means necessary, which usually involves lies and/or killing a lot of people.
RFK Jr says that another major problem is misinformation. That when people know the facts, they agree with us, but the MSM suppresses the facts and supplies falsehoods instead. Thats why we respond to your blather, so that more people will wake up and see through it. It’s a pretty good interview. So good, in fact, that you probably won’t be able to find it. Don’t worry—you’re the media and we’re the masses, and you can always count on us to keep you informed.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 27, 2006 at 8:50 AM Again we must prove you have no truth at all SCorpse and Fruit Bat
. New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”
Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”
These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
The PM attempt to debunk the seismic spikes evidence is crud, as this shows. This deceitfulness is typical of the whole PM hit piece. Like I said, Chertoff’s cousin wrote it.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 27, 2006 at 9:05 AM Rabbit…..Redhorse has suspected that this whole situation was a planned fruad of an attack from the get go…..Watching this tragic attack on the TV , my gut told me that Bush and Co. had their hand in this some way or another…..Now….you are saying that these buildings were brought down by a explosive device….I am in no way an expert in this subject…but it appeared that the buildings fell in a vertical fashion…just as when buildings are imploded by demo companies…is this your premises..?.......Short answer ....please…..
Posted by Redhorse on Jul 27, 2006 at 9:30 AM Redhorse
YES
Rabbit says it was explosives, it looked like explosives, and all the evidence is consistent with explosives..
Witnesses, Seismic data, chemical analysis of WTC steel expert opinion and my eyes and your eyes, every time we watch those collapses again. Especially WTC-7. All of it is consistent with the scenario of controlled demolitions. NOTHING of an irrefutable nature exists to back the official fairy story, including NO evidence of OBL involvment, to boot. The long answer is the first five or six posts of this thread, the rabbit worked hard to make a nice little garden of important 9/11 truths from the start, and the many comments which have followed have invariably attested to the usefullness of the rabbit’s little labour of love.
Except of course the usual suspects.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 27, 2006 at 9:36 AM I don’t understand why the remains of the victims are not permitted a decent burial and have to remain in a garbage dump: http://www.evesmag.com/ashes.htm
You’d think that if the federal and state governments care enough about 9/11 victims to start and support wars supposedly aimed at avenging them, that they’d be permitted a decent burial. Is it possible that the remains may contain traces of explosives that the government doesn’t want found?
I think our elected officials, now that they have Diebold and ES&S and don’t need our votes any more, think we’re all garbage.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM We have not explored Rodriguez and found him to be tainted by ulterior motives! and his testimony is backed by another fourteen people you dribbling bimbo.
Where is this testimony? I’m genuinely interested in examining it.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 27, 2006 at 10:35 PM Lagomorph Anatidae -
I do not know of any difference between commercial and military demolition, except the target: the principles are the same.
Of course you dont Scorpy, we wouldnt expect you to.
Lagomorph, I will be the trained demolitions expert with the Quarryman MOS, and you be the firecracker man, OK? And, as an “expert welder”, you do not impress us since you were unable to identify a cut by welding torch of a steel column, until I showed you a picture of the WTC clean-up and the man cutting the column with a torch. THEN you admitted that the cut was by torch and not by your fabulous “thermite”.
There are several differences between military explosives and commercial explosives, but that was not the topic. The topic was the effect of explosives on buildings.
“Thermate cutting explosions” (actually, rapid burn reactions) are possible with black iron oxide, but a slower reaction results from the use of red iron oxide (rust). Thermite reactions are not characterized by blast effects, but by spilling liquid steel and a very bright glow. The external signature of thermite (thermate) charges are high-temp fireproof (ceramic or fire brick) containments, otherwise the thr\ermite would scatter and dissipate. If you could provide us with photos of such thermite containments (there should have been hundreds of them mounted on exposed columns throughout the WTC towers) and/or photos of tons of molten metal falling within the WTC towers as the towers came down, you would have a case. Otherwise, you are just being silly.
In FACT, a great deal of evidence, including chemical analysis exists which point to the observed phenomenon of explosive dmolitions (sic) using Thermate cutting charges. Seismic evidence is consistent with numerous witness testimony which said bombs exploded in the basements a few econds (sic) before the plane impacts.
You certainly DID NOT have an “explosive dmolitions (sic)” charge set off in the basement “a few econds (sic) before the plane impacts” sufficient to register on a seismograph; if such a blast had occurred, every window in WTC would have been blown out. and great clouds of dust would have filled the lower levels of WTC. No one seems to have noticed anything like that. And whatever you think might have happened in the basement, it certainly had no effect on the structural integrity of the WTC towers, which were intact and undamaged until the great weight of the upper floors came plunging down some time later.
Marx said:
And no fires from anything in the planes or the buildings could have burned hot enough to melt steel.
To which I replied:
No one has ever said that the fires burned hot enough to melt steel.
So now Lagomorph asserts:
No one has ever said that the fires burned hot enough to melt steel.
Yes they have!
Ummm, doesn’t that sort of destroy your main argument? If the burning aircraft fuel melted the WTC columns, what need is there for explosive and thermite charges to bring down the towers?
Lagomorph, I once thought you were as dumb as a turnip, but I see I need to apologize to all the turnips in the world. Your intelligence is several orders of magnitude less than that of a turnip; you are as dumb as dog shit. Respectfully.
QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK. QUACK, quack, quack, quack. QUACK, quack, QUACK, quack, QUACK. QUACK!
Posted by scorp on Jul 28, 2006 at 2:28 AM Rabbit,
Is it not rather sophomoric to suggest that some LSD using computer programmer is qualified to debunk the seismic/geologic experts at Lamont-Doherty?, who flat-out state:
“There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells PM. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”
Are you really this naive, or are you just playing some sort of cool game?
Are you really gullible enough to buy into this hair-brained straw-grasping assertion that seismic readings and radar data are accurate and sensitive enough not only to compare timing down to the second, but to discern explosive charges from plane impacts?
Do you really not have the slightest understanding of the concepts of accuracy, interpretation of data and the limits of such? You seem to think that these things are equivalent to Swiss watches and micrometers.
You used to ridicule the Popular Mechanics article for putting forth “straw man” arguments. That would mean that they were trying to debunk stuff that nobody believed in anyway. However, looking back, it is evident that most of the claims addressed in the article have indeed been vigorously argued by you and others on this very thread:
1) No stand down order
2) The planes hitting the towers/pentagon were not the planes we all thought
3) All kinds of planes have been intercepted by NORAD in the past (not true, only 1 has, and in 1hr, 22min.)
4) Damage at the base of the towers could not have been a result of the plane crashes (jet fuel in the core)
5) Melted steel
6) Puffs of dust (squibs)
7) Seismic readings being an indication of something other than crashes/collapses
8) Aspects of the collapse of WTC7
9) Questions as to what hit the pentagonThat’s pretty much it, except maybe for the pods, and I suspect that your beloved Gerard Holmgren still believes in those. He certainly appears to believe in even more bizarre stuff.
Indeed the straw man argument against PM fails quite obviously, at least here at ITT.
I believe the PM article is one of the best refutations of the nonsense coming from the truthies, mainly because they actually asked people that witnessed first hand things that have been questioned, and people who are experts in the relevant fields. The exact opposite is offered by the “truth” movement.
That is why the article is so bitterly dismissed by them, because it is effective, persuasive and authoritative.
What is your evidence, exactly, for the Chertoffs being cousins?
Still waiting for the dossier from the 14 witnesses.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 28, 2006 at 4:01 AM Oh gee, I forgot that you were genuinely interested in the 14 witnesses, Nat.
So interested, in fact, that after all these years you have no idea who they are.
But if we would be so kind as to name them, you’ll be happy to discredit their testimony, discredit them (if their testimony actually got past the Media Iron Curtain, they must be publicity-seekers anyway, right?), and discredit yourself some more in the bargain.
As soon as there is an independent, unbiased investigation into 9/11, the fourteen witnesses and many more just like them will come forward. You see everything as settled. You know the truth, the light, and the way, and that’s that. As for those who intimate that the world might not be flat, well they’re just heretics.
The weapons of mass destruction existed, but they weren’t in Iraq, they were in the WTC, and neither Sadaam nor Osama put them there. When the Bush administration said there were WMDs in Iraq, they knew it wasn’t true and they lied anyway because they wanted to invade Iraq, and, according to the Downing Street memos, they were determined to fix the evidence to support their intentions. A member of the Bush family was in charge of security at the WTC. The PNAC had called for a “new Pearl Harbor” to justify invading Iraq, and 9/11 was it—all they had to do was fix the evidence, lie some more, and make any real investigation impossible.
Mind the Gap, Natalie. That goes for your duck also. Do you really think that calling the approximately half the country that believes there was a 9/11 coverup, conspiracy theorists, will do wonders for ITT’s circulation? Or is it so poor that you’re now relying entirely on subsidies from right wing think tanks and planting paid stories for the Bush administration?
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 28, 2006 at 6:08 AM Batgirl asks of Rodriguez:
Where is this testimony? I’m genuinely interested in examining it.
You are a riot Batgirl. You are genuinely interested in examining it are you? Bullshit! Where is it you ask? As if you cannot use a search engine at all. You are the most mindbogglingly stupid creature the rabbit has ever encountered.
It was given to you by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 11:04 PM in direct answer to your own question. So I guess you are once again trawling the sewer for your dinner Batgirl.
I know better than most what sort of liar you are because I already know you have been shown it before, several times over the past year, so you are just proving once again that you don’t read things at all before you begin attacking them.
Such a stupid Fruit Bat.
Knowing that you are a particularly daft cow, Rabbit shall include Rodriguez own blogspot and The Conservative Voice article. I’d hate to see the Bat get all flustered because I’d linked her to a Prison Planet article after all. You will of course not find any discrepancies between any of them, it isn’t hard for news sites to get the facts right, if they try.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 7:59 AM Batgirl again:
Is it not rather sophomoric to suggest that some LSD using computer programmer is qualified to debunk the seismic/geologic experts at Lamont-Doherty?, who flat-out state:
There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers, Lerner-Lam tells PM. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.
Well Batgirl since I have no idea what you are talking about in ref to LSD, it is after all what you claim of everyone who disgrees with the lies, I cannot easily know what you are now on about. It is however a scientific fact that LSD does not in any way diminish one’s intelligence, honesty or awareness of reality in the long run, in fact all studies have shown it to be of benefit. So you are slinging MUD and engaging in Red-Herring hunts again. Rules number 2 and 3 of your rules I believe.
The only thing Lerner-Lam can say about the seismic evidence is that they don’t know what caused the readings. THEY CANNOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE THE OFFICIAL STORY TO GO ON, AND THAT DOESN’T GIVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SEISMIC SPIKES..
For them to come out therefore and claim as they did, a long time ago, maybe they have different views now BTW), that no evidence exists is complete baloney, because the scenario of bombs in the buildings, is entirely consistent with the evidence they had in front of them. All making a speculative statement like that does is remove Lerner-Lam as any sort of trustworthy authority. They just lied by saying no evidence exists, since the seismic reports are not in dispute, they are consistent with all the evidence of Explosives and for them to claim otherwise is a farce. They admit they cannot explain the seismic data. How much more simple do you get? Nobody gives a shit what these dunces think, except PM who thought by making the strawman argument that they said so would make ascrap of difference.
Anybody can read the seismic data and with a minimum of effort determine how to read it. The details are above and Rabbit advises people to be aware that the Bat is only trying to bury the information with all her pointless and dishonest runblings.
See the following above to understand what the Bat is afraid you will read.
Jul 26, 2006 at 3:10 AM and Jul 26, 2006 at 10:29 PM
Gobbling on about who actually does the analysis is just your usual red-herring rubbish. It is the times we care about, and no amount of denial by scared or confused experts who might fear they have damaged the government case with their data, is going to change those times.
We already looked at the accuracy of the times finding them to be precise, or your NIST report becomes valueless by inference, and all you had to answer it was the Improbability drive I recall.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 8:33 AM There is now irrefutable evidence which proves massive complicity on the part of the highest levels of government—along with numerous accomplices and co-conspirators in the military, intelligence and administrative sectors—in the September 11 atrocities perpetrated
against the American people.Heres the deal.
1. Dozens of Air Force and Air National Guard bases are located within ten to thirty minutes intercept time of both 9.11 target locations. (List of bases provided below.)
2. Most of these installations have, at the ready, fighter jets such as F-16s to be scrambled on a moments notice, for intercepting troubled or problem aircraft.
3. Air defense units did receive alerts from Air Traffic Controller (ATC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials on a number of aircraft across the East Coast which had broken communications and deviated radically from established flight paths bon the morning of September 11.
