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)WTH goodluck. De real enemis are de globalisas…...............off to mow a meadow…................
Posted by frog on Aug 8, 2006 at 1:48 PM Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it’s always Israel who defends itself. This is called “retaliation”.
Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called “terrorism”.
Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians; this is called “self-defense”, or these days “collateral damage”.
Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the “reaction of the international community”.
Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.
Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: “terrorism”.
Rule # 7: When you say “Hezbollah”, always be sure to add “supported by Syria and Iran”.
Rule # 8: When you say “Israel”, never say “supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries”, for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don’t mention the words “occupied territories”, “UN resolutions”, “Geneva conventions”. This could distress the audience of Fox.
Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called “neutral journalism”.
Rule # 11: If you don’t agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 8, 2006 at 2:32 PM Rabbit,
Some how I don’t think I should watch for your apology, although it would be nice.
Just kidding. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
I guess there is no reason I should expect civility — we don’t have it here anymore as this article illustrates.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 8, 2006 at 3:34 PM WTH,
Be sure to read the comments, also. Mr. Davis gets in his little licks as well in this article, all the while talking civility. Yes, many folks on the left are waking up to the depth of hateful rhetoric coming from their supposed constituency. (sp?)
Big MacIntel is here!! Where’s my credit card?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 8, 2006 at 5:19 PM Yo,
Back in the states again-can we get a thread going on the airlines???
I’m just checking in to set the record straight for the unjustly accused Rabbit. I had no idea I was going to give the self-fellating jackass Scorp something to crow about when I posted from my laptop before. One would think that having money and the ability to travel—it’s called ‘business’—would not so greatly upset the applecart.
Again thankyou to those who have seen fit to set the record straight about 9/11 and I must regretfully decline to engage the delightful Natalie in any of her seemingly endless paper chases.
Posted by KansasKal on Aug 8, 2006 at 7:28 PM “Furthermore you slandering Fruit Bat you called me anti-semitic and I pointed out that the Jews of Israel are not semites and that many Jews don’t support Israel either and then you no longer want to talk about that.”
Let’s take a short 9 month trip back in time, shall we, to when Rabbit posted this:
“Kaw Valley Kid, Rabbitreading between the lines, suspects you have at least read the words between Mouse and Rabbit. Here is something which might also be of interest.
It is a perspective, a valuable one.” Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 12:27 AMHis “valuable perspective” included such reality revisionist statements as this:
The primary complaint of the Holocaust Truth Seekers is that the slave labor camps, Nazi camps were not extermination centers. The Holocaust Truth Seekers claim that most of the deaths were caused by typhus epidemics due to lice, and shortages of food during the final years of the war, not gas chambers.
And this:
The photos shows that some Nazi prisons were real prisons, and some were slave labor camps, but none of them were extermination centers. Germany was losing the war during the final years, and they were desperate for military supplies. The Nazis began rounding up the unwanted people for the labor camps.
The prisoners were given beds and food because they were making supplies for the German military. The Nazis wanted to keep the prisoners free of lice and typhus because sickly, miserable prisoners do not make good workers.
And on another branch of the site:
The Holocaust should be considered a hoax until the Jews prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on them, not me or you. Don’t be a sucker!
Rabbit, if you consider this perspective to be valuable, you are sadly, pathetically and historically mis-guided. You don’t want to be considered an anti-semite. Just how would an actual anti-semite act any differently?
And what is your source for that Menachem Begin quote?????
It should also be noted that Mr. Hufschmid is one of the original movers and shakers behind another mindless hate-based attempt at historical revisionism—the 9/11 “truth” movement.
You can watch the dweeby Nazi apologist here, starting @ 02:40. And don’t miss little Jimmy Walter @ 04:07.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 8, 2006 at 8:07 PM Some Muslim guy under the tutulage of the FBI did set off a dud of a bomb under the World Trade Center. That would make the World Trade Center a great target for another false flag operation.
George Bush lied about Hussein having weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq having a connection with Al Queda and and has murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
Most people in Iraq do not have electricity or clean water right now, Natalie. Stop whining about the WTC—-it’s garish and vulgar.
This victim stance over 9/11 is getting old. If our government wanted justice, they would have done a forensic investigation and worked with worldwide terrorist experts and intelligence experts, and worked to catch the culprits.
If the U.S. government wanted to defend and protect the United States they would have investigated the failure and fired everyone in a position of responsibility that did not act in a timely professional manner and follow appropriate procedures (whether that would have ended in stopping the hijacking or not) and hired better leaders, and updated their equipment, if that’s what the problem was. And if the problem was confusion because of the tapes then they need to haul the bastards to court and charge them with three thousand counts of manslaughter at the very least.
You might also stop asserting that people in television news are only interested in doing as little as possible to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and are not interested in informing the U.S. public.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 8, 2006 at 8:10 PM “Again thankyou to those who have seen fit to set the record straight about 9/11 and I must regretfully decline to engage the delightful Natalie in any of her seemingly endless paper chases.”
Translation: I’m preparing to engage in a real endless paper chase of my own, based on a bunch of baloney, and I don’t want to be distracted by any kind of reality.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 8, 2006 at 8:12 PM “Some Muslim guy under the tutulage of the FBI did set off a dud of a bomb under the World Trade Center. That would make the World Trade Center a great target for another false flag operation.”
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist, using of course the last and least respected definition of theory.
theory: 6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture
A dud? Are you getting into the history revising business too?
Here’s our old friend Bill Manning again:
The bombing of the WTC was an event of immense proportions, the largest incident ever handled in the City of New York Fire Department’s 128-year history, and also complex in that it was effectively several major multiple-alarm fires combined into one. In terms of the number of fire department units that responded, it was the equivalent of a 16-alarm fire. As the incident commander, I can attest to the fact that it was the firefighters’ tremendous efforts and courage that brought this incident to a successful conclusion.
The statistics are staggering: Six people died and 1,042 were injured. Of those injured, 15 received traumatic injuries from the blast itself. Nearly 20 people complained of cardiac problems, and nearly 30 pregnant women were rescued. Eighty-eight firefighters (one requiring hospitalization), 35 police officers, and one EMS worker sustained injuries. It is estimated that approximately 50,000 people were evacuated from the WTC complex, including nearly 25,000 from each of the two towers. Fire alarm dispatchers received more than 1,000 phone calls, most reporting victims trapped on the upper floors of the towers. Search and evacuation of the towers finally were completed some 11 hours after the incident began.
A nitrourea bomb, in excess of 1,000 pounds, with hydrogen cylinders to add impact, was detonated in the now-infamous yellow Ryder Econoline van on the B-2 level of the parking garage, causing massive destruction that spanned seven levels, six below grade. The L-shaped blast crater on B-2 at its maximum measured 130 feet wide by 150 feet long. The blast’s epicenter was under the northeast corner of the Vista Hotel. Anthony L Fusco is chief of department and a 33-year veteran of the City of New York (NY) Fire Department. He served as the incident commander for the World Trade Center incident.
FDNY ultimately responded to the incident with 84 engine companies, 60 truck companies, 28 battalion chiefs, nine deputy chiefs, and five rescue companies and 26 other special units (representing nearly 45 percent of the on-duty staff of FDNY). The fire department units maintained a presence at the scene for 28 days.
————————-
Interesting that this is your definition of a dud, wiley. That one’s got to be way down on the list as well. Of course to al Qaeda, it was a dud. They only killed 6 people and injured a thousand, and failed to topple the towers.
Do you use an al Qaeda dictionary?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 8, 2006 at 8:28 PM Rabbit….Redhorse heard the number of children being held is around….1000…
Posted by Redhorse on Aug 8, 2006 at 9:39 PM I see quite a few people rocking back on their heels, unable to answer the charges that the GhostRabbit has made.
Masterful, he is. Sly, and with real teeth. He has bitten some backsides again, and it is always fun to read his work. Even when I disagree with some of the points he makes, when I don’t think he’s got it all lined up, one has to admire his skill.
Calling him anti-semitic is old hat. The first thing you do when you want to try to knock someone down is start throwing out anti-semitic charges. Next he’ll be a devil, a child molester, a Dallas Cowboys fan, a stealer of candy from infants, a purveyor of all nasty sorts of things, perhaps even someone who sold a car after he maliciously rolled back the odometer!
How dastardly!
I’ll bet he wears black and has a moustache and can’t balance his checkbook…
The fiend!
Posted by KansasKal on Aug 9, 2006 at 2:38 AM ” The first thing you do when you want to try to knock someone down is start throwing out anti-semitic charges.”
No actually Kal, this is one of the more recent charges that has been made against Rabbit. The proceeding ones have been based upon simply debunking the myriad of myths he’s put forth. The resulting charges would range from being exceedingly gullible to outright lying.
He defined himself by himself. I only reproduce his own posting, never disavowed, which makes it quite clear where he stands.
Do you regard the writings of Eric Hufschmid to be a “valuable perspective”?
Gosh, I hope not.
Do you know whether or not the quote by Menachem Begin is legitimate?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 9, 2006 at 3:05 AM Fruit Bat Nat.
You are going to have a real problem with your boyfriend, the special troll Scorp.
You see he Scorpse has a special Chinese connection and he is going to be somewhat torn in his loyalty to your fascist Zionists very shortly.
I’m not paying attention much to the Bat, is she trying to bring up some sort of ancient unrelated history to the topic now? What a surprise!
I think if I say that I am not anti-Jewish, that is the end of the matter you duplicitous bat! If I am anti anything it is anti-lies. I abhore lies and Liars. I have a brother who is one of the best liars in the country and he makes millions of dollars doing it. Rabbit cannot stand lies and as a result is poor. There isn’t much reward in this mixed up old world for being an honest man or rabbit, but I’ll damned well not be called a liar by a degenerate low IQ, proven lying shill!
I am anti-Israel. It is a nation based upon a lie, the lie of the Israelites of the bible. It is a state based upon an endless string of terror and murders against all who stand in its way and many who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a self defined Apartheid state with a penchant for massive oppression against the very people whose name it has usurped in its greatest slander. SEMITES. It is now engaged in another in a long string of atacks against lebanon which has been goping on for more than two decades. It is a self described master race, an exception to international law by virtue of an extremist but false religious claim.
I have already posted plenty of links to Jewish organisations many of whom demand that Israel be obliterated from the world stage. They are so anti-Israel they will not even call it Israel, but refer to the Zionist state and other less polite terms.
So as far as ad-hominem slander you are shit out of luck this time Batgirl.
Now since the Israeli score for killing Lebanese civilians is about 30 times more than Hezbollah have killed of Israelis, and you still think the Israelis are the victims here I am wondering at what point does the conflict at least become even to such a sick denialist like the Facsist Fruit Bat. If the Israelis are killing fifty to one will that make it at least even Batgirl? No? What about a hundred to one? What if the Israelis are killing a hundred Arabs for every one of their own will it at least seem like a fair fight then to you Bartgirl? Maybe you agree with their sick ideas that one Israeli life is priceless while an Arab life is less than that of catle?
I guess since you don’t want to face up to the fascist statements by the Zionists then you are just a standard Zyber Shildier then.
Thankyou Kal.
Do yourself a favour and ignore the Fruit Bat. She is worse to have around than Syphillus.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 9, 2006 at 3:13 AM WTH
Is it possible the rabbit has done something for which he should apologise? Please do refresh my memory if this is the case, for if you have not learned Rabbit is quite capable of apologising when appropriate then you have not learned anything….......what am I saying, of course you have not!.
Well give it a shot, but be warned if it is more of your trying to re-write history then be aware of the likely response.
I thought the news of the truth about Vietnam atrocities might have given you pause to think about that few rotten apples excuse and “we are the exception” theory you hold so dear? Also that bit about where we are supposed to give you more credit because at least you investigate and punish the crimes committed by your soldiers. It seems what happens is that whistle blowers are silenced, investigations are kept secret and all action curtailed in a giant cloud of denial. How familiar.
Did you see how much punishment got meted out to any of the many hundreds of criminals who committed all manner of atrocities in the name of American delusions of democracy?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 9, 2006 at 3:23 AM One of the more recent charges? You have been calling the rabbit anti-semitic for even longer than that reference you made above.
Like everything you say it is just so much hot wind and ravings, as logic dictates. My reply to the spurious charge is proof in itself you are wrong. If the man says he is not anti-Jewish or anti-semitic then he isn’t. That’s how it is in the real world.
You are the one who is so mixed up you confuse support for Irsael to be support for Jews. Israel is an extremist Jewish state, but MANY Jews the world over and even some in Israel are totally opposed to Israel’s actions at this time.
I do believe if Hezbollah was just taking the Israeli assault without firing any missiles and just killing the invading soldiers you’d still see the Israeli mass murder as justified. If Hezbollah laid down their weapons and just allowed the Israelis to cross their border and kill them all, men women and children you would cheer it as necessary. You are a really sick Bat do you know that?
You are the most disgusting fascist hatefilled cheer leader for murder and you dare to call me a hater? I am not even saying that Hezbollah should be killing Israelis, even the relatively low rate of civilian casualties they are inflicting is mostly avoidable and it’s too bad they kill as many civilians as they do. But yesterday when Israel killed 47 more lebanese civilians, the Hezbollah killed 17 Israeli soldiers. A big difference there and it isn’t just ysterday. Every day the tallies show minimal numbers of Hezbollah and mostly Israeli soldiers.
But to compare those few deaths with the massive genocidal blitzkrieg being launched against an entire country, is just a joke.
The only hatred in my breast is born not of the dreadful atrocities, which are all too human and more easily understood to an experienced and discerning man. There is hatred, it is growing, and I can only imagine that this is but a pale reflection of the hatred so much more justified of those who have had their families and lives torn to shreds by the ravening beast you sereve. The hatred which for the life of me I cannot combat, it is growing daily, it comes from the lies. The lies that the monsters tell while they rape and pillage the planet and the race. It isn’t enough that evil and avariciuos beasts of men and women, sub human scum must prey upon the innocent and the weak, no this is not enough and if it were I would still oppose them, but I would feel dispassionately about it all. For such malignant and nasty beasts they also twist everything to make it seem like their victims are to blame for their suffering and destruction.
To compare such a fascist and hubristic monstrosity to Hitlers Nazism is almost quaint!
It is as if the Nazis had won the war, exterminated all the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals and then built monuments to themselves for their courageous struggle against the evil attacking Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals.
No it is worse. It is worse because it is 2006, and there no longer is any excuse for any human race to consider itself superior to any other. Today the stakes are much higher too. Something you will become no doubt painfully aware of before the maniacal Decider is replaced with whatever the next horror story the NWO masters have in store for you.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 9, 2006 at 3:48 AM Natalie, there are twenty car pile ups with more deaths on a daily basis than that bomb that was supposed to “take down the World Trade Center” (according to you). A bomb that is intended to destroy a skyscraper in NYC during business hours that kills six people and does a little damage to the garage is a “dud”. Yes. Do that with enough “terrorists” acts with fewer than ten deaths and you’ll be undermining your own cause. There are probably that many people shot in parking lots on any given day in the U.S. The poor victims are dead, and those were violent and unjust deaths. But to treat that event as if it were “staggering” is the same as calling 9/11 “unthinkable”.
It’s bullshit. People who can’t handle “staggering” and “unthinkable” shouldn’t have high ranking jobs in military security or government agencies that are tasked with handling crisis, and sure as hell shouldn’t be carrying guns.
Your cry baby defense is sounding more lame each time you use it.
300 pound bombs dropped on families while they sleep, now that’s hard to overstate. Let’s hear your defense for dropping bombs on children who “collaborate” with “terrorists” in their sleep.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 9, 2006 at 4:17 AM This is more of the developing scary but exciting thing.
Wiley do keep an ear out for anything about China at this time. Who would have thought we would be looking to China for human rights protection, and so soon?
It was horrible and yet so typical the way the Fruit bat pecked at Kal, as soon as somebody loses the faith she is ready to have them executed.
Death is too good for these Bush hating, truth loving ratbags isn’t it Batgirl? They should be cursed to debate with you (sic), for ever instead.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 9, 2006 at 5:26 AM I’m telling ya, Rabbit——it’s Rumsfeld and the neocons. They have this comic book fantasy. Bush wasn’t in office for two weeks before he pissed off China.
They all have their own set of shared fantasies and warped weltanschaungs, if you will, but they all have their separate selfish issues in play as well.
The neocons and other totalitarian zionists are the biggest, most armed, and toxic clusterf*ck in the history of the human race. I’m limiting my news reading right now, because I am getting too floored. Not to deflect any blame for the U.S. and Israel, but the fact that the E.U. and U.N. are not shouting these rat bastards down while Lebanon is destroyed for an even flimsier lie than the U.S. used to attack Iraq makes me feel a little too close to hopeless.
Everything I and everyone I worked with in nuclear forces considered to be the things most likely to lead to a nuclear war are happening. And that’s what this jackass Rumsfeld wants. The man is dumb as a f*cking shoe. He still really believes that the U.S. can “win” a nuclear war, and then get the trophy or something. I can’t imagine what “winning” a nuclear war looks like on a planet that’s half out of it’s mind now and losing the balance it needs in order to sustain life.
Our poor little race is at the mercy of billions of man hours of math and engineering being controlled by a couple of dozen morons with grand delusions, no conscience, and a lot of crony pals.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 9, 2006 at 8:02 AM Well the smart money would have to be on China. They make up fpr the technological gap with a vast force which could be cut in half and still be the biggest in the world. They have also got the advantage of much more farsighted and intelligent leaders than any of our lot, least of all the grand poobar himself, The Decider.
Dammit though its a devilish hard language to learn. Maybe Scorp will get the last laugh.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 9, 2006 at 9:05 AM Natalie,
I’m may be getting closer to a DSL connection and will then spring for an iMac. (keeping my G4 and 9600 to run old software and hardware)
I really don’t see an advantage in being able to access PC applications and there is a definite disadvantage — it makes hackers, phishers and buggers more problematic than being on a “pure” Mac.
I have been having increased problems getting into this site — requires daily (sometimes more than once) dumping of related cookies, rebooting and rebuilding the desktop. Today I got on using yesterday’s link, but it is totally unreliable and may not work a third time.
Most of the commentary is re-runs anyway. Each of us is firmly convinced on these issues and disregard others opinions. I believe the problem for all is the constant news bombardment we get from all media and the ease of tinkering with any story.
I am old enough to remember WW2 when all visuals were confined to weekly Newsreels at the local theater. There were no corespondents on the enemies’ side giving us reports. Everything was heavily censored and letters from servicemen arrived with holes where info had been literally cut out.
A typical report now is something like, “After 28 days, the Lebanese and Israelis seem no closer to a cease fire and the death tolls are in the many hundreds.”
Imagine a WW2 report done in today’s style — “Thirty days following the attack at Pearl Harbor and no end in sight.”
One battle following D-Day the US took 40,000 casualties in a month (Bradley’s First Army). My neighbor (who served from 1940 to 1945) just reminded me about the battle at Stalingrad when Soviet casualties averaged over 17,000 per day.
If we had been receiving those items in real time morale would have plummeted.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 9, 2006 at 1:25 PM Frog,
Rev. Moon:
“...what was once pretty innocent can be harnessed otherwise . The Rev Moon is not poor like us, and seems to be well-surrounded with Congresspeople ?”
“More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be “reborn as new persons.”
(Washington Times)Here is a guy who is a real “Loony” — Any politician who aligns himself is desperate for contributions. It could be more of a detriment than the money is worth.
Like most 24/7 news this is just noise. I doubt that Europe has much of this kind of religious cult — after being immersed in two World Wars religion seems to have lost its relevance sooner than here. These “prophets” go for the profits and the US is a better market — you’re stuck with the traditional varieties.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 9, 2006 at 1:28 PM (I don’t think this got on)
Frog,
“Bloody-minded old WTH !
have a good look at the stuff above…..”Re: some of the above
Kuwaiti babies — not sure exactly what you are referring to. Michael Kelly, who wrote a book on the Gulf War was in Kuwait during the war and reported the Iraqis not only killed babies, but set fire to the hospital with everyone in it.
“...I thought. If there’s evidence pointing to bin Laden’s complicity, he should be turned over, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There’s plenty of evidence that he’s been behind terrorist attacks elsewhere - in Kosovo, in Macedonia, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, and in Dagestan, in those instances, with the full knowledge of Washington.”
Frog: “Proof? Who needs proof?”
If you believe Osama did the above why would proof of involvement in 9/11 be needed before going after him?
re: Soviet Union quality of products —
My son was in Moscow in 1984 and even what was available to western visitors was low quality, especially food. I doubt anyone here thought them incapable, rather all of their expertise went into military and space projects.
The short coming of communism is economic. Central planning is futile over long periods. People, who are the market, will pick what is the best value available.Globalization has reduced choices over here.
Central planning (Congress) is “saving the consumer money” and has eliminated our choice in many products and services. No one in the USA can produce even the cheap plastic crap and compete.A while back Rabbit made some very disparaging comments about the US military — as usual misplaced blame.
The last war the US “won” was WW2. Since then, in Korea, Vietnam and miscellaneous smaller conflicts the fighting has been managed by bureaucrats and politicians. They now treat a war as if it were a sports contest. There are boundaries not to be crossed. There are those who place limits for fear of causing wider conflict. The other guys are free to go where they choose.
