An open thread, where at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Is saying “First” now passé?
Fielding – a dickhead in a wheelchair is still a dickhead.
Raelene Boyle on Caster Semenya on ABC news last night. “She not a woman” … “This woma… this person…” Nice.
MH@3
Indeed. Raelene Boyle is a disgrace. Caster Semenya, in her view, allegedly committed the crime of having androgen insensitivity syndrome and innocent athletes have to be protected.
I have a longstanding objection to elite sport, and this matter simply underscores what is wrong with the concept. This is where it logically leads.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/loneliness-of-the-university-liberal-20090911-fkqc.html
Some of the hard left quoted in the article are quite… vicious. Unfortunate, really.
Yes, Raelene Boyle was ugly last night. A LOL moment on the ABC report on their website though.
“That opinion is not shared by Australian track legend Raelene Boyle.
The Olympian insists the international sporting fraternity has an obligation to provide competitors with a level playing field.
“The IOC has to protect the rest of us; protecting those of us that are doing the right thing,” he said.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/11/2683807.htm
And Rationalist@5 isn’t Paul Sheehan so even handed and non-partisan?
Methinks Fairfax moves further to the right with every day.
Will someone please explain Dan Brown? Innocuous name, unoriginal plots, crap prose and they are printing 6.5 million copies of his next book. I used to think that popular fiction had some redeeming features but with the arrival of Brown I’m not so sure.
MH@3
OK, if the IOC is to provide a level playing field the obvious thing to do is to strip Semenya of her-his medal and institute a third category for people with androgen insensitivity syndrome. Caster Semenya would then stand a good chance of replacing the medal she had lost and scooping the pool for gold medals from then on.
I am unable to Google LP. When I do I get a message that tells me the website has shut down. I got onto this post by going through Face-book. Help!
Another nail in the coffin of the Wingnut Myth about the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Fran, I think I recall reading about your distaste for elite sport before. I have a question I would like to ask though. Without elite sport, how would you go about increasing a nation’s morale?
David H, the answer is easy. The media laps it up. They lap it up for the same reason they lap up the hysteria over Harry Potter. In both cases, there are a lot better books out there on the same subject or subject-oriented matter but they get no publicity.
One of the young libs quoted in the article linked to by Rationalist in comment 5:
”I think one of the dangers facing upcoming generations, including my own, is that we are developing an attitude of ‘what will the government do about it?’ I think the Rudd Government is sending the wrong message to Australians that we can’t function without the Government’s help in each area of our lives and I feel that this is fundamentally wrong.”
Just remind me again, which was the government that championed middle class welfare and nearly sent the country broke doing it? Couldn’t have been Howard, by any chance, could it? Not the great believer in “individual responsibility”?
Absolutely Katz. Thatcher didnt want to see the end of Communism, as it would mess with Britain’s far longer-term interest in a disunited Europe.
The other news for today: Sarkozy institute a Carbon tax from next year. Vive la France! http://www.theage.com.au/environment/sarkozy-to-the-rescue-20090911-fkt8.html
I see The Oz has started a saturation advertising campaign on SBS in preparation, for the paywall
I had the same problem yesterday, Paul @ 10, for quite some time using Alta Vista, Google and Bing. Even through linked articles in Crikey. I was told every time “there is nothing at this website address” It began when I was actually writing a comment at this site and when I clicked “submit” I was told the website address did not exist!
Patricia WA,
I had the problem yesterday too, but I was busy writing most of the day, so I thought I’d wait until this morning to see if it had cleared up. But it hadn’t. Still connecting via Facebook.
Does anybody know why its happening or is it just that my computer’s stuffed?
Senex@12
Here are some questions for you to consider before I offer a substantive answer:
1. Is a nation’s morale something that can be measured with the degree of precision to allow utility-based evaluation of resource allocation? If it’s more than a The Castle-style ‘it’s the vibe’ thing, what measures do you have in mind for longterm effectiveness-of-program auditing?
2. Is it possible that negative utilities,
a) for the nation as a whole
b) for parts of the nation
c) for other nations or parts of them
might be authored by resort to elite sport as a national morale-incrementing program. Regardless of the effect on the morale of Germans, would it have been better on the whole, if, for example, in 1936 at Berlin, the German track and field athletes had bested Jesse Owens? How would this have affected German or Eastern European Jews or Slavs?
Again, how would one go about accounting these negative utilities?
3. Opportunity Cost: What effects on other programs or public goods objectives does elite sport have?
a) How does elite sport affect housing costs, or skew/constrain transport and infrastructure policy?
4. Carbon (and other pollution) footprint: What do you see as the environmental footprint of elite sport? Consider the environmental cost of moving millions of people about and the cost of all the merchandise, not to speak of the costs of moving all the necessary equipment, the support staff, the cost of huge stadia, race tracks and swimming pools, the clearing of land for golf courses, the access roads and so forth.
5. Human rights: What are the civil and human rights implications of the security measures that needs must protect any elite sporting event associated with affirming the morale of nations?
Perhaps if you try answering these questions, you will approach a grasp of my attitude to elite sport.
In order to unravel the mystery of why Google won’t link to LP, mild-mannered historian Paul Burns undertakes research that leads him to the heart of a hidden deadly conspiracy which threatens the very foundations of Western civilization. Now, with Google nerds, Catholic bishops and mysterious Swiss assassins tracking his every move, his only hope is to team up with a beautiful young archaeologist and search for the key to the mystery in the Maldives, Istanbul, Zurich, Mayfair and Minorca, an exotic island where a mysterious Swiss Catholic Google assassin holds a secret to perhaps the greatest mystery of all…
Somebody wanted an explanation for Dan Brown? One word: airports.
A double dose of Paul Sheehan and Miranda every week. Way to go SMH!
Dear Fran,Er maybe people like elite sport,they watch it on TV and at sports grounds.
You may not like it but lots do.
I thought the Young Libs sounded just like the people Sheehan was criticizing,blinkered and suffering from convenient memory about Howard, Middle Class welfare,Lies,and trying to rewrite history.
Well,thew mysterious Swiss catholic assassin has just wiped my newsfeed from Facebook, and now I had to link here through Mark’s Facebook page.
(There was a pest sending me computer games that I deleted a couple of hours ago. Seems to have altered the whole look of my home-page, way back there. I guess I give up. But, when you haven’t ever read a Dan Brown book, I guess it gets hard to understand. (He has I believe gone from trying to upset Catholics to trying to upset Freemasons. Does that make him eclectic?
My morale increases when my team wins in a sports competition.
But not when it loses.
And whilst I enjoy my sports watching [my active days are sadly over and have left their legacy on various bits of my body] its a very very small part of how I get my morale boosting.
Hmm.
Let me count list just a very few of those things that, if going well, can boost my morale, or the converse.
Music. Arts in general. Movies/TV/theatre/ dance and similar stuff. Books.
Family is a biggy, particularly the grandkids.
Related to that are all the things that hopefully will go to enabling them to have a full and happy life. Good schools and health would be pretty high on the list of things important in that regard.
Hopefully they can have a choice of having a satisfying and rewarding career in the field[s] that they want. So laws and practices regarding work would seem to be relevant. I know I met a lot of people with very low morale and high anxiety about 2 years ago in the period before 24 November. That seems to have diminished slightly since.
The environment is important to everybody to a greater or leser degree, my grandkids were really disappointed when they saw the dead patch of our land that was once a vibrant wetland. The asked me what happened.
How do I answer that?
They worry, dinkum they really do and only a bit of it is down to me and family.
They cried when their mum cried on Sorry Day, again they asked why and she explained later when coherent, that boosted everyone’s morale although its gone down a bit in that regard since.
Blimey I could go on and on about how a society can boost its morale in dozens, hundreds of ways.
And very few of them have anything to do with sport.
Maybe that’s way some want to concentrate on the sports aspect?
So Dan Brown has nothing to do with elite sport? If I read more Dan Brown will my nationalistic sentiment decline in proportion to an increase in my general cynicism? Can we have a National Institute of Bookery next to the National Institute of Sport? So many questions, maybe Google has the answer…I’ll pray.
It’s been a better year for aussie films than it has for aussie sports.
My morale was boosted on the occasion of the apology to indigenous people, I thought it was a great first step in addressing what I think really ails this country and plays no small part in why we distract ourselves with sporting pursuits. I think sports provide an opportunity for us to can kid ourselves that there is an even playing field in this country. but a morale boost? not so much.
By reading through the comments so far I have gathered Dan Brown is an elite sport snob who was an unfortunately violent left wing uni student and has androgen insensitivity syndrome. I may have missed a few key points.
Paul, definitely not our computers! Mine is brand new and the problem seems to have entirely disappeared today, even at 5pm yesterday.
However, glad to find that you have the same sort of anxiety that sometimes strikes me about the internet, mobile phones and technology at large – i.e. any time it fails it must be me, or my equipment! I have overcome this by accepting with gratitude that 99.9% of the time it doesn’t fail and continues to offer an astonishing range of spectacle, wisdom and information for my delectation.
The internet delights and surprises me every day. Without needing to understand the technical intricacies which I guess could be explained to me if I took the time I still find it a miracle that people the world over are somehow cooperating to reveal themselves and the myriad details of their vibrant lives and stunning environments to each other. With so much order and seeming ease! If we do this together why can’t we live together without war?
The internet itself answers me. Because in revealing humanity to itself in all its magnificent complexity it also shows the darkness; the greed, the violence and the vice. Yet surely that underbelly is only a small component of the vast range of experiences we now share so easily of histories, ecologies, wisdom, creativity, and much much more…..but, most important of all, our common aspirations for a better world.
Time for a walk.
Of course, yesterday (still today over in the US) was the eighth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist atrocity.
All the alternative internet Internet forum sites appear to have avoided any mention of 9/11.
Only the corporate and government newsmedia seem willing to raise 9/11 in order to once again drum into us the message that we must continue with our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the removal of our guarantees of democratic freedoms, human rights and free speech in order to ensure that the 9/11 attacks are never repeated.
How is it that 9/11 seems so off-limits on alternative Internet sites?
Could it be that they fear the views of people who disagree agree with the Official account of 9/11 being expressed?
Patricia WA,
Mine has only just started working. (To whoever the boffins were at LP that presumbly fixed it, much thanks. Waves of technological paranoia have just gently subsided.
Patricia, the Internet is indeed a wondrous beast. I stay away from the nasty stuff if I can, though I do occasionally get e-mailed by some RWDB or porno-freak who has picked up my address. Mostly I find it absolutely bloody marvellous – access to books on line and buyable, primary sources of all varieties, (eg American Memory at the Library of Congress – history-heads check it out some time -) blogs, like LP, which comprises much of my social political life now that I’ve dropped out of SA, Armchair General, which is brilliant place to chew over history with people from all round the world, etc, etc.
And now to enter the sports as a force of national cohesion etc., debate. I hate sport. I never watch it. I make a cup of coffee when it comes on TV. I hardly ever comment on sport posts. But I do recognise other people enjoy it immewnsely, and why not? But me? Give me a good book, a good movie or DVD, that rare bird decent television, or a good classical concert or a poetry reading, or piece of well-directed, well-acted live theatre any day.
re: “Loneliness of the University Liberal”.
I think that will all change in the not too distant future. Faster please.
And so it begins. What a nut job. People are trully going to regret voting for this guy.
Five reasons the Da Vinci Code is a bucket of arse.
Feeble and insincere apologies for linking to my own blog, there. But considering how many are called to the holy tabernacle of Dan Brown hatred, suurprisingly few are chosen.
oh, and as far as sport is concerned, not a great deal can be expected from a pastime or whatever it is that was basically invented by the Nazis, in its modern spectacular incarnation. Raelene Boyle is only enunciating the fascist principles that underly the whole concept. Senex, a thoroughly demoralised nation is a healthy nation, in my book.
Peter @ 31: Nothing new there.
“Governments around the world have suggested the United States talks tough against protectionism only when its own industries are not threatened.”
Look at how our own so-called Free Trade Agreement tiptoes around sensitive aspects of US agriculture.
Politics is nothing if not the art of compromise.
Re the Da Vinci Code:
At the time it was a huge deal, I had a bit of a look at it to see what the fuss was about. As far as I could tell, there seemed to be an inverse relationship between those who REALLY LIKED IT and everyone else who reads books. The neophyte readers thus don’t realise what a crap book it is. While reading it, these people are riveted by the different ideas and paradigms it explores. The Celestine Prophecy was a similar case.
Give me Kitty the Werewolf or Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum books any day!
I’ve just had a look at the article Rationalist posted @5. I found myself floundering about, as usual, because none of the positions were defined. Hard left? Centre Left? Liberal? Right? Far Right? Labor has never struck me as being left wing at all, and suddenly it’s acquired a “leftist” identity.
Left and Right is clearly no longer about on what side of the King one sits. Both Marxist Socialist States and Neo Rationalist economic structures haven’t worked out terribly well. In the article there seemed to be an underlying assumption that “left” = “more State intervention”. “Right” = “less State intervention”.
All I’m sure about is that the continuum isn’t about how deeply one loathes John Howard. Howard Hating seems to cross all political boundaries, I always thought.
Always brilliant. Dorothy Parker at “Loon Pond”
http://loonpond.blogspot.com/
In praise of Raelene Boyle!Are you sure what she has said actually implies a criticism of the athlete,or a criticism of those behind the athlete!? When I was young Raelene was not only a pleasing personality,but a dasher of a runner,and if health meets beauty she wasn’t that far removed.As it turned out she suffered badly from certain countries cheating and putting in heaps of effort against impossible odds.The sickoes here are ready to shit on a good Australian, Raelene probably is mostly in line with their thinking.Sometimes the Elite of a country trying to set a standard that others can follow suffer more from the reckless of their own country.Raelene was universally liked.Can you say the same about yourselves dears!?
Catallaxy has been hacked by “Mahmoud SQL”, apparently a Euro-Muslim hacker or hacking team. If anyone wants to have a look, beware, I have no idea whether the site is safe to view from a Windows system.
IRONY ALERT
From the Paul Sheehan article:
“Being a Liberal at university can be politically very lonely. Courtney Dunn, 19, has never knowingly met another Liberal at the two University of Western Sydney campuses where she studies for a combined arts and law degree. ”The most visible political students on campus are the hard left, who the average student doesn’t relate to, which is further reason why voluntary student unionism is such a positive thing.”
”I think one of the dangers facing upcoming generations, including my own, is that we are developing an attitude of ‘what will the government do about it?’
Yet this is the same person demanding government do something, complaining about the number of trains services that service areas with limited population (and the horror, the horror – having to change trains)
MARIE FICARRA: – To add insult to injury the Labor Government recently cut peak hour rail services to the extent that no direct service from the Southern Highlands to the central business district arrives during the morning peak hour. Courtney Dunn, an 18-year-old Picton resident, recently contacted me. Courtney started working in the central business district after finishing high school at the end of last year. Like many residents of Picton and the Wollondilly shire, Courtney relies on public transport to get to and from work each day and, along with many people from Sydney’s outskirts, she spends a considerable amount of time commuting. Since beginning her job in January, Courtney became frustrated by the state of the rail service when, in a little over a month of working in the central business district, the evening rail service that she catches from Campbelltown to Picton was cancelled on six different occasions.
Unlike some people who are willing to put up with a poor rail service that has been compounded by many years of neglect, Courtney is a young woman who is ready to fight for her local community and has set out on a campaign to get a better deal for Southern Highlands commuters. Within a day of deciding to do something about the rail service, Courtney got over 50 people to sign a petition for better train services and had contacted the local newspaper, the Wollondilly Advertiser, to voice her concerns. The Wollondilly Advertiser has since run a number of stories about the poor train services to the Southern Highlands and is getting behind the campaign for improvements, and more local residents are signing Courtney’s petition by the day. My colleague in the other place, the member for Goulburn, Pru Goward, has been working for a better deal for Southern Highlands rail commuters and I know that she has encouraged Courtney in her efforts.
One thing that particularly frustrates Courtney and many other Southern Highlands commuters is the lack of services in the morning peak hour. There are currently only two services for the morning peak hour and both these services terminate at Campbelltown, meaning commuters are forced to change trains. During her campaign, Courtney has found that many residents have just given up on the Southern Highlands line and are either driving to work or driving to Campbelltown station. With poor services like this it is no wonder that so many commuters feel this way and it adds to the stress on their local roads in peak hour.
Nathan Bracken: get a bloody haircut and lose that bloody hair band.
Philistine!
What a scary ting!
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sport/Bracken.jpg
@42: Hold onto your hat here: I don’t drink VB either.
Noticed a quote in the piece ‘Loneliness of a young Liberal’ complaining about a group that stood for nothing except hatred of John Howard.
Let’s see. A group that stands for nothing but hatred of John, err, Kevin Rudd.
That’d be the Liberals.
Nonsense Rx,
Most libs just think Rudd’s a dud. Nothing like the venom spewed at Howard on this and other forums. Same goes for Obama vs Bush. No comparison.
Peter, I think you are blind on both counts, though, particularly the latter.
Obama is loathed. You hear those good ol’ boys splutter with rage at his very name. A lot of the time just because of his colour.
Kevin, you can tell, gets up those Liberal noses because they just do not take kindly to losing the privilege and power. You see, because they never learned to share, they are now very angry and incompetant with it.
Daggett #28 on 911
Pepe Escobar in Asia Times asks 50 questions about 911. I was wondering, is asking questions a less risky way to avoid defamation suits than making statements?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html
Laura @ 33
Not true. They invented gas chambers. They developed huge public rallies (a la Nuremberg) before the ’36 Olympics but they most certainly did not invent elite sport. Int’l cricket (Ashes etc) – not due to the Nazis. They persecuted Slavs and Jews and Gypsies and Communists and the mentally infirm, but they didn’t invent elite sport.
Raelene Boyle is not a fascist. She may be harsh, restrictive, misquoted and several other things but she is not a fascist.
Let’s invent a Godwin’s Olympics competition. Event 1: think of something you can blame the Nazis for. Give it no further thought.
Event 2: find someone you can call a “FASCIST”.
Event 3: Have a bit of a lie down after the strenuous effort of competing inEvents 1 and 2.
(Cross-posted to Weekend Reflections on johnquiggin.com)
On Correspondents Report just now (podcast seems unavailable at this moment) an ABC reporter said that a CIA agent told her that ‘Al Qaeda’ was planning an even bigger terrorist attack upon the US than 9/11. I didn’t get all of the words, but she said roughly:
Given the gross, unbelievable incompetence of the US Government in its failure to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks (that is if we accept the Official September 11 Conspiracy Theory and not the alternative Conspiracy Theory) and given that not one single figure in the Administration of President George W Bush was even reprimanded, let alone sacked for that incompetence, would anyone here put their trust in the US Government to prevent the next attack?
If the attack were to succeed (or even if it were not to, but were to be thwarted at the last minute) does anyone not see how this could be used as an excuse to completely remove our democratic freedoms, civil liberties and human rights?
Obama is loathed. You hear those good ol’ boys splutter with rage at his very name. A lot of the time just because of his colour.
Listen to what the man says, Peter. Those 9/12 folk are full-on crazy.
I’ve always hated this turn of phrase for its arrant absurdity. As improbable as it may sound however, I was able to buttonhole the latest offender her on the street just yesterday and the impromptu interview with Mr Empty
FB: Mr Empty, you don’t mind if I call you that do you …?
Mr Empty: Not at all. My friends call me that …
FB: You say that you are not ruling it out and you’re not ruling it in…
Mr Empty: That’s right …
FB: It’s impossibly paradoxical, surely?
Mr Empty: How so?
FB: You say you’re statements are logically consistent, do you not, Mr Empty?
Mr Empty: I sure do
FB: You would agree that ruling something out and ruling it in covers the full gamut of policy options, would you not?
Mr Empty: Well yes …
FB: So the conclusion is compelled, if you are consistent, that not ruling something out and not ruling something in are to some extent at least, coextensive.
Mr Empty: Yes I suppose …
FB: So in your view, the words out and in are not mutually exclusive
Mr Empty: Well err … look, all I’m saying is that I don’t want to commit to a policy on this right now.
FB: Oh I think I get that, but that means that you are going to commit to a policy in the future, does it not?
Mr Empty:Well yes …
FB: So before that time you will seek data about the feasibility of the existing workplace relations regime, consider proposals for individual contracts being discussed within the party room with an open mind, correct?
Mr Empty: Well yes …
FB: Can you do that if you rule it out? If you rule it out, you’re saying that such discussion would be pointless and counterproductive, surely?
Mr Empty: Well yes …
FB: So not ruling it out, entails ruling it in, not just in theory, but in practice. You are seeking a discussion of the matter.
Mr Empty: Can we talk about how Mr Rudd is like some Communist Party General Secretary?
FB: If you like … you said it was extraordinary
Mr Empty: That’s right
FB: Yet you also said he was the Bradman of Boredom
Mr Empty: That’s right. I could have added the Baudrillard of Boredom but that would have cost me two points in the polls for knowing a post-structuralist and reading LP.
FB: Indeed. So you are saying that the extraordinary is boring?
Mr Empty: Err yes …
FB: Was Stalin a post-structuralist?
Mr Empty: Oh no … definitely a structuralist … hang on … oh there goes two points …
FB: Out is in, the boring is extraordinary … you’re having a problem with consistency aren’t you Mr Empty?
Mr Empty: Maybe if I could be a post-structuralist, it would be easier …
FB: There goes another two points …
||||
Well one can dream …
Ambigulous – if you’d read my comment properly you’d see i said the Nazis basically invented elite sport in its modern spectacular incarnation, and that Boyle is enunciating the facist principles that underlie sport – not that Nazis invented elite sport per se – nor that Boyle is a fascist herself.
I was interested to observe that the Greens rep who interjected in the parliament and mocked Senator Fielding’s disability wasn’t named by the press. It was Sarah Hansen-Young.
I’m fairly sure the Nazis didn’t invent the gas chamber, though – they only Fordised it.
Laura, I think that claim is rather a stretch.
Professional cricket and baseball dates extends well back to the nineteenth century, and the VFL – which broke away from the VFA to permit professionalism – formed in 1896.
Is your claim that the Nazis invented sport as a vehicle for nationalism? Yes, they may have taken it to new and ugly heights in 1936, but invented it? Hardly.
Adam Tucker @ 54.
I’m disabled in various ways. So, re Steve Fielding’s disability, speaking as a disabled person to non-disabled people – you can be disabled like Fielding – though calling a learning difficulty a disability is a bit of a stretch, I think – and, like Fielding, still be an utter, complete fuckwit.
The Nazis were on about racial and physical purity. Part of the story comes from Germanic culture (and Simon Schama in his book Landscape and Memory articulates how far back that goes). There was a whole set of traditions in both the 19th and 20th centuries in the west that latched onto physical purity and referenced that back to the Greeks vis a vis the re-establishment of Olympism. (And it was no accident Rudolf Steiner built his philosophies, with a deep emphasis on purity, from a Germanic heritage)
What Hitler did was to take this myth within the Germanic context and place it as propaganda into the the mass media, for example through the work of Leni Riefenstahl. Those methods were clearly a development that resonates today, but it was the photography (i.e., tracking shots of athletes), that was the invention. All else can be traced to existing developments with deep historical roots.
“if you’d read my comment properly you’d see i said the Nazis basically invented elite sport in its modern spectacular incarnation,”
I think that’s highly questionable as well, Laura. The 1936 Summer Olympics have strong associations with the Nazis, obviously, given that they took place in Berlin but they were conducted by the IOC on the same lines as previous events. The Nazis certainly didn’t invent the fire, stadium and marching teams spectacular.
Leni Riefenstahl did however make a movie about the Games (called ‘Olympia”) which was arguably the prototype for modern sports filming technique.
Interestingly, there was a gender controversy at the ’36 games (two female medallists later had FtoM gender reassignment surgery) which led to the much later introduction of gender verification by the IOC.
Rather surprised to see what’s a fairly widely held view so strongly rejected, to be honest. I did state it in a sloppy hyperbolic Saturday Salon style, sure, but the notion that the 1936 Olympics initiated our current culture’s special delight in racial, imperial, gendered and nationalist rituals of domination, expressed via hi-tech representations of fake antique / Classical body imagery, all served within the mediatised stadium spectacular where the crowd becomes part of the spectacle, has been around in sociology & history at least since th e1970s – see for instance Richard Mandell’s _The Nazi Olympics_ – and going back further, it was recognised & described by cultural theorists who were there at the time, eg Benjamin, Lacan.
I’m not specially down with the late 90s melange postmodernism informing this essay, but it cites some of the key work on the links between the modern technologised sporting spectacle and fascism, eg Buck-Morss. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fir998/AMfr4e.htm For another view see _The Nazi Olympics: sport, politics and appeasement in the 1930s_ ed Krüger, or the essays in special issue on the modern olympics, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 67 (June 1996). A jargon-free introduction to the issues can be found in this review of the recent exhibition at the Holocaust Museum http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la84foundation.org%2FSportsLibrary%2FOlympika%2FOlympika_1996%2Folympika0501h.pdf&ei=1GqsSvCELI7e7AOFm6jUBw&usg=AFQjCNFg_fP3dfVPx-bzHLFUwkTz8TAABA&sig2=XXCLD5y2LEtj9VLzQAmDig . For an exploration of the ways aspects of the 1936 Olympics, including the decisions of other countries to participate, established multiple remarkably persistent patterns informing the conduct of elite sport at the international level, see _The Unlevel Playing Field: a documentary history of the African American experience in sport_, eds. Wiggins and Miller.
“The Nazis certainly didn’t invent the fire, stadium and marching teams spectacular. ”
Geoff, by ‘fire’ do you mean the torch relay? Actually, the Nazis did invent that. It was a lovely touch thought up by the propaganda ministry.
Laura, associating a pastime that I and many other LP readers enjoy with “fascist principles” is pretty inflammatory, and was guaranteed to generate just a bit of resistance.
You know, I just knew the Nazis weren’t all bad.
Some might giiggle. But it seems Catallaxy has been invaded by a hacker. So it might do to be on guard. He’s a real n’ah n’ah n’ah jerk this guy.
Actually, the Nazis did invent that.
.
Yeah they thought they were demonstrating their inheritance. They thought they were the New Wave of Ancient Greece. Fascists alway do seem to corner the market on unintentional irony.
I’ve got to agree strongly with Laura on this one (except to point out that the Olympic Flame dates from 1928; the Nazis only innovation was to make it a cross-country event). Remember that the people who created the modern corporate Olympic games of the post-war were often Fascists too; Juan-Antonio Samaranch for instance was one of Franco’s cronies and a proud son of the Falange into old age.
To be fair, though, I tend to prefer the egalitarian-nationalist ideal of the Olympics and FIFA World Cup over it’s worse alternatives: Baron de Coubertin’s original reincarnation of amateur private gentlemen’s honourable athletism without women or proletarians on one hand, and the kinds of nationalist sporting movements that created bizarre and pathetic late-nineteenth century chauvinist sports like Pankration, and the Gaelic Games that were part of the Gaelic Revival, on the other.
I recall a radio interview with Asa Briggs in about 2002 who said not entirely tongue-in-cheek that modern Europe had displaced the urge to kill one’s neighbours with the urge to watch one’s neighbours beaten in UEFA Cup football. That’s got to be a good thing.
I’m surprised at you, RM.
You’re generally the most uncompromisingly scientistic of the posters here, the most willing on general principle to bend inclination and enthusiasm when faced with proveable fact. The Olympics have radical, nationalist, right-wing roots, with stacks of evidence in their favour, and historically it’s pretty uncontroversial to say make the link. To not follow an argument because of where it might politically lead is something you’d expect of right-wing Laborite hypocrites like me, or the other bourgeois leftists around here [cough], not empiricists like yourself.
ONE OF US, ONE OF US, etc.
The Olympics have radical, nationalist, right-wing roots,
.
So do Combi Vans and look how they ended up.
when even the Greens sold out on it. what hope did the mary river ever have. we need a third political party that is centre-left and opposed to prvatisation of asstes and this dam.
“Geoff, by ‘fire’ do you mean the torch relay? Actually, the Nazis did invent that. It was a lovely touch thought up by the propaganda ministry.”
i was thinking of the Olympic flame that burns in the main stadium.
Liam, actually you’re the one I’m surprised at. “Nationalistic” isn’t “fascist” isn’t identical with “Nazi.” If I understand Laura correctly, the contention was that the 1936 Nazi All-Black-and-Reds were responsible for an original, new set of tropes (which became ours today, is that a fair summation?), viz. we should credit the ’36 Nazis specifically, not the general historic flow of increasing nationalism.
Depends what you mean, I guess. Babe Ruth’s famous “called shot” happened in Chicago in 1932, four years before the Nazilympics, for instance. Hype? Check. Triumphalism? Check. Huge crowds? Check. Ginormous stadium for the “masses”? Check. Nationalism? Check, sorta (the national anthem was sung before the game). And all this stuff was well-established in sports culture well before that (and I bet in other sports too — anyone care to comment on cricket?).
I think the new ingredients the Nazis added to all this were a profound humorlessness about it, and grim Teutonic precision and determination. Babe Ruth was part of a rowdy squad that played for a rowdy, fun-loving crowd, he liked his beer and had a tremendous paunch for an athlete — presumably he wouldn’t pass muster in a Germanic cult of bodily purity (despite being a German): but we don’t see such a cult in the Anglosphere sporting world today, do we? At least not in a consistent way. Or would one say that we do? (with bodies sculpted by steroids etc.?) Though I will concede that NBA basketball is filmed in a crypto-fascist style full of dominance obsession and body glorification and insane “mighty warrior” posturing. (Good grief, you’re a bunch of grown men throwing around a rubber ball, get over yourselves.)
As for the “gendering” of sport, doesn’t it go back at least as far as the funeral games in the Iliad?
btw, for a hilarious take on gender in sports, look up on Youtube “Babe Ruth in Fancy Curves,” a lame one-reel erstwhile comedy where he coaches an all-girls team. All your gender tropes in one spot — even a scene of Babe Ruth transvestism! (true.)
Sheen Challenges 9/11 Truth Debunkers to Larry King Live Debate
AUSTIN, Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ — Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to
discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those
who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan
McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, to debate him on CNN’s
Larry King Live.
Following the publication of Sheen’s “20 Minutes With The President,” a
fictionalized account of a meeting with Barack Obama in which Sheen implores
the President to reopen the investigation of 9/11 in light of the majority of
the 9/11 Commission members publicly denouncing the official story as a
deception, McCain attacked Sheen on ABC’s top rated show The View, comparing
people who question 9/11 with holocaust deniers.
…
A familiar theme arising out of such hit pieces is an effort to imply that
Sheen’s questioning of the official 9/11 story is somehow an “outrage” and
hurtful to the family members of the victims, despite the fact that the
majority of victims’ family members share the same questions.
Furthermore, claiming that people who doubt the government story are on par
with holocaust deniers completely ignores the fact that six of the ten 9/11
Commission members, along with scores of other highly credible former and
current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials,
scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars have all
publicly questioned the official version of events behind September 11.
Fox News talking heads Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, as well as popular
radio host Rush Limbaugh, have also attempted to attack Sheen’s credibility
while failing to discuss any of the subjects he actually raised.
In response, Sheen told The Alex Jones Show that he is challenging any one or
all of McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh or O’Reilly to a debate about 9/11 on CNN’s
Larry King Live or any other television show in Los Angeles, adding that the
show must be broadcast live to prevent bias editing. …
“To be fair, though, I tend to prefer the egalitarian-nationalist ideal of the Olympics and FIFA World Cup over it’s worse alternatives:”
I completely agree with the principle of this although the actuality of each Olympics continues to fill me with rage and disgust. And while I personally can’t get interested in any pasttime like NRL which celebrates a distorted version of masculinity as violent dominance, I do agree there are certainly less bad sports, as the great-granddaughter of a Test captain I think cricket is one of them; it doesn’t apparently involve group masturbation or rape, although it is extremely racist still.
Personally I think competitive, win-focused sport which depends on segregations of various types is inhumane, stupid and pathetic. Raelene Boyle believes the IOC has a duty to “protect the rest of us”, maybe by starting a separate Olympics “for these people with not the normal physical make-up or chromosomal or scientific make-up that we have”. Either make it that you can only have races between people who are exactly the same in every possible way, or let everyone race, including animals. Then we’ll find out once and for all whether there will ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark.
Jane Austen was a sport fascist. She forced Mr Darcy to carry a torch for Elizabeth Bennet.
Letting humans and animals compete in the same arena has been tried before — think Coliseum, Christians, beasts of the Imperial Menagerie, etc etc.
Result: needs improvement. The chariot races in the Hippodrome were a better ticket, but the fans could get a little, um, unruly.
” Either make it that you can only have races between people who are exactly the same in every possible way, or let everyone race, including animals. Then we’ll find out once and for all whether there will ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark.”
I don’t think it is reasonable to assume animals want to race others be they other animals or humans.
Do you envisage the presence of a group of people who specialise in training various animals for sports events? Let’s put it this way – if you can get your cow to my place I’ll get one of mine to race your’s in the river out front. 200m individual medley OK?
Just thought I’d also say surfing is a non competitve past-time . You can arrange to judge each other but that is a small minority much wedded to advertising and corporate sponsorship.
The rest of us are engaged in a quite useless and non productive activity which makes you feel happy when you get out of the water.
Laura @ 53
I don’t think I failed to read your 33 “properly”. But I could be wrong.
The 1956 Olympics in Melbourne were homely, provincial, international, friendly and liberal (under the clouds of the Cold War). Fascist they were not. Fascistic? not that either. Ask someone who was there.
You’re welcome to your views of sport, sporting compoetition, etc. Hitler has little to do with it. Was there any area of life and culture he didn’t attempt to warp and poison? Should we conemn documentary film because Riefenstahl served Nazi aims? I think not.
Bread and circuses were invented long before 1936.
Seeing goose-stepping PLA troops, or massed North Korean persons, or Red Square military parades (in Soviet times) reminds me more of Hitler’s regime and its panoply of regimented, choreographed spectacle than any international sporting meeting.
There’s clearly more to say here, but I would acknowledge the long and dishonorable history of the Olympics.
That said, elite sport and the Olympics are not one and the same thing.
Indeed they are not, Robert.
Some elite sport is mostly conducted within ONE nation with scarcely any international competition. Example: Aussie Rules football. Go Saints!!
By the way, comment 55 is one of the most profoundly callous I’ve read on LP. I think the word “only” sets it apart.
May the innocent victims of Hitler’s regime rest in peace.
Ambigulous, re #55, you’re protesting too much. Let me assure you I am not in the least callous about the holocaust. When I finally finish my marking and get it written, if you give me an email address, I will send you the article I’m working on about what it was like interviewing visitors to the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam last month. Actually, I wish I’d developed a few more protective psychological calluses before leaping into that particular abyss.
Doesn’t it bother you even a tiny bit that women aren’t allowed to play AFL or NRL, or compete against men in almost any sports? They could you know. It would be a simple matter of lifting or adjusting the drug ban, which in some ways is more a mechanism for creating an uneven playing field than for levelling one.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2008/08/citius-altius-f.html
Hoges, by prophylactic supply statistics, at least 100,000 roots in the last 2 Olympics but surely the lefties didn’t miss out?
(Could there have been some “blowback” on right wing Christian virginity pledges to validate your assertion of the political flavour of this activity?)
Jam Master JPZ, I certainly wouldn’t ever argue that Nazism is equal to Fascism is equal to nationalism; any more than you’d contend that funk was equal to soul was equal to rock ‘n’ roll. Still—four-four time is four-four time, and a team in coloured shirts is a team in coloured shirts, whether on a football pitch or out in the street, and they share supporters, and they share familiar aims. (Which I say, note, as a supporter of Real Madrid).
Sport history’s full of elite spectacle, as others have noted, going back in organised media-marketed fashion to the circuses of the Romans, and pre-planned games-and-ritual are a universal part of humanity. And just because it can be oppressive and awful doesn’t mean it can’t also be amazing and beautiful; as the celebrated post-Fascist Enoch Powell observed, football’s nothing more or less than working-class ballet.
Excuse me: Alf Garnett, not Enoch Powell.
(So similar but so different)
Thanks Laura,
Did I misread 55 too? I’m distressed to hear of your project in Amsterdam. I had a brief visit to that city and chose Rembrandt paintings on a Saturday afternoon instead. I couldn’t face the Anne Frank Museum.
Instead, Vermeer won me over, in the Rijksmuseum. And a small statue in Leyden: a sad young girl, with the years of the WW2 occupation inscribed. No words. Exquisite anguish, strong remembrance.
Women in sport? What did Anne Frank write about that?
For all the conspiracy theorists out there. And this gem.
Laura, I don’t think merely making performance-enhancing drugs available to adult women would go anywhere close to evening up the score in the AFL.
The average AFL player is 185 centimetres tall. According to ABS figures (from 1995 and across the population, so not quite representative of young adults, but close enough to be indicative) 24.5% of men are over 180 centimetres in height; only 0.1% of women are.
Given that, unless you’re going to give HGH to girls on the basis that a tiny fraction of them might be further chemically assisted to play AFL footy, the odds are that very few women would be competitive AFL players even with chemical assistance.
Furthermore, while AFL players are endurance athletes, they also require a great deal of strength. So while you could give a woman AFL player EPO to assist with their endurance (which is actually an area where the differences between women and men are comparatively small), to be able to compete in strength terms the drugs of choice are steroids of one form or another. And if you want to know the long-term side effects of administering steroids to female athletes, go ask an East German.
On top of that, there’s also the little issue of anterior cruciate ligaments. Female athletes are, apparently, about eight times more likely to suffer this rather nasty injury than male athletes. Given ACL injuries are amongst the most common season-ending injuries in the AFL, it would seem likely that a large fraction of women who chemically enhanced their muscular strength and power to the point where they would be competitive AFL players would suffer an ACL injury sooner or later.
There are sports where your argument is plausible – endurance sports, particularly cycling because some disciplines within it favour small athletes – but AFL and NRL aren’t among them.
Women’s exclusion from much elite sport – and the marginalization of many women’s competitions in sports where they do participate – are important issues to think about in our sports-mad culture. But the idea that chemical assistance is a way out of it doesn’t really stack up.
When I was studying a gender studies course as part of my Honours coursework I had a private joke along the lines that all debates within feminism ultimately boiled down to the question of whether football should be played by both genders or banned for both genders.
I read on the weekend that the West Atlas Oil Spill now covers nearly 6000Km2. The company, PTTEP Australasia says it should have the spill under control within four weeks.
This is very disappointing. Where’s the idea of turning a crisis into an opportunity. Since the spill can be seen from space, why not use ships and booms to fashion it into a shape like the COMPANY LOGO. They could have the world’s biggest ad …
Big signs can be in the ocean as well as the skies — a little dye and you can get out the the good oil …
Fran
Despite my avowed distaste for sport, I do occasionally delve into sport history.And, in response to the query about nationalism showing its ugly face in cricket, from an Australian and British viewpoint may I offer the following: November 1932, the Bodyline matches at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, where the English,threw balls at the bodies of Australian batsman, notably one Don Bradman, (who I’ve never really had much affection for). Jardine was so hated by the mob on the Hill, that when he brushed at the summer flies some-one yelled outr, “Leave our flies alone, Jardine.” According to the TV series Bodyline, Aussies burnt the Union Jack. On one interpretation, the Bodyline matches plunged Australian/British relationships into crisis. (Which just shows how dangerous nationalism can be.)
Most of you probably realise by now, that despite being a socialist (genuine, not what the Americans call socialist) I have a soft spot for the US. Nevertheless, they did poisdon Phar Lap, which, along with the Smoot-Hawley tariff wars provoked a fair bit of Aussie nationalism against the Yanks here in the 1930s.
And I’m not even going to comment on the racist fascism of the Howard inspired Cronulla Riots when Ratty was PM.
Paul, I was also going to mention Bodyline as an example of sporting nationalism.
Not entirely coincidental that the examples we’re all thinking of are from the 1930s, I suspect.
There was also the notoriously bloody water polo match between the Russians and the Hungarians at the 56 Olympics.
Here’s some light reading for anyone interested in the idea of lifting the drug ban, which I understand is rather fictive anyway in that it doesn’t prevent untestable drugs from being used. http://eprints.vu.edu.au/259/ Or this one, without a specifically feminist agenda but saying much the same thing: why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport
Not that there aren’t later examples of course. Think Melbourne 1956, the water polo game between the USSR and Hungary …the Black Power salute at Mexico 1968 and the what happened to the Aussie at that event … the use of 1980′s Olympics as a vehicle for boycott by the US/Australia and the tit-for-tat by the USSR at LA 1984 (and the USA’s response). Could anyone have missed the nationalism at Beijing, 2008? Doubtful.
The famous ‘football war’ between El Salvador maybe germane here. It wasn’t caused by soccer or the World Cup, but it did provide the trigger.
A shooting war followed.
Paul Burns,
the legend is that “the Yanks poisoned Phar Lap”. I vaguely recall that recent work points the finger towards a tonic administered by Phar Lap’s Aussie trainer, but not sure of the details.
Robert M: I found Laura’s suggestion that there should be open slather on performance enhancing drugs, just to attempt to get women players into AFL teams, quite remarkably strange. Isn’t there evidence of long-term harm to athletes, who take these (anabolic steroids and others)?
And the largest-scale officially sanctioned drug use program for sports competitors was by the DDR athletes, in a society having (arguably) more similarities to Hitler’s Germany [State control, secret police, heavy indoctrination, etc.] than most other societies across the globe at that time.
Women’s cricket, women’s golf, women’s tennis, women’s swimming, women’s athletics are all thriving. Netball is fantastic: at the elite and suburban/country levels. Some women play Aussie Rules in their own competition.
Don’t aim so low Laura: don’t urge women to copy Fevola, Cousins, Carey and the rabble!!
A most interesting discussion on sport. Fran might be surprised to know that I agree with much of what she said @ 18. In particular I’ll be surprised if 30 years down the track sporting teams are flitting around the world with such gay abandon.
Nevertheless I personally enjoy watching most forms of sport. A large part of it has to do with an appreciation of human skill, speed, endurance and/or power. I enjoyed a performance of Circus Oz last week. There were some aspects of how roles were portrayed that could be criticised, but especially memorable was the strong woman, where half the troupe climbed on her back and the obvious affection between her and the dwarf woman who was about half her height. Also the incredible skill and control in the hula hoop performance by one of the women and much more.
I don’t know a lot about sport history and found the information from Laura and others fascinating. I suspect, though, if we were able to excise the Berlin Olympics from history, elite sport and the Olympics would not be noticeably different now.
I’m surprised that Laura sees cricket as less bad. I seems to be designed for 11 people to humiliate and mentally destroy the opposing team one at a time, and has the converse opportunity for individuals to humiliate the whole of the other team.
I appreciate NRL for the combination of skill, speed, power, endurance, teamwork and tactics. Although wingers are commonly 100 kg these days there is a role for little men, such as Preston Campbell, Brett Kimmorely and others, although they have to be very tough and strong and prepared to tackle head on a 115kg prop forward going like a runaway train. There have been some excellent matches this year now that the tackling/play-the-ball area has been cleaned up.
Apart from State of Origin and always wanting to beat New Zealand, South Africa and the Poms at anything, I don’t much mind who wins. If you follow enough sports some of “my” teams are always winning. The Lions went down in AFL, but the Broncos prevailed in one of the best matches of the year. The Aussie Diamonds beat the Silver Ferns at netball, Federer kept on winning and Clijsters sorted out Serena Williams. And we creamed the Poms at cricket (a magnificent spell of bowling by Brett Lee a highlight).
I see lots of aspects that I don’t approve of all the time. I like to think that the fact that I don’t get angry or upset is because I’ve learnt the futility and destructiveness of those emotions. Probably, though, it has more to do with my system producing less testosterone, or something.
Finally, I think the damaging consequences of an over-emphasis on winning and competitiveness is a greater problem in junior sport, rather than in the elite arena.
Ambigulous #92, there are some quite high-profile examples (mainly from the US) of individuals who are known or strongly suspected to have died an early death due to taking performance-enhancing drugs. One notable case some years ago involved a gridiron player who died a lingering and miserable death from illnesses brought on by steroid use.
Brian @93
I also like some elite sport, including as you know, the cricket.
I wouldn’t favour banning elite sport — bans are only for the most intractable and pernicious of activities IMO, but I don’t think it should be directly or indirectly facilitated by the state or by subsidies. It should have to pay its way, and if this meant there was less of it, so be it.
I’d be a tad disappointed if there were less cricket, but then again, one can argue that we have something of a surfeit — do we really need seven ODIs in England? Doubtful. Either way, it would be a price worth paying on grounds of general utility.
Ambigulous @ 92,
I cheerfully stand corrected on Phar Lap. As I understand it, a couple of years before the nmost recent research, which I think was last year, traces of arsenic were found in Phar Lap’s hair. The latest evidence, coming from the trainer’s diary or medicine book I think, showed the poisoning was accidental.Your comment jogged my memory.
[Whips oneself for perpetrating historical inaccurracy/howler.)
Advocates for allowing performance enhancing drugs suggest there should be a shift of focus from testing for substances to testing for health. Nobody recommends anabolic steroid use for this reason.
There are plenty of practices athletes engage in that are potentially harmful besides taking drugs, and plenty of drugs that are not harmful to health if used properly.
Paul B, please do not WHIP yourself on our account. Or at least have it televised as a reality TV show and make squillions.
Thanks Paul N, I couldn’t recall the details.
Laura, I don’t doubt that there are other potentially harmful pracices: but you raised drug use as a possible “way to go”. It’s not sufficient, to say “look over there, some OTHER harmful practices!”
I hope your marking’s going well. (Some use coffee, others use Jaffas or other chocolate I’m told.)
Fran @ 95, I think that for every ODI we play in this country we are obliged to go and play one in the touring country in return. This has been overloading the schedule for our guys. I think it’s partly behind the recent reduction of our summer commitments in this regard.
Brian@99
Personally, I wouldn’t shed many tears over the demise of L50 cricket. It’s a pretty stale and tame format these days. L20 gives most of those that L50 was pitched at all of what they want.
I know it’s not fashionable, but I like L50 cricket. I find L20 a bit too much hit and run although it can get exciting. I like the more drawn out form, especially when you can really put the brakes on the other team with some good bowling and see the run rate blow out over 6 an over or watch a thrilling chase. I would like to see it stay, but I’m in the minority I think.
I think the thing is Mindy that with an L20 the whole thing is over in an evening after work, so it is more marketable. Potentially you can have a doubleheader and even if there is a little rain you can probably still get through the whole fixture without a D/L result.
Far more people have three hours to spare than have six and it’s a better fit with work patterns too.
I’m not a fan of Twenty/20. It’s just a slogathon and I believe it will morph into a different game altogether.
Nana Levu @49.
Thanks for your interest in my post on 9/11 and thanks for that link to that most helpful article.
I think there are two reasons why 9/11 Truth activists often tend to ask questions. One is, as you say to avoid the risk of defamation suits (although defation laws in this country are not as bad as they once were (which is one of the very few good things brough about by the Howard Govenment, or, more accurately, Philip Ruddock).
The other is that we don’t know many of the answers.
The only people who do are those who planned and executed the 9/11 terrorist atrocity.
That is why there needs to be a proper investigation so that people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Rudi Giuliani, George Bush et al can properly account for their bizarre behaviour on that day. It lokks as if that will occur. It looks as if New York City residents will be allowed to vote on whether to set up an enquiry at the November general elections.
Pepe Escobar in Asia Times asks 50 questions about 911. I was wondering, is asking questions a less risky way to avoid defamation suits than making statements?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html
Sheesh Daggett, cutting and pasting your own comments on the one thread.
Watchit mate – self-parody’s a mug’s game in the end.
Who’s to say that Daggett didn’t author both comments? Why are you denying the only outlet for people who want to question the Official Comment Timeline? What agendas are you serving FDB?
I’VE BEEN SILENCED ALL MY LIFE
Of greater importance here is what certain members of the BAHNISCH FAMILY other LP ILLUMINATI were up to at the time of the thread-comment-temporal-anomaly-and/or-failure-to-attribute attack. Flight records show them on the last two chartered DC-10s out of Brisbane, bound for Nauru – and the official “explanation”? Bah! Missy Higgins isn’t scheduled to play the Yaren Tavern and Grill until next Thursday.
There is also a petition signed by 4,300 electronic engineers and IT specialists which questions the official explanation.
just for the LULZ
BTW This thread is a great read.
Probably because I read a Google News item about season 2 of Mad Men that confused me – has Series 2 started on one or other of the SBS’s last weekend and did I miss it because it was at 11pm at night – or have I missed promos because I didn’t want to be bored out of my mind by cricket? Am keen to know.
Well I for one left the public service 10 years to the day before 9/11, so obviously I had something to do with it! Nobody has ever asked me to date.
pssst, Mark…
Sept 11th is my little sister’s birthday!!!
FDB, that was really me. I came in and had left my computer on. It had logged off and when it does the dumb thing thinks I’m Mark!
Actually, and seriously, I’ll come clean and declare that I’m firmly in the camp of historians who have read enough evidence to convince them there was a clear US-Government supported conspiracy to remove human rights and freedom of speech and association on 11 September.
1973.
Recently I watched Hitchcock’s “The Birds” again which I hadn’t seen in maybe 15 years.
Fun coincidence factoids:
– the movie has performances by a young Veronica Cartwright (as Lydia’s daughter) and also by comedian Doodles Weaver (as a fisherman.) Doodles was of course the uncle of Sigourney Weaver, and both Veronica and Sigourney would go on to star in another horror classic, “Alien”.
Also was struck (never noticed it before) by how The Birds foreshadows Night of the Living Dead, with a) no one ever knows or finds out why it’s happening, and b) Must. Barricade. Farmhouse. Against. Massive. Onslaught. also, c) accidental catastrophe at gas station.
Fortunately nobody suggests they retreat to the basement. We ALL know how that play ends up.
Also, didn’t know Rod Taylor was Australian! And ya gotta love the lady ornithologist.
…. but some of those birdies looked so dashed artificial
not Hitch’s best work, IMO
When the film was first released in Australia, the press made quite a fuss of Rod Taylor’s aussieness
Liam
just curious: are any of the important sources only in espanol?
It seems to me possible that the basic mistake Mr Allende made was grandiose rhetoric: at the first, winning Presidential election he scored about 34%, si? Why then proclaim the “Chilean Revolution”? Nowhere near majority electoral support.
I’m aware there were millions of desperately poor Chileans his Govt wanted to lift out of poverty and despair…. Would a slower pace have had any chance of success? (Yes, RM Nixon hovered in the background…..)
Or does the Chilean political style abhor gradualism, preferring drama, even unto noble death?
The people,
United,
Are frequently
Defeated.
These are lolz to counter the LULZ
This is some sad news for poetry lovers… vale Jim Carroll, dead at 60. Just learned of it.
Despite the notoriety he gained from The Basketball Diaries and “People Who Died,” IMO his standout work was his first little volume of poems, “Living At The Movies,” written by age 19 or so, which beautifully captures a certain something about cosmic teenage pains and pleasures, in a delicately surrealistic idiom. I loved it when I was 17 or so myself, and though there are many far greater poets of his time, I’ve always had a little birdhouse in my soul for that work.
From “Blue Poles” which opens the book (from memory)…
Blue poles (well?) on the beach
In a snowless winter and
I’m too cold to ask you
Why we’re here, but, “we are”…
I love the little joke of the ‘well?’. This is from the last poem in the book, “An Apple At Dawn”…
…They’re “cold and enduring.”
Look out Manhattan
your prince’s sorrow
might be back
again
tomorrow.
From those points A to B is nearly a whole life right there. So long Jim. Tonight “there is a stadium beside my window, filled with winter.”
I had a private joke along the lines that all debates within feminism ultimately boiled down to the question of whether football should be played by both genders or banned for both genders.
.
Well I’d make a snide remark to the effect of that joke underlying the relevance or lack thereof of feminist theory as we now know it. But I won’t.
.
What I want to know is where are the drugs that will make me a world class ballet diva or gymnist.
Jim Carroll RIP. One of the few contemporary poets I dig.
David H @ 24, As you are well aware, I was commenting on two separate questions. What you are after is the National Library of Australia.
Fran @ 18, This is the first chance I have had to revisit this thread. I will endeavour to answer your questions.
I don’t believe anything can, that’s what we have economists for and not even they are sure. No matter what we do in this life, it is a best guess scenario. Even if its not for the nation, what about an individual? I surely don’t think elite sports “stars” should be paid anymore than the median wage at best. That’s never going to happen though, I’m a realist. We cannot always measure things by KPIs – sometimes we have to make value judgements.
I do not know what the term negative utilities (in what context are you using the word utility here? Utility to me means multiple functions depending on the situation thus utility is always useful) means so I can not answer the question. As for the Olympics, itself, although considered an elite sport, is a waste of everyone’s time. You only hear of those people every four years and nothing out of them in between. It’s mainly the other sports I’m thinking of, the major football codes, basketball, netball, hockey, etc.
As for the 1936 Olympics itself, you can only examine things in the context of their times and I wasn’t around then and I imagine you probably weren’t either, I am not aware of the zeitgeist of that era and cannot make a point thus rendering the vast majority of that question moot.
As for Carbon Pollution, stop the fireworks at all the sports events, stop private vehicles going into city CBDs make cycling and public transport the only options – problem fixed. I haven’t done any actual measurements but I think it would go a long way. Overall I’m not too concerned about Carbon Pollution one way or the other.
What effects on public goods does elite sport have? It can prevent and alleviate mental illness and psychological disorders. I rationalise that by when your life is total and utter crap and your sports team is going crap, there is absolutely nothing that will pick you up – not even a good book, but if your team is going brilliantly, you’ll be on a high that will balance out some of your depressed modes. Endorphins work for fans just as well as anyone else doing a physical activity. We are all different.
I’ve just noticed I’ve mainly addressed psychological difficulties there and not mental illness ones, so I’ll just add that it may help to give the mentally ill focus, dependent on their condition (Again depends on context)
Ooh I missed this one: How does elite sport affect housing costs, or skew/constrain transport and infrastructure policy?
The events only ever occur in a major city, so on housing costs, its a boon for those that own their own homes and rent them out. As for housing costs in general, they’re overpriced in the CBD. I understand that their are market rates for location, location, location but when they’re asking for $1000 000 000 for a house that only cost say $200 000 to build (I plucked this figure out of the air), its too much. Especially when it only costs about $11k per 9m2 (These are figures supplied by a Sydney based builder a year or two ago) to build.
You would have to be more specific on what you consider to be infrastructure. I have all ready addressed the transport question.
On Human Rights, it depends on what you consider to be one? For eg. If you are referring to the UN version of Human Rights and use their recent complaint about the indigenous intervention. I think their report is too harsh and that the UN is not aware of the full context.
Overall I am a very context specific person and when I look at your view (not that I’m criticising, critiquing maybe) I think of the nth degree and if all the elite sports disappeared overnight the outrage that would cause.
The lack of inspiration children will have. Some get into physical exercise of what they see others do. It could be a football star, it could be a track runner or it could just what they see at a local sports day.
That’s not to take away from other inspirations people will have in Science, etymology and the like.
Your questions cover quite a range across the spectrum of policy and are difficult to answer in one sitting but I have done it now in somewhat of a rambling fashion (off the top of my head).
I have attempted to answer your questions. So how would you phase out elite sport without causing a major uproar (lowering morale) and what would you replace it with and how Fran?
Bye the Bye,
I didn’t like The Castle but I welcome the adages from it to Australian pop culture.
Senex@121
Definition: utility — an evaluation of net public good — realised or prospective benefits less realised and prospective costs and unrealised risks — obviously can be positive or negative. Broadly, a balance sheet of some particular thing …
You concede that the nation’s ‘morale’ cannot be measured with the degree of precision to allow utility-based evaluation of resource allocation. If this is so then your implication that this objective that deserves public support collapses, at least of public policy is to be evidence-based and an exercise in rational approach of commonly agreed goals. One might consider your claim refuted right here, whatever one thought of the value of morale.
As to the pay of sports stars, as you concede, having them on an average wage is unfeasible. Personally, I see no particular value in promoters getting rich at the expense of athletes, even if one could engineer it.
Your proposals on carbon pollution at elite events would make very little difference to the really big international events and only a marginal difference to the local ones. The moving of all those goods not just on the day but in the lead up are very costly in CO2 terms.
My reference on human rights refers to the necessity to turn the city (and sometimes the country) where the event is into a temporary police state. We had a taste of that in Sydney in 2007 not with a sporting event, but with APEC, and later with World Pope Week. It will happen in London 2012.
On housing, elite events force up housing costs and since it’s wealthy people who own most of the housing, it is inequitable. These also skew infrastructure policy as the state tries to extract use out of the white elephant left by the event — such as the Olympics.
I don’t believe the handful of kids inspired to aim for elite success can justify the multi-billion dollar expenditure each year on elite sport.
As to the phase out, I’d withdraw all state support, direct and indirect for elite sport and instead direct adequate funds into non-elite or community sport. Some of the budget would go into structured sport-relevant fitness and skills programs and into early intervention for families who had putatively unfit children. We’d fund before and after school care for high school kids in state schools, with good meal programs, homework supervision and so forth.
I daresay that would raise morale a lot more, and we could measure it in improvements in primary health statistics, lowered youth contact with the justice system, declines in the scale and demand for DOCs interventions and improved educational outcomes.
You say you are happier when your team wins, but that surely means that you and all others like you are to that extent unhappier when it loses. Since most teams lose, most of the time, the net public happiness — the net utility of elite sport if you will, must be negative. Why should the public fund the decreased happiness of most people and encourage a handful to hang their happiness on the vicarious pleasure associated with events over which they have virtually no control and depend on/foster significant inequity?
apropos an ealier thread re hydrogen power and whether it was realistic or not
http://gas2.org/2009/09/14/germany-to-launch-nationwide-hydrogen-fuel-network-by-2015/
FDB (@ 106) wrote,
FDB, it was a mistake (see 105, 48).
If you look at my posts you will find I often quote at length from other posts. That was what I initially intended to do this time. I changed my mind, but neglected to delete it from the text buffer.
FDB (@ 108) wrote:
Have you ever, in the eight years since it occurred given 9/11 any serious thought?
If you had you would have understood that there were at least two Conspiracy Theories offered as explanations of what occurred on that day, both of which would have seemed implausible to most, including me, before 11 September 2001.
It seems to me that if you reject one you must necessarily embrace the other.
So which of the two do you embrace, FDB?
Perchance, it wouldn’t happen to be the one peddled by the likes of President W, Dick Cheney, John Howard, Bill O’Reilly, Phillip Adams, Rupert Murdoch and now Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama?
Here’s Rupert Murdoch peddling that Conspiracy Theory through his Brisbane mouthpiece the Courier Mail on 17 August:
Does it strike you as odd that our forces have been fighting in a country where 9/11, the Bali bombings and “three-quarters of terrorist plots against Britain” were hatched and yet not one person with a proven link to 9/11 or any other of those events has been captured?
The editorial continues:
So, how much longer do you predict it will be until the first person with link to 9/11 will be captured?
There is not necessarily any shame in having swallowed codswallop such as that written above in the past. I did myself and even initially welcomed the invasion of Afghanistan. It was not until two years ago that I gave a proper hearing to people who rejected the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and it was not until a year ago that I seriously studied the question.
However, today the truth of 9/11 is readily available to anyone with a critical and open minded, so there is no longer any reason for anyone to be fooled, that is unless they wish to be.
“So, how much longer do you predict it will be until the first person with link to 9/11 will be captured?”
.
In a similar line of questioning -”How much longer do you predict it will be until the first person with a link to the vast co-ordinated conspiracy will come out and explain their role in the controlled demolition?”
Just taking a punt on the date I’d say 1 March 2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#September_11.2C_2001.2C_attacks
Fran, are you perchance related to Humpty Dumpty? You seem to share his penchant for making up definitions of words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking_Glass
The rest of us understand utility as meaning usefulness. It need have nothing to do with net public good.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utility
GregM
Here is where I remind you of the concept of context. The meaning of words is determined in part by how they are deployed. The word sanction for example, can mean nearly opposite things, depending on how it is used. My entire response to Senex drew upon the conceptual ground offered by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and so the question of utility needed to be understood in this context.
I’m willing to accept that you are unfamiliar with this ground, but such unfamiliarity ill-recommends you to pronounce on the adequacy of my usage here.
You must be related to Humpty Dumpty. The definition you have linked to isn’t the same as the one you made up.
GregM@131
You are either being disingenuous or you are incapable of apprehending simple English. This is not the first time reading your posts has urged a choice between these inferences.
I suspect you are simply trolling. Certainly, your ‘commentary’ if that is not too flattering a descriptor of your text, contributes nothing to any matter of substance, which is unfortunate.
Good News, hot off the press!
Brumby has finally dumped Steve Newnham as ALP State Secretary in Victoria. He is to be replaced by Nick Reece.
This may result in a cleaner next election as, many will know, Steve had form particularly towards the greens. Les Twentyman was subjected to some pretty nasty tactics, as well.
“Since most teams lose, most of the time, the net public happiness — the net utility of elite sport if you will, must be negative.”
- Fran barlow
WTF?
How does that work? How can most teams lose most of the time?
Given that in every match one team will lose and one will win, (cept in a draw), then most teams will lose half the time and win half the time, and all teams will lose and win slightly less than half the time.
And it doesn’t take into account the morale boosting effect of non partisan elite sport. Watching the 2002 (?) AFL grand final between 2 sides I had no emotional involvement with. What a great game, and a fascinating contest.
Net result improvement in my morale.
I agree about the funding shift from elite to local level sport tho.
Somewhere online there is a study that shows underdogs succeed at a higher rate than would be expected and their success is determined by how well they attack weak points in structures. That favoritism is determined by a consensus analysis of what is required to succeed and that using these strengths as weaknesses.
Elite sport provides an excellent environment to study this. Anyway I can’t find the link. Thought it might be at John Robb’s site but it isn’t.
Here is an article connected to the concept, but I don’t think this is what I was originally thinking about.
here
Pretty much covers the same thing.
Daggett, was my sister part of the conspiracy? She was downtown in Manhattan working for Time mag on 9/11, and was plugged, real-time, into the evidence-gathering and cross-referencing systems that largely established the “official version” that gradually emerged to explain the attack. Information that fits the official explanation was flooding in from tens of thousands of sources, collated and sifted for useful info by thousands of hardworking people trying to find answers, communicating with each other in good faith and stricken with grief.
Where were you, buddy?
You do their efforts a grave injustice.
Jules@134
Any division in a sport where at the end of the regular season, the points are not all even is one in which at least half the teams have lost more often than they have won.
In a typical distribution, where there are about 8-10 teams in a junior competition, at the end of the season the top team and a principal challenger win between 65% and 90% of their matches and perhaps draw some of the rest and the remaining wins are scattered amongst the also rans. Typically two teams may go through the entire season with at most one win. Even the fourth placed team may well have a negative win-loss ratio.
Sidenot: A cousin of mine played in a soccer team during the 1970s in which the team won one match and drew another in the course of three seasons. During his time the bottom four of the 11 teams typically won 3-4 times per season — always when they were playing each other.
Over time of course, the better/more enthusiastic players are attracted to the better performed teams skewing the results still further.
When I’ve coached teams (cricket, inline hockey), this is the message I’ve always given them — that they must find a way fo enjoying their sport and regardless of the result, because if it is significantly bound up with winning, then their prospects of happiness are statistically unlikely and that in any event, they can be happy only at the expense of others. I pointed out that their prospects of earning a living in the sport were less than winning the lottery, and each week I’d pull out a scrath lottery ticket at the beginning of training, scratch two lots of $10,000 or $50,000 and then smile as no others turned up.
As perverse as it may seem, this insight lifted morale amongst the kids I was coaching, and we got down to focusing on the things we could control — our own skills, team cohesion and the enjoyment of each other’s company. In my first season of inline hockey, despite working with the “discards”, and suffering some truly awful scores, by the last half of the season we were competitive, though still unable to stay with the top team deep into the second half of the matches.
That said, we laughed amongst ourselves at the end of each match and even got a couple of “star” recruits from the number 2 team following season and finished third out of seven with a 50-50 win/loss and a couple of them that we were a touch unlucky to lose.
Daggett 9/11 is a brand now – nothing else. It has been since around 2005 when the last of 9/11 truth disappeared up its own arse and joined the consensus level of identification to it.
People use it to reinforce their cultural identity.
Anti authoritarian types who want to seem edgy but don’t really challenge authority like it to reinforce their views of themselves without actually doing anything practical to address real injustice in the world. (IE We’re fighting for the truth, and once we win then the Patriot Act, the Afghan and Iraq wars and all the other evil in the world will magically disappear.)
Racists use it to reinforce their particular bigotry – ie “the Jews done it” or “the Muslims done it”.
Rationalists use it to reinforce their cultural superiority, and their preference for putting things in boxes and leaving them there, free of further examination. (IE You challenge our dominant paradigm then you are racist, or crazy or both, and worse – you damned cultural heretic.)
You probably should read the lolz link.
Some of you cereal rationalists could do with a look at the LULZ too.
Mind you its probably only worth it for the historical significance.
Murph the serf (@ 127) wrote:
I can’t say.
If that were to happen, it would require that the person concerned would have reflected upon his/her actions and have changed from being a cold-blooded killer into a person capable of feeling remorse.
Furthermore, blowing the whistle on the controlled demolition of the three WTC towers would obviously entail enormous personal risk. If anyone who were to come forward to blow the whistle, they would need immediate round-the-clock protection, or his/her life expectancy would be very short.
And even then, what guarantee would there be that the Newsmedia which has already covered up so much news contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory would even report it?
Who is to say that someone may not have already attempted to step forward but been silenced?
It should be worth noting that Barry Jennings, a former New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator, who worked in the ‘collapsed’ World Trade Center Building 7 including on 11 September 2001 and who was outspoken with testimony against the Official account of the collapse of Building 7, died mysteriously in August 2008. Before he died he told of how his job had been threatened and he feared for his life. Some of his testimony can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU
The Testimony of Scott Forbes a computer technician employed in the South Tower and who witnessed power downs and many other mysterious events, including visits by large numbers of technicians with toolboxes up to the weekend prior to 9/11 during these power downs, can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSXmZVVCMI
There is also an enormous amount of corroborating evidence from 9/11 hero William Rodriguez of mysterious happenings in the WTC buildings before and during the 9/11 attacks.
In short there is a mountain of evidence in support of the hypothesis that charges were placed in the WTC buildings prior to 9/11. None of that evidence was considered by the 9/11 Commission.
So, I think it would be wrong to reject the alternative to the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory simply because none of the 9/11 Conspirators themselves have, so far, stepped forward to confess their role in the 9/11 attack.
GregM (@ 128),
Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was tortured and his confessions have not been tested in a proper open trial, so I think, given that no proof that any of the hundreds of other tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees have have been shown to have participated in 9/11 and that not one other person with a proven link to the 9/11 attack has been captured in 8 years of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are more than a little entitled to be skeptical about the claim that the 9/11 attacks originated in Afghanistan.
I therefore think we are entitled, after all this time, to see a new inquiry in which all the large numbers of unanswered question, which were not asked by the 9/11 Commission, are properly pursued, just to be absolutely certain that the wrong people have not been blamed for 9/11, don’t you think?.
—
Apologies for the errors in my previous post.
“So, how much longer do you predict it will be until the first person with link to 9/11 will be captured?”
… should have been:
So, how much longer do you predict it will be until the first person with a proven link to 9/11 will be captured?
… and:
“a critical and open minded”
… should have been:
“a critical and open mind”
Fran, I do accept what you are saying re the stats, I just don’t think thats all there is too it.
I have coached juniors as well (and hopefully will again), Aussie Rules in Northern NSW, and the AFL needs a serious kick up the backside wrt its funding policies in this part of the world. I have coached sides that had one win in a season and one that went through the season undefeated with an average winning margin of 20 goals. We won the flag too. What a relief. (Definition of pressure – undefeated side in the hours leading up to a grand final.)
I totally agree with the focus. On having fun and for me on developing character traits I think are important. Most kids seem to want to develop those traits anyway so thats actually easy. Your scrathcie trick is excellent btw, I will steal it. (Tho some of the kids I have coached have gone on to make money from sport and have a chance at building a career out of it. Lots of talent in this part of the world.)
And to be even more boring I agree with pretty much everything you said in that post. I actually still play seniour Aust rules and my side hasn’t won a game since 2005 (tho we folded for a year that year and coming back has been a huge strugle.)
Tho as far as my comments above go, well i’ll be the example again.
I started playing again in a struggling country side in my 30s, half way through the season (mid life crisis I think). The side I played for hadn’t won a game all year. That year we won one game. But made the finals (4 team league that year), and lost our semi by 8 points. Our average losing margin was about 12 goals all year.
The next year we made the Grand Final only to lose after not losing a game in the second half of the season. (If half the side hadn’t been at a doof off their heads the night before we would have won, bastards. Things went downhill after that.)
My point about morale is that any analysis of stats is irrelevent. Its about the next game, the future, and thats why the chances of winning are always 50% (or just under) whatever the actual stats say. Thats what drove my teams success.
That applies to elite sport as well. Its in the nature of supporting a side.
But also the professionalism of it levels the playing field.
11 Sides have won the last 19 AFl premierships, thats approximately two thirds of the teams in the competition, and there is a 50% chance that will be twelve after this years GF. (IE St Kilda or the Bulldogs have to make the final and they have not won a GF since 1990).
So as far as morale goes you could argue that over two thirds (and 75% if St Kilda or the Bulldogs win this year) of AFL fans have had their morale improved due to the AFL over the course of a year. During the last 20 AFL seasons. A Grand Final win trumps everything else in terms of supporting elite Australian Rules Teams. Therefore a Premiership has a huge morale value compared to everything else in the game.
That one example doesn’t prove my point. But it strongly supports it, especially given the cultural power of Australian Rules football and the AFL in Australia. (BTW non aussie rules people, AFL is the name of a league, Australian Rules is the name of a game, calling the game by the name of the league contributes to the power of the league to define the game on its terms. Please don’t do it.)
I haven’t done any serious analysis of this on any level tho, discussed it with other footy fans sure, and those discussions are a big part of what made me go WTF in repsonse to your comment.
I don’t know whether a similar analysis of other popular elite team sports would provide the same impression/result.
There is another aspect to the morale building effects of elite sport. You don’t have to be a Jamaican to celebrate the performances of Ussain Bolt last month, things like that inspire everyone who is a fan, cos they constantly remind us that as humans we are always capable of surpassing our limits and extending the possibilities that life offers us. (OK it may be hard to that from a flat in gaza, or a village in the Congo but …)
“Every time a scientist, philosopher, artist or athlete pushes our thresholds to new ground the whole race evolves.”
That other aspect of morale applies to the AFL (for example) as well. If your side isn’t playing you can get enormous satisfaction from a great game because you have no stake in who wins or loses. You can be inspired (improve morale) by the performances of both sides. And of individuals on both sides.
There’s even the joy of seeing a team you don’t like suffering a loss. (There’s a dark side to everything.)
BTW I think your insight re the scatchies makes perfect sense. It isn’t perverse at all. People play sport primarily for the fun of it, and winning is far less satisfying if there is no fun involved. Somnetimes the pressure of being required to win, and to want to win interferes with peoples (eps juniors) enjoyment of the game. The scratchie trick is a great idea and a brilliant way to legitimise enjoyment in sport. Well done.
Also if you coach underdog sides that article is definitely worth checking out.
Daggett id right re KSM.
Anything that connects him to 9/11 via his capture, questioning and trial is compromised. There is no way it can be considered a fair trial and so any connection to the attacks that cannot be considered reliable, KSM was placed under extreme duress. Somewhere there are claims by people that his children were abused to get him to co operate in Pakistan, and the people making the claim are prepared to swear affidavids to that effect.
I dunno how true that claim is and aren’t interested in finding out myself but you might want to check it out Daggett.
Tho how you or anyone can claim the uncontrolled collapse of the 2 WTC towers looks anything like a controlled demolition is beyond me. Building 7 might, but its collapse looks nothing like the twin towers anyway.
Calling the collapse of the twin towers a controlled demolition is the sort of abuse of language that makes anyone with a brain look at “truthers” through very narrow eyes.
Jules (@ 141),
Firstly, thank your supporting my point re Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.
In regard to the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers, even on the day at least one news commentator commented on how the ‘collapse’ reminded him of a controlled demolotion.
Obviously they would have been of different kind of controlled demolition to the standard bottom-up demolition designed to use the force of the collapsing building to minimise the need for explosives. Nevertheless, there is no ironclad rule that says the buildings must be demolished from the bottom up.
Clearly, if the twin towers had been programmed to be destroyed from the bottom up the claim that the planes caused the collapse would have been immediately seen through.
In regard to WTC Building 7, its collapse was indistinguishable from traditional controlled demolitions as another news commentator also commented on that day. If you agree with me that that is the only possible way that what we observed can be explained, then surely we have to ask: Why wasn’t that hypothesis even considered by the NIST which was charged with explaining what would have surely otherwise been an unprecedented engineering disaster with far-reaching implications for building construction?
That they did not investigate this hypothesis and chose to lie about the collapse demonstrates to me that the ‘investigation’ was, in fact, a cover-up.
For more information, please vist Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at ae911truth.org.
“If you agree with me that that is the only possible way that what we observed can be explained”
Now why on earth would I do that?
You: a country bored of prosperity and consumerism, longing for war, sacrifice, oil and profit.
Me: a rampaging monster war-criminal of your nightmares, with all the cover-ups already turned down low, and the bed of nails for our ravenous future conflicts all prepared. Let’s make freaky conspiracies with no particular strategy, except to challenge in difficulty every heretofore executed cunning plan. With scented candles.
You’ve got questions, I’ve got innuendo.
Guffaw.
Aw c’mon al-Sarcasti
it’s EASY to hijack two planes and fly them into tall skyscrapers where mysterious men carrying TOOLKITS (oh heavens!) have laid explosives timed to mimic the collapse of skyscrapers after the two planes laden with aviation fuel have hit the buildings.
The HARD part is convincing a sceptical world that you achieved such a fiendishly clever plan….
But none of this is as difficult as giving (home) birth in a fiery bus flying above the massed ranks of burning motorbikes in the Boys’ Own Extreme Home Birthing Comp (semi-finals)
I’d buy that for a steamed prawn dumpling. I always knew you were freakay, Haiku.
Its all a GOP Plot!. Using superior American technology Bush and Company organised for a hollywood horror spectacular to be screened simultaneously on every TV in the world. Even those people who’d never heard of America, believed 9/11 happened so he could declare war on Iraq so he could purloin Iraqi oil. But, in fact, like the moon landing it was just one gigantic hoax. And Ratty was in on it.
How long do you think it’ll take that one to fly around the intertubes? Or has somebody else already thought of it?
Please don’t take me seriously.
White soul and chuck dee-rision in full effect, oh lizard overlord.
Old news, Paul, old news.
(ahem) As a former commo-sewer of conspiracy theories, I think I had something like your suggestion whipped up within minutes. Discounted almost immediately, of course, because a) none of those people are bright enough to dream something like that up and b) even if they were, someone would’ve Deep Throated it within days.
OMFG, you nearly shook my faith – if not my campari – in Duran Duran there, Hoges.
Personally, I’ve alway thought that if you want to see dark conspiracies busted wide open by blokes in the know, you cannot go past Sir Digby.
Jules, legally torture would only invalidate his confession and exclude it from evidence. It would not exclude a trial where evidence independent of the impugned confession was available and sufficient to prove guilt.
Also re the allegations of abuse of his children, however repulsive if true, would only be evidence supporting the impugning of any confession he made. The abuse of his children (or even a threat to abuse his children) would of course be criminal acts in themselves and if there is sufficient evidence of them the perpetrators should be tried for it. However I would not get to excited about the fact that people are prepared to swear affidavits about it. There are people prepared to swear affidavits about all sorts of things.
I understand that KSM wants to be tried before a court or tribunal and plead guilty with open admissions. If that were to take place then whether he had made an impugned confession would be legally irrelevant, although to 9/11 Truthers even that would be insufficient to establish his guilt. They will believe what they want to believe come what may.
If you haven’t yet, listen *right* to the end of that Duran Duran clip for the call-and-response. Who’s that… but I won’t ruin it.
GregM, well said.
Gotcha Liam.
But seriously, WTF???
Greg a legal system that justifies torture is (imo) invalid by definition, so whatever other evidence it comes up with is irrelevent too. Its got no business making judgements and won’t have till it pulls its head in.
Thats just me tho.
Personally I think there are a lot of questions that need answering about sept 11. The most obvious being why weren’t Bush and Cheney impeached or hung from a lamppost for gross negligence the next day?
If there’s a similar attack tomorrow Obama will be.
They were responsible and they failed in their duty of care to the American people. Whether that was deliberate or cos they are incompetent … I don’t really care. The fact they immediately got everything they wanted raises some other questions about whether Americans are mature enough to actually handle democracy.
However I don’t think any of those serious questions about the event or its surroundings relate to CD, no matter how flawed the NIST report was.
I’m not American and even if I was there are countless more important things. Like I said 9/11 is a brand.
People define themselves by it and the idea that any serious investigation of the myriad failures that preceeded it or the stunning corruption in the US that helped enable it is never gonna happen. Its one of those identity things, and it’ll be stuck in the realm of the mythological forever.
Which is a pity cos our (Western culture’s) reaction to it has been appalling, on nearly every level.
But the way so called right thinking people dismiss any questioning of it as loony “conspiracy theory” (a thought killer of a term if ever there was one) is functionally identical to Creationists rejection of evolution.
At least in my opinion.
Maybe part of my scepticism stems from the fact that someone was reporting finding a hijackers passport in the rubble by 10.30 wednesday our time.
Perhaps part comes from the simple fact that within hours of the event people (ie US FEd officials) were naming Al CIA..duh
as the main suspects.
That didn’t happen with OKC bombing despite the fact that McVeigh was in custody within hours, and its pretty damn rare with any police investigation.
Osama made a statement within days strenuously denying any connection with the event, which seems odd given the way Al Quaeda (HTF do you spell it anyway?) operates and that also seems sus, well it does if it was them.
I have no idea if the hijackers acted alone or not, but I suspect they didn’t.
Even if they did the consequences of the event for our democracies and for muslims all over the world suggest it should have been investigated more and many questions surounding the event itself, what lead up to it and what we have done since should probably be answered.
I’d rather talk about the footy tho, Fran….
Thanks for your comments Jules. As should be clear though, my observations were focused on elite sport rather than grass roots stuff, which I think is very commendable when well run.
I did look at the article and it did make sense, though I’m not a basket ball afficionado. As a teacher though, I have always approached sport from a management of outcomes/individual learning needs point of view and that’s what I took into my coaching. That’s probably why, given that I always got the teams nobody wanted to coach, it worked so well. I’m very big on the whole group morale work-as-a-team thing — given my politics that makes sense. Seeing sporting contests as a series of strategic exercises made sense for me.
We had some tremendous fun in our cricket matches.
“As should be clear though, my observations were focused on elite sport rather than grass roots stuff, which I think is very commendable when well run.”
Er… you do know why grass has roots, right?
To get nutrients to the heads?
Paul, or some other Green present
.
There’s a thread on Bob Brown’s critique of the stimulus package at Catallaxy. I know you’re reluctant to face the abuse, they do like to bash Bob, but I’d appreciate some comment viz the rationale for it.
Bingo!!!
That’s mighty fine near-ground rainbows you found, Professor Griff.
Old Isaac Newton, if they’d a had lawn sprinklers in his day, he’d a been onto that quicker than a flash.
Ain’t no mystery. Don’t need no contaminated water.
Hell, we saw dat in suburbs o’ Melbourne (Awstralia) when we wuz kids. Eisenhower wuz Prez. Menzies wuz PM. Conspiracy was Japs bombing Pearl Harbour, or Pig Iron Bob pullin’ Vladimir outa the hat for an election.
We wuz simple folks but heppy. Hell we wuz heppy.
“If that were to happen, it would require that the person concerned would have reflected upon his/her actions and have changed from being a cold-blooded killer into a person capable of feeling remorse.”
Get real – what person who goes off to work on this massive project doesn’t mention this work to anyone? Just accidentally , one night when doing what we humans do so well and let loose sometimes?
What about the supplier of the plan the secret agents need so they know where to place the explosives?
Oh that’s right – it is all done by government agents and we all know how secure anything confidental or secret is within a government.
.
“Furthermore, blowing the whistle on the controlled demolition of the three WTC towers would obviously entail enormous personal risk. If anyone who were to come forward to blow the whistle, they would need immediate round-the-clock protection, or his/her life expectancy would be very short.”
So what does this mean? You live in a darkened cupboard and eat food passed through a small door after the taster has sampled it?
.
“And even then, what guarantee would there be that the Newsmedia which has already covered up so much news contrary to the Official Conspiracy Theory would even report it?
Who is to say that someone may not have already attempted to step forward but been silenced?”
Primarily the fact that thousands of people who believe they have been probed by extraterrestials seem sane compared to those who believe in the World Tower Conspiracy and yet all other readers of media get exposed to these ravings
constantly.
Oh plus the fact that when you just scratch the surface of these sites or “organisations” gross antisemitism oozes out is just repulsive.
ELITE SPORTS UPDATE
The Australian aussie rules football team has been announced. First fixture is a five-match series vs. England.
Called “The Bashes”. Tremendous sponsor support. Australia expected to win the first series 5-nil, as England will not field a side.
Home grown metaphors …thats the thing isn’t it Fran, and FDB.
Elite sports and grass roots are mutually dependant, neither can really exist without the other.
And in Australia sport is a part of culture and identity, hence the value of both. But the imbalance needs addressing. Elite sport generates huge amounts of cash and it returns very little of it to the grass roots IMO. That needs to be addressed. imo its fundamental to the health(mental, physical, emotional and spiritual) of our society.
The underdog strategies are great learning tools btw. The world constantly pushes us into situations where we are “underdogs” and we need to react to a greater level of force, energy delivered, power or skill. Its important to be able to understand the dynamics of those relationships.
I look at some of our fire fighting tactics in the RFS in that way. A fire thats serious (tho not catastrophic) delivers greater energy than the people dealing with it can withstand. Classic underdog situation.
But an understanding of how fire works (ie the fire triangle, heat, O2 and fuel) gives us tools for dealing with the fire. Remove the fuel for example and the fire collapses. thats how we fight fire with fire (aka backburning).
The 9/11 attacks were also a classic underdog strike.
John Robb’s Global Guerillas site is good for that sort of analysis, open source warfare (and everything else) and decentralised networks, and their use in systems disruption is where its at.
Oh, Jules. You’re not a member of the school of Humpty Dumpty definitions as well are you? That you make up definitions as you go along, and everyone has to agree with you? If you reflect upon it, it’s not a very intelligent way of thinking, is it?
If so ,and I hope it is not true of you, it just makes you opinionated but smug and ignorant in your opinions.
Legal systems don’t justify torture. They reject it. They exclude “evidence” – for it is false evidence and illegally gained- obtained from it. That does not mean that they do not go about determining breaches of the law proved on other evidence obtained and submitted to the exclusion of that false evidence. This is the intelligent way of behaving and that is the way the law operates.
They also punish of those who seek and submit to them such false evidence, while according to them the same legal rights as those who were falsely accused.
That is the intelligent approach, even if it does not satisfy the smug and unintelligent who think that their uninformed opinions should be accepted, by their own definitions, as law.
Greg, can’t you read?
here we go try again:
Greg a legal system that justifies torture is (imo) invalid by definition, so whatever other evidence it comes up with is irrelevent too. Its got no business making judgements and won’t have till it pulls its head in.
Thats just me tho.
Sure I make up definitions as I go along, but no one has to agree with me. We are commenting on a blog FFS not writing the Gospels.
Why don’t we agree on a consistant definition of a legal system, torture and then we can see if there is one that justifies torture, accepts evidence gained under extreme duress and uses it.
“Legal systems don’t justify torture. They reject it.”
What all legal systems, ever? Ok then…
I still think KSMs trial was far from fair. For a start he didn’t seem fit to be tried.
But again thats just me, based on my opinion, having NOT ACTUALLY BEEN THERE.
By whom? the US government, as daggett, whose opinions you seem to think we should give credence, proposes.
or do you have some other nutcase theory that you want to expose to the world?
Also, just a point of due diligence here,(for there was a previous commenter here called jules who was one of jinmaro’s many manifestations) are you the latest manifestation of LP’s hydra (and psychologically struggling interlocutor) in one of her infinite forms?
If so best wishes to you. I’m glad I don’t have the cross you have to bear.
And if it is so I will respect your privacy and comment no more on your posts.
Umm. He hasn’t been tried yet. So to what trial are you referring? Please provide a link.
I see your allusion, FDB@157 …
So what you are saying, metaphorically speaking, is that the role of the grass roots is to feed athletic flowering heads – which will explain why so many are dopes.
Once the heads have flowered, h. rumensis grazes the sports pages ‘consuming’ the athlete and belching out massive amounts of gas in order to breakdown the hemi-cellulose athletic sheath and convert its worth to a kind of morale boosting protein. And even the feacl matter can culture new athletes in our suburban parks.
Fascinating.
A favourite Monty Python skit comes to mind:
We’re talking about Khalid Sheik Muhammad right?
OK perhaps some confusion arises from the fact that the trial that started in 2008 at Guantanamo hasn’t finished as yet to the best of my knowledge, and is awaiting a plea (which strangely, you know about) thats been delayed due to hearings to determine how nuts his co accused might be. But still, far from fair, and his comments … he sounds a bit like he has lost the plot.
Anyway you have been smugly condescending and can’even be bothered to read what I type, let alone answer my questions. You can find a link yourself, I’m not your waiter.
I’m sure someone will tell you how to use wikipedia.
GregM ‘smugly condescending’? You must have the wrong GregM.
I wrote (@ 142):
FDB (@143) wrote:
FDB, my comment was addressed to Jules who had acknowledged that the collapse of Building 7 might have been a controlled demolition.
If anyone has any doubt that the collapse of WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, please check out these videos by US Physics teacher David Chandler.
“WTC7 in Freefall”
“‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ …The Movie”
“WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)”
“WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)”
Each is at the very most 10 minutes. The presentation style is quite lively. The videos of NIST people finally admitting to what David Chandler had maintained all along, but they had previously adamantly denied, that is, that for over two seconds WTC 7 collapsed at accelarations indistinquishable from free-fall, is not to be missed.
Jules (@155) wrote:
Please think more carfully about this. The NIST was, very belatedly, after the 9/11 Commission tried to pretend that WTC 7 had not even ‘collapsed’, charged with establishing how WTC 7 had ‘collapsed’. They have clearly failed to provide an explanation that makes sense and they have failed to consider any of the overwhelming video evidence and eyewitness testimony in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Do you think that that is good enough? Why aren’t the US taxpayers and, more importantly, the construction engineering profession, given a clear picture of what happened that is, unless the ‘inquiry’ was intended to cover up a crime.
As I have pointed out, large numbers of US citizens are demanding a new and proper inquiry into 9/11 including into the ‘collapses’ of WTC 7 as well as the Twin Towers, so that we can discover the truth of what happened on that day one way or the other.
So, why shouldn’t a proper inquiry be set up as the 9/11 Truth Movement demands?
Jules (@ 164) wrote:
How does it help an underdog to judge him/her guilty of a crime he/she did not commit?
I thank you for your many helpful contributions to this debate, but they are somewhat marred by statements such as that above.
GregM (@ 152) wrote,
Of course, I would be most interested to see Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) openly admit to having helped mastermind 9/11 in a court room. I would also be most interested to learn where and how he and his alleged co-conspirators plotted 9/11 and I would be most interested to see that evidence corroborated by other witnesses and other evidence.
In the meantime, until that happens, I think I have every right to remain extremely skeptical given the total lack of any other creidble evidence after eight years and given the vastly stronger body of evidence which implicates senior figures within the US Government.
In fact, 9/11 appears, to some extent, to have been carried out by patsies who genuinely believed that what they were doing was going to strike a mortal blow against the infidel West. It may well turn out that some of those patsies did operate from Afhanistan and KSM may have even been one of them, but we have yet to see any solid evidence that they did, as even you acknowledge.
GregM (@ 152) continued,
Judging from the comments I have read on this forum thus far, this charge seems more applicable to 9/11 Truth Deniers.
I wonder if it is time to comment on the Dennis Ferguson case. It is particularly pertinent for me, since he is staying five-seven minutes by car from where I grew up and I still have primary-school-aged family members in the area.
Now DF is not one of nature’s gentleman, and I can’t say that I’d befriend him or even giver him the time of day if the occasion arose, but I do accept that he has a right to live, which clearly implies a right to live somewhere, and provided he is getting an appropriate level of ‘support’ it might as well be in Ryde as anywhere. It’s hard to imagine that he could in practice be a threat to anyone, and the protests are, it seems to me, an exercise in pure animus, which reflects poorly on those involved.
I heard one of the protesters complaining that he keeps moving from place to place, which probably qualifies as one of the more ironic claims in the public discourse I have heard. I’d have loved to ask the woman why she thought that was and what could be done about it.
Re Dennis Ferguson. i suspect he’s too old to be a threat to anyone. I agree that now he has served his time he has the right to live peaceably and quietly at a reasonable distance away from schools, playgrounds and other places where children gather.
The thing that bothers me about the way he’s being treated by a lot of understandably terrified parents, is that, according to a forensic psychologist I saw on TV last night or this morning, if he is harrassed in this way and not allowed to live a normal life (eg grow red flowers in pot plants) there is a grave danger he might re-offend, because the community does not allow him to adapt back into society.
For all we know he might be “cured” -though I wonder if that is possible. But he has got himself engaged in some peculiar jobs that might bring him in contact with children. I can’t help being suspicious. But then again such news comes from the Murdoch stable, so it might be a lie.
btw, isn’t wonderful the way these Saturday Salons are turning into real gab-fests? I like it, anyway.
I doubt he is cured but that’s not the same as claiming that he is an ongoing threat.
In any event, the crime for which Ferguson was convicted involved systematic grooming. He didn’t snatch a child at random from the streets but befriended a woman whose husband Ferguson knew to be serving time for sexually abusing the very children in question. Then, in concert with another man, persuaded the mother to allow him to take these vulnerable and very young children on holidays. That’s his MO.
He’s one of Australia’s best known hate figures, so how likely is that in the current context? Zero. One may assume that all the people with children in the area have cautioned their children, so really, apart from an extreme version of not wanting unpleasant neighbours in the street, I don’t see the problem.
If you’re not going to have a death penalty or a life without parole for single low level sex offences (and on the evidence by the crown in 1987, he was interrupted in the nick of time) then you have to allow even very undesirable characters to live somewhere.
In Florida this is what has resulted from the hysteria.
The most pathetic comment that I heard regarding the unfortunate Dennis Ferguson is that he should be in an area away from young families, of which there are apparently a preponderance in the Ryde area. Unlike most other areas of Sydney? WTF? I live (sadly out of place) in the ultra trendy inner west area, and even here it’s full of young families infesting the footpaths and cafes with their four wheel drive prams and ordering skinny babychinnos for their delightful offspring.
So where the hell is he supposed to live? The only place I can think of that doesn’t have young families nearby is jail.
Daggett, you have every right to remain skeptical, if by skeptical you mean the process of reserving judgement about something and keeping an open mind. But that’s not what you’re doing is it?
What’s your suggestion? What’s your theory about what happened? What could possibly satisfy you that there was not a massive conspiracy to whip Americans into war-frenzy? Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would change your mind about the invalidity of your so-called Official Narrative? Unless there is it’s on you to suggest a reason why your Senior Government conspirators would have done it, and innuendo just doesn’t cut it. You’ll just keep reaching for ever more tenuous “facts” to support your paranoid fantasies.
The September 11 attacks had no secret agenda. They were just tragic, senseless violence, and should be remembered as such.
Yours is not a search for “truth”, it’s an obscurantist, occultist search for hidden gnostic pearls, rejecting all fairness with primary sources, and it’s the opposite of history. I will not watch your videos. I will not read your Questions. I will not debate you on the differences between detonation and deflagration and the finer points of aluminium thermite’s utility in demolitions. I utterly reject the idea that your argument can be dealt with fairly or reasonably. Your “movement” should be engaged with only with derision, mocking and contempt.
So in that here’s some fucken’ youtube of a bloke wheelieing his bike on a skyscraper. Enjoy.
I think that the word your searching for is “mockery”, Sheik, of which your rant is a fine example.
I think the word you’re searching for is “you’re”, GARU.
That’s why it’s gratuitous, FDB.
I think you’re right FDB. Your attention to detail is commendable, unlike mine.
Shit, there goes the white beret and scarf. Might get a haircut too.
Sorry, just can never resist the holy grail of the pedant – correcting another pedant.
I’m sure you understand.
Oh and daggett, if you don’t care to be dissed be me, you could try out being dissed by Taibbi (stousher’s stousher).
I understand the temptation. Perhaps you and the sheik would prefer a beret of a rather fetching green, with red and gold highlights.
Thanks, Liam for your post @ 177.
It should be framed.
I can see 9/11 Truthers collapsing in uncontrollable fits of laughter for years to come when they read that.
Sorry, I will try the link again:
Thanks, Liam for your post @ 177. …
GregM I am not whoever you think I am. (I missed you question last nite or i would have answered it then.)
My take on 9/11 is a lot more complicated than most people on either side of that pointless debate would have.
I think its stupid to assume their were no hijackers involved, but equally stupid to assume there was no dodgy bullshit going on at the time. Dodgy bullshit the hijackers might not have been aware of.
I have known people in the “truth” movement for years. Most of them are pretty upset that the focus is on how the buildings collapsed rather than the drugs, arms people smuggling networks that intersect intel agencies and terrorist groups worldwide.
The only theory I have is that you can’t trust unaccountable power.
if thats a nutcase theory fine.
oh I hve another one.
Any discussion of 9/11 feeds the egregore.
Daggett – all that stuff about building 7 may be true. I don’t know and I don’t really care.
At a guess 15, 000 kids have died from poverty and disease since I last posted on this thread.
Who gives a fuck about 3000 dead yuppies nearly 10 years ago?
no one believes me
That comment was way too harsh and unreasonable and an insult to the firemen, cops and other people who died trying to help save lives. ASnd the ordinary working people who went to work that day expecting to go home to their families friends and lives. Its also completely bogus to call the janitors, cops and firemen and whoever else was there “yuppies” when odds are they weren’t.
I apologise to the families of the people who died there for letting my frustration drive me to make such a tasteless comment.
Like most people who hacve paid attention to the events of 9/11 I rather doubt the full account has come out. Certainly anyone who read that book on the 9/11 Commission would have cause to believe that there is more to come out.
On the other hand, I think it utterly implausible to imagine that anything that could be described as a high-level government conspiracy took place to either facilitate the attacks or engineer events to look like same (as some “truthers” claim). To carry such a thing off would have entailed far more organisationasl coherence than the Bush Administration was capable of and implied literally thousands of people keeping stum for years after the events when there was a huge incentive to spill the beans and practically no incentive not to.
It might well be said that the Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel, and it is perverse that on the morning of the attacks the SAC was running a simulation of the attacks in question and it is bizarre that the towers collpased as neatly as they did and much of the steel reinforcement material that would have been evidentiary was apparently removed, but much as I would like good answers on these things, filling these curiosities with outlandish and often contradictory conspiracy accounts serves no good purpose.
I can’t believe i am gonna type more pointless stuff about 9/11.
But here goes:
“In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I’d be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.”
Thats about the only intelligent thing in the article. Its probably true, too, cos all we hear in the media is CD this and holograms that coming from those troofer nuts.
And it obviously worked cos Taibbi didn’t even mention Indira Singh or Sibel Edmonds.
Now I’m gonna ask a question thats been drowned out by the banging on about buildings that collapsed into a huge mess at significantly less than free fall speeds outside their own footprint. (Don’t believe me daggert, analyse the collapse for yourself. I have.) So far outside that footprint that a huge chunk of them slammed into building 7 as is clearly visible on any video of the event.
That question.
What orders were Dick Cheney referring to when he said “The orders still stand” (as quoted by Norman Mieta in his testimony to the 9/11 commission) at approximately 9.30 am on 11 sept 2001. Truthers claim Cheney issued stand down orders that morning, which is another misinterpretation (at least) of the evidence.
Is Cheney referring to the revocation of the shoot down orders that were in place pre July 01 wrt hijackings in the US. (IE shoot down orders were revoked in July, not the morning of the attack as some nutjob conspiratainment superstars like Alex Jones claim.)
Orders that came suspiciously close to the numerous reported briefing of potential Al Qaeda attacks that could well involve hijacking of planes to use as weapons. (Briefing to, if I remeber rightly, Rice, Addington, Ashcroft and numerous dept heads in the FBI, CIA and other alphabet agencies that sem to infest the US and the rest of the world.)
I believe theres even a record of Mossad trying to make these warnings clear to US somewhere (apparantly they did this on more than one occasion in the months leading up to 9/11), something the wanna be Nazis that hijacked the troof movement to further their own vile agenda never acknowledge.
This may all be innocent, and it may simply be a case that Cheney couldn’t bring himself to order the deaths of hundreds of hijacking victims. I can certainly relate to that. (Tho I seriously doubt it.)
Either way it has to be investigated properly. here we have testimony that clearly states Cheney was in the bunker at 9.25 am, while the commission itself claims he didn’t enter until 9.58 am. This sort of inconsistency deserves to be investigated.
Conspiracy or incompetent negligence who cares.
The fact that bush and cheney weren’t locked up, shot or hung from the white house chandeliers for such a massive failure in their duty of care to the US, but instead got everything they wanted as they proceded to dismantle centuries old legal protections and disappear people into a worldwide network of bases uses for detention and torture of anyone unfortunate enough to get in caught up in the mess, while at the same time they acted against the very constitution they were sposed to be bound by, and procdeed to start an illegal war with no rel;ation to the attack itself… (takes a deep breath)
That is something that really needs answering.
Anyway i’m off to give myself an exorcism.
Sorry for all the typos and poor grammer but really I’ve sunk enough energy into this black hole already.
Here’s an article by Paul Craig Roberts just published on Information Clearing House and not to be missed.
Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
Here are some excerpts:
Change of topic please!
Is anyone getting so sick of the ABC that they would advocate that the government sell off most, if not all of it. To put it another way, what is the point of a public broadcaster that:
-Is relentlessly partisan to one side of politics, and does little more than repeat coalition/News Ltd talking points ad nauseum.
-Is dumbing down most of its news/current affairs content (particularly on-line) to the extent that it is virtually indistinguishable from commercial networks.
- Produces little local content of any significance apart from the odd quiz show and embarrassingly bad ‘dramas’ that attempt to mimick their most recent success, Seachange (and that was 10 years ago).
- Whose only programs that are of any quality are usually imported from overseas, and could be sourced through other means if the ABC didn’t exist.
Please, someone tell me why we need the ABC in its current form?????
Rage, although the programming on that has been a bit suss lately too. In a three hour period all the good songs were by women, and all but two of the songs by men were sung by Australian Idol contestants. Also, Backstreet Boys now that you are in your 40′s (or very late 30′s at least) don’t try and cash in on the Vampire phenomenon and take yourselves seriously at the same time. You have to take the piss or retire.
It’s here. Go on I dare you.
Selling the ABC would only compound rather than mitigate a serious problem.
Part of the problem with the ABC is that has become infiltrated with employees of News Limited. Three names which come to mind are Madonna King, Sally Neighbour and Phillip Adams. The fact that they selected Rupert Murdoch to deliver the 2008 Boyer lectures is a symptom of that problem. stopmurdoch.blogspot.com has a lot to say about this.
In Queensland we have largely the ABC to thank for the fact that Anna Bligh got into office without her being required to inform the Queensland public her privatisation intentions. For more information, please see “Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties”
If it was sold to News Ltd, then at least it would have to abandon the pretence of independence, and maybe we could use the money to fund something useful and worthwhile. The ABC is neither of these at the moment.
Anyone who posts article which includes the eye-opening sentence:
Is just asking for some arsehole to come along and link to Mein Kampf to draw your analogy out, daggett, and I hope yu’re happy. Omitted from the Roberts quote you linked to is the rather essential sentence in my italics:
Hitler argued that Jews were behind the Big Lie of German leaders’ responsibility for the defeat in 1918. At least the Fascists were honest in having a positive target to conspiratorial paranoia. When you look through the Big Lie you claim is there around 9/11 what do you see?
And while we are doing controversial stuff … isn’t it time the ISAF forces left Afghanistan?
It appears that opposition in the US is now over 50% and it seems unlikely, with Mike Mullen describing the situation as serious and deteriorating, that it will become more popular any time soon. The recent elections underscored the difficulties involved. The exchange with Lindsay Graham “how many tanks have the Taliban got?” was devastating.
Obama would lose face leaving, as he (unwisely in my opinion) pledged support but in the longer run, as they say, all politics is local. He only needs to find a face saving way to leave — perhaps retreating to a watching brief in neighbouring states and he can say they are ready to send in troops if anything of national security concern develops. That would radically cut the cost of the intervention in money and bodies and many of the people the West doesn’t like could shoulder the business of killing each other.
The project was always unworkable. There is no significant group of persons upon which one could found a viable inclusive state, even with armed support from the outside. Accordingly, Afghanistan has never been a nation in any meaningful sense. What we have there is a largely 8th century patriarchal tribal culture equipped with the rudiments of late 20th century technology — an ugly mix.
Admit you got it wrong, and get the hell out of there I say.
PS … can anyone recall when the last time someone in power claimed that apprehending OBL or Mullah Omar was seen as a goal of the occupation? I think Obama mentioned it before becoming President in relation to Pakistan.
Great Taibbi piece Liam.
Daggett, did you read it? I like the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld planning session especially, and also this:
“the “conspiracy” they’re describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie — unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.”
BTW, I note you haven’t responded to my #136
On the ABC. Part of the reason they no longer do a lot of local drama is a) Howard and his cronies forced them to outsource it -ten years ago.
b) Their budget was cut to the bone by the Howard Government. i know Rudd sort of restored it, but it takes a while to get good drama series up.
Eventually Rudd will get sick of the Murdoch propagandists and put a broom through the place.
And. NO! IT SHOULD NOT BE PRIVATISED – EVER!
FDB @200 – IRL it would probably be more like a Coen brothers movie
Adrian the abc is more than the tv.
And Mindy is right.
We would all be fucked without Rage.
If that goes then the turrists have really won.
And Good Game is actually one of the best shows on TV. (Which is a damning indictment in itself.)
My wife hates video games and never plays them, but she never misses that show. They must be doing something right.
That’s very true, Paul Burns. The commercial broadcasters have local content quotas they have to meet, but strangely enough nether ABC nor SBS has had to do that. That’s a good thing because after they were cut to the bone by the Libs, they didn’t have enough money to make sufficient programming to fulfill a quota. That’s one reason why you see so many cheap and cheerful panel shows – they’re dirt cheap to produce.
The Labor Party promised that both that the ABC would have to meet local content quotas in the future and increased the funding, specifically for drama production, in the last budget. So, we should be seeing the fruits of that in 2010. Bear in mind that drama production costs $500,000 – $800,000 per hour to produce, whereas it only costs about $50,000 per hour to buy in a top rating British or US series.
Jules, if you like Good Game, you really should check out Yahtzee. Do yourself a flava, etc. That goes double for you, Liamerick.
I’d love someone to explain to me what the point of the ABC is in its current form. OK we may get some decent drama in 2010 or whatever, but maybe the ABC isn’t the best vehicle to deliver this drama, given its track record.
Yes, I know it’s more than TV – the radio news and current affairs content is even worse than the TV counterpart. Anyone remember when AM and PM used to be genuine current afairs programs?
If it doesn’t really have any point, why not use the money for a worthwhile media initiative?
I think that it’s the old boiling frog routine. We have gradually come to accept less and less from the ABC and react against any calls for its sale more from some imagined ideal of the past rather than present day reality.
And I keep saying you fly boys crack me up.
“L’argent prevaricateur”? The money/silver (the metal) prevaricator? Hmmm
Prevaricateur? Get crackin’, FDB.
Monsieur L’Agent, Yahtzee is forbidden by my work’s access policies. Unlike Adolf Hitler’s major work—make of that what conspiracies you please.
Well, grammatically a nonsense, but in the struggle to use our moniker to segue from something daft someone else has just said to our own youtube clip, we work with what we’re given eh?
In this case, 2 years of high school French and a lazy afternoon bottle of Cooper’s Sparkling in the sun.
Fuck me dead.
Okey dokes, that’s going in the bookmarks list for the next youtube Vjaying on acid night.
Must be just around the corner, too.
I was able to listen to local Victorian ABC radio from Northern NSW on Feb 7 this year.
Its performance that day wasn’t pointless.
*lifts jaw off the floor*
Simply outstanding, Haiku. I never knew Kath Day-Knight was an intersexually-challenged hermaphroditic dancing machine. Seems obvious, in retrospect.
Wow L’Ergot that was fucken awesome.
isn’t it time the ISAF forces left Afghanistan?
.
They can’t. If they do it will be percieved as a defeat and those people who’d side with the Taliban and Al Qaeda would flock there in droves to train for other 9/11s. Eventually another war would obtain.
.
Of course that’ll probably happen anyway. We should never’ve gone to war in Afghanistan in the first place.
On the fearsome Dennis Fergusson I want to grab these rabid mothers and raging fathers and force them to acknowledge that the responsibility for keeping their children safe is entirely theirs. Stranger danger certainly can’t be an issue in this case, parents can surely warn their kids of his “oddness” without unduly alarming or distressing them.
As well they need to be reminded that most child abuse occurs within the family, whether immediate or wider, or is perpetrated by someone known to and often trusted by the family in church, school or the neighbourhood at large. And of course most of the outrageously real statistics about child sexual abuse shows it to have been perpetrated in institutions into which children were taken for so called “care”.
Child abuse was not bruited about in my long ago infancy and primary school days,
but I can tell you it was real. I vividly recall the 1947 suicide in his about-to-be consecrated newly re-built church of a popular, married Anglican priest. Adults were totally astonished and postulated ideas about over-work (he had done so much to raise funds for that restoration) and money worries (he was already the father of five with another on the way). The children at his youth club knew differently. He had for some time been “playing with” some of the girls and inevitably they whispered their sad little stories to each other. Some of the boys heard about it and being particularly straight thinking they went as a group and told him he had to stop it! They could never have foreseen the tragic outcome. The true story never surfaced publicly.
In those days most children were left to their own devices for hours and days on end, some because their parents worked or many out of “benign neglect” and the belief that children needed to develop self reliance. There was little thought of sexual exploitation.
I am not sure that today’s full awareness of the extent of sexual predation makes children any safer. Parents still leave their children too much to their own devices without giving them the information and guidance which would protect them against abuse. Why are youngsters still left unsupervised in playgrounds and swimming pools? Why do we need internet censorship when parental supervision and monitoring of cyber-contact is so easily done? Because parents are lazy and expect someone else out there to do it all for them. Those making the loudest protests are often the least ready to take personal responsibility for what happens to their kids.
On the fearsome Dennis Fergusson I want to grab these rabid mothers and raging fathers and force them to acknowledge that the responsibility for keeping their children safe is entirely theirs.
Why do we need internet censorship when parental supervision and monitoring of cyber-contact is so easily done? Because parents are lazy and expect someone else out there to do it all for them. Those making the loudest protests are often the least ready to take personal responsibility for what happens to their kids.
Well said, Patricia WA. Ditto bans on junk food advertising. Get off your arse and parent your kids for Goddsakes, it’s not the TV’s fault their stuffing their face with McDonalds.
Adrien@215
It makes no difference either way. If people are determined to create new 9/11s then whether western troops are bleeding in Afghanistan is neither here nor there.
Right now the war is bleeding the west and making it look ineffectual. There is a victory for the other side of this asymmetric war right there. Whether the west admits defeat or not, everyone know it is defeated — it’s just here, nobody in power wants to say it out loud, and even worse, admit the death and injury toll has been for nothing.