4. Standard intercept procedures for dealing with these kinds of situations are totally established, in force and on-line in the United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
5. Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States were prohibited from carrying out their standard intercept procedures (detailed in the following list of FAA documentation) on the morning of 9.11; after they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/AirDefStdDwn.pdf
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 9:04 AM http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#airforce
This is one of my favorite pages on 9/11. Has it been mentioned too many times already that Donald Rumsfeld changed some of the rules of engagement for errant aircraft in June or July of 2001?
Yes, Natalie, you have to put on your tin foil hat for this one, but then again you probably don’t have to read an article to blow it off, right? Do you have your little “legitimate” list to work from? Good for you. Keep slogging. I have fun reading the posts in response to yours.
Posted by wileywitch on Jul 28, 2006 at 9:17 AM Batgirl sees how impressive a list looks so tries to imitate one.
1) No stand down order WRONG! The truth about the standdown is long since out.
2) The planes hitting the towers/pentagon were not the planes we all thought Your alleged witnesses were incapable of making acase for the actual alleged planes when they were looked at, and no other evidence exists to prove which planes were involved. (Except what is being hidden from even the investigations, by the FBI)
3) All kinds of planes have been intercepted by NORAD in the past (not true, only 1 has, and in 1hr, 22min.) CRAP! Interceptions of aircraft by NORAD is almost a daily occurence you idiot! There have been a few even since 9/11 which come to mind. OUTRIGHT LIES BY YOU AGAIN Batgirl, have you got nothing else?
4) Damage at the base of the towers could not have been a result of the plane crashes (jet fuel in the core) We know this. The damage at the bases of the towers was witnessed as explosions before the plane strikes and before the collapses.
5) Melted steel We have already proven there was melted steel, even the NASA thermal imaging proves it. So by denying this one PM just sunk it’s litle boat nicely, and your as well.
6) Puffs of dust (squibs) These are clearly visible and consistent with explosive demolition.
7) Seismic readings being an indication of something other than crashes/collapses The seismic data clearly is in discrepancy with the official story, and your own “beloved” Lerner- Lam admits as much, by admitting he has no idera what could have caused the readings. The ONE thing the seismic recordings do not do is support the official story. Not in times and not in the actual readings which showed substantiasl seismic events before the plane crashes and before as well as during the collapses.
8) Aspects of the collapse of WTC7 All of which are consistent with controlled demolition!
9) Questions as to what hit the pentagon Are still being asked since the evidence which might give an answer is being hidden, and after examination of the witnesses to the Pentagon incident, those who are not eliminated due to compromising positions, tend towards describing a missile or smaller plane.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 9:22 AM Thanks Wiley
Rabbit was just trying to link that Oilempire page but lost it in the posting. Yes it does help the story lots, but Natty isn’t going to read it.
It has been mentioned that Rummy changed the rules of engagement for errant aircraft in June or July of 200. This amounts to a standown order just before 9/11 in fact. It is also known that on the day repeated requests to engage the errant aircraft were denied.
Do you have information about previous NORAD intercepts Wiley?
Natalie the other day you mentioned to the rabbit that we shared a Danish connection. It just occurred to the rabbit that Helbig is a Danish name. Isn’t that cute?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 9:25 AM Scorpse
You have just made one of your most pointless posts to date. You are obviously not reading the thread, and merely chucking in your two cents worth off the cuff.
Lagomorph, I will be the trained demolitions expert with the Quarryman MOS, and you be the firecracker man, OK? And, as an “expert welder”, you do not impress us since you were unable to identify a cut by welding torch of a steel column, until I showed you a picture of the WTC clean-up and the man cutting the column with a torch. THEN you admitted that the cut was by torch and not by your fabulous “thermite”.Rabbit did not accept that the cut of which you speak was definately made with a torch, that is just your wishful thinking. He merely accepted it was not irrefutable. With so much other evidence which is irrefutable, who needs a photo which is open to interpretation? We have so much evidence for our contentions that as I’ve said before we could lose half of it and still have enough to make a positive case.
By the way, its why more people believe the truth these days than those diminishing faith brigade numbers. You are now in the minority, isn’t that sad. Now we have to call you the nutty conspiracy theorists. The crackpot faith brigade. Notice how many people come onto this thread and don’t find your case impressive? You are the lowest common denominator in any gathering old friend. I think even Natalie is ashamed of you just quietly.
There are several differences between military explosives and commercial explosives, but that was not the topic. The topic was the effect of explosives on buildings.
Now Scorpy you said you didn’t know of any differences between Military and Commercial demolition, they were your words and now you want to get all wise and say the opposite after the rabbit corrects you. The topic is indeed the effects on the buildings and the fact which any demolitions expert would not have any trouble understanding, is that Military explosives could indeed have had a different effect from civilian explosives. The point was valid, and you were wrong. Do you for example know what the effect of a higher deflagration rate has? It is a sharper report and a cleaner cut for example. As a matter of fact the latest Thermate cutting charges are military in origin and I linked to the information much earlier.
You have proven you cannot understand melting temperatures, cutting methods, or combustion temperatures, why do you keep pretending to be something you are not? HINT Metal workers and demolition experts know about these things Scorpse. So I think we’ll leave it as Rabbit being the Explosives and Metal expert and you can be my pet clown, OK? By the way this rabbit is not only a professional fireworks operator with multiple twelve inch shell firings under his belt who once ran a profesional display company with over thrity commercial shows a year, the rabbit was also a shotfirer, or explosives expert. The rabbit is also a Pyrotechnic Chemist, so for an ignorant troll to be crapping on about having some sort of experience in these areas while denying knowledge of some of the most basic concepts, is ridiculous. You had never even heard of Thermite before a week ago is my guess. You have made quite a few stupid statements which prove as much.
Try to stop wanking SCorpse! I have no idea what it would be like if you ever told the truth, but it would have to be bettre than the drubbing you are getting when you tell lies.
“Thermate cutting explosions” (actually, rapid burn reactions) Actually experts refer to high energy exothermic reactions, or deflagration, dear Scorp. are possible with black iron oxide, but a slower reaction results from the use of red iron oxide (rust). Thermite reactions are not characterized by blast effects, but by spilling liquid steel and a very bright glow. The external signature of thermite (thermate) charges are high-temp fireproof (ceramic or fire brick) containments, otherwise the thr\ermite would scatter and dissipate. If you could provide us with photos of such thermite containments (there should have been hundreds of them mounted on exposed columns throughout the WTC towers) and/or photos of tons of molten metal falling within the WTC towers as the towers came down, you would have a case. Otherwise, you are just being silly.
The only thing you ever demolished SCorpse is your own arguments.
That cut and paste of info makes you look even dumber, since it is clearly a cut and paste and it is out of context. Let Rabbit explain to you, since he knows such things, the reason why Black and Red Iron Oxide would burn differently. Different number of Electrons available for the reaction. FeO2 or FeO3. See Scorpy that is something Pyrotechnic Chemists, which Rabbit is, happen to know. Kids stuff really. Thermite as used in demolition charges would almost certainly include a very fast explosive like PETN or something to effect the cut once the steel is softened. Unless there is some new form of Thermate charges, which is in fact very likely. I already found links to some and they are military in origin.
You must stop with the pretense of knowledge it is vaguely disgusting. By the way a professional Pyrotechnician like the rabbit has fired up to twelve inch aerial shells and used to run around with more artillery than an average army division. The force of a the inch sheel will kill you, and anything from four inches up will rip your head clean off. Rabbit is also a shotfirer or was at one time, and this is parlance for explosives technician. I blew things up for aliving SCorpse. Never did I pull any skyscrapers Scorpy, but there are not all that many such jobs going as a rule. But I can shave you quite neatly or cut a steel door from it’s hinges in a flash using explosives and I can do such things as a rule without even calculating anything or measuring. I am known as quite a wizard with bangs in fact and anyone who does know me would have to find your attempts to engage me in debate on such asubject as farcical.
. You certainly DID NOT have an “explosive dmolitions (sic) charge set off in the basement “a few econds (sic) before the plane impacts sufficient to register on a seismograph; ............. And whatever you think might have happened in the basement, it certainly had no effect on the structural integrity of the WTC towers, which were intact and undamaged until the great weight of the upper floors came plunging down some time later.Sorry to inform you dumbo we have about two dozen witnesses to explosions in the basements before the planes hit. One of these witnesses was injured badly, and was being evacuated by William Rodriguez when the plane hit the building. The times given by the witnesses, a few seconds before the plane strike, co-incide with seismic spikes as measured at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. The timing of the seismic spikes preceded the plane impacts by 4-5 seconds. EXACTLY concurrant with the witness claims.
Here is the seismic story.As for these explosions having an effect on the structural integrity, you are guessing wrong again Scorpse the faker. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition actually stated that if he was going to bring down the WTC he would put explosives in the basement to take out the core first.
All this is covered at Jul 27, 2006 at 3:05 AM above but we know that SCorpse doesn’t read anything, just babbles off the top of his head.
At this post the evidence of Thermate was presented in detail and it isn’t possible for you to deny that evidence of Thermate exists in abundance. By all means act like an ass and do so, you are an ass man as we know, but best you review my post of Jul 17, 2006 at 12:17 AM so you at least are prepared for the humiliation.
Ummm, doesn’t that sort of destroy your main argument? If the burning aircraft fuel melted the WTC columns, what need is there for explosive and thermite charges to bring down the towers?
You are certainly in fine contortionist form today Scorpling. No, laddy the fact that melted steel was found, and that the only thing that could melt it appears to be Thermite, actually PROVES our contention. The presence of melted steel, destroys yours completely though. I’m sure the logic escapes you, but I’m not sure what can be done for this short of a brain transplant.
Lagomorph, I once thought you were as dumb as a turnip, but I see I need to apologize to all the turnips in the world. Your intelligence is several orders of magnitude less than that of a turnip; you are as dumb as dog shit. Respectfully. I’m sure you don’t need to respect Dog Shit Scorpy, unless you got yourself into a debate with any I guess.
Why thankyou Scorpy. That is surely the nicest thing you could say to a rabbit. Coming from someone who is consistently the dumbest sack of shit on this forum, you make Batgirl seem bright, that is just the best compliment, thankyou.You are certainly the most ignorant and logically challenged fellow we know, so I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise, but why are you now quacking repeatedly?
I think you need to go and blow some nice warm smoke up that hose attached to your rear, and relax. See if you can get a grip on reality.
The constant presumptions of superiority of reason or knowledge by you are ringing so hollow considering your total inability to cope with the implication of the facts many of which you are vainly seeking to deride are particularly pathetic I might add.
You do realise that just about everything you have said so far was long since redundant? All the things you are failing to debunk now, Batgirl already failed to debunk many posts ago. You are just old hat, and talking out of one to boot.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 12:06 PM Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained “spikes” in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
No evidence you say? Ho ho ho!
Another thing you silly Troll, why do you still keep trying to score points off spelling errors? With the new edit option, Rabbit can fix them and you just look pathetic pointing them out. Still I guess it must be exciting for you to find a spelling error, it is the most truth you’ve ever been able to come up with, and in this you are a fine and careful speller old SCorpse. Indeed you lies are always properly spelt. It would be interesting to see what you could achieve if you put as much energy into actually researching things. Probably nothing though, I’d guess your ability to research would be hindered by your profound lack of intelligence and reason. Never mind. Can you swim? If you can you could perhaps find employment as a Duck at the park I suppose.
Rabbit can see you already, waddling about in the muck, quacking like a ducky, bowing respectfully to the Dog turds you come across and trying to debate them.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM An analysis of the twin towers’ collapse from a structural engineering perspective can be found at: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/35245_comment.php
* (ii) Jet Fuel Cannot Melt Steel: The melting point of construction steel is 1500 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel burning in open air can reach just over half of that temperature. Inside a high-rise office block (which are usually an enclosed space), the fire is likely to have died down rather quickly because of lack of enough oxygen. The thick black smoke was an indication of that. That 300,000 tons of steel structure was melted by two planeloads of jet fuel is an absolute rubbish.
The temperature was so high that part of the WTC’s steel structure evaporated and part of it took the shape of ``Swiss cheese’‘. It is impossible for fire from jet fuel to cause all these. According to one report, ``there is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Centre buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel - which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit - may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet . . . . a one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges - which are curled like a paper scroll - have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes - some larger than a silver dollar - let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending - but not holes’’ ( `The ``Deep Mystrey’’ of Melted Steel’ www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/Steel.htm). See more analysis at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 28, 2006 at 1:18 PM And in your eyes, Natalie, the two sites are equally credible?
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 29, 2006 at 12:11 AM No marx, I’m afraid I was being sarcastic.