In Korea the Yalu River was our northern boundary for fear of antagonizing Communist China and the Soviets. Never mind the Chinese were already in by the thousands and the Russian pilots were flying combat missions regularly. (We knew it. They knew we knew it. They knew we knew they knew — such is diplomacy — all pretense.)In Nam it was Laos, Cambodia, etc. we were not supposed to cross (or at least not admit it).
War is not a gentleman’s game. The main goal is to KILL the other guy. Pretending civilians will not die is unreasonable. For that matter, what is a soldier other than a civilian in a different suit. To his family what he was wearing is of no consequence.
You and I have the luxury of sitting comfortably thousands of miles from the sounds and smells of combat. We can ponder (or pontificate) on who did what and when — even going back in history to seek proof texts. Those involved may have no concept of what happened over days, decades or millennia. All they know is “the other guy is killing those around them.” That perception colors their comments and the news we receive.
Now, with 24/7 “news” we have an additional factor added to the mix.
Continual speculation and moralizing — often on unsubstantiated information — always biased — it is now a spectator sport.
“In war there is no substitute for victory.” — Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Korean War
“Your job is not too die for your country. Your job is to make the other son of a bitch die for his.” — Gen. George S. Patton, WW2
Israel would be crazy to listen to anyone telling them to stop now. If they go back to where they were they would have no real assurance that Hezbollah would not simply regroup and resupply.
For Rabbit…
“When the wolf is chasing your sleigh, offer him a cookie, but don’t stop to bake him a cake.” — George Peppard, Banacek TV series
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 9, 2006 at 1:33 PM “Natalie, there are twenty car pile ups with more deaths on a daily basis than that bomb that was supposed to “take down the World Trade Center” (according to you). A bomb that is intended to destroy a skyscraper in NYC during business hours that kills six people and does a little damage to the garage is a “dud”. Yes.”
No, not “according to me”, according to the bomber himself:
On Feb 26, 1993, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and five others successfully conspired to detonate a car bomb in the bowels of the Center’s north tower.
According to testimony at Yousef’s 1997 trial, the men rented a yellow Ryder van and parked it in the garage of the 110-storey building. Inside was a specially crafted wooden box which housed the terrorists’ deadly payload.
During his trial, Yousef said the box was placed in the van in such a way to maximize the bomb’s impact.
He and his colleagues planned for the blast to shear the Trade Centre’s support beams, causing one tower to topple into the other.
But the terrorists’ calculations were off target, and the tower withstood the explosion. But six people died and thousands were injured.
Yousef told investigators he hoped the attack would murder 250,000 Americans in retaliation for the U.S.’ continued support of Israel.
According to U.S. secret service agent Brian Parr, Yousef predicted the high death count would shock the United States into realizing it was at war.
Now if you want to continue to downplay the seriousness of what these guys wanted to do, and even the seriousness of what actually happened, feel free. But you should realize that you are on the outermost fringes of opinion about the event, right along with the “truthies” on 9/11:
Despite its relatively low death toll, the bombing shocked the American public. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate. The FBI has recorded a total of about 73,000 explosions.
But this is no big deal to you. Just a little dud. I wonder if you’d describe the terrorist’s second act on the towers a dud as well. I wonder if you’d have considered it a dud if this bomb had been detonated in such a place that 100 people were killed. 1000? What is your threshold? How about at your house? Was the bomb at Oklahoma City a dud? (No, because that one was set off by a white American militia guy)
“It’s bullshit. People who can’t handle “staggering” and “unthinkable” shouldn’t have high ranking jobs in military security or government agencies that are tasked with handling crisis, and sure as hell shouldn’t be carrying guns.”
Well actually, the bottom line of the report on the “dud”, was that everyone indeed did handle the staggering and unthinkable quite professionally and heroically. The fires were brought under control, the people were evacuated, and the building was repaired. So I think they can go on carrying guns. It’ll be OK.
“300 pound bombs dropped on families while they sleep, now that’s hard to overstate. Let’s hear your defense for dropping bombs on children who “collaborate” with “terrorists” in their sleep.
Well, sorry about that. But getting blown to bits at the shopping mall along with dozens of your fellow bargain hunters without the benefit of a leaflet kinda sucks too.
And so does having your village sprayed with mustard gas. And so does getting buried in a mass grave along with thousands of your friends and neighbors, right after you witnessed your kids getting tortured or your wife or daughter getting raped. A lot of things suck in the world, but let’s not forget the difference between deliberate acts done purely for pleasure, to preserve power or to please Allah, and trying to do something to prevent them.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 9, 2006 at 10:16 PM OK Rabbit, it’s certainly plain that you don’t like the label “anti-semite”. That is a very good thing. Perhaps the word has been over used of late, and perhaps it is an imprecise label for you. If that is the case, and you seem to think that it is, then I will take you at your word and offer my apologies.
However, I’ll not accept the notion that my suspicions about you were unfounded. Let us not forget that the whole country here roundly labeled Mel Gibson an anti-semite for saying things pretty much along the same lines as have you, even though people universally said he seemed to have no such attitudes when he was sober. His subconscious was even held accountable.
You defend and side with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians and even al-Qaeda. If they aren’t anti-semitic, then nobody is. You speak of Nasrallah in glowing terms. These people are taught from an early age to hate jews, to equate them literally with monkeys and pigs, and are never given the chance to form an opinion on their own. Why do you defend these brainwashed clearly anti-semitic people?
You link us to a Holocaust revisionist site. I must ask you. Do you agree with the following from that site, that you described as having a valuable perspective?:
The primary complaint of the Holocaust Truth Seekers is that the slave labor camps, Nazi camps were not extermination centers. The Holocaust Truth Seekers claim that most of the deaths were caused by typhus epidemics due to lice, and shortages of food during the final years of the war, not gas chambers.
The photos shows that some Nazi prisons were real prisons, and some were slave labor camps, but none of them were extermination centers. Germany was losing the war during the final years, and they were desperate for military supplies. The Nazis began rounding up the unwanted people for the labor camps.
The prisoners were given beds and food because they were making supplies for the German military. The Nazis wanted to keep the prisoners free of lice and typhus because sickly, miserable prisoners do not make good workers.
The Holocaust should be considered a hoax until the Jews prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on them, not me or you. Don’t be a sucker!
Now I guess one could describe this kind of “analysis” as a simple search for the truth, but I’m quite confident that at least in this country, an overwhelming majority would label it as anti-semitic, if not loony tunes.
Do you stand by Eric and his “perspective”?
I’m still waiting for your source for the Begin quote. And, if it’s not too much trouble, Bill Manning’s website address too. (I know, that one’s a secret)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 9, 2006 at 10:47 PM 1. Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several construction sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the events at Ground Zero, including the collapse of all three structures. These measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data recorded by other independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.
2. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.
3. Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida, 4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec’s two-hour video was to archive the unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.
4. Because building implosions are often promoted as live news events, Protec’s offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our company’s archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 9, 2006 at 11:05 PM Natalie -
The xbehome document is superb. Everything that Brent Blanchard and Protec say about explosive demolitions agrees with my training, experience, and observations as a military demolitions expert, even if it does not agree with Lagomorph’s experience with firecrackers and sparklers. But then, as a self proclaimed “expert welder”, Lagomorph did not recognize the clear marks of a cutting torch on a steel beam until I showed him photographs of a recovery worker at WTC doing an identical cut on an identical beam.
I have tried repeatedly to make the point that, in spite of all the Conspiracy Theorists (CT) vast pile of circumstantial evidence, conjecture, and dishonesty, there is nothing that looks like explosives or thermite in the very large visual record from 09/11. It is like talking to a bunch of loquacious turnips. Lagomorph, Frog, and their ilk are motivated by their leftist ideologies, the hell with facts.
Blanchard and Protec confirm all of my arguments, but will not penetrate Lagomorph’s ignorance. But the Protec data is a timely and valuable contribution to the 09/11 record.
Posted by scorp on Aug 10, 2006 at 2:35 AM Indeed, scorp—your analysis, based on personal relevant experience, has been spot on, and is a very valuable and much appreciated contribution to the debunking of these fantasies and myths.
You’re right. Probably nothing will ever be quite good enough to claim the million dollars. Sorry Brent.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 10, 2006 at 8:27 AM I can’t stand wading through the Bat Shit and Corpses so shall just post this in answer to the most disgusting slander which has now made this thread too rank for further consideration. You guys sure do bring the tone of the place down Batgirl and Scorpse.
I keep hearing accusations of Holocaust Denial and anti-semitism being hurled about like some primitiv shotgun defence against all Israeli actions and have this to say about it.
Holocaust denial as such is a small group of stooges who are mostly fake plants to derail any historical study of the Holocaust. I don’t know anybody who denies the Nazi holocaust of Jews occurred. The term holocaust denier is as fake as Anti-semitic. It is a strawman accusation. Just as anti-semite is both a misnomer and an over used label, so too is holocaust denial.
I am quite sure that Hitler’s Nazis targeted the Jewish people, and it seems probable that millions of them were killed, just as homosexuals, gypsies and various other minorities were selected for wiping out.
All my curiosity is aroused when we have a situation where a question may not be asked. What is this stuff with banning by law even, the study or discussion of the history which despite the public perception, is definately not well documented. It would shock most people to know how little actual evidence, even witness ever existed for some of the most extreme details.
The source for the six million jews killed is basically One Jewish historian/investigator’s figure and it has never been corroberated in any way. Polls of Jews in Europe before and after WWII showed much less difference than would be expected, nowhere near the number supposedly killed even, let alone allowing for emigration to the Middle East. One of many strange anomalies which face any researcher of the history via records.
There are extensive Red Cross reports available from the Concentration camps during and after the war and there is NO mention of any genocide. NOTHING in thousands of pages of reports mentions any evidence of Genocide.
The official figure of Jews killed in the camps has actually been lowered to 3 million, with no fanfare or adjustment in the usual quoted figure, which is actually a number of biblical significance and was selected by the Zionists for this reason, but that’s a longer story.None of the leaders like Churchill or Chamberlain or others ever made a mention of any Jewish Holocaust in their own memoirs. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?
These are some of the things which raise questions about the Jewish holocaust by Nazis, they don’t amount to denial, they are facts and what one does with them is the point. I accept that there are many irregularities in the account generally accepted. How unusual is that when it comes down to anything one studies past the veneer of general knowledge? ,These and many other anomalies do force an open minded person to reject much of the story as it is told.
Now it is true that some moron neo-nazi types and others who are just so pissed off with Israel do deny the Jewish Holocaust by Nazis occurred and they falsely attribute their beliefs to these anomalies and questions. For them these things are convenient but they don’t invest any intellect, it is merely bigotry in action. Too many others who are rightly critical of Israel, like most Zionist supporters are as brainwashed into believing Jews equals Israel. This is not the case, Many Jews are informed enough to reject the biblical claim by Zionists for Israel as being illegitimate or they are civilised enough that they rise above the more primitiv and bloodthirsty literal interpretation of their Scriptures.
This is a critical understanding and anyone who mistakes Israel as a true representative even of Judaism is as wrong as those who attribute all Muslims or all Christians with the Fundamentalist brush because of a large body of extreme fundamentalists within their number.
Israel is a fake! It is an usurper and has no biblical claim to the land it occupies. It is a proxy western forward phalange state formed by force of arms and maintained by force of arms. Israel is anathema to the mythical panorama into which it has supplanted itself.
It is a foreign occupier with blasphemy on its lips.
Israel is not all about jews. Israel is an extremist Jewish Apartheid state, with its only connection to the middle East beyond sixty years of enforced existence, being its name which is taken from the bible.
The truth and it is profoundly important to all this, is that the Jews who form the defining class of Israel, the ones who “fled” the Holocaust of EUROPE to found this land based on a biblical principle, are NOT the Jews of that same story. They are Khazars of Eastern Europe. Coming from Mongolia and Russia basically, they converted to Judaism instead of the two other monotheistic religions of their neighbors either side, Islam and Christianity. Both these latecomers were thriving by the time the Ashkenazi Jews came into being. These European Jews have no more right to the inheritance of the chosen people of the mostly mythical and wholly untrustworthy Bible, than any other race except the semitic peoples, whose history in Palestine goes back almost three thousand years of continuous occupation.
These people include Muslims, though their ancestors would have been Jewish in many cases, Jews, Christians and Druze. These same people are the true semites and incredibly they are the very victims, even the Semitic Jews are second class in Israel, of these Israelis who claim the full master race, exceptionalist status which a literal reading religious doctrine allows. A whole lot of Christians are equally mesmerised by this most preposterous pantomime, which is seriously stoking the flames of the problems these usurpers have been creating in the Mid East for sixty years now.
The Holocaust story is like the 9/11 story, of ultimate importance to understanding the later events. The so called War On Terror, which is a war on Islam it cannot be seriously denied. Sure the aggressors can label their victims whatever they like, Terrorists, Hun, Gooks….......all intended to dehumanise them and insulate our sensibilities. But the Muslims know, they can see as clear as day that this is a war on them.
9/11 with its farcical cover up and so many cracks showing in its unlikely myth was the single enabling event, of the War On Islam. It is only natural that a sceptical and curious person should question something of such profound significance, especially when it must seem obvious to even the most fleeting of glances that much is not right about the story. The 9/11 truth movement is not a marginal or fading phenomenon. It is supported by more and more qualified and intelligent people and the questions asked have always been unanswerable by the official myth. It is not wrong nor is it foolish to question what happened, and any proper questioning will soon give more than enough reason to realise you are being lied to by the powers that dictate such public information..
All the answers may not be available and nobody is suggesting planes were not hijacked and buildings didn’t burn a bit or fall down, but the reasons these things happened and even exactly what happened and how are not what you have been told. If 9/11 was not what we were told, and it is not, then the whole remaining ongoing disaster of this War On Islam becomes wrong! wrong! wrong!
Exactly what we all instinctively know anyway.
The same thing is apparent if one looks at the so called holocaust and it’s actual reasons and causes in historical context and with the facts as they are known in front of us. Nobody is denying that the Jewish Holocaust by Nazis as such did occur with masses of Jews being targeted, but the reasons were not at all a simple racial hatred due to some inherant bigotry within German society or Hitlers weird mind. The means and methods were not exactly on the scale or as exclusively without precedent as we are led to believe and there were in fact Zionists behind the scenes all along who could have ensured the survival of most if not all of the Jews who eventually perished. These people chose to see the Holocaust occur, a LIHOP operation in a sense, so as to ensure the conditions they needed to create the Zionist state which was but a gleam in their eyes at that time.If one fully understands what is known of the events and people involved then some very profound questions are raised. Not only about Israel and its creation but also about it’s right to exist by force and international carte blanche, which seems to be the case.
Perhaps it makes more sense now why the whole thing about discussing or investigating the so called holocaust is so unique in being banned. I say so called Holocaust because I can recognise the dangerous controlling extremism of allowing this one event to usurp a term which refers to the massive and indiscriminate killing of a whole lot of people of any race or religion, but in becoming THE Holocaust the Nazi Holocaust of Jews displaces others’ suffering in a way which can be seen clearly in the incredible denial of Lebanese suffering and the whining about being the real victims by the Zionist master race and it’s supporters. There is no sense that others too can suffer greatly, and certainly nothing they ever do could be considered wrong, since they are the people of THE HOLOCAUST.
Exceptions who can do anything at all because they bear the mark of suffering for the whole race.
I understand that increasingly many people are becoming so infuriated, so disgusted by these hubristic fools that they would deny the Nazi Jewish Holocaust out of spite. I reject any diminishing of the suffering of those who perished, but as with the 3000 victims of 9/11 I do not believe they are being honoured by the falsification or hijacking of their story for pruposes of more bloodshed which has been the case in both instances.
I am simply and without prejudice, equally without favour, pointing out the facts which should be considered when you wish to make justifications for either the War on Terror or the State of Israel’s actions.
Calling people names in response to legitimate questions may help you avoid facing truths which may challenge your own narcissistic state of hubristic ignorance, but it doesn’t answer the questions and claerly shows how uncomfortable they make you. If you truly have the answer then you have no fear of the question.
The fear, more like sheer terror you have of the questions about 9/11, just like the terror of questions about the Nazi holocaust of Jews prove that you do not have the answers, or that the answers are not what you would like.
You proved to me how completely bereft of even personal honesty you are by avoiding in the most craven manner the simple question I put which put 9/11 in perspective to the whole War on Islam. I will not play games anymore and describe this ongoing aggression as a War on Terror. It is creating terror on a massive scale and is fanning the flames of Muslim fundamentalism and all manner of religious fundamentalism. It is based on a grand decpetion, based on a lie. The whole war is a lie in its choice of the label Terrorist this time for all those who oppose it. It is in effect and in thinly disguised rhetoric a War proper upon Islam and all it’s adherants. It is not in its end a racist war though, it is designed to engulf many more than just Muslims but for now they are a convenient starting point for numerous reasons.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 10, 2006 at 8:41 AM You pair of morons look cute complimenting each other on each your own completely spurious faith filled accounts.
Scorpse’s wishful thinking:
circumstantial evidence, conjecture, and dishonesty
doesn’t seem very relevant next to just these questions.
(1) the impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects;(2) the melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down;
(3) UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly—about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt;
(4) if the steel had melted or weakened, the buildings would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed;
(5) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall;
(6) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered;
(7) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives;
(8) the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain;
(9) pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause;
(10) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it”, displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT;
(11) the hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(12) the Pentagon’s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when it was shown on “The Factor”; but if a 155-foot long Boeing 757 had hit the building, it should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(13) the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory—flying at high speed barely above ground level—physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(14) if Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government’s official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; and so on. This thread is old and ironically all the information about these things can be found in my first five posts. You have failed to answer even one of these 14 points reasonably, ignoring most of them. Exactly the way I predicted.
Considering all you have is a few bits of circumstantial evidence and Cheney’s disputed word for what happened on 9/11 I’d say your own claim for facts is the most farcical imaginable. You don’t even have ANY credible evidence for the FBI to list OBL as the PERP. No provable theory about how the buildings fell down. Do you know an experiement was tried in England the other day with fires in a skyscraper to se what efffect it might have with a view to understanding 9/11? Well guess what, nothing happened to support the fairy story!
With the vast body of verified facts which dispute your funny fairy tale of magic arabs, that you can flick all that off and turn to your own little mud pie pf a case is pathetic, but exactly what the biggest idiots on the planet would be expected to do. It isn’t as if we have seen sub-human morons at large before.
I call you sub-human morons advisedly and feel far from being ad-hominem it is an accurate description.
Your status as morons has been long since established and I feel no further word needs to be said about it.
You support without reservations or reconsideration any cause which could result in more death or destruction or human suffering. In all the time I’ve know you Nat and Scorp the only issues you care about (except Scorp who exists to be right about something, anything, one day) are those that involve poisons, banned wepons of war, torture and illegal detainment, war upon people without any regard to any sort of justification or humanity, it is all the same, you support the most evil and like all tyrannical filth over the ages, you claim the moral high ground.
Your bleating claims of righteousness and justice are the same sort of foul hypocritical mouthings spewed forth by all great monsters in history. It is only when you are finally trapped in the corner of ignominious failure that we will see the horns sprout and the real venomous KILL EVERYONE CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY! mentality which writhes and squirms around in your foully twisted minds.
You are the monsters! It is you who are doing all the killing, nobody else is doing anything but defending themselves from you, and history will not be kind to you, of this you can be assured.
Keep on whistling in the encroaching darkness WTH, keep on telling yourself it will all come good in the end. It will not come good, until the evil which you have allowed to become your master has finally been defeated. I don’t know what makes you think any help is on the horizon. Your masters have no qualms about plunging the world into a war which wiser heads know nobody will win, because they are as confident of their paper plans as they were before they invaded Iraq. The level of deception is such that they don’t even realise how badly they are losing in the Mid East or the remaining world. They seriously think that they can win a war with China. You only have to go back to tehir own stated intentions to see they had this in mind all along too. They always planned to go Iraq, Iran and Syria and they always planned to carve up Lenanon for Israel, I’m sorry if you don’t rad what your own leaders write when they are not just trying to snowjob the sheeple like yourselves. They count on the fact that none of their supporters are the sort who would ever read their documents so their plans are all out in the open for those who wish to be informed to see. They care not a bit, for they are completely confident that idiots like you will support them without ever caring to confirm or deny anything except what they tell you to believe. They are not smart but they are smarter than their followers for sure.
The rest of us watch with frustration and bemusement this mass insanity unfolding.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 10, 2006 at 8:57 AM The Scorpling has outdone himslef again.
After having fumbled and fiddled about with the most basic facts about explosives and demolitions, and then as he has read more and copied bits out of sources his boasts about his qualifications and experience have gone from originally having helped someone do some metal cutting, to now he is claiming to have “training, experience, and observations as a military demolitions expert”
Piss of you stupid litle man! You made an ass of yourself al the way down from your first ignorant litle statement which was that you knew of “no difference between military demolitions and Civilian”. Your very own words! You made also a series of false presumptions about Thermite and several other types of explosives which the Bang Bunny quickly used to show what a cracked pot you are.
Now you have morphed into the original Military Explosives and Demolitions expert.
Now I could probably pull off such a fake myself Scorpse, but for you I’d say better stick with the cowboy hat or the clown suit.
You forget you already bombed out of explosives early on. Now you’re back for a second bite of the same rotten fruit, what a Moron!