To keep going though — for ten years which is what they are saying, throws good resources after irrecoverable resources for ends that are utterly improbable. The separation of church and state, the creation of a distinct civil sphere, or modernity took hundreds of years in the west and it wasn’t peaceable either. Afghanistan isn’t getting anything like that inside 50 years and certainly not at gun- and drone-point.
Well said PatriciaWA
and Michael Sutcliffe who agrees with her.
Except for one thing: from Fran Barlow @175
I take it that what Fran has written is true.
If it is true then that is nothing, short of stifling their child, a parent can protect them from such a calculating predator.
In such cases society should, through its instrument, the Parliament, pass laws to protect children from predators who do those things and in the face of such predation continue those laws through the life of the predator.
Fran’s conclusion (that we, as a society, should do nothing) from the facts she has laid out are, of course, nonsense. If she took the time to research the literature she would find that for pedophiles it is the impulse and the opportunity, not the MO, which drives the criminal behaviour.
Afghanistan is a classic example of why asymetric warfare tends to favour the underdog or “weaker” party. For a start the definition of weaker is problematic. The language used is not appropriate to the situation. Greater access to tech, more advanced tech, and greater access to resources on a scale bigger than the place where the conflict is taking place doesn’t translate into greater access to resources and tech in the actual theatre of battle.
A fair bit has to do with the nature of combatants. Greater access ot resources means greater centralisation and anyone familiar with how fire fighting in Victoria works will be aware of the problems with that.
Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for good reason. Its a logistical nightmare. Empires (and the US is an imperial force these days) get their advantages from greater access to resources, and without the logistical networks to supply these resources the empires are immediately disadvantaged. This is Afghanistan all over.
Of course there is more to it than just that, but its a start.
As usual GregM, you are mistaken on anumber of matters.
At no point do I claim/imply that “we, as a society, should do nothing” about sexual predators. I merely point out that as long as we don’t have life sentences or death, then they have to live somewhere. As a matter of practice, it’s probably unrealistic to house them in the suburbs — as the events in Ryde suggest. Rational or not, this is the reality, so maybe a next best solution is some sort of gated community designed to house them at some distance from regular folk.
I disagree though that parents have no role to play. Handing your already-abused kids over to some person for a “holiday” who has suddenly befriended you sounds like pretty poor judgement to me. If no alarms go off in your head at the suggestion, you probably aren’t up to the job of parenting.
Even as children you knew the parts of the neighbourhood with dangerous dogs and you took that into account when making your way home. This is no different in principle.
Finally we are not talking of Ferguson’s impulses but the threat he poses. These are quite separate.
Afghanistan isn’t just asymetric warfare, its 4th generation warfare, its a classic example of it, and the Taliban are using 4th gen tactics to great advantage. They have succeeded in delegitimising the state, tho its wasn’t that legit to begin with, and increasingly they are delegitimising the occupation forces, tho they, well we, have done a fair job of that themselves.
* The difference between 4th gen war and traditional insurgency is not always apparant, not always existant even, 4th gen warfare is jargon, but its useful jargon.
The only legitimacy left is basically with tribal groups and traditional elders. This is hardly great for “demcracy” and probably not real good for the future of human rights in there.
But it does provide an opportunity for the US to strike back. And they apear to be about to take it. (Tho whether they will, time will tell.)
Open source is where its at apparantly. And the US has decided to repeat its (successful it seems) experiment in open source counter insurgency.
You might remember the serge in Iraq? Along with the increased troop numbers the US poured a fair amount of resources and effort into arming, training and protecting Sunni militia. The also gave them a fair amount of autonomy to act, in the understanding that the militia would direct its own efforts against other insurgents that the US had been fighting and losing to.
With this tactic it effectively co opted the insurgency and used it to further the US’ own ends. This was a radical departure from previous Counter Insurgency policy which was based on maintaining and extending the legitimacy and sovreignty of the state.
Not quite sure why, Michael, @ 217, but I disagree with you about the McDonalds and other junk food ads. I think it’s because drawing the same analogy as yourself from my comment would mean I thought it OK for pedophiles to be trawling the internet and openly offering abusive sexual experience to any takers.
Junk foods are determinedly and openly targeted at children during their prime time viewing. Advertising by manufacturers and retailers in supermarkets is carefully designed to achieve maximum effect i.e. to push their products at parents through their kids. The ban on advertising for smoking seems to have had a healthy impact on the population at large over the years so I don’t see why some control of junk food advertising targeting kids shouldn’t work too. And that’s not just good for the particular kids who might grow up into healthier adults, but it’s good for the national budget too.
And yes, I do think parents should be mindful of what their kids are watching on TV. Unless, however, you can be like my daughter and other like-minded parents, and don’t have TV on for kids at all, then we should be able to look for some social controls on what is beamed into our homes. By the way, initially I was sceptical that the TV ban next door was practical, but it has been and the pay-off in happy, active and creative kids is huge. But as a one time working parent who relied on Skippy, Gilligan’s Island and Hogan’s Heroes to entertain my kids while I made tea and unwound from the job I can sympathise with the vast majority of Mums and Dads out there struggling with what their kids are exposed to.
So how is that different from my feeling that parents are directly responsible for their children’s moral and physical welfare with particular reference to sexual abuse? I’m thinking hard about it and I’d be glad of help on this!! After watching the 7.30 Report just now I was really glad there are people out there at least threatening arrest to these predators. However I still think general censorship like the clean feed will just make parents more complacent and feel less directly responsible for giving these sick individuals the opportunity to satisfy their impulses (thanks GregM) with children who clearly feel alone in their world.
So anyway I’ll get to the point.
There are signs the coalition is about to adopt the same tactics in Afghanistan. Following on from Pakistans recent move toward open source CoIn, Sherard Cowper-Coles the British foreign secretary’s special representative for Afghanistan siad this lately: “… the solution lay in devolving political power back to tribal elders who have traditionally held sway in Afghanistan, and funneling money for development through them.”
This flies in the face of what Mullins is reorted to have said today. But it appears Mullins wants a surge in AfPak. He reaffirmed his committment to tradition CoIn, but obviously thats not compatible with a surge strategy. Of course expecting a military leader to come out with his actual tactics in the news media is dumb as so when they do it you have to wonder they actually plan to do.
There’s not alot of difference between using militias and open source CoIn, but the major diffrerence, and its fundamental I reckon, is the shift from maintaining and extending the state’s sovreignty.
Anyway hopefully this shift to Open source CoIn might create a situation that enables a quicker withdrawal.
Cos “We should never’ve gone to war in Afghanistan in the first place.”
Thats fucking well right Adrien.
underdog or “weaker” party. For a start the definition of weaker is problematic. The language used is not appropriate to the situation
Are we to take it, jules, that you are arguing in favour of symmetric warfare, (posited as its contrast- and I have used the word posited here only to excite the interest of Fran who uses big words she doesn’t understand, and I think it is only charitable that I indulge her in that) where the combatants bring every resource at their disposal to bear, so as to prevail over their enemy (essentially the story of WW2)?
And on that basis the stronger party, which is overabundantly armed with nuclear weapons should just nuke every last place held by its enemy so as tc end the war?
That’s what symmetric warfare is.
Note that I haven’t expressed my views on the topic, Ive just asked for yours.
GragMan it really seems as if you have comprehension problems. Then again that was a pretty long winded up meself way of saying: “expect the coalition in Afghanistan to move away from supporting Khazai and pump more resources into tribal groups.”
It was annoying enough to write so I can’t blame anyone for finding it hard to follow and incoherent.
The only real significance of that is the shift away from traditional US counter insurgency. The implications of that shift are interesting and will be far reaching.
I’d never argue in favour of any warfare, unless I’m/we’re under a direct threat, its a waste of energy and resources.
Anyway wrt the quote you used, if weaker parties are actually weaker why are tho so successful in those situations referred to as asymetric warfare?
Sure in a symetric conflict the weaker party would get flogged, but asymetric warfare isn’t symetric wherefor, obviously. So using the same sort of language and the same sort of values to judge and define asymetric conflict is dumb. You’re already ata disadvantage cos the language you use interferes with your ability to accurately describe and therefore to accurately understand whats going on.
Its interesting tho, cos the nation state is on the way out and this conflict is a great way to see how the nation state in its most powerful incarnation (the US) copes with that, and what tactics it employs to slow the process.
Jules (@192) wrote:
What do you mean “significantly less than free fall speeds”? I don’t have the precise total collapse time at the tip of my fingers, but it was not much less than free-fall speed.
How could a building with so much redundant strength in its supporting structural steel collapse at anywhere near that speed through the path of greatest resistance?
One thing that is totally inexplicable if we accept the explanation that the collapse was due to gravity alone was that during one measured interval the speed of the front of the wave of building collapse on the North Tower actually exceeded free fall speed. See for yourself in US Physics teacher David Chandler’s video “Race With Gravity”.
Something other than gravity must have driven that collapse.
Jules (@192) continued
So, what point are you trying to make?
As I have already acknowedged the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ were obviously different from standard bottom-up controlled demolitions. Surely I don’t need to point out again that if the Twin Towers had been demolished in the conventional way there is no way they could have passed the collapses off as having been caused by the impact of the aircraft.
Although I am not an engineer, far less a demolition engineer, one would expect that it would be much harder to make the building collapse completely into its own footprint if the detonation sequence was top down.
The fact that so much building material was ejected such great distances would be due to the fact that those who set up the demolition would have erred on the side of using too much explosives to be more certain that no incriminating evidence would be subsequently found.
The critical point with the Twin Towers is not how well what we saw conforms with traditional controlled demolitions, rather it is whether the sudden total loss of structural strength can be fully explained by the impact of Flight 11 and the fire.
If not, then we have to ask what else could have so suddenly removed that strength. The only explanation offered is that it was removed by planted explosives detonated in a rapid sequence from the top down.
The term I choose to use for this and whaht news reporters used on the day is ‘controlled demolition’. If you want to use a different term, than that is fine by me.
A proper investigation that was seriously intended to explain how the towers collapsed would have investigated this hypothesis and taken account of the recorded evidence and numerous eyewitness accounts in support of that hypothesis, but it did not.
—
Liam (@198),
Thank you for pointing out that when Hitler enunciated the principle of the Big Lie, he was meaning to accuse Jews of employing the technique. At least that explains to me why Hitler would have included that in Mein Kampf. It would hardly have helped his cause if he had announced to his own followers that he intended to use the same propaganda technique that he accused jews of using.
Regardless, the passage acccurately explains how that technique works and so it seems appropriate that Paul Craig Roberts chose to use that quote in his article.
Liam at #177 “Yours is not a search for “truth”, it’s an obscurantist, occultist search for hidden gnostic pearls, rejecting all fairness with primary sources, and it’s the opposite of history.”
Did someone say Dan Brown?
Daggett I am not having the same argument with you that I have had countless times with countless others.
Just consider for a moment.
You are asking people to accept that something can fall faster than free fall. Both in the case of the towers and building 7.
The towers obviously didn’t fall at free fall speed – debris from them clearly does, thats why it is falling ahead of the collapse. IE when you see a photo and there is a huge chunk of wall falling beside the building, ahead of the collapse wave or whatever you call it, then clearly that debris is falling at free fall speed. When the building takes 50% longer to fall than an object in free fall would its obviously wrong to say it fell at free fall or near free fall speeds. I accept the NIST report also makes ridiculous claims about the speed of the fall etc etc trying to fit some pre concieves norion of what happened thats no reason to imitate them.
also if ….
Arggggh fuck I can’t believe I’m typing this.
Sucked in again…
Did you (everyone besides Daggett, he should already know this,) know Mohammed Atta went out with Amanda Keller.
No shit, google it.
Not the Amanda Keller, of course.
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case?
I know. That’s why I showed it to you.
People who look through Big Lies usually see something on the other side, daggett. Apart from fluff and bluster and pre-emptive Chewbacca defence, what’ve you got? A secret Cabal blew up buildings to hide the fact that planes wouldn’t destroy them? I mean, why bother with the planes at all? Why are we arguing about freefall “speed” when it’s really on you to answer WHY THE HELL THIS SUPPOSED CONSIPRACY MAKES ANY SENSE?
Heh. Convenient.
PatriciaWA, I think you are a bit out of touch re. these “benignly neglectful” parents of today. The prevailing culture at the moment is not to let the children out enough , to drive them most places and not let the poor things have an unsupervised moment. This brings with it its own different risks – a naive and sheltered teenager or 20something is also at risk of sexual assault and other harms. The pendulum needs to swing back more towards the benign neglect, IMO (and that of others – there have been a few discussions of this topic on the blogs lately). My twelve year old is allowed to walk around the neighbourhood and visit his friends and vice versa. If Ferguson moved in next door, we’d simply tell them not to have anything to do with him.
Actually, Liam, what nobody ever seems to mention is that the WTC towers were in fact made completely out of explosives. It’s really sort of amazing that they didn’t blow up long ago. Why they chose to build them that way is something that nobody in NY ever really understood.
I remember when we were kids, we used to take the trolley over to lower Manhattan during the summer, and chip off little bits of the WTC to bring home and use as fireworks at Fourth of July picnics.
True story. Although these days I can be “disappeared” for relating it.
Eminently reasonable, Helen … well said.
Jules (@ 229) wrote:
Please contemplate the fact that a monstrous crime was committed on 11 September 2001 and millions of people around the world who have looked at the evidence believe that people innocent of having committed that crime have been blamed for that crime. As a result hundreds of billions have been spend on wars, well over one million have died, many more have been maimed or displaced.
So, some of us believe this is important. Some of those people happen to have had loved ones killed on that day. They include Jean Canavan, Manny Badillo and Bob McIlvaine. Please take all of 50 seconds to hear them appeal for your support for a new and proper inquiry into 9/11 in a youtube broadcast embedded at nyccan.org. They include the Jersey Girls who fought heroically against the Bush amdministration to even have the 9/11 Commission held as rigged as that was.
You rightly apologised for having written the words “Who gives a fuck about 3000 dead yuppies nearly 10 years ago?” If you were sincere in that apology and, even more so, sincere in your professed concern for people in third world countries who have died because they were wrongly blamed for the murder of those 3,000 people, then you would also retract those words.
Incidentally would it have been acceptable to you if those who had known Lindy Chamberlain to have been innocent of the crime murdering baby Azaria to have remained silent and left her behind bars?
I don’t know where you get the figure that “the building takes 50% longer to fall than an object in free fall”.
The 9/11 Commission (obviously erroneously) accepts that it was 10 seconds. Another figure is between 14 and 16 seconds. As the height of the taller tower is 417 metres, then my calculation of the time taken for free-fall speed is 16.7 seconds, so even that figure seems not to be right (that is unless my calculation time = sqrt(2*1368/9.8) is wrong).
Whatever, the speeds of the collapses seem to have been significantly less than “50% longer” than free-fall and vastly faster than what the time should have been given the enormous amount of strength in the structural steel that had to be overcome.
Do you seriously maintain that the strength of all of that steel could have been so suddenly lost without the use of exploseives?
If you want to stop wasting time, then why not at least accept my simple point that a new inquiry into the ‘collapses’ should be held so that we can find out why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 did collapse?
—
sublime cow girl, FDB and Lando Calrissian now that we have reached over 233 comments, we desperately need many more such comments which help so greatly to clarify the question we are discussing.
sublime cow girl, I have never read one Dan Brown novel, nor watched the movies, nor even watched The Simpsons parody of the first of those movies. I think you will find that as Tom Hanks, the main actor in the movie,s wants to make a movie that is intended to disprove any suspicion that JFK was murdered by elements within the US state, that he would be on your side on the question of 9/11.
—
Liam demands yet again that I explain “WHY THE HELL THIS SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY MAKES ANY SENSE”.
It makes sense because it enabled the Project for a New American Century cabal that gained control of the White House in 2001 to achieve their domestic and international geopilitical goals. They said themselves in their document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” on page 51:
Perhaps Liam should ponder the question, “what sense did it make for Muslims to launch 9/11?” How did the consequent invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan help them achieve their political goals?
Liam’s sole argument in defence of the Official Conspiracy Theory is that in order to stage 9/11 thousands would have had to have been involved in the conspiracy and it would not have been possible for so many people to have been kept quite. Another estimate that I read is that around 500, from my recollection, needed direct knowledge of the plot in order for it to carried out.
In any case, how many were involved in the Manhattan Project? Or in the Bletchley Park project to break the Enigma code?
This single argument hardly amounts to a reason to ignore the mountains of other evidence that flatly contradicts the Official Conspiracy Theory that Liam is evasively attempting to peddle. It hardly amounts to a reason not to demand a new inquiry which seeks answers to the 70% of questions asked by the Jersey Girls that were ignored by the 9/11 Commission.
Jules, please look again at the broadcast “Race With Gravity” that I referred to above. No-one is arguing that any physical part of the Twin Towers actually fell faster than free-fall speed, but at one point the wave of collapse clearly moved faster than an object falling that was falling at free fall speed.
Such a wave of collapse could not conceivably have been driven just by the weight of the building falling from above.
The only way that could have been possible that I can come up with is if explosives had been used.
Fran – If people are determined to create new 9/11s then whether western troops are bleeding in Afghanistan is neither here nor there.
.
Americans like their wars fought in other peoples’ countries. I do suspect you’re right however. You go to Afghanistan everyone dies. If they pull out it will be a mistake tho’ the way Clinton snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the Battle of Magadishu was.
.
And if they stay it will probably also be a mistake. I do imagine that they’re be deploying less troops and more robots however. And that may make a difference. And as always ordinary innocent people are the ones that will pay. But Mr Bush’s bonehead plays are going to cost us all.
.
Even more.
All Wordpress bloggers please note.
I haven’t upgraded since Media2 started in 2004! And I share the domain with Barista, so you can imagine the internet odium that would descend on me if I started trying do this with cheery abandon and deleted possibly Australia’s best loved blog… Going to have to do something about it, anyway!
If your blog is hosted on Wordpress.com you don’t have to worry.
Daggett – you are a poo-face.
Now, why don’t you go and prove to me that your face is not made of poo, following the same rules of evidence (sorry, EVIDENCE!!!) that would satisfy you that you are wrong about 9/11.
GO!!!
dagget and the rest,
There are plenty of well qualified structural engineers that have opined that the strike of a heavier aircraft that existed when the buildings were designed and built, carrying more fuel than had been believed possible at that stage was more than sufficient to cause the collapse of the towers in the manner in which they collapsed.
Further – getting sufficient explosives into the building would have taken weeks, lots of preparation and many people.
There is no evidence that this happened. None at all – other than a lot of unqualified people speculating.
FDB – You should be at the Cat proving Bob Brown is right.
Sgr daggett,
there is a point of error in your missive numbered 236, on the matter of how long it takes for an object to fall freely.
You have used the right method to calculate this
sqrt(2*H/g)
for a height H, and acceleration g.
The time is the square root of twice the height, divided by the acceleration.
But you said the height was 417 metres, and g is 9.8 metres per second squared, so the time is 9.23 seconds.
I believe you used the conversion factor 3.280 (feet in a metre) and converted 417 metres to 1368 feet. But then you used the acceleration in METRE units (9.8), rather than 32.2 feet per second squared.
As to the rest, you remind me of my acquaintance Simplicio.
ciao!
Beelzebush has some tinfoil set aside for me
Has it occurred to anyone that the only cabal ruthless and singleminded enough to pull off the destruction of a large chunk of downtown Manhattan would be New York Property developers.
Another flakey theory it’s true but on the other hand, who wouldn’t wanna see Donald Trump perp walked and then executed by lethal hair transplant?
Just as the WTC projected itself into the NYC skyline (lot harder for a visitor to navigate around downtown without the towers as a reference point I can tell you), its absence allows anyone to project anything into the space left behind.
And really, if the powers that shouldn’t be but are were smart enough to pull off such a conspiracy off without a leak, then how did they then fuck up the US’s current Totally Bogus Central Asian Adventure?
There’s probably a plausible case to be made for LIHOP but in that case, I doubt “they” had the sheer balls to go for it – never mind the competence to so believably accidentally fuck up in response.
Sometimes a black swan is just a black swan.
Galileo Galilei (@243),
Thanks for spotting my error. I did say, after all, that my figure did not seem right.
What had happened is that I pointed my spreadsheet formula to the cell containing the height of the first tower in feet and not in metres.
So, it turns out that on one question, Jules was right, after all. My apologies, Jules.
It seems that the towers did indeed take “50% longer (14-16 seconds) to fall than an object in free fall (9.2 seconds) would [have taken].”
Nevertheless, that remains a phenomenally short time for all that massive structural strength in all that steel to have been overcome. Furthermore as David Chandler showed on the YouTube broadcast “Race With Gravity” that I referred to above, at one short interval the wave of collapse actually moved faster than a falling object.
The only possible explanation for all of this that I can come up with is that explosives had to have been used. Given that that is exactly what it looks like happened and given that that is what numerous eyewitnesses attested to having witnessed, then I would suggest that that the evidence that explosives were used is conlcusive.
—
Andrew Reynolds (@ 241),
I am not aware of any credible document by any structural engineer that shows how either of the Twin Towers could have collapsed the way they did as a consequence of the impacts from the 767′s. Please show me any you know of. The Towers were designed to take a head on impact from a 707 a plane of comparable size to a 767. The 767′s did not hit front on and computer analysis shows that sufficient intact or partially damaged columns should have been left to easily allow the full weight of the building above to be supported.
Also, there is plenty of eyewitness testimony of strange happenings in the twin towers in the weeks before 9/11. Please refer to my post @ 139.
—
Did I miss some subtle and clever humour in FDB’s post @ 240 or is it what it appears to be?
Why is this person still allowed to contribute to this forum?
“Why is this person still allowed to contribute to this forum?”
Yep Daggett, that’s the way to encourage free ranging and vigorous debate about bringing the truth to the surface.
Speaking of which, can you prove you’re not an agent provocateur muddying the waters with waffling minutia in order to deflect attention from the real conspiracy?
“The Towers were designed to take a head on impact from a 707 a plane of comparable size to a 767.”k
Si Sgr daggett
you did say your figure seemed wrong. It is good to be humble.
ciao
Aha!
So you admit your face is made of poo!
I just knew you’d slip up sooner or later.
Galileo Galilei (@ 247),
I wasn’t aware that FDB was engaged in a debate with me. Which of his posts do you think have helped shed light on the 9/11 controversy?
Galileo Galilei (@ 249) wrote,
Perhaps you would prefer that I contributed the same amount of facts and ideas to this discussion as FDB has.
It’s far easier to avoid making mistakes if you say nothing and do nothing.
In any case, as I have shown, even the 9/11 commission mistakenly stated that the Twin Towers fell to the ground in 10 seconds, perhaps amongst the least of the almost innumerable glaring mistakes they made.
So, Galileo Galilei, did you mean to imply by making that link to a YouTube broadcast of a part of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” that you dispute that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a head-on impact from a 707?
“Although I am not an engineer, far less a demolition engineer …”
Me either thats why I am in no position to actually evaluate any of the claims wrt the collapse from any side, and thats why anything i say about it will be functionally meaningless. And anything I think about it has to be filtered through the “I don’t actually know wtf I’m talking about” filter.
Unless I sit down and follow all the specific maths that specific people (steve jones for example, or NIST,) use, then learn what they mean, and the maths they use that I don’t understand then i’m not in any posisition to make any kind of comment beyond the ones I have already made.
“As a result hundreds of billions have been spend on wars, well over one million have died, many more have been maimed or displaced.”
10 times as many children died that day as people who died in the attacks, and every day since as a result in the inequities in the world that are directly caused by our culture being dominant and controlling access to resources. That doesn’t include the countless children and adults killed in minor conflicts over resources and access to them in places like the Phillipines, West papua south America central and east Africa etc etc etc.
Whether the attacks occurred or not the US would have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq anyway. they would have found some pretext cos ultimately they need to be able to guarantee their access to resources.
The Patriot act and the Invasion of Iraq, or our anti terror laws are all a direct result of 9/11 yet these things can be challenged on their merits and should be, without the need for reference to the possible involvement of certian corrupt US govt officials. The fact that people who should have helped engage those issues on their own were distracted by trying to find some holy grail truth about the 11 sept attacks were too busy with something else that still hasn’t produced any results makes me wonder if the whole movement wasn’t a distraction in the first place.
“Sometimes a black swan is just a black swan.”
Yeah true.
BBut Bush and Cheney are responsible for it.
Whether it was MIHOP, LIHOP or sheer incompetence, they are still responsible, and should have been pitchforked immediately, Cheney probably should have faced impeachment, or ewhatever version VPs face for his actions in taking control in the bunker despite the fact that its not constitutionally allowed, but I guess the US constitution didn’t mean much to that admin.
They are responsible cos it happened on their watch, and afterward when asked for an explanation the only excuse they actually had was their incompetence and the failures of the departments they are ultimately responsible for.
This should be basic, obvious, look at what some people are saying about the leadership of the CFA in Victoria after the fires.
And honestly they deserve a lot more “slack” for what happened than the US govt did years ago. Then again communication and decisions making pathways in emergency responses in Victoria are a bit of a basket case.
There are serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Bush 00 admin to begin with, then their first serious test comes along and they say:
“Oh sorry, we weren’t up to it. Tell you what, here’s the patriot act, that’ll fix it.”
We live in democracies, and idiots rule.
Well I think that just about covers it jules.
“Not the Amanda Keller, of course.”
No of course not. But it is one of the many rabbit holes that lead to information that makes me go WTF? How does that reconcile with what we accept as the consesus view of the event.
But what I actually find far more interesting is the way that event was predicted by so many little referneces in art and pop culture.
What about the end of fight club? The proposed album cover by The Coup, a radical hip out outfit from the US:
The Coup’s proposed cover for Party Music
(In no way does linking to that image indicate my endorsement of anything Lew Rockwell has ever said. At the least he’s a Rothbardian wanker. It was the biggest image on the first row of the first page of a google image search.)
I know plenty of people who dreamt about the event, I did many times, over 10 years before it happened (tho at the time I put it down to anxiety about growing up under the threat of nuclear war between the US and USSR). Or dreamt about planes in the days leading up to it, and although that on its own might seem like nothing, the context is that it was unusual for them, unusual enough that they would bring it up.
There are countless comic book images and images in art from the last 40 years that show similar images/concepts. maybe not countless ones, but enough.
There’s the Global Consciousness Research Project at princeton, though after a fair bit of examination that looks less and less credible.
I once saw someone have a psychotic episode (in 1999) and in the middle of it they just happened to describe the events that took place two and a half years later.
The event obviously had a huge effect on the people who use electronic media to structure their world (and a huge effect on people in Iraq and Afghanistan afterward, tho a completely different one.)
Thats whats really interesting about it.
Of course most people would probably consider that even less rational than the stuff troofers go on about, but rationality is over rated anyway.
And most people don’t even understand their own minds or motivations so … its not like they have anything other than noise to offer.
“Well I think that just about covers it jules.”
Yeah can we talk about something else now, (unless someone’s up for a discussion on what is consciousness)?
Jules (@ 252) wrote,
Then how do you suppose the jury trial system works in cases where forensic evidence is disputed?
The fact is that in order to see that much of the Official explanation of the Tower Collapses cannot be true, one only needs a year 10 level understanding of physics. Sometimes not even that is necessary.
Quite a few other people I know who were sceptical about the claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or even hostile to them, have easily grasped their case once shown their video presentation. So, I don’t see why you shouldn’t also be able to.
Jules wrote,
Nonsense!
In any case, you almost immediately contradict yourself when you write:
Do you believe that the US Congress could have passed that motion supporting the bombing of North Vietnam if it had not been for the staged “Gulf of Tonkin” incident in 1964?
They got away with their crimes against Vietnam as long as they did because not enough people were able to see through that lie.
The same is true of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no way that they would have had congress pass the Patriot Act if not for 9/11. The Project for a New American Century understood that as I have shown above.
Why can’t you?
Jules continued:
Why can’t you see that a good many people out there believe that the argument, that the people who committed the 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities did so from the sanctuaries of Afghanistan and continue to do so to this very day, has ‘merit’?
Precisely that argument was put in the Courier Mail editorial that I quoted above. That is only one of many I could have quoted. That is also how Rudd, Obama and Brown repeatedly justify the war in Afghanistan and, now, Pakistan.
If that lie is not challenged, then I believe it will be impossible to stop them launching yet more wars and taking away yet more of our democratic freedoms.
If you think I am wrong, just recall how, in early 2003, what seemed to be a rock solid majority of public opinion opposed the invasion of Iraq. At the time I was euphoric. I could not conceive of John Howard daring to procede with the war in those circumstances.
Yet he did so brazenly and the solid majority, instead of become an even larger and more outraged majority, somehow changed into a minority to my enormous dismay.
Not only that, but John Howard actually was re-elected in 2004 and gained complete control of the Senate.
It took many more years and almost incalculable harm to Australia and the rest of the world caused by a re-elected Howard Government for that minority to become a clear majority again.
The best explanantion I can come up with to explain that is that the anti-war movement failed to challenge the Big Lie of 9/11. In spite of all the warm and fuzzy arguments against the invasion, and in spite of the tenuous basis of the claims for links between Saddam Hussein and ‘Al Qaeda’ people still felt threatened as Hermann Goering would have put it, and so they decided then to support the war (even if only by a small majority).
You rightly state that figures in the Bush administration should have been jailed for what could at the very best describes as their glaring failure in their duty of care to the American public.
Yet this has not happened.
These people, that every informed person agrees had to be, at the very best, grossly incompetent, were allowed to overtly wield the reins of US Government for 7 more years causing incalculable harm to the world in that time.
The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that that is just not good enough and are doing their utmost to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
The best way to ensure that that does not happen again is for those responsible for 9/11 and the other false flag terrorist atrocities of recent years to be unmasked and held to account for what they have done in criminal trials.
So why won’t you support them?
If the 9/11 Truth fails in this then we are doomed to go on fighting costly and bloody wars at least until either the exhaustion of our non-renewable natural resources or ecological calamity make it no longer possible.
I did not link to a youtube, Sgr daggett.
That was someone called 39 Steps.
I don’t even know what a “youtube” is.
Me, I’ve got enough troubles.
I’m under house arrest. They want to silence me. I want to write about mountains on the Moon, and little stars orbiting Jupiter, and why Copernicus should be taken seriously.
Speaking of tubes though, I made an optical tube that you can use to look at the Moon, or examine ships far off. Care to see it?
ciao
I think the Patriot Act passed partly cos someone got anthrax in the mail, but in a hypothetical world where 9/11 never happened the Bush admin would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan anyway IMO.
“Then how do you suppose the jury trial system works in cases where forensic evidence is disputed?”
Honestly I don’t know. I’d hope the jurors make the effort and take the time to understand as much as they can about the processes that generates the forensic evidence and then employ critical thinking in their examination of the evidence itself. I would hope that juries have the time and resources available to make those decisions then act on them.
Thats how it would work in an ideal world.
If I was on a jury judging 9/11 building related evidence then I assume I would be given the time and resources to satisfy myself that I understand enough about whats going on to make a valid judgement.
I’m not in that position and have more important things to consider.
PNAC’s got nothing to do with it. If populations were genuine about controlling their governments then none of the things you refer to (vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) above would have happened. End of story.
“…the anti-war movement failed to challenge the Big Lie of 9/11.”
True, but the big lie of 9/11 isn’t dependant on why the towers collapsed, and that event had such an impression on people, it was on the level of imprinting, not conditioning. Its dependant on what allowed the planes to hit in the first place.
And that isn’t dependant on whether it was incompetence, complicity or worse. The best that can be said about why 9/11 happened is incompetence – that should be enough to challenge the wars and dismantling of human rights and democratic protections that followed. Do you really think exposing 9/11 would make any difference on top of that.
people are imprinted with the idea of the official story.
It doesn’t matter how many time you bang on about CD or what you actually prove. You won’t change those minds.
Shit, I don’t believe the official story, on its own. There’s enough doubt about the relationship between al qaeda and elements of the US lolitical and intelligence infrastructure to mean the official story can’t be taken on face value.
Yet you are berating me for not dogmatically accpeting the official “troofer” story, I don’t agree with the whole CD cult so I blindly accept what the govt says.
You are as bad as the people who insist considering any “conspiracy theory” about 9/11 is a sign you are incompetent as a human being.
Its like being caught in an argument between Catholics and Protestants or Christians and Muslims about whose God is real.
The 9/11 troof movement doesn’t believe in bringing Bush to justice for his failings on 9/11. they don’t even recognise they might be failures.
the 9/11 troof movement is concerned about validating its dogma and defining the world in religious terms even tho it can’t see this for itself.
Okay everybody. Time for this useful information, to clarify matters…
As that famous and justly revered statesman once warned us all, “Don’t be blind to the big surprise, swimming round and round like the deadly hand of a RADIUM CLOCK! At the BOTTOM! of the pooool….”
The rest, as they say, is history.
Oh, and, uh…
Watch out for signs that say, “HIDDEN DRIVEWAYS”!
Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.
.
They’ll link to some complex document that has a lot of equations and fancy theories that explains how such a freak occurence is possible and there’s nothing untoward about it happening three times on one morning in one place. There’s citations of various experts who’ve written debunking articles but those I’ve read can’t explain it either.
.
Can you? Can you understand? Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.
.
And it’s interesting that people who’ve read books by both men somehow play the game they’re describing. By all means ban Dagget. S/he’s obviously crazy.
Chomsky is not a particularly clear thinker on either foreign policy or media. (There, I’ve said it.)
Beneath the thicket of his citations and the appearance of scholarly work is sloppiness, the brute force of very partisan cheerleader polemic (propaganda), and deep ignorance.
His sly criticism of Ponchaud’s book on Cambodia under the KR is a clear case in point. Ponchaud was right about the KR long before Chomsky; Ponchaud had lived in Cambodia and was immersed in the culture; Chomsky was always an outsider and dilettante; yet Chomsky claimed Ponnchaud’s book was flawed because the refugee eyewitnesses he quoted couldn’t really be trusted. Chomsky ignored the fact that Ponchaud quoted KR Radio extensively.
KR Radio lied; Ponchaud realised this. Many admirers (at that time) of the KR were less sceptical of KR Radio.
Take any particular country or regime: read some knowledgeable authors, then read Chomsky.
Then consider carefully what it is “to be an intellectual”. You may wonder, as I do, why folk still call him an intellectual. And why he seems revered.
Then again, you may admire his writings. Feel free.
Irrespective of what anyone may think of Chomsky or even 9/11, the general point that Missy makes is a very good one.
Maybe you should channel Missy more often, Adrien.
“Interesting. Daggett is making a claim about 9/11 that as far as I’m aware no-one been able to refute. Everytime I ask the free fall question I get treated like a loony but no-one can tell me how it works.” – Missy H
“It seems that the towers did indeed take “50% longer (14-16 seconds) to fall than an object in free fall (9.2 seconds) would [have taken].”
Nevertheless, that remains a phenomenally short time for all that massive structural strength in all that steel to have been overcome.” – Daggett
Does it? Says who? Some guy in a video? Given there was at least 10 or 15 stories of the core still standing in at least one tower (possibly more) then the idea that then entire core just crumpled to the ground has to be shown for the simplication it is. The collapse started below the top of the building, at around the 80 and 90 floor marks which means lower free fall time for the actual cos the distance is actually shorter, and there was a mass of concrete and steel being accelerated by gravity, so the collapsing mass had momentum. (It also took up space, which could explain why it pushed some of the dust that was released during the collapse outward in pyroclastic looking clouds.)
Missy i think thats why the idea of the towers in free fall should be taken with a few grains of salt. They didn’t fall at free fall speed and the behaved exactly the way I’d expect them to behave if the building collapsed of it own accord. they also behaved in a way that strongly suggests they were aided in their collapse. I’m not denying its a possibility, but its functionally meaningless. I’m not talking about Building 7 either. Just the towers.
Consider tho that if the collapse was aided then the sort of sloppy thinking I’ve outlined above wrt the actual mechanics of the collapse will forever be a thorn in the side of proving it. It doesn’t matter if NIST were as sloppy, if you are trying to provide the extraordinary proof that sort of claim demands then the onus is on you to get your facts right at the start.
“Because this is what Noam Chomsky refers to when he talks about the manufacturing of consent. The issue is inherently outré . This is how Foucault describes our power structure as a demarker of normality, morality, sanity and those that fall outside.” – Missy H
Thats one of the more intelligent comments I have read re 9/11.
I completely agree. Tho I see the same thing happening on both sides of the argument.
Implicit in the 9/11 Truther argument is the assertion that the persons who allegedly smuggled demolition explosives into the buildings were associated in some way with persons who incited Atta et al. to fly their planes into those same buildings.
Now it is an admitted fact that among the more than 100 attempts on Fidel Castro, at least one involved the construction of a very large explosive conch shell. One can only conclude that weirdness and the US Security State are on much more than nodding acquaintance.
However, on the other hand, the CIA of the early 1960s had privileged access to the purest LSD on the planet, a fact which may explain some of their more bizarre exploits of the time.
Alas, nowadays agencies of the US Security State are much more bureaucratic and rule-bound than they were in the great days of the 1960s.
To be blunt, ingestion of psychotropic drugs is now a sackable offence.
Without access to a goodly supply if hallucinogens it would be nigh impossible for any agency of the US Security State to come up with a plot of the utmost baroqueness involving BOTH the setting of “nanothermite” AND incitement of almost two dozen Muslim chappies with their gazes fixed on jihad and a plentiful supply of compliant virgins in the hereafter.
The world is a poorer place without government-sanctioned acid.
I wrote (@ 256):
Then Jules wrote (@ 263):
Yes it does. Here’s why:
If we take the longest estimate of 16 seconds, then the average accelaration would have been:
Where a = average acceleration of ‘collapse’, h = the height of 415 metres of WTC2 (the slightly shorter of the two), and t = longest estimated time of collapse.
The figure of 3.24 metres per second per second is 0.331 or 33.1% of free fall acceleration. Put differently, the tower accelerated at an average rate 66.9% slower than it would have if it had accelerated at free fall. This means that as the tower fell the structural steel underneath exerted 33.1% of the force that gravity would have exerted on the building above. (If it had fallen at free fall speed it would have been exactly zero. If it had not fallen at all the force exerted would have had to have been 100% or more.)
If the World Trade Center Twin Towers had been built with just enough strength to support their own wieght, this would mean that we would have to explain how structural strength equivalent to 33.1% of gravity had suddenly been removed. (In the case of WTC 7 which did fall at free-fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, as I seem to recollect, we would have to explain how structural strength equal to 100% of gravity had suddenly been removed).
However, the Twin Towers (and WTC 7) had hugely redundant structural strength. I think the figure I read for the Twin Towers was they had structural strength capable of supporting 10 times their own weight, but let’s just, for argument’s sake assume it is 5 times.
Based on that assumption, structural strength of (5 – 0.669) or 4.331 times the force of gravity on the second tower would have had to have been removed throughout the whole building within that 16 second interval.
That is why I regard even 16 seconds total collapse time as still phenomenally fast for such a building. Whatever possible way was there for all that structural strength to have been removed within that interval, but explosives?
And, again, as I pointed out, at one point the collapse front, if not the whole falling building, moved even faster than free-fall which further confirms that explosives had to have been used.
There are enough other interesting points raised above to keep me writing for a week. I will have to return later.
Of course, I thank Missy Higgins (@ 260) her incisive and helpful observations.
To be fair, Adrien, this happens even when you don’t ask the free-fall question.
As to Chomsky, Daggett will explain to you that Chomsky is a phony, because he accepts the “official conspiracy theory”. http://candobetter.org/node/1286
That is convincing proof of just how vast and pernicious the cover-up is, wouldn’t you say?
I want to quote some things Jules wrote earlier:
“I know plenty of people who dreamt about the event, I did many times, over 10 years before it happened (tho at the time I put it down to anxiety about growing up under the threat of nuclear war between the US and USSR). Or dreamt about planes in the days leading up to it, and although that on its own might seem like nothing, the context is that it was unusual for them, unusual enough that they would bring it up.
[...]
The event obviously had a huge effect on the people who use electronic media to structure their world [...]”
One of my oldest and dearest friends literally could not sleep at night for months beforehand. When the news came through (to me) at five in the morning, I called him straight away. We spoke for two or three hours.
It was one of the most mysterious events I’ve encountered in my lifetime.
If you know anything about the basics of paranoia, you know about the basics of herd instinct.
To deny instinct over reason…
(Australian conservative-columnist type “instinct”, which it tries to umpire, and constantly stab about looking and feeling for – that ain’t it)
Firstly, my apologies for my mal-formed link (@ 265) back to Jules’ post (@ 263).
Jules, of course I geatly appreciate the fact that you are willing (to a point) to discuss my arguments and that you have not resorted to personal attacks. And I appreciate the fact that you supported my argument that it was ridiculous to accept that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was one of the masterminds of 9/11 when the only basis for that is confesssions extracted under torture. Nevertheless, much of what else you write, including what you write in regard to the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers, is illogical and would undermine the most powerful and conclusive evidence (that is with the arguable exception of the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7) that the 9/11 Truth Movement has if I were to let that stand unchallenged.
GregM (@ 266), why do you think it is that people are treated like loonies whenever they question 9/11?
Why is the Australian far-left seemingly unanimous in its resolve (as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out above) to defend ground which accepts that terrorists, from the region in which our armies are now fighting wars that they say they oppose, did launch 9/11, 7/7 the Madrid bombings, Bali, etc, but refuse to even contemplate examining evidence that would enable them to shift to ground which I would have thought would be much easier to defend, that is, the ground on which it is maintained that the US government itself committed the crimes which it has knowingly and falsely blamed on so-called Muslim extremists. (Words self-plagiarised from earlier discussion on Online Opinion about the movie “Balibo”.) Why, instead of calmly asssessing the evidence to determine whether it just might be true, do so many on the supposed left of Australian politics, instead, spill bucketloads of electronic ink personally attacking 9/11 Truthers?
Noam Chomsky
Of course, part of the reason, but only part, must lie with the influence of Noam Chomsky, who is regarded as an unquestionable guru by many in Australia. In spite of the fact that Noam Chomsky has written some good ideas as Missy Higgins pointed out, I am, nevertheless, convinced that he is a fraud.
In fact, Noam Chomsky, himself, has acted contrary to many of his own good ideas.
Very shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he produced an article which essentially accepted the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy and has spent much of his energy since then attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement.
This, together with Chomsky’s absurd insistence that there was nothing suspicious about the murders, in the 1960′s, of all four of America’s most charismatic and effective political leaders who were prepared to stand up to America’s oligarchy — JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK — has resulted in some, including an erstwhile protege, Canadian Barrie Zwicker to question Chomsky’s true motives.
I have written some of this in the brief article “Noam Chomsky, phony American Dissident” that GregM mentioned. I urge people to read that article and to follow the links to other articles and YouTube Broadcasts. The Short Youtube Broadcast “The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers” by Barrie Zwicker linked to from there is well worth looking at.
I would be most interested to know if GregM concurs with Chomsky’s view:
I consider Chomsky’s ludicrous position on Cambodia, which he inexplicably held on to even as late as early this century to be a component of his overall disinformation effort.
Sometime earlier this decade I heard an interview of Chomsky by fellow left gatekeeper Phillip Adams. In that interview he accused the media of being hypocritical for focusing on Cambodia in the late 1970′s instead of on East Timor. It may well be that for a while some of the media was hypocritical, but his point seemed ludicrous. If anything, the Cambodian genocide was an even greater crime than Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor.
Sadly, some on the left had an emotional need to deny that those who had ‘liberated’ Cambodia in 1975 were not gencocidal killers, but surely years after the Khmer Rouge had been used as a tool by the West against the Vietnamese who removed that genocidal regime, that emotional need should have long disappeared.
However, the greatest harm that is done when Chomsky effectively apologises for Khmer Rouge crimes, is not to himself, but to others who oppose US foreign policy, who the broader public assumes to share his views.
Daggett you ask:
Then you are good enough to provide the answer yourself:
There we have it.
You would have the vast conspiracy extending to agents of the US Government not merely bring down the twin towers but blowing up the Sari nightclub, the Madrid metro, the London underground and, I guess from your “etc” the Australian embassy in Jakarta, two hotels there (one twice), the US embassy in Nairobi, and even one of their own warships, the USS Cole, not to mention the recent attack on Mumbai, always covering their tracks so well that they get away with it every time, leaving no trace of their involvement but always a trail of false evidence to implicate innocent others and deceive investigators.
This even when the perpetrators of the atrocities make open admissions, at times boasts, of committing the acts.
Looney? Yes. Barking mad too.
Daggett I’m not arguing that there was no assistance to the collapse of the twin towers, just that its outside my ability to comment, and I am criticising some aspects of the way the case for it is presented, including the analysis you just gave of the reasons why the collapse was indeed too fast.
The WTC was not a uniform structure, it was a network of places that held the weight. If certain nodes fail then the assumption there is suffieicient redundancy in the system to deal with that is flawed IMO cos we honestly don’t know. As I said there is enough photo evidence to show the entire core didn’t collpase to the ground and that changes everything about the forces acting on it, and on the floors (ie structure) that were joined to the core. I don’t see CD proponents taking that into account, and thats just one example.
Also, many people claim there is no actual evidence the hijackers were on the plane… often while explaining the very things you have explained.
Now the hijackers and their connections and all the dodginess that surrounds them are vital to understanding the actual political situation on the planet right now, imo. Thats what I’d rather focus on. I tend to agree with your assessment of Chomsky tho. He’s overrated. Despite some astute structural observations he makes about western culture, esp American culture.
I kind of agree with him about Kennedy too, he wasn’t the Messiah of truth and kjustice some claim him to be. I don’t buy the camelot myth. But kennedy did challenge the power of the CIA, they have a reputation for killing people and then nothing comes of it. And he did inspire the name of one the best bands evah.
Daggett do you remember the Dateline interview from 2005 with former indonesian PM Wahid? Thats more important info than any discussion on the actual explosions in Bali imo. I feel the same way about the 9/11 attacks, and wonder why you haven’t yet mentioned Sibel Edmonds (or Wolfgang Bohringer).
GregM,
As I wrote close to the commencement of this discussion, there are two Conspiracy Theories (and possibly a third being a combination of the two) which can be used explain 9/11 and the other spectacular attacks of recent years. If you reject one, you must necessarily embrace the other.
Why should the Conspiracy Theory that you embrace be automatically held to be reasonable and not paranoid?
There are mountains of evidence in support of the Conspiracy Theory I support and have provided only some of it here.
The supporters of the Conspiracy Theory that you embrace have supplied no evidence whatsoever on this forum.
BTW, which “perpetrators of the atrocities” have made “open admissions” and “at times boast[ed], of committing the acts?”
Please supply the evidence.
I am most interested.
—
The statement that no-one involved in the 9/11 Conspiracy has spilled about seems to untrue. It seems that Nicholas Rockefeller had indeed confided in Aaron Russo, the film-maker who produced “Trading Places” details of the 9/11 attack before it occurred. Aaron Russo died in August 2007. Here are Aaron Russo’s words in an interview with Alex Jones:
The YouTube interview is here. I quoted these words on the Online Opinion forum “Scrutinising our counter-terrorism laws” of 6 Nov 2008.
I doubt that you are in the slightest bit interested but here it is for 9/11:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
For the Bali bombing:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s726286.htm
GregM,
All the videotaped bin Laden ‘confessions’ have been shown to be fakes. I will come back to that later.
Even the FBI doesn’t consider them sufficient evidence to justify charging Osama bin Laden for the crime of September 11 and have said so. Why not check for yourself his FBI ‘wanted’ poster?
As Jules has alluded to, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has defied a gag order to reveal that Osama bin Laden worked for the US at least up until 11 September 2001. See “Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for US Till 9/11″.
Yes, patsies who truly believed that they were striking blows against the infidel West played roles in both the 9/11 attacks and the Bali bombings, but they were clearly tools of intelligence agencies without whom their attacks could not have hoped to succeed on the scale that they did.
In regard to Bali, the convicted terrorists could not possibly have planted the second bomb which blew up the Sari club.
As Jules has also alluded to Indonesia’s former president, Abdurrahman Wahid, when asked who planted the second bomb, said in an interview on SBS’s Dateline:
I also briefly mentioned this in my own submission to the National Human Rights Consultation on “Terrorism and National Security”.
I dunno about “shown to be fakes” but they certainly have some inconsistancies about them that make some people wonder.
Especially that particular tape, coming as it did less than 2 weeks before the 2004 elections.
And while weare on the subject that was the first time Bin laden claimed responsibility for the attacks despite the fact that in the years before that tape he was considered a hero by the Islamic world cos of his claimed involvement in sept 11.
And what the first time he claims responsibility is just before Bushes re-election. It sure smells funny to me. Then 3 years later he releases a tape praising Noam Chomsky, panicking about global warming and claiming that converting to Islam is the way to go cos the tax rates are lower….
Somebodies taking the piss.
I’d also like to point out that individuals in a govt may not have their primary loralty to said govt, it is probably to their own personal advantage. Therefore to assume that (for example) Cheney was acting on behalf of furthering US interests may not be true. He may have been acting on behalf of his own personal interest. (I dunno if there is actually any evidence to suggest Bush 2 was involved either. I’ve seen footage of him that day, especially in the school and he looks genuinely scared and confused at times.)
“…leaving no trace of their involvement but always a trail of false evidence to implicate innocent others and deceive investigators.”
I’m not speculating about anything (other than 9/11 and wondering about Wahids comments re bali), but there’s plenty of evidence to implicate US intelligence services in the 9/11 attacks. Get to know the history of Muhammed Atta, or even Ramsi Yousef. Or is that the false evidence you are speculating about.
What about the Venice flight school he trained at? Check out its intel and drug connections if you are interested. manufactured consent and the psychological cost of abandoning your most preciously held beliefs (ie that ultimately we are the “good guys” in some global morality tale: that people are all actually loyal to the stuff they say they are loyal too, especially people in power,) have more to do with the failure to examine these convulted but verifiable connections between terrorists, intel agencies, drug, arms and people smuggling and various other trans national nastiness than any form of so called sanity.
I find it amazing that in a country where the only actual terrorist attack in the last 40 years was in all likelihood a state sponsered event that went pear shaped, people are considered insane if they wonder whether a government was involved in a terrorist event, then tried to cover it up and shift the blame away from themselves. That could never happen could it?
Nah, not on Earth.
Every one of them? Can you provide a link? For every one of them.
But Daggett, according to your theory the FBI are at the heart of a vast Government conspiracy, beginning at first with Clinton then Bush and now Obama. Why would you want me to rely on anything they say? With their record of deceit and subterfuge (according to you) anything they said would have to be unreliable and probably done for the purposes of deception.
You cite Abdurrahman Wahid as your authority on this (although he says they planted the first bomb)? What particular knowledge or expertise does he have about what happened in Bali that puts his comment above anything more than speculation? Of course he would have no love for the Indonesian Army- nasty lot that they are- which facilitated his removal from office for mental incompetence, so he’d hardly be a neutral commentator. You’ll have to do better than that.
What other evidence do you have?
“What about the Venice flight school he trained at? Check out its intel and drug connections if you are interested.”
Do you happen to know who Kevin Bacon is, and why many people find him to be of continuing interest?
I am curious to learn what the truthers think about the 1993 WTC bombing. Was that a preliminary, far-sighted, ground-laying false-flag attack, designed to set up a long-term anti-alibi for the greater project they were planning much, much later? And if these nefarious demons planned so carefully to assume Total Control Over America, why did they then give it all up to Obama just a few years later? Even Doctor Faustus got a whole twenty years in exchange for his soul. Is the dollar really that worthless nowadays?
Also, have you ever noticed that the game “pinochle” sounds an awful lot like “PNAC’ll”?
“Do you happen to know who Kevin Bacon is, and why many people find him to be of continuing interest?”
Yeah, and maybe you have a point. Check it out for yourself and make up your own mind.
Or don’t.
Really, I honestly don’t give a fuck. There are more important things.
Seriously.
Cos even if you thought all troofers were nuts, and something I said, or even something Dagett said, well typed on this thread convinced that there was something in it.
And you get over taken by a surge of activist zeal and feel the need to get all activist.
pick something else
seriously
Do something useful.
If “they” are the enemy move on.
They have. This was 8 fucking years ago.
30, 000 kids a day. (at least)
8 years.
The very least you could do would be to contribute to your community. By which I mean your neighbours, and those people who might need help in your part of the world. And you could work to make your community more resiliant, and something you could be proud of. Cos then you don’t need to shout about your beliefs or values, they will be respected cos of your actions.
Arguing on the internet won’t do it. You are dealing with people, not a screen. (cept the trollbots of course… so why bother with them?)
And lets face it. It they are the enemy ask themselves what it profits you to look into the past constantly while “they” look into the future and plan….
Think about it.
Even if there’s no “they” there are still some serious problems facing humanity right here and right now.
Of course if you think that, obviously, people who question 911 are on a par with holocaust deniers and baby raping cannibals or just nuts fine. Think what you want. I doubt you re still reading this thread anyway.
There are still some serious problems facing humanity.
Tho I lack faith in people without the ability to question a media generated taboo to actually deal with those problems.
Especially one generated by a primarily neo con media in the middle of that neo con circle jerk that was the first 8 years of the 21st century.
But you know.
Its a free country and all that.
“pick something else
seriously
Do something useful.”
Well me oh my. How bloody condescending is that. Pray tell, are you con-descending at, um, free fall rate, or only 60% thereof?
What makes you think I can’t ‘contribute’ to ‘my’ ‘community’ in a ‘meaningful’ ‘way,’ and yet also think (that’s “think”!, not “feel”!) that troofers have driven over the cliff… both at the same time?!?
Wow, it’s almost like a regular Dan Brown novel, or sumfin.
O ye of little faith. Never heard of multi-tasking, I guiss.
Without that capability, how on earth do you blog-comment and stay saddled on a hobby-horse, both at the same time?
GregM (@ 276),
One page that demonstrates that the video-taped confessions are fake is here.
GregM (@ 276) wrote:
If you want to regain any credibility in this forum, you should stop wasting peoples’ time with such obviously ridiculous arguments.
The legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan and its ongoing occupution is the US Government’s claims that Osama bin Laden is guilty for 9/11, yet the US Government’s own leading national law enforcement agency that wants to charge Osama bin Laden with other acts of terrorism against the US has inexplicably omitted 9/11 from the crimes he is to be charged with.
I note that you are silent on the revelations of FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds’ revelations that Osama bin Laden worked for the US Government up until at least 11 September 2001.
That probably provides a very good clue as to why Osama bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11 and the whole justification for the “War on Terror” is every bit as fraudulent as Aaron Russo said it was. The FBI knew damn well that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset up until 11 September.
Other evidence that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset right up to 11 Sep 2001 include:
“Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama” and “Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama”
GregM (@ 276) wrote:
If a former head of the Indonesian state says he beleives that the Indonesian secret police played a role in the Bali bombings then I think that that allegation should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.
GregM (@ 276) continued:
In spite of his age and his near blindeness, he was clearly an admirable, strong-willed and principled leader. He stood up to the Indonesian military in order to end the reign of terror in East Timor and to allow it to gain independence — obviously the kind of leader of whicn neither you nor the Indonesian secret police would approve.
I also recollect his successor President Megawati Sukarnoputri making a similar allegation although I can’t find the source righ now.
GregM (@ 276) wrote:
There is a massive amount of evidence of the Indonesian secret police deliberately nurturing Islamist terrorist organisations in order to stage false flag terrorist attacks since the days of Suharto, in order to further their own goals. Check out also “Exclusive Interview Inside Indonesia’s War on Terror” of 2 Oct 05.
One convicted terrorist Umar Abduh stated:
Corroborating evidence for the involvement of Indonesian secret police in planting the second bomb can be found in an interview with convicted Bali bomber in the Times Online interview “We killed too many, say Bali bombers” of 2 Mar 08:
Before you demand yet further evidence from me, GregM, how about you either.
1. Refute this and the other evidence I have provided; or
2. Accept that evidence and the conclusions I have drawn from them
?
Jules,
I had been meaning to address the many points you raised.
The essential point of 9/11 is that either humandkind takes control of its own destiny out of the hands of those responsible for 9/11, the Bali bombings, the London Tube bombings, the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK, the Vietnam War, the Chilean coup, etc., or it doesn’t.
If it does, we stand some chance of solving all the serious problems confronting humankind, some of which you alluded to.
If it does not, we stand no chance.
As I pointed out, thanks largely to people like Noam Chomsky we lost the chance we had in the 1960′s to bring the murderers of JFK to justice.
Had that happened the whole course of history since then might have been different and so much death, destruction and ecological and economic mayhem that we have endured since then could have been avoided.
Let’s not lose the chance that the evidence of their complicity in the crime of 9/11 has given us today to rectify the problem.
The strongest evidence the 9/11 Truth movement has is that the collapses were controlled demolitions. The evidence bears this out. If you think the case is weak anywhere please provide links.
My guess is that at some time in the past you were thrown by technological gobbldegook from a supposed expert abusing his professional authority as I was, for a while on this forum.
I think if you look again, you will find that the case is rock solid.
The towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
If elements in the US government did not do it themselves, they had the resources to find out who did, but chose not to.
So, by denying that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, and not even considering that possibility, they have covered up a crime.
However, a mountain of other evidence points to the conclusion that people high up in the US administration of former President George Bush did commit that crime.
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga says CIA and Mossad ran 9-11
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies.…
Daggett, you ask:
Let’s look at the quality of your evidence;
You say @273 that:
I asked you to produce evidence that, as you assert, all the videotapes are fakes. You provide a link that claims that one of them (Tape E)is fake but does so on the basis that another tape (Tape C, released by Al Jazeera in December 2001) is authentic. The problem is that on Tape C Bin Laden states that the WTC towers were brought down by the aeroplane attacks and claims responsibility for it for his group.
You should read the material upon which you rely to bolster your conspiracy theories more closely. They do have a tendency to turn around and bite you on the bum, much to my amusement.
Another instance of this is your statement that:
But the very same link you provided regarding the tapes provides the reason (at least according to them) for this:
Note that this is the evidence you produce and want me to accept. OK, I accept it. It makes sense to me. Of course it contradicts the conclusions that you draw and want me to accept but then the evidence you produce does have a tendency to turn around and bite you on the bum, as I have pointed out.
I don’t know much at all about Sibel Edmonds. As much as I have found out about her is that she was employed by the FBI as a translator in September 2001 and fired in March 2002, a career of all of six months. She is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani, though not, it seems, Arabic or Pashtun, languages that are likely to be relevant to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I would have to wonder how much truly highly classified information a translator would be given access to in her first six months of employment. Nevertheless the central thrust of her claims, that there was a genuine plan by Bin Laden and his cohorts to attack the US with planes, of which the FBI had evidence but which it ignored or failed to act upon, contradicts yours that the destruction of the WTC towers (and presumably the damage sustained by the Pentagon) was caused by demolition explosives.
I do not think it is controversial that there were major intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks, which had they not occured, may have averted those attacks. Edmonds’ claims seem to be of a piece with that. However that is evidence of incompetence (which would not surprise me at all), not conspiracy.
Let’s look now at the link you provide: “Bush Administration Knew Whereabouts of Bin Laden” which claims that Bin Laden was in hospital in Pakistan, on 11 September 2001, having kidney dialysis -they even provide a pretty picture of the clinic he was in. One problem with the article is that it doesn’t say that, even if Bin Laden was there, the US knew about it. The other is that it doesn’t make the claim at all but speculates on a CBS investigative report led by Dan Rather, a person of absolutely no credibility as an investigator (remember Bush’s military record upon which Rather relied on military records generated from a computer typeface that did not exist at the time of their alleged creation?).
Yet again your evidence turns around to bite you on the bum. Do you ever read the material that you rely on to construct your conspiracy theories? Do you ever conduct the slightest analysis to test its credibility and internal consistency before you adopt it as part of the proof for your conspiracy theories?
Do you not see why this means that to sensible people you have no credibility?
Maybe it was …. something from outer space?
[Runs and hides.]
Dagget – in the article you linked too at least the antisemitism isn’t denied or hidden away.
Why keep harping on about what is basically a distraction ?
You want Israel and the jews destroyed but don’t seem to be able to say so.
Why not?
GregM (@ 283)
Perhaps I should claim that I deliberately stated, “All the videotaped bin Laden ‘confessions’ have been shown to be fakes,” in order to set a trap to see if those, who had refused to acknowledge the strong evidence about much more central aspects of the 9/11 controversy would, as a result, go over this claim about a secondary aspect with a fine toothcomb.
Perhaps it was rash to state “All the videotaped bin Laden ‘confessions’ have been shown to be fakes,” and perhaps there are weaknesses with the document I linked to.
In science it is always difficult to prove such absolute statements. A more accurate statement would have been “the authenticity of none of the tapes has been proven and there is strong evidence that suggests that are all faked.”
That is the conclusion of another document, far more meticulously researched and sourced. That document is “Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive?” (2009) by David Ray Griffin.
In that book a number of credible witnesses, including former CIA operative Robert Baer who beleive that Osama bin Laden died in December 2001.
If that is true then all the tapes and audio recordings, with the excecption of the first “Smoking Gun” were indisputably faked.
The book provides overwhelming evidence and arguments to doubt the authenticity of all the Osama bin Laden ‘confessions’.
Furthermore, it shows how those ‘confessions’ and their timing served the political ends of George Bush and the cabal behind him.
The most authentic looking (which neverthless featured an inexplicably more youthful Osama bin Laden) appeared shortly before the 2004 Presidential elections.
Of that video, Karl Rove, Bush’s media said, “This has the feel of something that’s not gonna hurt us at all.” (Griffin, p84)
Funny that Osama bin Laden would be so obliging to such a mortal enemy of Islam, don’t you think?
Robert Baer has said that it is technically feasible to produce fake audio tapes and videos that cannot be detected as such by forensic science.
GregM demanded:
Yes I do, and, if you look back at this thread you will see evidence that I have read far more extensively and more carefully on this than you or any other Truth Denier appear to have.
As to that extensive quote, I chose not to read it in full, because it’s essential point was encapsulated in the heading “Justice Department Not Seeking 911 Charges Against Bin Laden!”.
Of course, it is possible that a lot of the content will contradict the rest of what is on that page. (Unlike the US Government and their 9/11 truth denying shills, including quite a few on this forum, 9/11 Truthers are not frightened of confronting the arguments of their detractors.)
The document states excuses for the FBI not formally seeking to charge Osama bin Laden with the crime of 9/11 and you would have us accept those excuses.
You seem to forget that the legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan was the US Government’s claims to have proof that Osama bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks from the sanctuary of Afghanistan.
So are you saying that it is acceptable for the US to invade another country without being required to provide any evidence of that country’s alleged transgressions against the US?
Presumably it would have also been acceptable to you if the US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff’s planned Operation Northwoods had proceeded (instead of being over-ruled by the subsequently murdered President Kennendy) and the resultant terrorist acts against US citizens perpetrated by the US military and falsely blamed on Cuba had been used as the legal justification for the invasion of Cuba.
Now how about telling us why you believe any of the bin Laden ‘confessions’ to be authentic and why you believe he lived beyond December 2001?
—
As for your attempts to downgrade the siginificance of Sibel Edmonds allegations, a good many other former Intelligence professionals also dispute the fiction of 9/11. Have you checked patriotsquestion911.com? If there is no substance to Sibel Edmonds’ allegations, then why are they so desperate to gag her? Why shouldn’t all such allegations be investigated by a proper inquiry into 9/11?
I think you should try to properly understand the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The 9/11 Truth Movement also doesn’t preclude the possibility that Al Qaeda, which, after all, was a creation of the CIA, may have played a role in 9/11, including the recritment and training of patsies.
The crtical component of the terrorist attacks were not the hijackings and the crashing of flights 11 and 175 into the twin towers, which would have left around 2-300 dead at most. It was the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7, which the impacts were only designed to make appear to have been the causes of.
There is no way that Al Qaeda could have done that.
Murph the Surf (@ 258) wrote:
Where is the ‘hidden’ anti-Semetism in anything I have written above or anything I have referred to?
In regard to that that article concerning Francesco Cossiga, I concede there may be a problem and I have had second thoughts.
To some the statement:
… may seem anti-Semetic, so I would need to seek further clarification as to exactly what he means.
However, even if some supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement can be accused of anti-Semetism, that charge, to me, seems tame in comparison with the charge of condoning the lie the Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 and effectively allowing that lie to be used to justify wars that have killed well over a million Muslims and have displaced millions more.
Even if that statement by Francesco Cossiga was not intended to be anti-Semetic, I still have a problem with the all-too-common viewpoint that places Israel and Zionism at the centre of nearly everything that is wrong with the world today as the statement seems to imply.
It seems to me that Mossad did play a role in 9/11 and had an interest in getting the US and European nations go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am not conviced that Israel and Mossad were the principle instigators of 9/11 as Cossiga seems to be saying.
I also note that Francesco Cossiga is not listed in the Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth web site at pl911truth.com.
If some people who support the 9/11 Truth Movement seem questionable (and I have yet to arrive at a firm view in regard to Francesco Cossiga), they should not be used to judge the whole 9/11 Truth Movement. Again I urge people to look at sites patriotsquestion911.com to get some idea of calibre of the people who have given their support to the movement.
—
To the person who changed the title of this forum to “Saturday Salon – The Truth is Out There! edition”:
I thank him/her for giving this thread a title which will differentiate it from other Saturday Salons and give people a rough idea of what the predominant controversy is, but I should point out that, just as I have never read a Dan Brown novel, I am not a fan of “The X files” and whilst I have watched it on a few occasions when I was a guest of friends, I have never once viewed that program at my own initiative.
The truth is not to be fooound “out there”. It is to be found in hundreds of documents and videos to befound readily on the Internet and in books. Few of the Truth Deniers on this forum have demonstrated any ability to comprehend those documents.
Daggett
It’s a bit hard to respond to your post @286.
Your post @ 280 demanded:
<blockquoteBefore you demand yet further evidence from me, GregM, how about you either.
I met this demand by refuting part of your evidence (the fake tapes) on the bsais of the very link you provided and accepted other of it (the FBI reasons for not charging Bin Laden for 9/11) on the basis of the very same link you provided.
Now you state, in a garbled form over several sentences, that you were not sincere in what you said about “all” tapes and your comments about the FBI rebuttal are simply unintelligible.
I have tried to entertain and respond to your 9/11 Truther claims by looking at the “evidence” you present for them sincerely and you respond with that garbage.
I’m not going to waste any more time on your pathetic nutcase delusions. I just recommend you seek help and if you are on medication, which you should be, go back to your medical provider and discuss increasing the dose.
Murph the surf has cut to the chase about your motivations. I am not going to soil myself any further with your sickening filth.
GregM (@ 288) wrote,
“I met this demand by refuting part of your evidence (the fake tapes) on the bsais of the very link you provided and accepted other of it (the FBI reasons for not charging Bin Laden for 9/11) on the basis of the very same link you provided.”
No you didn’t.
Firstly you only ‘refuted’ a small fraction of that post and ignored the rest and have not even attempted to address the considerable amount before that.
On top of that your ‘refutation’ was an exercise in splitting hairs rather than dealing with the key issue, that is, what is the evidence of Osama bin Laden’s guilt. To claim that if I can’t prove that all four tapes are faked then he must be guilty is absurd.
Again, surely if any one contained a confession and could be authenticated then the FBI would be grossly negligent in not using that confession as a basis for charging Osama bin Laden.
Your claim was:
The basis upon which. Tape E the main “smoking gun” tape of 9 November is shown to be fake is much more than just a comparison with Tape C.
As one of many examples the “Osama bin Laden” tape in Tape is wearing a ring which is forbiddne by Islam.
You don’t attempt to defend the main “smoking gun” video but instead make the claim that Osama bin Laden confessed in Tape C. I haven’t seen the transcript of that video tape, so why not provide it?
In any case, why would Osama bin Laden issue numerous denials of his involvement in 9/11 only to confess on tape?
Here are his denials:
12 Sep: bin Laden “thanked Almighty Allah and bowed before him when he heard this news,” but said he had “had no information or knowledge about the attack.”
16 Sep: Osama bin Laden told Al Jazeera: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.”
17 Sep: Osama bin Laden sent the Afghan Islamic Press a statement saying: “I am residing in Afghanistan. I have taken an oath of allegiance to [Mullah Omar] which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan. We have been blamed in the past, but we were not involved.”
28 Sep: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. … [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.”
3 Nov: In a videotape broadcast bin Laden’s only reference to 9/11 was this statement: “[N]o evidence links what happened in the United States to the people of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have nothing to do with this matter.”
The closest to a ‘confession’ was on 7 Oct, in a video, just after the first US strikes on Afghanistan, bin Laden praised the “vanguards of Islam … [who] destroyed America,” but he did not himself claim responsibility for the attacks.
In regard to your ‘refutation’ of the story “Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama”, the critical point is:
Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.
Inpatient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in most American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been discharged from the Hospital on or “after” September 11.
If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America’s ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden
This hinges on Dan Rather’s reporting even if he did not draw the obvious conclusions. If he was wrong about Oasama bin Laden entering the military hospital on 10 September, then don’t you think someone would have attempted to refute that story?
Getting one story wrong three years later doesn’t mean that we have to completely ingnore evey report Dan Rather made.
I note you have ignored the other inconvenient fact contained in that story, that fact being that in July 2001, when Osama bin Laden was wanted by the FBI for numerous pre-9/11 terrorist charges, he was met by the Dubai CIA station chief when he underwent kidney dialysis in that hospital.
Gregm wrote:
I don’t care that much whether you continue to ‘argue’ with me or not, but I think it will be obvious to anyone who carefully reads through all this that you have acknowledged very few of my arguments amd not refuted any, except, just possibly, in the narrowest, pedantic, nit-picking sense in one instance.
GregM, I enjoyed and learned some things from your post @ 283, and I’m glad you took the time to respond and write it, but @ 288:
“I’m not going to waste any more time on your pathetic nutcase delusions. I just recommend you seek help and if you are on medication, which you should be, go back to your medical provider and discuss increasing the dose.”
Was unfunny, laboured sarcarsm, and:
“Murph the surf has cut to the chase about your motivations. I am not going to soil myself any further with your sickening filth.”
Was, along with Murph the surf @ 285, uncalled for, and way out of line.
To imply someone’s suspicision of accounts of 9/11, whether evidenced to your standards or not, necessarily equates to *wanting Israel and the jews destroyed*, was nothing but gross logical (absurdly rhetorical) stupidity.
Or, at best, a simplistic alignment to a right-wing consensus-column.
Thanks, Nick (@ 290) for taking the stand that you did against personal abuse in this discussion.
That said, I think have still been overly generous in your evaluation of GregM’s post (@ 288) even if it is, by far, the most substantive of contributions from the Official Conspiracy 9/11 Theorists participating in this discussion. How has my subsequent post (@ 289) not answered his arguments?
—
My apologies for that large block of boldfaced text in my previous post. I had intended to use <blockquote></blockquote> tags.
—
I wrote (@ 227):
Liam (@ 232) wrote:
So, Liam would have us believe that the people who demolished the three buildings removed the evidence of their crime for the 9/11 Truth Movement’s convenience and not for theirs?
Liam, are you trying to imply that if, instead of obliterating all of the three towers and immediately shipping away all the material to be melted down in China before investigators could examine it, and, instead, leaving substantial sections of the three towers standing as could have happened if they had used substantially less quantities of explosives that their innocence of the crime could have been proven?
Apologies for the grammatical error and awkwrd expression in the last paragraph and the bad link in 291. (I don’t have a fully working ‘preview’ capability on my browser.) Here’s the last part of that post again:
I wrote (@ >a href=#comment-825698″>227):
Liam (@ 232) wrote:
So, Liam would have us believe that the people who demolished the three buildings removed the evidence of their crime for the 9/11 Truth Movement’s convenience and not for theirs?
Liam, are you trying to imply that if, instead of obliterating all of the three towers and immediately shipping away all the material to be melted down in China, they had, instead, left substantial sections of the three towers standing for investigators to examine as could have happened if they had used substantially less quantities of explosives, that their innocence of the crime could have been proven?
“I don’t know much at all about Sibel Edmonds. As much as I have found out about her is that she was employed by the FBI as a translator in September 2001 and fired in March 2002, a career of all of six months. She is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani, though not, it seems, Arabic or Pashtun, languages that are likely to be relevant to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I would have to wonder how much truly highly classified information a translator would be given access to in her first six months of employment. Nevertheless the central thrust of her claims, that there was a genuine plan by Bin Laden and his cohorts to attack the US with planes, of which the FBI had evidence but which it ignored or failed to act upon, contradicts yours that the destruction of the WTC towers (and presumably the damage sustained by the Pentagon) was caused by demolition explosives.” – GregM
I don’t think the claims of demolition and prior knowledge of an attack are mtually exclusive claims. Not that it really matters…
Have a look at the other claims she makes that aren’t really related to 9/11 though, cept maybe through one degree of seperation. They are pretty full on claims, and they haven’t gone away in years.
She names names, documents evidence and launched actions in the US court system that were ended, not cause they were shown to be false, but cos they potentially threatened state security. She was sacked because she made valid complaints against people in her dept, and it was found she was sacked as much for the info she had as for the fact that she made complaints against her dept.
“However that is evidence of incompetence (which would not surprise me at all), not conspiracy.”
How do you know its one and not the other when the events have never been investigated properly, and ultimately does it matter? Incompetence is no excuse, especially when you cynically exploit your own incompetence to gain humungous amounts of advantage.
GregM wrote (@ 283):
It’s strange how apologists for political leaders like Bush and Howard will claim them to be incompetent at the time they are under the public spotlight for their misdeeds, but later, will try to have us forget that incompetence.
Years later we read nonsense that tries to tell as that the greatness of such leaders was not sufficintly acknowledged by aficle and ungrateful public at the time.
Here’s a list of the warnings that we know that the Bush Government received prior to 9/11, but ignored — almost as many warnings as Alexander Downer recieved about the AWB scandal, it would seem.
I would be curious to know whether or not GregM also believes that John Howard were not aware at the time that AU$296million was being paid in bribe money to the regime of Saddam Hussein, the same regime that they were to tell us in 2003 were such a mortal threat to humankind that we were left with no choice but to invade.
If the newsmedia truly believed that they were that incompetent then why didn’t they immediately demand their resignation?
How could Howard then have stood any chance whatsoever of being re-lected in 2007?
And how could they have allowed Bus to be re-elected in 2004?
The reality is that the media, unlike what GregM would have us think he believes, understand perfectly well that they could not possibly be that incompetent.
Daggett, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
I have a 9/11 theory too!
Iraq was behind all the big attacks, from 1993 forwards, and the White House always knew it, but tried to deal with it secretly – and this is standard operating procedure for dealing with state-sponsored terrorism when it’s inconvenient to mention the culprit. “Deal with it secretly” means that you construct an alternative public narrative for both the attacks and for anything you do in response.
Of course it wasn’t supposed to drag on as it did. The mid-1993 bombing of Iraqi intelligence headquarters was supposed to deter all further such attacks. But it didn’t; Iraq’s WMD programs became the safe public rationale for everything; and what happened under Bush – 9/11, followed by the occupation of Iraq – was simply the amplification and logical conclusion of the process begun under Clinton.
Excellent. A truther stoush. Now for all you people out there who don’t know. You know you’re getting close to the truth when these dudes start installing cable TV for all your neighbours.
Welcome back, Liam (@ 295),
Were you intending to respond to my posts @ 236 and 271?
Liam wrote,
I never claimed the fact that the evidence was removed was, in and of itself, proof that the buildings were demolished. Nevertheless, removal of evidence from the scene of a crime is, itself, a crime under US law.
Those who removed the evidence should have been treated as suspects in the far more serious crime of the 9/11 attacks and thoroughly investigated both by the police and, subsequently, by the 9/11 Commission and by NIST.
But this didn’t happen.
Why?
Anyhow, let’s take a few steps back.
I offered a possible explanation for Jules’ point:
My explanation or theory, again, was:
You challenged that with the quip
Then I responded:
—
My apologies for mistyping:
‘a fickle’ had accidentally been typed as ‘aficle’.
At the risk of actually engaging with you daggett, something that I set out my refusal to do at #177;
I’m saying you’re basing your Search For Truth on something which conveniently will defy proof, no matter how strongly investigated. Building demolished? Must have been blown up by persons unknown. Building doesn’t appear to have been demolished by explosives? Must have used so much explosive as to defy investigation (awesome, BTW). No explosives found? Must have been a special thermite explosive. No thermite marks? Must have been secret military thermite. No such thing as military thermite? Must be a requirement for more investigation, and anyone who denies it is a PNAC stooge.
It’s head-stuck-in-sand solipsistic fantasy, based on confirmation bias and speculation, flat-earth anti-investigation at it’s worst, and it’s turtles all the way down.
“It’s head-stuck-in-sand solipsistic fantasy, based on confirmation bias and speculation, flat-earth anti-investigation at it’s worst, and it’s turtles all the way down.”
Nice.
You think?
It’s more like standard smart-arse LP putdown, complete with punctuation error to me, but who am I to judge?
Liam, like any good blog commentator, obviously knows his audience.
Adrian, I certainly do know my audience and my co-smartarses. Let’s have a quick review of some of your contributions to this thread:
At least daggett’s got some interesting stoush in him, even if he is fixated on the Deus Ex PNAC to provide the answer to all of life’s little engineering questions. When you make a contribution to any thread that’s more than the stock-standard nyah-nyah rah-rah please let me know, and I’ll give you a golf clap for the effort.
But seriously folks, it pisses me off when someone like daggett comes along, putting forward a controverial and non-mainstream view and gets personal abuse for his troubles, from the snide putdowns to the full on questioning of his sanity. Yet he doesn’t respond in kind, but continues with his patient explanation of his case, which most of his critics think it is beneath them to respond seriously to.
Nick said it best @290, and also jules elsewhere, but where is the tolerance for views that are outside the conventional?
Paul Burns #284, your perspicacity is commendable.
adrian: tolerance goes as far as allowing him to publish here, is my guess.
But “tolerance” doesn’t entail his readers must AGREE with him, and aren’t permitted to point out flaws in his case, or say the whole shebang is silly.
daggett writes on a topic that is seared into our memories and has had enormous quantities of newsprint, forensic investigation, TV doco time, etc. Most of us formed a view, and applied our customary levels of scepticism and inquiry to the matter. Gosh, some of us even read books and/or web sources about it.
Along comes daggett. He cannot expect some sort of tabula rasa here on which to inscribe his screeds….
Hellfire and bloody damnation! It was Lord Foul and his Ravers that dunit!
Just a note to say “hi”.
It’s nice to read that I haven’t been forgotten.
Ambigulous @ 305 – Fair enough, but it’s the level of hostility to views outside the mainstream that I was getting at.
Liam @ 302 – Try reading for meaning or whatever.
Liam(@ 299) and FDB (@ 300),
It’s your right not to debate views which you hold to be too preposterous to even discuss, but simply stating that those views are preposterous over and over and over again is surely a waste of your time and everyone else’s time.
Liam wrote:
Liam (@ 177) wrote:
It seems that you are totally satisfied that 9/11, Bali, London 7/7, Madrid etc was the result of a vast global conspiracy, yet you have not provided any evidence for that belief.
This conspiracy is supposed to consist of a network of terrorist cells all over the world including in Australia. This terrorist network is supposedly controlled and sustained by people operating from sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan, The fact that not one person with a proven link to those attacks has been catured in spite of over 7 and a half years of military occupation of Afghanistan and numerous incursions into Pakistan appears not to have shaken your belief.
What just might satisfy me that “there was not a massive conspiracy to whip Americans into war-frenzy” would be a proper investigation into 9/11 as the 9/11 Truth Movement has been demanding for years. The 9/11 Truth Movement has amply demonstrated that the previous investigations were shams which appeared to be intended to be cover-ups.
It is conceivably possible that a proper investigation would come up with an explanation other than a conspiracy be senior figures within the Bush Administration, but, at the moment, I couldn’t even begin to imagine what that explanation would be. If you could either suggest another explanation or provide evidence for the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that you support I would be most interested.
The reason that past investigations were shams were:
A. A large number of questions, including questions of those who lost loved ones on 11 September 2001, were not even asked, let alone answered. One question which was not asked was, as I asked before: Why was so much of the evidence so quickly and systematically removed from the scene of the crime? Other questions not asked, which are further elaborated on the 9/11 Truth Statment are:
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA’s radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
7. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants and flight schools they were known to frequent?
8. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
9. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
10. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
11. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
B. A vast body of evidence which conflicted with the official explanation of 9/11 was ignored.
C. The hypothesis that the ‘collapses’ of the three towers were controlled demolitions was not even considered by NIST in spite of a vast body of eyewitness testimony including even from news reporters on the day, video footage and other physical evidence that they were.
Thank you, Adrian @ 303.
Ambigulous (@ 305),
Of course I greatly appreciate anyone going to the trouble and expense to provide a platform, such as Larvatus Prodeo on which people can post views which may differ from their own, but I would have, nevertheless thought that people taking the considerable time and effort to post views that are substantiated and carefully argued as I believe I have done, should be welcomed rather than just ‘tolerat[ed]‘.
As it happens, I also help to provide a platform on which others can post views which I may not agree with. It is candobetter.org. You will certainly find there views opposed to the goals of that site.
Anyone here is welcome to post comments relating to material contained on that site, although, in the interests of other site users, I have close to zero tolerance of personal attacks and will either remove posts containing personal attacks or remove the personal attacks from those posts. I would certainly not allow any site visitors to be subject to posts such as FDB’s to 240 and 250. I think the moderators of LP should also consider enforcing some minimal standards of decency and civility
Ambigulous wrote,
Firstly, where did I or anyone else say that my readers must agree with me?
Secondly, please show me even one post in this whole forum which points out the flaws in my case.
Ambigulous wrote,
If you had comprehended the arguments I have put here, you would know that there has been no proper ‘forensic investigation’ into 9/11, except by those who dispute the official account of 9/11. Please provide even one example of proper ‘forensic investigation’ by any US Government agency.
Let’s say, daggett, that I do hold the position that all of the terrorist attacks you mentioned were perpetrated by a central, organised, conspiratorial group.*
If I then pointed out the lack of evidence to back up the theory that all of the terrorist attacks were the product of an organised conspiracy, and then used that lack of evidence to argue in favour of the theory, what would you think of that? Or if, to whatever objection anyone put in front of my faith in my theory of a Terrorist Conspiracy, I simply retreated behind a further statement that a more powerful group had hidden the required evidence?
*For the record: I don’t. I’m perfectly happy with the conventional consensus that all of those terrorist attacks were perpetrated by loosely-aligned and opportunistically-organised extremist groups operating in a foaming seething clusterfuck of competing national, subnational, ethnic and religious grievances, encouraged by political parties, tribal groups, churches, sects and official Intelligence services, fed by easy anonymous money and drugs and arms deals, and massively empowered by globalisation. I read John Robb and I vote.
It is doubtless that al Qaeda, which was little more than a shelf company that outsourced its work to sub-contractors and other organisations, leaked like a sieve in the months, weeks and days leading up to 9/11.
US and other counterintelligence organisations were picking up loads of chatter. These snippets can be likened to pieces of a jigsaw whose pattern became clear after the event only.
Moreover, it would take little expertise to profit from shorting relevant stocks and financial instruments so long as the time frame for the attacks was known.
Even fringe figures like our own Mandouh Habib and ASIS knew that something was cooking:
This buzz swept through the entire intelligence community. Failure to act on it is entirely characteristic of the fatal weakness of large, bureaucratic organisations when confronted with a nimble enemy.
On Afghanistan again:
Jim Molen on ABC this morning asserted that 180,000 or so troops to the mission, but this can scarcely be reconciled with the US Army’s Counter-Insurgency Field Manual which, authored in part by Petraeus, insists on a ratio of 20 counter insurgency trained troops for every 1000 civilians. On a population of 33 million in Afghanistan, that works out not to 180,000 troops but … 660,000 troops. Remember also that these can’t be any old troops but specially trained counter-insurgency troops.
How much would these cost to keep in the field? Figures are hard to come by but we can hazard a ballpark guess. During the whole period of the US occupation of Afghanistan, during most of which time the US had far fewer troops than now, the average annual cost of the war was $US38 billion, yet as late as April this year the US only had 34,000 troops. Simple maths tells us that this is nearly 1.2 million per year per troop in the field, even at this rather larger number. Costs for the war this fiscal year are up to $US55 billion with 64,000 troops for most of the year, so that’s a little cheaper at $860,000 troops each. The Canadians 2300 troops present between November 2001 and March of 2006 cost a little over $CAN600,000 each (about $US552,000 on today’s conversion) for each year.
Again simple maths tells us that even if we accept this low figure — improbable since we are now not merely fighting and holding but doing capacity building — that amounts to $US3.643 trillion dollars annually. IOW, for each of the ten years optimists think it will take to win, the world would spend about 5% of GDP on Afghan counter-insurgency, in addition to what has already been spent. Even at Jim Molen’s super optimistic 180,000 estimate for a landlocked country with very porous borders its near enough to $US 1trillion per year. It is worth noting that no nation in history has ever gone from feudalist/tribalism to modern governance in ten years, or anything like it. No nation has ever done this at gunpoint.
It’s deceitful special pleading to say that if we don’t increase resources we won’t win when even increasing resources to unsustainable levels can’t confidently predict such an outcome, and indeed predicts nothing more than throwing good resources after bad.
Currently of course there are about 100,000 troops in the field. A whole bunch of the non-US troops are looking for an early exit — Berlusconi has been explicit. The Dutch aren’t renewing and its likely the Germans will also pull out shortly. So even on the most optimistic of estimates Obama is going to have to find and maintain most of 120,000 extra troops in addition to the 64,000 he already has there. Since many of these have to be redeployed from Iraq and redeploymnet is also more expensive than coming home, we have another expense. If you want to allow the troops 4 weeks annual R&R you can add an extra 1/12 of however many they have there. Allow for 2% casualty rate (dead and indefinitely incapacitated each year) and there’s another 3600 for 180,000 that you have to allow. And this is all very optimistic, because if Petraeus is right (and if he’s that far wrong, what is he doing in charge?) they are going to need most of 600,000 extra US troops — for ten years.
The whole thing is mad on an epic scale.
I think a South Park song is in order about now, don’t you?
Liam (@ 311),
On the one hand you adamantly refuse to consider and discuss any of the evidence I have presented:
Then ont the other hand you imply that you or others have demolished the arguments I have put:
How can you have put any ‘objection’ in front of my ‘faith’ if you adamantly refuse to discuss the substantive content of my posts?
I see now that you are now attempting to distance yourself from the ludicrous Official Conspiracy Theory that is used by Rudd and our corporate newsmedia to justify the war in Afghanistanistan.
Perhaps that’s a start. Nevertheless, I would still be interested to see the evidence for your claim that:
I would like to know how you think it was possible for a “loosely-aligned and opportunistically-organised extremist group” to have carried out the terrorist attack of September 11 and what your evidence is.
As you now seem to concede that all of this is “encouraged by … official Intelligence services” (which, of course, I consider a gross understatement) I would be most interested to know want has led you to that conclusion.
Katz wrote (@ 312) :
Clearly, Katz has not read the list of warnings that I linked to above. Here are the specific warnings tath attacks would be launched from the air grouped by the nations from which those warnings originated:
1. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]
2. In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]
3. In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic.
4. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]
5. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02]
6. Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]
well, daggett
those little snippets point to aircraft hijacked by islamist terrorists, not super-secret thermite demolition crews.
but that’s only my opinion.
Clearly Daggett doesn’t understand the difference between non-specific chatter and “specific warnings”.
None of Daggett’s list specifies time, place or personnel. This chatter is constant and much of it is either deliberate disinformation or pub talk. Intelligence services are notoriously incapable of detecting the difference and also are overwhelmed by the pressure of following up the myriad of false leads. Welcome to the wacky world of counterintelligence.
Incompetence, overwork, and being fooled are regrettable enough. But Daggett would have us believe that in addition to these failings there existed elements of US intelligence services that deliberately ignored firm and specific leads.
And worse, that these elements actively conspired with the terrorists for their own fell purposes.
And still more unbelievably that those elements of the US security state that were not involved in this alleged conspiracy have decided not to blow the whistle on their treasonous colleagues!
That last claim is, of course, the height of absurdity.
Katz wrote:
Oy vey.
There is in England a sect which maintains that the English are the lost ten tribes; there is a stricter sect, which maintains that they are only the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Whenever I encounter a member of either of these sects, I profess myself an adherent of the other, and much pleasant argumentation results.
What possible excuse?
Try these:
1. Which day?
2. Which airport(s)?
3. Which target(s)?
4. How reliable have the Russians been in the past?
5. How sincere have the Russians been in the past?
6. How do we prioritise the alleged Russian heads-up in relation to the dozens of other warnings and rumours circulating at the same time.
7. On the basis of the alleged Russian heads-up what level of response is appropriate? For example do we ground all civilian flights? Do we take all Muslims into custody?
daggett,
I certainly do not “need” to make myself more familiar…. your own postings have been quite sufficient. Given that the chatter involved Cessnas (going to bomb a hay barn?) and vague hints, only seemingly relevant in hindsight, how was it that the demolition crews just happened to choose for demolition two of the very buildings the airliners flew into?
There is a gaping hole in your scenario.
There are others. Katz and Liam have indicated several.
Just because some relatively amateur blokes pulled off an extremely destructive attack, doesn’t necessarily imply they had assistance from the militarily mighty USA or any other State.
Sometimes really horrible things happen without the CIA pulling the strings, daggy.
I see that Katz has already forgotten that intellignece agecies from five other nations other than Russia gave the US very detailed warnings.
And Katz has ignored my point that people in the US who were trying to prevent the 9/11 attacks were obstructed.
At least Ambigulous and Katz have demostrated to the rest of us that they have no aptitude whatsoever for intelligence analysis or crime investigation.
It appears that if they had been in command of the US air defences on that day they would have waited until the flights that the hijackers had intended to hijack had been given to them and their intended targets had been provided before acting to prevent them.
If Ambigulous claims that he understands the case of the 9/11 Truth movement then isn’t it about time she/he demonstrated some comprehension of that case on this forum?
Hmmm. Let’s see.
Daggett suggests that the US should have taken notice of the British, the Egyptians, the Germans, the Russians and the Jordanians.
With the exception of the Germans (who played host to the plotters of 9/11) every other nation he mentioned has suffered at least one serious terrorist outrage since 9/11.
Following Daggett’s logic it is possible that the intelligence authorities of these nations were also in cahoots with the terrorists for their own fell purposes, just like US intelligence.
That being the case, why should US intelligence take any notice at all of those warnings that possibly emanated from corrupted sources that conspired with Islamic fanatics?
Yes, that is a reductio ad absurdum argument. But at least I didn’t start it.
“There is a gaping hole in your scenario.” @323.
We also need to consider the long term decoy plan pulled off in 1993 – the forerunner of the second attack on the WTC buildings. From Wiki -
“The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.”
You have to congratulate the conspirators who did all this just to mask who really did the attack 18 years later- those wily neoliberals!
If that doesn’t make sense it must be aliens- yes , some people blame shape shifting reptile aliens who are in control of all the governments of the world.
.
Welcome to the thoughts of David Icke.
“Icke cites the Holocaust,[22] the Oklahoma City bombing,[22] and the 11 September 2001 attacks[23] as examples of events financed and organised by the Global Elite. British journalist Simon Jones writes that, according to Icke, “Ordinary people are being massively duped into believing that the ordinary course of world events are the consequence of known political forces and random, uncontrollable events. However, the course of humanity is being manipulated at every level. These individuals arrange for incidents to occur around the world, which then elicit a response from the public (‘something must be done’), and in turn allows those in power to do whatever they had planned to do in the first place.”[22]”
.
Or this gem-”In 1999, Icke wrote and published The Biggest Secret: The Book that Will Change the World, in which he identified the extraterrestrial prison warders as reptilians from the constellation Draco.[25] They walk erect and appear to be human, living not only on the planets they come from, but also in caverns and tunnels under the earth. They have cross-bred with humans, which has created “hybrids” who are “possessed” by the full-blooded reptilians.[26] The reptiles’ hybrid reptilian-human DNA allows them to change from reptilian to human form if they consume human blood. Icke has drawn parallels with the 1980s science-fiction series V, in which the earth is taken over by reptiloid aliens disguised as humans”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
Weirdly enough others would have us believe the same rubbish.
daggett
I believe you do not have expertise or skills in ‘intelligence analysis’ or ‘crime investigation’. Several posters here have picked you up on crucial errors of logic.
It’s interesting that their clear thinking was sufficient. As far as I can see they didn’t need specialist training for that.
What is your point, murph the surf (@ 326)?
And what is yours, Katz (@ 325)?
Ambigulous (@ 327) wrote:
As far as I am aware, I have responded to all aguments put to me. What do you claim are my “errors of logic”?
Katz, one law enforcement officer who seriously tried to prevent 9/11 was John O’Neill, who was head of the FBI’s counterterrorism branch in Washington.
He died because he was given a new job as the security director for the World Trade Center on 10 September 2001. His office was on the 34th floor of the North Tower.
Well, there’s an error of logic right there. Right in front of your nose, daggett. Can you see it?
You claim that this O’Neill guy was harassed into resigning from the FBI, presumably because he was getting too close to the ‘truth’ about Bin Laden.
Now, this could easily be explained as normal bureaucratic politics. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there was a more sinister explanation — that the shadowy powers behind the upcoming Twin Towers operation feared he might expose them.
Well, in that case, the very last thing in the world they would have done is allow him to have that security director job. As a competent ex-investigator with, presumably, complete access to the WTC, what if he had noticed some aspect of the preparations? Hey, why is there nano-thermite attached to that there girder?
Imagine if ex-Special Forces operatives, with links to the White House, were arrested by the NYPD as they were rigging up the buildings. It’d make Watergate look small beer. I’d love to see Dick Cheney try to explain that away.
Naah, if there really were a conspiracy, O’Neill would have been posted off to Alaska or somewhere, and then had a little car accident.
Logic. Look it up in the dictionary. It’s under ‘L’.
Oh, and your dates are wrong. O’Neill started as WTC security director on 23 August 2001, according to Wikipedia — giving him almost 3 weeks to notice any preparations for the ‘demolition’.
“I’d love to see Dick Cheney try to explain that away.”
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. And there are the things that were known to us and that we didn’t tell you, that we knew, and that we have no plan now of letting you know, we knew. You know.
Having trouble keeping up Daggett?
David Icke has outed you – I think you are one of the alien hybrids who are confusing us mere mortals with your outlandish tales so we can’t focus on where the real problem is.
And there isn’t anything anyone says or writes that will convince me otherwise . Any such so called evidence is only a smoke screen , a put up job , a lie peddled to stop true comprehension. The more you deny this the more we will all know that you are guilty.
We are onto you Daggett.
Paulus (@ 239)
There’s no error of logic, because I only stated the facts of John O’Neill’s death. I concede that did mistakenly assume that he started his job as the security director for the World Trade Center on the day that he moved into his office on the 34th floof of the North Tower. The facts are:
August 23, 2001: Former FBI Al-Qaeda Expert Begins Job as Head of Security at the WTC
Of course, the fact that they took the risk that O’Neill might have discovered what was going on occurred to me, but do you really think that it would have been inordinately difficult to steer him away from where he would have learnt what was really going on for that period of time?
As one example, there were numerous additional telephone bomb threats in late August. See “Late August-September 10, 2001: WTC Security Raised, Then Scaled Back, in Weeks Before 9/11 Attack” on the History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline.
It should also be pointed out that the 34th floor was below where flight 11 struck between the 93rd and 99th floors of the North Tower, so he theoretically could have easily survived the day. On the other hand, I expect he could have easily been persuaded as security director to stay in the building in order to personally investigate the crash. As experienced firefighters such as Oreo Palmer who reached the crash scene in the South Tower (and subsequently died) had no reason to expect each of the towers to collapse to dust in less that 16 seconds, then why should he?
Other relevant facts are:
Mid-July 2001: John O’Neill Rails Against White House and Saudi Obstructionism
December 2003: FBI Agent Says Officers in CIA’s Bin Laden Unit ‘Have Blood on Their Hands’ over 9/11
Paulus wrote:
The fact remains that mysterious people in overalls with tollboxes were observed going into the Twin Towers during poere downs in the weeks prior to 9/11.
If you had been following 9/11 you would understand there is already a vast amount that has been revealed that would “make Watergate look small beer” but which the newsmedia refuses to report. What about Sibel Edmonds’ explosive revelations of corruption in the FBI translation unit that concealed knowledge of the the 9/11 atacks and the sale of nuclear secrets to Turkey as just one of dozens of possible examples?
you have outdone yourself, daggsy
And you were up against some fairly fierce competition: there’s this poster “daggett”, who’s …..
GregM (@ 283) wrote:
Then Jules (@ 293) wrote:
Good point, Jules.
Jules continued:
Yes it does.
If their failure to protect America on 11 September 2001 was truly incompetence then the sacking of all those found to be principly responsible may have been sufficient redress.
However, if it were to have been found to have been the result malicious intent, then those responsible should be put on trial and put behihd bars, possibly in a prison similar to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib for at least the rest of their natural lives.
Would anyone here find it acceptable if someone they beleive had murdered their husband or wife were not even investigated by the police, let alone charged, tried and imprisoned?
Yet, many who lost loved ones on the 11 September believe that they were deliberately murdered by senior members of the Bush administration.
Yet, in spite of a vast amount of evidence implicating them in that crime, no proper investigation has been conducted.
—
In any case, when have any group of political leaders who were as grossly incompetent as members of the Bush Administration must have been to have unintentionally allowed the September 11 attacks to succeed, then been able to cover their arses so well that not a single one was sacked, demoted or even reprimanded? Indeed may of those responsible were subsequently promoted and nearly all profited immensely from the ensuing wars and the imposition of disaster capitalism on the United States.
The competition is hotting up.
911! From those wonderful folks who brought you the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Operation Eagle Claw, Contragate, Carry On Up The Khyber (the 2002 Remix), the Mesopotamia Caper and much much more.
When it comes to a choice between the US shadow military-security-industrial complex and a cell of highly motivated young men who don’t care about living in this world any more, I’d know which stocks I’d short and which I would go long on.
However there’s probably a case to be made for Osama not quite being the omnipotent mastermind behind it all.
“They did what!!? That was just a feasibility study! No survivors you say? OK, let’s get in front of it. I’ll just jot down some bullet points here. Where’s the mike?”
They have blood on their hands. They have three thousand deaths on their hands
.
Well, assuming the truth of this assertion, they have a lot more than 3000 deaths on their hands don’t they?
Nabakov (@ 337) wrote:
When it comes to a choice between the US shadow military-security-industrial complex and a cell of highly motivated young men who don’t care about living in this world any more, I’d know which stocks I’d short and which I would go long on.
If Nabakov, believes that 19 “highly motivated young men who don’t care about living in this world any more” had vastly more capacity to pull off 9/11 than did the “US shadow military-security-industrial complex” with all its hundreds of billions of funds, equipment and potentially thousands of highly trained personnel it could call upon, then perhaps he/she should ponder why other many “highly motivated young men who don’t care about living in this world any more” were so demonstrably unsuccessful in defeating the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps, also, Nabakov would care to offer his/her own explanation to the unanswered question posed by the 9/11 Truth Movement:
For my own part, I reject the view that the US military and US spy agencies are bottomless wells of incompetence as Nabakov is attempting to imply. They have on many occasions proven themselves very capable of inflicting violence in order to further the goals of those they serve. Of course, they make mistakes and, of course, they sometimes fail to achieve their goals. The reasons they fail often have a lot to do with the courage and sacrifice of those resisting them as occurred at the Bay of Pigs and in the Vietnam War. (It should also be noted that another reason for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion was that President Kennedy refused to back the invasion with US air power as requested. For that and many other principled and decent stances he took, he was murdered in 1963.)
I think should we should start to become wary of people who on the one hand profess to oppose the wars in which the US is now engaged, but on the other hand seize upon any feeble argument to perpetuate the principle excuse used to justify those wars.
Here’s yet another editorial from the Australian in support of the Afghan War:
I would be most interested to know how all those ostensibly progressive anti-war types, who, nevertheless, have attacked me on this forum, would respond to that editorial or to the earlier editorial mentioned above.
—
Adrien (@ 338),
Its hard to know whether or not that FBI agent’s expressed outrage at the needless loss of almost 3,000 American lives would have extended to the (soon to become) many more victims of the the US military outside the US, but, at least, he has grasped the fact that much of the culpability for those deaths lies with figures within the US administration, and was prepared to say so.
“7. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants and flight schools they were known to frequent?”
Once again, Dagster, I answered that back at #136.
crikey Paul Norton, I could have done without trotting off to visit that site…. I feel soiled.
I wrote (@ 339):
Then FDB wrote (@ 340)
At 136, FDB wrote:
How does that answer the question, FDB?
According to the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, US intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, the whole US airport security system and the whole air defence system were caught copmpletely off guard. Yet within hours, the FBI and CIA were able to work out precisely who all the hijackers were and a good more, besides.
I would suggest that that was staggeringly brilliant detective work, that is, unless they already knew who the hijackers were.
In answer to your question, as someone put in another forum discussion:
If your sister worked for Time magazine, then it seems highly likely to me that she was part of the media cover-up, if not the conspiracy itself.[1] There were obvious glaring holes in the Official Story from the outset, some of which I have described above. and any critical minded investigative journalist should have been able to spot them. Whether she would have witheld the truth willingly or did so only to avoid adverse repercussions is beside the point.
Footnotes
1. One journalist who was clearly part of the conspiracy, by the way was the BBC’s Jane Standley, who reported the ‘collapse’ of World Trade Center Building 7 23 minutes before it occrred with the World Trade Center still standing in the background. See video here. Clearly she had been given a script, but the actual demolition had been delayed. There’s a hilarious discussion about this on James Randi’s web site. As James Randi along with fellow ‘sceptic’, Michael Shermer are Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, I would have thought that Jane Standley would have qualified for James Randi’s $1million prize offered to anyone who can prove that they have psychic abilities.
Sorry. The video of Jane Standley reporting that WTC 7 had ‘collapsed’ 23 minutes before it actually did, is here.
Apologies for yet another useless internal page link to Nabakov’s post (@ 337) above. (I made it mistakenly <a href=”/#comment-826851″>337</a> instead of <a href=”#comment-826851″>337</a>. Clicking on the former will cause your browser to try to retrieve LP’s home page instead of just going to the reference on the current page.)
Oh noes! Daggett’s logic has been blown up by nanothermite!
Proof positive of TEH conspiracy!
Katz (@ 344),
Firstly, I still haven’t learn what the point of your post at 325 is.
Katz, are you trying to tell me that you share FDB’s unlimited faith in Time magazine and the rest of the commercial media to tell us the truth and to fearlessly hold our political leaders to account, as they did over the Iraq WMD allegations and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds‘ allegations of Senior US politicians selling nuclear secrets to Turkey, etc, etc?
FDB (@ 136),
I would be most interested to learn how your sister and the other Time journalists satisfied themselves of the veracity of the official explanation of 9/11. Would yo car to show me where they put to the US government those questions that I mentioned above that the 9/11 Truth Movement is trying to get answers for.
For more illuminatimg Time magazine reporting on 9/11, please see the article “9/11 Cover-Up” amongst a collection of articles “Conspiracy Theories” of July 2009.
It tells us all that anyone needs to know about the 9/11 controversy in all of 203 words.
And in a manner, with which those following this forum would not be altogether unfamiliar, by now, Time Magazine demonstrates conclusively how, because some people out there believe that the world is ruled by a Reptillian elite, that the Apollo moon landings were faked or take what is written in the da Vinci Code about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is literally true, that it necessarily follows that we can dismiss out of hand any notion that the US government has been less than forthright in its account of 9/11 or about the JFK asassination.
I won’t speak for FDB.
“Unlimited faith”?
Oh dear Daggett. I’m beginning to suspect that nuance isn’t your long suit.
It may come as a surprise to you therefore that there exists a very large grey area between fearless truth-telling and acting as a complicit mouthpiece of government power.
I was living in the US when that non-entity John Hinckley tried to shoot Reagan. I was amazed by the speed with which, in those pre-internet days, the major networks were able to piece together the outlines of Hinkley’s biography.
The mass media are very good at doing that sort of thing even without the help of the government.
Katz (@ 346),
Firstly, as with the point you made at 325 above, I don’t understand what bearing your point about the rporting of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan has on 9/11 or the discussion of the media’s role in 9/11.
—
In spite of my occasional resort to the use of hyperbole and other debating devices, I have shown that I take this topic very seriously.
So, why won’t you?
Why won’t you either demonstrate to others that the arguments that I have put in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement are wrong, or, else, at least stop making contributions which appear to be designed to cloud the issue?
We have long ago established that the case in support of the Vietnam War was a lie.
Since then we have similarly established that the case put at the time overtly in support of the invasion of Iraq War, that is WMD’s, was a lie on more than one level (regardless of whether or not the implicit 9/11 argument that we now are arguing about has been shown up as such).
Furthermore, the commercial and government newsmedia peddled that lie, even though anyone, with critical capabilities and access to the facts that any journalist had at the time, should have been able to see it as such.
That is one of many examples that just about veryone here would agree about of the the commercial media, including Time magazine, and most current affairs journalists on its payroll, acting against the public interest.
For my part, if no-one here is prepared to deal with any of the substantive arguments I have put, I would dearly love to be able, as we have been able with the Iraq War WMD argument, to move beyond having to deal with the silly ‘black is white’ arguments, the non-sequiturs and straw-men demolition exercises, that are being employed here, and arrive at a consensus on 9/11.
—
Apologies for the grammatic and spelling errors above.
“… yo car …” should have been “… you care …” and “take what is written in the da Vinci Code about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is literally true” should have been “take what is written in The da Vinci Code about Jesus and Mary Magdalene to be literally true.”
This was posted just now onto a mailing list in which the article “Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?” is being discussed.
I would be curious to learn whether any of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists on this forum dispute the existence of the the military industry complex that US President Eisenhower warned against and that it poses a threat to democracy and to world peace. (Personally, I don’t think it is too late, but I don’t think we have that much time, either.)
—
Apologies for having misspelt ‘everyone’ as ‘veryone’
I see no-one bothered to take on my #296. If I call that Scenario One (“Iraq did it, Clinton/Bush hid it”), orthodoxy Scenario Two (al Qaeda acted alone), and trutherdom Scenario Three (9/11 an inside job), I lean towards One, consider Two possible, but place Three out there with faked moon landings and Holocaust denial.
I agree with the clear majority view here that a lot of what daggett says is apriori absurd (e.g. suicide hijackings and a BBC conspiracy tool uniting to hide the fact that the WTC buildings were mined with explosives). Common sense has to be overwhelmed by some other factor in order to even consider such contorted scenarios. It all resembles the fundamentalist paranoia according to which angels and demons are messing with us at every step of our lives. Liam’s #311 is more like it.
Nonetheless I perceive the similarity between my situation and that of the Truthers. Like daggett, I can go on at great length with my “evidence”. (Old sample here. Yes, it’s a wingnut site. But for a long time it had the best discussions of the anthrax letters.) Like daggett, I suppose some secret management of public perception, which raises the problem of why word of the long-running conspiracy hasn’t leaked out. Like daggett, I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I am rather attached to a particular heterodoxy. Only in my case it’s the idea that intelligence agencies sometimes cover up *enemy action*, and that the invasion of Iraq under manufactured pretexts was the disastrous culmination of one such policy.
I would be a lot happier if the “9/11 truth movement” had time for *that* sort of perspective; but it doesn’t fit their dominant narrative, which is that the enemy is within. So instead I’ll ask the other diehards still reading this thread: would you regard *this* idea – the paternalistic coverup of enemy action by the intelligence services, compounding with time into an epic fiasco – to be apriori absurd as well?