Rabbit’s site relies on long ago debunked rumors, and 9/11myths is responsible for doing just that.
Got it?
As you were.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 1:56 AM Thank you for not only helping to make my point, Rabbit, but for driving it home as well. The Popular Mechanics article was dismissed by you and others for bringing up strawman arguments, but then you proceeded to argue against each and every one of them that I listed.
Here is how you responded to my first bringing up the PM article back on Oct. 9, 2005:
“Rabbit read the Popular Mechanic article when it first came out, and independantly came to all the same conclusions as follows: The most obvious thing to Rabbit was that most of the “Alternative theories” they were debunking, were not widely held and were already considered to be disinformation by many of us then. So these clown set up an strw man and proceeded to attack it without even much success then as I recall, Rabbit is as mentioned not altogether foreign to exngineering and physics and on these points alone they show ignorance.
We can deal with each of the Popular Mechanics 16 points, but most of them are simply not relevant, because they are not views held by Rabbit or any serious 911 truth seekers…...
.......More important, it misrepresents skeptics’ views by implying that the skeptics’ community is an undifferentiated “army” that wholly embraces the article’s sixteen “poisonous claims,” which it asserts are “at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario.” In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/For strawman arguments, you and the gang have sure spent a lot of time on them. Care to revise your characterization?
BTW, I am well aware of Rodriguez’s brief, I was talking about the other 14 or 25 or however many there are. Where are their stories?
And also BTW. Michael and Benjamin Chertoff are not cousins.
Chris Bollyn again. Will you ever learn?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 1:57 AM “I think even Natalie is ashamed of you just quietly.”
Such is hardly the case.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 2:09 AM Lagomorph Anatidae -
Your foolish talk of explosives and seismographic spikes at WTC is perfectly absurd. Let me explain to you in words of one syl-la-ble why this is so.
The energy released instantaneously by 5000 kg of TNT is 22.5 x 10 to the 6th power kJ, NOT ALL OF WHICH would be transmitted through the ground to a seismograph. .
Each WTC tower weighed a nominal one-half million tons, and was 1368 feet tall. Probably 80% of the weight of each tower was below ground level, leaving 100,000 tons projecting into the air an average of 684 feet. The potential energy of this mass is 1.86 x 10 to the 8th power kJ, ALL OF WHICH was converted to kinetic energy when the towers fell. That necessarily means that five and one-half tons of TNT would have a seismic affect of much less than one/tenth of the seismic effect of the fall of each tower.
So tell us again about the spike from the explosives at WTC. I am dying to hear what bullshit explanation you come up with this time.
Posted by scorp on Jul 29, 2006 at 3:25 AM Lagomorph Anatidae -
You are so full of shit, you have cow-patty brains and horse-turd eyeballs. Wake up and use your real brains and eyeballs to see what is going on, instead of resigning your intelligence, judgment, and integrity to the likes of Jones and Rense.
Sorry to inform you dumbo we have about two dozen witnesses to explosions in the basements before the planes hit. One of these witnesses was injured badly, and was being evacuated by William Rodriguez when the plane hit the building. The times given by the witnesses, a few seconds before the plane strike, co-incide with seismic spikes as measured at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y. The timing of the seismic spikes preceded the plane impacts by 4-5 seconds. EXACTLY concurrant with the witness claims. Here is the seismic story.
As for these explosions having an effect on the structural integrity, you are guessing wrong again Scorpse the faker. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition actually stated that if he was going to bring down the WTC he would put explosives in the basement to take out the core first.
All this is covered at Jul 27, 2006 at 3:05 AM above but we know that SCorpse doesn’t read anything, just babbles off the top of his head.
At this post the evidence of Thermate was presented in detail and it isn’t possible for you to deny that evidence of Thermate exists in abundance. By all means act like an ass and do so, you are an ass man as we know, but best you review my post of Jul 17, 2006 at 12:17 AM so you at least are prepared for the humiliation.
I have asked you before whether you were talking about explosives or thermite demolitions, and you have a rather muddled response. Loizeaux says he “would put explosives in the basement to take out the core first”. Then you say that, “evidence of Thermate was presented in detail and it isn’t possible for you to deny that evidence of Thermate exists in abundance”.
You have also spoken of “explosive” “thermate” which would seem to be a contradiction in terms, but I might be convinced of such a thing, except that we run into other objections.
Because then you say, “The timing of the seismic spikes preceded the plane impacts by 4-5 seconds.” Thermite (thermate) burns rapidly, but will produce zero seismic spike. And if there was a massive explosion in the basement before the aircraft strikes, sufficient to set off seismographs, there necessarily would have been broken windows and great clouds of dust filling the WTC towers before the aircraft hit. And why, oh why, if the core columns were cut “4-5 seconds” before the planes hit, did not the towers come crashing down at the time, instead of waiting forty minutes or so, to coincide with the mechanical failure of the damaged areas of the buildings 70 or 80 stories above?
Are you out of your goddam mind? Do you really not see the abject contradiction of your own statements, regardless of the stupid conspiracy theorists’ insane rants? Use your head, man, er, rabbit, er, quack, whatever.
Posted by scorp on Jul 29, 2006 at 3:51 AM Natalie that you are not ashamed of the Scorpse is not a surprise after all, I already knew you were shameless, I just wanted to see you prove it again.
SCorpse has been reading up on explosives we can see and is now trying to pass himslef off as knowledgeable. Scorp don’t you think we can see when you are cut and pasting? You have already demonstrated your patent ignorance of explosives/demolitions/chemistry, and I have demonstrated my own considerable knowledge. What you have to go and cut and paste, I can tell you from the top of my small bunny head.
Do you want to play semantic games do you? Just because I have been simplifying the terminolgy for the sake of the layman?
The rate of combustion of any material is what gives it potentially explosive properties. For example a material like wood burns slowly, but we can speed that up. Through adding an oxidiser like Pottassium Nitrate to wood especially powdered wood will speed up the combustion of the wood significantly. If you furthermore add a bit of Sulfur to that, you will improve the ignitability and the rate of combustion even more by a still only partially understood catalytic reaction.
Charcoal, which is just Carbon, can be substituted for the wood and you will have a much faster combusting mixture, and it is called gunpowder, or blackpowder. Despite the fact that Gunpowder can be used to make explosions, it is surprisingly not a true explosive. There is an arbitrary rate of combustion below which a material is not considered to be an explosive, but there is not universal agreement on the boundary. Nevertheless Gunpowder is more what I would call a high energy reaction, a very fast combustion. However since it is an oxidation, and it has inbuilt its own oxidant, the stuff can be put inside of a container with a limited opening and made to a) provide thrust ie:rocket or b) create an explosion ie: firecracker. When our great great grandaddies were firing cannon balls at each other using Gunpowder as propellant it was the only thing which had the name explosive. Until along someone came and discovered how to nitrate cotton and then other organics like Glycerine, and then we began to understand what abang really was. Nitroglycerine is a true explosive. This is because it will explode without any need for containment.
Thermite a mixture of the oxide of a less reactive metal with the pure form of a more reactive metal is different again. In this case all that really happens is that the oxidised metal gains electrons from the more reactive metal and releases it’s own extra oxygen, becoming the pure molten form in the highly exothermic process . The more reactive metal becomes oxidised by taking up the now free oxygen and we get the oxide of the more reactive metal forming. Depending on the form of the Thermite this new oxide will be a vapour, a liquid or solid, depending on it’s melting point.
The reaction is highly exothermic as said, very highly exothermic I reiterate. If confined it is entirely capable of exploding. I have taken a bundle of sparklers (thermite) and bound the mixture into a cardboard casing with a suitable fuse. The bang it makes is not very gratifying since the ignition rate is slow at first, but I find with the addition of a bit of Sulfer, making Thermate the ignition is improved and this is noticeable with the more pronounced explosion. Now Thermite as well as Gunpowder are not true explosives but they can be used to make explosions. For simplicity sake I and others may exchange the words explosive and thermite and thermate. This doesn’t change the argument that all evidence points to thermate based charges having “been involved with” the collapses of the WTCs. The fact of Thermate usage does not preclude any other explosive devices being employed and there is strong evidence that such was the case. The seismic and witness evidence of explosions in the basements before the plane impacts bear this out. The seismic data also points to serious explosions at the outset of the collapses and this could not have been Thermate either. Thermate charges would presumably not have registered as seismic events, although the uncertainty of military technology does leave the possibility open but barely.Your little babble about the amount of energy of the fall being converted to a seismic event has one small problem and you are the dumbest little ducky imaginable that you cannot get it.
The seismic data puts the major spikes at the outset of the collapses, before that kinetic energy of yours was brought to earth. The kinetic energy was measured and you have just repeated it. Now go and see how much kinetic energy would have been needed to pulverise the amount of concrete which was turned to dust. This is as easily equatable as the kinetic energy available, and you’ll find you are short by several orders of magnitude.
The amount of energy needed to pulverise the concrete was many times more than the maximum kinetic energy of the falling buildings.
You just tried to play a kinetic red herring and by ignoring the actual correlation between the seismic event times and timings you made a profound foot shot.
Like I said before Scorpy, the rabbit can do little to make you seem more foolish than you manage on your own.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 4:50 AM Scorpy most of those words you posted had two and three syllables. Am I expected to take seriously someone who cannot count to three?
I am also tired of sparring with such a deluded, irrational moron who sticks his foot in his mouth so often any parody I do of you is redundant anyway. You’re your own worst enemy, and you are not contributing anything at this stage to a debate which long since left you behind.
Rabbit has posted a huge amount of information, and links to valid references. In the first five of the posts on this forum, the only posts most people who read the Terry Allen article will ever read.
There is enough verifiable information given about the facts and evidence which combined give an unbroken and interlocking chain of evidence which make the contention that the WTCs were destroyed using demoliton charges, all but proven. I can call that a fact, and nobody who has read through that information has not agreed and many have said they are convinced by it, including some who admitted believing the official fairy tale before.
Neither you nor Batgirl has read this information, I have repeatedly proven Nat doesn’t even read the sources she provides as often as not, right here in this thread. Except for the two most stupid and debased characters on this whole site, all others agree that there is more than enough reason for a proper independent investigation.
The frantic tearing away at the huge body of evidence you pair of morons are so desperate to do, is not denting the overrall scenario of controlled demolition, and government (shadow government) complicity.
Your own case taken at its highest fails to prove anything. It relies on speculation based upon selective facts only and highly tweaked theories which even their originators admit are improbable. Even ignoring the several verifiable facts which demolish your fairy tale outright, your case cannot be made into more than a faith based story, lacking anything to support it which would normally constitute evidence.
The facts which are inescapable and verified and which individually let alone collectively disprove the official fairy tale are these.
* Scientific analysis of WTC Structural steel. Shows some steel vapourised and other chemical analysis shows residues of Thermate.
* Molten steel. Nothing short of thermite could have produced the molten steel found in the underground levels, days after the collapses.
* The calculated energy requirement for the pulverisation of the known quantity of concrete is vastly more than was available from the kinetic energy of the collapses. The huge amount of missing energy, can only be accounted for by explosives.
* The seismic data from more than one location shows clearly that a massive seismic event occurred prior to the actual collapses, and the seismic disturbance was highest at the start than at the end of the collapses. Impossible if Gravity was the only force involved in the collapses. It also shows that explosions preceded the Impacts of the planes by several seconds.
* The collapse times of the buildings are only possible if no resistance to the fall was encountered, only possible by the simultaneous cutting of the whole support structure evenly. This is an engineering and historical fact.
There is more SCorpse, but like I said it is all long since on the table and you as well as Natalie are welcome to hang off the back of this thread now like dags off a sheeps arse, pretending that you can rewrite history and claim some sort of case, but if after several hundred posts you still have nothing but a faith based case for your fairy tale of Magic Arabs, it is unlikely you will manage now.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 5:31 AM This POLL is fascinating and very informative.
Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.Compare that to this:
A plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Nearly as many (38%), though, are aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it. People are least likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers’ collapse (14%).
About the same number of people who believe the fairy tale, also know nothing about WTC-7’s collapse! So ignorance is the state best conducive to belief in the offical fairy tale.
About the same number as do know about WTC-7 collapse also believe in a cover up.
I wonder what percentage don’t know the FBI have no credible evidence to link Osama Bin Laden to 9/11?
I wonder what both bits of information would do to those poll results. One thing is for sure, information can only go one way. Those ignorant can only become more informed, and the results of that information is clear to see.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 6:40 AM I’m amused that the “truth” movement continues to refuse to come out and just ask the questions that are really on their minds in their polls:
Do you believe that the WTC towers were brought down deliberately by explosives planted by the government?