A moron who actually knows so little about explosives he cannot admit at the very least all the collapses were consistent with explosive demolitions. uh ha! No other evidence is necessary to conclude this much than to see them fall down. Yet the great Military Demolitions expert, Scorpse McGiver, says they didn’t look like explosives demos.
You are as always quite a giggle Scorpy.
I see you really impressed Kal from Kansas too. He couldn’t even take you seriously, but who can except a desperate Shilling Fruit Bat?
Not least of the things which make your new found “Military Explosives” expertise claims such a joke is that you see two perfectly normal plane crashes when the planes fly into the WTC’s. WRONG!
Both those planes crashes were normal only from the point of view of MOVIES! The planes in the movies always crash with big instant fireballs, and so do the cars.
The people who make those “special effects”, such people as the rabbit, can tell straight away that both those planes had some extra help in exploding like that. Another group who would have to be as aware as Pyrotechnicians of how plane and car crashes look in reality, would surely be Military Explosives experts. That you can’t see that much even, is all I need to know that you are completely full of it you poor resentful Scorpse.
If you don’t want to look like an idiot, don’t ever claim knowledge of something about which you know nothing Scorp, when you are in company of people who really do.
You just try and find how many planes have crashed and burst into fireballs like those two did. Just you see how many times that happens. I don’t mean crash and burn, then explode, but actually crash and then instantly explode in a fireball. If you find one, I’ll be surprised if it isn’t just a break up, followed by a rolling fireball as the fuel tanks rupture. If you find two I’ll be really surprised.
Of course in trying you will probably come up with some entirely different types of explosions without even realising which will give me an opportunity to further demostrate your lack of even the understanding of different explosions. Watching movies doesn’t inform you of anything.
The one I love above all other scraps of misinformation is the old, “don’t cut that wire, it might have a mercury switch” line. It might have a mercury switch, which only means that moving the bomb may be hazardous to one’s health. Beyond that cutting a wire is about the best way to disarm any bomb unless it has a relay to guard against that very act, in which case it would be your last.
Let me give you a broad hint Scorpling since you seem to be desperately trying to belittle my experience as a proffessional fireworks operator and pyrotechnician. In this tricky world of ultra syrveillance and paranoia it would be unwise of anyone to lay claim to any experience in the field of “rendering things into much smaller and more widely dispersed formats” using high energy reactions. What the rabbit has told of his experience is all he desires to make known, but it does not have to mean it is the whole story or even all there might be of consequence.
What can you tell us about shaped charges Scorpy?
Scorpy you spoke of Thermite only being able to cut downwards, did you get that idea from the educational video which took commercially available loose thermite and ignited it in a loose batch?
How might you cut down a one foot pine tree, with what and how many turns?
How would ‘you’ spike a 155mm Gun barrel Scorpy?
How many seconds interval can one adjust on an M1 grenade Scorpy?
Has Scorpse ever used those nifty little pencil timing dets?The important thing for you to know is that you are not capable of making any ground against the rabbit on issues to do with such things. You are dangling in the wind for me to kick at leisure while you insist upon pretending to be a “Military Demolitions and Explosives Expert”.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 10, 2006 at 12:23 PM More on that Poll Batgirl shot herself in the foot with.
30% of Americans don’t know what year 9/11 was in! What’s the bet they all go with the fairy tale? Their opinion about what happened should be useful.
Presbyterian Press prints book accusing the Bushling of being behind 9/11. That must really make you gnash your fangs in fury Batgirl. Now you have got to sling shit at the Presbyterians! God how that must irk you!
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 10, 2006 at 12:37 PM Natalie -
Jackpot! We write a few sentences, and Lagomorph goes off on pages and pages of incoherent babble. Well, that keeps him busy, anyway.
Do you think Lagomorph has actually read anything we have said, or any of the documentation we have provided? I don’t think so. In his 2:57 AM post above, item (2), Lagomorph is still talking about jet fuel not melting steel; but that has not been a serious argument for three or four years. Neither you nor I have raised that issue, and Lagomorph does not address the issues we do raise. Consequently, he makes absurd arguments about nothing.
And then Lagomorph comes up with this little gem:
(7) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives;
Quite apart from the fact that air resistance is negligible in this circumstance (low velocity and high density are factors), hypothetical explosives mounted on the columns would have net zero effect on the rate of fall of the mass. If the explosives were mounted on top of the columns, then the columns would be driven down faster than the velocity due to gravity, but I think that is not what is being argued, though it is somewhat difficult to determine what it is that the leftist nutcakes are arguing.
And of course there is zero evidence of explosives, powerful or otherwise, whether mounted on, or atop, or under, the columns or anywhere else at WTC. If there had been explosives, particularly “extremely powerful” explosives, you might have expected to see windows blowing out at lower levels in the Towers, or blast and explosive expulsions of debris, particularly through the gaping holes where the damage occurred, but there is nothing like that anywhere. All that is to be seen is the disintegration of the building from the point of damage.
Maybe if Lagomorph actually read xbehome he could come up with a coherent statement of what he thinks, but don’t count on it.
Posted by scorp on Aug 10, 2006 at 3:49 PM Rabbit,
You must realize you do have an advantage over most of us — you still have that decoder ring you got by sending in a cereal box top and a few cents. Mine is long gone.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM Hold the phones, people. I know this sounds strange coming from me, but there does seem to be some pretty compelling evidence for if nothing else, calling into question the conclusions of the 9/11 commission. If they got this wrong about the planes, who’s to say what else they might have missed:
“Get ready to go through the looking glass here, people,” Stone told reporters at a Manhattan press conference before an advance screening of the movie, which premieres Wednesday. “The film you are about to see is going to blow the lid off the 9/11 Commission’s official report and expose a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government.”
World Trade Center, which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called “the official government line” about the event.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 10, 2006 at 7:59 PM “Jackpot! We write a few sentences, and Lagomorph goes off on pages and pages of incoherent babble. Well, that keeps him busy, anyway.”
Incoherent yes, but my question is just how is he able to exceed the 4000 character limit? Is that a function of the decoder ring I was unaware of?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 10, 2006 at 8:46 PM Natalie,
My out of date browser won’t let me into the Onion link you sent. Too bad since I just realized this has to be one of the Rabbit’s fountains of truth.
His decoder ring can take any rational report and convert it to his standard of acceptability by filtering out anything which doesn’t fit his scheme of life and at times simply reversing his brain polarity. Up is down, left is right, good is evil, etc.
I have lost interest in trying to communicate anything of substance on this issue, but I am curious…
Why does someone who thinks our government is capable of the most despicable schemes think they need an excuse to go to war. He clings to the idea that 9/11 was a total scam (which was years in the planning) just for that purpose.
And — he is willing to accept photos on the internet as evidence.
For years anyone with PhotoShop has been able to turn Madonna into the Pope or anything else imaginable. For that matter, people can doctor anything written by adding subtracting or just plain making up fairytales and post it to the world. It is next to impossible to track down all of the crap out there.
It is entertaining though, at times. :-)
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 10, 2006 at 11:44 PM Natalie -
4000 character limit? I don’t know and I don’t worry about it.
I find it much more interesting that KansasKal came from nowhere, agreed totally with Lagomorph on all things, also evaded the 4000 character limit (the only other poster that has done so, I believe), had an Australian Flag logo in spite of being from the USA, and then presented a pre-emptive argument that he was really using an Australian website while visiting Thailand (!) to explain why an American was posting under an Oz flag!
Then when I pointed out that Lagomorph was, in reality, posting as Kansas Kal, and acting schizo for his multiple personalities, Lagomorph got a buddy in the USA to post under the KansasKal handle, complete with American flag logo.
Lagomorph has posted under at least four names, Rabbit, Rabbit Vox, Ghost Rabbit, and KansasKal. By his own admission, he has been kicked off ITT website twice, but it was the fault of people like you and me. It is a symptom of Lagomorph’s personality disorder that he is incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions, and that he adopts different persona when he gets himself into trouble.
People such as Lagomorph are ideal dupes for the Conspiracy Theorists: limited intelligence, gullible, disturbed, unoriginal, and open to suggestion.
Posted by scorp on Aug 11, 2006 at 12:07 AM Ah yes, scorp, ever brilliant. Rabbit is a rather talented story teller, and is certainly capable of posing as someone who is measured and relatively polite. Two posts coming from Oz that both for some reason know how to exceed the character limit, a common trait. (In fact, I noticed Rabbit a while back exceeding the limit with a big block quote)
“Kal” did seem very programmed and somehow phony, saying everything a certain someone would want him to say.
And then, how easy would it be for him to contact someone in the U.S., provide “Kal"s password (I believe ITT doesn’t allow registering two IDs from the same IP address—Rabbit could be using two computers, home & office), and that someone helps him pull off the illusion that Kal’s back from a business trip.
Wiley?
Are you a good witch, or a bad witch? Kal seems to share your interest in the “airlines”, and also your distaste for my seemingly “endless” posts.
Wow. Conspiracy theories are fun. I can see how one could get addicted. ;-)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 2:58 AM WTH
The small silly comments by you are really pathetic and thus attaching yourself to the degraded characters of two berserk morons is hardly good for your own at least partially respectably image, I have to tell you.
Since I only deal with facts and measured opinions, and have amassed a completely logical case against the faith based screechings and spurious prattlings and hollow rhetoric of two fools who are completely devoid of support from any quarter, your pathetic attempts to belittle the rabbit backfire upon your own selves. You make farcical, claims which can only be seen as self ironic. The whole thread stands as testimony to what is. You turkeys would post such mind numbingly faked claims of achievment as if this will be the only thing anyone reads? Once people go back to look for this supposed documentation you have provided, and find your funny little theorising, mostly emotional, irrelevant bits and pieces interspersed with things which severely damage your own case, proving you are the ones who read nothing. Then they see exactly why I and others treat you with such contempt.
Your babbling on about 4000 word limits is hilarious. Just like all new developments in life you clowns miss it. Talk about slow learners! Actually others have indeed gone past the 4000 word limit, since the editing option was added all limits are off. What morons! Now you are going to dribble about like the feeble little punks you are speculating about the rabbit being someone else. The last refuge of the internet loser, is to start the sort of antics you sad sad beings are now into.
It doesn’t take me long to post to you morons, as it happens so don’t flatter yourselves that I bother to do it properly and thoroughly fom time to time.
Youa re right though Scorpy, I don’t read much of what you dimwits post anymore, I stopped that a while back your just stuck on denial so what is the point?
You keep claiming there is NO evidence of explosives when there is actually a sizeable body of evidence, including chemical analysis which has been done since the things you are quoting were written. So you are as usual denying things off the top of your head, withot even having the background or looking at the source and reports to know. You rest your whole persoanl illusion of success upon having established some doubt about a single photo which is the least compelling evidence of about a dozen separate issues. To claim there is nothing when indeed a good deal exists and has been repteatedly refferred to in this thread, is the height of deluded behaviour.
WTH
I can see that I was right and as usual your hopeful delusions failed. WTH. When will you learn?I told you Bush would simply ignore or cancel the Supreme Court decision on Geneva conventions.
You babbled on from the very first case of torture and atrocities committed by US troops that it was once off, then you changed to a few bad apples, then you ended up by saying well at least the USA invesigates it and so on. I told you all along that the USA was no different with the same failings and imperfections as all others, which means you have absolutely no moral justification for your claims of US exceptionalism. You said I love terrorists. Now since your denial began, we have discovered the abuse is widespread after all, that it is being as actively covered up and was actually FAR worse in Vietnam than ever known about, including those who spoke out and had been labelled liars by an “ungrateful country” ever since. We learn what is more that over the time of US military atrocities, there has been next to NO punishment of the perpetrators. So your whole argument of exceptionalism is defunct, just like I told you from the start!
You denied all along that the USA under Bush was committing war crimes, and that the Geneva conventions on’t apply if Bush says they don’t. The Supreme court case soon disabused you and Bush of that notion, and you never missed a beat in your striding hubris but stated well that just proved the USA was a law abiding nation and Bush would now comply with the law. I told you that is bullshit and that Bush would waste no time in undermining that finding, and this was borne out in the record number of signing statements among other actions. All you could manage was to ramble on like a one track record about the actual definition of signing statements.
Now Bush has a team of lawyers working flat out at undermining the War Crimes Laws, he is EXACTLY as I told you cancelling any laws which he doesn’t like. It doesn’t mater how many issues we care to revisit you deluded individual. It matters not how much pompous rhetoric you can assemble,, you have ben consistently wrong about everything of importance being invariably reduced to locking in like a bulldog on some minor technical detail perhaps mere semantics, rather than face a realiy which is crucial to your whole illogical, stubborn mindset.
As always you cannot even comprehend the irony of all this is that YOU are the one who is arguing in favour of increasingly horrendous and patently failing policies. Everything your emperor is touching is turning to shit. The USA is on a downward spiralling curve, following an insane imaginary war on everything into its own destruction.
You are so screwed and you don’t even realise it.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 3:02 AM “For that matter, people can doctor anything written by adding subtracting or just plain making up fairytales and post it to the world.”
There’s certainly no arguing with that, WTH. In fact, I’m quite confident that Rabbit’s quote supposedly from Menachem Begin was just that…..made up.
I came across this in reference to the quote:
Dear Archivist, Jimmy Carter LibraryI have read an article by Texe Marrs that has the following passage:
No Basis for Peace
In his memoirs of his years in the White House, former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Begin, Carter recalled, believed the Jews were a Master Race, a holy people superior to Egyptians and Arabs. Begin also believed that God wanted the Jews to own the land, so there was absolutely no basis for peace. The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it. Period.
******
Texe Marrs does not reference the above as a quote nor as a footnote.
My question is did President Carter write the above in his memoirs?
Thank you for any help you can give me to ascertain the truth in this matter.
Reply follows:
Dear Kirk:
There is scarcely one true statement in the article quote you sent us. Carter DID bring about a peace treaty (that has stood for almost 30 years) between Egypt and Israel. Begin and Sadat DID sign the treaty, so obviously Begin was not the hold up. Menachem Begin may have apprehension about Arabs, but that is far from accusing him of being Nazi-like and racist. Carter, who has never been a name-caller, certainly did not use these terms in his memoirs.
Begin, like many Israelis, may have thought the Jews were a “Chosen People” (after all, the Bible calls them that) but that is far from assuming that they were a “master race”, above all others. In their role as a “Chosen People” the Jews have been as much chastised by God as rewarded. Far from it being a fact that “The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it” the majority of Israelis were glad to surrender the Sinai and some other land in order to secure the Camp David accords.
Your Texe Marrs sounds a bit “Nazi-like” and “racist” himself. Playing fast and loose with the facts, he seems to want to recruit Jimmy Carter as an unwillling testimony to his anti-semitism. It is no wonder he does not cite his source for his quotes. In neither “Keeping Faith” nor “The Blood of Abraham”, Carter’s two main writings on the Israeli peace negotiations, does Carter say anything harsh about Begin, though they did not always agree.
Hope this answers your question.
Albert Nason
Archivist, Jimmy Carter Library
(emphasis added by the Fruit Bat.) mmmm…....fruit
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 3:33 AM Natalie -
Did you ever read the The Caine Mutiny? It was one of the best novels to come out of WWII, and was made into a movie starring Humphrey Bogart. Captain Queeg, in command of the USS Caine, was in way over his head, and compensated for his many weaknesses by fixating on minutiae.
In the middle of the war, and in the middle of the South Pacific, the Officer’s Mess on the Caine was able to get a gallon of frozen strawberries, a rare treat in that time and that place. Late that night, Captain Queeg went by the mess to have another serving of strawberries, and they were nowhere to be found. (The mess boys ate them.) Infuriated, Captain Queeg set up an investigation into what happened to the missing strawberries, and involved all the officers on the Caine in the investigation. Among the items that had to be checked out were keys; every key of every nature of every person on the ship was rounded up to see if it fit the food locker. Captain Queeg insisted that he could factually, logically, inexorably, determine what had happened to the strawberries through his superior deductive logic, and all his officers were idiots and unsupportive of his goals. Remind you of anyone?
Since I only deal with facts and measured opinions, and have amassed a completely logical case against the faith based screechings and spurious prattlings and hollow rhetoric of two fools who are completely devoid of support from any quarter, your pathetic attempts to belittle the rabbit backfire upon your own selves.
Posted by scorp on Aug 11, 2006 at 3:46 AM Natalie -
Lagomorph has your answer. You write 10,000 words, post 3,999, and edit in the remainder.
Too bad Lagomorph has nothing worthwhile to write about.
Posted by scorp on Aug 11, 2006 at 3:56 AM A special bit of a wacking for the Corpse.
Quite apart from the fact that air resistance is negligible in this circumstance (low velocity and high density are factors),
Ah but little Scorpy there would be “some” air resistance, surely you know that the figure for gravity assumes a vacuum, which is not the case on the earth, we have air resistance and the important thing is that it was a plus factor, it would increase the time from perfect gravity calculations which are what the scxientists are working with. Further more I recall you have had to theorise the exploding windows and ejected debris which precedes the collapses by several stories is actually caused by air pressure from the collpasing upper stories….get it? To be able to create sufficiant force to pop windows and eject debris, then a good deal of air pressure would need to be developed. That means that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. In fact in a real debate, that fact just eliminated you in the first round. But there is no end to your doomed denial.
So you see little morons, either the exploding widndows and sideways ejected debris from the collapsing buildings is evidence of considerable air resistance, or it is evidence of explosives.
Take your pick!hypothetical explosives mounted on the columns would have net zero effect on the rate of fall of the mass.
True Scorpy but REAL explosives mounted on the columns would have have the desired effect of removing all resistance and allowing gravity to act alone. However another proof you know nothing about demolitions is that a properly exceuted demo can actually speed the fall up a bit probably by a temporary displacement of air and a virtual vacuum which exists just at the end of each explosive breakout. The very best come down in almost exactly gravity or even a little faster than even theoretical gravity (Which still only exists in avaccum) One of the buildings came down in what was apparently a bit faster than normal atmospheric gravity would allow. Another “proof” of explosives when it is eventually looked at in a proper investigation.
the explosives were mounted on top of the columns, then the columns would be driven down faster than the velocity due to gravity, but I think that is not what is being argued, though it is somewhat difficult to determine what it is that the leftist nutcakes are arguing.
Actually Scorpy I don’t think anybody except you and Batgirl are having trouble following exactly what it is we are arguing. We have made a simple to understand and completely sourced by verifiable facts case. If you are having trouble understanding it is but an indigtment of your own poor intellect. As for your ideas of what explosives would do if “mounted on the tops of collumns” (sic) you are just imaging this in your head and making it up as you go along aren’t you? The tops of columns is a misleading statement. Explosives are a force which expnads in ALL directions equally. It will apply the same force in all directions from the top, or the bottom of any column. Since the supporting structure went all the way from top to bottom of the building, the top of any column is a relative term. In fact to achieve what was a reverse implosion, top down instead of bottom up, the exlosives charges would have been set the same as normal, but fired in reverse sequence, it is as simple as that.
In demolitions of skyscrapers little Scorpy the wannabe bang bunny, it is actually of no real consequence which direction you do this in, as each floor (usually) is treated as an entity to be cracked completely and thus offering no resistance to the downward force which will be accelerating at the same rate as gravity dictates, whether it begins falling from the top, or from the bottom. Or are you now going to tell us you think it would fall faster from the botom, since the top is heavier? If you believe this it will be the icing on the rabbit’s cake.
And of course there is zero evidence of explosives, powerful or otherwise, whether mounted on, or atop, or under, the columns or anywhere else at WTC. If there had been explosives, particularly “extremely powerful” explosives, you might have expected to see windows blowing out at lower levels in the Towers, or blast and explosive expulsions of debris, particularly through the gaping holes where the damage occurred, but there is nothing like that anywhere.
That paragraph is completely phony Scorpy. The ejected debris and breaking windows of the collapsing skyscrapers is something which certainly Batgirl has tried to argue was pressure from the collapse, though I think you did too. It isn’t in dispute you moron.
I guess the self abuse you are indulging in ignoble and unwise trolls, is the best that you’ve got, when all else fails put your hands over your pointy little ears and scream Rabbit is an idiot, rabbit is an idiot. nya nya nya.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 4:11 AM Explosive Events in the Twin Towers
While the explosive nature of the events that destroyed the Twin Towers is evident in their gross features such as the mushrooming of the tops and the huge clouds of concrete dust produced in the air, there are many specific observations that point to the detonations of explosions within the towers.
Eyewitness Reports
Many eyewitnesses who were near the South Tower when it began its precipitous collapse reported sights and sounds of explosions. Several accounts are described in the evidence section.Energetic Ejections of Dust and Objects
Explosive ejection of dust early in the collapse of the South Tower is clearly visible in the NBC video taken from far to the east, and in still frames from that video. In addition to the large ejections of white dust from the left wall, the video shows a small high-speed ejection toward the back of the right wall, visible as a small white fleck in the first frame to the right.
Many of the photographs
of the tower collapses show solid objects, such as sections of steel columns and aluminum cladding of the outer walls, being thrown ahead of the expanding dust cloud. This pattern is characteristic of explosive demolitions. According to Chapter 1 of FEMA’s own report pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers. The distribution pattern they diagram suggests that, with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward. This is corroborated by the shape of the vertical holes in WTC 6.South Tower Demolition Wave
A three-second movie shows about 2.5 seconds of the South Tower collapse starting at about three seconds into the plunge of the tower’s top. The short movie shows the roughly spherical debris cloud nearly double in size, even accounting for the perspective. The leading edge of the wave is about to reach the 44th-floor sky lobby when the camera operator turns to run.
