|
19 Jun 07 - 10:19 PM (#2081720) Subject: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet ...Moore brought up his lingering questions on 9/11, which are a clear departure from the 'government negligence' picture he painted in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 , released some three years ago. Moore told reporters, "I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years and since Fahrenheit 9/11 that they heard these explosions-- that they believe there's MUCH more to the story than we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth-- they haven't even told us half the truth."... "I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.... He went on to imply the implausibility of a pilot executing the flight pattern of the flight that allegedly hit the Pentagon. "Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, if you know anything about flying a plane, when you're going 500 miles per hour, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. So, they hit a building that's only 5 stories high...[unclear] that expertly. I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and we should demand that that tape is released." Michael Moore was not vague or bashful in discussing 9/11 truth-- rather, he demanded a "new investigation before we get too far away from this-- to find out the whole truth." This is a huge development in public figures going public with 9/11 questions-- particularly on the part of 'liberals' and others who identify with the 'left.' Despite overwhelming discontent with the Bush Administration, many such voices dismiss the importance of investigating 9/11 or simply decline to discuss any outstanding questions or relevant evidence. Noam Chomsky, for one, suggested that it "wouldn't matter" even if 9/11 had been hatched from a government plot. Will the mainstream media continue to ignore the fact that the official story on 9/11 is all but dead, and more and more figures are coming forth to demand the truth? http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/moore_911_could_be_inside_job.htm |
|
19 Jun 07 - 10:25 PM (#2081722) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet And in a related story, a man with high level security clearance, who was inside WTC 7, said a bomb went off inside the building: It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building: "We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark." The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby: "It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out." He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex. The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm. listen to the clips here. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_7_security_official_details_explosions_inside_building.htm I believe they said this man's identity will be revealed when the new Loose Change movie is released. He doesn't want the harrassment now and then later when the movie comes out, so he's withheld his name for the time being. |
|
19 Jun 07 - 10:28 PM (#2081728) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Noel, noel . . . . |
|
19 Jun 07 - 10:33 PM (#2081735) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe They're ba.a.a.a.a.a.a.ack! La la la, la la la, la la la... |
|
19 Jun 07 - 11:02 PM (#2081757) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,MarkS Michael Moore set off the bombs to hype his next movie. This guy really thinks ahead. |
|
19 Jun 07 - 11:37 PM (#2081793) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D If you are unable to comprehend the RIGHT answer, it is very easy to get lost in one of the WRONG answers. Accept just one false premise and lots of crap follows. One more time....**They have MANY eyewitnesses who SAW the 767 fly into the Pentagon!** **and they DID find pieces of the plane...and personal possessions of the passengers**...maybe that amateur pilot couldn't do it 8 times out of 10, but he got lucky once. If I am in a building that's on fire and about to collapse, and I hear loud bangs and see things fall apart, I am NOT in a position to evaluate the precise cause of the noises..... You have to accept so many implausible 'facts' to make those building collapses into 'an inside job' that you might as well just let Hollywood make a movie of it all, and then nod wisely at the accuracy. You probably think the car chase in "The French Connection" was done at full speed in one take.... |
|
19 Jun 07 - 11:51 PM (#2081801) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet All Moore is asking is to see the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. He said he was there on a filming project once and saw cameras everywhere. Yet we've never seen film of the plane hitting. The footage exists, because there were so many cameras covering things, and the govt released a few frames of this and that, so just release the film and settle the issue. The other news is bigger. The man in WTC7 said he saw dead bodies everywhere in the building. In the lobby. The 911 commission report doesn't even mention WTC7. Official govt story is that one person died accidentally when the building collapsed due to being struck by debris from one of the towers. Or no, they mean heating fuel tanks blew up later in the day. And one person died. But this man saw multiple bodies, cops telling him not to look at the bodies as he was rushed out. High level security clearance. Just did face-time with Giuliani. Trusted man. Says many died in WTC7 before the second plane even hit the tower. Big, big, big, big story. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 02:45 AM (#2081845) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Barry Finn It's a real shame the the government will not mandate any serious investigations, not only into this but into anything that's deserving of a real offical, imparcial investigation that will satisfy the public's need & right to know. It's no wonder that so many are suspect & untrusing. That is the government's fault & problem & it's that that needs addressing. Barry |
|
20 Jun 07 - 07:11 AM (#2081982) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Grab "Cameras everywhere" does not equal "continuous footage". Security cameras usually take a picture a second at most, because otherwise you get swamped with footage. And a jet aircraft travels a significant distance in a second. That's why you only get individual frames - because that's what a security camera system records! Even if there's a feed to the security desk at normal video rates (50 fps), it is hardly ever recorded at that rate. Also consider where the cameras are facing. Security cameras are mounted up high, facing down. That gives them good coverage of the ground, where people are going to be approaching the cameras from. The purpose of a security camera is to allow the guards to pick up on people trying to break in. But it gives zero coverage of the sky, which is where the plane is coming from. Graham. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 08:49 AM (#2082077) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Grab Oh, and as for hitting the Pentagon "expertly", it's quite simple - they didn't. Check the pictures, and notice the engines scattered around the field in front of the building. The plane actually hit well in front of the building, but several tons of plane travelling at 500mph doesn't just stop like a dart sticking into a dartboard. It's got stacks of inertia, so it just slid on into the building like a wrecking ball. Oh, and "dead bodies everywhere" of people working in WTC7, yet no-one reported dead? You don't think at least one of those "dead bodies" might have had friends and family who'd think it was a bit surprising there were no reported casualties in WTC7? Or has everyone been "silenced" by "Them"? As for the idea that WTC7 must have been the result of explosives because other surrounding buildings weren't damaged, I quote Wikipedia's summary:- "The entire WTC complex was destroyed on September 11, 2001, and many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, Verizon, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, known through images of it being covered in a large black 'shroud' after September 11 to cover the building's damage, is currently being deconstructed[49] because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse." In other words, WTC7 was merely the most prominent of several surrounding buildings which were trashed by the collapse. Graham. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 08:54 AM (#2082084) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk People will wiggle and twist so far in any direction to support their already existing opinion on anything that it's just ludicrous. Almost every post on this thread is ample proof of that. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 08:58 AM (#2082089) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Grab PS. Quick calculation - 500mph = 220 metres per second. Let's say your camera has a 20-metre field of vision, which is about average from what I've seen of security cameras. The plane will cover that in 0.09s. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 09:49 AM (#2082144) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Thank you Grab for describing what the video cameras showed. Where'd you see those videos, by the way? And the plane didn't hit the ground on the way to the Pentagon. There was no trenching. Nothing. Reporters commented on it. A few light poles knocked over, then a 9 foot hole in the pentagon. Those people searching the grounds for parts immediately afterwards were walking on smooth grass. As far as the bodies in WTC7, there were lots of "missing" on that day. Anyone could have hid anything in the complex that day. And don't you know by now that Wikipedia's a DISinformation source? Answers.com, the Urban Legends site, Wikipedia--they're used to discredit and misdirect. What happened to bldgs 5 & 6 is that they burned for days and didn't fall. Infinitely more damage to them than to WTC7, which had a corner damaged by a little falling debris. Then WTC7 falls in on itself in a perfectly controlled demolition. That film is out there in abundance. And the explosion described by the high-level official occurred early, before the second plane hit. Wasn't any kerosene tanks or any of the half-dozen other things the NIST report blamed for bringing down WTC7. YOU had better start worrying about "Them" because they ran a drill on 9/11 of planes flying into the WTC bldgs, and then...IT HAPPENED! Son of a gun. Those musket shooters in Afghanistan pulled a fast one...got NORAD to stand down, did trick flying, did 3 perfect demolitions...ain't we a bunch of fuck-ups. Here's how "them" operate. The G8 summit a couple of weeks ago. Leaders of the world's 8 largest economic powers (become symbolic as corporations surplant nations around the world). But GWBush attended the G8 summit, and one day he had a stomach ache. Missed a meeting: ...Sources told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that US security men tested German security by trying to smuggle C4 plastic explosive past a checkpoint at Heiligendamm. German surveillance machinery detected the tiny stash in a suitcase in a car and the Americans in plainclothes then identified themselves. German police declined comment. http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=9424 Take out 7 of the G8, and you just have to reorganize things, don't you? Halliburton and British Petroleum have to step in and create a "safer" world. |
|
20 Jun 07 - 10:37 PM (#2082768) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ythanside 'Those people searching the grounds for parts immediately afterwards were walking on smooth grass.' Smooth grass, hmmmm. Heard that somewhere before. Now, let me think. Damn, got it! Jeez, this is really, really BIG. Listen to this. Smooth grass, grass, grassy knoll, it all adds up, don't you see? NOPE! |
|
20 Jun 07 - 11:33 PM (#2082784) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Michael Moore just wants to see the video tapes of the planes. No biggie. Just show the tapes. And why do people feel they have to defend the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory of 19 men with boxcutters, anyway? I mean, what's in it for those of you who, personally, defend the govt's absurd lie? I should have mentioned at the top that the link goes to a video clip of Moore saying those things. Just before he talks, communist whore Amy Goodman pisses herself when confronted by the same reporters Moore talked to. So you have two top liberals, Goodman and Moore, and one finally gets tired of the bullshit and speaks a bit of his mind. Goodman still sees her job as what it's always been, to lie and deceive, but Moore realized who the crew with the camera was, how much more powerful the internet has become than traditional media, and he makes his breakthrough statement to a 20 year old man with an internet hookup. Meanwhile, NPR dinosaur Goodman goes about her good little bootlicking chores supporting the lies of the mass murderers of 9/11. She's still buying the lie that she'll have a place in the organization once the riff raff is purged. But it seems Moore has finally admitted the truth to himself. Once the psychopaths in our positions of power get complete control over us, his ass is on the night train to oblivion, and he knows it. So he speaks out. Good for him. Let's see...I made a mistake in my math, too. They should quit calling it the G8. President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso was at the conference, so that makes 9 heads of state, even though the EU isn't really a state, is it? It was voted down. No matter, the bosses of the world just invited Barroso to the meeting anyway, so if the CIA plan had worked, that C4 explosive would have taken out 8 majesterial supreme pooh-bahs while GW conveniently had a gastric problem. If all had gone according to plan, the people killed in the blast would have been President of the European Commission José Manuel Durão Barroso, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, Prime Minister Romano Prodi of Italy, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada. Al Qeada would have been blamed, no doubt (probably operating out of Iran), and as I type this tonight the world would have been a vastly different place. See, you HAVE to keep the govt honest or they go and blow up OTHER things. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:09 AM (#2082864) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Neovo Explosions do not necessarily = bombs. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 05:26 AM (#2082895) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: George Papavgeris It's the sattelites; and now that UK is going fully digital, there will be no protection. (Mental note: Must buy tinfoil). |
|
21 Jun 07 - 07:27 AM (#2082941) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Grab Don't know why I bother. OK, that's my last 9/11 post. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 09:30 AM (#2083034) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I want to see tapes of Santa Claus. There are so many security cameras out there, surely someone has captured his image going down a chimne or hitching up the reindeer. Why won't they let us see these tapes? |
|
21 Jun 07 - 10:08 AM (#2083062) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: artbrooks Michael Moore is a jerk who, having exhausted the possibilities of his current audience, is looking for a new one. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 10:08 AM (#2083064) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: artbrooks IMHO, of course. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 10:22 AM (#2083076) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I don't think Michael Moore is a jerk, and I think he is asking some very important questions. His documentaries have exposed some serious issues and helped this country question the ravings of the madman in the White House. The thing is, you can't jump to conclusions or make assumptions that require accepting a theory as the truth. Some people seem to feed on celebrity and grasp every innuendo as the gospel truth to justify their perspective. Our one-trick pony Guest seems to have a history of such behavior. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:03 PM (#2083215) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Becca72 Michael Moore knows as much about 9/11 as Oliver Stone does about the Kennedy assassination. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:21 PM (#2083223) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Gza Yeah, Becca...both of which probably involved coverups at a very high level... The conventional mind simply doesn't want to know. It would always rather just believe whatever lies Big Brother tells it by way of the mainstream media, and go have another cheeseburger at the mall or rent another video and plunk down in front of the tube. "Please don't bother me. I want to remain comfortably aneasthetized in my little tiny world of consumption here. It's far less painful than asking questions which might result in disturbing answers being found. And anyway, I'm helpless to do anything about it. Please just don't bother me. Please just stop talking about that and go away. You can't possibly be right. If you were, I'd have no sense of security left, and that is a thought I simply cannot bear." p.s. - It is so fucking obvious that other shots were fired at Kennedy...from in front of the motorcade...rather than just shots from the book depository to the rear...and that one of those shots from in front blew out the back of Kennedy's head as it exited...there were so many eyewitnesses who said so....JEEZUS!!! All you have to do is read into it some. But no, you'd rather just believe the Warren Commission's laundered version of what happened. Well, la-de-da...your choice appears to be that igorance is bliss. I guess you must be really quite happy. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:31 PM (#2083230) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D "No biggie. Just show the tapes." For the last time: There are no "TAPES" or "VIDEOS"...there are still frames from ONE security camera, which shows a blank, then a fireball. The confounded plane, just to spite us, passed that lone security camera BETWEEN frames. (Probably a secondary plot!) But they have **eyewitnesses** ...average people...who SAW the plane. Some thought they were gonna be hit by it. I found that page in 3 seconds....I doubt if you even looked for it, it wouldn't do to find anything that weakens your conspiracy theory, would it? |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:41 PM (#2083236) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D an even better eyewitness page |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:45 PM (#2083237) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "It is so fucking obvious that other shots were fired at Kennedy ... All you have to do is read into it some" Those two statements define exactly what the problems are with these issues. It is NOT fucking obvious, otherwise there would be universal agreement. THAT is what causes people to consider other options. The fact that you can "read into it" opens up elements of doubt AND interjects the author and readers preconceived notions. It is hard to find anyone with a truly open mind. The "consipiricists" seem to latch onto whatever is supporting their wish to have an alternate reason, and that clouds their ability to really consider all views. The "anti-conspiracists" work exactly the opposite. They consider the source and look for ways to knock it down. JEEZUS!!! |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:48 PM (#2083242) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet This is a big story that will, for starters, kill Giuliani's presidential aspirations. Giuliani's dad was a mob boss who served time, and the boy grew up to run the organization from inside the justice system. Now he wants to run the country. Giuliani's complicity in 9/11 will be revealed now because of Michael Moore's recent statements. That, at a minimum, is what will come of this. I believe that Giuliani, like GWBush, wasn't informed beforehand of what was going to happen on 9/11. That's why they both mis-spoke about 9/11 later and why both had that deer-in-the-headlights look on the day. But both were involved in the crime of the coverup, so that makes them complicit in a capital crime. If there is any justice in the world, we'll see them tried and executed, along with the others involved in the coverup and in the execution of the crime itself. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM (#2083248) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Becca72 Gza, I gave no opinion of my own on either Kennedy or 9/11. The only opinion I'm offering here is that both MOVIE DIRECTORS made up whatever story they thought would get asses in theatre seats. Neither is an historian. They are movie directors. Why should I trust Michael Moore any more than I would his republican counterpart? Democrats don't lie? HUH! yeah right. None of them can be trusted. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:55 PM (#2083250) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D "I believe that Giuliani, like GWBush, ...blah, blah..etc." Yeah...we are aware that you 'believe' a lot of off-the-wall stuff. People can 'believe' that the Earth is flat and only 5000 years old.... |
|
21 Jun 07 - 01:58 PM (#2083253) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Gza "It is hard to find anyone with a truly open mind." I'm fully in agreement with you on that, Ron. It's almost impossible to find anyone with a truly open mind. People's impression of anything or anyone is usually formed quite early and very quickly...after that, they simply devote further efforts to solidifying and defending their first impression. My impression, from watching the Zapruder film, and from the comments of numerous eyewitnesses in Dealy Plaza on that day, is that some of the shots (not all of the shots) were fired from in front of the motorcade, from the grassy knoll area, and that one of those shots from the front blew out the back of Mr Kennedy's head as it exited. And yes, it does seem totally obvious...to me. If it doesn't to you, well, there's nothing I can do about that, because you have formed a different initial impression about it for whatever reason (and I'll never really know what your reasons are for the impression you have formed). My thoughts are as opaque to you as yours are to mine. That's the hard thing about human life. We cannot ever know truly what anyone else is thinking...or why...no matter how hard they try to explain it to us. I have no idea why you find it implausible that someone might have fired shots from in front of Kennedy, why you don't find it quite obvious that someone did, and there's nothing I can do about it. I shrug, I feel a sense of resignation and despair, and I walk away.... |
|
21 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM (#2083255) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Zapruder film. Watch it. Textbook example of someone being shot from the front. But every time you see the film on television, some commentator says, "and now Oswald's third shot finishes the job." You're shown one thing but the opposite is described. Same thing that happend on 9/11. Demolition squib blasts zippering down the sides of the towers while a commentator says, "and then the plane's jet fuel caused a total collapse." I need to locate Steven Jones' latest research paper. Analysis of microscopic globules of hardened metal from the WTC tower sites. Globules spewed out in the collapses, hardened into spheres during the fall, then embedded in the dust. Analyzed by Jones and others, and thermate is in the samples. Aluminum, iron oxide, sulphur, phosphorous...in the exact percentages that were predicted for a thermate demolition. Incredibly damning work. Big PDF and technical, but Jones shows that from the very dust on the street, the chemical evidence of steel-cutting thermate is there. I'll look for that later. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 02:04 PM (#2083257) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Gza Fair enough, Becca. Of course Democrats lie. Democrats and Republicans are equally adept at lying. The biggest lies are usually told by those in charge of governments. I expect little BUT lies from either the Democrats or the Republicans once they get into office, because whoever is in office pretty well HAS to lie. There's a lot to hide. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 02:09 PM (#2083263) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I have no idea why you find it implausible that someone might have fired shots from in front of Kennedy" There! You proved that you are making assumptions and read what you want to read. I do believe that there was at least a second gunman and that Kennedy was shot from the front. What you did was read your own thoughts into my comment, and if you re-read you will see that I NEVER disagreed with you. Which proves my point, it is hard to find someone with an open mind. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 02:14 PM (#2083269) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Demolition squib blasts zippering down the sides of the towers" Again, your opinion. That did not look like "demolition squib" blasts to many people. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM (#2083344) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Advocates of the idea that the collapse of the WTC buildings was all a government plot often point to a film clip of what appear to be explosions at various points in one of the buildings as the floors above them begin to "pancake," and say with fierce glee, "See? See? Controlled explosions! There's your proof!" And then, they follow that with the non sequiter (leap of logic) claim that this proves that it was done by the Bush administration. "Demolition squib blasts." And no, they didn't "zipper," they were quite random. Sorry, Charlie! Regarding those so-called "controlled explosions," the WTC buildings were large, and buildings that large have transformers in them, the same way any neighborhood has transformers (in neighborhoods, they look like trash cans hung up high on utility poles). During windstorms in which power lines may be whipped around and broken by falling tree branches, transformers short out and often explode. There were a lot of transformers exploding in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, but nobody tries to claim they were "demolition squib blasts." [Oh, hey!! There's a great one for the GUEST-of-many-names to go to work on! Hurricane Katrina was a government plot! (That's just for openers. With someone as "creative" as GUEST-of-many-names, cobbling together the reasons should be no problem.)] And, of course, when the planes hit the buildings, a lot of wires were broken, and following that, when the buildings started to collapse, even more transformers went, causing a lot of transformers to short out. And when transformers short out and start to burn before they explode, the fire can be as hot as a welding torch—and melt structural steel! Have you ever seen a transformer explode? Pretty spectacular! During windstorm During snowstorm. Weight of ice on wires—the snap, shorting out a couple of transformers. Sub-station. Transformer shorts out, mineral oil catches fire, transformer blows. This sort of thing can be expected to happen if an aircraft as large as a airliner and loaded with fuel collides with a large building. Don Firth |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:22 PM (#2083355) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth That should read "And, of course, when the planes hit the buildings, a lot of wires were broken, and following that, when the buildings started to collapse, even more power lines (not "transformers") went, causing a lot of transformers to short out." Don Firth |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM (#2083374) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peter T. This is so pathetic. While the government is openly conspiring against its own citizens on the publlic record, this conspiracy nonsense goes on. What a waste of time. yours, Peter T. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:40 PM (#2083376) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Stringsinger " Goodman still sees her job as what it's always been, to lie and deceive," This comment unfortunately vitiates a valid point. Nobody really knows what happened on 911. Everyone on this thread is pissing in the wind. But the Guest who attacks Amy Goodman has attacked the argument that is presented. My eyes tell me that in looking at the towers collapsing, the jet fuel wasn't potent enough to cause this because it was spent outside after the plane hit. My eyes tell me that this matches every building demolition that I have seen. My logic tells me that the people and the physical material reduced to a powdery pulp could not come from spent jet fuel in an aircraft collision. Other planes have hit other buildings before without this outcome. I also refuse to accept unequivocally that this was an inside job but since there has been a lack of decent evidence to substantiate the case either way, the question still remains open despite the opinions and conjectures of unknowlegeable people on this thread. A legitimate investigation needs to be done but is not politically advantageous to Bush. We won't see it for a while. So the thread should read, "911 could or could not be inside job". Without evidence that is conclusive, and with attacks on individuals, the question is still up in the air. (So to speak). |
|
21 Jun 07 - 04:46 PM (#2083381) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pirandello Who said the Pentagon plane only made a nine-foot hole? Take a look at the picture of the building in the official report and you'll see devastation and collapse from floor to roof. Personally I don't really care which bunch of murderous lunatics was involved; whether it was Bu$hco or the Saudis we'll never really know. If it was, as the tinfoil hat brigade protest, an inside job then that will never be made public and no amount of digging by sensationalist film-makers will reveal anything but innuendo and shadowy 'sources' who cannot-be-named because the men-in-black will get them-the classic Catch-22 of the conspiracy theorist. And as for controlled explosions all I see is puffs of dust and debris; exactly what you would expect as massive amounts of air are displaced by the collapse of floors above. Or, of course, it could have been the Knights Templar disguising the exact burial place of the Merovingian king whose lineage to Jesus was being discussed THAT VERY MOMENT by the Bilderburg Group; a sinister sect of Freemasons with links to VATICAN SECRETS which might have STUNNED the world if he had been allowed to live in 1242... |
|
21 Jun 07 - 05:03 PM (#2083401) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "My eyes tell me that in looking at the towers collapsing, the jet fuel wasn't potent enough to cause this because it was spent outside after the plane hit." I guess each eye can view these situations differently. From the crash I saw, I can believe that the amount of fuel could have caused this because I don't think the fuel was spent outside. "My eyes tell me that this matches every building demolition that I have seen." My eyes see it as randowm and not controlled. The puffs appear to match what I would expect from pressure pushing downward. Then again, it could be controlled demolition too. Of course, none of us really know, and probably will never know for certain. We have to keep asking but we should not be foolish enough to buy into theories that we have not fully explored and looked at the counter-evidence. Yet, this brings hours of endless fun for posters on Mudcat. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 05:33 PM (#2083441) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Gza Well, Ron, I am pleased that you are open to some of the possibilities I mentioned about Kennedy's assassination. Yes, I made some assumptions about what you were thinking, as best I could, and apparently some of my assumptions about what you were thinking were wrong. That often happens. It's very hard to know exactly what another person is thinking on the basis of a few brief statements he makes on an internet forum, and one naturally makes assumptions....as best one can. One tries to determine what the other person is thinking. Now don't be ungratious, okay? ;-D You said (with what sounds to me kind of like a cry of triumphant delight): "You proved that you are making assumptions and read what you want to read." Gosh! How shocking! Yes, of course I made assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions. What I want to read, Ron, is not necessarily what you think I want to read. You are making your own assumptions about that, and they may also be faulty. What I really want to read is that everyone in the world has finally found out exactly what happened in Dallas and on 911 too...and here is the absolute proof...and here are the signed confessions of the guilty...and no one disputes any of it any longer. That's what I want to read. I want to read that all the wars have ended, and all the soldiers are coming home. I want to read that no one is attacking anyone any longer. But I won't live long enough to ever see that happen. Who among us is omnisicient? Not I. If I were, I would never need to make any assumptions at all, would I? If you were omniscient, you wouldn't need to either. We both make assumptions, Ron. We both err sometimes in those assumptions. That's life. As you said, "none of us really know, and probably will never know for certain". Right. We merely suspect this or we suspect that or we suspect the other thing. Still, it's bloody annoying to hear other people who also don't know what happened making their usual dumb smartass jokes about tinfoil hats in the middle of what ought to be a serious discussion. They enjoy ridiculing others for suspecting what they don't suspect, but the fact is...they don't know. No more than you or I do. Nobody here knows for sure, we merely have our various suspicions. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 05:42 PM (#2083452) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pirandello 'Dumb, smartass jokes', maybe, but just because a government might not choose to reveal all to those who demand revelation; and why should it-does not by implication suggest a sinister alternative scenario. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 06:56 PM (#2083520) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I won't be ungracious Gza. :) It isn't a game, it is a discussion and as long as everyone keeps it on the level and not take it personally, there is no harm and we might actually beging to see things differently. Your point that I make assumptions is a given. That was part of what I was trying to say. None of us can really keep an open mind, no matter how hard we try. The point is, we need to see in others what may be missing in ourselves. If you look at a glass and see it half full, I should not question as to why you don't see it half empty. Somone else may wonder why neither one of us notice the glass is dirty. We can share our OPINIONS, but we should be careful when we try to make it definitive. I've never seen anyone shot in the head so it would be hard for me to say what an exit wound should look like. While most people question it, the possibility exists that Oswald could have done it by himself. You and I, and millions of people doubt that, but it is a distinct possibility. Some people watched the WTC fall and saw controlled explosions. I saw a huge building collapsing onto itself and the force of pressure at work. Who knows who is right? One thing I ask everyone who believes in the controlled demolition theory - did you ever visit the WTC before 9/11? Do you know the area and the enormity of the buildings? I think with a little personal knowledge of the site, you might be more apt to believe the so called "official" theory. Again, no one knows. We just have to ask questions. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 07:39 PM (#2083551) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth I am willing to believe something if I am offered some substantial proof, not just suppositions, no matter how firmly, passionately, and frequently stated. Do I believe it's possible that what GUEST-of-the-many-names keeps posting over and over and over again might be true? I believe that it is within the realm of the possible. But I also believe that it is highly unlikely. The Bush administration blamed Saddam Hussein when most of the rest of the world blamed Osama din Laden and al Qaeda. Now, here's a thought that all of our hard-charging conspiracy theorists might consider: Did it ever occur to you that the Bush administration is bloody clueless? They have been flat caught--and easily so--in so many bits of hanky-panky, cheating, double-dealing, and flagrant incompetence that it stretches credibility beyond the point of the bizarre to think they could have organized something as diabolically complex as what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim. After watching them in action for the past seven years, it should be fairly obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that the troupe of clowns known popularly as the Bush administration isn't sufficiently competent to organize a Halloween prank like pushing over an outhouse without tripping over their own feet and flopping into the pit themselves. Don Firth |
|
21 Jun 07 - 08:07 PM (#2083572) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D amen... |
|
21 Jun 07 - 08:41 PM (#2083596) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Gza Well, that's a possibility, Don. But what if the planning and the executing of 911 was done by professionals who are far better at their job than the principal members of the Bush administration? What if the Bush administration are just a bunch of stuffed dummies for the public to focus on? What if the overall planning was done by black ops professionals who are working for the people who own both the Democratic and Republican parties, and who were just as much behind the Clinton administration as they are behind the Bush administration...and who will, no doubt, be behind the next administration of stuffed dummies...whether or not it is a Democratic or a Republican administration. I'm not talking about people who are seeking another measly 4 years in office. I'm not talking about people you will ever get to vote for. No, I am talking about people who run grand international strategy on behalf of the military-industrial complex and the energy corporations. People who topple governments and organize coups. People who set up wars and arrange assassinations. People who are versed in germ warfare, demolition, and secret weapons we haven't even heard about yet. People who are not seeking just national power, but world power. I don't think those people are stupid at all, nor do I think they are the least bit inefficient. I just think they're insane (in my terms, but not in their own). I think they will still be around when Bush is long gone. If Hillary is elected, they will still be around, and they will still "arrange" things. If Obama is elected, ditto. That's also a possibility, right? |
|
21 Jun 07 - 10:32 PM (#2083657) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet George Schultze, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, etc....hardly incompetents. And Peter T., 9/11 is the event that led to our wholesale loss of rights. It is the event that everyone remembers, so it is the event that needs to be highlighted. No one can remember that we lost habeas corpus in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, but everyone remembers GWBush saying we're going to get Ossama bin Laden for 9/11. Expose the big lie and all the others will be exposed too. The 9/11 proof of government involvement is so overwhelming, and it just keeps piling up higher every day. Just yesterday Judicial Watch got FBI documents showing that the bin Laden family was allowed to skip the country after 9/11. The govt's been denying this up til now: http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6322.shtml Anyway, Steven Jones' article on the thermate spheres is on the web if anyone wants to read the research paper. The link below leads to a page with a video of him presenting the evidence. Lots of other interesting and damning stories at the link too. http://www.northtexansfor911truth.com/ 9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson. Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson. Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate. The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on. The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction. So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 11:25 PM (#2083678) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk You don't rise high in the ranks of the CIA, Military Intelligence, and Black Ops by being an incompetent. You do it by being smart, efficient, and completely ruthless, following orders, and keeping your mouth shut....and making sure other people keep their mouths shut as well. Whatever it takes to do it. At least, that's what I've heard...can't say I have any personal experience in the matter. |
|
21 Jun 07 - 11:59 PM (#2083694) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Looks like one of these guys may be the witness to the explosion in WTC7 on the morning of 9/11: Most of Building 7 of the World Trade Center was evacuated around the time the South Tower was hit (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). However, firefighters find three individuals who have become trapped inside it. Among them are Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Mike Hess, New York's chief lawyer who is also a longtime friend of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The two had gone up to the 23rd floor headquarters of the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management some time before 10 a.m., but found it empty. (It was evacuated at 9:30 a.m.; see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001.) They headed downstairs but became trapped around the sixth floor by smoke and debris that filled the staircase as a result of the North Tower collapsing at 10:28 a.m. After breaking a window and calling for help, they were spotted by firefighters outside. When the firefighters go in, they also find a security officer for one of the businesses based in the building, who is trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. Why this guard did not evacuate earlier, along with the rest of WTC 7, is unknown. All three men are escorted out of the building. http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1 So, the story Hess and the two others were telling was that there was "smoke and debris" preventing them from leaving the building. Good team players, they stuck to the script. But something has changed. One of them has decided to tell the truth. Interesting. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 12:07 AM (#2083697) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie "One of them has decided to tell the truth"? What am I missing here? The link you give is word for word the paragraph you posted. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 12:16 AM (#2083701) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet No, Ebbie, the times are off. There was a lot of confusion on that day, so the "authorities" have gotten away with a lot due to the chaos. And the false WTC7 timeline is one of the lies they put out. According to what I just posted, the men were trapped in the bldg due to the collapsing towers, etc. That's been the story for years. But look at the gap in time...they went up into the bldg sometime before 10 and were trapped at 10:28. Those aren't stupid men. They could see the place was evacuated. They should have evacuated too. But they remained for more than half an hour? That timeline has always seemed odd. Now the truth comes out. They picked up a phone and called to ask where everyone was, and they were told to get out quick. On the way down, the 6th floor landing was blown out. And this was BEFORE EITHER OF THE TOWERS FELL. Before plane #2 hit, even. Hence, a bomb went off. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 01:30 AM (#2083726) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bee-dubya-ell But look at the gap in time...they went up into the bldg sometime before 10 and were trapped at 10:28. ...they remained for more than half an hour? I don't see a time gap. If you're asking what they did during that thirty minutes, you're forgetting that elevators are always turned OFF in emergencies. I don't know about you, but it would probably take me the better part of thirty minutes just to climb 23 flights of stairs. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 02:00 AM (#2083735) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Let me be more clear. The official story says these men were trapped inside WTC7 at 10:28, when the north tower fell. But the witness says the bomb went off before either tower fell. And, he says the bomb in WTC7 went off before plane #2 hit. Plane #1 hit at 8:45 a.m. Plane #2 hit at 9:03 a.m. So these guys were in the building much earlier than was earlier reported. And WTC7 was not damaged by any "falling debris" at that point. So, sometime between 8:45 and 9:03, a bomb blew out the 6th floor landing they were on. Then the second plane struck, then the towers fell. That's the biggest timeline discrepancy. Why was there an explosion in WTC7 between 8:45 and 9:03? |
|
22 Jun 07 - 10:05 AM (#2083994) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Wolfgang Sooo sweet, why do you change your name with each new thread you start about the same theme? Do you think they will not be able to get at you this way?? You're wrong. They are already on your trail. Wolfgang |
|
22 Jun 07 - 10:28 AM (#2084011) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Becca72 Wolfgang, they'll never find him/her....he/she has the tinfoil hat on. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 01:21 PM (#2084178) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk I thought I requested no more smartass tinfoil hat jokes. And that applies to "little green men" too. Please. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 01:35 PM (#2084194) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Couldn't care less if "they" find me, Wolfgang. You from Germany? Would you have wanted to live under Hitler? Fuck the fascists. I'm ready to deal with them anytime, anywhere. More Germans should have adopted that attitude, rather than fleeing the country. Americans have freedom of speech, but a freedom not used doesn't exist. So what about the time discrepancies, folks? Official version is these men were caught in the building at 10:28 a.m. But now it comes out they were in the building much earlier and saw/heard/felt/were injured by a bomb blast inside WTC7. Since 9/11, the U.S. govt has shown itself to be gangster-controlled. The gangsters have announced pre-emptive nuclear strikes as an international policy, and at home they've said we have no more Bill of Rights or habeas corpus, and we can be disappeared at any time for "suspected" terrorism (terrorism is defined by the PATRIOT Act as the breaking of any federal or state law), and once you're disappeared you can be legally tortured to death. That's what Bush and the Democrats have put in place in America. Because it's a "post 9/11 world." I protested my taxes this year, and in some states that would have put me on the terrorist watch list. 9/11 is the pivotal event. I listened to 5 minutes of facist talk show host Sean Hannity yesterday, and he was talking about immigration "reform" which will "make the country safe." One of his (or someone's) schemes is to turn over all immigrant-status checks to Visa/Mastercard/American Express. Let them thumbscan to determine identity. Hannity said the govt should be doing this, then he snorted and said, "but you know how the government is." So, his alternative is to turn over governmental responsibilities to private business. That's raw, unapologetic fascism--the merging of business and government. The gangsters who control the U.S. and other western nations created the "event," and they've been backing us towards concentration camps ever since. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 02:04 PM (#2084228) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Wolfgang Sooo sweet, why then do you change your name with each new thread you start about the same theme? Wolfgang |
|
22 Jun 07 - 02:08 PM (#2084232) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie Because S/HE is not afraid. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 02:16 PM (#2084239) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce LH, "And that applies to "little green men" too." 1. They are reddish brown, not green. 2. They have as much ( no more OR less) right to be here as Chongo does. 3. The point is, if the POSSIBLE is to be considered, regardless of LIKELIHOOD, than the "aliens did it" is JUST as valid as the conspiracy theories with no proof. All most are asking for here is PROOF, not "it could have happeened, so that must be what happened." What has been offered has been looked at, and found wanting, IMHO. Can I PROVE that it was NOT a conspiracy? NO. Can YOU PROVE that it was NOT aliens? Again, NO. But both are in the highly unlikely catagory until SOME real evidence is presented. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 03:40 PM (#2084308) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk As I've told you, BB, you really need to get a job with CNN. Or Fox. Or NBC. You're not getting paid nearly enough for the efforts you put in here on a daily basis, keeping us all informed. I object to the term "little green men", because it is a standard expression used by those who wish to ridicule people with whom they do not agree about a certain subject. I similarly object to the terms "conspiracy theory" and "tinfoil hat", as they are used the same way. People who regularly use those terms to ridicule others should be made to walk naked through the raspberry bushes, whilst being pelted with fresh goose shit (in my opinion). |
|
22 Jun 07 - 03:45 PM (#2084313) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce You are certainly entitiled to your opinion. I object to the term "BuShite", because it is a standard expression used by those who wish to ridicule people with whom they do not agree about a certain subject. I also object to being told WHAT I think, when the person making the accusation has not even read what I have stated in the past, much less asked what I thought about whatever the topic is. IMO, those people should be forced to listen to a listing of their faults until they run screaming from the thread. But I do not care to inflict that on the other people here. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 03:51 PM (#2084320) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ythanside Little Hawk, I'm upset. What have little green men done to piss you off? Signed: Little Green Man :-D |
|
22 Jun 07 - 03:55 PM (#2084324) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk I agree with you about the term "BuShite", BB. It's another great example of the kind of thing I was objecting to. All those kind of terms are used to instantly dismiss and stigmatize other people. The terms "racist" and "sexist" are often used that way too...as cheap shots, and there is no effective way of defending oneself against being accused of being a racist or a sexist...or a BuShite. "those people should be forced to listen to a listing of their faults until they run screaming from the thread" Hey, that's what we have our "significant others" and close relatives for, isn't it? ;-) |
|
22 Jun 07 - 04:02 PM (#2084330) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Nothing, Ythanside. Nothing at all. I would be pleased, though, if any little green men who are out there would visit the people who keep bringing them up as a way of ridiculing serious UFO researchers...and subject those people to a series of unpleasant and demeaning examination procedures...and then drop them off in the middle of downtown Schenectady, stark naked. It would help even the playing field some. |
|
22 Jun 07 - 05:32 PM (#2084401) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel 9/11 could be inside job? Does Cheney shit in the woods? I don't know. if i did i probably would not be here. |
|
23 Jun 07 - 02:42 AM (#2084637) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Lonesome EJ Peter T, you are an astute fellow. |
|
23 Jun 07 - 04:59 PM (#2085087) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: McGrath of Harlow For once I find myself agreeing with bearded bruce in that last post of his. Discussions, however heated, should always involve responding to what people have actually said, and what is actually implied by that, not setting up Aunt Sallies we can easily knock down. Our aim shouldn't be to "win an argument", but to explore and understand differences, and sometimes discover unexpected points where we actually agree. |
|
10 Jul 07 - 10:22 PM (#2099375) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: 1. Extremely rapid onset of "collapse" 2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters) 3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals) 4. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, 40 floors below the "collapsing" building seen in all the videos 5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust 6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds 7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves 8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance 9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint 10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away 11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet 12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure. 13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate) 14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. 15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings http://ae911truth.org/ |
|
11 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM (#2100408) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "no other possible source" etc All this 'Secret Squirrel Conspiracy' nonsense has been debunked endlessly, here and elsewhere, before Mr Scientificly Ignorant Nutter. Please go away to the appropriate forums - if you want to stay here - then please write witty songs about your areas of concern. ... la la la ... |
|
11 Jul 07 - 10:39 PM (#2100451) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Thank you for attacking me. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800°. Open-air jet fuel fires might reach 1000° or so, so where did the heat needed to create the pools of molten steal come from? ---- An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html |
|
12 Jul 07 - 11:19 AM (#2100692) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "so where did the heat needed to create the pools of molten steal come from?" Your ignorance only makes you look stupid. I also did black smithing - and when steel oxidises (burns) it gets hotter and hotter ... :-) called 'exothermic reaction'... :-) and there were other common chemicals present that catalysed and promoted the oxidising the reaction - and you saw the fire... and buried at the bottom of a pile of junk, it was pretty well insulated... (hint - dry wall among other things)... If you don't know any Science, then don't make Conspiracy theories out of whole cloth using your ignorance. All this 'Secret Squirrel Conspiracy' nonsense has been debunked endlessly, here and elsewhere" on the web... Please go away - you are just embarrassing ... |
|
12 Jul 07 - 11:23 AM (#2100697) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july20 video of Moore blasting CNN |
|
12 Jul 07 - 11:30 AM (#2100703) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC What is the minimum temperature steel needs to reach in order to begin oxidizing, Foolestroup? |
|