Unlimited faith indeed.
I was merely telling you that someone dear and close to me was on the ground in Manhattan at the very time of the attacks, and along with everyone else in the whole city (and nation) she tried her arse off to coordinate and disseminate the best available information.
It was intended as a little vignette to offset your own, nearly a decade later, obsessive and furtive scrabbling through the remains to prove that your own favoured bogey men must have been responsible.
Frankly I share your concerns about these bogey-people and bogey-organisations, broadly speaking. They are doing way bogus stuff.
But you are wrong and foolish.
FDB (@ 350),
Are you trying to tell us that Time is not principally a magazine to dispense pro-US-government propaganda?
You have not responded to my specific questions, and you haven’t given us any other reason to believe that your sister acted any different from all the other Time journalists in their reporting of 9/11 and other events.
Mitchell Porter (@ 249),
The reason that I did not respond to your suggestion that Iraq may have been behind 9/11 is because:
1. It defies common sense to suggest that the US would not have seized on any evidence of Iraq sponsoring a terrorist attack on the US as a justification for invasion, and, instead, have covered it up. Have you forgotten the immense and ultimately unsuccessful effort that the US conducted to win support of the United Nations security Council and world public opinion for the invasion, based on the phony WMD allegations? Why wouldn’t they have, instead, presented to the UN factual evidence of Iraq having sponsored a terrorist attack on the US, if they had it?
2. You provided no evidence.
Mitchell Porter wrote:
Perhaps you think we should dispense with discussion and simply conduct polls on contentious issues?
Simply stating that my views are absurd does not make them thus. Don’t forget, we are discussing extraordinary events. Any explanation for these events requires that a large number people would have had to act out of the public view in manners that go way beyond what is commonplace.
I believe I have shown that the explanation I have offered for 9/11 accounts for the available evidence far better than does the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that others are defending. No-one in this discussion has seriously attempted to demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory accounts for the known facts better than the conspiracy theory I am defending.
#351 (!): “It defies common sense to suggest…”
Oh, so now we’re on to common sense. Well, I guess that’s always a game-changer.
Please, somebody, say something to keep him going. Like that guy in the makeup said to that guy in the cape, “You’re just too much fun!”
I guess it’s just us, daggett!
@351: “It defies common sense to suggest that the US would not have seized on any evidence of Iraq sponsoring a terrorist attack on the US as a justification for invasion, and, instead, have covered it up… Why wouldn’t they have, instead, presented to the UN factual evidence of Iraq having sponsored a terrorist attack on the US, if they had it?”
You don’t understand my scenario yet. The sequence of events is as follows (hypothesized part in bold):
1991, Bush Sr’s coalition drives Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. 1992, Clinton defeats Bush to become US president. February 1993, one month after the new president’s inauguration, and two years (almost to the day) after the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, jihadis in New York assisted by Iraqi intelligence truck-bomb the basement of the WTC in an attempt to bring it down. The Clinton administration sets out to discover the ultimate perpetrators. Mid-1993, the Clinton administration bombs Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad in an attempt to deter further such acts. They fail.
–followed by eight years of escalating semi-secret warfare, culminating in 9/11 and the invasion, which saw increasingly egregious deception of the public, e.g. spinning the destruction of Flight TWA800 as mechanical failure.
Having actively prevented the public from discovering the truth on previous occasions, they were no longer free to turn around and present the evidence, lest eight previous years of deception be exposed.
Bear in mind that George W. Bush’s head of CIA was George Tenet, retained from Clinton. Clinton’s original CIA head was James Woolsey, who quit just days after Operation Bojinka, the successor to the 1993 WTC bombing, was exposed in the Philippines, and who went on in subsequent years to publicly promote the idea that maybe Iraq was working through al Qaeda. Tenet started out on Clinton’s national security staff, and through a series of promotions made it to the top of the CIA by mid-1997, and he stayed there until Bush Jr’s second term. That spans the period from 1998′s Operation Desert Fox, a US-UK attack on Iraq which was supposed to be about degrading WMD capabilities (but at the time Stratfor.com speculated that a coup within Iraq was also attempted), through to the 2003 invasion; Tenet is alleged to have said it was a “slam dunk” that some form of WMD would show up. So it’s the same policies, the same approach, the same people: use WMDs as the safe justification for any attack on Iraq, but don’t link specific terrorist attacks to Iraq. (Woolsey, meanwhile, joined the other camp, the Wolfowitz group, who were willing to talk about an Iraq connection with terrorism.)
I could write a book about this stuff, and maybe I’ll have to, if I truly do want to see this class of hypothesis enter into the public discourse. There are many ambiguities, many possibilities, but not only can you make the case that Iraq sponsored al Qaeda terrorism, you can make the case that this connection has been deliberately obfuscated by US federal agencies. And they – or rather, their political masters, assuming that it’s the politicians and not the spy chiefs who were the motive force here – have had multiple reasons to do so.
I am glad to have learnt that j_p_z (@ 352) finds this discussion about the murder of 3,000 Americans and probably well over a million from the Middle East and Central Asia that died as a result so entertaining.
Perhaps he should also put that to those Americans who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who are fighting to force New York City to hold a proper inquiry.
mitchell Porter (@ 353),
So, why didn’t those who went to so much trouble to destroy Clinton’s Presidency with the Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater affairs, get a whiff of this?
Until you produce some credible evidence for this, I see no reason to dismiss the mountains of evidence which implicates figures in the Bush administration in the crime of 9/11.
“I am glad… so entertaining.”
Well, think about it for a minute. Just because it is indeed all very serious business, doesn’t entail that anybody has got to include you as part of the set of grave and serious factors.
If we were having a discussion about the state of the modern novel, we wouldn’t be required to include (nor would we be majorly amiss if we somehow failed to take note of) “The Case of the Barking Clock” and “The Skull of the Waltzing Clown” by Harry Stephen Keeler.
Nevertheless I will happily admit that a history of literature that includes such masterpieces is perforce a much more ‘entertaining’ one. Being as I am also a fan of Kit Smart, maybe you and I have got more in common than we realize!
Daggett,
I hope my earlier comment did not give the impression that I was hostile to the points you were making about 9/11. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I have a particular theory about which I would appreciate your opinion.
Back at about a million comments earlier, ‘Nana Levu’ linked to an interesting set of questions, including this one:
Why indeed?
Daggett, you realise that the 9/11 demolition, and all the related operations involving aircraft and air defences, would have taken a great deal of time to prepare? Surely longer than the 9 months Bush had been in office.
You also realise that a new US administration doesn’t instantly dispense with all of the senior officials who belonged to the old administration. It takes years to completely change over. Many of the senior national security bureaucrats in office on 9/11 would have been appointed by President Clinton.
So it seems undeniable that Bill was involved in this up to his eyeballs. Hillary too, obviously. (In fact, I bet she was the real mastermind.)
And you may wonder why has Obama not launched a genuine investigation into 9/11? Truthers have a vast amount of evidence at their fingertips. If Obama has deliberately chosen not to blow the conspiracy right open, it can only mean one thing, can’t it? Mmm-hmm.
Some people point to Bush’s adventures as the point of 9/11. But really, consider how meager these were to justify such a grand black operation. A pissant gas pipeline in Afghanistan (which still hasn’t been built). Toppling a tinpot dictator in Iraq (who was always more than willing to sell oil to the US if only the sanctions were lifted).
NO! The real purpose of 9/11, I put it to you, was to give Bush the opportunity to conduct his wars — which were always intended to fail. These failed Republican wars would then guarantee the election of Barack Obama in 2008. And that was the true purpose of 9/11.
Because, you see, Obama had to become President at this juncture. Rather than me going on any further, check out this explanation:
I report, you decide.
Thank you, Paulus. All is now clear. Surely, there is nothing more to be said.
OK, j_p_z (@ 355),
Where have you even once attempted to seriously discuss 9/11?
Have you?
I mean, apart from responding to counter-suggestion with innuendo and accusation that people like FDB’s sister must have been in on it? That’s a classically paranoid reaction to having a delusion challenged, daggett, and you should recognise it as such.
…
Paulus, masterwork as always. Though I hesitate to suggest a further elaboration: President Eisenhower, who warned the American electorate about the military-industrial complex just as he was leaving office, was in the perfect position as a retired, well-connected General to put into place such a system of economic dominance and control. How would he have been so articulate about something so otherwise abstract if he hadn’t planned it all along?
Liam (@ 359) wrote:
Why not let others see for themselves?
My posts on 9/11 in this forum are at: 28, 50, 72, 105, 126, 139, 142, 172, 186, 187, 193, 196, 227, 236, 237, 246, 251, 256, 265, 268, 271, 273, 280, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 291, 292, 294, 298, 309, 310, 315, 316, 319, 324, 328, 333, 335, 339, 342, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351, 354 and 358.
Anyone wishing to check the quality of Liam’s contributions can go to: 114, 144, 149, 153, 177, 180, 184, 198, 209, 232, 295, 299, 302, 311 and 359.
And j_p_z’s are at 119, 234, 259, 352 and 355.
I don’t think anyone can doubt though, that it must go back to FDR. And/or Keynes himself.
Liam,
Your mention of Eisenhower is making me nostalgic for the old days. The era when an Iowa farm boy working for The Company, armed with nothing more than quick wits, a can-do attitude, and a briefcase of gold sovereigns, could stage a brilliantly successful covert operation. Guatemala. Iran. Indonesia (well, they came close).
These days, it’s all so complicated and convoluted. Nano-thermite, remote-controlled airplanes, Men in Black. To make sense of a modern conspiracy, you have to be a combination civil engineer, quantum physicist, and forensic investigator. Daggett is all of that, but how can us simple folk hope to make head or tail of it?
Sigh. I pine for the 60s, in so many ways.
Indeed Generalfeldmarschall. It’s time the CIA and other American security agencies left alone the idea of orchestrating gigantic engineers’ conspiracies and got back to their core competency: dropping suitcases full of money out of the doors of small planes, and hoping that a bad guy somewhere below gets squashed under the weight.
Daggett, collecting large numbers of “facts” and repeating them does not make an argument. That goes for your comment #360 too.
Awesome song ref Paulus.
But not the only good song on that album.
Agreed.
Liam @ 363, you forgot to mention the use of Air America to deal in massive quantities of opiates to the list of CIA corps competencies.
Nice thread, btw – this could go on to challenge the Missy Higgins effort given enough time.
Get
A
Room
Thanks, Dept.
You know, the fate of Warren really cut me up. In his early 50s, still with so much potential and life ahead of him, the silly bugger gets cancer but refuses to see a doctor until there’s no hope.
I’m sure you’ve all seen this many times before, but it’s always worthy of another spin …
dagget’s link to the James Randi site’s forum on the BBC blopper about the WTC7 has a final comment ( on page 28!)which reveals more reptile alien news.
They are from Zogarth.
.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=def0ba26fb8636eae32af9ed0897bf96&t=75768&page=28
Liam wrote (@ 363):
I would have thought that that made a lot more of an argument than not presenting any facts at all.
Also, Liam if you mean to say that any claims I have made are not factual, then you should do so by referring to them directly, rather than attempting to imply that they are not by such sneaky and underhanded means as putting quote symbols around the word ‘facts’.
Liam continued:
Do you need to be reminded of the reason I listed both my comments?
At 359 you asked:
So, I felt it only fair that others be given the opportunity to look at my posts and be allowed to see for themselves.
I should have written “Do you need to be reminded of the reason I listed my comments?” in my previous post. The word ‘both’ was left in the sentence by mistake.
—
It seems as if even the majority of the 9/11 Commission now rejects its own report, because they were lied to by the Government. See “The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies” by Gordon Duff on Salem-News.com of 11 Sep 09.
The article is about the book “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11.” It quotes the 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey:
Gordon Duff asks:
Graeme Bird is getting amongst it:
Good on you Daggett, how about everyone who disagrees that the three highrises that completely collapsed on 9/11 were controled demolitions take the time to have another, more critical, look at all three collapses.
There is plenty of archival footage on youtube.
The absolute proof that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition is the officially recognised 2.25s of freefall early in the collapse, freefall requires the instantanious removal of all the structural elements and this can only be achieved through precision use of explosives.
Have a look at asia’s tallest controlled demolition for those of you that don’t think that the Towers look like a CD, all tall buildings have to have an upper block created in order to eliminate the risk of toppling…
Thanks for that, andrew (@ 375). It’s nice to finally, once again, see a link to a You Tube broadcast that actually adds to our knowledge of the topic at hand.
I have encountered the argument, that the twin towers ‘collapses’ could not possibly have been a controlled demolition because it was sequenced from the top down instead of bottom up a number of times. Even here that argument appears to have thrown one person somewhat off the track.
The example that you have provided should prove to be the last nail in the coffin of that particular ‘argument’.
—
The Hard Evidence tour featuring Richard Gage and Dr Steven Jones
I have neglected to mention, before now, the Hard Evidence Tour featuring Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Physicist Dr Steven Jones.
Dr Steven Jones produced the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” which conclusively shows that all three World Trade Center building ‘collapses’ were controllled demolitions.
Recently, Richard Gage addressed a sell-out audience in the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and was very well received.
You can see both of them at the following venues and dates:
Sydney
Date: Saturday, 14 November.
Venue:Tom Mann Theatre136 Chalmers St,
Surry Hills, Sydney NSW(Walking distance from Central Railway station)
Seating Capacity: 292
Melbourne
Date/Time: Tuesday, 17th of November, 7pm till 10pm (Please be a little early).
Venue:Victorian Trades Hall (New Council Chamber)
Brisbane
Date/Time: Thursday, 19th of November, 7pm till 10pm (Please be a little early).
Venue:Clayfield Bowling Club
For further information, please visit thehardevidence.com.
The organisers would particularly welcome the attendance and participation in the discussion of people who are prepared to defend the Official US Government explanation of the World Trade Center ‘collapses’.
Unfortunately, we don’t have much footage of buildings collapsing after being hit by planes.
What footage we do have though looks exactly like itself. That much I can say with certainty.
Firstly, it seems most interesting that none of those named by Graeme Bird have since attempted to defend their conduct, thus far, on this forum.
—
FDB (@ 377),
Obviously, in trying to understand what happened on 11 September 2001, we face enormous difficulties. The removal of almost all the evidence from the crime scene immediately afterwards, as discussed above, was the most obvious.
Just because no large passenger aircraft has before or since crashed into any large building doesn’t mean that we cant apply our knowledge of the laws of physics and structural engineering in order to work out what should have happened on that day after two aircraft each crashed into one of the two out of the three buildings that eventually ‘collapsed’.
That is what the 9/11 Commission and NIST should have done but failed to do.
And that is what groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have since made an impressive attempt at achieving even given their lack of resources, obstruction, the removal of evidence, etc.
andrew’s post and my posts before then were to rebut of the nonsense argument that the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers could not have been conrolled demolitions because all controlled demolitions occur from the ground up.
The example that andrew gave, as helpful as it was in disproving that claim, was, in fact, redudant, because we only need common sense to understand that if the structaral strength of a building is suddenly removed by explosives, the building will not remain suspeneded indefinitely in mid-air.
Whether the sequence of explosions that would have removed the strength was top-down, bottom up, middle-outwards or whatever, is irrelevant.
“Firstly, it seems most interesting that none of those named by Graeme Bird have since attempted to defend their conduct, thus far, on this forum.”
Daggett, sometimes people getting bored and wandering off is a sign of nothing more than that. Another possibility is that in any argument, being on the side that’s antagonistic to G Montgomery Bird is widely considered as an absolutely iron-clad guarantee that you are correct.
Another possibility can be deduced from reading this thread.
You’re not kidding FDB and Norto. You know who needs to head the investigation? Rumpole With A Gun.
You still around, daggett? I’m waiting for you to respond to my assertion that the Clintons were into 9/11 up to their eyeballs.
OK, maybe my detour into Obama being the anti-Christ was a little over the top. But still, how can you blame 9/11 solely on the Bush administration, when you haven’t answered the important question:
Paulus, whether or not Clinton was in any way complicit in 9/11 is somewhat beside the point.
The available evidence points overwhelmingly to complicity of figures in the administration of President George W Bush.
I asked earlier whether or not you or other Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists accepted the existence of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against.
If you do, then surely it is not inconceivable, given the lack of accountability and transparency within the US military and intelligence agencies for preparations for 9/11 to have begun while Clinton was still President without his knowledge.
However, even, if, for arguments’s sake, Clinton did know, why shouldn’t there be a proper inquiry into 9/11, all the same, where these sorts of issues can be sorted out as the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) is demanding?
Someone has very kindly posted to 911blogger.com a succinct outline of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory , which I am posting below. Please tell me, FDB, Katz, Liam, murph the surf, mitchell porter, j_p_Z et al if it makes as much sense to you as it does to me.
Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…
Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…
And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…
Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…
Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.
Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…
…Meanwhile down in Washington…
Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…
Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…
Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…
…all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…
…Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…
So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…
And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana…
…Further south in Florida…
President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…
…In New York…
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…
While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…
And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…
I know you can’t see it Daggett, but by Zappa’s Ghost I swear that your deliberate effort to present a ridiculous sounding “official” account sounds WAY more likely than your best effort to plausibly describe an alternative explanation.
Honestly, hand on my heart.
Wow this thread is still going… every tiume my mithriltinfoil alloy hat wears out I have to go get another one made, and take some time off the internet.
“I read John Robb and I vote.”
Thats great Liam, I’m gonna steal that line. He loves his jargon and is good at self promotion, but he is well worth reading. Thats as far as I have got in catching up so far and I have to go out, but …
And a link to free republic here.
Holy motherfucking warrior jeezuz
BTW katz when Hinkley tried to shoot ronnie, wasn’t his old man or brother or something having dinner with the Bushes?
(I can’t remember the details, and don’t really care about conspiracies that don’t effect me when there are ones that do, like how the world rally championships ended up in my part of the world…
)
Still can’t understand how a passport could survive that inferno intact.
Anyone who supports the official version of events care to explain that?
From what I’ve seen here though, most of them do not appear to think that they have any explaining to do, having well known purveyors of truth and justice such as George W Bush and Dick Cheney on their side.
“Still can’t understand how a passport could survive that inferno intact.
Anyone who supports the official version of events care to explain that?”
The major logical problem in the conspiracist mindset is that it tends to treat as-yet-unanswered questions as positive evidence for something otherwise unsupported. Build enough of them up in a higgledy piggledy pile and it becomes easy to convince oneself it’s a fort.
But it’s fucking string and blankets all the way.
Daggert for what its worth, if you look carefully at the footage of the pentagon crash that was released you will see an outline of what appears to be a dark tailplane approximating the size of the plane that hit the pentagon.
(BTW There is no ultimate turtle, its turtles all the way down, for infinity. We are not living in XXXX.)
Jules, why can’t you see that 9/11 and similar ‘false flag’ attacks have been used as a pretext to subvert democracy in the US and here? Can’t you see how they resulted in all the supposedly ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation and strengthened the NSW police state and made possible the invasion of your region in September by riot police to suppress anti-Rally protestors?
Can’t you see how the deception over 9/11 was essentially the same in principle the acknowldedged lie that anti-Rally protestors through rocks at cars to discredit the protestors?
—
FDB, what I have posted is what happened on 11 September 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission, of course, not in so many words, but that is essentially what you will find in their report.
If you don’t agree that that is what happened (as I had thought I had made abundantly clear that I don’t), then, perhaps tell us what you think did happen.
Try re-reading my comment Daggett.
I do not believe I have a ‘conspracist mindset’, I just believe that there are some unanswered questions. What is it with people who can’t appreciate nuance for FFS. Just because I can’t believe that a passport could survive an inferno that destroyed a skyscraper, I’ve got a ‘conspiracist mindset’. I could just as easily claim, with as much justification that you’ve got a gullible mindset.
So your statement could read as follows:
The major logical problem in the conspiracist gullible mindset is that it tends to treat as-yet-unanswered questions as positive evidence for something otherwise unsupported. Build enough of them up in a higgledy piggledy pile and it becomes easy to convince oneself it’s a fort, particularly when it’s approved by officialdom.
Firstly, also, thanks Adrian. It’s nice to see that someone here is actually reading my posts.
—
Apologies for the grammatical error and the spelling error. I should have written:
—
Also, FDB as you have failed to demonstrate any comprehension of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I am hardly surprised to learn that the explanation provided by the 9/11 Commission makes more sense to you.
When you do gain some grasp of our case, could you tell us what laws of Physics it violates and why you see its theories as less probable than those of the 9/11 Commission?
Gotta admit that was fancy flying. That Hanjour dude was a big game performer.
“The major logical problem in the conspiracist mindset is that it tends to treat as-yet-unanswered questions as positive evidence for something otherwise unsupported. Build enough of them up in a higgledy piggledy pile and it becomes easy to convince oneself it’s a fort.” – FDB
That may be true.
Anyone on either side care to explain the pasport story, and why it even exists…
I mean seriously. I heard that one Wednesday morning. It was one of the first things I heard about 9/11 and it is just ridiculous.
The only thing that particular question is really evidence of is a complete lack of critical thinking by anyone who reported it. (IE how the fuck did it get there and what person in their right mind could possibly think it got there via planes that hit a building then exploded.)
And wtf is a “conspiracist mindset” while we are on the subject?
Some form of mental illness maybe. Probably one thats a threat to national security, and the wholesomeness of society…
The problem with a huge pile of unanswered questions is that they are a huge pile of unanswered questions. The the huge pile of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 should make people wonder. I don’t think the CD thesis of 911 answers many of those questions. In fact I think it distracts from them.
When the unanswered questions refer to an event that has been so powerful in directing the dominant narrative of our culture in the 21st century they really should be answered. Basing so much of our action in the world as western nations on an event with that many unanswered questions … I’d be a lot more comfortable with our actions (as Australians and as westerners) if those questions had been answered years ago.
As of now they still haven’t been.
“Jules, why can’t you see that 9/11 and similar ‘false flag’ attacks have been used as a pretext to subvert democracy in the US and here? Can’t you see how they resulted in all the supposedly ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation and strengthened the NSW police state and made possible the invasion of your region in September by riot police to suppress anti-Rally protestors?” – Daggett
They were not that surpressed. One of the riot cops even asked me to stop intimidating him. That was nice. The protests happened, most of the coppers were ok. The dickheads on the road were a pain tho. If the riot coppers had been replaced with traffic cops then NSW would not be broke right now. We always get the riot squad round here, its part of that other war on humans.
One day the people here will really get jack of the bullshit. Then the army won’t be enough to contain the unrest.
Yes I know all about false flag attacks and how the subvert democracy. My former bushfire brigade captian reckons he shared a cell with Tim Anderson actually. Anderson taught him how to meditate. While we are on the subject of “”false flags”.
I can see how the 9/11 report and the lies about rock throwing are similar. Obviously. (And yes they were lies. No one through rocks at rally cars as part of any protst. Tho some people did put some boulders on the rally course the night before.)
What I don’t see is how acknowledging “… that 9/11 and similar ‘false flag’ attacks have been used as a pretext to subvert democracy in the US and here?” is dependant on accepting controlled demolition.
If there is anyone on the planet who thinks the 9/11 attacks weren’t used to subvert democracy they are a complete moron.
But they would have used to subvert democracy whether it was LIHOP, MIHOP or noHOP. And democracy is subverted in other ways all the time anyway.
I do see what you are saying, but it isn’t dependant on MIHOP. (God I hate that term, oh for those of you that don’t know MIHOP = Made it happen on purpose, LIHOP = let it happen…., and noHOP, well I just made it up but obviously it means no Happened on Purpose.)
How many more posts till we cath the Missy Higgins thread?
Just to reiterate…
If there is anyone on the planet who thinks the 9/11 attacks weren’t used to subvert democracy they are a complete moron.
Apparently an ATM card from one of the passengers on the planes that hit the WTC was recovered intact from the crash. I mean, what are the odds that an the inferno, the ATM card from this particular passenger survived? Something sinister was afoot.
Above, we have Daggett (speaking to Paulus) equating Daggettself with those Daggett disagrees with, as if Daggett really doesn’t understand what a conspiracy theorist is.
“I asked earlier whether or not you or other Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists…blah blah”
A conspiracy theorist is someone who theorises (stay with me…) that there is a conspiracy of some kind in operation.
Now, there was clearly a conspiracy to bring down the towers, and plenty of available evidence points to it being the work of Islamic extremists. I have not, and nor has Paulus, and nor has anyone but Truthers as far as I can remember, advanced any theories beyond what the evidence thus indicates.
You have.
This makes you, and not me, a conspiracy theorist.
Do you get it now?
[Adrian, I don't think you are one, but the snippetty shred of frankly non-argument you presented above happened to fit my rhetorical bill nicely - do you disagree?]
“If there is anyone on the planet who thinks the 9/11 attacks weren’t used to subvert democracy they are a complete moron.”
You need firstly to define your terms, and I expect even then you’ll need to go on and explain what their combination means in this case. I’ll happily respond in good faith when I know what you’re talking about.
“How many more posts till we catch the Missy Higgins thread?”
If it ever happens (and a rearguard action could be expected to prevent it) then the only possible explanation is… well… y’know…
No argument, FDB, just a question.
I would have thought that those who totally accept the official version would be able to explain such apparently unbelievable events, as the only reasonable explanation seems to be that the passport(s) were placed at the scene for some reason.
It’s just that you all seem so happy to deride the ‘alternative’ version of events without feeling the need to justify the anomalies that exist in the official version.
Maybe someone lipsnigered the passports there. Or you know, perhaps it’s quite common for paper and fabric based material to survive aircraft disasters.
I don’t think you really understand what ‘anomaly’ means.
Did the official version suggest some sequence of events to explain the survival of the passport, which was inconsistent with something else they said?
Or did they simply report finding a passport?
The “anomaly”, to labour the point way beyond what should be necessary, is no such thing. It’s merely a discrepancy between “a report of evidence gathered” on the one hand, and “what some people think must happen in the event of an aeroplane crashing into a building” on the other.
To once more labour a point already abundantly made, perhaps this event tells us more about what happens when a fully fuelled jet crashes into a building than we have ever been able to learn before. We have one (1) data point.
Why would anyone expect a coherent and comprehensively understood account from one data point?
Madness that way lies.
Yeah we all know what a conspiracy theory is, we all know what a conspiracy theorist is and we all know how that label is used in discourse to frame discussion on a topic.
I want to know what a “conspiracist mindset” is, cos at the moment that phrase has a signal to noise ratio of one less than infinty:zero
“…and plenty of available evidence points to it being the work of Islamic extremists.” – FDB
Just out of interest tho, what evidence is there that the hijackers actually were on the planes?
Anyone care to provide links?
(No I don’t actually think there were no hijackers on the plane, I’m just wondering how the people on either side of this argument come to their conclusions about what happened.)
FDB, are you suggesting that anti terror laws don’t subvert democracy?
Seriously how can you not understand that statement above.
I’ll try again. (moran will be a deliberate typo btw, its an imeme like pwned.)
Regardless of the cause, regardless of the involement or non involvement of US officials and people connected to the Bush admin and intel services of the US and other countries, such as Pakistan, 9/11 happened.
In response the Australian, US and UK governments used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to subvert democracy. (Other countries did as well, I’m familiar with the 3 nations I mentioned.)
They did this by passing legislation under the banner of “protecting people”. That legislation actively subverts what we in Australia consider to be democracy, ie a state that practises democratic principles. The legislation didn’t subvert the state itself (cept in that it subverts its legitimacy) it did subvert the democratic principles that a state needs to remain democratic.
If you disagree with this you are a moran.
Was that any clearer? (It certainly wasn’t to me.)
FDB, FYI, I understand what anomaly means, but apparently you don’t. For your information, from Wikipedia:
“An anomaly is any occurrence or object that is strange, unusual, or unique. It can also mean a discrepancy or deviation from an established rule or trend.”
If you don’t think that finding an undamaged passport in the ruins at 9/11 is ‘strange or unusual’ I have a used bridge to sell you.
OK, on the passport:
Hijacker probably in the cockpit as the plane hits the Tower. Footage shows windows (and other impact debris) shooting out of the floor(s) the plane hit. Plane flying close to horizontally as it hits the Tower. Enormous (forward, horizontal) momentum as it hits.
I would not be surprised if many kgs of material from inside the plane’s cockpit (and including the shattered cockpit window) went shooting out into the air on the far side of the Tower, during the fraction of a second the impact took.
The inferno may have begun less than a tenth of a second after impact. It matters not. Some debris could shoot out before the main fire began. [Analogy: driver's upper torso breaks through windscreen of motor vehicle that crashes at 100 km/hr, if the driver is not blocked completely by a seatbelt or the steering column.]
Yes it was an “inferno”. But if the passport wasn’t in the building any longer, as the inferno took hold, why should it burn?
The hypothesis above seems consistent with physics (momentum, energy, strength of materials) and chemistry (ignition, combustion).
**************
Skilful pilots? A friend who’s a pilot told me the footage of the second impact on a Tower shows the wings flexing tremendously, suggesting the plane was doing a late, sharp turn in order to hit the target. What if the pilot had missed? Would the plane have continued on, then turned around to return for a second attempt?
**************
Was that wise Liam?
Megrahi, as you well know, was framed!
(Dicuss till @500.)
There is a host of things the “official” series of events doesn’t explain.
No surprise when you consider how flawed the investigation was.
“Why would anyone expect a coherent and comprehensively understood account from one data point?
Madness that way lies.” – FDB
Thats a fair point, tho madness is cool fun. Its a big part of my scepticism regarding controlled demolition (or any sort, barring “by plane”).
But really trying to account for the presence of that passport in the wreckage by basically saying “sometimes shit happens that we can’t explain” in the context of this discussion…
And I quote:
“anomalies that exist in the official version”
To me, this implies “within the official version”. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You have correctly identified that the only conflict (whether of the anomalous kind or not) is as I have said. That is, between collected material evidence and “what some folks reckon must happen in a situation like this as-yet-unique one”.
Well, that’s quite an anomaly. Got me scratching my head.
FDB,
Where have you provided a shred of evidence on this forum that supports the Official 9/11 Conspiray Theory that you are peddling?
Do you recall how there was also “plenty of available evidence point[ing]” to Lindy Chamberlain’s guilt of having murdered her baby Azaria?
However, when knowledgeable and critical-minded people began to subject that ‘evidence’ to critical scrutiny, it very quickly unravelled.
Exactly the same has occurred with all the ‘evidence’ in support of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
I have yet to see any evidence in support of the Official explanation of 9/11 that has not already been shot down in flames every bit as much as the whole prosecution case against Lindy Chamberlain.
When do you intend to prove me wrong by posting such evidence to this forum?
joe2 I guess we’ll never know now, seeing as he doesn’t have to go through the appeal. (Better start that rearguard action people.)
waftt Possibly…
Provided the stuff in the cockpit didn’t hit the steel core in the middle of the building after it left the cockpit, and something else managed to momentum its way through all the walls, partitions, desks, people, banks of of computer eqipment and whatever other stuff happened to be between the front of the plane and the far wall/window of the building, in front of the passport, enabling it to travel through the building and out the other side and all the way to the ground somewhere it wouldn’t be completely buried by dust and debris.
So why,assume the passport was even in the cockpit?
daggett
Lindy Chamberlain wasn’t actually freed cos people challenged the evidence.
Her conviction was unsafe, but an appeal against that conviction failed.
It was only new evidence that led to her aquittal.
In fact the Lindy Chamberlain case is quite instructive in light of this discussion we are having.
The original “official’ verdict in that case was based on a completely flawed interpretation of the available evidence, yet all sorts of biases were at play and these created huge resistance to an accurate reading of the events.
Tho I doubt anyone commenting on this thread would allow their bias to interfere in their assessment of what happened on 11/9/2001.
The dingo ate the Twin Towers?
“I have yet to see any evidence in support of the Official explanation of 9/11 that has not already been shot down in flames every bit as much as the whole prosecution case against Lindy Chamberlain”
So all the video footage of the twin towers and pentagon taken by many different people at various locations is all false and a fabrication?
Is this claim not a wee bit overextending concerns that odd discrepancies might prompt?
“The dingo ate the Twin Towers?”
Bingo.
More likely the passport would have been in the carry-on luggage stowed in the overhead lockers.
It is unlikely that a hijacker bent on taking control of a plane wielding his box cutter would also be carrying his carry on luggage.
Unless he was claiming there was a bomb in it, and using that to ensure compliance in the other passengers.
Or perhaps he had it in a special fireproof container to ensure that the passport would be found after his death, in order to provide evidence about Saudi complicity with the CIA so that a war against an Iraqi dictator could be justified. Wait
Many folks carry their passport on their person and NEVER put it in an overhead locker or in their luggage. Likely they showed it at the check-in desk.
jules @ 2.08 pm, you seem to be assuming most of those physical objects you list were between the (damaged, disintegrating) cockpit and the nearest windows. I don’t assume that. I reckon a whole lot of things & people inside that floor (or floors) were swept aside as an extremely heavy high-speed mass (the plane, its passengers, its fuel and luggage) swept into the building. Less than a second to sweep in, sweep stuff aside, crumple, eject any ejecta, and cause debris to go shooring out the other side of the Tower.
You’ve seen the footage. Possibly hundreds of kilos sprayed out. That would include Tower window glass, wood, metal, wall materials, bits of smashed furniture?… ?? who knows? some of it looks like timber to me; even if 95% of that debris was in the Tower before the collision, not inside the plane, it’s still not beyond the realms of possibility that stuff from inside the cockpit fell out of the building too.
NOT many folks intend to crash the plane on which they are travelling into a tall building.
The security of their travel documents would not be uppermost in their thoughts.
Yeah but …
Like I said possibly.
But I honestly can’t see the passport going through the steel core and out the other side, and both planes seemed to hit close enough to the centre of the building that I’d assumed they carried through and hit the core. Its just an assumption tho.
I’d also assume thats why the buildings seemed to topple as a block from the impact points when they finally fell too.
Given all that tho, the coincidence factor regarding finding that passport is just too high in my book. I heard about it on TV at about 10 am that morning after the attack, and my immediate gut response was “Bullshit!! No way. Dont believe you. I’ve seen all sorts of crazy flukey shit in my life and I still don’t believe you.”
But I do take your point, and to a fair degree agree with FDB about the unique nature of the event, and thats why I find it hard to find meaning in any statements about the collapse.
The story of the head of Pakistan’s ISI transferring $100,000 to Atta tho, thats interesting. It may all stem from Indian intel sources tho which may refute it, those sources having no cred on matters to do with terrorism. (For example Which high ranking Indian law enforcement official died during the Mumbai rampage in sus circumstances after exposing a connection between extreme right wing Hindus with govt connections and bombings that were originally attributed to Muslim terrorists?)
See its a complicated pointless web.
The revolutionary feature of the WTC buildings is that they didn’t have a core in the sense of a structure that bore the weight of the building.
Rather, the perimeter walls bore the weight of the building.
There was therefore nothing remarkably solid for the planes to hit in the centre of the buildings.
There was a steel core. It wasn’t the same as other structures but it was there.
“But I do take your point, and to a fair degree agree with FDB about the unique nature of the event, and thats why I find it hard to find meaning in any statements about the collapse.”
But you can at least admit the meaning in the following statement:
“What appeared to occur on 11/09/2001 was that two airplanes with near-full fuel tanks flew into two large buildings in New York, USA. Shortly afterwards, both buildings collapsed.”
Now, apply Occam’s Razor and PRESTO!!! Who’d a thunkit? The answer is…
THE FUCKING PLANES DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!
To elaborate, although the towers were built as Katz describes, they did have a steel and concrete core, and imo it was solid enough to stop a passport, even if it wasn’t designed to support the weight of the wtc.
I think you’ll also find it was strong enough to stop a plane.
The core provided stability to the structure (didn’t it?) even if it didn’t support the weight. That stability loss probably does have a lot to do with the collapse, but I don’t really know.
FDB, I’ve read a Corrolary to Occam’s Razor, which is, “Never ascribe to malevolence what can be explained by stupidity.”
That’s why I don’t take conspiracy theories seriously any more.
““What appeared to occur on 11/09/2001 was that two airplanes with near-full fuel tanks flew into two large buildings in New York, USA. Shortly afterwards, both buildings collapsed.”
Now, apply Occam’s Razor and PRESTO!!! Who’d a thunkit? The answer is…
THE FUCKING PLANES DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!” – FDB
If you read through this thread you won’t find me claiming the towers were demolished by anything other than planes. I might admit its a possibility but I’m agnostic about it.
My opinion is that the planes had help getting to the point where they could slam into the towers. Who from, how much help and why … I have no real idea, but plenty of suspicions. Ultimately there are more important things in the world BUT seeing as we are talking about it …
The passport … it sure seems sus. How did it survive, and then how come it was found so quick, and on top of all that – how come people thought it was credible in the first place?
The response by western govternments has effectively subverted democracy, and by democracy I mean the systems of government we use in English speaking nations but also in many many other nations. They involve things like free and fair elections, respect for and adherence to the rule of law, the seperation of powers, judicial principles of fairness and justice etc etc
Certainly its not the only subversion of democracy in the last 8 years, but none the less the overall response to 9/11 is the most significant attack on what we understand to be democracy and freedom.
And whats a conspiracist mindset?
“The response by western govternments has effectively subverted democracy.”
Indeed, Jules, and the question you must then ask is: cui bono?
And the answer is: he’s the lead singer of U2.
No, no, actually the answer is, the individual who has benefited the most by the shenanigans of the part 8 years is Mr Nobel Fucking Peace Laureate. Or, to call him by the title that his infernal minions use, His Satanic Majesty Barry I.
Ask yourself, have you ever heard President Obama, at a press conference or other public gathering, specifically deny that he is the Anti-Christ? You haven’t, have you? Think about it.
‘Obama-nation’, that’s what the US is these days. It sounds just like ‘abomination’, doesn’t it? Do you seriously think that’s just a coincidence?
Daggett seemed dismissive of my theory. If he wants to believe the official version, like a trusting sheep, that’s his choice. But I challenge him, or any of the other government dupes on this thread, to provide one piece of positive evidence that Obama is not the Great Beast of the Book of Revelation. I’ll bet they can’t.
Be careful Paulus. Be careful who you impersonate.
I’d love to know how you do that Devil Drink.
The answer to how is contained in the answer to who, Casey. As it is with all proper conspiracies.
Yes, yes. You’ve said that before. all powerful fallen angel blah blah blah. If no one believes in God on this site, you reckon you stand a chance?
But it is rather spectacular I must say, the way you do it. Like that time your we conjured you by mentioning your name three times in a no. of languages and you appeared. I’d say respect, but, you know, like, no.
Say, you didn’t have to happen to have anything to do with little satanic altar in Canberra did you? Naughty naughty…now look what you’ve done. One million Catch on Fire christians are descending. Holy Crap I wouldn’t want to be in Canberra right now.
Yes, yes. You’ve said that before. all powerful fallen angel blah blah blah. If no one believes in God on this site, you reckon you stand a chance?
But it is rather spectacular I must say, the way you do it. Like that time your we conjured you by mentioning your name three times in a no. of languages and you appeared. I’d say respect, but, you know, like, no.
Say, you didn’t have to happen to have anything to do with little satanic altar in Canberra did you? Naughty naughty…now look what you’ve done. One million Catch on Fire christians are descending. Holy Crap I wouldn’t want to be in Canberra right now.
I’m glad someone finally realised bono is the antichrist.
Ahh, the devilish magic of RSS.
Really Satanic Stuff
How do you do that, Casey?
You’ve summoned yourSELF up twice. Do you carry a passport on that nifty
broomstick? Anyone noticed that ‘piracy’ is part of ‘consPIRACY’?
Thed Long John Silver, ‘e be behind thut nasty business.
Pieces of six, pieces of six squawked the damn parrot. Ghostly thread veers from the piratical to the parrotical as the sea mists sweep in.
Yeah Katz, I know, but he is so method. How long has he been in character now? He is the
Brando of LP.
Jules @ 401,
“I want to know what a “conspiracist mindset” is, cos at the moment that phrase has a signal to noise ratio of one less than infinty:zero”
I thought FDB nailed that @ 388 (and 391, of course):
“The major logical problem in the conspiracist mindset is that it tends to treat as-yet-unanswered questions as positive evidence for something otherwise unsupported.[...]”
Which defines the conspiracist mindset by the most common problem it has in expressing itself and its theories.
Daggett went on to write @ 390:
“Jules, why can’t you see that 9/11 and similar ‘false flag’ attacks have been used as a pretext to subvert democracy in the US and here? Can’t you see how they resulted in all the supposedly ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation and strengthened the NSW police state and made possible the invasion of your region in September by riot police to suppress anti-Rally protestors?”
Daggett, I have no problem with any of the above. Except, “and similar ‘false flag’ attacks”.
You can suspect this (questions), but you can’t prove it (answers). Yet, you chose right there to state it as rhetorically conclusive. As something you’ve concluded. You’re simultaneously trying to convince people to ‘keep an open mind’ or what have you, but you’ve already shot yourself below the shin.
Just worth being aware of in your discussions, maybe.
Good points Nick.
Especially wrt language. In all probability ASIO planted the bomb outside the Hilton in Sydney 31 years ago. I think the conspiracy theory that they meant to find the bomb and justify their existance is probably right. Calling it a false flag, or similar to 9/11 is a poor use of language. Thats a problem with “9/11 Truth”, poor use of language, especially since 2004, but probably always.
Anyway ASIO was probably responsible for the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney, maybe not, either way it wasn’t technically a false flag attack. But do we have a term for that sort of event?
I didn’t know the term “conspiracist mindset” was actually defined by its major problems.
Are there other problems?
Do they also define the mindset?
I mean treating as yet unanswered questions as evidence for something unsupported is one thing.
There’s a dynamic at play tho. People often ask the questions, repeatedly, without a satisfactory answer. After a while those questions and other anomolies, rightly or wrongly, begin to look like proof cos no one answers them to their satisfaction.
Thats how confirmation bias begins. Sometimes. And everyone here has confirmation bias. (cept me, obviously.)
On their own unanswered questions are just that, in the context of 9/11 many are strongly suggestive of something. What that is, who can say, without them being answered properly.
As I have said before, the best that can be said about the Bush admin wrt 9/11 is that they were incompetent and negligent. Yet it happened and everyone promtly forgot that the day before Donald Rumsfeld had come out and said that over 3 TRILLION dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget in two years.
And proceded to give the Bush admin carte blanche to waste even more money. Who knows how much went to their cronies via billions wasted on private contractors in various pointless wars. Not to mention the torture, renditions etc etc, tho really thats nothing new.
Anyway thats not evidence either, cept of human stupidity. I’d love to know how they got away with it tho.
I do have my suspicions.
(That probably isn’t safe for kids or the squeamish btw.)
And we’ve seen it before but it’s worth re-posting.
the Hilton Hotel bomb was placed in a rubbish bin on the footpath outside the hotel. Victims? Rubbish men emptying the bin, not politicians. A callous and murderous act, presumably with political motives.
“On their own unanswered questions are just that, in the context of 9/11 many are strongly suggestive of something. What that is, who can say, without them being answered properly.”
Well said, jules. That just about sums it up for me, but surely we can get to 500.
On 11 September 2001 the crime of the murder of almost 3,000 US citizens was committed.
As noted @ 308 within hours, the FBI had claimed to have completely solved that crime even though we were expected to believe that they, the US military, all the US intelligence agencies, the US aviatian authorities and the US government had claimed to have been taken completely by surprise by the terrorists.
As I have pointed out, to accept that the 19 hijackers directed by people from sanctuaries within Afghanistan were responsible for the crimes one has to accept the bizarre account of events provided by the 9/11 Commission, a summary of which that I have posted @ 308.
Clearly the US Government, the Australian Government and the newsmedia wholely accept that story (although they avoid presenting in its totality as I have done, evidently fearing that merely to do so, would make its absurdity too obvious to deny).
It seems as if most of those arguing against me would have us accept that version of events, although they have avoided saying so openly.
Others appear to have rejected that version, but seem happy to let the crime remain unsolved.
It’s as if, having concluded that Andrew Pennington was not guilty of the murders of Linnet Doyle and Salome Otterbourne, that Inspector Poirot allowed those crimes to remain unsolved.
What has happened since 2001 is as if Andrew Pennington has been pronounced guilty of those crimes.
Some here would evidently be happy to let Andrew Pennington go to the gallows for a crime he did not commit, whilst allowing Simon Doyle and Jacqueline de Bellefort to profit from their crime.
Those, who are so hysterically attacking me for pointing to the overwhelming evidence implicating senior figures within the Bush administration in the crime of 9/11 seem not to be troubled by the fact that the prevalance of the views, they, our politicians and our newsmedia are pushing, has allowed the US Government to get away with murdering hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis and Iraqis for a crime that figures, within the US Government, themselves almost certainly committed.
I note how this thread has been filled with even more irrelevant fluff, such as discussion of the “[unofficial] conspiracist mindset”[1].
What the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists (as well as those who would have us believe that they think that the crime of 9/11 should remain unsolved) have done by filling this thread with so much more irrelevant fluff[1] is avoided responding to my many simple and direct points.
One point is why shouldn’t there be a proper inquiry into 9/11?
Why, in a democracy, where Governments are supposed to serve and protect the people shouldn’t the victims of 9/11 be allowed to have those, whose gross negligence, if not complicity in the 9/11 attacks, casused the deaths of spouses, siblings, parents, sons and daughters, held to account?
FDB wrote,
Either FDB is completely stupid or he is deliberately wasting the time of those who are genuinely trying to understand this very important issue.
A theory should not only be simple, but it should also account for all the observations. If nothing else, FDB should have at least understand by now, that a third building, WTC 7,that wasn’t even hit by any plane ‘collapsed’ completely into dust exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition.
As I already wrote, the Twin Towers were built with such enormous redundant strength as to easily withstand a direct head on impact from a Boeing 707. One of the orignal engineers said they should have been able to with repeared impacts from 707′s.
If the buildings failed to perform as their designers intended, then Building Engineeers are entitled to know why. This is what the NIST inquiries failed to do for even one of the three buildings.
Even if they were to have somehow failed, they should not have collapsed so quickly. Therefore the theory has to also explain how all that enormous structural strength, many times what was necessary to support the weight of the towers failed in as little as 12 second, barely more than free-fall speed or 16 seconds at the very most.
The only theory offered so far that makes any sense to any engineer is the controlled demolition theory, yet that was not even considered by NIST.
Clearly NIST, the US Government, the Australian Government, the newsmedia, and, it would seem, quite a few who who are participating in this forum desperately want to prevent that fact from becoming more widely known.
Footnotes
1. Such as pontification about the “[unofficial] conspiracist mindset”. What is not explained is that if I have such a mindset why I also (most unfortunately) did not even begin to seriously question the US Government version of events until around 2 years ago, that is 6 years after 9/11.
Rinse, repeat.
I need a haircut.
Well, if we are going for 500…
Anyone seen this sort of thing?
The 9/11 stargate mega ritual. (I kid you not, thats what he calls it.)
This article will connect Kubrick’s Monolith with the events of 9/11. To do so we will look at a certain actor, one Dan O’Herlihy, and his roles in the movies, Fail Safe, Robocop, and The Big Cube.
Yeah …. ok.
I can’t see any hysteria in the arguments mounted against you Mr daggett. I can see patient attempts to point out SOME of the flaws in your extensive writings. Not every point has received a response. There are only 24 hours in each day, and sadsly there are only 7 days in each week.
jules, that characteristic of the ‘conspiracist mindset’ is not a definition. It is an observable characteristic that appears very often in the writings of those whose mindset is conspiracist.
Just as you would find citation of experimental results in the writings of a research chemist; or appeals to logical principles in the writings of a mathematician or logician or a research chemist; or citation of laws and court rulings in the writings of a barrister or judge.
The Enlightenment attempted to bring more reason into public discourse, and reduce superstition. The project continues…..
“What is not explained is that if I have such a mindset why I also (most unfortunately) did not even begin to seriously question the US Government version of events until around 2 years ago, that is 6 years after 9/11.”
A lot of troofers, sorry truthers say that sort of thing. What took you so long to wake up? And why do you expect other people to suddenly share your revelation? (Not trying to be offensive, but you know bolting horses and shutting gates… especially stargates.)
Years ago i wrote an essay for a uni course about conspiracy theory as a process of self initiation that is usually incomplete. that was in the 90s, but it might be worth a revisit in light of 9/11.
The basic idea was that something akin to religious conversion happens when someone suddenly “sees the truth” about a conspiracy. Usually the people involved have a previous belief system which is overturned by the revelation. Thus the incompleteness. Replacing one BS with another isn’t really much of a leap.
Usually a series of initiations replaces on false truth with another till the initiate gets jack of the bullshit and starts thinking for themselves. Since this probably takes several lifetimes, and most people seem to have only one…. anyway…
The Pentagon was obviously a huge version of one of Solomons Jars. The US military captured the Cuthulu spawned servant of the Ogdru Jahad that was working with Nazis in germany. (Mike Mignola was wrong when he wrote hellboy, the Anung Un Rama is not a dude with a cool haircut but it has a red right hand. (Cos of all the blood.) )
Jack Parsons and L Ron Hubbard performed the babalon working in march 46, and as a result the cleft in spacetime allowed something through. This critter was born to that well known hellspawn Barbara Bush on July 6 1946, and rose to power in the US through the 90s. Not being fully human it only needed a gestation period of about 4 months.
This creature had come to earth with a mission, to free the servant of Ogdru Jahad that was trapped in the pentagon. hence 9/11. The towers were just a distraction, and a conveinient source of blood and pain for the servant, which is either Negral or Irra Jahad most probably.
I really thought all this was obvious.
Ah, but what was NASA really doing when allegedly it set off explosions on the moon that we couldn’t actually see when it was supposed to happen? Something sinister no doubt as the planning began in the GWB years. But why did Obama go along with it? What are they not telling us?
Guess I better add this, just in case ASIO and the CIA take me seriously –
They didn’t consider the possibility of Gojira-attack, either. Probably because they thought it dashed unlikely.
Daggy, have you even read the NIST reports? They make it very clear that fires (started by the aircraft impacts) caused the structural failure resulting in all three (1, 2 and 7) collapses.
Personally, I think you’re both stupid AND wasting everyone’s time. However, if it’s in the cause of Thread-Doom, I say: shine on, you crazy nano-diamond.
“The Enlightenment attempted to bring more reason into public discourse, and reduce superstition.” – My socks and undies (where angels really do fear to tread.)
well it utterly failed.
Then again it was hardly Enlightenment.
Enlightenment occurs after a successful integration of the experience of identifying your consciousness with the totality of existence, (instead of the meat bag we usually associate it with), madness usually follows a failed attempt at integration.
A fundamental part of Enlightenment is the realisation of compassion for all life, all of reality in fact. Its based in empathy. Another fundamental part is that it doesn’t actually change anything except the way you view the world. Once you understand the nature of existance compassion is the only logical response.
Perhaps if “teh enlightenment” had understood the nature of compassion it might not have failed. perhaps it will, one day, suck seed. and eggs.
“The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace;
the Blue Triangle is the ascending tongue of prayer”
Has anyone ever read the NIST reports?
I mean every bit of all of them?
“The purple tongue should not eat inkweed berries.”
“where angels fear to tread” wrote:
Like “THE FUCKING PLANES DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!”?
Or FDB’s other inspired contributions @ 240 and 250.
To point out the ‘flaws’ in my arguments, you have to at least acknowledge those arguments.
All I have seen so far are your own ludicrous attempts to explain away how that passport was so conveniently and miraculously found the very next day in the rubble of the Twin Towers.
Where else have my arguments been acknowledged, let alone rebutted?
Please just provide links to the the posts or the numbers.
All I have seen are personal attacks, endless attempts to riducule me, straw man demolitions, the dragging of red herrings across the trail and other debaters’ tricks.
I haven’t even got one of my detractors to explicitly defend the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, a summary of which I posted above.
And if they reject that version of events, I am still waiting to know whether they think that the crime of 9/11 should be properly investigated or whether it should remain unsolved.
I have yet, after 444 posts, to find out from my detractors whether or not they believe that those who allowed almost 3,000 US citizens to be murdered on 11 September 2001 (whether by omission or commission) be held to account.
—
No, FDB, it’s not ‘rinse, repeat’.
You advanced “Occam’s Razor” as a reason why we should unquestioningly accept that two planes were able to cause three buildings to collapse.
For the first time in this thread I have rebutted that spurious argument and, I believe, have demonstrated that you don’t understand basic scientific principles or that you are intentionally misleading this discussion.
What? You mean you haven’t? Personally, I thought Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers, NCSTAR 1-6 for short, was very racy bed-time reading, though the bisexual gypsy twins were a bit much at times.
I thought everyone commenting here had read the reports?
OK, people: everyone here who HASN’T read the NIST reports please raise your paw.
NCSTAR 1-6 has some pretty interesting issues tho. No doubt you are aware of them.
The gypsy twins were a nice distraction tho, especially that think they did with the somersault and … er I’ll shut up now.
Sorry about the incorrect link to FDB’s memorable, helpful and informative post:
The third last paragraph in my previous post should have ended, “shouldbe held to account.”
—
Sideshow Bob asks if I have read the NIST reports. In fact US Physics Teacher David Chandler has and caught the authors out lying about the critical detail of over 2 seconds of collapse at free-fall speed that their original reports attempted to conceal. His confrontation with the authors of that report on YouTube is well worth watching.
Jules asks:
At least three reasons:
1. Because I trusted the word of precisely the kind of people that are working overtime her on this thread to conceal the truth about 9/11, that is, people who would have us believe that they are left-wing, against the wealthy elites and on the side of the poor and oppressed. If I had not placed such undeserved trust in such people I would have have woken up long before I did.
2. I avoided studying the question properly because it seemed to me that it would be enormously difficult and time consuming for me to sort through the claims and counter-claims surrounding the 9/11 controversy. Giving that (wrong) impression to others who are attempting to learn the truth is clearly one of the intentions of those who are adding so much clutter to this this discussion. (I still have to find the time to work out what I think of controversies such as that surrounding the swine flu, and the Port Arthur massacre, BTW)
3. I had other concerns: the Howard Government, privatisation, the environment, overpopulation, work, life, etc.
Look I don’t want to judge you or tell you how to live your life Daggett, and I have a soft spot for Truthers, cos I’m a bit of one myself, or would be if it wasn’t for fucking controlled demolition, which I think is an energy sink. For people with activist zeal.
“Because I trusted the word of precisely the kind of people that are working overtime her on this thread to conceal the truth about 9/11″
I don’t they are working, let alone putting in overtime. Nor do I think their goal is to conceal the truth about 9/11. They may well be useful idiots, but can you (or me) honestly say with any confidence that we are not? (I’d like to think I could but thats the point of being a useful idiot isn’t it, you don’t know you are one.)
See since 9/11 happened (and I was sus on it from day one) the 9/11 truth movement has attracted quite a few nuts who scream loudly about all sorts of garbage, from “evil Zionazis Jews for Obama done it”to “holograms and HAARP not planes”. Yet the consistant questions about connectons and corruption have never gone away, just disappeared under the weight of increasing amounts of noise. The signal to noise ratio of the 9/11 truth movement increased significantly especially since garbage like loose change and in plane sight came out.
And in that entire time nothing the truth movement has done has actually undone the damage Bush, Cheney and the other bloodthirsty warmongers in the last US admin unleashed on the world. No truther has helped overturn the Patriot act, they were far less concerned about FISA than about nano thermate or thermite or whatever the fuck Steve Jones calls it, and none of them (to my knowledge) are actively pressuring Obama to reinstate habeas Corpus (which he should have done on day one, just another of the long list of failures Obama will end up being remembered for.)
Yet whenever I mention this to them they say “When we prove they did 9/11 all that stuff will have to go, by definition.” Or words to that effect. There is no stated mechanism for this, just some blind faith. And in case you missed it, proving 9/11 as defined by Dylan Avery style truthers will result in what exactly? Nothing unless its accompanied by an overthrow of the current US admin, cos there are plenty of officials in that who would have to be compromised if the truthers are right. Not to mention Congress, etc etc
So we are looking at the overthrow of the last, and some of the current US government. And their public trial and execution. It has to be that way cos much of what caused 9/11 according to truthers is structural, and the individuals are effectively interchangeable.
Personally I think my theory with Hubbard and parsons invoking something dodgy that settled in barbara Bushes womb and caused the attacks to release a force that was held in the pentagon makes more sense (on a mythological level) than any other theory that tries to explain the event in physical terms, and I was actually half joking about it, maybe completely joking, I’m not sure. But I would say that wouldn’t I.
On reflection I think it needs modification. Parsons and Hubbard were trying to invoke something beautiful into the world and its just a perverse twist of fate that it ended up in Barbs womb. That experience warped it so much that it came out looking for revenge. It also extended the life of the universe by several trillion years cos thats how much therapy the poor critter will need to recover from the experience.
Sorry for wandering off into the absurd, but I kind of have to.
Otherwise I end up shouting and banging my head against a brick wall.
“I had other concerns: the Howard Government, privatisation, the environment, overpopulation, work, life, etc.”
“I still have to find the time to work out what I think of controversies …”
How much time have you used on 911 truth that could have served you and your community in a more effective way, especially in regard to those other concerns you listed, after the Howard Government. Do you still find the time to be as effective in those other areas and have a good (ie meaningful and worthwhile) life?
You don’t have to answer me on this thread. Those questions are for you to think about over time.
In other news, it looks like the Higgs boson is actually c’thulu.
Well, I had my haircut.
Sorry, gravatar no longer accurate.
I won’t let it stop me working overtime here on this thread to conceal the truth about 9/11 though.
No siree B.O.B.
This is well on target to become LP’s fourth 500 comment thread.
‘Well, I had my haircut.’
Yeah it’s always about you FDB. Here’s 50c – tell someone who cares, or maybe build a bridge and get over it. (sorry it’s been a while since I’ve actually talked to a 13 year old so the lingo might be just a little bit out of date.)
This’ll get to 500 yet.
It will if I have anything to do with it.
Mr daggett,
you say my explanation of a possible way for the passport to descend from the Tower to the ground is “ludicrous”.
I disagree.
I believe my hypothesis is consistent with physics and chemistry. I prefer hypotheses and explanations that are consistent with the physical sciences (and with arithmetic, causality, etc.) There was a poster who picked you up on a simple error (feet vs metres) in your “free fall” calculations.
I don’t have the time to follow you down large numbers of rabbit holes.
You seem to assume that those who don’t reply to you have not “thought about” the events in question and their antecednts. I suggest to you they have thought long anbd hard about those events, and disagree with your “world view”; they have “acknowledged” your writings (I hesitate to call them “arguments”) by responding to some, but are not duty bound to accept the vailidity of your assertions or your reasoning.
Neither are they obliged to answer every point you raise.
For the record the others are Missy Higgins: Lipsniger?, The Trotskyist Meta-Ethics of the Atom Bomb, and Chicks With Guns.
What if Al-Queda tried to blow up the moon?
Comment in spaminator, to precede this one:
…and another that should have made it but didn’t was Tim and Jeremy’s Sylvia Plathitude.
Well, I asked…and you didn’t answer.
Oh yeah! YouTube! The source of all knowledge! Yairs, let’s play Duelling YouTube.
In fact, high-school teacher David Chandler does no such thing.
“Where angels fear to tread”,
It’s almost inconceivable that the passport not attached to a part of the hijacker’s body or clothing would have flown out of either of the Twin Towers at the time of the crash.
And if it had, it would have most likely been found on the day by somebody in the streets below. If it had not, I can’t imagine it being found the very next day under so much rubble.
And if the passport had remained inside the tower, the chances of it being found at all, let alone found the next day, would be practically nil.
Common sense would surely tell us that it is almost infinitely more likely that the passport found so coveniently for the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory the next day would have been planted.
I’ve e-mailed Torchwood but they really aren’t much use because they can NEVER find The Doctor. Maybe The Doctor put the Paspor… Oh … Would have have to have been a Dalek or a Cyberman …
Now that is ridiculous Paul.
Doctor is allergic to Passports. And Torchwood … we all know who they really work for.
NCSTAR 1-6 somewhere round page 300 if anyone’s really interested.
jules @ 437,
I did think of one more observable characteristic, courtesy WAFTT @ 444, though I’ll venture that observable characteristics might be the only way by which you could arrive at a definition of a particular mindset?
Conspiracists actively seek to proselytise.
Base structural errors in language, and proselytising = predicatoriness?
Its a bit of a born again thing isn’t it Nick. Well it certainly seems that way to me.
Its one thing to say, “This sure looks sus.”
Its another to say that you know what happened. Then expect other people to react like you have just saved their life.
Dogma is dogma and it always sucks.
Dogma, dogmatist, dogmatic, DogMan
doggone, ain’t that the truth, jules…..
I dunno.
What is truth?
” ‘What is truth?’ said Pontius Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.”
– Francis Bacon
This guy knows
Didn’t he write shakespeare?
Think a seagull once told me the truth is ‘in here’.
But that don’t seem right either.
I wasn’t one of those giant seaguls with the big teeth was it?
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, Bacon wrote Bacon.
Simple really: do try to keep up, jules.
It wasn’t …
I had no idea you were a seagull, Jules!
Oops, bit late…I also had no idea what tgc was referring to.
That looks interesting. Cheers.
Of course criticising something you haven’t read is always fun so i’ll have a go.
Typical of western imperialist academics to try and frame truth in their own way, everyone else does, but claiming that primative societies rely on emotional truth, which is non sensory and non rational is utter garbage. So called primative societies are wholly dependant on sensory truth for survival, on deductive truth for survival and he would know that if he ever actually tried to get himself a meal from scratch.
And he possibly doesn’t understand BC Chinese philosophy, but then who does.
I looked him up on lazipedia too, apparantly he got beat up by coppers for jaywalking.
Thats a bit rough.
Some truths are not meant to be known.
Just for the record:
I think it is silly to add contrived posts just for the purpose of making this forum reach 500 posts (although I guess it is no worse than adding contrived posts to make it harder for others to understand the 9/11 controversy).
—
Sideshow Bob (@ 462),
To answer your question: No, I have not. David Chandler has and has shown those reports not to be worth the paper they are printed on. Have you read them?
Sideshow Bob wrote, “let’s play Duelling YouTube.”
If we must, Sideshow Bob, at least provide links to videos which are in response to the videos I have linked to.
The Youtube video you linked to does not even address the content of the one I linked to, “‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ …The Movie”, (which I also linked to earlier @ 172 BTW). If you had bothered to look at that video, you would know that.
In fact, it is a response to an earlier video “WTC7 in Freefall” by David Chandler.
The video “‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ …The Movie” shows Dr. Shyam Sunder and Dr. John Gross (the same guy who insisted that there was no molten steel under the ground on which the WTC towers previously stood and that no eyewitnesses had seen any, BTW) waffling on incoherently in response to questions put to them by David Chandler and Dr. Steven Jones.
It would appear that as a result of their embarassment, NIST published a new report which conceded what they had previously attempted to deny, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for approximately 2.5 seconds after the ‘collapse’ initiated, thereby also making utter nonsense of the video you linked me to.
Not much you can do about spurious, vapid or entirely lighthearted posts, daggett.
David Chandler has not proven what you claim, he has asserted several things. Big difference.
Given the sensationalising character of the press and TV, do you really think someone like Mr Chandler would not get a worldwide splash, if reasonable journalists thought there was ANYTHING substantial to his claims? They’d be all over him like a rash. Before you could say “flight school!!”
Speaking of truth, since when has the media been concerned with substance when it comes anything of a ‘sensationalising’ nature?
And you may have noticed that they keep their ‘sensationalising’ within very narrow boundaries these days. Anything that threatens the status quo is clearly off limits.
Not that I’m suggesting that this is part of a conspiracy or anything…
Are you fucking kidding me? You haven’t read the official accounts and yet you believe some twonk on YouTube has disproved them? That’s utterly ridiculous.
Yes, and I’m utterly shocked and awed that you don’t even pretend to have read them, yet presume to lecture others on this alleged conspiracy of yours. I salute your chutzpah, sir.
Rubbish. At #453 you linked to “WTC7 in Freefall –No Longer Controversial”. Don’t attempt to deny it – the link is right there for anyone to check. Not that it makes any difference, as the link I provided at #462 shows exactly where Chandler went wrong with his pathetic “gotcha”. It’s a classic case of cherrypicked data by a delusional nitwit.
Again, rubbish. I’m curious, though: HOW do you know NIST “conceded” anything given you admit you haven’t even read the report?
Here’s a bit of homework for you: prove it.
P.S. you mention Dr. Steven Jones. Isn’t he that mormon bloke ditched by Brigham Young University, you know, the one who also believes that Jesus Christ visited Ancient Mesoamerica centuries before Columbus? Do you believe Christ visited the Mayans, Daggy? If not, why not?
If an admission by NIST itself that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed on top of the clear physical evidence that has been on YouTube for the whole world to see for years, is not sufficient proof for “where angels tread lightly”, then it is impossible for me to imagine what would be.
Unlike “where angels tread lightly”, millions of people around the world who have carefully studied the evidence know that there is a great deal that is both ‘substantial’ and ‘sensational’ about the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 and the cover-up by NIST.
The fact that the major newsmedia has chosen not to report this and, as well as a good many other equally substantial and equally sensational aspects of the 9/11 story should serve as a clear warning that it would be most unwise to place any trust in it.
Let’s also pray that “where angels tread lightly” is never selected as a juror on a major criminal trial.
Given the “admission” you link to is actually your comment, Daggy, I imagine “sufficient proof” would be a statement from NIST stating what you think they stated.
Argggh
I hate that. I just stoopidly wiped 3 paragraphs on jesus’ alleged visit to Australia, pre European invasion. (No shit – at least according to one fella I know.)
Plus it was actually very funny.
Anyway daggett, what do you think of the claims made by Indira Singh re Ptech?
Okay, daggett.
The following is a serious comment. by their very nature conspiracy theories cannot be proved to be either true or false. The whole point of a successful conspiracy is that it leaves no evidence behind, so it cannot be proven either way. Consequently all unproven conspiracies should be considered fabrications. 9/11 is one such conspiracy. And I do hope we reach 500.
“by their very nature conspiracy theories cannot be proved to be either true or false.” – Paul Burns
Was watergate a conspiracy theory before some knob published an article about it? If you said in early 1986 that the US had supplied missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages you would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Should those claims have been considered fabrications?
Are Terry Griffiths questions regarding the Hilton bombing in ’78 fabrications? What about Wahid’s claims on sbs years ago about Indonesian police or military involvement with the Bali bombings and the islamic terror in that part of the world? He’s not just any schmuck, he was Indonesian president.
Everything he said was a fabrication?
Come on.
Jesus, PB, have you had an aneurysm?
Sideshow Bob wrote:
It does nothing of the sort as you should well know.
All it did was restate what Chandler had already rebutted. What it restated was NIST’s basis for claiming that the initial acceleration of WTC 7 was less than free-fall. It did so by repeating NIST’s fraudulent claim that the collapse was initiated when some of the inside of WTC 7 was observed collapsing as the outside structure remained stationary.
After the outside structure as a whole commenced to collapse as a whole, it did collapse at free-fall speed as David Chandler demonstrated. The video doesn’t even attempt to address this key point.
Sideshow Bob wrote:
Why don’t you look at the report that you claim to have read?
The following is stated on the displayed page of the report 9 minutes 36 seconds into “‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ …The Movie”:
Sideshow Bob wrote:
Why don’t you pull the other one, Sideshow Bob?
Sideshow Bob continued:
There are are only 24 hours in the day, Sideshow Bob. I trust the judgement of people like David Chandler and Steven Jones, as even NIST has now been forced to.
I think it is fair to say that I have just demonstrated that, even though you claim to have read through all of NIST’s fraudulent tomes and I have not, I am able to convey more accurate information about their content than you.
Actually, daggett and Rodeo Sideshow, the NIST did investigate the possibility of controlled demolition and rejected it. See section 3.3, page 26, and the appendices referenced. Anyone who claims that NIST did not investigate the idea that the collapse of WTC7 was deliberately caused by explosives is simply lying.
Italics mine. Further retreat behind questions and innuendo… over to the comments field.
Maybe it’s the shock of Phillip Ruddock rising from the dead.
Jules,
I’m afraid, having looked at the link, I still don’t know what ‘Ptech’ is. Could you enlighten me?
As for Steven Jones’ views that Christ may have visited Meso-America, I can’t comment. Plenty of people can be right on one issue and wrong on others. I am not personally a Mormon, nor even a Christian, nor even ‘spiritual’.
On 9/11 no-one has proven Jones to be wrong and, certainly, Sideshow Bob has not proven him wrong on this forum.
Comment above @ 493 relates to comment #490 questioning PB’s health.
Just thought that needed clarification under the circumstances.
Na. Once the evidence surfaces conspiracy theories become reality, rather than fabrications. There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy for which there is irrefutable evidence.
Liam @ 492
Easily refuted. Obviously NIST did not consider the correct scenarios.
“I’m afraid, having looked at the link, I still don’t know what ‘Ptech’ is. Could you enlighten me?”
see thats the trouble with all the noise a controlled demolition makes…
I’ll try and chase up an good accounting of Ptech for you but it may take a while. The quick summary is that Ptech was a company involved in software development and had supplied software to among other groups the US air Force. Indira Singh was asked to investigate Ptech while working for Chase or JP Morgan I think, basically it was a business investigation. She made a connection between their software and the software Cheney was using the morning of the attacks to run C&C during the attacks. Ptech is known to have been financed by and started by people suspected of funding Al Quada.
Whislteblowers apparantly contacted the FBI re an investigation, but the investigation was blocked by Michael Chertoff (I think, don’t quote me yet) who went on to head Homeland security and IIRC help fuck up the response to hurricane Katrina.
Thats a quick summary, and it may not be entirely accurate but I think the gist of it is enough for now. I honestly don’t know about the veracity of all this either. Its just another in a long series of unanswered questions.
Meanwhile enjoy:
Yet another “9/11 was an inside job” song
No, it directly rebuts Chandler’s assertions. Also, Chandler’s own, flawed, work shows that initial acceleration was less than free-fall. Take another look at his dodgy graph if you don’t believe me.
It does not. The starting point for tracking collapse was observation of the outside structure. Chandler deliberately chose to focus on the top of the building that moved last. Why? Cherrypicking.
WTC 7 did NOT collapse at free-fall speed. The video demonstrates that the tracked floors of WTC 7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse, much longer than free-fall would require, at 3.9 seconds, AS NIST STATED.
I have, Daggy, I have. You haven’t, remember?
FFS, that’s your source? The same discredited YouTube video? Why not take your own advice and read the actual report? Oh, that’s right, you’re too busy to get your facts straight. Let me quote the whole of the relevant text from page 45:
Cherrypicking, yet again. The building did NOT collapse at free fall speed. Your bloke and his credulists fail yet again.
What you’ve demonstrated, Daggy, is naive credulity and an inability – whether due to laziness or stupidity – to get your facts straight. Yet again, you’ve shown a willingness to waste your time and others’ propagating lies, but no willingness to actually get to grips with the actual facts yourself.
You keep saying you trust the judgement of Chandler and Jones, and yet you won’t back Jones’ judgement on Jesus and the Mayans. Why not?
I’m having trouble following your logic Paul. (No doubt that comes as no surprise to many here.)
A conspiracy theory is by definition unprovable?
That means that while events like … I dunno the Roswell bullshit are a conspiracy theory, but say JFKs assassination isn’t a conspiracy theory is a reality? (I honestly don’t know or care about JFKs assassination, really Camelot was a crock of shit.)
How does something go from being a fabrication to being a reality just on the arrival of actual evidence?
Wooo Hooo on to 1000
really successful conspiracies are not found out.
even a conspiracy that achieves its aim is unsuccesful, if after the event they get caught. Get it?
What Sideshow Bob is attempting to do, with his spurious allegations of ‘cherry picking’, personal attacks and other red herrings, is explain away 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration practically uniformly across the whole of the observed north face that the NIST has been forced to concede occured. The only known way that a building can fall uniformly through 8 stories at free fall speed is for all the strength of the supporting structure to have suddenly been removed uniformly, floor by floor, by explosives all within those 2.5 seconds.
Nothing like that has ever occurred before or since by fire alone as NIST itelf admits.
What we have observed is wholely consistent with any clasic bottom-up demolition, many examples of which are to be found on YouTube, yet NIST insists that it is a bizarre one-off occurrence, whilst refusing to seriously investigate the most obvious explanation, and that would appear to be all perfectly fine by Sideshow Bob.
—
Liam, if you had read through Appendix D, you would see that it has not even considered the evidence or any of the many arguments in support of the Controlled Demolition hypothesis that has long been made known by the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of which I posted to this page. It would have at least acknowledged that the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7, including the observed initial 2.5 seconds of free-fall was wholely consistent with almost countless other demolitions that have occured before and since.
If it was serious about considering about investigating this hypothesis, it would have for a start asked Larry Sliverstein, what he meant when he said in an interview:
Also, it would have interviewed the late Barry Jennings, who gaive detailed accounts of explosions occurring insided WTC 7 beginning hours before the collapse, it would have interviewed BBC reporter Jane Standley to ask why she reported the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ 23 minutes before it actually did ‘collapse’, and it would have set out to find out from other former employess who workde in WTC 7 wheterh or not they had noticed anything suspicious in the weeks prior to Spetember 11, 2001.
Instead, it attempts to dismiss the cast body of evidence, in support of controlled demolition, by asserting that preparations could not have been made without anyone noticing. (The ‘pdf’ document is, in fact, a stupid JPEG image, so I can’t easily copy and paste from it.) Yet no attempt was maded my NIST to interview former employees who worked in WTC 7 to see whether or not suspicious acitivity was noticed. No consideration was given to the fact that much of the preparations could easily have been made after hours and out of sight of most vistors and employees.
But PB, an unsuccessful conspiracy is still a conspiracy.
Ok daggett, I’ve got to admire your persistence, along with jules of course.
But please answer me the following questions(I have neither the time nor inclination to go through the ‘evidence’).
1. What was the point of a ‘controlled demolition’ since the planes were going to destroy the buildings anyway?
2. How could the explosives etc. be placed in the building without anyone noticing? The fact that the NIST didn’t interview anyone about this is hardly proof that it could have happened.
Apart from admiring your persistence, I also admire the touching faith that others have in the official version of events, eminating as it did from an administration choc full of liars, cheats and scoundrels.
PB #502,
Wouldn’t you say the Bolshevik insurrection in 1917 was an example of a successful conspiracy by Trotsky, Lenin and their associates?
And the Zinoviev Letter, though eventually exposed as a fraud concocted by a conspiracy, was wildly successful in achieving its immediate objectives.
With a ouija board, I presume.
To add to adrian;
3. How could the explosives sufficient to cause the collapse, that you claim to have been placed there, have exploded without being heard?
Oh, I see, you’ve answered that one as Shaun at #497 predicted you would. Silent explosive. That was in a Get Smart episode you know.
Yeah I do get that, but where does that leave talking (or typing) about alleged conspiracies that havn’t been brought to justice.
If conspiracy theory = fabrication by definition then every time someone uses the term conspiracy theory in the media to refer to an allegation they are accusing the person making the allegation of fabrication.
Then when someone like me says “Yeah but what about this…” does that mean what i say should be ignored cos obviously a conspiracy theory or any allegation resembling one is a fabrication. Not that I really care in the context of this thread … but …
What about this then, I claim that someone I worked for was involved in importing heroin into Australia. I know this cos while I was working for them I walked in on them discussing their operations with a bunch of judges, lawyers, cops and pollies or businessmen over a game of cards. Thats a conspiracy theory, but its not a fabrication. And no I’m not gonna name names on that one, and especially not here where you guys could cop the legal shit for it. I’m not even going into any more detail than that cos I don’t want any chance of IDing them.
I am a member of a conspiracy website, (bet that was a surprise) well its more than that but “conspiracies” always come up.
One of the members of the same site just managed to get someone charged with the murder of her father, after 30 years.
Here’s her site.
Her story is tied to the Inslaw affair and the death of Danny Casolaro, which is a well known “conspiracy theory”. At what point did her journey morph from fabrication to reality? The other day when the guy she was hunting got busted?
Is the damn cat(pavlov’s) dead or alive? to quote some recently dead smartarse/genius.
Do you see what i’m saying?
BTW wrt to Rachel Begley, she has one very sus character (at least) helping her out on this case so i wouldn’t be surprised to see it all end in tears. If Hughes doesn’t end up convicted of the triple murder does that mean her entire story returns to fabrication?
There’s a fair level of uncertainty with all this sort of thing, and that is never addressed with statements like “conspiracy theories are fabrications.”
Mind you given the zeal, and fundamentalist fervour of some advocates of many conspiracy theories I can understand your caution. And I accept there are downright lies designed to provoke a response in people with no critical thinking skills. (Did you know Obama was born in kenya and is an evil muslim terrorist who works for the elders of Zion, and George Soros, and Satan? And he wants to take away your guns.)
I wish he’d take away our Gunns.
I would agree the Bolshevik Revolution was a successful conspiracy and the Zinoviev letter was a successful conspiratorial fraud. But they were real conspiracies not conspiracy theories that left no hard evidence.
My allegations of cherrypicking aren’t spurious, they’re evidently substantiated. The personal attacks I’ll cop to, but they’re likewise substantiated by your conduct on this thread. As for red herrings, where?
I don’t have to “explain away” any observed acceleration in the fall of WTC 7, as NIST has already done so in its explanation. And they weren’t “forced” to “concede” anything, as you’ve failed to produce any evidence of said “concession”.
For starters, it didn’t fall uniformly. For another, the building was ALREADY FALLING before those 2.5s that concern you so much. And, finally: says who? Cranks on YouTube. LOL.
No, Daggy, the obvious and most logical conclusion is the one that emerged: planes > fires > collapse. Your alternative theory is unsubstantiated fiction.
Daggy, why won’t you comment on Jesus and the Mayans? Why is Jones credible on structural engineering and not “Archaeometry”? He only claims one of the two as an area of personal expertise – can you guess which one?
Conspiracy theorists claimed that the Zinoviev Letter was a conspiracy for decades until the definitive evidence turned up.
These theorists were dismissed as cranks or deliberate liars until the evidence proved their suspicions to be correct.
Every piece of historical research begins with questions that can be said to refer to a theory until that theory is either confirmed or disconfirmed.
Your archetypal conspiracy theorist is the person who doggedly clings to relatively unconvincing evidence or who claims that the lack of evidence is itself proof of a conspiracy.
(I’m not thinking about any person with a rodentine gravatar here, despite appearances.)
Adrian,
Demolition was necessary precisely because the impact of a plane alone and consequent fires could not have brought down either of the Twin Towers. As I wrote they were built to withstand a head-on impact from a 707.
Without a controlled demolition, the psychological impact would not have been anywhere near as great. Around a few dozen from the towers themselves would have died in addition to those on the flights, totalling around 200 in all, instead of almost 3,000, and there would have been ugly scars in each of the twin towers. Investigators would have been able to search through the wreckage and establish whether or not, handfuls of hijackers had indeed been able to subdue the whole crew and passengers of each of the two aircraft with only box cutter knives.
If, for example, firearms had been found, then this could have led to embarassing questions being asked of those in control of airport security.
In fact suspicious activity was observed in the weeks prior to 9/11 as I mentioned above. As I wrote above:
Don’t forget that George Bush’s youger brother, Marvin, from 1993 until 2000 was on the board of directors of Securacom which was resposible for the securirty in the World Trade Center as well as Washington Dulles International Airport from which flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagonm left.
This fact was initially concealed by the White House and Marvin Bush has repeatedly refused to answer reporters’ questions about this.
“Without a controlled demolition, the psychological impact would not have been anywhere near as great.”
Maybe, maybe not.
The primary focus of the event was the collapse of the towers, which is a momentus spectacle with a imprinting power on a par with DMT or Salvinorum.
Once the buildings collapsed the event became a one off. No one is ever gonna hijack a plane and crash it into the twin towers again…
However if they were still standing the focus of the event is the hijacking and crashing of the planes into buildings.
Thats essentially a repeatable event.
So everyone that gets onto a plane and has seen those images of the other planes crashing into the twin towers will wonder if that could be them on this flight. Maybe.
Katz @ 512,
Yeah, but thats a hypothesis that has to be proved or disproved, not a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless I accept your point. Though i don’t think an historical hypothesis or an historical assumption are the same as a full blown conspiracy theory, which is what, I think has been implicit in my comments.
Sideshow Bob, you are clearly and dishonestly attempting to conflate two clearly separate aspects of the WTC 7 collapse and imply they are one:
1. the demoloution of some of the supporting structures holding up the inside of WTC; and
2. the demolition of the visible outside of WTC 7;
As we can observe from the collapse of the penthouse, the first began a few seconds before the collpase of the outer wall. At no point during all that did any of the outer wall move.
During those additional seconds, until the point at which the collapse of the outer structure was observed the whole weight of the outer wall was fully supported. (BTW, I take back what I said about some of the outer wall at the eastern end moving slighlty before the western end. I had mistaken my memory of movement in the Penthouse for that. I couldn’t detect any movement at the east face until the west face upon which Chandler made his measurements began to collapse.)
So, of course it is appropriate to ‘cherry pick’, as Sideshow Bob puts it.
Clearly what was happening on the inside had no effect on the outside wall. To pretend that it did is to attempt to confuse the issue and conceal the fact that for the initial 2.5 seconds of the collapse of the outer wall it fell at free fall speed (possibly barring a tiny fraction of a second at the very outset).
Sideshow Bob, stated
“For starters, it didn’t fall uniformly. …”
The fact remains the ‘collapse’ was, to all practical intents and purposes, uniform. If not, then show me any other controlled demolition that satisfies your own requirement of ‘uniformity’, presumably, to a precision of at least 6 decimal places.
And while you are at it, show me any other ‘collapse’ that is even remotely similar to the WTC 7 collapse, caused by fire alone.
The collapse of the WTC 7, as we have observed, simply could not have occurred unless:
1. all the structural strength in at least 8 of the floors had been destroyed by explosives within those initial 2.5 seconds after the first movement of the outer wall was observed;
2. the timing of the detonations had been such that the structural strength of holding up each floor would have to have been totally removed before it could have in any way slowed the fall of any part of the building falling from above.
If the first condition had not been met, then it would have taken longer than 2.5 seconds to fall through those eight floors. If the second had not been met then a good deal less uniformity would have been observed and a good deal more of the debris would have ended up outside the footprint of WTC 7.
—
Sideshow Bob said, “… the obvious and most logical conclusion is the one that emerged: planes > fires > collapse. …”
Sure, Bob. Two planes knock down three buildings.
Very logical and very obvious.
There is no conflation. Refer back to my original link at #462. The VISIBLE OUTSIDE of the building falls from the North East top FIRST. Chandler selectively – and misleadingly – times the collapse from the LATER collapse of the North-West corner. Why he does this is obvious: he’s cherrypicking to bolster his non-existent case.
No, it isn’t.
WTF? A building collapses and you argue “the inside had no effect on the outside wall”?
Oh, FFS. It did not fall at free fall speed at the outset. Go back to YOUR video link at #453. Do you remember that one? It’s the one you subsequently lied about at #481. Look at Chandler’s graph at 1:52. Notice that for the first second acceleration is well beneath gravity. Even your own, debunked, source disagrees with your assertion.
As I’ve noted above, the North East top of the building VISIBLY started to collapse before the North-West corner. Moreover, the building did not fall at a uniform speed or acceleration, as shown in the NIST report I quoted at #499 above. The collapse was NOT uniform.
Why? Oh, yeah, that’s right: buildings don’t collapse due to fire. But, of course, I have to concede that we’ve only had one 9/11, so that does make your over-specified sample a little tricky to replicate.
These are unsubstantiated assertions from non-authoritative sources, based on premises that have been discredited. Garbage.
Did two planes fly into two of the buildings? Yes.
Did they cause extensive fires, in both of those buildings and WTC 7? Yes.
Did the fires cause the collapse of the buildings? Yes.
Yes, Daggy: logical and obvious.
Your theory? Illogical, unsubstantiated and delusional tosh.
Is very much to liking of your posting Matvei. You got the physics, the mathematics, morever best of all you got logicals too.
daggett, in addition to the video Fyodor linked to @ 462, which I don’t think states its case clearly enough, and his comments above, please watch:
Internet Archive: WTC7 collapse
Produced by the same person.
The point is that Chandler used *one single* video, shot from *one single* perspective (square to the North Face of WTC 7) to construct his theory.
The video he used was *not* the video NIST used.
(I’ll repeat that for emphasis.)
The video he used was *not* the video NIST used.
His theory is that NIST chose an arbitrary point in time to begin their 5.4 second countdown, to fit with their computer modelling. Chandler says:
“Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18 story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4 second measurement to match. They had to stretch themselves to do it, but they did it. They found the disappearance time, then they went out of their way to pick an artificially early start time, exactly 5.4 seconds earlier. This they compared with freefall time.”
Wrong! Chandler clearly knows nothing about computer modelling. The way to construct the most accurate computer model you can, naturally enough, is by feeding *known data* into it. They had *already* calculated the 5.4 seconds from the video evidence. This was *subsequently* used in their computer modelling, not the other way around. He is way wrong here. (Or, I’m wrong – go prove that.)
His reasoning (explained here from 1:45 onwards), is that when he steps frame by frame through *his* video, he/you cannot see any visual change to the outward shape of WTC 7 at the point NIST ‘chose’ to begin their 5.4 second countdown.
This is not surprising as the North face of the building in *his* video is completely underexposed/obscured by shadow. You don’t see the North East corner drop (as he puts it, “there’s no measurable difference in the height of the roofline”), because there was, quite simply, more building completely underexposed/obscured by shadow, behind it.
Did Chandler even consider attempting to correct the contrast before proceeding with this?
However, I’ll add that I can see movement in Chandler’s video at the point NIST determined was the start of the collapse (in fact, I see it begin a few frames earlier, and that’s because it was Chandler who chose an “arbitrary” start point, not NIST), even if he couldn’t. As the original video Fyodor linked to @ 462 correctly points out (far from it being complete nonsense, as you claim), to step through frame by frame is incredibly deceptive – because it renders minute visual changes unnoticeable.
Scrub back and forth, and it’s a different story.
View the video NIST used, and it’s a whole different book that we’re reading from.
Nevertheless, Chandler decided his “conclusions” worthy enough to *rhetorically accuse*, and announce to the world, that a criminal coverup *must have* taken place at NIST.
I’m open to being convinced differently, as always, but Chandler’s flimsiness simply didn’t cut it.
And, BTW, I’m interested to learn how your ‘bottom up’ theory accounts for the windows below the East penthouse breaking progressively downwards after it collapsed?
Sideshow Bob wrote:
I see a few partial collapse but no total collapses in that (pdf) survey.
Again I ask:
Sideshow Bob wrote:
No, why he does this is because it is the best place to make the measurements. Any measurements taken from the North-East corner with all that smoke could not have been as accurate.
If the person who made the ‘debunking’ video had attached such importance to the differences between the North-East Corners and North West corners then he should have made his own measurements.
In any case, Chandler used around 20 data points, whilst the ‘debunking’ video only used two, one being an artificially designated starting point at a time he claimed to have first observed ‘compression’ of the outer wall at the North Eastern Corner. This allowed him to arrive at the same single average acceleration figure that NIST has already calculated and that David Chandler had already shown to be meaningless.
Sideshow Bob further wrote:
This is splitting hairs.
If it had been possible to take measurements, accurate enough to be useful, at the North Eastern corner I expect that, as a result of the initial ‘compression’, differences would have been:
1. A slightly shorter period of free-fall;
2. Acceleration only slightly less than the free fall acceleration at the North Western end; or
3. A combination of (1) and (2).
The practical implications of such a difference would be insigificant. Even to achieve such a supposedly non-uniform collapse — and again, I ask Sideshow Bob to show me any other controlled demolition which meets his requirement of ‘uniformity’ — all the structural strength would have to be removed in a period very close to 2.5 seconds right along the whole length of the North face and, within that 2.5 seconds, the strength wouuld have had to have been removed floor by floor and timed so as to prevent any resistance to the fall of the building above.
I wrote:
Then Sideshow Bob responded:
Well, I would have thought that that was a reasonable explanation of how acontrolled demolition works as well as the only way I can conceive of how the outer wall ‘collapsed’ in the way it did.
Why don’t you provide a better explanation?
Yet again you have proved to be too lazy even to read the report, short as it was. Let me quote from it for you, from page 7, Table 1:
- Apartment block in St Petersburg, Russia, 2002: TOTAL COLLAPSE
- Nightclub in Lanarkshire, UK, 2001: TOTAL COLLAPSE
- Textile Factory in Alexandria, Egypt, 2000: TOTAL COLLAPSE
Ha! Absolute rubbish. There’s no problem with smoke in identifying the beginning of the collapse – it’s clearly visible. That’s a pathetic argument. You should also take note of Nick’s arguments above.
Wow, you really are getting desperate. The number of additional “data points” is irrelevant. The starting point was not “artificially designated” – it’s the moment that collapse begins, and it’s not just the debunker’s observation; it’s also the observation of the experts who reviewed all the footage, and not just the footage used by Chandler, in his cack-handed bunk.
Ha! You’d know, with your eagle-eye for detail.
If, Daggy? It was possible, Daggy. It was done Daggy.
You expect, Daggy? Why don’t you know? Oh, that’s right: you haven’t a fucking clue on the subject.
Your hypothetical musings are pointless and irrelevant.
Says who, Daggy? YOU are the one who first raised “uniformity”, at #506. Do me the courtesy, at least, of getting your own story straight. As the building was ALREADY COLLAPSING before this 2.5 second period you’re obsessed about, i.e. the “structural strength” had already been compromised, that last sentence is irrelevant and illogical speculation from a self-confessed ignoramus.
But you say you want to see an “other controlled demolition”? Okeydokes, knock yourself out. Make sure you stay for 1:26.
You would have thought, Daggy? It’s the only way you can conceive of how WTC 7 collapsed? And who the fuck are you, Daggy? Are you a structural engineer? Are you a demolitions expert? Did you have access to the evidence or the technical details of the collapse? Have you even read the official accounts?
Why should we care what you would have thought? Spare us your uninformed and illogical opinions and stick to facts and logic.
Already have. Read it and get a clue.
I would hesitate to blame fire alone for the collapse of wtc 7 simply because there is video showing it being hammered by debris from one of the collapses.
We don’t know the extent of that damage, but daggett can you state with certainty that it didn’t cause the sort of damage you attribute to explosives, and can you state with certainty that it couldn’t account for what seems like an anomolous collapse to you?
Well, WTC 7′s south side did take substantial damage. That alone was likely bad enough.
Oh don’t be such a spoilsport Shaun!!! Mr/Ms daggett knows what happened, he/she knows the how and the why.
He/she has no reason to concern himself/herself with such inconsequential data as
* eyewitness accounts from firefighters well-experienced in assessing whether it’s safe to enter a damaged (or partly burning) building
* eyewitness accounts from persons who had a much closer-up view of WTC7 at the relevant time, than provided by the videos, including those who were close enough to hear “creaking” noises before it fell
* clear photos of a damaged facade, taken at various times and taken from so close that a wealth of detail (of damage, of smoke, etc) is clearly depicted.
None of this interests daggett because daggett has a theory and in the hands of such a champion debater, a theory is the only thing he/she requires.
QED
Shaun (@ 527),
Interesting photo of the North Tower ‘collapsing’ on the second of the two links you provided. Does anyone else here, that is, other than Sideshow Bob, have trouble envisioning that vast cloud of debris having been caused just by the gravitational energy within the North Tower?
How all that gravitational energy got transformed into what we can see in that photo, without massive amounts of explosives having been planted, would surely be most interesting to know. Unfortunately, as I have rrpeatedly pointed out, NIST has not even attempted to explain that.
If what we see in that photo was not the result of massive quantities of explosives, then we had have to conclude that the Twin Towers were, in effect, themselves, massive bombs planted in the heart of New York City.
Clearly some damage was suffered at one corner, but if that damage were to have in any way contributed to the subsequent ‘collapse’, intuition would surely tell us to expect WTC 7 to have collapsed outwards at that point, instead of straight down. Where is that explained in the report, Sideshow Bob?
Also, other buildings closer to the Twin Towers — WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6 — all suffered far greater damage as a result of the collapses, and extensive fires, but none underwent total collapse as did WTC 7.
Care to explain, Sideshow Bob?
—p>
Sideshow Bob (@ 525) wrote:
I have got a fair idea what is contained in the NIST report, Sideshow Bob. As you say you have read the report, why don’t you explain to others here how WTC 7 collapsed exactly in the manner we would expect from a controlled demolotion through fire alone (or, according to Shaun, one damaged corner as well) and see how much sense it makes to anybody else but you?
Let’s see how much more sense it makes than the explanation I have offered.
Sideshow Bob wrote:
No, it’s you who has been lazy, as well as evasive for not putting that information on this page and expecting others to wade through that report looking for the examples I asked for that clearly aren’t there.
Obviously, I meant to ask for examples steel framed buildings that had undergone total collapse as result of fire alone — and you should have well understood that that is what I meant to say — and the only such examples in that list, as I have said all along are the Twin Towers and WTC 7.
The examples you gave are not steel framed. In any case, I did glance at the photo of the burnt and collapsed six story high reinforced concrete textile factory that lacked a sprinkler system, BTW, and noticed some siginficant differences to the ‘collapsed’ WTC 7:
1. A part of the building is, in fact still standing; and
2. the debris is far less neat and tidy than the debris from WTC 7.
This confirms my point, even conceded by NIST that what occurred on 11 September 2001 was unique, that is, if we are to accept their ‘explanation’.
More relevant to this discussion are six other “Examples of Skyscraper Fires” where steel framed buildings have endured longer and more extensive fires. In spite of this, most suffered no structural failure and only two suffered even partial collapse.
The Windsor Building, which suffered partial collapse was, in fact, a Steel-Reinforced Concrete building and not a steel framed building like the three ‘collapsed’ WTC towers.
Sideshow Bob wrote:
No, you did, by clutching at the earlier slight ‘compression’ of the outer wall at North Eastern end as somehow refuting David Chandler’s observation that the visible Northern wall as a whole ‘collapsed’ uniformly at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds.
That example you gave was also not of a perfectly uniform collapse. The tower did tip over towards the end of the demolition. Perhaps, at the start it may have appeared more uniform, but, given that the building was square, smaller, and, hence, more rigid than the more elongated WTC 7, that should be no surprise.
Surely, after all this time, you cannot be unfamiliar with the Video “WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video”. That shows second demolition side by side with WTC 7. Although the second demolished building is smaller and less elongated, and, hence likely to be more rigid, the corner on the right appears to drop before the rest at the outset.
Hence, to conclude from the earlier slight movement of the North Eastern end, that we are not witnessing 2.5 seconds of effectively uniform free fall, which can only be explained by the controlled demolition hypothesis, would be wrong.
And, of course, it provides yet more striking visual confirmation that WTC 7, to all intents and purposes, collapsed exactly as a classic bottom-up controlled demolition.
Sideshow Bob wrote:
And who the fuck are you, Daggy? Are you a structural engineer? Are you a demolitions expert?
I am simply someone who is applying his knowledge to understand the 9/11 controversy, including the ‘collapses’ and explain my knowledge as best I can to others. I will leave it to others to decide who, out of you and me, is contributing more honestly and helpfully to this discussion.
(I am afraid I may not be able to find the time to deconstruct every other piece of nonsense that Sideshow Bob has posted to this forum. Others may have to do it for themselves.)
“How all that gravitational energy got transformed into what we can see in that photo, without massive amounts of explosives having been planted, would surely be most interesting to know.” – Daggett
So how much potential energy did the top 10 and 20 stories of the two towers have before the plane hit?
How much momentum did that generate, how much needed to be transferred for the results you see in that photo?
An answer to this requires actual, accurate numbers btw.
daggett, I infer your non-response to be a complete concession to all arguments I put forward @ 522.
Summarily:
- Chandler did not use the video NIST used.
- Chandler does not understand computer modelling.
- Chandler relied on his own eyesight, and his own compressed video footage shot from hundred of metres further away, to “prove” NIST had bent over backwards to “choose” an arbitrary starting point of the collapse, that would result in a 5.4 second timeframe for WTC 7 to drop to the initial height of the 29th floor.
- The *actual* starting point of the collapse, which then resulted in the recorded 5.4 second timeframe, is easily determined from the actual footage NIST used.
- Chandler nevertheless deemed this sufficient “proof” to categorically accuse NIST of fraudulent behaviour to the world.
- Chandler has misled you and many others into believing as he does.
Do you? Why?
Why would that be interesting to know, Daggy, given we know explosives weren’t used?
Why do we have to conclude that, Daggy?
Why would “intuition…surely tell us to expect WTC 7 to have collapsed outwards”?
Different buildings, different circumstances. Not all buildings that catch fire collapse, you know. Or don’t you?
How? You’ve admitted that you haven’t read it.
As it didn’t collapse in the manner of a controlled demolition, your request is nonsensical. We know why it collapsed: the answers are in the report you refuse to read.
Huh? It’s a 10 page report in a link – what’s to wade through? Do you have trouble reading, Daggy? Or is it clicking a mouse button that exhausts your thirst for the truth?
Yairs, Daggy, it’s a conspiracy that other people can’t read your mind. Save your faux indignation – you can’t fault me for following your lead, misguided as you admit to have been.
Hang on. Back up a second here. Are you saying that 9/11 was “unique”? Wow, Daggy, that’s quite a revelation. You mean there haven’t been other airliner crashes into skyscrapers? Why not? Is it *sideways glances* [whispers] a conspiracy?
I’m sorry, I’m not following you here: in which comment did I bring up the issue of “uniformity”, before you at #506? Name the comment.
Non-sequitur.
No, it doesn’t.
Very generous of you, Daggy. There’s plenty of evidence here on the extent of your knowledge, your honesty and helpfulness. Well done.
C’mon, dude! Don’t sell yourself short! You’ve been posting on this thread for, what, more than a month now on this issue. Of course you can find the time. There’s no rush, BTW. I’m very patient and I take thread-count very seriously – just ask my tailor.
P.S. why so formal? You can just call me “Bob” if you like. I hate to think of you wasting your precious time typing out “Sideshow” every time you want to quote me. Please understand that you don’t need to do it for my sake. I won’t be offended. Promise.
Since we are talking conspiracies here.
If there was nefarious action on the part of members of the US admin or anyone else outside the set of socially acceptable culprits, then obviously it would be in their best interests to badjacket the idea that anyone outside the set of socially acceptable culprits had anything to do with 9/11.
One really effective way to do this would be to saturate the discourse with poorly reasoned and obviously incorrect arguments about how the non set actors accomplished their nefarious actions.
Not that it would ever happen of course ….
Indeed, Mr. Terwilliger. Skyscraper disasters sound very distinctive indeed.
I note that Sideshow Bob has failed to respond to to my question:
I asked as much for others’ benefit as my own.
I know that it that was the view I held I would have made the effort to explain it to others.
Evidently Bob wants this knowledge to remain a secret to everyone who has not find the time and energy to read the NIST report.
Could anyone imagine why?
Could it be that Bob realises that if he spelt it out in black and white, people would see it to be every bit as silly as the overall Official 9/11 Conspiracy that I posted above which neither Bob nor any other Official Conspiracy Theorist on this forum has attempted to defend?
Anyway, here is my understanding:
The fire somehow caused a single supporting beam to fail simultaneously across the whole length of the Northern face. It didn’t just fail in one or two spots initially and progressively fail across the whole length. It failed everywhere simultaneously.
Let me know if I am wrong, Bob.
Even if that could possibly happen, I still fail to see how that could have, within the next 2.5 seconds caused the strength in at least 7 other floors to have been completely removed in time to prevent it in any part of any one of those floors impeding the uniform collapse of the (observed) northern face above.
Bob would have us believe that that is all explained in the NIST report.
I will believe it when I see it.
If you can tell me on what pages it is to be found, then I will check it out, Bob.
—
As for the rest of Bob’s most recent effort at obfuscation, as I said above, I am afraid others trying to understand the truth will, for the time being, have to deconstruct it for themselves.
“As for the rest of Bob’s most recent effort at obfuscation, as I said above, I am afraid others trying to understand the truth will, for the time being, have to deconstruct it for themselves.”
Actually, it reads as a pretty well constructed rebuttal of everything you’ve said Daggett. A “controlled demolition”, if you will.
He goes through and discusses a bunch of things you’ve said point by point in a manner that leaves numerous convenient jumping-off points helpfully provided for you (in the form of “questions”) to assist you in making a counter-rebuttal.
But you’re ignoring them, aren’t you?
Daggett, you’ve read more of Terwilliger’s words here on this thread than are contained in the entire NIST report.
I’m not sure why you insist on not reading it. Are you afraid of catching something?
A clue perhaps?
This thread could reach 1000 at this rate. A new LP record! (haha)
I particularly liked jules’ reverse conspiracy with 3 and a quarter turn, degree of difficult 8.5.
I’ve already provided the link, Daggy. I have to agree with Efdeebee here: what’s the big deal about reading a report?
C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y! Well, I like the “piracy” bit, but “con”? Not so much.
Erm…no, that’s not it.
You’re wrong, Daggy.
If you don’t believe me, read it. Oh, hang on…
Okayeee…what’s stopping you?
Well, Dean, I’m glad you asked: pages xxxvi and xxxvii have the summary. Why don’t you start there with some baby steps towards enlightenment?
Can one deconstruct obfuscation? Seriously, I want to know.
I find it a little hard to believe, daggett, but (via some speedy regex-ing) you’ve personally contributed (written/pasted) 18,369 words to this thread so far.
Won’t work on the final report for some reason, but, if my PDF software’s word count function is correct, the NIST WTC 7 draft report comes in at 36,860.
The WTC7 building seems to have most of one of its bottom corners missing before it falls. Surely that must be a relevant factor? Why does a tall building “creak”? Thanks again Shaun: those photos are much more helpful than grainy videos.
I might start on moon conspiracy theories soon. (just for paul.)
They might not be what you expect.
It does so exist, jules!
daggett, a little more than just a hole in one side. The evidence suggests a lot more damage to the south side.
Oh that.
Nick I never thought they’d get to you too. Oh noez….
(I was just gonna hang shit on a Korean cult leader who’ll hopefully be dead soon.)
Seriously tho I’d love to have a discussion about 9/11 that specifically didn’t involve conspiracies, but had a slight tolerence for them if they contained a high signal density, didn’t talk about the specific politics but about the whole thing as a cultural phenomonen how we responded. Are we a culture in ptsd from a television event? Were we?
Does anyone remember the Micheal Franti song “Oh my God”, it was out in the first first half of 2001 (ie before 9/11)?
The potency of the image, the effect of the spectacle all that crap, and a fair degree of tolerence for weirdness. Or “pseudoscience”. Cos there are a few weird things about it.
I just cut a huge chunk of weirdness about 9/11 I want to talk about.
I’ll might mention it depending on the reaction to this.
Cos I want criticism of some odd ideas that comes from people not wedded to my way of seeing people. Seeing as this thread has got to this point…
“I just cut a huge chunk of weirdness about 9/11 I want to talk about.
I’ll might mention it depending on the reaction to this.
Cos I want criticism of some odd ideas that comes from people not wedded to my way of seeing people. Seeing as this thread has got to this point…”
GOOD LORD MAN!!!!
SPILL YOUR GUTS POST HASTE!!!
Enquiring minds wanna show themselves to be more enquiring than other ones.
This is struggling to get through so I’ll try again, its what I cut from above after a wee edit:
I know three or four who had distinctly odd dreams to do with planes depending on whether I count myself. The three others had dreams that had something to do with planes and were significantly out of their normal experience or them to notice and then wonder about it. I have spoken to ten people who I trust enough in real life to treat the idea fairly but critically and examine their own memories.
There’s no in between ground yet. people are either positively yes that happened or no. Online theres a few people, more than ten, dunno them well enough to make honest assessments tho. My own experience … well it was different. I hit puberty in the very early 80s and grew up seriously wondering if I was gonna see 50 or 20 or the world was gonna be a pile of smoking nuclear waste next week.
I used to have nigtmares about nuclear war. These don’t seem uncommon in my anecdotal experience. 75% of people, may two thirds of people i’ve talked to about it have had them. Over the years thats probably about … well at least 50 people. They (the nightmares) stopped once I started getting laid regularly.
One that stood out was on reflection, well it was exactly as if I was there when the building collapsed, and took shelter when the dustcloud/shockwave spewed down the street. I was on the street or in a kerbside cafe when a plane hit the building but I didn’t see it. At the time I thought it was the usual end of the world fare. If I had that dream last night my reaction would be “I had an uncannily realistic dream about 9/11 last night.” I wouldn’t have thought WW3 had broken out in my dream and attributed it to fear of what seemed a likely fate.
There is one other experience I’d like to relate that is on the same level. I had a friend who asked me if they come to my place to get clean of heroin. I said OK. I obviously wouldn’t do this for just anyone.
This was over ten years ago. That episode could make a movie, and possibly a hooror thriller if she wan’t completely nuts.
She went crazy. Full blown psychotic episode. We did what we could as she went downhill, but it got to a point where we couldn’t cope. Lots of stuff happened .. very complex situation, compounded by her growing insanity.
In hard to tell this story without going into unecessary detail and I don’t want to do that. Its a wild tale tho.
She has an identical twin. Her Twin was in New York, in the full bohemian dream art world of uber cool, seriously 30 years earlier she’d be hanging with Warhol. I’m not into art so I don’t give a fuck and don’t remember the nmames of the people she was having brunch with while she wrote the postcards she sent us.
First time these two had been that far apart for that long. It was a close but volatile relationship with identity issues. But really clever and on to it sisters, two of the smartest people i’ve ever met.
In the midst one of her attacks she started going on about contacting her sister, to make sure she was ok, after the attacks. After assuring her no attacks were happening in NY she s then became obsessed with warning her about them, – the attacks – about planes flying into buildings, building fallings and ww3 starting.
I know this is slightly out there for a forum like this but you know … this thread is not bounded by sanity and I’d appreciate some feedback on what I have just gone on about. You can be snarky if you want.
It still spins me out cos its uncanny. Thk day had many levels of shock value.
I’m not making this up, an it isn’t part of some ARG or juvenille channite mindfuck.
I don’t mind critical feedback on my far out ideas. Especially from people who wouldn’t normally touch them with a bargepole.
Oh fuck thats the incoherent version… duh.
Its a bit late and i should be in bed.
It coveys the general idea, but its sloppy.
I want to talk about some outlandish ideas in relation to all this, and I also want to talk about.
I also missed a minor error.
There is one eception to the unequivocal nature of peoples reaction. My wife’s (typically) she has trouble seperating the event from some of its cultural precursors, like the final scene in Fight Club or (particularly for her) songs like Ma Laeo by a Sydney band Scary Mother (from Tao Laeo 1994).
One of these days I’ll try and track down whoever wrote that song and ask them …
It very evocaticve.
And that whole record is actually. We drove through Kinglake to visit a friend in april and that record was the only one that seemed appropriate. It seemed to have been made to fit that moment. Music can be good like that. It was more fitting even than silence.
My wife and I have always wondered about that particular song and the way it seems to suggest 9/11, after the event of course. I know art is one of those things … I can see the potential for confirmation bias there.
I still think the idea is worth fleshing out, if only to seperate the total crap from the useless crap. (The idea being the potential for that event to resonate through our culture … I know “magical thinking” and all that crap, thats just a cop out.)
This was (lets hope) a one off event. Its become a pretty full on marker tho, cultural landmark or something. Its a kind of singularity with a gravity that has changed the way we as a culture view the world or to kind of stick with the metaphor, that changed the direction we travelled as a culture.
I wrote:
Then Jules asked:
No, it doesn’t, Jules, I was asking for people’s gut feeling about that extraordinary image. Are you trying to tell me that nothing about that image strikes you as odd? Since when does gravity allow such emormous volumes of material to travel so far upwards and so far outwards?