Any more delusions and bald faced lies Scorpy or would you just rather keep on with your endless attempts to wack the rabbit?
Shall I make a silly spelling error for you to play with little Scorpling? Would that keep you amused for a page or two?
Don’t you think anybody notices that you mention Jet Fuel in a fake display of affrontery while once again avoiding facing up to the fact of molten steel under all three buildings? At one time you denied any such existed. Then I showed you it was not in dispute, and you have nothing more to say? Pretty thin on the ground this great reasoned case you keep saying you have somewhere Scorp. Pretty thin on facts is what it is.
Any ideas what melted the steel since we can at least agree it seems that no organic fuel could have done anything like it? (Kerosene being the highest potential calorific output fuel supposedly available)
Don’t go getting all forgetful about the kinetic energy available being way short of the measured amount for pulverising all the concrete, let alone creating temperatures more than 1200 degC.
Don’t start rambling on about anything else you arrogant idiot! Face the molten steel like a good little troll, and give us your best guess as to what caused it. If you can….................
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 4:28 AM Yes indeedy. I can see the captain now, eyes firey red and hopping mad.
Looks like Rabbit has unwittingly provided us with good advice for analyzing the happenings of 9/11. The simplest, most obvious and sensible explanations are usually the correct ones.
Of course. The editing function. Stupid brain. And here I was worried about adding my (not so) little sig line to some of my posts on page 1 & 2 for fear of violating the limit, so I searched for short posts. (But then again, they say 90 min.)
I guess we may have to re-evaluate that conspiracy theory.
——————————-vvR 212;————————-
Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense. You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat
9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review) ;-)16% of people believe in space aliens. 6% believe in bombs and missiles. (Truthies love polls, especially ones they can mis-represent.)
(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks) (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)
Truthies love videos
(warning…graphic images and coarse language)——————
Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory. Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory. Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.
Which begs the question— Why do you?
——————
We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent, talented and brave people, who are capable of designing, building and fighting fires in huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers, universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire, and gravity caused their collapse.
However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those who are capable of safely demolishing and disposing of such structures, concurs.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 4:30 AM I think if anyone was going to read that collection of theorising faith filled rant you keep posting they would have gotten the message by Now Batgirl. Is the rabbit needing tp reply with his own simple one stop shop for verifiable facts and easliy verified science which speaks for itself, every time you do this thing?
Are you seriously thinking you can outbreed a rabbit? The thing is Rabbit knows how to stretch some boundaries with some flair, you’re own imitations fall flat and crass, lacking the co-ordination or dexterity of thinking to compete in the world of “avante guarde” internet debate. With you it just falls flat like any derogatory and inflamatory ad hominem by people trying to deny facts and avoid direct debate with tell tale personal insults. They show your real desperation and the lack of anything but profound amusement at your best efforts from this rabbit or others compared with your own nasty spite when the rabbit lines you up for a neat and profound insult, shows who owns whom..
You could have a shot at answering the cause of the temperatures under the buildings? You never went past denial then ignoring the fact after it was proven after all, about three pages ago.
You can keep on going round the same old mulberry bush, but the rabbit will keep on following you, you can slither, the rabbit will hop. You can roll and grovel in emotional rhetoric, the rabbit will hop. You can flap and flutter all over the place from one random detail to another, sewing minor doubts with some but overall achieving a sum of zero. The rabbit will simply hop, like every time before. He will hop, with the facts. The facts and serious questions which arise from them, are the rabbit’s whole case. Rabbit does indulge in wacking such morons as yourselves about the thread in all the ways you know and love so well you little massochistic hose toting Scorp. But unlike your own typically low brow and ill aimed or timed sniping and abuse of the rabbit, it is only a sideline and the case I make stands separate and speaks for itself.
For you the sniping and infertile insults you hurl are somehow an integral part of your case. Just as the only way you can respond to the arguments put forth by experts in their fields by attacking the person themselves while ignoring their points wholesale, so too this is the case you seek to make against a rabbit who never did say he was the factor upon which any of this rode. Interjections of his own personal experience were not presented as critical bits of any fact being presented, but merely as asides and pointers for those who are interested in his own views in these regards.
It is good you accept you are a fruit bat. Fruit Bats like all bats hang upside down and they tend to see everything back to front as a result. They usually fly about in big groups but a single fruit bat on its own thinks it is a group anyway.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 5:01 AM Batgirl.
I can see you have gone into full berserk shill mode with your desperate attempts to spin another total demolition job on you and one of your paid to shill causes. Your poll is old hat and shows that 37% of people believe the government was behind 9/11 as well as thirty percent who didn’t know what year 9/11 was in. About the same 34% of people who don’t even know WTC-7 collapsed as well, also believe the official story.
Your own links betray your cause you are as I’ve said before the dumbest bat in the tower.
Don’t you have some presbyterians to besmirch?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 5:08 AM Excuse me, I was wondering if anyone on this thread has read the update to the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 2 ? I have been reading it and fallowing all of its links for days. This includes researching information on and about the new authors and scholars who have contributed to this. Wow! Please correct me if Im wrong but it seems to me that some of Frank R. Greening’s work wich you can find in the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 2 supports a CD of the WTC. If anyone can point me to a site or link that says difrently I would be greatful.
Posted by honestjoe on Aug 11, 2006 at 5:18 AM We all know why you and all the shills and the media is running a massive spoiler campaign now don’t we Batgirl?
The 9/11 debate has broken through into the mainstream, as the increasingly hysterical but predictable tired old strawmen and rampant ranting interspersed with grand rhetoric presented as Facts in themselves when rhetoric is but a refuge for scoundrels. The increasingly shrill denials and hands over ears approach of the media and all the usual bunch of grubby raving neo-con lunatics and their family and friends all over the place is a reaction to a number of significant new developments. A number of high profile people have broken through the total censorship and are being given increasingly unbiased hearings, still they are meeting the usual blank ignorance of the interviewers but the massive response from the viewers has started to seep through the fog in the brains of those few media outlets which still retain a measure of independence. Its enough, The recent symposium which was broadcast on TV and was repeated several times on popular demand was the straw which broke the camel’s back.
The news of the recent chemical analysis showing sulphur, and molybdenum is spreading and several other disturbing details like the revelations in this book from the Whitewash commision. Now too lots of samples of the WTC steel, including some which was molten are turning up, so having claimed there was no steel to test all this time, we now find out they always had plenty to test.
Now you’ve got neo-cons rushing to try and cover their asses retrospectively with regard to war crimes, as if you can do such athing on a world stage. These leaders of yours are shockingly provincial dears. Yes we have noticed the POTUS chews with his mouth open, and talks while he chews. Still considering what is coming out of his mouth maybe he is chewing it as it comes out?
The signs of a desperate effort to avoid impending demise are obvious.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 5:35 AM Hello Joe
We’ll have to wait and see the Scorpy’s verdict about whether or not you are just the rabbit’s sock puppet. If he should come on and make such a claim do ignore the brute, he is just the Lowest Common Denominator.
Natalie is runner up for the title, so you’ll excuse her ill manners too, she will probably launch into a fangs and fury assault upon your integrity and sanity as soon as it becomes evident you are not a holder of the faith. Or worse, that your faith is waning.
It hasn’t been possible with all else to keep up with all developments on the 9/11 truth front so I hadn’t read this yet either. Sorry I know nothing yet of any DVDs. But will get back to you if anything turns up.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:02 AM <a href=“http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf”>Kevin Ryan’s “What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps”<a>
Discussing the NIST report:With step three we quickly get to the core of NIST’s collapse initiation argument. Their report states that “The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been
widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” Considering that NIST so clearly depends on extensive fireproofing loss, you would think they would have spent a great deal of their time and money investigating this effect and communicating the details.
But no, one had to be very patient and focused to find what evidence NIST provided for this crucial claim. Their test for fireproofing loss, never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box.Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples, and no floor deck samples were tested at all. In the end, they slid the results into a 12 page appendix to the final report.9
Unfortunately, it’s not hard to see that these tests actually disproved their findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts.
Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides.The science is astounding, I can see why you are so impressed with the Nist report o’ Faithful believers in Magic Arab myths.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:18 AM Thanks Rabbit
So there is no confusion I was saying that Greening’s math supports a controled demolition and I have looked at the usual sites Nat likes to point to and I have not found something or someone to dispute this. Though I have found a few that agree.
Posted by honestjoe on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:24 AM Can anyone pinpoint that time that questioning, skepticism, and a willingness to consider new information that might pull the rug of perception and opinion out from under oneself was anything other than intellectual honesty, and the qualities of a responsibile citizen in the U.S.A.?
It’s amazing that among all the cries of “freedom” and “liberty” that challenging the status quo is treated by some as if it were madness. That’s awfully suspect on a planet in which such a small percentage of the population of people on this planet owns the rest. Do these wealthy people really need the love and support of a following, or do they just need to print out a lot of little paychecks, and promises of advancement, while a whole lot of chumps defend them because they feel like they’re on the side that’s winning?
To all you so seemingly perplexed that anyone would have any doubt about the official story:
“I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes. You’d know what a drag it is to see you.”——Bob Dylan
I’m not saying you should believe anything in particular, but if you think questioning something as spurious as the way this administration handled 9/11 is so far out in left field, then I have to wonder if you’re stupid, scared, or lying.
WHY WOULDN’T SOMEONE QUESTION IT? Even if a person believes it hook, line, and sinker, questioning it honestly is still more responsible than pretending that questioning the sexed up press releases passed off as news is “outrageous”.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:54 AM No Joe,
Greening’s article in fact seeks to dispute Ross, who says that there was insufficient energy present to facilitate the collapse of the towers without added help by explosives, presumably.
Thus we need to correct Ross’ claimed energy deficit of -390 MJ by +1517 MJ giving an energy excess of +1127 MJ, confirming that a gravity driven collapse of WTC 1 was in fact sustainable.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 7:11 AM Nat
Thank you for your input but I agree with Gordon Ross By adopting Dr. Greening’s own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of Dr. Ross’s article, but has in fact reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early stage. Wich is exactly what you will find when you study the new journal and you will also find that others agree. Read the Reply to Dr. Greening from Gordon RossI have not had the time to learn to give a link I apolagise. But thats the jist of it and I think you will agree after reading it.
Posted by honestjoe on Aug 11, 2006 at 7:27 AM No, sorry Joe. I don’t necessarily agree with Ross. I don’t have the education and expertise that would enable me to “peer” review either paper.
Do you?
I was simply responding to your saying:
“it seems to me that some of Frank R. Greening’s work wich you can find in the Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 2 supports a CD of the WTC.”
and….
“I was saying that Greening’s math supports a controled demolition”
If you meant to say that you thought that Greening was actually proving someone else’s point and not his own, then I misunderstood you.
If you’re looking for a properly peer reviewed paper by someone from a more relevant field of engineering that addresses the aspects of progressive collapse, you will find it here.
The conclusions reached by this rather preliminary analysis, which have never been questioned by anyone in the civil/structural engineering community, and which were accepted by the multitude of professionals that participated in the NIST report, and which were later reconfirmed by the author with the benefit of complete information as late as this year, are my guide for choosing who to believe between Ross and Greening.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 8:54 AM “WHY WOULDN’T SOMEONE QUESTION IT? Even if a person believes it hook, line, and sinker, questioning it honestly is still more responsible than pretending that questioning the sexed up press releases passed off as news is “outrageous”.
It’s a matter of degree, wiley. Neither me, scorp, wth, or anyone is opposed to the reasonable questioning of anything. What we are opposed to are reckless and unfounded accusations of mass murder being thrust upon by all rational accounts innocent people, and thus being deflected away from the obvious and self-admitted guilty parties.
Now if there were actually any evidence to back up these charges, something that would make it past the court clerk, then I would join you in calling for their heads. (exactly whos heads is unclear, of course)
There has been plenty of justified criticism of government officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations for their lack of foresight in gauging the level of seriousness of al-Qaeda, the lack of communication between intelligence agencies, for not anticipating the attacks, and how they were responded to.
But the kind of far-fetched baloney coming from the likes of Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Fetzer, Barrett, and the rest is simply beyond the bounds of reasonable questioning and criticism because it is baseless and ridiculous. I don’t think you’d stand for such a low standard of proof if you were falsely accused of murder.
But, nobody’s keeping them from speaking. Nobody’s keeping you from speaking. We are simply responding, in an attempt to prevent rumors and myths from becoming reality in not already indoctrinated minds, however many of them might venture past these pages in the future, via our great and glorious goddess Google.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 11, 2006 at 9:35 AM You are being competely irrational you silly fruit bat.
Answer the simple facts with simple answers if you have them or admit you cannot answer them. Ignoring the wealth of evidence and facts we present while all the while brazenly declaring we have presented nothing substantial is crippling what puny chance you ever owned to make the official myth stand a bit of scrutiny.
Even I could make a better case for the official myth than you pair of morons are doing.
What about the molten steel? I asked you directly now over and over but just as with the Sulphur and Molybdenum traces and other testing done of WTC steel, you cannot even face the question.
Now you have not even begun to slime the Presbyterians yet and you’ll have to get a move on, because now Lou Dobbs is waking up to the 9/11 lies. So hup two three four, start your character assasinations and slander machine going Batgirl, the growth in numbers and profiles of supporters over this side of the fence is starting to resemble a stampede.
Molten Steel you cringing denialists! and Chemical analysis of WTC steel samples! Face it or show you are CHICKENs.
Come on you pair of posing fakers, can you see the words? Do they go all hazy before your eyes as you read? Does the concept not come out of a sort of brain fog which overcomes you when the FACT is right there contradicting your whole fairy story?
How did the steel melt you fools?
How did the Sulphur and Molybdenum get into the steel samples fools?
How did the buildings fall at freefall speed and with materials and steel being ejected hundreds of feet horizontally as it fell?
How did the concrete all get pulverised?You morons can make all the spurious claims but cannot answer face up to these things let alone answer them.
It’s good how Scorpy is so clever he pretends to have all the answers about things which even the Fema and NIST reports failed to find answers to. So much of your faith based claims for these reports is not supported in reality. They have delayed the release of the report on WTC-7 again, and we all know why. They have got no clue, no possible way of answering how it came down since several things which they made crucial to their original pancake “theory” are completely absent this time, besides which they have the small problem of the crimp in the central column typical of a regular everyday demolition job, and the fall time of WTC-7 is the most impossible of them all. It’s the one which is possibly a bit faster than even gravity without resistance would have produced. An absolute smoking gun for demolition with no further need for any other proof IF it is so.
Do you support the teaching of intelligent design in American schools? It’s an appropriate question and might answer your aversion to science.
The Bob Dylan quote is excellent Wiley, very appropriate.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 10:55 AM How did the steel melt ?
How did the Sulphur and Molybdenum get into the steel samples?
How did the buildings fall at freefall speed and with materials and steel being ejected hundreds of feet horizontally as it fell?
How did the concrete all get pulverised?
Come on some serious prevarication is called for here, you are not being let off the hook. Get out and dance like a craven prevaricator so Rabbit can show off his dancing trolls to the HonestJoe.Wait till you see them dance Joe . Lots of weird positions and poses, they manage to be quite spectacular.
Maybe you just want to leave the hard science questions to Scorp McGyver dear Batgirl and concentrate on smearing the Presbyterians and Lou Dobbs who is now coming over to the truth?. Show us all how great you sling the slander. You also forgot to give a good mud job on Bruce Willis when he fell from grace of the faith recently. In fact I think the last person you properly smeared was Charlie Sheen.
Sloppy sloppy batgirl, without your help to set them straight people might think these folk are just ordinary people speaking out from conscience rather than the drugged up Bush hating terrorist haters of freedom which you know that we all are.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 11:11 AM BTW
Batgirl I think you might want to ask WTH’s permission before including him in your band of pirates. You see he already knows things are not right, he has his own video of the day’s new’s reports which he found actually supports our story too.
Now I’m sure he is hanging about and will do all he can to help your case, because he desperately needs confirmation of his faith, but something tells me he is not going to want to get in the firing line for I have the impression he is still unable to completely ignore the sorts of things you can in your sickening way.
When you have an answer about how any of those simple facts which you ignore fit into your fairy tale, let us know, in the meantime it must be assumed you have no answers and are as usual just blathering for your own peace of mind.
You might have it in your heads that someone may be fooled by either or a combination of you both but that would just be another of those delusions you surround yourselves with.
Do you think you are going to turn back the clock when once someone reads the Journal of 9/11 studies and finds them to be refreshingly simple, short and to the point, no idle speculation, just facts and contexts and no nonsense. They are not even getting into the myriad details, just the main important points which are all we need.
That the myriad details generally pan out in favour of the truth, inside job and explosives and not your magic Arab tale, is just the sort of sweetener that makes debating idiot neo-con denialists such a riot.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 11:21 AM Yeah, I liked that quote too, Rabbit. One of my favorite Dylan songs. And thanks for giving WTH some credit. He realizes that the MSM is full of it and so he is not just going along for the ride. You clearly need to hear it WTH, so I’ll say, “I’m sorry that you feel dissed—-OR—-as I’d like to spell it—- d-i-s-t.”
Are you aware, Rabbit, that you are part of a plot to make reckless and unfounded accusations of mass murder being thrust upon by all rational accounts innocent people, and thus being deflected away from the obvious and self-admitted guilty parties.?
Wow. Can you feel the action here? “Deflecting”? That’s funny. Wouldn’t NOT doing a forensic investigation in a timely manner, and refusing to testify under oath be more worthy of the gerund “deflecting”?
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:18 PM Natalie –
The largest controlled demolition (CD) job in history was the Hudson Building, 439 foot tall, in Detroit, 1998. The building was dropped quite cleanly within fifteen feet of the Detroit Elevated People Mover, with no damage to the People Mover or to buildings across the street from Hudson on three sides.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. (The average charge worked out to about 10 ounces, and was designed to cut the vertical supports, with no extracurricular activity.)
http://controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=2003022 25133807
Lagomorph has commented frequently that the WTC Towers were dropped in their own “footprint”, and that is “proof” of explosive controlled demolition. Here is what Lagomorph, the retarded rabbit, has to say about WTC in July:
The 911 explosive demolitions of the three WTCs were the very best demolition jobs I’ve ever seen, and while I curse the people who did it to hell, as a professional I have to admit that they were exquisite pieces of work and I doubt many people in the world could have managed it.
Lagomorph, July 11, 0903 hrs.
But here is what Lagomorph has to say one month later:
How did the buildings fall at freefall speed and with materials and steel being ejected hundreds of feet horizontally as it fell?
Lagomorph, August 11, 0511 hrs.
This is a basic and profound contradiction. Either you have “exquisite pieces of work” in controlled demolitions or “steel being ejected hundreds of feet horizontally as it fell”. Since 10-ounce explosive charges do not eject steel hundreds of feet horizontally, something else must be at work here. And it was not explosives. There is absolutely no sign of one big blast that would throw structural steel hundreds of feet.
The steel that was thrown hundreds of feet was the result of the pancake effect as the collapsing structure sheared successive floors from their internal and external column welded connections. The external columns were pressed outward, broke, and fell, damaging nearby buildings, including WTC7. This was described in detail in your xbehome citation under Assertion 2, “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”, to which Protec replied, “They did not.” Anyone interested, read the details. But do not rely on Retarded Rabbit for information, or you will never learn anything.
Posted by scorp on Aug 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM You are now doing your own personal fruit loop Scorp.
We’ve heard your fanciful guessing about things before. You can;t use an answer for something if that answer destroys some feeble attempt you have previously made to theorise about something else. Now either there was no significant resistance as you try to believe, or there was enough for sufficient pressure to build up and eject steel hundreds of feet.
Trouble is that would imply significant couterforce which should slow down the buildings more even than normal atmospheric air pressure.
Anyway your pseudo intellectual prevarications are a waste of time since these details are precisely dealt with in Ross’s reply to Greening.
You’re still trying to crawl under the radar on the important things though I’m sure you are desperately trying to find some sort of Faith based approach to them, meanwhile they dangle like accusing fingers. Find an answer for us they are singing to you Scorpy.How did the steel melt ?
How did the Sulphur and Molybdenum get into the steel samples?
How did the buildings fall at freefall speed and with materials and steel being ejected hundreds of feet horizontally as it fell?
How did the concrete all get pulverised?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 7:43 PM You are creating red herrings which once again depict your own ignorance Scorp.
The collapse of the WTC’s were technically in their own footprints. In the same way controlled demos can also eject debris and there is nothing untoward in the way it happens in the three WTC’s.
You are the moron who is arbitrarily now deciding that a controlled demo is more precise than it is. The type of fall was known as a fall into it’s own footprint, technically, actually and not even disputed except by this Johnny come lately Scorpy.
You are one feeble joke Scorp, a real drongo matey.Now have you got any imaginings as to what caused the molten steel?
Found that extra energy needed to pulverise the concrete yet have we?
The real giveaway for you is simply that you don’t admit straight out that yes the collapses resembled classic demolitions, (because they did) but you believe in an alternative scenario. At least then you might start with some credibility.