Do you believe that there really were no hijackers? Or if there were, did they collaborate with government blasters to do a double whammy on the towers?
Do you believe that a missile or some other type of plane hit the pentagon, and not the American Airlines jet?
Obviously, they don’t think their brainwashing operation has had sufficient time to work its magic on the public. So they fiddle around with broad meaningless questions in order to avoid being revealed as the eccentrics they are. They know that if they attract too wide attention, the real experts will be motivated to come out and expose their minimal or non-existent expertise in the areas they imagine they are qualified to challenge.
I would have no problem with a broad sample of Americans sitting down with a copy of the final NIST report, the 9/11 commission report, the analysis by Bazant and Zhou, and access to the 9/11myths website and the “screwloosechange” video—along with any collection of the empty transparent propaganda from the other side but with the requirement that its author’s true credentials be posted —- and then let’s take a poll asking those specific questions.
It would be like how my son used to firmly believe in crop circles made by alien beings—no swaying that belief. But one viewing of a documentary that showed how a couple of charlatans created a fake video showing alien craft making crop circles, and how pranksters snuck into fields and stomped down the wheat…. and he sighed: “I guess aliens probably don’t make crop circles.”
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 8:58 AM Ignoring the random flapping noises, Rabbit leaves a special gift for the Evil Fruit Bat. Watch the Fruit Bat in action as it spreads its vitriol and personal attacks against another honest person who is only telling the truth. Its gross hatred for Doug Rokke should make people wonder why it would hate a respected veteran whose task has been to safeguard the health of the US troops.
Did you know people that the same shills who lie for the 9/11 faith movement, are also ardent supporters of Depleted Uranium?
Rabbit couldn’t ignore the Bat after all. Reading its babblings he is amused to see it doesn’t yet seem to have gotten clear in its funny little head, exactly what 9/11 truthers are saying.
It speaks of questions, but why would anyone wanting the truth, ask questions of the lying administration who are probably complicit?
It tries to define the questions we should be answering, thus completely reversing the natural order of responsibility for disclosure. Someone remind the Bat that we will ask the questions we feel are relevant, if we wanted to treat the truth in the way it wishes, we would simply stick our own heads in the toilet and flush. Since it is the way of Shills to act as the flushing toilet for all truth, we will leave that important task to the Bats and Corpses.
Dear Batgirl.
Go flush your puny head, the rabbit owns this 9/11 thread.
Fruit Bats do the fruity loop and try to cover up the truth.
Improbability drivers too, they make up things and lie to you.
No proof exists of their tale, but plenty shows it is false and stale.The Fruit Bat pretends to itself that 9/11 truth is some sort of poorly defined cause. What a strange and surreal way of thinking belongs to such Bats. Its as if it just hatched out of an egg this morning and has never heard of anything which came before this day.
Incredible since we are actually now at over 400 posts. The fruit Bat would like to pretend that so far the 9/11 truth has not been adequately covered in this thread.
Rabbit leaves this to be judged by posterity. Once again advises folk to take advantage of his two days hard work which went into the writing of the first half dozen posts, there you will find all you need to make up your mind, all sourcing and context is there. Almost everything else which has come since, is just peripheral and unimportant, or it is endless rehashes of information which can be judged on its own merit and is given in the first half dozen posts.
Nothing I have presented on 9/11 truth needs to be taken on faith. Nothing! Look at what I have said, and see if anything of it isn’t true, I have given all relevant sourcing, and unlike Batgirl am not asking you to believe anything on faith, check and research my facts. I am confidant nothing important will be found to be false.
Rabbit is a permanent citizen of the internet, and unlike Shills such as Natalie, makes no secret of who he is or where he is. No secrecy here and nothing to hide. I am sure honest people will have no problem discerning the truth. I am leaving this thread, on the tail of a hollow ad-hominem hit piece, in honour of the victims of 9/11 who are being dishonoured daily by lying creeps who would protect their murderers at any cost, for their own thirty pieces of tainted silver.
All decent people can only feel revulsion for foul lying scum who whore for lies which hide the crime of the century. Wake up those who are still asleep, Murder and mayhem and Illegal tactics and illegal weapons and domestic spying, and legalised torture, and the devolution of democray and the electoral fraud and the UN patriotic acts, are all consistent with an administration which would never have hesitated at murdering a few thousand Americans in order to further such a consistently foul agenda. Wake up and smell the Bat shit!
Remember, we only have to discredit the official fairy tale ONCE, for it to be defunct.
We do not have to provide all the answers which were not provided in the pathetic and discredited reports, merely demand that an independant investigation be convened to find these answers.On behalf of all rabbits, I demand an independant and full investigation of the events of 9/11.
This truth belongs to the world since it is being used to justify turning our planet into a battlefield.Bye for now, Natalie DU Helbig! .......................^^........................If you were quicker I’d say bite me, but you know you’ll only taste the wind, for rabbit is too quick for you.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM ....This guy makes so good points….viewed the link…many muslims believe Asama is died…..and Redhorse can’t speak Arabic…so even if the video was audible…who’s to say what this guy is saying..
..the videos are too grainy to tell for sure…if the actor is the same…the Gov’t fake a video….noooooo…not in a million years…ok….I got beach property in Montana…teriffic view of the ocean…..
Posted by Redhorse on Jul 29, 2006 at 12:27 PM On another note Batgirl.
The fact that a couple of charlatans faked some crop circles doesn’t actually prove all crop circles are fake.
If your son was convinced this was the case from a single example, I’d say the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
It is apparent that his initial beliefs were based on only limited knowledge too, for it is yet to be explained how people might have produced the radiation levels and unusual cellular destruction of the crops in some examples of crop circles. I guess he knew about as much about his chosen beliefs as you do about yours.
No this doesn’t mean Rabbit believes Crop circles are alien made.
It is simply a lesson in reasoning, probably lost on you Batgirl.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 12:28 PM Hi Redhorse
Would you like a piece of roasted Fruit Bat?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 29, 2006 at 12:37 PM Natalie…..Now Redhorse checked your link….Clicked the CIA story on agent meeting Bin Laden in some hospital…you are naive….First hand accounts….vs…..CIA heresay….Honey….grow up…this is the Big Boy Game….the Horse has a picture of ol’ Daddy Bush…published in the Final Call Newspaper….at the time , Mr Bush was CIA director ...sitting on a couch next to Manuel Noriega in Panama….later George Bush Sr….was to testity that he had never meet Noriega and that he ...meaning George Bush…didn’t know that Noriega was running drugs from Columbia to the US….
Now that alleged meeting with bin Laden.even if in some ” CIA heresay way true “....points to Conspiracy theory….I’m sure the agent in question was just making a social visit on an ol’ friend….it in no way points to the actual existence of this individual bin Laden….the wind can blow in any direction on that point…..but when people who are eyewitness to the fact ...make statement , as concerning what happened….point Conspiracy Theory…...
Now Rabbit….Horses don’t eat foul…....
Posted by Redhorse on Jul 29, 2006 at 3:34 PM Rabbit,
I think you’re under an extremely false impression that your irrelevant emotional rants and your supermarket tabloid links are persuasive to anyone but the most gullible and unsophisticated consumers of news and information.
You go on and on about this supposed mountain of iron-clad “evidence” you compiled and flooded us with at the beginning of this thread. I went back, just for the heck of it, and read through it. As I suspected, it’s simply the same old collection of long ago debunked myths and distortions by the same old crowd of deliberately dissembling Internet con-artists.
Do these folks really want an “independent investigation”? What exactly does that mean? Who is going to do the investigating? Who’s going to be in charge, Jimmy Walter?
No, these folks don’t really want an investigation, unless of course it was conducted solely by them, and they’re already doing that. Are we to believe that they would be somehow satisfied with the verdict of a second investigation that would inevitably conclude the same as the first? LOL. We’ve already spent how many millions of taxpayer dollars investigating the mess those brain-damaged islamo-psycos did that day, not to mention the billions upon billions cleaning up after them.
They simply want to continue to churn out their fairy tales, vent their anger at the war, the President, capitalism and Israel, feed their paranoid fantasy that there’s some big bully group of all powerful world controllers somewhere in a basement at Yale, and perhaps make a little money and get a little attention on the side.
It’s actually all quite amusing, except for all the damage these folks do to the fabric of reality in young developing minds, and apparently even in some older ones.
P.S. Cute bunny pic!
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 6:20 PM According to yesterday’s MSNBC poll with more than a quarter of a million responses, only 11% of the U.S. public doesn’t think Bush should be impeached (2% don’t know), and 87% think he should be. Now what are the odds that I would run into one of that 11% on a supposedly progressive website?
This is not a scientific poll, but as so-called scientific polls rarely use anywhere near such a large sampling, it should be regarded as more, rather than less accurate since the margin of error decreases as the size of the sample increases.
Are you really not angry at the President, Natalie? Do you think illegal domestic wiretaps are okay and that he was right to lie to us because the wars have brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan or that they ever will? Are you in favor of what Israel is doing in Lebanon? Are you unaware of global warming, or do you think it is just another myth and that capitalism is going to make everything alright? Have you actually never heard of Skull and Bones at Yale?
Bearing in mind that freepers have banks of computers set up to use different IPs every time and that they try desperately to freep such polls, it is likely that that ignorant 11% is really a lot less than that. The odds of our ever encountering one of you, no less two at the same time, are so small that our efforts here are quite justified. Of course it is impossible to convince anyone of the truth when their livelihood depends upon believing a bunch of lies, as Derrick Jensen, author of “The Culture of Make Believe,” “A Language Older Than Words,” and the 2-volume book, “endgame,” so rightfully points out. We never thought that we could. Our only purpose is to prevent the ignorant minority from posing as an informed majority without being challenged.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 29, 2006 at 6:47 PM Hi Red
GHWB never “met” Noriega, becos he has a different definition of the word to you !Natty will explain the semantics.
One thing we know for sure is that the Kean Commission was a carefully picked bunch of insiders. The Bushling even , 411 days after 911, put cover-up artist Henry Kissinger in charge—- but the old war criminal didn’t want to reveal which foreign governments he was being paid to lobby for.
He lasted a bit over two weeks.
Nattyshill, ——the 911 Commission was one of the cheapest most underfunded inquiries on record.
Funny, that.
Posted by frog on Jul 29, 2006 at 7:21 PM Lagomorph Anatidae -
I accept that you are a competent firecracker man (gunpowder, sparklers, oxidizers, whatever).
You claim to be an expert welder, but, as a welder, you are so unobservant that you mistakenly accepted Rense’s false argument that a column was cut by thermite, when in fact the marks of a welder’s torch were clearly visible on the face of the cut.
You do not know jack-shit about thermite or explosives. The column in the Rense photo was definitely, stupendously, cosmically NOT cut by thermite. It had absolutely nothing of the signature or the appearance of thermite.
And you do not have the common sense God gave a goose. In your ignorance of thermite and explosives, you eagerly grasp at any idiot’s perverted theory about WTC, while closing your mind and your eyes to the facts in front of you.
You have stated that there were explosions in the basements of the towers BEFORE the planes hit the towers, which “co-incide with seismic spikes as measured at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.” and “these explosions” had “an effect on the structural integrity” of the towers.
What marvelous explosives you have invented, Lagomorph! They registered at the observatory in Palisades twenty or so miles away, and affected the structural integrity of the towers, without breaking any windows, without creating any dust, and with a delayed reaction time of some 75 minutes (for WTC 1) before the Tower collapsed! Amazing! Perhaps even magical? Or Lagomorphical? The actual seismographic records to which you refer do not show a very big spike, but merely a blip for each aircraft, not near as big as the falls of the Towers. So what is it that you are really trying to say?
Then we have the real seismic spikes accompanying the falls of the towers. Consider what we know about them:
1) The largest CD in history was the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit in 1998, by our friends the Loizeauxs. Parts of Hudson were built as far back as 1911, with numerous additions being added until 1946. The significance here is that building methods from the early Twentieth Century employed much more steel than modern methods, by a factor of three, four, or more. The 2.2 million SF Hudson building, with twenty-three above-grade floors, was fired using 2728 lbs of explosive, in 4118 separate charges, about 10 ounces of explosive per charge.
2) In contrast, one WTC Tower had 4.7 million SF of floor space. Extrapolating directly, without regard to the much lesser weight of steel used in WTC’s modern construction methods, 5828 lbs of explosive would be required to fire WTC 1 or WTC 2.
Continue ...