12 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM (#2100837) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Your statement is inane, foolstroupe. I'm a welder, among other things, so I've worked with metal too. No way an hour's worth of dispersed, burning jet fuel triggered such a reaction. The massive amounts of steel in the WTC towers were huge heat sinks. The steel absorbs heat (even the heat of an oxy-acetylene torch flame), and that heat is dissipated outwards. The thicker the steel, the deeper the heat sink. So, an hour's worth of unfocused heat on 3-4 inch thick steel columns ten feet around (47 columns in each building), would do NOTHING to affect the steel. You are shown Kennedy being shot from the front while the narrator says "Then Oswald's final bullet finishes the job." You are shown controlled demolitions while the narrator says "Then the heat of the fires triggered the collapse." Nothing but incendiary devices could have caused the pools of molten steel still in evidence weeks later. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM (#2100838) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel The Thermite residue at ground zero is merely coincidental just like Marvin Bush being in charge of security contrators for the WTC is coincidental. Exploring the behavior and use of Thermate is very interesting all the same. The radiation load from WTC after 9-11 is still very high. Granted the DU that is used in the wing tips of commercial airplanes is not enough to account for the radiation readings after 9-11. Sometimes I wonder if the 1/2 billion dollars of gold bars recovered from ground zero is now radioactive. By the way thank Rudy for making the gold recovery the #1 priority after search and rescue operations were suspended. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 03:36 PM (#2100938) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Professor Steven E. Jones writes: "...On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams — then where did the molten metal come from?" http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones So the government's own reports admit that there was not enough heat to melt steel and cause foolstroupe's "exothermic reaction." Another problem with the "heat caused the collapses" theory is that the second building struck fell first. And the strike was a glancing blow. Why did both buildings fall in EXACTLY the same way, and why did the one the burned the shortest period of time fall first? Hammer that one out, foolstroupe. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 07:17 PM (#2101117) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Goodness, Foolestroupe. Such utter assurance on your part. ;-) What if you yourself are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of doing? Maybe you're just believing what you want to believe. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 07:34 PM (#2101124) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: bobad "Another example was Physics911.net (originally Physics911.org) also rolled out in late 2003, with the ostensible goal of providing a Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine-Eleven (SPINE). Both 911Review.org and Physics911.net promoted hoaxes like the Pod-Plane and pushed implausible science fiction scenarios like Operation Pearl. Numerous other sites serving to discredit serious analysis of 9/11/01 lack the sophistication of 911review.org and Physics911.net. Some, such as letsroll911.org, are almost entirely devoted to amplifying the idea, supported by no evidence, that missiles were used in the attack on the Twin Towers. OilEmpire.us was the first site to provide a complete rundown on such sites in mid-2004 -- a time when several new such sites sprang up. " http://www.911review.com/disinfo/sites.html |
|
12 Jul 07 - 07:40 PM (#2101129) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk You see, Foolestroupe, no matter what the subject of debate is, everyone eventually makes up their mind what they believe about it...and from then on until they die or the world ends...THAT's what they want to go on believing about it. Why? Because they have an emotional investment to defend. Their sense of personal identity is at stake. It's like the old "Vietnam" syndrome ("We can't pull out now. That would mean all those men died in vain! It might even mean (gasp!)...that we were...wrong... Naw...not worth considering, right?") I think you are just as credible and subjective in that respect as the rest of us are. And just as stubborn. And just as likely to be wrong. ;-) (And I bet you don't, do you?) |
|
12 Jul 07 - 07:45 PM (#2101136) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,soo\ That's interesting, bobad, but how exactly does it make steel melt below 2800 degrees? The Bush/Pelosi government is still telling us that the Cavemen of Tora Bora directed 19 men with boxcutters as they somehow got NORAD to stand down. Please clarify how that occurred, too. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 09:27 PM (#2101192) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel NORAD was not standing down, rather they were performing an exercise that coincidently involved passenger planes ramming buildings like the Pentagon. When they were told that this was not a drill it was already too late. |
|
12 Jul 07 - 10:00 PM (#2101211) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Actually, NORAD was involved with multiple exercises that day. More simultaneous exercises than ever before. Then, the Secretary of Transportation heard Dick Cheney give an override order. The exercises were supposed to provide all the cover the Bush junta would need in order to claim "confusion and incompetence," but at the last moment Cheney had to do a bit of tweaking. And it was witnessed by the Secretary of Transportation. Others have talked about stand down orders too: "Then we (at CENTCOM) see the other plane come in and hit it and at that point everybody is standing up. The air force had commanders in contact with NORAD. The plane, or whatever, hit the Pentagon and then we were like 'Why aren't they scrambling jets?' We were asking, there was eight or nine people... Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels asking the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the air force 'why isn't NORAD scrambling jets? and he said 'we received an order to stand down''. And that just perplexed everybody." http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm Here's a page of links to sites that talk about the stand down, or whatever you want to call it: http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down_links.html |
|
13 Jul 07 - 01:45 AM (#2101290) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "the second building struck fell first" ... and how far up was each building struck? I predicted at home while watching that the second one would fall before the first, and when it did go, I was surprised that the other one held up so long. The mere fact that you can even seriously ask this question reveals that you know absolutely nothing about materials behaviour and physics ... :-) Me?, I'm just a GPI Stack Browser... :-) |
|
13 Jul 07 - 02:06 AM (#2101297) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "And the strike was a glancing blow." Glancing blow? Bullshit! Did it bounce off? NO! It penetrated the building and smashed down weight (force) carrying support structures. Monocoque style construction (where all the stress is distributed thru all the much lighter construction mass) is incredibly weak once you break even a single load carrying beam. Stress other nearby integrally joined force carrying structures via heat weakening and KaBoom! You don;t even need 'red heat' - the expansion of a few will push others out of place , then let it cool and it won't go back to where it is supposed to (but it will then be in tension, where previoulsy it was designed to be in compression), but be even weaker... Glancing blow!!! - Bullshit! you clearly are a lunatic manipulating delusions. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 02:56 AM (#2101318) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "What is the minimum temperature steel needs to reach in order to begin oxidizing, Foolestroup?" Steel oxidizes at room temperature. That's why they put paint on cars and bridges... |
|
13 Jul 07 - 04:36 AM (#2101374) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "Demolition squib blasts zippering down the sides of the towers" Other minds who too experienced to know everything only saw a force wave rippling down the tower - caused by the bloody heavy multi-tons of the stories above as a solid block slamming into the floors below, one at a time - crunch, crumch, crunch... - this force exceeded the design strength of the structure - the weak bits let go one at a time... do the maths... There's a few items in the list of 16 or so above to which I have no answers - but the rest only demonstrate ignorance. I am prepared to believe that there are conspiracies afoot - but when the technically ignorant try to misrepresent scientific and engineering knowledge, and present science fiction as pseudo science babble, they lose their credibility. If there IS something going on behind the scenes, the misleading misrepresented garbage spouted about fictional conspiracies serves only ONE PURPOSE - to distract those like me from observing the REAL CONSPIRACIES! |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:49 AM (#2101615) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Please reconcile these two statements, Foolestroupe... when steel oxidises (burns) it gets hotter and hotter Steel oxidizes at room temperature. That's why they put paint on cars and bridges |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:53 AM (#2101619) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC The process of oxidation produces heat: When something rusts ( which it can even below freezing) it produces heat. One can demonstrate this fact by taking iron powder, and mixing it with water. If one measures the temperature at the time it is mixed, and then some time later, it will be hotter at the later time. But the whole discussion is pointless: I already explained how the aliens did the whole thing, and you are ALL covering it up per our... I mean THEIR plan. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:12 AM (#2101639) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Or. if one looks at aluminum powder, the reaction is what causes thermite to work: Aluminum is very reactive, and will oxidize almost instantly: Only the fact that the surface oxidising prevents oxygen from getting to the rest of the metal slows it down. Powder aluminum, and it will oxidize rapidly, with the release of a great deal of heat.... Gee, I wonder what they made those airliners out of? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:13 AM (#2101642) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So how does this statement... when steel oxidises (burns) it gets hotter and hotter Answer this question... "so where did the heat needed to create the pools of molten steal come from?" If we follow the line of reasoning that Foolestroup seems to be pursuing, we should all expect our cars to melt into puddles of molten metal. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:19 AM (#2101645) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Carol Oxidation is always occurring, but at a slow rate ( rust). In the presence of heat and oxygen, it will proceed at a more rapid rate. In the case of a fire, once started, if the heat is held in ( insulated) the temperature can get much higher than the temperature of the same substances in the open: ie, if a kerosine flame is at ( made up number) 500 degrees, then it can heat up a furnace ( such as a kiln) to 1000 degrees, since the heat is contained- insulated- by the wall of the kiln ( which are usually gypsum, the material in wallboard) Basic chemistry, which is why the aliens had to use special devices just to pull this off so you would think it was an inside job. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM (#2101646) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC beardedbruce, if that was how it happened, it seems that all of the steel would have melted, rather than having the steel conveniently cut up into regular sized sections. Or, perhaps even more likely, all of the steel closest to the part of the building where the planes hit would have melted, but all of the steel in areas not close to where the planes hit would have remained intact (including all of building 7, which didn't get hit by any plane). Don't you think? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM (#2101647) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC My last post is in reference to your 13 Jul 07 - 11:12 AM post, beardedbruce. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:26 AM (#2101653) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce 1. " having the steel conveniently cut up into regular sized sections." It was broken into pieces depending on the structural use- beams are MADE certain lengths, and all of them in the same place in the collapsing structure are LIKELY to break at the same point. 2. Only the steel which was in places that were insulated would melt- not all had sufficient heat. 3. You do not take into account any of the heat produce by exploding transformers ( when the loads are shorted by arircaft slicing through, or floors collapsing) or any other source. Like the famous "bumblebees can't fly" proof, the proof is VALID ( as opposed to true) since the movement of the wings was not taken into account. A dead bumblebee CAN'T fly. You are making the mistake of looking at a single item ( temperature of burning fuel) and NOT at the entire situation. It is not burning in isolation: why should it act as if it was? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:51 AM (#2101681) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC 3. You do not take into account any of the heat produce by exploding transformers ( when the loads are shorted by arircaft slicing through, or floors collapsing) or any other source. Not at all. I'm just seeing some problems with your hypothesis that aluminum power from the airplanes could have explained all of the heat related damage that was done to structural steel in all three buildings. Unless that wasn't what you were saying, in which case, I stand corrected. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:55 AM (#2101685) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "your hypothesis that aluminum power from the airplanes could have explained all of the heat related damage " You have missed my point. The TOTAL heat produced is from ALL the sources- steel, aluminum, and other metals burning, jet fuel, electric energy ( resistance in wires) , exploding transformers, burning people and office material. A little from the energy released by the collapse, as well. The LOCAL heat can be much higher than any single source, because of the "kiln" effect of insulation. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:59 AM (#2101687) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "The LOCAL heat can be much higher than any single source, because of the "kiln" effect of insulation. " Should be "The LOCAL temperature can be much higher than any single source, because of the "kiln" effect of insulation. " |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:02 PM (#2101689) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Doktor Doktor Well guys - this is proof that we DO have pretty good free speech in the West. Just ask yourselves if you could get away with anti-Islamist propaganda in Iran & you'll get the point! |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:16 PM (#2101700) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So you are saying that the steel support columns did, in fact, melt, beardedbruce? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:22 PM (#2101705) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce NO, I am saying they COULD have melted. In fact it has been shown that the WEAKENING of the supports due to the LOWER than melting temperatures would have been sufficient to caust the collapse. The MOLTEN steel that is remarked upon may have been from the initial destruction, OR the subsequent burning after the collapse- I do not know which is more likely. After the collapse,I suspect there were a lot of enclosed "spaces" that would have been insulated by enough debris to trap enough heat to melt steel. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:41 PM (#2101727) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC In fact it has been shown that the WEAKENING of the supports due to the LOWER than melting temperatures would have been sufficient to caust the collapse. How so, beardedbruce? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:49 PM (#2101732) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce It was stated in another thread that the steel used lost 1/2 of it's strength at a certain temperature, which was lower than the temeprature of the burning jet fuel in the open. Exact strengths and loadings were given , I think, showing that the collapse would have occurred without the need for any of the steel to have MELTED. In any case, the idea that "since it did not melt, it must have been demolition" is less likely than the action of us ... THE aliens to bring the towers down. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 12:58 PM (#2101740) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk My, my. Lots of action here. People always interpret any given set of data in such a way that it supports the conclusions they wish to arrive at...and they are astounded when other people are so "foolish" or "crazy" as to arrive at radically different conclusions based on that same data...but they forget that those other people think the same way they do! (but from a different set of biases...) Heh! Pity we couldn't harness all that mental energy and generate electrical power or something. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 01:03 PM (#2101747) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce LH,, There is a slight difference between saying "It MUST have been controlled demolition" and "It could have been controlled demolition." Should the later be said, I would say "yes, it could have been, but I do not see enough evidence to determine that it was." To the first statement I say "PROVE it!" |
|
13 Jul 07 - 01:15 PM (#2101758) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I think, showing that the collapse would have occurred without the need for any of the steel to have MELTED. I saw that other thread. What was postulated in that thread was that the steel was distorted, and consequently the floor supports slipped off the 'brackets' holding them up, and the floors then pancaked one on top of the other. With this scenario, the core would have been left standing, rather than the complete collapse that we know happened. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 01:16 PM (#2101760) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Yeah, I understand. But you wouldn't be inclined to say "Prove it!" if you yourself happened to already have a bias in favor of the idea that it was a controlled demolition. It wouldn't occur to you to issue the challenge then. That's what I mean when I say that we all interpret things through the filter of our biases. We're all extremely subjective. We have over-the-top reactions to things that don't match our own biases. Our buttons get pushed. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 02:16 PM (#2101812) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "With this scenario, the core would have been left standing, rather than the complete collapse that we know happened. " Why? It would seem to me that if one removes the weight-bearing support, gravity will pull ALL of it down. I seem to recall the UPPER floors did not pancake until after the lower ones had ( ie, when the top stack had collapsed the lower one) How would the core have stayed in place? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 02:32 PM (#2101820) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D "..., the core would have been left standing, rather than the complete collapse that we know happened." That is not what the structural engineers who designed the buildings and did the analysis say! When integral structural members give way, there is no support for the floor above, and each floor that collapses adds to the weight on thos below, resulting in EXACTLY the secnario we saw. I posted in another thread the DETAILS of the official analysis....If you read what the experts say, instead of rantings of those who look at videos and INVENT new theories of their own, based on unproven hypotheses .....and view the building diagrams, there is NO contradiction and NO conspiracy. Over & over & over we get these "steel beams can't melt because..." and "...puff of smoke prove that.." and "...puddles of molten..." remarks from well-meaning folks who have simply not read carefully the reports of the structural engineers and building designers. Do some Google searches for "official report" about 9/11 and read in detail why things happened after airplane crashes. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 02:38 PM (#2101823) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D and please remember....we have 19 dead Saudis, many of whom were filmed boarding these planes, and also saying goodbye to families.. tapes of stewardesses TELLING flight controllers that crew was being stabbed...and of Osama admitting he planned it and congratulating the 'martyrs'.....and people can still imagine this was an INSIDE job? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 04:04 PM (#2101900) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I read the report that beardedbruce is referencing. It doesn't say that the core failed. It said that some of the structural steel became distorted and as a result the crosspieces holding up the floors slipped off their brackets, resulting in a pancaking of the floors. From the report... The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above. "crashing down on these angle clips" This report is saying that the floors fell independently of the core. It also says that the buildings collapsed, but it doesn't in any way show how the core could have collapsed using this theory. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html BTW, even the NIST has rejected this theory. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 04:24 PM (#2101915) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Bill, I think it was both an inside and an outside job, in various different respects. I think it was set up well in advance by black ops people, highly professional people. The government is only talking about the outside part of the operation, because that suits their agenda, and their agenda was to go to war in the Middle East, secure longterm bases there, and control oil. That's what I theorize. I am in no position to prove it. Neither is anyone else who bothers to post here. We're all well-meaning amateurs, and we are way, way on the outside. Only the people on the inside know for sure what happened. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 04:32 PM (#2101921) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Maybe it was the aliens who came up with beardedbruce's theory. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 05:15 PM (#2101943) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Ha! Well, you know what the aliens (the good ones, I mean) tell me? They tell me that Bearded Bruce is not an original inhabitant of this planet at all. No. He's not even human. He is an alien-manufactured android, programmed to write an infinite number of sonnets. He was planted here to sow confusion and dismay while the other aliens (the bad ones) prepare their takeover. Don't believe anything he says! ;-) |
|
13 Jul 07 - 05:47 PM (#2101958) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D yes, Carol...thank you. Those are the reports I had seen before, giving the technical reasons that structural damage PLUS fire cause enough weakening to call the collapse. and Little Hawk....I don't know what to say: " I think it was set up well in advance by black ops people,..." you "think"?? That's one hell of a stretch to provide an excuse for 'future' operations! Causing the US 3000+ deaths and billions in damages to justify some secret agenda? You admit you can't provide evidence, so why concoct such a theory? You can't really 'believe' some arcane secret agency was able to plan WITH Muslim extremists for such a horrendous result! Bush didn't need any particular excuse when he decided to invade Iraq...and he didn't even use that excuse-it was WMDs...remember? |
|
13 Jul 07 - 05:58 PM (#2101972) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Bill, show me where that report explains the collapse of the core, please. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 05:58 PM (#2101973) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC ...and as I said, even the NIST has rejected that theory. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:02 PM (#2102005) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D The 'core' was not some totally separate structure...everything was connected in various ways with structural members, and the roof, with the weight of various AC units and broadcasting towers was above the core AND perimeter structures....Plus, in both towers, the plane penetrated part way into the core on several floors....once a part of the building sagged and bowed outward, the roof added to that collapse, then each successive floor increased the total weight. The 2nd building hit collapsed sooner because it was hit lower, and had more weight on it...besides having the plane hit with wings tilted, causing damage to more floors. As they have said before, even a major fire would not have caused collapse without the structural damage causing fireproofing to be knocked off the girders. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:12 PM (#2102010) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC That doesn't at all address, in a scientific way, what happened to the steel vertical members of the core when the building collapsed. According to beardedbruce's report, the floors separated from the core. The weight of the roof and whatever other things were marginally connected to the core couldn't possibly account for the core's free fall speed as it came down. It would have been able to provide enough resistance to at least take a long time to come down, and very probably could have supported the weight of the roof (that part of the roof that was over it) enough for most of it to remain standing. Prove me wrong. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:12 PM (#2102011) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And as I said, even the NIST has rejected that theory. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:19 PM (#2102016) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: catspaw49 While I would normally jump in with Bill here, Leej hit it on the head when he said Peter T. was astute. Well, we've always known that I guess but need reminded at times, especially since he posts so much less nowadays. He could never have summed up the stupidity of this crap better: Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peter T. - PM Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM This is so pathetic. While the government is openly conspiring against its own citizens on the publlic record, this conspiracy nonsense goes on. What a waste of time. yours, Peter T. Beautiful......just beautiful. Tell ya' what PT, I'll board the Waylon Heron for a month for free! Spaw |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:25 PM (#2102023) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like..." ...absolute certainty. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:51 PM (#2102044) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D ?? what? certainty about "NAPALM"??? I hope that's not what you meant. Carol...on the link you posted..did you click on all the series of explanations in the USA Today links? They make it pretty clear. There was way more than just "steel vertical members" withing the core...there were concrete slabs AND structural mambers connected to the outer perimeter! Would you like to have the challenge of designing a building with concrete slabs, operating as a unit, that would NOT bring down the vertical members when the roof & many concrete floors (that WERE connected to them)started coming down? It is not my job to "prove you wrong"! The buildings DID collapse as the structural report says...if you, or anyone with **engineering competence, feels that something else contributed to the fall, it is your/their job to 'prove' how. So far, the official report fulfills the physical explanation, except to those who just look at it and refuse to accept it....it doesn't have to juggle the myriad of wierd hypotheses one has to assume to construct an "inside job" conspiracy! The rule is, (and it is serious and profound..) "From false premises, anything follows"...even BBs aliens. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 07:55 PM (#2102046) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet This is so pathetic. While the government is openly conspiring against its own citizens on the publlic record, this conspiracy nonsense goes on. What a waste of time. Actually, the bipartisan U.S. government conspired to keep the facts of 9-11 secret from the world. Why? So they could launch international wars and take away rights at home. There is no more pertinent issue in American than 9/11. Expose the criminals of 9/11, and the American people will then be able to resolve the problems stemming from 9/11. But at least foolstroupe has solved the riddle of HOW the buildings were brought down. Rust. As far as Bill D. saying '...and each floor that collapses adds to the weight on thos below, resulting in EXACTLY the secnario we saw,' that's not at all what I saw. I saw buildings falling at FREE FALL SPEED, with no impedence from the floors below. The towers were PULVERIZED by SOMETHING as they fell. Even the 'pancake theory' is called a theory, and it doesn't hold water. Physicists have run the numbers on the speed at which such a collapse would have occurred, and none of them have come up with ten seconds. Floor hitting floor, Newtonian physics, over a minute for a collapse. Unless impediments were removed ahead of the fall. To me, that adds up to bombs. Or a new strain of super rust. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 08:21 PM (#2102061) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic We-e-ell just to get some exercise with my rhetorical oars in the water. Buy or check out from the library: "Why The Towers Fell" done by the good folks of Public Broadcasting on the series NOVA, which is mainly concerned with science and technology. They got hold of the people who designed the building, and in fact one of 'em just about breaks your heart, mild mannered architect and obviously having a personal sense of loss over the building and especially its occupants. Briefly, the building was of a unique design in order to afford large inner offices. Rather than evenly spaced vertical I-beams, it had an outer and an inner ring of specially designed vertical assemblies with long intervening trusses. They had fire coating on 'em. The design was made to theoretically withstand the largest jetliner of the time, which I believe was a 707, and no allowance was made for the double whammy of the wreckage removing the insulation around the vertical structure nor the large amount of loose fuel serving as an ignition source for a large amount of paper, wood, and combustibles, which is where the high temperature came from. Steel weakens at these temperatures. As for the free fall analogy, this has generated a huge amount of spurious talk. The buildings didn't collapse from the top, each collapsed from the point of impact where the steel was weakenend and could no longer support a large overburden of structure (The floors above the big gaping holes). The steel gave way, the top parts of the buildings came down like a pile driver on the remaining structure, and down it all came. As for precise points of impact, I'd like to know who has accurately timed it through all that smoke and pulverized mass of furniture, desk supplies, restaurant material, diner and office worker? I'm pretty sure the laws of physics were strictly observed. As a wise fella once told me, "Gravity never forgets." One of the construction experts who endorses everything that happened in the 'real world' was Osama Bin Laden, who has a background in the family business of construction, and was observed on a remarkable video tape a few months into the Afghanistan part of the war. Wonder if that thing is now on Youtube? Anyhow, got that off my chest, but I know it won't provide any reason for the tinfoil hat wearers to change their minds. On that matter, an MIT study has recently revealed that wearing tinfoil hats doesn't furnish that protection and even focuses some wave energy on the unhappy wearer. So check that out why don'tcha? As for Michael Moore, he's kind of a twisted partner of Rush Limbaugh. They are both competent street fighters of the airwaves, pot-stirrers, and adept to their media. Each occasionally makes sense, each has his own weird kind of charisma, each has a profound gift of being able to irritate large numbers of people, each is alomost as bright as he thinks he is, and each could stand to skip a meal. selah |
|
13 Jul 07 - 08:30 PM (#2102071) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Goodness sakes, Bill. ;-) No, I did not mean that napalm was used to bring down those buildings. (The printed word can so easily be misconstrued...) I was paraphrasing that line from "Apocalypse Now". When the lunatic air cavalry officer said, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...victory." I was thinking to myself that that is how certain a lot of people are of their opinions on something like whether or not someone in the government could have been involved in setting up the 911 attacks..." The sheer bliss of knowing that one is right, dead right, and that those who think otherwise are wrong, so wrong, and so foolish in their wrongness. The intoxicating arrogance of it all. Mmmm...boy. It must be great to be that sure. You can find that sort of thing on either side of this particular debate, just like with any other debate one could care to mention. Now just don't make the mistake of taking all my above musings on human frailty personally, Bill, and we'll be okay. I'm philosophizing about humanity in general, meaning, all of us. There isn't one of us here who has anything but his opinion, and opinions are conjectural in nature. Any one of us might be wrong, in other words. Maybe you. Maybe me. Maybe Spaw. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how good you are with words or how many people think you're right...you can still be wrong. I'm well aware I might be wrong in my theories about 911, but I still have an opinion, and I might as well express it. Same as you. "From false premises, anything follows"... Yeah, exactly. Like the Iraq war...launched upon false premises (about WMDs). What if the government's stated opinion that the airplane hits and resulting fires alone brought down buildings 1 and 2, and later building 7....is a false premise? If so, and you believe them, anything can follow. You don't know. You have an opinion. I don't know. I have an opinion. Same goes for everyone else here. I don't know of anyone here who is in the position to have anything BUT an opinion. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 09:42 PM (#2102106) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe Insanity can be defined as isnisting on a particular course of action/thought in spite of the 'facts'. But if someone who is ignorant of the 'facts' because they do not have the relevant engineering/physics/chemistry/whatever experience to be ABLE TO INTERPERET the 'facts', we do not call them insane, merely misguided, even if their resultant course of action/thought is identical... |
|
13 Jul 07 - 09:56 PM (#2102115) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie "There isn't one of us here who has anything but his opinion" Little Hawk Little Hawk, let me differ with that opinion of yours. Most of the people here are citing the knowledge of other people, people who actually know how physical things work. That is far different from citing 'what ifs'. In my opinion. :) |
|
13 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM (#2102117) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth "Physicists have run the numbers. . . ." And just who, Sweetie Pie, are these physicist, exactly? Name names. And some details on their qualifications would also be in order. I've seen those videos over and over again, and from several different angles, and robomatic is exaclty right. The collapse of both buildings started at the points of impact, with the tremendous weight of many floors above them. If they hadn't collapsed at the rate they did, that would have been most peculiar. Don Firth |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:01 PM (#2102118) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D Dear 'sweet'...as far as this: "...that's not at all what I saw. I saw buildings falling at FREE FALL SPEED, with no impedence from the floors below. The towers were PULVERIZED by SOMETHING as they fell. " You have some amazing gall to assume that your interpretation of what you think you 'saw' on some video tape pre-empts analysis by the designers of the building! Listen to the 'witness' of two cars banging together at an intersection as they try to tell investigators what they are SURE happened. They often can't remember the color, much less whether the light was red, which car was speeding, how many people were in it...and they certainly are NOT capable of evaluating the vector forces involved and the kinetic energy required to tirn one car over, while leaving the other upright...comparing videos to 'eyewitness' reports have shown this. I'm sorry, but YOU have no competence that *I* am aware of to say what the natural rate of fall of such a building under those physical stresses 'should' be! We KNOW how fast they fell...to the second....and after the first couple seconds, each additional floor added weight to the collapse. OF course it was fast! And the structural engineers were not suprised by it. Only those such as yourself who just 'know' better, or wish to believe they do, seriously entertain wild notions of perfectly timed explosives..(placed where?..by WHOM?...set off with WHAT?...from what vantage point?). Yeah, I am aware the government is playing fast & loose with honesty about why they started this crap in Iraq...but that in NO way shows, proves, demonstrates or indicates that they blew up 3-4 large buildings AND a side of the Pentagon AND crashed a 4th plane in PA. in order to set the stage for political excuses for military moves. You really have no case...you are simply emotionally committed to this line now, and you wouldn't back down if they rebuilt the towers and crashed 2 more planes to prove their analysis was correct! |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:28 PM (#2102132) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Yes, Ebbie, they are citing those whom they are already inclined to agree with. Which is my point. We can all find highly informed and qualified people whom we agree with about such contentious matters. People who sound very plausible. And we do. Those highly informed and qualified people do not necessarily all agree with each other. And they never will. That's what always happens around these kind of issues. Furthermore, informed and highly qualified people are sometimes bought, or otherwise persuaded to be spokesmen for this special interest group or that one. The inducements to do that can be considerable, depending on how powerful the backers of the interest group are. Have deceitful governments throughout history EVER failed to provide expert testimony which appears to support an official line? That is standard procedure. That is the game. The game is played not to achieve justice or freedom, it is played to win. So just pick the "qualified" person(s) whose opinion most nearly matches your own (which is what we ALL do), and you will then feel peachy keen, exonerated, and very secure in your opinion, right? ;-) That's what I see people doing. We all do it. People have been doing it since the first Pharoah, for heaven's sake, and probably long before that. ******** Bill, everyone here is emotionally committed to the line they are following. On the basis of their emotional committment they will give credence to one source of information and deny another, without so much as the blink of an eye. I just shrug and smile, cos I know there's not a damn thing I can do about it, and it wouldn't make any difference anyway. I talk here just because it's something to do, not for any other reason, really. It's a way of occupying the time. I might just as well be staining the deck or something. Matter of fact, I think I'll watch that movie I rented. See you somewhat later, when I check in again. |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:31 PM (#2102137) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet "...pre-empts analysis by the designers of the building! blah blah blah" Actually, I'm amazed at the gall of people trying to pre-empt the laws of Newtonian physics. Did Isaac Newton's laws just cease to be for a couple of ten-second periods on 9/11? The way the buildings fell is IMPOSSIBLE unless you factor in explosives. Everything did NOT change on 9/11. Newton's laws are still in effect. Video of tower beginning to fall: NARRATOR: "How do you explain THIS, Sir Isaac?" NEWTON: "I guess I was wrong." NARRATOR: "Do you know how many scientists have based their work on your so-called 'laws'? Do you know how many sporting rules and regulations will now have to be re-written because of the mistakes you made in the area of gravity alone?" NEWTON: "Well, I'm sorry. The 19 physicists with boxcutters were just smarter than I was." |
|
13 Jul 07 - 10:59 PM (#2102145) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D Little Hawk....every time there is a difference of opinion, you use a version of that "everyone is just being subjective in their own way" line... That is flatly not true. **Sometimes** it is a matter of one subjective opinion against another, but I assure you and 'sweet', that I did not watch all those videos and assume ANYTHING from them. I am not competent to look at moving images and figure out what they 'prove'. I read reports, compared them to videos, listen to theories, compared those theories TO videos and reports.....for months. THEN I decided what I seemed to be the 99.8732 sure answer. It was FAR from sunjective or emotional! If I saw ANY real evidence of OUR people causing all that....well...I live less than an hour from the White House. I am tempted to go down there anyway to yell about this fake 'war'....but there are folks more able than I telling about it/ sweet:"The way the buildings fell is IMPOSSIBLE unless you factor in explosives." pooh! you don't know that from just looking! Physics has not changed...but YOU can't measure its effects from a video. NO ONE has ANY evidence of explosives being put in those buildings...(3 buildings..WT7 also?)...or ANY real evidence of any being used...the logistics of that scenario boggles the mind more than the idea someone would TRY! You conspiracy nuts have attempted to cast doubt on every aspect of the entire 9/11 events..up to and including denying that planes were used at all, and that 3 planes full of people were somehow 'flown away and hidden'....until recordings of people ON the planes were played! crap...I'm tired. Believe what you want.... |
|
13 Jul 07 - 11:03 PM (#2102149) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe I think sooo sweet's words indicate that there is no point in letting this thread run longer. If he is not insane, I can't tell the practical difference... he is so sure that his totally untrained ignorant opinion is better than anyone else's that you can never win. He also displays the typical attributes of a self centered Narcissist - only his 'expert' opinion matters, and you can't change his mind. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:17 AM (#2102176) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Bill BobadaFirthaTroupe: "You're CRAZY, Newton." Newton: "Well, I was hit on the head with an apple, you know." |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:34 AM (#2102181) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC there were concrete slabs AND structural mambers connected to the outer perimeter! According to the report I posted a the link to, the only thing connecting the core to the concrete slabs, and therefor the outer perimeter were the 'angle clips' (brackets). The joists supporting the concrete slabs easily slipped right off the angle clips when the metal became distorted, allowing the floors to free fall independently of the core. That's their story. Not mine. And did I mention that even the NIST has rejected this theory? (Translation... this theory is not the official one the government is running with any more.) You are trying to validate a theory that even the "government experts" that people like you say you are so much more inclined to believe, no longer support. While the government is openly conspiring against its own citizens on the publlic record, this conspiracy nonsense goes on. What a waste of time. Well, you might think this view from LonesomeEJ is an enlightened one, Spaw, but I, personally think it's incredibly blinkered, as well as very unenlightened. The government is using this crime against humanity, that most of the evidence points to them as the perpetrators of, as it's excuse for openly conspiring against its own citizens. So the only really logical way to make them stop is to reveal this crime for what it is. To bring it out in the open so it can be dealt with using the rule of law. Bullying people who are trying to help this process along as you and LonesomeEJ are so fond of doing only helps the government continue to conspire against its own citizens more and with ever greater impunity. If you don't want to help any, how about just taking it easy and letting those of us who aren't afraid of making the effort take care of it. Have a coke, my friend... |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:42 AM (#2102186) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC robomatic, the theory you have presented us doesn't hold water for building 7 (the collapse of which isn't even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report), which didn't get hit by any planes. Can you explain that one? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:38 AM (#2102202) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic The engineer interviewed on the Nova show was Leslie Robertson, and I can still see the haunted look in his eyes as he talks about the destruction. The Nova site is still available: Why The Towers Fell There is a lot of information there about the innovations of the design. I remember the Towers going up, I had a close look at them from the air and simply thought they were ugly. I had no understanding of what went into them. CarolC: The Nova broadcast, which it turns out I still have on tape, did not go into the collapse of WTC 7. I can't speak to it other than repeat someone who said that the building sustained much damage in the collapse of its neighbors, WTC 1 & 2. S'posedly while a lot of photos from one side of the building shows it to be relatively unscathed, the side of the building I presume was facing the big collapses was structurally compromised and there are (supposedly) photos showing that side to be severely damaged. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 09:29 AM (#2102382) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet The government owns the media. Nova and PBS are government-funded bullshit. Of course the killers are going to put out PR saying someone else did it. Watch the Nova nonsense, then watch videos of the towers aerosolizing in 10 seconds. Then conclude that Isaac Newton was indeed insane and the jeenyuses at Nova know more than Newton. (do you actually WEAR blinders?) |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:54 AM (#2102418) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Do you really think, robomatic, that being severely damaged on one side can account for a perfect free fall speed demolition that we saw with building 7? If you can't apply the 'science' that the NOVA people are trying to use for the other two buildings, how can you possibly believe that it fell for any reason other than controlled demolition? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 11:05 AM (#2102423) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Do you really think that being severely damaged on one side can account for a perfect free fall speed demolition that we saw with building 7" Being damaged on one side, two sides or all four sides had nothing to do with the collapse. The building fell because of what was underneath. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 11:06 AM (#2102424) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC What was underneath, Ron? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:11 PM (#2102462) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko A Con Ed substation, basically a hollow core building with I-beams that were damaged by substantial fire. Buildings do not collapse like Lego models - they will fall straight down. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:19 PM (#2102471) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC How did 'substantial fire' get to the substation underneath building 7, Ron? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:21 PM (#2102473) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And can you provide us with any examples of other steel I-beam construction buildings that have fallen straight down as a result of fire as building 7 did (besides buildings 1 and 2)? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:25 PM (#2102478) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie One of the things I find so bemusing is that people here on Mudcat are seemingly convinced that they know things that the experts don't, that they are capable of better observation and analysis than engineers, and not only that, but they somehow are more knowledgeable as to human nature than anyone else. Question 1: Why? And don't tell me it was because of shadowy figures in the US intent on gaining world domination. People die. Question 2: IF explosives were placed and set off, how many people were involved? Question 3: Have all those people been murdered since? Or are all of them living as millionaires since? Or are they all being sequestered in witness protection programs since? Question 4: How did the plotters coordinate the actions of the terrorists and the planeloads of passengers? Ah. It's useless. Those of you who find it easier to believe that the US - or perhaps it was the Bilderberg group? Or Queen Elizabeth? Or King Juan Carlos? Or Hillary Rodham Clinton? Or Insert Name Here _____________- did this are not going to be rationalized out of that belief. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM (#2102482) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Question for you, Ebbie: How many people were required to remain silent, and for how many years, during the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? And what does the answer to this question tell us about human nature? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:03 PM (#2102512) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Tuskegee Syphylis Experiment, for those who are unfamiliar with it. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:04 PM (#2102514) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth My argument is not with Newton, Sweetie Pie. I'm calling your perceptions and judgment into question. (Not to mention your motives) And about those unnammed physicists you cite. Names, please. Don Firth |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:16 PM (#2102521) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Good point CarolC. Here's a good place for you to start, Bill BobadaFirthaTroupe. The best overall analyst I've come across on the subject of 9/11. David Ray Griffin: It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government. The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush's advice not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration's conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.... (A good analysis of the Building 7 inconsistencies is at this site): http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html Basically, the government never proved its case for how and why the attacks occurred, and they never demonstrated how the buildings fell. They generated phony numbers, warped the laws of physics and completely ignored little details like the fall of a 47-story skyscraper. And they used the phrase 'theory' over and over in their reports, while warning the public to beware of 'outrageous conspiracy theories.' The arrogance of that is incredible. The 'bipartisan' govt then swept the whole thing aside, which leads to a whole other problem of single-party fascist rule. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:17 PM (#2102522) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie Appalling as that 'experiment' and others like it were and are, Carol C, there is no comparison possible between it and the 9/11 attack. You must know that. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:41 PM (#2102543) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: MaineDog Making an airplane go where you want to is easy when the weather is good! Its just about easy as driving your car into your own garage. Think about it, the closer you get, the bigger the target becomes. A student pilot with 15-20 total hours is commonly turned loose for his first solo flight, and very few of them fail to return to the runway safely. Been there, done that. MD |
|