For you to jump straight in instead and claim that they didn’t resemble demolitions, already shows you are in denial. Because the simple fact of the matter is that no other evidence is necessary other than to see the buildings fall, to accpet that they perform like controlled demolitions. It doesn’t have to prove they were, but it cannot be denied they looked like it.
You deny this, ergo you are a a liar, or mentally deficient.
The steel “was thrown hundreds of feet was the result of the pancake effect ” Indeed. Just like that then is it? the “pancake effect” this magical new theory, did it. The scientific explanation is that the Pancake effect did it! Yes, very scientific Scorpy. We know what the pancake effect is, floors falling successively onto each other, yes you explained that very well Scorp, but how Scorpy?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 11, 2006 at 8:00 PM Drama Queens in high places have declared the potential devastation of the hair-gel bombers, and—-we may safely presume—-all future terrorist attacks (real or imagined) to be beyond any adjectives. They must, therefore, resort to putting the prefix “un” before any semblance of intelligence, imaginative thought, or sense of proportion—-i.e., “unthinkable”, “unimaginable”, “unprecedented”, etc.
Houston, we have a problem. Abort Operation Hyperbolic Zombie immediately. I repeat, “Abort Operation Hyperbolic Zombie immediately”. They are not falling for it, and there appears to be far fewer undead than our Papa Romeo team had predicted.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 11, 2006 at 8:05 PM http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/10/british_aviation_ban.html
I did not ask permission to post this here, so I hope the guy doesn’t mind. It’s an excellent website, and this bit here is so perfectly logical AND hilarious that I couldn’t help myself. I declare this quote irresistable:
The point of terrorism is to make us afraid. The UK response to a foiled plot is to create an unspecified period during which fliers are arbitrarily deprived of iPods, novels and dignity.If this is a good idea now, then why won’t it still be a good idea in a year? A decade? After all, terrorist plots will always exist in potentia (can you prove that no terrorist plots are hatching at this moment?) Until they handcuff us all nude to our seats and dart us with tranquilizers, there will always be the possibility that a passenger will do something naughty on a plane (even then, who knows how much semtex and roofing nails a bad guy could hide in his colon?).
I flew from the UK to the US about fifty times in the past 36 months. Speaking as someone who’s neck would be on the line if a terrorist got onto a plane, I’d take my chances with the iPods and novels and dignity.
Really—-the whole proving a negative, appeals to emotion (Please be afraid—-please be very afraid.), and hyperbole so extreme it’s vulgar has got to go. Sane and rational people know that the human brain or a computer trained by one could play the “What if?” game to infinity. Smart people recognize the incompatability of the infinite “What if?” game and the finity of our lives, time, energy, and resources. Sane people don’t accept “no vampires/garlic works”, or “prove that you didn’t murder someone on April 5th, 1997—-a hah!!!” as a viable framework for policy.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 11, 2006 at 9:25 PM Wiley,
Regarding your link to the editorial who’s writer’s head is planted firmly in sand along with your own. Quote:
Nonetheless, I’m dumbfounded by the catastrophic numbers forecast by British and American officials. Michael Chertoff, United States’ Secretary of Homeland Security, said the presumed plot “had the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people.”
That obviously sounds a little silly, and leads one with a brain to assume that either Chertoff never said that, or that he obviously mis-spoke.
Indeed, google news the string: Chertoff “hundreds of thousands” and you don’t get any results of him talking about “hundreds of thousands” of potential victims, (except of course your bogus editorial) but there are references to hundreds of thousands of lots of other things. There is one result that says “hundreds of thousands” referring to potential victims, but the actual story says: “hundreds and thousands”.
Did it not even occur to you that this was an obvious mistake/distortion/fabrication? I hope it does now, and I hope you are a little more discerning in your sources of information.
There is one line in the editorial that Rabbit might object to:
*The Holocaust with 6 million innocent civilians exterminated?
Which goes to prove that even a broken clock is right twice per day.
So now we’ve got a manufactured quote attributed to Chertoff to go along with the made up assertion that his cousin wrote the Popular Mechanics article debunking 9/11 conspiracies, a false quote supplied by Rabbit that seeks to nonsensically assign a false attitude to Menachem Begin simply with a few strokes on the keyboard, photographs from Lebanon that have been doctored and staged, and a 9/11 so called “truth” movement that seeks to redefine reality on the basis of dust puffs from a grainy video clip, viewed from the comfort of a computer chair thousands of miles and years away from the actual event.
I think you’re interested in truth, wiley. A clue: You won’t generally find it at Rense, Prisonplanet, or Counterpunch. I’m just sayin.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 12:34 AM ” What about the molten steel? I asked you directly now over and over but just as with the Sulphur and Molybdenum traces and other testing done of WTC steel, you cannot even face the question.”
ASSERTION #5 “An explosive other than conventional dynamite or RDX was used…..a nondetonating compound such as thermite (aka thermate), which gets very hot upon initiation and can basically ‘melt’ steel. This can be proven by photographs of molten steel taken at Ground Zero, the temperature and duration of underground fires, and comments made by rescue workers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: We have come across no evidence to support this claim. This claim is actually a loose connection of unrelated individual assertions, therefore we must address them as such.
1. The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know, and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure.
2. Photographs that we have examined purporting to show demolition equipment extracting “molten steel” from the debris at Ground Zero are inconclusive at best, and most are inaccurate as described. Extracting various hot metallic compounds or debris is one thing, but “molten steel beams” is quite another. As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit it would completely lose its ability to function. At a minimum the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize up. The heat would then quickly transfer through the steel components of the excavator and there would be concern for its operator. The photos we have reviewed on various websites do not show any of this, and if anything, indicate that the underground fires—while very hot— were not hot enough to melt steel.
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymity to prevent harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.
4. The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by Stephen Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with Dr. Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams apparently tested positive for thermite, which led Dr. Jones to conclude that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in WTC 1, 2 and 7. Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal. And a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams. Could they have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site? Could they have been exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, or in storage, or during the transfer processes from Ground Zero to the memorial sites? We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued.
Now these folks actually made an effort to interview relevant people and otherwise actually do the things that most people do when they are trying to ascertain the truth about something. Apparently, Jones made no effort to talk to equipment operators, or talk to anyone that might have testified directly about seeing “rivers of molten steel”. No, he just sits in his comfy computer chair, no doubt on taxpayer time, surfing kook websites in a search for “truth”. How do I get a job like that? (I know—go to college. Never mind.)
Again, for your files: report by people who are in a position to know (120k pdf)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 1:10 AM “The steel that was thrown hundreds of feet was the result of the pancake effect as the collapsing structure sheared successive floors from their internal and external column welded connections. The external columns were pressed outward, broke, and fell, damaging nearby buildings, including WTC7. This was described in detail in your xbehome citation under Assertion 2, “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”, to which Protec replied, “They did not.” Anyone interested, read the details. But do not rely on Retarded Rabbit for information, or you will never learn anything.”
scorp, stop making sense lest you Byrne down the house of cards constructed by the truthies.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 3:29 AM Nat
Thank you for the information and the last link you had given me. Have you read the link in wich you gave me as a properly peer reviewd paper? It says;
Since we are are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanisms [ WICH THEY DONT AND CANT ] but to seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen. So they come up with an explanation of the towers collapse starting with the heating of the majority of colums of a single floor far exceeding 800*C for a prolonged period of time. Yet they give no explanation how that is even remotely possible. It couldnt be the jet fuel and besides this uniformly super hot heat sorce must have started before the impact of the jets. But thats not all it gets worse. Except for the math on the load distrabution after impact. They do agree that the damage from the planes could and was handeld well. In other words the load spread or redistributed itself to the remaining colums and they where more than able to continue to sustain it. This is needed to make the rest of there calculations work in regards to the uniform collapse that takes place after the super hot prolonged and magical fire. My God Im a fool for not researching this before and I am ashamed with my self for beliveing this sham, scam, lie! Please forgive me for my spouting off but the more I read about this the more upset I have become. God help us. I ask you Natalie please help my faith in my goverment has been shaken. I promise I will research anything you have to offer to help me regain my faith and trust in my goverment. I am truely sad and scared for my children.
Posted by honestjoe on Aug 12, 2006 at 3:45 AM Joe,
Do you have the NIST final report (17mb pdf file) on your computer? If so, then I would suggest reading it thoroughly. If not, download it and then read it thoroughly. It will answer any questions you have regarding the mechanisms and forces that initiated the collapse.
Bazant and co. simply explain how once that collapse commenced, there was no hope of the structure below being able to stop it. (no thermite required)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 5:03 AM Rabbit has read the NIST report and it is rubbish. It is reviewed throughout this thread so I have no need to go into it all again. So long as people read the Journal of 9/11 studies as well I think they should read evrything that Batgirl suggests. Everything they read will simply show like I keep saying, there is nothing but a faith based case for the fairy tale of Magic Arabs.
Batgirl you are without doubt the most craven liar I have ever encountered.
There is NO dispute that there was molten steel in the basements underground of all three WTCs! Denial by you or anyone does not make any doubt where there is none.
The steel was molten, and you can’t explain how it could be.
END OF STORY. Not admitting your defeat doesn’t alter it a bit.Natalie has befouled herself again by saying there is no evidence of molten steel, which as we know is just parotting one of her strawmen hitpieces. These temperatures are verifiable, even without the witnesses via the NASA (AVIRIS) imaging.
Isn’t it interesting how the faith brigade have had to resort to blatantly denying such eminently provable facts just to maintain their crumbling facade? She cannot admit the molten steel, but she cannot deny it either. Fruit Bat, the rabbit owns you and that’s a fact.
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation
American Free Press 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.
What could have caused those box columns of 4-inch thick steel to melt like this?EXAMINING THE HEAT OF GROUND ZERO
Five days after the collapse, on September 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, showed a temperature of 1377° F (747° C). This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 5:48 AM THE SEISMOGRAPH
More explosive evidence comes from the seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC. This facility recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.
Seismographs (at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC) prove that before each collapse, huge explosions went off under the Towers. 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 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.The seismic records show that, as the collapses began, huge seismic spikes marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The 2 strongest jolts were registered at the beginning of each collapse, well before the falling debris ever struck the earth. Note: The purpose of the underground explosions was to take out the Towers’ supports before starting the demolitions.
Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology seems to think they looked like controlled demos but Scorpy McGyver knows better.
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears “too methodical” to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that, “Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 5:51 AM Scorp’s rant isn’t sense you dimwit.
Saying that the steel was forced out by the pancake effect, which is itself a disputed theory and nothing else, is not what we call a scientific explanation. For that you have to consider physics, in the sort of way Greener and Ross have been debating on Journal of 9/11 studies.
Scorp’s illiterate response is similar to explaining the rain like this.
“The rain falls out of the clouds”
You are not crawling away from the molten steel. The NASA thermal imaging doesn’t leave you the option to deny it, sorry Bat, but you have to accept this simple fact or you are finished. There is no dispute, you must accept that it was molten and either make up some wacky theory to explain it, or pack it in and admit you have not got a clue.
Further dissembling and abject denial in the face of the proof is not helping you at all.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:10 AM “Rabbit has read the NIST report and it is rubbish.”
Rabbit, do you even have a college degree in anything? How in the world do you think you are qualified to pronounce that the NIST, FEMA, Bazant and Blanchard reports are “rubbish”?
Do you really think anybody with an ounce of common sense would go along with that? Gimme a break.
There was no molten steel. Sorry to destroy your fantasy. Even if there was, how would that fact even begin to provide proof that there was any kind of foul play involved, except of course on the part of al-Qaeda?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:41 AM Rabbit seeks to raise the fact that the publishing arm of the Presbyterian church in the United States has published David Griffin’s book “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11”, in an apparent effort to convince us that even the Presbyterians believe in bombs and missiles. Well, it’s not quite as cut and dried as all that. Turns out that the leadership of the church, and the publisher, are a bunch of Israel haters, just like Rabbit, and are severely out of step with the rank and file of the church. In fact, it would appear that most of the members are supportive of Israel and its plight, and are embarrassed that their leadership borders on being anti-semitic. I doubt they support the publishing of Griffin’s book either, since doing so implies that they concur with his crackpot notions.
Of course this fits right in with Rabbit’s other fantasy, that just because a few liberal Jews are so self-hating and guilty that they would roll over and be killed in the name of political correctness, it somehow negates the fact that the majority of Jews, at least in America, are solidly behind Israel’s fight against never-ending aggression by Arabs. I can’t think of any other reason why even Democrats push toward the microphones to condemn Hezbollah, in order to impress their traditional Jewish constituency. It’s no wonder that even on the “DailyKos” there’s little or no discussion of Hezbollah, Nassrallah, or even Iran, to the frustration of many of their Israel hating readers. Don’t tell me that the vast majority of Jewish-Americans don’t support Israel’s right to exist and defend herself.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:45 AM Nonetheless, I’m dumbfounded by the catastrophic numbers forecast by British and American officials. Michael Chertoff, United States’ Secretary of Homeland Security, said the presumed plot “had the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people.”
That obviously sounds a little silly, and leads one with a brain to assume that either Chertoff never said that, or that he obviously mis-spoke.
You got me there, Natalie. In an interview with Jim Lehrer he said “hundreds OR thousands of people”.
An error, however does not make an entire magazine wrong, as you well know. The logic that there is always a threat of terrorism in potentia still stands.
I don’t “google”, btw. It’s called “using a search engine”. “Google” didn’t invent it, anymore than AOL invented the internet.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:47 AM Speaking Out: The Resolution That Put the ‘PC’ in PCUSA
In its anti-Israel resolution, the Presbyterian General Assembly isn’t speaking on behalf of members.
By Yitzchok Adlerstein posted 08/05/2004 8:30 a.m.
Media sleuths have lined up to hear what Jews are saying about the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. General Assembly’s resolution to divest investment funds from companies doing business with Israel. But they have missed the more interesting story. The much stronger and greater protest is coming from rank-and-file Presbyterians.
The resolution implies that Israel, the only democracy in the region, and a country that allows unrestricted freedom of worship to Christians, should be stigmatized as apartheid. Initial coverage of the resolution included statements by supporters predicting that divestment would be effective to bring Israel to its knees, just as it did to South Africa. (Recent attempts by Stated Clerk Clinton Kirkpatrick to smooth over this point will fall on deaf ears. In a letter to Bill Clinton in 2000, Kirkpatrick himself called Israel a place where “Palestinian Christians and Muslims [are] forced to live under a clear form of apartheid.”)......
.......Less predictable, however, is the reaction of many ordinary Presbyterians, who in far greater numbers have been expressing their vehement objections to the decision of a church leadership that may have lost touch with its own membership. I will admit to being a Jew who has both a strong love for the State of Israel and many deep friendships in the Christian community. From my listening post at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles I have picked up multiple indications of large-scale discontent within the Presbyterian community. Let’s place it someplace between “significant” and a “groundswell.” Here are just a few examples:
Every caller to Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated talk show who stated his or her opinion on the matter was Presbyterian, and was in disagreement with the PC moves. Callers to Stand to Reason, a Christian radio talk program, were similarly incensed.
Gregg Meister, an ordained PCUSA minister who heads up Interlink Media, told us that “the actions of the Presbyterian Church’s General Assembly do not accurately reflect the beliefs and convictions of the people in the pews. We share with Israel belief in the same God and the same democratic system. No Arab state does. I am confident that the majority of people in our denomination strongly support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself.”
An official voice of dissent also came from The Presbyterian Church in Canada, which announced that it would not be part of the American General Assembly’s decision.
When I called the Rev. Mark Brewer, pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian, former spiritual home to Ronald Reagan, he told me that no issue has produced as much irate reaction from his parishioners as this one. An elder at a different church who is a delegate to the local presbytery told me that he intended to bring up the dissatisfaction at the next monthly meeting.
An ad-hoc group of volunteers called Los Angeles area Presbyterian churches, selected randomly from the phone book. Nine out of ten expressed discontent with the resolution.
One local pastor complained to me that the resolution was only a symptom of the problem he sees as a Presbyterian—a church that is supposed to be taking its cues from the churches on the front, instead become top-heavy with hierarchy.
Dissatisfaction with leadership that leans to the left of many parishioners is partly behind the growth of the Confessing Church Movement, some 1,300 congregations strong, and approaching a half million members…..
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:47 AM Official Presbyterian Publisher Issues 9/11 Conspiracy Book
Process theologian David Ray Griffin is among the most prominent proponents of theory that Bush administration, not Al Qaeda, was behind attacks.
by Jason Bailey posted 07/31/2006 09:30 a.m.
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government, according to a book to be released later this month by Westminster John Knox Press—a division of the denominational publisher for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action is the third book on the subject by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology at Claremont School of Theology who is also a well-published and prominent process theologian.
His previous work has influenced Kevin Barrett, a Muslim lecturer for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has received recent national attention for espousing the theory. Of the 133 members in Wisconsin’s legislature, 61 signed a letter to university officials and Gov. James Doyle demanding that Barrett be fired before the fall term begins. He is scheduled to teach about some of the conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 during his 15-week fall course, “Islam: Religion and Culture.”
“Without David, I would not just lose my faith in Christianity,” Barrett said in an interview with CT. “I would almost lose my faith in the humanity of Christians.”
Barrett, who co-founded the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, and Griffin are both members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth—a non-partisan organization that is “dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11.”......
.......“We have a long tradition of being a publisher of somewhat progressive stances on theological and social issues, so it is not out of character for us to do this,” said Jack Keller, vice president of publishing at WJK. “Whether or not people were fully persuaded by the arguments, he was certainly raising some interesting issues.”
WJK, which has been publishing books by Griffin on theology and philosophy of religion since the 1970s, is part of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, but publishes books that “cover the spectrum of modern religious thought,” according to its website…....
........Some Christians, however, think it is foolish for Westminster to give Griffin a platform.
Earl Tilford, a professor of history at Grove City College who specializes in the military and war, said it is dangerous for people who study religion to comment about national security and that Griffin “obviously knows very little about conspiracy theories.”
“It does not surprise me that the PC(USA) press would publish his work,” said Tilford, the former director of research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. “They are very anti-Israeli and very much inclined to anything that speaks ill of the administration.”
James Berkley, the director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom, said that Westminster’s decision to publish Griffin’s book “is both laughable and pathetic” and that the publishing company is not ideologically in line with most Presbyterians.
“Their choice to print this seems to be pretty idiosyncratic and kooky,” Berkeley said. “What a waste of pages and ink that could have been promoting the Christian gospel and contributing to the health and vitality of the Presbyterian church.”
Griffin’s next book, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speaking Out, will not be published by Westminster but by Olive Branch Press, which published his first two books about September 11. It is scheduled for a late August release.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:48 AM Well Batgirl, that was a lot of desperate subject changing.
I pointed out that I have dealt with various issues of the failings of the NIST report and that is where my commenst about it stand. That it is rubbish, is the same view as held by numerous qualified people so qualified or not Batgirl I’m in good company.
The NIST report is adequately dealt with by the Scholars for 9/11 truth.
Now you are still rabidly avoiding the molten steel, it is real, and you are just avoiding it, simple afcator as it is, you are ignoring it.
Come on now you naughty Bat. NASA says the hot spots were there, witnesses said there was molten steel, and all I’ve got from you so far is a spurious denial.
You’re stumped and that is obvious. So I shall now keep on repeating the question to show how dishonest you are.
What about the molten steel, Batgirl?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 7:32 AM Whistling in the dark there I see Bat. You are in a panic because 9/11 is breaking into the mainstream, breaking through the fog of lies you have helped maintain, just like I promised it would, way back when you used to triumphantly demand to see scholars for 9/11 truth. Long before Professor Jones came along, and all you had to do was slime Griffin, way back then I told you we would forge ahead since the science was always behind us.
Back then even I wouldn’t have expected it to have come this far, with the profile of the movement going ahead in leaps and bounds. The only ones who still actively support the lies are those who are also fooled by the whole NeoCon Con yet. Your numbers are dropping and dropping all the time.
Now for some history which shows you are bereft of reason when you slander Hezbollah.
In his memoir, Not So Wild a Dream, the famous CBS correspondent Eric Sevareid recalled watching the execution of six Nazi collaborators in the newly liberated city of Grenoble in 1944.
When the police van arrived and the six who were to die stepped out, a tremendous and awful cry arose from the crowd. The six young men walked firmly to the iron posts, and as their hands were tied behind the shafts they held their bare heads upright, one or two with closed eyes, the others staring over the line of the buildings and the crowd into the lowering clouds . . . There was the jarring, metallic noise of rifle bolts and then the sharp report. The six young men slid slowly to their knees, their heads falling to one side. An officer ran with frantic haste from one to the other, giving the coup de grace with a revolver, and one of the victims was seen to work his mouth as though trying to say something to the executioner. As the last shot was fired, the terrible, savage cry rose again from the crowd. Mothers with babies rushed forward to look on the bodies at close range, and small boys ran from one to the other spitting upon the bodies. The crowd dispersed, men and women laughing and shouting at one another. Barbarous?