Posted by scorp on Jul 29, 2006 at 9:12 PM 3) In my previous post, I used a calculation for 5000 kg (11,000 lbs) of explosive to demonstrate that the seismic shock from your alleged explosives would be quite minor compared to the kinetic energy of a falling tower. So, it is not correct of you to claim that an explosive energy spike was seen at the start of the collapse; no such energy from alleged explosives is sufficient to affect the seismometers in any meaningful way. But, studying the videos, it is seen that three or four damaged floors gave way in one instant, allowing the intact upper floors to fall perhaps 48 feet (four floors) before meeting any significant resistance; that is the initial seismic shock as recorded at Palisades. After that, there was substantially uniform resistance as each lower floor pancaked in turn until destruction was complete.
4) Jim Hoffman, The North Tower’s Dust Cloud, poses interesting questions in a scholarly manner, quite worthy of consideration, unlike Rense and ilk. But there are some unresolved issues:
CALCULATIONS SAY AT LEAST 14 TONS (28,000 lbs) OF HIGH EXPLOSIVE NEEDED TO BRING DOWN EACH WTC TOWER. by Jim Hoffman Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2003 at 7:56 AM
Well, no. The calculation was based on the nano- level pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete. 28,000 lbs of explosive to bring down one WTC Tower was overkill by a factor of five (see 2) above). So, if less than three tons of explosive was sufficient to drop each Tower, why would anyone go to the time and trouble and expense to install fourteen tons of explosives in each Tower, and since this work would have occupied many weeks and many workmen in an occupied and functioning building, how come nobody noticed? Every charge installed (4118 charges on the much smaller Hudson job) would have required that wall coverings be removed, column fireproofing be removed, charges be installed and wired, and not one person of the tens of thousands who worked in the buildings daily noted any such activity? The mind boggles.
5) But the final proof that there were no explosives in WTC is shown in the headline photo on:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Lagomorph has been loud and clear from day one that the WTC Towers were the perfect CD job, dropping the Towers each in its own footprint. But the way this is done in a real CD job is to install charges throughout the building, cutting all vertical members into short lengths, so that the building collapses on itself. Cutting columns into short lengths results in blast effects and great clouds of dust. Now look again at the photo cited above. The damaged area has given way, with the floors above and below still intact. At the point of fracture, there is much dust from breaking concrete, which is what you might expect. But lower down do you see those windows blowing out from the charges on the lower level columns? Do you see all that dust from the explosives going off? Do you see the lower levels of the WTC completely enveloped in the debris from thousands of exploding CD charges on thousands of points on the columns? Neither do I. Neither does Lagomorph. Neither does anyone else. Therefore, no controlled demolition is observed at WTC. You can watch a videotape of the collapsing tower, and you still do not see any signs of explosives at any point during the collapse.
The debunking911 site has recently been updated with much new material, including a perfectly good scientific explanation for the hot metal in the basement (not thermite!) and a look at the squibs, which were never convincing as evidence of explosives anyway. Check it out.
Posted by scorp on Jul 29, 2006 at 9:18 PM A little lesson in common sense, marx.
Averages of scientifically conducted national Presidential approval polls between now and the start of the year, for instance, have varied between 38 and 45% approving of Bush.
Now you want to find meaning in an unscientific Internet poll that says that nearly 90% want him impeached? Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you? I hope not.
This is but another small example of mistaking biased manipulated data for the real thing, and using inapplicable poll results to mislead people into thinking something is true when it’s not.
Freepers have banks of computers? Somehow I doubt that, but what in the world makes you think that DailyKos, Demunderground, moveon.org, etc, don’t have the same thing?
These people are so obsessed with hating Bush that they spend all day on their computers looking for internet polls to skew. There’s your bank.
You voted at MSNBC, right? I didn’t. Where did you hear about the poll? If you found out about it, what makes you think thousands of others didn’t also? You seem to understand that the poll is unscientific, but then you still seek to find some kind of truth in it. No, quite simply a hoard of anti-bush surfers herded to the poll, and added their votes to the already naturally left-leaning audience @ MSNBC.
I certainly don’t approve of everything Bush does, and I understand that there is substantial, but not overwhelming unhappiness with his performance. But I also happen to believe that it’s in the best interest of the country to keep disagreement with our duly elected leader on a respectful plane, especially when it comes to foreign policy, and even more so when troops are in harm’s way. I guess I’m old fashioned.
You so help to make my point. These are the kinds of irrelevant things that truthies feel they need to bring forth to buttress their contentions about bombs and missiles. You’re not helping your case with the jury.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 29, 2006 at 10:12 PM I guess that’s why disagreement with the unelected leader (the Supreme Court stopped the recount in 2000, but newpaper investigations showed that had it proceeded, Gore would have won, and in 2004 the illegally suppressed votes would have overwhelmingly given the election to Kerry) is on a much more respectful plane that it was when Clinton was President. But then Bush probably deserves more respect for being a supposedly sober cocaine-addled deserter who has devastated the economy and committed war crimes. Funny the double standard—the thing we were told about Clinton was that it wasn’t about sex, it was that he lied. But no matter how many lies Bush tells, it doesn’t seem to matter.
The only jury that counts, which will actually be a panel of judges, will be the one at The Hague, Natalie, and as a propaganda and misinformation flunky, you’ll probably meet them yourself one of these days.
As for DU, dKos, and other left gatekeeper sites, their enemy isn’t and has never been Bush. Their enemies are Ralph Nader, because he has done more to oppose corporate rule than any other single person in this country, and Bev Harris, because Bev has done more to expose election fraud than any other single person in this country. Try it yourself. Go to one of those sites and mention Bush, and you might get a few low-keyed grumbles in response. Then mention Ralph or Bev and see how much unadulterated vitriol and venom spews out. Well, actually I don’t read DU any more, and since RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone and the Democratic National Committee coming out against election fraud, the venom against Bev Harris has been muted somewhat on dKos. But you can tell from their archives who they really hate.
Our troops would not be in harm’s way if Bush had listened to military experts and not sent them to Iraq in inadequate numbers to accomplish their mission, if he’d at least provided them with proper body armor, and if he hadn’t started the illegal war based on lies in the first place.
But now you’re caught my attention, Natalie. You say that you don’t approve of everything Bush does. Can you name one thing specifically that you don’t approve of? Perhaps you feel that he hasn’t given sufficient tax cuts to the wealthy during wartime? Maybe he hasn’t given enough no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other corporations known to have defrauded the government? Could it be that he hasn’t shown sufficient disrespect for the Constitution to suit you? Maybe he sent too much aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina too quickly? Perhaps he didn’t keep listening to “My Pet Goat” long enough while our nation was apparently under attack? Could it be that he hasn’t done enough illegal wiretapping? Were you hoping he’d have more undercover CIA operatives outed, something his dad said was the worst treason anyone could commit? C’mon, Natalie, name one thing, just one, that Bush has done that you don’t approve of.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 29, 2006 at 11:16 PM “I guess that’s why disagreement with the unelected leader (the Supreme Court stopped the recount in 2000, but newpaper investigations showed that had it proceeded, Gore would have won.”
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals…...
You’re almost as reliable a source of information as Alex Jones, Marxy. Congratulations.
“and in 2004 the illegally suppressed votes would have overwhelmingly given the election to Kerry”
Pure fantasy. Note that the newspapers didn’t even bother with a similar endeavor to recount ballots, or even really question the results of the 2004 election. Sour grapes and little else. Not even Democrats anywhere to the right of Dennis Kusinich have any interest.
“But then Bush probably deserves more respect for being a supposedly sober cocaine-addled deserter who has devastated the economy and committed war crimes.”
Contrary to this gossip column rumor, we have the testimony of Vietnam veteran Bill’s 12 year mistress that he used cocaine extensively. We also have his brother’s statement via undercover police video to wit: “He’s got a nose like a vacuum.”, as he himself was arrested for cocaine possession. I think you’re talking about Jimmy Carter on the economy thing, and John Kerry on the war crimes front, as he personally admitted to them.
Funny the double standard—the thing we were told about Clinton was that it wasn’t about sex, it was that he lied. But no matter how many lies Bush tells, it doesn’t seem to matter.
The only lie out there is that Bush lied. At least according to two separate official investigations. But they missed the thermate and the missile. What do they know????
The only jury that counts, which will actually be a panel of judges, will be the one at The Hague, Natalie, and as a propaganda and misinformation flunky, you’ll probably meet them yourself one of these days.
More fantasy. But then again, you believe in bombs and missiles so it’s quite understandable.
As for DU, dKos, and other left gatekeeper sites, their enemy isn’t and has never been Bush.
Mouth agape. You are truly delusional. There can be no doubt at this point.
Their enemies are Ralph Nader, because he has done more to oppose corporate rule than any other single person in this country
No, they hate Nader because he throws a wrench into their efforts to oust their true enemy….Bush. Could you possibly be any more off base? Kos and DU pro-corporation? Is it “opposite day”, as my little boy likes to play?
and Bev Harris, because Bev has done more to expose election fraud than any other single person in this country.
I don’t know who Bev Harris is, but the only reason I can imagine that the Kossacks are mad at her is that she is exposing the only real practitioners of election fraud, the Democrats. Barring that, she must have been seen talking to Joe Leiberman.
Try it yourself. Go to one of those sites and mention Bush, and you might get a few low-keyed grumbles in response.
Yeah, well I wouldn’t blame them for getting a little tired of it all after all these years. It doesn’t mean they hate him any less. It doesn’t mean they don’t still have the energy to click on a link to a poll and register their vote. Am I actually getting from you that these folks are not radical left enough for you? OMFG.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 30, 2006 at 2:36 AM But now you’re caught my attention, Natalie. You say that you don’t approve of everything Bush does. Can you name one thing specifically that you don’t approve of?
I don’t approve of the decisions made regarding Tora Bora, and I think a LOT more could have been done using U.S. forces to insure that bin Laden was killed. Serious anger on that front. But then again, I’m not privy to all the intricacies of the operation.
Although I think he has good instincts, I wish he was a little more sophisticated thinker and effective communicator. I like how he sticks to his beliefs, but sometimes I wish he could be a little more willing to admit when he’s wrong.
I approve of the decision to go to Iraq, as did John Kerry, but I wish more study and effort would have been put toward anticipating the aftermath of the invasion. But then again, the only sure thing about war is that things will go wrong. The best measure is how you correct and compensate for mistakes. On this, the jury is still out.
I wish he would veto more things that he has taken a stand against previously. I wish he was a more effective promoter of mainstream conservatism, as was Reagan.
I was actually a Democrat and thought of myself as a liberal until relatively recently. In my more naive years, I cheered for Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, and even Clinton the first time.
I guess you might say that I’m a late blooming Reagan Democrat.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 30, 2006 at 2:39 AM “Note that the newspapers didn’t even bother with a similar endeavor to recount ballots, or even really question the results of the 2004 election.”
That is exactly why we are living (or about to live) in a fascism regime…only our Minister of Propaganda has a different title and our Fuhrer is called the democratically-elected President…If you are not aware of how biased the media is you should watch OutFOXed…
Those who seek the truth or show the slightest dissent of the current governement are stamped as ‘traitors’, ‘lunatics’, ‘un-American’, and/or ‘radicals’
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” - Hermann Goering, Hitler’s right hand man
Does that not sound familiar?Of course it would be more effective since what supposedly be the “news” pushed these ideas (Bill O’Reilly is an excellent example of this practice)
I wouldn’t have noticed earlier either…“The only lie out there is that Bush lied.”
Have you been in a comma for the last few years? You should have stayed down for at least another couple of decades…“...the only real practitioners of election fraud, the Democrats.”
And i’m guessing they’re aiming to lose…twice!
Some fraud huh?If you could explain why Bush pushed so hard for the Patriot Act I & II, regardless of its contents breached most of the Constitution and have nothing to do with the current non-existant witch hunt, I would seriously consider your claim of sanity
http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm contains the Patriot Act IIYou might be reluctant the fact to accept that The USA is capable of such crime against humanity, with the Statue of Liberty and all these freedom craps we are being spoon-fed at school and the media, but this website beg to differ
http://krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.htmlYou all should be aware that these events occured behind the curtain of the so-called “American Dream” we’ve all been watching and/or listening in TV, radio, movies, and everywhere else
I am aware That Natalie will attack its credibility, that’s why as the Introduction of the site suggests you should do your own research (as always) to confirm facts on all casesI am thankful that the Internet is still out of the government’s reach…at least for now
“I guess you might say that I’m a late blooming Reagan Democrat.”
I guess you must have lost your mind during all the ‘blooming’Let me close with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”
Posted by Oeyrsenal on Jul 30, 2006 at 5:28 AM Nat-a-LIE doesn’t think Bush went after Osama hard enough.
No matter that the FBI says there is no evidence of Osama’s involvement in 9/11. He was a good enough patsy, so Bush should have gone after him anyway?