14 Jul 07 - 01:49 PM (#2102552) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I think it's a perfect comparison. Because the impulses and the rationales behind the behavior of those involved in both cases were exactly the same. And in the case of the Tuskegee experiment, the suffering of individual human beings was allowed to continue for decades and was witnessed by those perpetrating the crime. It doesn't get much more cold-hearted than that, to watch the suffering of another human being for years and years, knowing full well that it was possible to help alleviate his suffering, and knowing full well that that person was tricked into submitting to this horrendous treatment and would not have submitted to it had he been told the truth. And knowing full well that his wife and children could possibly suffer the same fate as a result of their silence and complicity. That's about as cold-hearted and savage as it is possible for a human being to get. Fewer people were harmed, but their suffering lasted a long, long time. If people can be cold-hearted, or misguided enough to participate in and remain silent about something like this (including a Surgeon General of the United States - and if he knew about it, more than likely, others at even higher levels of government knew and remained silent about it as well), it's equally possible that people could do the same in the case of an incident like 9/11. And the Tuskogee experiment is hardly the only example of this sort of thing. There are numerous examples of crimes being committed by our government against civilians that have been covered up and that have required the complicity and silence of numerous people over the years. The CIA's mind control experiments of the 1950s and 1960s is but one example. The fact is (and this is utterly provable) that faced with sufficient 'justification', or inducement, human beings can and do stoop to the lowest possible kinds of behavior towards their fellow human beings, even your fellow Americans, and members of your government, Ebbie. But I know it's much easier to believe that only people who are very different from us enlightened people in the West could possibly do something like this. Interesting that you say your knowledge of "human nature" prevents the possibility that people from this country could be responsible. I guess that means you don't think of those you believe are guilty as human beings? Or maybe you don't see the people who committed genocide in Rwanda as human beings? Or the Nazis, or the Communists, or any of the other multitude of people who have committed crimes against humanity? Only people in the US are human beings, and therefore governed by your idea of "human nature"? And what about the people who lynched Black people in the US south, or the people who owned and/or traded in slaves? How about the people who committed genocide on the indigenous people of what is now the US? Were they not human beings, Ebbie? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:02 PM (#2102562) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie "...they somehow are more knowledgeable as to human nature than anyone else." Ebbie "...But I know it's much easier to believe that only people who are very different from us enlightened people in the West could possibly do something like this. "Interesting that you say your knowledge of "human nature" prevents the possibility that people from this country could be responsible. I guess that means you don't think of those you believe are guilty as human beings? Or maybe you don't see the people who committed genocide in Rwanda as human beings? Or the Nazis, or the Communists, or any of the other multitude of people who have committed crimes against humanity? Only people in the US are human beings, and therefore governed by your idea of "human nature"? "And what about the people who lynched Black people in the US south, or the people who owned and/or traded in slaves? How about the people who committed genocide on the indigenous people of what is now the US? Were they not human beings, Ebbie? " Carol C Carol C, you are insane. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:10 PM (#2102572) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Ad hominem, Ebbie, with no valid evidence to back it up. It's easy to resort to that sort of tactic when your arguments have been show to contain no logic or substance. Much more difficult, I'd say, to actually argue my points on their merits. You're the one who is saying that your concept of human nature prevents you from believing that the US government and citizens of the US are capable of perpetrating an act like 9/11. You are the one who is saying that you know more about human nature than the rest of us. I am suggesting that you are very wrong about that. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:23 PM (#2102587) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie Suggest away, Carol C. I said nor implied nothing of the kind. You know, I used to respect you. I often didn't agree with you but I always read and thought about what you were saying. That is over. I now suspect that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:37 PM (#2102596) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Your opinion of me is not important to me, Ebbie, because I lost respect for you a long, long time ago. You are making your knowledge of human nature one of the lynchpins of your arguments on this subject. When you do that, you leave yourself wide open to have that aspect of your argumentation debated by others. If you don't want people to debate it, don't present it as an important part of your argument. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:47 PM (#2102607) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I should tell you that it's your tendency to make personal attacks on people in lieu of debate that caused my reassessment of my regard for you. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM (#2102610) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D you proclaim ad hominem at Ebbie, yet you use something like Tuskegee to bolster YOUR claims? "Well, sneaky people sometimes manage to hide their naughtiness, and since the 'true' villains, whom I'm sure must exist, of 9/11 haven't been caught, that proves they are hiding the truth!" They have been using that technique for years to claim the 100MPG carburetor is just 'being hidden' by the oil companies....proof? Well, we don't have it, so it is being hidden! Don't you see what the driving premise in your complex syllogism is? "...whom I'm sure must exist" ! IF you assume that this was an inside job, then you MUST have those other premises in order to reach your already determined conclusion!...and this already determined conclusion was chosen by ignoring or discounting experts like S. Shyam Sunder of NIST in favor of writers and self-proclaimed 'investigators! (read this entire article!) Once you apply a limited layman's knowledge of physics, building construction, metallurgy, and aircraft fuel to an already huge distrust of the bureaucracy, you arrive at a place where you MUST contrive even more arcane theories and conspiracies in order to support your flawed premises. Layer upon layer of "they" are posited to explain planning, planting explosives, orchestrating cover-ups, coordinating with Muslims, doctoring records, planning the invasion that this was all done to enable, and weaving lies even more complex than the conspiracy to hide the truth! The Tuskegee lies were minuscule by comparison! That took only hiding some records and swearing a few people to secrecy. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 04:16 PM (#2102669) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC How is bringing up Tusgegee ad homenem, Bill? Each individual who kept that secret was doing exactly the same thing as each individual who has kept secrets about US government involvement in 9/11. This is a valid argument, and is in no way an attack on Ebbie. Calling me insane, on the other hand, is a personal attack, and is in no way an argument on the issue. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 04:23 PM (#2102670) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And my opinions on this matter have been arrived at by reading witness testimonies, and by reading reports from civil engineers, aviation experts, pilots, military personnel (including some who were eye witnesses to events on 9/11), and other people who are equally qualified to make their accusations as any of the experts you have provided, Bill, and who have far less of a reason to have a secondary agenda. Even a large number of the people (experts and witnesses) who testified to the 9/11 commission are saying it was a whitewash and that the commission cherry picked among the things they testified about for inclusion in the report in order to promote a version of events that, while untrue, conforms to the story they want you to believe. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:03 PM (#2102693) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Carol - the fires were caused by the damage sustained. As for me showing evidence of a building collapse, perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to show us an example of a building falling sideways as you are suggesting? Tuskegee is a red herring. We all know that the government lies and has always, and will always, conduct nefarious projects in secret. As issue with the WTC is how they could have pulled it off on such a large scale. The involvement would have required thousands, and someone would have talked - as the whistle blower in Tuskegee did. Sure there are holes in the "official" report, but there are hundreds more in the conspiracy theories which cannot apply logic to prove their points. Gravity does not work the way you say. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:12 PM (#2102696) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Seems some folks want it two ways. 1) Buildings fall straight down all by themselves because physics says that's the way buildings fall. 2) People who make buildings fall (for a living) spend days ensuring that supporting beams/members are cut basically simultaneously so that the buildings DO fall straight down. So, which is it to be? If indeed they DO just fall straight doown, then these demolition people are wasting lots of explosives. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:19 PM (#2102701) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy The simple facts of temperatures:   1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel   ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame) Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower. Some thoughts from the www. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM (#2102703) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "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.)" |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:35 PM (#2102709) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Peace- I think the confusion is the word "sideways". The word a lot of people have used in these discussions is "topple" - as if the WTC would fall over like a tree. If you look at the photos, it did NOT fall exactly straight downward. You can see a portion of top lean toward the side as it comes down. It isn't having it both ways, it is having it the way it actually occured. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:37 PM (#2102711) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well, the heat theory--steel melted, etc.,--is certainly out to lunch. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM (#2102712) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: MaineDog Steel does not have to melt to become weak. one can easily bend a nail that is heated only to dull red. You can easily get the nail this hot with a simple air-propane torch, (Bernz-o-matic) (?) no oxygen or pressure needed. I heard a reporter in real time describing the fall of the second tower on my car radio. It was one of the most terrible experiences of in my memory. I don't beleive for a minute that it could have been faked. It agreed with the tv footage shown later. MD |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:04 PM (#2102729) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D I have posted 97 times....well, 3-4 anyway....that NO one is claiming steel melted! The guys who wrote the reports did not say steel melted. SOME steel was broken by impact of a jetliner...which also knocked off fireproofing. And the steel was **WEAKENED** by fire, and sagged, and was unable to support loads.....the load was many floors plus the roof ON those damaged supports. The one with the MOST load & damage fell first, even though it was hit last. and Carol...I did not SAY Tuskegee was ad hominem. I tried to say that your example was ALSO a logical fallacy..."red herring" is not the technical term, but it makes the point. I give up....it hit me as I was out chopping up some limbs for recycling and mumbling over this...I am fighting turtles all the way down... Y'all have fun.... |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:06 PM (#2102730) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace So, how did the turtles get in the towers, huh? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:22 PM (#2102735) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well, regardless the 'side' you take on this, it's plain that the study that was released was flawed. And equally evident that some white-washing went on. Americans are beginning to question the official story. That may have to be good enough for now. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:40 PM (#2102749) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Carol - the fires were caused by the damage sustained. How did the fires get into the basement, Ron? As for me showing evidence of a building collapse, perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to show us an example of a building falling sideways as you are suggesting? I'm not suggesting they fall sideways. I'm saying that steel I beam construction buildings don't fall due to fire. Prior to 9/11, not one ever has, nor have any since. Tuskegee is a red herring. It's not a red herring if someone is saying that human nature makes it impossible to believe that our government could have been complicit. We can see from numerous examples that human nature is capable of pretty much anything. We all know that the government lies and has always, and will always, conduct nefarious projects in secret. As issue with the WTC is how they could have pulled it off on such a large scale. The involvement would have required thousands, and someone would have talked - as the whistle blower in Tuskegee did. It took about 40 years for that person to blow the whistle, Ron. How many hundreds, or even thousands of people had to have been involved and keeping silent in those 40 years, including at least one very high level member of the federal administration at the time. I don't agree that thousands would have needed to know what was going on in order to be involved. Highly compartmentalized operations can be accomplished with relatively few people knowing what's really going on until after the fact. And then, afterwards, the people involved have a stake in keeping things a secret, because they, themselves, have become complicit, even though they may not have known what they were becoming involved in before hand. And we know for a fact that there are numerous people worldwide who make their living conducting black ops and other kinds of covert operations, many of which involve the loss of civilian life. We usually don't ever know what these people do, but sometimes we find out, but not necessarily because the people involved have come forward about what they were doing. And many, many people have come forward about 9/11, but you can see for yourself how much trouble they can get into for doing it. They are being threatened with all kinds of things for coming forward, by the government and by others. But they are still doing it. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:50 PM (#2102760) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC and Carol...I did not SAY Tuskegee was ad hominem. I tried to say that your example was ALSO a logical fallacy..."red herring" is not the technical term, but it makes the point. Logical fallacy is a completely different thing than ad hominem (personal attack). You feel I made a logical fallacy (I have shown you that I did not), but that is an altogether different thing than calling me insane. And that's what I was referring to when I said "Ad hominem, Ebbie". And it was perfectly reasonable for me to do so. There's no place for personal attacks in any kind of discussion on any subject. Personal attacks are not a substitute for debate. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 06:57 PM (#2102764) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D Informal fallacies- #1 generalization bad analogy ...ummmm (there are even better pages to illustrate fallacies) |
|
14 Jul 07 - 07:00 PM (#2102766) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D (I used to be able to catagorize fallacies more accurately--I am out of practice...it is not always obvious exactly which one is relevant, as there are often hidden assumptions involved.) |
|
14 Jul 07 - 07:44 PM (#2102788) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Bill, in order to arrive at the conclusion that my having brought up Tuskegee is a logical fallacy, you first needed to make assumptions about why I brought it up. You illustrated those assumptions in your post in which you described the nature of the point I was trying to make in having brought it up. You and your assumptions were wrong. (Is making assumptions about others' meanings and intentions any kind of logical fallacy, or is it just bad debating technique?) As I have said before, Ebbie has stated on more than one occasion that it is not possible for 9/11 to have been perpetrated by the US government because for them to have done so would violate her (Ebbie's) beliefs about human nature. It was not at all a logical fallacy for me to point out that human nature is capable of any sort of cold blooded and cruel behavior, and for me to provide an example of such behavior. Which is why I brought up Tuskegee. And personal attacks are more than just a logical fallacy. I choose to point them out using the term "ad hominem", but I could just as easily use the term "personal attack". They are not appropriate in any kind of discussion, and they are against the rules here in the Mudcat. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 08:20 PM (#2102804) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: MaineDog Deg F = (9/5) * Deg C + 32 if deg c = 800 , then Deg F = 1472 Plenty enough to soften steel. Please do not offend us with the cheap trick of confusing Farenhite and Centigrade to try to prove that your ridiculous agenda is factual. If you really want to know the truth, there never were any twin towers anyway, the whole thing is a fabrication. I know this because they were not there in 1968, the last time I was in NYC, and everyone says that they are not there now. Those wierd shapes I saw from the Throgs Neck bridge in 1999 were obviously mirages. My reality is more true than your reality because my beard is longer than yours. QED. MD |
|
14 Jul 07 - 08:28 PM (#2102810) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace And if the steel had been melted or softened equally in all directions you'd have a case. As it is, you don't. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 08:39 PM (#2102813) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Melting Point [of construction steel]: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F) ************************************************************ FEMA itself said that temperatures inside the WTC towers reached 1700-2000 degrees Fahrenheit ************************************************************ But we need to return to the laws of physics once again, for after each airliner crashed into the WTC towers, the great explosions consumed most of the jet fuel within minutes. In a report entitled Jet Fuel: How Hot Did It Heat the World Trade Center that was posted on Hawaii Indymedia, we find this scientific observation: "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by the fire in less than five minutes." Of course, other items were also burning, including the cabinets, carpets, walls, paper, and furniture inside the WTC towers. But even then, if all of these items burned with perfect efficiency, the temperature could still not reach that needed to melt steel. Try it sometime. Plus, after the initial blaze, we could see on TV that by 9:03 am – only eighteen minutes after the first tower was struck – most of the fire was reduced to black smoke, thus meaning that it was starved for oxygen and was by now just a smoldering, low-temperature fire – not a continual rip-roaring blaze. What this obviously implies is that liquid fuel doesn't burn hot for long, and it evaporates or boils as it burns. So, two huge questions remain: (1) what actually made this construction-grade steel melt when it obviously wasn't jet fuel, and (2) how could the South Tower collapse in just 47 minutes – half the time it took for the North Tower to come down – when it had a much smaller fire? Maybe the 9-11 Commission should start finding answers for these questions. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 08:40 PM (#2102816) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace All the above is from here and there on the www. But since it don't matter shit to anyone, I didn't bother quoting sources. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM (#2102836) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D (1) it wasn't "construction grade steel" It was a special 'box' girder, thinner than the usual 'steel' I-beams in many buildings. (1b) it didn't 'melt'..it distorted and buckled and sagged. (2) the south tower was hit lower, and at an angle, compromising more floors and having more weight above it. Here, against my usual practice for C&P, are the relevant passages. "The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. " (*but pretty durned hot...briefly*) ---------------- "Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." "It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire." *so....WHY did it fail? ...read on...Note: much of these 'box column' structure was **DAMAGED**....a simple fire, by itself would not have caused collapse....nor would a plane strike with NO fire. "The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire." |
|
14 Jul 07 - 09:44 PM (#2102848) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie "As I have said before, Ebbie has stated on more than one occasion that it is not possible for 9/11 to have been perpetrated by the US government because for them to have done so would violate her (Ebbie's) beliefs about human nature." Huh? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 09:57 PM (#2102860) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "The World Trade Center steel was thought to be some of the heaviest, thickest steel ever used in construction. Its outer skeleton comprised of steel beams up to two feet thick. " From a BBC site. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM (#2102862) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D The BBC is confused... maybe some structures were 2ft. square...but they would have been hollow. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:02 PM (#2102863) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D (The design was especially contrived to NOT need super-heavy steel, so they could build that high with minimum weight...it was vaguely similar to a honeycomb structure) |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:11 PM (#2102867) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Right you are, Bill. I was just reading that on a site where the guy who designed the towers talked about them and what he thought caused the collapse. It was as you said. Which brings me back to the beginning of the circle. Why have so many questions gone unanswered? |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:21 PM (#2102879) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D I 'think' that most relevant questions have been answered on certain sites. When there are doubts, no one can possibly answer all the questions posed by those who are dead-set to doubt. I can't speak for, of course, those who have simply refused to keep repeating the answers over & over, and who keep getting asked new questions the grow from new hypotheticals. ....Plus, there are things which can't BE answered about the exact flow of jet fuel and the exact distribution of debris that hit surrounding buildings...etc. One can invent an infinite # of questions...but there needs to be 'some' criteria of what questions are truly relevant and not already covered. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM (#2102904) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Be sure to wear orange on July 23rd. Peter |
|
14 Jul 07 - 10:53 PM (#2102909) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Right . . . . |
|
15 Jul 07 - 12:12 AM (#2102949) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet So, why don't the burners on my stovetop buckle and sag and collapse? Steel. 47 of the biggest steel core columns on the planet in each tower. Steel support columns around the outsides of the towers. the buildings designed to absorb impact like a pencil going through a screen...weight-bearing just shifts to other supports. And steel, steel, steel. But say the towers were made of popsicle sticks. How could they have fallen in 10 seconds? One floor falls onto another and encounters resistance, same with the next, the next, etc. Even with popsicle sticks as construction material, it is physically impossible for the collapses to have happened in 10 seconds. Physically impossible. Unless you factor in explosives clearing the way ahead of the collapse area. Blow the floor beneath so no resistance is encountered, and free fall speed can be achieved. That is the only way. You don't need Isaac Newton to remind you of this, you just need to watch the 10-second collapse as concrete and steel is aerosolized, and multi-ton beams are thrown UPWARDS and out hundreds of yards. Again, someone tell me why the burners on my stove don't collapse. The 9/11 Truth movement is about to get a HUGE shot in the arm when Cindy Sheehan squares off against Bush's partner-in-crime Nancy Pelosi. I think I've handed out over a thousand tapes and discs about 9/11 now. My favorite lately is to leave them wherever I find Selective Service material. Post offices have little holders full of brochures, so I put my discs in those. "Free Video." 8 hours of 9/11 Truth videos. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM (#2102968) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic so sweet writted: The government owns the media. No It doesn't Nova and PBS are government-funded bullshit. No they are not Of course the killers are going to put out PR saying someone else did it. Watch the Nova nonsense, then watch videos of the towers aerosolizing in 10 seconds. Then conclude that Isaac Newton was indeed insane and the jeenyuses at Nova know more than Newton. (do you actually WEAR blinders?) No I don't wear blinders. I do actually try to use reason, knowledge and evidence to arrive at conclusions. Try it sometime. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 12:51 AM (#2102975) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic CarolC you wrote: Do you really think, robomatic, that being severely damaged on one side can account for a perfect free fall speed demolition that we saw with building 7? If you can't apply the 'science' that the NOVA people are trying to use for the other two buildings, how can you possibly believe that it fell for any reason other than controlled demolition? CarolC: I think you are misinterpreting my last message. I think one can apply the laws of physics to the motions of all the participants in the events of 911. I find the Nova article and their website to be perfectly clear and convincing. The fact that I don't know anything about WTC7 is an example of the limits of my knowledge, which doesn't imply that it can't be explained by the NIST in some other venue. I simply haven't studied the matter. so sweet is utterly unconvincing. Unless you can put together some assemblage of facts indicating the towers fell by something other than the NIST conclusion, I don't find this thread going anywhere. One interesting side note which I'm pretty sure I've mentioned earlier. In the Summer of '01 the writer/ producer behind "X-Files" aired the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where one of the heroes finds himself on an airliner being remote flown into the World Trade Center! |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:31 AM (#2102994) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Thank you mr robomatic. Now could you please use your reason to tell me why my stove burners don't melt? Bertrand Russel said, "Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." This is happening. You zomboids are the result of brainwashing programs. Turn off your TVs. Watch the Zapruder film without the narrator telling you the shot to the forehead was Oswald's final bullet hitting from the rear. Watch the towers blow up and collapse in an impossible ten seconds without the narrator telling you "the fires did their work." |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:32 AM (#2102995) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The words of one of the whistle blowers, Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (until they fired him for being a whistle blower)... By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed. After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months. Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety. For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives. My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there. Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them. Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26 Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism. http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:32 AM (#2102996) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "why don't the burners on my stovetop buckle and sag and collapse?" They do - I have replaced them on my mothers 30 year old stove. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:47 AM (#2103001) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I see now that I remembered incorrectly about what Ebbie said. This is what she said in a previous thread, and I guess her point in bringing up human nature in this thread is the same... As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know. Nevertheless, the Tuskegee experiment example is still perfectly appropriate, since 40 years of being silent would involve a lot of people (including high level members of the government). If it were not in the nature of the beast Ebbie knows for large numbers of people to remain silent, it wouldn't have taken 40 years for the first whistle blower to blow the whistle on Tuskegee. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:59 AM (#2103005) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC A little bit more from Kevin Ryan (same webpage as my previous link)... In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15 |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:13 AM (#2103011) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe If you look up some very old 'Private Eye' you will foind reprints of newspaper accoutns of full scale buildings built in that era in that style where the wall supports were moved by pressure impacts and the floors pancaked. There was a lot of fuss and in future buildings teh walls and floors had to be tied together strongly. 'Models' do not always behave the same way as full scale - all engineers are taught that, and also the many reasons why, Since you claim to know all that stuff better than us, you can easily tell us all now... |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:17 AM (#2103013) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe 200! |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:26 AM (#2103017) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Were those buildings steel I beam construction, foolestroup? After the physical tests didn't produce the desired result, they used the computer model, which also didn't produce the desired result until they changed the parameters beyond anything that would have been considered realistic under the circumstances, and then, and only then, did the computer model result resemble the conclusion they had already reached prior to any testing having been done. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:56 AM (#2103024) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "used the computer model, which also didn't produce the desired result until they changed the parameters beyond anything that would have been considered realistic under the circumstances" Competent engineers know that "scale models often don't" For instance aircraft nodel enthusiasts know that scale models of full size planes often won't fly. They need serious modification (not to scale) to make then fly and cbe ontrolable in the air. Would those who claim to know better than us experienced 'naysayers' please explain why? :-P |
|
15 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM (#2103224) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Scale computer model, Foolestroupe? Where did the article saying anything about 'scale' in reference to the computer model? If you people put half the level of scrutiny into the 'official' whitewash as you pretend to put into the whistle blowers' accounts, the 'War on Terror' would be over by now. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 12:57 PM (#2103381) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet So stove burners have to be replaced every 30 years? Or every couple of years? How many years did the towers burn? As far as Ebbie, CarolC, I've found her intransigence to be a good thing. For whatever reason, she refuses to publicly acknowledge the obvious. And that's good. She is the howling wind that the shouted truth needs to overcome. I think she poses as a hardhead just to stimulate debate. She gives people a chance to state and restate the obvious fact that 19 men with boxcutters didn't go from Cessna classes to trick flying of passenger jets, get NORAD and the FAA to drop the ball over and over for an hour and a half, then get congress to cover up the whole affair with a whitewash. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 12:58 PM (#2103384) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic CarolC: I took a look at the website you are drawing your information from. It looks polished and intelligently set up. The main quesion to me is whether Mr. Ryan is as he presents himself and whether what he says is true is true. He is contradicting information of UL and NIST and therefore the question comes up as to who or whom to believe. He presents himself as a 'whistleblower' and maintains that got him fired. I am unclear on that. I don't necessarily believe that simply because an organization with a bunch of capital letters, UL or NIST, comes out with a polished representation of the truth that that IS the truth, but I admit it is commonly how most of us arrive at our opinions when 'the authorities' explain 'em to us. And I (think I) know better than to believe authorites simply because they are authorites and even when they are well intentioned. So I appreciate your link to Mr. Ryan and it helps me understand where you are getting your doubtful inclinations from. There is no objective reason for you to believe me over Mr. Ryan. However, I think you need to find some alternate grounds to choose between Mr. Ryan and NIST. I have had experience with honest to God protected by the courts whistle blowers (long story). Being protected by the courts, they actually maintained their positions within the companies they blew the whistle on. Other whistle blowers left their positions and satisfied themselves with working on the outside looking in and howling wildly. It's not terribly efficient, but it's the price we pay for allowing everybody to have an opinion, and occasionally positive things come out of it. In the case I'm personally familiar with there were no great revelations of turn-the-tables misconduct, what was revealed was a great deal of benign neglect. As often happens, the big upward career moves were made by the non-involved. Getting back to WTC, the Nova show that I saw, and that is referenced in Mr. Ryan's article, was pretty convincing. The big disjunction between what it presented and what Mr. Ryan maintains is that he says there was no evidence that any of the insulation was blown off the structural metal or that any of the metal was heated beyond 500 deg F. I think there should be evidence that proves one side or the other to be wrong. From my own unrelated observations I've seen the results of trailer fires which only serves to supplement my belief that there is a lot of combustible stuff in a metal framework which can get very hot very quickly. Mr. Ryan's web site claims that all the metal was recycled. The Nova program showed experts going through piles of WTC wreckage to find and mark and recover for analysis structural metal from the collision area. Obviously the great majority of wreckage would not be necessary to hang onto, and I'm sure most of it was recycled or used as landfill. There is a website with the NIST story of what happened with WTC7 but I'm sure you can easily find it if you want to. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:07 PM (#2103399) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Ebbie is a gem. Period. Congress didn't cover up 9/11. They got the same snowjob the rest of us got. Also, the buildings fell in 6 and 6.5 seconds respectively--if what I read on a site is so. The question that needs asking is why there seemed to be squib charges that blew as the buildings were falling. Various videos show puffs of 'smoke' when the towers were coming down. Much about 9/11 has been (IMO) clouded in secrecy. Why were the building re-insured shortly before the planes hit? Where was the friggin' wreckage on the lawn at the Pentagon? Why has so little been heard about or from the families of the people who died in the crashes? Yelling at people doesn't change anything. Despite that I agree with much of what you say, your remarks about Ebbie really piss me off, sooo sweet. She is one of the nicest people to post on Mudcat. Considered in what she says, open and honest. Please stick to the subject--9/11. That there was and is a coverup has been something I've held to for years now. It's not a new thing to me. I've been told I waer a tinfoil hat and had the odd asshole post about aliens, etc. So fuckin' what? Let it go, OK, and please be polite to my friend. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:10 PM (#2103403) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace And to show you waht kind of person she is, I expect if she reads this she'll message me and tell me politely to clean up my language. And of course I'll say, "Yes ma'am." |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:44 PM (#2103443) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet And that's why Canada remains a dominion. Meanwhile, we're trying to figure out how the laws of Newtonian physics were suspended on 9/11. Foolstroupe has offered an interesting new theory. He says the towers actually burned for years before falling. And somewhere back there beardedbruce said the towers fell from rust. I think we're getting somewhere at last. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 01:53 PM (#2103457) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Good line. LOL. Part of the problem is that there are sites that offer 'evidence' that just isn't very good. Problem we run into is (and has been) that sites offer speculation as proof and we do on occasion look like idiots. (Well, many people, but not you or me!) Are you aware of sites that are class acts? For and/or against our position? Serious question there, sooo sweet. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:04 PM (#2103469) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic Okay here's some more alternatives: Someone up on that restaurant at Elevation 101 sneezed real hard at just the right place. Reason the other one came down - sympathetic reverberations (and a second bloody 767). Tuning fork effect. Whenever two tall towers are placed next to each other over a common foundation, they vibrate at a fundamental frequency. At some point this results in catastrophic weakness at nodal points. Given the slightest provocation, someon falling over, a dropped pen, a dropped call, a 767 flying into the side of the building, a collapse will ensue. It's a little discussed fact, but there are quantum effects registerecd on objects when they are looked at. While the quantum effects are not cumulative, the effect of staring at something and drawing a focus on it have reciprocal effects. So it wasn't really the 767 jet airplanes flying into the WTC towers which brought them down, but the act of all of the people looking, staring, photographing, tuning in on, them that broke the camel's back. We ourselves brought down the World Trade Center. When the bloody great 767's hit the buildings, a lot of people were rendered extremely nervous and before they hit the stairwells, many o them went to the bathroom. The water pressure rose and fell precipitously with thousands of synchronous flushes and many pipes were brought to the bursting point, critically weakening them and putting the added burden on the steel structure, which would otherwise have withstood the crash of the 767s and fire following. Monster almost invisible ants, the result of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Aided by the impact of two heavy fuel laden Boeing 767 jet aircraft). Higher than normal gravity waves (they were temporary, too). Gravity follows large aircraft as they cross the sky overhead, or, in this case, fly into high rise buildings. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:07 PM (#2103473) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Do you know how one might check out Mr. Ryan's background, robomatic? |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:08 PM (#2103475) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:11 PM (#2103477) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Ya see, there goes Robomatic, an otherwise intelligent, erudite, friendly and perspicacious fellow with whom I have had a good on-line friendship for years. He adroitly avoids the questions about 9/11 and writes the answers instead. Yet, when the smoke settles, he and I will still be friends. Besides, he's living in 23 hours of daylight about now, so I will send him the tinfoil for his windows that I don't need for my hat. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:12 PM (#2103478) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I think you need to find some alternate grounds to choose between Mr. Ryan and NIST. Mr. Ryan is hardly my only source, robomatic. There are literally hundreds of people who, like him, are blowing the whistle. Many of them have backgrounds that are very easy to verify. I presented Mr. Ryan as only one example. I can provide more of them here. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:13 PM (#2103479) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: cookster Hey Peace, why don't ya check your messages? |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:14 PM (#2103482) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: cookster Disregard what I just said. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:26 PM (#2103494) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The Nova program showed experts going through piles of WTC wreckage to find and mark and recover for analysis structural metal from the collision area. So where is this material, and why aren't we being shown the results of the analyses? Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to put all of this speculation to rest simply by providing the material to several different independent testing agencies and publish the results publicly. Or even better, make the material available to anyone who wants to study and test it, and subject any results that are published to peer review. Just like we do for any other kind of science. And while we're at it, it wouldn't be too difficult for the government to release the video footage of the Pentagon that was taken by the security cameras of the hotel across the road (which was confiscated by the FBI), so people can see for themselves that what crashed into the Pentagon was what the official whitewash says it was. And although your experience has been that sometimes whistle blowers don't get fired, I don't think you could possibly be suggesting that they never do. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2103498) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth As far as the "squibs" or explosions further down in the buildings as they were collapsing, I believe I have already covered that further up the thread. HERE. Don Firth |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:43 PM (#2103499) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D wreckage at the Pentagon Google search- Pentagon + wreckage |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:47 PM (#2103502) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq So, why don't the burners on my stovetop buckle and sag and collapse? There is an almost infinite combination of iron and other elements that can properly be called steel. People learned a long time ago the carbon will make iron stronger. That combination is called steel. More recent metallurgists have added chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, silicon, sulfur, tungsten, vanadium, and probably others . Each combination has different characteristics of hardness, flexibility, heat resistance, corrosion resistance, etc. The alloy used to make a stove grill is too hard and brittle to make large steel buildings. Buildings require girders to flex in response to wind (and possibly earthquakes). The steel used in the Trade Towers was perfect for the job, under normal circumstances. Due to the extreme heat from the burning jet fuel and other combustible materials, the steel beams in the Trade Towers lost strength, and, when sufficiently weakened, were unable to carry the load they were given. The buildings collapsed. It is simple physics. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM (#2103503) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic Carol: Answer to question as to how to check for Mr. Ryan's bonafides, I don't know. Peace: I'm somewhat surprised that you harbor doubts as to the 'ficial 'splanation of WTC coming down, but like you say, we'll still be on-line buds. You and CarolC are entitled to your doubts. I am pretty much convinced by the footage of the event itself. Planes hit, started fire, building collapsed from the top down. I understand how explaining it minute by minute can get technical, but it's much easier to throw stones (figuratively speaking) than to stick to hard events. I always thought it was harder to explain why the towers didn't fall the first time they were bombed from the underground. People just found that easier to accept, and we didn't have a huge contagion of internet kibbitzers back then in the early 90's. Carol you wrote, first quoting me and then posing your own question/challenges: "The Nova program showed experts going through piles of WTC wreckage to find and mark and recover for analysis structural metal from the collision area." So where is this material, and why aren't we being shown the results of the analyses? Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to put all of this speculation to rest simply by providing the material to several different independent testing agencies and publish the results publicly. Or even better, make the material available to anyone who wants to study and test it, and subject any results that are published to peer review. Just like we do for any other kind of science. I don't know. If it were a murder victim, there would be a pathology/ coroner report, and the body would be buried. There is probably an analogy to how evidenciary material is treated here. There should also be lots of photographs and notes. Whether they are public property or not is a good question to ask. Maybe one could obtain what you wish via FOIA. And while we're at it, it wouldn't be too difficult for the government to release the video footage of the Pentagon that was taken by the security cameras of the hotel across the road (which was confiscated by the FBI), so people can see for themselves that what crashed into the Pentagon was what the official whitewash says it was. I'm told there was plenty of debris immediately after the impact. Since the Pentagon is a governmental/ security resource, if I were in charge of things, I would not release any information including camera footage. I would understand that the doubter/ provocateurs would not be satisfied and I would deny would-be terrorists the opportunity to learn anything from the footage. And although your experience has been that sometimes whistle blowers don't get fired, I don't think you could possibly be suggesting that they never do. I not only could not possibly be suggesting, it, I am not suggesting it. I am noting that honest to god whistleblowers have legal rights which can be enforced and I've been witness to the fact. There are also plenty of storytellers and professional prevaricators, and hopefully they can be separeated from the true reporters. |
|
15 Jul 07 - 03:17 PM (#2103516) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic sorry about mis-spelling 'separated' in that last line. twas a typo |
|
15 Jul 07 - 10:35 PM (#2103811) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC If it was really the plane they said it was that hit the Pentagon, Bill, there shouldn't be any problem with releasing the video footage that was taken by the security cameras at the hotel across the street from the Pentagon, and which were confiscated by the FBI, so everyone can see for themself. This would end the speculation. On the other hand, there are also eyewitnesses who say when they got to the crash site immediately following the 'crash', they could not see any sign of an airplane having crashed into the building. From this site... http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). * Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." |
|
15 Jul 07 - 11:00 PM (#2103831) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I don't know. If it were a murder victim, there would be a pathology/ coroner report, and the body would be buried. There is probably an analogy to how evidenciary material is treated here. No, a human body has to be disposed of for obvious reasons. Non-flesh and blood evidence of a crime is supposed to be kept (and even some flesh and blood evidence is kept, for that matter). The debris from aviation disasters is kept for a long time so that disaster and aviation experts can examine it carefully to try to learn what caused the accident. If there are lots of photographs and notes, the government could quite easily end all of the speculation about what really happened by releasing it to the public. Or at the very least, allowing independent researchers to examine it. I'm told there was plenty of debris immediately after the impact. Some people say this. But there are eyewitnesses who say otherwise. See my previous post. I am noting that honest to god whistleblowers have legal rights which can be enforced and I've been witness to the fact. Yes. Mr. Ryan has filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination. This is what he says in the website about it... By all accounts, the unprecedented events of September 11th, 2001 "changed everything". It is therefore critical that conscientious Americans, as well as all good people around the world, understand these events in detail. Unfortunately the official reports, including The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST WTC Report, written by those working under the direction of the Bush Administration, fall far short of providing the explanations needed. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and my former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), seem to have taken the stance that the public does not have a right to know what fire resistance tests were performed on the steel component assemblies used to build the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. But since NIST's latest story for collapse of the WTC towers depends on the fire-induced failure of these steel components, there is little information that could be more important at this time. When I worked there, top management at UL made clear to me that UL performed these required tests. They have since stated that there is "no evidence" that any firm tested the steel. Being tax-exempt, due to their status as a public safety-testing organization, UL should be held accountable for being honest and open with the public about the history of their testing. To help ensure this accountability, I've filed a lawsuit against UL for wrongful termination. My attorneys and I hope to gain more information about UL's role in the testing of the WTC steel assemblies, and any other involvement UL has had with the WTC towers or the NIST investigation. Since this lawsuit represents a critical need for information about public safety, we invite the public to contribute to our legal defense fund. Thanks for your help. Kevin Ryan http://ultruth.com/ |
|
15 Jul 07 - 11:50 PM (#2103854) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:02 AM (#2103856) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Some interesting observations on Youtube. Worth watching. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:02 AM (#2103859) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet I don't know about that steel analysis on the stove burners. Fooltroupe's mother's stove is 30 years old and the WTC towers were 40 years old, and who knows WHAT kind of innovations were made in the ten years between the creation of the towers and the creation of the stove burners. I'll need to see some numbers on that one. And if the steel in the towers was made to withstand trauma, why didn't it? The negligible swaying caused by the plane impacts stopped within 20 minutes, I read somewhere, so motion didn't contribute to the collapses, which means the "raging infernos" inside the buildings caused the collapses. But those infernos were in the areas where people were walking around. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html If a fire is NOT hot enough to burn up a person, how can it be hot enough to melt steel? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:16 AM (#2103886) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "Scale computer model, Foolestroupe? Where did the article saying anything about 'scale' in reference to the computer model?" If computer models are so good, why can't they forecast the weather better? They have some of the largest computers in the world working on that... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:24 AM (#2103892) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe I'm talking about the electric burners "hotplates" that died, not a 'grille', |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:26 AM (#2103893) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC More eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, from this site... http://911courage.org/linked_docs/pentagon.pdf -Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995−present), the Navy's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This research, as all of Honegger's research and publications on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White HousePolicy Analyst (1981−83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989; and Iran−Contra expose documentary film "Cover−Up"); and was called as a researcher / witness at both the October 23, 2004, and August 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005.- Converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before the Official Story says anything hit the building: Multiple standard−issue, battery−operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11−including one in the heliport just outside the west face−were stopped between 9:31 and 9:32−1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a "booby trapped truck." The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks is in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2 These are just some of the west section Pentagon clocks that stopped between 9:31 and 9:32−1/2 on September 11. April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed, when what she said sounded and felt "like a bomb" went off. "Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel." Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30. The FAA's [Federal Aviation Administration] timeline document "Executive Summary−Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis−−September 11, 2001" reads: "0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon."3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause. Denmark's soon−to−be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4 On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave the Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in which Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that "The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32". A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record... ...In the Air Force's own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This fighter jet−not Flight 77−is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller's screen making a steep, high−speed 270−degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots−like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to reporton the Pentagon's damage−are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270−degree maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was. Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for "Flight 77" impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am−the actual time of the first explosions there−is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold's surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was "Flight 77." As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold's surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:28 AM (#2103896) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC If computer models are so good, why can't they forecast the weather better? They have some of the largest computers in the world working on that... If computer models are unreliable, why are you willing to accept the NIST version of events based on their (highly tweaked) computer model? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:31 AM (#2103898) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "If computer models are unreliable, why are you willing to accept the NIST version of events based on their (highly tweaked) computer model?" Who said I was? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:33 AM (#2103900) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold's surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact." Prior to the alleged airplane - there was a military helicopter that took off in front of the camera, then a loud explosion and smoke - then a military man came on and said it had gone down. You only saw this here live in Australia... never heard of it again... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:35 AM (#2103901) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Who said I was? Well, do you accept it or not? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:48 AM (#2103904) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "Well, do you accept it or not?" I'm an experienced Computer Systems person. Show me the code. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:33 AM (#2103922) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Jim Lad Gas Burners are made of alloys & cast iron. They are beneath the flame and in fact do not even come into contact with the flame. The hottest part of the flame is up around the tip of the blue part. The burner just never gets hot enough to melt even when the skillet is over top. However, were you to force some air into the burners, you'd have a different story. Electric burners probably would melt if it wasn't for thermostats and fuses. Again, they don't get hot enough. The twin towers lost their integrity when the planes flew into them. The flames were fed by jet fuel and fanned by updraughts in much the same way as your wood stove is when the door/damper is left partially open. I'm sure that the climate control system in each of these buildings, which alters the air pressure within, played some part but have not heard anything on this. Steel softens when intense heat is applied. That's why the blacksmith uses a blast furnace rather than a garden hose. Not rocket science by any means. It would have been a miracle if either building had remained standing. As for conspiracies... From what I've seen in the past couple of weeks, I would have no problem accepting that your government knew of a plot but not the specifics. Given their proven disregard for human life, I would accept that they would allow an act of terror as an excuse to raid Afghanistan, Iraq and whoever is next on the list. I cannot imagine for one second though that they would have allowed 911, had they known the magnitude of the event. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:50 AM (#2103956) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic Yeah, I watched the Youtube, looked at the written stuff, it doesn't really add up to much. We've got four downed airliners, WTC impacts on tape, and some convincing explanations. The part about the falling towers displays the naysayers lack of understanding about physics and energy, that's all. I'm inclined to follow up on the Ryan fellow, see if he's legit. The rest of 'em are pretty meager for logic or convincingness. And of course, we have a tape of Osama being honored and taking credit for it, or have y'all forgotten that (I mentioned it above, but I guess people want to believe what they want to believe). |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:41 AM (#2104192) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Yeah. And only days after the 9/11 events the entire bin Laden family was allowed to leave the USA and return home--without being questioned. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:42 AM (#2104193) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Yeah, I watched the Youtube, looked at the written stuff, it doesn't really add up to much. We've got four downed airliners, WTC impacts on tape, and some convincing explanations. The part about the falling towers displays the naysayers lack of understanding about physics and energy, that's all. Is this in reference to anything I've posted? Because I can't see what, of the things I've posted, it might be in reference to. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:50 AM (#2104201) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The rest of 'em are pretty meager for logic or convincingness. LOL The logic you and others appear to be using is that anyone who challenges the official whitewash must, by definition, not be credible, and so whatever they say must also not be credible, regardless of what they say, or how true it is. I know that's a logical fallacy of some kind. The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon simply reported what they saw, heard, and smelled. This doesn't require logic, and they witnessed what they witnessed. If you choose to not believe them, I suggest it's because of the logical fallacy I described above. And of course, we have a tape of Osama being honored and taking credit for it We have a tape of somone posing as Osama taking credit for it. But a lot of experts on bin Laden say it's not him. Immediately after the attack, bin Laden denied having had anything to do with the attack. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM (#2104214) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "somewhere back there beardedbruce said the towers fell from rust" Nowhere did I say that . If this is an example of your conprehension of the written word, please go away. I DID explain about oxidation, but I have NEVER made the claim that the towers fell from rust. I believe, from the evidence availible to me , that they fell from the damage caused by the aircraft collisions and the subsequent fires, both fueled by jet fuel and by the flammabel materials in the buildings. As I was not actually in the building at the time it fell, I do NOT claim to KNOW what "MUST" have happened. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:09 AM (#2104216) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D " "Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel." and she WAS familar with the sound of planes hitting buildings so she could compare? There WERE plane parts inside the building...and outside...I just posted links to pics of them. What kind of evidence do you need? Do you really think the first responders carried fake twisted metal in to further the conspiracy? All the counter evidence noted is of people who 'think they didn't see, smell or hear' anything like a plane....and you DISCOUNT the eyewitness reports of all those who did? And you have NO credible notion of where that missing plane was, if not in small chunks around the Pentagon? Go LOOK at those images....................... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM (#2104226) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "The logic you and others appear to be using is that anyone who challenges the official whitewash must, by definition, not be credible, and so whatever they say must also not be credible, regardless of what they say, or how true it is. I know that's a logical fallacy of some kind." LOL So you choose to read and accept the "witnesses" that you feel are credible, and it is okay to dismiss others as part of an "official whitewash". How conveninent that is! The problem is NONE of us are experts in this. I have no experience with building demolition, and neither does Carol. We each choose to read and accept what we are predisposed to believe. Victims of propaganda. What NO ONE has come up with is a convincing motive. Every crime has a motive, and there have been no LOGICAL motives. Sure, the idea that a crime of this sort would justify a war is one THEORY, but the complex plan - and the potential for a HUGE backfire would have negated this operation in any portion of the planning stage. The outcome would have been the same if a plane simply crashed the building - our emotions wanted revenge. No one benefited by the buildings collapsing, regardless of the urban legends that try to say people gained financially. There is no proof of that. The biggest problem is - this red herring tears our attention away from the true facts - we have a moron in the White House, our "defense" was terrible, we botched any chance to prevent this - and we are in just as bad a position today. The real criminals are allowed to get away while our attention is diverted. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:24 AM (#2104230) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The fire is, IMO, very much a red herring. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:25 AM (#2104232) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC and she WAS familar with the sound of planes hitting buildings so she could compare? She doesn't need to have experienced a plane hitting a building to know the difference between the smell of kordite and the smell of jet fuel. There WERE plane parts inside the building...and outside...I just posted links to pics of them. What kind of evidence do you need? Do you really think the first responders carried fake twisted metal in to further the conspiracy? Something may have hit the building after the initial blast. Most of the evidence seems to suggest this, and the debris you are talking about could be from that. But whatever it was clearly didn't hit the building at the time of the initial blast. Something else created the initial damage to the building... not the jetliner. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:30 AM (#2104235) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Teribus "Yeah. And only days after the 9/11 events the entire bin Laden family was allowed to leave the USA and return home--without being questioned." -Peace - 16 Jul 07 - 10:41 AM Now taking into account that Osama Bin Laden is one of 51 members of the Bin Laden family we are talking about, lets take a look at Peace's - Yeah. 1. How many members of the Bin Laden family are members of Al Qaeda? 2. At the time, and it was within the first 48 hours after the attacks, nobody knew who was responsible. It took about five days for Colin Powell to come out with a categoric statement that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam Hussein, Iraq or any other country. For a start I do not believe for one second that, "the entire bin Laden family" was in the USA, some members of the family were. Now maybe Peace can tell us how many were travelling on Diplomatic Passports. For another, under what pretext would Peace have held those people for questioning - racial profiling perhaps? Just a hunch? Pure bloody-mindedness? They had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11th September, 2001. Without proof positive to the contrary, please do not try to manufacture something out of thin air and ask people to buy it. Remember something about presumption of innocence? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:31 AM (#2104236) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So you choose to read and accept the "witnesses" that you feel are credible, and it is okay to dismiss others as part of an "official whitewash". How conveninent that is! Nope. That's not what I'm doing. I accept that the other witnesses may have seen what they say they did. But it's pretty easy to see that the two kinds of witness accounts don't have to cancel each other out. The people who say they saw an airplane probably did see one. But that doesn't prove that it was an airplane that caused the initial blast. No convincing motive? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Where the hell have you been LIVING the last five years, Ron? The endless WAR ON TERROR is the motive. Chipping away at our civil liberties for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a small few people is the motive. TRILLIONS of dollars of money is the motive. WAKE UP, Ron. Open your eyes and look around you! |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:38 AM (#2104241) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "The endless WAR ON TERROR is the motive" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - AND LOL!!!! You still don't get it, nor do you answer my question. Wake up Carol, they did not need this elaborate plan to get the results - that is what negates this theory. Simply flying planes into those buildings would have the same results - there was no need for demoltion, the damage was done and the motive would have been there. What world have you been living in? Look around. LOL!!!!!!! |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM (#2104245) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "For a start I do not believe for one second that, "the entire bin Laden family" was in the USA," The entire bin Laden family that was in the US was allowed to leave. I believe the number was about 15 (somewhere between 13 and 17). As to diplomatic passports--who knows? Maybe you will locate that info for us, T. Fact is that the American--meaning US people--are NOT satisfied with the bullshit report given by the commission. And THAT will eventually hang the fuckers responsible. The head of FEMA is now talking about his 'gut reaction' to do with pending attacks. He has access to friggin' intelligence networks--so FU#K his gut reaction. These bastards ARE hiding stuff. Hell, two years back when I posted a pic here of one of the tire rims at the Pentagon site, I also posted that that tire rime (from the plane) was NOT the same as Boeings pics of the tire rims they use on that plane. That was sluffed off. Bullshit! I am not going to spend my time seeking piss-ant shit like how many bin Laden family members were in the US. I had though due to faulty memory that it was 17. I was wrong. It's about two dozen. You want a fuckin' argument, go argue with the people who wrote the following. Read it for yourself. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:52 AM (#2104251) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "Remember something about presumption of innocence?" This coming from a guy who has defended the shit in Guantanamo? Give it a rest! |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM (#2104257) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Wake up Carol, they did not need this elaborate plan to get the results - that is what negates this theory. Simply flying planes into those buildings would have the same results - there was no need for demoltion, the damage was done and the motive would have been there. Simply flying planes into those buildings would not have produced the same results. A bomb went off in one of those buildings a few years previously and it didn't produce the same result at all. And insurance money can be a powerful motivator as well. Plus the destruction of quite a few documents that could incriminate people who were currently under investigation. It's a perfect storm, Ron. The motive is there. Several motives, in fact. The people of the US had to be terrorized utterly and completely in order to convince them to back a policy of pre-emption and endless war. Nothing less than an all out effort could be undertaken because if just flying planes into buildings didn't produce the desired result, the people who were responsible would have taken an enormous risk for nothing. The stakes were just too high for them to not get it right in one go. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:55 AM (#2104258) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq The famous War On Terror was started in response to the destruction of the Trade Towers on 11 SEPT 2001. For CarolC to claim that the resopnse caused the event is contrary to logic. It's about the same as saying "The cop gave me a ticket. That's why I was speeding". Maybe she should go back to blaming every atrocity committed by Muslims on the Jews, especially their creation of Israel. At least she will get a few people to listen to that claim without laughing. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM (#2104261) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC pdq, the plans to invade Iraq were on the table long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the pretext used for a war that had been planned years before. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:00 PM (#2104263) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry Carol, a bomb going off and planes crashing are different emotional factors - much like Pearl Harbor. That is the terror you are talking about and it is hard to conceive that anyone would take such a risk to lose it all when it could be done so simply. The "Rube Goldberg" theory that has been described to destroy these building would have required more people and more work than you are willing to admit to. Many people disagree - the buildings did not have to fall to have the desired effect. Again, it is your view against others. Maybe you are right, but you certainly have not been able to convince anyone yet. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:02 PM (#2104264) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "the plans to invade Iraq were on the table long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the pretext used for a war that had been planned years before." This inmplies those plans are from BEFORE the present Bush Administration. CarolC, be careful. You might be in danger here if anyone ever figures out that you are aware that the Bush Administration is NOT responsible for all the evils in the world! |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:27 PM (#2104282) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Again, it is your view against others. Maybe you are right, but you certainly have not been able to convince anyone yet. I don't need to convince anyeone. More and more people all the time are coming to this conclusion by themselves. But all I'm asking for is an independent and verifiable investigation. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM (#2104285) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC This inmplies those plans are from BEFORE the present Bush Administration. Well, they were. But most of the architects of the plans are or were a part of this Bush administration (as well as the older Bush's administration). |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:36 PM (#2104290) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "More and more people all the time are coming to this conclusion by themselves." That is highly debatable. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:39 PM (#2104293) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Bill, in response to your post way back on 13 Jul 07 - 10:59 PM... I think you're a lot more emotional about your opinions than you imagine...if you're like the rest of us. And I think you are. All people are emotional about their opinions. They defend them as if they were defending their children. "every time there is a difference of opinion, you use a version of that "everyone is just being subjective in their own way" line... Yeah, that's right, I do. You know why? I'm a philosopher. I'm not a politician, and I am not playing "to win", because there IS nothing to win here as far as I'm concerned. I watch with wry amusement the folly, the overweening pride, the fear of "losing", the lack of humility, the utter pretentiousness of human beings (myself included) as we rant on about our precious opinions, and attempt to defeat the opinions of others. It's like a bunch of monkeys chattering in a cage. It is not differences of opinion that trouble me, Bill. It is the extreme arrogance with which people hold those opinions, and their deep lack of respect for those with whom they differ...furthermore, their almost total lack of real curiosity about any information that does not suit their own agenda. We all know so little. We know mere fragments of the truth. We believe utter nonsense, passed on to us by our culture, our media, our schools, our civilization. We send people out to die for utter nonsense. We invent insane weaponry. We destroy Nature for profit. Anyone here who has the humility to sometimes show some respect for people who are of a different opinion than himself about politics or UFOs or life after death or abortion or God or anything else...that person is someone I can enjoy listening to. Anyone capable of criticizing and honestly evaluating the automatic taken-for-granted, self-congratulatory BS and hypocrisy of the groups he normally identifies with and thinks he is a part of, whether he's a liberal or a conservative or whatever...I can appreciate what he's doing. I can relate to it. People need to realize and face their own folly as well as the folly of others around them. If they did, we would not see any more wars. Whoever did it, whoever was responsible, the destruction on 911 was the result of a group of people incapable of seeing any evil in themselves, but only in those whom they have defined as "the enemy". There are people like that in Washington. There are people like that in Al Queda. As such, they are blinded by their own argument. I'd say that's the case with most people, and it happens a microsecond or two after they start arguing about something. Why? Because they are very, very emotional and only rational within a narrowly selected range that suits their emotional agenda. If you limit your rationality within narrow enough confines, you can justify anything. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 12:41 PM (#2104294) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC That is highly debatable. Not really, Ron. It's a fact. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:09 PM (#2104325) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko No, it's debatable. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:22 PM (#2104330) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC You can debate it, but that doesn't change the fact. The fact is that increasing numbers of groups are working to try to get a new investigation, and the numbers of people involved in existing groups is increasing. This is a fact. And that doesn't take into account people like me, who don't belong to any groups. More and more, in my searches online, I am encountering people saying that for several years, they believed the official story, but that more recently, something they saw or heard has made them take a closer look, and now they no longer believe the official story (whitewash), and many believe that the US government was complicit. These are, as often as not, people who work or worked in the government, intelligence services, military, air traffic control, aviation, disaster management, engineering and architecture, as well as first responders and other emergency personnel, and other professions that qualify them to be taken seriously, and not marginalized as kooks. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:44 PM (#2104353) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "These are, as often as not, people who work or worked in the government, intelligence services, military, air traffic control, aviation, disaster management, engineering and architecture, as well as first responders and other emergency personnel, and other professions that qualify them to be taken seriously, and not marginalized as kooks." Implying that the other half ARE NOT to be taken seriously, and to be marginalized as kooks. I am sure that the number is increasing- but that does NOT prove anything other than that the number is increasing. "But whatever it was clearly didn't hit the building at the time of the initial blast. Something else created the initial damage to the building... not the jetliner. " I still do not understand how you have determined that the core of the towers would not have collapsed without explosives, nor how the picture from the one frame of the Pentagon video that did show the plane is somehow not valid evidence that the plane hit. BTW, that film shows the building before the plane hits- and the building is undamaged. If you would like to claim that there is a possibility that the government investigation is a coverup, feel free: BUT if you insist that it MUST be one, I will insist on evidence and sensible reasoning, before I will consider it. You have rejected MY statement that aliens are responsible: Yet you offer no evidence whatsoever that I am incorrect. I have been in space operations for 29 years: By the standards you have shown in selection of your experts, I am far more qualified than you to make judgements on the possible involvement of aliens, and their motives. Therefore, I will state that all the damage was originally caused by alien devices that utilized gravity implosions to bring down the towers and to damage the Pentagon. When you have any evidence at all that I am not correct, we can discuss YOUR theory about what happened. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 01:46 PM (#2104355) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko It is not a fact as you try to claim. There are also an increasing number of people who do not believe the consipracy theories but are still looking for a new investigation. You can take comfort in the information you are gathering, but you should not ignore the oppositite view. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:06 PM (#2104380) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Implying that the other half ARE NOT to be taken seriously, and to be marginalized as kooks. It doesn't imply that at all. It doesn't really imply anything, because it doesn't give any information at all about the other half, except that they don't necessarily belong to any of those professions. I am sure that the number is increasing- but that does NOT prove anything other than that the number is increasing. It proves it is immaterial whether or not I am able to convince anyone here. I still do not understand how you have determined that the core of the towers would not have collapsed without explosives Did you read the account from the guy who was fired from Underwriters' Laboratory? He said that, 1. the tests they did on what metal they had showed that the temperatures never got any higher than (if I remember correctly) 500 or 600 degrees. 2. They did not show any damage to the fireproofing. 3. The tests they did on models using the criteria described in the official story, did not produce the result that we saw. 4. The tests using computer models did not produce the results we saw until they used parameters that are not consistent with the conditions that were present. nor how the picture from the one frame of the Pentagon video that did show the plane is somehow not valid evidence that the plane hit I saw that video. I did not see anything in it that looked like a plane. I did see something that could easily have been the nose of a missile. If you would like to claim that there is a possibility that the government investigation is a coverup, feel free: BUT if you insist that it MUST be one, I will insist on evidence and sensible reasoning, before I will consider it. You have been given both, numerous times. You have rejected MY statement that aliens are responsible Please show me where I have done this. If you can show me any evidence that the Bush administration are aliens, I will be happy to accept your theory. Therefore, I will state that all the damage was originally caused by alien devices that utilized gravity implosions to bring down the towers and to damage the Pentagon. If this is the case, then this is something that would be revealed in an independent and verifiable investigation. But maybe that's why the Bush people don't want one. Because then everyone would know that they are aliens. And since you work for the government, you could be one too. Maybe that's why you don't want an independent and verifiable investigation. Or maybe you're not an alien, but you are one of the people in government who is complicit, and that's why you are opposed to an independent and verifiable investigation. I can't really think of any other reasons you wouldn't want such an investigation, other than perhaps head-in-the-sand syndrome. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:11 PM (#2104389) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Maybe that's why you don't want an independent and verifiable investigation" Has anyone really said they are opposed to this? I'd love to see some of the money we are spending in Iraq diverted to a new investigation. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:12 PM (#2104390) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Wesley S Face - No one is going to believe the NEXT investigation { independent or otherwise } unless it agrees with the conclusions that you have already made. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:18 PM (#2104401) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll... ...Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."... ...The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed... ...Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists... ......"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said... ...Conspiracy-believing participants in the poll agree their suspicions are recent http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:22 PM (#2104406) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Face - No one is going to believe the NEXT investigation { independent or otherwise } unless it agrees with the conclusions that you have already made. Multiple independent analyses that are subject to peer review, along with a truly independent and verifiable investigation would go a long way to persuade me to revise my current opinions. But so far, any time any kind of truly independent investigating has been done, the results have helped contribute to forming the opinions I have now. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:24 PM (#2104407) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, You state "And since you work for the government, you could be one too." 1. I do not work for the government, at this time. 2. I have never stated that I was not an alien. So? "Maybe that's why you don't want an independent and verifiable investigation. " 3. I have not stated that I do not wish to see an independent and verifiable investigation. Especially by someone more open to facts than you have been. "Or maybe you're not an alien, but you are one of the people in government who is complicit, and that's why you are opposed to an independent and verifiable investigation." See 3. "I can't really think of any other reasons you wouldn't want such an investigation, other than perhaps head-in-the-sand syndrome." See 1, 2, & 3. As for head in the sand, YOU state: "If you can show me any evidence that the Bush administration are aliens, I will be happy to accept your theory." Since you have ALREADY decided that the Bush Administration is to blame, I think that the only head in the sand is your own. I guess it is a "independent and verifiable investigation" ONLY if it agrees with your pre-concieved idea of what MUST have happened. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:24 PM (#2104408) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Has anyone really said they are opposed to this? I'd love to see some of the money we are spending in Iraq diverted to a new investigation. Well, if that's the case, how about joining me in calling for one? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:29 PM (#2104411) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Fine by me. I just don't agree with your conspiracies, but I do feel that we have not been told about our preparations and reactions. THAT is the real coverup. The Neocons planted these conspiracies to divert our attention from the real story. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:29 PM (#2104412) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC No, beardedbruce, if the results of any future investigations (along with whatever evidence is used to arrive at any conclusions that are made) could be reviewed by anyone, and if the conclusions could be peer reviewed, and if they could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that any other scientific theories and conclusions are subject to, I would not have a problem with accepting the results. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM (#2104413) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Teribus: I apologize to you. Some other stuff I'm dealing with and I had no right to rip into you in that manner. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2104424) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "If you can show me any evidence that the Bush administration are aliens, I will be happy to accept your theory." This implies otherwise: You will "be happy to accept" my theory IF I show you that the Bush Administration are aliens. Why not if I just show you that it is true? Or do you have an agenda here? What if the Democrats are the aliens? Will you accept it then? You state: "It doesn't imply that at all. It doesn't really imply anything, because it doesn't give any information at all about the other half, except that they don't necessarily belong to any of those professions." Yet, what you said was "These are, as often as not, people who work or worked in the government, intelligence services, military, air traffic control, aviation, disaster management, engineering and architecture, as well as first responders and other emergency personnel, and other professions that qualify them to be taken seriously, and not marginalized as kooks. " Is your term "as often as not" to mean something other than 'about half'? If so, could you please provide a dictionary to define what it is that you mean whenever you make a statement? "and other professions that qualify them to be taken seriously, and not marginalized as kooks." leads one to think that the OTHER half are NOT in those professions, and thus WOULD be qualified to NOT be taken seriously, and to be taken as kooks. Or why else did you state this? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2104426) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace '"Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying. Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan's Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism. On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."' from http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469 |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:42 PM (#2104428) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace 'On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."' Please note that. the bin Ladens were on the radar, and letting the family leave the US was at best sloppy. Ot worst, collusion. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:47 PM (#2104434) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So do you have any evidence that Bush is an alien, beardedbruce? and other professions that qualify them to be taken seriously, and not marginalized as kooks." leads one to think that the OTHER half are NOT in those professions, and thus WOULD be qualified to NOT be taken seriously, and to be taken as kooks. Or why else did you state this? It might lead you to think that, but it wouldn't lead me to think that. The reason I said that is because I know the tendency of people who are arguing on your side of the debate to immediately disqualify anyone who argues from my side of the debate as a kook. The professions that I have listed automatically lend credibility, but the professions of a lot of the others do not necessarily lend or negate credibility of the others. So I can only address the ones whose professions do lend credibility. That's why I didn't mention the others at all. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM (#2104436) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce So do you have any evidence that Bush is behind 9/11? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:52 PM (#2104439) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce And, if you read WHAT I WROTE, I did not claim that Bush was an alien: YOU are the one who thinks that Bush is the center of the universe, and responsible for all things. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 02:58 PM (#2104444) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace 'Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."' (I have no idea why the author of that statement put 'sic' after the word "public's"> I'm guessing he thought it was the possessive case when it is actually a contraction. That said, I think he's right.) I think Bush and Cheney are going to try a take-over. Y'all best start looking at that closely. The Constitution has been muzzled by various Executive Orders, Chertoff has gut feelings, and the US will be seeing its own military in the streets. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:04 PM (#2104447) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace So, are there two or three carrier groups near Iran at present? Anyone know? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:06 PM (#2104450) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?[Homeland Security chief warns of 'increased risk' Chertoff bases 'gut feeling' on history, Al Qaeda statements By E.A. Torriero ,July 11, 2007]" From the same site. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:09 PM (#2104452) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Wesley S So you think the current administration won't let the elections take place? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:14 PM (#2104455) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "The professions that I have listed automatically lend credibility," Glad to know I have credibility with you. I will expect to have my comments taken seriously. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:27 PM (#2104477) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I think it is way beyond the elections. The US is facing some serious economic issues. It's over-extended in the Middle East and gas prices will have to rise substantially. That will impact most other sectors of the economy. The debt is over 7 TRILLION dollars, and even in comparison to Canada's poor dollar, the US dollar has droped in relative worth by about 50 cents over the past two years. It is close to par at present. I cannot see Cheney--who seems to be running lots of the show now--going gently into that good night. All Bush is missing is a ring in his nose. So, facing unrest at home and abroad, bankruptcy, jail--it doesn't look to me like they (Neocons) have much of a choice. They risk nothing (in their minds) by going for broke. My one question is not to do with maybe, it's to do with when. (BTW, I was saying this stuff about three years back and the time slot I thought it would happen in--coup d'etat--is overdue if I remember correctly.) Now, with the head of Homeland Security sending up 'test balloons' about terrorist attacks, well, hell, it's the scenario I envisioned in the first place. The one question is this: will the military services in the US play ball? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:28 PM (#2104478) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk There's a possibility of that, BB, as long as you stay off the sonnets... ;-) |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:29 PM (#2104479) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I love his sonnets. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:33 PM (#2104485) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Sorry, LH, As a published, award winning poet I have credibility there, as well. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM (#2104492) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee." From here. May, 2007. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:46 PM (#2104495) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk I find that intimidating, BB. I will tiptoe carefully around anything you say from now on... (smile) I hope you're wrong about the coup d'etat, Peace. Boy, do I ever hope you're wrong, because that, if it ever happens, will be the threshold to World War III. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:49 PM (#2104498) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I hope I'm wrong, too. Truly. I just don't see any alternatives right now. I pray that it's an over-active imagination on my part. Thing is, I don't think prayer's gonna help much. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 03:52 PM (#2104500) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Peace, Have you ever looked at the FEMA rules from previous administrations? Look back at what they were under the Kennedy administration. They had a system in place in case of nuclear attack OR OTHER DISASTER. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:01 PM (#2104507) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth From the time of Bush's inauguration, they were trying to figure out a way to justify an invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a military presence in the Middle East. Some sort of Pearl Harbor would have been very handy. This is known. And, yes, it is also known that the Bush administration was indeed warned ahead of time about suspicious activity and indications that there would be some sort of attempt at a terrorist attack within the United States. Several people, including Richard Clarke, have appeared on national television and written books about how they tried to warn the Bush administration ahead of time. But the Bush administration wasn't interested in hearing any of it. Of course not. Nor did they need to cobble together some Rube Goldberg conspiracy that could end in getting the whole bunch of them both hanged and recorded in the history books as some of the most vicious traitors in the history of the world. All they had to do was sit back, look careless dumb and happy, twiddle their thumbs—and wait. That could still get them hanged. The real question here is a fairly standard one: What did they know and when did they know it? Instead of running around like a collection of headless chickens and wasting time, energy, and brain-power concocting all this Baroque silliness, we should be agitating for a genuine investigation asking that question. Don Firth |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:23 PM (#2104518) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq During the height of WWII, FDR was spending nearly 44% of the US Gross Domestic Product on the war. Right now, the US is spending less than 2% of her GDP on two conflicts (=wars). Evicting the tyranical thugs from Afghanistan and Iraq is proving painful, especially in human lives (1,000 civilian workers and over 3,000 military dead), but we will prevail. As far as a financial burden, it is not something to worry about. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM (#2104522) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D I have ceased posting because I doubt that ANY investigation would be believed by Carol C and various others unless it supported their theories. If an investigation came back and said, "we agree with the official report as published.." off we'd go again with MORE "but you're ignoring eyewitnesses and puffs of smoke and gravity and the melting point of steel and the types of wheels on 757s" (which has already been explained a dozen times). I am no expert in demolition or building construction...what I DID study was "how to think and how to evaluate arguments", and I have tried to show, (as has BB in own inimitable way), that the form of the claims of the conspiracy mongers has serious problems. They flatly use specious debate techniques to support untenable hypotheses. I have said, posted, explained, debated, listened, read about claims, compared reports and thought until I am dizzy....and every time I post answers to one claim, the debate is slipped sideways to another in a weird circle until I suddenly find the one I explained 3 days ago is back again as if I had said NOTHING. I am NOT gonna convince anyone to back off and re-read the REAL evidence...so....propound away! Everyone needs a hobby. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:28 PM (#2104524) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D and by the way...the % of Americans who 'believe' these conspiracy theories is so far from relevant to the truth that I can't even comment...100 % used to believe the world was flat. bye... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM (#2104544) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "100 % used to believe the world was flat." You must mean 100% of chickens, right? Sailors have known the world wasn't flat for a very long time. They knew it in classical times, and they knew it well before Columbus ever set sail for "the Indies", obviously, or he would not have tried to get there by going west. Washington Irving kinda screwed up the Columbus story when he told it... ;-) |
|
16 Jul 07 - 04:54 PM (#2104555) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST, Ebbie pdq, you may be right about FDR allotting nearly 44% of the GDP at the height of WWII. Seems awfully high to me; on the other hand, I don't know so I accept it. One difference, however, is that the measures that Roosevelt took were meant to pay for the war. Today, the costs of the war(s) we are fighting are being deferred to a future generation. The bills will come due. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM (#2104565) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:24 PM (#2104570) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And, if you read WHAT I WROTE, I did not claim that Bush was an alien: YOU are the one who thinks that Bush is the center of the universe, and responsible for all things. Actually, I don't. I think Bush is a puppet who does what he's told. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:30 PM (#2104574) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Glad to know I have credibility with you. I will expect to have my comments taken seriously. Which one of those professions is your, beardedbruce? I am familiar with your posting history, beardedbruce. I take your posts as they come. Some of them I take seriously, and some I don't. I didn't say that their professions mean that you should automatically take them seriously. I am saying that you can't automatically call them kooks. At least, you can't do that and deserve to be taken seriously. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:35 PM (#2104576) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council." From . . . but the town has no need to be nervous. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:36 PM (#2104578) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Instead of running around like a collection of headless chickens and wasting time, energy, and brain-power concocting all this Baroque silliness, we should be agitating for a genuine investigation asking that question. A genuine investigation asking only that question will not turn anything up at all if that isn't what happened. And the evidence suggests that it isn't what happened. If you really want to get at the truth, you have to ask ALL relevant questions, including, "what caused the buildings to fall" and "what caused the damage to the pentagon". A real investigation that asks those questions can at least rule out the possibility that the administration was directly responsible if it wasn't, and that would be a good thing. And if your scenario is the correct one, then that will be discovered too, if they ask ALL of the relevant questions. But you won't get anywhere at all if you ask the wrong questions, or only the questions you particularly like yourself. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM (#2104581) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I have ceased posting because I doubt that ANY investigation would be believed by Carol C and various others unless it supported their theories. This looks to me like the kind of logical fallacy you call 'ad hominem', Bill. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 05:42 PM (#2104585) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The rest of your 16 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM post contains quite a few other logical fallacies, as well. And you make a lot of assumptions. Your suggestion that people like me are only reading the stuff that is written by the "conspiracy mongers" is not only a straw man, it is also a lie. Either that, or you haven't read any of the evidence I have provided, because if you had, you would know that I haven't quoted any conspiracy mongers at all. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 07:25 PM (#2104650) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "They did not show any damage to the fireproofing" ... which cleverly ignores the documentation that the fire proofing had been falling off by itself for years, only some of it having been replaced prior to 9/11 - also how fragile it was to even the slighest impact, shedding easily. 'Modelling' which builds a new structure, smears new goop on then, then 'tests' it without using the original faulty material but new good stuff and not waiting the decades the original goop had to give it chance to fail, is faulty modelling. As a Computer geek, one of the first things we were told in programming was about the rockets lost because some clever dickhead used a + sign instead of a - sign... feedback then being positive and driving the thing further out of control instead of being negative and bringing back on course. Great assurance were given by the original writers of the code that it was perfect, until it was examined closely by others. I did my own scale modelling last night. My friend has a wood stove - it has a firebox lined with refractory material, which approximates the insulation given in WTC due to teh fireproofing and drywall. I burned wood, which glowed red heat - about 600-800 deg C from my memory of blacksmithing. As the stove is old, the gap where the ashes fall thru has spread, so I placed some steel mesh - 1/4 square gaps there. The firebox is about 6 inches wide by 10 inches deep - so the thickness and gaps of the mesh would be about in proportion to the WTC. Once the wood had burned down to have the embers on the mesh, I checked about 20 mins later and the mesh had vanished, the coals now having no support were starting to fall thru as they normally do. Aliens? no sorry BB :-) Oxidation for a period of time at high heat - this proves that sustained 600 deg C heat for a period of time in a confined space would have caused damage to the steel in WTC, leading to failure. QED. I'm only a Fool, but my qualification are impeccable... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 07:30 PM (#2104657) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The place the plane went into the building was not a confined space. There was no flashover. Just a boom of jet fuel weighing about 70 tons. Makes for a fast release of heat into the atmosphere. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 07:45 PM (#2104667) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "place the plane went into the building was not a confined space" Windows? Floors above and below? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:00 PM (#2104683) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The windows blew out when the aviation fuel exploded. However, another site suggested that it wasn't so much the heat generated by the fuel burning as it was the sheer weight of the fuel itself that caused much of the building to 'skew'. And additional 70 tons is lots of weight. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:01 PM (#2104690) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk What people choose to believe about this or that line of evidence always follows directly along the line they have already decided to give their support to...which is typical of all such arguments. The only question here is whose set of basic initial assumptions about 911 is the most nearly correct one. The arguments pro and con will go on indefinitely, regardless of the evidence and people's interpretations of the evidence, because their interpretations are directly shaped by their bias...every time. The people on one side or the other will never be able to quite believe that the other side doesn't have the sense to see it the way they do, and they will probably make dismissive and testy remarks to their opponents that cause the argument to get worse. They may get downright insulting. They may get mad and walk out in a huff. A lot of wars have been fought over that kind of thing. Like the War Between the States, for example. It lasted several years. I wonder how long this argument will last? Probably even longer, unless something really unusual happens. I mean....really unusual. It would have to be big. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:17 PM (#2104701) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "The windows blew out when the aviation fuel exploded." Which provided a steady source of oxygen. The fire did not take place in an 'open space' like a field. The fire was 'contained' in the space - people keep saying that 70 tons of fuel is a bloody lot - in that size space... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM (#2104706) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I have no wish to argue about confined space with you. It's a term used in emergency rescue. What you are proposing in the Twin Towers is not confined. Too small for the fuel load for sure. But it vented to the atmosphere--look at the flames from the fireballs when the fuel blew. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM (#2104710) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk As you all know, of course, I think the buildings (1, 2, and 7) had preplaced demolition charges in them set to bring them down in a controlled fashion....so I figure it was at least 50% an inside job. Maybe more than 50%. But I don't expect to convince anyone of that who isn't already convinced of it, believe me. Nor do I plan to try pedalling a tricycle up Mount Everest or pogo sticking across the Atlantic. Heh! There are better ways to waste one's time, I figure. It's probably easier to shapeshift than it is to change the average person's mind about anything political that they feel strongly about. I just talk about it (911) from time to time because it happens to interest me. Period. If my opinions annoy you, well, just remember...we're probably even when it comes to that. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM (#2104711) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace . . . and as far as I know, I'm the only one to mention the 70 tons. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 08:43 PM (#2104721) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Fire tetrahedron: Heat, fuel, oxygen, sustained chemical reaction. Remove one and the fire goes out. On a smaller scale, one can picture it like this. Water gets sprayed on fire in a house. The expansion of water to steam is 1:1700. That is, one cubic foot of water becomes 1700 cubic feet of steam. The function of the steam is to cool the heat and hopefully drop it to a temperature that is below the ignition point of whatever is burning. Thanks to Ray Bradbury, the whole world knows that the ignition point of paper is 451 degrees F. Keep it at 450 degrees and it won't flare up and burn. Flashover is a phenomena that occurs in less than 1 1/2 seconds. Literally, everything that can burn bursts into flame in that 1 1/2 seconds. It's a killer, because from the middle of even a small room, no one will get to the point of egress. ****************************************************** "In addition to ignition temperature, other properties associated with the flammability of a liquid are its flash point, flammable range, and vapor density. The flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid vaporizes and is therefore able to ignite. Liquids with a flash point under 40 °C are considered combustible liquids. Gasoline has a flash point of about -45 °C. The flammable range of a liquid is the ratio of the flammable liquid to air that would create a volatile mixture. The flammability range of gasoline is between 1.4 and 7.6%. If the ratio of gasoline to air is less than 1.4%, then the mixture is to thin to burn. The mixture cannot burn when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn. The vapor density is the weight of a vapor relative to the weight of air. The vapor density of gasoline is heavier than air and therefore will sink when in air." Just some food for thought. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:02 PM (#2104735) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "but it vented to the atmosphere" ... and that combined with the ready access to the oxygen caused a draught that intensified the heat, like in a blast furnace, an object which is also larger that your defintion of 'confined space', but gets so hot internally when fired by low temperature burning fuels that it even melts steel rather nicely... Confined Confine \Con*fine"\ (k[o^]n*f[imac]n"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Confined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Confining}.] [F. confiner to border upon, LL. confinare to set bounds to; con- + finis boundary, end. See {Final}, {Finish}.] To restrain within limits; to restrict; to limit; to bound; to shut up; to inclose; to keep close. [1913 Webster] Now let not nature's hand Keep the wild flood confined! let order die! --Shak. [1913 Webster] He is to confine himself to the compass of numbers and the slavery of rhyme. --Dryden. [1913 Webster] {To be confined}, to be in childbed. Syn: To bound; limit; restrain; imprison; immure; inclose; circumscribe; restrict. [1913 Webster] -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 confined \confined\ adj. 1. having movement restricted to within a certain area; -- usually a building. Opposite of {unconfined}. Note: [Narrower terms: {claustrophobic}; {close, confining}; {homebound, housebound, shut-in}; {in childbed(prenominal)}; {pent, shut up(predicate)}; {snowbound}; {weather-bound}; {stormbound, storm-bound}] [WordNet 1.5] 2. deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or restraint. [WordNet 1.5] 3. having movement restricted to within an enclosed outdoor area; -- of animals. Syn: fenced in, penned. [WordNet 1.5] 4. (Med.) not invading healthy tissue. [WordNet 1.5] 5. held prisoner. Syn: captive, imprisoned, jailed. [WordNet 1.5] 6. having movement or progress restricted to a certain area; as, an outbreak of the plague confined to one quarter of the city; wildfires confined to within the canyon. [PJC] -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 confined adj 1: not free to move about [ant: {unconfined}] 2: enclosed by a confining fence [syn: {fenced in}, {penned}] 3: not invading healthy tissue [ant: {invasive}] 4: deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or restraint 5: in captivity [syn: {captive}, {imprisoned}, {jailed}] -- From WordNet (r) 2.0 113 Moby Thesaurus words for "confined": angustifoliate, angustirostrate, angustisellate, angustiseptal, authoritative, barred, bedfast, bedridden, beleaguered, beset, besieged, blockaded, bound, bounded, boxed in, cabined, caged, circumscribed, cloistered, close, close-fitting, closed-in, conditioned, constricted, cooped, copyrighted, cordoned, cordoned off, corralled, cramp, cramped, cribbed, crowded, detained, disciplined, down, enclosed, expert, feature, featured, fenced, finite, geographically limited, hedged, hedged about, hedged in, hemmed, hemmed in, hospitalized, icebound, immured, impounded, imprisoned, in childbed, in confinement, in hospital, incapacious, incarcerated, incommodious, insular, invalided, isthmian, isthmic, jailed, kept in, knowledgeable, laid up, landlocked, leaguered, limited, local, localized, meager, mewed, moderated, narrow, near, of a place, paled, parochial, patented, penned, pent, pent-up, prescribed, proscribed, prostrate, provincial, qualified, quarantined, railed, restrained, restricted, scant, scanty, shut-in, sick abed, slender, snowbound, specialist, specialistic, specialized, stinted, strait, straitened, technical, tight, topical, under restraint, vernacular, walled, walled-in, windbound -- From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?' |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:03 PM (#2104737) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?' " Lots of people wondering how the planes got there. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM (#2104740) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace 'Fires Versus Steel Buildings The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001. Steel-framed high-rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been common for more than 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns. The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure. Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1 and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". 2 ' |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:12 PM (#2104745) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes." |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:21 PM (#2104747) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes." ...so what else burned and caused such intense heat for so long? And the towers collapsed only when the fires died down... allowing the heat expamded distorted steel beams to shrink and fail... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM (#2104749) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk You want really intense heat? Try thermite. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM (#2104751) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Thermite is good. So is the center of the sun. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM (#2104752) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko how hot does lava get? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM (#2104754) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace That's the problem I'm having with the story. The smoke coming from the towers gets really black. Notice no flames visible. Smoke was billowing OUT of the building, and not that much O2 was getting in. So the fire was suffocatiing OR the fuel load had been msotly consumed. However, it's not all about fuel. The structure had been damaged at one corner--on one of the buildings. Fifty floors above is lots of weight. And that weight falling straight down--which it didn't (photographs on one site show the entire top of the building at about a 25 degree angle off perpendicular)--yet the report would have us believe the buildings, both of them, pancaked down. One just like the other. There were no major cross supports in either building. The sturdy parts of the structure were the corners and the core. Assume the buildings DID pancake down. Why did the core pancake with the rest of the building? Sorry, buddy, but too many questions didn't get asked at the time and too many questions were NOT addressed in the official report. The report reads lots like fantasy or sci-fi to me: First you suspend your disbelief and THEN ya get led where the author wants to take you. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM (#2104755) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko couldn't we get just one frickin laser? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:35 PM (#2104758) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko " The smoke coming from the towers gets really black." new pope?? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM (#2104759) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace LOLOL Good one, Ron. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:38 PM (#2104761) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko we did see the devil in the smoke after all |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:39 PM (#2104762) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Man, that ain't what I had lit, man. Like, SARA LEE! I'm in. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:46 PM (#2104766) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Good thing you didn't step in it... eh? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:53 PM (#2104769) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Okay, guys, let me in on the joke. ;-) What does "the pope" reference mean? The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be...we don't have a lever long enough to move it to New York. Or a fulcrum to put the lever on. Thermite, however, can be contained in small portable incendiary devices, and it's great if you want to slice right through solid steel. Lasers are an okay idea, I guess, but wouldn't thermite be fundametally more Rambo-esque? Lasers are for sissies. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:58 PM (#2104772) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Here ya go, LH. Bottom of page 1 and top of page 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0401_050401_popeelection.html |