Such events were part of what the French described as the “puration“ the purification or purging of France after four years of German occupation. The number of French men and women killed by the Resistance or kangaroo courts is usually put at ten thousand. Camus called this “human justice with all its defects”. The American forces that liberated France tolerated local vengeance against those who had worked for a brutal occupier. Thousands of French people, encouraged by a government in Vichy that they believed to be legitimate, had collaborated. Many, like the Milices, fascist gangs armed by Vichy, went further and killed Frenchmen. When Vichy’s foreign sponsors withdrew and its government fell, the killing began. Accounts were settled with similar violence in other provinces of the former Third Reich countries which, along with Britain and the United States, we now think of as the civilised world.
From 1978 to 2000 Israel occupied slices of Lebanon from their common border right up to Beirut and back again. To reduce the burden on its own forces, the Israelis created a species of Milice in the form of the locally recruited South Lebanon Army first under Major Saad Haddad, who had broken from the Lebanese army in 1976 with a few hundred men, and later under General Antoine Lahad. Both were Christians, and their troops “armed, trained, fed and clothed by Israel” were mainly Shia Muslims from the south. About a third of the force, which grew to almost 10,000, were Christians. Some joined because they resented the Palestinians’ armed presence in south Lebanon. Others enlisted because they needed the money: the region has always been Lebanon’s poorest. The SLA had a reputation for cruelty, confirmed when its torture chambers at Khiam were opened after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and for a high rate of desertions.
As Israel pulled back from Beirut, the high-water mark reached during its 1982 invasion, its share of Lebanon contracted further and further. Having seized 3560 square kilometres, about a third of the country, containing around 800 towns and villages, Israel found itself in 1985 with only 500 square kilometres and 61 villages, mostly deserted. Hizbullah, which led the resistance that had forced the Israelis to abandon most of their conquest, demanded the unconditional return of all Lebanese territory. Its attacks intensified, resulting in a loss of IDF soldiers that became unpalatable to most Israelis. The Israeli army placed the SLA between itself and Hizbullah so that it could pay the price that Israel had decided it could not afford. Hizbullah kidnapped SLA men, and the SLA and Israelis kidnapped Shias. The two sides killed each other, as well as many civilians, and blood feuds were born. On 17 May 1999, Israelis elected Ehud Barak on the strength of his promise to reverse Ariel Sharon’s Lebanon adventure, which had by then cost around a thousand Israeli lives.
Barak announced that Israel would pull out in an orderly fashion in July 2000, provided that Lebanon agreed to certain conditions. The Lebanese government, urged by Hizbullah, rejected these conditions and demanded full Israeli withdrawal in accordance with UN Resolutions 425 and 426 of 1978. Barak abandoned Lebanon two months ahead of schedule, suddenly and without advance warning, on 23 May 2000. His SLA clients and other Lebanese who had worked for the occupation over the previous 22 years were caught off guard. A few escaped into Israel, but most remained. UN personnel made urgent appeals for help to avert a massacre by Hizbullah. Hizbullah went in, but nothing happened.
The deputy secretary-general and co-founder of Hizbullah, Sheikh Naim Qassem, wrote a fascinating if partisan account of the creation and rise of Hizbullah. His version of the events in 2000 is, however, borne out by eyewitnesses from other Lebanese sects “ including some who stood to lose their lives “ and the UN. “It is no secret that some young combatants, as well as some of the region’s citizens, had a desire for vengeance “ especially those who were aware of what collaborators and their families had inflicted on the mujahedin and their next of kin across the occupied villages, Qassem wrote in Hizbullah: The Story from Within. “Resistance leadership issued a strict warning forbidding any such action and vowing to discipline those who took it whatever the justifications.” Hizbullah captured Israeli weapons, which it is now using against Israel, and turned over SLA militiamen to the government without murdering any of them. Barbarous?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 7:39 AM Hezbollah are better men and women than any of the invading swine who are engaged in a holocaust of their country.
By the way the Israeli’s just attacked another convoy of evacuees, this time Christians who were once their allies but who now are more than 80% in support of Hezbollah. They killed about ten Christian evacuees and wounded many more. Rescuers are unable to get in to help because the war pigs are attacking the rescuers too.
I guess they saw a convoy of unarmed civilians as too good an opportunity to pass up, being the beasts they are. Oh they have also taken off the phony mask of humanity, their leaflets are now saying outright that they will bomb Lebanese civilians for any attacks from Hezbollah. If Hezbollah fights their soldiers who are invading Lebanon, the IDF will bomb Lebanese civilians. Do you have any idea of how serious an admission this is? This is threat of collective punishment, which is what they have engaged in from the start, but the threat now proves they are not even pretending the civilian casualties are a mistake. We knew that all along, but now they are admitting they will target anyone, Christian, Sunni or Shia, aid workers, UN personel. That leaves you as the only one still claiming they are accidently slaughtering hundreds of civilians. What a dunce you are my girl.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 7:49 AM Anyway you just ignore all this uncomfortable truth Natalie, you have some MOLTEN STEEL to face up to.
It is good you grovelled in the muck of slanderous personal attacks on the presbyterians though and I think you’d better take a shot at Lou Dobbs, he seems to be losing the faith too. Rabbit asked you to do the dirty dance and you did. Obedient and predictable Bat.
You must not forget to face the fact of Molten Steel, Rabbit will not accept you just pretend it didn’t happen. You have been unable to answer anything at all beyond speculation or by simply denying it. The molten steel doesn’t give you the option of denying it. So you are really going to have to put on your thinking cap.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 12, 2006 at 7:55 AM “Anyway you just ignore all this uncomfortable truth Natalie, you have some MOLTEN STEEL to face up to.”
Gee. I kinda thought I did. Are you unable to read? Comprehend? what exactly is the problem?
Direct interviews with EYEWITNESSES revealed no recollection of molten steel:
3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero (several of whom have requested anonymity to prevent harassment). These men worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 8:06 AM “Direct interviews with <b>EYEWITNESSES</b???
“EYEWITNESSES”. Workers who requested anonymity to protect themselves from harrassment from whom? The liberal media?!
Can you show us some links to forensic investigators? It was the scene of a mass murder, and a plane crash. Where was the FAA then? Why was it not all filmed and documented thoroughly? Why is the subject so shot full of holes now? Did the government investigate thoroughly and report all this information to the American people who think that the money coming out of their earnings pays for the rat bastard Executive Branch to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare (not to be confused with corporate welfare).
Why did the American people not get the investigation and have the results broadcast to them?
Why did whoever was responsible for the tapes that ostensably caused confusion on 9/11, not stop the tapes when the confusion began?
Who on God’s green earth allowed tapes to be inserted into real time in some of the country’s most busy and vital airports’ air traffic control imagery?
Why wasn’t everyone involved testifying under oath?
And why have all these things been so less important than the dirty details of Clinton’s blow jobs? Guess 3,000 people murdered in a skyscraper doesn’t merit the legal attention of one president and Monica Lewinsky.(I think they’re both unworthy of so much personal attention.) If that doesn’t make any American want to vomit red, white, and blue, then America needs to get its priorities straight. The fourth estate is a skanky whore.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 12, 2006 at 8:24 AM ”“EYEWITNESSES”. Workers who requested anonymity to protect themselves from harrassment from whom? The liberal media?!”
No, not the liberal media. They’re at least smart enough not to fall for an obvious hoax. No, the harrassers are members of the cowardly night-of the-living-dead truth movement:
But Mrs. McClatchey’s fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves “9-11 researchers,” who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. “The End of Serenity” has turned out to be their smoking gun.
The smoke plume doesn’t line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.
They have visited Mrs. McClatchey’s office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as “surly,” “hostile,” “irate” and “defensive.” People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of “holding the photo hostage.”
On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey’s name now pops up in the same sentence as “total fraud.”
“Val McClatchey has made it unmistakably clear to us that she intends to milk her 9-11 claim to fame for all it’s worth, truth be damned,” writes Lisa Guliani, of WingTV (World Independent News Group), who traveled to Stoystown to interview Mrs. McClatchey.
“If the smoke plume was photo-shopped on there, then that could mean either that the photo was simply a fraud by Val, or it was a fraud by her and the FBI and/or other government agents since she did mention that the FBI did inspect the memory card from her camera,” writes a blogger identified as Killtown.
Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, “hide behind their aliases.”
“This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally,” said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. “My business is named. That hurts me personally. It’s pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It’s a safety issue for me. There’s some crazy people out there.”
Killtown’s blog links to hundreds of conflicting witness accounts and news stories, video and photos of suspicious damage and debris, and other 9/11 conspiracy blogs, attempting to build up a preponderance of doubt about the government’s claims. Killtown posits whether the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives, and whether the Pentagon was hit by a missile. (The blogger identified only as Killtown could be reached only via e-mail. He or she agreed to be interviewed without ever revealing identity and never got in phone contact with this reporter.)
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 8:54 AM Wiley
The NSA to POTUS is on record——” nobody would have imagined people flying airplanes into buildings”.This is in direct contradiction of the hijacking of the AirFrance Flt 8969 to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower 1994.
Also of Operation Bojinka 1995, in the news again since thursday’s shutdown of Heathrow Airport, London.
Either Condi was lying, or breathtakingly incompetent.
I have not seen Condi being hounded on this, and wonder what her defence is ?
Posted by frog on Aug 12, 2006 at 9:15 AM Lagomorph -
You are a retarded rabbit.
Seismographs (at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC) prove that before each collapse, huge explosions went off under the Towers. ... The seismic records show that, as the collapses began, huge seismic spikes marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The 2 strongest jolts were registered at the beginning of each collapse, well before the falling debris ever struck the earth.
Lagomorph quote, probably from uscrisis website.
The strongest jolts were not registered at the beginning of each collapse. Look at the goddam seismic printouts. The first collapse was preceded by twelve seconds of seismic rumblings and the second collapse was preceded by eighteen seconds of seismic rumblings. There is absolutely no sign of demolitions during these rumblings: no blast, no clouds of dust, no movement of the lower floors of the Towers.
Observers in helicopters reported that the Tower walls in the damaged areas were flexing and distorting for several minutes before the collapses. The damaged buildings’ internal supports started to give way, causing the initial rumblings before the spikes of seismic energy; more and more of the load (tens of thousands of tons of concrete and steel in each of the intact upper sections of each tower) was supported by rapidly weakening structural support systems. When the damaged areas collapsed, the intact upper floors crashed down onto the vertical supports, and virtually all of this massive energy was transmitted to ground, principally through the core columns. This was the only energy spike.
The conjectural “huge explosions (that) went off under the Towers” are the most amazing creations in history, since they broke no windows, created no dust clouds, and happened exactly when the upper floors fell abruptly onto the lower structures (if they happened at all - NOT!).
Posted by scorp on Aug 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM Hi, frog. The “nobody could have imagined” bit really gets me. These hijacked planes were flying around for forty minutes while air traffic controllers and NEADS and NORAD didn’t have to “imagine” a god damned thing. All they had to do was follow the procedures for a high-jacked plane. Regardless of whether or not the planes were shot down, or made their targets, the agencies mentioned above had specific protocols.
In NORAD, the chiefs have something like twelve minutes to decide whether or not to launch a counter attack against a report of a missile attack (whether it’s a false alarm or not might not make any difference), yet the entire system goes into an uproar and is paralyzed for over forty minutes? That’s ridiculous. Minutes in air space are like dog years. People don’t fuck around in those positions. That’s why we don’t hear about air disasters caused by morons every day.
And one word—-Kamikazee.
Imagination, indeed. This new liquid issue has me wondering why these evil doers who could pull off 9/11 are so stuck on transportation. Is it a Moslem thing? Or are the world’s most idiotic evil geniuses just that?
It’s not like our borders aren’t porous as hell. Why would terrorists want to go through security at an airport? Do they enjoy the challenge? Are they giggling about the water? Maybe “terrorist” is not the right word? Maybe they’re “perplexorists”, or “absurdorists” wanting to upend us with arbitrariness and constant fear of a threat limited to transportation and symbolic targets—-nothing that would upset people with their own jets.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:54 PM Oh, yeah—-my point—-I forgot that. Why don’t they have the strategic sense to hit America where it would really hurt——communication networks. How about CNN or Fox? How many Americans fly places, really? How many Americans watch television and get their “news” from Fox or CNN.
These terrorists are idiots and it appears that there may be copycat evil geniuses who don’t have enough imagination to blow up something besides an aircraft.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 12, 2006 at 6:58 PM “This new liquid issue has me wondering why these evil doers who could pull off 9/11 are so stuck on transportation. Is it a Moslem thing?”
UK Panel Asks: Why Do They Hate Airplanes?(2006-08-10) — The British Parliament, in a rapid response to a terror plot foiled by Scotland Yard yesterday, announced formation of a study panel today to determine why some Muslims hate airplanes….
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 7:39 PM ...Mark Bingham, a passenger on Flight 93, is supposed to have called his mother and said, ‘Hi, Mom, this is Mark Bingham!’ His mother confirmed it was his voice, but does anyone seriously believe that Mark Bingham would have used his last name in identifying himself to his mother?—Professor James H. Fetzer, HOCI senior fellow
Posted by Natalie on Aug 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM Are you making a funny reference, Natalie? That’s almost like making a joke, you know.
...formation of a study panel….to determine why some Muslims hate airplanes…. Hmmmm. If airplanes are such a source of ire amongst “some Muslims”, then wouldn’t a quick survey of “some Muslims”, or a perusal of “some right-wing Muslim publications” give us some clues? How could they keep that a secret? Are all Muslims guarding this little treasure? All of a sudden the Muslim world is a tight knit group? Or is it that they are such separatists that no one but the Muslims who hate airplanes have any clue about why they hate airplanes? Maybe they don’t know themselves. Maybe this stems from an unconscious impulse. What I don’t get, is why don’t Muslims hate military bombers? If they can get past NORAD and NEADS, it seems they could get past SAC.
And while they’re at it, are they going to form a study panel to determine why most of Bush and Blair’s cabinet members have focused almost exclusively on airport security, though they have not yet formed a study panel to determine why “some Muslims hate airplanes”?
Sorry—-I didn’t read the article. It’s a joke right? A parody? I have a course schedule to attend to and have to limit my time on the internet to only very special persons. You’re off the charts that way, but you’re so darn cute.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 12, 2006 at 8:25 PM Natalie -
The Brit panel investigating “Why do they hate airplanes?” has it all wrong.
Terrorists are attracted to airplanes. The most attractive qualities of aircraft, from a terrorist viewpoint, are vulnerability, the potential for spectacular fireworks and consequent publicity, and potentially large payoffs from quite modest investments.
Posted by scorp on Aug 13, 2006 at 2:34 AM If a group of Laplanders bludgeoned to death a group of British scientists with golf clubs, and a plot by another group of Laplanders to bludgeon to death another group of British scientists with golf clubs was foiled, would there be a study asking why Laplanders hate golf clubs?
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 13, 2006 at 2:58 AM Oh yeah:
Why did whoever was responsible for the tapes that ostensibly caused confusion on 9/11, not stop the tapes when the confusion began?
Who on God’s green earth allowed tapes to be inserted into real time in some of the country’s most busy and vital airports’ air traffic control imagery?
Why wasn’t everyone involved testifying under oath?
There are some very fundamental questions about very concrete, demononstrable, and legal issues that haven’t been answered.
The “Why do some Muslims hate airplanes?” provides some comic relief, anyway.
I’m looking forward to the panel that asks, “Why have people who would put together a study panel to find out ‘Why some Muslims hate airplanes?’ not been laughed out of their posts.”
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 13, 2006 at 3:06 AM Natalie, why do you go on and on about the witnesses who said they saw molten steel, even if “some” of those whose jobs were most beholden to the government denied it later? This is by far the most weak piece of proof compared to the NASA thermal imaging.
Do you seriously think it isn’t obvious that you are ignoring the NASA data for preferring to fool around with the inconclusive nature of any witness testimony by itself? The witnesses statements are confirmed by the thermal imaging, without the thermal imaging you might have some justification going after the witnesses, but with the thermal imaging you are just dissembling.
There is also photos of red hot steel sections being removed from the rubble during cleanup, which I haven’t bothered to present because they are also less conclusive than the NASA data.
Faith the size of a mustard seed might be able to move mountains, but can it move pools of molten steel?
The steel was molten and the NASA thermal imaging proves it. So by the way do the samples of previously molten steel which were taken from the rubble and which I have not even mentioned this round since the NASA thermal imaging is 100% proof, it is all I need to prove the steel was molten. Five days after the collapses the temperatures were almost as high as molten steel, and you cannot deny it, without denying the NASA thermal imaging was correct. Ignoring the NASA data is profoundly foolish, for you are being hung out to dry with every word you write beyond recognition of the fact.
YOU are so utterly stuck in your irational faith that here you are presented with an irreconcilable fact and you have stopped like you’ve run into an invisible wall.
Rabbit has proven the steel was molten, it isn’t open to denial, Batgirl, say it out loud, see if a ray of light doesn’t strike into the pitch darkness of what once would have been called a mind. You’ve been ignoring the NASA data for five pages now, it’s starting to show you are in hot water, or is that hot steel?
The NASA thermal imaging data of the WTC sites showed elevated temperatures under all three buildings, even weeks after the collapses which could not be accounted for by the official story.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:07 AM The following from Jone’s report includes more on the molten steel. Try and deny it all Batgirl. Of course you will, but can that sort of denial of evidence actually help your position? How about you WTH are you still watching this? What do you reckon about the denial of Molten steel? Could you even sink to the depths of irrationality which Batgirl is displaying here? Why do you think she’s deny it? There is only one answer isn’t it? Cognitive Dissonance. You have a mental problem Natalie.
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
â€They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, â€ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
â€Nobody’s going to be alive.’ Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.
A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time—once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating.
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:27 AM What scorp, an investigative panel got something wrong???
Well, that can only mean one thing. 9/11 was an inside job—the towers were downed by controlled demolition, the pentagon was hit by a missile. And best of all, Barbara Olson is still alive!!
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:34 AM Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.)
Professor Jones destroys Bazant and Zhou in a few paragraphs.
A Mechanical Engineering professor suggested that I review a paper by Zedenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Correct – the WTC Towers were designed to withstand forces caused by large commercial aircraft – we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
Do you want to keep using a report which is based upon such severe errors? I guess if it’s all you’ve got, its as good or bad as everything else used to attempt to prop up a collapsing story.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:36 AM Just making a bonfire of the NIST report.
NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without “black-box” computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.
There you are you decietful Batgirl, you owe us an admission of MOLTEN STEEL!Did you see all the other information about it? We still have the NASA data of course.
YOU CANNOT FACE THE MOLTEN STEEL BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT DESTROYS YOUR CASE IN ONE FINAL DEATH BLOW!
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:44 AM Natalie the STEEL WAS MOLTEN, and you are stuck. You cannot admit it yet there is no dispute that it was molten.
I’ve got you Batgirl.
CHECKMATE!
I am surprised really, you have come up with so much bullshit to explain away literally hundreds of serious anomalies with the official line ignoring Gravity, and Physics and history, so so much you are prepared to go to the lengths of denying in the name of your fabulous faith. Yet after all that you cannot cope with something like the melting point of steel. Surely you could tweak the temperatures a bit in your head and claim that a five hundred degrees celcius either side of the melting point of steel would not be a reasonable safety margin. You could just say that nobody tested the WTC to see if it’s melting point might not have been half that of normal steel. Of course that would be ignoring the NASA thermal imaging, but then you are already doing that Natalie.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 4:47 AM Rabbit the STEEL WAS NOT MOLTEN, and you are stuck. You cannot admit it yet there is no dispute that it was not molten.
I’ve got you Rabbit.
CHECKMATE!
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 5:02 AM Rabbit has presented a factual and logical and scientific case from the start. Ocasionally venturing into left field to aim some well earned wacks upon you and your comrade in ignorance, just because you deserve it.
Beyond that my case has been based upon verifiable facts, not random speculation and my case has been completey independant of anyone’s opinion, since it has only involved verifiable facts and verifiable science.
No new or unproven theories in any of my case Batgirl. Nothing experimental, nothing hidden. I have not attempted to muddy the waters with endless streams of ranting opinions by debunkers, but mostly given the simple and straight forward reasoning also based upon verifiable facts amd science. I don’t ask anybody to believe anything outlandish, or to suspend the laws of physics or of chemistry, just so my case can keep some credibility. It’s credibility it gains by virtue of the arguments presented, and the case doesn’t rest upon the qualifications of any individual, not even their honesty since nobody I’ve presented asks you to take their word for anything, they all provide complete verification for their claims.
I have been able to answer any attacks you have made upon the veracity of most everything I have claimed, I have had to ignore nothing, am afraid of no detail, like you are regularly forced to drop and run from. Like for example the fact that there was molten steel in the base of the debris from the collapses.
That is all the proof needed on this forum that Rabbit’s brains are in perfect functioning order. You are the one who is squirming like a toad and able to do nothing except go into a psychotic episode of denial at one irreconcilable fact after another.
The steel was molten Batgirl, and your entire credibility, is too. Your case never amounted to squat from the outset, exactly as I predicted.
Actually Rabbit had hoped for at least some sort of resistance on behalf of the official lie, something at least worthy of the name debate, but all we get is craven denial, and faith based rhetoric.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 5:07 AM You are so out there Nat. You can’t claim you have any rationality left. Even if you admitted it was just a mystery how it was so hot, but that you still had complete faith in the official story.
The NASA thermal imaging and all those other reports including what would be termed official? How do you expalin the NASA imaging you silly fool? Can you even say it ..............NASA?