Then Sideshow Bob asked:
If your own eyes don’t tell you that that image is improbable, Sideshow Bob, I don’t see how I can hope to persuade you otherwise with words.
Sideshow Bob, then asks how I conclude that if explosives, weren’t use, the Twin Towers were, in effect, themselves, massive bombs planted in the heart of New York City.
I guess, what Sideshow Bob is telling us is that, to him, that image looks nothing like an explosion.
Well, to me, it does.
Then sideshow Bob asks:
Once again, Sideshow Bob is pretending to be stupid so that he can demand that I spoon feed him. As it turns out, Sideshow Bob, page xxxvii of the report states (take note >Shaun(@ 527, 544) and “angels almost invisible” (@ 542)):
It’s intuitive to me, Sideshow Bob, because we expect collapses to take the path of least resistance. If the end of the building had fallen straight down, but remained laterally attached to the uncollapsed rest of the building the fall would have been arrested by what was underneath. The only way it could have fallen furhter woudl be if its sideways connections to the rest of the building had broken causing it to fall outwards.
I note Sideshow Bob and a number of hypocrites, who have, themselves, neither read the NIST report, nor properly read my posts, are demanding that I read the NIST report before they give serious consideration to any of my arguments.
Sideshow Bob asks:
There’s no big deal, Sideshow Bob, except that I think it would be a waste of my time. Reading pages xxxvi and xxxvii has only further confirmed that impression. If you can demonstrate here, by showing where it addresses my questions, I might reconsider.
FDB wrote:
FDB, I don’t see where you have responded to my demolition of your nonsense “Occam’s Razor” argument.
It’s an unfortunate feature of discussions such as these, that they often become filled with posts of people, with no capacity to argue the issue at hand, sniping, from behind the skirts of others, that they see as having that capacity, at those they want to attack.
Rumbling. Gaseous. But that might just be last night’s dinner.
Since, I don’t know, the effect of heat from fires? Explaining convection currents sounds like a job for… a high school physics teacher.
Ask Dorian. He most likely wrote the music. Though Andrew who may have wrote the lyrics, was the most ethereal one.
I welcome your stream of consciousness meanderings on the issue of premonition. Cause god knows Dagget has been given way too much space and so, this has become the most boring thread of doom I have ever encountered. It promised to get interesting when it turned the corner towards Jesus and the Mayans and chocolate, but that failed. The peanut gallery is over the minutae of shooting flames that don’t shoot out right and walls which don’t collapse good. Though I liked Paul Burns’ comment that 9/11, itself, is a conspiracy. Well done Paul.
Your premonitory experiences both in dreamscape and in psychotic utterance are a welcome diversion to the engineering discussions. Yes of course. People predict stuff all the time. Not Mystic Medusa people, but people, anonymous ones who don’t make a living out of it – all the time. Not just Australia, but everywhere! And people take substances and utter premonitions in hallucinatory states all the time too. In the Amazon jungle for instance. Indigenous Americans have a long history of it. Your experiences would not at all be surprising to most of the most of the people in the world. It is part of many cosmologies. Excluding, of course, that portion of the planet’s inhabitants – mostly in first world places – that has rejected such epistemologies and now chooses to proselytise, yet again, on what to believe to the rest of the world – because it’s all primitive. Christopher Hitchens, the Paris Hilton of Athiesm, is case in point. Apparently he smokes in the shower did you know? This proselytization conducts itself in an unconscious manner, as if it exists in a rarified space beyond politics. But what to believe and what not to believe is a political issue in case you all haven’t noticed and its platform is most often a racial one. It’s something you all need to think about when you speak of the oppressiveness of western religious discourse. You cannot negate Christianity without negating every other religious belief system. And because of colonisation, those other religious belief systems have also incorporated the aspects of Christianity you discredit. Nobel prize winning author Toni Morrison believes this:
http://exagminations.tripod.com/id34.html
Think about it next time you bang on about fairytales.
daggett, I do concede to NIST that the debris impact on the building did not cause the collapse. But of course, the debris started the fires that lead to the collapse so a minor point.
Well yes, as an atheist I’m cool with that.
jules, I still like your quote from way back:
“The event obviously had a huge effect on the people who use electronic media to structure their world [...]”
And don’t see why this effect would necessarily only be felt post-9/11.
Terrorism and War were in the air a long time before the event took place.
I am sorry that Casey is disappointed in me for not going off on a tangent to discuss Dr Steven Lewis’s theory about Christ visiting Meso-America (which I concede, I think, seems unlikley) and, instead, focussed, instead on something as mundane as the principle justification for our ongoing war in Afghanistan and the removal of many of our guarantees of human rights an democratic freedoms.
If Casey wants to understand some of the reason for the length of this discusion, I suggest she read on. (BTW, I don’t mind at all if the discussion were to continue elsewhere. Personally I have no emotional need to see this thread reach the 1,000 mark, and I am happy to see this discussion end as soon as what I consider are attempts to misinform have been conclusively dealt with.)
—
I wrote:
Then Sideshow Bob wrote:
I would have thought the meaning of my words were perfectly clear, but evidently Sideshow Bob’s concentration span did not even last long enough to comprehend the meaning of the qualifying clause> at the end of the sentence.
Of course, I am not saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was “unique”. I have been arguing all along that it was a controlled demolition and, therefore, obviously, not unique.
The reason for Sideshow Bob’s and Nick‘s long-winded meanderings is to justify NIST’s original, but long since abandoned, attempt to crudely arrive at an overall meaningless acceleration figure for the initiation of the ‘collapse’ that is substantially less than the acceleration of gravity.
If anything, the slight complexity in the nature of the collapse, because of the observed initial compression at the North Eastern end would have justified taking further set of measurements at that end.
To say that the Northern face collapsed as a whole at the point from which David Chandler took measurements is a simplification, but far less a simplification than what Nick and Sideshow Bob are attempting to depict it as.
Yes, Nick, looking closely at that second, more detailed film of the ‘collapse’, taken from that difficult angle, it appears that the demolition charges destroying the inside of the building somehow also caused a slight early fall at the North Eastern end.
It should also be pointed out that that video only begins just before the point that that Nick and Sideshow Bob would have us believe is the start of the ‘collapse’ of the Northern wall. The film footage showing the earlier initial collapse of the penthouse, at the far eastern end, has been omitted. I suspect that if it had been included, then even earlier movement in the outer wall would also have been detected. If so, that would have destroyed the rationale for picking the point in time that Nick maintains is the start of the collapse.
Whatever, the facts remain:
1. The North Western end remained perfectly stationary right up to the point that David Chandler (correctly, in my view) maintains the total collapse commenced; and
2. The whole of the Northern face remained intact up to that point, even if parts of it were coming under strain as the broken windows demonstrate.
So, even, in spite of the early initial movement,the observed Northern face could only have ‘collapsed’ in the way it did, if the conditions I described above had been met:
1. all the structural strength in at least 8 of the floors had been destroyed by explosives within those initial 2.5 seconds after the first movement of the outer wall was observed;
2. the timing of the detonations had been such that the structural strength of holding up each floor would have to have been totally removed before it could have in any way slowed the fall of any part of the building falling from above.
I have no problem with that Shaun. But my point was about the hegemonic mode some proponents of atheism adopt to impose their beliefs upon others as quite simply – the rational as opposed to the irrational. And to present that as somehow apolitical. In doing so, they ironically fall straight back into that discourse of primitivism that colonising nations used to impose Christianity upon the colonised. And how weird it is, that this this return to high modernism appears in place of what what was deconstructed. Not that this grand narrative appeals to everyone – hence a turn, in the Australian context, to other cosmologies and the revisioning of Indigenous cosmology. This being the Australian landscape itself as the new post colonial sacred in Australia (see Gelder and Jacobs for that and Bill Ashcroft I think). As the Morrison quote suggests, it’s just another epistemology and it is political, and racialised.
And, in as much as you are prepared to discount all other epistemologies apart from your own, not many on this site would be prepared to publicly deride Indigenous cosmology in the way they do, say, Christian cosmology, for instance. It’s just not the Leftist way.
Nor are they prepared to look at how the postcolonial world has incorporated aspects of Christianity into their own cosmologies and how christianity, that tool of oppression used by colonisers, became for some oppressed peoples a site of resistance, a place of consolidation and consolation. When African American slaves gathered beneath their masters noses to sing “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”, they were not talking about heavenly reward for suffering, they were talking about the coming retribution to be meted out to white people who oppressed them. From those beliefs sprung the civil rights platform of Martin Luther King. There are other examples. Liberation theology in Latin America.
But I guess all that would take some kind of nuance, like Anna said on the other thread recently. To see religion as something that has been at times both good and bad, both oppressive and liberating, or to see religion (whichever one) and atheism as just different epistemologies in a deconstructed world.
Dagget I have read it, I promise. And I can’t deconstruct obfuscation. I tried. But I can’t.
Thank you, Nick for conceding that point.
I think it would help this discussion to move along more quickly if this were to occur more often.
No, I don’t think it is a minor point.
What we had immediately after the collapse was a steel framed building fully supported by its structural support.
NIST would have us believe that that changed in the 14 seconds at the very most by fire alone. Whether the fire was initiated by the initial structural damage, arsonists, lightning or whatever, is beside the point.
The fact that this has never occurred befor and never since makes NIST’s explanation extremely unlikely.
The fact that NIST refused to consider the far more likely controlled demolition hypothesis, in order to either prove it or disprove it, confirms, as David Chandler and hundreds of quaified architects and engineering provessionals have alleged, that NIST did not conduct a scientific investigation, rather a politically motivated pretence at investigating in order to conceal a crime.
Oh great, I get accused of long-winded meanderings.
Got to run, but just quickly, daggett:
“[..] it appears that the demolition charges destroying the inside of the building somehow also caused a slight early fall at the North Eastern end.”
Thankyou, so Chandler was dead wrong in this video.
“taken from that difficult angle”
Why is it a difficult angle?
October 24 is the 350.org International Day of Climate Action.
More immediately, today is Blog Action Day!
Ive done a post over at BmL.
Sorry, I meant Shaun and not Nick, but the link was still correct.
—
Nick wrote:
No, not unless you are trying to say that scientists are not permitted to ever make any simplifying assumptions in order to study a scientific phenomenum.
As I have shown, Chandler’s simplifying assumptions made to demonstrate 2.5 seconds of free-fall are vastly less than those made by NIST (initially), you and Sideshow Bob in order to conceal that period of free-fall.
I, and possibly others, aren’t always able to view YouTube. I can’t from the computer I am now using. So, assuming that anything in the video ”
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)” is essentially different from anything else David Chandler has said in the other videos, then how about telling us what it is, some time?
That’s right, Jules: in conspiracy-land, “gut feeling” counts as evidence – all that quantifiable measurement stuff is for dissemblers and other brain-washed slaves of The Man. I’ll tell you what, though, Daggy, that image sure looks odd, all right. You know what makes it odd? It looks like a ruddy great building collapsing in the middle of Manhattan! How odd is that?!
Not only, but also: in your last sentence there you seem to be suggesting – please correct me if I’m wrong – that gravity prevents material from travelling “upwards” and “outwards”. Is that right? Have you told NASA about this? I mean, it’s pretty important stuff for them to know, and someone should tell them before they attempt to put satellites and stuff in orbit.
Maybe you could beam the image into my brain telepathically, so I can see what you see, because I don’t see why the image is improbable and you haven’t explained WHY, either. “Because I said so”, isn’t an acceptable argument, BTW.
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you? Doesn’t make you right, though, does it?
Come now, Daggy. It’s not “spoon feeding” if I ask you to explain your statement. And, no, “we” don’t “expect” any such thing. “If the end of the building had fallen straight down…”? What are we talking about here? It’s not WTC 7. Yet again you’ve floated another hypothetical and attached your ignorant and illogical opinions to it. Yet again I have to remind you to deal with the FACTS and argue LOGICALLY. Your hypothetical pontifications on the subject of structural engineering are worthless garbage.
I’m sorry, Daggy. I think there’s been a miscommunication here. I’m not giving serious consideration to any of your arguments because they’re ignorant, misinformed, illogical bunk. Whether you read the NIST report or not won’t change those comments. What WILL change is that you may start to know what you’re talking about.
You see, Daggy, it’s not hypocritical to expect an interlocutor to take the trouble to inform themselves on the subject being discussed. What IS hypocritical, Daggy, is proclaiming oneself to be interested in The Truth and slandering others for lacking zeal in the same pursuit WITHOUT DOING SOME BASIC FUCKING HOMEWORK. As I suggested earlier: get a clue.
You really don’t see the irony here, do you? But we’ll come back to this.
Awww, YSTLIABT. It’s called an audience, Daggy. Do you remember, back at #529 when you said you’d let others decide who was “contributing more honestly and helpfully to this discussion”? And now you’re telling off the audience? Tssk, tssk.
*It’s back to formality, is it? OK, if you insist, but you should address me as Mr. Terwilliger if you’re going to stand on ceremony.
**See? Now, was that so hard?
For context, the RCIIF. This one’s rollinger.
“the Twin Towers were, in effect, themselves, massive bombs planted in the heart of New York City.”
There’s a lot to like here, but what I like best is that this matches the joke from j_p_z who claimed that the buildings were entirely constructed of thermite.
greetings, funsters all !!
As we’ve seen several times already, Daggy, you’re not clear at the best of times – you don’t express yourself well and have a tendency to change your meaning retrospectively. All that aside, of course 9/11 was unique: terrorists flew aeroplanes into NY skyscrapers, causing their destruction. When has that happened before or since, Daggy? Please provide a couple of examples for us to ponder.
Blimey, that’s rich. You’re accusing others of “long-winded meanderings”?! I’m beginning to think you really have no idea of the meaning of “hypocrisy”.
As for the substantive point you are trying to make, you’re dead wrong again.
Would they? Why?
What demolition charges, Daggy? There’s no evidence of any demolition charges.
Interesting to note that you concede the North Eastern end had a “slight early fall”. Did that COLLAPSE occur before or after Chandler started his clock, Daggy?
Jaysus. No, Daggy. The conclusion from that video is that Chandler used the wrong video AND started his clock way too LATE. His work is consequently garbage.
No, not “whatever”. The facts are that:
1. the building began to collapse before Chandler started his clock;
2. he consequently measured the falling speed of the building incorrectly;
3. his argument is consequently bunk.
Your first assertion is both factually and logically wrong – the building was already collapsing BEFORE those “initial 2.5 seconds” that obviously weren’t “initial” – and represents the opinion of an unqualified speculator on a subject in which he has no expertise. Likewise, the second assertion is more clueless speculation from the ignorant.
[I hope you’ll forgive me for combining comments here – I want to avoid imitating your “long-winded meandering”]
Heh. There’s that irony again.
No, I think what we had after the collapse was a pile of rubble.
Really? Who says? Given the very small sample of similar events, i.e. “one”, you’re not in a position – and this is leaving your lack of expertise and poor grasp of the facts to the side for the moment – to determine likelihood. Yet again, you’re floating your dopey opinion as authoritative. It’s not.
We’ve been over this. Liam demonstrated at #495 that they had. Please do keep up. The rest of your comment there is, consequently, irrelevant tripe.
Heh, Liam. Do you think he’ll heed the apposite comment?
Sideshow Bob, when you stop referring to me as “Daggy”, I will refer to you in whatever way you want — “Lord Terwiliger”, “Sir Robert Terwilliger OBE”, “Bob”, “Mr. Terwilliger” or whatever.
—
Sideshow Bob wrote:
I think you have already made abundantly clear by now that that is what you think.
How many times need that be re-stated?
If you have nothing else to add to the discussion, then why not stand back and allow others, who are prepared to discuss the evidence proceed (whatever you personally think of the quality of that evidence that you adamantly refuse to discuss)?
Sideshow Bob continued:
Anyone who reads back through this forum will know that I have read a good deal more about 9/11 than just anyone, including you.
I consider what I have read to be far more useful than such fraudulent propaganda as the NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission Report. In fact, if you had observed you will have noticed that I had even read parts of those documents, but I am not going to sit down and read them from end to end because you demand that I do.
“Whatever way” I want, Daggy? Stop and think very carefully about what you’re offering here, Daggy, as I think your weakness with detail is leading you into a deal you may regret.
Why, Daggy, just dealing with that instance – as many times as you mischaracterise my views, which, at a rough estimate based on your recent form, will be somewhere between “lotsa” and “a whole bunch”.
But-but-but…Daggy! I have so much to give!
Also, where is it that I have “adamantly refused” to discuss the evidence? Name the offending comments or retract your lie.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Daggy, but that’s not at all evident. What you’ve demonstrated is a willingness to watch, credulously, naively, some very dodgy dudes and their dodgy theories on YouTube. IMNSHO, anyone who reads back through this forum is not going to think you well-read. IMNSHO they’re going to think you’re a sucker for loopy shit on teh interwebs – loopy shit that’s easily debunked – who should probably do more homework before claiming any sort of knowledge on 9/11.
Oh, I’m not suggesting you read them because I demand you do. I suggest you read them because you’ll look like less of a wilfully ignorant twit. Your call.
If you have made it this far then you’ll appreciate the turn of conversation at around 1:40.
I suspect we will shortly witness a dummy-spit of epic proportions, with a certain robot dog flouncing away into the aether, never to be heard of again. (Insofar as robot dogs can flounce.)
“Robot dog?” you ask. To quote from IMDB, concerning the original Battlestar Galactica, “Boxey’s robot dagget (dog) Muffy was realized by having a trained chimp inside the dagget costume.”
However, our Daggett clearly cannot be described as “trained”.
Before this thread expires, I just wanted to say: massive props to Fyodor. Wrestling with the greased pig in the mud is enormously entertaining to spectators, but few of us want to actually jump into the mudpit ourselves with a conspiracy theorist, as Mr Terwilliger has done.
Perhaps the piece de resistance of Fyodor’s controlled demolition was to force Daggett to acknowledge that he hadn’t read, and wasn’t interested in reading, the full reports by the 9/11 Commission and by NIST (an organisation of thousands of engineers and scientists, including 3 Nobel laureates in physics). Because obviously NIST is a far less reliable source than some high school science teacher with a Youtube video.
Han shot frist.
Can someone fish my comment out of the filter?
In case the LP staff are all having a wild Friday night office party, with Mark B and three of his young female interns enjoying the corporate jacuzzi, a four-word summary of my comment is: massive props to Fyodor.
The [ahem] “corporate jacuzzi” is in point of fact a monsastically bare site of learning; only the erudite enter, the interns are selected for intellect and creativity, the Party is a distant memory.
That Fyodor of whom you speak, is he not a wonder? Detailed, analytic, witty, painstaking; stamina and memory of a mighty beast. If he’s not already a successful barrister, he could be. Nay, QC I say. Go Fyo!
Yes, indeed, Fyodor could very well be the next Malcolm Turnbull. The way that Turnbull dispatched the Brits in the Spycatcher trial is redolent of the way Fyodor is dispatching Daggett.
Wait … maybe Fyodor is Malcolm Turnbull! Would it not give him such sly glee to appear on a lefty blog under an assumed name, the poor fools never realising that the leader of the Liberal Party was amongst them?
I think I’m on to something here.
Bob, It seems to me that you have taken up an awful lot of space to simply argue:
1. That the correct time to begin measuring the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 was at that point in time prior to the point that David Chandler began to measure it.
2. From (1), it logically follows that the accelertion of the collapse of the Northern Wall can only be averaged from that point for the next 5.4 seconds onwards and it is impermissible to consider, in isolation, any period within that 5.4 seconds, for example the 2.5 seconds at which the North Western edge was observed by David Chandler to have fallen at free fall speed.
3. Nothing else about the ‘collapse’ need be explained here, as all answers are to be found in the abovementioned NIST report.
Have I missed something, Bob?
Bob wrote:
But didn’t I respond to Liam @ 506?
Bob already stated:
And, clearly, Bob has not.
And I don’t see why that should not cut both ways.
Whilst Bob’s posts have clearly impressed one or two others on this forum, who, appear, to me, not to have gained any comprehension whatsoever of the topic at hand, I fail to see anything in them that warrants any further response on my part.
To anyone here still interested in understanding the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ and 9/11 in general, I ask them to read my previous posts, in particular, 555. Also, please check 172 for links to David Chandler’s YouTube Broadcasts. I found them informative, clever and quite funny in parts.
By all means also check out the ‘debunking’ videos linked to by Nick and Bob. (Can’t find them right now, sorry. Perhaps, Nick and Bob should consider putting the titles of, else, some other descriptive text within the links so that others can find them more easily.)
hey casey thanks for taking the time totake the next step re my stream of uncounsciousness rantings, and for the link … unrool. Thats why i love the internet. Cheers.
I was a little drunk the other night and edted wht I’d posted, then promptly dumbed the edit and c&ped the incoherent versions.
I was hpoing to bang on about psychedelics/entheogens at some point, cos they add a whole nother level of bullshit to the topic (bullshit as in crazy but not necessarily inaccurate/untrue stuff.) I dunno how that’d go down here but … I’ll say in advance now that I’m sceptical about everything. Especially (most especially) my own interpretation of reality.
ANyway I’m contacting Dorian West right now. Hope he doesn’t spin out too much when that email lands in his inbox.
Theres another tack I want to take with this discussion too if the noise of the collapse doesn’t drown it out.
Thats to do with the notion of Taboo and 9/11.
For example … was it just me that found the whole thing a little liberating? Not the deaths of course, they were appalling, but no more appalling than the 30, 000 kids a day and the billion humans with not enough to eat right now, as a result of the system we all benefit from and that those buildings represented.
But you know, the narrative of global capital chokes everything else, and demands that it be considered the only acceptable and unquestioned reason for its (our culture’s) existance. Fuck it, but if its so vulnerable that les than 20 committed people with stationary can do it so much damage its certainly less of an all powerful ogre.
For the record in 2002/3 I used to go on about how much the WTC collapses looked like a CD. So much so that I convinced a few people. Last year a couple of them rocked up here out of the blue, after teaching kids on some community somewhere, maybe near Boroloola (spelling?) for the last 5 or so years. They were stunned to my backflip on CD as by that time they’d come round to the same conclusions Daggett has here. Mostly thanks to me. I told the that in truth I now thought it ws a distraction, cos its entered the realm of the unprovable, at least in terms of practical results in a court of law. And I wasn’t so sure it was even true, appearances and initial readings of a situation can be wrong. (I pride myself on how well I sum up situations so its hard to admit how easily you can misinterpret things.)
“(Can’t find them right now, sorry. Perhaps, Nick and Bob should consider putting the titles of, else, some other “descriptive text within the links so that others can find them more easily.)”
@ 522: Internet Archive: WTC7 collapse
The title of the video and the website hosting it weren’t clear enough for you?
“But didn’t I respond to Liam @ 506?”
No, Liam referred to the absence of the sound of explosion, which you’ve repeatedly avoided responding to and acknowledging. If you’d read the report, you’d know that was one of its central arguments against controlled demolition.
daggett @ 442,
“A theory should not only be simple, but it should also account for all the observations.”
Could you maybe make an attempt here and now to account for this observation?
And not with the subjectiveness of eyewitness testimony. For every person you show me who heard a ‘boom boom’, I’ll show you someone standing nearby who didn’t.
Please link to even one piece of video footage on the internet that recorded the sound of an explosion.
NIST NCSTAR 1A
Page 28:
The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7. This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.
No, you squibbed it—squibbed like a wet bunger in front of hundreds of disappointed children on Cracker Night in Canberra. Explosives are noisy; you’re prepared to overlook the positive evidence of absence (as I referred to at #295). They speak English in what?
I’ve always seen Turnbull as a too-smart-by-half slightly malignant clown. I think you’re onto something Generalfeldmarschall.
Well, if so then Mal’s much better at hiding his love of 90s hip-hop than I’d have credited.
I have rung up Torchwood. I’m reliably informed they’re on the case. In fact, they’re even bringing in Martha Jones to make sure we really get to the bottom of which alien force was really behind 9/11. (After all its abundantly clear whoever it was they did take over George W. Bush on or about that date. (The aliens, I meant, not Torchwood. Torchwood can get taken over, but, so far as I know they don’t actually take over.)
Why do
My computer informs me this page is or was suffering from a low memory condition. Seriously!
Anyway psychedelics and 9/11 …
One point that I think definitely stands on its own. Timewave Zero didn’t predict 9/11.
I don’t have the software anymore, but I am sure it doesn’t, cos I remember checking.
I think it had already been debunked at least as far as the specific claims Terrence McKenna made about it. I think that got a life of its own (2012 and all that). McKenna never claimed it was a definite thing, he always said time would tell, thats always a point in his favour too. Before his death he’d also accepted the criticism of it that others had made. He never makes dogmatic statements of fact regarding his mad speculations. In some ways timewave zero is more art than anything else, but its trippy art.
9/11 should be significant in the context of timewave zero, cos its all about novelty, and tho events, and their consequences have been banal in their evilness ( unless you are actually suffering the consequences, then they are far from it.) But banal in the sense that the event itself and the response by govts around the world has just been more of the same pointless shit.
In terms of the non physical response to it tho, the actual reaction of humans and its effect on their culture and their lives when they aren’t directly connected to the events is weird, its novel cos it seems to have caused a cultural PTSD. That should appear if TWZ is going to have any predictive power as a model.
It might have other values but it doesn’t seem to work as a map of novelty ingressing into time.
I’m not arguing againg the predictive powers of psychedelics, or even if its the pyschedelic experience itself, just trying to discount TMZ now in case someone brings it up. I’ve done the odd psychedelic drug, not for years tho, it is easy to see why people lose it after having a full on trip. I think its easier to predict stuff if you are familiar with psychedelics, or have had some similar experience that forces you to deal with how you interpret whats going on around you.
Its easier to identify certain trends, almost by the pattern they leave. But there is more to it than that. I know another few people who have associated 9/11 with psychedelic experiences. Not in a meaningful way tho, that could have enabled them to predict what was gonna happen. And Obviously the inage is familiar to me from tripping as well, (on salvia divinorum before it was outlawed.) But again not in a meaningful way.
Well, meaningful in that if you sat outside time and looked at history, it’d be similar to looking a painting or this screen you are reading. Its looking at two dimensional representation from an environment where you navigate through more than two dimensions.
People did the same thing, functionally when they predicted the economic rise of China. You might visualise the details with psychedelics, or even dreams but what use are they if you can’t translate them to a usable context? Thats one thing you can say about the people who predicted the rise of China – they were right.
Ultimatly that is why scientific mathod and rational thought work so well – their functionality. If there is a way to find functionality in predictive systems that appear irrational events like 9/11 are gonna show it. And similar events, similar powerful black swans if you like.
One last thought about psychedelics tho.
David Icke … some people might think he is cynical and knows he is full of shit, or using code, lizards = Jews or something (as some vast subtle anti semetic right wing conspiracy I spose). There may be something in that too. I dunno if you know that before he embarked on his campaign against the lizards he went to the Amazon and took Ayahuasca. Anyone familiar with the imagery from it or its component drugs would recognise the way reptile imagery can be powerful and freaky.
Thats a lesson in caution kids. Don’t take drugs cos you might end up like David Icke. (In his favour – early November 2000 he had the banner headline “Another Cocaine Snorting Liar in the Whitehouse.” and left it up for a while. )
“Ayahuasca. Anyone familiar with the imagery from it or its component drugs would recognise the way reptile imagery can be powerful and freaky.”
Not reptiles for me, but I take the point. Although my experience is with other sources of DMT – certainly the duration is different, and maybe plenty else. But yes, the hallucinations can be very, I dunno… coherent, and there’s a definite sense of something very different to me trying to communicate with me.
It’s fun, and scary in a not-so-fun way sometimes, but I wouldn’t read too much into it.
You should have stopped at #1, Daggy, and I haven’t “taken up an awful lot of space” to argue it. It took one post (#464), one link and a couple of words to win that point. What’s taken up an awful lot of space since has been your public humiliation – a process in which you have been a thoroughly willing, if unwitting, collaborator, for which I thank you.
No. Nick’s noted this, too: you have failed, catastrophically, to address the substantive points of NIST’s refutation of the CD hypothesis.
No, I have not. How does this prove I have “adamantly refused” to discuss the evidence? Believe it or not, but your feeble “arguments” aren’t evidence. I repeat my request: prove it or admit you lied.
That’d be because you haven’t “gained any comprehension whatsoever of the topic at hand”.
Yairs, it appears that you’re easily impressed, or impressionable. However, repeating the same discredited garbage doesn’t make it any more convincing.
* Heh, Daggy. You can learn!
This is getting a bit like one of those fights in the movies where you’re praying the ref’s going to step in and stop it, so one sided has it become.
I note that Bob @ 581 has not responded to my question @ 572.
So, until Bob tells me what else of substance about the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 is to be found amongst all his voluminous bluster, I believe that those attempting to understand Bob’s ‘case’ would save themselves a lot of time and trouble by reading my summary, which I will include again below:
—
The auditory evidence of demolition is contradictory. The fact that much film footage appears to lack the sound of explosions may be because of those films having been doctored.
There are ample eyewitness accounts of explosions. Some can be found in this PDF compilation of statements from Fire Department of New York (FDNY) members.
Nick wrote:
To argue that all eyewitness testimony of explosions should be discounted because others claim their was none is ridiculous.
The job of the 9/11 Commission should have been to evaluate all the evidence and arrive at an explanation that best accounts for all of it. Instead it ignored all evidence of eyewitness accounts of ecploasions.
Liam‘s comment @ 495, which I was accused of not responding to (when I did @ 506) says nothing about the claimed lack of auditory evidence.
—
If people want to make a big deal out of one or two arguments I have not got around to replying to, a considerably greater number of my own have been ignored. As one example, I am still waiting for Liam, or, indeed, anyone, to state whether or not he accepts the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, a summary of which I posted to this forum.
I am also waiting to find out from Liam whether he thinks it is fair to attempt to imply that what I have posted is not factual by putting quote marks around the word ‘facts’, when he has failed to acknowledge any of them, let alone rebut them.
—
No, thanks, adrian.
I don’t particularly want this discussion to end until such time as the dishonesty of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists has been conclusively demonstrated to anyone willing to read the discussion with an open mind (although I expect we have come very close to that point, all the same.)
Of course I would prefer not to have to confront so many all at once, and it is a strain havinf to download all the ballast deliberately added to this discussion. However, in my experience, even large numbers of people determined to mislead can’t prevent the truth being made known by one person, given a chance to argue his case.
Casey @556,
There is a great beauty and poetry in Indigenous cosmology (as many other religious narratives). I feel no need to deride and feel it is an important part of Australia’s cultural heritage. And can be quite useful.
As an atheist I’m more concerned with bringing down the power structures that privilege religion and that is political of course. But I do not want to eradicate religion. Freedom from religion is the same as freedom of religion.
And yes, they are wonderful examples of those oppressed use Christianity to turn on the oppressors. This is a reason as to why, though I find Hitchens thought-provoking and entertaining, his overall message fall short. Also reinforces my belief that the Atheist v Christianity is too much influenced by the extremes experienced in the US.
Well put Shaun. I agree with you completely. Thanks for responding.
Upon re-reading Bob’s post, I can see that it appears to be even more ridiculous than I at first realised. My apologies for any confusion I have unintentionally caused.
Apparently, all that Bob believes needs to be explained here for us to accept the NIST explanation in its entirety, is:
As point 2, apparently, does not form part of his ‘case’, then, presumably, it is permissible, after all, within the 5.4 second period for David Chandler to have measured that smaller 2.5 second period of free fall.
Presumably, then, Bob would concede that at the North Western end, as far as it is possible to accurately measure, fell at free-fall speed (as NIST has conceded) and the North Eastern end, given that it had only ‘compressed’ slightly before the start of the 2.5 second interval and that none of the Norhtern wall had visibly broken along the top at any point, would have fallen very close to free-fall speed for that 2.5 second interval.
Do you agree or not, Bob? Nick?
So, as I have said, before, within that 2.5 second interval, something must have suddenly caused all the structural strength to have been lost on 8 floors, most likely the first 8 floors, that are out of our view.
Do you agree or don’t you, Bob? Nick?
And the timing of the removal of that structural strength on each successive floor, must have been totally removed across the whole length of that floor in a fraction of that time (on averge, roughly 0.4 seconds per floor), as I put @ 506.
Do you agree or don’t you, Bob? Nick?
Assuming that Bob agrees with the above, then we need an explanation, exactly what other than demolition charges, set to be detonated, floor-by-floor in very rapid succession, could have caused all of that structural strength to have been lost in that 2.5 second interval.
Bob and Nick are insisting that all this is divulged within the NIST report, but neither of them have, so far, brought themselves to provide that explanation here.
So, as no-one, else here, as far as I can tell, has attempted to digest the ‘explanation’ in the report, they are presumably expected to take Bob’s and Nick’s word for it that it explains everything.
Having read bits of the NIST report over the past months, and viewed its ludicrous diagrams and, elsewhere, its silly computer simulation (that only ‘simulates’ up to the initiation of the ‘collapse’, BTW, and not the whole ‘collapse’), I can confidently state that it does not explain the 2.5 seconds of free-fall, nor a good deal else, besides.
I would suggest that it is up to either Bob or Nick to prove me wrong.
They could start by providing us with their understanding of the NIST ‘explanation’, as I have already repeatedly asked Bob to do.
Well, yes, Daggy, there’s a great deal that you’ve missed, but I thought it irrelevant to the argument. Were you proposing to catalogue all of the weaknesses I found in your position? If so, please have another lash and I’ll correct your further mistakes.
You know, Daggy, it’s a bit hypocritical of you to decry my allegedly “voluminous bluster” just before repeating – verbatim, it seems – your own “voluminous bluster”. As for your attempt to summarise my position, I’ve already noted that #2 and #3 are inaccurate and, furthermore, I don’t need someone of your limited articulation to express my thoughts. Anyone who wants to can read them above.
Proof, please. Produce footage that has the sounds of explosions characteristic of controlled demolition or admit you have nothing. Simply claiming, on no basis whatsoever, that the footage was “doctored” is not a substitute.
I’m sure people thought they heard lots of things. That doesn’t mean they heard a controlled demolition. The other problem, of course, is selective quotation [yes, Daggy: cherrypicking again] by those of questionable intellectual integrity. Selective quotation is great, for example, if you want to imply that the railroad industry was behind 9/11.
That’s not Nick’s argument. Nick is arguing that the eyewitness accounts are subjective, often contradictory and thus not always reliable.
Did it? How do you know that?
But the link he produced as evidence DOES. As he noted, anyone who denies this is lying. Did you lie, Daggy?
Your summary is not an “argument”, Daggy, and nor is it the official analysis of the events.
Good luck with that. Personally, given I’ve already caught you out in so many lies I think Haiku was too generous with you.
Just the answer I hoped for. Go, Daggy, go!
Damn straight. Except that word, “truth”, does not mean what you think it means.
OK, now I’m confused.
Non-sequitur.
No. We’ve been through this already.
No. We’ve been through this already.
No, why “must” it have been?
As I haven’t agreed with the above, what you think “we” need is irrelevant.
Did you want me to copy and paste the whole report, Daggy? That doesn’t seem particularly bright to me.
Or they could, you know, read the report and make up their own mind.
Oh, so you HAVE read it? Why did you state before that you hadn’t?
Also, your ability to state arguments confidently is overmatched by your ability to fuck them up.
I already have, Daggy. Continually asserting that “black” is “white” is not an effective rhetorical strategy, BTW.
Regarding “fact” and “factual”. A “fact” is not something you assert is not there, hoping that it is. For instance, all the following arguments are fallacious: The fairies “must” have misplaced my keys this afternoon when I locked myself out of my house. I’ve got a gut feeling it was them. Nobody’s able to prove that it wasn’t my own stupidity, and I can just go on claiming that the fairies took my keys from my pocket and left them on the coffee table in such a way as to hide all the evidence.
…
You know, if Dick Cheney tomorrow went on TV and said—”I did it, I had a bunch of accomplices who I’ll name, I’ve got the minutes of the meetings and the financial accounts of the operation, I enjoyed it, I made a stack of money out of it in the following proveable ways, I’m glad I did it, and fuck you America”, people like Daggett would wonder what conspiracy he was covering up.
You mean Dick Cheney didn’t do that? Oh.
But is Missy Higgins a lesbian?
daggett, I’ve got a conundrum for you:
What if debris from WTC 1 hadn’t flown 110m south and set fire to WTC 7?
Would our conspirators have simply blown it up regardless, if it weren’t on fire?
That’s a tough one to think through
‘Scuse my grammar.
Bob wrote:
No, you haven’t. Providing a link to a document somewhere else is not the same thing.
Bob wrote:
Of course, not. Just provide the parts that explain how how the Northern Wall fell at free fall speed for a length of 8 floors in 2.5 seconds, or do so in your own words, as I have done with my explanation.
Anyway, I don’t mind that much if you don’t. I have provided mine, but it’s not my job to provide this forum with the theory you are defending.
To help others, I will again post the questions I put in my previous post, then Bob’s answers and then my further comments:
My question:Presumably, then, Bob would concede that at the North Western end, as far as it is possible to accurately measure, fell at free-fall speed (as NIST has conceded) and the North Eastern end, given that it had only ‘compressed’ slightly before the start of the 2.5 second interval and that none of the Northern wall had visibly broken along the top at any point, would have fallen very close to free-fall speed for that 2.5 second interval.
Do you agree or not, Bob? Nick?
Bob’s answer: No. We’ve been through this already.
My comment: I am not sure where in the above haystacks I am expected to find the needle where we have ‘been through this already’. As NIST agrees that the North Western Corner collapsed at free-fall speed for a 2.5 second interval, ‘no’ can only mean that Bob is saying that there could have somehow been a significant differences in the rates of fall at the North Eastern end to the rates of fall Western end, without the whole wall having visibly broken up.
My question: So, as I have said, before, within that 2.5 second interval, something must have suddenly caused all the structural strength to have been lost on 8 floors, most likely the first 8 floors, that are out of our view.
Do you agree or not, Bob? Nick?
Bob’s answer: No. We’ve been through this already.
My comment: Bob appears to be arguing that some of those floors could have retained some of their structural strength during that 2.5 second interval, without their slowing down the rate of fall of the observed Northern wall. That contradicts Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
My question: And the timing of the removal of that structural strength on each successive floor, must have been totally removed across the whole length of that floor in a fraction of that time (on averge, roughly 0.4 seconds per floor), as I put @ 506.
Do you agree or not, Bob? Nick?
Bob’s answer: No, why “must” it have been?
My comment: (Yet, again, Bob, requires spoon feeding.) Because, Bob, if that had not happened in that way the remaining structural support in any one part of any one of the floors would have obstructed the fall in all or part of the Northern wall would have slowed visibly. Of course there are other theoretical possibilities. It is theoretically possible that removal of the stengths of the floors could have been grouped so as to happen to more than one floor similtaneously, but that seems unlikely, particularly when we remember how neat the pile of debris was. Anyway, Bob has answered ‘no’ here, too. So, again, it appears that he rejects Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
My question: Assuming that Bob agrees with the above, then we need an explanation, exactly what other than demolition charges, set to be detonated, floor-by-floor in very rapid succession, could have caused all of that structural strength to have been lost in that 2.5 second interval.
Do you agree or not, Bob? Nick?
Bob’s answer: As I haven’t agreed with the above, what you think “we” need is irrelevant.
My comment: I will take that as a ‘no’. As Bob has rejected Newton’s Second Law of motion, then I just may be able to understand why he would think that no further explanation is required. Nevertheless, I wonder if he has pondered the implications of the rejection of Newton’s Second Law for structural engineering, or, indeed every aspect of the physical world we live in.
—
Bob wrote:
Isn’t it, Bob? Well, it sure seems like it to me. But, of course, I know now not to expect of you to explain what is the position you defend, so I won’t ask you to explain what you understand “the official analysis of the events” to be.
—
I can see Bob would also have me go down a number of other rabit holes, when I can’t even get him to go down one.
Sorry, Bob I am not going to run all over the internet, at this point in time, to prove to your satisfaction, my point about the audio recordings, etc., etc.
—
Nick,
It’s debatable that the debris from the North Tower caused all those fires. My belief was that they were lit and maintained in order to make it appear that that is what had happened. I can’t know what would have happened without fires. Yes, I suspect that they would have still blown it up, regardless. As it appears that WTC 7 was used as the command center to control the demolition of the Twin Towers, there would have been far too much incriminating evidence left behind if it had not been demolished.
It’s clear that an awful lot did not go right for the conspirators on 11 Spetember 2001. Clearly, WTC 7 was meant to have been blown up before it did. Otherwise, we could not have witnessed Jayne Standley of the BBC reporting that WTC 7 had ‘collapsed’ 23 minutes before it actually did, with WTC 7 standing behind her in the background behind.
We can also assume that their plans involved Flight 93 crashing into the Capitol Building, most likely killing a number of US legislators.
If that had happened, I think we would have seen the complete suspension of the US constitution that day, in effect a coup. So, all the holes that we see here in this forum would have been much more easily covered up.
I think those that are parroting the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory here, because of peer group pressure, and not because they are Government shills, should contemplate just what sort of world we would be living in today if Flight 93 had got to the Capitol Building.
Whether people realise it or not, one reason why it has not happened again, is that a lot of people, particularly in the 9/11 Truth Movement, are watching very closely the people responsible for 9/11 and they realise that, if they try it again, it will be much harder to fool as many people in the way they did in the immediate wake of 9/11.
—
Liam,
I think I understand what a fact is. Now please explain why it was not dishonest for you to imply that what I had written was not factual by putting quote marks around the word ‘facts’, when you were not prepared to challenge those facts.
Bob wrote,
Actually, it seems to me that there wasn’t. I think that people are entitled to conclude from the fact that you have not taken the opportunity to expand on my own understanding of your ‘case’ that there is no further substance to it.
Nick,
that’s interesting. How many other nearby buildings had demolition charges pre-set in them? When and why were the explosives removed? It surely would have been difficult, with all the TV crews, reporters, NYPD, rescue teams etc. around?
It’s most likely a Norse Raiding Party came ashore near the ferry building, after concealing themselves in the torch on the Liberty Statue. This of course planned many decades in advance by the Opus Dei faction of the French Govt. It’s all been explained by Miss Aimee Smersh, a 17-year-old history student, who plans to post her findings on Youtube after the psychedelics have receded.
‘Scuse my
grammarsense of direction!AKA: because you didn’t expand further on why you think I’m wrong, I get to maintain that I’m right.
AKA: beat me more, master.
Really? Since when has your judgement been reliable?
You can think whatever nonsense you like, and evidently do. However, there’s no logical connection between embellishing your cack-handed summary and the substance of my position. Yet again you have presented another non-sequitur that proves nothing but your incompetence with logic.
Liam wrote:
No, Liam. What you read is what I meant to write.
There is no more substance in that Bob has written on the WTC 7 “collapse” since 464 than what I have stated in my own understanding of his ‘case’.
Of course I think I am right and that Bob is wrong, but I am not asking anyone to just take my word for it. I am just asking them to contemplate that fact that there is almost no substance in his many long verbose contributions to this discussion.
In fact, Bob, himself, has already said as much when he wrote:
and:
Bob wrote:
I wasn’t asking to accept my judgement. I was asking you to prove me wrong.
Of course there isn’t. So, why not tell everyone what it is?
It looks like I had somehow typed <a> instead of <p> at the start of the 4th and 10th paragraphs, above. (<p> tags are redundant on LP, BTW.) I als typed ‘that’ instead of ‘than’ at one point. My apologies.
Here’s the first part again:
Liam wrote:
No, Liam. What you read is what I meant to write.
There is no more substance in what Bob has written on the WTC 7 “collapse” since 464 than what I have stated in my own understanding of his ‘case’.
Of course I think I am right and that Bob is wrong, but I am not asking anyone to just take my word for it. I am just asking them to contemplate that fact that there is almost no substance in his many long verbose contributions to this discussion.
In fact, Bob, himself, has already said as much when he wrote:
and:
Correction: you think blahdi blah.
Also, what’s with the scare quotes on collapse? Are you implying that WTC 7 didn’t collapse, Daggy?
“That fact”, Daggy? Puhlease. If you should have learned anything from this sorry exercise, Daggy, it should be that you shouldn’t consider opinions facts just because you want them to be true. It’s an habitual failing of yours, Daggy: you’re just too gullible.
Let me get this straight: you’re not asking anyone to take your “word for it”, but you ARE asking them to take your word for it that my contributions are insubstantial and simultaneously verbose? Characteristically illogical and desperate pleading, Daggy, and there’s that verbose hypocrisy of yours, too.
Again, in fact, I, me, myself, said nothing of the kind, as pointing out the crapness of your arguments and the humiliation you’ve endured has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of my arguments.
Wrong again, Daggy. This was the sequence of comments:
Now, you’ve clearly lied about asking me to prove you wrong. There’s no demand for proof there. When you say that it “seems” to you there wasn’t a great deal missing from your statement you are making a judgement, on which I rightly called you out. I’ve told you this before and you just don’t listen: get your story straight.
As you admit that there’s no logical connection, why?
The sentence above:
and not:
The original sentence was not completely wrong, but obviously clumsy. Again, my apologies.
—
The video “Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3″ (and parts 2 and 3) shows an interview with leading Dutch demolition engineer Danny Jowenko where he views for the first time the video of the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7, unaware that that is what he is looking at.
His reaction is that, of course, it was a controlled demolition. I somehow doubt if he would have been dissuaded from that view by the feeble argument that Bob, Nick, Liam, FDB et al insist is so convincing.
Most interestingly Danny Jowenko’s views exactly coincide with the impression formed by the reported who commented live on the WTC 7 ‘collapse’. These are the words spoken by a news reporter upon having observed the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7:
You can hear them for yourself at the end of David Chandler’s abovementioned video “WTC7 in Freefall–No Longer Controversial”.
Of course, neither Danny Jowenko’s professional judgement nor the professional judgements of any other of the several hundred (943 as of now) members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth were even acknowedged by NIST.
Instead of the most obvious and logical explanation of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, Bob expects us to unquestioningly accept a convoluted, half-baked, far-from-complete ‘explanation’ that he is evidently incapable of articulating to the rest of us on this forum.
“Of course, neither Danny Jowenko’s professional judgement nor the professional judgements of any other of the several hundred (943 as of now) members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth were even acknowedged by NIST.”
Amazingly, you don’t seem to see a problem with this sentence. Why on Earth would you care what NIST does or doesn’t acknowledge – your opinion of their competence, honesty and complicity has been made abundantly clear. And how do you know what they did or didn’t acknowledge anyway? You refuse to read the report you bang on and on and on about, and are relying on gossip from websites.
Of course, you’re probably right, for once. NIST probably don’t acknowledge the opinions of the 9 hundred and something architects, engineers and the Dutch demolition expert you mention. I’d say the reason is that they were not a part of the investigative team, haven’t had anything at all to go on but second-hand information and a couple of videos which they wilfully misinterpret, and because they are crackpots who have no compuction about imputing NIST themselves with the most horrible motives imaginable.
Instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments, Bob persists with his attempts to turn this discussion into the equivalent of:
daggett: ‘Tis too.
Bob: ‘Tis not.
daggett: ‘Tis too.
Bob: ‘Tis not.
etc., etc.
… and pedantically hides behind the literal meaning of words:
I didn’t literally use the words ‘prove me wrong’ ergo I did not ask him to prove him to.
Well, I am asking you, now, Bob: prove me wrong.
Or do you intend to persist with “not giving serious consideration to any of [my] arguments”?
Bob wrote:
I think Bob needs someone to explain to him concepts such as ‘sarcasm’ and ‘irony’.
Bob continued:
Somehow, I doubt if I can help you, Bob. If no-one else steps forward, you’re going to have to work that out for yourself.
I will repeat the exchange:
Bob wrote:
I wrote:
Once, again, my “cack-handed summary”, which is my own best understanding of the totality of Bob’s ‘case’ which ‘disproves’ that the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition is to be found here.
Anyone here is welcome to add to that anything I may have missed.
“I think Bob needs someone to explain to him concepts such as ’sarcasm’ and ‘irony’.”
Now that’s irony.
Why don’t you give it a try though?
Should be fun.
Why should they have been? What Efdeebee said: NIST had a large array of its own experts, with access to all the evidence, and not just opinionated busybodies [including the “professional judgement” of a reporter, Daggy?!] watching YouTube.
As for Danny Jowenko, have you seen the FULL interview, Daggy? Are you aware that he doesn’t believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions? Makes him somewhat unreliable as an expert for the conspiracy case, doesn’t it?
More illogic. If I haven’t articulated it, how do you know it’s “convoluted”, “half-baked” and “far-from-complete”?
Also, the most obvious and logical explanation of the WTC 7 collapse [again with the scare quotes – are you seriously denying the building collapsed?] is the one presented in the NIST report, which I and others have linked to many times. While the report is large, it’s anything but “half-baked” or “far-from-complete”. What’s evidently half-baked bunk is your delusional theory, which you have been unable to substantiate.
Your arguments have already been destroyed, Daggy. I’m just quoting back WHAT YOU WROTE and pointing out your lies. There’s no hiding there, just the truth. Remember the Truth, Daggy?
You didn’t ask me for proof literally, figuratively or in any sense other than in your imagination. Ergo, you lied.
I already have, Daggy. Several times over.
You seem to be confused here. I haven’t had to give your arguments much consideration at all to disprove them. The want of serious consideration reflects their weakness, not my unwillingness to disprove them.
Sorry, Bob, I wasn’t you aware you possessed a sense of humour and, to be perfectly honest, I’m still not sure you do. Leaving that aside, it doesn’t change the fact that your connection is illogical and your consequent request irrelevant.
Yes, I doubt that, too.
Unfortunately, your “best understanding” isn’t good enough, Daggy. That’s been the problem all along.
FDB asks “Why on Earth would you care what NIST does or doesn’t acknowledge …”
Because we arguing over whether or not NIST properly investigated the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7. If what had to be amongst the greatest engineering disasters has not been adequately explained, a new investigation is needed.
I am arguing that if a lot of evidence has not been considered then it was not a proper investigation.
FDB wrote, “And how do you know what they did or didn’t acknowledge anyway?”
I read the summary in which the controlled demolition hypothesis is dismissed. To my knowledge no NIST apologist has claimed that they have considered that evidence. If you insist that they have considered that evidence, then why not show where it have?
FDB wrote, “I’d say the reason is that they … haven’t had anything at all to go on but second-hand information and a couple of videos …”
Clearly FDB has not been paying attention. Any other crime with this much incriminating evidence would have been solved in nano-seconds.
FDB continiued, “… which they wilfully misinterpret, …”
It’s a shame that FDB has kept to himself the reasons why he maintains the evidence has been misinterpreted.
FDB continued, “… and because they are crackpots …”
Of course, because they don’t agree with FDB?
FDB continued, “… who have no compuction about imputing NIST themselves with the most horrible motives imaginable.”
Once again: NIST has helped cover up the crime of the mass murder of almost 3,000 US citizens, which was falsely blamed on people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This crime was the pretext for wars that have caused the deaths and maiming of many hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions, whilst, amazingly, after 8 years, have not resulted in the capture of a single person with a proven link to that crime.
The people who conducted the NIST ‘investigation’ belong behind bars.
—
I see one unsubstantiated assertion concerning Danny Jowenko in Bob’s latest ‘contribution’ to this discussion, which, in any case, seems to be beside the point.
And I am informed that when a building is demolished with explosives it also collapses, presumably, instead of remaining indefinitely suspended. Thanks, Bob for that vital insight.
If I have missed anything new, can someone let me know?
I note Bob still refuses to expand upon or correct my best understanding of his ‘case’ that the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7
(continued from above) … was not a controlled demolition.
Aw, dammit Daggett. I thought you were going to explain irony for us.
“NIST has helped cover up the crime of the mass murder of almost 3,000 US citizens, which was falsely blamed on people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This crime was the pretext for wars that have caused the deaths and maiming of many hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions, whilst, amazingly, after 8 years, have not resulted in the capture of a single person with a proven link to that crime.”
This would be a reasonable conclusion to come to at the end of an argument that treated fairly and rationally with all the evidence, showed its working, and in the final analysis admitted no other reasonable interpretation.
The problem here Dagster, is that you’re using it as a premise, failing to contruct anything to bolster it beyond opinion and hearsay, then simply re-stating it as your conclusion. I’d say it was lazy, but you’re obviously going to some considerable effort.
Daggy, your opinion as to what constitutes a proper investigation is worth precisely zero. What’s more, you should be ashamed of yourself for slandering the professionals who worked on the investigation, only to have delusional dropkicks on teh interwebs accuse them of criminal incompetence, based on no evidence whatsoever.
The fuller interview with Jowenko is visible here (“The Conspiracy of September 11th”) in Dutch but with English subtitles, produced by the Dutch documentary-maker Zembla. There’s an Italian-subtitled version on YouTube, but I’m guessing you’re monolingual so I’ve made it easy for you. The money quotes start from 34:17. The crap you’ve seen on YouTube omits the discussion on WTC 1 and WTC 2 and focuses just on WTC 7, from 46:30 onwards. Danny Jowenko had NEVER HEARD of the WTC 7 collapse before the interview – look at his surprise when he’s told WTC 7 fell on the same day as WTC 1 & 2. The documentary also aired in 2006, before the release of the final NIST report on WTC 7 (in November, 2008).
Further, it is not “beside the point”. If you claim someone is an expert and consider their opinion authoritative on WTC 7 then you must accord them the same authority on WTC 1 and WTC 2. As you don’t, you’re cherrypicking, AGAIN.
Don’t thank me, Daggy – I didn’t provide that insight. It should have been obvious, but you insisted on attaching scare quotes to “collapse” for your own dopey reasons.
Noted. I note that you’ve yet to provide a reason why I should. Why haven’t you, Daggy? What are you hiding?
I note Bob has failed to directly quote whatever it was that Danny Jowenko said of the ‘collapes’ of the Twin Towers. If all he said was that the ‘collapses’ did not conform to standard bottom-up type demolition then I am sure I would agree with him.
As with other 9/11 Truthers I put the word ‘collapse’ in quotes to indicate that I reject the explanation that they were ‘collapses’ unassisted by explosives and that that I consider that if explosives explosives had not been used the buildings would have remained standing.
Of course, Bob is entitled to take exception to that, but I would have thought that is hardly critical to the discussion one way or the other. But I guess if Bob has so little substance to his ‘case’, then he would need to clutch at every conceivable straw he could, wouldn’t he?
Clearly Bob is not going to explain here any more the totality of his ‘case’ than I have attempted to provide. Those who think that there is more to it than this will have to find it for themselves somewhere within Bob’s vast outpourings.
daggett @ 611:
“he would need to clutch at every conceivable straw he could, wouldn’t he?”
daggett @ 584
“The fact that much film footage appears to lack the sound of explosions may be because of those films having been doctored.”
Too lazy to watch it yourself, huh? No surprise there. OK, from Zembla’s translation:
But don’t take MY word for it, Daggy! Do your own homework, look at it yourself. Unless, that is, you’re too fucking lazy, yet again, to put in any real effort at discovering the truth.
I’ll echo FDB’s comment above: you seem willing to put in a ridiculous amount of effort to produce arguments that look like the work of lazy incompetents. Hats off, Daggy: what you’re doing is tantamount to performance art. What it isn’t, of course, is convincing.
Ah, so it’s one of those Truther “Architect” secret handshake thingies? You should have mentioned that your cult required you to suspend your (limited) grasp of logic.
Or I might just enjoy taking the piss out of your many and varied gaffes.
“Hypocrisy check in aisle three!”
I no longer care if this does beat the Missy thread.
Comedy gold.
Nick,
That’s changing the subject. In any case, anyone who looks at what I wrote in its full context will see that I wasn’t clutching at straws.
—
Note how Bob has suddenly become so obliging and made available on this forum the text of the interview with Danny Jowenko instead of insisting that we all go off and look at it for ourselves.
(BTW, Bob, that video is not YouTube and I am unable to view it on my computer. So, for now, I will have to accept your word for it.)
And will FDB now change his tune about Danny Jowenko now that Bob has apparently managed to construe Danny Jowenko’s position as being in support of the Official explanation of the Twin Tower collapses?
Bob wrote:
(Bob doesn’t get it, or is pretending not to get it.) Bob, that’s precisely the point. A demolition expert looks at the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 not knowing what it is and recognises it as a controlled demolition. Are you saying that Danny Jowenko doesn’t know a controlled demolition when he sees one?
Also, if you had been paying attention, you would have known of the mysterious silence on the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ by the 9/11 commision. That silence, no doubt, would have largely been the reason for Danny Jowenko’s ignorance about it, and is one of many reasons why that ‘investigation’ is considered a cover-up.
Bob continued:
Then why don’t you think that that should cut both ways, Bob?
Bob continued:
And, you’re not?
Bob, I never claimed that my whole case concerning WTC 7 stood or fell depending upon Jowenko’s word. The evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis was already vast as I have shown above (even if you pretend not to see it).
Because I think he is correct on WTC 7 doesn’t mean I have to unquestioningly accept his verdict, at that time, on the ‘collapses’ of the twin towers.
The fact that he didn’t know that WTC 7 had ‘collapsed’ on the same day would be a clue that his knowledge of the twin tower ‘collapses’ may have been limited. Quite possibly his views had been influenced by the official explanation of the twin tower collapses, rather than his thorough understanding of that issue.
Whatever the reason, the controlled demolition hypothesis is the only possible way to explain so much other physical evidence and eyewitness testimony as discuissed above.
Other Architectural and engineering professionals believe it was possible for explosives to have been planted and wired in the time available, so, of course this issue needs to be explored further in the course of a proper investigation.
Bob ranted:
As I already wrote:
It is hardly a secret. The 9/11 Truth movement has been quite open about our putting quote marks around the word ‘collapse’ for some time now.
Can you read, daggett? Seriously, do you have literacy problems?
It’s been pointed out to you again and again and again that the NIST commission did examine and dismiss all ideas of planned demolition for a number of reasons, none of which you have even attempted to recognise. Your total inability to read, process and come to terms with the facts shows you up for the shill for self-serving, ignorant innuendo that you are. People arguing in bad faith usually at least have the self-respect to know the first thing about their own “hypotheses”—you don’t appear to even have that.
Taggett: Wow 616 posts in this thread, and still going! Are you guys trying for a record?
In my insomnia, I tried to read them all but gave up at around 350. But it still did not put me to sleep.
What were the interests of the building owners in a conspiracy involving a controlled implosions? How have they gained?
Liam wrote:
Can you?
Seriously, I mean, how about writing in response to my arguments, instead of writing what seems to be an attempt at a cliched script for a B-grade American movie?
The 9/11 Commission is not NIST, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology. The 9/11 Commission report made no mention whatsoever of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, as I pointed out above.
But then again, Liam you did write:
… didn’t you?
Just as Bob wrote:
And as you have abundantly demonstrated just now, Liam, you have not.
What you, Bob, FDB and others are engaged in, as you practically admit, is the metaphorical equivalent of children blocking their ears and shouting insults and abuse.
Liam continued:
Don’t pretend I haven’t responded in turn and that my responses were not ignored. The NIST ‘examin[ation]‘ was a total sham and you have not posted anything to this forum that has demonstrated otherwise.
—
FDB wrote:
Could someone devise a way to restrict participation in this forum to people above the age of 18, or, perhaps 16?
“What you, Bob, FDB and others are engaged in, as you practically admit, is the metaphorical equivalent of children blocking their ears and shouting insults and abuse.”
No Daggett, no.
Really… no.
We’re just having a larf at your expense, that’s all. If you want it to end, stop stumbling around blindfolded in a yard full of rakes. You are a figure of fun, nothing more or less, and it’s your own doing.
By the way… 18? You silver tongued devil you.
SCENE: The undisclosed location of Dr. Cheneystein, professional mad scientist. Doctor C and Ydubya, his hunch-backed assistant, contemplate their evil plan over brandy and cigars.
CHENEY: Soon my plans shall reach fruition. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are a universally-known symbol of American hegemony. By destroying them, I shall create the New Pearl Harbor that I need, to justify my master plan of expensively blowing up a lot of worthless rocks in Afghanistan. Furthermore, my precisely-calibrated demolition plan can then be used to justify a poorly-thought-out disastrous expedition in Iraq, proving to the world that I’m sort of an all-around kind of villain who likes to try a little bit of everything.
BUSH: Explain to me your plan, Master.
CHENEY: First, I shall stealthily fill enormous, busy skyscrapers with massive amounts of high-tech explosives, which nobody will notice… enough to cause a controlled demolition. Then, to cover up the explosives, I’ve arranged for two planes to smash into the skyscrapers, providing a convenient “excuse” for why they have completely collapsed, and also providing some marvelous visuals to imprint the disaster in the public’s mind.
BUSH: But, Master… wouldn’t the wreckage caused by the two planes be more than enough to create the image of a New Pearl Harbor?
CHENEY: Er, quiet. Here is the plan: first, the North Tower shall be hit with a plane, followed by the South Tower. Then… the South Tower shall collapse, followed by the North Tower.
BUSH: Um, Master? If you want to make it look like the planes caused the collapse, and you’re controlling the demolition, shouldn’t you make the first tower to be hit, be the one to collapse first as well? Just thinking out loud, here.
CHENEY: Yes, well, stop it. Who thought of this plan, you or me? Then, finally, as the piece de resistance: many hours after the famous Twin Towers collapse in a horrifying spectacle, I shall then cause the collapse of… 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER !
BUSH: Come again?
CHENEY: 7 World Trade Center, you idiot. It’s a smaller building , behind the towers, that people don’t really pay much attention to.
BUSH: Never heard of it.
CHENEY: Well, nobody has. Anyway…
BUSH: Then why demolish it? How does it trump the spectacle of the Towers collapsing?
CHENEY: Well it doesn’t, really. That’s not the point. You see—
BUSH: So, when does the plane hit the third tower… what’s it called again?
CHENEY: 7 World Trade Center, you ninny. And there won’t be any plane hitting that tower.
BUSH: Then why collapse it in an obviously controlled demolition? Won’t that look very suspicious, if no plane hits it first? Besides, why blow it up, anyway? No one’s ever heard of it, it’s not a symbol of anything. How does it help the plan?
CHENEY: Well, too late to change now. My plan is vast, and involves hundreds and hundreds of conspirators. That’s why we’ll never get caught.
BUSH: Nixon got caught. The Iran-Contra guys got caught. My dad just barely wiggled out of that one. The press hates us, they’ll nail us if they possibly can. Hell, Clinton couldn’t even get a bj on the sly without getting caught. Enemies have a way of digging up dirt, and we’ve got tons of enemies.
CHENEY: Well I’m smarter than they are. And soon… we shall be RICH!
BUSH: We’re already rich.
CHENEY: Yes, so we’ll be even richer.
BUSH: But… we’re already getting richer off my whole tax-cuts thingy. It’s a lot less risky way to make a few bucks, than all this business.
CHENEY: Umm…look, just shut up, nobody asked you. Do what you’re told.
BUSH: Yes, Master.
“The Iran-Contra guys got caught.”
Did they?
What all of them?
Wow I must have imagined that one of them went on to be the next president of the US.
Or more to the point, if you wiggle out of getting busted for some pretty successful shenanigans then go on to be the next president of the US, then you would haveto say that from your POV the conspiracy to pull off those shenanigans was successful.
Its obviously wrong to conclude that the Iran Contra guys got caught, when the highest ranked Rethug on the investigation committee (the big Dickhead himself) says shit like:
“I went through the Iran-contra hearings and watched the way administration officials ran for cover and left the little guys out to dry.”
Here
Little guys who got hung out to dry included the like of McFarlane, Poindexter and Caspar Weinberger. Pretty obvious which administration officials ran for cover then isn’t it.
Cheney’s next line after that quote is eye opening in itself.
Iran-Contra: one of them was the serving President, which made the spectacle even more wierd.
Nana Levu, why go spoiling an etheral thread with the classic question cui bono?. In Latin, “who benefits?” and the Romans knew a thing or two about benefits….
By the way, Caesar organised for a couple of chariots full of flaming oil to collide with a prominent public building and blamed it on the Gauls and the Angles.
But Daggettus Honorificus was onto him in a flash, and the rest is Speculation.
**************
Back on topic:
daggett surmises that some posters are like children blocking their ears and shouting; yet daggett is the one who metaphorically blocks his own eyes by refusing to read a report.
“Nowt strange as folks”.
“Cheney’s next line after that quote is eye opening in itself.”
Yeah, and the lines after that one are more eye-opening still. Except that they’re a kind of reverse eye-opener to the sort of thing you have in mind. Here’s what he says:
“…but I think he [Tenet] was of the same view and that’s why we had all of these requests coming through for policy guidance and for legal opinions. And this time around I’ll do my damndest to defend anybody out there–be they in the agency carrying out the orders or the lawyers who wrote the opinions.”
So he’s talking here about the established, on-the-record policies of his administration, subject to public criticism and review, not to secret kooky conspiracies.
Back to the cherry farm with you: your entire crop is rotting in the orchard, whilst you dilly-dally over here, picking a random cherry now and again, to no good purpose.
Liam wrote,
I thought you said essentially just said that in your post immediately prior to that one.
How many more times do you think people here need be reminded that you consider the murder of 3,000 American citizens more a subject for comedy than a subject for serious discussion?
To help people like Nana Levu who are actually here to gain an understanding of the 9/11 controversy, when you, and, perhaps, Liam and Bob, decide to add have something new, could you please add something like:
… at the start of such posts?
—
No Nana Levu, I am not going for a record. For my part, I don’t believe in bloating forums just to satisfy my own ego, and have already made my objection to this known, here, more than once. I think you will find that all my posts either contain new material or are warranted responses to what has been written by others.
I actually prefer discussions on 9/11 to be short. As Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists usually intuitively understand that they don’t have a leg to stand on, discussions I participate in are usually concluded fairly rapidly. See for example “Scaling back in Afghanistan would jeopardise security of the US”. If any of my detractors want to make a similar spectacle of themselves on that forum, as well, please be my guest.
In a way, even that helps, indirectly, as more people can see for themselves the true nature of phony left-wing fake intellectuals who willingly help the corporate newsmedia cover up the crime of 9/11.
It is no longer any source of wonder to me that an intellectual midget like John Howard was able to politically dominate this country for 11 years when I bear witness to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of many of his ostensible political opponents such as has been displayed on this forum.
At least in countries like France 9/11 is seriously discussed. There will soon be a major televised debate.
O rly? Well, let’s quote your comment from #584:
You WERE clutching at straws, Daggy. You’ve yet to produce ANY footage of the event with the sound of explosions characteristic to a controlled demolition.
I’m an obliging bloke, Daggy – knoblesse oblige and all that. And there’s nothing peculiar about it.
In my first comment on Jowenko, at #606, I asked you if you had seen the full interview and heard his opinion on WTC 1 & 2.
At #607 you then claimed this was an unsubstantiated assertion.
At #610 I provided the link to the full report, with – for your convenience – the relevant sections highlighted.
At #611, you demonstrated yet again that you are too fucking lazy to do the minimum amount of homework and stated that I had “failed to directly quote” Jowenko.
At #613 I quoted the relevant text.
At #615 you have a little whinge because I’ve been obliging!
Can I expect a “thank you” any time soon, you ungrateful swine?
Huh? If you can access YouTube, I don’t see why you can’t access the following website:
http://zembla.vara.nl/About_Zembla_English.2828.0.html
Shouldn’t that be ‘collapses’, Daggy? And, no, I haven’t construed anything of the sort, which begs the question: why should FDB change his “tune”?
I honestly don’t know if he does or does not, Daggy – it’s not my field of expertise, and he’s not my expert. It’s not yours either, for that matter. And it is YOU who doesn’t get the point: Jowenko had no background knowledge of the event, was given some heavily edited footage of the collapse and a little bit of data and asked to make a call on the spot. Personally, I wouldn’t trust any professional opinion given without full consideration of available evidence, but clearly you’re more gullible than me.
“Mysterious silence”, Daggy? You really are shameless. There were several large government reports on WTC 7 alone, after a lengthy investigation. The fact that this job was tasked to NIST does not constitute “mysterious silence” or a “cover-up” from the government. Your assertion is ridiculous.
The fact that a Dutch demolitions dude didn’t know WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11 says nothing about this alleged “silence”, but does say a lot about how many people really don’t give a fuck about WTC 7. The fact that you do says a lot about you, however.
Ah, but Daggy, I do. The difference is that I don’t consider Jowenko’s opinion authoritative and nor is he my expert. He’s yours, remember?
And, no.
That’s good, because you’d have no case and look like a gullible twit right now if you had. Oh, wait…
I saw the garbage you produced and it was neither vast nor convincing. Next?
So you think he’s correct when he agrees with you, but not when he disagrees with you? How do you know when he’s correct? Are you more of an expert on controlled demolition than him?
What we’ve got here, Daggy, apart from a failure to communicate, is what’s called an unreliable expert witness. The correct response is not to rely upon his opinions at all, NOT TO CHERRYPICK FROM HIS OPINIONS.
REALLY?!! Djareckon? And yet you still reckon this poor bloke, who hasn’t been fully informed on the situation, should be relied upon for his professional opinion…but only when it agrees with you?
Again: ridiculous.
“Whatever the reason”? It’s always “whatever” with you, isn’t it? Your belief is obviously theological, not rational. The controlled demolition hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited on this thread, and your continued bleating about it being the “only possible” explanation smacks of religious zealotry.
Lots of people believe lots of dopey shite. One of the blokes you quoted earlier believes that Jesus visited the Mayans. Does that issue need to be explored further? Casey reckons it does. Maybe we should all demand the US government spend shitloads of money doing a proper investigation on that issue. What do you think, Daggy?
OK, so your cult demands it of you – it’s a religious thing, I understand. I’m curious, though: what happens if you don’t use the scary quotes? Do you have to sit in the corner at Temple? Take a hot buttered crumpet between the cheeks?
Also, it’s not “clutching at straws”; it’s “taking the piss” in an ironic fashion. You know what “irony” is, don’t you?
You could have at least left his next line in too.
“And I was bound and determined that wasn’t going to happen this time.”
Whats he referring to?
FISA of course, and his admin’s disregard for it, the first of the impeachable offences that the Bush govt got away with (so far, well the most obvious), and one that no doubt Cheney feels justified in defending given his fetish for unfettered executive power.
“So he’s talking here about the established, on-the-record policies of his administration, subject to public criticism and review, not to secret kooky conspiracies.”
Well duh, (tho they weren’t really subject to that much public criticism, and bugger all actual review.) Don’t assume I was talking about any conspiracy regarding 9/11 when I made that comment about how eye opening Cheney’s words were.
Its more eye opening wrt to his attitude to power. Tho to his credit, I’d interpret that bit you posted about Tenet etc etc as saying that he would be prepared to stand by his actions in court, unlike the Reagan Bush admin… I mean, we are actually talking about the on the record policies of his admin that some people maintain are illegal. I am well aware of that.
Not some speculation about what happened before the admin he was part of enacted and acted on those policies.
And its actually eye opening cos with an attitude like that he is possibly a psychopath. He’s not only got no regard for the limits placed on power in a democracy, he is prepared to stand up in court and say they are not valid limits….
What part of limiting power, which is the actual function of democracy, doesn’t he get?
In and of itself (and obviously to no good purpose) thats why its an eye opening comment.
And given I had to explain all that I may as well answer my own rhetorical question … he obviously doesn’t get the entire part about limiting power, all of it, every single little bit of it.
- late nomination -
by analogy with the word “doggerel”, a new word nominated in the field of *debate* rather than poesy:
‘daggerel’
The editor is as yet unconvinced, and will not accept YouTube videos, however funny, as supporting evidence.
Dunno – why don’t you ask someone who’s said that? People are laughing at YOU, Daggy, not 9/11.
No – it looks silly. How about you add something like:
…at the start of your posts?
Ha! All evidence to the contrary! And the link to OLO? WTF? Who gives a fuck about that?
Boo-hoo, Daggy. What aberrant tosh from a self-important twerp. Get off the high-horse.
Also, I’ll have you know that I’m a phony RIGHT-wing intellectual, if you don’t fucking mind.
BFD. If you’d seen French television you’d know it’s so awful they’d televise philosophy professors debating their navel lint.
Well this experiment has finally convinced me that 911 was a set up! The only criticism is that he should have flown a model aircraft into the setup to make it a realistic experiment.
Here is suitable model 767 but not the right livery. Though you could engage in a revenge fantasy at the same time if you desire.
Bob wrote:
Sarcasm alert: Of course it has, Bob, as you never fail to remind us.
But don’t you think people are going to need your help in finding out precisely where in your on this forum (and not on documents somehwere else) this has happened?
As I keep pointing out, unless you do this either people may be forced to rely on my own (sarcasm alert:) inadequate attempt to explain your case, or they are going to have to invest quite a few months of their time trying to find somewhere in your own vast outpourings, your own immeasurably better and more complete articulation of your own case.
Those wishing to find my own (sarcasm alert:) thoroughly discredited demolition hypothesis to compare with my attempt to articulate Bob’s own inspired, but elusive, rebuttal of my case, can find it here.
In whose interest?
I see no-one addressed this aspect of my question at #617
So I asked google: who gave me a compelling argument 9/11 and the Greenberg Familia By Jerry Mazza
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml
In any case, this is patently the confluence of the military/industrial complex with a healthy dose of Wall Street, earning millions if not billions in put and call options on companies involved with the catastrophe, including airlines on the down (put) side and military suppliers on the up (call) side. In addition, there is the missing gold from the basement of Tower 4, $200 million of which was retrieved, and an untold amount stolen.
The real bottom line was that the Towers were two financial white elephants. And both Silverstein and Greenberg had to know that. The tenancy was dropping. They were out of date. And most dangerously, they were asbestos bombs, loaded with the dangerous building material when they were completed in 1972-73.
By law the buildings could not be taken down by internal demolition. And since it would cost a billion dollars or more to take the towers down beam by beam, it would be at great loss to the Port of Authority or its leaseholder. Thus the reasons are obvious to take WTC down in act of terror also a false-flag operation. Remember, the concept for the WTC Towers originated with the Nelson and David Rockefeller, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and among the world’s elites. A “New Pearl Harbor” would serve those interests well.
That’s pretty funny sarcasm there, Daggler.
Now try irony.
daggett, I know you haven’t shown much desire to discover anything about structural engineering or the design of skyscrapers in general, in your quest for the Truth Inc. preferring to exclusively digest non-expert’s misinterpretations of video fragments posted on youtube, but this little book is a classic in the genre, which at some time in the future, you may choose to find a copy and read in respect of structural engineering generally, not just 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Buildings-Fall-Down-Structures/dp/039331152X
Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail by Matthys Levy & Mario Salvadori
First published in 1996, it has been updated to include chapters in respect of the failure of the Twin Towers:
Structural engineers Levy and Salvadori have written a well-paced, highly informative, nontechnical work describing failures in a variety of structures such as buildings, bridges, and dams. Salvadori wrote Why Buildings Stand Up (Norton, 1990), so this is a natural complement. The subject, somewhat grisly in nature, is presented here with respect for the tragedies involved, and yet with a lighthearted pursuit of the truth as to the cause of the failure. Analysis of the failure is discussed and recommendations for improvement are offered, but without the usual condescension hindsight allows. Profuse illustrations by Kevin Woest, well labeled and explained, and several appendixes aid access. An index (not seen) is provided, but no glossary. This fascinating book is easily accessible to laypersons. Highly recommended.
And for FTR: besides the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) the other fringe organisations providing experts involved in the collation of the official reports were the Structural Engineering Institute; American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York and a number of universities in the US and the UK.
The official reports are now so old that the outcomes and recommendations in respect of the design & engineering failures of the Twin Towers have for nearly a decade formed part of the ‘new standards’ in respect of “increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of buildings, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection” etc. Because unlike Truthers, the experts went straight back to work designing, engineering and building other ridiculously tall buildings around the globe.
Designing buildings that could withstand all terrorist attacks would of course result in many variations of a concrete bunker.
Anyway, 9/11 is so passé….did anyone see the recently screened doco on the 7/7 Truther movement in Britain…. which…….wait for it…………proposes that ……ding ding…….the British Govt planted the bombs on 7/7 and framed those poor Asian kiddies. Total copycats.
Some of the 7/7 Truther’s “evidence” is that “a couple of passengers thought that the explosions had come from under the floor of the carriage” …….As we all know train commuters are totally familiar with being inside in a packed commuter train carriage when a small explosion is detonated without warning, and bits of fellow passenger’s bodies are flung all over them…..And of course only one or two passengers state this, but whatever, ‘their truth’ negates not only other passengers, but the forensic reports from explosive experts who demonstrate exactly how the backpacks exploded on the floor within the carriages, and also how and why these type of explosion can even ‘look like they are coming from apparently below the carriage.’ Nowhere near good enough but.
Any opinion on 7/7 Daggett? and while we are at it……did the Australian Govt plant the bombs in Kuta in 2002? Because there are plenty of Javanese jihad jockeys aligned with Jemaah Islamiyah who could give any 9/11 Truther a run for his/her rupiah.
Is Wahid a Javanese Jihad Jockey?
Cos if he isn’t then perhaps his comments on dateline several years ago are worth thinking about.
I actually saw that interview at the time. Its certainly worth considering wrt the war on terror.
Joe Vaills .. vials of crack maybe. Then again yet another nutjob conspiracy theory connected to something that might actually deserve some investigation. And IIRC what Whaid referred to on that edition of Dateline was closer to ordinary corruption and poor decision making than any masonic plot to usher in a NWO. Hmm, am I seeing a pattern here.
Much more interestingly…. did anyone see the doco on Daniel Libeskind the other night on the Teev…He won the competition to design the masterplan to re-build the World Trade Centre site and although according to the doco, is being over-ruled on significant design issues, but not according to him…anyway, there is an interesting Melbourne connection to Libeskind…as he was the international judge for the competition to design Federation Square in 1997.
(It could have been someone else, if he’d picked up his… but that’s another story)…The winning design for Fed Square, as it happened was won by a group of architects; one of the principals having worked for and been a student of Libeskind. According to most in the know, their’s was the outstanding design, so it wasn’t in anyway undeserved.. Libeskind had only stopped being an academic in the early 90′s, having won the competition to design the Jewish Museum in Berlin, but had no significant buildings completed….but is now one of the biggest names in architecture and the Jewish Museum in Berlin is apparently an incredibly meaningful structure. With Melbourne having been home to one of the largest populations of holocaust survivors, in hindsight…it seemed all the more meaningful and fortutious having this reflection and connection.
But anyway, best file under: How cities are built.
That show was great jo. That Berlin building seemed so tripped out…
I really appreciated what that show had to say about how he designed that building. His vision is pretty interesting. It seems like he really nailed the whole art as architecture thing, and as the architecture for a memorial museum, I dunno … the building seems to comment about how history happens too, not just about the specific history itself. (EG The lack of right angles and straight line linearity to actually see the past and the future…)
I was never that into architecture but that show was great.
I did see that doco Jo, and very interesting it was too.
sorry jules, but shitting in your own nest and blowing up the golden Hindu calf never appealed. The article isn’t available on first go and would be interesting to re-read his reasonings……but cutting off direct sources of substantial amounts of hard currency isn’t something one usually factors in when contemplating the logic that drives state actors like the Indonesian military etc. Like ever.
otoh, oppressing minorities, a bit of ethnic & religious cleansing, putting down separatist incursions on a number of islands – Maluku, Papua, Aceh etc…spying on the opposition, bit of assassination of opposition leaders, infiltrating student groups, awarding state contracts to family and mates, generalised corruption, yadda, yadda… any of above.
I was wandering around Federation Square with a visiting couple from Hungary when one of them remarked that Federation Square looked a lot like the Jewish Museum Berlin. Sure enough, the similarities between Libeskind’s building and Federation Square are pretty hard to deny (although I’ve only ever seen the Jewish Museum Berlin via digital images).
Here are some images of the Jewish Museum Berlin:
* Exterior
* Interior
* Glass courtyard
For those who haven’t seen it yet, here are some images of Federation Square:
* Gallery 1
* Gallery 2
* Gallery 3
I love Federation Square – and the architecture in Melbourne generally. It’s a dark, elegant city.
That link goes to some video from a show where Wahid claimed that the motivation for support of JI was actually to encourage the flow of hard currency, from the US to combat terrorism. The show was actually Dateline, on SBS. I saw it. He actually said that stuff. He made the claim that the motivation was money, specifically anti terror funding. I think there might be a link or the url to the actual transcript somewhere on the link i posted above. For some reason the transcript wasn’t available at the SBS website. Tho it might be now.
Maybe I’m naive to think that when a former Indonesian President makes those claims he is not making it all up for his own reasons. The whole point is that I don’t know, and its yet another unanswered question wrt the legitimacy of the war on terror. Especially if the people involved actually thought they would profit more from that course of action. I guess we’ll never know.
“otoh, oppressing minorities, a bit of ethnic & religious cleansing, putting down separatist incursions on a number of islands – Maluku, Papua, Aceh etc…spying on the opposition, bit of assassination of opposition leaders, infiltrating student groups, awarding state contracts to family and mates, generalised corruption, yadda, yadda… any of above.”
The two ideas aren’t actually mutually exclusive imo.
jules, I don’t have the time tonight, but just quickly….wasn’t Walid an Islamist with quite strong views on many subjects..no?
Anyway, it just doesn’t make any business sense to almost destroy one of the country’s biggest foreign revenue earners (and one that probably sees a lot of cash into a lot of private bank accounts in Jakarta) all to gain some more military contracts, when getting more US military contracts has never been a problem.
Heh. Dutton (aka ‘the Dickson douchebag’) signs own electoral death warrant in spectacular and avoidable public cock-up.
“I’m sure that the voters of Dickson will show the same loyalty to Peter Dutton that he has shown to them,” Albanese said.
Wahid has copped criticim for actually recognising Israel and he seemed to be not as bad as some Indonesian leaders. He was a lot less of a prick than Suharto.
He’s a muslim, but I wouldn’t call him an islamist, and I can’t associate his concilliatory attitude toward Israel with someone who would support JI, or try to cover for them.
Dunno what the actual cost of the bali Bombings was to the Indonesian economy, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to evaluate the potential gain for the individuals he refers to (but doesn’t name) in the SBS interview. Thats why I think an investigation into his claims might be a good idea.
Interesting interlude, folks, but let’s get back to the topic of this thread, being, erm…miscellaneous…
No. Should I?
Mmh, it seems you don’t think much of the audience, Daggy. You know, the fact that you have problems with comprehension and motivation doesn’t imply that others do. Whoever’s interested can go back, read what they wish and draw their own conclusions. Evidently, many already have.
What was is it you were saying about new material and not bloating the thread?
Er, Fyodor, I’m afraid daggett has used the magic power of Sarcasm upon you, no less than thrice in one comment.
So you’ve got no option but to surrender, I’m afraid.
It’s a shame. You were doing so well up till then.
Too right, young Atreides. The worst part is that now he’s mastered sarcasm he’ll be laying literary smackdown faster than you can say alliterative allegory.
So Dagget can I ask, at the risk of sounding dim, do you believe that the towers were brought down by a controlled explosions? I ask this because a that a rational person must treat your conclusions as ones of based on faith rather than fact given that there is a total absence of any direct evidence of the explosion or direct evidence of a conspiracy or parties to a conspiracy to arrange for such an explosion? In effect you present no direct evidence whatsoever to support your case.
On the other hand there is a wealth of direct evidence showing two large aeroplanes colliding at high speed with the towers, not long after which a fires ensue and the towers collapse. Not only that there are also eyewitnesses and evidence gathered through a forensic examination of the aftermath.
That last post by me was very poorly edited, the person responsible has been sacked.
Firstly, it seems like a lengthy post I made and Saturday (@ 594) which, for reasons unknown to me, was placed in the moderation queue, has finally been approved. In that post I believe that I have demonstrated that Bob’s answers (@ 588) to my earlier questions (@ 587) can only mean that he rejects Newton’s Second Law of Motion and other absurdities. If anything there requires further explanation, please let me know.
There’s also a response to Nick’s post (@ 592) and a response to Liam’s post (@ 589)
—
Bob (@ 627) sees nothing odd about there was no mention whatsoever of the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission.
Yes, Bob an ‘investigation’ into the collapse of WTC 7 was eventually ‘tasked’, as you put it, to NIST after a public outcry. It wasn’t ‘tasked’ by the 9/11 Commission. Instead, it attempted to sweep the whole question under the carpet.
Having said that, as far as I am concerned, Bob, you have shown that your motives for participation in this discussion are not genuine. I see no reason why I should feel obligated to respond further to any of your forum spam, other than, perhaps, to suggest that people re-read whatever post it is that you purport to be debunking and decide for themselves which makes more sense.
On the other hand, if anyone else, happens to spot anything in any of Bob’s posts that I may have missed, that they think is worthy of a response on my part, please let me know.
–
PatrickB (@ 650),
Firstly, I have presented a lot of direct evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis as an explanation for the collapses of the twin towers. See 139, 142, 193, 227, 236, 237, 246, 265, 291. Also, see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
I think your understanding of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is fairly simplistic. It doesn’t dispute that planes flew into the Tiwn Towers (although some fringe elements, some suspected to have been planted by the US Government to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, absurdly argue that they were holograms), nor does it rule out that Arabs hijacked the planes.
What it argues is firstly the twin towers should have remained standing as there was plenty of redundant structural strength remaining after the impacts and secondly, even if the towers collapsed they should not have collapsed as fast as they didand in the way that they did.
The only explanation for what we witnessed was that explosives had to have been planted. Why not check out that image of the South Tower ‘collapsing’ at the top left hand of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site and try to tell me, with a straight face, that is not the result of the detonation of massive quantities of explosives?
I would be most most interested to know what eyewitness testimony and physical evidence confirms the official account of the Twin Tower ‘collapses’.
If I haven’t already done so above, I can guarantee that I can show you very quickly and with the minimum of fuss, if you are interested, that the evidence that the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ were controlled demolitions is conclusive.
—
Jo wrote (@ 650):
I don’t think need to have an in-depth grasp of structural engineering principles in order to be able to see that the official account of the ‘collapses’ is utter garbage. Please see my posts concerning the Twin Towers referred to above in this post and my post concerning the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ (@ 519) and tell me where I am wrong.
I appreciate that “Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail” may be a worthwhile book in most regards, but if it defends the Official explanation of the Twin Tower and WTC 7 ‘collapses’, then, frankly, that part of the book has to be garbage, just as, from what I have seen of the NIST report, I can see that it is garbage.
Please, by all means, try to prove me wrong by citing on this forum the relevant parts of either of those books which address my arguments put on this forum.
I have read of the London Tube (7/7) bombings and am convinced that it was a false flag terrorist operation staged by British Spy agencies. I don’t have all the facts at hand at this moment, but the floors of the trains were blown upwards, which is impossible if the bombs had been in haversacks detonated inside the carriages. Also, there has never been an inquiry into 7/7 so the Government’s ‘case’ has not been properly tested.
Sacking is too good for them. They should be forced to precis daggett’s posts.
You’re a cruel bastard Ambigulous.
Seriously though, how come everybody’s ignored Nana Levu’s post @ 633? Some interesting questions I would have thought, if a trifle circumstantial…
Like, um, you know, I’m a big fan of Vanessa Amorosi, and, um, you know, I really think her career would really take off if she recorded some decent material, so, like, um, you know, I think Vanessa should record this as her next single.
Not interesting at all, it’s the same old tinfoil hat stuff.
Just bizarre. Love it. The Rockefellers suggested the idea of the WTC (David suggested it, Nelson pushed it through as governor, but otherwise had nothing to do with it), therefore its destruction was clearly served the interests of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and water flouridators.
But was 9/11 orchestrated because the New York Port Authority wanted to save a billion dollars, or because the Council on Foreign Relations wanted the US to get bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq? Make your mind up please.
We are almost at 666. No don’t look at me, I’m rather inept at thread collapsing. I’m sticking to man flaying. But one would think that at least Dagget might stick around, given his sheer bloody mindedness has made me read this far. It seems he is done for I’m afraid. Almost 24 hours have passed since we have seen him. The Red finally put him to bed. What a shame. Dagget don’t give up! He’s only a sociopathic b grade tv sidekick on the Simpsons with a passion for flashin’ .Baby come back!
Okay its only been less than 12 hours, but still, a record. Don’t give up Dagget!
You are a naughty, naughty boy, Molly.
daggett @ 651:
“If I haven’t already done so above, I can guarantee that I can show you very quickly and with the minimum of fuss, if you are interested, that the evidence that the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ were controlled demolitions is conclusive.”
Molly,
maaaate
Welcome to the thread, Molly; it’s going to be massive, like when you were hobbing or nobbing with those star rockers; like just fantastic. But here’s a question, and you’re the bloke to give us the goss.: Is Missy Higgins Greek?
Thanks for having asked, Nick (@659), As I wrote on the Online Opininion 9/11 Truth Forum on 16 January 2009:
The NIST hypothesis, which purports to explain the structural failure of the 92 floors on the South Tower below the floors damaged by the impact of Flight 175, requires that the top 12 undamaged floors must have fallen as a rigid block and, therefore, there must have been an impact with the lower 92 floors, which should have been recorded on the video evidence of the collapse.
However, the (PDF) paper ["The Missing Jolt"] amoeba referred to shows that, from video evidence, there was no such sudden impact. The top 12 floors continued to fall smoothly beyond the point where they should have impacted.
Therefore the lower 92 floors were no longer a rigid body at the point where the top 12 floors should have impacted and must have already started to give way (whether we agree that it would have occurred after it fell only 1 floor or 6 floors or anywhere in between).
The only explanation put forward that could possibly explain this is if the strength at the top of the lower 92 floors had already been removed. That could only have been done by explosives.
In the words of the conclusion to http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf :
Daggett is referring to the MIT paper by professors of civil engineering, which modelled the plane-fire-collapse failure of the twin towers on 13/11/09, two days after the attack. Truthers often refer to the mathematics within as “mumbo-jumbo”.
jules….Islamist..wasn’t what I was looking for, but it had to do, cause I couldn’t frigging remember.. getting old , but now that I’ve refreshed the banks thank you intertubes….what I should have said was that he was all-over-the-shop and became increasingly more so towards the end of his presidency and esp. in the aftermath of his impeachment, and as you posted some good policies, some crazybrave and some right out there etc…..and that is not to say the Indonesia he inherited wasn’t wasn’t exactly like him, all over the place with the TNI and Golkar having had fingers in nearly every pie and then seemingly in every pie…… and if they agents working with groups in some places at many stages, it doesn’t always necessarily follow that JI wasn’t able to organise and carry out the Bali bombings without help from any internal security agency.
As it just happens I was in Bali a week or so and many view the island as still “recovering” from the bombings with tourist numbers slowly-slowly coming back, although there are many other SE Asian destinations in competition with Bali for tourist dollars these days….The Governor of Bali at the opening of International Writers & readers Festival in Ubud, which I gatecrashed only because I was staying at the palace where the opening was held….gave a heartfelt speech about the bombing and also about the devastation of the island’s economy in the aftermath and of the many lives ruined through long term unemployment, it was quite moving. The festival btw. was created by an Australian ex-pat as a direct response to the bombings specifically to bring people back to Bali. In terms of the economic consequences, I can’t find exact numbers online right now, but I believe it was huge.
There is also something slightly racist in the view that Al Qaeda were just too dim to have carried out 9/11, although they helped beat off the evil empire in Afghanistan etc.… And so many terrorists groups including the old IRA, don’t still and didn’t seen to have much trouble detonating bombs or hijacking planes for years, but somehow 9/11 and 7/7 and Bali are all suddenly beyond the capability of the groups & individuals charged with these acts, just because they targeted western cities and/ or westerners., altho 9/11 was an order of magnitude above the usual MO…… but there I would look to nice Jewish boys in Hollywood & spy thriller writers….Die Hard, Die Hard with a Vengeance etc..and Independence Day which when I saw it on big screen, I thought to myself, hhm, that was some significant moment when the White House was spectacularly blown to kingdom come just like any other building…some sort of psychological barrier crossed…ok…just heading off into my own weird speculations.
Although having posted all of the above. I don’t 110% exclude the involvement of operatives in terms of Bali, however, there were some 500 Australian police from a number of different police services involved in an exhaustive forensic investigation in situ including following money trails, so it seems a wee bit unlikely for them have missed big chunks of the picture. Walid says in the interview that the small bomb was planted by the JI but the bigger bomb was planted by ‘others’….surely this would have been discovered by someone.
Of course the Hilton Hotel Bombing..and the possible involvement of the NSW Special Branch is a salient homegrown lesson about internal security agencies albeit from a different era, but, otoh, there had been other bombs exploded in Sydney during those days which were just acts by different groups and individuals … Croats bombed the Yugoslav consulate in Double Bay in the late 60′s, Armenians shot the Turkish Consul-General in the 80′s and then bombed the consulate in Melbourne a few years later. The Israeli embassy got a blast in Sydney at some stage. And Family Court judges had some family members blown to bits as well.
And didn’t some loner blow up the Byron Bay Social Security Office in the 80′s….. or was this an urban legend?
13/09/01
Daggett, you do understand the concept of providing evidence FOR something, right?
That was what you specifically said you could provide, and in a conclusive fashion too.
A question which some people find puzzling, and an answer they have made up for themselves is NOT EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING AT ALL.
Do you get it?
It might be counted as evidence against a particular explanatory account, but that does not mean that it’s okay for someone to invent their own version for which they cannot provide any positive evidence.
Please do me the favour of showing me that you have understood the above. Note that I have not mentioned 9/11 – can you just address it in the abstract and demonstrate that when we use the phrase “evidence for x” we are talking about the same thing?
jo
did you visit the Puri Lukisan Museum (art) in Ubud too? A very fine collection.
Sing it back to teacher.
The NIST hypothesis “requires” this? Where?
Ah, yes: the paper by the PhD in Buddhist Studies and the “design engineer” [N.B. not structural engineer] with the bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, based on eyeballing – you guessed it – dodgy video footage. None of the assertions above are based upon expert opinion on what should, or should not, have happened. They’re garbage.
Totes awse clip Liam. Thank you.
The apogee of the quality of Y?gen (??) in Noh Theatre
Doh, meant to say the paper by Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, which was being dissed by…..refer 667.
The most devastating refutation of this still referenced paper on a main Truther’s site – was that “they must be super-geniuses to have come up with that only two days after the attack”…Dunning Kruger Effect on a planetary scale.
That was special Liam @666.
You deserve a rolled gold monster classic from the Year …Nineteen Seventy One:
Double U, O, O, O.
“Dunning Kruger Effect on a planetary scale”
Word up, well put.
To such a global problem, I can only propose the Venutian Solution.
jo thanks for a very interesting reply. Most of which I agree with most of the time.
I’m not that into speculating who or what was involved in the bali Bombing, the real reason I brought Wahid’s interview up was to contrast it with the common perception that any suggestion of anyone other than JI being involved brings up questionable characters like Joe viles, and his, er … unusual claims.
Instead of the more obvious, (and more deserving of consideration, whatever the outcome of that consideration,) claims of Wahid re his own security forces potential involvement. There is no proof of those claims, but … I dunno, given Wahid’s time in office he may have become paranoid, or he could have an agenda.
And who knows, maybe some Australian investigators came across information they decided was not worth publicising given the politcal climate. That doesn’t imply any nefarious intent either… so I’m not claiming anything, just wondering.
Its interesting the way crazy bat brained theories get attatched to some questionable events. Same with the racist freaks. Its bollocks to claim that the hijackers weren’t capable of doing what they did, (tho they did pull off some fancy flying in some cases. Dunno if its as facy as people think, but its impressive.) And who the fuck knows, maybe the real target was the capitol building or the white house and he fucked up and hit what he could… thats the point, we’ll never know and it doesn’t actually matter any more.
Your own weird specultions are far more interesting. I meant to go on about the weird speculations over the weekend a few hundred posts ago, but was busy and didn’t get online … by the time I got back it was more of the same ….
I have never heard about the byon bay bombing tho, all the others yes … thats one I’ll have to sus out, I know a few people who lived in byron during the 80s. they never mentioned it.
The Byron Bay one did happen. Who could forgetr an attempt to blow up the SS. (I think it had something to do with child support issues, but it was a long time ago.)
Note how Jo, FDB and Bob have not even attempted to refute the “Missing Jolt” argument.
—
FDB wrote:
Not ‘might’. It shows conclusively that the NIST explanation of the South Tower ‘collapse’ is garbage.
FDB continued:
And if it’s garbage, then NIST has to be told to come up with a proper explanation, or else, get out of the way and allow people who are competent to do so, to find a proper explanation.
As I have said, the only other explanation that anyone has offered for how the lower part of the tower could have lost its strength fast enough to prevent a jolt from the upper block being observed is that it was a controlled demolition.
The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis is vast. As just one of many I could give, why not just take a look at the image here? Can anyone here seriously maintain that they cannot see, with there own eyes, powerful and violent explosions as the top of the South Tower begins to topple over?
And don’t forget the nano-thermite found in the dust samples from the World Trade Center.
—
Bob demanded:
Translation: I am too lazy to check the document for myself, so it cannot be true.
Bob, if you had read “The Missing Jolt” to which I provided a link, you would have found this in the footnotes:
14. The following four points commit NIST to impact and jolt:
(a) NIST speaks of the core of the building as consisting of three sections, which correspond closely to the sections we have spoken of when discussing the building as a whole:
“At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires.” (NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 79)
(b) The section of the building above the damage zone NIST calls a “rigid block.” This rigid block first manifests its independent movement when it tilts to the south. (“The section of the building above the impact zone (near the 98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted…” NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 201.) NIST also refers to this rigid block with terms such as “upper section,” “building section above the impact zone,” “building mass,” “upper building section” and “structural block.” See NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 83, 195, 196, 201
(c) NIST acknowledges that this rigid block then falls. NIST says that “the building section began to fall downward,” “the building section began to fall vertically.” Indeed, we are told that this falling rigid block goes through all or part of the damaged area “essentially in free fall.”
(“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238; NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196.
(d) After falling through all or part of the damaged area of the tower, the rigid block or falling building mass encounters “intact structure.” (“The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. This “intact structure,” has, of course, already been referred to as including the core of the building, described as “a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures.”
—
Also, Bob, let us know if you have had any second thoughts about rejecting Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
“It shows conclusively that the NIST explanation of the South Tower ‘collapse’ is garbage.”
No it doesn’t, daggett.
It highlights the simplifications that were acknowledged within Bazant and Zhou’s initial paper, and that NIST followed through with.
It has its own simplifications too, you know.
Can you spot them?
(The version you linked to has glaring errors, since corrected which is to Szamboti’s credit. He’s no Chandler in that regard. You might want to try tracking down the latest revision.)
Nick,
The argument, put in the article “The Missing Jolt,” is perfectly simple. (The latest version, BTW, is at http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf downloadable from the front page of that web site.)
‘Simplifications’ or not, you still haven’t explained where Graeme MacQueen’s and Tony Szamboti’s arguments or measurements are wrong.
So, how about sharing with everyone here the ‘glaring errors’ you claim to have found?
Nick wrote,
Yeah, right, Nick.
I have responded to Bob’s claims of the supposed shortcomings in David Chandler’s work here (@ 529) and neither you nor Bob has acknowledged that argument. Anyone who views the videos I linked to, particularly “‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ … The Movie” can watch for themselves US High School Physics teacher David Chandler running rings around the supposedly vastly more qualified and accomplished engineers, Dr. Shyam Sunder and Dr. John Gross.
His exchange with them in the above linked video, to be found in the earlier above-linked video (and article) “WTC7 in Freefall” bears repeating:
You can call me a ‘Chandler’ any day, but don’t ever dare call me a ‘Sunder’ or a ‘Gross’.
Your utter failure to respond in the abstract to my comment on the nature of positive evidence is illuminating, Daggett.
It shows that your understanding of logic is subordinate to your opinions about 9/11.
Which kind of undermines you.
Dagget,
I had a scan through your post at 139 and I can’t find any direct evidence. I think you’d need to support your case with some actual proof that the buildings had been wired with explosives. By actual proof some eye witness accounts from people who saw the explosives being attached, or perhaps some service staff who stumbled across the explosives after they had been attached would suffice. Can you point us to any testimony that confirms that an explosion brought down any of the buildings?
I think you’re right that my understanding is rather simplistic, but on the other hand yours is way to complex.
I think you have what is called a circumstantial case and more often than not these are very difficult cases to prove, particularly when there is a great deal of physical evidence to rebut the case.
“I would be most most interested to know what eyewitness testimony and physical evidence confirms the official account of the Twin Tower ‘collapses’.”
I’ll put my hand up for that.
Some towers Fell down. I saw it happen on TV.
My sister saw it happen in person and worked on it for US media, liaising with the officials conducting the cleanup and investigation in the immediate aftermath, and helping coordinate the gathering of information.
Oh but that’s right, she’s part of the official conspiracy.
Anyone at all is credible if they’re a truther, and nobody else.
Sure, daggett, though I didn’t write that they were ‘glaring errors’ – I wrote that they were ‘simplifications’.
1) Why did Szamboti choose 1 in every 5 frames to sample? Why ignore the rest of the data? (You can quote from the paper on this one if you like.) What reason to choose that set of 1 in every 5 frames, rather than the other 4 available?
2) In Figures 5 and 6, why are the ‘abrupt negative slopes’ so abrupt and consume 100% of their energy (31g and 6g)? What does this imply occurred in real life to the two bodies which collided?
3) In Figures 5 and 6, why are the hypothetical ‘velocity recovery’ slopes identical to the actual/sampled linear regression? What does this imply occurred?
Chandler has been legitimately brought up many, many times on the shortcomings of his work and the limitations of his understanding of mechanics and physics, and responded with little more than obscenity, accusations, bile and slander. He’s running a popularity contest, in case you haven’t noticed, daggett.
I gave Szamboti credit for mostly having responded to his critics, corrected his mistakes, and argued his case for CT, in a vastly more mature, professional and scientific fashion, and for not bothering to follow Chandler down his rabbit holes of unscientific nonsense speculation.
I’m not calling you anything.
I certainly did, at #667 – the “Missing Jolt” argument, as you put it, is uninformed opinion from two blokes who aren’t competent to discuss the issues at hand.
Says who? Your retired expert in Buddhism and “design engineer” don’t address NIST’s explanation; they address a strawman of their own fabrication. Their conclusions are garbage.
*puts hand up*
I can’t. Could be an explosion, could be a building collapsing – I honestly don’t know. You don’t know either.
First off, Daggy, you’ve been unable to prove that the NIST report does not explain the collapses of the relevant towers.
Second, your alternative explanation, the “controlled demolition” hypothesis, has no supporting physical evidence or RELIABLE eyewitness testimony. As noted above, sure, plenty of people thought they saw and heard lots of things – that doesn’t mean their impressions were correct. Far from being vast, as we’ve seen the evidence for your preferred theory is non-existent.
Third, the “controlled demolition” hypothesis isn’t the “only other” explanation that has been offered. Some of your fellow lunatics argue that a directed energy weapon destroyed the WTC towers. Of course, that theory is crap, too, but don’t kid yourself into believing that your dopey theory is the only one out there.
What nano-thermite, Daggy?
Not true. First, those are questions, not demands.
Second, I’ve read the document. You haven’t, remember?
Third, I asked the question because, having read the document, I couldn’t find the text supporting your assertions.
FFS, Daggy. If I ask you for references to the NIST report I expect you to quote FROM THE NIST REPORT. What is so difficult about that?
All you’ve done, you lazy twit, is copy and paste from your discredited report. Not only is that report patently unreliable (the page number references for the NIST report are incorrect, for one thing, which demonstrates the sloppy handling of detail), it cherrypicks and takes quotations out of context, attacks a strawman concoction, not the NIST hypothesis, and confirms NEITHER of your assertions that: 1) “the top 12 undamaged floors must have fallen as a rigid block”; and 2) “there must have been an impact with the lower 92 floors, which should have been recorded on the video evidence of the collapse”.
Absolutely cack-handed garbage, Daggy.
You wha’? Where am I supposed to have done that? Oh, I see, you’ve had a comment in moderation. Oh well, better late than never: allow me to trash it now, in a separate comment.
[comment in moderation]
For starters: you’re being sloppy with detail again as you’ve misquoted me. At #588 I wrote,
And, yes, Daggy, providing a link to the actual NIST report, that lays out in detail the NIST explanation, is, strangely enough, providing the NIST explanation. The fact that you’re too lazy to read it is not my problem.
Again, I’ve ALREADY DONE THAT, TOO, at #502 I quoted the relevant text from the NIST report describing the collapse.
No, it’s not, but that didn’t stop you from wasting everyone’s time by attempting it with your dopey summaries.
Refer to my comment #502, where we went through this before, or the NIST report itself if you prefer. The building did not fall at free fall speed and it was already collapsing before the 2.5s period that concerns you so much. Furthermore, the top of the building had already collapsed before your high-school teacher started his clock.
I’ve said nothing of the sort, and I challenge you to prove it. As noted ALREADY, at #502, the NIST report makes it very clear that the building was ALREADY COLLAPSING before this 2.5 second interval you keep wittering about. Furthermore, your opinion on what “must” have happened is worthless. Your reference to Newton’s Second Law of Motion is witless irrelevance.
Rubbish. Sorry if this bursts your bubble, Daggy, but your opinion on the structural engineering of WTC 7 is neither Newton’s Second Law of Motion or relevant.
You are in no position to assess whether this hypothetical “remaining structural support” would, or would not, have obstructed the fall. You simply DON’T KNOW. As I’ve warned you before, floating your incompetent opinions on hypothetical situations does not constitute evidence or proof of any kind.
As I haven’t rejected Newton’s Second Law of Motion, no, I haven’t pondered that.
Heh. That needed a comment, did it?
Hahaha. I haven’t asked you to go down any rabbit holes, Daggy. I’ve asked you to prove your assertions with evidence. That you choose not to is your problem – clearly your delusional beliefs about 9/11 don’t require proof. As I’ve noted before, your beliefs on this subject are theological, not rational.
“My sister saw it happen in person”
So did my brother, he’s lived in NYC for about 14 years. Also a guy I’m working with here in Perth was in NYC at the time and saw it happen. There Dagget, at least three people who were there saw the planes hit the twin towers, the towers burn and then collapse.
Bob, your fortitude is astounding.
dagsterman
suggest you read “The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America” by Hugh Wilford. the thing is, the real power/control conspiracies, unearthed through actual professional historical research..are really really boring and because of that, even in front of our faces, never noticed and very very effective. ..
yours, nice and adventurous as it is, is far too exciting to be anywhere near true…. governments/corporations don’t need to get up to these really interesting , silly (lets face it) and complex covert actions running secret cables and pretending to be airplanes flying into buildings dag…they bore us into submission over decades…..anyway it all makes great u tube fodder, the reader’s digest of teh interwebs….but it’s all bollocks dag…put your undoubted energies into something real…properly study some real politics of power and control maybe?..find out how mundane it all actually is….
I’m onto you “Eric Sykes”.
Your handle’s an anagram of “Rick’s eyes”.
And who’s Rick, I hear you ask?
Busted. You were in on it from the get go.
I bet you thought by dying, and having your eyes transplanted you’d escape justice. But you should know that the Truth will eventually out.
It was a long long time ago that I said a similar thing but really, comment 687 (this time) just about sums up this entire thread.
And please, there’s no need to get to 1000. No prizes of any worth you understand and the glory will be but fleeting..
All glory is but fleeting adrian…
Unless someone keeps on polishing the halo.
Bob wrote:
No, you didn’t, Bob. All you did was engage in an ad hominem attack.
I think that that start is a good indication of the quality of the rest of Bob’s two posts. Others are welcome to check for themselves, that is, if they have the rest of the day to spare.
I might return to this to discuss how you have further confirmed his poor grasp of Newton’s Second Law of Motion, but not now.
Of course, the last sentence should have read:
I might return to this to discuss how you have further confirmed your poor grasp of Newton’s Second Law of Motion, but not now.