|
16 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM (#2104773) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be" That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:01 PM (#2104774) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko when they elect a new pope they burn straw after every ballot. If the smoke is white, they have not come to a decision. If the smoke is black, they have a new pope. Or vice versa. Thermite would be more Rambo-esque, but a frickin laser beam would smack of James Bond. Perhaps it was a Bizarro Superman using his heat vision. Also, the steel did not look cut, so perhaps it was someone dropping acid in little packets of sugar causing it to melt into liquid pools in a Dali-like dream sequence that would have some people seeing airplanes and others seeing missles. I saw this magician on TV last night, the Mindfucker or something like that. He made an elephant appear out of thin air. Perhaps him or David Blaine actually created this illusion. The WTC was never there to begin with. Wait a second - that was how the Alec Baldwin "Shadow" movie ended. That came out a few years before 9/11. There is our smoking gun! Hollywood did it in!!!!! Screw this termite and Al-Quiet crap, it was a fignewton of our imagination. George Bush isn't real - Ronnie Raygun is still alive and simply filming a sequel in DC!!! Somebody get me Walt Disney on the line.... |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM (#2104775) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko ... oh yeah, and after the black smoke, the new pope comes out on the balcony in St. Petersburg square. If he sees his shadow, we have six more weeks of winter. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM (#2104777) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night... " Now THAT is funny. Good one, FT. |
|
16 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM (#2104805) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC ... which cleverly ignores the documentation that the fire proofing had been falling off by itself for years, only some of it having been replaced prior to 9/11 - also how fragile it was to even the slighest impact, shedding easily. The part that was actually tested didn't behave that way. They had to shoot it several times with a shotgun to get the fireproofing off. Once the wood had burned down to have the embers on the mesh, I checked about 20 mins later and the mesh had vanished, the coals now having no support were starting to fall thru as they normally do. Are you really suggesting that your scale modeling was in any way comparable to the conditions in the WTC on 9/11? |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:13 PM (#2104818) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,TIA I do not casually dismiss the theories that 9/11 had US government complicity, if not active assistance. However, I am far more troubled by the fact (readily and voluminously proven by non-partisan statisticians and *eye witnesses*) that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were both positively stolen. Although it did not lead directly to the deaths of 1,700+/- people (only, perhaps 3,500 to 650,000 so far), this is a far more dangerous precedent. Let's spend equal time on THIS conspiracy fact (not theory). |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:25 PM (#2104820) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The stolen elections are a piece of history. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Republicans will again control the White House for at least two more terms. Unfortunately, the Democrat ticket may be an equal amount of garbage. So even with a fair election the people will lose. Assuming of course that the Neocons allow it to reach an election. I ain't convinced about that. No sir! |
|
16 Jul 07 - 11:43 PM (#2104821) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet My favorite refutation of the "pancake theory". This lady makes it REALLY simple: Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot, to a store (10 miles away), then to the bank (5 more miles), then to the dog track (7 more miles), then to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes. To disprove your story, I could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes. Remember, the proof need not be complicated. You don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken me to run that distance. Nor do you need to prove how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove my story, you only need to show that the story I gave you is not physically possible. Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given. If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to (m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to , (m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f or vnew = (1/2) * v1 If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass. Etc. http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html |
|
17 Jul 07 - 12:06 AM (#2104833) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Thanks for that link, sooo sweet. Never saw it before. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 12:15 AM (#2104838) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet It's the bestest. She makes the point that to disprove a story, you just have to show it's not possible. You don't have to give an ALTERNATE explanation to disprove, you just need to show that what you've been told doesn't make sense. Then she shows that freefall speeds weren't possible. Incredible work. So, so obvious. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 12:17 AM (#2104840) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Yeah, and it's elegant, too. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM (#2104848) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,CB_Brooklyn Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research "Worthy" The Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, says Dr Judy Wood's research on directed energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center is "interesting and worthy of further consideration". See here for an image of the FAX sheet sent to Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart: http://drjudywood.com/home/Garcia4.jpg The above FAX followed a letter sent by Dr Wood to a number of directed energy professionals: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html Also of note: NIST emailed Dr Wood stating they need more time to respond to her Request for Correction: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html |
|
17 Jul 07 - 12:51 AM (#2104855) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Biographical information about Dr. Judy Wood, the author of the "Billiard Balls" page... Brief Biographical Sketch for Judy D. Wood, Ph.D. Website: http://drjudywood.com/ email: lisajudy [at] nctv.com Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM's Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her * B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), * M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and * Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including * Experimental Stress Analysis, * Engineering Mechanics, * Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials) * Strength of Materials Testing From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11. One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports. Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 01:11 AM (#2104863) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Well, she proved the government's version WASN'T possible, so she's investigating what WAS possible. That's what a scientist should do. But most importantly, she shows that the buildings couldn't have fallen the way the government says they did. She proved that, and she proved the government is lying. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 08:41 AM (#2105049) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce GUEST,sooo sweet , If you read the presented arguement that the towers could not have fallen in the observed time, you might notice that they ALSO prove that, unless the demolition occurred at least 18 seconds BEFORE the observed collapse, the collapse could not have been caused by controlled demolition. Since the "squibs" were observed as the towers were falling, controlled demolition could NOT have been the cause of the collapse. My postulate, that we.. the aliens used gravity generators to increase the speed of the collapse is the ONLY way that the arguement as presented can be true AND fit the facts as observed. The 'squibs' were the implosions of the gravity generators AFTER they had performed thier task of bringing down the tower(s). |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:26 AM (#2105085) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko ... and also the fact that the buildings did not fall at "freefall" speed, nor does the report say they did. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:42 AM (#2105094) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Not sure what you're getting at, but explosions were heard almost constantly that morning. And whatever the series and timings of the explosions, they worked. Entire floors were pulverized. No one knows what type of demolition techniques were used, though the presence of thermate in the debris has been proven. Most likely a combination of old and new techniques. Blasting may have been needed around key points outside (squibs), while the interior was pulverized with no telling what. The important thing is that it has been shown the buildings could not have fallen at the speeds they did if they simply "collapsed." They had help. We may never know what that "help" was, but the buildings didn't fall from one floor simply dropping down onto the next. I personally don't think an advanced beam was used. Not space-based, at any rate. The atmosphere holds the equivalent of 30 feet of water and several inches of dense particulate matter. Too thick for pinpoint aiming. There were some odd events around NYC that morning, like cars blocks away from the WTC complex being burned up, and that's led to some speculation of new weaponry being involved, but when facts are witheld, the mind is forced to speculate. Important thing is floor hitting floor a hundred stories to the ground would take much, much, much longer than the filmed collapse times. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:45 AM (#2105100) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet They fell FASTER than freefall speed, Olesko. You work for a university that benefits from all this with its Homeland Security torture programs. Of COURSE you're going to argue in favor of these murderers. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM (#2105104) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko They did not. You have no clue as to what you are talkign about. You are the one supporting the murders by putting up this smokescreen. You have no fucking clue lady. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 10:04 AM (#2105114) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Entire floors were pulverized. " If you read the article, you will see that the ONLY way the author could have the collapse occurr in the TIME OBSERVED was for ALL the floors to be pulverized BEFORE the top hit them. This does NOT account for the volume of rubble, nor air resistance. The explosions you claim were pulverizing the building ( as it stood for how many minutes ) were the transformers shorting out, and items burning. No need to postulate any explosives. ONLY the increase in the pull of gravity could have caused the collapse in LESS than free fall time- Or will you now claim there were invisible rocket engines pushing the top stories down? I have presented a postulate that explains the facts as observed, and that is supported by the arguement YOU have choosen to show that the report was wrong. YOUR failure to accept this as what really happened is proof of your complicity in a coverup of the real facts. Right? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 10:40 AM (#2105129) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger Crikey there are some seriously paranoid folk out there in cyberspace! How difficult is it to accept that what happened was what happened? The 'how' is really quite simple - two jets were flown into the towers and they collapsed, annihilating thousands. Any talk of shaped demolition charges, thermite blocks, space rays, men in black or whatever is simply wishful fantasy resulting from a wilful refusal to accept the enormity of the hijackers actions. The 'why' is what should be of more concern. If the conspiracy freaks like soosweet and others would address themselves intelligently to that question and involve themselves in the democratic process rather than taking refuge in la-la land, then something might be achieved. But, of course, that takes a little more bottle and balls than simply trawling the loopier fringes of the internet for crackpot theories to regurgitate as received opinion. Ye gods, the number of armchair experts this event has thrown up is remarkable - people prepared to argue the finer points of structural engineering when they can't even spell properly! However, I hear them muttering darkly, I may simply be one of the men in black trying to keep a lid on all this for the Illuminati, the Jews, the Purple Lizards, the House of Windsor and all the little chipmunks in Bohemian Grove! So be it. Be afraid, my dears, be very afraid. Don't take that tinfoil hat off until the all-clear sounds... Now, about that Lady Di...mwa-ha-ha-hah!!!!! |
|
17 Jul 07 - 10:44 AM (#2105130) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Tin foil does not work, anyway- you need a specific nickel/copper alloy for it to be effective in blocking thought waves. Trust me, I know. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 10:49 AM (#2105134) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko We should not make fun of anyone that is digging for the truth. "Tinfoil hat" does not fit most people in this discussion. Unfortunately some people have blinders on, and there are neocon plants at work such as the poster toot sweets, but most people want to find out what really happened so that it won't occur again. That is honorable. While I have yet to read any "theory" of government conspiracy that makes sense, I think it is important to search for the truth. There are a number of unanswered questions - and there seems to be a smokescreen that is covering up the real crime that was committed here - the incompetance of people in charge. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:05 AM (#2105140) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger there seems to be a smokescreen that is covering up the real crime that was committed here - the incompetance of people in charge Amen to that. I suppose what really gets on my chimes is that the very democracy and openness of the internet has come round to bite the behind of those who are actually interested in truth and accountability. We now see that the paranoid ramblings of conspiracy theorists on the farther shores of reason have as much standing as the saner concerns of ordinary people. And often more so, because they shout louder and their stories are more lurid, lending them to feverish cut'n'paste circulation. There really does seem to be no story so fabulous that some gull somwhere won't believe it and repeat it. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, people today seem to have trouble in coping with the very ordinariness of the extraordinary. It's certainly true that we need to seek the truth, but I fear it may be overlooked in its simple dullness while the seekers are distracted by a brighter lie. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:19 AM (#2105149) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I think the reason people appear paranoid or have trouble coping is because we have been lied to so many times in the past. It is easy to assume that the government is to blame (and in many respects they are) and people will blindly follow doctrine and make a case to fit their predetermined conclusions. I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but I do not advocate ignoring investigation. Investigating requires logic. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:32 PM (#2105199) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The beauty of the approach that I am advocating is that with this approach, the work of Dr. Wood can be peer reviewed. If it is faulty, this will come out in the peer reviews of her work. Unlike the official approach, which is to try to keep most of the methods used to arrive at their conclusions to themselves, to not submit their work to any scrutiny or review, and to marginalize and/or demonize anyone who questions their methods or conclusions. The approach being used by the government is not how we do science. And as long as they cling to this approach, they invite accusations that they are participating in a cover-up. Which leads us to the next obvious conclusion, which is that they have something to cover up. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:33 PM (#2105200) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Other than your cheap shots, Captain Ginger (what a name), what do you have to add other than derision? It seems you speak from the gallery but know bugger all about any of it. Please do enlighten the great washed and unwashed alike. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:47 PM (#2105217) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Why is there no mention of either Able Danger or Ivy Stratus in the 9/11 Commission Report? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:53 PM (#2105228) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, "to not submit their work to any scrutiny or review, and to marginalize and/or demonize anyone who questions their methods or conclusions." This is what I see those who state that there must be a coverup, and that only explainations that blame the Bush Administration are acceptable are doing. I have no problem with investigation: But I object to the idea that the only acceptable results are those that blame the Bush administration BEFORE the investigation has been made as to what happened. It is likely that there is information that the government has NOT released about what happened: In general, I think it should be made available. But NOT if it contributes to a higher death toll in the next- and there will be a next- terrorist incident. As far as I have seen, looking at the points presented both here, on the various sites, and the DVD sent out about it ( from an earlier thread) There is no EVIDENCE that this was a Bush conspiracy. That does NOT mean I oppose a detailed review of the various reports- but it does mean that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who make claims that are only speculation. My hypothosis about aliens has MORE proof than any claim of explosive charges: The simple claim that the tower fell too fast is evidence that ONLY an increase in gravity could have brought it down. There were NO visible rocket engines PUSHING it, and any explosive charges IN the building would have DELAYED the fall, since they would have provided a force upwards, slowing the fall of material above them. Yet the claims are made that it "MUST" have been controlled demolition, in spite of the evidence against it. "The approach being used ...is not how we do science." |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:58 PM (#2105234) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So when do you think this administration will decide to encourage independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11, and to cooperate in those investigations by sharing their methods and whatever evidence they are using to arrive at their conclusins, beardedbruce? (My guess is 'never'.) |
|
17 Jul 07 - 02:59 PM (#2105237) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Where did the energy come from to turn the concrete floors of the towers into such a fine dust? (That dust cloud wasn't from the dryywall folks.) |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:10 PM (#2105246) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace That should read Stratus Ivy. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:14 PM (#2105251) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC Do you really think that ANY government is going to allow a report to be released without "damage control"? No matter who wins in 08, even if there is a new investigation, there will be 1. Points left unsaid, because they would embarass someone important. 2. Points covered up, because they would reveal existing weaknesses in our defences against further acts of terrorism. 3. Points covered up because it would be thought to be too cruel to the survivors- the possibly less than heroic acts of some of those who realized they had no way to survive, for example. 4. Points covered up because , with the best of intentions, not all people will agree on what any specific set of facts actually mean. You have stated that you would accept my aliens IF I show you that Bush was one- this indicates you have somewhat less interest in the truth of what happened than in blaming the Bush administraion for it. I do NOT "KNOW" what happened, in all details- but I will look at any reasonable research done- I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. I apply Occam's Razor to most problems- I will believe in a conspiracy when it becomes easier to explain what actually occurred that way. Who do YOU think would be a neutral party to conduct these "independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11"? It seems to me that anyone who has already stated an opinion, such as most of those here,would bring far too great a predjudice against the truth alone being used for determination of who is to blame. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:23 PM (#2105260) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. From where I'm watching, you have already done this. You have stated that you would accept my aliens IF I show you that Bush was one- this indicates you have somewhat less interest in the truth of what happened than in blaming the Bush administraion for it. I was being facetious. I don't believe you are sincerely suggesting that it was space aliens who did it. I think you are using that as a way of ridiculing people who are questioning the official whitewash. I refuse to give a serious response to such tactics. Who do YOU think would be a neutral party to conduct these "independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11"? I Anyone at all who has enough expertise and research acumen to be able to do it. Even ones who don't for that matter, if they want to do the work. As long as all of it is peer reviewed, the hocus pocus will be weeded out from the legitimate science. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM (#2105263) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Here's an interesting video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:30 PM (#2105269) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce BB: I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. CarolC: From where I'm watching, you have already done this. Oh? Please let me know when. I have as good credentials as those you seem to think can't be called kooks- MY degree is in Physics ( and Astronomy), and I have 29 years of experience in Space operations. I think I might know something about the basic laws of physics and mechanics. Before you make claims, PLEASE have examples to demonstrate what you claim. Waiting for your examples....... |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:30 PM (#2105270) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Ok. I'll have a look around. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:33 PM (#2105273) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Question for you beardedbruce... Do you accept the NIST's version of events? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:34 PM (#2105274) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Isn't all of this being "peer reviewed" already? You can find engineers and scientists on both sides of the "issue" weighing in with logical theories as to how and why. It is easy for the rest of us to cut and paste articles that we know nothing about. For a split second, does anyone believe that either Carol C, Peace,toos sweet, Bearded Bruce or myself have a single clue about engineering? We are all talking out of our ass and relying on postings from others when you boil it all down. That doesn't make us wrong, it makes us human. I go back to the one question that the "government conspiricists" cannot give a strong answer to - how? You need a motive and a plan, and the "government" backed plan seems too risky to ever have been approved for operation as it requires too many conspirators and has more holes for potential failure that would result in a death sentence for everyone involved if caught. The government is not made up of very bright bulbs, but they aren't stupid. Every layman can use logic to follow the plot of the story. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:39 PM (#2105276) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "For a split second, does anyone believe that either Carol C, Peace,toos sweet, Bearded Bruce or myself have a single clue about engineering?" I am seriously offended by that remark, Ron. I DO know about engineering. Tell ME I don't know about engineering . . . . |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM (#2105278) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace However, there ARE serious people who DO know about engineering who have determined that the official version of events jus' don't add up. And that alone ought to prompt another investigation, because the Commission's 'Report' leaves lots to be desired in terms of truth. And there's the rub. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM (#2105279) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Isn't all of this being "peer reviewed" already? Not really. Not as long as the government continues (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own. I go back to the one question that the "government conspiricists" cannot give a strong answer to - how? Dr. Wood is right about one thing, at least, Ron. You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the government's version of how it was done. That's what independent investigations are for. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:44 PM (#2105282) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, Your statements are true- but so are the following ones: Not as long as the conspiracists continue (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own. You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the conspiracists' version of how it was done. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:46 PM (#2105285) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "The Commission members" The Commission has released its final report. [more] The Chair and Vice Chair have released a statement regarding the Commission's closing. [more] The Commission closed August 21, 2004. [more] Commission Members Thomas H. Kean Chair Lee H. Hamilton Vice Chair Richard Ben-Veniste Fred F. Fielding Jamie S. Gorelick Slade Gorton Bob Kerrey John F. Lehman Timothy J. Roemer James R. Thompson Commission Staff Philip D. Zelikow Executive Director Chris Kojm Deputy Executive Director Daniel Marcus General Counsel It is worth going to this LINK If you click on their names you'll be able to read their bios. Makes for an interesting read. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:51 PM (#2105288) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Every single person on the Commission was in the past or is presently connected to government. Not one hell of a lotta scientists there. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 03:57 PM (#2105297) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger Gosh, Peace, with your knowledge of 19th century choo-choos you've convinced me! But forgive me; I'm just a humble builder who has to deal with loadings and stressings on structures to comply with Building Regs on a day to day basis, while in a previous existence I was quite familiar with the effects of various kinds of demolition charge on structures. That ignorance aside, however,I have seen absolutely nothing from to dissuade me that what happened to the World Trade Centre buildings was not a direct result of the impact of two aircraft. Furthermore, if any organisation really did possess the capacity to perpetrate such an act and shift the blame so effectively, I don't think it exists in the USA at present. Sadly, the truth is always far more boring than fiction. Not that this will dissuade any of you from continuing to insist that the act was somehow more sinister. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories - there's a warm fuzzy glow from being a 'believer'. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM (#2105301) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq Make special note of Jamie Gorelick. She was assistant attorney general under Janet Reno. Gorelick was the chief architect of communication walls erected under the Reno Doctrine, a policy that made sure intelligence-gathering organizations (FBI, CIA, DOD and NSA) could not share data with each other. It was so silly that two CIA agents followed known Muslim terrorists on a plane trip to the US. At the airport, they watched the men walk away into the crowd, since contacting the FBI about the would have cost them their jobs. The CIA agents just drove off and had dinner. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:11 PM (#2105304) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Gosh, Caprain Ginger, I have seen nothing from you at ALL other than smart-assed remarks. Yippee, you're a builder. My uncle and brothers were both carpenters. That doesn't make them engineers either. You are more than entitled to your opinion, but when you employ sarcasm and condescension, I reserve the right to tell you to shove it up your arse. Have a nice day. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:23 PM (#2105311) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger Have a nice day yourself, poppet. But don't let those black helicopters keep you awake, d'you hear? And to be accused of condensation by one of the most rebarbative and patronising imbeciles in a very large pool of credulous cretins is praise indeed. Anyway, keep on clicking and the infallible Google will supply the answers for you to cut and paste with all the understanding a parrot has for its profanities. Heck, it must be true - it's on the internet! Not that I give a flying shit one way or another, of course. I'm lucky enough to be sufficiently 'off grid' for most of your problems in North America to be a matter more for wry amusement than concern, particularly now that HMG seems mercifully to be on the verge of removing its snout from Uncle Sam's scabrous sphincter. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM (#2105312) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Yeah. That's been the problem, what? Your leader's head up their leader's ass. That said, if you don't care, piss off asshole. That's North American for arsehole, but no doubt you knew that. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:26 PM (#2105314) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Not as long as the conspiracists continue (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own. This is a non-sequitur, beardedbruce, as well as a straw man, and ad hominem argumentation. First of all, not all people who challenge the official version are conspiracists. To call them that shows that you do not support independent investigations, because you appear to be defining anyone who supports having independent investigations a 'conspiracist'. Secondly, not all people who support independent investigations are engaging in marginalizing, ridiculing, and/or demonizing anyone at all. Many are simply challenging the official version of events. Thirdly, the even those who are doing those things are not in any kind of position of power, so whatever damage they might be able to do is miniscule in comparison to the problems that are caused by the government of the most powerful country in the world engaging in those kinds of behavior. You seem to think (this observation is based on years of reading your posts) that you can reverse the roles in every kind of debate and come up with a point that makes some kind of sense. You really can't always do that. Sometimes reversal of an argument just isn't logical. You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory. So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the conspiracists' version of how it was done. Yes, well, what I have been doing is questioning the official version of events. I haven't tried to prove any of the alternative theories. At this point, I would be happy just to see serious investigation about how the official version is not possible. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:27 PM (#2105315) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger pdq, you make a cogent point - there was staggering incompetence when it came to predicting and interdicting what happened on September 11th. Are we really to believe that the Establishment which couldn't tell its arse from its elbow when it came to intel was the same Establishment which could carry out a black op on the scale of the Twin Towers? Don't make me bark! |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM (#2105319) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger That said, if you don't care, piss off asshole. Peace, I've always thought that your role here on the Mudcat was like that of the cavalry - fundementally pointless, but with the virtue of lending a bit of tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. And, bless you, you have! |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM (#2105320) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Question for you beardedbruce... Do you accept the NIST's version of events? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2105322) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Coming from a sanctimonious popinjay like you, CG, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2105323) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "So proving to you how it might have been done is not a prerequisite for disproving the government's version of how it was done." Has her "proof" been subjected to peer review? Her results of disproving the "official" version are not necessarily accurate. When you say that some of us are trying to "marginalize, ridicule, demonize" - you forgot to inclue that we have also shown that some of these theories do not add up. You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:35 PM (#2105325) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done. " Lots of truth to that, Ron. But ya don't have to be a rocket surgeon to know that much doesn't add up in the official version of events leading upto, on and after 9/11. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:37 PM (#2105326) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Captain Ginger, as you have said yourself, you aren't all that terribly affected by what happens in the US, so why should you really care? Those of us who live here have good reason to be concerned about what happens in this country. Unlike your country, we can't get the Bush administrations nose out our arses. It's surgically implanted. So the best we can do is try to remedy what we see as problems arising from this state of affairs. If you don't enjoy watching this process (not that you are actually reading many of the posts you are commenting on, because we both know that you are not), you are certainly free to not read threads like this one at all. I'm sure that will considerably improve the quality of your life. Meanwhile, those of us who live in the US will continue to try to muddle on as best we can, even despite people like you making personal attacks on us for fun and recreation. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM (#2105330) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko That's not true Carol. While there are a lot of things that do not add up in the official version, there are many things that do. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:41 PM (#2105332) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq Actually, Cpt'n, the point I am making is that the intelligence failure was the result of policy. That makes it more a problem of judgement rather than incompetence. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:42 PM (#2105333) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Has her "proof" been subjected to peer review? Her results of disproving the "official" version are not necessarily accurate. Probably not yet, but I would like to see it happen, and I would like to be able to see whatever peer reviews are done on her work. When you say that some of us are trying to "marginalize, ridicule, demonize" - you forgot to inclue that we have also shown that some of these theories do not add up. You don't have to prove how it is done as a prerequiste for disproving the consipiracy version of how it was done. There's an awful big difference between pointing out inaccuracies and "marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing", Ron. I'm sure you can recognize which is which. So when I say that, I'm talking about the posts from people that contain "marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing" (read Captain Ginger's posts if you need a good example), and not posts that simply point out inaccuracies. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM (#2105336) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Which post of mine are you commenting on in your 17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM post, Ron? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM (#2105338) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger I read and comment because I'm interested in the truth as a forensic process, and in the behaviour of people. As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy. And people like Peace - who seem amazed that masses of dust is created when a building collapses and rush to find preposterous reasons - are the administration's useful idiots. As I said earlier, the 'how' is no mystery to me. It's the 'why' that should be exercising the attention of any intelligent person. And, while it might not impact directly on me, it can affect the quality of life and the standard of living of my children and almost every person on this planet in an indirect way. As such, I do find the whole thing terribly interesting. And, yes, the witterings of the lunatic fringe are amusing. I'm just glad I can pinch myself and realise that they are, after all, just the ramblings of global village idiots. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM (#2105339) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "While there are a lot of things that do not add up in the official version, there are many things that do." That is a place to start. What does add up and what doesn't? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:46 PM (#2105340) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Ron, I think you were commenting on Peace's 17 Jul 07 - 04:35 PM post in your 17 Jul 07 - 04:39 PM post. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:49 PM (#2105342) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Personally, Captain Ginger, I think your superior tone and your ridicule are evidence that you're simply looking for some cheap thrills and haven't got anything of real substance to say. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:55 PM (#2105348) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage? As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…" The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation. The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and NOT TO ANY ALTERNATIVE FORCES [emphasis added]. From here. Official NIST site. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:56 PM (#2105349) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko My mistake, I was commenting on Peace's comment. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 04:57 PM (#2105351) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Captain Ginger Substance? Certainly not. Unlike the other posters here, I have not been directly involved in the investigation, and neither do I have any relevant professional qualifications. Unusually, perhaps, I'm just an interested bystander; an ordinary Joe if you like. Put me down as the one person in this thread who doesn't have an axe to grind or an inside track. As such, I speak as I find. And, reading the (admittedly biassed, liberal and probably treacherous) British media, along with the various analyses by people who would seem from their experience and qualifications to know what they're talking about, I have reached the conclusions I have. All I can say as an 'expert witness' is that I have seen plenty of buildings of various sizes and construction made to collapse by various means, and I have no reason to doubt that the collapse of the Twin Towers and the damage to the surrounding buildings was caused by aircraft impact. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM (#2105360) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth "As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy." Exactly, Captain Ginger. That's a point I have been trying to make. There is no doubt that the Bush administration was criminally neglegent in ignoring the many warnings and indications. My "conspiracy theory" (and it's more that just a theory; there is a great deal of tesimony to the effect from people who tried to sound a warning and were simply ignored) is that the Bush administration was fairly sure that such an attack was indeed coming, and since it would suit their purposes (provide an excuse to establish a military presence in the Middle East), they simply sat back and let it happen. That is bad enough! What's the point of concocting elaborated scenarios to try to make the Devil look more evil than he already is? It tends to obscures the enormity of truth. Don Firth |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM (#2105361) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well, we can rest comfortably knowing that the BBC knew Building 7 was coming down before it did. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:19 PM (#2105364) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC As I see it, it's almost helpful for the administration to have to deal with a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who fantasise about demolition charges and deliberate state action because it helps deflect attention from years of stupidity and state inaction in US foreign and domestic policy." Exactly, Captain Ginger. That's a point I have been trying to make. Nonsense. This is a red herring. There's no reason why a comprehensive independent investigation cannot answer all questions, including those asking whether or not it was incompetence (or bad policy) that caused or enabled the events on 9/11. There isn't any reason at all to silence anyone who wants to ask what they consider legitimate questions, unless what you are trying to do is suppress investigation into questions that make you personally uncomfortable for reasons of your own. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:27 PM (#2105368) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC ( ...it's also a false dichotomy.) |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:36 PM (#2105378) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth I have no desire to stifle legitimate questions, Carol. What I have serious doubts about is when those who pose those legitimate questions claim to have all the answers, and then have manufacture evidence and play fast and loose with the laws of physics in a desparate effort to support those answers. That's the red herring! Don Firth |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:39 PM (#2105379) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel Last night I saw South Park's show on 9-11 being an inside job. It was exellent. The show was followed by lil Bush and featured GW Condi Don and Dick naked. W was miniscule. Later that night an outstanding comerical came on selling the talking Steve Irwin doll that would exclaim KRICKY and OH NO. It is currently for sale at Toys r Us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moore is asking the same question I posed here 6 years ago. Of the 100's of cameras surrounding the Pentagon why can't we see a single video of the airliner. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 05:54 PM (#2105393) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I have no desire to stifle legitimate questions, Carol. What I have serious doubts about is when those who pose those legitimate questions claim to have all the answers, and then have manufacture evidence and play fast and loose with the laws of physics in a desparate effort to support those answers. Some of the people questioning the official version of events have done this but not all have. But your posts seem to consistently call for everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of what's what to shut up. Still, even the people who are doing what you say can't do any real harm to any kind of legitimate, independent, peer reviewed investigation, so if you are trying to silence even those people, it's really more because of personal annoyance with them than because they are causing any real problems. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 07:27 PM (#2105458) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Okay...so what'd we settle on for the suspension of the laws of physics on 9/11. Was it the 'buildings fell from rust' theory, or did the transformers do it? Please clarify all references to transformers. Are you people talking about cartoon characters now being responsible? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 07:47 PM (#2105478) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth "But your posts seem to consistently call for everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of what's what to shut up." A mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Not what I have been saying at all, and I think you know that. Don Firth |
|
17 Jul 07 - 07:50 PM (#2105480) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth You, too, Sweetie Pie. Go back and check the links I posted having to do with transformers. Or did you skip them because they blow your "zippering explosions" idea? Don Firth |
|
17 Jul 07 - 07:55 PM (#2105484) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace On your mark, get set, |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM (#2105518) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC A mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Not what I have been saying at all, and I think you know that. You think wrong, Don. But I'm glad to learn that you do not intend to do what I thought you were doing. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 09:17 PM (#2105519) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Worth reading AND watching, closely. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:01 PM (#2105573) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie In those videos they say that on 7/7, the day of the London Tube attack, there was a drill of the same scenario. Does anyone know anything of this? |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:42 PM (#2105602) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe Falling masses, don't travel "at speed", they accelerate with the rate of acceleration due to gravity. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:48 PM (#2105607) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Interesting video. Far from corroborating what the text on that web site says, if you click on the "VIDEO CAMERA 1 wmv file" (which calls up Windows Media Player) and then you maximize the screen, at about 1:26 into the video, you can see what appears to be the nose of an airliner-size aircraft skimming just above the ground and heading straight for the side of the building. Maximizing the screen makes it a bit blurry, but using Windows Media Player also makes it possible to pause the video, back it up a few seconds and play it again. Which I have just done, several times. There is definitely an aircraft, on a collision course with the side of the building. Since the video is a series of "freeze frames" (typical for a security camera), the next frame shows the explosion of impact. With only the forward section of the plane in the single frame, it's impossible to identify it as specifically a Boeing 757-200. But there is definitely something that looks like an airliner heading toward the building. If you don't think it's there, look again! Also, in follow-up photographs (some of which have been posted on this thread), there is a substantial amount of aircraft debris scattered about where one would expect to find it: inside the building. Heavier parts, such as engines and landing gear in more or less one piece, but also bits and pieces of fuselage and wings, an engine cowling, various other twisted bits of debris. But that would be expected. When an airliner piles into the side of a building, it doesn't leave much of the plane intact. I once worked at Boeing (engineering support) and I know how these things are put together. Don Firth |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:52 PM (#2105610) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace My issue with the video is that the object entering from the right at 24 or 25 seconds into the video doesn't at all look big enough to be a 757. |
|