If you are just going to sit on the floor with your hands over your pointy ears and say you are wrong you are wrong, what is the point of claiming you are anything but a silly child or an escapee from an asylum? Are you on medication Natalie? Maybe you should be?
You cannot face the fact which is 100% verified that the steel was molten. Nat the offical story ignores this fact too. Every signle debuking ignores it. But apart from blidly saying like you are it isn’t true, they fail to actually answer the claim. The NASA data is TRUE and so are the accounts from a dozen eyewitness sources.
How can you claim you rely on anything but blind faith?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 5:12 AM Professor Jones destroys Bazant and Zhou in a few paragraphs
I must have missed where the nutty professor had a stuctural engineering degree. I must have missed where Jones got his weekly updated newsletter-paper peer reviewed by anyone except the editorial staff of the Star. I must have missed why it’s necessary to update your thesis every week if indeed it’s so airtight and authoritative. I must have missed why Bazant hasn’t felt the need to add to or correct the conclusions of his original 2002 paper in any way.
But then again, I’m easily distracted.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 5:35 AM The NASA data is TRUE
But of course the data from every other government agency that disagrees with your fantasy is “rubbish”.
This degree of selectivity does not indicate serious science, it indicates wishful thinking.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 5:40 AM The Bat is stuck. Hung on the hook of reality.
You are denying the veracity of NASA thermal imaging data and that is the end of you NAT. You can’t blather your way out of this.
Not once have I rejected actual measured data from any government agency. It is their data which I invariably use to debunk the faith based fairy story. You rave your accusations, but produce anything of factual data presented by any government agency which I deny?
All you are doing is compounding your defeat Bat.
The steel cannot be denied to have been molten.
The witnesses the steel samples, the photos, videos and finally the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data says it is…....Batgirl says it isn’t, for no other reason than that it collides with her faith.
Then she accuses Rabbit of being irrational?
The BAT has finally lost the plot.
Reduced to irrational denial and repeating people’s own accusations back at them randomly.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 6:32 AM I am stating outright that I have not denied any actual government agency’s factual data you ratbag Batgirl. I reject their theorising and I reject their incomplete reports as being of value, but I am not so stupid as to deny scientific data provided by agencies tasked with obtaining that data. Only a fruit bat would do that.
Your accusation is turned entirely on its ear, because it is you Batgirl who accepts ALL government words, whether data or mere speculative theroising, you accept it all as gospel. With this most significant exception. It is about the most certain of the scientifc data collected, the devices used are not prone to innacuracy. They are accurate to within a fraction of a degree.
You don’t get the option to spin this one, you are in a genuine pickle Batgirl. The worst I’ve ever seen you in, and your insanity is now laid bare for all to see.
You would have to be considered a liability now, for anything you supported. I am interested to see how the Scorp copes with the molten steel, he denied it once, but hasn’t faced it since I pointed out the NASA Thermal Imaging data.
Instead he is busy trying to spin the seismic data to his benefit by lying about it mostly, but he isn’t so dumb as to deny it is accurate. I have not told you this before, but your current antics leave me no choice, you are not the mart one of you two.He may ignore ever mentioning it, but it will be a real surprise to me if he denies the NASA data at least shows that all those people who said they saw molten steel were telling the truth. That would destroy his own credibility as well, and Scorp is prepared to put his crdibility in doubt but is probably too smart to want to blow himself up so completely if he can see it coming.
Come Scorpling, show us your stuff, will you try to wriggle free of this one? You don’t rely on any experts you are your own expert so I’m sure you have a clever explanation for the molten steel instead.
Actually and we all know it, Scorpy although he is a craven liar and denialist to a disgusting degree, he is actually not all that dumb. Stupid sure, but not as dumb as you.
Rabbit has been playing you for the goose by saying you are the smart one, and with this present mental collapse of yours it seems inevitable the pretence can go on no more.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 6:50 AM Rabbit, have you found a language in which Natalie might hear the question:
Why did everyone involved not testify under oath??
It’s not like it costs extra or anything. Did they feel that Americans don’t deserve the effort it would take them to make an oath and speak the whole truth? And all this reticence with a white-wash investigation!
What a bunch of pussies.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 13, 2006 at 7:02 AM Proving once again that the rabbit is not a lying denialist like his opponents who are just craven dumbshits, is the following. This is a concession on fact, though it won’t actually help your case, since it is due to a crossover of two separate seismic chart’s data and my carelessnes in allowing them to be mixed up by the dissembling or maybe just confused Corpse.
Upon closer examination of the seismic records I do concede that there are not significant spikes before the collapses of the towers, in the actual collapse sequence. However there is a bit of a crossover here from what I was saying at the start about this and it has been brought about by Scorpy treating the whole seismic data issue upon a single detail, while ifnoring what I originally said.
It needs to be mentioned as this site already provided by Nat does, that this doesn’t actually debunk the idea of explosive demolitions since the series of small explosions required would not make significant seismic impacts. And you thought that site would help you didn’t you poor Bat?
That the larger spikes of the seismic signatures of the tower collapses were produced by falling rubble does not preclude that the towers were destroyed with explosives. In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers’ destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.
The actual seismic data shows impossibly high levels during the collapse, suggesting explosives and there is confirmation from the scientists at Lamont Doherty that this data is not consistent with a simple gravity collapse. They admit it is not understood how these spikes were achieved, and that still leaves these particular seismic recordings as supporting the controlled dmolition contention.
Don’t forget these charts are logarithmic, the graphs would go off the page at the spikes if they were analog.
The really weird seismic data is WTC-7. Though it took the shortest time to collapse it has a very long seismic disturbance. No doubt because the lack of explosive destruction of the core as was done during the plane impacts of the other two, it probably needed a more complete compliment of demolition charges.
What is being forgotten, and I let it slip due to disinterest in even reading your posts sorry Scorp is that seismic recordings also show marked spikes at the times the aircraft struck, and these do precede the plane strikes! It is admitted by the scientists concerned that the plane strikes would not have registered at all on any of the seismic recording stations anyway. This is of the most profound significance because we have multiple witnesses who say that they experienced massive explosions in the basements of the WTC’s 1 and 2, JUST PRIOR TO THE PLANE STRIKES!
Look at the seismic charts, see the first two charts and try to reconcile the spikes observed with the fact that though they include the time of the plane crashes, the plane crashes would never even have entered the seismic record, being many stories off the ground and muffled by all that supposedly energy absorbing structure. You see for the structure to have been significantly damaged by the plane strikes then they had to absorb energy. No energy, no damage. Do you want to argue that point Scorpy the scientist? Would you like to suggest that the structure could have transferred the energy through itself without loss, and thus given some seismic spike, and that the structure could be damaged without absorbing energy? Once the energy has been expended on shaking, breaking and buckling the structure, it cannot then go on and travel through the remaining structure like some magic undiminished wizard spell.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 7:23 AM Natalie you are the albatross for the faith brigade case now. It would actually be better off without you, since you are now a person with no credibility. How can people learn faith from an obvious psychopath?
The molten steel is such a problem for the official lies that NO effort has been made to explain it, it is simply ignored by all supporters of the official lies. I know you have no answer for it, for they don’t. They have not actually tried to deny it, though individuals have done so, just the way you are doing, by outright denial.
It is so good seeing you stuck in this impossible corner you have gotten your self into, and I can only hope the Scorpling will take the bait and join you. Please come and deny the molten steel Scorp, you’ve done it once, do it again for the rabbit. Wallow in the nice pool of moral muck that Batgirl has made for you to share. You only have to say, “you’re right Natalie, excellent points” and she will be satisfied that she is on a winner. Feed the Bat, give her some support for denying the molten steel. Sell your own hard won minor credibility for a moment with the Bat. Please!
Truly Rabbit will be quite content with knocking two birds down with one stone, so thrifty after such a long thread.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 7:34 AM Wileywitch
Batgirl understands any language which confirms her delusions, it seems to get just plain confusing for her when something doesn’t agree. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen her deny government data, she has done it a few times before when she had no other choice but to accept she is wrong otherwise. This is however the worst I’ve seen her stuck, the most ridiculous bit of denial she’s ever gotten herself into.
She isn’t coming out of this eiether. She is finished, finally finished. If she is denied the opportunity to wriggle away from the molten steel she is hung like an eel on a hook.
I guess that other question she didn’t answer is answered now. She probably does believe in biblical creationism. Which is actually a lot more likely than the garbage of the official 9/11 lies.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 13, 2006 at 7:43 AM Lagomorph -
Very good, sir. I did not think you had it in you.
Upon closer examination of the seismic records I do concede that there are not significant spikes before the collapses of the towers, in the actual collapse sequence. However there is a bit of a crossover here from what I was saying at the start about this and it has been brought about by Scorpy treating the whole seismic data issue upon a single detail, while ifnoring what I originally said.
It needs to be mentioned as this site already provided by Nat does, that this doesn’t actually debunk the idea of explosive demolitions since the series of small explosions required would not make significant seismic impacts. And you thought that site would help you didn’t you poor Bat?
So, let’s work on this. I will even ignore your misspellings, since they upset you so much, and your second sentence above which is incomprehensible, bordering on irrational and illiterate.
Now, I have tried on at least four separate occasions to tell you that the uscrisis website’s analysis of the PAL seismic record is nonsense. I chose this particular topic (a single detail, indeed!) because it was so blatantly obvious to anybody with a clear mind. But you have insisted that uscrisis’ faulty analysis was proof of “massive explosions”. Now you have given up on the massive explosion idea, and go back to the controlled demolition scenario, where the many small (measured in ounces) explosive charges are offset in time to prevent a big percussive effect.
So, how did great chunks of perimeter column end up 200, 300, 400, 500 feet from the WTC Towers, since there was no massive explosion to propel them? Controlled demolition jobs chop the vertical members into small manageable pieces, so that they will fall vertically. But the perimeter columns traveled horizontally for significant distances, some of them in great long pieces, and some of the lower level columns remained standing 200 feet in the air after the collapse. You have already said that you do not read anything that does not agree with your preconceived notions, but look at xbehome website, Assertion #2 in particular:
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8- -8-06.pdf
Now you have previously conceded that Rense’s photo of the cut column was fraudulent (and, as an expert welder, you did not recognize the clear marks of a cutting torch on a steel surface), and you have conceded that uscrisis’ interpretation of the seismic record was mistaken, either fraudulent or grossly ignorant. It has taken us literally dozens of posts to establish these two simple and obvious points. There are at least a dozen more absurd assertions in the uscrisis website, some of them not quite so obvious, and hundreds in the Jones Report. If we argue every one of these items, we will be old and gray before you finally admit the obvious.
So, open your mind to the possibility that someone besides Conspiracy Theorists with Agendas have a valid viewpoint, because there is not sufficient time nor incentive to continue your education at this slow pace.
Posted by scorp on Aug 13, 2006 at 2:09 PM I guess we’re going to have to go over this one more time. The evidence provided to substantiate the claim specifically of “molten steel”, or “rivers of molten steel”, is extremely weak. The descriptions are either second hand, or merely used as literary devices. There are no pictures or video of these “pools”, or “rivers”, or presumably great blubbering blobs of goo.
Just like in your sophomoric scenario about hijackers still being alive, there would almost certainly be pictures or video of such an extraordinary and fascinating phenomenon. I’ve linked to a report by a company who’s specialty is working with demolition and recovery crews, helping them plan for a demolition, and thoroughly documenting and measuring the effects of that demolition:
Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.
Specifically, Protec was intimately involved in the clean-up at ground zero:
2. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.
3. Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida, 4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec’s two-hour video was to archive the unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.
Rabbit, this is what you call a reliable and credible source of information. This mountain of direct photographic evidence, along with direct testimony by the actual equipment operators at the site, make the sparse and often ambiguous media accounts that Jones and you rely on look extremely weak from an evidentiary standpoint.
You look positively comical as you jump up and down claiming this as some kind of smoking gun evidence. Simply shouting it loudly and repeatedly does nothing to add to its validity.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 9:38 PM Your other claim to fame, the thermal imaging by NASA, proves only that there were some hot spots in the collapse zone a week and two weeks after the collapse. The temperatures estimated by these observations were at most 1300 degrees F., far less than would be required to turn structural steel into rivers. I can only assume that you think that if the spots were this hot a week after, then surely there would have been 2700 degree spots a week earlier. You have no valid scientific argument to support this assumption. In fact, I would think that a good case could be made for the likelihood that temperatures increased over the initial week, due to numerous fuel (who knows how many hundreds of vehicle fuel tanks, oil crankcases, tires, etc) and air (subway tunnels and other open pathways) sources in the lower levels of the buildings. Even if there were pools of steel, or dripping beams, there are other explanations besides thermite for it.
What puzzles me most is that you, having previously grasped at every possible alternative explanation (except the right ones) for every tiny little aspect of 9/11, are now suddenly fixated and firm on thermite being the ONLY possibility for explaining whatever high temperatures existed in the bowels of the towers. The source of thermite or whatever that Jones found HAS to be deliberately placed charges. You’ve presented us with the possibility that Barbara Olson is still alive, that the hijackers are still alive, that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon and all the witnesses to it were “in on it”, that flight 93 was shot down, or that the planes were flown by remote control. But when it comes to hot material in the basement, it HAS to be molten, and deliberately placed thermite is the ONLY explanation.
That’s what I call having a selectively closed mind. Hardly a good trait for someone who is actually and honestly searching for the truth.
You’ve been wrong on practically everything you’ve tried to pull off here, all the things in the list above, Chertoff’s cousin, Menachem Begin, and dozens of others. Somehow I have little confidence in your molten pool—> thermite—> Cheney theory. Or would Cheney—> thermite—> molten pool make more sense? Either way, Fidel lives….... Hmmmm…...I wonder if Fidel believes in bombs and missiles. I know Hugo does. Billy Rodriguez told him so.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 9:40 PM Hugo Chavez in Cuba…..Fidel lives…..
Is that good news or bad news in your estimation?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 13, 2006 at 11:36 PM Having followed this conversation for a while…Redhorse does not have the time or patience to explain the geo-political viewpoint of one such talking horse…......I like many others are content to allow the hopping host of a Rabbit to apply the salve of geo-political logic too your wounded nuckled nogg’in…........Seen….?
The Horse was reading posts…while watching the evening news…the tease on the news was Hugo in Cuba to visit a very alive Fidel Castro….hence…Hugo Chavez in Cuba….Fidel lives…....Seen ?
Posted by Redhorse on Aug 14, 2006 at 12:17 AM I like many others are content to allow the hopping host of a Rabbit to apply the salve of geo-political logic too your wounded nuckled nogg’in….....
OK, I’ll take that to mean that you think it’s good news, absent you taking time out to explain yourself fully. Yes, sadly, it would appear that I do have to ask.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 14, 2006 at 3:35 AM So, Natalie—-why didn’t everyone who took part in the 9/11 hearings make their testimony under oath? Why did the president, and vice-president, and Condoleeza Rice not take responsibility for what they said, and speak the truth under oath on the record?
Simple concept. Simple question. Are you going to respond to it or not?
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 14, 2006 at 8:34 AM WW -
You need to remember the words of the old C&W song, “If Your Phone Doesn’t Ring, It Isn’t Me”.
Silly question, and appropriate answer from Natalie.
Posted by scorp on Aug 14, 2006 at 11:10 PM The truth movment appears to be gaining momentum fast these days. It took years to go from the handful of faithful of people speaking out to about a year ago when we’ve been able to mention another high profile and credible voice about every month, until this last few months when we seem to be getting new voices every week at most. The excellent and ongoing re-runs of the 9/11 scholars symposium, two hours worth on C-Span is being overshadowed by the Lebanon conflict, but still obviously attarcting a lot of viewers.
Here is the latest offering.
Former CIA Analyst: Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
Bill Christison | August 15 2006
Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the ‘official story’ put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below ........................
.......ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. Absolutely no information is available on what happened to the original aircraft (American Airlines Flight 77), the crew, the â‘hijackers,’ and the passengers. The ‘official story,’ as it appeared in The 9/11 Commission Report simply says, ‘At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilians and military personnel in the building, were killed.’ This allows readers to assume that pieces of the aircraft and some bodies of passengers were found in the rubble of the crash, but information so far released by the government does not show that such evidence was in fact found. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable.
TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. <u>The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive. </u>
If the judgments made on Points ONE and TWO above are correct, they raise many ‘Who done it’ questions and strongly suggest that some unnamed persons or groups either inside or with ties to the government were actively creating a ‘Pearl Harbor’ event, most likely to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed—policies that would, first, ‘transform’ the entire Middle East, and second, expand U.S. global domination.
These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the ‘official story’ of 9/11 is not true. If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined. It has provided no such proof and no answers to growing questions.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 4:34 AM Scorp
Rabbit doesn’t worry about spelling errors, as always you got it backwards. It is you who have always made a habit of spending entire posts sometimes babbling on about someone’s spelling or grammatical errors. Discussion forums are an informal medium and spelling nor grammar is actually expected to be perfect. As a former English Literature lumens I am secretly mortified at the carnage being wrought upon the language which for all it’s idiosycrasies is still capable of being used with artistry and grace. So for all my apparent carelessness I do make an effort, but I treat it wih a grain of salt too since as said internet discussion forums are informal media.
As for the ongoing waffle about the seismic data, I have only one response and I have given it. Thereafter the people can look at the graphs themselves. I have linked to the actual graphs from the start and repeated it above, you can lok at the analyses and you can confirm for your self that the graphs are anomalous, they are unexplainable according the the Lerner-Lam dudes and some other expert who commented, I forget who but it’s all above. They say that the actual explanation for the graphs is something still being worked on. THEY DON’T KNOW. If they could explain it via the official contention don’t you think they would have been able to do that by now?
It would simply have been a matter of looking at the graphs and pointing out straight away how the graphs are consistent with the supposed scenario of the buildings suddenly collapsing into a heap. It isn’t that complicated, surely you are not suggesting it is?
The graphs of the plane strike times are the biggest problem anyway that is still the main point and you are missing it altogether. These show readings from before the plane strikes and for several seconds after which absolutely should not be there. You would be advised to recall we have also got witness testimony to really massive explosions, which shook the floor under the feet of the more than a dozen witnesses, in the upper basement level of the towers. Which means we have two bits of interlocking evidence. Witnesses and seismic records which support their testimony. It never ceases to amaze that you would dare claim we have no evidence in the face of numerous examples of very strong evidence like this. That a number of people describe the explosions before the plane strikes is a FACT. The seimic records show a sharp spike of seismic activity begginning just before the plane strikes, in BOTH cases. The scientists at the observatory agree that the planes could not have caused such spikes. Is this refutable without resorting to Bat style refusal? Look at the graphs, check they are the real copies by all means, they are I assure you, but look at the graphs. Forget the ones from the collapses, the first two are the ones which are to me the most serious problem. The scientists admitted remember that the plane strikes would not register on their equipment, they compared them to a very large amount of TNT which is fired near them regularly. I think you get the point about the plane’s kinetic energy being absorbed by the structure in actual plastic deformation leaving very little of it to travel through the diffuse structure of the building anyway? Not even all of the planes energy would have registered had it been straight into the ground.
As for you being surprised at rabbit admitting error. You have seen me do so before. I can only say it doesn’t surprise me you would say something which you should know by now is false. This rabbit has admitted fault in several instances, whenever it has been proven. Would that this rabbit had the good fortune to see others do the same when he has proven them wrong.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 4:55 AM Scorp this is the sort of sloppy logic you must guard against.
Rense’s photo of the cut column was fraudulent
The photo was/is entirely genuine, it is not fraudulent. It may be misidentified, but if so not with any intention to decieve.
It is not definately oxy cut at all but I conceded it could be either. Others have said it is looking like thermate cut and this is not actually imposible. In the intervening time since posting it, about six months ago I have decided it is more likely to be Oxy Cut, but I say that due to an “abundance of caution” which is a principle any researcher should practice. If it is possible to attribute it to the converse argument, do so. Doing so only strengthens my position though, since it does not detract in any meaningful sense from the body of evidence for explosive demolition. It does establish my intention to stick to the truth, and I assure you had it been more critical I would have relinguished it as easily. I repeat, it still could be Thermate cut, but I would not argue the possibility it is Oxy cut, and would have to accept this as the more likely of the two on balance.
Since it doesn’t shed any light on how the buildings came down in this case, and it doesn’t actually make a dent in the case for controlled demolition, it still astounds me you have wasted so much space on it without yet ever once facing up to the more serious evidence of Thermate, which has reached the stage of broad scientific acceptance. You had better actually read Prof Steven Jone’s report, and look at the reviews it has gotten from qualified people. For once instead of looking at the usually incomplete strawman arguments and studies in avoidance which constitute the supposed official case, look at what is being said, not at what is being said about what is being said.
If you need some government shill to interpret it all for you then go to them. I would be surprised if you couldn’t see the truth as clearly as anyone if you looked at it Scorp. What you’d do with it is another matter.
This is also just your wishful thinking.
and you have conceded that uscrisis’ interpretation of the seismic record was mistaken, either fraudulent or grossly ignorant
I conceded I got mixed up with the two issues of plane crash and collapses which was due to your crossing over the two issues. I’m being kind to you by leaving it as my misunderstanding and can go back to the original post where I tried to get you to see the significance of the plane crash times and the seismic evidence otherwsie to show it is you who got it screwed around and then I absent mindedly went along with the error and argued it without giving it enough attention. .