That’s all I had to do, Daggy. Argumentum ad hominem was entirely appropriate given you introduced the opinions of a Buddhist theologian and “design engineer” on the structural engineering of the WTC towers. Their opinions are not reliable due to their lack of expertise in the subject, and pointing this out is a valid ad hominem argument.
You don’t have any schooling at all in logic or rhetoric, do you, Daggy?
Wow, you must be a really slow reader. When you read, Daggy, to you have to mouth the words? I think that comment from you is a squib.
I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate where I’m supposed by you to have rejected it. In the meantime, I’ll consider you a shameless liar.
Devotees of this thread will be thrilled to learn that the Sunshine Coast Hinterland’s Hinterland Voice is now online with a complete archive of back issues.
Contrary to Adrian at @689, anyone who makes it to a 1000 will win an internet of their choice. Or a badge of some kind that they can proudly wear to show their participation in the campaign.
Well in that case…
Who cares about glory that is but fleeting, give me the internet.
That’s the spirit. Onwards to a 1000!
Dja hear that, Missy?! We’re comin’ to gitcha!
It’s gunna be tough from here on up….
Ok, daggett, let’s assume that the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers did take place….god help us….and secondly because the operatives involved in this conspiracy numbering into the hundreds were so freaking good that for the first time in history, that they did not leave behind any shred of evidence in the planning stages. Evidence such as of any of the following:
1) The tens of thousands of metres of cabling, hundreds of fuses, ignition mechanisms, detonators and the hundreds of kilos of explosives; where they manufactured, how where the materials procured and transported, copies of production notes, shipping records, phone records, emails, faxes, receipts and so on
2) No paper trail in respect of the hundreds of thousands of dollars this controlled demolition of two of the largest building on the planet would have cost besides the tripling or quadrupling of costs needed to keep it “black”.
3) No evidence as to the mechanism of detonation, no leases of nearby buildings, no evidence of the transport used, petrol brought, tools used, no evidence in respect of the dates and times of when the explosives were planted. And nothing on the fake uniforms or fake security passes used to get by security.
4) And it goes without saying…, no sworn testimony of any persons involved in this controlled demolition… be they the manufacturers or distributors of the materials, likewise the people who planned & carried out the demolition, nor any of the operative working inside the Port Authority and all the other Govt agencies involved……and not one single person has rolled over, even though they murdered thousands of their fellow countrymen and destroyed a part of one of their country’s major cities…
Ok, so assuming that you have many hundreds of people who have acted with all the internal logic of Bond villain henchmen….it should not be hard on the other hand to provide lots and lots of evidence from all the WTC building occupants…remembering that the overwhelming vast majority of building occupants ‘survived the attacks’, or weren’t at work…on the controlled demolition.
Please link to any sworn testimony or evidence in respect of the laying of all the cabling, detonators, fuses, cutting through steel beams etc. etc in the weeks or months leading up to 9/11 in any of these three buildings.
Come on, this should be an absolute doddle!!… Tens of thousands of people and exactly how many building occupants and visitors have provided sworn testimony or provided emails or faxes or phone messages mentioning or referring to this extensive operation being undertaken in their workplace, going on for many weeks prior?
For instance:
“There are some blokes working in the stairwell every single night when I leave the office…I’ve asked Head Office but they don’t know anything…etc…
“Jeez, I tripped over a cable being laid in my corner office this afternoon for some building upgrade, I’ll see you soon for drinks/dinner/putting the kids to bed”
“I’m so sick of the noise the contractors are making on the floor above, it sounds like they are cutting through steel beams!!”
Where is the evidence of, and the witnesses to, this outrageous Govt plot which destroyed part of their city, blew their workplace to pieces and killed their friends?.. You only have possibly fifty thousand people who worked, visited and maintained these building every week.
Why are they all keeping shtum, daggett?
And why didn’t hundreds if not thousands of them, recall in the aftermath, having seen ‘contractors’ working in the building in the lead up to, even if not one had noted anything at the time…..and so on?
Ur, durr….because.. it didn’t happen daggett.
That’s why all the people directly affected by the attack with absolutely nothing to gain either way, just ordinary folk; secretaries, waitresses, accounts clerks, IT workers, car park attendants, cleaners..thousands and thousands of them, have not come forward to support the controlled demolition theory, because they know it didn’t happen and they were there.
So just for a moment, forget your doctored youtube videos and “reports” from people who have no standing whatsoever in the civil or structural engineering community…..and just focus on the the tens of thousand of innocent ordinary building occupants…not the Govt-CIA-Pentagon goons of your imagination…just the tens of thousands of innocent workers whom you are, by promoting this theory, deeming to be all idiots, dupes & fools.
Now, we all know why you may not have any faith in the Govt etc, but why do you have absolutely no regard whatsoever for all the ordinary men and women caught up in these events?
Please daggett, I would be interested in your reponses to jo above without any worthless you tube links or references to previous posts by you or anyone else.
I think that there is really only one answer, and I’d like to know why you won’t consider it.
“Now, we all know why you may not have any faith in the Govt etc, but why do you have absolutely no regard whatsoever for all the ordinary men and women caught up in these events?”
One of whom, as I keep saying, is my sister. One of the loveliest, brightest people and most rigorous journalists you could hope to meet. If you keep slandering her by implication Daggett, I’ve a good mind to sool her on you.
I mean, I did say she’s lovely, but to accuse her and her New York friends (some dead) of complicity might just bring out her other side.
Then you’ll long for the good old days of banal sarcasm and youtube links, believe me.
adrian and jo,
I have deliberately avoided bringing, into this discussion, vast amounts of other material about 9/11, also damning of the US Government’s ‘case’, because my intention was to conclude arguing about some fairly open and shut aspects of 9/11, that is the ‘collapses’ of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.
Jo, before you demand answers to questions regarding all manner other aspects of 9/11, I think you should properly deal with the arguments. I don’t accept that ad hominem arguments that Graeme MaxQueen Tony Szamboti aren’t qualified write a paper about the ‘collapse’ is an acceptable substitute for actually rebutting their argument.
At least Nick has attempted to address some aspects of that argument, for which I thank him, even if they seem somewhat peripheral to me.
Nick wrote:
Possibly to reduce the amount of work necessary and to reduce the size of their paper. Personally, I would have prepared to see a greater rate of sampling, but I see no reason to assume that more sampling would have fundamentally altered anything. I expect that if it could have, we would certainly have heard about that from the ‘debunkers’ by now.
Nick wrote:
I would suggest to simplify the diagram. The essential point remains. The observed descent was smoooth. No-where was the jolt that would be necessary to cause the part of the building below, undamaged by fire at that point, to suddenly lose all of its structural strength so quickly as Barzant argued must have happened.
This can only mean that the structural strength has already been removed before the top section could have hit. (Of course, even that idea seems preposterous to me, because it is impossible to imagine how mere fire could have so suddenly removed the strength in the floors between the rigid top section and the rigid bottom section, to allow the intial descent to occur in the way it was observed, but that is what Barzant is arguing and not what I am arguing.) There is no other way I know of that could possibly have happened, except with the use of explosives. Given that the photos and much eyewitness testimony says that that is what did I happen, I would suggest that this is the most likely explanation.
Nick continued:
It would imply that after the jolt, downwards acceleration would have continued at roughly the same rate as the impacted building below gave way. Don’t forget, they are only depicting what should have happened accourding to Barzant’s theory, not according to their own.
Nick continued:
Where has David Chandler engaged in “obscenity, accusations, bile and slander”? Please provide examples.
I think to accuse someone of “running a popularity contest” is both beside the point and subjective. As far as I am concerned he has a very clear way of explaining things, far more so than Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder as I showed above and, for that, he should be acknowledged.
Nick continued:
And you have not proven him wrong. How about either proving him wrong or acknowledging that he is right?
Nick continued:
I see nothing ‘immature’ in what Chandler has said. Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder showed themselves to be either incompetent or preocccupied with covering up the lies in their investigation and Chandler had evry right to draw that to our attention.
Awesome.
Maybe just answer Jo’s questions Daggett. They’re much more fundamental to the whole topic than the minutiae of which expert said what about what and when they said it.
Oh, and still silent on your implied slander of my sister?
Gee daggett, if that’s the best you can come up with we’ll never make 1000.
You have not replied to jo.
Her questions are reasonable. They are NOT on “other” aspects. jo’s questions are on the very guts of your hypothesis.
They are on a key feature of any controlled demolition: it has to be organised beforehand and physical preparations of the most elaborate and technical nature have to be carried out.
It’s much more complicated in its intricate planning than (say) blowing up a vehicle down in the basement, or (say) flying a huge plane into the side of a building.
It seems to me that jo is correct in surmising the preparations would have taken many weeks, involved hundreds of technicians, and been observed by hundreds if not thousands of workers and visitors.
A friend of mine frequently visited offices in one of the Twin Towers, on work visits. He was lucky not to have been there that morning. He hadn’t seen any preparations.
“It seems to me that jo is correct in surmising the preparations would have taken many weeks, involved hundreds of technicians, and been observed by hundreds if not thousands of workers and visitors.”
Let’s not forget daggett’s fair-weather demolition expert, Jowenko, estimated it would have taken an entire year.
That’s to prepare and hook up just one of the three buildings.
Der dichter spricht.
What? All that crap you dumped here was you avoiding dumping even more conspiracy crap here?! Further, as we’ve seen the stuff you’ve brought WAS fairly “open and shut”, but not in your favour.
Why?
Of course you don’t. You haven’t accepted any refutation of your dopey theories. Time and again the material you’ve presented has been debunked and your response? You simply ignore those refutations and move on to introducing more crap.
What? How would using more data reduce the amount of work necessary or reduce the size of their paper? It’s a trivial number of observations, so the incremental work involved in data collection would have been likewise trivial. And reducing the size of their paper? You’ve never done any data analysis, have you? That should have been an irrelevant concern, and their paper would, IMO, have been rejected by any reputable journal.
No, much more likely is that visually counting pixels frame by frame, at only 0.033 seconds per frame, would have introduced too great a margin of error. “Did the pixel move that time – how much?”. Not that 20 observations over only 3.5 seconds fills me with any confidence in the data.
“Simplify the diagram”? Are you fucking kidding? I shouldn’t have to ask this question, again, but…Daggy…have you actually read the paper?
The answer is: M&S argue, based upon their extensive knowledge of structural engineering, and their assumption that the top floors of the building fell as one rigid block, that this rigid block must have decelerated in velocity from 22.81ft/s to 5.43ft/s. It’s this deceleration that constitutes the “missing jolt” and represents the “dog that didn’t bark”, at least in their (and Daggy’s) view.
However, aside from their evident lack of qualifications in assessing the structural engineering behind their assumptions, M&S’ analysis is flawed even before they get to their calculations, as neither Bazant et al nor NIST state that the top floors fell as a rigid block. As NIST point out in their report, the top of the building tilted (i.e. one side was already collapsing) before global collapse began in a progressive fashion. That is, there was no one large “jolt”, but many progressive failures. M&S’ own data shows that at no point in the video footage did the top floors fall at free-fall speed – there was resistance.
And nor was the descent particularly “smooth”. What you need to remember when looking at Figures 5 and 6 is that they report velocity for each 5-frame interval, which involves inherent averaging (“smoothing”) in itself, BUT they calculate the velocity over 10-frame intervals. The formula’s at the top of page 8. This was the revision that they introduced after they were blasted for incorrectly reporting average velocity (which, in itself, would smooth out the “jolt” they claimed to be searching for), not instantaneous velocity, but it ALSO smoothes out velocity. As an experiment, calculate instantaneous velocity with their data, but using sequential data points [i.e. (n+1)-(n), and not (n+1)-(n-1)] and then see how “smooth” the graph looks.
As I noted earlier, the report is an irrelevant attack on a strawman, and in no way refutes the NIST explanation or supports the “controlled demolition” hypothesis.
First, it does not mean that “the structural strength has already been removed before the top section could have hit.” That’s just clueless and unfounded speculation on your part.
Second, your uninformed opinion on what is preposterous in the context of structural engineering is worthless.
Third, the fact that you don’t “know” any “other way” it could have happened is meaningless, as you are have expertise in neither structural engineering or demolition AND you are clearly biased.
Fourth, you’re in no position to know what is “likely” or not.
Fifth, the photo you link to is, as we have seen, not proof of any explosion. Rather ironically, however, it does show rather nicely the extent to which the top floors tilted (showing progressive collapse) and did not fall as a single block.
Sixth, the eyewitness testimony you refer is likewise unreliable.
It wasn’t Bazant et al’s theory; it was M&S’ concocted strawman.
Your commentary about Doctors Gross and Sunder is biased and slanderous garbage. We already know Chandler’s cack-handed work has been comprehensively refuted.
Dagget,
Still waiting … personally I think the Daggster is a tag team effort.
Wow…9/11 another cool intereting topic.
If anyone is interested in finding out more about 9/11 check out a video called zeitgeist. it is not just some conspiracy vid, but actually features speakers that are qualified.
It can be downloaded for free…just google it.
Also, here is a little know FACT.
There was a conglomerate of commpanies, led by the US which were attempting to build an oil/gas pipeline from turkmenistan down to the Arabian to be shipped away for export. Obviously they needed to pass through afghanistan to reach the arabian sea. So, they approached the taliban to ask permission to build this poil pipeline through their country. the taliban, who were probably not thrilled about the US and other corporate giants virtually stealing oil and wealth from the tiny nation of turkmenistan refused permission. the companies persistedand tried a series of negotiations, offering the taliban anything and everything they could. the taliban refused. Months later, the US began a bombing campaign on afghanistan. this is long before 9/11. they then thought up that the best way to get their objective would be to run campaign against afghanistan/taliban to make them look asbad as possible. so the us ran the campaighn highlighting womens rights and attrocities in afganhistan, which they never seemed too worried about before. Now, i’m not suggesting the taliban are good people, especially towards women. Although they did save their country from the russions. Again this well before 9/11.This is all undisputable fact too.
At around this point bin laden comes inot the picture and warns the US that if they don’t stop attacking other countries the US will suffer their own tragedies. shortly after al quaeda blew up a ship, then 9/11.
the US now has a reaon for full scale war against the taliban in afghanistan. The pipeline has now been built and US companies have made billions of dollars from the war.
Ah, hang on, Saddam must have been involved in 9/11 too. Lets get them too, so we can profit…oops i mean save the world and do good. Oh wait, the people aren’t that dumb …or r they???hmmm we should tell em that he has heaps of weapons and wants to kill every single person in the whole world. Good they beleioved us. Next war please. So, the US governemnt basically made up the fact that IRaq had weapons of mass destruction, then goes in and kills the leader of the country, then you want us to trust what this governemnt taells us. Are you freaking kidding??!?!?!
Tony Szamboti, himself, only very recently, responded to precisely the same arguments put here by Sideshow ‘Bot and Nick in the forum “When literature PhDs attack!” of 9 Oct 09 on the Young Australian Skeptics forum site by ‘debunker’ Richard Hughes. (Judging by the moderator’s intervention in the discussion (see below) it would seem to be a genuine Sceptics’ web site, unlike that of phony US ‘sceptic’ and Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Michael Shermer).
It is a most satisfying discussion. On 18 Oct ‘debunker’ Richard Hughes wrote:
… and he hasn’t been heard from since.
The moderator, very aptly, wrote on 19 Oct 09 after Hughes’ voluntary announced departure:
(I think the LP moderators should take note.)
After Hughes’ departure, a few others joined in, making Hughes’ humiliation complete.
Of course, Bob is welcome to take up the baton on Hughes’ behalf, however, I, somehow, think the moderator will take a very dim view should Bob simply attempt to overwhelm that forum with spam as he has attempted to do here. If Bob, nevertheless, does decide to join in, he should also put to Tony Szamboti, what he said of him here.
I will now include a few of Szamboti’s posts which, I believe, more than adequately address what little substance there is in Bob’s latest ‘contribution’:
The following much more succinctly and comprehensively states what I was attempting to say my own response to Nick’s argument:
Jaysus, Daggy. You’re linking to other threads on the paper now? Don’t have confidence in your own ability to argue the case?
Well, you obviously paid no attention to the substance of Richard Hughes’ critique, because they weren’t “precisely the same arguments”, Daggy. Specifically, Hughes’ issues were:
1. Szamboti misused the conservation of momentum equation, particularly in his assumptions about the structural engineering of the building beneath the point of initial collapse;
2. The inadequate number of data points and use of only a single piece of footage;
3. The complete absence of any kind of error analysis; and
4. The unprofessional presentation of the paper.
He’s correct in all of these, and Szamboti does not present effective responses.
Not only that, but these are NOT “precisely the same arguments” presented by Nick or me.
The key argument NOT addressed is the assumptions of M&S that the NIST explanation requires that the top stories fell as one rigid block onto another rigid block, without tilting and progressive collapse. This is M&S’ strawman and the logical fallacy around which the whole paper is constructed.
I note Bob, has, predictably, employed his tactic, familiar to all by now, of repeating his argument as if it has not been rebutted and with no acknowledgement of the rebutting arguments other than to make assertion such as that they “[do] not present effective responses.”
For those without unlimited time on their hands there appears to be no defence against a determined troll/spammer other than to ask others to read again the arguments that the troll/spammer purports to be rebutting.
—
Earlier, I wrote:
Then, Bob wrote:
Yes, Bob, I must be a slow reader. (Or, maybe, I forgot to add a ‘sarcasm alert’ (or, should I say, ‘hyperbole alert’) to that post.
A lesson to be drawn from this forum is that none of sarcasm, irony or tongue-in-cheek hyperbole has any impact on completely irrational people (or people pretending to be).
Daggy, repeating my argument for me without rebutting it is not, bizarre as it may seem to one such as you, rebutting it.
You say you rebutted my argument. Kindly show where. You could call it a “rebuttal alert”, if that would provide you with sufficient incentive.
You know, Daggy, for once I agree entirely. Never a truer word, u.s.w.
Gordon @ 711,
Not little known. Much of the info was in one of the earliets bios of ben laden.
So Dagget hive mind, have you found any direct evidence for us yet?
I think the twin towers still stand, the empty space you see in NYC is just a very sophisticated hologram.
PatrickB asks if I have direct evidence, presumably of people having discovered explosives and cables in the Twin Towers.
No, I don’t know of anyone still alive who has attested to having made such a discovery.
However, if you had read my post concerning Scott Forbes’ testimony of power-downs and suspicious activities in the weeks and days immediately prior to 9/11 and also bear in mind that Securacom, which managed the security of the WTC, was linked to the Bush family, it should not be too hard to imagine how such preparations in parts of the Twin Towers away from where normal employees and members of the public are likely to go, could have been concealed.
So, whilst the lack of direct testimony of discovery of explosives and cables in the Twin Towers may satisfy you that everything we need to know about 9/11 has already been revealed by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, it does not satisfy me.
I won’t be satisfied until I see an investigation which explains all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, including the abovementioned testimony by Scott Forbes, that was ignored by these two supposed investigating bodies. A proper investigation would also interview all those who worked for Securacom at the WTC prior to 9/11.
I would be interested to know who[1] on this forum is prepared to also dimiss the following testimony of New York City firefighters as ‘unreliable’:
People can view that testimony on YouTube video “9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition” This is only one of many dozens of examples of testimony, ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, I could give.
Footnotes
1. That is, other than Bob, of course, who has made it clear that he sees nothing suspicious in the omission of any mention of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ in the 9/11 Commission Report and, in the images here and here, nothing more than typical everyday run-of-the-mill building collapses driven only by gravity and fire and nothing that even remotely reminds him of clouds formed by massive quantities of explosives.
“So, whilst the lack of direct testimony of discovery of explosives and cables in the Twin Towers may satisfy you that everything we need to know about 9/11 has already been revealed by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, it does not satisfy me.”
I didn’t say I was satisfied. I asked for direct evidence of a plan to destroy the towers by controlled demolition and you have admitted you don’t have any. In the light of that I don’t know why I should accept you explanation over others. Indeed given you limited resources and lack of access to any of the material recovered from the site or formal interviews of eyewitnesses I’d say yours is a theory that is backed by very little in the way of supporting evidence.
That being the case it is probably prudent for me to to believe the explanation arrived at by those with the most resources and access to the material recovered from the site and eyewitnesses, that is if I choose to believe any theory.
I dare say as time passes more information may come to light, IIRC estimates of the death toll decreased markedly as the day progressed.
There’s no evidence or corroborating testimony of the “power-down” alleged by Scott Forbes. Not only that, the “power-down” he alleges took place only affected ONE of the three buildings that collapsed. He’s an unreliable witness.
Securacom did not manage the security of the WTC, the Port Authority Police Department did.
And, no, you have no fucking idea how much work and preparation would have been required to go UNNOTICED in order to demolish the building. There’s simply no credible evidence of any thing like the work required to demolish the buildings with explosives. Didn’t happen.
Satisfy you, Daggy? you continue to believe in refuted theories, unreliable witnesses and non-existent evidence. It’s quite clear that your standard of proof is totally divorced from reality.
As for the firefighters and their non-expert opinions, so what? We’ve been through this before: lots of people believe they saw and heard lots of different things – it’s unreliable.
As for the dust and debris billowing out of the towers, so what? Believing what you want to believe, you see an explosion; others see airborne debris being ejected as successive floors collapse, squeezing out the air between each level. BFD.
hell, I’m all for blaming G W Bush for 9/11. Go, daggett!
PatrickB began protesting that he never said he was satisfied with the 9/11 Commission and NIST ‘explanations’ and then ends up saying that he is prepared to accept their explanation after all, and not call for a new inquiry even though there are gaping holes, glaring self-contradictions and a huge number of questions about 9/11 have not even been asked by these bodies, let alone answered.
PatrickB wrote:
Do you ever wonder how crimes are solved, when there are no eyewitnesses willing to testify?
—
Sideshow ‘Bot, I specifically did not ask your opinion about whether or not you considered Captain Dennis Tardio and Patrick Zoda reliable witnesses, because I already knew what your answer would be.
I wanted to see how many of other Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists here were as willing as you to as sumarrily as you dismiss the testimony of every single witness whose testimony contradicted the official account of 9/11.
Interestingly, it seems that no-one else is.
No doubt, if I were to put the testimony of each and every witness listed on the abovelinked page to ‘Bot he would, pronounce each of them in turn, beginning with 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez as similarly ‘unreliable’.
Of course, if the testimony not to be in contradticion with ‘Bot’s opinion, that is an entirely different matter.
‘Bot wrote:
A little known fact was that we were always there. Since the Port Authority owned the buildings, we (the Police) were responsible for the public safety therein.
As for the fact that the
‘Bot wrote,
No, ‘Bot. This is what David Lim of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey wrote:
(BTW, the character played by Nicholas Cage in the 2006 movie World Trade Center was a Port Authority policeman)
The Wikipedia entry states:
I trust that others here, besides ‘Bot are capable of grasping the difference between security in general on the one hand and “responsib[ility] for the public safety” on the other.
‘Bot wrote:
Clearly ‘Bot can’t recognise an explosion when it is staring him in the face, so I guess he would experience a great deal of difficulty in recognising any evidence when he sees it, or, perhaps,’Bot operates on the premise that a falsehood, repeated often enough, will become the truth.
—
As I keep saying, when confronted with piece of incomprehensible forum spam, please consider referring again to the post it purports to be in response to.
Oops!
The last link back to ‘Bot’s rant is slightly wrong and could well cause this whole page, laden with all of ‘Bot’s rants, to be loaded yet again, almost certainly causing many to exceed their ISP download quoatas. My apologies.
Also paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 in response to ‘Bot should have been deleted.
I don’t. The answer is: “with evidence”. As you readily admit, you don’t have any.
Diddums.
Yep. Rodriguez is unreliable. He didn’t witness an explosion. He reckons he heard one. So what?
Is it?
No, I didn’t write that.
Thanks for that piece of movie trivia, but I’m glad you acknowledge that the PAPD were responsible for public safety in WTC.
As I said, Securacom did not manage WTC security. It was a contractor employed for a time on some projects at the WTC. At no time did it “manage security”. Let me quote from Wikipedia, i.e. YOUR OWN SOURCE:
See? You’re wrong, yet again, on a fact you could have checked easily, but chose not to. Why?
Who says it’s an explosion? You, Daggy? What makes you an expert on explosions?
Why stop there? Most of what you say is flat-out wrong. You’re a rolling clusterfuck of muddle-headed wrongness, Daggy.
Along the lines of furious balancing’s comment at 718, some “thruthers” believe that no plane actually hit the second tower. The footage of the plane striking the tower was all faked, even on the day.
“Do you ever wonder how crimes are solved, when there are no eyewitnesses willing to testify?”
You could add “and no physical evidence”.
As I said before it is often very difficult to prove a crime in the absence of the things you mention. It becomes even harder when the other side have a more reasonable explanation of the facts.
In your case I’d say that given the tenuous nature of your circumstantial evidence for a controlled demolition and the weight of evidence supporting the “destroyed by terrorists in planes” theory that you would indeed have very little chance of convincing a public prosecutor proceed to trial.
OK, Bob, it seems that, after all I was somewhat wrong about Securacom.
It turns out that, as you say, Securacom ‘only’ looked after key aspects of WTC ‘security’ until 1998, including the installation of electronic badging, security gates, and CCTV in 1996, ‘only’ handled ‘security’ at Dulles international airport from which two of the hijacked aircraft took off from on 11 September 2001 and ‘only’ handled the ‘security’ for United Airlines of which flights 93 and 175 were hijacked on that day.
So, I am not sure who it was who handled the WTC ‘security’ when the massive quantities of demolition charges including nano-thermite were laid and wired in the Twin Towers prior to 9/11. Maybe it was even the Port Authority Police Department as you insist, and, for once, you may be right about one detail.
Whoever it was, they have not been questioned about what happened prior to 9/11 and, as I pointed out above. Marvin Bush has refused to respond to requests for interviews or to answer questions about Securacom’s failure to protect the lives of American citizens.
–
Bob asked:
?!!
I think I am perfectly capable of recognising an explosion when I see one, thank you very much, just as did many witnesses who saw exactly the same as what was captured on that image and almost countless videos and photos.
So, does anyone else on this forum, besides Bob, insist that one has to be an ‘expert’ in explosions to be able to recognise one?
As far as I am concerned, Bob has more than amply shown himself to be either a moron or a time-wasting liar.
Why anyone should take seriously a single word written by him from now on, I don’t know.
whaaa ??
Fine, PatrickB,
I am more clear now that you think the circumstantial evidence is tenuous and that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is “a more reasonable explanation of the facts” and that the fact that not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured in Afghanistan after 8 years of occupation dose not strike you as suspicious.
I just pray you are never selected for jury duty on a major criminal trial.
—
Shaun wrote:
Well, duhhh!
Had you read my comment (@ 319)?
I also had something to write about this here.
“I just pray you are never selected for jury duty on a major criminal trial.”
Likewise Dagget. I’m fairly sure that, given you’ve expounded your theories so publicly, you’d be tossed out at the selection stage.
“I am more clear now that you think the circumstantial evidence is tenuous”
I would have thought that this was fairly clear several posts ago. I have made a considerable effort to stay focused on the need for you to provide direct evidence for a controlled demolition of the so called Twin Towers located in New York, New York, USA on the morning of September the 11th 2001. If you provide this then it fatally undermines the widely held view that the aforesaid towers collapsed after being struck by aeroplanes which caused a fire that fatally weakened them.
This is the view of large numbers of experts who base their conclusions on the physical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence available. There is no evidence that any explosives were attached to any part of the buildings that collapsed on the day in question.
“the fact that not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured in Afghanistan after 8 years of occupation …”
Appears to have nothing to do with the collapse of the twin towers.
Anyway, have you come up with any direct evidence for the controlled demolition?
PatrickB wrote,
Of course you would say that. As it happens, that would suit me fine. However, rejecting the fiction of 9/11 after having taken the trouble to study the evidence as I began to do six years after 9/11 should be a good reason to select someone like myself for jury duty and not reject him/her.
As I pointed out at the start of this forum I fully accepted the US Government version at the time and (unfortunately) did not even begin to seriously question it until 6 years later.
Part of the reason was that there were so many liars and ignoramuses at all levels of society shouting, as they are here that the 9/11 Truth Movement is rubbish.
I only changed my view after I studied the evidence. I particularly took the trouble to listen to debates including one between Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and ‘sceptic’ Michael Shermer, whom I had previously respected.
Because I had a lot of respect for Michael Shermer and was actually on his e-Skeptic mailing list at the time, I truly did not know which way I would be swayed at the outset (and have been subsequently unsubscribed, although I am not sure how).
At the end of the 1 hour radio debate, it was obvious to me that either Shermer was a poor choice of someone to uphold the Official version of 9/11 or he was wrong.
He avoided discussing the evidence and continued to drag red herrings across the trail: How dare Richard Gage cast aspersions against the company responsible for WTC security? Doesn’t he know he could be sued? There’s nothing to discuss. After all, Osama bin Laden confessed.
My subsequent research further confirmed that Gage was right and Shermer was wrong.
—
PatrckB wrote, “I have made a considerable effort to stay focused on the need for you to provide direct evidence for a controlled demolition of the so called Twin Towers located in New York, New York, USA on the morning of September the 11th 2001.”
Well, I don’t have that kind of “direct evidence” and the 9/11 Truth Movement never have made such a claim.
Do police wait until they have such conclusive evidence before they begin to investigate a crime?
What we have, whether or not you choose to recognise it as such, is strong evidence which suggests that a crime was committed. That includes, amongst many other things, residue of nano-thermite and microscopic iron spheres in dust samples collected from around the grouond zero. That should have been cause to warrant a proper investigation in order to find more conclusinve evidence.
One of many possible lines of investigation would be to make inquiries of the military, who are the only people known to have nano-thermite, to see how it could have got into the dust around ground zero.
—
Bob asks of 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez‘s testimony of a massive explosion in the basement of the WTC which lifted him off the ground and badly disfigured the face of one of his co-workers before Flight 11 struck the North Tower:
If nothing else, this response demonstrates an astonishing lack of curiosity about a topic about which he holds himself to be such a fantastic authority.
PatrickB:
“I didn’t say I was satisfied. I asked for direct evidence of a plan to destroy the towers by controlled demolition and you have admitted you don’t have any. In the light of that I don’t know why I should accept you explanation over others.”
no, you should take the word of the US government, who also told you that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even made false footsaage to prove this point. they didn’t just get it wrong, but they actually made false statements and also showed false video footage to get their war. the US government has been proven to invent and fabricate eviudence. Yet, people are still so dumb to keep beleiving what they are told.
Even justthinking about it. Think about a plane hitting a building. What do u imagine would happen? Apparently these buildings were built to withstand the impact of a place hitting.
Also, what happened to the remains of the other plane that hit the pentagon. Supposedly it burned into nothing.
Man, why are pepole just so naive.
Another thing. Many people seem to think that conspiracy theories are so far fetched.
what is so far fetched about thinking that in this world there could be a bunch of powerful people who plot to make themselves more powerful and rich. In fact iut seems more likely than it is unlikely. Its been happening since the beginning of time.
Spot on,
One ‘conspiracy theory’ that is no longer a theory, but a historical fact is Operation Northwoods, in which in the early 1960′s the US military planned to stage assassinations, highjackings and other terrorist acts against US citizens and blame them on Cuba in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.
President Kennedy closed it down as soon as he got wind of it. And, as we know, the following year, Kennedy was murdered.
Not sure how those double quotes got around your name and subsequent paragraphs, Gordon (and not “Gordon”). Sorry if it looked strange.
“no, you should take the word of the US government, who also told you that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even made false footsaage to prove this point”
Gordon you can keep your advice to yourself. Do you have the missing evidence of a controlled demolition? Up till now Dagget has tried to convince us using bad video and highly improbable cause and effect scenarios. He has alleged that the buildings were loaded with tens of tonnes of explosives and yet there is no evidence that there were explosives in the buildings prior to their collapse and there is no evidence that explosives were detonated.
What is clear and what was witnessed by thousands in New York and millions around the world is the the towers were hit by planes. They then caught fire. Not long after they collapsed. There is no evidence of an explosion.
Still clutching at straws, Daggy?
Securacom/Stratesec did NOT “handle security” at Dulles International; the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and its Police Department did, under FAA and TSA oversight. Again, Securacom had been a contractor to the airport in the mid-1990s – it did not manage security for the airport on 9/11.
Also, Securacom/Stratesec did NOT “handle security” for United Airlines. Argenbright Security and Huntleigh USA managed security (i.e. screening) for United Airlines at the relevant airports on 9/11.
At this juncture, Daggy, I feel compelled to ask you: when are you going to check any of these “facts” of yours before regurgitating them onto unsuspecting websites? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: do your fucking homework.
Um, Daggy? What “massive quantities of demolition charges including nano-thermite”? There’s no evidence that anything of the sort was laid and wired in the Twin Towers.
Hang on a second here: are you demanding the questioning of unknown people who didn’t plant explosives that didn’t exist in a building, the security of which they didn’t manage? Why?
As for Marvin Bush, given we’ve now demonstrated that Securacom/Stratesec had nothing to do with 9/11, why should he be questioned?
Given that it wasn’t an explosion and you can’t prove it was an explosion it’s quite obvious that no, you are NOT “perfectly capable of recognising an explosion” when you see one.
Heh. There’s that irony again.
Or indifference to hearsay from an unreliable witness and, it appears, professional conspiracy theorist, who has proved unable and/or unwilling to defend his accusations in court.
Also, I’m not claiming to be a “fantastic authority”, Daggy. Clearly, if anyone’s an authority on fantasies, it’d be you, Daggy.
Well said, PatrickB. Keep your lying advice to yourself, Gordon.
We’re all awake to the lies of the Bush administration here, you know, including the WMD lie.
—
PatrickB Wrote:
OK, it would seem that two Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists so far, PatrickB and Bob, see nothing here or here remotely reminds him of explosion in all those dramatic images of the Twin Tower ‘collapses’.
PatrickB, would you care to take a careful look, not at the furiously violently swirling cloud atop the ‘collapsing’ North Tower, which is so obviously caused by the forces of gravity alone, as Bob keeps telling us, but at the horizontal plume of debris being ejected, by my judgment, two stories below that cloud on the right side.
What do you imagine could have caused that?
Someone sneezing inside the North Tower, perhaps?
And what do you imagine is the puff off debris roughly in the middle of the wall slightly below the level of that horizontal plume?
—
A very good article on the evidence of the use of explosives is “Kevin Ryan: Top 10 Connections Between NIST and Nanothermite”
Kevin Ryan, as I mentioned above, was a whistleblower who lost his job for his part in exposing the role of the Underwriters Limited laboratories’ role in covering up evidence contrary the Official account of the 3 building ‘collapses’, no doubt, as Bob will surely soon insist, another ‘unreliable’ witness.
He writes:
Dagget,
Looked at the photo. It’s like many I’ve seen before. I don’t see any evidence of an explosion. Could you please present your direct evidence of a conspiracy to bring the towers down by controlled explosion?
Either a participant in the conspiracy or some physical evidence (e.g. photographs or eyewitnesses) of either the placing of the explosives or evidence that directly shows that a detonation of sufficient force to collapse the towers occurred and that the explosion was caused by the explosives that had been placed in the building.
Since I missed Torchwood on Friday night, I don’t feel I can make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion at the moment.
dagget @733
Just when you put a limit on your credulity in @730 you blow it.
PatrickB wrote:
we’ve been through that.
No-one has attested to having seen the wiring and planting of explosives in the twin towers, as far as I am aware. From that you have concluded that it could not have happened and there is no need for a further investigation and I disagree.
Now, can we move on?
I see that you are also adamant that that plume of debris being ejected to the right of the North Tower, not to mention that violent swirling cloud atop the North Tower, is not evidence of explosions, although you have declined to tell us what you think it is.
If you can’t see what looks perfectly clear to me in that photo, we aren’t going to reach agreement here on that question, are we?.
Let’s just, for the benefit of others trying to work out who, of the two of us, is more likely to understand what we are talking about, who does recognise images of explosions in those stills, and who does not, and move on.
—
I note Bob has dismissed as ‘hearsay’ by 9/11 hero William Rodriguez the burning and disfigurement of Filipe David by a massive explosion in the basement of the North Tower prior to the impact of Flight 11.
Thanks, Bob. I think that might give others yet another good clue as to whether or not it would be worth their while to wade through the rest of your numerous and lengthy ‘contributions’ to this discussion.
—
Paul Burns tells us:
I don’t feel I can make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion …
So, what else is new?
—
Your comment on my comment on my comment is way too subtle for my limited intellectual capabilities, Shaun.
Please elaborate.
Corrections:
1. (To PatrickB) Let’s just, for the benefit of others trying to work out who, of the two of us, is more likely to understand what we are talking about, leave on the record who does recognise images of explosions in those stills, and who does not, and move on.
2. Your comment on my comment on your comment is way too subtle for my limited intellectual capabilities, Shaun.
Please elaborate.
daggett @744
Looking back it is too subtle for me as well. I’ve attributed a comment to you and can’t find the one I was supposed to reference. My apologies for that.
“No-one has attested to having seen the wiring and planting of explosives in the twin towers, as far as I am aware.”
Actually what has happened is that an investigation has been conducted. As there is no evidence that a controlled explosion was in anyway responsible for the disaster there is no-one who can attest to the plot.
“…plume of debris being ejected…you have declined to tell us what you think it is.”
Sorry didn’t know you were interested. Well to me it looks like plumes of debris being ejected from a window. As to the cause, I’d say it was caused by the collapse of the floors above. As there was no controlled explosion (as you note above there isn’t any evidence whatsoever for this) the material can’t have been ejected as the result of an explosion.
““…plume of debris being ejected…you have declined to tell us what you think it is.””
Looks like a puff of dust and debris to me. I’d be pretty shocked if none such appeared in any collapse due to any cause.
What I definitely don’t see is a sequence of such puffs, one floor after another, such as is typical in controlled demolitions.
Oh, but this was different to all other controlled demolitions – convenient huh?
But please note, it is EXACTLY THE SAME as all previous cases of a building collapsing after being known to have hit by a 767 filled with aviation fuel.
Conveniently enough, for the purposes of establishing the strength of the precedent, the precedent was a building very nearby, of the same size, constructed exactly the same way, hit by a 767 on the same day. The results were very similar, and in neither case did the results resemble a controlled demolition.
Rodriguez didn’t witness either: 1) an explosion; or 2) the burning of Felipe David. Felipe David was burned by a jet fuel fireball that travelled down the liftwells to the basement, not a demolition explosion. Refer to NCSTAR 1-8, pp43-44.
It just might at that, Daggy.
Now, it seems, FDB has decided that he is an expert on ‘collapses’ of steel framed buildings driven by gravity alone.
FDB wrote:
Indeed, why?
Have you observed other ‘collapses’ of steel-framed buildings driven by gravity alone and happened to have noticed similar plumes of debris beig ejected?
Somehow as 11 September 2001 at the WTC is the only time and place that this has ever happened, or so we are told, (as FDB, himself, has so wittily informed us) I think not.
So, if FDB would have been “pretty shocked if [no such plume] had appeared” I can only conclude that FDB is telling us that he has studied theoretical models which would have predicted what that image shows.
So, please enlighten the rest of us about those theoretical models, won’t you, FDB?
FDB wrote:
Well how would you know whether there is or is not in that image, given the way the cloud of debris has obscured the front wave of the collapse?
In any case, if you look closely at the YouTube broadcast “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wZ54n-kYqw” you will see precisely “a sequence of such puffs, one floor after another” through a gap in the debris cloud.
I had a look at that “sequence of puffs” and it seems simply debris being blown out as the floors collapse.
What was interesting was the dirty great big chunks of building you can see falling to the right. If it was a demolition it was in no way controlled.
Bob, the following statement:
… is plainly stupid as I pointed out and your response to my response avoids either defending it, or withdrawing it.
It is one of many I could pluck from the spam you have poured into this forum in a transparent attempt to disrupt the discussion.
If anyone here mistakes you for a serious and genuine debater, I will be sure to draw their attention to that statement, amongst a good many others.
—
In regard to your points about Marvin Bush, Securacom, etc.: There may be a small grain of truth in what you write insofar as my case may turn out not to be quite as strong as I at first thought. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the White House attempted to conceal Marvin Bush’s relationship with that company and he did not answer questions put to him by Margie Burns. I based what I wrote upon her article “‘Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother’s role in 9/11 security’” of 20 Jan 04.
Other than that, I am not going to fight you to the death over that ground.
Footnotes
1. Bob’s ‘contributions’ are to be found here: 63, 147, 151, 205, 213, 231, 448, 452, 464, 487, 489, 502, 514, 520, 525, 532, 539, 561, 564, 566, 569, 582, 588, 599, 602, 607, 611, 614, 627, 630, 646, 648, 667, 683, 684, 694, 699, 709, 713, 715, 721, 725, 738 and 748. The fact that, until now, no-one, other than myself, has referred to the actual content of any of them, as far as I can tell, may be a good indication of their worth. I think we can safely assume that Bob, himself, doesn’t want others to be able to systematically look at all the outpourings he has dumped on this forum and that is why he has changed his identitiy with each new post on this forum, making a search for his posts very time consuming.
And, in case anyone here may wish to find posts in which they can learn something about the 9/11 controversy, my posts are:
28, 50, 72, 105, 126,
139, 142, 172, 186, 187, 193, 196, 227, 236, 237, 246, 251, 256, 265, 268, 271, 273, 280, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 291, 292, 294, 298, 309, 310, 315, 316, 319, 324, 328, 333, 335, 339, 342, 343, 345, 347, 348, 351, 354, 358, 360, 371, 372, 376, 378, 383, 384, 390, 393, 407, 442, 451, 454, 465, 484, 488, 494, 497, 506, 516, 519, 524, 529, 535, 549, 555, 557, 560, 565, 573, 584, 587, 594, 595, 600, 601, 603, 605, 608, 609, 612, 616, 619, 626, 632, 651, 661, 674, 676, 693, 703, 712, 714, 719, 723, 724, 728, 730, 732, 735, 736, 739, 743, 744 and 749.
I think people who know me will agree that I am usually careful in what I write and my intention is to inform and help others discover the truth.
Daggett, 3 questions:
1) From Kevin Ryan:
How could they have known in advance exactly where the planes would hit? You have stated, Daggett, that you do not associate yourself with the wild and wacky division of the Truth movement — so presumably you do not think that what hit the towers were some guided missile with a plane hologram around them.
So then, if what hit the towers were the real planes piloted by real jihadists, without great flying experience, how could they have piloted them precisely into the parts of the buildings where the explosives were pre-set?
Did the conspiracy paint a big targeting crosshair on the side of the buildings on the morning of 9/11?
2) You wrote about 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez (incidentally, is ’9/11 Hero’ his formal title, like Dr or Professor?):
Um, the basement? Why were there explosives in the basement, Daggett? Weren’t the nano-thermite shaped charges attached to the the structural members higher up, sufficient to bring the building down?
Wasn’t planting explosives in the basement rather suspicious and unnecessary? And why the heck would they have detonated them before the plane hit?
3) You have stated several times that all you want is a proper inquiry, the 9/11 Commission being unsatisfactory in your eyes.
Fine. Let’s say you got your wish. Who would you actually have on the panel of that inquiry, since you evidently regard both Congress and executive government bodies (such as NIST) as being either incompetent or in on the plot?
And how would the inquiry achieve anything unless some, of the many thousands of people involved in the plot, who have amazingly all kept quiet about it ever since, were willing to break ranks?
The plotters would presumably just deny everything on the witness stand, and you’d be back to square one, no?
I note Gordon has turned up here. Maybe he’s going to become a permanent fixture on this blog. Lucky us.
Oh, how I miss the good old days when the trolls were witty aesthetes like John Greenfield.
PAtrickB:
You ask for evidence of the detonation. DId you ask for evidence of WMD when the Iraq war started. you are well brainwashed my friend.
did you ask for evidence of why there is abolutely no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon. or why the remains of the ther plane that crashed supposedly completely dissentegrated.
Prinde is a funny thing. I know an old man . If you tell him that he has a problem that could lead to a disease, he would rather ignore you and pretend he has no problem and then later get the disease, then to admit he has a problem and have it fixed. Its just easier on his pride then to admit that what he has always beleive in was actually false.
Paulus:
It seems that you have chosen decide to insult those who disagree with your opinion.
“DId you ask for evidence of WMD when the Iraq war started. you are well brainwashed my friend.”
Actually I wrote to all the leaders of the countries in the coalition of the willing asking for proof.
“Prinde is a funny thing.”
Indeed it is, added to cocktail it leads to the spontaneous removing of ones garments, which can be hilarious in the right circumstances.
While we’re at it, have any other LPers experienced the joys of prinde? As a side note, there are a number of prinde support groups for those that overindulge. I myself only recently attended a prinde addict’s intervention. Usual story, a bit of prinde at a party and before he knew it he was prindeing like there was no tomorrow. Very sad and yet … not.
Again replying with stupidity and pettyness by highlighting typos. the fact is that in that situation you chose to beleive something without evidence and you were proven misguuided to beleive this and yet now you are demanding hard evidence from someone to prove something against the people who were just proven to make things up.
mate..who can really be bothered fixing typos when you would thikn the people here would be smart enough to work it out.but actually they are smart enough to do this, but childish enough to think they are so funny by pointing a typo out.
“Prinde is a funny thing.”
Well Gordo given I haven’t a clue what your anecdote re: the old man is supposed to tell me it’s a bit difficult to, well … work out what the typo might be. For all I know prinde may indeed be a funny thing around where you come from but in these parts it’s no laughing matter.
And I’m not really seeing how you’re helping the Dagget Foundation to come up with some direct evidence of a successful conspiracy to destroy the twin towers by controlled explosions.
And I find your lack of faith in my attempt to force COW leaders to present us with the proof of WMD “disturbing”.
Gordon, here’s something to chew on.
The neo-cons, or ‘Bush clique’, or ‘military-industrial complex’, or whatever and whoever one supposes to be behind 9/11, were so powerful and sophisticated that they could launch the greatest conspiracy in human history … and yet couldn’t plant a few barrels of nerve gas in Iraq retrospectively to save Bush’s ass?
I can only see two possible explanations for this:
1) There was no conspiracy. Or …
2) The conspiracy was never actually supposed to benefit the Bush administration. The succeeding government — that of a certain Mr B.H. Obama — was always meant to be the real beneficiary. See the following for further enlightenment.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-827234
Of course I agree with Gordon. Personal attacks should normally play no role in normal healthy discussions. On the web-site candobetter.org, which I help to run, our tolerance of personal attacks is close to zero.
However that has not, so far, prevented anyone with a substantial view critical of (as well as supportive of) our own from posting.
—
Paulus,
In regard to (1) If you use a small amount of imgagination, surely it should not be hard to see how the planes could have been crashed into the twin towers. Almost certainly the patsy/hijackers would not have had actual control of the aircraft, certainly not near the end.
More than likely the aircraft would have been under the complete control of remote human controllers. The technology to do this has been around for years.
Clearly they had a good idea precisely where the planes would hit. The camera set up to capture the impact of Flight 11 that Bush let slip he witnessed live, was clearly pointed in the right direction.
In regard to (2), whilst I don’t fully understand the mechanisms of controlled demolitions, I have read that the explosions in the basement were most likely necessary to weaken the towers to ensure that the subsequent demltion went ahead smoothely. Why the initial explosion went off befor the impact of Flight 11, I can’t say for sure, but my guess was that there may have been a small miscalculation in timing.
Those in control of the security of the Twin Towers would have faced little difficulty in keeping prying eyes out of where they weren’t wanted I would have thought. An investigation of 9/11 would include thorugh questioning of all emplyees responsible for security.
In regard to (3), plenty of inquiries have been set up in the US and elsewhere with competent investigators with no links to people with vested interests in the inquiry’s outcome. That clearly did not happen with the 9/11 Commission.
Philip Zelikow, who was in charge of the 9/11 Commission was a close associate of Condoleeza Rice.
A proper investigation would have power to demand answers of those being investigated. Most inquiries which are properly run find the means to get the truth out of even unwilling witnesses.
On top of that there would be a vast number of willing witnesses and a good deal could be learnt even if unwilling witnesses are not be compelled to give evidence.
Bob wrote:
By reperating the unbelievable rubbish that aviation fuel spilled all the way down the shaft, Bob has further proven himself to be a liar or totally credulous of anything told to him by authority.
The fact that the 9/11 Commission went to such extraordinary to suppress William Rodriguez’s testimony should make those of us with some degree of scepticism towards government suspicious.
Rodriguez’s account was also corroborated by Jose Sanchez who worked on the 4th sub-level.
If Rodreiguez was such a liar, then why did the Bush administration make him a national hero? Why not look for yourself of those photos on http://www.william911.com?
If, insteaed of speaking the truth, Rodriguez had kept his mouth shut in order to become a Republican politician, then Bob would, no doubt, be singing his praises today.
Let’s at least hope that some people here can understand why I choose not to waste my time reading the lying NIST reports that Bob would have us accept as gospel.
Gordon,
If you were to accept my advice, I wouldn’t waste my time even thinking about Paulus’s non-argument. It’s all already been put on the 9/11 Truth Online Opinion discussion forum and torn to shreds. (Be warned, before you click on the link, it is fairly large, although not as large as this.)
Daggett,
I’ve had a quick look at that OLO link, and all I can say is: the amount of effort you’re putting in to bring the ‘truth’ to people is enormous. It’s evidently a full-time occupation for you. I hope it pays well.
Now, as to Iraq and WMD.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the US to plant WMD in Iraq. For one thing, the US itself has vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (it is slowly destroying them under arms control conventions). For another thing, they’re easy to make, particularly the chemical ones. I had a friend who was doing a PhD in chemistry who confidently asserted that he could whip up various nerve agents in his lab if ever he wanted. (Note for law enforcement personnel reading this blog: as far as I’m aware, my friend never actually did!)
Now, Iraq still had facilities all over the country which had been used for its vast WMD programs which pre-dated the first Gulf War. Inspectors who visited these in the 1990s were amazed by the size and scope of what they found (which helps explain why many people assumed Saddam was up to his old tricks again by 2003).
These facilities were non-operational in 2003. But they could have covertly flown in some CW or BW materials and equipment, and made it look like at least one facility was still going. Then bribe some relevant Iraqis to make statements, and Bob’s your uncle.
While many critics of the war would not have changed their mind, the wavering middle ground might have then accepted Bush’s argument, with all sorts of useful political results.
But instead I guess the vast 9/11 conspiracy organisation staff were all off drinking Pina Coladas at Trader Vic’s, or something.
That Paulus puts an ‘argument’ that proves precisely nothing about 9/11, rather than attempt to deal with the substantive arguments put here, including my earlier response to his arguments, seems, to me, to be a sign of desperation.
On that other forum, I, at first, tried to ignore the ‘argument’ which seemed just as self-evidently silly there as it does here. I only responded after the argument was put a second time:
Earlier, I wrote:
Last night I decided to roam Youtube (appropriate given this is the most favoured means of analysis for 911 ‘truthers’) and look at videos of controlled demolition. Can’t link to any due to work but they are easy to find on Youtube.
If you have a look at the WTC collapes, they look nothing like the usual controlled demolition. The only resemblance is that in end a building fell down.
Controlled demolitions are from the bottom up, WTC was from top down. Also, controlled demolitions fall inwards. The WTC collapses spewed huge chunks of debris out from the building.
No, Daggy, what’s “plainly stupid” is asserting that a statement is self-evidently true when it’s not, simply because you, stupidly, want it to be true.
That’s an uncharacteristically wise decision, Daggy. Based on your performance on this thread you shouldn’t enter into any debate where your life is on the line.
I also note that that is one of the most graceless concessions I’ve seen on this blog. You were proven to be comprehensively wrong, on some very basic facts that it took me minutes to check, and your response? “…my case my turn out not to be quite as strong as I first thought.” Pathetic.
“…outpourings dumped on this forum…”, Daggy? From your own post (#752) it’s patently obvious who’s been dumping on this thread, and it’s not me, Daggy. And no, you can “safely assume” nothing of the sort. In fact, past experience shows your assumptions are typically cloddish, but this one particularly so, as not once have I changed my identity – my gravatar has remained constant – and changing my pseudonym is something I do for fun, not deception. That you’ve evidently wasted your time counting my comments is an unexpected bonus.
No, Daggy. It’s the truth. Did you read the report to which I referred you? Why do I bother even asking? Let me quote from NCSTAR 1-9 (pp43-44):
These facts are attested to by multiple witnesses.
When and how did the 9/11 Commission “suppress” his testimony, Daggy? He says he testified to both the 9/11 Commission and NIST. How is that government suppression?
Sanchez’s account notes that “a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator” – that’s entirely consistent with the previously mentioned jet fuel cloud fire moving down the liftwell.
Do I have to? The dilemma with this guy is that he undoubtedly acted in a brave and selfless manner on 9/11, and was justly decorated as a result [I haven’t seen any mention of the Bush administration making him a “national hero”, however], but has since cheapened his image by pursuing his newfound career as celebrity hero & conspiracist. Unfortunately, looking at his self-aggrandising website [he literally refers to himself as “Keymaster”!] doesn’t persuade me that his hearsay testimony is any more reliable, but does remind me of Phil Olivetti.
Not true – I’ll sing his praises today regardless: he acted in a brave and selfless manner and I respect him for that. I just don’t think his testimony about 9/11 tells us much that’s useful.
Good luck with that.
Sheesh, I was only responding to your straw poll. No need to be so passive aggressive.
Well, because each floor contains a great deal of air, and as it collapses that air and with it a great deal of various other materials (interior plaster walls, bits of masonry, and in a fully occupied building, a whole lot else) which would have to go somewhere. Out the windows is really the only option.
Yes, as I said. Your photo and youtube video are of the North Tower collapse. It was preceded by the South Tower collapse, which looked very similar, and in similar ways it looked quite unlike a controlled demolition.
Actually, as I have shown, there is a precedent, and an awesomely applicable one. [By the way, I like the Freudian slip aspect of "I think not"; could be your motto!]
What I’m telling you is what it looked like to me, which is what you asked for. Free of charge, I’m also applying some interpretation and reasoning to what I’ve seen, to explain to you why it doesn’t look like a controlled demolition to me.
Yo mama’s a theoretical model.
Absence of evidence is not blah blah blah
Nope. A sequence in a controlled demolition is orderly, bottom-up, evenly timed series of explosions. That video shows something different on all counts – chaotic, top-down, big plumes of smoke and debris shooting out 15 to 20 floors below the front of the collapse. It’s also, as Shaun has pointed out, in no way controlled. Huge chunks are flying everywhere.
Bob pretends not to understand my argument:
Obviously one of us being totally disingenuous in this discussion over whether or not all those images, I referred to, contain what are clearly recognisable, to anyone who has looked at a TV set for more that an total of a few hours in the last few decades, as explosions and this discussion is not going to be settled by Bob and myself saying, “Yes, they are!”, “No, they are not!”, “Yes, they are!”, etc.
If Bob was debating genuinely, he would realise that and desist, but, of course, he is not. Clearly he understands that if you are on the side of establised authority, you don’t need to win the debate, all you need to do is maintain some degree of doubt confusion.
However, that was not my point. My point was simply that to argue that, when every living adult, not living in the middle of the Amazon jungles as a primitive hunter-gatherer, would have seen many hundreds of images of explosions in their lives, that one has to be an ‘expert’ in explosions in order to recognise one when one sees one, is obviously ridiculous.
The only reason that anyone would attempt to use it, is to dissuade others from recognising the clear evidence of their own eyes.
Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is about how people can be duped into seeing something that is not there (or the reverse). It is exactly that kind of deception that the mass media have put over much of the public since 2001.
As far as I am concerned all those who have proclaimed that they can’t see what are clearly explosions on the images I have referred to are behaving exactly as those unscrupulous tailors in Han Christian Andersen’s story.
No doubt, the the same will be said of me. However, I simply ask others, not committed in advance to one view or other over 9/11 to simply look at all the images I have refered to for themselves.
Again I suggest people check for themselves my posts, Bob’s posts and the posts of others and work out, for themselves, where the truth is most likely to lies.
There you go again, Daggy. Repeating the same thing over and over again won’t make it any truer. The fact that you think it’s an explosion does not make it one, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Prove it’s an explosion or get off the fucking pot.
It’s the vibe of thing, your honour.
“Again I suggest people check for themselves my posts, Bob’s posts and the posts of others and work out, for themselves, where the truth is most likely to lies.”
Geez, the subconscious is getting a workout today eh Dags?
dagsterman
“contain what are clearly recognisable, to anyone who has looked at a TV set for more that an total of a few hours in the last few decades, as explosions….”
They don’t look remotely like explosions to me. Remember..you asked….? @743
So now you are either going to say that I’m not qualified to have an opinion
@749 “FDB has decided that he is an expert on ‘collapses’…”
Or that I don’t need to be qualified to have an opinion…
@769: “that one has to be an ‘expert’ in explosions in order to recognise one when one sees one, is obviously ridiculous….”
Just…silly…..
Aw, daggett, I agree with you about murdoch.
Eric Sykes, it’s quite simple. You don’t need to be an expert to recognise an explosion, but you do need to be an expert to not recognise one. Okay?
“when every living adult, not living in the middle of the Amazon jungles as a primitive hunter-gatherer, would have seen many hundreds of images of explosions in their lives”
How many passenger aeroplanes hitting massive office towers have you witnessed Dagget? I willing to bet it’s no more than 2.
May the prinde be with you.
Ok Brett, ta…fogive me, I had forgotten this is a Bizarro comic.
OK daggett, I wanted this thread to reach 1000 as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of your rapidly diminishing credibility.
I mean at the start I thought you might have at least the germ of an idea of a point of a theory, but I think that I was sadly mistaken. Your failure to respond to jo’s questions @700 was pretty damaging, as was your claim about explosions that Brett mercifully untangled and a few other things I don’t have the patience or time to untangle myself.
So don’t worry about getting to 1000, don’t worry about the taunts, don’t worry about trying to convince anyone – just give it a rest.
You going Uncle Remus on us there Adrian?
I like it.
Daggett, please don’t respond to anyone’s substantive questions.
You can cut off my toes one by one and feed them to my cats, but please don’t respond to anyone’s substantive questions.
at 760:
Ok, so now you are trying to say that the US government were not involved in a conspiracy to start a war in Iraq because they did not finish of the conspiracy by planting the WMD, even though it was later shown that they had in fact made up and fabricated their supporting evidence. If this is not a conspiracy, then I don’t know what is.
1) By this stage they had already been proven to have provided fabricated evidence to the UN.
2) They had already achieved their objective of entering Iraq.
3) Yes, it leads on the savior Obama coming in and saving the people from Bush. That’s the plan. Bush is not the big boy, nor is Obama. They are simply tools used by the “big boys”.
Their objectives had been reached in Afghanistan and Iraq, using bush. Now, the people are disilliusioned and angry, so we will give them Obama to appease them. Then the people will think that their free democracy still works and will continue.
Bottom line, is that US government has been involved in countless instances of lies, deception and down right evil. Whether the building came down by an explosion or by the planes does not matter to me. Whether 9/11 was orchestrated internally or not does not even matter to me. All I can see for myself is that a lot of wrong things are happening in the world and not many are opposing these things. I am not for terrorism in any way at all, but the US has killed planty of foreign civilians before 9/11. And it all seems very convenient that they were now able to achieve the building of the oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan and also control the oil in Iraq.
“Their objectives had been reached in Afghanistan and Iraq”
What objectives?
Frist.
Creating a war that results in big profits from weapons sales, re-building, etc. the securing of Iraqs oil and the securing of transporting Turkmenistans oil and gas through afghanistan.
FDB this ones for you too:
“What objectives?”
And what has this to do with the alleged controlled demolition of the twin towers? Dagget, do you agree with Gordon’s guilt by association approach? Is this approach part of the truther cannon or do you think Gordon is toasted on prinde?
Wow…PatrickB is also so caught up on a typo.
Shit, you must have nothing else ot make you feel good.
Its not about guilt by association, but just looking at their track record.
Enjoy this PatrickB:
Present them.
They bhave presented themselves quite obviously without my help. Are you blind or something?
Read my ealrier posts that present them and explain all about the oil/gas pipeline that the US led conglomerate of companies were negotiating with the taliban well before 9/11. the taliban refused permission . if you dont realise iraq was all about oil then you probably have your head burried somewhere.
Sorry.
I guess you’ve never actually watched the episode of South Park you keep hilariously (oh, my aching sides!) linking to a clip from.
[HINT: the bit you keep linking to is the feedline, not the punchline.]
FWIW I agree Iraq was partly about oil (while mostly about domestic US politics and symbolism, and partly, a teeny little bit, about getting rid of Saddam, who lots of Bushlings thought had made fools of them in Gulf War Take #1, and who had actually been a pretty awful and brutal dictator).
Afghanistan… nope. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised (as the US did) that the only way to get a viable pipeline in would be with the consent of the Taliban and tribal warlords. You couldn’t possibly hope to guard the whole length of it 24/7 from relatively easy attack, so what would be the point?
The “wanted to build a pipeline, so came in and stirred up a hornet’s nest AWESUM!” theory has been widely and thoroughly discredited.
“Shit, you must have nothing else ot make you feel good. ”
Not true, I have this thread and my vial of purest prinde. Anyway, Gordo, I still can’t see the connection between the controlled demolition theory with special reference to the twin towers as espoused by the Dagget clan and you rambling discourse on US foreign policy. Dagget people can you please help Gordo out perhaps you have some YouTube videos you can refer ot?
What FDB said.
Also, Gordo, you might note that the trans-Afghan pipeline hasn’t actually been built yet, 8 years after 9/11.
They might start building one in a year or two. If so, it will be used to move natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, and possibly to India as well. The pipeline, and the gas moving through it, will be owned by the regional countries in the consortium — not by the US.
If, Gordo, you think that the US killed 3,000 of its own citizens in order to help Pakistan get some cheap energy, you are utterly prinding clueless.
daggett
… all you need to do is to maintain some degree of doubt confusion….
Well, you’re good at these:
* truth confusion
* logic confusion
* refutation confusion
* judgement confusion
* evidence confusion
so dealing out some ‘doubt confusion’ would be a doddle, daggsworthy.
FDB:
I have seen that episode. I know there is more to it. I searched specifically for the shortened version with only that line…just for you. That is the only part you need to hear. So, SMB.
I think you have it completely wrong FDB. Iraq was mostly about oil and they threw in the remaining reasons as excuses. There are plenty of other dictators around the world that the US is not moving to get rid of, but rather they have installed them as these dictators are willing to play ball with the US. Just as Saddam had before. Only problem for them now, was that Saddam told em where to go finally. They don’t seem to have a problem with the dictatorship in Saudi or many of the others in Africa, where huge multi nationals are making massive profits stealing resources from these countries.
“Afghanistan… nope. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised (as the US did) that the only way to get a viable pipeline in would be with the consent of the Taliban and tribal warlords. You couldn’t possibly hope to guard the whole length of it 24/7 from relatively easy attack, so what would be the point”
You obviously don’t have an ounce of sense. Exactly…the Taliban opposed the pipeline and hence the only way to get the pipeline in was to get rid of the Taliban. I think your brain is fried from too many drugs in your adolescence FDB.
At 790 whoever this wanker is:
“Also, Gordo, you might note that the trans-Afghan pipeline hasn’t actually been built yet, 8 years after 9/11.”
What does this prove? Except that the Taliban have been harder to get rid off then they thought.
Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are buying the natural gas from Turkmenistan
Not too mention that this project is being funded by ADB, Asian Development Bank, which is owned by members from 48 different countries. Just because the US is used as a tool to get something done, does not mean that the US itself will be receiving the benefits of the outcome. Its the big boys at the top that receive this outcome, international bankers, international investors etc. Presidents may come and go, but these big players keep playing. Its not about nationality, but more about the big players that are gaining hugely from this project. Business is such a crooked game these days, there are all sorts of ways to set up companies, trusts etc so as to not be seen.
The US still has much to gain from this project. Another key aim of the project is to supply natural gas to Europe and take the Russians out of the natural gas game.
Another point is the huge profits made from the actual war, in terms of weapons sales.
How about then going to ask why the US had bombed Afghanistan back in 1999. The reason was reprisal for the Al Quaeda Bombing of US Embassies in Africa. So, the question is why did Al Quaeda bomb US embassie in Africa. This then leads us to the really dark area of foreign mining companies basically raping, stealing and enslaving Africa.
Anyway, some people just don’t want to see clearly and would rather live in the illusion that they are free men, when they are most definitely not.
FDB:
I have seen that episode. I know there is more to it. I searched specifically for the shortened version with only that line…just for you. That is the only part you need to hear. So, SMB.
I think you have it completely wrong FDB. Iraq was mostly about oil and they threw in the remaining reasons as excuses. There are plenty of other dictators around the world that the US is not moving to get rid of, but rather they have installed them as these dictators are willing to play ball with the US. Just as Saddam had before. Only problem for them now, was that Saddam told em where to go finally. They don’t seem to have a problem with the dictatorship in Saudi or many of the others in Africa, where huge multi nationals are making massive profits stealing resources from these countries.
“Afghanistan… nope. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have realised (as the US did) that the only way to get a viable pipeline in would be with the consent of the Taliban and tribal warlords. You couldn’t possibly hope to guard the whole length of it 24/7 from relatively easy attack, so what would be the point”
You obviously don’t have an ounce of sense. Exactly…the Taliban opposed the pipeline and hence the only way to get the pipeline in was to get rid of the Taliban. I think your brain is fried from too many drugs in your adolescence FDB.
At 790 whoever this wanker is:
“Also, Gordo, you might note that the trans-Afghan pipeline hasn’t actually been built yet, 8 years after 9/11.”
What does this prove? Except that the Taliban have been harder to get rid off then they thought.
Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are buying the natural gas from Turkmenistan
Not too mention that this project is being funded by ADB, Asian Development Bank, which is owned by members from 48 different countries. Just because the US is used as a tool to get something done, does not mean that the US itself will be receiving the benefits of the outcome. Its the big boys at the top that receive this outcome, international bankers, international investors etc. Presidents may come and go, but these big players keep playing. Its not about nationality, but more about the big players that are gaining hugely from this project. Business is such a crooked game these days, there are all sorts of ways to set up companies, trusts etc so as to not be seen.
The US still has much to gain from this project. Another key aim of the project is to supply natural gas to Europe and take the Russians out of the natural gas game.
Another point is the huge profits made from the actual war, in terms of weapons sales.
How about then going to ask why the US had bombed Afghanistan back in 1999. The reason was reprisal for the Al Quaeda Bombing of US Embassies in Africa. So, the question is why did Al Quaeda bomb US embassie in Africa. This then leads us to the really dark area of foreign mining companies basically raping, stealing and enslaving Africa.
Anyway, some people just don’t want to see clearly and would rather live in the illusion that they are free men, when they are most definitely not.
Oh, goodie, everyone’s favourite drooling troglodyte is back. We’re so lucky to have you with us, Gordon. Those who suffer from any fear of intellectual inferiority must be immensely cheered by your presence.
One minute you’re telling us that 9/11 was to advance US foreign policy interests. The next minute you say that it was actually to benefit the
Jews‘international bankers, international investors etc’.So why did all those US government and military personnel — who are not part of the world of international banking — go along with a scheme to murder thousands of Americans?
Would you, as someone who was supposedly in the ADF at some point, have gone along with an illegal order to assist in the murder of thousands of Australians, in order to benefit international bankers? No? Then why do you think all those CIA, FBI, USAF, NYPD, NYFD, NY Port Authority etc etc personnel would have gone along with such a plan?
Oh, and here’s something else to cogitate upon. [Dictionary.com will explain what 'cogitate' means.] Who were the majority of people who died on September 11? Clue: not strawberry farmers, truck drivers, or porn stars.
No, the majority of people who died on 9/11 were the very international bankers and their support staff who this plot was supposedly meant to benefit, in your twisted world-view.
Personally, were I a principal of Merrill Lynch, I’d have politely asked at the conspiracy planning meetings, if the planes could be directed towards other buildings, rather than my office, so that I wouldn’t have to be burned alive by jet fuel.
Can we knock the “international investor” = “code word for Jew” thing on the head right now, cos there are some serious issues with international investment and privately owned trans national orgnisations.
Because some of those people may well fit some peoples definition of the term “jew” but many others don’t. Saudi and American people for example. I can think of a few Americans who did OK out of Iraq, and out of the fall out from 9/11 who have more to do ith the Catholic Church than any ZO/WG. In that sense the Iraq war was actually about privatisation.
I think I’ll repeat that…
The Iraq war was actually about privatisation.
The privatisation or outsourcing of military power.
I can’t speak for Gordon, givem his performance on another thread he might well be using “internation business” as a code for Jews.
He’s dumb if he is tho, cos international business only owes allegience to money.
US foreign policy has been about supporting their corporate success overseas since operation paperclip at least. The only difference now is that its getting to the point where the US itself is no longer necessary to support those entities. The markets global, the US serves their purposes, but they (ohhh they) own its institutions. In many ways the US has been looted especially since Iraq. Not by evil joos tho.
(By all means criticise racist bollocks, but … the US govt is owned by big business. Ultimately there’s not alot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, the Democrats seems “nicer” on the surface, since the 60s … thats about it tho. Both owned by big business. If you want to throw an ethnic generalisation onto that big business, its vicious with a painful sting.)
Jules:
No, i did not use the word international bankers as a code for Jew. they are of many backgrounds, including Jewish, but i do not beleive it has anything to do with being jewish.
At 794, the same old mate wanker who wont use his real name:
Starting off by throwing around insults, shows how intelligent you must be. Check this out:
Next you try to discount what I have said by inferring I am being racist. Where in the hell did you get the idea that I was referring to Jewish people? I most certainly was not, although some of these international bankers and business’ may be jewish, among other nationalities.
US foreign policy is tied to international business and banking. So, yes dim wit, my original statement stands that it may have been orchestrated to further US foreign policy, which is tied to benefiting international business and banking.
Using fancy words is not an indication of how intelligent you are. A parrot can learn fancy words. Trying to twists someones sentences around is not intelligence either. Even better than intelligence is wisdom. The wisdom to not be so arrogant as to become a fool, full of pride who thinks he knows it all and is not willing to learn anything new. Thus, in this way intelligence can sometimes turn one into a blind fool.
By the way, Merrill Lynch’s head office is in London, not in the US. So, anyone who unfortunate enough to have been at the World Trade Centre, would not have been at the top of the company. This goes for most of the other people who were unfortunate enough to have been there.
Next my friend, it doesn’t take the whole of the CIA or FBI or whatever to be involved. In fact it doesn’t even take any of them to be involved. It could be anyone contracted to this or just a few persons. Money buys most things these days.
Well, it is difficult for us to see something which we have been taught the opposite all of our lives. In fact not just taught the opposite, but brainwashed since the day you started school or watched a TV or read a newspaper. The world does not work the way you have been told or the way you wish it works. Just take a good honest look around and you will see this. Just start with Africa and the so called poverty situation over there.
This could easily be solved by simply allowing them to control and profit from their own resources. When I say profit, I mean the people who work in the mines actually get to see something too (not some shitty $1 a day crap). Multinationals are basically raping, stealing and running modern day slavery in african countries. And this not only goes on under the nose of the US, among others, but is due to the US and other countries. Oh, but they have a corrupt government. Yes, one that the west has backed, that gives out the contracts to the multinationals. Do you think Africans couldn’t learn how to operate a mine? Hmm…maybe you are truly the racist one if you believe this.
But it’s ok for you dive in headlong and do the very same thing whenever it suits you, Gordon?
I guarantee you’d get a bit more respect around here if you held back from labelling just about every man who disagrees with you a wanker/sissy/nerd, and every woman a man/self-hating feminist.
Especially if you think they insulted you first. Two to tango, and all that other stuff my dad taught me.
Regarding Paulus’s “international banker Jew” nonsense insinuation, what you wrote @ 796 was all that was required on the matter.
(and, please, enough with the SMBs! let’s keep it civil and out of the frickin’ gutter for goodness sake)
Regarding the ““international banker Jew” nonsense insinuation”, my antennae start twitching when people make vague reference to “international bankers” without specifying exactly who they mean. And, as wikipedia notes, a “myth popular with 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the World Trade Center on September 11″.
But Gordon has said that that wasn’t what he meant, so I apologise for having made the insinuation.
Happy birthday, yet again, thread!
This one’s for you, daggett
Paulus, there is a nasty strain of anti semeticism that goes along with some people who question 9/11. Kind of matches the nasty strain of anti arabic/anti muslim nastiness that goes along with some people who don’t question 9/11.
So anyway, Erik Prince, Cofer Black and Gary Jackson are very sus individuals. Not jewish, (and I don’t know if they had anything to actually do with 9/11 itself, tho Cofer Black’s failure to do his job properly definitely did.)
Nobody here would serously disagree that there are very rich, powerful, non- or even anti-democratic interests afoot in the world, influencing governments and international bodies in ways that could often be described as dodgy in the extreme.
There is however, as step between that and the execution of the 9/11 atrocities. A number of steps. Okay, a 3000ft high suspension bridge made of rotten timber lashed together with vines, like in Temple of Doom.
Even if a plausibly circumscribed actual group could be identified who would profit directly in some way from the murder of 4000 US bankers etc, that would still only fulfill one of the requirements for establishing guilt, i.e. that of motive.
There still remain opportunity and capacity, which are extremely doubtful – particularly when the above has not occurred, and no properly-defined suspect is in the frame. How can we assess their opportunity and capacity to commit the crime, when we don’t know who they are or what resources they had to draw upon?
Of course, motive, opportunity and capacity to commit a crime only themselves become relevant when some eyewitness testimony or physical evidence puts a suspect in the frame.
Which as the history of this thread shows, is the main problem for Daggett et al.
All you’ve really got is a motive. A motive without a suspect.
Eric Sykes wrote:
Indeed, I did ask, Eric.
As I wrote earlier to Bob:
And that is just as much applicable to you.
Brett wrote:
I think you need to read my post again.
What conclusion could I have drawn from FDB’s statement:
… except that he had to have some kind of expertise on demolitions?
How would anyone who is not an expert know what to have expected?
How can that be construed to mean that I am claiming one needs to be an ‘expert’ on explosions in order to be able to recognise the absence of one?
Logically, being able to recognise an explosion where one sees one would also entail being able to “not recognise one” as Eric Sykes put it. The only person here who, so far, has made the idiotic claim that one needed to be an ‘expert’ to do either is Bob.
As I wrote earlier, “The only reason that anyone would attempt to use [such an argument], is to dissuade others from recognising the clear evidence of their own eyes.”
—
FDB wrote in response to my earlier comment:
What I presume that FDB means to imply in that is that, as the building above collapses it will neccessarily force the air, within the collapsed part of the building downwards, But not only air, but, apparently “a great deal of various other materials (interior plaster walls, bits of masonry, [etc.]” Somehow all this material will be dragged down trhough the uncollapsed floors underneath even faster that the visible rapidly moving outside collapse front. And it will be pushed along with such force that we have to expect windows below the visible collapse front to be broken and that material ejected through it.
I would have thought even just to state this would be be make its absurdity more than apparent.
I think if FDB had thought about this for more than 10 seconds, an obvious problem would have occurred to him:
1. For the air to be forced downwards some means to capture that air, analagous to a piston, has to exist. As the floors above are clearly breaking up (to considerably understate matters) surely any air in the building would simply escape through the more than ample gaps that would have been made by those floors breaking up.
2. Even if sufficient air, etc had somehow been captured by the tower above and forced down, why would the air and debris have broken through at one (or two) sharply focused places and nowhere else?
It’s obvious that either FDB hasn’t thought this through and has simply concocted (or regurgitated) an incomplete explanation to avoid having to acknowledge that the only way that the violent ejection of that plume of debris can be explained is that it is the result of an explosion.
—
Bob wrote:
If you want to avoid what you claim to be my repetition, could I, again, suggest that you either defend your statement, implying that only ‘experts’ can comment upon whether or not the images are images of explosions or withdraw it?
Bob continued:
Surely that would cut both ways. Why should the fact that you maintain that they are not explosions any more make them not explosions.
My simple point, again, is that, if neither of us need to be ‘experts’ to be able to recognise those images as being explosions, or not explosions as the case may be.
My other, far more basic, point is this:
If, apart from Bob, we are agreed that one doesn’t need to be an ‘expert’, then either one side of the discussion or the other is lying. Either it is me, or it is Bob, FDB, PatrickB, Eric Sykes and possibly others I may have missed. Adrian? Jo? Nick? Liam? Until one or the other, whichever it is, desists from lying, this discussion cannot proceed.
The only way around this impasse, is place on the record our respective claims as I have done, and allow others, who are not committed, in advance, to one or other position to form their own judgements.
“The only way around this impasse, is place on the record our respective claims as I have done, and allow others, who are not committed, in advance, to one or other position to form their own judgements.”
I’m not committed to anything Daggett.
Show me some positive evidence for an explanation other than planes causing fires causing collapse, and I’ll be happy to take it on board.
Whereas you will reject anything that doesn’t fit your explanation, no matter how compelling.
That you can’t see this is obvious – and of course I don’t expect to get through to you. Again, like you, I’m just pointing it out in case anyone else reading might be foolish enough to follow you into committing intellectual suicide.
“Show me some positive evidence for an explanation other than planes causing fires causing collapse, and I’ll be happy to take it on board.”
Be careful FDB, you’re inviting another YouTube spam. You know what I mean, underqualified nerds with stats programs and grainy, pixelated video claiming they have definitive evidence. What I want from Dagget is direct evidence of the conspiracy both it it’s formation and execution. As it stands we have very clear evidence that the towers were brought down by the fires and structural damage caused by the impact of the ‘planes. “lets place on the record our respective claim[s]” I have done this and I have just done it again. It is not a claim made by me by the way, it is the result of seeing the event occur.
“contain what are clearly recognisable … as explosions” clearly recognisable to you dagster, to you.
“then either one side of the discussion or the other is lying”…sheeesh…I am not lying and I deeply resent that accusation dagsterman. I just don’t see anything that looks like an explosion in any of the material you have so far linked to in support of your assertion of pre-planned demolition….none of which btw constitutes evidence…..it just constitutes what it is…a series of images open to diverse interpretation….just like life really
You can repeat yourself as much as you like, Daggy, and have, and I will continue to pillory you for it.
What you refer to was not my “statement”, but three questions, namely: “Who says it’s an explosion? You, Daggy? What makes you an expert on explosions?”
Not only were these questions NOT a statement, but you’ve also inferred incorrectly. I don’t imply that “only ‘experts’ can comment” on the images; I imply that YOUR opinion on whether the image shows an explosion (i.e. of a controlled demolition) is worthless as your opinion is not expert, i.e. not authoritative. People can comment however they like. People can claim to see whatever they like. That doesn’t make their claims or their opinions accurate or reliable. THAT is the implication, Daggy.
As you are no expert, and you have been unable to prove that what you see was, indeed, an explosion, we can only conclude that you do NOT know an explosion when you see one and that your opinion, as I implied – and as I’ll state categorically now – is worthless.
Hope that helps.
St Brigid in a brothel you are one lost, misbegotten soul of dopey delusion. I maintain that they are NOT explosions because THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE EXPLOSIONS. You maintain that they ARE explosions because you think they look like explosions, despite the fact that there is no evidence supporting this belief of yours. Do you see the difference, Daggy?
Huh? If…then what?
FMD.
Buehler? Buehler? Congratulations, Daggy, that is the most fucked-up attempt at Chewbacca Defense I have ever seen. Honestly, that’s so bad I’m wondering if you’re on drugs right now.
Whether whoever agrees on whatever you mean by needing to be an expert has no bearing on whoever is lying. You are right that one of us is lying, however. I’ll give you a hint: it’s the bloke who reckons the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
As for the procession of this discussion, who gives a fuck? You’ve been reduced to arguing that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions because you reckon, from watching YouTube videos, that it looks – TO YOU – like controlled demolitions. That’s all your argument rests upon: your opinion. BFD.
This isn’t an impasse, Daggy; it’s a dénouement.
FDB wrote,
Then PatrickB wrote:
And PatrickB has already written wrote earlier:
Actually what has happened is that an investigation has been conducted. As there is no evidence that a controlled explosion was in anyway responsible for the disaster there is no-one who can attest to the plot.
Of course, I reject all those assertions and my respective rejecting of those respective assertions does no more to advance that discussion than your making those assertions in the first place.
So, can we leave those claims and counter-claims aside and discuss the evidence at hand?
Can both of you begin by acknowledging, as I asked above that either I must be lying when I claim to see what I maintain what is clearly recognisable as explosions in those images, or both of you, and a few others, besides, are lying when you maintain that you see nothing in those images which is recognisable as explosions?
Or do you happen to agree with the conclusion that must logically follow from Bob’s statement that most people in this discussion, presuambly including you and me, not being ‘experts’ on explosions are not capable of knowing one way or the other what they see in those images?
Clearly, lying about what one sees in straightforward photographic and video evidence and then using that lie as a basis to pronounce that one has won the debate poses great difficulty for those wishing to debate this objectively and rationally and that needs to be acknowledged, whichever of us are guilty of doing that.
FDB, could you then respond to my response to your nonsense explanation for that plume of debris being violently ejected from the North Tower?
—
PatrickB wrote:
Now, where did I say that, Patrick?
“Now, where did I say that, Patrick?”
I don’t know, somewhere in this thread you acknowledged there was no direct evidence for a controlled demolition on the twin towers. Or perhaps I dreamt it, in which case will you now present us with the direct evidence of aforementioned disaster?
I don’t accept you assertion that you must be lying.
“Can both of you begin by acknowledging, as I asked above that either I must be lying when I claim to see what I maintain what is clearly recognisable as explosions in those images, or both of you, and a few others, besides, are lying when you maintain that you see nothing in those images which is recognisable as explosions?”
For myself I don’t think you are lying, I think you are badly mistaken. I think that any reasonable person, looking dispassionately at your posts would consider them, and the material you have linked to as – at best – badly mistaken – at worst – stubbornly delusional.
So, at best I think you and other truthers have made an error of judgment. And I still deeply resent the accusation of lying thrown at me dagster and I await your mature recognition that an image can be genuinely read in a myriad of different ways, especially when looked at by ordinary folk like you or I as opposed to those who have the professional skill to make a deeper judgment, and then what’s more, back that judgment up with accurate and reasonable, scientific and uncontestable data and here comes the twister, here it comes…….evidence.
I have just skimmed through the latest posts so my appologies if this has already been pointed out but all references to freefall so far have been in relation to freefall in a vacuum, these buildings were not in a vacuum but rather were at sea level. 50% slower than freefall in a vacuum might well equate to freefall at sea level for some of the larger sections of the buildings.
And at the same time not only overcoming the resistance from the massive intact structure below but also doing the phenomenal work required to pulverise virtually all the concrete, hmmm (any ‘work’ done during the collapse must slow the collapse).
The speed of these collapses is only justifiable if explosives were both removing the intact building below and doing the work of pulverising the concrete.
In Bob’s most recent long hysterical rant, he wrote:
So, now you are deeming me not to be an ‘expert’ because I claim to see something that you say is not there, which is the reverse of what you said earlier.
Still, I would think that being an ‘expert’ or not is beside the point as every adult in the world should be capable of recognising an explosion when he/she sees one and trying to imply that one needs to be to do so, as you did above is plain stupid. (Apologies for the bad link in my previous post.)
Bob wrote,
I am glad that Bob, at least, accepts this point.
As further claims and counter-claims as to who is lying and who is not would be pointless, all I can do is suggest that others view the images for themselves and make up their own minds.
—
Sorry. Eric Sykes if the implication that you draw from my statement offends you, but, as I said, either I must be a liar or you must be.
I personally find offensive the way that so many people, who profess to be humanitarian, progressive and anti-war, are so willing to lie to themselves and to others in order to perpetuate the Big Lie of 9/11 that has been used as a pretext to murder hundreds of thousands in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Has anyone noticed that the words “conspiracy” and “explosions” both contain exactly ten letters?
Coincidence? I think not.
Nope. Your non-expertise is the premise, not the conclusion. Comprehension FAIL.
Thanks for correcting the link, but still no statement there, Daggy. That’s twice you’ve lied on the same point.
Also, your assertion that “every adult in the world should be capable of recognising an explosion” is unsubstantiated assertion and, in your case – I’m assuming that you’re an adult, but that might be over-generous – falsified, as you clearly see an explosion where there was none.
People lie to themselves and others all the time, Daggy. What’s your excuse?
So..let me get this straight, you put the lime in the coconut and drink it all up…oh…sorry…you say people should “make up their own minds” but when they tell you they have you accuse them of lying….unless they agree with you..then we’d all be prinde truthers together eh? Ta dags, that, you see just reinforces your position as stubbornly delusional.
I too read a post from you Mr daggett, in which you admitted there was no direct evidence of controlled demolition of the three buildings. I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-read your posts to find that little nugget.
But you seem to have the time, (though, strangely not sufficient to read a NIST report). So how about you find it and report back to the seven of us who are still perusing this?
Daggett said at 719
There was also the daggett @ 732, who conceded:
Casey #817, this is all your fault!
What? how did I start this?
We crossed before I put the link up.
Eric Sykes,
This is an image of a building being demolished with explosives to be found on this page.
This is one of many images of the North Tower collapsing.
Are you seriously maintaining that nothing in the latter in any way reminds you, in any way, of anything in the former?
Well dagsterman they are both buildings and they are both falling down. One has explosions starting at the bottom and running up. That’s about it from me on the “this looks like that” show and tell. I am serious, I am not lying.
And a turtle can sometimes look a bit like a tortoise, depending on the light and one’s point of view of course.
Daggett,
I thought the point of the ‘nano-thermite shaped charges’ was that they focused their energy very tightly so as to cut through steel beams without creating a large visible explosion?
Anyway, my major question is: what do you think a skycraper collapse would look like without the use of explosive?
Y’see, it’s not enough to just show pix of a demolition and pix of the WTC. If you want to seem more convincing, show us what a tall building collapse looks like when there are no explosives involved. And then explain how it differs from the WTC pix.
But look at all the hours of fun we have had! But trust you, Paul Norton, to find out the secret meaning of the word Shelm. Now if you will excuse me, I just have to go check who I originally said it to. I’m hoping it’s not who I think it is. But for the record, I was talking about the peanut butter.
But look at all the hours of fun we have had! But trust you, Paul Norton, to find out the secret meaning of the word Shelm. Now if you will excuse me, I just have to go check who I originally said it to. I’m hoping it’s not who I think it is. But for the record, I was talking about the peanut butter.
Languid C op cit mentioned a nugget from daggett.
Is that a naggett, or a dugget?
But I dig it, man. Also, I like “daggster” and “dagsterman”.
Dagget,
Looks like you did acknowledge that there was no direct evidence for a controlled demolition of the twin towers. Why not swallow you prinde and admit that you’ve been a bit silly and that in future I’ll let the adults have the discussions.
Unless you’d like to keep this thread going, but if that’s the case you’ll have to get some new arguments. You’re becoming boring. I’d often wondered what would happen to a believer in a conspiracy theory when they are relentless bombarded with sound refutations of their patently ludicrous ideas. Now I know, they become very, very boring.
Without 9/11 Bush could not have invaded Iraq. And that was all he was about. That was the reason they put the dummy in there.
LIHOP
I don’t need any direct evidence. The scare tactics of the big boys that run the world have always been the same. And it worked perfectly again. Scaring the people into believing that they need the system to survive and protect them.
Other than that it all seems so convenient. US trying to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. Taliban refuse. Next 9/11 happens. US full scale invasion of Taliban, then Iraq all mostly based on 9/11.
Getting direct proof is very hard when the party running the investigation is the accused. When the party running the investigation was asked why they were not investigating the paper trail to find out who financed 9/11 their response was “its not important”. There are just so many dodgy circumstances surrounding 9/11.
The US government has already been proven themselves unworthy of being trusted. You think its far fetched to believe that they may kill their own citizens lives. They don’t care about their own citizens lives. Which is why the send young boys in to die for oil.
Checkout Zeitgeist the movie. Hey, if you dont agree, then you have nothing to lose.
Another thing. Really, do you think that a building would fall like this from being hit by a plane and catching fire way up the top. You would think it would tip over. Just looking at the videos is looks just like a controlled demolition.
Again, these buildings were built to withstand such an attack by an airplane.
No,
I wouldn’t expect it to “tip over”.
Built to easily withstand very strong forces of (more or less) horizontal winds.
Built to withstand a collision by an airliner, rather than an ‘attack’.
The gentlemen who planted explosives in the basement (1993?) wanted to topple a tower over so that it could take other buildings down as it toppled, to incresase the death toll.
They failed. Their little mates tried again later, apparently.
So, you would expect it to implode and crumble from the the bottom?
Gordon, have a look at the following video:
Vérinage Compilation – Explosiveless Demolition
These are all also controlled demolitions.
daggett will be the first to point out they were concrete, not steel, and that they’d been prepared beforehand for demolition by removing everything but the support structures themselves. There would be numerous other dissimilarities he could list for us, which would all be kinda irrelevant as I’m not arguing the Twin Towers were brought down by CT, and it’s obvious enough none of these building had fully loaded planes crashed into them, before burning intensively for hours.
The point is that it was essentially found to be a similar principle at work.
Using vérinage, the supports for 2 or more floors are forcibly removed from the side by cables.
In the Twin Towers case, the were ‘removed’ by the fires weakening the steel supports of the floors already damaged by the crash to the point where they couldn’t continue to hold up the 30,000+ tonnes sitting on top of them.
The top portion of the building collapes onto the bottom portion, and gravity *by itself* does the rest, floor by floor. Each floor crushed adds to the mass of the top portion, creating a snowball effect.
The buildings all more or less implode into their own footprints – without any need at all for the *synchronistically timed, floor by floor* detonations insisted (ad nauseum) by the video you linked to above.
As daggett has previously conceded on this thread, there is no evidence whatsoever of explosives having been detonated in the Twin Towers.
Nick:
Good video and interesting point.
I’m still not convinced that the US government was not involved given their track record of shadiness, deceit and in some cases downright evil.
General shadiness does not necessitate guilt in every unhappy incident, gordon.
Otherwise the police could just find one genuine murderer, and charge him with every murder; absurd, wouldn’t you agree?
I prefer this video of the effects of a jetliner hitting the WTC than pixel counts and one sided views of the collapes.
All I know is that George W Bush and most of the US government should be facing war crime charges, amongst others and possibly international terrorism charges too. I’d say John Howard and Tony Blair would be in there too.
Interesting video Nick, the buildings look as though they are extensively weakened throughout before the 2 or 3 floors are collapsed. It would be interesting to find out if indeed the whole building must be significantly weakened for these collapses to work the way they do. (it is actually normal practice to significantly weaken structures prior to controlled demolition).
All those collapses look like they slow up to me after the initial freefall period, (unlike the towers which continue speeding up all the way to the ground) although I admit I can’t measure this accurately. The first building does not collapse all the way to the ground as you can clearly see at 37s one floor is left standing.
You understand of course that these are precision engineered controlled demolitions? And that the effect that fire has on steel is to soften it, and that when steel is softened to the point of yielding it will bend and buckle? It will not fail completely and instantaniously.
AND when steel buckles it still retains some strength so a slower collapse is expected, not to mention the impossibility of getting dozens of steel columns to fail simultaniously due to fire.
You are right though, those precision engineered controlled demolitions do have many similarities with the engineered controlled demolitions of the towers.
“And that the effect that fire has on steel is to soften it, and that when steel is softened to the point of yielding it will bend and buckle?”
Which is what happened to the twin towers. A lot of structural steel was heated to a point at which it weakened and buckled, this caused a collapse and a great deal of weight fell on to an already weakened structure, which caused a great deal of weight to fall on to an already weakened structure … do you get my drift? So no need for that last sentence eh?
You’ve already made an excellent point, best not to over reach yourself. Oh, unless you have some direct eviden … now where did he go?
PAtrickB:
again speaking with a smug tone. what for?
you sound very smug.
PatrickB, the rapid onset is one of many pieces of direct evidence of explosives, you have agreed that fire can only possibly soften steel to the point it yields through the buckling process, which is a slower collapse mechanism as some strength is retained throughout the buckling process.
THEN you talk about the upper block falling onto the lower structure, the upper block can only fall if there is a mechanism that allows it to fall by removing the columns, fire softening the steel to a tipping point will not remove the columns, they will still be there and will still retain a significant amount of strength throughout the buckling process.
The buckling process and the upper block falling are mutually exclusive.
PatrickB wrote:
No, I did not. (Please take note Casey, Nick,) I wrote:
… and:
Now, Patrick, Casey and Nick are entitled to take those words to mean the same as “there isn’t any evidence whatsoever for [controlled explosion]” but that is not the literal meaning of those words and that is not what I intended them to mean.
I think it’s instructive that Patrick has avoided answering this question which was included with the second of my responses above:
And FDB has yet to respond to this.
And Paulus has yet to respond to this.
—
Welcome back Andrew
andrew @ 811,
“[...] all references to freefall so far have been in relation to freefall in a vacuum, these buildings were not in a vacuum but rather were at sea level. 50% slower than freefall in a vacuum might well equate to freefall at sea level for some of the larger sections of the buildings.”
???
andrew @ 839,
“You are right though, those precision engineered controlled demolitions do have
manysimilarities withthe engineered controlled demolitions of the towersthe Twin Towers collapses.”The Twin Towers collapsed well outside their own footprints.
Ambigulous: “General shadiness does not necessitate guilt in every unhappy incident, gordon.
Otherwise the police could just find one genuine murderer, and charge him with every murder; absurd, wouldn’t you agree?”
But what if the Bush admin had heard there was a terrorist attack coming at a time when they were determined to implement an expansionist military policy. And what if they had an impossible task convincing the electorate to go with that policy. The neocons at PNAC wrote in 2000 that there would need to be a Pearl Harbour to implement their policies. The actions and inactions of people like Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Zelikow are very, very suspicion. Both before, and after 9/11.
Cheney – with his wife – was already in the bunker control room giving orders for NORAD to stand down.
Zelikow – all through 2001 it was Zelikow’s job in the Whitehouse to bury any reports of Richard Clarke’s or Tenet’s re imminent terrorist attacks. Clarke and Tenet were kept at distance. The President doesn’t know anything about any attacks, and that is policy.
Bush – the August 6 memo was in part a response by Tenet and Clarke to get information to Bush about an imminent attack. Its title, bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside US. Bush’s response was to go on holiday and do nothing. Not a single thing was done on the back of that report to Bush.
Ashcroft fought with the FBI over terrorist alerts. He said point blank he did not want to hear about it. But Ashcroft refused to fly commercial planes because of a threat of terrorist attacks. Hmmmmm….
Extremely suspicious.
The Bush admin, didn’t have to be involved, and didn’t have to know everthing. All they had to do was nothing and wait for the event that would give them the opportunity to set up military bases around the richest reserves of oil and gas in the world. Around thirteen trillion dollars worth.
As was revealed in the Plame case: despite the smoke and mirrors, the President knows more, and knows it earlier than everyone else.
I note that a lot of the ‘refutation’ of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the World Trade Centre Towers is based on the argument that it was not bottom-up.
All that ‘proves’ is that they were not classic demolitions.
The reason that the sequencing of the explosions were not bottom-up should be obvious and barely worth further discussion.
If the destruction had proceed from the bottom up, then clearly nobody would have been fooled by the official explanation that the ‘collapses’ were somehow caused by the crash of the aircraft.
Nick points out that the “Twin Towers collapsed well outside their own footprints.” Well, obviously they would have, wouldn’t they?
If the building is blown apart from a great height, instead of being allowed to remain intact at each floor level until it reaches ground level, then we would expect a lot of the debris not to fall within the footprint of the building (unlike what happened with WTC 7).
However the striking thing about the pattern of the fallen debris is it’s unlikely symmetry.
If the destruction had proceeded from the bottom up, then clearly nobody would have been fooled by the official explanation that the ‘collapses’ were somehow caused by the crash of the aircraft.
I think by now, the list of charecteristics of the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers from the web site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ber repeating here.
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
The charecteristics of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ also bear repeating:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional (i.e Danny Jowenko, referred to above)
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
(I have not included above the links within that list, not wishing to push my luck with whatever it is about this site’s Content Management system that often causes posts containing links to disappear. However, I think it would be well worth people’s time to visit that site and follow those links.)
—
Eric Sykes, You did not answer my question. Obviously there are differences between the two demolitions, but I asked.
I will have to take your answer as ‘no’. At least this answer together with your previous answer:
… to my previous question to Bob:
… will give others, able to see, some idea of the likely worth of opinions expressed by you elsewhere on this forum.
—
Also another film of the ‘collapse’ of the South Tower, apparently not widely available is well worth viewing. It is linked to on the abovementioned site. The direct link is here. It is labeled “WTC 2 Explodes”.
Let’s see whether Bob, FDB, Eric Sykes, PatrickB and others will again insist that they don’t see explosions in that video either.
A little physics:
“free fall in a vacuum” would not affect the outcome. Air resistance is a tiny force, relatively speaking, in this situation.
“at sea level”?
Air density is greatest at sea level, but at the top of the Towers it’s not significantly lower, so the effect (on lowering air resistance)is a small percentage of a tiny force, basically negligible in this instance.
Gravitational force (and acceleration) reduces with altitude, but the Earth’s radius exceeds 6,000 km; the effects of being above sea level are negligible in the WTC experiment.
All due honour to Isaac Newton. We could do worse than to study his concepts carefully.
Sorry, I should have written:
I will have to take your answer as ‘yes’, that is, nothing in the image of the collapse of the North Tower reminds you of the explosions in the latter video.
—
For once, I am in agreement with Nick. The difference in free fall speed in a vacuum and in air would not be significant (that is, unless, we are talking about feathers and not steel and concrete), and nowhere near 50% so andrew is wrong in that regard.
—
Please surprise me, Nick, and give us another point on which we can agree. Please take a look at the abovementioned video (near the bottom of that post) and tell us what you actually see and not what suits the position you are trying to defend in this debate.
daggett,
suppose I agree with you and say it was a controlled demolition. Whats next?
I’d have to ask: who did it, how did they do it, why did they do it, and when did they do it (place the explosives).
Brendon
That’s a point raised by many posters here. Unfortunately daggett seems to regard it as a “side issue” even though it seems central to his apparent scenario.
The most amusing claim for me (at the moment -it changes regularly) is the idea that explosive residue was found in the dust or on steel samples from the collapsed building.
Indeed given that buildings were full of all sorts of things that contained all sorts of chemicals, then there is a very simple explanation for why chemicals were found. The number one culprit was likely building materials. The chemical traces found are as expected given the building materials used, not ridiculous fantasies involving thermite.
It gets even funnier when the truthers trot out beams cut by oxyacetylene torches during the clean up as “evidence.”
Anyway, an interesting article found just now.
“And FDB has yet to respond to [link]”
Which linked to this:
Sorry.
Which linked to this:
It does Daggy, you’re right. That is truly a massively and obviously wrong reading of what I said. Verging on the absurd, yes.
I think you’ve gotten yourself confused (again), and I think I know how, so look, I’m a nice guy and I’ll help you out.
I mentioned the plumes of material being ejected many floors below the front of the collapse, because it suggests something odd was going on many floors below the front of the collapse. Isolated, ramdom puffs of stuff being ejected from lower floor windows would indicate something pretty serious – perhaps connected with jet fuel fires, but not at all compatible with any known controlled demolition method.
As those puffs are clearly NOT occurring where a floor is currently collapsing, it is just as clear to anyone trying to read for meaning that I was talking about two completely different things.
Now please can you resond to the following propositions. I have observed by now, particularly in your transactions with the esteemed M. Terwilliger, that you simply ignore questions you don’t like, and concentrate on filibustering on some minor detail or, as above, utterly boneheaded misinterpretation. So I’m going with simple propositions instead, I suppose in the hope that it’s just that you’re allergic to question marks or something.
Note that I have helfully provided two and only two available responses for each. Simply cut and paste the list, and bold your selected response:
1) When a floor of a building collapses, smoke, dust and other debris is likely to come flying out the windows, whether in a controlled demolition or not. Agree / Disagree
2) A sequence in a controlled demolition is orderly, bottom-up, evenly timed series of explosions. Agree / Disagree
3) That video shows something different on all counts – chaotic, top-down, big plumes of smoke and debris shooting out 15 to 20 floors below the front of the collapse. Agree / Disagree
4) It’s also, as Shaun has pointed out, in no way controlled. Huge chunks are flying everywhere. Agree / Disagree
Should you wish to briefly expand on your answers you may do so, but please do me the courtesy of answering them all.
And then take that new-found skill and run with it. Answer everyone’s questions, even when you don’t really wanna. Then you’ll have a leg to stand on when demanding answers of others.
By the way, your assertion that where two people disagree one must be a liar is just amazing. Do you honestly think that? I don’t. I guess one of us is lying.
Or a Cretan.
Or something.
Once again the old red herring.
Look: not all Cretans are liars! Just as not all ladies of Lesbos are ladily inclined. Eat up your souvlaki and leave us alone…
“Look: not all Cretans are liars!”
Well, you would say that.
Not all of us are communists.
You’ll be hearing from my lawyer.
Andrew blahs
“the rapid onset is one of many pieces of direct evidence of explosives”
No it isn’t. Can you provide direct evidence of the conspiracy e.g. witness statements etc (we’ve been through this)? Then we’ll move on to the direct evidence for the explosives in place, and then on we go to the actual direct evidence of the explosives being detonated. Andrew … Andrew?
Daggett,
So you do have direct evidence for a controlled explosion? Great wheel it out and we on the side of reason will all look like fools and you can do a victory dance.
[Daggy presents long list of highly circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted as supporting official report conclusions]
I present: ‘planes hitting buildings at high speed, towers catching fire, towers collapsing.
What I want to know is why this discussion has thus far ignored the The Pentagon?
Brendon, I tend to agree with everything you said @845.
I’m not saying it means anything specific, its just sus enough to demand more questions. I think Cheney actually said “The orders still stand” in refernce to the “stand down orders” that had been given to NORAD, suspiciously enough after Black and Tenets briefings on 10 July. (IIRC) Thats according to Norman Mineta’s actual testimony. Alex Jones was responsible for turning Mineta’s testimony from “The order’s still stand” to a claim that Cheney actually gave orders to Stand Down.
In pursuit of a tabloid headline Jones got it wrong, and missed that Mineta’s testimony contradicted Cheney’s significantly, especially wrt to when he actually entered the bunker and took command of the situation, which (again iirc) was, if nothing else unconstitutional.
But anyway …
“The Truther wars are over, and Loud, Dumb and Misguided hold illimitable dominion over all. The moment for justice has passed, and the truth movement has become an Alex Jonestown.”
An online friend wrote that, and they were spot on.
‘Cause it wuz exorcised?
860 was in response to 858.
Because we all know that a nano-thermite armed controlled demolition team hit the Pentagon at high speed.
For that matter, what about Flight 93, the one that crashed in a field on its way to Washington DC? Was there a building (Capitol? White House?) covertly wired up for demolition in readiness for Flight 93 to crash into it, thwarted by the unexpectedly heroic actions of the airline passengers? If so, presumably it was just as covertly unwired after 9/11. Without anybody noticing, of course.
Well, if it’s truth you’re after then questions are all well and good.
But if you want The Truth, you’re only allowed to ask The Questions.
Y’see?
The Pentagon was obviously a huge version of one of Solomons Jars. The US military captured the Cuthulu spawned servant of the Ogdru Jahad that was working with Nazis in germany. (Mike Mignola was wrong when he wrote hellboy, the Anung Un Rama is not a dude with a cool haircut but it has a red right hand. (Cos of all the blood.) )
Jack Parsons and L Ron Hubbard performed the babalon working in march 46, and as a result the cleft in spacetime allowed something through. This critter was born to that well known hellspawn Barbara Bush on July 6 1946, and rose to power in the US through the 90s. Not being fully human it only needed a gestation period of about 4 months.
This creature had come to earth with a mission, to free the servant of Ogdru Jahad that was trapped in the pentagon. hence 9/11. The towers were just a distraction, and a conveinient source of blood and pain for the servant, which is either Negral or Irra Jahad most probably.
I really thought all this was obvious. – jules @400and something
(I can’t really agree with Paul Burns that the pentagon was exorcised, based on all the blood its shed since…)
What is there to say about the pentagon really? Actual evidence tho, not hearsay and conjecture.
The Pentagon! Flight 93!
Yes. Of course!
9/11 was a government plot. Only government had the means to pull it off!
The WTC strikes were a diversion. Flight 93 was destined for the White House. But it was the only plane brought down by a “passenger” revolt. This was a clever ruse to make it look like that the centre of US government was an actual target. In any case, Bush was out of town on the day of the attack
So … the real, actual target of 9/11 … the Pentagon! The real actual target of 9/11?
… Donald Rumsfeld.
Cos of the trillions of dollars?
Now we’re getting somewhere. Sometimes all it takes is the right question.
“What is there to say about the pentagon really? Actual evidence tho, not hearsay and conjecture.”
Yes jules, but in case you hadn’t noticed we’ve taken 800+ posts to discuss the demolition of the twin towers based on er… heresay and conjecture. It just doesn’t seem fair somehow to leave the pentagon out of it.
PatrickB,
I said the rapid onset was direct evidence of explosives and then you start rambling on about providing evidence of the “conspiracy”, you would not make a very good cop if you ignore all the physical evidence of a crime just because you don’t have anyone confessing.
WRT to my earlier post about the freefall at sea level as opposed to a vacuum, I will retract that because I can’t back it up with equations, but the premise is not unfounded.
If you were to drop a block of wood from the top of the towers it would take significantly longer than a steel beam would to hit the ground because of air resistance, most intact steel framed buildings have the average density of a block of wood (they could theoretically float if their widows etc maintained ingegrety), so if part of the upper block remained intact as Bazant and Zhou speculate then it is not unreasonable to suggest that freefall for those sections could be significantly slower than freefall in a vacuum.
Certainly air resistance would have little effect on individual steel members or hunks of concrete, I am only explaining why I wrote what I did and don’t want to get into an any discussion about it as I have retracted the post.
I always thought that exorcism of the Pentagon didn’t work.
Nope, not “a lot” of the refutation. Just one point.
What proof do you have that they WERE demolitions, OF ANY KIND?
They weren’t demolitions at all: they collapsed from the point where two large aircraft struck them, causing extensive fires that led to the collapse of the buildings.
So the explosions had to be top-down because your conspiracy theory wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. That doesn’t make sense.
Why would “we” expect that, Daggy? And it wasn’t “blown apart from a great height”.
What “unlikely symmetry”?
You should know by now, Daggy, that too many links causes the system to identify your comment as spam. Which is ironic in your case, isn’t it?
It’s evident from those lists that you’ve simply been regurgitating Truther garbage for several weeks now, and all of it has been thoroughly debunked here or elsewhere. If you feel particularly confident in any of it, produce the evidence and we’ll have it out again.
I don’t. Honestly, I don’t.
Brett,
Nobody knows what the plans were for flight 93, some speculate it might have been heading for WTC 7, in which case they just went ahead with the demolition anyhow.
Some speculate it was shot down rather than crashed because of it’s unusually large debris field.
Some even speculate that flight 93 didn’t crash there at all because the scar in the ground was there prior to 9/11 as this vid shows.
I don’t see any need to post the same post a second time, FDB. I think most of us would have worked out what had happened. I also at least once similarly neglected to match an opening <blockquote> tag with a closeing <\blockquote>, and in hindsight, I should not have had blank lines between the different items in the list of observed characteristics of the WTC tower ‘collapses’, but that can’t be changed, unfortunately.
FDB responded to my earlier post:
There are a large number of “plumes of material being ejected many floors below the front of the collapse” (or what I argue are squibs or mis-timed demolition explosions) recorded in various footages of the ‘collapses’. Surely, FDB can’t be claiming that the aviation fuel found its way to all those different parts of the towers and was able to continue burning for all that length of time?