Or perhaps he did have some involvement, and the bin Laden family asked their dear close friends, the Bush family, to please cover it up so their beloved Osama (who they’re said to have repudiated but still kept sending money to) wouldn’t get in trouble, a request that the Bush family, being family-values people, had no choice but to comply with.
So do you think the FBI is lying, do you think that Bush should have gone after Osama even if Osama was innocent, or have you got something against family values, Nat-a-LIE?
(Of course there’s also the strange conspiracy theory that Osama did have some involvement in 9/11, but that everything he did was on the orders of the people who recruited, armed, trained, and paid Osama and Al Queda in the first place, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America, and that if he were to be caught he would be able to prove it and implicate Bush. I don’t happen to believe that particular conspiracy theory, but I’ve seen it tossed around.)
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 30, 2006 at 5:45 AM So let’s see, I should watch “Outfoxed” to learn how biased the mainstream media is?
Are you saying that FoxNews is now mainstream?
I’m sure they’d be flattered, but actual audience numbers might be a little more meaningful compliment.
LOL
Don’t tell me. You believe in bombs and missiles too.
How about the Easter Bunny? 70 virgins?
I hope you’re fourteen, Oeyrsenal. You would at least have an out.
We’re fresh out of fascism. Check back in two weeks.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 30, 2006 at 5:52 AM OK so let’s see now…..Usama is innocent?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EFFING MIND?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:02 AM One thing I do believe is that Nat-a-LIE is a Reagan Democrat. See, I never believed that there was such a thing. When they told me that all these folks voted a straight Democratic ticket, but voted for a Republican for President, I didn’t believe it.
I had quite an argument with a friend at the time. There was an article in The New Yorker about how our government had interfered with elections in other countries, and I told him my feeling was that if they were doing it in other places, they were doing it here too.
I’ve lost track of him over the years, but if you’re reading this Michael, and if you read RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone and Greg Palast’s book, “Armed Madhouse,” I hope you remember that I effing told you so.
Oh, there may have been a few such oddities, but not enough of them to sway an election. I believe that most of the so-called Reagan Democrats were the Republican political operatives who fixed the election. I can easily believe that you may have been one of them, Nat-a-LIE.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:06 AM The FBI has stated that they have no evidence of Osama’s involvement in 9/11, they’ve closed the unit that was investigating to see if he had any involvement in 9/11, and they’ve never charged him with any involvement in 9/11. But I’m the last person in the world who would try to defend the FBI’s sanity, so if you want to say they’re crazy, Nat-a-LIE, I’d be in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with you.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:09 AM No such thing as Reagan Democrats? You might want to drop a line to Jim Webb just to reassure him, because he sure seems to be wasting a lot of time and ink trying to get their votes back.
I don’t know if I fit the classic description of “Reagan Democrat” perfectly. Perhaps a better description of my realignment would be someone who belatedly realized what a complete failure the presidency of Jimmy Carter was, and just what a dictator-appeasing pacifist fool he was. Contrasting his world view with Reagan’s, viewed through the prism of historical events, and it was a no-brainer after that. For some weird reason, none of this clicked for me until the early nineties.
Republicans by and large continue to be much closer to the Reagan example, and Democrats by and large continue to be closely aligned with the Carter model.
If those roles ever switch, so would I.
Hmm….I wonder if Jim Webb believes in bombs and missiles. You might want to ask him about that too when you write your note.
I was watching CSPAN today, and happened to catch Alberto Gonzales getting the question from a caller about the fact that UBL was on the FBI list for many other bombings, but not for 9/11. He said that while he wasn’t able to comment on this specific case, often such cases are under sealed indictment. (I presume to keep certain evidence in the case secret for national security reasons.) I was left with the clear impression that just because bin Laden isn’t on their list for 9/11 doesn’t mean they don’t have sufficient evidence to charge him for 9/11 when the proper time comes.Much other evidence has been presented to NATO and other heads of state that also has not been made public. NATO for the first time invoked article 5, the evidence apparently was so compelling.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 30, 2006 at 8:06 AM Lagomorph, Frog, and Marx profess to believe things that defy the phenomena observed at WTC and that defy common sense. They are happy to point out that a large minority of Americans agree with them, approximately the same number that voted for Traitor John Kerry.
There are only two classes of people who share the mental and emotional handicaps of Lagomorph, Frog, and Marx: the deluded and those driven by an organizational agenda, such as socialist fanaticism or religious fanaticism. That is to say, the deluded and the self-deluded.
So, what is the nature of the self-delusions driving so great a proportion of the American people?
A clue is available from UCLA medical and psychological studies:
..... a team of U.C.L.A. researchers analyzed the neural activity of Republicans and Democrats as they viewed a series of images from campaign ads. And the early data suggested that the most salient predictor of a ‘‘Democrat brain’’ was amygdala activity responding to certain images of violence ... Such brain activity indicates a kind of gut response, operating below the level of conscious control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magazine/22IDEA.html
How interesting! Democrats tend to exhibit more amygdala activity in response to provocative stimuli. But the amygdala is the seat of the emotions. Are Democrats more emotional than Republicans? Since emotional responses tend to overwhelm all other input and output, more emotional necessarily means less rational. Are their that many Americans (not to mention the occasional odd Oz) whose fall-back reaction to stress is not rational?
Well, look at the evidence presented on this site. We have already seen that Lagomorph denied the evidence of his own eyes and his self-described expert welder credentials to embrace a photo from Rense (Rense!) that was described as evidence of thermite melting of a steel column. Not only did the photo not show anything that looked like the results of a thermite reaction, there were other photos that showed a welder cutting identical structural elements, in an identical manner, at WTC. You might think that an expert welder, such as Lagomorph, might recognize the marks of a cutting torch on a steel beam, but that is not necessarily so if he was self-deluded.
And then there is the uscrisis website cited by Lagomorph, where Lagomorph professed to see evidence of explosive detonations on the seismographic record immediately (4-5 seconds) BEFORE the aircraft strikes on the WTC Towers. Do you see anything like that? I dont.
There were seismic disturbances during the collapse of the Towers, but seismic disturbances are characteristic when tens of thousands of tons of building come crashing down. The largest controlled demolition (CD) on record (Hudson, Detroit, 1998) required 2787 lbs of explosive. Hudson had about half the floor space of WTC 1 or 2. Hawaii.indymedia website calculated that 28,000 lbs of explosive were required to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in the floors of each WTC Tower, but this is surely in error; 28,000 lbs of explosive, if well placed, or especially if not well placed, in each Tower would have blown the Towers to smithereens.
What we are seeing here is people with a political agenda (and all the answers, according to their beliefs), searching for supporting documentation and ignoring documentation that does not agree with their pre-conceived notions. In short, self-deluded. Except Marx. He really is deluded.
Posted by scorp on Jul 30, 2006 at 5:19 PM Natalie,
The Jim Webb you mentioned… is he the former Reagan Asst Sec. of Navy and author of Born Fighting? If so, we had a bit of an e-mail exchange after I read his book. I hear he has decided to run for congress as a Democrat. (Not that theres anything wrong with that.) I think he is a great guy and would be an asset to the country in any capacity and an upgrade to any party.
I do know he was opposed to sending troops into Iraq (as are some of my retired military officer friends). I think they (all of whom served in Vietnam) were afraid of just what has happened there too much political micro-managment and too setting goals too high.
Our real problem and reason for the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to not letting the professional military do the job their way.
Rumsfeld ignored ten years of CENTCOM planning and sent 125,000 troops to do what called for 500,000. In a country of 23 to 26 million people (not counting those slipping in over unsecured borders) it is completely unrealistic to expect to make life safe for the population.
This makes for more loss of life for both the civilians and the military.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:33 PM Natalie,
The Jim Webb you mentioned… is he the former Reagan Asst Sec. of Navy and author of Born Fighting? If so, we had a bit of an e-mail exchange after I read his book. I hear he has decided to run for congress as a Democrat. (Not that theres anything wrong with that.) I think he is a great guy and would be an asset to the country in any capacity and an upgrade to any party.
I do know he was opposed to sending troops into Iraq (as are some of my retired military officer friends). I think they (all of whom served in Vietnam) were afraid of just what has happened there too much political micro-managment and setting goals too high.
Our real problem and reason for the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to not letting the professional military do the job their way.
Rumsfeld ignored ten years of CENTCOM planning and sent 125,000 troops to do what called for 500,000. In a country of 23 to 26 million people (not counting those slipping in over unsecured borders) it is completely unrealistic to expect to make life safe for the population.
This makes for more loss of life for both the civilians and the military.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:35 PM Nice program on C-Span:
http://www.c-span.org/
Look at “Recent Programs” and click on “Theories about 9/11” (American Perspectives).
It has aired several times, but you can click on it online and watch/listen any time.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 30, 2006 at 6:58 PM WTH
I think they (all of whom served in Vietnam) were afraid of just what has happened there too much political micro-managment and setting goals too high.
Our real problem and reason for the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to not letting the professional military do the job their way.
Rumsfeld ignored ten years of CENTCOM planning and sent 125,000 troops to do what called for 500,000.
Where were the other 375,000 troops going to come from ?
Iraq was stable before the Invasion, now FUBAR .
Posted by frog on Jul 30, 2006 at 10:12 PM Yes, WTH, we are talking about the same Jim Webb, who just might unseat George Allen this fall.
He wrote an editorial in Feb04., that was far from kind to either candidate.
I think the book has been pretty much closed on Kerry, however it will take many more years to determine whether the Iraq decision was dumb, brilliant, or a toss-up. A lot’s happened since he wrote this editorial, both good and bad.
Yes, I tend to agree that a bigger force might have been advisable, but perhaps Frog is right in that it wouldn’t have been possible. But then again, he’s from France. What do you think?
Webb seems pretty cool. I might even vote for him, if I could. He actually seems like good Presidential material down the road. (as long as he doesn’t come out for the bombs and missiles theory!)
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 12:04 AM Yeah, marx, I saw the sideshow on CSPAN. Reminded me of a Star Trek convention.
Captain Kirk, Captain Kirk!!!
Yes, son, calm down.
Do you think the military has any plans to finally implement photon torpedo technology, like on the Enterprise?
uhh….I don’t have any information on that, son. Next??
It was disturbing to see that punk Avery promoting his loose change propaganda film. I would have liked to see some mole in the audience stand up with a big banner that said:
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 12:24 AM And do you wish that Bush HAD been in charge during the Cuban missile crisis?
You win, Nat-a-LIE.
I’ve never had participated in a discussion with a fascist warmonger and apologist for human rights violators before and hope I never do again.
On the rare occasions that my side wins, flowers bloom and children play happily in the sunshine. More often your side wins, and there is nothing but death, destruction, screams, agony, and darkness. That’s your milieu, that’s what you prefer, and that’s all you will have when you win. Or do you think that if the Nazis had won WWII the stench of the death camps wouldn’t have permeated Germany? Just a necessary stop in your master plan to destroy the earth and all living things on it for short term profit. Keep lying, Nat-a-LIE. Keep mocking. But not to me. I’ve unsubscribed and I’m going to try to soak off the filth from such long exposure to you.
Posted by mymarkx on Jul 31, 2006 at 12:57 AM Oh oh the poor rabbit. After all his hard work, the Batgirl makes such an amazingly convincing post that she has all but destroyed the entire 9/11 truth movement. Demolished us you have you clever Batgirl. Referring of course to your last post on page 4.
I guess it will only be a matter of time then now before those numbers supporting the Faith based Official fairy tale start to grow then eh?
The Bunny is giving you the angry eye, and is not cute in this pose. It is the very rabbit with whom you are sparring BTW, it is I. Here is another, with Rabbit at his computer, and look the screen is showing none other than your most adored site….....
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 4:29 AM SCorpse seems to think that quantity trumps quality, not realising that at this stage he has lost the war anyway. There are so many logical flaws in your reasoning Corpse, that I am not going to bother messing around with you. You have always been capable of crashing and burning without any help anyway.
The whole wasted space you use to babble on about explosives and trying to rewrite the easily verifiable seismic data is answerabel by referring to just one of your assumptions which in itself clearly illustrates again why you are not remotely qualified to discuss Physics or indeed any Science.
Explosives little Scorpy come in many forms, and the figure of 5000 tons of TNT for example says nothing about the actual quantities of a different explosive substance. There is speculation that micro nukes were used in the basements for a start, and these would produce considerably more of a seismic spike than your 5000 KGs of TNT.
Even though the links to the source are given, unfortunately the outright lies and spin of the ignorant force us to quote things like this to show what the faith brigade is avoiding or ignoring. Rabbit apologises to all for being repetitive, and to the poor tired electrons who must not only work hard to produce a visible map of what our fingers tap at, but they must soil their poor selves with having to perform the babbling bullshit of the undead, Corpse and the Evil Fruit Bat.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. Ah ha, but Scorpy can!
Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”
Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,” reflect “the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,” according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.
“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.
One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.
These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground. AND ANFO is far from a powerful explosive, definately less than a tenth as fast as what would be needed for these demolitions
“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”
Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking.”
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?
If the SCorpse had any clues, and any honesty he would now be in the position of having to accept he missed the boat on the seismic data and its meanings. Rabbit has shown his ability to review an item on the basis of factual challenges. That SCORP won’t will illustrate why he is called the UNDEAD.
Scorpy
28,000 lbs of explosive were required to pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in the floors of each WTC Tower
Exactly what sort of explosives genius? Like I said, they all have different energy outputs, and they also output it faster or slower. Why do you get into a debate about things which can only show you to be more full of shit than a septic tank?
You cannot twist your loathesome frame around the fact that the seismic DATA shows major spikes at the start of the collapses, the exact wrong end if it was the falling buildings which caused them. Several floors collapsing from the top, would not send a shock wave through the remaining floors to create a seismic disturbance at ground level of any form, unless the lower level withstood the force completely and thus transferred the entire energy downwards. The problem here for you is that once it began the collapse was constant in speed, and none of the lower floors gave any visible or measurable resistance to the collapsing upper stories.
All your long winded ranting about schools of red herrings, falls down as easily and quickly at this point.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:05 AM Marx
Nice Bat wacking back there. That it seems to have no effect should not get you down though, for indeed the responses she gives to such logic are useful in themselves, showing what a brainless bimbo she is, and by association all her causes. I’ll bet she had to think long and hard to come up with anything she didn’t agree with about Bushling, but such a challenge is bound to elicit a response since she gets the idea that by proving you wrong in contending she is in 100% lockstep with the Junta that she might amass some credibility.
Unfortunately for the Fruit Bat, credibility for her is a crop which has been poisoned and the soil sterilized so that nothing will ever grow there again.
Get a load of this one.
The only lie out there is that Bush lied.
What can we say? This is of course a central tenet of the faith brigade’s belief system. It goes along with the conviction he is anointed by God and recieves daily or at least weekly emails from God himself, directing him in his brilliant strategies.
The rant that a lot more could have been done to kill OBL is pretty hilarious too. We now know that OBL was never being sought for 9/11 anyway, that was just a story served up to justify troops in Afghanistan. Sure they could have done a lot more, anything is more than nothing, but the point is why would they have done so, OBL was never a target for 9/11 and as for the previous acts he was involved in, since they had met with him on various occassions since them, they could have grabbed him then if they really wanted to. Of course since he died in 2002, any discussion of hunting him is ridiculous anyway, they could just go and dig him up if they wanted him I guess. Of course he is far to useful as a boogey man to scare the Sheeple into submission to ever let go of his image, so in the minds of the morons he is bigger and badder than ever, geting stronger and more virile by the day.
I once asked a couple of Dittoheads on this site to name one thing which Bush ever said which was true, and after several months of trying, they gave up and went away.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:20 AM Micro-nukes is it now Rabbit?
You might be on to something there. There was that 600% percent increase in lung cancer rates just this year that you alerted us to earlier on another thread. That would coincide perfectly with the latency factor and the massive amount of radioactive dust that would have been spread across the nation on 9/11.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:47 AM One more Batgirl quote for fun.
it will take many more years to determine whether the Iraq decision was dumb, brilliant, or a toss-up
This is a relative comment Batgirl. Indeed you may still be wondering about this in a decade or two, but the rest of the world has long since made up its mind, and there isn’t any debate I’m aware of.
I would predict that with the rising levels of Cancers and deformed Children being born in Iraq thanks to the gift of all those dirty bombs and other forms of Waste Uranium which have been dumped onto the Iraqi heads, that the view of the illegal assault and invasion of Iraq will keep going south in the polls, forever!
Perhaps when you are sitting in that cell, provided for you by the war crimes tribunals, and getting old enough to write your memoirs, you might pop in a line about what you have decided about the Iraq “decision”. Rabbit will enjoy reading it.
Discussion of micro nukes were included in sources before so you prove yet again you have read nothing to which you are atempting to reply. Ho hum, what a daft Bat!
It is a possibility, and I seem to have read somewhere that radiation readings of the site are being blocked but that some have been taken and show high readings. Obviously an internal explosion in the lowest levels would not leak to the atmosphere much.
Of course there are also Barometric bombs and these are avery real possibility I feel. There large size and unweildy nature would not hinder there use, since the shutdown of the WTCs just previous to 9/11 would have allowed the perfect opportunity.
The fact s that something very substantial blew up in the basements, before the collapses.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:51 AM Of course since he died in 2002
Here’s hoping you’re right, Rabbit. There’s a first time for everything!
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:53 AM Batgirl
Your mention of the lung cancer rates increase is amusing since you have previously denied this when it was raised to suggest that Uranium contamination due to DU testing etc in the USA was the culprit.
Is this an example of selective reasoning?
Of course many of those who are boosting that number are veterans from Iraq.
Did you read the OBL link? Is that a dumb question? Give it a shot, some real information could do wonders for your comprehension.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 5:58 AM Perhaps when you are sitting in that cell, provided for you by the war crimes tribunals
You’ve got a talent for getting things ass-backwards, Rabbit, almost as highly developed as marky-marx’s.
It’s Saddam who’s sitting on trial for war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and regardless of how they feel about Americans in their country, the Iraqi people (minus the ones who lost their cushy jobs murdering the majority) seem pretty happy about it.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:04 AM Is this an example of selective reasoning?
No, it’s an example of you not recognizing satire. Perhaps another cup of coffee.
sat-ire n. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:10 AM There has been discussion about the legal status of those who actively support war crimes in the sense of Shilling for them.
The conclusion was that you will be able to be charged.
What has Saddam Hussein, the Amercian’s onetime ally, (while he was committing those crimes) got to do with you facing charges as an accomplice of war crimes?
Not even the puppet government of Iraq is “happy” about the USA presence in Iraq, but on instructions from their Iranian closest supporters and allies, they are playing along out of necessity for now.
Why not let the USA do the fighting and dying against the Sunni enemy is their attitude.
Even former Saddam enemies in Iraq are saying things were better under his rule. You have a heck of an imagination Batgirl, that is the truth.
Even the Shia, who have gained control thanks to US stupidity, are against the continued presence of American troops.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:13 AM Irony Batgirl?
How the heck can anyone pick your deliberate irony from the overrall irony of virtually all your posts?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:17 AM Did you read the OBL link? Is that a dumb question? Give it a shot, some real information could do wonders for your comprehension.
“real information” This seems to be at the root of the problem here. I don’t know how to get through to you that the sources of “real information” you rely on are anything but.
For the umpteenth time:
Chris Bollyn, a frequent contributor to the many myths about 9/11, and also to the holocaust denial publication AFP, which you quote often and just above, manufactured this:
No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”
From the actual words of Manning thus:
“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.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:22 AM Batgirl
The rabbit has absolutely no need to engage in any debate about the validity of his sources, not least because he invariably does a search for the required information and then selects one from what are usually many thousands of options.
There is no pattern and no preferences showing among my choices for sourcing, that many come via rense is immaterial since they are almost always merely embedded from elsewhere.
Meanwhile your sources have a boring lack of variety about them. You have three or four to chose from as a rule and it shows.
Your ad-hominem attacks on authors and sites is actually stale and if you haven’t noticed let me point out that everyone ignores your attacks on sources by now. Blowing in the wind you are poor little fruit bat.
The source I gave you on OBL’s death is full of links to numerous MSM articles, so thanks once again for…......... you know what…...
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:28 AM You would do well to read that quote you just posted, especially the last sentence.
Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Rabbit will allow you to remove it and pretend you didn’t just do that to yourself if you want Batgirl, nobody will know but you and I.
Have Faith! Have Faith! There are theories, there are theories!
Yes we know there are theories, but after five years they are gaining NO SUPPORT!
Would you like to explain your ravings about information in realtion to the seismic data for example? Is the data false Batgirl?
Are the Chemical analyses of structural steel false Batgirl? There are literally hundreds of facts whiuch matter not who reports them, they all point towards the one reasonable conclusion.
So far we are approaching 500 posts and you have still got nothing except theories and provably false claims.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:31 AM On Iraq Batgirl
With a rising state of chaos currently measured at over 6000 Iraqis being killed per month, I’d have to question the sanity of anyone who still tries to spin it as anything but a rapidly snowballing disaster.
OF course these are th best conditions imaginable if on wants American troops to stay in Iraq, so why would al-Qaeda be the main force for internal strife and who stands to gain from this if not the United States of Avarice in the sense of keeping a permanent presence?
I see that the recently touted scale down has been stopped and NO troops are coming home after all.
Will your son be eligible for the draft Batgirl?
Is that why you shill for the Pentagon, have you made a deal with the devil to protect him from the draft which is being considered and prepared as we speak?.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:43 AM Rabbit will allow you to remove it and pretend you didn’t just do that to yourself if you want Batgirl, nobody will know but you and I.
No, I’ll not display the same dishonesty that Steven Jones has, in selectively removing the sentence:
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.
from his “scholarly” paper.
You’re forgetting Rabbit, that Manning’s last sentence there does not in any way, shape or form suggest that he suspects deliberate demolition. He suspects the fireproofing/trusses, and is pissed that others aren’t seeing it. He is worried that evidence to support his theory is being carted away prematurely.
Additionally, this editorial was written well before he was aware of just how much steel would eventually be examined, and how extensive and comprehensive the eventual NIST investigation would be, and just how overwhelmingly his truss/fireproofing theories would eventually be confirmed.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:45 AM Rubbish Batgirl.
Manning is mentioning theories, and nothing you quoted shows what he believes, but he doesn’t measure up to the facts and opinions already amply covered, in as few as the first half dozen posts on this thread.
The fact remains that you are gaining no supporters after all this time, no experts joining our cause, and no growth only rapid decline in those who have the faith.
The Manning quotes are actually ancient, and I wonder what he thinks today.
What will you be saying if Manning comes out tomorrow and expresses support for the contention that explosives were involved?
No where has he or anybody ever said that it is not possible explosives were involved and any who do so can be discounted immediately for it is eminently possible just from watching the classic collapse of WTC-7.
By the way you have lost me on the reference to Jones and that quote which is merely confirming the truth, that there is a theory.
I have no idea if it was or was not removed from his paper, but as it is of NO consequence to anything, it is a statement of fact, that some have a theory, what the hell do you expect to gain?
It is obvious that since joining the movement Jones has become more radicalised though he is yet a very unnassuming and humble gentleman, but that would be the result of having been thrown to the wolves by the whorish University, and then being fucked over by the media and the government and by skungy shills like you. It is hard not to become angry at the sort of filth you vile liars and cover up artists spew forth. Especially if one is an objective and honest soul.
Now will Manning become a lying immoral scuz to you if he comes out and says he agrees that all eveidence points to controlled demos?
I expect a quick answer Batgirl, for you are right there, and a delay will suggest you may be suspecting somethng and have gone quickly hunting to see if he has actually just done so.
Quickly Batgirl, will he become a liar too if he makes up his mind, which he had not done at the time of saying the things you quote..?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 6:52 AM Batgirl says:
You’re forgetting Rabbit, that Manning’s last sentence there does not in any way, shape or form suggest that he suspects deliberate demolition.
Rabbit is not forgetting anything. Rabbit has not used Mannings words which are of no value at all, since he doesn’t express any opinion. I have not suggested he supported controlled demo when he said those things, merely that he confirms that NO evidence exists to support the official theory.
You are the one who brought up his words which don’t support the offoical theory at all. They merely repeat it and not with his own conviction either.
The point is that he just re-iterated the thing I have been using to fry your ass with from the word go, the only thing which supports the official theory, is FAITH!
Don’t you ever feel ashamed of having to twist even such as this?
He is worried that evidence to support his theory is being carted away prematurely
NO Natalie, he WAS worried that evidence was being carted away. He doesn’t actually indicate his views beyond a serious dissatisfaction that the goverment would allow the evidence to be removed and destroyed in the first place. Something which could easily be called a smoking gun, since it is not even legal to destroy evidence at the scene of a crime.
HIS THEORY? Manning does not express HIS THEORY. He says there is a theory. In fact he was writing at a time when the explosive demolition theory had not even been raised. The only theory which existed then was the official one, what else was he suppoed to say?
His entire article was an indigtment of the admin for destroying evidence. I always enjoy it when you try to use Manning’s “old” words to support your THEORY.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 7:07 AM Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything. 3
Manning also emphatically condemned the destruction of structural steel, declaing “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Manning contrasted the operation to past disasters:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.