The original point still stands that there are witnesses and siesmic evidence which support the hypothesis that explosions in the basements were masked by the diversionary events of crashing jetliners into the upper floors. This follows Lazeroix’s recipe for collpasing the buildings precisely. He was one of the first to say that to bring down the buildings he would put charges in the basement to take out the central core, before collapsing the rest.
You know I’m starting to think that rather than respond to what we are defining as the critical points, you are following some debunking script which supposedly answers the points I am making. This would explain why you, and Batgirl too, keep on and on about certain minor points, while ignoring completely the main things which are being said. It makes sense because the official debunking efforts are uniformly devoid of treatment of the most important points we raise too. They do strawmen arguments and so do you.
They are all silent about the actual significance of the seismic data, they are all absolutely silent about the molten steel. They dare not even mention it to try and debunk it since they know it is not an issue. The NASA thermal imaging kind of clinches it. Only someone like Natalie could deny it in the face of such compelling evidence. The various witnesses and the photos/ videos of red hot steel being taken from the rubble should be enough for any reasonable person, but the NASA data makes it the hottest potato in the box. Nat has brought attention to this lethal fact and the rabbit was just exchanging emails with Prof Jones about it and a couple of things. He is a very polite and attentive person, just like he seems in video records by the way.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 5:32 AM The RABBIT SAYS THE STEEL WAS MOLTEN!
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 ]Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers” remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002] Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/”>[MSNBC, 11/16/2005]</a> He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001)............clean-up crew discovered hot spots of “literally molten steel” more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, required the help of a professional.
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation
American Free Press 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.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, showed a temperature of 1377° F (747° C). This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate this much heat, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.
It should be noted that one of the few things capable of producing such extreme temperatures in these conditions is thermite, a chemical compound used in demolition explosives.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 5:44 AM WTF, are you talking about Scorp? If someone in a government position is not willing to answer an inquiry involving what that person in that position is responsible for under oath (and won’t allow the inquiry to be transcribed), then what does that say, other than:
1) the person did not want to be held accountable for what he said
2)the person did not want to leave a record of what he said
3)the person reserved the right to lie with impunityFor what reason would a leader not want to give a complete and honest accounting of a national event that he used as the scaffolding for all further policy, and not even allow so much as for the inquiry to be transcribed as classified material, to be archived and released to the public at an appropriate time, later in our nation’s HISTORY. The president of the United States and his cabinet have now taken control of HISTORY? And you think it’s silly that I bring it up. *
Yeah, right.
You and Natalie appear to have either starry-eyed faith in the U.S. government or very low standards.
* I am disregarding your non-sequiter, as the non-sequiter it is. If you think you’ve ‘put me in my place’, honey, you need some schooling. If your lame attempts at dismissal don’t work, it isn’t me.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 15, 2006 at 6:35 AM In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, “just to keep the people frightened.”
George Orwell, 1984 published 1948And now we have the Heathrow Gunpowder Plot..
Wiley—my Condi question was not about NORAD / FAA response, but about how she was allowed to say——
nobody would have imagined that people would fly airplanes into buildings
——and get away with such a lie.
PS not only was nobody under oath, but I do remember no notes were allowed to be taken when Cheney / Bush were “interviewed” by the Commission. Also that they had to be there together, obviously for the former to watchdog the bushling.
Posted by frog on Aug 15, 2006 at 6:36 AM Hi Frog and Wiley.
Redhorse it’s great that old Fidel lives, anything to keep annoying the dingbats. I wonder what chance we might see a greater union of Cuba and Venezuala with Chavez at the helm? Seen some interesting speculation. How amusing would that be? I sometimes dream of moving to South America if the option is still there and we are still no better off in Oz in a couple of years.
I’m getting sick of the tyrranny, in all the small ways, the tyranny and the fakery everywhere in our grubby capitalist dreamscapes. Nobody gets a direct and proprtionate return for his labours anymore. The relationship between success and dishonesty is inverse to what it should be.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 6:56 AM Yo !
I remember somewhere the Bushniks have been reclassifying documents in the National Archives . Which would be natural for them.
Just think if we had not had access to the Kissinger / CIA docs on Allende and Chile (at Georgewashington uni site)——————- we would be accused of loving CONSPIRACY THEORIES, poor misguided people… and then, 411days later , Dubya put him in charge of the cover-up ....
Title, top of page—something comforting about a world where someone is in charge- .. for good or ill..” . Condescending rubbish.
In this anniversary year of the Suez Invasion Conspiracy between France, Britain and Israel, there are still nutjobs out there who have boundless faith (ww) in their Leaders.Surely ITT should do a piece on those of Boundless Faith, by a shrink.
Posted by frog on Aug 15, 2006 at 7:28 AM lapin
the “canada” temptation has hit many americans, too, but most have resolved to stay and f****t somehow.
Anyway, canuck’s land has the same disease, as does frog- and blair-land…
gotta work
Posted by frog on Aug 15, 2006 at 7:33 AM I said I’d give it a couple of years, but I’m not staying in a police state when something better is offering. Stay and fight sure, but once it becomes apparent it is going to be ‘that’ sort of fight and nothing is stirring, well how long does one wait before either picking up a stick and charging the bastards or giving up and leaving. Slavery will never be accepted. To remain in a police state without hope is slavery.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 7:55 AM Yeah, I guess I failed to acknowledge that, frog. I wanted to elaborate on it, that not only was “nobody imagined” just total bull-double-hockey-sticks that passed because matters were supposedly so “technical” and involved “national security”—-BUT where the failures of the FAA and NEADS and NORAD were concerned, it was irrelevant. They didn’t need to “imagine” planes ramming into buildings, they only needed to notice that planes were off course and their transponders were off and deal accordingly in a timely manner.
OH the first week Bush was in office, he (his handlers) made sure that documents from the Reagan era and Pappy Bush were not only not unclassified and released on schedule, but were (if I remember this correctly) put into Bush’s personal library in Crawford. I could be wrong about that last bit——it might have been his own history and records from his two terms as Governor of Texas, but I KNOW THAT Reagan and Bush I historical records and documents that were up for declassification, and these rat bastards are pulling the MEESE trick that was so popular with Papa Bush and trying to get information that has already been declassified and released to the public reclassified. Those records would bring up how many of his appointees are felons from the Iran/Contra and other relevant black ops in the executive branch sort of thing.
During the reign of Pappy, Meese was calling librarians and telling them to take books off the shelves. Librarians were telling him to stuff it.
Librarians are serious about the first amendment and take their charges very seriously.
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 15, 2006 at 9:45 AM Rabbit says,
“Scorp this is the sort of sloppy logic you must guard against.
Rense’s photo of the cut column was fraudulentThe photo was/is entirely genuine, it is not fraudulent. It may be misidentified, but if so not with any intention to decieve.”
OK, if the comment by Scorp was “sloppy” — how is your answer any different?
Looks like blind faith to me. How, pray tell, can you say unequivocally, that it is NOT a fake, NOT intended to deceive?
(Answer in 10,000 words or less, please.)
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 15, 2006 at 1:25 PM WTH
What are you talking about.
Back to semantics again are we?
What the hell difference does it make? The photo is a genuine photo, surely nobody disputes it’s a photo taken by a fireman at ground zero the original source was given. It is inconclusive if it is thermite or oxy cut, which is why I would rather concede what is chicken shit next to the other evidence of Thermate. Not least of this being the molten steel.
If some other people, namely Chris Bollyn still chooses to maintain it is thermate cut, at this point it cannot be disputed and any speculation of whether or not he was deliberately saying anything but his honest opinion is beside the point.
My answer was accurate as far as it is not alleged by anyone unless Scorp wishes to do so, that the photo was faked. It is not fraud to misidentify something especially if no judgement can be made on the available evidence. I cannot know that Bollyn didn’t deliberately atempt to decieve, I cannot know even if it is deceptive, that much I’ll grant you, but it wasn’t sloppy thinking it was sloppy expression. I didn’t need to have the mechanics of logical deduction explained to me, but could have been more pedantic in spelling out exactly where the inferences led, but was mainly concerned with the assertion that the photo has been shown to be fraudulent on the strength of what has gone between us, Scorp and I.
If you are so clever and logical WTH, then how about you apply this to the situation with the molten steel. See if logical deduction doesn’t make that an object lesson in the truth. Don’t forget Occam’s razor now, it might save you a lot of time.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 15, 2006 at 2:08 PM Rabbit,
Thank you for illustrating for us all just how weak your evidence for specifically “molten steel” is. Many of your reports refer to molten metal, which of course could include the aluminum that was in high abundance, the buildings having been sheathed in it. Vehicle engines contain large quantities of aluminum. I’m sure there were tons and tons of copper, from electrical wiring. Any dripping, pouring, or rivers of molten metal could certainly be attributed to these or other materials.
In the other reports that refer specifically to molten steel, when you actually follow the links and read the stories, it is not clear that the people know what they were looking at was steel. It may have very well been aluminum or some other metal or maybe some other material besides metal even.
There very well could have been some beams of steel that were glowing red or some other color, which many people would describe as “molten”.
In other words, these reports are largely useless in determining exactly what was going on.
I think it’s very unlikely that there were actually “pools”, or “rivers” of specifically steel. Any pools or rivers, if there really were any, could have been any number of other materials.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 15, 2006 at 7:47 PM Rabbit,
I am not interested in your game of prove/disprove the towers were blown by someone, but…
You continue to amaze me.
“What the hell difference does it make? The photo is a genuine photo, surely nobody disputes it’s a photo taken by a fireman at ground zero the original source was given.”
and
“My answer was accurate as far as it is not alleged by anyone unless Scorp wishes to do so, that the photo was faked. It is not fraud to misidentify something especially if no judgment can be made on the available evidence.”
You are willing to accept as accurate or true whatever is not challenged by someone? If no judgment can be made otherwise, then it is what it is purported to be.
Is that the way you see it?
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 15, 2006 at 8:56 PM So, Natalie—- Do you have any thoughts on why our Commander in Chief would not testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath? What did he have to lose?
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 15, 2006 at 9:14 PM Perhaps for a clue you should re-read the past six months worth of conspiracy theories that routinely use something somebody said to try to make it out to mean something else entirely, by applying their own standards to it or taking it out of context.
Examples:
Silverstein: “pull it”
Manning per Jones: “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….” (we snipped it right there folks, you didn’t really need to see that next sentence)
Perhaps it’s for the same reason that neither Clinton or Gore testified publicy or under oath.
Perhaps it’s not wise or standard practice for any President to testify under oath to any kind of commission or committee, unless of course they’re being formally accused of a crime.
Earlier, you said or at least strongly implied that Rice didn’t testify under oath. Of course, she in fact did.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 15, 2006 at 9:56 PM As far as the first relatively tiny seismic spikes supposedly not being caused by the plane impacts, what evidence do you have to support your contention, Rabbit?
Do you know of any other full-speed plane impacts into buildings that didn’t produce a seismic signature?
Can you link us to where the scientists at Lamont are dismissing the possibility that the spikes were caused by the plane impacts? Can you explain why they labeled all their graphs to that effect?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 1:20 AM Just looking by to see if any intelligent comment made to what I wrote yesterday. I see it isn’t. Ho hum.
The samples of molten metal which were recovered from the rubble and tested, were predominatly “STEEL”. They included some molybdenum and sulphur apart from the correct amounts of nickel or whatever else was in the WTC steel. The colour of the molten metal also shows it to be steel, molten aluminium is silver, not gold. Out of eight individual witness statements, (and this isn’t all of them don’t you know?) six said molten steel, and two said molten metal, which in no way adds doubt to it being steel. Steel is a metal, look it up.
The simple answer to the pathetic and desperate claims by people in denial, who want to imagine that the molten metal was aluminium from the planes is one of the most easily debunked, and of course further proof of the irrational nature of the denial we are looking at among these braindamaged specimens. The molten metal was at the base of all three WTCs! in case the dimwitted Bat has forgotten, no plane flew into WTC-7.
The prevarication of people trying to deny uncomfortable truths is so irrational it defies explantion, short of assuming psychosis.
Batgirl asked most disengenuously that I link to the Lamont-Doherty discussion of the Seismic Data. I already have done so about four times. Why should I keep listing the same thing over and over when you won’t read it? I also quoted the actual words of Lerner-Lam and others in this regard. Go back and see what you ignored as usual. The Bat is irrelevant. It’s prevaricating, irrational behaviour is not debate.
WTH
“You are willing to accept as accurate or true whatever is not challenged by someone? If no judgment can be made otherwise, then it is what it is purported to be. “
Mate you are getting really boring! The photo’s are sourced, you check it, that is the duty of the person doing the questioning if that is what you are doing. You are patently wrong in your depiction of what I’ve said, have you been eating a lot of beef lately perhaps? Maybe you should get CJD testing, just to be sure.
I just repeated several times that I do not accept the photos are evidence of Thermite at all. I agreed that they may not be, and that they cannot be proven to be OXY or Thermite cut at this stage, which is why I reject it as evidence.
Do you get it laddy? Since it is only claimed to be something which it could not be conclusively proven to be, I automatically rejected it. I don’t need random bits of evidence which are inconclusive even if they are consistent with all the other evidence we have. Abundance of caution is not the same as rejecting anything no matter how much evidence supports it, simply because it doesn’t fit with your theories. An abundance of caution is a rational undertaking, and it eliminates uncertainties as it goes. Rejecting the evidence of numerous witnesses, NASA thermal imaging and pictures and video which all point to the same conclusion puts one in a position of having to come up with an alternative which is supported by even stronger evidence.
Which leaves the official fairy tale exactly where it began, based upon nothing but faith, unverifiable claims by administration people and far fetched theories.
So you feeble weeble, I just stated that if it cannot be proven to be what is claimed for it, then I would accept it is not, on the principle of abundance of caution. You seem to have a very limited intellect WTH, do you have good and bad days or something? Miss your medication some days maybe?
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 2:20 AM Scientific evidence of Thermate. J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts.
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ÂşC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.The USGS specroscopic lab results from NASA thermal imaging. Quite a few temperatures were as high as 800 celcius under each of the three buildings, even five days after the collapse. Obviously the temperature has been falling in temperature for all that time, so that it is no longer quite as high as molten steel, is hardly surprising. The thermal imaging proves that the temperatures were as high as molten steel five days earlier by simple extrapolation. By the way, Aluminium loses it’s temperature much faster than steel. But we already know it wasn’t aluminium, since it was the same under all three buildings.
Nothing new here, all given before now, but some people seem to need to see something ten times before maybe actually looking at it. AND some people, or Bat’s anyway, won’t look at anything no matter how many times it is shown.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 3:14 AM Rabbit I do look at most of what you provide, but don’t recall anything by the seismologists talking about how they were surprised that the plane impacts caused seismic spikes.
I found this discussion about impact and collapse signatures, and I don’t see where they are surprised that plane impacts showed up.
Personally I’m not surprised, seeing as how the planes directly impacted the core columns with enormous force, and those members were directly connected to bedrock. The second impact was somewhat smaller, as would be expected due to the plane not hitting as directly at the core. The huge blast in 1993 didn’t show up at Lamont.
If I remember correctly, your previous assertion was that because there was some conflict between times recorded for the impact between Lamont and “radar data”, that must support that an explosion, and not the impacts caused the spike. However, the differences were only four or five seconds, well within the margin of error in time measurement, maybe not by Lamont, but certainly by the FAA or whoever provided the impact time estimate.
If you did previously link to discussion by Lamont, or other seismologists/geologists questioning whether the impacts should have shown up, please do us the courtesy of posting it again.
Again, the question of molten steel in my opinion is rather dubious, and I think that there has been a lot of hearsay and colorful language involved in most of your reports. But even given that there were such pools and rivers of steel, there are other explanations for it.
Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 5:26 AM SO (comma)NATALIE——DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHY OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF WOULD NOT TESTIFY TO THE 9/11 COMMISSION UNDER OATH?
Posted by wileywitch on Aug 16, 2006 at 5:58 AM “SO (comma)NATALIE——DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHY OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF WOULD NOT TESTIFY TO THE 9/11 COMMISSION UNDER OATH?”
Why not? Because of people like you! Did you see my answer to you above?
Why didn’t Clinton and Gore testify under oath?
They certainly played a pivotal role in policy that apparently allowed the plot to be planned beginning in 1998 and finally carried out. They were directly responsible for the FAA and NORAD for eight long years before 9/11, which as we know only occured eight months into the Bush term. It was their policies on airline security and rules of engagement that were in effect at the time. It was they who failed to kill bin Laden when they had repeated chances. It was Clinton who was directly cited in bin Laden’s “letter to America” for being an object of disgust in the muslim world for his behavior with Monica, and his weakness in backing down in Somalia.
Why no oath for him?
The commission was apparently very satisfied with Bush and Cheney’s testimony. Why can’t you be, sitting so far away and knowing so little about the particulars?
Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 6:20 AM Natalie has no scientific comprehension at all if she is going to suggest that the planes could have registered as 0.9 and 0.7 richter seismic events.
I already explained why, this was impossible, and I thought that by doing so I was being facetious. Surely you are not such an ignoramus you do not understand energy transfer, and the fact that Energy is expended in Work. Crashing into the building if the building had not given an inch, would have deployed 100% of the plane’s energy into the structure which would have been transported to the ground with some loos. Every bit of actual damage to the buildings which you actually need to be maximum for your theories to have a chance even, is absorbing energy which will not be available to do anything else, like produce a seismic shockwave for example. A seismic shockwave of 0.7 or especially 0.9, is not a minor spike you daft Fruit Bat. It is equivelant to many thousands of kilograms of TNT.
When you say you cannot understand why such spikes were not possible due to the planes directly hitting the core columns with great force, you demonstrate the most prfound ignorance, and it is good to know that only complete scientific illiterates people with little more than a primitv savages type of understanding of the simple laws of physics and chemistry which surround them. The lack of depth of thinking is apparent by your claim the planes directly hit the core, because this is conveniantly forgetting that the planes have had to break their way through the outer structure which also comprised massive steel columns and everything else in between. The planes were exploding fireballs by the time they reached the core columns.
The remainder of your childish reasoning that the planes hit the building which transferred the shock to bedrock is not scientifically valid due to the Law of conservation of energy which says that Energy is expended when work is done. The work was the plastic deformation and sheering of Steel columns and all the sundry itmes like walls, desks, pot plants etc.
If the force of the plane had been completely transferred to the bedrock as a seismic shockwave it is arguable it might have been enough, but barely. This would have entailed there having been no damage to the building which would have had to stand solid and just ringing like a bell. The plane would be squashed like a bug, dribbling down the un-breached outside of this massive rock of gibralter.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 6:39 AM I really can’t be bothered giving you a course in Newtonian Physics, the Laws of Conservation of Energy can be looked up easily enough, but it is doubtful such a primitiv and superstitous mind as Batgirl’s could actually apply this fundamental law to anything practical.
It is the reason why when you hit a steel bell it rings loudly, but doesn’t show a mark, while if you hit a wooden one, it is much quieter, but it also marks the wood more and finally why if you hit a cardboard box it just breaks the box and doesn’t ring at all.
Lying again to say the discrepancies of the timelines of the seismic data and the actual recorded times of plane crashes cxould be due to innacuracies in the clocks used. You were told this before and that time I linked to the original sources. I’m not going to keep on re posting and reposting the same things just because you NEVER read anything. You are a fucking liar to say otherwise. I have proven over and over that you have not read even the things you yourself post sometimes. You continually claim one thing or another has not been shown when indeed it has, and repeatedly. The times for these came from sources which were accurate to plus or minus one second as do the Lamont Doherty data. These are scientific principles Nat, you wouldn’t understand about error margins, but they are conservative margins of error. The likely amount will be no more than 1 second, but probably a lot less.
You ask for courtesy when you are the most despicably decietful and discourteous person? Go to hell. I said I gave it, I did, anybody else can find it, you will ignore it again completely if I bother, so up yours Natalie.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 6:59 AM Batgirl keeps claiming there were other explanations for the molten steel, she has said this several times, as if saying this is enough to refute a dozen separate witnesses, pictures and NASA thermal imaging. Two separate laboratory analyses also concur, I almost forgot.
There are other explanations! Says the Fruit Bat, and that is that.
Well Fruit Bat, there are not actually any other explanations available from within the official lie, that is a certainty. No other explanation explains why molten pools of steel were found under the rubble on all three buildings.
You have no explanation which can credibly account for this fact. It isn’t the only fact you cannot account for, it is but one of hundreds. It is this fact which I am hanging you on though. You are missing a very large amount of energy to create shockwaves, break things, pulverise the enormous amount of concrete, and most of all you are missing a very large amount of energy to melt steel. There is only one credible source for all this energy and it is explosives.
I’m not waiting for you to wake up, you are not intellectually able to grasp the sort of simple laws of science most people don’t even think of as science so much as common knowledge.
It makes me wonder if you have trouble filling up a glass of water without it overflowing if you have not practised for a day.
Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 7:14 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Terry J. Allen
- Death by Privatization
For-profit prison healthcare system implicated in death of inmate. - Restless Vagina Syndrome
- Capitalist Health Insurance for All
- Zicam: Homeopathy Fails the Sniff Test
- More Drugs, Please
- Confessions of a Terrorist
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