In any case, why if it was caused by burning aviation fuel would no similar phenomena have been observed, except for immediately in front of the wave of collapse?
Most of the fuel burnt shortly after the impact. In the South Tower the fires has almost burnt out 51 minutes after Flight 175 struck. We know that because Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer, who, in a phenomenal athletic feat climbed 34 floors from the 44th floor to the 78th floor, close to where United Airlines Flight 175 had slammed into the World Trade Center South Tower radioed the following message back to his controllers :
Of course, minutes later the building containing only two isolated flames somehow turned into an exploding, collapsing inferno and Oreo Palmer perished. Part of the cover-up of 9/11 was the refusal of the Port Authority of New York to release the tape for over a year until forced to do so by the New York Times.
For me, this particularly sad. An experienced firefighter, using his calm, professional judgement, more than his undoubted courage, performs an extraordinary physical feat in order to save lives and limit further damage and destruction to the South Tower. At the end of the day he should have deservedly lauded as a hero.
Instead, he is murdered and his experience and professional judgement is implicitly diminished by the lying official acccount of 9/11.
There is simply no way that he could have stood where he did if the steel around him was melting to the point where it would have catastrophically failed minutes later. There is simply no way he could have failed to notice that heat.
I have written more of this in the article “Science Show too quick to close discussion of World Trade Center collapses” of 24 Dec 08. in case anyone is interested.
As to FDB’s questions:
1) When a floor of a building collapses, smoke, dust and other debris is likely to come flying out the windows, whether in a controlled demolition or not. Agree / Disagree
As we are discussing floors below the collapse front, my answer is ‘Disagree’
2) A sequence in a controlled demolition is orderly, bottom-up, evenly timed series of explosions. Agree / Disagree
Rubbish! Why can’t detonations be sequenced in any direction the person controlling the demolition chooses?
3) That video shows something different on all counts — chaotic, top-down, big plumes of smoke and debris shooting out 15 to 20 floors below the front of the collapse. Agree / Disagree
That’s one possible way one could describe a building that is progressively and rapidly being blown to pieces from the top down. So, count that as ‘Agree’.
4) It’s also, as Shaun has pointed out, in no way controlled. Huge chunks are flying everywhere. Agree / Disagree
This is idiotic. ‘Controlled’ need not mean controlled in every possible way. Clearly, by definition, aspects of explosions and resultant destruction can’t be controlled. This would be particularly so, when it is from the top down (and when it is necessary to use extra explosives just to be certain that the job is thoroughly done, leaving as little possible standing afterwards in which prying investigators might uncover evidence of the crime committed). So, count that as ‘Disagree’.
FDB wrote:
OK, I’ll put it more politely from now on.
Either you and PatrickB, Bob, and Eric Sykes, at least, have some bizarre form of visual impairment that prevents you from seeing what is in those images, or I do.
I would be amazed if the form of visual impairment that I am claiming that all of you have demonstrated to have would be shared by many in the broader Australian community.
So, please, just for the record, so others can better judge the likely worth of your expressed views elsewhere in this discussion, tell me whether or not you see massive violent billowing explosions in the video here which I also linked to above.
—
Andrew, My own views on Flight 93 are here. If it had got to the Capitol building, I believe that the US constitution would have been suspended on that day and the glaring holes such as the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ would have been easily papered over in a climate of martial law.
Fortunately Flight 93 did not make it.
—
I see Bob is still ‘debating’ this topic by pronouncing that “all of [my claims have] been thoroughly debunked here or elsewhere.”
Well, Bob, I disagree.
Now how has that moved this discussion forward?
—
I note that at least Bob has risen to the challenge I put to him and has stated that he has ‘honestly’ not seen explosions in that video.
Thank you, Bob.
I think a few more, knowing that, may well decide to follow this link past your latest additional piece of forum spam back to something intelligible written by andrew.
Given that not everyone was in the conpiracy, do you know that if there was any remnants of explosives, detonators, or any other such thing found amongst the rubble? There was lots of remnants of the planes found.
Or maybe the conspiracy not only goes all the way to the top, but also all the way to the bottom. Even the most junior cleanup assistant was in on it.
Well yes, Daggett.
On that eurovision of a WTC tower collapse I do see explosions preceeding the line of disintegration of the building.
An explosion is an avulsion. An avulsion my or may not have direct pyrotechnic causes.
The avulsions I see are explicable by the gathering weight of material of the floors above pressing down and outwards on the disintegrating outer walls below.
In other words, no pyrotechnics to be seen.
Imagine you had a tower made of Vitaweets. Then imagine you dropped a brick on it. You’d get a similar visual effect if you filmed that small, domestic catastrophe.
Some free advice after Katz’s comment: if you’re about to google “avulsion”, make sure you’re not searching Google Images. You’ll be glad.
“you would not make a very good cop if you ignore all the physical evidence of a crime”
But you haven’t provided any physical evidence of a crime. And you’d make a very good cop in some jurisdictions what with your “start from a conclusion and work backwards interpreting the facts to suit your pre-determined conclusion” methodology.
“then you start rambling on about providing evidence of the “conspiracy””
Sorry I was rambling but I think you have to establish that a plot was hatched before you start examining its outcome, don’t you? I mean it’s a bit unfair to argue that the total lack of any evidence of a conspiracy is no barrier to maintaining that the resultant collapse of the twin towers was a product of the wholly unprovable conspiracy.
Now Andrew where’s that physical evidence? …Andrew…Andrew, hey am I the only one in here? There was another guy in here just a second ago?
Katz: “An avulsion is an explosion.”
Just looked it up. Its not even a sysnonym. You are wrong. Ergo and ipso facto Doggett is right. The planes did crash into the buildings, but by a strange coincidence, at the excact same time someone detonated explosions to blow the place up.
Thank god thats cleared up. If it wasn’t for the fact that Katz wrongly used “avulsion” we would never have evangelized the truth. BTW, evangalized means to know something.
re Liam @ 876,
You guys are lucky I dunno how to put pitchers on the internet.
“ither you and PatrickB, Bob, and Eric Sykes, at least, have some bizarre form of visual impairment that prevents you from seeing what is in those images, or I do.”
Why are you restricting this visual impairment to us? Surely there are millions of people who believe that the building collapse was not due to a controlled demolition?
“tell me whether or not you see massive violent billowing explosions in the video”
No I see massive, billowing clouds of dust etc caused to the collapse of a large building
Whos to say that the towers were not brought down by the same hydrolic method used to remove the supports?
All, I know is the whole situation smells foul and a proper investigation should have been held, and there sure was a lot to gain in the aftermath of 9/11.
The perfect way to raise patriotic war feelings.
By the way, apparently, when comparing the crash site of the plane that supposedly crashed in the middle of nowhere to other crashes, this “crash site” bears no resemblance to a real crash site and has not real evidence of a plane crash. There was not even any blood.
Oh, I better correct that. I meant to write hydraulic and hydrolic.
Thought I should clear that up, before some smartie geek like Paulus finds it and gets all excited that he find a typo. Then he will go ask his Mummy for a lolly.
“So the explosions had to be top-down because your conspiracy theory wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. That doesn’t make sense.”
DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!
Hear that bell Daggett?
I do.
If you don’t I guess one of us is lying, right?
Anyway…
Well, thank you for your advice on showing respect for readers. You’ll forgive me I hope, if I continue to do things my way. I would like to point out though that when discussing HTML tags, it pays to use square brackets (as I’ve helpfully done to my quotation from you above), so as not to confuse the poor software. Category errors are a bit beyond most blog software packages to sort out.
Squibs! Awesome. So, you’re prepared to maintain that the perpetrators of your vast conspiracy were incompetent at a very very very very basic level. How does that square with the rest of your account? [Daggett: "lalalalalalala I can't hear you"]
Similar phenomena like huge fires and fireballs within the building at levels WAY below and indeed hours before the collapse? They were observed Daggster, they were. When, here and there, evidence of the inferno within becomes externally visible, I’d suggest (no expert, mind you) that it had something to do with the whole fucking building flexing and crumbling and thus losing its integrity. Fresh supplies of oxygen to existing fires, the removal of barriers to pressure release, that kind of thing.
I’m quite sure someone who actually knows what they’re talking about could do better than either of us on that score though. It certainly wouldn’t be hard to come up with a better explanation than your [irony alert] squib, for a start, even one that still gives succour to your delusions.
It is possible for someone to be wrong, even if they agree with you, Daggett. His account differs starkly to that of people who reported huge fires and fireballs down to the concourse level. Were the office workers and others who saw those fires (and saw their friends and colleagues dying in them) lying, because they weren’t reporting the same thing as a man dozens of floors above?
According to your view of lying, either lots of people were lying about how their friends died in the fire they only just escaped with their lives, or Palmer was lying. So which is it? Me, I’d prefer to think that everyone was reporting what they were seeing, and in hindsight we can see that Palmer was (innocently) wrong.
No, he was wrong. His efforts to find out what was going on and to save as many people as possible, rather than save himself as might have been fairly easy, deserve recognition and commendation. He acted heroically, but unfortunately he was wrong and his cause was doomed.
Well, that’s your opinion. Presumably it’s based on an extensive body of research into what people do or don’t notice, and how aviation fuel fires progress, within steel-framed buildings that have been hit with upwards of 50kL of aviation fuel hours earlier. Or is it just a guess, based on a hunch?
Anything you haven’t already written here? Should I really bother, when you won’t even read the NIST report, clicking though to some other place you’ve polluted with this nonsense?
Oh goody!
We are discussing what I have explicitly referred to, and nothing else. I’m actually fairly open about my failings, but clarity in the written word is not usually one of them.
That is to say, my question was about “a floor of a building”. I’ve tried before to tempt you into the dark side of discussing matters general, abstract or hypothetical. It appears you are not capable of doing it, and I won’t try again. As I recognise my own limitations, so will I respect yours.
I didn’t ask what it could be, I asked what it is. Are controlled demolitions conducted via top-down sequences of explosions? No, they are not.
3) That video shows something different on all counts — chaotic, top-down, big plumes of smoke and debris shooting out 15 to 20 floors below the front of the collapse. Agree / Disagree
That’s one possible way one could describe a building that is progressively and rapidly being blown to pieces from the top down. So, count that as ‘Agree’.
Yay! I love agreement!
So you agree that it was not controlled, and shows plenty of evidence of being chaotic, but you disagree with the proposition that it was uncontrolled. Awesum!
I would only disagree on one point here. I think it’s a cognitive impairment we’re talking about, not a visual one.
Wait, so from the fairly measured position that one or other party must be impaired in their judgement, you’ve moved to the conclusion that it’s everyone else but you? On what basis?
I conclude that it’s you, on the basis that numbers are against you. Not an iron-clad basis, sure, but at least I’ve got something.
We’ve been here already. I see “explosions” in the sense of a quantity of matter dispersing rapidly, but I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING LIKE AN INCENDIRAY EXPLOSION. What I see is completely in accord with the sort of thing I’d expect to see when enormous buildings of concrete and steel and partition walls and carpet and computers and humans and wallpaper and copiers and fishtanks and projectors and boardroom tables all collapse on top of each other in a building containing, and weakened by, an hours-long inferno of jet fuel.
Honestly.
“Whos to say that the towers were not brought down by the same hydrolic method used to remove the supports?”
What hydraulic method, used to remove what supports? Are you talking about the link to controlled demolitions you were given? Are you aware that there is absolutely no way that could be prepared without many thousands of people becoming aware of it weeks beforehand?
LOL…FDB has got too much time. Explains why he is also over the moon when he gets to pick out a typo or spelling error. He wants a reward from mummy.
FDB..there was also a time when one man suggested the world was actually round, while evryone else thought it was flat. It is possible for the majority to be fooled into something, while only a few see the truth. In fact this is more likely than than not.
FDB, even a conventional demolition of the towers would have been done in a similar “top down” manner, with one or two upper blocks being created like the verinage video posted earlier, or this video of asia’s tallest demolition:
The reason is that a base initiated demolition would have too great a chance of toppling with very tall buildings, therefore creating an upper block is not an uncommon practice.
WRT your comment about “hours-long inferno of jet fuel”, well this is just factually incorrect, the two official reports so far (NIST and FEMA)have concluded that the jet fuel lasted no more than 10 minutes and that it’s main role was to ignite widespread office fires, the towers collapsed after approx 40min and 80min of office fires so even these didn’t last “hours”.
Nor were they raging infernos, the thick billowing black smoke seen pouring from them is a sign of an oxygen poor fire. I urge you to have another more objective look at all 3 of those collapses.
Time for work.
Quite right, andrew. I also wrote “hours” last night, which is false.
You’re also correct that “the jet fuel lasted no more than 10 minutes and that it’s main role was to ignite widespread office fires”. It’s good to see you incorporating the results of NIST’s extensive research and modelling into your theories.
Does this mean that you consider likewise much of what you’ve written to be “factually incorrect”?
eg.
FDB:
There was also a time when one man suggested the world was actually round, while evryone else thought it was flat. It is possible for the majority to be fooled into something, while only a few see the truth. In fact this is more likely than than not.
Apart from the immediate structural damage to the several floors hit by the plane, the very hot fires are quite likely to have caused internal damage, e.g. floor/ceiling collapse into the next lower floor.
Why do I think so?
Because of the standard bushfire scenario, for a brick veneer or timber house in which occupants have sheltered as the fire front passes. Sometimes, 20 to 30 minutes later, the house is engulfed in flames. A single ember has lodged in the timbers above the ceilings and fire has spread across that area, unseen. Suddenly ceilings are collapsing into several rooms and the house is burning fiercely.
Fire is powerful. Possibly sprinkler systems and small fire extinguishers weren’t of much use on 11th Sept.
Even an “oxygen poor fire” can do damage.
“Yes jules, but in case you hadn’t noticed we’ve taken 800+ posts to discuss the demolition of the twin towers based on er… heresay and conjecture. It just doesn’t seem fair somehow to leave the pentagon out of it.”
You lot have taken 800 plus posts to discuss it. I have been doing my best to shut up about it. I’m a bit over the Alex Jonestown Show myself. So much of potential interest about 9/11 and people spend fucking months banging on about CD. I am sure I have already written that at least once in these 800+ posts, probably more than once, cos I’m getting serious deja vu.
On the plus side I brought a violin today and drank some rum so … fuck how many hundred posts on 9/11 and we are exactly how far further than when we first started. Look into my eyes, look deep into my eyes…
I’ll tell you what the real conspiracy is. Those sleazy Hollywood producers.
Of course you do. Your failure to demonstrate WHY you disagree, as evidently you have no basis for your disagreement, is proof enough that you have squibbed, yet again, on defending your baseless assertions. Your conspiracy theory is nothing but a flimsy tissue of delusional fubarity.
How has your disagreement moved the discussion forward? I don’t know that it has, Daggy.
I’m more curious about what you hope to achieve with your current “strategy”, if desperate appeals to strangers’ opinions can aspire to so lofty a description. You entreat others to watch your videos and give you their honest opinion. Then, when they give you the “wrong” opinion, you accuse them of lying and “visual impairment”.
How is THAT progressing the discussion, Daggy?
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events
Timeline of events on 11/9/09 with regard to the twin towers. I think it’s fairly obvious from this that there was no conspiracy.
That’s not a timeline
This is a timeline.
Daggett you should read it, if you haven’t.
PatrickB: “Timeline of events on 11/9/09 with regard to the twin towers. I think it’s fairly obvious from this that there was no conspiracy.
But Patrick, the whole point of a conspiracy is to have the conspiring done in secret. There isn’t going to be in any report something like: “…and Barry and Geoff were seen whispering to each other in the dining hall just before Cheney walked in.”
Yeah but Jules my time line only deals with 11/09/09 as I stated. If you’re going to out-time line me you have to have a better time line of the day in question.
… although it is a very fine time line.
I want a diary/timeline from the guys who put in the tons of explosives into the towers.
Yeah some sort of fully referenced conspiracy time line would do it for me ot.
(I’m sure someone can do better than that!)
The twin towers collapsed in less time than it now takes an average able-bodied human to scroll through this thread.
Coincidence? I think not.
“(I’m sure someone can do better than that!)”
Preferably, the people arguing for this script.
C’mon, daggett.
You were the one who asked us to use our imaginations…
Take it beyond your world of weekend differential explanation and enterprising one-dimensional puppets, and tell us how it might have REALLY gone down (from bottom to top for a change).
Jules at #892 links us to the History Commons Complete 911 Timeline as a challenge to the narrower History Commons Day of 911 timeline offered by PatrickB at #892.
Seems certain players are culpable either narrowly for ordering the setting of explosives or tasking al qaida CIA assetts or more broadly through Blowback due to funding of al qaida against the Russians in 1980s.
Day 30 (11 Sept 2001):
Still collecting my thoughts. Can’t believe what just happened. I’m looking at the video right now of what just took place. Its morning and the WTC buildings look pristine. In the background I can hear Dick counting down,
“10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1…Ka……What the fuck?”!!!!”
But Dick didn’t get to say “Ka-Boom!” Just at that point when we detonated the bombs a damn plane slams into the side of the building. At the excact same time! All we saw was a small flash, then the plane crashes into it. Man, I feel cheated.
Oh well, at least we got the other building ready to go in about 15 minutes. It couldn’t possibly happen again. What would be the odds. Like a gazillion to one, I reckon.
Day 30 (11 Sep 2001) second entry (log: 9.04 am…)
I don’t believe it……
FDB wrote:
Yes, if the conspirators had decided to literally follow the manual for standard bottom-up demolitions[1] they would have had to have been complete idiots, so, in that limited sense, both Bob and you would be correct.
But we’re discussing what we observed, not what should have happened if the instruction manuals had been followed.
FDB wrote:
I have already pointed out length that everything obviously did not go exactly according to the conspirators’ plan. Why is acknowledging this obvious fact necessarily the same as claiming that the conspirators were incompetent?
FDB continued:
I was discussing the squibs observed immediately ahead of the collapse, not every phenomenum observed following the plane crashes. It seems implausible to me that, if they were somehow caused by the fires you claime were raging all over both towers, no other squibs would have been observed until a fraction of a second before the collapse wave reached the spots where they were observed.
FDB wrote:
So, yet another (deceased) witness whose testimony contradicts the official explanation is to be added to your and Bob’s list of ‘unreliable’ witnesses?
FDB continued:
No, it doesn’t. Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer was in a different part of the building much higher up.
FDB continued:
Even your own question answers itself if you think about it. See, also, immediately above.
FDB wrote:
Yes, he was obviously ‘wrong’, not having any idea that the building was packed with explosives that were to be detonated only minutes later.
But, how can you presume to know that his professional assessment of the damage caused to the South Tower by the impact of Flight 175 at that time was wrong?
FDB wrote:
It’s based on common sense. If the fires were hot enough to cause, minutes later, total structural failure of the steel immediately above and around him, there’s no possible way he could have been standing where he stood. There’s no possible way he could not have noticed.
I note that FDB goes on to castigate me for not exactly answering his precise questions.
In regard to (1), obviously “smoke, dust and other debris is likely to come flying out the windows” at the point of the collapse front, if the building is collapsing. So the answer to FDB’s question, literally interpreted, is a non-sequitur. However, I thought we were discussing the violently ejected plume of debris below the collapse front.
In regard to (2), FDB is talking rubbish. Of course the explosives can be sequenced to be detonated in any order the demolition engineer chooses.
In regard to (3), FDB wrote:
I think all this demonstrates is that FDB thinks (when it is convenient) that everything has to be either black or white. For him, there is no concept of grey.
FDB wrote:
Firstly, even NIST acknowledges that the fires did not burn for hours (in fact, no more than 10 minutes) and Oreo Palmer testified moments before he died that there was no inferno, rather, in his words, “two isolated pockets of fire [that could have been] knock[ed] down with two lines [from two fire trucks]“.
Given your evident lack of common sense, that I referred to above, I somehow doubt if others studying this issue with an open and critical mind would place much weight on what you would “expect to see.”
Footnotes
1. That is, assuming that bottom-up is appropriate for such tall buildings, which has been challenged above.
It seems the timeline should be amended as follows:
August 1968 – Explosives are on site and will be incorporated into the buidlings’ structure for planned demolition in 2001.
Oh no!!!! Dagsterman has gone for the “common sense” argument!!! Damn, we are all done for now.
Common sense.
I’m flabbergasted.
Shall we expect to see common sense wheeled out across the board Dagster? Or just when it suits you.
Because there’s an awful lot of fanciful shit underpinning your whole “theory” – just be careful you don’t point that fancy new common sense ray at the foundations.
Brendon @905.
Cheers that made me laugh.
The Three Angels of Publication
Please note that WAY back up the top of this towering, smouldering edifice (World Tower Conspiracy 7), one j_p_z who actually lives in NY, observed that the towers were constructed of thermite. This was widely known. There was no need to “pack them” with explosives as Engineer daggett asserts. Refer to Sept. 17th [sic] around 11am.
They were built of explosive material. Noo Yawkers thought nothing of it. Always has been a remarkable city. When j_p_z was young, he and his friends used to go over to Manhattan and scrape a little thermite off to use for fireworks. Kids!!!
Look, j_p_z lives there. We should take his word for it. To do otherwise would be to besmirch the memories of so many 911 Heroes.
The truth is always available if you have the right informant. Just leave your critical faculties at the door as you go in. Thanks.
Heh.
69911, Japerz!PPC had comment 911. Is this significanr?
As for those snide dismissals of Gordon’s observations of how the world is being run today:
Many credible historical figures have written of an ‘invisible government’ which decides behind our backs what policies Governments will and will not adopt. These include Thomas Jefferson, Otto von Bismarck, President Woodrow Wilson.
In the 1930′s they approached First World War hero General Smedley Butler and asked him to overthrow President Roosevelt and become Fuhrer of the United States. Fortunately General Smedley was a loyal American and blew the whistle on the plot.
Unfortunately those who plotted the coup were not put on trial and jailed.
In the 1960′s, as we all know, they had more luck and got rid of the most charismatic as well as incorruptible leaders that has ever led the US, namely JFK. Then in the ensuing years of that decade, as I mentioned above, three more similarly charismatic, principled and popular leaders were murdered by the invisible Government: Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.
More of that cand be foun on this Online Opinion discussion Money from nothing: supplying money should be a public service”
And of course, in 2001 they pulled that off stunt, we are discussing in this forum, which almost 3,000 US citizens were murdered to further advance their agenda.
To anyone who attempts to dismiss this as all too far fetched, ask themselves who they think decided it would be such a good idea for Queensland to flog of $15billion in publicly owned assets and told Fraser and Bligh to do so? Or do thinkd that the idea just dropped out of the sky?
It was certainly not the people of Queensland, more than 84% of whom oppose privatisation, who told them to do it.
Who do they think told Iemma and Costa to flog off NSW’s electricity assets?
Thank you, JPZ, for the funny, and serendipitously making it possible for everyone to say: comment #911 is, in fact, a joke.
Yo, get get get, get down…
OK, I’ve cracked it. I’ve been thinking that Daggy reminded me of someone, and now I know: Cu-CKOO!
Nice tie in to Colonel Sanders, too.
“Who do they think told Iemma and Costa to flog off NSW’s electricity assets?”
I fucking KNEW this would all have to come back to the NSW ALP right.
Well Liam? Where’s your fandangled banal sarcasm now?
Did anyone else notice that PP&C referred to j_p_z’s contribution on Sept. 17th as “around 11am”.
In fact it was PRECISELY at 11.30am. The record is there. You don’t need to read a NIST report.
So what are we to make of the thirty minute discrepancy? 30 minutes is a long time. A hijacked airliner travels hundreds of km in 30 minutes. A President can read a children’s story in a primary school classroom in 30 minutes. 400 extra kg of explosives can be hidden in the “Utilities Room” conveniently located just below the impact point of the hijacked airliner in 30 minutes, given that the packers have top level security clearance and are in fact in league with that drip who’s CONVENIENTLY left town for the day to visit an elementary school.
30 minutes is a long time in the world of super secrecy.
You could whisk the other 17 gunmen away from a grassy knoll. Or remove all traces of the debilitating poisons from Dr King’s motel room, or get RFK to sleep with Marilyn Monroe again.
Hell, in this wacky world of plots and complete secrecy, you could get a B-grade Hollywood actor elected President, or you could FAIL COMPLETELY to assassinate Fidel Castro [note the failure: there will be a test at the end of the list]. You could send men to the Moon then convince millions of Americans that it didn’t happen. You could promote cannabis, LSD, Prozac and unsharpen thousands of minds. You could lose billions in a Global Financial Crisis cunningly disguising your profit-gobbling motives. You could dream of oil pipelines.
All for $$$$: how tawdry, excessive and unnecessary. Because all of this could also happen without your lifting a finger. Life’s a beach.
Chief Palmer’s eyewitness account of mild fires in the Towers is backed up by every bit of available evidence, there is zero evidence that the fires got hot enough for collapse to initiate.
Anyone can look at those Towers prior to their collapses and they will not see flames billowing out of multiple stories like we have seen in other high rise enfernos, what is mostly visible is thick black smoke that is indicative of an oxygen poor fire.
There is a photo of one unfortunate victim clinging onto the steel where the planes entered, so the steel temperature can’t have been too hot there.
NIST own testing of the steel to see what temperature the steel endured never found one piece that came anywhere near what NIST’s computers deemed necessary for collapse to initiate.
These buildings had more steel in them than any other highrise, their ability to dissipate heat throughout the structure meant that they were virtually immune to collapse due to fire.
And don’t forget that these massive structures went from standing bolt upright into suddenly failing at near freefall from smouldering, oxygen-poor fires – something is seriously wrong in Kansas.
Here is a reference for the claim that NIST didn’t find one bit of steel that was hot enough for collapse to initiate, it is from NIST’s own Professor of fire engineering, Dr James Quintiere, he is also complaining about the destruction of evidence and the lack of proof that all the fireproofing would have been stripped:
Quote:
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn’t NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm
Andrew, by what rule does black smoke indicate an oxygen poor fire?
Apparently this is an oxygen starved fire.
Shaun,
something you don’t know about New York. Safety regulations enacted in 1968 ban oxygen in buildings over 40 storeys for this very eventuality. Also, air around most major buildings is removed on an hourly basis to prevent any would-be terrorists from getting the idea of ploughing fuel laden pasenger planes into something like the WTC buildings creating holes that would allow the air in. The down side is that nearly 2 million office workers a year die from asphyxiation. But as Mayor Rudy Giuliani once said:
“We think the price is worth it.” -
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Shaun, it is a general rule of thumb that thick black smoke is casued by oxygen deprivation, firefighters are taught this, I don’t have time to find a reference (every search I do gives me pages of 9/11 sites, which I’m sure wont satisfy you for a reference).
Please compare the photo you have of the towers with these inferno’s, note that the Madrid fire (second link) did suffer a partial collapse of the upper floors, but as you can see from the photo there was a lot of slow buckling of the steel, as you would expect, and the collapse never progressed down the building (it burned for 24 hours, and the actual period of collapse for approx 10 stories took over 2 hours, not 16s for 110 stories)
http://www.beijingboyce.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mandarin-hotel-fire-beijing-china.jpg
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album1/02.html
andrew, it isn’t a general rule of thumb. Simply a myth peddled by truthers. black smoke is also caused by plastics, petroleum and other material, plenty of which where in both towers.
The smoke screen that “black smoke = oxygen deprived” is an classic example of the ass backwards assumptions that surround the myths of 911. In this case, starting from the idea the fires weren’t hot enough to black smoke means oxygen deprived.
The prosaic and correct explanation is that the smoke was black due to the material that was fuelling the fire.
As for the two photos, they were taken at night. Not a good comparison for photographs taken in the day. It is hard to make any sort of judgement about the relative intensity of any fire just based on a photograph anyway.
Or are we now back to the “it’s the vibe” mode of investigation?
Brendan @ 922,
I obviously have not done enough research and apologise. I shall now hold my breath as penance.
Know what is burning via smoke colour.
Smoke indicators.
From a fiery type bloke .
I forgot Practical Fire and Arson Investigation.
Umm. I know this is a dumb question but with this ban on oxygen above 40 storeys how do the people who work above 40 storeys breathe?
Shaun, yes different compounds can also cause black smoke, it doesn’t detract from the fact that an oxygen poor fire will also produce thicker black smoke that one that has a good supply.
This is not about the “vibe”, it’s about the evidence, along with the black smoke is a lack of widespread visiable flames, Daggett listed a firefighters eyewitness account, I listed a victim who was able to hold onto the steel at the impact site, and I listed the NIST’s inability to find one bit of steel that corroborates high temperature.
I also noted the mass of steel in the towers to act as a heat sink, please have another look at the photo you provided and take note of just two pockets of fire in that huge steel structure, then honestly say that you believe those pockets of fire are enough to make all the steeel columns in that massive structure fail instantaniously and simultaniously.
Not one bit of evidence corroborates high enough temperatures, in fact all the evidence is to the contrary, but you still have the audacity to suggest we are relying on the “vibe”? I suggest you are relying on blind faith to stop you from seeing the obvious truth.
Air prohibition is sarcastic, GregM. Took me a while, too, and I sympathise; it’s getting hard to tell who’s pulling whose leg around here.
Beardo, I’m not usually a conspiracist, but for the NSW Labor Right I make exceptions. The story of that faction is of a phenomenon of large numbers of very smart, very capable, very driven people so often being undone by circumstance and hubris it’s almost Shakespearian. But… that’s a story for another monster thread.
Brendon,
Something you should know, all highrise buildings are designed to deny fires of oxygen as much as possible, such as the use of hermetically sealed doors in cores and stairwells etc, they should never be able to act as chimneys to feed fires oxygen.
The Towers were no exception to these practices.
Apart from the collapse, you mean? Palmer was only on the 78th floor. There were more and larger fires on the floors above him. His eyewitness account doesn’t tell us about those fires.
What Shaun said. Dearth of oxygen is not necessary to create black smoke. Plastic, for example, gives off black smoke. Further, NIST found that there was ample ventilation for the fires to keep burning.
No, perhaps not there, but elsewhere?
NIST only tested a very small (e.g. 3% of exterior panels on the fire-affected floors) proportion of the steel from fire-affected areas, and, indeed, did not find evidence of sufficient heat exposure to cause collapse in those pieces. The sample was too small to be representative of the fire-affected floors. This does not mean that fire-affected steel structures did not collapse; it means they didn’t find and test those that did. This is documented in NCSTAR 1-3C.
Immune? What do you base your opinion upon, Andrew?
Something might be wrong in Kansas, Andrew, but there’s definitely something wrong with your analysis: there’s no evidence the fires were too “oxygen-poor” to weaken the structure.
First off, Quintiere was not “NIST’s own Professor of fire engineering”. He had worked at NIST prior to 9/11 and at the time of his testimony to Congress was a professor at the University of Maryland.
NIST states in NCSTAR 1-3 that there was extensive evidence of insulation being removed/dislodged. As I’ll show below, Quintiere seems a little fixated on this issue as it plays to his own theory on the collapse.
As noted above, NIST didn’t have a large sample of steel from the site. That’s unfortunate, but doesn’t invalidate their findings, which consequently were more reliant upon other evidence.
You should also be aware that Quintiere is another “expert” who doesn’t believe the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. As reported here:
That last paragraph explains his interest in insulation and steel evidence – he simply has an alternative collapse theory, also based on fires causing the collapses.
Except for those big ventilation holes created by large aircraft impacts…
The Towers had great big holes in them caused by the planes. This let in a lot of air.
The hermetically sealed system on those floors were made redundant. Lots of fire, lots of oxygen. As the pictures of the fires attest. The was plenty of black smoke, and plenty of white smoke. And plenty of fire.
No it’s not, Generalissimo. It is a search for truth. If oxygen was banned from buildings over 40 storeys tall how could the people who worked in them breathe? But also how could those fires have burnt for so long in those buildings,deprived of that essential element of combustion, before the nano-thermite charges were set off?
Andrew has set us a conundrum. He tells us that there was no oxygen in the buildings so there could be no fire but that there was fire. Where did the oxygen come from?
Let us try to solve this problem.
(Small clue- basic physics and—-VORTEX)
K, I’m going for the pot here….
The whole thing was a conspiracy, because there were no “911 planes.” There was no “911 attack” because there was nothing to attack. The “World Trade Center Towers” never existed, everybody knows that.
The whole notion that two 110-story buildings ever stood in NY city is patently ludicrous on its face, but the simpleton masses accept it as fact none the less.
All those mindless drones who buy the pablum spoon-fed to them by the fascist dictatorship of the US government about these ficticious structures invented to demonstrate “superior” US engineering, its a joke!
Damn straight, my brother! Lies compounded upon lies, piled high until they can no longer sustain themselves, and have to be covered up by a poorly-produced disaster video before they collapse under their own weight. F@ckin’-A, bubba!
Absolutely! That’s precisely what the dark lords in Washington need to be told, and where they need to be sent, for attempting to perpetrate such a blatantly phony architechtural hoax on the public! Go to hell, *****ing politicians!
I move than Brendan’s comment @935 is 65 comments to early and should be stricken from the record.
andrew @929
You are yet to provide any evidence that black smoke means an oxygen poor fire. I’m happy to be wrong but so far you continually make this assertion without providing any evidence to back it up.
As Brendan @ 933 points out, there were dirty great big holes in the building anyway.
As for the photo @921, hard to tell much especially state there were only two pockets of fire especially with smoke obscuring some floors.
And I’ll just say whatever Morphing Moniker @932 said to save me time.
We have reports of aviation fuel dropping down lift shafts to the plaza and basement. Possibly the lift doors were open (or opened by impact) on several floors. There’s another source of fresh oxygen: the lift shafts.
andrew @ 8.47 repeats this vibe about steel columns failing simultaneously. That’s not what the video shows. If it’s the impact of a solid upper block, then as it falls its mass and momentum increase (accumulating mass, increasing speed). Structures below fail sequentially.
“http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93652main_kuwait_novm.jpg”
Here’s a photo of the Kuwait oil fires taken from space. Plenty of thick black smoke there. Were they oxygen starved. Commonsense would say that because they burned in the open air you’d think not.
Patrick B @939
Saddam obviously stole the previous Kuwaiti the oxygen before he started the fires. The evil bastard took all he could.
My own theory? What we have is a classic double bluff. The truther movement is part of the conspiracy. Think about it, if you wanted to plant explosives and bring the towers down by controlled demolition what better way to cover your tracks than establish a bogus group that expounds an outlandish theory describing exactly what you did in fact do.
Of course you also need to set up the initial conspiracy amongst the patsy hijackers so you have something to fraudulently investigate so that your real bogus conspiracy group has something to take issue with and discredit and denigrate as a govt. cover-up.
In the end your real actions become the the cause celebre of a group of nutters, no-one belives them and you retire to stroke you large,furry pussy in a cane chair.
What’s that … a knock at the door? No … not you … Scaramangaaaaaaaaaa ….
Bob’s latest ‘contribution’ in response to andrew’s is yet another illustration why others would be well advised to leave his many vast outpourings to the very last to read, that is if they bother to read them at all (although Bob should, at least, be given credit for not engaging in personal attacks, for a change).
In regard to my post about Oreo Palmer, let’s bear in mind that, as I pointed out, The Port Authority tried to suppress that tape for 12 months until forced to release it as a result of legal action by a New York Times journalist, so that they and the US Government could peddle their lie about 9/11 without having those uncomfortable facts to explain away. No doubt, if I had not raised that evidence, Bob would have been more than happy to leave everyone here oblivious to a story that is, at once, both inspiring and sad, but which deserves to be made known.
Bob’s practice here is to reveal as little as possible, even from his own version of events, because he knows that the more he reveals the more stupid it looks. See, for example the summary of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory I have given above, which none of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists here, including Bob, have attempted to defend.
Instead, it is left to others to contribute any actual substance to this discussion, whereupon Bob just drags in only just as much from his ‘case’ as he thinks necessary to appear to refute the argument put or, if not, at least to sow doubt and confusion. Nothing of what he writes actually helps anyone to form a coherent understanding of what happened. This possibly explains why even fellow ‘debunkers’ don’t refer to the content of his posts, as I pointed out above.
andrew wrote
Then Bob responded
The fact that the South Tower ‘collapsed’ means that there had to have been more fires, doesn’t it?
I consider this a circular argument.
Then Bob continued
How could Bob presume to know what Oreo Palmer did or did not know? How could he presume to know that perhaps others present may have been able to tell him what was happening on the floors above, or that Palmer could not have worked it out by looking up through the gaps in the floors?
Whatever, the film footage shows that there were unlikely to be any raging fires and Palmer was quite definite in his professional judgment. Once again:
If Palmer thought there was any likelihood that the situation was more serious than that, wouldn’t he have said so?
The fact that he must have been standing on steel trusses that minutes later were going to fail as a result of intense heat is absolute confirmation that the story that Bob is attempting to feed us must be a lie.
Incredibly, this is what a National Geographic video in support of the Official Account tells us was going on from the 77th floor, that is one floor below where Plamer was, all the way up to the 85th floor. It’s only 2 and a half minutes long. Why not check for yourself?
Bob then ignores andrew’s point about the lack of any visible signs of a raging inferno and repeats Shaun’s assertion that black smoke need not indicate a lack of oxygen, which, of course, proves nothing.
And then we are implicitly told that somehow searing heat from the alleged inferno at the core of the North Tower would somehow not be conducted by the steel trusses in the floor to where Edna Cintron is observed standing not noticably uncomfortable at the edge of the building.
And then Bob tries to explain away evidence in contradiction to the claims of a raging inferno, claiming that insufficient sample of steel from which to draw a conclusion was available. Note how Bob neglects to mention who removed the evidence from the scene of the crime in such a hurry or to offer an opinion as to why that was done.
andrew wrote:
Then Bob feigns ignorance of steel’s well understood efficiency as a conductor of heat:
For now, I will have to leave it to others to deal with the remaining red herrings in the rest of Bob’s post.
PatrickB.
I’m glad someone finally realised…
It’s not clear to me that steel which is insulated can carry heat away from a fire. To carry heat way as an efficient conductor, it needs to gain (absorb) that heat (and become warmer) before it can carry the heat away to other parts of the building.
Was the insulation stripped off some steel beams during the aircraft impact? If so, then they would be efficient conductors of heat, but must themselves be heated by the fires.
If the insulation was NOT stripped off, they would not be absorbing much heat (because they were insulated, see?)
And just by the by: if only several floors worth of beams were fully exposed (uninsulated) to heat, where did they conduct that heat away to? Themselves. The beams themselves warmed up, nearby. Why? Because they were insulated nearby. Heated but insulated: nowhere for that conducted heat to dissipate to. Would have taken days to cool again. Only, as it turned out, 30-40 minutes was all they had….
The laws of physics and the conduction of heat don’t change just because it’s a sunny autumn morning in South Manhattan and some malevolent individuals have crashed airliners into skyscrapers.
Nononono j_p_z, if steel is “an efficient conductor of heat”, then it’s automatically a superconductor.
In this case, actually a superdooperconductor, because in a conspiracy, construction materials behave differently.
Frankly I’m surprised the controlled demolition nanothermite shaped charges were able to cut through it.
I am not, and have never been j_p_z.
The very idea!
Ambigulous, sorry.
No gravatar, and frequently a similar tone.
Question: what proof do you have that Palmer was “must have been standing on steel trusses that minutes later were going to fail as a result of intense heat”?
You introduce this as fact. Where is the proof?
As for Palmer having the best view just because he was close, I don’t buy it. Video and photographic evidence shows just above Palmer there was a raging fire. No living person would be in that area that could tell him. Firemen from a distance where they had a better all round view said this:
“We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous.” –FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110142.PDF
Palmer couldn’t see literally what was just above him.
You guys aree still arguing about this?? Can’t u see there will never be a consensus because there was never a proper investigation done.
thats the whole point.
apology accepted, FDB.
(I like your tone, Mr EffDeeBee)
You guys aree still arguing about this?? Can’t u see there will never be a consensus because there was never a proper investigation done.
thats the whole point.
I think everyone actually knows that.
But its only 50 (49 even) to go…
ok let me help with that then..only 48 now and daaaaamn this page is slow to load.
I know.
It takes frikken ages. (I am sure that adding comments like this will speed it up tho. So I’ll keep doing it.)
Don’t know why you would assume that jules@953. Do you have proof?
Well I’ve got this youtube video ….
Gordon, Jules,
Please understand that this issue is important. A monstrous crime was committed and blamed on innocent people to justify incessant wars and the regimentation of our societies. The evidence pointing to who committed that crime is overwhelming (notwithstanding FDB’s silly demolition of the straw man of the 9/11 Truth case somehow requiring that steel be a superconductor rather than merely the efficient conductor of heat that it is.\).
If the people who committed the crime are not held to account and put behind bars, they will do it again, and our future will only be even more bleak than has been the past.
However, by committing that crime they have given us the best chance in decades to begin to properly fix up much of what is wrong with the world.
It’s nonsense that the argument cannot be resolved.
Most online discussions I have had on 9/11 have been finished very quickly.
It’s only on relatively rare occasions when I encounter people willing to persistently use disingenous debating tactics and insist that black is white, such as is happening here, that discussions are prolonged.
Why not stop making excuses for not standing apart from the herd and grab this opportunity with both hands?
—
The argument that covering structural steel with a fire-resistant coating will somehow prevent that steel, once heated, from efficiently conducting heat throughout its length and into any adjoining lengths of steel is too silly to warrant any further response.
—
Brendan asks:
If he was standing on the 78th floor as he said he was he would have been separated by only centimetres at most from steel trusses that we are told were about to melt or at least turn to a plastic state and fail. There is no way he could have stood there and there is certainly no way he could not have noticed.
If Oreo Palmer said he was on the 78th I don’t think he would have made it up or imagined it.
Brendon wrote:
It does not.
The only ‘raging fire’ seen was the one that occurred was the one that ooccred minutes afterwards at the commencement of the demolition. At the time that Palmer stood there, there was no raging fire.
And I am not that interested in what was said of the firesby a senior FDNY bureaucrat, who was almost certainly part of the cover-up. I am far more interested in the physical evidence and the testimony of those there on the spot.
“a monstrous crime”
“and blamed on innocent people”
??????
no, the plane hijackers may be called all kinds of things, but “innocent” is not one that springs to mind…..
Wow…the dagster says he’s into physical evidence.
when are you going to present some dags…?
we are all dead keen to run with the herd….i mean if you actually got around to presenting any you’d have a full blown dogone stampede on your hands i rekon. Yippeethaiyotieyay!
daggs: “The argument that covering structural steel with a fire-resistant coating will somehow prevent that steel, once heated, from efficiently conducting heat throughout its length and into any adjoining lengths of steel is too silly to warrant any further response.”
OK, I’ll go through it step by step.
Generally heat insulation prevents (or vastly reduces) the rate of heat conduction. If the steel is A and the surrounds are B, the insulation prevents heat moving from B into A, and equally well prevents heat moving from A into B. Or slows down the rate of movement significantly.
If the steel heats up somehow, the heat will rapidly be conducted away along the steel beams. But if they are all insulated, that heat has nowhere to go. It stays in the steel. It doesn’t escape into the air. The beams will heat up due to conduction, throughout the building. That’s because the insulation coating, designed to keep heat OUT OF the beams, will also keep heat IN, should excess heat ever find its way into the beams.
By fire, say.
Caused by aviation fuel, say.
Followed soon thereafter by combustion of desks, tables, carpets, wall hangings, papers, etc.
Silly, eh?
“A monstrous crime was committed and blamed on innocent people to justify incessant wars and the regimentation of our societies.”
A monstrous crime was committed and those directly responsible died in the process of committing it. Some who were involved in planning have been charged and tried. The people you accuse were not involved and it thus impossible to charge them with a crime. I deplore you use of innuendo and conjecture to advocate the conviction of innocents.
Daggett, just stop and think for a minute.
Jut suppose the WTC was wired by the maintainance teams witnessed by whoever the hell that guy was. OK. Who were they? How do you actually draw a link between those individuals and the people you assume are responsible for 9/11?
Right now the truth movement can’t even begin to get near naming individuals who committed the on the ground crime of preparing the WTC for demolition. Any suspects? No. Anything thats actually within 1000 miles of usable (in court) evidence that could actually convict individuals for the specific crime of wiring the WTC buildings with explosives? Or even link them to it? Any plan to develop actual cases regarding these things? No.
And what innocent people?
Do you actually think that Bin laden and his Mega Rich Saudi Mates weren’t as in on this as Cheney? Really?
Thats what they want you to think. (Whoever the fuck they actually are.) Whatever happened at time in NYC and Wahingtonm DC, there are other real, potentially investigatable connections between 9/11 and what might be termed “Deep State” players in a number of countries. Sibel Edmunds story is the classic example, and even now thats still playing out. (I think in her case its unlikely to lead to actual convictions re 9/11, but you never know, when you start investigating the potential bribing of members of the US govt and its officials in relation to nuclear secrets smuggling and who knows what else, who knows where it could end up. Usually nowhere unfortunately.
Iran Contra has been brought up before on this thread, yet less than a tenth of the potential crap surrounding that ever came out. Well so far anyway.
So we’ll what, if anything, comes of Edmunds’ whistleblowing, but while we are on the subject Daggett, what do you think Of Indira Singh’s claims regarding Ptech, and the other claims surrounding the company?
With respect, you have not backed up your claim re Palmer “standing on steel trusses that minutes later were going to fail as a result of intense heat” with any facts.
Again, what facts to support your claim. If you can prove that the floor above Palmer (79th) was the one that first collapsed, then you may have something.
If Oreo Palmer said he was on the 78th I don’t think he would have made it up or imagined it.
Brendon wrote:
Video and photographic evidence shows just above Palmer there was a raging fire.
It does not.
The only ‘raging fire’ seen was the one that occurred was the one that ooccred minutes afterwards at the commencement of the demolition. At the time that Palmer stood there, there was no raging fire.
And I am not that interested in what was said of the firesby a senior FDNY bureaucrat, who was almost certainly part of the cover-up. I am far more interested in the physical evidence and the testimony of those there on the spot.
I didn’t engage in any personal attacks as none were warranted. Andrew has conducted himself in a relatively temperate and civil manner. You should learn from his example.
I’m not so sure it deserves particular attention – a lot of good people died that day. The fact that you’re exploiting Palmer’s death in your attempt to score points is disgusting in the extreme. Also, what evidence do you have the Port Authority “tried to suppress” the tape? Why would they release ANY tape to the media?
This is a patently ridiculous assertion of yours, Daggy. I have introduced fact after fact refuting your bunk and the only person that has appeared more stupid as a consequence is you.
As for defending YOUR cack-handed summary, why would I? I’ve pointed to the official summary – yours is garbage.
Why should I introduce more than is necessary to refute your “arguments”? I’m not into waffling spam like you, Daggy.
Why? There’s nothing circular about it.
I don’t know what Palmer did or did not know, and neither do you. What we do know is what he said on the tape. And nowhere on the tape does he say that:
1. He moved above the 78th floor;
2. Others present told him what was happening on the floors above; or
3. He worked out what was happening on the floors above by “looking up through the gaps in the floors”.
No, not “whatever”. Palmer was not in a position to judge for any location other than where he was, and we have no reason to believe he was any higher than the 78th floor. Remember that the aircraft struck nine floors, 77-85, and that floor 78 was underneath the main impact areas above 80. Time for some YouTube
For a better view of those “raging fires” that Daggy doesn’t believe existed, check out this footage. Right in the middle of the frame is a “raging fire” in the North East corner of WTC 2 (the South tower). This fire burned right up to the point of collapse, and Palmer was nowhere near it.
Again, Palmer was in a less damaged and critical area of the building. He wasn’t in a position to know how bad things really were for the building, or how bad they were going to get.
That’s not a fact, that’s an assertion. Why “must” Palmer have been standing on steel trusses?
Actually, Daggy, it doesn’t tell us anything about what was going on above floor 78. What it DOES do, however, is give us more footage of those raging fires you assert didn’t exist. Ironic, huh?
The commentary on supposedly invisible fires was nonsensical and didn’t need a response – there’s one above if you really need it. The refutation of Andrew’s point about black smoke was, indeed, to show that it proved nothing. THAT WAS THE POINT. It was Andrew who claimed the black smoke was meaningful.
Why would it? There’s no fire in her immediate area, which is exposed to the air, why should it be unbearably hot there?
How many times do you have to be told this? ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. The fact that there was little steel recovered showing evidence of heat-induced collapse does not contradict the claim that fires weakened the steel. What it demonstrates is that there was not enough steel sampled to be conclusive one way or the other.
I didn’t neglect to mention it, Daggy, as I don’t know who did. Do you?
This is NIST’s comment on the removal of steel:
Squib. Others have already pilloried these ridiculous assertions and I note that Andrew has failed to demonstrate why the WTC towers were “immune”.
However, let me propose an experiment for you to conduct [sorry] at home. You may wish to involve an adult for your own protection.
First, get a spoon and, grasping one end with your hand, hold the other end of the spoon over a naked flame. Do this until the end you are holding begins to get uncomfortably hot. Then, grab the other end [you know, the one that’s been exposed to a naked flame for a while]. Is that end:
a) Hot?
b) Cold?
c) Don’t know? or
d) Dubya did it?
PatrickB:
The reason they have not been charged is not because they wouldn’t be able to come up with enough evidence if a full scale investigation were to take place. The reason is the same reason why Bush has not been charged with War Crimes, even though he could easily be charged with war crimes without any investigation. Its not on the agenda of the powers that be.
Bob wrote:
Of course you would not be “so sure” when it blows such a massive hole in the lie that you are attempting to peddle.
Bob continued:
Please spare us the hypocritical platitudes.
Bob continued:
I also think that knowingly lying about 9/11 on forums such as these and overloading them with spam is also “disgusting in the extreme.”
Bob continued:
I made it up, Bob.
Anyway, I will have to come back some time to deal with the rest of Bob’s logical contortions, suffice it to say that the story he is peddling differs from that on the pro-Official-Conspiracy-Theory National Geograhic video, which has the 78th floor trusses heating up to the point where they will fail beneath Oreo Palmer’s feet, somehow, without him noticing.
Bob now asserts that all that now only happened in the floors above his head.
The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory story just keeps changing, as new facts and new absurdities are exposed, doesn’t it?
On the contrary, I would deeply interested in any genuine evidence of “controlled demolition”. As I’ve shown, Palmer’s account isn’t it.
You’d be the expert in those, wouldn’t you, Daggy?
Spell it with me, kids: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
And yet you keep doing it, don’t you? I’ve caught you out time and again with lie after lie and we’ve seen no retraction or apology from you. Likewise, this whole thread is testament to your monomanic spamming on this subject. Anyone who wants to can go right back and see how much crap you’ve dumped here.
Your link to allegations on a Troofer site doesn’t prove the Port Authority suppressed anything. Original sources, please.
No, it doesn’t.
That’s where the major fires were, Daggy, and I’ve proved it. Either rebut or concede. Take your time.
Actually, no, the official explanation doesn’t keep changing. Every single allegation you’ve brought up has been thoroughly debunked and no part of the official story has changed.
Now, Daggy, you have some homework due. Where is your EVIDENCE?
Still going I see,
WRT the thick black smoke, it is only one of many pieces of evidence that the steel never got hot enough for collapse to initiate, it is possible for black smoke to be produced by various compounds however if it was a raging inferno that produced the thick black smoke wouldn’t we expect to see more flames? Some pre-collapse views of the towers show no visiable flames while others show just a few pockets.
One more point (above and beyond not one piece of steel NIST tested having reached a hot enough temperature) regarding these smouldering fires being able to bring down two of the lagest steel structures ever built, is that there is no fuel in the all-important cores for those invisable infernos. No office furniture etc, just stairwells and lift shaft, I suppose some of you are going to suggest that that is where the raging inferno was because it’s certainly not evident around the perimeter of the buildings. How did all the core columns get hot enough to simultaniously fail (not that it’s at all possible to get steel columns to completely and simultaniously fail due to fire, no matter how hot the fires)
And what is the one bit of evidence put forward that the fires were hot enough? that the towers fell down!!! LOL. This of course is not at all contrary to the controlled demolition hypothesis.
We are making very slow progress here, why don’t we just go straight to the number one bit of evidence for controlled demolition that day… WTC 7, and the 2.25s priod of freefall experienced early in it’s symmetrical collapse, that means all the steel columns failed to provide any resistance for approximately 8 stories.
We know how the columns are removed in controlled demolitions, but how does slow-acting random fires achieve the same result as precision timed cutter charges would (for the third time that day, astonishing).
Do you “debunkers” honestly believe that it is possible to completely raze a modern highrise just by cutting some columns and then lighting a fire, and do you know that repeatability is the number on requirement for proving a hypothesis? Those 3 demolitions will only ever be repeated through precision controlled demolition practices.
“And what is the one bit of evidence put forward that the fires were hot enough? that the towers fell down!!! LOL. This of course is not at all contrary to the controlled demolition hypothesis.”
LOL away, but “that the towers fell down” is the only piece of evidence supporting a controlled demolition, so I’d not be too keen to poo-poo it if I were you.
The presnt Dr. Who is going to die soon. I read it in the Guardian. And now they’ve got a zombie on Torchwood. If that can happen, Maybe the WTC … na, I was just speculating aloud. I suppose because it makes more sense to me that Dr. Who and Torchwood are more likely to be real than any genius from the Bush administration planning the destruction of the WTC would be. So, if you want reality …
Interestingly each building began their implosion where the planes crashed. The coincidences just keep piling up.
“We are making very slow progress here, why don’t we just go straight to the number one bit of evidence for controlled demolition that day… WTC 7, and the 2.25s priod of freefall experienced early in it’s symmetrical collapse”
Can you provide the number one piece of evidence for a controlled demolition, i.e. evidence of a conspiracy, e.g. name and testimony of people involved? The observation you refer to is not evidence of a controlled demolition. Evidence of a controlled demolition could be photographs showing the explosives in place or actual footage of the explosives being detonated.
You need to provide at least this before you can even begin to convince any of those who regard you argument as spurious that it is in fact not spurious but at least a possibility. You have not provided anything of that nature.
“Interestingly each building began their implosion where the planes crashed. The coincidences just keep piling up.”
Well of course it’s not a “coincidence” if the collapses were diliberately engineered to give the impression that the planes caused the collapses.
Even this point, which some people cling onto as evidence that the towers fell as a result of the plane crashes, doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny.
The floors on which the tower’s collapse initiate are not the most damaged ones as would be expected, in the case of tower 1 the collapse initiates on a floor that has almost no damage from the plane impacts, here is a very good referenced article on the subject:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf
Or, better still, have a look for yourself (look very closely at where the building first gives way – very high up in the damaged area). Ignore the way this building that was so strong it barely flinched when hit by a plane suddenly starts disintegrating to dust, because that just raises more ackward questions:
BTW, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, nor did it fall towards any damage it may have recieved from the towers collapsing.
“which some people cling onto”
Bad choice of words. Anyway I don’t think you can characterise people who diagree with you unsubstantiated and unsustainable story as having a tenuous grip. A reasonable person would say that it is people like you who are grasping at straws. You really need to let go and get a grip on yourself.
Judging by the link and the very odd opinions, “dagget” is the same James Sinnamon I used to enjoy playing with over at Quiggin’s.
How are you James? Still having fun playing with the lunatic left? Do you still want to kill off everyone but 300 million people? If so, I would have thought you would have been applauding Bush for doing this (if, indeed, he had).
One more point, Andrew.
You say bombs were detonated in the 98th floor to make it look like the collapse was caused by the plane attack. There were windows exploding from the heat and jet of flames on the 98th floor 10 minutes before the buidling collapsed. Very intense heat, and a lot of damage. So I got a question:
How did the dtenation explosives stay intact? How was it that the detonators still worked in those conditions?
The thick black smoke isn’t any sort of evidence that the steel didn’t get hot enough, for the reasons previously given.
There was plenty of visible flame.
The aircraft brought their own fuel. Yes, think about that for a moment.
There was plenty of fuel on the floors.
Fires WERE evident around the perimeter of the buildings.
The core columns didn’t fail simultaneously, and nor did they need to. Remember that the Twin Towers relied upon their perimeter columns as well for structural stability.
It’s not the only piece of evidence. As mentioned above, we know the buildings collapsed. There was no evidence of controlled demolition, but copious evidence of aircraft striking the buildings and causing intense fires. The structural engineers investigating the collapse concluded that aircraft impact alone was insufficient to cause collapse. The fires were the critical factor in weakening the steel structure.
The only people making slow progress are those who refuse to face the facts and continue to believe what they want to believe rather than what can be supported by those very same facts.
No, WTC 7 is not the “number one bit of evidence for controlled demolition”. We’ve already been through that tower’s fall. It, too, collapsed due to fire.
The fires weakened the steel structure. As noted, we’ve been through this.
I sincerely hope those three collapses won’t be repeated.
Yes, we know that buildings can be brought down by fire and we’re not talking about “cutting some columns and then lighting a fire”; we’re talking about flying a 767 into the side of building. If you don’t think that’s a major challenge to any tower I’d like to see your qualifications.
But let me ask you a question: do YOU honestly believe that some group of people you can’t name planned a controlled demolition for reasons you can’t identify then planted masses of explosives you can’t prove were there that went undetected by anybody you know of AND made sure that those explosives were able to survive both the impact and firestorm caused by aircraft strikes that they ALSO planned and executed without anyone identifying their involvement but for which crimes they were able to frame a bunch of shady Arab dudes who conveniently happened to have been studying how to fly planes AND were on the flights that day?
Oh, and just to be clear on all of that, you can’t prove ANY OF IT and yet STILL you believe that they were controlled demolitions? Feel free to phone a friend before you answer those questions.
The article is crap, from a bogus “journal”, written by a nobody, who drew the wrong conclusions from the NIST report. Both of the floors where collapse initiated were heavily damaged by fires.
Fires on many floors must have become unbearably hot, given that many occupants decided it was preferable to jump out. At the very least it seems to indicate that inbuilt sprinkler systems or portable extinguishers were ineffectual.
And yet in an “ordinary” office block fire those would have been adequate. The fires must have been extraordinarily fierce.
“You say bombs were detonated in the 98th floor to make it look like the collapse was caused by the plane attack. There were windows exploding from the heat and jet of flames on the 98th floor 10 minutes before the buidling collapsed. Very intense heat, and a lot of damage. So I got a question:How did the dtenation explosives stay intact? How was it that the detonators still worked in those conditions?”
They probrably chose the 98th floor because there was very little damage so any explosives would have remained undamaged, plastic explosives are very stable, for example C4 you can shoot a bullet through or throw it on a fire and it wont explode, it requires a detonator.
I can’t find any images of tower 1 10 min before it’s collapse, but tower 2 collapses approx 20 minutes before tower 1s collapse, and at that time I can’t see any flames at all coming out of tower1(nor tower 2 for that matter), here is a short vid:
The aircraft brought their own fuel. Yes, think about that for a moment.
There was plenty of fuel on the floors.
Fires WERE evident around the perimeter of the buildings.
The core columns didn’t fail simultaneously, and nor did they need to. Remember that the Twin Towers relied upon their perimeter columns as well for structural stability.
No, the jet fuel only lasted for a handful of minutes, from then on the fires were reliant on other fuel sources, which were sorely lacking in the cores.
Yes, in order for a building to go from standing upright into complete failure all the columns must fail simultaniously, this is always done in controlled demolitions out of necessity.
The fires weakened the steel structure. As noted, we’ve been through this.
Interesting you use the word weakened, in order for freefall to occur all of the steel structure must instantly offer no resistance, not just a weakened resistance.
In the case of WTC 7 there is no way, no how, no possibility, that fires can completely remove all of the steel structures integrety. All it can possibly do is soften/weaken the steel to the point that it deforms by buckling, the steel will still retain some of it’s mechanical strength as it bends and buckles, so it will still offer significant resistance.
Andrew, my advice to you is not to tie yourself into knots following all of Bob’s twists and turns. He has shown himself to be a skilled obfuscator on top of being thoroughly disingenous in this discussion. One example — and he is not alone here — is his insistence that he does not see massive and violent explosions in all those movies and stills of the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers, even though this is how a number of reporters descibed that way on the day. Another is his idiotic implicit claim that I was not capable of recogising in those images explosions because I was not an ‘expert’ in explosions. These are only two of many examples of tactics used to obstruct the progress of this discussion towards a conclusion.
In his most recent contribution we find his umpteenth apparent attempt to conflate the crash of planes into the twin Towers with the collapse of WTC 7.
In one paragraph he states:
Then, in the next he states:
No, Bob, We don’t ‘know’ that steel framed buildings can be brought down by fire alone. I can only conclude that this is a deliberate lie on your part. This has never happened before and never since.
Bob ever so helpfully points out that flying a 767 into the side of building would be a major challenge to a building. I think we are agreed that it would be a challenge, but Bob also well knows that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a head on impact from a Boeing 707 which is comparable to a 767, so Bob should therefore well understand that the fact that 767′s crashed into those buildings on those days does not address all outstanding questions and he should stop pretending that it does.
And the crash of the 767′s into the twin towers answers nothing about the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7. One attempt by one Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to imply that the limited structural damage caused by the ‘collapse’ of the North Tower in any way contributed to the collapse of WTC was abandoned after I pointed out that even NIST does not pretend this to be the case.
Andrew, you may need to know the basis of Bob’s strident and repeated claim to have back somewhere in this thread to have proven that WTC 7 was brought down by fire and not by a controlled demolition. I have explained them in my post above:
After that I asked:
Bob claimed I had missed something.
I asked him again and again to state what else there was to his ‘case’, but he refused to say, until, eventually, he claimed to have explained everything by having copied and pasted a few sumary paragraphs from the NIST report. So, in addition to the above, we can now add the following:
If these look familiar to you, andrew, it may be because they featured in David Chandler’s videos I referred to above.
So, the implications I draw from what Bob holds to be the complete explanation for the ‘collapse’ is:
1. Prior to the initiation of the collapse, all the weight of the North Wall across its whole length somehow came to be supported on “the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face,” presumably the lowest 8 stories.
2. Within what NIST claims to have been the first 1.75 seconds of collapse, all the strength in those exterior columns that had previously supported the entire Noth wall was somehow lost.
If both (1) and (2) had not been true then it would not have been possible for the North Face to have collapsed at free fall speed. Either some descent at less than free fall speed would have been observed or the Norht wall would have been broken up.
So I leave it to Bob to explain whether or not he agrees with my understanding of what logically must follow from the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ and if he does not, then to explain to all of us why I am wrong.
—
Andrew, another post in which I discuss WTC 7 is 524.
—
When Oreo Palmer arrived on the 78th floor, he would have applied the best of his training and experience to evaluate what he observed and report back to the other firefighters what was required to put out the blaze. Whether or not Palmer could see for himself the full extent of the damage, the definite tone in his voice indicates that one way or another he had wored out what was going on up their or, at least, what should have been going up there from is initial observations, his training and his past experience. If there was anything about the situation that was not clear to him at that point he would have conveyed that in what he said.
Yes, Bob, you are right Palmer did ‘neglect’ to inform them:
1. If he moved above the 78th floor;
2. If others present told him what was happening on the floors above; or
3. If he worked out what was happening on the floors above by “looking up through the gaps in the floors”.
My guess is that the reason he did not was because that he judged that time was of the essence and that those below did not need to understand why he had arrived at his evalation of the situation, but simply to know his evaluation of what was required, and for his part Palmer would not have wanted to waste his own breathe and time on conveying superfluous information.
As I pointed out Oreo Palmer clearly did not have the full picture of what was happening when he arrived on the 78th floor. Obviously he knew nothing of the explosives that had been packed into the building.
On top of that he appeared unaware of other fires at that point starting to spread that could not have been caused by the planes. The key to understanding this can be found in the excerpt from Kevin Ryan’s article which I included above:
Bob makes a great deal of another fire burning a few floors up at the corner of the building but disingenuosly fails to point out the stream of molten steel (and, Bob, don’t try to pretend it must be molten Aluminium as a number of Truth Deniers have dishonestly attempted to do). There is simply no way that any fire caused by aviation fuel could have caused steel to melt in the way we have observed.
Bob wrote earlier:
Bob, why do you imagine I would care in the least about your pretence not to be convinced? If there was anything on that page that was not true, you would have no doubt found out by now and not wasted a minute before pointing that out to everyone here.
Saw some high cumulus clouds yesterday afternoon, daggo. They were huge. The tops were rapidly changing shape. They must have been 1 km across at least. Damn, the ‘cauliflower’ shapes up the top looked like they could only have been caused by aerial explosions.
How else to explain the huge velocities and accelerations? So someone must have wired the very air up there, with explosives, eh?
I have nothing to add to this, except to wonder whether it will rival the Is Missy Higgins a Lipsniger thread in the longest LP threads of all time.
FYEO
Correect.
Cumulo-nimbo-nano-thermite
Lofted on hot, humid days.
Massive micro-explosions.
Convection shifts massive micro-explosives up.
Technically more interesting:
batteries, capacitors used for “lightning”
Heavier.
Assisted by convection.
Lab chaps working on new solar-powered versions
Won’t work at night obvs.
Thunder at night?
Swarms of micro-planes carry capacitors up.
Top secret.
No witnesses.
No evidence.
Cumulo-nimbo resembles fireworks too.
Deep cover.
Massive computers.
All govts involved.
“Weather balloons”
“Weather radar”
Heavy rain near thunder anvils
Convenient coincidence.
Part of cover.
Rain washes away traces of
thermite.
No investigations.
Suits Met Bureaux.
“La plotta continua”
“I have nothing to add to this, except to wonder whether it will rival the Is Missy Higgins a Lipsniger thread in the longest LP threads of all time.”
I was kinda hoping that once it hit one thousand the thread would just detonate from controlled explosion from within.
“They” chose the 98th floor? Who are “they”? This is a ridiculous assertion. And you have failed to address the issue of fire-proofing the detonators.
The perspective in that video is too distant to show much. Look at this one and tell me if you see fire.
After the aircraft had dislodged a huge amount of material? Remember also that the aircraft furnishings themselves provided fuel for fires.
Is that right? And what do you base these assertions upon?
Freefall didn’t occur.
Again, upon what do you base your assertion that fires cannot weaken a steel structure’s integrity? Furthermore, we’ve already established that it wasn’t necessary for the entire structure to fail simultaneously – we know failure was progressive. Finally, we know there was some resistance because the building did not fall at free-fall speed.
Yes, Andrew, you should leave the self-knotting to experts like Daggy here.
Neither example is obfuscating, disingenuous or obstructive. I did NOT see “massive and violent explosions” in those “movies” (as you call them) and you patently don’t know an explosion when you see one, because you claim to see an explosion where we know there isn’t one.
Nope, no conflation, Daggy.
Again, there’s no conflation there. Do you know what “conflation” means, Daggy? Please don’t use words you don’t understand.
The fact that it hasn’t happened before or since reflects the lack of similar situations, i.e. airliner strikes, not its impossibility. As I showed earlier, total building collapses are rare, so the list of precedents is small to begin with, and there have only been two instances of large airliners striking steel-framed office towers, and they were the WTC attacks.
Andrew stated earlier that a steel-framed building was “immune” to collapse and then squibbed when asked to defend this assertion. You appear to be arguing the same. Care to tell us why?
I’m not pretending anything of the sort, Daggy – I’ve stated from the very start that it was the fires caused by the airliner strikes that were critical in the collapse of the towers. Please do keep up.
No, NIST argues that fires were the principal cause of collapse. You’ve been unable to falsify that theory, Daggy.
I “refused” nothing of the sort, and I’d pointed you to the official explanation in the NIST reports from the very start. Do you remember those? They’re the ones you said you hadn’t read. And I supplied the summary paragraphs you mention in response to an earlier discussion.
First, I don’t hold your cack-handed summary to be the complete explanation for the collapse.
Second, apart from not making sense your first point doesn’t relate to the NIST explanation. It’s a strawman, and a stupid one at that.
Third, your second point is consequently a non-sequitur.
Fourth, your understanding of many things has proven to be deficient time and again. You’ve been unable even to explain the NIST explanation, let alone critique it.
Daggy, we only know what he told his colleagues, from what he experienced. Anything else you want to assert is merely your opinion, and not fact. As has been stated several times now, he was nowhere near the worst fires and his account has no bearing on your “controlled demolition” theory.
What “inexplicable fires”? You missed the sentence preceding that paragraph:
“All parties”? The NIST report states that there was ample fuel from the aircraft and the furniture on the floors that burned.
Ryan’s article is unsubstantiated bunk.
Ah, yes, the “molten steel”. How do you know it was molten steel, Daggy? Is this going to be another one of those “vibe” arguments?
I’m glad you accept that there WERE visible fires on the floors above Palmer, however.
Squib. It’s YOUR claim that it was suppressed, so YOU prove it.
A roadmap to this discussion, the beginning of which I am including below, may help to prevent this disccussion going further around in circles. Of course, no-one here need accept my roadmap as the definitive road map. Others are welcome to provide their own.
Roadmap to “Saturday Salon — The Truth is Out There! edition”
28: daggett notes that, whislt on the one hand, the Government and the newsmedia consttantly cite 9/11 as a justifiaction for the “War on Terror” and for curtailments of human rights, most of the left and alternative media is silent on this question.
48: Nana Levu responds with link to “Pepe Escobar in Asia Times asks 50 questions about 911″.
50: Daggett, not noticing Nana levu’s comment, points out that CIA says it expects more 9/11′s
72 13 Sep: Daggett posts link to Sheen Challenges 9/11 Truth Debunkers to Larry King Live Debate and excerpt.
105 14 Sep: daggett responds to Nana Levu’s previous post@ 48.
106 14 Sep: FDB attacks daggett for allegedly cutting and pasting from his own comments.
107 14 Sep: Liam joins in.
108 Sep: FDB attempts to parody case of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
111 14 Sep: Brian attempts to ridicule 9/11 Truth Movement
112 14 Sep: More ridicule from FDB.
114 14 Sep: Liam makes reference to Chilean coup of 11 Sep 73.
126 15 Sep: Daggett responds to FDB (@ 106). Points out that there are two conspiracy theories to explain 9/11 and that rejection of one requires that the other be embraced. Asks FDB which Conspiracy Theory he embraces. Cites example of the Murdoch Press peddling the Official 9/11 Conspiracy to justify the continuation of war in Afghanistan. Points out that after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan that not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured. Asks “how much longer it will be until such a person is captured?
127 15 Sep: murph the surf responds by asking how long it will take until a 9/11 conspirator from within the US state blows the whistle.
128 15 Sep: GregM responds stating that Kahlid Sheikh Mohammod, an alleged 9/11 plotter, was captured on 1 March 2003
136 15 Sep: FDB points out that his sister reported for Time magazine on 11 Sep 01 and supports the Official account. Asks daggett if he considers her part of the conspiracy. “You do their efforts a grave injustice.”
138 15 Sep: Jules that she essentially does not consider 9/11 an important issue.
139 15 Sep: Daggett argues to murph the surf @ 127 that absence of whistleblower from US state 9/11 conspirators is not proof of absence of conspiracy.
Puts forward factors that would dissuade a whistleblower from stepping forward. Cites example of Barry Jennings, a former New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator, who worked in the WTC Building 7 on 11 September 2001 and who was outspoken with testimony against the Official account of the collapse of Building 7, who died mysteriously in August 2008. Before he died he told of how his job had been threatened and he feared for his life. Cites example of Computer Technician Scott Forbes, who witnessed power downs and many other mysterious events, including visits by large numbers of technicians with toolboxes up to the weekend prior to 9/11 during these power downs.
Points out to GregM @ 128 that alleged 9/11 plotter, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), was tortured and his confessions have not been tested in a proper open trial.
15 Sep: Jules supports daggett’s point @ 139 about KSM being tortured into making a confession.
Disputes that “the uncontrolled collapse of the 2 WTC towers looks anything like a controlled demolition”: “Calling the collapse of the twin towers a controlled demolition is the sort of abuse of language that makes anyone with a brain look at ‘truthers’ through very narrow eyes.”
142 15 Sep: Daggett thanks Jules for supporting him about KSM but defends his categorisation of the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ as controlled demolitions. Points out that 9/11 Commission and NIST refused to consider the controlled deomolition hypothesis for any of three ‘collapses’ in spite of testimony snd physical evidence in support of hypthesis. Refers Jules to ae911truth.org.
143 15 Sep: FDB. 144: Liam. 145: FDB. 146: Ambigulous.
148 15 Sep: Paul Burns attempts to riducule 9/11 Truth Movement. Attempts to liken unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theory to belief that moon landing was a hoax.
150 15 Sep: David Irving argues that Bush administration figures suspected of orchestrting 9/11 too stupid to pull it off and that surely someone from within the conspiracy would have blown the whistle by now.
152 15 Sep: GregM predicts that public trial of tortured alleged 9/11 coup plotter KSM will vindicate US Government and make 9/11 Truth movement look stupid.
153 15 Sep: Liam cites Duran Duran to say of 9/11 Truthers “They will believe what they want to believe come what may.”
155 Sep: Jules puts foot in both 9/11 Truther camp and in camp of sitting on the fence. Points out to GregM that any confessions extracted from KSM under torture would have no value in a trial. Asks why weren’t Bush and Cheney impeached or hung from a lamp post for gross negligence the next day? Restates belief in irrelevance of Controlled Demolition (CD) hypothesis, but gives examples of implausibility of official explanation of 9/11.
162 15 Sep: Murph the surf attempts to dismiss daggett’s arguments against the implausibility of US state 9/11 conspirators spilling he beans before now. Claims that those who bellieve that they had been probed by extraterrestrials are sane compared to 9/11 Truthers. Claims that anti-semitism oozes out when you just scratch the surface of 9/11 truth sites.
164 15 Sep: In the midst of post about sport, Jules makes post in apparent support of official 9/11 explanation: “The 9/11 attacks were also a classic underdog strike.” (?!)
165 Sep: GregM on subject of torture.
166 15 Sep: Jules further argues against reliability of evidence used in trial of KSM.
167 15 Sep: GregM attacks Jules statement @ 164 about 9/11 being a “classic underdog strike.”
168 15 Sep: GregM claims in response to Jules at 166that KSM hasn’t been tried yet.
170 15 Sep: Jules points out that trial of KSM beganin 2008 at Guatanamo Bay but has not finished.
172 16 Sep: Daggett provides links to videos by David Chandler which demostrate that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed and NIST being forced to admit that WTC 7 had admitted that it did. Reiterates earlier point that proper inquiry has not been conducted. Asks why demands of 9/11 Truth Movement should not be agreed to.
Challenges Jules statement @ 164 (but from different angle to Gregm @ 167) that “9/11 attacks were also a classic underdog strike”: “How does it help an underdog to judge him/her guilty of a crime he/she did not commit?”
Responds to GregM’s prediction at 152 that trial of KSM will vindicate US government. Looks forward to open trial of KSM that US has refused to conduct to find out what the case against KSM, other than confessions extracted under torture, consists of. Puts to GregM that it is, in fact, the Official Conspiracy Theorists, rather than 9/11 Truthers, who “will believe what they want to believe come what may.”
177 16 Sep: Liam (very melodramatically, clearly written in the hope that producers of court room dramas in the US, will note his script writing abilities) diagnoses daggett’s paranoid delusions. He demands “What’s your theory about what happened?” (Please read on, Liam.) “What could possibly satisfy you that there was not a massive conspiracy to whip Americans into war-frenzy? Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would change your mind about the invalidity of your so-called Official Narrative?” (Yes, there is Liam. Answers provided by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al that provide an alternaitve and verifiable alternaitve explanation — I can’t begin to conceive what — explanation for their bizarre behaviour, before, during and after 9/11 at a proper inquiry into 9/11).
Liam announces that he will refuse to consider any evidence I put to him: I will not watch your videos. “I will not read your Questions. I will not debate you on the differences between detonation and deflagration and the finer points of aluminium thermite’s utility in demolitions. I utterly reject the idea that your argument can be dealt with fairly or reasonably. Your ‘movement’ should be engaged with only with derision, mocking and contempt.”
178 16 Sep: adrian writes of Liam’s above oration, “I think that the word your searching for is “mockery”, Sheik, of which your rant is a fine example.
179 16 Sep: FDB corrects grammatical error in adrian’s post.
180 16 Sep: Liam. 181: Adrian. 182: adrian. 183: FDB.
184 16 Sep: Liam informs daggett of article “The hopless stupidity of 9/11 conspiracy theories” by Taibbi in Rolling Stones magazine is even more hard hitting than he has been.
185 16 Sep: adrian.
186 16 Sep: Daggett thanks Liam for his post 177 anticipating that it will cause 9/11 Truthers to collapse in uncontrollable fits of laughter for years to come.
Your “roadmap”, aside from being (thankfully) incomplete, appears to be uncomfortably close to 1:1 scale, Daggy, which suggests it’s not actually a map, let alone of any use to anyone.
Not to mention the fact that the road is clearly going nowhere.
Maybe it’s a roundaboutmap.
Aw, daggett, you left out Dr. Who and Torchwood who actually told me what really happened. (Though I may have missed some clues as I missed the episode Friday before last.)
“15 Sep: Jules that she essentially does not consider 9/11 an important issue.”
Jebus Daggett you can’t even get my sex right.
And compared to the response to it by Western Govts, which was unacceptable for a democracy, 9/11 is unimportant. 9/11 is unimportant compared to … say the anti terror laws the Howard govt enacted in response to it. You might think the anti terror laws will collapse once 9/11 truth wins their holy war, but come on. Those laws and their wrongness stand on their own. So while you were 9and are banging on about building being collapsed into their own toeprint you are not actually doing anything to combat those terror laws effectively. For example. Or consider how useful the time you have spent on 9/11 could have been in challenging the privatisation agenda of the Bligh government.
Anyway its your life, you’ll make your choices, but the least you could do is get my sex (and gender for that matter,) right.
Andrew,
you still have to explain how the remote control detonators, and the explosives didn’t fail on the 98th floor of the WTC 1 building. The fires were intense and the video as the building started to collapse shows the fire spewing out of that area. Even if you say 700C was not hot enough to cause enough movement in the steel supports, still its far too hot for any kind of detonators, remote control devices, and explosives.
This is the WTC 1 buiding.
996, divisible by 3.
Spooky !!!
Dagget,
Boeing 767-200ER: (AA011)
Maximum Take Off Weight: 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Boeing 707-020: (production variant at time of design)
MTOW: 222,000 lb (100,800 kg).
But it gets better – the Twin Towers were not designed to take an impact from a 707 travelling at low speed, largely empty of fuel (and the fire impact of the fuel was not modelled) and just lost in fog looking to land. There was engineering modelling at the time of design to see “what would happen if”. The Towers were not designed to take it.
.
To go further: the two 767s had just taken off for long flights (which is why those flights were chosen) and were flying at high speed – so the more correct comparison is this one:
Boeing 767-200ER (as crashed):
Weight (approx): 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Speed (approx) 500mph
Boeing 707 (as modelled to withstand):
Weight (approx): 103,145 lb (46,785 kg)
Speed (approx): 180mph
.
There is simply no comparison between them. The Towers did a magnificent job of staying up as long as they did, allowing everyone on the floors below the impact to get out.
Sorry – but just as much bollocks here as on Quiggin years ago.
I note Bob has declined to either confirm the logical conclusions I have drawn from the NIST account of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, or correct them (see roughly half way through his post).
I think others are entitled to draw the conclusion that he has declined to do so because he realises, as andrew and I have maintained, is that the NIST ‘explanation’ is impossible. What happened to WTC 7 is exactly what the live news commentator said it reminded him of at the time, hat is a controlled demolition.
—
Bob wrote:
Andrew didn’t “squib”. I can only assume, as I have already implied that he decided that he was not going to provide you with the remedial primary school level science classes that you demand of others at almost every step in this discussion. They were immune to collapse because any heat in the steel caused from fire around where the planes would have been conducted away through the structural steel through the whole length of the building all the way to the top and all the way to the ground. That should perfect sense to anyone who is in the first year of Secondary School and that should not require further explanation.
To be honest I had not thought of this until it was put on this forum by andrew, but it makes a lot of sense. The only attempt to rebut this was by “Heat Conductor” who asserts that insulation padding is used to isolate structural steel from one part of the building from structural steel in the rest of the building.
I would be most interested to know where he learnt that one of the functions of insulation padding was to isolate sections of structural steel thereby making fire induced collapse more, rather than less likely. My own instuitive feelings are that the only function of insulation padding is to prevent the heat from fires from flammable materials from reaching the steel.
(To go off on a tangent (and at the risk of Bob taking this as an invitation to seize on this to further cloud the issues at hand), I have read elsewhere that this property of steel actually makes residential housing constructed of steel, more rather than less vulnerable to bushfires than wooden housing. As there would be far less steel relative to the heat to be absorbed the heat from any nearby flames will be conducted right through the house and all the steel would quickly become hot enough to ignite flammable materials in close proximity to steel. Articles about that can be found here.
—
Bob demanded:
No, Bob. If you want to pretend that you don’t know that the recording of Oreo Palmer was suppressed by the Port Authority, when it is common knowledge that that and mountains of other information about 9/11 were suppressed, only because I haven’t rushed off at your behest to find the original source, then, by all means, please continue with that pretence.
To repeat my earlier point:
—
Bob wrote of my road map:
To make a 1:1 scale road map I would have had to either spend days typing full time or have copied and pasted wholesale the posts of others. Now, the only person on the forum in the practice of doing the latter is you.
My guess is that people will find my road map, incomplete as it is considerably more helpful than the ‘road maps’ that you inevitably post in response to each of my own posts. As each ‘response’ inevetibly includes the whole of my post copied into yours, the ‘scale’ begins at 1:1 even before you have added a single word of your own.
I see no way that we can prevent Bob from turning this page into one which will be incomprehensible to all but the most persistent and patient of visitors. My own desktop computer is now grinding to a halt under the weight of all the spam and trivia added to this page by Bob and others. In an attempt to mitigate that to a small degree, I will provide here another road map to guide visitors past Bob’s most recent ‘contributions’ towards some contributions that add to the discussion.
983: Ambigulous likens violent eruptions around Twin towers to cumulus clouds.
982: Daggett addresses the issues of fires observed on the South Tower just before it’s ‘collapse’ at the time Batallion Commander Oreo Palmer and Ronald Bucca would have been on the 78th floor. Daggett draws logical conclusions from Bob’s ‘case’ in support of the official account of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’ and ivites Bob to either confirm his understanding or correct it. In his subsequent post, (roughly half way through), Bob declines to do either.
981: Andrew answers Brendon’s claim that detonators could not withstand heat of flames and responds to Bob the Spammer’s previous ‘contribution’ @ 978.
980: Brendon claims that it would be impossible to remotely control detonation of explosives in the Twin Towers.
973: Andrew refutes ‘argument’ that ‘coincidence’ of collapses initiating from where the planes hit prove that planes must have caused ‘collapses’.
Daggett,
Andrew responded to my point about detonators, explosives, and remote control devices not being able to survive in an operational state in 700C fires in WTC 1 North Tower.
But he did not answer it as you claim. He just provided a video of the South Tower. Thats not answering it.
Look, why won’t you talk about Jesus and the chocolate?
Mwahaahahahahaa
Good, now that’s over, had a busy night last night let me tell you. So, stat master, is this the longest thread ever on LP?
So the truth is out there! and finally found by Casey @1000…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyk5dAU_wU
I’m sinking zat der point of ze cumulus clouds was zat zey are NOT explosions but mebbe you might sink zey looking like explosions
I’m sinking zat der point of ze cumulus clouds was zat zey are NOT explosions but mebbe you might sink zey looking like explosions
ach! sorry
They,
The perspective in that video is too distant to show much. Look at this one and tell me if you see fire.
The video you linked to shows no visiable flames in tower 1, tower 2 (which is the collapse tower) has some small pockets, very small for the size of the structure. Tower 1, which is the one we were discussing, actually looks like it is all-but out.
Freefall didn’t occur.
Yes it did, NIST has admitted that 2.25 seconds of freefall occured early in WTC 7s collapse. This means no resistance from the massive steel structure – not weakened resistance but no resistance. This is impossible to explain by fire.
Brendon,
Even if you say 700C was not hot enough to cause enough movement in the steel supports
I’m saying the steel never got to anywhere near 700C, please have a look at the video above which was posted as evidence of the fires in WTC 1 and you will see it is all but out when tower 2 collapses. BTW yet one more piece of evidence about the generally low temperatures is that some people actually safely made it down tower 2 from above the impact zone, 700C my arse.
Andrew Reynolds,
the Twin Towers were not designed to take an impact from a 707 travelling at low speed, largely empty of fuel (and the fire impact of the fuel was not modelled) and just lost in fog looking to land.
This is typical of what those disingenuous debunking sites spurt, the NIST final report found that the towers were designed to withstand the largest aircraft of the day at full speed (707 at 600mph).
Of course the fuel was considered, how else were the planes supposed to get there? But if common sense isn’t enough for you here is what the head engineer had to say when interviewed after the 93 bombing:
Quote:
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
andrew,
Nonsense. Maybe we should look at what the guy that actually did the work of that original analysis said, rather than the butt covering from the Port Authority. Look to the bottom of that page and on to the next. You will find he supports what I said. In fact, he goes further and says the towers actually exceeded expectations – they held up under greater stress than they were modelled to accept – a fully laden 767 at near full speed as opposed to an empty 707 at low speed.
As he makes clear, they did not model the impact of the fuel load and subsequent fires and heat – just whether the structure would survive the impact – which it did do.
Try again – fail by you on that point.
Anderw Reynolds,
that link is simply incorrect, Skilling was Robertson’s boss, and he makes it very clear in my earlier link that jet fuel was not only considered, but was considered to be the “biggest problem”.
Also the link is incorrect when it downplays the research into the effects of a 707 striking the towers by saying “Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer’s curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time.”
Here is what the NIST final report says (p6) “an aditional load, stated by the port authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at it’s full speed of 600 mph”
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
So we have the offical report saying the buildings were designed for a 707 at 600mph, and the lead engineer stating clearly that fire was considered in this analysis…. And of course we have the two buildings themselves both withstanding the impacts admirably by barely flinching and remaining perfectly upright for a considerable period after the initial impacts.
The towers survived the impacts and the jet fuel no problems, they disintegrated to dust because of controlled demolition.
I say again – Robertson (who actually did the work and so should know what was, and was not, considered) states that he modelled a 180mph collision by a largely empty 707 and did not consider the possibility of fuel fire. He is perfectly clear on this.
Also, if you actually read the document you linked to, it was not Skilling that said that – it was the Port Authority, who made the statement after the scare campaign noted in the NYT article. The NIST report is quite explicit in saying that. The Port Authority clearly made that comment without actually having the engineering support to say that. It was a statement they made to publicise the building.
Wrong again.
Joe 2 @1000andsomething soon.
Oh, rubbish. I refuted them, in comment #988.
Nope, wrong again.
Yes, he did.
Nope, that doesn’t make sense at all. Hey, did you try that experiment with the spoon that I suggested back at #964? I think you should – you’d obviously find it educational.
That wasn’t asserted at all.
But, Daggy, why would you prevent heat from reaching the steel? Remember that you’re labouring under the delusion that the steel would conduct all heat “through the whole length of the building all the way to the top and all the way to the ground”. You reckon steel-framed building are “immune” to fire-induced collapse, remember? Why is insulation necessary at all, Daggy?
Is that right, Daggy? So, are you stating that steel heats up when next to a fire?
Ha! Squibbed again!
It really did look like you were going to give it a go, though, didn’t it? I can just imagine you bashing away on irrelevant text that nobody will read, convinced you’re actually doing something useful, when all you’re doing is wasting your obviously non-valuable time!
I’m not into roadmaps, Daggy – waste of time. I am into accuracy, though, which is why I do you the courtesy of quoting you accurately. It’s why I don’t misquote you. You, on the other hand, are extraordinarily sloppy with detail, which is unsurprising.
Moan, moan, moan. Hang on…you think adding more of your repetitively verbose crap is going to improve things? Daggy…are you totally deranged?
Andrew, you mentioned WTC 2, so I showed you WTC 2. You saw fire, right? That same footage shows copious smoke spilling out of WTC 1 as well. Now, this footage just concerns WTC 1, the North tower. See any fire?
As I said, we’ve been through this before, at #502. Let me re-quote the NIST explanation:
The steel columns did not fail simultaneously, there was resistance and the building did NOT collapse at free fall speed. AGAIN, there is no evidence of controlled demolition.
Andrew Reynolds,
Also, if you actually read the document you linked to, it was not Skilling that said that – it was the Port Authority,
My referal to Skilling was a link in an earlier post where he clearly states that fire was considered, he also states that he doesn’t believe the single bomb and subsequent fires of the ’93 attack could have brought down the towers, and suggests that it would take “properly applied explosives” to do so:
Quote,
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”
Skilling – a recognized expert in tall buildings – doesn’t think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
“However,” he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
The conflicting reports of what the towers were designed for in relation to aircraft impacts does not detract from the fact that both towers easily withstood the aircraft impacts of 9/11, barely flinching and showing no visiable distortion or leaning towards the damage.
It’s actually something of a contradiction that two of the strongest buildings ever built, both of which had just shown how strong they were by withstanding the 767 impacts, should subsequently suddenly disintegrate virtually to dust right down to the ground supposedly because of smouldering office fires.
What happened to all that strength and redundancy that they had just proven they had when the aircrafts impacted???
Andrew,
When are you going to give us some concrete, uncontroversial evidence of a conspiracy to destroy the towers via controlled demolition? Dagget has been unable to do so and I note that you seem to be more interested in arguing over the minutiae of various videos and reports. Even your bit above about the 707s is not particualrly relevant as these weren’t the type of aircraft that hit the towers.
So how about it huh? Rather than insult our intelligence with these outrageously contrived examples let’s have some real evidence. I won’t be holding my breath though, you and Dagget run like startled gazelles when some yells “how ’bout some facts”.
Ummm Andrew – perhaps you should read your own blockquote again. Skilling here is referring to the 1993 attack (check the date – Saturday, February 27, 1993), not the 2001 attack. A car bomb is a very different thing to two 767s. He also clearly says that they modelled a 707, not a 767, which is a larger aircraft with a larger fuel load.
Again, though – Skilling clearly says that he did not do the analysis – Robertson did. Robertson is unequivocal on what was modelled. Skilling died in 1998 and had no opportunity to revise his findings. Robertson is still alive and has done so.
I would strongly encourage you to download and read this piece of his (particularly page 9 and figure 3) before you comment on this again.
How long do you guys reckon you can keep this up for?
Fine,
I have only just started. Just be glad this is not on fractional reserve banking.
LADRTHVomit,
This would have to a monumental “fail”, you claim there is no freefall while quoting a source that admits 2.25s of freefall, here from your quote “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance travelled between times 1.75s and t = 4.0s.
Because the overall time was 40% longer than freefall does not mean a period of freefall did not exist within the collapse, that is like suggesting that someone who runs 100m in 10s flat does so at 10m per second the whole way, with no faster or slower periods within the 100m.
Now, this footage just concerns WTC 1, the North tower. See any fire?
There is some at the bottom of the crash zone, but none at the top of the impact zone which is where the collapse surprisingly initiates, and which was the area we were discussing.
I’m out of here.
daggett
you have misrepresented what I wrote, as Bob correctly notes.
I wrote about how the fire heat would enter the beams, and how it was supposedly going to dissipate (in your scenario).
I did not claim that insulation material would be used to prevent heat being conducted from one beam to another beam that it was in contact with.
I didn’t say there wasn’t a period of gravitational acceleration; I said the building did not collapse at free fall speed, and it didn’t. The NIST clearly states where there was substantial resistance to collapse, indicating there was no simultaneous failure of the entire structure.
So you saw the fires. Ta.
Thanks for coming.
Heh.
“I’m out of here.”
Did any else notice a surprised African deer leaping off? I think it was the demand for evidence that spooked it. Always scares the willys out of me!
Bob wrote:
Thank you, Bob.
The North Wall did not fall at free-fall speed for 2.5 seconds through 8 floors, because if we average the time of the fall over the longer period of 5.4 seconds, we ‘find’ the rate of fall was less than free fall speed.
So, no need to explain away that collapse at free fall acceleration for that 2.5 seconds through 8 stories within that 5.4 second period, is there?
At least we are all perfectly clear now about what is the basis of Bob’s repeated claims that he has fully debunked our claims over the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7.
Come to think of it, that statement even makes my attempt to draw the absurd conclusions, that follow from NIST’s ‘explanations’ of its designated Stages 1 and 2 of the ‘collapse’, superfluous.
At least, I hope that others who have followed this discussion might not be too judgemental if, from now on, I desist from any further ‘debate’ with Bob.
—
I note PatrickB continues to impersonate a broken record.
No-one has attested to having seen the planted explosives and wiring, so for him that is the beginning and ending 0f the issue.
Anyway, PatrickB, I think we agreed a long time ago that, by your criteria, there is no “concrete, uncontroversial evidence of a conspiracy to destroy the towers via controlled demolition.” Fortunately, in real life, in most circumstances, policed don’t simply give up investigating a crime if such evidence does not fall into their laps.
If you believe that repeating your view to the contrary over and over again somehow helps this discussion to move forward, then don’t let us stop you.
“Anyway, PatrickB, I think we agreed a long time ago that, by your criteria, there is no “concrete, uncontroversial evidence of a conspiracy to destroy the towers via controlled demolition.””
And yet you continue to maintain that this was in fact the case, that the towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition. The police don’t follow every crazy accusation put to them. You controlled demolition fits into that category. The police would not, indeed have not, investigated your theory because it fails at the first hurdle, that being: is there any evidence, to which you answer “No”.
BTW is this the 3rd admission that no evidence exists for a controlled demolition? Did I hear the cock crow?
BTW I also impersonate other broken appliances. Right now I’m doing a toaster with a faulty element.
767,
I didn’t say there wasn’t a period of gravitational acceleration; I said the building did not collapse at free fall speed, and it didn’t. The NIST clearly states where there was substantial resistance to collapse, indicating there was no simultaneous failure of the entire structure.
I will answer this then I must go, my computer is just too slow on this site. You must, must , must, acknowledge a period of freefall and “substantial resistance” are mutually exclusive? So for that 8 story period of freefall there was virtually no resistance, not just weakened resistance because the fire had softened the steel but no resistance.
That WTC 7 offered some resisistance after the period of freefall is exactly what would be expected in a controlled demolition where the lower sections of columns are removed via cutter charges, and the building is allowed to freefall until the upper part hits the ground.
To achieve this period of freefall in an implosion requires the precision timed removal of all the columns, a weakening or softening of the columns will not suffice.
Blind Freddy can see wtc 7 was an implosion, the 2.25s of freefall is the absolute proof.
daggett,
Are you seriously maintaining that roughly 50kg of explosive per column was planted (by person or persons unknown) in WTC7 prior to the impact on WTC1 and WTC2? That these explosives got past security in one of the more secure buildings in New York (the Secret Service and SEC investigations was housed there)? That after nearly 8 hours of the building burning none of the explosives had been touched? That after that same 8 hours all of the control systems that need to be in place to control such a demolition were also untouched? That a building that has been burning uncontrolled for 8 hours and had a huge building collapse right next to it, cutting a huge scar in it could not have collapsed on its own? That a building that was showing severe cracking a bowing prior to its collapse (remember, the firefighters had been pulled out by the fire chief as he could see it was not looking good) was not showing signs of severe stress?
All of these and more would need to be correct for you to be right on this.
BTW – if you can find a single instance of a building undergoing a controlled demolition having sections of it experiencing free fall I would be very surprised.
Wonder if we’ll make 2000?
No, andrew, it is not “proof” – it is an hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that nothing other than a controlled demolition could have produced the required 2.25 seconds of roughly freefall equivalent drop in the building or, to put it a way that is reasonably provable, that the conventional explanation could not account for the 2.25 seconds of freefall.
The, so far broadly accepted (i.e. outside 911 truther sites), explanation is that the fire caused the central support structure to fail below the 13th floor, in the floor where the fires were at their worst. With the huge scar torn in south face of the building the outside walls, now bearing the entire weight of the building, were unable to support the weight of the roughly 40 stories that were now effectively unsupported in the middle. This accounts for the buckling seen by the fire chief and the structural engineers advising him. He then called everyone out of the building before it collapsed.
The freefall event then becomes fairly easy to account for. Right at the base of the building there was no strength at all – it had collapsed – and the side walls were not designed to take any substantial lateral stress. As they collapsed in (stage 1) the bottom floors were giving way. Once these had given way the top of the structure went into free fall (stage 2) and then once the stack started to collapse onto the crushed rubble below it slowed down again (stage 3).
On the contrary, your hypothesis does not stack up, as I indicated in my last comment addressed to daggett. The chain of events that would have had to happen to manage a controlled demolition is just too long for me to find it at all plausible.
That’s right- the building did not fall at free fall speed.
What’s to explain away? The building was collapsing after initially providing some resistance.
Actully, Daggy, we were clear on this issue some 500-odd comments ago, but you stubbornly refused to accept the facts. I’m glad you finally accept the official explanation.
Superfluous. And wrong.
Oh, c’mon, Daggy – don’t be like that. Just know that I’m here for you.
No, why should I?
Remember that the building had already been collapsing BEFORE this period – the structure had already been compromised.
Is it? Who says?
The building didn’t free fall.
No, it isn’t. Is “Blind Freddy” your new expert witness? Can do better, Andrew.
Fyodor,
I will have to register that domain name for myself.
Catchy, ain’t it?
Careful, though. Blind Freddy might get to Melbourne IT first…
Like Liam’s earlier post, I think Andrew Reynolds’ should be framed, as should Bob’s latest:
Andrew (not Andrew Reynolds) wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
So, it would seem that as well as debunking myself and andrew, Bob has also succeeded in debunking Isaac Newton.
Interesting that all you have to say is that my response “should be framed” – I take it that because you have opted not to try to disagree that you agree and that you have conceded your error on this point.
Andrew Reynolds wrote:
Actually, No.
It’s the sort of post that I like to bookmark and quote back at people I am likely to encounter again on the ‘Net.
It demonstrates, to me, a complete failure, on your part, to understand the available evidence about the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7.
One point that you argue that was put earlier and subsequently conceded to be wrong, was that the damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower had anything to do with the subsequent ‘collapse’ of WTC 7. NIST itself argues that fire alone brought down WTC 7 and the initial structural damage you refer to played no part. You will find that not even Bob will back you on that one.
If you like you can tell me why I am wrong about the logical conclusions I have drawn from the NIST explanation of what it designates as “stage 1″ and “stage 2″ of the ‘collapse’.
Bob has already declined to do so.
Alternatively, you could properly examine all the arguments and evidence put on this forum and concede that you are wrong.
daggett,
I would guess from your comment that you have not read the NIST preliminary report or you would not have commented as you did – or you are just being heroically ignorant. The final report is not yet out, but the draft is good enough – and makes much, much more sense than a hypothesis that it was a controlled demolition.
It’s here.
Page L-23 shows the region of possible damage from the WTC1 collapse, which, at the very least, cuts through many of the main support trusses on the southern face. It also details how this may have affected the subsequent collapse.
Have a good read of para L.3.5 (page l.50 and subsequent) to see what properly qualified structural engineers think may have happened. None of them need 1250kg of explosives to be in the building.
.
Now – about your hypothesis. Some questions – and remember, all of them have to have good answers before your hypothesis could even become a theory:
1. How did roughly 50kg of explosive per column (that’s roughly 25 columns, or 1250kgs total) get planted (by person or persons unknown) in WTC7 prior to the impact on WTC1 and WTC2?
2. How did these explosives got past security in one of the more secure buildings in New York (the Secret Service, CIA and SEC investigations were housed there)?
3. Why was it that after nearly 8 hours of the building burning none of the explosives had been touched?
4. How was it that after that same 8 hours all of the control systems that need to be in place to control such a demolition were also untouched?
5. Why would it be that a building that has been burning uncontrolled for 8 hours and had a huge building collapse right next to it, cutting a huge scar in it could not have collapsed on its own?
6. Why is it that a building that was showing severe cracking a bowing prior to its collapse (remember, the firefighters had been pulled out by the fire chief as he could see it was not looking good) could not be said to have been very close to collapse?
Perhaps there are more, but that is enough to go on with as you have not even started on them.
Isaace Newton? Clearly not, but I’m devilish keen to see you get out of this one. Explain why, Daggy, and no squibbing.
Nope – I refuted your dopey conclusions at #988.
Daggy a squibber? Daggy, tell me it isn’t so!
Casey #1001,
Is Missy Higgins Lesbian? currently stands at 724 comments.
Our Foulmouthed Feathered Friend Reducks stands at 550.
A previous Saturday Salon made it to 500.
The bottom line: this thread holds the record by quite some distance.
“If you can prove me wrong, then fine. Your point about me being seen as “daggett is the mad conspiracy theorist” would be correct.” – Daggett from the privatisation thread (Quiggin on Bligh).
I haven’t even looked at NIST re building 7. I don’t have the total faith in NISt that some here do, but I can see how they came to their conclusions on the twin towers. There are a few things about their methods that are not necessarily good, but …
Its abit like AGW “denial”. Sure the IPCC doesn’t actually know everything there is to know about the climate, but considering the evidence they present, and considering the evidence against, then they are fair enough in concluding they are 90% sure of their conclusions.
All the objections you and other raise to the towers collapse are like the issues raised AGW deniers. They might seem important on the face of it, but compare them to everything offered by the ‘other side” and the “other side”, in this case NIST, actually don’t seem as wrong as they could.
You are obviously not going to agree with this, you think stuff you have sussed out online is evidence. Its not actually. Evidence is something that can stand up to cross examination in a court of law.
I don’t think you are loopy tho, just wasting your time, and distracted. 9/11 caused a form of cultural PTSD. You are suffering from it. So is everyone to some extent. Its an imprintion level event. It seems so horrible and movie style spectacular to view that it demands meaning from the people exposed to it.
So people attatch their “significance” to it. Its a blank canvas. Don’t trust the govt? Then they did it. Don’t trust irrationality. Then shut up you stoopid conspiracy theorist. So I don’t think you are loopy. Just passionate and suffering from a dodgy imprint.
I remember having an online conversation with an old skool troofer (= controlled demolition? who gives a fuck, give me something I can use,) at least 14 months before you became involved with this, about how dodgy all this noise about a CD was. How it warped the focus onto something that may not have happened using a series of screaming attention whores.
How conveinient it was to have people going on and on about this, with wilder and more outrageous theories, some so wild that the ones that seemed implausible then actually looked good in comparison.
Some of us had done a bit of research into the way US spooks get involved with any number of strange ideas, from Wassons famous trip to Mexico, to their bizarre connections with the people who manipulate NEw Age beliefs and (so called) alien abductees. We don’t trust this controlled demolition bullshit. Its a road to nowhere, as history has shown.
As of yet Daggett you haven’t even mentioned that you even know about a company called PTech.
It simply boggles my mind that you can drive a thread about 9/11 to 1000 comments and not bring it up once.
There was no controlled demolition. The whole think is a scam cooked up people who want to control where you put your attention and energy. You are being played like a musical instrument Daggett, and like so many other true believers you just can’t see it.
Fyodor,
Perhaps it really was the Government – or was it “pissed off Muslims”?
Jules,
I haven’t even looked at NIST re building 7. I don’t have the total faith in NISt that some here do, but I can see how they came to their conclusions on the twin towers. There are a few things about their methods that are not necessarily good, but …
I can see how they came to their conclusions about the twin towers too, they just made up temperatures that the evidence doesn’t support, they stripped off all the fireproofing because their computers deemed it necessary, and then after getting a bogus collapse initiation senario they stopped right there and offered no explaination for the actual collapses. Too easy!!
WTc 7 is even a bigger fail, they claim that failure in one critical column can cause a modern steel framed highrise to fail in the manner of a controlled demolition, this flies in the face of everything that is known about a buildings redundancy and ability to redistribute loads.
The claim that “differential thermal expansion” can cause the sheer studs to fail, in order to prove this they told their computers to heat the steel beams but not the concrete in the composite floors so the steel expanded but the concrete didn’t, easy to do in computer land but in reality they would both heat up (and expand) together. “Differential thermal expansion” flies in the face of everything that is known about concrete and steel’s compatible coefficient of thermal expansion.
In the draft report they didn’t acknowledge any freefall, after complaints they included freefall in the final report without offering an explaination as to how it is possible.
I actually believe the NIST wtc 7 report is so far fetched that it is deliberately designed to leave controlled demolition as the only possible explaination. In other words, the NIST engineers have produced a whole heap of nonsense that is sufficiently technical enough to get passed by the NIST political minders, but that is at the same time completely untenable.
Not only have they produced a completely new and untenable collapse mechanism, but they also took away every argument the so-called “debunkers” had in their arsenal. They said the damage from the towers collapse played no part, they said the diesel storage tanks played no part, they said the design of the building played no part, and they said the fires were not unusually hot.
I would stronly suggest that some of the more decent people at NIST recognise 9/11 as the treasonous event that it was and want no part of the cover-up, so they produce a report that is not only easily countered but makes controlled demolition very clearly the only viable hypothesis by removing all the arguments debunkers use to muddy the waters.
9s vid of wtc 7s collapse for anyone who hasn’t seen it:
I’d opt for “pissed off Muslims”, meself. Or Daleks. (Cybermen don’t have the brains.)
Oh, come off it, Burt. When did the Muzzies ever hurt anyone? It has to be the Jews.
Think about it: they killed their own people in the WTC just to throw us off the scent. And the whole thing was just a huge, head-fake fascade for the REAL DEAL, namely the GFC and consequent elevation of Gold Sacks to true Mastery of the Universe. It’s all so obvious – why can’t you fools see it? By the Power of Grayskull!!!
Andrew, IIRC (and its been years so maybe I don’t) NIST reports on the towers couldn’t even get the actual collapse times right, so that had that much in common with most truthers anyway. By the time the report into building 7 came out I certainly didn’t care any more, and am surprised I have devoted as much time as I have in this thread to this discussion.
Anyway i think Andrew Reynolds actually points to the real motive Dubya had for 9/11.
Matt and Trey’s oft ignored masterpiece “Thats my Bush.”
Which disappeared into the memory hole right quick in sept 01. Of course they couldn’t actually come out with that in that episode of South Park. It was a subtle hint.
No he’s seriously not as off the mark with the South Park thing as he thinks.
Much better to think the pissed off Muslims had nothing to do with it, cos if you think they do, and then do some digging you actually come across real dodgy bullshit. Arms, drugs and people smuggling (real people smuggling, as in prostitutes from Asia or Eastern Europe, not helping refos escape shitful conditions.) Or business as usual…
This ain’t no cartoon, no one slips on bananas
do you really think that that car killed Diana?
hell I shot Ronald Regan, I shot JFK
I slept with Marilyn she sung me “Happy Birthday”
Goldman Sachs… I agree with Griffith. Its intolerable that we don’t tolerate their intolerable greed.
andrew,
As with WTC1 and WTC2, Robertson (the chief structural engineer) is someone who should know what he is talking about – and he accepts the mainstream view. You also have not provided any answers to the questions that must logically arise from your preferred hypothesis about how a controlled demolition of a 47 storey building could have been done with no-one other than the alleged conspirators (whoever they were) actually noticing over a tonne of high explosives getting into a very secure building. The cover-up would also have to be similarly massive. To me at least this is not the most plausible of scenarios.
Apart from anything else a controlled demolition normally involves those explosives actually exploding – and there are no explosions at the appropriate time on any of the many videos being taken at the time.
So – no explosions, no trace of any explosives going in and no real need for them to exist to account for the observed collapse means no evidence, at all, of any controlled demolitions.
Sorry – but no dice. You will have to do a lot better than that.
Hey Paul Burns, how do actually feel about the introduction of a zombie to the Torchwood crew?
(I have a feeling you said you missed the episode that led up to it.)