Manning indicated that the destruction of the steel was illegal, based on his review of the national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, which provides no exemption to the requirement that evidence be saved in cases of fires in buildings over 10 stories tall.
Reading the original piece by Manning will show that although he accepts certain assumptions without question, why would he do otherwise in 2002, he does not argue for the official theory, he simply questions the incredibly cavalier disposal of the evidence. He is NOT your friend NAT. We use his quote to show the fact that the government covred up 9/11 and that it was being protested from the start.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 7:20 AM It seems the rabbit’s little fishing pole caught the fruit bat in mid flight.
The sudden dissapearance of the Bat, who was right here, after the question of her attitude to Manning if he were to speak out in support of demos of the WTCs, has elicited the exact response he expected. She is frantically Googling away like a coffee percolator trying to find out if it has happened.
Now while she is doing this Rabbit will admit is was merely an innocent question. BUT she cannot be sure, and knowing the rabbit is a tricky little rodent she has panicked and gone hunting in case Manning has done such a thing.
Of course Rabbit is himself seeking some word from Manning since 2002 at the same time, in hopes he has said more, but I was only seeking to prove the Bat’s dishonest tactics by showing she wouldn’t dare answer such a potentially devastating question without knowing where it might leave her latest spin.
I wonder how long before she feels brave enough to answer that question? After all a search of Bill Manning and 9/11 gives about 900 results. And the most recent will be lowest down the list.
If this game had rules, Rabbit could have called check mate on the Fruit Bat many tims over now.
She dances like a Geisha for the rabbit when he pulls her strings.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 7:39 AM The Manning quotes are actually ancient, and I wonder what he thinks today.
Exactly my point. They were written merely Dec01. For ancient points, Jones continues to use them in his umpteenth revision of his “scholarly” paper. Yes I too wonder what he thinks today, but more to the point, apparently Jones has not bothered to assertain that. Might that not be the “professional” thing to do before (mis) quoting him in his “scholarly” paper?
What will you be saying if Manning comes out tomorrow and expresses support for the contention that explosives were involved?
I assure you, he will not. Fire Engineering came out a full year later with another article about the collapse, with Manning still as editor, that had no reference to the bombs in buildings theory. Why don’t you email him yourself, and take the initiative that Jones is scared to?
By the way you have lost me on the reference to Jones and that quote which is merely confirming the truth, that there is a theory.
Yes, there is a theory. And it is not bombs in the buildings. Are you kidding me? You’re not aware of the mangling he did of Manning’s quote in his “scholarly” paper?
“I agree with this urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:
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…. (here’s where the sentence was removed)Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, [are considerations] for the safety of present and future generations… (Manning, 2002; emphasis added).
This editorial does not mention the controlled-demolition hypothesis, but rightfully objects to the rapid destruction of the structural steel which would provide crucial evidence from the crime scene. We agree that such destruction of evidence is wrong, and that a thorough investigation is imperative.It took him several months to finally include that last reference that admitted that Manning was not thinking about controlled demolition. I wonder how many more months until he quotes him completely, or removes the entire thing.
I expect a quick answer Batgirl, for you are right there, and a delay will suggest you may be suspecting somethng and have gone quickly hunting to see if he has actually just done so.
No, sorry, the delay is simply because I had to go to the freezer for another chunk of DU to chew on. You do need to keep it frozen to preserve the flavor, no matter what you may hear to the contrary!
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 7:48 AM It happens that Rabbit has found Mr Manning’s blog and is contacting him now to see if he has any views about 9/11 to share. I would not blame him for keeping his mouth shut though, it is not a good career move to question 9/11 as we know. Still if he supports the official theory he will of course come out with it straight away. Reading his blog assures me he is not likely to support the fairy tale though, I can see he has been getting increasingly disconcerted by the Bushling Junta ever since 9/11.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 7:56 AM Manning has not been misquoted Natalie, and certainly not by Steven Jones.
Rabbit has in fact emailed him dearest. Update if and when recieved. You don’t answer the question though I see.
Natalie you are the one twisting things. The original article even as you quote it, doesn’t speak for the official theory, and it was not used to suggest that Manning was supporting the explosive demolitions contention by Jones either.
The article being “ancient” does not exclude its use for what it is normally used for. Proving that FEMA removed the evidence against all protocol. It is entirely relevant then that it is from the time when this was happening. Such a poor reasoning ability you have dear. You need to cut back on the DU if this is what is doing it to you. Perhaps a course in logical discourse might be good idea for you?
Do you think anybody is not going to see through your attempts to spin these things. Professor Jones doesn’t say the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering refers to explosives, he says he agrees with their assessment, which was in essence that the destruction of the evidence was wrong and compromised any investigation.
I sometimes wonder if you really are that mentally challenged you are sincerely reading things into people’s words which are not there, or if you just think by spreading so much blatant claptrap that you’ll muddy the waters enough to at least produce some doubt where there is none.
Now I must thank you for that last reference and I hope that people look at it. I am astounded that you would have posted it, and am not for the first time wondering if you are not actually a “fake” shill. You do so much to build the case for us that you deserve a medal for your efforts.
Apart from detailing the case for explosive demolition, it includes this link to Peer reviewed studies. Actually that site is enough to demolish the official fairy tale on its own. It contains the best collection of scholarly articles I have seen.
Well done you fine and useful Fruit Bat.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 8:44 AM By the way, I HATE big bloody PDF files. My poor little computer is all locked up downloading now, thanks to you Batgirl.
Oh do go to her mangling link people it is a prime piece of work indeed. The very things the Fruit Bat would prefer did not exist.
Why oh why has she given us this gift though? Rabbit is so confused, has the Fruit Bat joined us, is she a secret anti-shill?
Maybe she has just wigged out? Lost her Bat marbles?
Here it is again in case she has second thoughts about keeping it up.
Don’t miss this short one, which is Gold. It is the death knell for any suggestion WTC-7 was not a controlled demo.
Natalie
Have you been taking shooting lessons from Scorpy? Because you just managed to shoot both your feet off then in a way I thought was a Scorp speciality?
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 9:11 AM Hmmm…...Why won’t Rabbit post a link to Manning’s blog?????
Do you think anybody is not going to see through you attempts to spin these things. Professor Jones doesn’t say the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering refers to explosives, he says he agrees with their assessment, which was in essence that the investigation lacks credibility.
But what you’re missing is that this was a very early assessment. And BTW, the steel wan’t sent away by the “Gubmint”, it was solely a decison by the City of NY to reclaim some small portion of their massive losses by recycling some steel.
You say “the investigation”, yet the “investigation” Manning is referring to is not the final NIST report, which indeed did implicate the trusses and the lack of fireproofing in the collapse, but merely the beginnings of the FEMA investigation, which was rather preliminary. Yes, the investigation, at whatever stage it was at the time didn’t satisfy him, but this would only be significant if his concerns and objections have still not been addressed and satisfied today. Again, post the link to his blog. I am interested!!!
Apart from detailing the case for explosive demolition, it includes this link to Peer reviewed studies. Actually that site is enough to demolish the official fairy tale on its own. It contains the best collection of scholarly articles I have seen.
The best, you say. I say same ol shit, different day. Peer reviewed? I don’t see any proof or even any reference to such in the writings. Perhaps you can see what I can’t. Who exactly “peer reviewed” these so called studies/papers? What legitimate scientific/engineering journal were they reviewed/published by?
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 9:16 AM It appears that the link you gave which failed to prove Jones mangled anything by the way, is but an updated version of the original and I did have it in favorites.
Now it has become absolutely the last word as far as the science goes and you have brought it to the rabbit’s attention dear sweet Natalie. How can he ever repay you? This humble rodent kisses your feet in gratitude, which seem strangely not to be attached to the rest of your legs anymore….................^^.....................Has Batgirl been taking shooting lessons from Scorpy by any chance?
Now Batgirl, what makes you think I won’t post a link to Bill Manning’s blog? Actually though, I won’t. Just to annoy you, and besides it isn’t relevant as far as I can ascertain.
Natalie the Fire engineering article wasn’t an early assesment, it wsn’t an asesment. It was simply deriding the situation of the removal of the evidence. Isn’t the city of NY - Government then Nat? Is it a club or a religion then or something?
The City of NY, lost money did they? Prove it!
I think they along with all involved made money, as a guess. The fact remains that removing the steel like they did was against protocol, they still could have sold it later to “make money” as you say, and the destruction of crime scene evidence is a crime.
NO investigation which came later was going to be able to use the destroyed evidence, so the criticism of Manning’s is still valid to this day.
Your last little sentence is a sad admission once again that you have read nothing.
Again thanks for the link Nat. I wasn’t going to link to Steven Jones report figuring it was like pearls before swine with you and Corpse about. I had no idea it was so well presented these days. Lots of fine links and many more reports I’d never seen.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 9:31 AM Now Batgirl, what makes you think I won’t post a link to Bill Manning’s blog? Actually though, I won’t. Just to annoy you, and besides it isn’t relevant as far as I can ascertain.
Translation: I was bullshitting.
Your last little sentence is a sad admission once again that you have read nothing.
Translation: They weren’t peer reviewed by anyone but themselves.
Posted by Natalie on Jul 31, 2006 at 9:36 AM I am not even interested in the reviews Nat, I can understand the science quite well without help, actually anyone can. I therefore cannot say if this is so or not but being scientists and scholars all, that is peer review anyway so there aint nuthin’ to your whingin’ dear leathery pigeon.
Now Batgirl, everybody knows the rabbit NEVER bullshits. His reputation for honesty remains as pure as the driven snow. I just don’t see Manning’s blog has any relevance, that’s all since I found no mention of 9/11, though there is more than enough to show which side he will probably come down on. I simply wish to preserve the surprise, in the event I am able to get a comment. To be honest though mostly I just like annoying you, watching you carry on like you are, running on the spot and digging yourself a deeper hole, since Rabbit has something you don’t.
...................Rabbit can see what has transpired in the diabolical mind of the evil fruit bat…...............
It has thought to itself that since Professor Steven Jones’ work and that of the other hundreds of Scholars for 911 truth is so ridiculously bereft of reason or honesty, then clearly the best way for her to win her case would be if people were exposed to this ludicrous nonsense and thus see for themselves how farfetched are their ideas. It is with this in mind that she has craftily schemed to derail the truth movement by linking directly to the most central heart of the efforts of these charlatan Scholars for truth. This cunning plan will allow people to see the insane conspiracy theory in all its vain emptiness, and the war for the Faith in the Magic Arab story, will be won. Rabbit is in complete agreement with you on this master plan Natalie, he can see the inescapable logic of what you are proposing and feels there really is nothing for it but to throw his lot in with you. If you can’t beat em, join em. To prove his new found devotion to the truth and to your plan to show the truth to the world, RABBIT is going to drop most all else he is doing and help you spread the word. That site you called mangled, is indeed the best work you’ve ever done, it can leave nobody in any doubt, it should be posted and read and linked to. How could anyone deny it Nat, they are such charlatans as you say.
In honour of the FRUIT BAT, Natalie the undead, Rabbit presents .
the truth about the WTC collapses, based upon scientific analysis and peer reviewed studies.
Posted by Rabbit on Jul 31, 2006 at 10:03 AM Frog,
CENTCOM had three plans which were prepared over a ten year period. Clinton cut troop strength by one third during that time.
If it takes 6 gallons of paint to paint your house and you only have 2 gallons it might be wise to just plan on painting the windows and doors.
Since we did not have the troops needed, Rumsfeld decided to count on the Iraqi Army rebelling against Saddam and being more than enough to do the job.
He shopped around until he got a general (General Tommy Franks) who would follow the chain of command without making waves in public. Then Rumsfeld proceeded to trim what Franks said was needed until it got to only 125,000. He told Franks the State Department would be in charge of the post-combat phase. This was then dumped on Franks just before the invasion began when he was up to his ears in detail invasion planning.
Notice how soon after the invasion phase Franks retired. According to the book Cobra ll Franks knew it was too few to maintain the post-war situation, hated Rumsfeld, and essentially said to his successors, Lots of luck, guys. The Sec. of Defense is an asshole.
He should have painted the dog house instead. CEOs dont all make good military commanders it takes more than confidence. I have not heard one of my ex-professional military friends say we should have taken on this campaign in this way.
As for stability under Saddam sure it was a stable country. So was Yugoslavia under Tito, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and the U.S. South pre-Civil War, etc.
Restabilizing is what people are crying for now in Lebanon/Israel. Stabilization does not necessarily equal a good solution and will not last.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 31, 2006 at 2:50 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Terry J. Allen
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