17 Jul 07 - 11:56 PM (#2105612) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Odd. What I see (not very distinctly) in those videos is what appears to be a smallish, white aircraft of some kind, but not a huge airliner, and it's going level to the ground, and damn fast. It looks more like a cruise missile to me, which is what some eyewitnesses there on that day have said they both heard and saw. Others said they saw a Boeing 757. Others said they saw a small white plane. The French author, Thierry Meyssan, who wrote that book "The Big Lie" thinks it was a military cruise missile, fired by someone in the American defense establishment. I went cruising around on the Net and found this article Robbins' article attacking the French author by James S. Robbins of the National Review. He disagrees extremely with Thierry Meyssan and says he was there on that day and saw the 757 dive on the building. In his words: "I went back to my office around 9:20. A short time later a friend of mine called, an Air Force officer, and we spoke awhile about the strikes in New York. I was standing, looking out my large office window, which faces west and from six stories up has a commanding view of the Potomac and the Virginia heights. (When I hired on my boss said we had the best view in town. True, most days.) The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time, I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it. Odd....because what shows in the video is not a 757 diving on the building, but what looks like a considerably smaller white vehicle flying low and dead level, just above the ground, straight into the building. The government story is that the plane clipped several light poles in its descent, bounced off the lawn or slid across the lawn, and slammed into the building. But photos of the damage before the fire department even arrived show no damage at all to the lawn, no debris on the lawn, and no 757 sized marks of damage to the outer face of the building...no evidence of the wings or tail striking the building...no evidence of the heavy, wing-mounted engines striking the building. The damage to the building shown by photos taken on that day before the fires caused the roof to fall in is consistent with the kind of damage that would be done by a bunker-penetrating cruise missile. It's a single hole, such as would be made by such a missile. A 757 would have made a central hole where the fuselage hit, a large hole on either side where each engine struck, and some large extended areas of damage to either side where the wings struck, and some additional damage above the central hole where the tail struck. But what did we have? Just the central hole, period, as would be made by a cruise missile or a much smaller airframe than that of a 757. So who is lying here? Or who is misconstruing what happened? Is there any way for you or I to know who is lying? Not really. Lies are often told. (Remember the great one about the babies being removed from incubators and left to die by Saddam's "fiendish" soldiers in Kuwait City? It was an eyewitness report by a personable young woman who wept as she told it. Totally convincing. Everyone believed it. It got the American public onside to support the Gulf War in 1991. But it turned out to be a totally fabricated lie, crafted to sway public opinion. She was a good actor.) So we have no way of knowing who is lying. We have to go on faith. But at least we do have some pictures taken by the media and by satellite on that day, both immediately after the explosion and some time later, and they might indicate something, right? Those pictures do not indicate to me that a 757 hit either the Pentagon...or the lawn...on Sept 11th. The whole thing is extremely odd, to say the least. Do I have a final conclusion about it? No. But it's odd. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:00 AM (#2105619) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch, now Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company. Power was quoted as saying "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now" http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/160705web_of_deceit.html Government-sponsored terrorism works. The Blair crowd saw Bush/Cheney getting away with 9/11, so they staged the London thing to get the Brits to give up more rights. The "authorities" DO the job, then we run to them and ask them to protect us. And now, Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff is saying Americans haven't traded enough liberty for security, and he has a 'gut feeling' we're going to be attacked again. They're setting up ANOTHER event and pre-conditioning you to think the attack is a result of you not giving your freedoms to the government. ----- "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:00 AM (#2105620) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Thing is, these were the videos released BY the Pentagon. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:07 AM (#2105628) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie I watched the videos that Peace linked to, and played them over and over. There are two scenes- same scene but one is from farther away. In the upper video this is the sequence: Police car going through intersection at 2:04 on the video clock There is a white streak traveling from right to left at 1:42 (Adding to the confusion a car races past the building at :25.) In the lower video this is the sequence: Police car in intersection: 3:11 Streak: 2:56 I don't understand the discrepancy of time: 22 seconds versus 15 seconds. Even allowing for camera speed differences, that seems over-much. Anyone have any ideas? NOTE: It definitely appears that the streak is traveling directly at the spot where, less than a heartbeat later, there is a tremendous explosion. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:16 AM (#2105632) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I don't know that the videos were synchronized. But that 'white streak' doesn't look like a 757 to me. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:20 AM (#2105641) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie I know what you mean, Peace. I wonder if there is another video extant that covers a different side or comes from a different angle? But there most definitely was an airplane that crashed at the Pentagon that day: American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. CREW Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia,. Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant. PASSENGERS Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California. M.J. Booth Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, William Caswell Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland,. Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. Eddie Dillard Charles Droz Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia Dee Flagg Richard Gabriel Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm. Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California. Yvonne Kennedy Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. Norma Langsteuerle Dong Lee Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives. She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer. Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems. Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, John Sammartino Diane Simmons George Simmons Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York. Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia. Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland. Vicki Yancey Shuyin Yang Yuguag Zheng |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:29 AM (#2105646) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard" So for the conspiracy theorists to be right that this place DID NOT crash into the Pentagon, these people must be somewhere (alive or dead), or the US Govt got the plane to fly out to sea then shot it down, where it was too deep to be recovered... If dead, where are bodies? If alive, where are they being held? "You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory" ... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:29 AM (#2105647) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace There was a 757 that disappeared that day. I truly don't know that it crashed into the Pentagon. If it did, what was the purpose of the 'thing' that is in the videos? And where is the wreckage of the plane? Overhead shot. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:30 AM (#2105649) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC The thing I see in that video cannot possibly be a Boeing 757. It's way too small. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:33 AM (#2105651) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie As Fooles suggested, those passengers and crew went somewhere. And they did exist. Surviving family and friends even held memorial services for them. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM (#2105652) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Here's a good visual to compare the thing in the video with a Boeing 757... http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg The thing in the video wasn't even close to this big. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:38 AM (#2105653) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Another question to be answered in an independent investigation. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:40 AM (#2105654) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I know, Ebbie. That's what is so confusing. And that is why there needs to be another investigation that does NOT include government, doesn't include FBI and sure as hell's on fire, doesn't include any of the people from the 9/11 Commission. Something is rotten. Has been for years. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:27 AM (#2105670) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe I checked the 'find the boeing' site. Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, the entry point is clearly shown, and on each side of the otherwise parallel lines of the 'passage', is a 'triangle' where the building crumbled as the wings hit it. Something much narrower than the plane would not have caused that. Many people do not even know how to look at things... "You don't have to prove the validity of any alternative scenario or theory in order to disprove an existing theory" ... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:36 AM (#2105673) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, the entry point is clearly shown, and on each side of the otherwise parallel lines of the 'passage', is a 'triangle' where the building crumbled as the wings hit it." Give it another look. The plane hit at about a 30 degree angle. Shouldn't have been a triangle there at all. Angle here. See line in grass. BTW, that pic is from 4 days prior to the 'crash' You can suggest no one else knows how to look. But many of us do know how to see. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:38 AM (#2105676) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Make that angle 20/70 degrees. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:48 AM (#2105679) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "You can suggest no one else knows how to look. But many of us do know how to see." In your latest referred icture, I can see a track across the grass - if not caused by the plane - which has to be your assumption so that you can get that 'angle' 'caused by the plane' - if not, what caused it. A smaller object like a missle would not have carried that far - it would have far less intertia. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 06:59 AM (#2105788) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "First of all, not all people who challenge the official version are conspiracists." Nor did I say that they were. Try READING what I wrote. "This is a non-sequitur, beardedbruce, as well as a straw man, and ad hominem argumentation." If so, what does that make YOUR statement???? Or do you play by a different set of rules than you allow others??? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:12 AM (#2105795) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce BB: I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. CarolC: From where I'm watching, you have already done this. Oh? Please let me know when. I have as good credentials as those you seem to think can't be called kooks- MY degree is in Physics ( and Astronomy), and I have 29 years of experience in Space operations. I think I might know something about the basic laws of physics and mechanics. Before you make claims, PLEASE have examples to demonstrate what you claim. Waiting for your examples....... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 08:09 AM (#2105829) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes??? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 08:22 AM (#2105835) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce LH, "What I see (not very distinctly) in those videos is what appears to be a smallish, white aircraft of some kind, but not a huge airliner, and it's going level to the ground, and damn fast. It looks more like a cruise missile to me, which is what some eyewitnesses there on that day have said they both heard and saw. Others said they saw a Boeing 757. Others said they saw a small white plane." 1. did you take into account the fact that the camera "footage " you are looking at was NOT taken at the same frame rate that you ( probably ) played it back at? Cameras used for monitoring take 1 frame every 1/2 to several seconds, NOT the 24-32 frames per second of a normal video system. 2. The only mention of a cruise missle I have seen presented was of an individual who stated the PLANE came in LIKE a cruise missle, NOT that it WAS a cruise missle. Can you provide a link to any other mention? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 08:28 AM (#2105837) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce And what about the bodies found in the Pentegon that were identified as the people on the plane? Were they misidentified ( DNA, dental records) ? Did someone bring in the extra bodies ( since they could NOT have been on a cruise missile)? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 09:41 AM (#2105884) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko 1. Why would they release footage that shows a missle hitting the Pentagon? If it "clearly" shows something other than a jet, how come this footage did not disappear? 2. If it was a missle, where was it launched from? 3. If someone strategically placed fake plane wreckage, why was this not captured on camera? There were people swarming the area within seconds of the hit - people on the highway and surrounding environs. How come this wasn't seen definitively? 4. What is the motivation for attacking the Pentagon? In all of Washington, there were numerous other targets that would have made a larger impact. Why not destroy the White House or the Capitol? Surely a missle leveling the White House would have had people signing up for military service within the hour. 5. Why are there so many witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon and literally thousands of people who saw the planes hit the WTC? Did David Blaine or the Mindfucker pull one over on us? Camera angles and video footage can be misleading - as the various shots of the second plane hitting the WTC shows. Simply being at another angle hid the plane from view on one shot. None of us are experts, although we all like to play Sherlock Holmes and read what we want into blurry .jpg's. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:24 AM (#2105900) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel Peace: the picture you posted shows a single track of burned grass directed at the Pentagon. Note that the "plane" had to have gone over the elevated highway and instantly drop 50 feet to burn the grass 30 feet away from the highway. I do not have an explaination for this peculiar SINGULAR trail the "plane" made on the grass in front of the Pentagon. It just raises more questions, if you are a questioning kind of person. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:25 AM (#2105901) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel this is the one you posted http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/Pentagon_9_7_01.jpg |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:26 AM (#2105903) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel was the track made by the fuselage, one engine only or by people walking up to see the Pentagon...I don't know. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 11:02 AM (#2105913) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko The track appears to have been made by a Sears Craftsman mulching mower with the blade set too low. Looks like my front lawn. How do we know when that picture was taken - because a website tells us so? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 11:22 AM (#2105926) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Peace, "Peace - PM Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:52 PM My issue with the video is that the object entering from the right at 24 or 25 seconds into the video doesn't at all look big enough to be a 757." Have you ever been to the Pentagon? What are you using to judge the scale of the plane? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM (#2105958) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk The thing is, BB, I don't know who (on the public record) is lying and who isn't...nor does anyone else here. When governments cover something up, a lot of lies are told. False witnesses are provided. Lying (and even probably some sincerely honest) "experts" are provided to explain and support the lies. False data is quoted as gospel. A great deal of effort is made in the media to support the lies. So it all depends on whether there has been a coverup or not. If there has been (for some reason...and there could be a number of reasons), then we cannot necessarily trust anything from the official record, except (hopefully) photos taken on the day by the press and by satellite. Any other information on the public record may be falsified or orchestrated to mislead. All I can go on as irrefutable is what I see in the photos and videos. I don't see what looks like a 757. I see what looks like a much smaller flying vehicle of some kind, flying dead level...possibly a cruise missile...possibly a small, white aircraft. I see damage on the building that does not suggest a hit by a 757. I see a lawn that does not look like it was hit by a 757. That raises a lot of questions. As far as the conflicting testimony of various eyewitnesses...it simply raises more questions, because one has no way of knowing: 1. who is telling the truth 2. who was correctly interpreting what they saw False eyewitnesses can be and ARE provided by governments who wish to cover up something. Governments are not stupid. If they have a vital need to cover up something and create a false cover story about a major incident they will go to tremendous effort and enlist the aid of a great many highly professional people in creating that story, and providing voluminous amounts of false evidence. This is the sort of thing that organizations like the CIA and military intelligence people are trained to do...when necessary. They have enormous resources. We don't. Don't forget that. The only question is...are they covering up? If so, then expect an avalanche of official disinformation in the media, and expect to be ridiculed for ever questioning it. Furthermore, expect to have your career terminated or at least very badly damaged if you are in a government job or an important media job. That's always a good way of shutting up mainstream dissent. Few people can afford to lose their careers. As for dissent by a few ordinary people who aren't mainstream (in the government or the media)? Well, it hardly matters, does it? Until martial law is declared. Then...I guess we ordinary people better learn to keep our mouths shut, right? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM (#2105963) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel bearded bruce, have you seen the bodies of passengers inside the Pentagon? Do you know thousands of people who claim they saw an airplane go into the Pentagon? Did you see the attack? I have seen the burn victims of Pentagon workers and the grief stricken families of the dead. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:01 PM (#2105968) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "When governments cover something up, a lot of lies are told. False witnesses are provided. Lying (and even probably some sincerely honest) "experts" are provided to explain and support the lies. False data is quoted as gospel. A great deal of effort is made in the media to support the lies." Don't forget that ANY group with a mission can do the same thing. It does not have to be a government that lies - any group with an agenda can produce the same "experts" and tell their own "lies". Our distrust of government should not cloud our views that there are other groups that would love to use this to their advantage. While people often say that the government used 9/11 to push their war, it should also be stated that anti-government groups are using 9/11 to push their views as well. People are gullible. Propaganda works both ways. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:01 PM (#2105969) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace In fact, beardedbruce, I HAVE been to the Pentagon. FYI. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:04 PM (#2105970) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Donuel, have you personally met any people who saw an aircraft strike the building? If so, what did they say they saw? Just wondering. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:07 PM (#2105974) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Donuel, I have seen the interviews with both victims and families of those killed. One of my good friends was the AA person who sold the tickets to two of the highjackers, and he knew the flight crew ( pilots and stewardesses). I watched the funerals of some of the dead, and do not believe that all those involved would have NOT identified the bodies as best they could- by DNA and dental records, at least. To be told it was a cruise missle , and to ignore those killed AND FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE, seems to be less than reasonable. I have been to and into the Pentagon- as have many others. Friends of mine have worked in the section that was hit. To state that the blurred image WAS NOT a 757, without even being aware that the security camera only takes frames at longer intervals than a video camera does, and to state that the wreckage that WAS FOUND ON THE SITE was somehow "inserted" (under the eye of how many cameras???) in order to be able to blame the Bush Administration shows a paranoia that seems to me to be over the top. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:12 PM (#2105979) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I think that blind acceptance of the 9/11 Commission's 'report' is as over the top as it gets, Bruce. There are more holes in it than Carter had liver pills. So, my questioning of it all will NOT be stifled. Perion. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:12 PM (#2105980) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk That's right, Ron. Any group can do it. Absolutely. Remember "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and what they did to Kerry? Gosh! I wonder who backed and organized and paid for that little effort? ;-) The reason I fear governments more when it comes to this sort of thing is that they have far greater resources to bring to bear in mounting a coverup...and the mainstream media tend to march in lockstep with them, since it's all basically the same huge pool of corporate money backing it in the final analysis. One hand washes the other. I'm more worried about government-supplied disinformation than I am about disinformation supplied by various small groups of anti-government radicals...because the government's powers of spreading disinformation are so much greater and so much more effective. They own the main tools of the system. They are akin to Joe Stalin or Chairmen Mao. They rule. That makes them potentially much more dangerous than those who oppose them. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:14 PM (#2105981) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Peace, Then you KNOW just how BIG the building is- and I fail to see how one can think that the plane is not big enough to be a 757. The people whose bodies were found in the wreckage were on a 757. The wreckage found at the crash site was from a 757 The radar showed the track of the 757 going in. Witnesses say it was an airliner, and descriptions matched the AA 757. So I guess we should assume it was a cruise missile. A BETTER case can be made for it to have been a DEMOCRATIC plot to destabilize the governemnt, and take over- NOT that I believe that was the case. Still waiting on the examples that CarolC owes me. or an apology. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:23 PM (#2105988) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel I asked DC channel 7 for tapes of their 9-11 coverage that included 2 witness' saying they saw a plane come in to the helicopter landing area. They would not comply at any price. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM (#2105992) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "They would not comply at any price." Red herring alert. Most broadcasters do not supply tapes like that to the general public. You might be able to purchase entire shows from approved sources but not raw footage or broadcasts that they do not have available. When I worked for NBC certain programs were not available for various contractual agreements. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM (#2105993) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "a plane come in to the helicopter landing area" Would you elaborate on that? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM (#2105995) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I'm more worried about government-supplied disinformation than I am about disinformation supplied by various small groups of anti-government radicals" Your choice. As I said, we are all gullible. Believe me, I know what they did to Kerry and the rest. Dirty tricks are not new. The government has resources, but a lie is still a lie no matter what the source. No one gets a free pass. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:31 PM (#2105998) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "They are akin to Joe Stalin or Chairmen Mao. They rule." By the way, do you think Stalin and Mao only started telling lies and spewing disinformation when they started to rule? Don't forget, they started as anti-government radicals in their time. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:31 PM (#2106000) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Bruce, indeed I do know how 'big' the Pentagon is, from the outside. I doubt it's changed from what I saw back in either the late '60s or early '70s. To show you that I am actually more interested in the 'truth' to do with 9/11 than I am with bashing that crap you have in the White House, please check this link. Both text and 'pics'. I do tend to read and research both side of an issue, and after 6 years on this one, I'm still puzzled. That is why I would like to see another investigation that keeps government's filthy hands off the input and output. Sorry, but tha bastards can't be believed. Too many years of bullshit from them. I can't get the site to hotlink, so instead, please Google Pentagon hole was the size of a 757 or use www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:41 PM (#2106004) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "By the way, do you think Stalin and Mao only started telling lies and spewing disinformation when they started to rule? Don't forget, they started as anti-government radicals in their time." Absolutely, Ron. Good point. My point is that they were more dangerous once IN power than they had been prior to being in power. Why? They had far greater resources at their command. Think about that. I know perfectly well that people on both sides of the fence may tell lies, but the ones in power worry me more than the ones out of power. That's why the government scares me more than its opponents do. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:42 PM (#2106006) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Has to be a US government site, right? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:52 PM (#2106011) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "My point is that they were more dangerous once IN power than they had been prior to being in power. Why? They had far greater resources at their command. Think about that. I know perfectly well that people on both sides of the fence may tell lies, but the ones in power worry me more than the ones out of power. " I don't think that makes me feel any different, in fact it scares more about "anti-government" sources. Look what Mao, Stalin, Hitler and others became. They were able to use propaganda to rise to power - a rise built on lies and hatred. Look at where they took it. Why would I trust people like that??? How different is it from what we are seeing today? Again, it boils down to looking at the message and using reason - not making an assumption based on the source. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:55 PM (#2106013) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "The thing is, BB, I don't know who (on the public record) is lying and who isn't...nor does anyone else here." Absolutely valid- But I do not know if all those people who talk about things happening before I was born are lying, either. Nor can I know that ANYTHING is true, even if I see it myself- "they " could be feeding false information directly into my optic nerve. If you are going to claim that it MUST be false because you do not trust the government, then please state what you CAN trust- so I can show how they are (possibly) no more true to the facts. And we certainly cannot have a discussion of the facts that makes any sense when there is NO agreement on those facts- Not the interpretation of them, but the FACTS THEMSELVES. To say that the 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon is like saying the sun did not rise today in Japan: There is a burden of proof that has NOT been met before the statement will be accepted. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 12:56 PM (#2106016) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace It's interesting to see that the author of that article supports the video research of Alex Jones. Thanks for that link. I didn't have it before. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:04 PM (#2106019) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Be clear Peace, he supports his videos, not his guests. Big difference. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:13 PM (#2106022) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "Absolutely valid- But I do not know if all those people who talk about things happening before I was born are lying, either. Nor can I know that ANYTHING is true, even if I see it myself- "they " could be feeding false information directly into my optic nerve. If you are going to claim that it MUST be false because you do not trust the government, then please state what you CAN trust- so I can show how they are (possibly) no more true to the facts. BB, in your efforts to challenge me you are slipping beyond legitimate argument into absolutely outrageous hyperbole. That's not helpful. It's never helpful to stretch an argument to an absurd extreme. I have said, and said, and said...that I don't know what happened, and I don't know who I can trust, because that is the case. I don't know. You don't know. I have no final opinion about who I CAN trust. What would I base such an opinion on? Faith. Well, I have faith in myself, and I have faith in some people that I know personally. Other than that, I have no way of being sure what's true and what isn't when it comes to public statements by a goernment and its numerous critics. I have to make the best guess I can about who is being truthful or accurate...and I have to keep in mind that that guess may be wrong. The link that Peace provided certainly has a ton of interesting info on it. They suggest that the government itself has planted the " cruise missile" idea in people's minds (partly via an apparent slip of the tongue by Donald Rumsfeld) as a bit of clever disinformation intended to discredit the whole 911Truth movement by causing people in it to adopt an easily attackable theory that Flight 77 never hit the building! Hmmm. Could be, I suppose. More stuff to think about. ;-) Really, man, I have no idea of how to be sure about what happened there on that day. I just have a lot of questions. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:16 PM (#2106026) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace From the site you linked, BB. A Boeing 757-223 The colours look the same to you? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:18 PM (#2106028) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "It's interesting to see that the author of that article supports the video research of Alex Jones." How much clearer you want it, Ron? I dislike your assumption, and am inclined to say a few things I just won't. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:20 PM (#2106032) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC beardedbruce, did you ever answer this question from me... Do you accept the NIST's version of what happened on 9/11? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:21 PM (#2106033) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Peace, EVERY airline paints/polishes its planes. Try to get a picture of the specific 757 IN QUESTION. Then ask about colors. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:22 PM (#2106035) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry to upset you Peace, but I do think it should be clearer. Nothing personal, but I think that the author of the article in question made it very clear. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:27 PM (#2106039) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC "First of all, not all people who challenge the official version are conspiracists." Nor did I say that they were. Try READING what I wrote. So we should take it then, that you are not saying that anyone who disagrees with or questions the official version of events is a conspiracist? Is that right? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:29 PM (#2106042) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, did you ever answer this question from me... BB: I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. CarolC: From where I'm watching, you have already done this. Oh? Please let me know when. I have as good credentials as those you seem to think can't be called kooks- MY degree is in Physics ( and Astronomy), and I have 29 years of experience in Space operations. I think I might know something about the basic laws of physics and mechanics. Before you make claims, PLEASE have examples to demonstrate what you claim. Waiting for your examples....... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:29 PM (#2106043) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I think that he was saying that not everyone who disagrees or agrees with the official statement is neither a conspiricist or approves of the government but rather they are saying that they agree that not everyone is agreeing with those who disagree that NIST or the conspricists have agreed to agree. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM (#2106044) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC BB: I will not accept claims that violate basic laws of physics, or require supernatural powers. CarolC: From where I'm watching, you have already done this. Oh? Please let me know when. I have as good credentials as those you seem to think can't be called kooks- MY degree is in Physics ( and Astronomy), and I have 29 years of experience in Space operations. I think I might know something about the basic laws of physics and mechanics. Before you make claims, PLEASE have examples to demonstrate what you claim. Waiting for your examples....... I'll do that after you answer my question (this is the fourth time I have posed this question to you in this thread) about whether or not you accept the NIST's version of what happened on 9/11. and I have not called you a kook. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM (#2106046) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I don't know that there was or wasn't a conspiracy. I tend to doubt the size of it all because betewwn the Pentagon, FBI and White House, they could make the Keystone Cops look efficient and professional. (In other words, they could fu#k-up a one car funeral.) However, there is one helluva lot of smoke and mirrors to do with 9/11, which even the author of the articke Bruce linked to says: "Although, I have to admit, even after many hours of research over several years, the only conclusion I'm willing to make these days about 9/11 is that nobody really knows what happened. And the people who should be able to find out what happened, have done everything in their power to limit the research as much as possible." |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:34 PM (#2106048) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "So we should take it then, that you are not saying that anyone who disagrees with or questions the official version of events is a conspiracist? Is that right? " That is correct. Those who INSIST it MUST be a conspiracy ( regardless of the facts that have been determined ) are the conspiracists. It may or may not be one- ***I*** am looking at the evidence to try to determine if it was, rather than ONLY looking for things that support what I want to believe happened. To ONLY accept information if it supports a pre-determined conclusion is not a valid means of determining the truth. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:35 PM (#2106050) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Addressed to LH... 1. did you take into account the fact that the camera "footage " you are looking at was NOT taken at the same frame rate that you ( probably ) played it back at? Cameras used for monitoring take 1 frame every 1/2 to several seconds, NOT the 24-32 frames per second of a normal video system. I freezed the frame with the projectile in it. I watched it go back and forth in slow motion, several times. It's too small to be a Boeing 757. 2. The only mention of a cruise missle I have seen presented was of an individual who stated the PLANE came in LIKE a cruise missle, NOT that it WAS a cruise missle. Can you provide a link to any other mention? If this is the only mention you have seen, that means you have not been reading the links and excerpts I have posted containing eye witness testimony saying that the witnesses believe it was a cruise missile. There are many such witnesses. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:40 PM (#2106055) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace A conclusion I am coming to is that there is sufficient truth in the Commission's report to satisfy John/Jane Doe. But that is not enough these days. I tend to think that people who ARE trying to 'spin' 9/11 have neglected to include the awesome ability of the internet to connect people and ideas. Some 'old' thinking in all this. I am also beginning to suspect that the government (read White House, members of the DOD and people in the FBI) DID stall and allow the attacks to happen. I think someone's 'good' idea went south and maybe that's what startled Bush enough to go into a blue funk in the Florida classroom. The news he got was NOT what he expected to hear. Do I think Bush is responsible? Certainly not. He's not bright enough for that. But I do think some folks REAL close to him are. And I hope they hang for it. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:45 PM (#2106060) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "It's too small to be a Boeing 757." And you believe this WHY???? "containing eye witness testimony saying that the witnesses believe it was a cruise missile. There are many such witnesses. " Which it is much too hard for you to present, I guess. I read the links- and discussed them previously. If YOU think they provide valid information, feel free to point to them specifically- I will look again. But then, I will state that there are many MORE witnesses that saw 757 go in. That testimony has been brought out earlier- feel free to go back and look at it. Or will you state that one witness that reports what YOU want to believe is more reliable than hundreds who saw something else??? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM (#2106061) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Here's the link, again, to the visual showing how big a Boeing 757 would be compared to the Pentagon. In the video, the projectile doesn't come anywhere near as high up on the building as a Boeing 757 would. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg Plus, if a Boeing 757 had hit the building, either there would have been wing-shaped holes in the building, or there would have been wings or wing wreckage on the lawn outside the building. Eyewitnesses have stated that they did not see any such wreckage or wing holes immediately after the initial blast. And in the above linked picture, there is no corresponding wing-related damage at the hight that the wings would be had they hit the building. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:49 PM (#2106063) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace A parenthetical statement here: The testimony of eye witnesses is happily accepted and used by lawyers from both prosecution and defense. The reliability of eye witnessed is less trusted by the people doing investigations. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:49 PM (#2106064) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Hardly one witness, beardedbruce. And one of them was a pilot who was sent in by the US military shortly after the initial blast. If you don't want to hunt down the quote I provided, I'll have a look for it a bit later and post it again. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 01:54 PM (#2106071) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I freezed the frame with the projectile in it. I watched it go back and forth in slow motion, several times. It's too small to be a Boeing 757" You need to understand how video works. Due to dropouts, I am guessing this is an standard definition analog recording probably made on a VHS or similar product. Video of this sort is produced by what is known as "interlaced" video. A frame of video consists of two fields - one field being the odd lines and the other the even lines. For NTSC, the standard used in the United States, there are 30 frames per second. Because of the speed of the object, it appears that the whole image is not available. Perhaps the only way to truly tell would be to analyze it from the original tape - not a computer as computer video is progressive scan. It just may be that this video is too short to capture the entire image. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:00 PM (#2106076) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The video is a bit too dramatic for my taste, but interesting nevertheless. http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html Scroll down abot 15-20% of the page and click Here's a Flash Summary of the anomalies at the Pentagon "Attack" on 9-11 |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:02 PM (#2106079) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "In the video, the projectile doesn't come anywhere near as high up on the building as a Boeing 757 would." You are basing that on an assumption. Read the link that BB provided for an alternate explanation. "if a Boeing 757 had hit the building, either there would have been wing-shaped holes in the building, or there would have been wings or wing wreckage on the lawn outside the building" a. No, it would not have been wing shaped based on the angle the plane hit, and b. there was wreckage found by witnesses. Again, see the link the BB provided for an alternate explanation. Also, if there were a "missle", where did it go? If a missle exploded, there would have been a different size hole from an explosion wouldn't there? Why were no missle parts found? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:03 PM (#2106080) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk If a hooker was as busy as this thread is, she could retire by age 30 and live in luxury for the rest of her life. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:04 PM (#2106081) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Plus, if a Boeing 757 had hit the building, either there would have been wing-shaped holes in the building, or there would have been wings or wing wreckage on the lawn outside the building." Try looking at the site I pointed out to Peace: it addresses what you have stated ( both false statements: There would NOT have to have been holes from the wings, and there WAS some debris outside the building) |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:09 PM (#2106088) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Yeah, I've been looking at that. Most interesting. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:15 PM (#2106091) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC beardedbruce, you reversed my words when I made this point, as if you were trying to make a point that in some way addressed the point I was making. Your point had no relevance whatever to the point I was making, which was in response to a question from someone else... "Isn't all of this being "peer reviewed" already?" Not really. Not as long as the government continues (with the help of so many people like many of those on this thread) to marginalize, ridicule, demonize, and suppress any investigations and investigators other than their own. Your reponse makes no sense in the context of the discussion, if we accept that you are not doing what I said you were doing, so it's not unreasonable for me to have misunderstood your reasons for posting that response. But at least it shows that I give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are trying to make sense. (Although I have to admit that even if you were doing what I said, your response still doesn't make any sense in the context of the discussion.) |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:16 PM (#2106092) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Here's the link, again, to the visual showing how big a Boeing 757 would be compared to the Pentagon" I looked at the site- it does not show anything NOT dealt with by the one I posted. You need to look at some simple physics: a plane at 300-600 mph hitting a steel- reinforced, concrete coated building will punch SOME holes, but most thin parts ( wings, tail) will hit the building, causing damage AS SHOWN in YOUR picture, and disintegrate. Planes ARE NOT MADE OF STEEL. As for the "video" PLEASE REMEMBER the security camera DID NOT take 30 frames a second- it was more like one every several seconds. If you view it AS A MOVIE, you will not be seeing what was taken. The appropriate way to view it is FRAME BY FRAME, ONE AT A TIME!!! |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:17 PM (#2106093) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Because of the speed of the object, it appears that the whole image is not available. This is not true. I was able to see the back end of the projectile. Keep trying, and you will be able to see it also. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:22 PM (#2106096) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC steel- reinforced, concrete coated building will punch SOME holes, but most thin parts ( wings, tail) will hit the building, causing damage AS SHOWN in YOUR picture, and disintegrate. I don't see any damage in that picture that looks like it corresponds directly with wing damage. What damage I do see, I see the same or similar damage to the building going almost all the way up to the roof. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:22 PM (#2106097) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC MY point was that being "peer reviewed" is just as foolish if one selects the "peers" to "review" something by their agreement with the desired conclusion. BOTH sides ( government and conspiracists) have reason to falsify data and provide a biased viewpoint. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:25 PM (#2106100) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC MY point was that being "peer reviewed" is just as foolish if one selects the "peers" to "review" something by their agreement with the desired conclusion. This point has no relevance to anything I've said. I would like to see peer reviews from anyone who cares to make them, and I would like to see the peer reviews peer reviewed. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:26 PM (#2106101) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk "BOTH sides ( government and conspiracists) have reason to falsify data and provide a biased viewpoint." Yes, that's right. That's what I've been saying. That's why it's so difficult to wade through the morass of stuff out there and reach any certain conclusions about exactly what did happen. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:28 PM (#2106104) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Since it seems like too much to ask you to read something you think might not support what you want to believe: "Part 9 - Debunking ALL missile testimonies The following quotes (usually only the portion that has been underlined) have been used at some point or another to provide evidence that a missile instead of an airplane hit the Pentagon. Since this article was first published in January 2005, there has been a significant change in how the Pentagon crash is perceived by the 9/11 Truth community. Whereas back in 2004 and early 2005, no serious opposition existed to the no-757 arguments of Eric Hufschmid and others, many readers and researchers have realized that these arguments were bogus. I suggest you never forget who repeated (or still promotes) the quotes below to promote the theory that no-757 could have hit the Pentagon. In many cases they are spreading other disinformation as well, which has now become more easy to recognize. Tom Seibert, a network engineer at the Pentagon [September 11, 2001, Washington Post, ''Extensive Casualties' in Wake of Pentagon Attack']: "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom...We just hit the dirt. We dived instinctively. We were sitting there and watching this thing in New York, and I said, 'you know, the next best target would be us. And five minutes later, boom." Explanation: This "witness" was watching TV inside the Pentagon. Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 [September 11, 2001, Washington Post, ''Extensive Casualties' in Wake of Pentagon Attack']: "I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." Explanation: The witness clearly stated that he saw a plane. Michael DiPaula, project coordinator Pentagon Renovation Team, in construction trailer 75 feet from the crash [September 8, 2002, Baltimore Sun, 'A Rolling Memorial']: "Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. It sounded like a missile… Buried in debris and covered with airplane fuel, he was briefly listed by authorities as missing...There were three loud thump, thump, thumps. You could hear the metal cracking and crinkling, and the explosion." Explanation: The article clearly states an airplane roared into DiPaula's view. And he only says it sounded like a missile, not that it actually was a missile. Mike Walter of USA Today [September 11, 2001, CNN, 'Witnesses to the moment: Workers' voices']: I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low...And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon...Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out." Explanation: Nice quote but he clearly stated that he saw a big loud American Airlines jet as everyone else. Tony Terronez, from a nearby highway [2001, Counseling Today, 'Amazing stories: The air, the island and the fortress']: "So I got about 100 yards or so past the heliport and then all of the sudden I heard this loud screeching sound that just came out of nowhere and it intensified. This huge WHOOSH! And something made me look in my rearview mirror and by the time I looked up I saw the side of the Pentagon explode....At that point I realized -- you see at that point I didn't know it was a plane, I thought it was a missile strike..." Explanation: He didn't see anything impact, he only heard a loud 'whoosh' and saw an explosion. Lon Rains, Editor Space News, from Springfield somewhere on Interstate 395 [June 30, 2005, Space News, 'Eyewitness: The Pentagon']: "With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o'clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane...I remember vividly that as I turned off my cell phone I was watching the almost serene image of thick pieces of flaming fiberglass insulation floating down onto the highway." Explanation: From reading the text it is clear that he did not see any object, only a large fireball a few seconds after impact. This person did not question the fact that an airliner hit the building. October 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld in Parade Magazine [link at DoD website]: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." Explanation: You can refer to the plane as a missile because it was used as one. It's not a bad description at all. For example, take the Babylon dictionary: "object that can be thrown or hurled (stone, arrow, bullet, etc.)" You can add to that list a suicide airliner which uses its fuel supply as warhead. " |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:31 PM (#2106106) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Hey! My handle was hijacked! Hanjour is at it again. So, is this the plane that Cessna-school flunk-out Hanjour rassled through a downward-spiraling 270 degree turn, used to defy the laws of physics regarding the updraft of air from the ground, then used to leave a 9 foot hole in the Pentagon? "Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons...." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html Barbara Honegger says a jet fighter was sent to examine the damage to the Pentagon after the 9:32 a.m. explosions to check for damage -- before the official impact time of 9:45 (later revised to 9:37) |
|
18 Jul 07 - 02:36 PM (#2106110) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk There's another possibility, sooo sweet. Hanjour may not have been flying the plane at all. No Muslim hijacker may have been flying the plane. There are ways of remoting controlling and flying such an aircraft into a building, and that could have been done, which could account for the expertness of the maneuvers. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 03:01 PM (#2106123) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Little Hawk, maybe some kid was out doing remote control model airplane aerobatics and the Pentagon crash was one big accident. No violation of the laws of physics that way. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 03:10 PM (#2106129) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Who let Saudis flee after 9/11? Boston Globe CIVIL LIBERTIES in an age of terrorism require a careful balance between preserving important rights cherished by all Americans and the need for law enforcement to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. The importance of a balanced standard is particularly evident in President Bush's request to Congress for additional law-enforcement powers to investigate terrorist suspects while questions persist about why the White House and FBI permitted 140 Saudis (including two-dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden) to leave hurriedly from the United States for Saudi Arabia. In the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, while the airways were still closed to all other flights, Americans couldn't fly into the country but relatives of bin Laden were able to fly out. The Justice Department and the FBI inspector general should investigate why these obvious "persons of interest" were permitted to leave the country without being seriously interrogated. Why should the American people trust the Bush administration with greater police powers when it refuses to answer questions about the bin Laden family's escape? As Senator Charles Schumer of New York has said, it was too soon after 9/11 for the FBI even to know what questions to ask, much less to decide conclusively that each Saudi and bin Laden relative deserved an "all clear," never to be available for questions again. The American people deserve answers to these questions: Whom did the Saudis call to request government approval of the flights? Who in the government coordinated approval of the flights? Did the FBI receive any communications from the White House about the urgency of permitting these individuals to leave the country? Did any Justice Department or FBI officials express reservations or objections to the decisions? Did any Americans contact the US government to urge approval of the flights? In stark contrast to the special treatment given to these Saudis, President Bush and the Justice Department have repeatedly challenged Congress and the federal courts to permit law enforcement maximum leeway in moving against terrorism suspects. In the aftermath of the attacks, hundreds of Arabs were jailed for months without access to counsel. The Justice Department has asserted that not even the federal courts can tell it that American citizens have a right to counsel or to compel witnesses under the Constitution if they have been deemed unilaterally to be "enemy combatants." from here. Someone wanna handle that? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 03:39 PM (#2106152) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Bingo! Those are the type of questions that need answered. Good post Peace! |
|
18 Jul 07 - 03:53 PM (#2106162) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Since it seems like too much to ask you to read something you think might not support what you want to believe, beardedbruce... Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC - PM Date: 15 Jul 07 - 10:35 PM If it was really the plane they said it was that hit the Pentagon, Bill, there shouldn't be any problem with releasing the video footage that was taken by the security cameras at the hotel across the street from the Pentagon, and which were confiscated by the FBI, so everyone can see for themself. This would end the speculation. On the other hand, there are also eyewitnesses who say when they got to the crash site immediately following the 'crash', they could not see any sign of an airplane having crashed into the building. From this site... http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). * Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day." From this site... http://911courage.org/linked_docs/pentagon.pdf -Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995−present), the Navy's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This research, as all of Honegger's research and publications on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White HousePolicy Analyst (1981−83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989; and Iran−Contra expose documentary film "Cover−Up"); and was called as a researcher / witness at both the October 23, 2004, and August 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005.- Converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before the Official Story says anything hit the building: Multiple standard−issue, battery−operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11−including one in the heliport just outside the west face−were stopped between 9:31 and 9:32−1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a "booby trapped truck." The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks is in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2 These are just some of the west section Pentagon clocks that stopped between 9:31 and 9:32−1/2 on September 11. April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed, when what she said sounded and felt "like a bomb" went off. "Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel." Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30. The FAA's [Federal Aviation Administration] timeline document "Executive Summary−Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis−−September 11, 2001" reads: "0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon."3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause. Denmark's soon−to−be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4 On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave the Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in which Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that "The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32". A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record... ...In the Air Force's own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This fighter jet−not Flight 77−is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller's screen making a steep, high−speed 270−degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots−like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to reporton the Pentagon's damage−are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270−degree maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was. Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for "Flight 77" impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am−the actual time of the first explosions there−is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold's surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was "Flight 77." As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold's surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM (#2106170) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Thanks, Ron. It's these unanswered questions--I think--that lend credibility to further conspiracy theories. If I'd been in charge (a scary thought), I think I would have gone on TV and told the American public that our intelligence services had screwed the pooch. That we'd had indications before 9/11 that there would be an attack on American soil and that due to the size of the intelligence system, messages did not get passed as quickly as they shoud, that there would be a transparent investigation as to what went wrong and that some folks would be 'counting trees' (to use an old USSR expression). When the C in C stonewalls in an effort to keep his friends or departments clear of any honest criticism or investigation, it taints the whole administration and all the intelligence services, most of which try to perform their functions with professionalism and on behalf of the American people and to keep citizens safe. I think if Bush HAD levelled with people, he'd have won the 2004 election in a walk. The American people have never 'deserted' a sttting President when the country has been at war. Cheney has been and continues to be a different matter. I am amazed at the inability of your congress to get answers from these guys (Bush and Cheney). It all simpley makes me think there will be some sort of attack on mainland USA and that they will grab all the powers they have available through the Patriot Act and the various Executive Orders that have been put in place over the past six years. If, as an American, you are not concerned, then you aren't the kind of American I came to know during the time I lived there. (That is not directed at anyone here. The fact y'all are interested enough to argue for or against tells me y'all are interested.) The US has had its top court gelded, its congress silenced, and two guys have been doing that out in the open AND getting away with it. Where the hell is the US I know? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 04:22 PM (#2106181) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "It's these unanswered questions--I think--that lend credibility to further conspiracy theories." Unfortunately they are not questions that captivate people's attention. It is far more exciting to consider a fake plane or planting of bombs than it is to consider our government is made up of morons, led by one of the biggest mental midgets of all time. I truly believe that Bush sat in that classroom on 9/11 because he was scared and did not know how to cope. Being president was not the fun and games that he expected. That whole incident convinces me that the "conspiracy" to take down these buildings did not exist - no one would leave a loose end like Bush to sit around and embarrass the country. People tend to forget how stupid he looked and how vulnerable our country looked. A bunch of trained chimps could have reacted better. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 04:27 PM (#2106187) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Uh-huh. Just watch it, Ron. - Chongo |