Andrew Reynolds,
You also have not provided any answers to the questions that must logically arise from your preferred hypothesis about how a controlled demolition of a 47 storey building could have been done with no-one other than the alleged conspirators (whoever they were) actually noticing over a tonne of high explosives getting into a very secure building.
Perhaps you might like to read this article about tests carried out on other secure buildings, and these were done after 9/11 (not to mention that the WTC lease holder is a major suspect)
Quote:
“In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected, exposing weaknesses in security provided by the Federal Protective Service.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/gao_finds_major_security_flaws.html?hpid=topnews
Jules,
Sorry I mistook your gender. You would be the first non-female ‘Jules’ I have encountered.
It’s ridiculous to liken the debate over the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ with the controversy over Global warming and moreover, to put me in the camp of the global warming deniers. The latter is vastly more complex and necessarily based on speculative guesses, whilst the former is based on well understood principles of physics and construction engineering, much of which is easily repeatable. That you assert that it is inherently impossible to draw a firm conclusion one way or the other and hence possible for NIST to honestly and objectively arrive at the conclusions they have confirms to me that you haven’t properly understood the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the eywitness testimony and phyisical evidence upon which they base it.
Why don’t you come up to Brisbane to the Clayfield Bowling Clb on Thursday 19 November at 7PM to see Richard Gage’s presentation for yourself? He finds that the overwhelming majority who come to his meetings who accept the official explanation go away convinced.
And sorry I haven’t looked more carfully into PTech. However, it also seems to me, as I have commented above, that you have not comprehended a good deal that I have posted here including what I have addressed to you. There are a lot of other aspects to 9/11 I haven’t even touched upon here (including, as an example the rivers of molten steel found under all three towers after the collapses’). I will get around to considering Ptech. In the meantime, pease feel encouraged to elborate further upon it (although, better on another thread).
—
Andrew asks: Why would it be that a building that has been burning uncontrolled for 8 hours and had a huge building collapse right next to it, cutting a huge scar in it could not have collapsed on its own?
Firstly because fires didn’t rage out of control for 8 hours. There were a few fires visible in parts of WTC 7, but nothing close to what would appriximate what you are claiming.
Secondly, as I pointed out above NIST itself acknowledged that the structural damage caused by the North Tower ‘collapse’ played no role in the subsequent ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 other than possibly having started some of the fires.
I can’t answer all the questions you ask. How the explosives that clearly must have been put there were put there is a question that a proper investigation would have pursued. If you have watched any number of police dramas, you will know that successful hold-ups of armoured cars are often made possible with inside knowledge and inside assistance and police investigating such crimes test those theories. The same applies to the WTC 7 ‘collapse’. NIST should have questioned those in charge of security of WTC 7 amongst others.
—
Bob Newton’s Second Law of Motion states:
and
In the case of WTC 7 during the 2.25 seconds (sorry, not 2.5 seconds, it would seem) of free fall acceleration the upward component of that vector sum would have had to have been zero. If it had not been zero, then the WTC North Wall would have fallen at less than the gravitational rate of acceleration for that period, which it clearly did not. For there to have been a zero upward component in the forces acting upon the visible northern wall of WTC 7 (and most likely the southern wall too), there could have not been any structural strenght supporting those walls at that time.
In your post @ 1030 you claimed that both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall as I pointed out:
Either you hold that their could have been structural strength supporting the visible northern wall of WTC 7 was greater than zero during that 2.25 seconds of free fall or you accept Newton’s Second Law of Motion, but you can’t do both.
dagget,
Or you can accept what you eyes are telling you when you look at the tape – the entire interior support is going through progressive collapse, leaving the now unsupported parapet wall to fall, pulled inwards and down by the already falling interior. You do not need to add bombs into the equation if the main support pillars are already failing or have failed.
As for “it could not happen”: Robertson, the same guy that sinks you on WTC1 and WTC2, also agrees with the mainstream opinion and he designed the building. He looked at the report and agreed it was a plausible scenario. Or is he in on the enormous conspiracy to blow down the building as well?
How do you account for the complete lack of any actual detonations (as are normal for any controlled demolition) in any of the tapes? You say that the explosives must have been there and that they must have gone off, why can we not hear them or see any results of them?
As for the fires – there were fires burning uncontrolled in the building for a long time. The fire chief’s order to evacuate the building (unless, of course, he is in on the conspiracy too) shows that he could see it was going – that is why he pulled everyone out.
I know you have a lot of time and effort involved in this, daggett, but my sincere advice would be to cut your losses ASAP.
He looked at the report and agreed it was a plausible scenario. (Andrew R)
Thats what I’m getting daggett. Like it or not the NIST reports for the WTC present a plausible scenario, and although there are flaws, they aren’t (imo) big enough to discount its main thrust. Believe me if I thought they they contained some huge flaws I’d have been screaming about them for years online.
Building 7 does look alot like a controlled demolition, except for the absence of explosives and cables, but the absence of the explosions is a pretty serious absence if you are looking for evidence to support CD. Not that I know what the report says, cos like I said I’m well over it.
Ptech was(is?) a software company. Their software was being used by the FAA, NORAD and the USAF when all the bullshit was happening between the hijackings and the eventual crashing of each plane. Ptech was started by Saudis who have been accused of financing Al Quada and has been described by one whistle blower (Indira Singh) as a CIA front company. The investigations into the links between Ptech and terrorism were poor and probably interfered with.
They are one example of the connections between AlQ and the CIA, ignoring the obvious ones about who got them started. others include their relationship in Kosovo gotta go fire call out.
remote control devices and detonators won’t work above 400C. A normal office fire is 700C.
End of story.
“Perhaps you might like to read this article about tests carried out on other secure buildings, and these were done after 9/11 (not to mention that the WTC lease holder is a major suspect)”
This has absolutely zero to do with the WTC attack. Why when you are asked a direct question won’t you give a direct answer? Show us some proof that comes up to a reasonable standard and you might begin to convince someone.
It seems incredible to me that you and Dagget continue to maintain your position when all you would have to do is read back through this thread and see you own evasiveness when anyone has asked for some reasonable proof of a conspiracy. The only conclusion any reasonable person can reach is that you have none.
Imagine that you are in a police station telling the same kind of story. Do you think the police will be convinced when you say something like “Well I saw a programme on TV where they did something similar”. How long do you think it would take the cops to work out that you were wasting their time?
PatrickB,
imagine if there was no video of the planes crashing into the buildings, no missing planes, no witness accounts of such, no evidence, no debris, no identified Arab terrorists, etc….
now imagine a group of people insisting that planes flew into the twin towers and that is what caused it to collapse, and they come up with no actual evidence of such.
And there you have it.
jules,
It would not have been only you out there screaming. I lost a good mate that day.
.
brendon,
Doubtless those that believe in a conspiracy will be able to point out some explosives that are stable at those temperatures and some detonators and cord that would also work. It would have to be cord as remote detonation is unlikely to work reliably near fires.
.
PatrickB,
As with most conspiracy theories a lack of evidence can also be explained away by adding in more alleged conspirators. In this case, you would probably need to add in the fire investigators, the owners of the WTC (as they have), the NIST, the highjackers themselves and many others. To me, a good test of a conspiracy theory’s plausibility is the minimum number of participants – the closer to one it is the more likely the conspiracy. That is one reason why, for example, I do not believe all the conspiracy theories about the moon landings or the JFK assasination – either would have just required too many people.
@1055
Nope … you’ve done my head in … I must be genetically predisposed not to accept unfounded assertions.
Nope, Daggy – another FAIL. I never claimed that “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall”. This is direct from 1030, INCLUDING my text you DIDN’T quote:
Notice that NOWHERE do I state that “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall”.
Now, where does NIST say that there was “substantial resistance”, as I term it? Refer to my comment at #1012, where I requoted the relevant text from the NIST report. There was resistance at the beginning (“Stage 1”) and at the end (“Stage 3”) of WTC 7’s collapse. In no way is this inconsistent or “mutually exclusive” with the short period of gravitational acceleration (“Stage 2”) AFTER the building had already begun to collapse.
I’ve told you before, and I’ll keep telling you, Daggy, because you just don’t fucking learn: Get. Your. Facts. Straight.
@1056
Yes I totally agree. Essentially it’s all down to Ockham’s Razor.
It’s interesting though, how generally speaking, people will accept the simplest explanation or not care to construct a highly contingent chain events to explain an event. Yet there are a small number of people who, even when pressed to give just the simplest piece of evidence, answer by constructing even more elaborate scenarios that agree with there baseless theories. Is it cultural? Is it a pathology? Is it a piss-take. I think we ought to be told.
Yes I totally agree. Essentially it’s all down to Ockham’s Razor.
It’s interesting though, how generally speaking, people will accept the simplest explanation or not care to construct a highly contingent chain events to explain an event.
Well if we are talking about the collapse of WTC 7 then Ockham’s Razor supports controlled demolition, an engineered implosion very simply explains all the dynamics of the symetrical collapse, it has precidence, and it is repeatable (which is the number one requirement of proving a hypothesis).
It’s interesting though, how some people can see that this is clearly the simplest and most succinct explanation for that collapse, but refuse to even consider it as an option for fear of being called a “conspiracy nutter”. Instead they would rather accept NIST’s complicated, hitherto unknown, completely unrepeatable, solely computer generated, “highly contingent” collapse mechanism.
andrew,
If you want to repeat the WTC7 “controlled demolition”, the first challenge would be to do it with almost completely silent explosives. From there, you would need to do it with those same explosives surviving 700 degree temperatures. Find detonators that will do likewise. Get enough cabling (also, 700 degree plus tolerant) out from those explosives to an adjacent building. Move all of those explosives into a highly secure building without anyone else noticing and then arrange for the adjacent buildings to be hit with large civilian airliners.
Do all that and you may have a case that establishes that it is even possible. Then it may be worth considering the possibility that you are right that this was the way WTC7 was brought down.
Andrew R
Please don’t invite these guys to stage a similar event.
They’d mess it up.
Actually, Andrew, the collapse wasn’t symmetrical, it was progressive. If you’d read the report on which you’re pontificating, as opposed to getting your theory from edited YouTube videos, you’d know that the collapse was not symmetrical, and had a progression unlike a controlled demolition.
Not only that, there’s no:
- evidence of explosives
- witnesses to the planting of explosives
- workable way to rig explosives and, more importantly, their detonators to survive the fires that could not have been anticipated
- oh yeah, no way to even anticipate the fires that were caused, accidentally, by the nearby airliner crashes
- motive for the destruction of WTC 7
- evidence trail of any kind to potential perpetrators
- precedent for WTC 7.
On that last point, You clearly don’t appreciate the uniqueness of the event – WTC 7 was set on fire by airliner crashes into WTC 1&2, and their subsequent collapses. Not only that, one of the key challenges for WTC 7 that day was that the collapse of WTC 1 cut off the supply of water to the sprinkler systems on the lower floors of WTC 7. That meant that fire suppression systems did not perform the way they were supposed to and contributed to the success of the fires in weakening the structure of the building. In fact, NIST states that if the sprinkler system had operated as designed, it is likely that the fires in the building would have been controlled, and collapse prevented.
Compared to all that absent evidence, the official story is, indeed, the simplest and most likely explanation. The controlled demolition hypothesis, in contrast, has literally NO evidence to substantiate it. None.
P.S. double-plus what Burt said.
Jules @ 1048m
Zombies have apparently become the latest romantic symbol.
and tonight I finally resolved the mystery of the Tewin Towers. The Master was behind it. Don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than Dick Cheney masterminding a controlled explosion.
“Well if we are talking about the collapse of WTC 7 then Ockham’s Razor supports controlled demolition,”
You must be using the venerable friar’s electric razor. It never went well as electricity hadn’t been discovered. I prefer his conventional razor which would point to:
Large building collapsing nearby;
Raging fires
as the cause.
For some negative evidence you could include:
Total lack of any evidence for explosives.
May God be with you.
“It would not have been only you out there screaming. I lost a good mate that day.”
Sorry to hear that, really. I don’t think i’ve ever had anyone tell me that before. or at least mention it. Its not the sort of thing I actually ask tho.
I dunno what to say tho. I don’think the pissed off muslims acted alone, tho I am open to being convinced if the whole thing is investigated properly. It wouldn’t be an easy task tho. Personally I doubt Bush was involved, if someone had pointed the finger at his old man …
If it turns out it was all incompetence, I’m dumbfounded that such incompetence is rewarded the way it was. Not mind numbingly dumbfounded really, but mildly dumbfounded. I know that us banging on about shit doesn’t compensate for the loss of your flesh and blood mate tho. So I’m sorry about that.
“It’s interesting though, how generally speaking, people will accept the simplest explanation or not care to construct a highly contingent chain events to explain an event. Yet there are a small number of people who, even when pressed to give just the simplest piece of evidence, answer by constructing even more elaborate scenarios that agree with there baseless theories.” – PatrickB
Because the simplest explanation is usually bollocks. I don’t actually remember the principle of Occams Razor, but I think part of it has to do with all things being equal …. the simplest explanation is the best.
Occams Razor doesn’t mean the simplest explanation is the best. It needs more rigor. Part of it has to do with the simplest explanation based on the available evidence.
If two sides can’t even agree on what the basic evidence is …
Anyway terrence Mckenna said this:
“Conspiracy theory, in my humble opinion, is a kind of epistemological cartoon about reality. Isn’t it so simple to believe that things are run by the greys, and that all we have to do is trade sufficient fetal tissue to them and then we can solve our technological problems, or isn’t it comforting to believe that the Jews are behind everything, or the Communist Party, or the Catholic Church, or the Masons. Well, these are epistemological cartoons, it is kindergarten in the art of amateur historiography. I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It’s like trying to control a dream.”
But then he was at Esalen and we all know what they were up to. (And of course the actual entities that do control all this live in the flow of dynamics and chaos so they’ll do what they do anyway and you won’t be able to stop it. Don’t get paranoid about it tho. Or pray to them.)
Nah, its an epistomological crisis on the way to enlightenment/initiation. When the centre doesn’t hold, just dances madly, and babbles, then you need something else to hold on, till you learn to swim in the mad chaotic ocean of human existence, and give up on relying upon some god or system to keep things right.
Or something.
Also conspiracies happen.
All the time.
Life is bunches of cells conspiring against each other for resource advantage.
BFD.
Personally I think you either question everything or you eventually go senile. Some questions get answered, some don’t.
I don’t see much difference between what Daggett is doing and what any religious fundamentalist does, including Richard Dawkins.
Suff gives people meaning and they go to great lengths to defend it.
I know you weren’t really asking …
1058
Bob wrote:
Yes, you did. Once again, As I just pointed out now.
How else can one take that answer (“no”) except as meaning the “a period of freefall and “substantial resistance” are not mutually exclusive”?
To me the meaning is the same as “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period.”
Bob wrote:
So, it looks to me that I have my facts straight.
Sorry, the links were all wrong above and I need to correct a mistake. Here it is again:
Bob wrote:
Yes, you did. Once again, As I just pointed out now.
How else can one take that answer (“no”) except as meaning the “a period of freefall and “substantial resistance” are not mutually exclusive”?
To me the meaning is the same as “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall”
Bob wrote:
I believe I have shown that I have my facts straight.
daggett,
It looks now like you are basing everything on the 2.25 seconds of the collapse of the building. If you have a satisfactory reason for the 2.25 seconds will you accept it and concede that you were wrong and the building was not brought down with a controlled explosion, but by damage consequential from the impact by two large civilian aircraft on the adjacent building?
If not, will you please kindly start answering the myriad other questions that you have left unanswered with your apparent
maniafocus on “Bob”. Maybe you could even take up my challenge at #1061.Oops – I meant adjacent buildings, of course.
Actually Jules the core of Ockham’s Razor is “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. That can mean that the simplest explanation is quite complicated, it’s just less complicated than others and it’s probably correct. The explanation for the WTC collapse is complicated but it’s nowhere near as complicated as the explanations offered by Andrew and Dagget.
You other points are inchoate.
And Ockham’s Razor must be wielded within the known laws of physics, chemistry, combustion; principles of engineering & strength of materials etc.
Note the point made by the WTC designer. Kinetic energy of a slow 707 (“lost in the fog, looking for JFK or La Guardia airports”) is way below the kinetic energy of a 767 going at (or near) top speed.
Why? The mass alone doesn’t account for the difference. Kinetic energy = half * mass * (square of velocity). It’s that “square of velocity” factor that makes the larger difference between the two cases.
Then there’s the fuel, carrying mass and (more importantly) chemical energy available through combustion. The fuel was also more “mobile” once it had spilled out of ruptured tanks, than the metal plane parts.
Interesting that only one stair well, passing from above and down through impact levels, was useable in the two Towers after the impacts of the airliners. The structural damage inside the floors directly hit must have been tremendous. The stairwells were designed to be fireproof for escapes from “ordinary” office fire, after all.
How else? If you’d bothered to read the whole text that I’ve provided twice now and not quote me out of context, it would be readily apparent that the “substantial resistance” I referred to occurred in “Stage 1” and “Stage 3” of the collapse, and was not simultaneous with the period (“Stage 2”) of gravitational acceleration. They are NOT mutually exclusive because they were not coincident.
TO YOU, Daggy?
And what makes you think your OPINION counts? Is your OPINION a fact, Daggy? Did I or did I NOT write, “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall”?
Either prove I did or admit that you lied.
I don’t care what you BELIEVE, Daggy. You’ve shown yourself to be prey to all sorts of stupid BELIEFS.
The FACTS are that you lied about what I wrote, twice, even after I corrected you, and still you refuse to admit it. You are a shameless, lying twit.
“shameless” is a bit strong, isn’t it?
Along with multiple eyewitness accounts of explosions, there are three very closely timed explosions from WTC 7 caught in this short audio:
I would also suggest that noise is one of the reasons hightech nanothermite was chosen for this operation, certainly thermite is silent because it is an incendiary, nanothermite can be milled to be a high explosive or somewhere inbetween.
I haven’t studied the nanothermite aspect much but there is a strong case for it such as molten metal at the bases of all three demolitions, nasa thermal imaging showing unusually high surface temperatures days after the attacks, and scientists analysing the dust and finding traces of nanothermite and having their results published in a peer reviewed journal (which up till now is uncontested within the scientific community).
More explosions caught on this short compilation:
andrew,
The problem with a thermite reaction is that the high temperatures in the building (remember, it was on fire) would probably have set the reaction off early. If my reading is correct, most forms of thermite (particularly nano-thermite) would have been heated up enough to explode long before the stage reached by the building and would not have been stable enough to have been used for a controlled demolition. Of course, you could insulate the explosives but this would have made them even more apparent to any casual viewer – a great mass of insulation on all of the main interior pillars would, I have thought, have been noticed. Having a bundle like this with heavily insulated cabling coming out would also have been fairly obvious.
Also, the nano-thermites, as they explode relatively rapidly, would have created more than enough noise to be heard clearly.
Ambigulous wrote:
Note the point made by the WTC designer. Kinetic energy of a slow 707 (”lost in the fog, looking for JFK or La Guardia airports”) is way below the kinetic energy of a 767 going at (or near) top speed.
Interesting that only one stair well, passing from above and down through impact levels, was useable in the two Towers after the impacts of the airliners. The structural damage inside the floors directly hit must have been tremendous. The stairwells were designed to be fireproof for escapes from “ordinary” office fire, after all.
First, there are conflicting reports of what the towers were designed for, the one source you quote is at odds with the official report (707@600mph) and the lead engineer (his boss) as to what the towers were designed for. There is even one other engineer (who died on 9/11) who said in a tv interview after the 93 bombing that the towers could withstand multiple aircraft impacts.
So while we can agree that there are conflicting accounts of what the towers were designed to handle, one thing that is beyond dispute is that they actually DID handle the aircraft impacts, they remained standing perfectly upright in both instances, barely even flinching, with no external indications that their structural integrety had been compromised.
So it is indesputable that the were engineered strong enough to absorb the aircraft impacts of 9/11.
WRT internal structural damage, the NIST worst case senario has 15 to 20 percent of the buildings columns being disabled by the aircraft, most buildings have redundancy for 3 or 4 times what they actually have to carry and can easily withstand such loses.
The most telling thing about the role (or lack of role) that the aircraft damage played in the collapses is that neither buildings collapses significantly towards the damaged area, tower 2 does tilt significantly but not to the side where the aircraft impacted, and tower 1 basically falls straight down through itself.
andrew,
…which would be consistent with the inner core being competely compromised at the level of aircraft impact. Again – if there were any charges in there they would have been compromised by the impact of a jet airliner, meaning they would not have been able to be used for demolition.
Robertson, who is the one who actually did the work is perfectly clear on what he did. Read the report I linked to earlier. The kinetic energy he modelled was for a 707, largely empty of fuel and travelling at low speed. Unless you believe he is part of “the conspiracy” you have to accept that he is saying what he did. As I said – and you agreed – they survived the impact. The problem was the fires that compromised the strength of the (already severly weakened) structural steel.
How is this difficult to understand?
Andrew,
This discussion of the effects of the aircraft impacts is irrelevant. Where is your evidence for the laying and detonation of hundreds of tonnes of explosives?
PatrickB wrote:
I did many times, including here. It’s obvious that your ‘reasonable standards’ of ‘proof’ differ from mine as well as most detectives and forensic scientists.
Clearly, PatrickB believes that incessant repetition of an arrgumet whilst not acknowledging responses to that argument is the same as winning an argument.
—
Andrew Reynolds,
One minute you offer your “sincere advice” that I “cut [my] losses” presumably by leaving this debate “ASAP” and the next you demand a response to a question I have already responded to.
How about for your part, letting this forum know whether or not you accept Newton’s Second Law of Motion (see below).
In any case, I may not be able to hang around, as the enormous weight of spam and trivia poured into this discussion are beginning to cause my web browsers behave in very strange ways.
Bob,
Once again, I was discussing the 2.25 second period of free fall.
Yes, of course, there was resistance before that period of time and of course there was resistance afterwards. That was already made clear long ago by David Chandler in the video “WTC7 in Freefall” I referred to above.
However, within that 2.25 second period of free fall, you either accept Newton’s Second Law of Motion applied or you insist that here was significant structural strength holding up the visible north face.
As I showed above, your answer to andrew’s (not Andrew Reynold’s) question, implies, regardless of the wider ‘context’, that Newton’s Second Law of Motion did not apply for the 2.25 second period of observed free-fall.
—
To help others, what I consider the useful, or, at least, vaguely relevant recent contributions are:
1076 and 1060, by andrew 1052 by jules, 1050 by daggett, 1049 and 1042 by andrew, 1040 by jules, 1037 by Andrew Reynolds, 1036 and 1034 by daggett, 1028 and 1026 by Andrew Reynolds, 1025 by andrew, 1023 by daggett, 1019 by heat conductor, 1018 and 1013, by andrew, 1012 by Bob, 1009 by Andrew Reynolds, 1008 by andrew.
daggett,
For a start, Newton’s “laws” have been replaced with Einstein’s theories – but the difference at the sorts of speeds we are talking is infintessimal, so Newton’s are a reasonable approximation.
I did deal with this some time ago – the collapse of the interior due to the failure at a low level of the internal columns can account for the period of near freefall. As I said then – the interior has collapsed (stage 1) the outer wall collapsed, now unsupported by the interior structure (stage 2) and then, as the outer wall caught up with the collapsing interior structure it slowed its acceleration (stage 3). I see no difficulty with this.
.
Again, Robertson (who actually designed the building and should know) has accepted this as plausible. Why can’t you? Are you alleging Robertson is either part of the conspiracy or are you insisting that you know better than the person that designed the building? I assume the guy that built it knows the physics involved.
Again, Robertson (who actually designed the building and should know) has accepted this as plausible. Why can’t you? Are you alleging Robertson is either part of the conspiracy or are you insisting that you know better than the person that designed the building?
Robertson did not design WTC 7.
Robertson is one valid source regarding the claims over the towers, as is Skilling, as is the NIST final report – both of which you refuse to acknowledge even though the firm that Robertson worked for was called “Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson”. And Skilling was the head of the firm.
Was Robertson in on the conspiracy – no-one is suggesting that.
Could Robertson be compramised by the polarised debate of 9/11, yes of course he could. Could he have vested interests in taking the path he has taken – yes of course he could.
What a moot argument anyhow as you have agreed the towers were engineered strong enough to withstand the aircraft impacts, irrespective of what they were designed for.
The problem was the fires that compromised the strength of the (already severly weakened) structural steel.
How is this difficult to understand?
The rapid onset of collapse which is not typical of the effect fire has on steel.
The complete symmetrical collapse of the buildings through the path of most resistance that was the massive undamaged steel structures below them.
Tower 2s upper block initially topples significantly and yet still somehow manages to fall straight down through the lower structure???.
Rapid expulsion of pulverised material (squibs) well below the collapse zone which are a telltale signature of explosives.
The pulverisation of nearly all the concrete, which takes a tremendous amount of extra energy and has never occured as a result of a gravity fed collapse before.
I could carry on but that is just the towers, how strange we should have two such questionable collapses, followed by yet another collapse (wtc 7)which just so happens to exactly mimic another type of controlled demolition, namely an implosion.
There are some very gullible people out there to be unquestioning of the events that day, fortunately most people upon being shown WTc 7s collapse by a “conspiracy nutter” know immediately that the muslims in a cave story is rubbish
The only explosives or detonators I google is tested for a period in temperatures of 200C to 300C. Then removed from the heat and then tested. Doesn’t say anything about actually OPERATING at those temperatures. Cord would place the guys that set it off inside the building, and dead.
andrew,
OK – error by error, then.
1. Robertson did do the engineering for all of the WTC buildings. He worked for Skilling (Skilling did not actually do the work) and later split to form his own firm.
2. As I have said time and time again (and you have steadfastly ignored, as it destroys your case) the buildings were modelled to withstand an impact from a 707 that was low on fuel and flying slowly – not a bigger plane full of fuel and flying at 500mph. As I said – this destroys your case just as much as it destroyed the buildings. Please either address this or give up.
3. Steel framed buildings do collapse through the pylons if those pylons have lost their strength or are otherwise compromised – as this incident shows. This is not in dispute and even is common enough to have a name – pancake failure. Concrete buildings, when they collapse due to a lack of strength in the supporting pylons, have a clear characteristic of (through normal operation of the structure) attempting to transfer weight from any failing supports to any good ones. If this process is slow then it gives lots of warning (as it did with WTC 7 as they were able to see it starting and get everyone out) before complete collapse happens. In the Korean case it took weeks – but the final structural failure took only 20 seconds to collapse the building – and that was without another building collapse next door and serious fires insode to set it off.
“I did many times, including here. It’s obvious that your ‘reasonable standards’ of ‘proof’ differ from mine as well as most detectives and forensic scientists.”
Look I’ve been patient but now you’re just being rude. You standards are not reasonable, the standard of reasonableness or the reasonable person is well established in the common law. You do not come close to that standard. You have no authorities that you can cite that offer any evidence that would meet a reasonable standard. My standards of proof are the same as “detectives and forensic scientists”, I know you don’t have a clue what those standards might be otherwise you wouldn’t make that claim.
I have not been repeating an argument I have been repeatedly asking a question that you seem to be unable to answer. Because you can’t answer the most basic of questions it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that your argument is at best misguided and at worst malicious and that you are either deluded or mischievous.
3. Steel framed buildings do collapse through the pylons if those pylons have lost their strength or are otherwise compromised – as this incident shows. This is not in dispute and even is common enough to have a name – pancake failure. Concrete buildings, when they collapse due to a lack of strength in the supporting pylons, have a clear characteristic of (through normal operation of the structure) attempting to transfer weight from any failing supports to any good ones. If this process is slow then it gives lots of warning (as it did with WTC 7 as they were able to see it starting and get everyone out) before complete collapse happens. In the Korean case it took weeks – but the final structural failure took only 20 seconds to collapse the building – and that was without another building collapse next door and serious fires insode to set it off.
GREAT EXAMPLE – SERIOUSLY
First the Sampoon store was not steel framed, it had steel reinforced concrete columns, so you will have to find an example of a steel framed building “pancake failure” to be relevant.
Second it was extremely poorly made, I have seen the doco’ on that building and it was amazing what they tried to get away with, they removed some columns from the original design and made the other columns smaller, then they added an extra floor…
So for this literally criminally poorly constructed building to take approx 20 seconds to “pancake” just 5 stories, doesn’t that just go to show how ridiculously fast the towers and building 7 collapsed??
If a such a poorly constructed building can offer such resistance why couldn’t the collosal towers offer at least as much?? The towers were not poorly constructed nor were the columns of the type under which pancake collapses typically occur (the reason is steel’s ability to absorb impact through deformation, concrete columns can’t deform so they shatter when overloaded)
That is why I say GREAT EXAMPLE, 20 seconds for 5 stories equates to about 408 seconds for the towers, and the towers were much, much better constructed.
The various landladies of the hijackers, in Germany and the USA, might be offended by your reference to their rental properties as “caves”….
Nice use of all caps. I would suggest calming down.
.
Implicit in your argument seems to be that “If it has not happened anywahere before, it can’t happen”. If so, I submit that it will never be Wednesday 4 November 2009, as that date has never happened before.
Moving on, as both your point on this and mine are ridiculous.
Again – you have completely and utterly fialed to address the point that the lead structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, has agreed that the collapse scenario is a plausible one. Completely failed – and you were clearly wrong when you said he did not do WTC7 – he did.
Clearly a steel framed building can undergo pancake failure, as WTCs 1, 2 and 7 did – you claim that it was caused by sinister conspirators planting explosives and then arranging for some civilian airliners to crash into the adjacent buildings. Argument that it cannot happen, then, is simply wrong.
.
In the Korean case the building was only 5 stories – meaning the total weight on the failing columns was only that of 5 comparatively light floors. In the case of WTC7 it was about 40 massive floor plates and two penthouses. This is a massive difference. Once the failure started it would inevitably proceed much, much quicker as there was much, much more weight on the failing columns.
Again – answer the question about how the structural engineer that designed the building could be mistaken about how it collapsed. Then get on to how mor ethan a tonne of explosives and tonnes of insulation got in there and then how they arranged for a couple of large civilian airliners to convenitently provide cover for this nefarious act.
BTW Andrew Reynolds,
THe link you provide for Robertson does not prove he worked on all the WTC buildings, in particular WTC 7 which I can find no evidence he worked on at all.
Do you know the towers were a young Robertson’s first highrise, and yet you seem to think he was the man in full control of these record skyscrapers, admittedly he does seem to play himself up to have been the top man also.
But as I said earlier he is a valid source, but so is the NIST final report a valid source, and so is Skilling who was the real head engineer. They offer conflicting information as to what the towers were designed for in relation to aircraft impact, but one source does not over-rule the others.
You need to be clearer here, Daggy. What, exactly, did you do “many times”? It wasn’t showing proof, of ANY STANDARD. The comment you link to has NO evidence for your delusional theory. And since when do you know what “most detectives and forensic scientists” consider a reasonable standard of proof? Is this more of your bullshit “vibe” approach to debate?
Or he’s rightly calling you out for protracted, relentless squibbage in failing to substantiate your theory.
FTR, the “demand” came after you evidently did not cut your losses. In case you were wondering, I don’t want you to cut your losses, Daggy – I want you all-in. Can you guess why?
Oh quit moaning, Daggy. Keerist you’re a hypocritical whinger. If you really cared about the performance of this thread you’d stop dumping so many redundant links in it.
Actually, no he didn’t. Chandler dismissed the “resistance before that period of time” in defending his cherrypicking decision to start HIS clock later than NIST.
What made it clear was me quoting NIST directly.
Nope. It does NOT imply that, and that’s the third time you’ve lied on this same subject. Prove your allegation or admit you lied.
andrew,
1. Do you know what the likelihood is of a partner, like Skilling, in an engineering company (or any professional services firm) actually getting out there with a slide rule and doing those calculations would be? Near zero. More junior ones do the actual work and then senior ones check it. Again – Robertson did the work and Skilling, at best, reviewed it. Robertson is the primary (the best) source.
2. Skilling’s firms were the engineers for the whole centre. The records are clear on that.
Two down.
3. The NIST report. This is perfectly clear if you actually read it. As I said before – they are not saying it was done. They are saying they were told it was done – i.e. they could not verify it. Having actually written reports like this (although not on this scale, obviously) that is what you do. If someone tells you something important, you try to verify it. If you cannot verify it you clearly attribute it (so someone else takes the blame if it is wrong) if you believe it needs to go in.
The reason they could not verify it is because the only contemporary records (again – the best source) available show that it was modelled to take a 707 at low speed and low on fuel.
The best sources (the primary source) and documentation (the contemporary ones) are clear on what was actually modelled. You are free to believe less authoritative sources (second and third hand stuff from secondary sources) – but few historians would agree with you.
In the Korean case the building was only 5 stories – meaning the total weight on the failing columns was only that of 5 comparatively light floors. In the case of WTC7 it was about 40 massive floor plates and two penthouses. This is a massive difference. Once the failure started it would inevitably proceed much, much quicker as there was much, much more weight on the failing columns.
Engineering fail, the amount of floors above the collapse point makes no difference to a buildings ability to resist collapse, this is because buildings are built stronger the more load they have to bear.
So in the case of the towers they have as much ability to resist collapse 50 stories from the top as they do 5 stories from the top even though the load is much greater, because they are built progressively stronger from top to bottom.
The point is that a building that has been stripped of all it’s redundancy because of shoddy construction still takes 20s to go through 5 stories, whereas the towers which still had full design redundancy below the collapse zone takes less time to destroy 110 stories????
What removed the resistance and redundancy of the towers to a lot less than that of a building that was built so weak it collapsed under it’s own weight???
THis will be my last post on this site, it’s taking up too much time. I hope any reading this thread takes the time to have another, more objective, look at the collapses of the three highrises that fell that day for themselves. In particular the one that wasn’t shoved down our throats on 9/11 (for very good reasons), WTC 7.
Again you have completely failed to pick up the Leslie Robertson angle – I presume that is because you cannot cover that one off at all.
Apart from anything else, that is not an “engineering fail”. When there were few floors to drop (at the start) WTC7 started slowly – picking up as support failed and then slowed again as it hit bottom.
Pity you are going – I thought we were getting somewhere.
Thanks for sticking around as long as you have andrew. I can well understand that you don’t want to spend any more time here.
However, I assure you that your effort wasn’t wasted and that work and much else that is worthwhile in this discussion will be salvaged elswewhere even it has been largely buried under an avalanche of spam here.
—
I see Bob has poured yet more accusations of my being a hypocritical whinger, delusional, a squibber, a liar etc. into this discussion.
Of course, that will be ever so helpful to others trying to get the bottom of this question.
Bob wrote:
As far as I am concerned it has been proven.
You can go on indignantly denying that your own words contradict Newtons’s Second Law of Motion as long as you like, but it won’t change the meanting of those words.
—
Glad to know that my practice of putting in links to guide others past the spam you have poured onto this forum annoys you so much.
My most recent post that Bob’s post is purportedly in response to is at 1081. Other posts of mine concerning Newton’s Second Law of Motion are: 594, 651, 693,1050.
daggett,
you are just arguing past each other and that is doing nothing whatsoever to actually answer the question. If you are completely focussed on a debating point I can only assume it is because you do not want to attack the substance. The only real inference I can draw from that is that you cannot actually address the substance.
.
Also, as it is the only debating point you are sticking by I can also infer that you have implicitly conceded on the rest where “Bob” has argued against you.
.
Perhaps we can go back to the actual substance of the 2.25 seconds of apparent free fall of a section of the parapet wall. As I cannot find your original contention on this perhaps you can link to where, exactly, you showed that the original structural engineer on the building is less qualified to opine on whether the collapse scenario is a plausible one than someone who did not know the building as well?
Hey, jules. I thought of one more.
Conspiracists are evidently super-petty.
(Or is it just daggett giving them a bad name, in this case?)
Yes, and substantiated them. With evidence – do you know what evidence is, Daggy?
Not really – it’s tangental, but still accurate.
That would be by your “reasonable standard” of “proof”, would it, Daggy? The one that you reckon “most detectives and forensic scientists” would apply? You lied, I proved you lied and now you’re squibbing, yet again, on either defending your lies or admitting defeat.
What words, Daggy? You’ve yet to demonstrate that I said what you assert I said. You won’t prove it because you can’t prove it. You’ve squibbed, yet again.
Not at all, Daggy. You were the on complaining about the performance of this thread. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy in doing so given you’re the one responsible for it. In this, as in so many points, you’ve been shown up to be both clueless and hypocritical.
All this hasn’t altered my conspiracy theory one iota. Mine is:
Opportunity Knocks. The Cheney-bush andministration was in power for one thing: get contol of Iraq’s oil. It turned a blind eye to information of an impending terrorist attack, and in fact welcomed one as a catalyst to radically change America’s foriegn policy. A few parts to the jigsaw: several months before 9/11 Cheney takes over NORAD. Richard Clarke is demoted, and litterally barred from seeing senior admin people. Bush totally ignores August 6 warning. Ashcroft tells FBI head Thomas Pickard in July 2001 ‘I Don’t Want to Hear about Al-Qaeda Anymore’. Ashcroft won’t fly domestic becaise of terrorist warnings. Cheney’s determination to get an Iraq-9/11 connection extends even to torturing confession out of prisoners. Cheney refused to give the shoot down instruction to the airforce until after the last plane had crashed (just past 10am). Cheney lied about his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. From Careful reading of the the 9/11 Commission report it can be inferred that Bush and Cheney lied to the 9/11 commisioners. Especially with the leading questions of Hamilton to Mineta. And the list goes on. If Occam’s razor is applied, its pretty hard to see it any other way.
I don’t care howm any explosives they put in the WTC. Because it doesn’t matter. Same difference. Recently reading about Cheney giving Pakistan permission to fly out the Al Qaeda leadership out of Tora Bora is just more grist to the mill. Nothing will ever be proven, thats why its a conspiracy.
This is a reality check – not spam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/nyregion/02ship.html
cui bono? is a good starting point for investigations…
but it’s so far from proof, evidence that to raise it here is unhelpful.
Andrew Reynolds,
I focussed on arguing with Bob, because I believed it was necessary to resolve at this point the question of the 2.25 seconds of observed free fall of WTC 7.
If I had stopped before my previous post, then I think it just may just still have been possible for other reasonable people to have formed the impression that that issue had not been resolved. I don’t think that that can any longer the case.
Again, the essential point is that for those 2.25 seconds during which the observed northern face of WTC 7 (and almost certainly the southern face as well) fell through 8 storeys.
Newton’s Second Law of Motion is absolutely clear about this. For that to have occurred, there must have been no structural strength whatosever holding up the building for that period of time. If there had been significant structural strength then the observed fall would have been at less than free-fall speed.
How that structural strength that supported WTC 7 up until the start of that period was removed within that 2.25 second could be open to question. As I poined out above, the NIST report implies implausibly that it was all removed at the commencement of that fall through a set of bizarre coincidences which would have to be probabilistically infinitesimal. To all practical intents and purposes the probability of that having occurred is zero.
Rather than that explanation, I choose to accept the explanation that news reporter Dan Rather put when he observed the ‘collapse’ as well as those of demolition expert Danny Jowenko as I posted above which I will repeat here:
You can hear those words for yourself, amongst other places, at the end of the movie “WTC7 in Freefall”, mentioned above
Similar words were said by news reporters live about the Twin Tower collapses.
At 982 and, before that, at 573 and other places I juxtaposed that explanation to what I take to be Bob’s and NIST’s ‘explanation’ to allow others to judge for themselves.
We have now reached a clear impasse, because Bob insists that the meaning of his own words mean something different to what I take them to mean.
So, I can only leave it to others (meaning other than those who have already shown themselves on this forum to have minds just as closed as Bob’s) to form their own judgement.
But remember that all this brainwashing and propaganda, etc., is not by any means expected to reach any intelligent corners. It isn’t expected to convince anybody that has any sense. If they can get ten percent, that’s good. That’s the aim of propaganda; to get ten percent. They’re not trying to convince people that have a grain of sense. “William Burroughs & the Flicker Machine,” as published in David Kerekes’ 2003 “Headpress (the journal of sex religion death).”
So, daggett – you choose to take the word of a TV reporter (granted, a distinguished one) over the educated opinion of the person who actually designed the building and has had the opportunity to put some real thought and engineering expertise into considering how it happened.
I can’t stop you doing that – I just cannot follow the logic of that position.
.
Try reading the NIST provisional report. It clearly shows that, with the collapse of the penthouses into the the main structure (and sunlight shining through afterwards) the entire interior structure adjacent to the north parapet wall had gone. Thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel had already fallen to the base of the wall that you are looking at – there is no need to conjecture explosives, daggett. The force of all of that concrete and steel hitting the base of the wall would have been all the force needed to completely compromise the strength of the north wall before it even started falling.
.
Again, though – I would much rather (pardon the pun) take the word of a distinguished structural engineer who actually designed the building over the momentary response of a TV reporter that was trying to describe the emotions he was feeling at the time.
Ambigulous:
“cui bono? is a good starting point for investigations…
but it’s so far from proof, evidence that to raise it here is unhelpful.”
My apologies if its not, but if the above was a reply to @1099, I’ll say the following: Is not the argument over whether remote-controlled bombs were detonated in the exact same areas where the planes crashed itself unhelpful?
Ask yourself cui bono about that.
Everything I said in that post is verifiable. The inferences drawn are more than reasonable. If you read the 9/11 report Hamilton did lead Norman Mineta(was almost insistent) that the orders were to shoot down the plane. It is reasonable to assume that Hamiliton was mislead by Cheney, and he dutifully followed the script.
Who would benefit from 13 trillion dollars worth of a commodity that costs a dollar a barrel to get out of the ground and $80 profit margin? Bush was never going to convince the people of America to support his unilateral onvasion policies without 9/11.
I can think of a few. It is the single most marked up asset in the world today. Nothing comes close. I find the bombs thingy a useless diversion.
Brendon,
What is there $13 trillion worth of in Afghanistan?
Andrew Reynolds,
How about discussing the evidecne and not engaging a pointless argument over the word of which authorit we should accept.
In any cases I am obviousl not not holding Dan Rather to be a greater authority than a structural engineer whether that structural engineer be Robertson or any one of the hybndreds of strcutural engineers amongst the 951 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. I am simply making the point that the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 looked to Dan Rather and many other witnessed like a CD, and it looks to me exaclty like a CD.
For this and many other reasons, NIST should have seriously investigated that claim and considered all the evidence in support of that hypothesis, but it did not.
So that I can know whether to conclude this aspect of the discusion here or it can move on, please tell me whether or not you agree with my statement:
Andrew R
Iraq. oil. Read the first 2 lines of @1099. Richard Clarke stated that Bush made no mistake about the fact that immediately after the attack he wanted to tie Iraq into it despite being told Iraq had nothing to do with it.
This debate has some to-ing and fro-ing. Other steel construction buildings have lasted longer. No they havent’t, yes they have…etc.
But there is no August 7th memo that Bush DID act on, even with a half arsed effort. There was no day Ashcroft said to the FBI heads “OK, lets have a look at what you got on terrorist threats”. There was no counterweight to Philip D. Zelikow, who did all he could to block any debate on terrosit attacks. Well, in fact there was: Richard Clarke. But he was demoted. Atta was taken off the US intelligence terrorist watch list. The USS Cole terrorist attack was barely 12 months previous.
Its all one way. And it wasn’t incompetence, it was policy. It doesn’t matter really, because they got what they wanted.
If you have information that the Bush admin was doing something real to stop a terrorist plot that other countries were warning the US about, please share.
The issue was resolved hundreds of comments ago, Daggy, in favour of the NIST explanation. No other theory has been substantiated with evidence, so why would you think “reasonable people” would doubt it? Unless, for example, you were not reasonable yourself…
OK, good so far – during the 2.25 seconds of accelerating collapse (“Stage 2”) the floors in question were not supported by any material structural strength.
Nope, all wrong.
First, the NIST report does not imply that all the structural strength was removed at the commencement of that 2.25s fall. NIST is very clear in stating that the building’s structural strength had been compromised BEFORE that period.
Second, the NIST report does not rely upon, or report, a “bizarre set of coincidences”.
Third, you have no basis for asserting that NIST’s explanation is implausible or assessing probabilities.
That’s it? Dan Rather reckons it’s “reminiscent” of a demolition? What else was he going to compare it to? How many times has Dan Rather seen an office tower brought down by aircraft strikes?
As for Danny Jowenko, as noted previously, he’s an unreliable expert for your case: if you think he’s an authority on WTC 7 then you must also accept his opinion on WTC 1 & 2, which he does NOT believe were collapsed by controlled demolitions.
So what?
There’s no impasse, Daggy. You’ve simply squibbed on proving your assertions. Without that proof, the official explanation remains the only logical choice. The only impasse is in your inability to prove your case. Go right ahead – nobody’s stopping you but you.
It’s hilarious how you keep entreating others to examine your “contributions” and yet, when they disagree with you, you accuse them of lying or, as in this latest example, of having “closed minds”. Good luck with that.
Burt, Daggy has been pretty consistent with his approach to “authoritative” sources. The key criterion for Daggy accepting someone’s opinion is not whether that person has the expertise or experience requisite to convince us that his opinion matters. No, the key criterion for Daggy accepting anyone’s view is whether it agrees with Daggy or not.
Consider:
1. Chandler, a high school teacher looking at YouTube versus NIST and its small army of experts with access to all relevant data. Daggy picks…the YT jockey.
2. Danny Jowenko, who reckons WTC 7 was a controlled demolitions versus Danny Jowenko, who reckons WTC 1 & 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. Daggy picks…WTC 7 Jowenko.
3. Willie Rodriguez, who didn’t witness even an alleged explosion versus all the witnesses who saw jet fuel fireballs down to the basement. Daggy picks…Rodriguez.
4. Orio Palmer, who only made it as high as L78 of WTC 2 versus all the evidence that the worst fires were above L80. Daggy picks…Palmer.
5. Dan Rather, a journalist who has never seen a plane take down an office tower before versus Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who worked on the towers. Daggy picks…Rather.
6. “Andrew”, the one bloke who reckons he sees demolition explosions in Daggy’s footage versus all the other people at LP who don’t see demolition explosions in the video. Daggy picks…Andrew.
We could call it the “Blind Freddy” approach to evidence.
Brendon,
If Bush and Cheney were capable of arranging, in perfect (or near-perfect as you guys worked it out) secrecy the plot you are claiming they did arrange it would have been child’s play to arrange a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand prior to the actual event. The simple fact they did not, and had to rely on a very tenuous link to try to get it put on Saddam militates against your argument.
To put it another way – if they wanted to “get” Iraq all along, why would they arrange for the highjackers to be Saudis that had been indoctrinated in Afghanistan, educated in Germany and then trained to fly the aircraft in the USA? Surely they could have found Iraqis and then the whole thing gets a lot simpler and cheaper as Afghanistan would not have been involved at all.
.
daggett,
It looked exactly like a CD – except for any actual explosions. Except for the fact the building was on fire – the sort of fire that would have set off any charges in the building long before. Except for the lack of any viable control mechanism. Except for the weeks if not months of careful work that goes into planning a CD, including carefully weakening the structure at key points. Other than that – perhaps.
.
Yes, of course something that is freefalling has no support and, as “Bob” agrees, for a short period it was in something that reasonably approximated free fall – I think the NIST gave it as 2.25 seconds. You really are arguing against a nothing here.
This was, of course, after the interior floors had collapsed down to around the 7th floor level as is clearly visible on all the videos (watch the East Penthouse go), so thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel would have hit the inside of those walls right down at their base.
If that did not fatally compromise their strength I have no idea what would have.
Try this experiment. Build a tower out of children’s blocks. Put some big floors in it and have those floors supported by a few main pillars (big model, obviously). Have first one of those main pillars go. Then take away a second. And a third. At some stage those floors are going to give way and when they do I can guarantee you that it will take out the external wall from the inside as they fall – and they will take it out at the base. The external wall will first wobble and then collapse – at a speed close to, if not actually at, free fall for a period.
I would suggest you have a look here as well.
Daggett:
My response version 1:
By “that claim”, do you mean the claim that it looked like a CD to Dan Rather, to “many other witnesses”, or to you? Let’s take them one by one.
Claim #1: It looked like a CD to Dan Rather at the time.
Investigation: Completely unnecessary. He is on the record already.
Claim #2: It looked like a CD to “many other witnesses [than Dan Rather]”
Investigation: Should also take into account the very many more witnesses who disagree. Are you calling for a popularity contest? Firstly, if so you will lose – as has been amply demonstrated on this thread. Secondly, that is no basis whatsoever for a proper investigation of anything.
Claim #3: It looked like a CD to you.
Investigation: Completely unnecessary. You have zero expertise in the analysis of building collapses, have only seen videos of the event, and have shown that you prefer to concentrate on “analysing” certain parts of those videos which suit your flimsy case. About as far from a reliable witness as could be hoped for.
My response version 2:
What evidence?
daggett,
This analysis is worth a look – particularly from 2.30 onwards. It clearly shows what I was saying – progressive collapse of the interior followed by collapse of the parapet wall after the interior has already collapsed. No squibs, no explosions – windows clearly breaking after the collapse had started, and then taking the rest of the building down.
That link probably is not the best – try this one:
For anyone interested in the origins of daggett’s cultish use of air quotes around ‘collapse’, and for sheer ridiculousness, Judy Woods is a must watch:
Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
Sure, daggett – your Truth Scholars gave her the boot by reforming under a different badge. My questions to you would be, what the feck took them so long, and what possessed said Scholars to put Judy Woods on a steering committee in the first place, or to sign up to anything she had anything to do with?!
‘Cause you know, meanwhile, thousands of people like yourself were uniting and marching and protesting and donating their money and purchasing expensive tickets and merchandise and generally being led down the garden path, to support a group that supported the dissemination of this blatant crackpottery.
To think, not one conspiracist ever demanded their money back.
Daggett’s doggedness has turned this into LP’s longest thread despite detailed debunking and racous ridicule, yet he/she has convinced no one. So why keep bothering?
Disinformation.
If you’re covering up a massive and complex scheme, then discrediting any accurate info that could leak by disseminating it through those that profile as “conspiracy nuts”, and/or by planting checkable false details within the correct data, is a classic ratfucking move – the Brits’ XX Committee during WW2 comes to mind here.
In short, I suspect Daggett of either being a willing accomplice or an unwitting dupe of the masterminds behind 911.
We’re through the looking glass now people.
Dagget,
What happened to the extra dead people? I mean there were estimates of 10,000 casualities based on the number of people that could have been in the building. Why are you satisfied that, after a period of time to establish what happened, those estimates decreased markedly as the facts came to light and yet you will not accept that, after cafeful analysis, some initial observations and conclusions by those at the scene were wildy inaccurate?
Yet another inconsitency in your whole approach. Indeed just making this point is redundant as you have never been able to show that there was in fact a conspiracy or that an explosion brought the towers down.
Note that I’m not asserting that a deliberate, controlled explosion didn’t bring the towers down, I’m pointing out that you have no evidence that a deliberate, controlled explosion brought the towers down.
I am now asserting that a deliberate, controlled explosion didn’t being the towers down.
That is illogical. First up, they didn’t have to arrange anything. Thats the whole point of doing nothing. As for secrecy, have a look at the Plame affair. At the last minute Bush says he was responsible! No-one picked that. But that is not a good analogy, because that is something they did (which leaves an evidence trace), as opposed to something not done, which leaves none.
The Bush admin spent 12 months – starting with the fake Atta in Prague story that was disseminated by the Czechs, and soon disowned by the CIA – virtually from Sept the 12th 2001 up until the invasion. No-one believed it, so they focussed on WMDs after about mid 2002. Read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies. According to Clarke, information sent to Bush after 9/11 that didn’t have Iraq in it was disregarded or sent back.
It wasn’t the peice of cake you thought it would be.
A lot of people stumble on this. They can’t get the idea out their heads that if true the Bush admin had to be actively involved. You have Bush arranging things, organizing terrorists to be trained in the USA. Next you will be telling me I’m saying Bush flew one of the planes. Go back to what I wrote.
And one more thing. You could shoot me down in flames if you had a narrative of the Bush responding to all the terrorist warnings over 2001, but just not successfully. Truth is, they didn’t, even when pushed hard by senior CIA people (including Tenet), senior FBI people, and Clarke himself. The August 6 memo response by Bush (he did exactly nothing) is nothing short of criminal negligence. Imagine if he was a CEO of a large company and there was such a warning that there may be an attack on one of the plants and he did nothing about it. But the August 6 memo is only one of many. What was the phone conversations between Tenet and Bush right after August 6. What were the conversations about when Tenet flew to Bush’s Texas ranch in that time? Tenet wouldn’t say to the 9/11 commission. And because of that he was virtually branded a liar. Tenet was still being loyal then. Maybe one day we will find out.
And of course those debunking Daggett are also, I hope unwittingly, playing their part in defusing the loaded information trickling out online.
Frankly, I don’t trust anyone on this thread anymore with the truth. Even me.
Umm…that wasn’t me above. What is going on here! Can no one tell truth from lies anymore! It’s like my whole world is unravelling. All I did was step outside for a smoke and I come back to find them all dead! Dead! And people pretending to be me online.
Why do you think I’m pretending to be you? How are you sure it’s not the other way around?
I am not a gravatar! I am a free commenter!
Oh no you’re not.
I’m not sure about anything anymore I don’t think.
So which Adrian said that?
Not the one that spells his name with an ‘e’ before the ‘n’, but that’s all I’m prepared to commit to at this stage moving foward.
Yet “e” comes before “n” in the commonly accepted Western English alphabet.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
“I don’t think so.”
Well, you should.
This is not a request.
I’m not so sure.
Last year, The Council on Tall Buildings responded to NIST report on WTC7, and although they disagree with the report on some significant technical issues, they state at the head of the report:
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
Although some recent posters are arguing with daggett in terms of specific technicalities, there really isn’t any need (and actually is a wee bit unedifying considering all the expert evidence available online to link to) but as I was saying…… the global community of engineers who design these massive skyscrapers in respect of both structural and fire engineering have demonstrated firstly and have come to a consensus secondly, on the mechanisms by which these towers failed.
And of course, there are highly technical arguments within the community about the exact sequence of events, as per the Council’s report on WT7; differences in failure sequences, which they consider to vital for modeling and designing safer buildings..but otoh, there is less than zero respect for the abysmal junk junior high school maths and physics that the Truth movement use to impress each other mainly and other engineering-science illiterate citizens who have an ISP connection and a certain outlook on life, secondly.
daggett btw didn’t like it, when I mentioned ‘standing’ in the structural engineering community in an earlier post. As he well knows, no ‘Truthers’ have standing in the structural engineering community. Zero, zip, none.
Oh, and btw, why weren’t these building demolished by controlled demolitions also?
As to the grand canyon sized lack of evidence (beyond doctored and mis-interpreted youtube “evidence’ )….that is… no real evidence of the controlled demolition ……and this is all from the same nation where they could not keep secret torturing their enemies inside their own country nor outside, nor of the secret rendition CIA programs, nor keep secret any of the disastrous drone bombing of civilians over the past few years, nor of the corrupt contracting in post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pre 9/11 and the WMD stuff as per Brendon… and all the other shenanigans of the Bush Administration over the years… but when it comes to murdering 3000 of their own and destroying a big chunk of Manhattan…bloody hell they can keep that top, top, top secret but.
Re Nabs at 1115, absolutely it’s a given that both 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theorists provide much succor to radical Islamists & jihadists everywhere. There is now a significant percentage of the local UK Muslim population who believe that 7/7 was a UK Govt operation that was pinned on those innocent lads, who all made martyr videos.
And something to sum up my final thoughts on this topic/thread:
“Although some recent posters are arguing with daggett in terms of specific technicalities, there really isn’t any need (and actually is a wee bit unedifying considering all the expert evidence available online to link to)”
*hangs head in shame*
*sniggers a little bit anyway*
“Re Nabs at 1115, absolutely it’s a given that both 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theorists provide much succor to radical Islamists & jihadists everywhere. There is now a significant percentage of the local UK Muslim population who believe that 7/7 was a UK Govt operation that was pinned on those innocent lads, who all made martyr videos.”
*stops sniggering*
I hadn’t given that much thought actually.
It’s really bad.
Precisely, FDB. As I said earlier I lost a mate in one of the towers. I think it a little bit important that the blame goes where it should.
In a way, though, he was one of the lucky ones. He got to talk to his wife and children before he died – and his wife actually got a small bag of remains to bury.
jo, your point alone on the 7/7 conspiracy theorists was worthy of gold but the whole post was a platinum effort.
I’m sorry about that Andrew. I guess the bar for “lucky” was set pretty low in the WTC that day.
On the upside, thinking about the real human cost on that day is an excellent way to refresh my utter contempt for Truthers.
They care for nothing but their own concerns, and it really shows.
And the more you engage them, the more it shows.
It’s a pathology, and one of the ickier ones.
“the whole post was a platinum effort.”
Good God yes. And I only just now followed the link.
What Shaun said. Excellent comment, Jo.
Pour vous.
“Although some recent posters are arguing with daggett in terms of specific technicalities, there really isn’t any need ”
I made the say point although a the basis that he has no evidence of a conspiracy which I believe is a necessary condition of the controlled demolition scenario.
Aren’t I clever?
… and a crap typist …
Anyway I’d really like to read what Dagget and the other truther have to say in response to Jo’s post and Andrew R’s charges, both of which have a provable basis in fact. 4 Corners recently ran a piece on the 7/7 truth lunacy in the UK and there was testimony by senior Islamic clergy supporting truther claims, indeed the truthers were actively encouraging the idea that the bombers had been set up as patsys. This was the only disturbing part of the show.
Jo wrote:
Then FDB wrote of Jo’s post:
Then Shaun wrote:
Then FDB wrote:
(In case anyone wanted to know what was the video, jo linked to it was “Screamin’ Jay Hawkins and Gainsbourg – Constipation blues”.)
Then PatrickB wrote:
I can see that no-one here has read the article “Delusions of Terror” in The Australian of 20 Oct 09 by 4 Corners journalist Sally Neighbour, who also works part time for that newspaper. She would no doubt be on the side of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists if she were in this debate. Nevertheless, part of that article completely blows out of the water what was written in jo’s post. The article concerns a group of four Muslim men, including Khaled Sharouf, who pleaded guilty last year of preparing for a terrorist act.
So it would seem that acceptance of the same official accounts of 9/11 and 7/7 that jo, FDB, PatrickB, Andrew Reyolds, adrian, shaun, Liam, Nabakov, Bob and others are trying to peddle here that motivated these men to conspire to commit terrorist acts in this country.
If Islamic people in England are waking up to the fact that those who committed the 7/7 atrocity, to the extent they did so willingly and knowingly, acted as patsies in a false flag terrorist attack, then surely that would dissude other Muslims from doing likewise and that would surely be a good thing.
That said, I have my own concerns about political Islam, but those concerns should not cause to allow Muslims to be blamed and punished for crimes they have not committed.
The last sentence above should have read:
Apologies for linking to Nabakov’s post when I meant to link to jo’s.
“So it would seem that acceptance of the same official accounts of 9/11 and 7/7 that jo, FDB, PatrickB, Andrew Reyolds, adrian, shaun, Liam, Nabakov, Bob and others are trying to peddle here that motivated these men to conspire to commit terrorist acts in this country.”
So now you’re denouncing your denouncers by arguing their denouncements are actually playing into the hands of those that want the apparently official story denounced.
So who’s paying you now Daggett to run this latest misinformation about 911 disinformation?
“..to conspire to commit terrorist acts in this country.”
You’re not from around here ate you?
No, Daggy, the delusional opinion of one bloke doesn’t mean all that much. You of all people should know that by now…OK, maybe not in your case.
So, Daggy, the terrorists aren’t responsible for their actions – it’s all the fault of those reasonable people who refuse to accept your deluded, unsubstantiated theories? What a topsy-turvy little bubble you inhabit, Daggy.
Why, Shirley, would it dissuade other potential terrorists? Have you considered that, maybe – just maybe – the terrorists were motivated by something else? Or are you suggesting that Islamic terrorism didn’t exist before 9/11?
Not everyone is like you, Daggy – this may shock & awe you, but I imagine there are quite a few people out there who don’t base their worldview on dodgy YouTube videos.
But those Youtube videos appear to be dodgy only AFTER they are uploaded to Youtube.
Coincidence … or not?
FDB, when you wrote:
where you hoping that no-one would notice that you failed to provide an explanation for the violently ejected plumes of debris at 906?
As I seem to recall, you first claimed that it would have been caused by the pressure of air within the building. When I challenged that, it then changed to having been the result of fires caused by aviation fuel being spilt somehow all through the building as well as, presumably right down to the basement to cause that massive explosion that William Rodriguez witnessed.
—
Nabakov wrote:
And whose hands did the terrorists play into, regardless of whether we agree that 9/11 an 7/7 as ‘false’ flag or ‘real flag’?
How was providing the US with a pretext to invade Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan in the interests of those on whose behalf Al Qaed purported to fighting?
Denying that these attacks were in the interests of the US rulers and not in the interests of the people of that region is what the supporters of the official explanation of 9/11 have in common with those who have been blamed for 9/11.
Any politcal movement that was not a bogus group set up by the CIA as jules pointed out above would have recognised that and ceased the attacks.
—
Bob wrote:
Of course I had. Had you forgotten that I accepted the official explanation of 9/11 for 6 years after it had occurred?
—
I note that Bob has, at least acknowledged that Newton’s Second Law of Motion did indeed apply during those 2.25 seconds of free fall. This is what andrew and I have been attempting to find out of him for some time, for example here.
Were andrew and I the only people here not able to work out that that is what Bob meant?
However, if there was no structural strength holding up the 8 floors of the North Tower through which it fell during that period, then either:
A: It had to have been all removed at the very commencement of the period of the free-fall; or
B: It had to have been all removed during the 2.25 seconds of fall itself; or
C: Some combination of A and B.
As I pointed out above, my reading of the NIST summary implies A. To restate what I wrote:
Bob’s helpful response was:
So, on the one hand Bob says my explanation is not good enough and on the other he has failed to provide his own, other than to simply refer back to the NIST summary as if it was self-explanatory — or has someone else point me to a clarification from Bob that I have missed?
—
Andrew Reynolds, have you ever taken the time to learn why 9/11 Truth Movement supporters, who lost loved ones on that day, are demanding a new investigation? Have you ever spent all of 50 seconds to view the appeal Jean Canavan, Bob McIlvaine and Manny Badillo for a new inquiry at nyccan.org? Would you care to tell us why they are wrong to ask for a new inquiry? Why not do so now? The video is at the top right-hand side?
Are you aware of how 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani was treated simply for asking for confirmation that her murdered husband John Mariani boarded the doomed Flight 11 on that day? How she had a helicopter hover over her at her daughter’s wedding soon after? How she thought she was going to die on that day. (See “9/11 Widow Ellen Mariani and Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg” and related videos)
Would you care to tell us why you think she is wrong for simply demanding to see the airport surveillance tapes of her doomed husband boarding flight 11?
Why do you think the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration refuse to make those tapes available?
Do you share FDB‘s “utter contempt for Truthers”?
Does that contempt extend to Jean Canavan, Bob McIlvaine, Manny Badillo, Ellen Mariani? Does it extend to the Jersey Girls — Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg — the 9/11 widows who forced the Bush administration to hold any Inquiry at all, as inadequate as it turned out to be?
I ask you, would you care enough for your friend who lost his life on that day to stick your own neck out and incure retaliation and persecution from the US Governemnt in order to discover the truth as those people have done?
—
Finally, just so others can see for themselves what has been damned in the discussion immediately above by jo, Nabakov, Bob, PatrickB, Anbdrew Reynolds, FDB et al, my previous posts are at 1140, 1139, 1107 and 1102.
Sorry, but that would have to be the height of western arrogance to think that such conspiracy theories and chatter form the basis of beliefs in the Muslim community. With respect to 9/11 Osama denied from day one that he was ever connected to it. Muslims didn’t need to wait for Loose Change to hit the cinemas. He has never been indicted due to lack of hard evidence. Intelligence agencies had enough evidence to say he was planning to do it – hell, they were predicting it – he had motive, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence against him. Quite a few Muslims think he is innocent, some applaud him for the attack, and the majority are appalled. Nothing to do with what we think. They have their own ideas, I’m sure.
Firstly, there are more bad links above. My apologies, again.
This is, in part, due to the failure of my browser to handle this large page. Those adding yet more spam and trivia to this discussion, in particular, Nabakov and FDB at the moment, are not helping matters. Here is the correct link to my post at 1040.
—
Brendon, Osama bin Laden’s clear denial of involvement in 9/11 (in contrast to his bogaus taped ‘confessions’) indicates that he was not willing to follow the script no doubt supplied to him by the CIA. Even though he clearly was an asset of the CIA right up to September 11 as Sibel Edmonds, amongst others have revealed, he was clearly not willing to go as far as the CIA would have wished and has caused them some considerable embarassment.
The fact remains that the US Government claimed that they had absolute proof that Osama Bin Laden was the perpetrator of 9/11. Colin Powell also promised to provide that proof to the United Nations, but never did. The Taliban Government offered to hand Osama bin Laden across if the US could provide proof of his involvedment in 9/11 but the US never provided it. The proof of Osama bin Laden’s guilt, supplied to NATO, which formed the legal basis for NATO’s participation in the inivasion of Afghanistan has never been made public.
Even the FBI has not listed 9/11 amongst the crimes for which Osama bin Laden is wanted to this very day.
Only those who are totally credulous of the US Government would still maintain that the US has a shred of evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan given that and given that, as I pointed out above not a single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured in over eight years of military occupation of Afghanistan.
I should point out that in all of the discussion, only one feeble attempt has been made to respond to this astonishing disvrepency between the actual outcome of the invasion of Afghanistan and the claims made for its necessity, and that was by GregM, who attempted to maintain that the uncorroborated confessions of Khled Sheikh Mohammed givne under was proof of the US Government case.
This has been thoroughly answered by Jules and myself. Other than that all the debunkers, who recently engaged in an unedifying spectacle of mutual triumphalist backslapping, have been totally silent on this issue, and a good many others, I might add.
Apologies for the missing URL pointint to the FBI’s Osama bin Laden ‘wanted’ poster, just now.
daggett,
As I said above, I believe it is important to sheet the blame home to those it genuinely should be placed on. I have utter contempt for very few people – none if I really think hard to try to come up with an example.
Nonetheless – I would like to see some real evidence. Not stories about what “must” have happened. Not wild conspiracy theories backed up by (as stated above) “dodgy youtube videos”.
I have looked carefully through much of the evidence over the years and have added to it much of the stuff that you have added here. Applying what is (I hope) a reasonable amount of common sense to it I just cannot see any evidence, much less a “smoking gun” of what “must” have happened.
I read the official reports. I read commentary by many structural engineers that are used to these tall buildings – including the guy that actually designed all of them. They, to me at least, make sense and are backed up by people with real expertise in this area – at least as much as anyone can in the area of large commercial airliners hitting tall buildings at high speed and with a full fuel load.
That, though, to me is the point. There are a few areas that look a bit odd. I agree that a 47 story building should not (under normal circumstances) just collapse even after 8 hours of fires. These were hardly normal circumstances, though. It is not normal for two 110 story buildings to collapse right next to another building. It is not normal for a 47 story building to have a 20 (or so) floor gash cut in it. It is not normal that the NYFD would leave such a building burning for that long – IIRC it has never happened.
Under those circumstances and, given the official report makes sense and is backed up by all of the official bodies and, again, the guy who actually built it, I think it reasonable to accept their report.
If there was some actual evidence that there was something else going on I would be happy to support you in a call (a reasoned and sober call) for another enquiry – but AFAICS there is not.
There are several people with some hypothesis and some interesting youtube videos. Having looked at many of them over the years, though, and then actually looked at further evidence, there is nothing there that, IMHO, even comes close to making a case that anything other than the official story is the correct one – imperfect though it is – and probably has to be, given the circumstances.
You may have misunderstood me, Daggett. I think Osama and Al Qaeda were heavily involved in 9/11, and I think that Clinton’s attack on Al Qaeda in 1998 was most probably the motivation, as well as Osama’s resentment that US had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
I’m just saying to people who want absolute proof for something they don’t believe, maybe they had better look to what they themselves accept today as “fact”.
eh, merci, merci.
daggett, let’s not start dragging up testimony from convicted terrorists in respect of their own particular insane or even sane reasonings, nor commentary from pundits for all manner of terrorist or international activities. For a start there is more than enough US and Western foreign policy excursions, debacles, blowback, and deliberate meddling over many decades to fuel Al Qaeda recruiting offices for another century. And way more than enough Muzzie on Muzzie oppression & terrorism that continues to halt any progress towards peace within a number of Islamic majority countries for the foreseeable future.
The point I was making is that conspiracy theorists unknowingly and sometimes willfully (as per Nabs) muddy already murky waters surrounding many significant global events (and local ones for that matter) and in respect of 9/11, this firstly provides certain groups with further ammunition to inflame impressionable young recruits and secondly distresses and confuses citizens who desperately need to understand and comprehend the exact mechanisms by which their country (and others including ours) were led into a war and how that war was prosecuted.
And I totally disagree Brendon, Al Qaeda are just one of many groups, and including all Govts which leverage state policy differences and public sentiment across the globe as matter of course, to their own advantage. And this includes conspiracy theories.
Sorry to be rude, but err, durr for giving agency to half a billion people….but as per above in repsect of “nothing to do with what we think”….we are all effected by how reported public opinion in different countries is massaged and taken advantage of etc.
As for 7/7 – for a significant percentage of British Muslims who already feel oppressed and have historical good reasons in some cases, and/or global grievances as per the above, to now believe that their own Govt launched a terrorist attack in London merely to pin these crimes on local Muslims boys, is definity not sweetening the recipe for positive community relations going forward.
Accountability and justice should always be directed at those who perpetrate the act whether they be low rent Pakistani outfits that land young men in Mumbai to randomly slaughter people in train stations and tourist hotels or neo-cons architects of the New American Century within the Pentagon and White House.
Otoh, diverting attention away from proven facts and often hard won evidence by clouding cases with totally illogical and easily discredited theories only aids guilty parties in avoiding justice in some cases, but so more, allows them to avoid internal community censure and disapprobation.
“Nevertheless, part of that article completely blows out of the water what was written in jo’s post.”
Well there’s the answer to my question. Dagget, if you had watched the programme you would have seen a number of conversations between a senior Muslim cleric in Britain and some 7/7 truthers. The discussion centred on how the there would be cooperation between the religious leaders and the truthers to reveal the bombers as patsys in a govt. conspiracy. It is a factual account that unequivocally supports what Jo has said.
You have shown exactly the same approach as you have with all the refutations of you ridiculous arguments, you have a single quote from a second hand source taken from a larger article written by someone who you admit would probably completely disagree with you. Not very a very sound basis for a winning debating strategy when it’s put like that is it Dagget?
How could you have accepted it? You’ve confessed that you’d never read it. But all it took to convince you that the official explanation THAT YOU’D NEVER READ was wrong was some dodgy dudes talking shite on dodgy YouTube videos. There’s no “of course” about your consideration, Daggy.
No, you claimed, falsely, that I had written that “both free-fall could occur in that 2.25 second period and that there was structural strength supporting the wall”. At no time did I state that Newton’s Laws didn’t apply. The only person who’s brought up Newton is you, clearly because you saw the same clumsy argument deployed elsewhere by the rhetorically retarded and you were sufficiently impressed to try it yourself.
Yes, it appears that Andrew and you were the only people with comprehension problems.
In that case your limited comprehension failed you again. The correct answer is “D: the structural strength had been compromised BEFORE the “Stage 2” mentioned by NIST.”
I’ve told you this many times now and still you can’t comprehend simple English.
First, your explanation is not good enough.
Second, I’ve referred you to the official explanation.
Third, the official explanation IS self-explanatory.
Fourth, if you have a problem with the official explanation, argue against it, not a strawman of your own fabrication.
Do you have any evidence Al Qaeda has propagated conspiracy theories re 9/11. Or is it like Daggett’s hunch about controlled demolitions. Just put it out there jo and it must be true, eh?
Don’t apologize for being rude, jo. I was rude to you first, remember? LOL Anyway, I found your post ignorant. Many in the Muslim community have already very fixed views on such things and news gets filtered through those views, just like it does with everyone else. Talking about conspiracy theories encouraging Muslims to start believing such things is erranr condescending nonesense. So derr, yourself.
I can remember almost from day one some Muslims in Australia saying that it was bad but that America had it coming. I can remember Islamic leaders here being almost the first to deny that Al Qaeda did it based on Bin Laden’s inirial denials.
Sorry Brendon, but you just aren’t making any sense. Because all sorts of groups and Govts utilise propaganda for domestic and other purposes, does not therefore equal the worldwide population of Muslims being ciphers & automatons and to keep suggesting that I this is what I meant, is just plainly ludicrous. And oh wow…. you remember some Muslims in Australia had a range of opinions on the 9/11 on the very day of the attacks! Gee, fascinating, not.
Al Qaeda have over the years adopted a number of conflicting positions on 9/11 including Bin Laden initially denying involvement. Otoh, there are interesting Sunni-Shia rivalries around 9/11 …Al-Zawahri (you know, Mr No 2) accused Hezbollah’s Al-Manar a few years ago of starting the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind 9/11, denying Sunnis of being the great heroes.
But here is a Pew Global Research paper from 2006 on Muslim attitudes which found that majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Turkey etc – did not believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington amongst a number of other attitudes.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253
As to my point about giving succor & aid and confusing the debate, which again for the slow learners, does not mean controlling by remote control:
Anyways, I split a cup of sugary milky tea into my keyboard rushing out the door this arvo which also ran into my handbag(!!) and now my space bar and other keys are just doing their own thang, so I’m signing off.
Jo,
I’m sorry, but how does my question, “Do you have any evidence Al Qaeda has propagated conspiracy theories re 9/11.” not make any sense to you after you claimed Al Qaeda were into disseminating conspiracy theories about 9/11.
My question was in reply to you saying:
“…Al Qaeda are just one of many groups, and including all Govts which leverage state policy differences and public sentiment across the globe as matter of course, to their own advantage. And this includes conspiracy theories.”
How is that question hard to understand?
Conflicting statements from different people at different times is not any kind of conspiracy. Osama has always denied involvement, but he has said the terrorist involved were martyrs.
But I must say, it a good tactic! Next time I’m in a tight spot and I’m caught out, I’ll just reply, “I’m sorry, I can’t understand a word you are saying.” LOL
BTW, its prolly the sugar what did the damage.
@1129 “There is now a significant percentage of the local UK Muslim population who believe that 7/7 was a UK Govt operation that was pinned on those innocent lads, who all made martyr videos.”
Things are even worse in the countries that are actually at war, like Iraq and Pakistan. On Pakistan:
That 96% is just a pseudo-figure, but obviously the author’s experience is that a large number of Pakistanis believe or profess to believe that the US is funding the group it is fighting – something which should sound not just wrong but outlandish to all western readers (except for the extreme conspiracy theorists, who are quite numerous I will admit).
In Iraq, it was apparently quite common for people to believe, or to profess to believe, that the suicide bombings of the past few years were being carried out or assisted by US special forces, as part of a plot to break up Iraq or keep it weak.
Before 9/11, conspiracy theory mostly meant to me harmless crank musings about the Illuminati and so forth. So it was very chastening to read Daniel Pipes’s book Conspiracy. Pipes’s career revolves around campaigning against the threat of “Islamism”, not just as a military threat but as an ideological one (he had an op-ed in the Australian just recently), and I think I disagree with a lot of his politics, but his book on conspiracy theory made a number of points with which I must agree and which were instructive. First: conspiracy theory has been most significant in closed dictatorial societies, and has usually been directed at the state’s ideological enemies, like Jews or capitalists. Second: there is a self-fulfilling prophecy here; a state founded on a conspiracist ideology and utilizing conspiracy as a political method gives rise to an opposition which also works through conspiracy.
All that seems accurate. His third point was to say that today’s Middle East (or rather, the pre-9/11 Middle East, since that’s what he was writing about, though this hasn’t changed) is full of state-sanctioned conspiracy theory, and the evidence was clear enough.
What I really want to point out is that conspiracy theories are indeed more than a harmless amusement for web rationalists to dissect, they are a pervasive part of popular and even high political culture under certain circumstances. They thrive in environments of genuine conspiracy, and they give rise to political culture which employs counter-conspiracy to fight the imagined conspiracies. It’s a serious phenomenon, though hard to pin down because it’s so mutable and hydra-headed, and whenever it gets a hold, it may be a sign of worse things to come.
Talking of Daniel Pipes and conspiracy theories, this one is a beaut:
Pipes: “The great mystery of the 2003 war in Iraq – “What about the WMD?” has finally been resolved. The short answer is: Saddam Hussein’s persistent record of lying meant no one believed him when he at the last moment actually removed the weapons of mass destruction. http://www.danielpipes.org/3545/about-those-iraqi-wmd
The great conspiracy theory that was WMDs. The great conspiracy theory that was WMDs and that Scott Ritter (and eventually, reality) blew out of the water by stating they all (Bush, Clinton etc) knew was it was a lie. They knew Iraq had disarmed.
And how is that conspiracy theory about Iran’s nuclear weapons program going? Let me guess that conspiracy nut Daniel Pipes is all aboard on that one too.
Nevermind the UN’s chief weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei said he had seen “no credible evidence” that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, I’m sure conspiracy theorists like Daniel Pipes will come up with some crazy accusations.
Brendon, I was stating that your entire posts in response to mine, do not make any sense, in that they firstly misconstrue my points and then go all non sequitur based on your misinterpretations.
In respect of Al Qaeda, I actually wrote that they ‘leverage’, not ‘promulgate’ conspiracy theories. have. different. meanings. And I deliberately didn’t write “9/11″ conspiracy theories, as the point was a general one about “groups and all Govts leveraging state policy differences and public sentiment. Including conspiracy theories.” However in respect of US-anti-/Jewish world domination stuff – promulgate isn’t incorrect when discussing Al Qaeda.
My general statement in the follow-up post admittedly rushed due to keyboard-cup-of-tea meltdown, was in regards to Al Qaeda’s conflicting statements on 9/11 over the years, including conflicting statements by Bin Laden btw. and was to point you towards the many contested 9/11 theories within the Muslim community, which you seem to be entirely unaware of.
I note that you didn’t respond to my point about the targeting of the British Muslim community by the 7/7 Truther movement.
You earlier and major gripe seemed to be that:
FTR, I stated that they provide ‘further ammunition, aid, and provide succor’ not form the basis of. But as you’ve claimed I am both “ignorant” and being “arrogant”…please find below just a few of the many hundreds of TV & press interviews I managed to dig up featuring Muslim clerics, pundits, academics & Govt types etc from early 2002 onwards, which reference 9/11 Truther materials amongst other conspiracy theories on offer.
You really need to do much more homework and read with more care.
Using the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory for something entirely different:
And the all purpose Shia anti-Al Qeada conspriacy theory:
The Jewish conspiracy theory:
On July 24, 2005, two Lebanese muftis – the mufti of Mt. Lebanon, Dr. Muhammad Ali Al-Jozo, and the mufti of Tyre, Ali Al-Amin – appeared on ANB TV to debate the situation in the Middle East.
“I don’t think so, and I cannot believe that Al-Qaeda has the ability to fly four planes simultaneously over Washington without any military plane budging. I am holding a book by French author Roger Garaudy called Western Terrorism. He brings proof from the Americans themselves. He says: ‘The Bin Laden theory seems very weak, even technically speaking. An in-depth discussion among many civilian and military American pilots has made it clear that such a large-scale and precise operation could only be carried out by professional and highly-trained pilots who can hit with precision a target that looks like a pole from the altitude of a huge passenger jet…”
Al-Jozo: “I cannot give bin Laden credit for the operation in America [9/11]. He does not have the capabilities, and his personality in no way suggests that he might carry out an operation like those that occurred in America, London, or Madrid. There are Zionist hands…”
Host: “You are trying to exonerate Al-Qaeda completely, even though it issues communiqués and…”
Al-Jozo: “It issues communiqués, but it cannot… I’ve said… I visited the U.S. several times before this [9/11] happened, and even clerics were thoroughly searched. Once I was at the Canadian-American border, going into America. They stopped my car and searched it for two hours. I laughed. They asked me if I had weapons, and I said yes. They asked what weapons, and I said a cannon and a few missiles. I was making fun of them. They searched the car like madmen. With such a meticulous search, and the security checks at the airports are the best, how did this happen?”
Al-Amin: “You are exonerating them [Al-Qaeda], even though they claimed responsibility.”
Al-Jozo: “That is nonsense. Nonsense. When bin Laden said ‘some of the good faithful men did this’ – It’s nonsense. He denied it at first and said he didn’t carry out the operation.”
Jo,
thanks for the links. Interesting.
re: “I note that you didn’t respond to my point about the targeting of the British Muslim community by the 7/7 Truther movement.”
Because I haven’t read much into that. They were local men. They even produced their own videos. If the British government organized all that, then they are damned good. We better surrender now. Resistence is useless.
I mean, I don’t see most of the conspiracy theories having any weight at all, except that which I have already mentioned. It isn’t provable, of course. But then a lot of what we take as reasonable to believe hasn’t been completely proven. And a lot of what we call the official version today is out there mainly thanks to the efforts of people like the Jersey Girls, who refused to accept what was then the “official version”. I read four books on the subject: The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Commission by Philip Sheldon, Against All Enemies by Clarke, Price Of Loyalty by Paul O’Neill, Welcome To TerrorLand by Daniel Hopsicker. I came to the conclusion that ignoring a terrorist threat by the Bush admin prior to 9/11 was not incompetence, but policy. Its hard to believe, but then again if you look at all the facts, its harder not to draw that conclusion. And after the Plame scandal – where Bush/Cheney was so easily willing to sacrifice the lives of American agents and their contacts just to snipe back at a critic – maybe its not so hard to believe.
My basic theory on our attraction to conspiracy theories is that in times of great trauma we are willing to cling on to anything to gain back that security we lose when random disaster comes too close to our lives. The Princess Diana conpiracies come to mind. If someone so young and vibrant and with such a future could be snapped up like that, it could happen to any of us – at any time! But if it was a controlled incident direct only at her, then all the randomness and chaos disappears and we are once again “safe”.
Brendon wrote:
The diagnosis of dissidents as being psychologically unbalanced or mentally ill goes back at least to the time of the Soviet era. This is certainly not the first time it has been used in the discusssion over 9/11 to divert discussion away from the substance of the issue. Also, this post fails to acknowldege my detailed explanation about how I changed my own view from accepting the Official Account to being an advocate of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen anything about the death of Princess Diana to cause me to doubt the story we were told by the press. However, establishing a firm conclusion about that, one way or the other, is not at the top of my priorities at this moment.
Brendon @ 1150 a well-sourced article “Osama bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?” of 2 Nov 09 by David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbour, confirms all the points I made above about how the US Government failed to produce the conclusive evidence that it claimed that it had that implicated Osama bin Laden in 9/11.
—
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Well, my “limited comprehension” tells me that, Bob’s “correct answer” means exactly the same as ‘C’!
Could someone else here tell me what the difference, between the visible Northern wall having had it’s ‘structural strength’ ‘compromised’ on the one hand and having some, but not all, of that structural strenght removed at the commencement of the period of free fall on the other, is?
Of course, it’s possible that Bob intends his words “the structural strength had been compromised” to mean that their was no structural strength supporting the visible Northern Wall of WTC 7, but I don’t believe that that would be the common understanding of their meaning. (By all means clarify that for us, Bob.)
Of course, the Northern Wall could still have collapsed and collapsed totatally if there had been structural strength left at the commencement of that 2.25 second period of time, but not at free fall speed. If Bob insists that there was structural strength after the commencement of that period then he is arguing that Newton’s Second Law of Motion did not apply for that period of time.
—
Earlier, I wrote:
The Bob wrote:
To the contrary, Andrew (not Andrew Reynolds) and I are the only two people here who have so far demonstrated any comprehension whatsoever of what you have written about the period of free fall of WTC 7. If not, Bob, then why do you think it is that no-one else has responded to the question I put?
And, FDB, simply pronouncing that a post is “a pretty well constructed rebuttal of everything [I've] said” is not the same as demonstrating comprehension of that post.
Brendon, good on you for keeping on about this stuff.
I appreciate that conversation between you and jo.
“The point I was making is that conspiracy theorists unknowingly and sometimes willfully (as per Nabs) muddy already murky waters surrounding many significant global events (and local ones for that matter) and in respect of 9/11, this firstly provides certain groups with further ammunition to inflame impressionable young recruits and secondly distresses and confuses citizens who desperately need to understand and comprehend the exact mechanisms by which their country (and others including ours) were led into a war and how that war was prosecuted.” – jo
Thats a fair point, cos everyone does that “conspiracy theorist” or not…
However I don’t think its fair to associate what Brendon was saying with that, cos he raises a fair question.
“And one more thing. You could shoot me down in flames if you had a narrative of the Bush responding to all the terrorist warnings over 2001, but just not successfully. Truth is, they didn’t, even when pushed hard by senior CIA people (including Tenet), senior FBI people, and Clarke himself.” – Brendon
See, is that muddying the waters?
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to raise this question/point (repeatedly)?
If that muddies the waters then what we were seeing in them isn’t necessarily the whole story is it. And denying people the right to raise these points verges on censorship.
Here are some potential facts, if they are shown to be true our entire worldview on this will collapse. What do we do, ignore them or sus them out properly and change our world view if we have to?
The positive side of a proper investigation of all this is that all of us can have confidence that our responses to the 9/11 attacks were actually appropriate in some way… (Well, thats the theory.)
Or should we not point out these inconsistancies so as not to distress and confuse the poor little citizens who obviously should be spared the effort of having to think hard and work shit out for themselves?
>Al-Qureishi: “Al-Zaraqawi, bin-Laden, and Mulla ‘Omar, and all the leaders of the Salafi movement are tools created by the British Freemason movement 200 years ago. With these tools they wanted to create a new religion for us, to confront Islam. They filled this new religion with Jewish poison, the Masonic poison. Their religion is manifested by a long beard, a short garment, and killing Muslims.”< – via jo
There is actually some truth in that comment. THo you could call it disinformation.
There is a connection between Salafism/Muslim brotherhood and the west that goes back to the beginning of the MB. Its to do with Al bana's admiration for hitler and the Nazi party.
Also there is a connection between the house of Saud and the British govt that goes back to WW1 at least, and surely involved British Intel back dring WW1, the connections between the House of Saud and Wahhabism and WWahabbism and Salafism are well documented. I don't see how the MB/salafi movement would have anything to do with the jews given their historical anti semeticism, but … at that point the bloke, Al-Qureishi, goes off onto his own … er speculation, probably based on being a muslim in the middle east.
So to write that whole thing off as a conspiracy theory, (ie historical connections between the west and MB, and the west and Saud, and modern ones between Saud and MB) without recognising that Muslims must know their own history and have their own suspicions about it, founded or unfounded…
I certainly don't agree with Al-Qureishi's sentiments above, specifically the joos done it bullshit. But I'm not going to assume that anyone who brings up the connections between Western fascism and Islamofascism is an anti semite.
John Loftus makes similar claims here, but he does them in the completely opposite context to Al-Querishi – the MB and the Salafi movement associated with it is specifically very anti Jew and anti israel.
“First: conspiracy theory has been most significant in closed dictatorial societies”
How does Pipes show that there is a preponderance for belief in conspiracy theories in these type of societies? Chomsky might say the they are inoculated against the party line because of they are more able to recognise propaganda.
daggett,
You keep harping on about the 2.25 seconds as if it is somehow important. It is not. The building, as a whole, demonstrably fell at a fair bit less than free fall speed. For a period, after it had started to drop, it did achieve an acceleration that closely approximates free fall.
There is, and was, no need to add explosives into the mix to achieve this. The mechanism, as much as it can be, is fairly well understood. As I suggested in my experiment above (even if you only do it as a thought experiment) it is easy to conceptualise how the already collapsed floors, hitting the lower levels with thousands of tonnes of weight and at high speed, could take out the base of the parapet wall(s) without needing explosives.
If you do not want to do the full experiment – try a simple one. Build a tall wall of children’s building blocks – using say 47 of them. Now punch out the 7th one from the bottom. I can virtually guarantee you the wall will fall at close to, if not actually at, free fall speed.
The “punch” in the case of WTC7 was, in all probability, provided by the 40 (or so) stories of floors hitting the re-enforced floors above the sub-station and then spreading outwards at high speed.
No explosives and basic physics.
You may choose to look at how those internal columns were severed – but your focus on the parapet wall is just (IMHO) not going to convince anyone that can think of the impact of 40 (or so) stories of floors on the base of a parapet wall.
“In Iraq, it was apparently quite common for people to believe, or to profess to believe, that the suicide bombings of the past few years were being carried out or assisted by US special forces, as part of a plot to break up Iraq or keep it weak.” – mitchell porter
It waouldn’t have anything to do with stories like this one about british soldiers captured by Iraqi police several years ago would it?
PatrickB I think by significant, Pipes is referring to the effect they have on reality.
For example, in a dictatorial society like nazi germany the use of a hoax to support a conspiracy theory (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) led to some pretty significant changes in reality for the whole world.
The trouble with these scenarios is that power and a worldview go together, challenging the worldview is the same as challenging power. In the obvious example the German State 1933 – 45 aligned its official world view with a conspiracy theory and tolerated no challenge to either.
You could probably find similarities in Zimbabwe in the last 10 years, for example, or if you put your mind to it anywhere there was a dictatorship.
Anpother example might be Stalin’s belief in a conspiracy theory, that the Allies were trying to undermine his treaty with germany during early ww2, to the point of falsifying information about a German invasion…
Because he had the power, and believed the theory, the people making actual real reports about advancing germans were in the shit. He wouldn’t take them seriously until it was almost too late.
Its probably true that the Allies were trying to undermine the relationship between germany and the USSR anyway, so it may not have been a conspiracy ‘theory” that Stalin was following, but he let his paranoia about potentially real conspiracies interfere with his ability to accurate judge the situation. Its effectively the same thing I spose.
Enjoyed your post mitchell. (I read it after posting mine, the thread is so hard to navigate)
Hey Brendon…
Just FTR, the UNSCOM program including all the issues raised by Scott Ritter were reported on by all quality media during the 1990′s it’s not underground conspiracy theory material surely when it’s on the front pages of every quality broadsheet in the West.
And reporting on UNSCOM’s replacement the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission lastly headed by Hans Blix and his public statements, only intensified in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
The ignoring of, sidelining and bullying of the UN weapons inspection program by the Bush Administration in the lead up to the invasion was also documented by the MSM, admittedly by then fewer US outlets ‘properly’ in the general hysteria that was post 9/11..however the issues of Saddam’s probable WMD disarmament or rather total disabling and his last gasp admission of, were raised by all sensible Middle East experts and commentators at the time. (The disarmament situation was somewhat different vis a vis the actual WMD situation that existed when Ritter was in Iraq.)
As to the Iranian situation..if you think this is just a US-Iran issue…ah, no, all middle eastern players have skin in that game.
But back OT…….it’s more complicated than whether conspiracy theories have “weight” or mass psychology around tragic events, it’s about why and for what purposes they are created, disseminated and to what ends. The people creating and distributing conspiracy theory materials have their reasons for doing so, whether they be ideological or financial (& now more so merely psychological in these ‘no-start-up-costs’ internet daze.) And how conspiracy theories are spread (pre-digital) go viral (post-digital) and the ways in which they effect the political-policy-community dialogue, esp. in countries where they are widely accepted……and then, how they become to welded to Govt disinformation programs, or known and reported facts about the real actions of vested interests and state actors, and linked to dissident/opposition actions/strategies, this is where the action is.
That is, when they are not being immediately recycled – for daggett :
As per mitchell’s post, it’s oft discussed by intellectuals and progressives within the Arab community that the now ‘natural default position’ of the population that ‘every disaster is a Jewish plot’ and ‘every failure/ security issue is the fault of the west’, prevents citizens of these countries from thinking critically about their own Govts’ policies and underlies their inability to extract the wheat from the actual Mossad chaff.
jules..just read you post quickly..so bit off the cuff response to you & Brendon:
As to the the issue of actions and non-actions of the Clinton and Bush II Administrations in respect of Iraq and then in the lead up to 9/11 and post, many of us didn’t need to wait to read books by Bush White House insiders and investigative journalists published years after events , (and of course it’s excellent to have well researched or insider books clearly mapping & filling out the story for the record) but as the events were (are) mostly played out in full view, if you count quality reporting as full view, it’s nearly always on the public record somewhere, at the time of the event, and this includes the yawning incompetence & ideological blinkers of the new Bush administration. You remember/know that West Wing was already parodying the shortcomings of the new Administration for our entertainment….(coincidence that I was watching West Wing when the planes hit NYC, I think not)
In the case of the Valerie Plame affair, this came to our notice entirely via her identity being leaked to a Washington Post journalist by the VP’s office to discredit her husband and this was known almost immediately.
So I am again unsure as to why these much discussed events at the time, are getting re-cast now as just un-suppressed information/conspiracy theories that people should be allowed to ask about? (And who’s not allowing them to asked ?)
Possibly my earlier point about this welding together of independent conspiracy theories, Govt disinformation programs, known and reported facts about the real actions of vested interests and state actors is actually already the default position….and I’m just totally out of touch.
And btw it’s not like we didn’t know exactly who the Repugs were when they won in 2000, they had already regained control of the Congress and Senate in 1995, they were playing total lowball outside, (which is now default), and of course the PNAC was formalised in 1997. Come on, they put up a reformed drunk good old boy as their candidate – you don’t think hubris might not have been their middle name. That was a known-known. Nor were the push-me-pull me foreign policies of Clinton not heavily scrutinised by the media, and criticised by the then very mushy left & of course, damned by the right.
My advice Just because something is news to you, doesn’t mean it is.
And lastly, just a wee news report I read in my webtrawling, something about the name of group, as my daughter toddles off to her activities . ……
And that response confirms your comprehension is, indeed, limited.
I think I’ve identified your problem, Daggy: English isn’t your native language, is it? Tell me, where you’re from are the words for “before”, “commencement” and “during” all synonymous? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along?
Ah, but hang on…let’s take a step back…I’ve already quoted you the NIST report’s identification of three stages to the observed collapse of WTC 7: Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3, occurring in that sequence. Now, you’ve presumed to lecture me, in your own inept way, on Newtonian physics so perhaps you consider yourself to have a superior grasp of simple arithmetic. Let’s find out. Please explain why you assume “1” can possibly be considered to be part of, and not before, “2”.
You’re German, aren’t you? Could you have that sentence any more clumsily convoluted made?
Good luck getting “someone else” to pay any attention, Daggy, but I’ll give you my answer, ‘cause I know you’re desperate to hear my opinion: you’re confusing stages 1 and 2. 1 comes before 2. Hope this helps.
Yes, it’s more than possible; my meaning is obvious, of course: after Stage 1, there was negligible structural strength supporting the visible Northern wall of WTC 7 in Stage 2. It’s just as obvious from the NIST report that I quoted. The fact that you claim to take away a different meaning is, I suggest, more evidence of your comprehension problems.
As I don’t, and never have, your point is, of course, pointless.
No, not “to the contrary”. Only Andrew and you evinced comprehension problems. The reason we know you evinced comprehension problems is because you asked me what I meant and, even after I had corrected your miscomprehension several times, STILL lied about my position. The other giveaway, of course, is that you wrote ” Were andrew and I the only people here not able to work out that that is what Bob meant?” Clearly, you were NOT able to work out what I meant.
To be honest (and generous, IMNSHO), I think probably the same reason a lot of people ignore what you say: insufficient interest.
“As per mitchell’s post, it’s oft discussed by intellectuals and progressives within the Arab community that the now ‘natural default position’ of the population that ‘every disaster is a Jewish plot’ and ‘every failure/ security issue is the fault of the west’, prevents citizens of these countries from thinking critically about their own Govts’ policies and underlies their inability to extract the wheat from the actual Mossad chaff.” – jo
A post I made didn’t go thru (spooky hey…)..
It was in response to this comment:
Iraqi Analys Kazem Al-Qureishi, Sahar 1 TV, July 18, 2004
“Al-Qureishi: “Al-Zaraqawi, bin-Laden, and Mulla ‘Omar, and all the leaders of the Salafi movement are tools created by the British Freemason movement 200 years ago. With these tools they wanted to create a new religion for us, to confront Islam. They filled this new religion with Jewish poison, the Masonic poison. Their religion is manifested by a long beard, a short garment, and killing Muslims.” ” – jo (citing Al Qureishi)
There is a bit of actual evidence that can be used to support this disinformation.
The Salafi movement does have links with the west, and with the house of Saud, which also has links with the west via britain, links that go back before WW1 and that were cemented during ww1 as the British used the Sauds against their traditional enemies the Raschid clan (who were allied with the remnants of the Ottoman empire.)
The Muslim brotherhood, who are one of the most influential salafi groups had documented ties with nazi germany.
i posted links and everything last time, eg John Loftus (if you want to search yourself) alleges Saud/MB collaboration, and makes the connection between the Muslim brotherhood and the Nazi party.
His contention is basically the exact opposite of Al Qureishi’s at least accordinbg to his quote.
JL argues that the Salafi movement is anti semetic and allied with Nazi germany because of its anti democratic and anti semetic sympathies.
The connection between saudi arabia’s rulers and British intel (hence a masonic interference assumed by Al-Qur above) is on the record. And between saudi arabia and Salafism. Then there’s salafism’s older connections with the west via nazism.
Tho how that translates into Zaraqawi, bin-Laden, and Mulla ‘Omar being Jewish operatives I don’t know. I’d tend to agree with the point you made in the quote at the top of this thread as the only real explanation for that assumption.
Tho I think modern arabic/iranian anti semeticism is a different thing to the anti semeticism that comes from Europe, or did especially before Israel was founded after ww2, in that it doesn’t necessarily stem from the nasty bigotry that pogroms did. How serious would that anti semeticism be if the Israeli govt acted with a bit more restraint? (Not just with the bombings and WP either, but if it had restrained itself to its post 67 war borders then that anti semeticism would have a lot less fuel.)
Its based on fear (Israel has nukes remember,) paranoia (cos they haven’t stopped at the 67 borders, perhaps they won’t stop at the euphrates either…) and suspicion (how much money and support does Israel get in the US, and the media – surely the jews must control everything…).
It very much fits Brendon’s idea of why people use conspiracy theories, and cling to them in the face of chaos and disorder.
The reality of the middle east is that it is being torn by attention from all sides, all the powers want its resources, and whereas 200 years ago it was a (relatively) unitied islamic world now its incredibly divided, right when its resource wealth would be most useful.
Its easy to look at Israel and see it as a manifestation of this whole process, and put the blame on it, when in reality it suits everyone that uses the middle easts oil to keep it divided.
If there is conspiracy involved its more likely western nations using Israel to keep the middle east in chaos instead of allowing to unite as an Islamic energy superpower. Thats what Russia is doing now and its suddenly strong again. Tho its as likely to be a tacit agreement, an obvious no brainer (ie keeping the middle east divided suits our purposes,) to people concerned with gaining and maintaining power geo politically – as some secret conspiracy to keep the Islamic world down.
There, thats the things we kind of agree on out of the way…
“In the case of the Valerie Plame affair, this came to our notice entirely via her identity being leaked to a Washington Post journalist by the VP’s office to discredit her husband and this was known almost immediately.
So I am again unsure as to why these much discussed events at the time, are getting re-cast now as just un-suppressed information/conspiracy theories that people should be allowed to ask about? (And who’s not allowing them to asked ?) ” – jo
Its a complete strawman to claim the Plame affair was brought up as evidence of conspiracy. It was brought up as evidence of the Bush govt’s disregard for life and for law and process, and its own nations safety via its intel security in the pursuit of its own personal interests.
These much discussed events?
Like the repeated refusal of the Bush admin to respond to warnings of an imminent terrorist attack from its own agencies? Much discussed? Don’t think so. Much ignored and minimised, yeah sure.
Sibel Edmunds has been so much discussed that Daggett can claim she revealed that Bin Laden was working with the CIA until sept 11th and no one has yet called him on it – she has made allegations and revealed nothing of the sort(at least publically, with evidence. Tho some of her evidence may still be covered by john Ashcrofts national security gag order.)
Its implied by some of what you say that speculting about this stuff will lead to conspiracy theories which will then empower terrorists and reinforce their world views.
I hope I misunderstood you, cos thats complete garbage.
If anyone needs a breather from stoushing on this thread, they can check out Graeme Bird’s revolutionary discoveries in astronomy and cosmology.
Jo:
Jo, there was no robust debate in America prior to the Iraq invasion.
Re the lead up to the Iraq invasion:
Edward S. Herman writes: “There were a great many experts and analysts who were right, but the New York Times ignored them, misrepresented their views, and even smeared them. (See Barry Bearak, ‘Scott Ritter’s Iraq Complex,” Nov. 24th, 2002).”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/NYTimes_CivilSociety.html
Jo, you have to kidding yourself if you are trying to put over that in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion America’s mainstream media was not in virtual lockstep with the Bush admin. So what if Ritter was reported in mainstream outlets like the WP or the NYT. The Times was the home of Judith Miller and endless articles pushing for war. So too was the Washington Post. Outcomes of this were things like the public crucifying of the Dixie Chicks for speaking against Bush in that time, and unbelievable polls like this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Ritter was endlessly smeared in the U.S . media. By the time the invasion started most Americans – thanks to their media – believed the Bush admin lie about WMDs. As well the 9/11 link. I’m talking the lead-up from mid-2002 to March 2003.
I could bury this thread completely with links to outlandish conspiracy theories masquerading as serious journalism from papers like the LA Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. In that time. Then there was the drivel from hate-filled little twerps like Kristol at the National Review who couldn’t wait to see another Arab country in flames.
You mention Hans Blix. He was portrayed in the US media as the bumbling Inspector Clouseau. Or a coward. Bush had a lot of help sidlining him too.
http://www.slate.com/id/2074629/
Dictators look at the 4th estate in America and can only drool.
Also, were you saying Saddam only admitted in the end that he didn’t have a WMD stockpile?
You know, I’d love to see a deathmatch between Graeme Bird and Daggett. Put the two of them in a cage, with a chainsaw and a variety of common gardening implements. There would be no rules. But only one can come out alive.
It would be the most entertaining thing, ever.
PatrickB @1163: I don’t have the book and don’t recall whether Pipes even put it that way. But I think it’s just a matter of making an intellectual connection – of realizing that many of the familiar grim phenomena of political history, such as show trials and ideological purges, involve accusations of conspiracy. jules @1166 has a few more examples.
jules @1165: I remember when that happened. I never had an opinion about it before, but after some research, I suspect this was an episode in the political fight between the British SAS and Shia militias over control of law and order in southern Iraq. The sequence of events was, the two men were captured at a roadblock and taken to a police station, and then the British sent in tanks and broke them out; and then a year later, the British returned to the station, captured it by force, and destroyed it, after freeing over 100 prisoners held by the militias. When they were first captured, their vehicle was described on Al Jazeera, by a Sadrist MP from Baghdad, as a car bomb intended to be exploded in a marketplace. Al Jazeera called him the deputy for Basra, but both before and after this incident he was based in Baghdad, so that may be a mistake.
(relevant link which I cannot embed : http://web.archive.org/web/20050129033904/http://www.longislandpress.com/v03/i03050120/news_02.asp )
All that proves nothing – was is hell, Iraq was a madhouse, and there are many possibilities – but I suspect that this story is not quite as it was reported. Though absolutely it would have helped to make the case among Iraqis that, e.g., Zarqawi might just be another tool of the occupier.
I’d buy that for a dollar.
Mind you, Birdy and Daggy might be even closer than you think. For one thing, both are economically illiterate LaDoucheites with a penchant for half-baked conspiracy theories. We really need to know Daggy’s views on Martian pyramids, stick-wielding bipedal gangsterism and faster-than-light travel.
That’s just horrible Paul Norton. He hasn’t a clue about astronomy or astrophysics, unfortunately.
Bob wrote:
So, when you wrote:
So, can anyone here tell me what the practical difference is between my latest understanding of Bob’s answer to my question and:
?
—
Andrew Reynolds (@ 1149),
You keep referring to the damage caused to WTC 7 by the ‘collapse’ of the North Tower (“a 20 (or so) floor gash cut in it”) but ignore the fact that the NIST report itself acknowledges that this structural damage played no part in causing the collapse. Even if, for argument’s sake, it did then surely the collapse would have been lop-sided, instead of very close to symmetrical.
Andrew Reynolds (@ 1164),
I agree that such a wall woud probably collapse, but I fail to see why you think it would collapse at free fall speed, if all the other blocks other than the 7th (presumably row of ‘storey’) are not punched out of the way, I don’t see why they would not get in the way and stop the ‘wall’ from collapsing at free-fall speed.
Also as a ‘wall’ of childrens building blocks is obviously different from the wall of a steel framed building, I don’t know what you could hope to prove from such at thought experiment.
Looks like I will have to re-post the last part of my previous post, to fix up a stupid fomatting error. Here it is, again:
Bob wrote:
So, when you wrote:
… you meant ‘compromised’ to the point of having ‘neglible structral strength’?
So, can anyone here tell me what the practical difference is between my latest understanding of Bob’s answer to my question and:
?
That is true Jules. However, the Plame affair was also seen as a whodunnit for quite some time. Armitage at one stage tried to claim he was the one who inadvertantly gave Novak the info. Then, in the end – and most probably to save Cheney’s arse – Bush himself comes forth and says he was the one who “leaked the info. And because its the President it was not illegal to do so. That from a guy who said many months earlier when the story first became public:
Bush: “I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
Now read this, where Libby and Cheney are obviously lying:
http://news.aol.com/article/cheney-to-fbi-no-idea-who-leaked-plames/745883
Then Armitage stands up to take a bullet for the team:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html
And finally months later, out of the blue and to everyone’s surprise, Bush says he was the one that leaked Plame’s identity. But its OK, because he is the Pressident:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/whitehouse.leak/index.html
If people can’t see a conpiracy of lies by the Bush admin to cover up that story over a period of several years, then I don’t get that.
Yep.
Timing. “Before” does not mean “at the very commencement”. At least it doesn’t in English.
He’s got you there, Burt: why wouldn’t all those floors above the 7th hover in mid-air? Answer THAT!
Hey, speaking of thought experiments – Daggy, did you ever try that spoon experiment I gave you earlier? You know, to test out your hypothesis that steel is a super-conductor of heat? How did it work out for you?
So, Bob now agrees that there was negligible strength, which, in practical terms, means zero strength “at the very commencement” of the collapse. He is now only quibbling over the distinction between the meaning of “at the very commencement” on the one hand and “before” on the other.
Well, firstly, Bob, if there was “negligible strength” in those floors “before” the commencement of the 2.25 second period of free-fall, then it must logically follow that there must have been “negligible strength” in those floors “at the very commencement” of the 2.25 second period of free-fall, mustn’t it?
The reason, I use the term “at the very commencement” is that according to Newton’s Second Law of Motion there had to have been some structural strnegth in those 8 floors through which the (observed) Northern Wall of WTC 7 prior to the point in time at which free-fall commenced.
Do you or don’t you agree, Bob?
—
Bob, how does it follow from my stating:
… that I am therefore claiming that the blocks above the 7th row should have remained suspended in mid air?
—
Bob wrote:
Firstly, I never said steel was a “super-conductor of heat”. I said that steel was an efficient conductor of heat.
Do you or don’t you agree that steel is an efficient conductor of heat. Bob?
And, secondly, tell me why I should waste my time conducting that pointless experiment if you are not prepared to give a straight answer to my previous question.
Of course, I hasten to add that I am not arguing any of the above. I am only arguing that that is what logically follows if we accept Bob’s and NIST’s (implied) explanation of how WTC 7 collapsed through 8 storeys at free fall speed.