|
18 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2106190) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I have watched that video dozens of times. Scares the hell outta me. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:01 PM (#2106201) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel In response to Ron LOesko's post I included links videos and testimony with several key insights of my own but as we have probably all experienced, when I clicked submit message it vanished. So in consice summary: Yer right Ron but its worse than you thought. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:27 PM (#2106219) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I've been looking around in beardedbruce's linked page. We can see in images of the WTC, that the airplane's wings made a perfect wing-shaped hole (all the way to the very narrow tip of the wing) in steel and concrete, but beardedbruce and his linked page are saying that an aluminum wing of an airplane cannot leave a wing-shaped hole in limestone and brick. I'd like to see an explanation of why they are willing to accept aluminum going through steel and concrete but not limestone and brick. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM (#2106230) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Big Mick Donuel, I checked to see if any posts have been deleted or removed in any way. None have. Not sure why you are having a problem, but PM your links to me and I will post them. I don't buy into your conspiracy, so if they disappear on me, you may have something. I do not believe you do, but I will happily post what you want. Mick |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:42 PM (#2106233) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Another point about beardedbruce's linked page on the Pentagon. Clearly they aren't all that concerned with reporting the truth because they say they have debunked all (and they are very clear about it being ALL) of the testimony from people who think it was a missile. But they fail to even mention any testimony that doesn't support their scenario, and as we can see, such testimony does exist. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:51 PM (#2106248) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Ron Olesko at 18 Jul 07 - 04:22 p.m. Here here! Exactly so! Don Firth |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:52 PM (#2106250) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Bill D just in response to the 'vanishing posts' problem...which crops up every now & then. I, myself, have hit 'submit' and had a post seem to vanish--that is, the thread did not refresh and when I clicked on the thread again, my post was not there. I am thinking it has something to do with cache management in the browser, because *I* solve it by going 'back' in my browser....IF I haven't closed it, the text I typed is still there, and I just copy it (or even cut it) to the clipboard, then reload..(NOT refresh), Mudcat...go to the thread and repost it. This has not failed once since I first tried it....it is just some technical thing about either my browser or Mudcat's refresh controls. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:53 PM (#2106251) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the ballots. Joe Stalin |
|
18 Jul 07 - 05:59 PM (#2106253) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Bill D, I've done the same (it's not just you) and yes, the back thing works. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 06:07 PM (#2106257) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Big Mick Put up or shut up, folks. Send me the links, I will see to it they are posted. And Bill, sometimes it suits folks not to solve a problem. Plays into the point they are trying to make. Mick |
|
18 Jul 07 - 06:09 PM (#2106261) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace What links you talkin' about? And how are ya ya ol' fart? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 06:22 PM (#2106267) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk I've had numerous posts vanish when I hit "submit". Damn frustrating. But you can recover them if you remember to go "back" right away. If not, you're shit outta luck. I don't interpret it as a conspiracy, though, I interpret it as a software glitch. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 06:32 PM (#2106275) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Yeah. Riiiigggggggghhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:13 PM (#2106314) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes???" I'm unlikely to place much credence in someone who insists on being anonymous, who keeps constantly changing identifying handles, and seems to be obsessed with posting large amounts of 'X-Files' weird shit on a Music Forum... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:16 PM (#2106315) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Big Mick And you are another old fart...........***guffaw****. I am fine, Bruce, just a bit preoccupied with doing battle with the forces of godless capitalism. Working with packing/slaughterhouse workers organizing. If you think "The Jungle" is not relevant anymore, I'm here to tell you it is. Anyway, the links I am referring to are the ones that Donuel says disappeared. If they did, or if they didn't, I will be happy to post them for him, using my mystical elf powers, and if they disappear on me, then he has a case. But he implies something in his post that suits him to have them disappear. I want to put that to bed. So send 'em, Don. Let me make sure that they get posted. And I have checked (once again using my mystical elf powers) and there have been no deletions from this thread. Back to lurking, Mick |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:18 PM (#2106318) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well, you watch yer back. It's dangerous work you're in at times. Big money doesn't like unions. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:19 PM (#2106320) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "DC channel 7 for tapes of their 9-11 coverage that included 2 witness' saying they saw a plane come in to the helicopter landing area." I mentioned about the alleged 'chopper crash' here before... |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:19 PM (#2106321) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko ooops... that was my post at 7:02, I lost my cookie |
|
18 Jul 07 - 07:41 PM (#2106334) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "witnesses believe it was a cruise missile. There are many such witnesses." Many people all over the world witness that they have a belief in 'God'... "if a Boeing 757 had hit the building, either there would have been wing-shaped holes in the building" I've already pointed out the short 'triangular sides' section of the entry hole. "would have been wings or wing wreckage on the lawn" Inertia would have tended to NOT bounce crap all over the lawn at a distance, but carry it forward towards the building. "Planes ARE NOT MADE OF STEEL." The bits also burn VERY well - just look at the after pictures of any plane crash that burned. "accept aluminum going through steel and concrete but not limestone and brick." 1 - visual evidence. 2 - the 'steel' was not very thick. 3 - brick walls tend to be rather thick, and have you ever tried to demolish one with a sledgehammer? I have. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 08:38 PM (#2106365) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Hey! They did it again. Handle hijackers. Hanjour lives. Janeane Garofalo has just said "9/11 was an inside job" on television. Always knew she was a smart lady. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 08:52 PM (#2106374) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Wow! A stand-up comic says so! Well, that settles it! Don Firth |
|
18 Jul 07 - 09:51 PM (#2106402) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Are you saying that stand-up comics shouldn't be allowed to have opinions, sir? ;-) Is that what you're saying? So...what is your profession, pray tell? |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:04 PM (#2106412) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well, I for one think that standup comedians shouldn't have onions. Get down-wind of these guys and gals when they fart and it nothing to laugh about. Gag, yes, but laugh, no. |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:15 PM (#2106427) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Aw, c'mon, Little Hawk! Certainly stand-up comics can and do have opinions. But just because they say something doesn't mean that's really their opinion. Their profession is to make you laugh, remember? A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Say, what is this? Some kind of joke!??" Don Firth |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:16 PM (#2106428) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Heh! |
|
18 Jul 07 - 10:20 PM (#2106433) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace OPINIONS? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . Just missed the ol' 355/113. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:42 AM (#2106504) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet So why did the towers fall so fast? The government said something about a pancake theory (impossible), then Firth talked about cartoon characters being responsible, but what REALLY happened? I missed the explanation, if it was back there. http://www.klangundkleid.ch/img/dvd/covers/SWD151.jpg |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:03 AM (#2106518) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "So why did the towers fall so fast?" 1) Gravity 2) s = 1/2 a t2 (from memory) where a = accel due to gravity... |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:06 AM (#2106544) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Many people all over the world witness that they have a belief in 'God'... Belief is all the people promoting the official version have as well. They have no proof that it wasn't a missile, and they have no proof that it was an airplane. Unless they'd like to release the video tapes taken by the security cameras at the hotel across the road. Maybe they have proof it was an airplane. Or maybe they have proof that it was a missile, and that's why they don't want to release them. But what I saw in the Pentagon video definitely wasn't a Boeing 757. Inertia would have tended to NOT bounce crap all over the lawn at a distance, but carry it forward towards the building. Some of the witnesses said there was no plane wreckage in the building. And there were also people who said there was no plane wreckage outside the building. No plane wreckage inside... no plane wreckage outside. 3 - brick walls tend to be rather thick So are concrete floors in high rise buildings. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:09 AM (#2106546) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC "DC channel 7 for tapes of their 9-11 coverage that included 2 witness' saying they saw a plane come in to the helicopter landing area." There are also witnesses who said they saw a small passenger plane (could easily have been a missile), and people who said they saw a thing that looked like a missile with wings and a tail. There are quite a few different kinds of witness accounts. It requires belief to accept the official version of events. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:10 AM (#2106547) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Why didn't the dozens of floors, impacted one by one as the buildings fell, slow the speed of descent? Why didn't the tens of thousands of steel bolts locking the floors to hundreds of steel columns slow the descent to less than freefall speed? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:11 AM (#2106549) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Stop asking questions like that. The official report says that's what happened--so, that's what happened. Physics be damned! |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:16 AM (#2106551) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And why didn't the floors that were above the floors where the planes allegedly crashed remain intact? Surely they could have ridden on down to the bottom on the cushion of the floors below as they collapsed without turning to dust. Where did the top floors go? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:20 AM (#2106554) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And what about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:34 AM (#2106558) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet David Ray Griffin says: Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the "pancake" theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors "pancaked" all the way down. But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building's profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture, explains: the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6) Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed. The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced "global collapse" (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143). This theory faces two problems. First, NIST's claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that "column failure" occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26] http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html The "free fall" issue is addressed on the debunking sites that Olesko and the others parrot, and that's why I like Griffin's work. His last book debunked the debunkers. He tore up the Popular Mechanics junk science piece and 3 other "deunking" reports. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 03:00 AM (#2106566) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Has anyone hit a site that explains just how the cement floors were turned into dust? A non-NIST site that is? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 03:35 AM (#2106577) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Firth had a post a while back about 'transformers' being responsible. I read a while back that a lot of new 'transformers' and 'big computers' were being loaded into the towers in the weeks before 9/11. Firth may be right about transformer-like devices being responsible. Big boxes that looked like tranformers and mainframes being moved into a half-vacated office building...could have been C4. Thermate cut the steel, C4 pulverized the floors. There's an article or two out there about people commenting on the 'transformers' being upgraded before the attacks. If they were hermetically sealed, not even bomb sniffing dogs would've know what was inside them. Interesting film on the 'no planes' theory. I've stayed away from that just because the govt hasn't explained the obvious, like how the laws of physics and aerodynamics were violated. Until they do that, everything else is secondary. Wouldn't violate "national security" to look into those simple questions. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 07:36 AM (#2106676) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "They have no proof that it wasn't a missile, and they have no proof that it was an airplane." YOU have no proof that it wasn't an airplane, and YOU have no proof that it was a missile. So what? That makes no difference to what actually occurred. I have no proof that anything you state is true, and you have none that what I say is true. As long as the determination of truth is by one's political prefernces, there can be NO FAIR investigation. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:11 AM (#2106739) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "It requires belief to accept the official version of events." It requires belief to accept the versions that you and toots sweet are cutting and pasting from. ALL versions require belief as well as the ability to reason. Carol has not convinced any of us of her beliefs, and we won't convince her of ours. You can keep asking questions on where the elephant came from or how the magician sawed the lady in half, but you see what you want to see. You ask a lot of questions, but fail to give answers. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:26 AM (#2106751) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet The laws of physics were defied, according to what the government "reported" about 9/11. No "belief" necessary to see that the laws of physics were defied. The government owes us an accounting, not a coverup. And this has nothing to do with politics. A "bipartisan" commission covered up the crime. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the yardstick in criminal cases. There is a reasonable doubt here. If the Bush/Pelosi crime cabal isn't held accountable for this crime (they've already parlayed it into "perpetual war" and loss of American citizenship for "suspected terrorists"), and if they're not held accountable for the crime of 9/11, America will be killed. Knowing that, you have to wonder just WHY some people push the government's version of events so ardently. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:35 AM (#2106759) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "The laws of physics were defied' No, they were not. "you have to wonder just WHY some people push the government's version of events so ardently" You have to wonder why some people are so hung up on "government's" version, as if ANYTHING they tell us is AUTOMATICALLY a lie. No one is saying to trust ANYONE, but use logic and common sense. You see it one way, the majority of people see it another way. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:58 AM (#2106779) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,undertheradar Let's cut away the rubbish. If you believe that 9/11 was a "bipartisan" "inside job," you must believe that the U.S. Government that we see is a giant front for a vast conspiracy we don't see. And anyone in the public eye as a high government official is likely to be a mer tool of the real puppet-masters, whose low profile gives them nearly infallible control over Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary, the military, and the media. The conspirators must be more far more subtle than Hitler or Stalin because Hitler and Stalin made sure people *knew* who was in charge. Please identify the group you think is really behind the ultimate conspiracy. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:43 AM (#2106852) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk BB - "As long as the determination of truth is by one's political preferences, there can be NO FAIR investigation. " Yeah. How about that, eh? Matter of fact, BB, that's the way it always is when these things happen, and that's why we virtually NEVER get a fair and impartial investigation of anything nor do we get a full and honest disclosure of all the available evidence. People are covering their own asses, and they are pushing their own agenda. The same tends to be true in many criminal investigations. Both the prosecution and the defense will stoop to any manipulative tactic they can legally get away with in order to push their particular agenda...and secure a "win" from their point of view. It's a disease of this entire competition-obsessed culture. Winning and being seen to win is all that counts. It is likewise the same disease that corrupts every debate on this forum... I keep pointing that out, because it's so blatant, but most people only seem to see it when the "other guy" is doing it. Perhaps that is because they are constitutionally incapable of engaging in self-criticism or self-analysis? ;-) Well, I don't know, but it's certainly something to witness. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:45 AM (#2106855) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce LH,, I agree. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:59 AM (#2106870) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel Carol, "and what about this? that particular tube vid is blatently absurd. The most compelling vid pertaining to media warping was the BBC reporting of bld 7 coming down 5 minutes before it came down in the background of a live reporter telling us that it had already come down. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:09 PM (#2106884) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Big Mick So Donuel, you going to send me those links, instead of leaving the conspiracy laced implication that somehow proof is disappearing? I stand ready to post them for you to either prove or disprove that they are mysteriously disappearing. Mick |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:15 PM (#2106889) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC YOU have no proof that it wasn't an airplane, and YOU have no proof that it was a missile. I have proof that there is no proof that it was an airplane. That, along with the number of anomalies, as well as the number of conflicting testimonies that we see, as well as the fact that the Bush administration is using this event as the core of its aggressive, bloody, and illegal foreign policy and it's illegal and unconstitutional domestic policy, proves to us that we need independent, peer reviewed investigations. And since you consider bias a criteria for discounting anything anyone says, we can automatically discount anything whatever that comes out of the NIST, since all of those people are Bush appointees. They work for the Bush administration. They answer to the Bush administration. It's the Fox in charge of the investigation into why the chickens all disappeared. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:18 PM (#2106890) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC It requires belief to accept the versions that you and toots sweet are cutting and pasting from. Well, the problem with this, Ron, is that my main belief is that we can't trust the official version of events. That's my main contention. I don't know what happened. I just know that we can't believe the official version of events. For you to suggest that I have even said that I think I know what happened shows that you haven't been reading my posts at all and you are just projecting your own bullshit onto me. Please stop it. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:19 PM (#2106893) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "C4 pulverized the floors" If indeed there WERE any explosives used, I would suspect it would have been a mixture of cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine and pentaerythritol-tetranitrate which are the explosive ingredients of a substance sold commercially under the name Semtex. Primacord (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) detonates at about 8,000 feet per second. In other words, it blows up real fast--a mile and a half per second is fast. (I have not kept up my reading on explosives and it's possible that the blast rate of Primacord is somewhat slower than the figure I've given. But I do know that there is a type of Primacord out now that DOES fire at the rate of 8,000'/second.) Semtex usually has ethylene glycol dinitrate added as a detection taggant, but the material can be made without the tag added to it. However, I would suspect that even today, if materials from the Towers were made available to a lab, and the lab was instructed to LOOK for the presence of a Semtex residue, it could be determined whether it was present in the Towers as far back as September 11, 2001. But I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon. Something turned the cement floors to dust. Without suggesting that the NIST report missed it on purpose (if you ain't looking for explosives, y'ain't gonna FIND explosives, and the investigators at the time would have had no reason to suspect the Towers to have fallen because of explosives), and without suggesting that there was any malfeasance on their part, why would it be so difficult for NIST to check today? But I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon either. "Three pounds of Semtex plastique packs enough punch to raze a two-story building." Food for thought. And before anyone gets all nutso, let me ask this: Why NOT test for the assortment of explosive available for use these days? It would sure shut down this type of speculation--OR open a door that officialdom would love to keep closed. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:21 PM (#2106897) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I have proof that there is no proof that it was an airplane. " You can't have proof that there is no proof when there are witnesses saying they have proof. That is the proof! |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:24 PM (#2106898) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Please identify the group you think is really behind the ultimate conspiracy. If I were to try to speculate (note I said "speculate", not declare as fact), I would say probably a cooperative enterprise involving the military industrial complex (remember, Eisenhower warned us about them), the petroleum industry, the Neocons, and possible the governments of some foreign countries. The first two for economic reasons, the second two for balance of power reasons as well as possibly economic reasons. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:24 PM (#2106900) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Well, the problem with this, Ron, is that my main belief is that we can't trust the official version of events" So that is what guides your beliefs and clouds your ability to accept. With a preconceived notion, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You are projecting your own bullshit into the cut and pastign you are doing. This negates any contribution you are trying to make. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:25 PM (#2106901) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC You can't have proof that there is no proof when there are witnesses saying they have proof. That is the proof! There are eyewitness who say they have proof of the opposite. Is that proof also? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:26 PM (#2106904) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko They have not show us the proof other than words. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:28 PM (#2106905) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "I have proof that there is no proof that it was an airplane" No, I do not agree. You have information that, if true, would open the possibility that there was no plane- I have information that tells me there was a plane- (wreckage, bodies, engines with serial numbers, the ONE frame of video from the security camera, eyewitnesses). This may or may not be true- JUST as your information may or may not be true. I believe that the information I have seen reflects a better picture of what happened than your information does. You probably believe the opposite- THAT IS NOT PROOF. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:30 PM (#2106907) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC So that is what guides your beliefs and clouds your ability to accept. With a preconceived notion, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You are projecting your own bullshit into the cut and pastign you are doing. This negates any contribution you are trying to make. This requires a colossal assumption on your part. And you make this assumption because of your own preconceived notions which clouds your ability to think objectively about anything relating to this subject. In order to make these statements, you first have to assume that my notions are preconceived. You must first assume that I haven't arrived at the opinions I hold now as a result of several years of reading and researching on my own. And you have to assume that you know what my beliefs were to start with. This is information you don't have. The very nature of your assumptions shows us that your own personal bias on this issue makes you not credible when you try to point fingers at other people's bias or what you consider to be their lack of credibility. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:34 PM (#2106913) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC You have information that, if true, would open the possibility that there was no plane- I have information that tells me there was a plane- (wreckage, bodies, engines with serial numbers, the ONE frame of video from the security camera, eyewitnesses). This may or may not be true- JUST as your information may or may not be true. There is more than one frame. I saw the thing traveling from right to left. I saw the front of it, and in another frame, I saw the back of it. But you're right. I don't really have proof that there is no proof, because I haven't seen the video tapes from the security cameras at the hotel across the road. Maybe those have proof in them. But we'll never know unless the FBI releases them. But nothing offered so far is proof of anything one way or the other. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:34 PM (#2106914) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "This requires a colossal assumption on your part" No, you said it yourself - "...my main belief is that we can't trust the official version of events. That's my main contention. I don't know what happened. I just know that we can't believe the official version of events." When you say you can't believe one side's story, that says that you will not listen to evidence. Your postings speak for itself. Your bias is showing. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:36 PM (#2106916) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I still want to know what pulverized the cement floors into dust. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:45 PM (#2106921) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC And by the way (this point illustrates another assumption some people are making because of their own personal preconceptions and biases, most notably Ron Olesko), the reason I provide material from outside sources (copy paste) is because I think they quite legitimately cast some degree of doubt on the official version of events, not because I think they prove anything. That's why I keep saying (over and over for those who are slow to catch on) that we need independent investigations. If some people weren't so wedded to their own preconceived ideas, they wouldn't be so threatened by people like me presenting reasons why we need independent investigations. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:48 PM (#2106924) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Ron, you said my "preconceived" notion. In order to use that word, "preconceived", you have to assume that they were preconceived. Do you know what the word "preconceived" means? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:52 PM (#2106925) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "There is more than one frame" There are five frames from the camera, but only ONE shows the 757. The others show the explosion as SOMETHING hits the Pentagon. Of course, you may have seen altered pictures- as could I. If you postulate a conspiracy, how can you trust ANY picture, video, .jpg, etc NOT to be altered? Where YOU there, with a camera? THAT might be acceptable as "proof" , provided that I were to trust that you had not altered it to show what YOU wanted me to believe happened. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:54 PM (#2106927) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Just in case you don't (and either you don't, or you are guilty of what I am saying you are guilty of), here's the definition... Main Entry: pre·con·ceive Pronunciation: "prE-k&n-'sEv Function: transitive verb : to form (as an opinion) prior to actual knowledge or experience From here... http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/preconceived You have no way of knowing at what point I arrived at the opinions I hold now. You have no way of knowing whether or not I arrived at those opinions prior to looking into things, or after looking into things. To make the assumption that I arrived at my opinions prior to looking into things, or even that I was predisposed to hold the opinions I now have shows your own bias and your own lack of credibility on this subject. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 12:54 PM (#2106928) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC,, Then pleas explain "I have proof that there is no proof that it was an airplane." Sounds as if you have claimed to have some proof of something. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:03 PM (#2106934) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC There are five frames from the camera, but only ONE shows the 757. The others show the explosion as SOMETHING hits the Pentagon. Of course, you may have seen altered pictures- as could I. There are at least two that show the projectile. I saw the back end of the projectile. And I was watching the video from the Pentagon camera. If you postulate a conspiracy, how can you trust ANY picture, video, .jpg, etc NOT to be altered? Where YOU there, with a camera? THAT might be acceptable as "proof" , provided that I were to trust that you had not altered it to show what YOU wanted me to believe happened. Well, they could show us the footage from the security cameras from the hotel across the road. But you're right. That, alone, wouldn't prove anything. The best way to arrive at something that resembles the truth is to put science to work to prove which of the different hypotheses are possible and which are not. For instance, the time anomalies. Nobody has offered any possible reasons for those anomalies. They just ignore their existence. The hard data shows us that the blast occurred three or four minutes at least before any sort of plane even showed up (which, according to hard data, was the exploratory plane piloted by the same pilot who said he couldn't see any sign of a plane crash). This warrants further study, from people who are not accountable to the Bush administration. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:04 PM (#2106935) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I have proof that there is no proof that it was an airplane." Already capitulated on that one, beardedbruce. Please pay attention. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:09 PM (#2106942) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "the reason I provide material from outside sources (copy paste) is because I think they quite legitimately cast some degree of doubt on the official version of events, not because I think they prove anything.' There you go again - another preconceived notion. You believer your "source" is better than others that counter your belief. A perfect example of your preconceived notions. You can play spin doctor all you want and try to push it back on me, but your posts are here for all to read. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:12 PM (#2106947) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "The hard data shows us that the blast occurred three or four minutes at least before any sort of plane even showed up" What is this "hard data"? What is it's source? How do you establish the accuracy of the times in it- GPS/GOES signal, coordination with other known events? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:13 PM (#2106950) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Ron, since you are telling us that you are psychic, please reveal to the unwashed masses exactly when I formed this opinion, and please reveal to us when I began my study of this issue. And show us the time-line for the two things in order to prove to us that my "preconceived notions" predate the onset of my study on this issue. Or did you miss the definition of preconceived that I provided for you? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:15 PM (#2106951) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I have provided the data and the source twice, beardedbruce. I'm not going to do it again. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:17 PM (#2106952) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Give it a rest Carol. Don't start playing word games when the points you are trying to make in this discussion are shot down. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:18 PM (#2106953) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: John MacKenzie Is this the fastest growing thread on Mudcat? G |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:24 PM (#2106958) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, In looking back at the pictures from the Pentagon security camera ( I see a blur on the frame showing the explosion, but cannot determine if it is debris, dust, or something else) I found the following "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A hotel security camera video released by the U.S. government showed the explosion that followed the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, but the low-quality recording did not capture an image of the 757 jetliner. The video, recorded by a security camera at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, was released to public interest group Judicial Watch and others who filed a lawsuit seeking the tape and other videos from that day. CNN filed a Freedom of Information request for the video in February 2002, after the manager of the hotel disclosed its existence to CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre and said it had been confiscated by the FBI. CNN's FOI request was denied because at the time the tape was considered evidence in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since been convicted. There was speculation that this video might show the American Airlines 757 jetliner before it crashed, but a close examination by CNN only revealed the subsequent explosion and no image of the jet. The only known record of the plane is on images from the Pentagon security camera, first broadcast by CNN in March of 2002, and officially released in their entirety May of this year. (Posted 8:43 a.m.) " If you want to claim that it "proves" there was no plane, feel free- I do NOT think that it proves that. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:27 PM (#2106964) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce The "hard data" - Bodies from people who were on the plane, pieces of aircraft shows that the plane DID hit the Pentagon. Could it be falsified? Yes. THAT is why I asked about YOU hard data- the questions are reasonable ones, and all of us have presented information that was not noticed by others at times. Why should I believe YOUR "hard data" when you do not believe mine? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM (#2106967) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Give it a rest Carol. Don't start playing word games when the points you are trying to make in this discussion are shot down. Give it a rest yourself, Ron. You're the one who is making personal attacks. If you can't substantiate your accusations, don't make them. And it's hardly my points that have been shot down. You are making personal attacks because it's your points that have been shot down. People resort to making personal attacks when they haven't got anything else to work with. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM (#2106968) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Yes, it is the fastest growing thread, John. ;-) It's a feeding frenzy. Ron, you said to Carol way back there in the frenzy somewhere: "Your bias is showing." Later you said: "You believe your "source" is better than others that counter your belief." Well, yeah!!!! ;-D EVERYBODY is like that, Ron, yourself included. Our biases show. We believe that our "sources" are better than others which counter our beliefs. That is human nature. It's universal, Ron. So why keep bugging Carol over what you, I, and everybody else in the whole wide world does as their standard arguing procedure? Go ahead...tell me that you are totally objective and without any bias or preconceived notions. Tell me all about it. (heh!) Then try and sell me Brooklyn Bridge. You never know... |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:39 PM (#2106973) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Wesley S Ron can't sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. It's mine and I'm not selling! |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:39 PM (#2106974) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC ( I see a blur on the frame showing the explosion, but cannot determine if it is debris, dust, or something else) I saw the tail end of the projectile when it was still in the right half of the frame. Very interesting about the hotel video tape. I'd like to see that. The "hard data" - Bodies from people who were on the plane, pieces of aircraft shows that the plane DID hit the Pentagon. Could it be falsified? Yes. THAT is why I asked about YOU hard data- the questions are reasonable ones, and all of us have presented information that was not noticed by others at times. Well, there are people in the Bush administration and who support the official version who have corroborated some of the hard data that I'm talking about. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:42 PM (#2106980) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I've always admitted it was human nature. Perhaps it is time others do as well? Enough word games and personal attacks. That is not discussing an issue, it is trying to win a game. This is not a game. My bias shows in that I found the explanation for the collapse of the WTC to be consistent with what I saw and what I read. The "evidence" that others have shown has holes. My bias about the Pentagon is consistent with what I saw on television and what I've read. Ditto for the "evidence". |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:44 PM (#2106982) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The Rule of 48 All Scientists Are Blind ... some years before [Peter Leavitt] had formulated the Rule of 48. The Rule of 48 was intended as a humorous reminder to scientists, and referred to the massive literature collected in the late 1940s and the 1950s concerning the human chromosome number. For years it was stated that men had forty-eight chromosomes in their cells; there were pictures to prove it, and any number of careful studies. In 1953, a group of American researchers announced to the world that the human chromosome number was forty-six. Once more, there were pictures to prove it, and studies to confirm it. But these researchers also went back to reexamine the old pictures, and the old studies--and found only forty-six chromosomes not forty-eight. --Michael Crichton, The Andromeda Strain (1969;1993), p. 125. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM (#2106985) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce CarolC, "Well, there are people in the Bush administration and who support the official version " Than by what YOU have stated, IT MUST BE A LIE! I would still like to know what was the source of the data, and how the time was determined. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:49 PM (#2106990) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk The Rule of 48 - LOL!!! I love it, Peace. If there is a God watching, He/She/It must be eternally amused by us humans. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:54 PM (#2107000) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Enough word games and personal attacks Yes indeed. Enough personal attacks. Since you're the one who is making them, you are the one who will have to stop them. Discuss the points you want to make, and not the other people who are participating in the discussion. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:56 PM (#2107003) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace In school, the biology text book I used (in the 1960s) still referred to the number 48. Today, the only way I can remember is that the number of chromosomes we have is a prime number when it is divided by two. I have spent a life doubting the things we get taught, led to believe or think we saw. I asked four different people what had occurred on a motor vehicle pile up involving three vehicles just 15 minutes earlier. I got four different stories, but all agreed that there had been a three vehicle pile up. (Needed the info to determine whether on patient was hurt from a side impact or front impact.) |
|
19 Jul 07 - 01:57 PM (#2107005) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Than by what YOU have stated, IT MUST BE A LIE! Non-sequitur, beardedbruce. I would still like to know what was the source of the data, and how the time was determined. I have posted them twice. Please read my posts. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:17 PM (#2107020) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce eye witness accounts - a few more than you have posted. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2107044) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Hmmm... April Gallop ( the one you posted) is NOT on the list. Do you havbe a source for WHERE what she says comes from ( as those on the list I posted the link to have)? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 02:49 PM (#2107049) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Sweatie Pie, I did The fact that you have to misrepresent what people who disagree with you say in order to attempt to refute it or dismiss it more than amply demonstrates that you know damned well that you're blowing smoke. Now, as to those transformers, Sweatie Pie, if you'd put your toys and comic books aside for a minute and looked at the websites (videos) that I linked to—for your enlightenment and edification—you would know what sort of transformers I'm talking about. And they didn't substantially accelerate the collapse of the buildings (although a transformer fire can burn very hot). The transformers in the buildings shorting out and exploding (as would happen, under the circumstances—wires breaking) explain the so-called "squibs" you love to cite. And, by the way, they weren't "zippering" as controlled demolition charges would do, they were exploding at random. Quite uncontrolled. Look again. Two transformers exploding in sequence caused by wire breaking under weight of ice or snow: CLICKY #1. Transformer in sub-station shorts out, mineral oil catches fire, then transformer explodes: CLICKY #2. If you don't know what an electrical transformer (not the cartoon kind) looks like, walk down the street in any neighborhood and look toward the tops of the utility poles. Hung high up on some of them, you'll see something that looks like a trash can with wires connected to it. That's it. Since a building of any size is, electrically speaking, the equivalent of a neighborhood, they, too, have transformers scattered throughout them, although probably not in plain sight as the ones on utility poles are. I've seen the videos of the buildings collapsing, too, you know. Now you can get back to your toys and comics books. Don Firth |
|
19 Jul 07 - 03:26 PM (#2107069) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet All I see is wind breaking under the force of bullshit, Firth. You have no more idea what caused those things than I do. You're just trying to support your crumbling world with rationalizations, and you're squibbing out more crap with every post. I just want to know why the two towers fell at freefall speed. Why didn't the floors below (still bolted firmly in place by tens of thousands of bolts, not heated by any fires), why didn't those floors slow the collapses? The laws of physics most definitely WERE defied in the collapse of the twin towers. Why was that? Firth seems to be an actual ignorant supporter of the government's preposterous story. Olesko, on the other hand, is one of the media people who have (for whatever reason) an interest in actively supporting the government's outlandish theories. Olesko could just be a useful idiot (Lenin's term, not mine...I don't see anything useful in him), or he could sincerely want a Nazi police state in America. Who knows? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:00 PM (#2107092) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie BeardedBruce, thanks for that. I had read those accounts before - years ago - but it's been a long time. I can't see how ANYONE could fail to recognize truth. One would have to have serious attachment to one's own version of fantasy. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:00 PM (#2107093) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce 600! |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:07 PM (#2107097) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Dang! Missed it. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:09 PM (#2107099) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: pdq The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a good example of the following: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:15 PM (#2107102) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Nonsense as a Weapon An effective tool for reinforcing the loony conspiricism meme is the introduction of theories that that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers. The association of these ideas with the careful research of investigators in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands to set back the cause of awakening the larger public to the facts of the attack. A series of websites have promoting more or less obvious hoaxes since the attack. Examples are 911Review.org (See 9/11 Review REVIEWED), and Physics911.net. Both adopted as their centerpiece the idea that no jetliner crashed at the Pentagon -- an idea that may be single most elaborate and well-orchestrated hoax used to undermine the credibility of the 9-11 Truth Movement. More traditional media such as videos and books have also been used to discourage rational inquiry into the crimes of 9/11/01 by associating alternatives to the official narrative uncritical thinking and junk science. Several of these websites, videos, and books have been promoted in segments of the 9/11 Truth Movement that may seem surprising, given how effectively such material is used by the cover-up as ammunition against the spectrum of 9/11 Truth efforts. (A prime example of this is the March 2005 Popular Mechanics attack piece.) There are many possible reasons for this: Because people inclined to accept that the attack was an inside job tend to be more open-minded in general, they are more likely to entertain a range of ideas, and are somewhat handicapped in appreciating the potency of ill-founded or poorly presented theories in discrediting good research. Many working on social justice causes like 9/11 are reluctant to admit that there are saboteurs in their midst. The idea that the struggle to expose the crime is just a contest between the official story and alternatives is comforting in its simplicity. Recognizing that the struggle is a two-or-more-front war of ideas can be intimidating or even overwhelming. Hoaxes come in many levels of sophistication and subtlety. Whereas few people have ever taken the hologram plane theory seriously, and the pod-plane theory was long ago rejected by most aspiring 9/11 activists, the Pentagon no-jetliner theory continues to detract from substantive evidence implicating insiders in the attack. " from http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM (#2107109) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/missingwings.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallplane.html |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM (#2107110) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Think as you will. However, I have put forth two serious questions about 9/11. 1) Who let the bin Ladens and their associates leave the USA on chartered planes when the rest of the USA was locked down in terms of airline flights? 2) What caused the cement floors in the Towers to pulverize" |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2107113) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Fall time of Towers |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2107114) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Personal attacks of a scatological nature, eh, there Sweetie? And, of course, the accusation made by all advocates of conspiracy theories against anyone who disagrees with them (especially when presented with a cogent refutation of the rococo "evidence" used to support the theory) that, if you don't agree, then you must be part of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theory advocates usually start that when someone is really getting up their nose by yanking the rug out from under their sales pitch. You're getting desperate, Sweetie Patootie! I am in wholehearted agreement that there should be an independent investigation (maybe several) into the 9/11 attacks and what led up to them, and that the guilty and/or criminally negligent (and there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent) should be brought to book. But this hysterical exercise you're trying to peddle is only fogging up the whole issue. Don Firth |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:40 PM (#2107117) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Not directed at you, BB, but someone is fullashit. "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)." And below, from the site you linked: Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds. A temporal record of the entire North Tower collapse is provided by the real-time CNN broadcast feed aired during the attack. (This table shows frames from that video at half-second intervals.) It allows reasonably accurate measurement of gross collapse features such as the growth and descent rate of the rubble and dust cloud. However, this and other video evidence does not allow the determination of a precise time of total collapse because each tower's destruction remains hidden behind an expanding dust cloud which, because of its size, reaches the ground over a span of several seconds. Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:41 PM (#2107118) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Since you're the one who is making them, you are the one who will have to stop them" As long as I am not attacked again, I will not restort to such tactics. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM (#2107121) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Well, it is a site that proposes that there was a controlled demolition. I guess you can't trust them, if they disagree with the NIST... |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:45 PM (#2107123) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace And there's the rub. They have both used the CNN film to determine times. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:49 PM (#2107124) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth CNN credits WNYC for use of the film. Just to keep the record straight. Don Firth |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:51 PM (#2107125) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Nope. That's wrong. NIST used seismic records. So let's accept NIST for a sec. The building going down unhindered would have hit ground in about 8.5 seconds. (You know the math on that. So maybe whatever pulverized the cement cleared away enough of the structue to allow an almost-freefall. So again, what did that to the cement? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 04:58 PM (#2107131) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC eye witness accounts - a few more than you have posted. There's a lot of accounts in there, but they don't all support the official version of events, and none of them prove anything any more than the eyewitness accounts I've provided prove anything. All any of the witness accounts do is raise questions. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:00 PM (#2107133) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk I think your answer, Peace is: Explosive charges. I've seen photos of the wreckage of large, many-story highrise buildings that collapsed in earthquakes in Latin America. The many concrete floors that pancaked on each other did not pulverize. They ended up lying on top of each other like a huge multi-layered, squashed layer cake. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:00 PM (#2107134) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I can't see how ANYONE could fail to recognize truth. One would have to have serious attachment to one's own version of fantasy. This one cuts both ways. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:01 PM (#2107135) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace LH, that doesn't explain the 3"-deep cement dust all over the place after the collapses. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:03 PM (#2107138) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Okay. Let's hear your best guess as to what did that, Peace. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:04 PM (#2107139) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon." NIST itself disagrees with the pancake theory. So once again, what caused the pulverization of the cement floors? (Did your dog ever get a bone he just wouldn't leave alone--I said bone, no bone on--because to me a serious answer to the question of the cement dust is central to understanding the collapse cause. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:05 PM (#2107141) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace LH, I really don't know. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:06 PM (#2107142) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Me neither. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:07 PM (#2107143) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace NIST says that the building (one of them) fell in 9 seconds. Freefall would take about 8.5 seconds. Ipso facto, there was little 'structure' to impede the fall of the building. I want to know where the hell the internal structure went to. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 05:11 PM (#2107145) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I don't have any link for April, but here's the bio on the author of that part. I bet you could find a way to contact her and ask her how she got that information... Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995−present), the Navy's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. This research, as all of Honegger's research and publications on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981−83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989; and Iran−Contra expose documentary film "Cover−Up"); and was called as a researcher / witness at both the October 23, 2004, and August 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held atPatriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 06:00 PM (#2107165) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie By the way, Peace, snopes.com says that the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out on September 13. On that date the skies had been reopened. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 06:27 PM (#2107187) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I stand corrected on that. However, there was so little questioning done that it begs a few questions of its own, since government already had reason to suspect the complicity of bin Laden in anti-American activities.. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 07:11 PM (#2107218) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace 'August 2001 - Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks "ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent. The attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and the Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services, which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them. The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation. "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official." - Telegraph (09/16/01)' |
|
19 Jul 07 - 07:16 PM (#2107221) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie Along those lines, Peace, on last night's Charlie Rose, investigative reporter Brian Ross amplified on the subject. He said that when Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, said that he had a "gut feeling" that there would be another attack on the mainland before the year is out, what he was trying to say without saying it was that the 'chatter' points to something "bigger than 9/11". |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:05 PM (#2107253) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel OK OK OK you all want to know what its going to be including Chertoff. the magic 8 ball sez... Its going to be a nine pronged attack on US nuclear power plants at the outside coolant pipe locations. The out come will be that 2 of them will devestate its surrounding countryside with radiation. The 2 plants will be 3 mile island on the Susquehana and the Edison plant on the Hudson. While the total damage will be less than that of Chernobyl the dollar value loss will be 10,000 times greater. Of course the EPA stands by its statement that the public is in no danger from the safe leaks that occur over a 60 day period. The west coast will have a scare of a Charmin plant having its toilet paper laced with anthrax spores. The south west will have a motor vehical bomb scare when Homeland security shuts down Al Kayda's used car lot outside Phoenix. Kansas will be told that Al Qada has the means to generate tornados at will. And Florida will have another dubious election when Karl Rove wins the Governorship without even being on the ballot. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:18 PM (#2107261) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth And due to sabotage at Starbuck's, Seattle will suddenly be without coffee. An entire major seaport to the Far East will doze off, and that will have a disastrous effect on the economy. Don Firth |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:20 PM (#2107263) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie I am glad that you are not psychic, Donuel. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:29 PM (#2107267) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic I thank God every day it's only oil that comes out of the Mideast, not espresso. That would indeed be serious. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:43 PM (#2107275) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace I think the options for choice of weapon is limited. A nuclear weapon would cause retaliation in kind--massive retaliation. (I think at a ratio of 10 to 1 and the strikes would include capital cities, seats of government, military bases and manufacturing centers. I say 10 to 1 because that's what I'd do. But then that's just me.) A gas attack in different areas of the US in an attempt to overuse and collapse the medical response system and trap Americans in their houses or places of work would engender a retaliation similar to that above or massive air bombardments using conventional weapons but on a scale never seen before. Terrorists think in terms of crippling political processes and populations. Damage is easy enough to inflict when you get to choose the time, place and method. Once that type of battle is joined, then the military gloves come off, and despite what folks think of Muslim extremists' willingness to meet Allah, the leaders don't want to any sooner than they have to. Subsequently, I would think that multiple targets using conventional explosives on large targets would be the likeliest scenario. Large oil plants, water supplies and transportation facilities. That attack will be meant to get at America's economic system and 'disallow' the US to respond with its own WMDs. The stock market was closed for about one week after 9/11. The drop in America's 'worth' was about seven percent. China picked up the slack. The USA cannot afford too much more of that. I think that's what they will go after. IMO. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 08:44 PM (#2107277) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: catspaw49 More of a physic really Ebbie, doncha' think? I know he kinda' gives me the shits sometimes......................(:<)) Spaw |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:00 PM (#2107289) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Canada should be very worried right now. Just one big "terror event" on a border city will drag Canada into America's nightmare FAST. the leaders of Canada, the US and Mexico already agreed to a North American Union (Waco, 2005), but how does one IMPLEMENT something that is sure to be so wildly unpopular? After all, the Americans can't be allowed to own guns if they can't in Mexico and Canada, and Canada and the US can't have a high standard of living if the peons in Mexico are starving, so how do you get the three nations suckered into giving away their sovereignties? Well, you tell Mexicans they're "reconquering" the southwest for Mexico, even as Mexico is absorbed into the North American Union, and you get Americans and Canadians to give up all vestiges of freedom. That second part means more terrorist attacks, and ones that will light a fire under Canada's ass. So...Detroit, Minneapolis? My yankee geography is fuzzy. Which city would serve that purpose? Chicago would be a good even-odds bet. The owner of the 3 destroyed World Trade Centers (Larry Silverstein) bought the Sears Tower with the money he made off the WTC insurance, and they've run "drills" of flying planes into the Sears Tower, so maybe a "dirty bomb" destroys the Sears tower when the wind is out of the south. Radioactivity is tracked into Canada and Ossama bin Laden takes credit for the attack in a morphed, 5-year-old video. Seriously, that's what I think is going to happen. Rupert Murdoch is buying the Dow Jones, so that leaves the Chicago Mercantile as the last semi-autonomous financial market in the US, so there will be hack attacks on the mercantile while the Sears Tower falls, and once again some goat herders will be blamed. As far as "who's behind it," it's not Ossama bin Laden or the US government. It's the people controlling the US and most other govts. Debt-backed fiat money systems have been the tool used to control societies for the past couple of hundred years, and now the US and Canada are going to be destroyed with those tools. Just as Europe was reorganized by the banking powers during the World Wars, and just as Russia was reorganized and China reorganized, it's now North America's turn. A gangster government has been installed in the U.S., and they aren't beholden to anyone but the military-industrial complex and the banks that fund it. And the immediate goal is the reduction of the first-world status of America and Canada to the third-world status of Mexico. Once that is achieved (and the pesky Bill of Rights is destroyed), the next phase will probably focus on South America (too much independence there). Then more consolidation, more destruction of national sovereignty, etc. I seriously think there will be an attack on a US/Canadian border city, and the citizens of both countries will be told it's in our interest to get rid of the border. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:02 PM (#2107290) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel Ebbie, I spent time from 1980 to 2000 painting one 16 sq ft canvass with two building exploding in orange flames, a airplane nearby and a tsunami offshore. A myriad of hands reach up to heaven from the city. It was bought by a couple in San Antonio and they called me after each disaster to exclaim their disbelief. My thinking was it was a portrayal of a pole shift of Earth's orbit. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:04 PM (#2107291) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet And since Bush can't run for President again, can't he become Prime Minister of Canada? |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:07 PM (#2107295) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: catspaw49 And Dickhead the Sweetness and Light trolls out another since the conspiracy bullshit is getting tiresome.........Now who will bite? Spaw |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:13 PM (#2107300) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Larry Silverstein owns the Sears Tower, cockspew. Look it up. They didn't even bother to change the players, so why should they change the M.O.? Sears Tower, airliner, radioactivity into Canada, give up your rights. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:21 PM (#2107307) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Donuel Code Red would legitimately allow Bush to cancel elections and remain in power. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM (#2107314) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Larry Silverstein owns the Sears Tower" You might want to check that, because he is not the owner of the Sears Tower. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:13 PM (#2107316) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: catspaw49 Nonsense Ron! Why can't he? I mean really man.....Why let facts ruin perfectly good bullshit like Sweetnuts has been pumping out(along with a few others)? Hellfire, why don't we title the Tower to the Easter Bunny? Spaw |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:34 PM (#2107326) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk Hey, man, this thread must have some fascination for you. It keeps drawing you back. ;-) I thought you'd almost given up on wasting your time here. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:45 PM (#2107331) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC As long as I am not attacked again, I will not restort to such tactics. Please show me the post in which I attacked you first, Ron. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:54 PM (#2107338) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko No! |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:56 PM (#2107339) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC This is the initial attack, Ron (from you)... "It requires belief to accept the official version of events." It requires belief to accept the versions that you and toots sweet are cutting and pasting from. ALL versions require belief as well as the ability to reason. Carol has not convinced any of us of her beliefs, and we won't convince her of ours. You can keep asking questions on where the elephant came from or how the magician sawed the lady in half, but you see what you want to see. You ask a lot of questions, but fail to give answers. And this was my response to it... Well, the problem with this, Ron, is that my main belief is that we can't trust the official version of events. That's my main contention. I don't know what happened. I just know that we can't believe the official version of events. For you to suggest that I have even said that I think I know what happened shows that you haven't been reading my posts at all and you are just projecting your own bullshit onto me. Please stop it. There is no place for personal attacks in any kind of reasonable discussion. When people resort to attacks, it's because they don't have anything better to offer. I know you can do better than that. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 10:58 PM (#2107342) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet MetLife will sell Sears Tower The Wall Street Journal March 12, 2004 Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation. Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, New York investors who are among Mr. Silverstein's backers in the Trade Center, are part of a group that agreed to buy the Chicago landmark, these people said. Another New York investor, Jeffrey Feil, was also a participant in the Sears Tower deal, the people said. Names of the other investors couldn't be learned.... http://www.searstower.org/news.html This is the latest news I could find on the Sears Tower. Silverstein's "group" and "names of other investors couldn't be learned." Silverstein owns it. At least enough of it to allow Marvin Bush to run security if he wants, same as they did at the WTC leading up to 9/11. Glad I found searstower.org. I'll start bugging them now. Gotta be lots of secretaries there, lots of emails. I bet they'd love to know they could look out a window and into a cockpit at any moment. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:00 PM (#2107344) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko If you consider what I posted to be an "attack", it answers a lot of questions I have about you. The other quote you posted was a response I gave to one from Little Hawk. Did I ever say YOU attacked me???? Enough of the word games. Let's get back to the discussion. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:05 PM (#2107348) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Silverstein owns it." I'm sorry, but there is no record I could find of that. Every story I found lists three investors - Goldman, Cayre and Feil. While it would not surprise to me find Silverstein has some investment in it, there is nothing out there that says he or Silverstein Properties are involved. I also could not find anything about Marvin Bush being involved. If you have such reports, rather than you opinion which you are claming is fact, I would love to see it. |
|
19 Jul 07 - 11:35 PM (#2107354) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet I predict there will be a disaster of terroristic proportions for every hair coming out of my left ear. Tha'ts THOUSANDS |
|
20 Jul 07 - 12:04 AM (#2107361) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie You got that right, Spaw... :) |
|
20 Jul 07 - 12:55 AM (#2107379) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "And since Bush can't run for President again, can't he become Prime Minister of Canada? " WASH YOUR FOUL MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP! |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:31 AM (#2107390) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie LOL |
|
20 Jul 07 - 06:09 AM (#2107477) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "Enough of the word games. Let's get back to the discussion." Dicsussion? I thought that died ages ago - leaving nothing BUT pointless word ganes... |
|
20 Jul 07 - 07:51 AM (#2107509) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," " Which, according to those who claim to "Know", means that, since the Bush administration KNEW that Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist acts ( the claim of those here who oppose the Iraq war) then the information was obviously false, and should be ignored. So, how can you use this to blame the Bush administration? If, on the other hand, the information SHOULD have been looked at seriously ( my OPINION) then there is justification for all the actions against Iraq in the UN and subsequent war. After all, there WAS a major terrorist act, by bin Laden. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 09:41 AM (#2107571) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC If you consider what I posted to be an "attack", it answers a lot of questions I have about you. You stopped discussing your ideas and you began critically discussing me. This is an attack. If you need to resort to this kind of tactic, it means you haven't got anything better to work with, which answers every question I ever had about you. The other quote you posted was a response I gave to one from Little Hawk. Did I ever say YOU attacked me???? What other quote? The quotes I gave were the one from you in which you discussed me, and my response to it. Enough of the word games. Let's get back to the discussion. Enough of the personal attacks and the inflamatory accusations. When you're finished using these kinds of slimy tactics, I'll be finished confronting you about them. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 09:54 AM (#2107585) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry, but you misinterpreted my remarks. The other quote you posted earlier was not a response to you when I said "enough of the personal attacks" - it was a comment made in a response to something Little Hawk said. I never critically discussed you, I critically discussed your ideas and reasoning. If you feel that is an attack on you, then let us leave it at that and move on. If you consider my "tactics" to be "slimy", that is your interpretation. What you are doing is playing spin doctor. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 10:15 AM (#2107600) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk A snow ball fight only continues as long as someone insists on throwing one more snowball. Right? Same goes for a war. Someone has got to be willing to stop shooting for it to end, but if everyone insists on having the last shot, it will never end, will it? Like that stupid "last post" thread that has about 800 sonnets in it now... |
|
20 Jul 07 - 10:18 AM (#2107603) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce LH: "Like that stupid "last post" thread that has about 800 sonnets in it now... " 1. That thread does not yet have 800 sonnets in it. 2. YOU started the thread: Thus, any blame for its existance can be, and shgould be, laid at YOUR door. 3. Thanks for the reminder- I'll go post another sonnet there now. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 10:26 AM (#2107612) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Why stop a snowball fight if everyone seems to enjoy it? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 10:37 AM (#2107619) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC I never critically discussed you, I critically discussed your ideas and reasoning. Same thing. It appears that you are unable to distinguish between a legitimate exchange of ideas and using ad hominem argumentation to try to make your points. There is a difference. One is legitimate debate, and the other is not. If you are critically discussing my ideas and reasoning, you are not discussing the topic of discussion, you are discussing me. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 11:08 AM (#2107630) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Whatever. Life goes on. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 12:44 PM (#2107679) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace So, uh, would this be an appropriate time to ask why the cement floors were pulverized? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 12:51 PM (#2107682) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Ebbie I have a question, Peace. Was the whole floor pulverized or just the top few inches? Because in a very small way I have seen concrete 'pulverize' its surface. Even in a small demolition a lot of dust occurs and I think that could fairly be called pulverization. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 01:25 PM (#2107699) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko One of the "theories" I've heard is that the pulverization was caused by the massive pressure of the collapse. The floors were not that thick - 3 to 4 inches. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 01:33 PM (#2107705) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet The Wall Street Journal, no less, says the buyers of the Sears Tower are part of "Larry Silverstein's group." Therefore, Silverstein is part of THEIR group. Geez. It doesn't matter whose name is on the paperwork, Silverstein's "group" owns it. And I really am going to find a list of companies in the Sears Tower, when I have time, and work up a standardized email to send to the "Contact us" links. Let the secretaries know who owns their building. Least I can do. "Richard Gage from the American Institute of Architects speaks with Alex about the work of his group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to research and to disseminate the truth of the 9/11 "collapses" of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings to every architect and engineer" http://www.infowars.com/ Apparently Gage is going to be interviewed today. I don't have time to listen now, but I will this evening. This program is live 3 hours every weekday, then they loop the 3 hours 7 times, until the next live show. All you need is RealPlayer or some such to listen. Also, there will be a continuation of the eugenics research these guys are doing. Fascinating stuff. I swear I've never heard better investigative reporting. Jones is proned to hyperbolize, but the man doing the bulk of the research, Aaron Dykes, is right on target with this. He'll never get mainstream awards for this work, but he seems to have pieced together what is driving the push toward world government. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Hitler. Fascinating stuff. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 01:40 PM (#2107712) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Interesting that you used the word "demolition" Ebbie. The floors in the twin towers were 4 inches thick. Then there were the thicker floors at the bottoms of each "block." So how long did it take the pulverization you observed? Half a second? The floors in the towers were bolted, with tens of thousands of massive bolts, to hundreds of steel columns. And the floors below the impacts were undamaged and unheated. So the defenders of the government's "19 boxcutters" theory say that the buildings fell straight down, floor impacting floor impacting floor, and collapsed in 10 seconds. That's freefall speed. The successive impacts of the floors should have SLOWED the collapses. Laws of physics. Why did the buildings fall at freefall speeds? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 01:45 PM (#2107713) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace The concrete floors were relatively thin. Maybe 4" thick. The billows/clouds of stuuf taht followed the collapse--recall the video of a guy running away from the white-ish cloud that came after the collapse--was concrete turned into the size of dust particles. The streets were layered with it to a depth of 2 to 3". That dust is suspected to have contributed to or caused the deaths (post 9/11) of about 100 firefighters and other people who were on the scene and not wearing breathing apparatus. They got it in their lungs and contracted 'things' that killed them within a few years, (It is established SOP for firefighters where I am to wear breathing apparatus even after the fire is extinguished because in the aftermath/recovery phase, the burnt structure will keep releasing potentially dangerous gasses and toxins for about 72 hours. Obviously the most dangerous time is during the fire itself and the few hours after it extinguishment. I am not faulting anyone. The combined weight of bunker gear (the jacket and pants and boots and lid that you see firefighters wear to help protect them from heat and flame) is about 50 pounds. Add another 20 pounds to that for a BA tank and face mask and that guy or gal is carring another 70 pounds in addition to his or her body weight. So, anywhere from 20 to 50% more than the firefighter's 'naked' body weight. That does not yet take into account the clothing the firefighters is wearing under the bunker (turnout) gear. A half hour of that additional weight combined with heavy exertion doing whatever at the fire scene can cause very physically fit young guys (and old guys) to need, big time, ten to fifteen minutes of recouperation time to rest and rehydrate. Some big scenes require that kind of work for hours at a time, so departments rotate ffs in and out of the actual attack scene. If they don't the biggest killer of firefighters (heart attack) will take someone within 48 hours. So, the urge to remove the tanks and jacket (lightens the load by 30 pounds or so) is real and almost irrestable. (Trust me on that one.) Maybe that type of pulverization is common when large structures collapse. I have never encountered it at scenes. Spalling, flaking, cracking--yes. Concrete being turned into fine dust, no. That is what prompts my question. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:04 PM (#2107716) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko My brother-in-law lives in the neighborhood, 5 blocks from the WTC. His apartment has a rooftop patio that was covered in dust and debris. The largest particles were the size of large pebbles but mostly it was a fine dust over everything. I remember going to visit him two months after the tragedy and you could still smell something in the air. In the days after 9/11 you could smell a burning rubber type smell from the fires where I live in NJ - about 15 miles from the WTC. There was more in the air than they are telling us, and we are slowing finding that out. As to how the floors pulverised, I am not sure if the theory is correct, nor am I sure that explosives would have provided the same result. It seems like explosions would have thrown pieces in all directions rather than downward as it seems to have done. Who knows. This was an unsual building and unusual circumstances. No building was larger, no building suffered that kind of stress, and the construction was unique. There were also no concrete walls as in other skyscrapers, just relatively thin concrete floors, glass and steel. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:07 PM (#2107719) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko " the buyers of the Sears Tower are part of "Larry Silverstein's group." Therefore, Silverstein is part of THEIR group. Geez. It doesn't matter whose name is on the paperwork, Silverstein's "group" owns it." It doesn't work that way. You are female and Republican. That does not mean all Republicans are female. Silverstein does not have to be part of their group. They are investors, and most investors have their own portfolio. While they may be part of some projects together, you can't assume they are part of all projects. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:34 PM (#2107733) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Wall Street Journal says they're part of the same group. Good enough for me. You may be the slimiest of the government mouthpieces I've encountered, Olesko. To say "That dust is suspected to have contributed to or caused the deaths (post 9/11) of about 100 firefighters..." I mean, you're beneath contempt. Thousands dead and dying from the asbestos and other particulates. Giuliani and the EPA's Whitman saying the air was fine, and you fault the dead for not wearing breathing gear. I've flushed things that had more decency than you. What are they holding over you to make you behave like this? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:36 PM (#2107735) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Found an interesting site. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2107736) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet It's the on-going training at your university, right? Y'all teach Homeland Security courses there (torture), and they told all of you to get with the program or move along. Probably as simple as that. Fear of loss of income. Or maybe not. All you'd have to do to keep the job would be to shut up. There's something else going on. They popped you for something, and now you're having to pay off your debt to the criminals of 9/11 by propagating their lie on the internet. It'd have to be a federal crime. Payola? That'd be an FCC violation. You take a canned ham to play a song or something? Go ahead, tell us. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:40 PM (#2107738) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "To say "That dust is suspected to have contributed to or caused the deaths (post 9/11) of about 100 firefighters..." " Excuse me, but that was not from my post. I accept your apology. "Wall Street Journal says they're part of the same group. Good enough for me." That gives us an idea of the way you reason and draw conclusions. You and I are Americans - same group. That does not mean we have the same investment strategies. Simply jumping up and down and saying something is so does not make it right. Please keep digging and find a real fact. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:41 PM (#2107739) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace "You may be the slimiest of the government mouthpieces I've encountered, Olesko. To say "That dust is suspected to have contributed to or caused the deaths (post 9/11) of about 100 firefighters..." I mean, you're beneath contempt." That was not Ron who posted that. It was me. Now you listen up you sonuvabitch: That info comes from a site that talked firefighters and other workers who have died as a result of shit they breathed in, absorbed through their skin, ingested AT THAT SCENE and IN THE RESCUE ATTEMPTS AND CLEANUP THAT TOOK PLACE AFTERWARDS. I am a fierfighter. Do not fuckin' pretend to lecture me. GOT THAT! Now, you can apologize to Ron, asshole! |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:44 PM (#2107743) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "It's the on-going training at your university, right? Y'all teach Homeland Security courses there (torture), and they told all of you to get with the program or move along. Probably as simple as that. Fear of loss of income. " FDU is not the only school that offers these courses. I am not a student, nor am I a teacher. I do not get paid from the University. Please stop by the station sometime and say that to my face. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:56 PM (#2107749) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace And just so's you get the bigger picture here, guest soo sweet, although Ron and I have had our fair shhare of disagreement regarding 9/11, I'll have you know that before you friggin' arrived here to mouth off I was saying that stuff didn't add up--at least four years ago if what's left of my memory is anything to go by--and taking the flak for it, too. The flak came from many people who are presently posting on this thread. And guess what? They are my friends. You may not like Ron's views, but that sort of post is one that has NO place on this thread. In little words, fuck you! |
|
20 Jul 07 - 02:57 PM (#2107752) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Sorry, Ron. I have cross-posted with you. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:04 PM (#2107760) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Thanks for the words Peace, and the feeling is mutual. You are one of the people I enjoy discussing this with, because we both learn something and think about the opposite view. I agree with you about the air quality and what the responders went through. As a firefighter, you've added a good perspective to this discussion - and you never faulted those people for doing their job and sacrifing so much. I know the air quality was bad, I witnessed it from what I thought was a safe distance - I can only imagine how hellish it was up close. Don't let so sweet get to you. She is only happy when she gets people aggravated. Her cutting and pasting without comprehending what she is saying has become obvious. Her statements about me and FDU are a perfect example. In my 31 years at FDU, I have NEVER been told not to play a song, nor have I ever been told to play something. My playlist is my own, and many of the artists who have appeared on my show will agree that they have been allowed to express their ideas. sooo sweet is a cornered pig. She has run out of valid arguments and is fighting back in the only way she knows how. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:08 PM (#2107762) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "I know the air quality was bad, I witnessed it from what I thought was a safe distance - I can only imagine how hellish it was up close." I was on the EO-1 program (hyperspectral imaging, testbed for next-generation Landsat instruments), observing it from space ( along with volcanic plumes from Italy and South America) . It was NOT just in the immediate NYC area, though it was worse there. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:10 PM (#2107765) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet I'm not stating the fact, the Wall Street Journal is. Silverstein's group owns the Sears Tower. Yeah, my mistake on the firefighting posting. But the numbers are much, much higher. And I won't lecture you, Peace. What is your firefighting organization doing to bring the 9/11 criminals to justice? Lots of lawsuits have been filed against Giuliani and Whitman by firefighting organizations. Which one is your group a part of? As far as Olesko's sliminess, it's self-evident. He works for a torture university and pushes the government's coverup. Media man pushing lies that contradict the laws of physics. There's a reason for it: "In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse." That's just for one floor to reach the next, before encountering 4 inches of steel-meshed concrete bolted to hundreds of steel support columns. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:13 PM (#2107773) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Well then I take back the bad language. Thought it was a guy. Didn't think a woman could be such an assh--disagreeable individual. Live and learn I guess. BTW, that site I linked to above has some professionals (physicists, pilots) who--although they can't pin the tail on the donkey--have views that differ markedly from the NIST report. There seems to be some disinformation in there too. The swipe at the Israelis--who had warned Bush in August, 2001, about bin Laden and the mounting evidence that an attack was likely soon--suggests that they wanted the attack to occur. I find that hard to believe, because it's based on a document--the veracity of which is up for grabs--that came out of German intelligence. However, worth digging around in it anyway. That's what I'm gonna do now. Later. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:15 PM (#2107774) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace BB, I read somewhere that smoke and dust drifted all the way to New Jersey. That sound right to you? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:16 PM (#2107775) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I'm just dripping with slime. As I "work" for a torture university, and I am part of the government coverup, you probably realize that I have sent the black helicoptors to terminate you. I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence did not stop to think that we could trace your IP address and pinpoint your location. Enjoy what is left. Be afraid. Be very afraid. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:18 PM (#2107777) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko " I read somewhere that smoke and dust drifted all the way to New Jersey" From what I recall, most of it hit Brooklyn directly - but I do know that we could smell the fires in NJ. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:20 PM (#2107778) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce http://www.epa.gov/WTC/panel/pdfs/WTC5_WTC_Report_TextOnly_December_2005.pdf Not this is peer-reviewed, so it must be true... |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:22 PM (#2107779) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce actual pictures |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:25 PM (#2107780) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce high res of NYC |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:31 PM (#2107782) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko From the Wall Street Journal - "Two investors who are part of Larry Silverstein's group that owns the World Trade Center lease are among the buyers of the Sears Tower, which MetLife Inc. agreed to sell Thursday for more than $800 million, according to people familiar with the situation. Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, New York investors who are among Mr. Silverstein's backers in the Trade Center, are part of a group that agreed to buy the Chicago landmark, these people said. Another New York investor, Jeffrey Feil, was also a participant in the Sears Tower deal, the people said. Names of the other investors couldn't be learned." Note that the two individuals are listed as part of a group that agreed to buy the Sears Tower. They are also part of a group that own the WTC lease. No where does it say that the Silverstein group is involved in Sears Tower, just two individiuals. A witch burns. So does wood. A witch must be made of wood. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:32 PM (#2107784) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo sweet Social position? Is that why Olesko pushes the government lie? Couldn't be, could it? Sheer vanity? No, it was part of some plea bargain. To whore himself out for the feds this way. HE'S the one who should be afraid of such folks. I mean, look at what they're making him do NOW. It'll only get worse in the future. Anyway, speaking of delusionality, read the following, Olesko, and tell me how TWO 110 story skyscrapers each fell in about 10 seconds: "In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse." Planes or no planes, explosives or no explosives, we have lots of video of the towers coming down. So, how'd they do it in 10 seconds? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:36 PM (#2107785) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Peace Thanks, Bruce. Heck, I thought you'd just say yes or no! lol. That hi res shot shows lots of material in the air. Thanks for posting them. And I have favorited the paper. I will read it later tonight. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:41 PM (#2107789) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce sooo sweet (?) You are using the figure of 10 seconds. THAT is from the NIST report. So, you are using the numbers you do not believe are true????? The site I posted talks about 14 seconds. Are you saying THEY are wrong? It seems that, since THEY are the ones that are pushing the claim for controlled demolition, you might want to actually look at what they have to say. The ONLY means by which the fall could have been faster than free fall is by the use of hyper-gravity generators ( altering the pul of gravity, and thus ( possibly) speeding the fall), which I postulated that the aliens used. Are you saying that MUST be the case, since even controlled demolition would NOT have allowed a collapse faster than the free-fall speed? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:42 PM (#2107791) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Planes or no planes, explosives or no explosives, we have lots of video of the towers coming down. So, how'd they do it in 10 seconds? " No one can definitively say they came down in 10 seconds because the video shows a great cloud of dust that is hiding what is happening. We can see the upper levels hitting within 10 seconds. I can only imagine the building, constructed the way it was, collapsing on itself and I would not expect it to stay up for very long. Talk about delusion. Go back to your meds. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 03:44 PM (#2107792) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce Peace, A picture is worth a thousand words- and I can't type that fast. I thought the picture would give a better idea of where and how far the particulate debris carried. "Across the river" does not really tell the extent. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 04:03 PM (#2107803) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth Some decades back, I had a friend who was going through a bad patch (turned out to be clinical depression and anxiety, later treated with meds and a bit of psychotherapy—she's fine now). Anyway, she was so distressed that she had herself admitted to a local mental institution. Another friend and I went to visit her, to see how she was getting along and to show our support. The attendant ushered us into a lounge area where a number of patients were gathered. While we visited with our friend, there was a woman over in the corner who was sort of jabbering and gibbering. Very paranoid, "They're out to get me!" sort of stuff. She would talk to anyone who would listen, or to no one in particular. Apparently she did that constantly. No one paid any attention to her. You know, folks, I highly recommend that we do the same here. Don Firth |
|
20 Jul 07 - 04:18 PM (#2107809) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Not this is peer-reviewed, so it must be true... Why would something having been peer reviewed automatically make it true, beardedbruce? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 04:32 PM (#2107816) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Hell, if we're going to use that logic, we can automatically say that Steven Jones' 9/11 Research is true (thermite and controlled demolition), because it's been peer reviewed. Here's the peer review... http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:04 PM (#2107917) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC - PM Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:26 PM The Nova program showed experts going through piles of WTC wreckage to find and mark and recover for analysis structural metal from the collision area. So where is this material, and why aren't we being shown the results of the analyses? Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to put all of this speculation to rest simply by providing the material to several different independent testing agencies and publish the results publicly. Or even better, make the material available to anyone who wants to study and test it, and subject any results that are published to peer review. Just like we do for any other kind of science." "And while we're at it, it wouldn't be too difficult for the government to release the video footage of the Pentagon that was taken by the security cameras of the hotel across the road (which was confiscated by the FBI), so people can see for themselves that what crashed into the Pentagon was what the official whitewash says it was." Video released: No pictures of plane in view, just the explosion. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:06 PM (#2107918) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC - PM Date: 16 Jul 07 - 02:22 PM Face - No one is going to believe the NEXT investigation { independent or otherwise } unless it agrees with the conclusions that you have already made. Multiple independent analyses that are subject to peer review, along with a truly independent and verifiable investigation would go a long way to persuade me to revise my current opinions. But so far, any time any kind of truly independent investigating has been done, the results have helped contribute to forming the opinions I have now. " |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:07 PM (#2107919) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC - PM Date: 16 Jul 07 - 02:29 PM No, beardedbruce, if the results of any future investigations (along with whatever evidence is used to arrive at any conclusions that are made) could be reviewed by anyone, and if the conclusions could be peer reviewed, and if they could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that any other scientific theories and conclusions are subject to, I would not have a problem with accepting the results. " |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:08 PM (#2107920) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: beardedbruce "Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC - PM Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:32 PM The beauty of the approach that I am advocating is that with this approach, the work of Dr. Wood can be peer reviewed. If it is faulty, this will come out in the peer reviews of her work. Unlike the official approach,..." |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM (#2107930) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk 701 ways to skin a cat... |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:40 PM (#2107942) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Here's one thing I find problematic. I consider it an anomaly. We have been given a few different "official" reports, as the official explanation has changed over time. For a while, they were promoting the "floor joists slipped off their angle clips (resulting in colapse)" theory. Now, they appear to be promoting the "floor joists pulled on the angle clips and bowed the perimeter walls inward (resulting in colapse)" theory. Obviously, they couldn't continue to promote the theory about the joists slipping off the angle clips because, as I've said before, that would result in the core being left standing. So they abandoned that one and came up with the tugging and bowing theory. Here's the problem with these two theories having both been promoted by the government. With the first theory, they were saying that the weak spot was the angle clips. That's why they were able to make the assertion that the towers could have fallen that way. Now, with the new theory, they are saying that the angle clips were not weak at all, but that they were so strong, and they held the floor joists in place so securely, the walls bowed inward because of it. They seem to be trying to have it both ways with those angle clips. Probably because they made up the whole "angle clips being the week point" thing out of thin air without ever even trying to find out whether they were week or strong. I guess it sounded good at the time. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:42 PM (#2107943) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC Video released: No pictures of plane in view, just the explosion. I'd like to see that one. Do you know if it's available for viewing online? |
|
20 Jul 07 - 08:51 PM (#2107948) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC beardedbruce, your copy/pastings of my previous comments seem to be somewhat random, and it's a bit difficult to determine exactly what the point is that you're trying to make. However, I think this sentence from me is probably a good response. and if they could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that any other scientific theories and conclusions are subject to So far, the official versions of events haven't even come close to receiving that level of scrutiny. But I should qualify what I said a bit. If the peer reviews conclude that the official theory is bullshit, I won't be accepting it. Plus, you failed to include the parts where I said that I would like to see multiple peer reviews and peer reviews of the peer reviews. |
|
20 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM (#2107965) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: robomatic You folks are swallowing elephants and straining at gnats. Fire weakened the structure. A significant part of the structure, as a chunk, essentially fell on the rest, and like a fist coming down on a house of cards the floor by floor 'resistance' was very low compared to the shock of the release of potential energy from above. Jiving with this is the fact that although hit later, the tower with the greater mass isolated up top (a bigger fist) was the one that failed first. As for the problem with falling 'straight' down, this is again ignorance of the laws of physics. If you've ever seen the demolition of a tall chimney stack, you'd notice that the whole thing doesn't just keel over like Jack's giant or a felled tree. It takes energy to divert that much mass to the side, hence at some point the top breaks away and falls closer to the base than you might expect. Since the failure of each tower started near the top to begin with, there was only 'down' to go. This thread is a reminder of how certain arguments never go away even though they are pretty blatantly wrong on the face of it. Mistrust goes a long way, and ignorance greases the skids. |
|
21 Jul 07 - 06:15 AM (#2108085) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "If you are critically discussing my ideas and reasoning, you are not discussing the topic of discussion, you are discussing me." You would likely undergo a mental breakdown with higher level University study, then, as isolating the ideas from the individuals themselves is the main point of Research... |
|
21 Jul 07 - 10:35 AM (#2108162) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC A significant part of the structure, as a chunk, essentially fell on the rest, and like a fist coming down on a house of cards the floor by floor 'resistance' was very low compared to the shock of the release of potential energy from above. If this is the case, why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact? And how does this explain building 7? You would likely undergo a mental breakdown with higher level University study, then, as isolating the ideas from the individuals themselves is the main point of Research... If I were to submit myself to such an environment, I would understand the rules of that environment and abide by them. This is not a higher level university environment. I have not paid anyone here to teach me and bestow any degrees upon me. The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia. |
|
21 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM (#2108175) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: The Fooles Troupe "The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia." That statement reveals so much about a person's character and behaviour in threads such as these... "why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact?" Because the energy they possessed when they hit the ground went into reducing them to rubble (1/2 m v 2 ) "And how does this explain building 7?" If you had big heavy lumps fall on you, you might fall down too... |
|
21 Jul 07 - 12:18 PM (#2108198) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Little Hawk As ever, deeply held faith in one's adopted viewpoint holds the tiller through even the stormiest seas. ;-) This is as true of you, Foolestroupe, as it is of all your loyal opponents on this thread. |
|
21 Jul 07 - 01:37 PM (#2108251) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Thomas the Rhymer Hey Hey Foolstroupe... just remember this... The Shill's shrill cheapest thpill... is condescension's dis... Schism prisims no populisms... Carol's questions do... Truth's proof may be uncooth... to many behind you... Ask ask know your task... causes made us flutter See be let's agree... biggotry's the nutter Find kind open mind... Truth we're not afraid of... Grow Know Make 'em show... what smoking guns are made of. ttr |
|
21 Jul 07 - 01:42 PM (#2108253) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: heric Clocks in chips tick. Clocks on chips tock. Eight byte bits tick. Eight bit bytes tock. Clocks on chips with eight bit bytes tick. Chips with clocks and eight byte bits tock. Here's an easy game to play. Here's an easy thing to say. |
|
21 Jul 07 - 01:45 PM (#2108254) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: CarolC "The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia." That statement reveals so much about a person's character and behaviour in threads such as these... This comment from you reveals even more about you. For one thing, that you prefer a somewhat sneakier approach to your smear tactics (ad hominem argumentation). We are all equal peers here in this forum. None of us is a pedagogue bestowing anything at all upon others. You might believe that you have greater status, or that you have a right to judge or bestow your approval upon others, but you aren't and you don't. You're just another one of the debaters, of equal status as all of the other debaters. "why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact?" Because the energy they possessed when they hit the ground went into reducing them to rubble (1/2 m v 2 ) Even building 7? "And how does this explain building 7?" If you had big heavy lumps fall on you, you might fall down too... There's a big difference between falling down and becoming pulverized. When other 40 story buildings have collapsed by other means than controlled demolition (earthquake, for instance), have they also become pulverized? |
|
21 Jul 07 - 02:33 PM (#2108266) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "When other 40 story buildings have collapsed by other means than controlled demolition (earthquake, for instance), have they also become pulverized?" That makes a difference in this case?? Can you say for a fact that they did not become pulverized? You can't compare apples to oranges because each circumstance of a building collapse is different - construction, causes, size, weather, etc. One factor does not work for another. |
|
21 Jul 07 - 03:48 PM (#2108304) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: Don Firth I doubt very seriously that there is all that much data available on what happens when buildings collapse from a variety of causes, i.e., earthquake, being collided with by an airliner, fire (either accidental or arson), vast amounts of time and general decay, controlled demolition, uncontrolled demolition, being struck by cannon-fire or a large stone hurled by a medieval trebuchet, or any combination of the aforementioned. Experimenting with models or computer simulation is not necessarily going to produce data that is accurate in the real world, and experimenting by causing full-size buildings to collapse in a variety of ways and then documenting all the minute details for future reference might prove just a bit costly. So—although we may know generally quite a bit about the details of how a specific building collapsed by applying principles of physics and knowledge of architecture and engineering, much of it, especially the finer details, is going to be a matter of guesswork. And that would be by experts. When attempted by non-experts, it is sheer speculation. And in this case, that speculation is strongly colored by people's preconceptions, further complicated by the blizzard of misinformation (some of it severely twisted to fit those preconceptions). Considering the fact that none of us knows for certain what happened, it is really a bit silly to get offended and/or nasty and/or abusive if someone else doesn't agree with your pet theory. By the way, this is a general observation. I'm not addressing this comment to anyone in particular. If you found yourself taking it personally and getting your neck in a bow, you might just want to think about that. Don Firth |
|
21 Jul 07 - 03:55 PM (#2108308) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job From: GUEST,sooo smart Heric, that's the most intelligent thing anyone has had to say in this thread sooo far. . . |