My own explanation, again is that the structural strength was almost certainly removed one floor at a time similtaneously across the whole floor in very rapid succession within that 2.25 second interval as happens in controlled demolitions.
daggett,
Nonsense. With the thought experiment, once the 7th block from the bottom has been punched out the upper ones will collapse at close to, if not actually, free fall speed.
Think about it.
It is also pretty relevant as, like the child’s bricks, the parapet wall of the WTC 7 tower was not designed to withstand the impact of virtually all of the floors collapsing within the structure, which would have blown outwards at the bottom – completely compromising structure of the whole parapet wall.
Have a good look at even David’ Chandler’s video. You can clearly see that the floors have already gone through a process of collapse before (as in before, not “at the commencement of”) the parapet wall starts moving. The exterior windows are blowing out as the collapsing floors pass them – not, as you would expect in a controlled demolition, before the floors start moving. The video itself shows the progress of events, daggett, and it is not one that is consistent with a controlled demolition – it is consistent with internal structural collapse.
There is a very important distinction between “before” and “at the very commencement”, when you are writing sentences like
“A: It (the stuctural strength) had to have been all removed at the very commencement of the period of the free-fall”
If the word ‘at’ were replaced in that sentence with ‘by’, there wouldn’t be much of a problem. The sentence would be boring, but uncontroversial in meaning.
The difference in semantics is massive, and it betrays once more the irrational level on which your mind is operating.
Sideshow (and NIST) are looking at what we know – the available evidence – and making judgements and inferences about the order in which things happened. They are exploring relationships between known events, exploring the complex causality of the building collapses to try and arrive at a picture that seems to fit the known facts.
You on the other hand are taking it as a given that a controlled demolition took place, and are merely interested in finding a plausible-ish way to shoehorn some of the known evidence into supporting your foregone conclusion.
So you have no problems at all (perhaps you don’t even know you’re doing it), with taking a fairly obvious and relative statement about two events – that support must have been compromised before the collapse – and arguing that it’s equivalent to an absolute statement about when a particular favourite event of yours must have occurred. An event about which we have no other knowledge, and for which there is no evidence.
Do I? Where?
It’s very simple, Daggy: either they mean the same thing or they don’t. They don’t.
The statements are not equivalent. The logic only follows IF you accept that the structural strength was compromised BEFORE Stage 2 and if you accept that the structural strength was compromised BEFORE Stage 2 then neither of your two options, “A” or “B”, is accurate, necessitating a fourth option (as “C” = “A” or “B” it is not sufficient), or “D”.
Well, yes, Daggy, there had to have been “some structural strnegth [sic]” prior to the commencement of free-fall because at some point before the building was STANDING.
That there was some structural strength before the commencement of free fall? Yes, of course.
Um, Daggy? That was a joke. One giveaway was that it was addressed to Andrew “Burt” Reynolds, not you. I think your limited comprehension failed you again.
Well, let’s see now. There are degrees of efficiency, and at #943 you wrote the following:
Now, in quoting Andrew you are endorsing his argument, which is that because steel conducts heat it cannot collapse due to heat. However, as FDB implies (quite correctly, IMO) in rejoinder, at #945, in order for steel to conduct heat AND NOT BECOME HOT itself, it must have the properties of a superconductor. That is, heat must be conducted with negligible resistance, otherwise the steel itself would become hot and prone to weaken.
Steel is an “efficient” conductor of heat? Sure – never said otherwise. Superconductor? No. Immune to collapse from fire? No.
IIRC, I’ve given straight answers to all your questions. Tell me where I haven’t and I’ll be make sure of it.
Now, are you going to prove to me that steel doesn’t become hot when exposed to fire? Try my experiment and tell me what you find out. It shouldn’t take long – and certainly will waste less time than you’ve spent on trivia. Give it a go – you might learn something.
Just popping back in,
“Immune? What do you base your opinion upon, Andrew”
I will explain this as simple as I can for very simple people who aren’t really interested in honesty, integrety, or science?
One of the main reasons that steel framed highrises perform as well as they do in fires is the ability of these complex systems to transfer the heat throughout themselves, that is why I say the towers were virtually immune from collapse due to fire – because they had more steel in them than any other highrise so they took more energy to heat up and had a greater ability to act as a heat sink than any other steel framed higrise. You can take this or leave it, but it is the reason I said it.
Andrew Reynolds,
With the thought experiment, once the 7th block from the bottom has been punched out the upper ones will collapse at close to, if not actually, free fall speed.
Think about it.
It is also pretty relevant as, like the child’s bricks, the parapet wall of the WTC 7 tower was not designed to withstand the impact of virtually all of the floors collapsing within the structure
This is such a stupid, and I do mean stupid, comparison for so many reasons…
First, why have blocks stacked up in one another to simulate continuous columns, why don’t you do the thought experiment of how you are going to instantaniously remove the lower section of a continuous column, not to mention multiple continuous columns all at the same time?? And don’t forget those lower sections of the multiple continuous columns have to be removed quick enough to allow symmetrical freefall. Hmmm, controlled demolition techniques come to mind, dont they??
Secondly, why don’t you even question how the internal structure of as steel framed building can collapse the way NIST suggests WTC 7 does?? After all, are not all the beams and columns welded and/or bolted together?? Even the parts of WTC 7 that aren’t effected by fire just crumble internally as though it’s a house of cards and there is nothing holding the beams and columns together???
NIST must have told it’s computers that the complex system of beams and columns were held together with chewing gum in order to get it to collapse like that LOL. And yet some people pretend it’s reasonable -go figure!!
Andrew Reynolds,
You continue to confuse:
1. whether WTC 7 should have collapsed at all
… with:
2. whether WTC 7 could have collapsed at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds through 8 storeys, without the structural strength of those 8 storeys having been removed by explosives within that period.
You have presented a superficially plausible case why (1) could have occurred but not why (2) could have occurred.
Please re-read my response to you in 1177.
—
FDB and Bob,
I am simply trying to establish how you explain the collapse. I already made clear my own understanding of NIST’s explanation, and, presumably, your understanding back at 982 and re-stated it at post 1145. Here it is again:
So, I had not made the claim that, according to NIST’s explanation, all the strength of those 8 floors had to have been strictly lost instantaneously at the start of the free-fall period.
So, it seems that you have both, in effect, admitted that I was right all along.
However, I personally don’t care that much which of the two possible interpretations of the NIST ‘explanation’ you both eventually decide to adopt. Both are ridiculous.
—
FDB wrote:
I suggest you think again about the sentence:
Note the words “had to have been all removed”. Using the word ‘by’ instead of ‘at’ would have made no difference to the meaning of that sentence.
That you have depicted my attempt to clarify your explanation of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, and not mine, as different to what I actually wrote seems, to me, to be pedantry in the extreme.
—
Bob wrote:
I consider the above total confirmation that
1. You are both scientifically illiterate;
2. You can’t read; or
3. You will both say absolutely anything in order to avoid having to admit that you are wrong.
Andrew never claimed that steel would not heat up. What he was claiming is that the relatively high heat caused by the fires around where the planes hit would have been quickly conducted away to the rest of the structural steel through the building. So, no steel in any part of either the North or South Towers should have been able to heat up to temperatures anywhere near sufficient as to be able to cause the steel to fail structurally. Presumably that is one of the reasons why no other steel framed building has before or since been caused to collapse by fire alone.
His statement that “[these buildings] were virtually immune to collapse due to fire” seems wholely justified to me. The attempt by FDB and Bob to infer from that that andrew was therefore stating that steel was a super-conductor is plainly idiotic.
I note the deafening silence on the part of debunkers about the failure of the US to capture a single person in Afghanistan with a proven link to 9/11 after 8 years continues.
Part of David Ray Griffin’s article mentioned above about the confessions of supposed 9/11 ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed bears repeating here:
“This is such a stupid, and I do mean stupid, comparison for so many reasons…”
It may be the case that the analogy is not perfect, how I think your condemnation of it reveals your complete lack of capacity for self reflection. In the first instance you are unable to provide any evidence at all of a conspiracy. You can’t identify any of the parties, you have no evidence of any explosives being present prior to the event, you have no evidence of any explosions before or during the attack. Your claims are in fact baseless and yet you continue to argue your case. Is that stupid? Perhaps, but it would be rather rude of me to say so.
Andrew, I be careful tossing around words like stupid. I don’t think you are stupid, others might and say so as you are being to get a bit bolshy. You really need to take the blinkers off.
Andrew, you cannot justify your opinion with yet more opinion. Steel will heat up and weaken when exposed to intense heat. This is a known metallurgical property. For you to assert that because these towers “had more steel” they were in some way immune to the effect of heat is plainly ridiculous. You’ll have to do better than that. Try referring to someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.
It was neither freefall nor symmetrical. The collapse was progressive.
Are you asserting that welding and bolting prevents collapse? Once the building lost its structural integrity, it lost its structural integrity. Structural engineers don’t have problem with this explanation, so why do you?
Where’s YOUR model, Andrew?
First, as you’ve been told so many times, your explanation is not the NIST explanation. As I keep telling you, if you want to critique the NIST explanation, you have to address their explanation, not your fabricated strawman.
Second, you DID make the claim that the strength of the building had been lost instantaneously at the start of the free-fall period. You did so several times, most recently at #1161, when you restated it as follows:
Now, option “A” states that all strength was removed “at the very commencement of the period of free-fall”. “At the very commencement of” does, indeed, mean “at the start of”. You wrote it.
Huh? Where? Your limited comprehension fails you again. That, or you’re simply delusional.
Given that neither was an accurate interpretation of the NIST explanation and neither was accepted, I’m indifferent to your claimed indifference. You were wrong, proven to be wrong and proven to have lied about it.
No, the difference is material and clear.
If the strength had been removed BY “the very commencement” it would mean that the strength had been removed BEFORE “the very commencement”.
If the strength had been removed AT “the very commencement” it would mean that the strength had been removed CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with “the very commencement”, and NOT BEFORE. The difference is material: one means BEFORE, the other means AT THE SAME TIME.
When was the strength removed, in Stage 1 or 2? In Stage 1, BEFORE Stage 2. Not “at the very commencement” of Stage 2 or “during” Stage 2, but BEFORE Stage 2.
No, Daggy, I’m quoting you exactly. What’s pedantic – and pathetic – is your attempt to contort your own words into meaning something else.
Heh. You argue that steel’s a superconductor and you call me “scientifically illiterate”? Very droll.
Presumably, Daggy? What you presume is not worth a brass farthing. Steel is not a superconductor; when you heat the end of a steel beam (or a spoon…), it becomes hot. Why? Because it does not conduct perfectly. The steel exposed to fires in the WTC towers was not able to conduct away the heat effectively and thereby became very hot, some of it to the point of weakening.
Your assertions about the ability of a steel structure to conduct heat away from an intense fire are ridiculous, scientifically-illiterate garbage. You have no basis for your assertions about the ability of a steel structure to withstand fire.
That’s a necessary inference, Daggy. Andrew was implying that steel has the properties of a superconductor and it simply does not behave that way.
The fact that you agree with Andrew’s unscientific, unauthoritative OPINION speaks volumes about your blinkered credulity.
daggett,
I am confusing nothing at all – I believe it is your powers of observation that have failed you. The sequence of events on the videos is very clear if you actually look at them, rather than try to put your own ideas into them.
One preliminary point – the NIST have not said the 20 floor gash had nothing to do with it – they have said its contribution is unknown. As the gash was on the south (unobserved) side the building – and almost exactly in the centre of that side – then the building may have collapsed on that side first and around the gash first. It may also be that whatever caused the gash also took out several of the main internal support columns. To say, as you do, it had nothing to do with it is to assume you know more about the exact way it collapsed that is possible from the evidence. There are no videos (that I am aware of) that show the south side collapsing, so your position on it is not supportable by the evidence.
.
At least in that you are on (slightly) firmer ground than you are regarding the collapse of the north face. The sequence of events there is clear and blows your ideas out of the water. Have a look at the video and it is perfectly clear what happens. If you look carefully you will see the east penthouse (and therefore the floors below it) collapse into the building before any windows blow out. This is crucial as it means that the collapse happens before your claimed “explosions” of the “thermite” that was meant to be there to bring the building down. In fact, it is clear that the windows are being blown out by the collapsing floors as they pass each level of the building.
Once the floors have collapsed most of the way down, taking out the base of the north parapet wall, the north parapet wall collapses, for a period of which it does at near free-fall speed.
As per my illustration using the child’s building blocks, this is pretty well inevitable.
Again – have a look at the video, particularly the one I linked to before. The sequence is clear and is in no way consistent with there being any explosives in the building collapsing the internal floors, as the sequence is clearly this one:
1. Floors collapse,
2. Windows blow out
which is not consistent with there being explosives that cause the collapse of the floors.
“I suggest you think again about the sentence:
A: It (the stuctural strength) had to have been all removed at the very commencement of the period of the free-fall.
Note the words “had to have been all removed”. Using the word ‘by’ instead of ‘at’ would have made no difference to the meaning of that sentence.”
Fail.
I carefully explained exactly what the very large difference was. Did you not understand?
I note that PatickB has for the umpteenth time in this discussion, stated that until we can produce statements from people who witnessed the planting of the explosioves and the wiring, no other gaping holes, inconistencies, glaring self-contradictions and absurdities of the 9/11 Truth Movement should even be discussed.
Well. PatrickB, as I have said before, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, and if the forum moderators don’t object to you repeating that another 10,000 times on this forum, I can hardly stop you, can I?
—
Bob wrote:
Don’t be stupid, Bob. I never said that.
—
As I have yet again been taken to task by FDB and Bob or having attempted to try to explain my understanding of their explanation of the collapse that they insist has been clearly articulated somewhere on this forum, there seems that little more that is likely to be achieved by continuing with this.
Clearly, either I don’t understand the clear meaning of words (or am pretending not to) or they don’t. I can only let the record thus far stand and let others, who are interested in learning the truth, decide for themselves (and, obviously, Bob, I am not referring to Jo, Nick, Liam, Nabakov et al).
—
I note the silence of Bob, FDB, Andrew Reynolds and just about everyone else, about the failure of the US and its allies to capture a single person with a proven link to 9/11 after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan, continues.
Now, Daggy, you DID endorse Andrew’s assertion that steel had superconductive properties. You can resile from that endorsement if you wish, but you did it.
Apart from your self-inflicted embarassment? You make it sound so trivial, Daggy!
Squib. So, basically yet another entreaty to people who don’t disagree with you to agree with you? Hahaha.
Sorry, Daggy, you seemed more concerned about 2.25 seconds of WTC 7′s collapse, so I focused on that. Now that you’ve squibbed on that subject we can turn to another topic. What are you whining about now?
BUSH: Okay, I think I finally understand. So, there’s two world-famous skyscrapers in New York…
CHENEY: Right…
BUSH: So, we blow up both of them with a secret controlled demolition of nano-thermite. But first, we also stage two planes crashing into them, as our cover story…
CHENEY: Right…
BUSH: And then, hours later, we blow up another anonymous-looking building that nobody’s ever heard of, that doesn’t get hit by any planes.
CHENEY: Exactly. You’ve got it.
BUSH: But, why blow up the third building? It’s not famous, so it doesn’t help our plot. And it doesn’t get hit by a plane, so it just makes the whole thing look suspicious. Aren’t we just making extra trouble for ourselves?
CHENEY: Look, I just like blowing stuff up. Okay?
BUSH: Then how come you’re crashing a plane into the Pentagon, but you’re not blowing it up with nano-thermite too?
CHENEY: (sighs) Oh, for — just… have another cookie, George. They’ve got cocaine in them.
BUSH: Goody!
Are you asserting that welding and bolting prevents collapse?
Yes.
A house of cards or jenga set fall the way they do because there is nothing binding the complex systems together, NIST would like you to believe that the internal structure of a modern steel framed highrise can fail in the same manner.
This is of course absolutely ridiculous, the steel framing is bolted and/or welded together which would stop the internal structure from cascading into collapse as easily as a house of cards fails, like it does in the NIST animation.
You have our gratitude.
So, Andrew, how much weight can a welded or bolted steel frame carry? It must be a lot (infinite?) to prevent collapse. Have you informed the engineering profession of your discovery, or are you keeping it a surprise for Christmas?
daggett,
I am noting your complete and utter failure to review the video that you have been placing such reliance on – or, if you have, your complete and utter failure to notice that the sequence of events I have given above is correct and that it shows you were, at the very least, mistaken.
.
As for your latest (seeming) attempt to come up with another battlefront here (you seem to be running out of them) I do not find the US’s failure to “round up the ringleaders” entirely surprising as it is highly unlikely they are still in Afghanistan after nearly 8 years of occupation.
Personally, if I had been in Osama’s position I would have high-tailed it ASAP.
“show trials and ideological purges, involve accusations of conspiracy.”
Yeah but my point (and Chomsky’s) is that it’s so overblown, such a spectacular fall that the event loses it’s intended meaning and becomes a farce. That’s different to a conspiracy theory being used to convince a group of people of something. People actually believe conspiracy theories. Show trials , more often than not are recognised as such but what choice do you have in a dictatorship?
Also I’m a little skeptical of Pipes, I thought he had neo-con leanings (could that be a conspiracy too?).
“that’s your opinion”
It’s not my opinion, an opinion would be something like … oh let me see … Dagget is a half wit? Dagget is probably a frustrated teen who can’t get into the in group. You get my drift Dagget? My question is repeated because, like lots of “detectives” and “forensic instigators” I ask a simple question (like “Where were you when the duchess was murdered?” etc) until I get a satisfactory answer. Failure to get said answer usually means that the one being questioned is either a half-wit or hiding something. In your case it is probably the former however it could also be that you know you have no case but have some kind of problem with admitting that you’ve f*cked up.
Bob is now apparently arguing that only buildings with welds or bolts with infinite strength can withstand fire without collapsing.
Are intelligent people with normal cares and responsibilities and aspirations to enjoy life expected to waste their time arguing against this?
—
Bob, nothing andrew wrote implied that steel had the properties of a superconductor.
If you wnat to keep up your stupid pretence of believing that the abilitity of a large connected steel structure structures to efficiently conduct excessive heat away from any part of it is not the same as super-conductor, then it is clearly a waste of our time discussing this with you.
(To correct the second part of my previous post
Bob, nothing andrew wrote implied that steel had the properties of a superconductor.
If you wnat to keep up your stupid pretence of believing that the abilitity of a large connected steel structure structures to efficiently conduct excessive heat away from any part of it is the same as super-conductivity, then it is clearly a waste of our time discussing this with you.
No, it’s Andrew that’s arguing that welds and bolts have hitherto unknown properties of collapse immunity.
I dunno. Why don’t you ask one?
Daggy, Andrew argued that steel buildings were “immune” to fire because they were able to conduct and disperse heat from fires. In order to do that, they must have an extraordinary ability to conduct heat, even from the most intense fires, with about becoming dangerously hot themselves, i.e. perform like a superconductor. They don’t, obviously, but that is what Andrew and you were arguing.
Hey, did you ever try that spoon experiment I gave you? I notice that you squibbed on that, too.
Hi, I’m Andrew Bolt – my friends call me Andy.
I’m as strong as anythink. I can take the weight. They use me (and all my relatives in the Bolt family) in huge skyscrapers. We help keep it all together. We take big loads. Ordinary loads and extra loads, like the time the guys on the 33rd floor put in some extra heavy equipment. No problemo.
We’re very strong. I don’t like to boast of course.
But there’s a limit. If you load us up too much, or jolt or stretch or heat us, sorry: we bust. We “shear” as the fancy-pants engineers say.
We aren’t infinitely strong.
We can’t hold a structure together under EVERY circumstance.
But y’all knew that, eh?
“Hey, did you ever try that spoon experiment I gave you? I notice that you squibbed on that, too.”
Careful Bob, you’ll cop abuse about being repetitive.
Fyodor,
Looks like Daggett and friends are desperately trying to “win” this argument using a semantic argument rather than actually engaging on the issues. Surely this could not be because they actually recognise that the facts do not support their assertions?
“This is of course absolutely ridiculous, the steel framing is bolted and/or welded together which would stop the internal structure from cascading into collapse as easily as a house of cards fails[...]”
Love it, just love it! The same way ‘bolts and welds’ prevent the internal structure of a car from crumpling into a biscuit when it hits a tree head-on.
Andrew, do you even know how much of the structure was through-welded, versus spot-welded on site during the construction process? Or, is your ‘bolts and welds’ argument really just that: ‘bolts and welds’, and that’s all there is to it – a woefully unspecific, misinformed and ignorant nonsense.
Add to the thought experiment. Glue the few hundred grams of blocks together using something which has the same relative strength as the ‘bolts and welds’ used in a 180,000 tonne building – I’ll helpfully suggest you’ll find clag is more than a little too strong.
Now, repeat the experiment.
Nick
Please don’t add to the obfuscation.
Are you not aware that nano-thermite charges are built into the bonnet and chassis of every car, and have been since long before nano-thermite was invented?
Besides, why was that particular tree standing in just that particular spot, as the car careered off the roadway? Coincidence? I think not.
It’s clear that GM and other multinational vehicle manufacturers have a direct interest in getting vehicles wrecked so that they can sell new ones, and if you don’t believe they deliberately cause car smashes, then you’re lying and I have a Youtube video of a driver saying he just CANNOT believe his car crashed cos he was only doing 140 kph on a curve and his mate heard the whole thing cos the driver was talking to his mate on his mobile when the car just flipped out…. I mean what else could it be but the controlled demolition of his car at the very moment it hit that gum tree?
thousands of lives they destroy every year with their infernal nano-thermite, and is there a proper enquiry?
- not while Bush & Cheney are still in the White House.
Big Oil, Big Autos, Big Banks, Big Big Big.
PatrickB,
What question have you asked is it that you claim I have failed to answer?
The question about whether or not anyone has, so far, testified as to having seen explosives being laid and wiring laid has been answered in the negative and repeatedly answered, by me long ago.
If that answer is not satisfactory to you, then tell me what more you need to know.
And if that was not the question you say I have not answered, then please tell me what it is.
—
I see lots more non-sequiturs and displays scientific ignorance above. Please keep them coming, Bob, Nick, Andrew Reynolds, et al, and you too, PatrickB, that is, if you can come up with something new, for a change.
Some may imagine that getting in the final words in this fashion is the same as winning the argument, but I somehow think informed critical-minded people will see it rather differently.
They will only become “the final words” if you never reply, Mr Daggett.
As well you know.
Don’t come the raw prawn, cobber.
But should anyone feel obligated to spend time replying to material that any critical and open-minded person, with a basic understanding of science, can see is hogwash?
When the ‘debate’ has descended to this clearly farcical state, perhaps the only necessary ‘reply’ is: “see my previous posts at 1205 and 1188 and see andrew’s previous post at 1198 and 1187.”
daggett, you’ve disagreed with andrew before on a quasi-scientific basis. Are you prepared to do so again now regarding these ‘bolts and welds’ (made of what?) he wrote of, or do you have something else to add (careful now)?
Agree, disagree? Yes, no?
daggett,
Another opportunity to answer missed by you. This is getting repetitive.
I will keep it really simple, then.
1. Do you, or do you not, agree that the windows in the collapse area of WTC 7 started blowing out after the east penthouse can be observed dropping into the building. If not, please provide some evidence.
2. If so, do you agree that this would be inconsistent with a controlled demolition. If not, why not? Please provide a mechanism that would account for this.
That should do for now. If you cannot answer those questions I will have to consider that you are evading them and that you therefore concede the argument.
Love it, just love it! The same way ‘bolts and welds’ prevent the internal structure of a car from crumpling into a biscuit when it hits a tree head-on.
Andrew, do you even know how much of the structure was through-welded, versus spot-welded on site during the construction process? Or, is your ‘bolts and welds’ argument really just that: ‘bolts and welds’, and that’s all there is to it – a woefully unspecific, misinformed and ignorant nonsense.
Well yes, bolts and welds do hold a car together under tremendous forces, even when a car hits a tree as you describe the panels by-and-large stay together even if the steel does crumble
You show your ignorance by asking how much of WTC 7 was spot welded? The answer is none, spot welding is done mostly on sheet metal, any welds done on the structure would be structural welds done by a certified structural welder, they would also be inspected by an engineer and some will be x-rayed.
Having got my structural welding ticket over 20 years ago (I admit that I never used it for structural welding, nor did I renew it), I can tell you that the welds we did got ‘broken’ as part of the test and they were not allowed to break on the weld. In other words the welds had to be stronger than the 10mm structural steel we were welding.
Where building (or cars for that matter) are bolted or welded they will not be allowed to be weak spots, these joins will still have to meet or exceed whatever structural strength the engineer has deemed necessary.
For NIST to suggest that the internal structure of a building is free to collapse is a load of absolute rubbish, not to mention the fact that the beams are also welded and/or bolted to the external columns as well.
Use your common sense and have a look at how easy NIST says the building collapses internally.
“I see lots more non-sequiturs and displays scientific ignorance above.”
Given that you now admit that there is no evidence for a conspiracy I think my question is very relevant. I’m glad that you have clarified your position. Just to be clear, you have agreed that no evidence whatsoever exists for a conspiracy to destroy the twin towers via a controlled demolition. That means that there is no evidence of planning or carrying out the plan. That leaves you with nothing to rely on, any other material you claim as evidence is immediately revealed as worthless in the light of your admission that there is no evidence for a conspiracy.
So, I guess that would be just about it for Mr Dagget? Anyone?
so andrew, in your expert opinion, would the building have been welded together so well that even the removal of several internal support columns could not have resulted in the building’s collapse, as the structural engineer on the project has agreed is plausible?
Surely, great welding would have ensured that, once enough of the building became unsound the rest would have been pulled down by the collapsing section, as that video you linked to demonstrates well?
I’d embed the pic, but I don’t know how.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
d
“Well yes, bolts and welds do hold a car together under tremendous forces, even when a car hits a tree as you describe the panels by-and-large stay together even if the steel does crumble”
You’re saying bolts and welds don’t stop the car crumbling – they just “hold it together”. Interesting and contradictory. I’m not referring to the panels, btw, but the frame.
“You show your ignorance by asking how much of WTC 7 was spot welded?”
Fair enough, wrong terminology. So, which of the many various methods of welding were used in the construction of WTC buildings, andrew, for you to make your blanket assertion that the ‘bolts and welds couldn’t fail’?
Do you agree or disagree with your fellow truther here, that “the welds are the weakest part of a continuous column and would be the natural place to locate explosives to sever a column”?
Do you agree or disagree with the hundreds of photos of rubble on his site (mainly WTC 1 & 2), which show it *was* the weld points which failed in many, many instances?
Darryl,
Yes, but…
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dangers.png
so andrew, in your expert opinion, would the building have been welded together so well that even the removal of several internal support columns could not have resulted in the building’s collapse, as the structural engineer on the project has agreed is plausible?
Surely, great welding would have ensured that, once enough of the building became unsound the rest would have been pulled down by the collapsing section, as that video you linked to demonstrates well?
What I said is that the internal structure is not free to collapse like a stack of cards as NIST suggests in this short vid:
I also said that the internal structure is welded and/or bolted to the external columns so the internal structure is not a seperate system, this makes the idea of large sections of the internal structure collapsing seperate from the shell preposterous.
BTW and just for your information as I am definitly not interested in arguing semantics, WTc 7 was designed by Emery Roth & Sons, and Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building. I have yet to see any evidence that Robertson was involved in the engineering or construction of WTC 7 at all. I will happily retract this if you can provide a valid link showing that he was.
Where?
Here’s an idea, Daggy: why don’t you justify your dopey theory with some evidence? That’d be a first for you.
Why do you think that, Daggy? You’ve already confessed to rejecting an explanation you admit you never read, and accepting uncritically a conspiracy theory you can’t substantiate. You are uninformed credulity personified. You wouldn’t know an “informed, critical-minded” person if they beat you senseless with factual logic, like on this thread f’rinstance…
Nobody’s been “obligated”, Daggy – we replied to your hogwash voluntarily. For my part, I confess it’s been enormous fun taking the piss out of your looney tunes conspiracy.
Oh, c’mon. This debate was farcical from the moment you went off the deep end with your monomania, and that was a thousand comments ago.
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that carrying on like a pork chop will convince people of your theory. It won’t. And nor will pointless repetition of your tired, debunked non-evidence. In fact, the only success you HAVE achieved is in cementing ever more securely your reputation as, well, a clueless nutter.
*golf clap*
If this thread makes it to 2012 comments, will the Mayans destroy the intertubes?
Well Andrew or Dagget do you agree with my analysis at 1218 or are we still on? It’ll get a little crazy from here on in if it is, what with you having admitted that’s there’s no conspiracy ‘n all.
Fair enough, wrong terminology. So, which of the many various methods of welding were used in the construction of WTC buildings, andrew, for you to make your blanket assertion that the ‘bolts and welds couldn’t fail’?
It doesn’t matter what type of weld or bolts are used, they must either meet or exceed the engineers specifications. So if a beam has to have X shear or tensile strength, then the bolts or welds must have at least X shear or tensile strength also.
After all, what would be the point of specifying that a beam has to be able to hold up 50 tons but then allowing bolts on the end that can only hold up 5 tons?
Do you agree or disagree with your fellow truther here, that “the welds are the weakest part of a continuous column and would be the natural place to locate explosives to sever a column”?
Do you agree or disagree with the hundreds of photos of rubble on his site (mainly WTC 1 & 2), which show it *was* the weld points which failed in many, many instances?
Yes I would disagree with the premise that the welds are a weak point, I have heard other people say it as well, but when I got my ticket and they tore the 10mm plate apart in a press the plate was not allowed to tear on the weld.
It also makes no sense for an engineer to specify a certain column strength and then allow weak points, I will double check this with my brother the next time I talk with him (he’s a qualified engineer who can sign off structural plans etc.)
I haven’t seen that site before (thanks) and I will look at the photo’s when I have time, I have often noticed the way the towers columns are neatly sliced straight across but a cutter charge will do that whether it’s on a weld or not.
They may well have targeted the welds because if a column is clearly cut straight across and it’s not on a weld then everybody will immediately recognise that this cannot happen as a result of a gravity collapse. At least if they target the welds the non-engineers will just think the welds failed, and even some engineers might think that the welds were possibly not done up to the correct standards.
Let’s assume for a moment that there really was a conspiracy as argued for by daggett et al. I have a few questions about the actual, practical nature of the conspiracy as an existing (and highly successful) operation. Seriously: if this happened, and it happened with mission fully accomplished without a flaw, and you are on a determined quest to expose it, then I assume you must at some time have contemplated these issues. Not being sarcastic here, I’m really curious as to your thoughts.
A technical question: As a matter of realistic, in-the-field demolitions technology, what is the minimum physical proximity to the detonation site required for those setting off the detonators? Did they have to be say in a 500m radius? Were physical detonator lines required, or could they have done it remotely, from Connecticut? From D.C.? How does it really work? How many separate individuals would be needed to set off this many explosives? Why did these individuals wait for hours after detonating the towers, before detonating WTC7?
A political question: it was suggested above-thread (possibly by daggett though I can’t be sure as the page loads too slowly to scroll up and check) in the sub-argument over Fire Chief Palmer’s on-site reportage, that the opinion of a more senior, top-level FDNY official was not to be trusted, as he too was potentially (or maybe probably?) a part of the conspiracy. My question: who is the official in question, and what is his history of employment (and length of employment) in the FDNY; and what can be known about his history of political affiliations? (New York is a heavily Democratic town.) If for example the official in question was a recent appointee from out of town and with scant experience and known Republican/neocon leanings, that would tend to seem more suspicious rather than less so. If on the other hand he was a 30-year FDNY veteran, native New Yorker, and lifelong Democratic voter (and union member), what are the odds that such a person, on being approached (by secret critters from inside a much-hated Republican administration) and asked to participate in a conspiracy to kill his fellow New Yorkers and betray the Department he had served for most of his life — what are the odds that he would a) agree to participate, b) decline but remain silent, or c) decline and blow the whistle?
Last, a logistics question: since you’ve given a great deal of thought to this conspiracy, what is your back-of-the-envelope calculation about roughly how many individuals would be required to pull this whole thing off with the high level of success they evidently enjoyed? (Project completed, no evidence left behind, none of the conspirators –not one— cracking and coming forward.) At a minimum you would need teams to plant the explosives, teams to pose as building security to shoo away suspicious workers, teams to handle the detonations, teams to handle the airline-hijacking details (at least some of them presumably airline employees), teams to “run” the false hijackers or else to handle the hijackings themselves (i.e. teams to get Atta et al into the country and send them to flight school well in advance of the event in order to provide the planned cover), teams to handle command-and-control, teams to “spin” the news and information, teams of political cadres to exploit the event at various levels of government for the purposes alleged, and teams to handle physical and information “cleanup,” at the very minimum. Apparently it was even necessary to suborn high-level FDNY officials, with all the risk of exposure that that entails. So what’s a bare-minimum number of the culpable individuals, would you say?
Our conspirators chose to install “cutter charges” (side-question: what are “cutter charges”?) at the weld points of support columns, for the one and only reason that it would appear plausible to “non-engineers”, and “even some engineers”, no less, that those columns hadn’t been detonated, and had simply failed at their weld points, which is impossible.
And that previous to this conversation, you had no idea that weld points had failed/were detonated, and were arguing on that basis.
The plot irregularly thickens daily for you, does it?
Nick,
Even cutter charges (these are charges designed to cut, rather than destroy) would have to explode hard enough to blow out windows in the building. The simple fact that WTC7′s windows were not blowing out before the floors started dropping is clear enough and andrew seems determined to miss that simple fact.
Of course it was a conspiracy. Bldgs don’t fall down on their own.
Follow the money. Fiat currency. Wall Street. Bush. Madhoff & Ponzi. Traders at their desks. Lehmann Bros. It all adds up.
wbb,
Are you channelling GMB there? If so, it was the Explodians on Mars.
Yeah, I know all that, Andrew. They’ve chosen to wilfully miss many simple facts.
I think I’m back to being interested again in the mental processes behind the fiction reading/writing of little-a andrew and daggett.
Which reads something like a never-ending choose-your-own-adventure story in which you are everything you despise…
‘Cutter charge’ is just catchy truther slang, btw. Ain’t that right daggett, andrew?
Nick,
It is slang – the more normal term is “shaped charge”, with the cutter being shaped to cut only – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge#Linear_shaped_charges
I think the more normal slang term is ‘cutting charge’?
PatrickB wrote:
I never said that.
Please stop wasting my time.
—
Anyhow, the recent posts I found worthwhile are 1231 by wbb, , 1223 and by 1217 by andrew and 1214 by daggett.
You found your own post worthwhile, daggett?
You needn’t have made it quite so blatant – you resorted to onanism as an odd form of debate a few hundred or so posts ago. I think we all saw it happen when it happened.
So, daggett, you still seem unable to answer the point about the windows not exploding when the “thermite” went off.
Oh – and I think the one by wbb was a healthy dose of sarcasm. Nice to see you find that “worthwhile” – perhaps there is hope.
Well fuck my muskrat boots gently with a mink chainsaw. Lubricated with unsalted Moose butter.
1237 comments now? This is pretty much legendary territory for any blog thread anywhere.
And it’s all down basically to a dogged Daggett.
But why?
It’s clear D-man, you’re not changing anyone’s mind here. In fact quite the opposite. Opprobrium, ridicule and logic have been sprayed over you like a shithose.
So why do you persist?
a) You’re a whacko self-scarifying martyr who loves the attention.
b) You’re getting paid to discredit the real conspiracy by so enthusiastically endorsing it.
c) You’re actually a performance artist on an almost Graeme Bird level.
d) All of the above. At once.
Now go ahead and prove you’re really “Daggett”. For all we know, you could be a complete imposter.
“and 1214 by daggett.”
And quoting yourself in the third person? That way real madness lies. See “Bird, Graeme” and Strocchi, Jack”.*
* University of the Internets plc.
“The question about whether or not anyone has, so far, testified as to having seen explosives being laid and wiring laid has been answered in the negative and repeatedly answered, by me long ago”
“I never said that.”
Dagget you are confusing everyone. You make a statement which plainly shows that you don’t know of any evidence of a conspiracy and then you deny it! I would submit that you are an unreliable witness. Indeed I would also contend that your entire case is vexation and that it be thrown out and costs awarded to all who have posted contesting you position. It is now conclusive, Dagget is without a doubt completely deluded.
I have sad news to report to thread-treaders.
Mr daggett has announced on the Mr Bartlett thread that he will run as an independent in the Brisbane seat to be contested by Mr Bartlett for the Greens.
It may be that Mr daggett will attempt to lengrthen this thread in order to provide himself with “the oxygen of publicity” for his political campaign.
Nay, it may be that this whole Tower of Power and World Trickery Campaign (WTC) has been but a prelude to the sad spectacle of independent illogic on public display, in an election.
Will there be Daggett Doorknocks? Daggett Fundraising? Daggett Posters? To whom will he award his preferences?
And that previous to this conversation, you had no idea that weld points had failed/were detonated, and were arguing on that basis.
This is simply untrue, I said in my post that ” I have heard other people say it as well” in relation to the welds being targeted, and I also said ” I have often noticed the way the towers columns are neatly sliced straight across but a cutter charge will do that whether it’s on a weld or not.”.
So I have acknowledged that I both know of that theory and have seen that the columns are cut straight across.
Not only that, but previous to that point we were discussing WTC 7, not the towers, and what I was arguing that the internal structure is not free to collapse like a house of cards because the complex system of beams and columns are welded and/or bolted together.
I also argued that the internal framing is also welded and/or bolted to the external framing, so the internal structure is not free to collapse seperate from the outermost columns. It is actually inaccurate to treat the internal and external structures as seperate entities because they are really just one interconnected structure.
Now I have a question for you Nick, and I would appreciate an honest answer. You have seen the photo’s of how the columns failed straight across in the towers, as someone who doesn’t believe the controlled demolition hypothesis how do you reconcile how those columns failed??
If you believe the welds failed without explosives targeting them then you must believe that the towers were very poorly welded, especially as a lot (not all, but probrably most) of those columns are sliced straight across without any noticable deformation of the column. Just how weak do you think the welds were in comparison to the columns??
BTW, I phoned my engineer brother and he confirmed that “the weld should be stronger than the parent material” (he said ‘should’ because it’s a complex question with some types of joins etc requiring seperate calculations etc etc etc). He basically confirmed what was told when I did my structural welding ticket.
“If you believe the welds failed without explosives”
How about you give us some evidence for a conspiracy to plan and execute a controlled demolition and maybe then we’ll have a look at this highly circumstantial interpretation. BTW does your engineer brother share your truther beliefs?
andrew,
Just a quick welding question. Let’s say you weld one piece of steel onto another in a “T” formation, with the “T” being on its side. You then hold the upright rigid and then very quickly impose an enormous force on the other beam – one that greatly exceeds the designed loading.
Where would you expect the break to occur? Surely it would be at or very near the weld?
“Where would you expect the break to occur?”
Der, REYNOLDS. It would break wherever Cheney put the nanothermite.
How about you give us some evidence for a conspiracy to plan and execute a controlled demolition and maybe then we’ll have a look at this highly circumstantial interpretation. BTW does your engineer brother share your truther beliefs?
PatrickB,
You’d make a terrible cop, you won’t acknowledge a crime has been committed until someone confesses, quite bizaar really.
My brother was the first person to tell me to have another look at the collapse of the towers because explosives were used to bring them down. I didn’t do as he asked until I accidently came across a youtube clip of WTC 7 collapsing – that was the catalyst for having another look at the colapse of the towers.
Just a quick welding question. Let’s say you weld one piece of steel onto another in a “T” formation, with the “T” being on its side. You then hold the upright rigid and then very quickly impose an enormous force on the other beam – one that greatly exceeds the designed loading.
Where would you expect the break to occur? Surely it would be at or very near the weld?
Well I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it would take a force exceeding the design loading, some people here seem to doubt that welds and bolts can hold a building together in spite of the fact that that is exactly what does hold steel framed buildings together.
At the end near the weld is most likely correct, the reason is that a steel beam can stretch in the middle but it can’t stretch at the end so tensile failure occurs there.
“You’d make a terrible cop, you won’t acknowledge a crime has been committed until
someone confessesevidence is found indicating that a crime may have taken place [which may include confessions, witnesses, material evidence, recorded footage or the like],quite bizaarprecisely as it should be, really.”Perhaps you think the ideal cop is one who launches immense criminal investigations every time some guy on the internet reckons there should be one? Good luck with that.
andrew,
Which is precisely what happened – the beams fractured where you would expect them to fracture.
Additionally, if you look at a piece of steel that has been cut by a thermite charge (a very rare process as it makes little sense to do it that way) you would get a molten end, rather than a fractured one as thermite cuts more by heat than be sheer explosive force (although that is present too). None of the beams I have seen pictures of on the net look like they have been heated to way above melting point (as they would have had to have been for a thermite charge to cut them) but they all look like they have been fractured by immense force.
Again, though – if you were right then the windows of WTC 7 would have been breaking in great number before the floors started collapsing. The fact they were not simply militates against your case.
“You’d make a terrible cop, you won’t acknowledge a crime has been committed”
Huh, what crime, oh I see you mean the crime committed by the terrorists when they flew the planes into the towers. No you’re quite wrong. I definitely acknowledge that a crime was committed. Glad to see that you’ve come to your senses and abandoned these baseless theories that you’ve propounded over these 1200 or so posts. Good on you for having the courage!
Actually, you’re a little naive. A confession wasn’t required, indeed not possible as all the conspirators were killed when they flew the planes into the towers and destroyed them. The evidence is in fact overwhelming to support the assertion that the towers were destroyed when planes were flown into them. Not only that there is considerable evidence that demonstrated that these people deliberately planned the attacks. There is even footage of them passing through airport security as the board the planes that they eventually flew into the towers causing them to collapse.
In fact there are transcripts of conversation between people on then planes whilst they are in the air, prior to them being flown into the towers bring them down, stating that the planes have been hijacked. These conversation mention that the seat occupied by the hijackers were in fact the ones reserved by the people identified as those who planned and carried out the destruction of the towers by flying planes into them.
I’m glad you’ve decided to see it my way and acknowledge that anyone who tries to prove a conspiracy needs to have the kind of supporting evidence that I’ve outlined above (this is real, actual evidence Andrew, not the made up kind).
Anyway I’m glad to have helped someone who was so obviously in need. One last thing, as a recovering truther do you think you could buddy up with Dagget, I’m afraid he’s still in the clutches of the demon?
Oh dear. The Catholics are exposing themselves.
“you would get a molten end, rather than a fractured one ”
Exactly.
andrew(a), I won’t have time to respond more today, but that was my initial rebuttal. You noted they were “neatly sliced straight across”, yet this is inconsistent with any kind of shaped charge. You argued the weld points were stronger than the steel columns themselves, and yet an incendiary device was able to cleanly “slice” through *the welds only*, leaving column section ends unscathed.
That very honestly doesn’t add up for me.
I see Patrick continues to demonstrate his to total immunity to logic, reason and evidence.
Whatever you have to tell Patrick about the sructural strength of WTC 7, etc., he will shoot straight back at you that he saw two aircraft crash into two buildings and that settles everything, and, besides, neither of us can produce witnesses who saw explosives being planted or wires being laid, can we?.
—
Anyway, good on you andrew (@ 1247, 1243, 1223, 1217) and also me (1214, 1212).
Excellent as posts 1212 and 1214 were, Daggett (and thanks for so modestly bringing them to our attention for a second time) I’m now more interested in your thoughts on fractional reserve banking.
Dagget @1253,
Well done my boy, you outdo yourself. Thought poor old andrew was going to have to hold your hand during a painful intervention but you appear to have got. No conspiracy, no explosions nothing to get uptight about.
The first step on the road to recover is to realise that you have a problem:
“neither of us can produce witnesses who saw explosives being planted or wires being laid”
There, don’t you feel better now that load has been lifted?
“saw two aircraft crash into two buildings”
Yes you did Dagget, just like everyone else. And you didn’t see any explosives or wires or men with “toolboxes” or residual “nano-thermite”.
There is even footage of them passing through airport security as the board the planes that they eventually flew into the towers causing them to collapse.
In fact there are transcripts of conversation between people on then planes whilst they are in the air, prior to them being flown into the towers bring them down, stating that the planes have been hijacked. These conversation mention that the seat occupied by the hijackers were in fact the ones reserved by the people identified as those who planned and carried out the destruction of the towers by flying planes into them.
Actually there’s not any publicly available footage of them boarding the doomed planes, the footage that is often shown is of some of them boarding an earlier flight.
The phone calls are highly disputed as to whether they could have occured at the speed and altitude thay were supposed to have, with one of them even phoning his mom and saying (paraphrasing) “Hi mom, it’s Mark Bingham here” strangely using his full name to talk to his mother, then later “you do believe me, don’t you, mom?”.
The most famous phone call is from a TV personality to her politician husband, the FBI have that supposed phone call logged in at taking zero seconds.
If you want to know about paranoid delusions ask Dinsdale.
Woh andrew,
You’re just not making easy for yourself dude. I mean, you actually believe that the phone calls from the plane were part of the conspiracy, i.e. they were faked, waoh. You’re out there man. Truly you have partaken of some gnarly weed.
Now Vanstone has been caught out accepting a bribe from the Mafia. What is it with Catholics and bribery?
Given you’ve argued illogically, unreasonably and without a shred of evidence, we can only conclude that all you’ve demonstrated here, Daggy, is rank and futile hypocrisy.
Well, no, Daggy – that’s the point: you have no evidence. Whenever we ask you to provide evidence for your delusional theory, you come back with…well…nothing…nada…nichts….niente. It’s not even as if Patrick has won on points; you haven’t fronted to the debate.
Have to disagree with you there, Hefty Bee. Both #1212 and #1214 were empty, pointless whinges, and #1214 actually refers back to other similarly empty comments. No, the only excellence manifested in those screeds was in the field of solipsistic onanism, in which Daggy here is clearly doué.
Woh andrew,
You’re just not making easy for yourself dude. I mean, you actually believe that the phone calls from the plane were part of the conspiracy, i.e. they were faked, waoh. You’re out there man. Truly you have partaken of some gnarly weed.
There is very little of that day that holds up to any scrutiny, if you’re interested here is an article by Prof David Ray Griffin on the Barbara Olsen phone call:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
Wow that Prof Davy Ray sure has a cool name man and I reckon he’s smoking some serious hydro. Does he know Van Halen? Anyways dud, sorry dude, I don’t know any chick named Olsen, is she related to the Olsen twins on Happy Days? I mean I don’t know about you man but I thought “Betty Ong calls Vanessa Minter, an American Airlines reservations agent at its Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, using a seatback Airfone from the back of the plane”
sounded totally convincing. Hey, you hungry man?
“What is it with Catholics and bribery?”
Gimme 20 bucks and I’ll put you in touch with a Vatican official who can help you out.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96MZOZyilo&feature=related”
Hey andy man check out that link. I mean, dude, I don’t like to sound like uncool, but I think you’re definitely some kinda drop in arsehole, I mean these people were y’know, like killed and you’re like saying “no way man, their family was in on it”. Woah that’s very shitty man. Hope you take a long toke and think about it man.
As a stoner of some experience, I take exception to the notion that smoking any amount of anything, bar perhaps DMT, could result in the type of pathologies Daggett and Andrew exhibit here. Actually, DMT would likely give their ramblings at least some internal coherence.
As a matter of fact I’m smoking big fat bongs right now, and *burble burble*…*exhaaaaale*… nope, they still make no sense.
It’s more of a common-or-garden mental illness, I’m afraid. Less treatable, better hours. More pay, worse co-workers.
Oh, and it has been noted that M. Bazarov has elided (with an elipsis, no less!) the topic of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING from my earlier comment.
Noted, I say.
NOTED!
Bob, the following statement:
In response to my earlier post proved conclusively that you are both a hypocrite and a scientific ignoramus or someone pretending to be.
You are are a hypocrite, because you have quoted him out of context after having repeatedly (and, in my view, falsely) accused me of the same.
Andrew said “virtually immune” and not “immune”. Here is what andrew said:
To attempt to claim that andrew was therefore arguing that steel must be a superconductor (which is a term which, I thought applies to electricity, often in very cold materials) is plainly dishonest.
As far as I am concerned, if this has not already happened long before then, with that statement you have forfeited any right to be treated seriously by either andrew or myself (and I would quickly add, you are certainly not RObinson Crusoe here in that regard).
“(which is a term which, I thought applies to electricity, often in very cold materials)”
daggett, you do realise complete and utter ignorance is also a terribly poor debating tactic?
You conceded right there you have no idea what you’re talking about, yet you have the bare-faced gall to accuse others of being scientifically illiterate.
That’s nothing but hypocrisy, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Nope, it indicated that I know more about conduction than you do. A low hurdle, I admit, but true nonetheless. Nor am I pretending to be a “scientific ignoramus” – only you are ignorant enough to aspire to that benchmark of idiocy.
No, I did not quote out of context. That’s your game, remember? You’ve shown yourself time and again to be the hypocrite on this thread. You cannot point to a single instance of hypocrisy on my part.
Not at all, and not a quote out of context, either. Andrew claimed that steel has superconductive properties – it has to, to be able to conduct heat away from an intense fire without becoming very hot itself, to the point of being “immune” to fire.
What?! You’re not going to treat me “seriously”?! Wow, Daggy, I think you just hurt my feelings.
Vermerkt…
Nick,
The reason I wrote:
… is that, before now, every single time I have heard the term superconductivity used before now, it has been used in relation to electrical conductivity and not heat conductivity. This is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry:
Even if, for argument’s sake, there exists a phenomenum that scientists label “heat super-conductivity”, only efficient conductivity and not super-conductivity is what would be necessary to remove enough heat to prevent the temperature of steel around where the planes hit to well below dangerous levels. That is what has prevented far more intense fires from causing steel framed buildings from collapsing.
I cannot accept that Bob was so scientifically illiterate as not to understand that. I can only conclude that Bob’s only intention in making his claim to the contrary, on top of grasping at the term ‘superconductivity’ in a context that seems unprcednted to me, was to confuse the issue.
Predictably, Bob has responded to my demonstrated example of his hypocrisy by repeating, yet again, his own past repeatedly made counter-accusation of my being a hypocrite, as if, even if that were true, it would excuse his own hypocrisy.
Glad that Bob has ‘noted’ that I have ceased feeling obligated to treat him seriously. As I demonstrated above, even Bob doesn’t treat his own ‘contributions’ to this forum seriously, nor do his acolytes, who have (unsurprisingly) demonstrated almost no comprehension of any of the vast content, other than his personal attacks on me.
Can we now hope that, at least, there won’t be any more carping demands for me to respond to any furhter spam he may choose to pour into this forum?
Damn!
I botched the link to my previous post. My apologies.
—
I would be most interested to find out where Patrick learnt that:
… given that the US Government has refused to release to 9/11 widow, Ellen Mariani, the footage of her own husband John, boarding the doomed Fight 11, as I pointed out above.
Sorry I’ve been busy hammering nails up my nose. I see that Jeff Spicole has been asking some good questions. Looks like the time spent in Mr Hand’s history class wasn’t wasted.
Anyway Dagget, have you come up with any evidence for a conspiracy. Andrew tried to deny that there were calls made from the hijacked planes prior to the collisions with the towers. What’s you position, are you crazy enough to claim that they were fabricated? And who gives a bison’s tit about superconductivity, are you just trying to score points or what? If so, sorry but you’re playing under thirteens.
You know what, there was no conspiracy to to destroy the towers by controlled demolition. Now prove me wrong. Present your case. And don’t crap on about being a bad cop. An extensive investigation by numerous parties has found that there was no conspiracy to destroy the twin towers other than that hatched by the terrorists. You have no grounds whatsoever to dispute this. This is not an opinion this is a fact. Make no mistake, I intend to “close you out” as our friend Jeff would say.
daggett,
Despite much hand-waving you have not justified your claim that the only way that WTC 7 could have collapsed was through controlled demolition has been comprehensively debunked. As “Bob” put it quite a while back:
To say that no steel-framed building has collapsed that way before is correct – other, of course, than WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6.
Even the other buildings around them, that were not hit nor set on fire, subsequently had to be demolished as the structures had been irretrevibly compromised (and were flled with toxic residue) – for example the Deutsche Bank building. The Verizon building across the street had to be extensively renovated.
Again, if you are going to say that there is no precedent and that therefore it could not have happened, you will also have to add that the whole event (9/11) was unprecedented and that no buildings have ever had to withstand having two 110 story buildings collapse next to them, nor has a 47 story building ever had to deal with a huge gash (of uncertain depth) being cut through 10 plus stories or had fires burning out of control for many hours.
Again, also, you have failed to look at the situation of the fire chief that pulled all of his people out of there about 3 hours prior to collapse as he could see the building was showing signs of approaching collapse and also took his people out of the area more than one hour before it went.
There is an alternative and (IMHO vastly) more plausible explanation – the one in the NIST report.
Oh – and if you want a reasonable close up of the structural supports of WTC7, you could do worse than look here – unfortunately there is no evidence of “cutter charges” of nano-thermite that, just breakage due to extreme over-loading.
The fact that you haven’t heard of heat superconductivity means nothing – you’re ignorant of a great many things. Likewise, and this may surprise you, but Wikipedia is not the ultimate authority on anything. Google “thermal superconductivity” and tell me what you find.
First, there exists a concept known as thermal superconductivity, so that’s a given.
Second, you have no basis for your ASSERTION that “efficient” conductivity is sufficient. You are neither a metallurgist nor a structural engineer, and have provided no basis in fact for your OPINION.
Third, efficiency is a relative concept, and what we are being asked to believe by Andrew and you is that steel is efficient enough to conduct intense heat away from an intense fire without becoming intensely hot itself. You ask us to believe this without providing any proof, of any kind.
Fourth, it is not steel’s alleged superconductivity that prevents steel-framed buildings from collapsing due to fire. It is the combination of fire-protection systems (i.e. insulation, sprinklers, fire barriers etc.) and fires’ tendency to burn through available fuel before reaching sufficient temperatures to weaken steel that protects steel-framed buildings. As noted so many times on this thread, the WTC buildings’ fire-protection systems were compromised and/or there was considerable exogenous fuel added to the fires, meaning that this protection was insufficient to prevent fire-induced collapse. I asked this question before and nobody answered: if structural steel is immune to collapse from fire, why is it so often insulated?
Here’s what the British Association for Reinforcement says on the subject of steel in fires:
Mind you, they’re talking their book, as they’re reinforced concrete guys, so naturally they’re going to highlight steel’s shortcomings.
As an alternative, let’s consider the opinion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in their Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings [page A-14]:
They go on to list the ways in which steel can be protected from fire. Clearly because it’s not “immune” to fire.
Here’s the good news, Daggy: you don’t have to accept it, ‘cause it’s not true. The bad news is that you’re wrong, again. Better luck next time.
Nope, you haven’t shown a single instance of my hypocrisy, whereas I’ve noted several instances of yours.
I’m glad you’re glad, Daggy. However, your assertion about my “acolytes’” lack of understanding is unsubstantiated tosh. Plus, you’re whining again. Diddums.
You can hope for whatever you like, Daggy, but if you have a problem with spam you should look up the meaning of “hypocrisy”.
Can I be your acolyte on building structure, “Bob”, if you are mine on FRB? Or, if one is an acolyte, does it mean you acolytism extends to all things?
lol.
“[...] only efficient conductivity and not super-conductivity is what would be necessary to remove enough heat to prevent the temperature of steel around where the planes hit to well below dangerous levels.”
That’s completely false, daggett. You haven’t read the NIST chapter on the behaviour of the fires, both observed and simulated. Once again, you’re arguing and asserting unspecifically from a position of total and utter ignorance.
30,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple floors and burned for 10 or so minutes. You don’t deny this, in fact you argued it.
The jet fuel was the primer for ignition of large fires on multiple floors. You don’t deny this either.
Steel columns were heated to ~1000 degrees during the initial combustion of the jet fuel.
The large fires on multiple floors continuing burning for 50+ minutes. Air temperature remained at 700-800 degrees until the 35 minutes mark, before dropping to about 400 degrees over the next 15 minutes.
There was no way for the steel to effectively dissipate, or transfer, or conduct away significant amounts of heat, given the air temperature remained so high for so long,
To argue otherwise, is to argue that the steel MUST have had the properties of a superconductor.
“That is what has prevented far more intense fires from causing steel framed buildings from collapsing.”
From the NIST FAQ sheet: “No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.”
Substantiate your claim, daggett. Name two buildings, since you spoke plurally, or just one for the record, that experienced “far more intense fires” than WTC 1 or 2.
30,000 litres, sorry.
To say that no steel-framed building has collapsed that way before is correct – other, of course, than WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6.
Even the other buildings around them, that were not hit nor set on fire, subsequently had to be demolished as the structures had been irretrevibly compromised (and were flled with toxic residue) – for example the Deutsche Bank building. The Verizon building across the street had to be extensively renovated.
Again, if you are going to say that there is no precedent and that therefore it could not have happened
WTCs 1 and 2 did not collapse in a classical “implosion” like WTC 7 did, nor did any of the other WTC buildings fall in the same manner or even completely collapse, they had to be demolished later, in spite of suffering much worse damage and fires than WTC 7 did (or the towers for that matter).
So none of your examples are correct, but that doesn’t mean that “no steel-framed building has collapsed that way before”. There are many examples of steel framed and steel reinforced concrete buildings falling in the same way as WTC 7, the problem for you is that they were all precision engineered controlled demolitions.
This fact wakes quite a few people up to what happened that day, it certainly made me go and have another look at how the towers fell.
Here is just one comparison between WTC 7 and a deliberate implosion, it’s only 10s long.
andrew,
So – if it is only 10s long it does not show the weeks or months of work to set up such a controlled demolition in a normal CD, nor does it show the 7 or so hours of burning in WTC7, does it?
It also does not show the effects of having two 110 story buildings collapse right next door to it, nor the fire chief seeing the building bulging three hours beforehand and ordering his people out of it, nor him also ording his people to move further away from it nearly two hours prior to its collapse as he considered its collapse to be imminent?
As it is only 10s long (and of such incredibly poor quality compared to just about every other video available – is there a reason for this?) it also does not show the internal collapse of WTC7 prior to the external collapse, nor the bowing of the north wall prior to the cherry-picked footage starting.
If it was not so poor quality, what it would show is the explosions in a CD that would be powerful enough to blow out windows (if they were not removed from the CD building first, as they are highly dangerous) – that were simply not present in the case of WTC7.
.
andrew,
I would suggest you find a full length version of this in high quality – high enough to be able to see at least some of the errors in your case.
As it is only 10s long (and of such incredibly poor quality compared to just about every other video available – is there a reason for this?) it also does not show the internal collapse of WTC7 prior to the external collapse
LOL, no video shows the internal collapse because it didn’t happen, it’s actually a good point you raise because one would expect to see outward signs of the internal carnage that NIST says had to have occured.
Oh…. sorry, one video does show the internal collapse, this nice little animation from NIST, LOL:
The more I look at that the more I wonder how people can possibly believe that the internal structure is somehow free to cascade into collapse like a house of cards that aren’t interconnected, and as you point out, without even any clear evidence of this occuring on the various videos that we have.
You would think the videos would have clearly picked up the internal carnage because that internal structure that freely cascades is connected to the visiable external columns also. Having the internal structure ripped from the external columns would seem to be a fairly simple procedure for the NIST animation!!
Here is a better quality vid of the same footage I posted earlier, there are many, many, many comparisons of WTC 7 and other implosions on the web if you care to look.
Sorry, andrew – but wrong again. They all show it – including the one you just linked to. Have a look at this one for example. It is in high resolution, compared to anything you have posted. You can clearly see the collapse of the east penthouse into the building, the collapse of the floors underneath it and the (later) collapse of the parapet wall.
The NIST video is therefore in accord with the observable evidence.
In fact, if you bother to look closely at the video you just linked to you can see that, at the start, the internal collapse has already happened – look at the very first frame! The east penthouse has already collapsed into the building, the north parapet wall has already bowed and and you can clearly see sunlight coming through where the roof would have been in that north east corner – i.e. the roof has already collapsed.
.
If there are any “LOL”s here, andrew, they are not on me.
Oh – and I was wrong. Even the first, really low quality one you posted does show clear evidence of it. The light I referred to can just be seen in the top north-east corner, meaning the roof had already gone.
Oh – and the east penthouse is missing. Where did that go, andrew?
Notice how andrew has dropped any mention of his ridiculous reference to the phone calls being faked? Probably realised he’d made an ethical as well as a factual mistake. Anyway still no evidence of a conspiracy as far as I can see, which is a lot further that these truther muppets.
So it looks like were down to the properties of very hot steel as the last redoubt of the truthers. I think that they have had a sledgehammer applied to their nuts. Nearly 1300 posts and not a single piece of concrete evidence of a conspiracy, just a load of crappy attempts to distract attention from how utterly groundless their case is.
This post is an excellent example of the stupidity and naivety of the conspiracy theorists and the 911 truthers in particular. It is a case study in truther delusion and obfuscation. I’m somewhat the wiser for having engaged in it, truther methodology is climate denial in extremis. But where is G. Bird, that’s the real mystery.
Patrick,
Can I assume, then, that you don’t intend to tell the rest of us where you learnt that:
?
@1285
If I do will you tell me where your evidence for the planning of the controlled demolition is?
I think that’s andrew’s argument done and dusted.
Now, daggett, when you take a moment off your frantic campaigning schedule, can you have a look at the large quatity of questions of mine that you have (cough, cough) missed, please?
… yeah and my question about the evidence for the conspiracy … oh wait you already admitted there isn’t any … errrr … I suppose you’re wondering why I’ve called you all here ……………………….
Please, call me Fyodor. As for the “acolytism”, it’s a nonsensical suggestion, and not mine. AFAICT you’re nobody’s acolyte, and I’m incorrigibly heretical. I tend to think of you – and the other informal members of Stoushers Against Nine Eleven Troofer Idiocy – as more of a wingman. In a totally not gay way, but. NTTAWWT.
Students of the dispute taking place in this discussion (should there ever be such students) should probably pay as much attention to the rhetorical evolution as to the rational, evidential component. I am just skipping over all the factual discussion, but so far as I can see, no-one has changed their minds on any matter of substance. There is a minority view and a majority view, the majority believe that the minority view has been shown to be baseless, but the minority persist in espousing their view. So it is a case study both in how the minority persist and in how the majority reacts to such persistence; to what extent rational communication is still being attempted by both sides, versus a fallback to signaling within each side and to third parties, etc.
Sorry, andrew – but wrong again. They all show it – including the one you just linked to. Have a look at this one for example. It is in high resolution, compared to anything you have posted. You can clearly see the collapse of the east penthouse into the building, the collapse of the floors underneath it and the (later) collapse of the parapet wall.
The NIST video is therefore in accord with the observable evidence.
Good grief, I actually think you believe that sanctimonious f’wit on the video you posted, at least he’s not completely wasting his time because I don’t think many other would.
The “collapse of the floors underneath it” are characterised by half a dozen broken window, are you seriously trying to tell me that all you should be able to see is a few windows breaking as the entire internal structure is ripped from the external columns that it is connected to at hundreds of structural joins.
In fact it would be impossible to seperate the two by any collapse method, the external columns would have to collapse along with the internal structure of which they form an integral complex system.
The entire structure twists slightly towards the center just before collapsing downwards which he makes a big deal of, but this is standard demolition practice where they blow the central columns first so the initial motion of the building is to collapse inwards, hence the name “implosion”.
This deliberate timing is explained in this article on implosions:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
You might want to take note of this comment “a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you’ll ever see”. In other words they don’t happen accidently.
andrew,
Ummm – no. Have another look. You can clearly see the east penthouse collapse into the building, to be followed by the progressive collapse of the rest, including the west penthouse, after that and before the parapet walls go.
Again – you can clearly see sunlight shining through the roof before the parapet walls collapse – i.e. the floors have collapsed inwards before the parapet walls go.
It is not even difficult to see once it has been pointed out.
In any case – thanks for the admission that there are only a few windows that are gone, and this happens after the east penthouse has collapsed.
The sequence from the video (all of them) is, therefore:
1. East penthouse collapses into building
2. Windows below the east penthouse start breaking
3. Progressive interior collapse from the east to the west side starts
4. While (3) above is happening, parapet wall starts collapsing
.
If it were a CD with windows still in place the order would have been:
2.
followed by:
1, 3 and 4 together.
The fact they did not, shows that it was not a CD – again – the windows are breaking after the collapse has started.
This fact is simply edited out of the nonsense you have been linking to by the simple expedient of starting the “show” after the east penthouse has collapsed.
Move on – you are simply wrong.
“Move on – you are simply wrong.”
Neat.
Unfortunately, being simply wrong isn’t enough apparently. Truthers seem to need their wrongness to be as convoluted and ridiculous as their “rightness”. The only truths they will accept are implausible ones.
So why the emnity to flying invisible lizard-men and their plans for dominating the galactic mealy-worm industry? I thought that’d be bound to fly.
“There is a minority view and a majority view, the majority believe that the minority view has been shown to be baseless, but the minority persist in espousing their view.”
All sounds a bit “post-modern” to me. Fact is the truthers haven’t be able to produce any evidence for a conspiracy and complain that they are being harassed when they are repeatedly asked for evidence that supports their assertion. There’s no complexity, they have no evidence, what they assert simply isn’t true. This is not a democracy, this is an argument.
Welcome to StoushGym™.
Actually, PatrickB, I think argument is in 12A next door.
Y como siempre, Nabakov has the last word—neglecting of course that when you’re spectacularly wrong in fact, you’re spectacularly wrong in fact.
“Actually, PatrickB, I think argument is in 12A next door.”
You’re right this is the “Having the last word” recovery group. Sorry.
Stupid git.
PatrickB 1294: ‘All sounds a bit “post-modern” to me.’
Not really. I actually agree with the majority view. (I have my own precious minority view – expressed in 296, 349, 353 – but it’s not the one under discussion.)
I paid for the full half hour.
“the majority view”
I am indignant! It’s not about majorities it’s about the truth, exclusive access to which I have.
So, Patrick – if you paid for 30 minutes and have now received 60.87639 days (as at your last comment – measured from my first one). That means you have received 2,922.067 times what you have paid for.
I am sure Mr. Bahnisch would be happy to accept further payment.
Of course, measured from your first comment here, you have only underpaid by 1053.633 times. In all fairness, that should probably be the right amount.
Let’s see – 1053.633 times, ohhh, nothing equals … nothing. Pay there, please.
@1304
Are you trying to start an argument? If so how much? Anyway I don’t see how you can compete when the truthers are giving it away.
Nope, I’m afraid it’s “being hit on the head” lessons in here. Yes, yes I know, “what a stupid concept” and all that, but still, what can ye do.
I wrote,
Then Patrick wrote,
I will take that as a ‘No’.
As I pointed out above the US Government has refused to allow 9/11 Widow Ellen Mariani see the video of her husband, John Mariani, boarding the doomed Flight 11.
Clearly, Patrick doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Or he is lying.
Perhaps, daggett – but the release of footage from airport security really has little import on whether WTC7 had explosives packed all the way around it, now does it?
So far, all you have done is to try to evade questions to try to make semantic points. Are you actually going to re-engage or are you going to continue to try to find what you believe to be weak points on throw-away lines?
I think I can guess the answer.
Plenty of questions above if you want to try to answer them. Lots and lots.
The 9/11 Commission Report, that you no doubt have read assiduously, states that several of the terrorist hijackers were captured on security camera before boarding. Some of the video footage was later released.
You’ve also neglected to mention that Ellen Mariani didn’t just ask for video footage of her husband; she filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations) Act lawsuit against Bush et al, alleging that Bush et cie. knew of the 9/11 attacks and chose not to prevent them. She doesn’t seem to have gotten anywhere with that. I can see why you sympathise.
“I will take that as a ‘No’.”
Why wold you do that? Is it because you don’t have any evidence whatsoever?
I do not know if this is a touch premature, but is saying “Last” now passé?
Some of the video footage was later released.
Looks like they have released footage of the hijackers going through security to supposedly board one out of the four planes, I guess that’s something even though it is either cropped or altered footage because it has no time stamp, as any airport security camera would have.
Andrew Reynolds wrote (@ 1273),
Firstly, I consider the repeated assertions of ‘debunkers’ of the claim that we have been comprehensively debunked as one amongst many disingenous debating techniques. It’s as if you hope that repetition of a falsehood often enough, be enough people, will cause it to eventually accepted as the truth.
Secondly, I refer your back to my posts @ 1188, 1178 and 1102, and posts linked to from them. As I wrote @ 1188:
As I pointed out, the structural strength in all 8 floors would have had to have been removed during that 2.25 seconds, or instantaneously at the outset[1]. As I have repeatedly said, I choose the latter explanation.
For our case to have been completely debunked, NIST would have had to have provided a complete explanation for the the collapse of WTC 7 including through those 8 storeys. Bob insists that the NIST report, has provided that complete explanation (yet refuses to articulate that explanation here). If that is so, Andrew, then why do you think that NIST’s computer simulation, linked to by andrew, only barely shows the commencement of the outside wall? If their explanation could account for the period of free fall then surely it would have to be possible for it to be modelled on a computer?
—
Patrick wrote (@ 1284),
Andrew (not Andrew Reynolds) never dropped it. He posted a link to a story and the substance of that story has neither been acknowledged nor responded to by anyone. Patrick’s lame and unfunny attempt to personally attack David Ray Griffin in no way constitutes a rebuttal of the meticuloulsly documented material in David Ray Griffin’s article. Here is some of it:
A number of the calls were allegedly made from mobile phones carried on board the doomed flights. This is impossible, as the mobile phone network is not constructed to relay signals above 10,000 of feet above ground level. As Rowland Morgan wrote in “The impossible phone calls of 9/11″ in page the Global Outlook “False Flag operations” edition of 2009:
Ted Olsen’s initial claims about the phone calls were changed to the phone call having been made through an on-board telephone system, but as she did not have her credit the phone call would have had to have been made reverse charge. No telephone company records showing such a reverse charge call have been produced.
No wonder the FBI was forced to admit that Olson had misled them.
—
I wrote (@ 1307):
Then Patrick wrote (@ 1310):
No, it’s because what you wrote contradicts the established fact that no footage showing hijackers boarding the flights has been made available to the public[2] (and footage showing some of the Flight 77 hijackers checking in to Dulles airport is not “footage of them passing through airport security as the board the planes that they eventually flew into the towers …” is not the same thing, is it, Bob?). What you wrote is therefore a lie.
Let’s also be clear, once again that Patrick refuses to acknowledge anything other than testimony from people who have stated that they saw explosives and wiring planted in the three towers as ‘evidence’.
Yes, by Patrick’s skewed definition, I haven’t produce any ‘evidence’, I guess, but by the more commonly accepted view of what constitutes evidence, I would suggest that I have produced a good deal of evidence, which, itself only constitutes the tip of the iceberg of the evidence that does exist. I dealt with Patrick’s demand that I produce evidence that he deems satisfactory several times, including at 732.
Patrick’s laboured repetition of the claim that I have produced no evidence is no more than yet another attempt to have a repeatedly stated falsehood accepted as the truth.
Footnotes:
1. To account for the small drop towards the North Eastern end prior to the periond of free fall, of which so much has been made, then whatever structural strength it was that was holding up that short vertical length of Eastern part of the Norht wall the building would have had to have been removed within that period. For it to have subseqently fallen through 8 floors in 2.25 seconds, then Newton’s Second Law of Motion tells us that either all of the structural strength would have had to have been removed instantaneously at the outset or within that 2.25 second period.
2. To re-state a point I have made a number of times before, I am not necessarily disputing that a number of Islamist patsy/hijackers may have played a role in 9/11, I am simply saying that the failure to make available a number of pieces of key video evidence about the hijackings, in spite of repeated requests for Ellen Mariani and many others, strongly suggests to me that the US Government has something to hide.
“He posted a link to a story and the substance of that story has neither been acknowledged nor responded to by anyone. ”
I’ll take that one Jim. I agree that some doubt exists as to the veracity of that particular call in fact in may well have been completely faked, I don’t care. However, Dagget, your loathsome ability to smear is on display to all as you ignore the many other calls made by people who were about to die. You are a rotten toad (sorry toads) who somehow believes that these calls were part of a conspiracy (for which you have no evidence) engineered with the help of the victims’ families.
Seriously, this is heartless and malicious. Dagget you need a damn good thrashing.
“Yes, by Patrick’s skewed definition”
Please explain why demanding some evidence of motive, method and opportunity constitutes a aberrant standard of evidence? I know you bloody well can’t.
This is evidence of your cognitive dissonance.
OK, dagget, point by point.
1. WTC7 – as I have comment almost ad nauseum, it is an observable fact that th einterior had commenced collapsing prior to the exterior. If you are in any doubt on that, open up any of the videos (even the 9/11 truthers’) and have a look at the north-east corner. The East penthouse has disappeared into the building and light is shinging through the hole it left. Windows start blowing out after this has happened. That is in no way, at all, consistent with a CD. Along with there being no evidence (as you have agreed) of there actually being any explosives of any type in the building, no way to control those explosives even if they were and no evidence in the remaining visible steelwork after the collapse I cannot see how thatcan can be maintained. If you have any evidence at all that this is not the case, please show it. As for your footnote, I have dealt with this many times – all of which you saw fit to ignore. If you seriously want to maintain this, please deal with any of my comments on this – there are a lot.
2. The phone calls. The only information you have presented related to Ted Olsen – and no-one else. There are plenty of other calls made, some of them recorded. Communications from the ATC to the aircraft would also have had to be faked – there is no evidence this was done. To kill this one off you would need to show that all of the calls, even the ones made from airphones and to and from ATC, were faked. I do not believe you can do this.
in any case, it is not impossible that calls were made from cell phones – just that they were unlikely, probably could only be made while at low level and likely to be of short duration. The cells deployed in rural areas, for example, could relay a call from a flight while under 9,000 feet – they would just drop them on a regular basis, and this is what was observed to have occurred.
3. The boarding videos. The footage has been shown to grand juries, the relevant lawyers and others, including forensics. If there were any issues with it they would have been brought up at Moussawi’s trial. No issues were brought up.
4. Your comment 732 presents only one piece of “evidence” – the testimony of William Rodriguez. This has been questioned at several points and has not been corroberated at all by anyone – even those he was with in the basement. The burns to his co-worker, from the information I have, were from jet fuel – to be expected as he was at the base of the lift shaft. His testimony also has several other elements that have been proven false. If you want to knock out Ted Olsen for that, then I suggest William Rodriguez can be too. Consistency demands it.
.
Again – you pick on a couple of possibly inconsistent points and seem to make a huge conspiracy out of them. On closer examination even those points do not seem to hold up. The mainstream view, in this case, has (IMHO) vastly more evidence going for it.
Dagsterman…honestly and in good faith…you (& andrew) have presented no evidence for any of your assertions whatsoever. You have presented a set of “ideas” and some images..all of which are open to multiple interpretation, they are in no way…evidence.
Anyone with an open healthy mind can see that. I have recently invited relatively disinterested people to review your postings, none of them see what you (and andrew) see, one of them expressed serious concern for your mental health.
So you just continually make yourselves look like snake oil hustlers, deeply silly or….ill….so after all this time what can we discern from your misguided ramblings? Absolutely nothing remotely to do with 9/11. Rather , honestly….that you are an obsessive, who has all the symptoms of cult membership. It may be that this cult has given a meaning to your life, a status that you would not otherwise have. This makes it hard to let go I know, like if you let it go, you’d be letting go of self…but honestly…
I suggest you need deep de-programming or at least professional counseling. I suggest this seriously, in your own interest and…as we now know, in the interests of democracy in Brisbane. Best to you, but give it up luvvie….it’s just ridiculous and its making you ill.
Either that or you are pushing snake oil and you know it. Nobody here wants to buy any.
then Newton’s Second Law of Motion tells us that either all of the structural strength would have had to have been removed instantaneously at the outset or within that 2.25 second period.
Even NIST agree with this, Daggett (as anyone with any brains must). After the draft wtc 7 report which did not include any reference to freefall, there was a public meeting in which NIST denies that freefall could have occured because:
Quote
“A freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it” and then he talks about the overall time taking 40 percent longer “and that would not be at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided….you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place – everything was not instantanious”
Then they just decide to ignore the science that they acknowledged in the video clip above, and release a final report which includes a period of freefall that they earlier said couldn’t occur in a progressive collapse.
Bizaar!!
daggett has now closed the circle on his other thread [ostensibly devoted to Andrew Bartlett's candidacy].
I just hope Spiny Norman doesn’t hear of this.
andrew,
Although I would not be counted as being amongst Keynes’ greatest fans, I would say he was right in one thing – when the facts are presented you need to be able to change your opinion to match those facts. The NIST have clearly done this. I would suggest you show the same ability.
Dinsdale … Dagget …
Thanks, andrew.
With all the spam that we all now forced to wade through, I can understand how you may have missed my posting a link to that same video, above.
Patrick wrote:
Well I am so glad to see that Patrick finally got around to familiarising himself with some of the content of that article he was so quick to dismiss out of hand earlier and concedes that at least one phone call must have been faked.
Where did I say that all the people who had received the calls must necessarily been part of the conspiracy?
I have simply pointed out that the claims of those phone calls go against our knowledge of the state of cellular phone technology at that point in time.
In fact, it is possible to alter voices to sound real and even be able to fool people who know them very well. It may be that people who climed to have received the calls were genuainely fooled.
What we also know is that the stories of terrorists armed only with box cutter knives being able to subdue both the crew and passengers seems ridiculous.
If the phone calls had been real, I expect that we would have, instead, heard of passengers being subdued by hijackers armed with firearms.
If that had been the case, then those in charge of the airport security would have had a lot of explaining to do.
I meant to say in respnse to that question from Patrick that I had already supplied abundant evidence of “evidence of motive, method and opportunity”.
What Patrick has repeatedly demanded of me is evidence of testimony of people who whitness explosives and wiring laid in the three towers. I don’t see that as being the same thing and as I wrote, I responded to that, and responded repeatedly, a long time ago.
I don’t know the technical details of the controversy surrounding the phone calls, but as to the “impossibility” of Mrs. Olsen making a call from an airphone when she didn’t have her credit cards, let me suggest the following scenario…
PASSENGER: Excuse me, fellow passenger sitting next to me, but seeing as how we are in grave peril here, I’d like to call my husband. But I don’t seem to have my purse…
FELLOW PASSENGER: No worries, ma’am. Here, use my credit card. We’re all in this together.
That doesn’t seem terribly “impossible” does it? (maybe there are/were airphone procedural reasons why it couldn’t have happened that way. But if so, what are they?)
“What we also know is that the stories of terrorists armed only with box cutter knives being able to subdue both the crew and passengers seems ridiculous.”
Why does it seem ridiculous? Prior to 9/11, the assumption of passengers on a hijacked plane was to stay calm and cooperate as much as possible, and minimize risk, in the hopes that the authorities would take charge and sort the matter out without getting you killed. It used to be that time was generally on the hostages’ side in a hijacking, and so allowing oneself to be “subdued” by maniacs armed with ‘only’ knives (and who really knew what else? Didn’t some of them also have fake bombs?) was generally thought the safer, more logical and lower-risk choice. From what we know of Flight 93, once the passengers learned what their real choices and chances were, a strategy shift occurred almost at once, with famous and heroic consequences. The whole scenario played out as logic and game theory would tend to predict; nothing ridiculous about it at all.
“abundant evidence of “evidence of motive, method and opportunity”.”
No you haven’t, nothing plausible anyway. Still, have a go at filling out this questionnaire as it pertains to the evidence for the destruction of the twin towers on the 11th of September 2001 by controlled explosion. The questions are simple so try and keep the answers brief:
a) Suspect:
b) Motive:
c) Method:
d) Opportunity:
That should give us all a clearer picture of you evidence. Just write down the first thing that comes into your head, as you have up until now.
“What we also know is that the stories of terrorists armed only with box cutter knives being able to subdue both the crew and passengers seems ridiculous.”
Why does it seem ridiculous? Prior to 9/11, the assumption of passengers on a hijacked plane was to stay calm and cooperate as much as possible, and minimize risk, in the hopes that the authorities would take charge and sort the matter out without getting you killed. It used to be that time was generally on the hostages’ side in a hijacking, and so allowing oneself to be “subdued” by maniacs armed with ‘only’ knives (and who really knew what else? Didn’t some of them also have fake bombs?) was generally thought the safer, more logical and lower-risk choice. From what we know of Flight 93, once the passengers learned what their real choices and chances were, a strategy shift occurred almost at once, with famous and heroic consequences. The whole scenario played out as logic and game theory would tend to predict; nothing ridiculous about it at all.
Your senario is very plausable except for one detail that you miss out, the detail that changes all the dynamics is that the hijackers were intent on taking over the cockpits.
This is the game changer, for sure fly them to wherever they want to go, but there is no way any pilot is going to hand over the cockpit to some skinny, poorly armed arabs, because this means certain death for himself and his crew and passengers.
In this situation the cabin crew won’t be asking the passengers to remain calm because they will know the gravity of the situation, as will the passengers and pilots, yet we’re led to believe that these skinny, poorly armed arabs successfully took over 4 out of 4 cockpits?? What a load of shyte.
I’d like to commend everyone (except andrew) for avoiding racism till comment 1324.
It’s not a falsehood being repeated, but the truth. If you think it’s a lie, PROVE IT.
Comprehensively wrong. The NIST report is very clear on this point: structural strength was lost BEFORE – not “at the outset” and not “during”, but BEFORE – the period of gravitational acceleration. You’re quite simply and categorically WRONG.
Not only does the NIST report provide a complete explanation, it also modeled the collapse on computer and, yes, I have shown you where to find the report. All that remains is for you to READ it, Daggy.
Not true: PatrickB responded to it several times, and Andrew never mentioned it again – he dropped it.
What’s to rebut? David Ray Griffin, erstwhile Professor of Theology (what is it with these theology academics?), has a flimsy argument that does not prove Olson did not call her husband.
Wrong. The FBI did NOT state that Olson did not receive a call from his wife. Griffin’s own source shows that the FBI identified four calls from that flight to “unknown numbers”. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report (page 455):
Griffin cherrypicking the evidence. Sound familiar?
See above.
Does it? Where?
Strawman – almost all calls were made from seat phones.
Olson didn’t know whether she had her credit card or not. He was speculating.
Where did the FBI “admit” this? Source, please.
Huh? At #1271, you challenged PatrickB:
Then I show you footage of terrorists passing through airport security and you say it’s not good enough? Granted, it’s of terrorists boarding AA 77, which attacked the Pentagon, not the WTC, but clearly video footage WAS made available to the public. Are you suggesting the terrorists didn’t actually board the plane after passing through security? If so, based on what evidence?
Does he? Where?
Nope. Your OPINION on what constitutes evidence is worthless, and #732 has no evidence in it.
Or repetition of the truth, which is that you have no evidence.
Nope. The structural strength was lost BEFORE the 2.25 second period. Not “instantaneously at the outset” or “within”, but BEFORE.
Oh, rubbish. Mariani’s a vexatious litigant and you’re delusional. There’s an orgy of video evidence out there and you’re still not happy. Why? Because you’re theologically committed to your theory and you refuse to face the facts.
“Your senario is very plausable except for one detail that you miss out, the detail that changes all the dynamics is that the hijackers were intent on taking over the cockpits.”
Yes Mr Bond, you thought you had it all worked out, except you missed one tiny yet crucial detail … blah blah bloody blah. I really do think that you are taking the pee now. I mean that sentence above is comedy gold. @1322 makes perfect sense, and you agree, except you don’t because of some piece of speculative nonsense of you just thought of. Unless of course you HAVE been in a hijacked aircraft? If you have I find it strange that choose post 1324 to reveal that to us.
“skinny, poorly armed arabs”
Shaun @ 1325, I’m confident andrew’s better nature will decide to retract this. andrew? I thought more of you than that cheap shot.
This certainly shouldn’t aid in that decision, but imagine a skinny, poorly armed ANYONE held their sharp knife to a six-year old child’s throat. I defy you to determine what anybody, let alone a pilot morally bound to protect the life of their passengers, would do in such a situation.
Your imagination fails you as to how four or five fixedly-intent-on-death suicidists might overpower a plane full of run of the mill life-loving human beings.
Besides, nick, standard operating procedures prior to that day were based on the assumption that any hijackers wanted to live to make demands political points adn perhaps money. Thre had been no suicide hijackings before.
Staff were effectively ordered not to resist if there was likely to be any danger. Those procedures were followed to the letter right up to the point where the passengers found out that this assumption was not correct.
Besides – two pilots vs. five armed hijackers – no contest, no matter how “skinny” they may have been.
andrew is yet again not correct.
.
Also, I wish daggett would work out what spam is – other than a type of sandwich ham it is “unsolicited commercial email”. It has been extended to include unsolicited commercial comments, unrelated to the topic on a blog, but he is, once again, simply wrong to include answers to his queries or additional questions (whether or not he wats to read them) in that category. Wrong again, daggett.
Bob wrote (@ 1326):
Bob and the 9/11 Commission are trying to imply that it is possible that the phone calls to “unknown numbers” could have been made to Ted Olson in the Department of Justice (DOJ). However, as David Ray Griffin wrote in “Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones”:
So, as already pointed out, we are left only with evidence that Ted Olson received one call of zero seconds duration, that is effctively none, and the practical certainty that he received none others. On top of that, there are, in David Ray Griffin’s article, Teld Olson’s numerous self-contradictions, where he kept changing the story about whether the phone call was made for a cell phone (a technological impossibility) or an on-board passenger phone.
—
“Good. There’s Oxygen On This Planet.” wrote (@ ):
—
Bob wrote (@ 1326):
Bob, if the NIST report is so clear, why is your own statement so unclear? What do you mean by “structural strength was lost”? Do you mean:
(a) strength was lost was lost but there was still still enough strength to resist the fall to less than free-fall acceleration; or
(b) there was no strength and therefore nothing to stop the visible North wall from falling at free fall accelearation?
If (b) then surely free-fall speed would have commenced at that instant, but it clearly did not. That only leaves (a) which is consistent with what I wrote. At the instant that there was no longer any structural strength holding up the building, free fall acceleration would have commenced, that is, “at the outset”.
Bob wrote (@ 1326):
No, Bob. The computer modelling of the collapse is clearly incomplete. We have not been shown, in a computer simulation, how, according to NIST’s explanation, WTC 7 could have fallen for 8 floors at free fall speed.
Bob continued:
No, Bob. All that remains is for you to articulate on this forum, your understanding of NIST’s explanation.
It is the theory you are defending, so it is up to you to demonstrate why it is not the pile of horse manure that it appears to be from the limited information you have supplied.
I personally don’t care that much if your do or you don’t if you choose not to, but if you don’t, I don’t see why I should not be entitled to draw that attention of otheres to that fact.
—
Patrick wrote (@ 1323),
Well, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you, Patrick?
Anyhow, I decline to fill out that survey for you. I am not here to get you up to speed with the basics of the 9/11 controversy.
re # 1324 and # 1329…
andrew, re your objection as to the plausibility of the hijacking scenario, FWIW, (and naturally you’re not required to take the word of just some voice on the internet) I can tell you as much as I’ve heard myself …
On the actual day of the attacks, I was glued to the TV news in a big room with a lot of other people. One of the people there was a chap with a fair bit of personal experience in military/tactics/high security affairs. Before much in the way of facts or hard news had yet come to light, he inferred that (in his opinion) the hijackers probably had not used guns (for various reasons), and then sketched out a few likely scenarios in which a small group of attackers with only edged weapons would be able to control the passengers and even the pilots. I won’t elaborate on the ugly details, but he seemed to know his business, and how people would be likely to respond to various sorts of threats and provocations. It all sounded plausible enough to me, and the two common denominators for all these scenarios were simple ruthlessness on the part of the attackers, and the hostages’ hopeful expectation that it was still possible for things to resolve without loss of life. Prior to 9/11 it was commonly assumed that hijackers simply had a set of demands, and that they expected to live to see their demands satisfied (i.e. they weren’t on a suicide run). Now of course our expectations are different.
OTOH, if you have information that prior to 2001 it was inflexible and never-violated protocol for commercial pilots to never surrender the cockpit under any circumstances whatsoever, that would tend to strengthen your own argument and weaken mine. (I don’t know what the real answer to that is.) But if there are any examples in the last 30-40 years of hijacked pilots giving up control of their plane, that would tend to weaken your argument (again, I don’t know what the history is.)
Naturally my argument above is truncated and merely consists of my own hearsay, so you’re not obliged to credit it, it’s certainly not a case-closer. But if you think there’s any realistic plausibility to it, that would count for something to a reasonable and neutral hearer. I include it not as a “gotcha,” but merely as food for thought as to what seems plausible/probable.
The FBI did produce the records, Daggy, of four calls, at the right time and of the right approximate duration, that have been claimed by the right parties. The 9/11 Commission Report states clearly that both the FBI and DOJ believe the calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband. Can you prove that they were not?
My statement’s clear, as is the NIST report: structural strength was lost [i.e. (b)] in Stage 1, leading to Stage 2, the fall at gravitational acceleration, AFTER Stage 1. This is inconsistent with what you wrote because you’re wrong, Daggy.
Yes, we have. What parts of the computer modeling were incomplete? Moreover, how do you know they were incomplete given you haven’t read the report?
Not at all – I’ve already linked to, and quoted from, the NIST report. Why explain something that’s self-explanatory? You claim you have a problem with a report you admit you’ve never read; the first step to proving there’s a flaw in the report is actually showing us the flaw. Go on, Daggy: show us where it’s wrong, as you’ve singularly failed to over the last thousand-odd comments.
Oh, so you admit I have provided you with information on it? But why accept my take on it, Daggy? Why not READ IT YOURSELF?
Hasn’t stopped you before, Daggy, and I’m indifferent as always – I know what the report says, and so will those who take my advice and read it. The fact that you still refuse to read a report that you claim is flawed speaks volumes about your unwillingness to argue in good faith and your profound stupidity in arguing against your own self-declared ignorance.
As it’s true, Daggy, why not?
Squib.
“Having mentioned three problems with Ted Olson’s story,”
Who cares, you know that the other calls were made so there’s proof that the conspiracy was hatched by the terrorists.
“Anyhow, I decline to fill out that survey for you. ”
Pwnd (is that how it’s spelt, never used it before).
“I am not here to get you up to speed with the basics of the 9/11 controversy.”
No but we’re here for you.
Plenty of phone calls listed in this outline
Caller identified, time of the call, whom they called, summary of the conversation.
I agree that daggett, in saying the phone calls from hijacked planes were somehow faked or impossible, dishonours the memory of the passengers who were murdered by the hijackers, and shows contempt from those unfortunate folk who took the calls and had to speak to people who (as it turned out) were doomed.
Sorry to come to this so late, but are you people really having a conversation about whether or not 9/11 was an ‘inside job’? Or is all this one giant, magnificent satire?
BBB
On the actual day of the attacks, I was glued to the TV news in a big room with a lot of other people. One of the people there was a chap with a fair bit of personal experience in military/tactics/high security affairs. Before much in the way of facts or hard news had yet come to light, he inferred that (in his opinion) the hijackers probably had not used guns (for various reasons), and then sketched out a few likely scenarios in which a small group of attackers with only edged weapons would be able to control the passengers and even the pilots. I won’t elaborate on the ugly details, but he seemed to know his business, and how people would be likely to respond to various sorts of threats and provocations. It all sounded plausible enough to me, and the two common denominators for all these scenarios were simple ruthlessness on the part of the attackers, and the hostages’ hopeful expectation that it was still possible for things to resolve without loss of life. Prior to 9/11 it was commonly assumed that hijackers simply had a set of demands, and that they expected to live to see their demands satisfied (i.e. they weren’t on a suicide run). Now of course our expectations are different.
Once again this senario is only plausable if there is no threat to the life of the crew and passengers, it would be impossible to contain a large number of people with edged weapons in a life and death situation.
Did the crew and passengers think the hijackers were just taking the planes for a joy ride and they would later give the controls back to the pilots?
Every disingenuous response to the subject of the hijackings pretends as though it is completely normal to co-operate with the hijackers but obvioulsly this does not, nor would it ever, extend to giving up control of the cockpit.
BBB,
i keep on telling them the Master did it. (at least I think that’s what I’ve been saying – haven’t posted here for a while.) As a Time Lord, he would have survived.
btw, the answer to your question appears to be yes.
“but obvioulsly this does not, nor would it ever, extend to giving up control of the cockpit.”
Excuse me for thinking that you’re a bit of a knob, but what is the basis for the assumption that control of the cockpit was “given up”? You whole post at 1337 smacks of desperation.
“Did the crew and passengers think the hijackers were just taking the planes for a joy ride and they would later give the controls back to the pilots?”
Again with the insults. Tsk. You must be a complete idiot if you think anyone would even consider your OTT rant.
“After an initial broadcast of “Mayday”, the aircraft fell 700ft during a 35-second brawl as the pilots struggled with the four hijackers, before the hijackers gained control.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article704673.ece
Calls were made, the situation inside the at least some of the planes is not in doubt. It is reasonable to assume that based on the irrefutable evidence of the calls made from some planes that similar situations pertained on all the planes. The MO of the hijackers was very similar, they were the perpetrators of a conspiracy entirely of their own making. Why don’t you have ago at my test as Dagget is too scared to.
BBB,
I think that this thread will become the basis for a PhD students dissertation on the psychology of the conspiracy theorists or possibly a discourse analysis of the Foucauldian kind.
PatrickB,
This thread has a long way to go yet. I (and a couple of others here) was involved in on on Catallaxy that went over 3,000 and only stopped when the server died.
.
andrew,
The only surprising thing about the pilots’ struggle is that they seem to have struggled. Again – the instructions to crew were to yield as the system was based on the presumption that the hijackers wanted to live. This has now been corrected and that is why the cockpit doors are now heavily barred.
You really have only read the conspiracy websites, haven’t you? As I suggested before, start reading the debunking stuff and the official reports. You may end up better informed.
And i thought it was all because of when I was a kid I used to drem of Mickey Mouse.
Patrick accuses me of being “too scared” to rise to his “challenge” give him remedial lessons about 9/11. To that I would suggset that those who go back through this forum will more than likely find a far greater number of challenges that I have made to Patrick that he has been no less “scared” than me to take up.
—
Patrick wrote:
No, I can’t say I do know if any of the calls were not faked. As i pointed out before the technology that would allow another’s voice to be electronically enhanced to cause the recipient to believe they were actually talking to a loved one does exist.
Whether or not some may not have been faked, I consider this an attempt to confuse the debate by giving people the impression that we are necessarily precluding the possibility that islamist patsy/terrorists played a rell in the hijackings.
The account of what Barbara Olsen said was supposed to have said happened aboard flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon just not believable as I have shown above. (Also, let’s not forget, if Donald Rumsfeld had not changed the regulations months earlier to forbid pilots from carrying firearms, months earlier, the likelihood of hijackers overpowering the pilots would have been even more remote).
I will state once, again, I don’t preclude that Islamist patsy/hijackers did indeed play a role in the hijackings.
Without having claimed to have exhaustively studied this question, what could have happened could have been one of the following:
1. The passengers and crew on all four airlines were overpowered and subdued by Islamist hijacker/patsies, but armed with firearms and not just boxcutter knives. However, the aircraft would still have to have been flown to their targets by remote control.
2. The planes were flown by remote control toward the targets with the passengers and cabin crew and pilots crew aboard.
3. The planes were flown by remote control toward the targets with the passengers and cabin crew aboard, but no pilots aboard.
4. The planes were flown by remote control toward the targets with the passengers, but no cabin crew nor pilots aboard.
5. The planes were flown by remote control toward the targets with no passengers cabin crew or pilots.
The problems with 2, 3 and 4 is that those aboard would have most likely would have worked out that something was wrong and coud have done something to upset the plans of the 9/11 plotters. With scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5 other means to get rid of the crew and/or passengers would have had to have been found.
As I believe that one eyewitnesses in the towers did report seeing hijackers in the cockpit of at least one the planes, then 1 seems the most plausible, that is if that report can be verified.
What is not plausible is that on all four planes, particularly on Flight 77 the passengers and crew were overpowered by hijackers armed only with boxcutter knives, (and possibly other undesignated types of knives).
—
I see that the words “skinny, poorly armed arabs” used by andrew have been deemed ‘racist’ by the politically correct within this forum.
I think if the term ‘racist’ is to be applied here I think it would be far more appropriately applied to those who, in practice, are perpetuating the lie that has been used to justify wars that have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims including Muslim arabs.
—
I see that Bob is attempting, once again, to take this discussion around in circles, and whilst doing so, further bloating this forum to just about the maximum that would be possible in a single post.
Bob, the statement:
… is a restatement of what I have already shown to be unclear. You have not acknowledged nor responded to the arguments I put in my previous post.
To restate, yet again, it is Bob and not me who is defending the NIST explanation, so I think it is up to him and not me to articulate on this forum what was written in that document.
I choose not to read that document as whole, as almost no-one else on this forum has, because it has already been made abundantly clear that it is an essentially worthless document (albeit, as I am told, with apparent accurate components, which are in contradiction with the document’s conclusions, evidently put it in by a number of professional and honest NIST employees).
If it had been clear as Bob insists that it is, then he would have no doubt articulated it here for all of us to see a long time ago.
Bob demands that I prove that there is no more to the NIST simulation than what is linked to in that You Tube broadcast that andrew provided. I can only say that I have already looked at the NIST site several times and have foundnot other more complete simulation, I would suggest that is incumbent upon Bob should produce that more complete simulation if he insists that it exists.
If there exists a complete simulation that demostrates how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free-fall speed through 8 floors without the use of explosives and then all the way through the remaining 39 stories into a nice neat compact pile entirely within the building’s footprint, then I would like to see it. I think also quite a few demolition engineers around the world also be most interested.
—
Just to finish. Here is another partial roadmap to those wishing to find their way past the latest batche of spam towards some more informative posts:
andrew @ 1337, daggett @ 1331, andrew @ 1325, daggett @ 1322, daggett @ 1321, andrew @ 1321, daggett @ 1313, andrew @ 1312, daggett @ 1307
Those who follow the links to my posts will also find, as with this post, links to those posts I am arguing against. I do this to better enable others to judge who is basing their case on sound logic and evidence and who is not.
daggett
Now you want us to think that the planes may have been flown by remote control. There is ample evidence they were flown by hijackers several of whom had recently undertaken flying training.
There is no evidence for the planes having been controlled externally.
Do you really think all the phone calls were faked? This would require dozens (hundreds?) of extra staff be put on the payroll of your Giant Conspiracy. When were recordings of the passengers voices made, so they could be used on the day to “fake” the calls?
You claim the passengers would likely have figured out “something was wrong” under your scenarios 2, 3, 4. Oh, I dunno. Did you hear of the airliner that overflew its destination city in the US a couple of weeks ago? I reckon the passengers would have been fine with their plane doing a sudden turn and going back eastwards on a clear morning with no cockpit announcement.
And what about these guys wearing red bandanas (mentioned in the calls) -were they robots??
***
Come on, daggsy. Admit it. You’re just making this garbage up, aren’t you?
So….airplanes and demolition I know, technically, nothing about..sound however is my profession.
Yes, the technology exists, but in order to achieve the above we would have to:
Have samples of the actual voices, in order to get to even a reasonable facsimile of each voice…given that these voices are speaking to “loved ones” the nature of the facsimile would have to be pretty accurate, to fool anyone. Even allowing for a voice that is stressed, or whispering or weeping, or distorted by noise.
We would have to know who is gonna be on that plane well in advance, we’d need the manifest…then we’d need to install listening and recording devices in every single persons home or workplace, in order to record the frequencies to come to a replication, or we’d have to be pulling in mobile calls and breaking down each frequency around a particular set of words, we’d have to do this for everyone, because in advance, we would not be completely sure whose gonna call to say I love you…words like I love you are the tuff ones dagsterman…it is the habitual hearing of those intimate frequencies that are notoriously difficult to fake….
So while one lot of demolition teams is installing massive amounts of cables and explosives in the buildings, other teams are following and listening to hundreds of citizens, recording their voices, editing particular words and phrases and setting up the frequency patches on digital treatment devices & voice synthesizers, we’d then have to monitor and interrupt the actual calls in real time, reasonably seamlessly. The big gig in the sky. Interesting work, if you can get it.
And once again, your general frustrations would be eased if you could demonstrate any actual evidence of any kind to back up your cultish theories.
“I see that the words “skinny, poorly armed arabs” used by andrew have been deemed ‘racist’ by the politically correct within this forum.”
It’s not about being politically correct, daggett. It’s about recognising what andrew said was frickin’ stupid. The race of the hikackers had absolutely nothing to do with theirs versus anybody else’s ability to overpower a plane full of passengers. So why bring it up as an argument?
“I think if the term ‘racist’ is to be applied here I think it would be far more appropriately applied to those who, in practice, are perpetuating the lie that has been used to justify wars that have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims including Muslim arabs.”
Nonsense. Draw your self-righteous, hyperbolic Agincourt bows elsewhere.
You don’t have to be a card-carrying Truther to be 100% against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tactics employed by our leaders to take us into those wars, proceeding the events of 9/11.
Whatever the blogsphere equivalent of perpetual motion is, this thread is it.
daggett @ 611:
“he would need to clutch at every conceivable straw he could, wouldn’t he?”
Eric Sykes @ 1345, exactly.
andrew: “Once again this senario is only plausible if there is no threat to the life of the crew and passengers…”
Now you’re simply not sifting the concepts in play carefully. You’re making my exact point for me, as it were. In terms of probability, up until 9/11, any hijacked crew and passengers would have had good reason to believe that the hijackers would never deliberately crash the plane — because they expected to survive, obtain their demands, and get away with their crime. Once the plane lands somewhere, as it must if it is not crashed, the advantage nearly always shifts to the surrounding authorities, and the hostages have a reasonable chance of escaping with their lives. So in the minds of most hostages that day (actually of course they were never technically ‘hostages’), it was exactly *not* yet an absolute threat to the life of the crew and passengers: in a ‘normal’ hijack scenario, they still had a reasonable chance. It was a gamble, with odds firmly in favor of cooperation and waiting, running down the clock, hoping for a rescue of some kind.
“… it would be impossible to contain a large number of people with edged weapons in a life and death situation.”
And that is exactly, precisely, what we saw happen on Flight 93, once the passengers correctly understood their real situation. Once the people realized that they were not being held as bargaining chips for a set of demands, but instead were going to be inevitably murdered in a suicide operation, they chose to become – guess what? – impossible to contain with mere edged weapons. The people on the flights to the Towers never guessed correctly what was going to happen, so they didn’t offer concerted resistance. Because they believed until it was too late that their best chance lay in cooperating. Why is this so hard to understand? It’s just very simple game theory. The only questionable issue in my mind is the flight that struck the Pentagon, but I’m simply unaware of the chronology; I don’t know if the people on that plane had sufficient time to discover what was going on (which could only be done on the phone after the planes had hit the Towers.) btw, if the hijackers on 93 had guns, why didn’t they use them to prevent the plane from being brought down? The evidence suggests that the hijackers were in fact lightly armed, and that they controlled the passengers through terror and through playing on hope, until the passengers realized that in fact there was no hope. At which point the lightly-armed hijackers, being without guns, were overwhelmed by superior numbers and will, as you would expect.
As a matter of plausibility/probability, consider these two differing scenarios:
SCENARIO ONE: A multilayered government ultra-secret conspiracry exists, which then recruits… a *sub-conspiracy* of unwitting Islamist dupes, trained in flight schools well in advance, who observably board planes in teams thus suggesting that they will hijack them, when in reality the planes are controlled either remotely (how technically feasible?) or else by mystery Black Ops pilots who will presumably eject at some point (again, how feasible?). btw, if the commercial pilots have a sacred inflexible duty never to surrender the cockpits, why do they surrender them to the Black Ops guys? Are they in on the conspiracy themselves? (the more the merrier after all.) Or are they subdued by phasers set to stun, or perhaps by the Vulcan nerve pinch, or a Hong-Kong-Phooey Chop?
Meanwhile, the uber-conspirators, in order to audaciously “fake” numerous phone calls with, em, voice-morphing technology, must first research the planes’ passenger manifests well in advance (even though people re-schedule their flight plans constantly), then find out in advance who are the loved ones of the passengers, their phone numbers, and relevant personal details to fake… this is a tremendous amount of research which must be done, and provides numerous opportunities for mistakes and failures which would lead to exposure. Also, don’t forget that some of the people booked on these flights didn’t actually board them at the last minute, as always happens. If even one ‘faked’ phone call was placed by a ‘passenger’ who perchance was never really on the plane, this would lead to exposure.
SCENARIO TWO: A known terrorist organization, with known objectives and a known MO, both of which are consistent with the present case, has such a well-documented fixation with the Twin Towers that they even tried to blow them up once before. A set of their teams hijacks a number of planes. (incidentally re my post above, they happen to use methods and tactics so familiar to insiders that a mid-level security professional in my presence in real time can take an educated guess, based on very little available information, as to what they probably did and how they probably did it; and be shown to be roughly on the right trail once more facts come out.) Because the passengers and crew think they can survive if they just keep their heads down and sit tight, the first two planes (with a shorter travel time to impact than the others) offer little resistance. But once passengers making (genuine) phone calls on the third plane discover from the news that they are not hostages with a chance, but in fact are merely murder victims without a chance, the passengers revolt against their lightly-armed captors, resulting in the crash of flight 93.
This is an argument from basic plausibility and probability, not a historian’s argument from careful research of minutiae. As such it can only be supplementary to a full presentation of the facts. Still, in the light of the available evidence, be honest… which scenario seems more likely to have actually happened?
I hesitate to quote my own post, but it seems obligatory.
I wrote:
“Do you really think all the phone calls were faked? This would require dozens (hundreds?) of extra staff be put on the payroll of your Giant Conspiracy. When were recordings of the passengers voices made, so they could be used on the day to “fake” the calls?”
I know nothing about the technical aspects of how it could be done. But Eric Sykes clearly does. I thank you, Eric, for filling in many details.
Your suggestion is looking less and less plausible, Mr daggett.
Ambigulous (@ 1448) the technology to remotely fly passenger aircriafte certainly existed in 2001.
Anyway, how about arguing against what I actually wrote?
Remote control flight without anyone on board was only one of a number of plausible scenarios. I made it clear that, not having studied the issue thoroughly, I would not preclude the possibility that patsy/hijackers were present on some or al of the four aircraft.
Having remote control does not preclude those aboard the plane being in control, or believing that they were in control, for at least part of the flight, but given their mostly abysmal abilities, it would have been essential for flights 11, 175 and 77.
My problem is that much of the official evidence, such as the phone calls supposedly made to Ted Olson have been shown to have been without basis.
—
Nick, You claim to oppose the Afghan war, yet accept the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that holds that 9/11, the Anthrax attacks, 7/7, the Madrid bombings, etc, were all part of a massive worldwide conspiracy orchestrated from within Afghanistan.
So why is Gordon Brown, Kevin Rudd and Rupert Murdoch wrong when they argue:
?
—
Clearly Eric Sykes hasn’t though very carefully through his argument against the possibility of the phone calls being faked. Firstly, if it seems implausible that people could be fooled by voices, then what Barbara Olson’s description (made through a phone call the FBI admits it has no evidence of ever having been made) of the events on Flight 77 seems even more implausible.
Anyway Eric, by my count only 26 known passengers and of the order of 8 unknown passenger and crew, and not hundreds, made phone calls through on board phones. Also, a number of phone calls (I haven’t counted how many were of zero lenght.)
Given that the perpetrators would have been able to do what they wished to the four aircraft, preventing any of those on board from being able to phone once the hijackings commenced, should have posed no great technical challenge, I would have thought.
And as I think we are all agreed, we can completely discount any stories of calls being made through cell phones and not on-board phones.
“The planes were flown by remote control”
Yeah maybe the guys with the remote controls were the same guys you saw at the WTC with the tool boxes. I mean come on, “flown by remote control”? Imagine you’re in at a party with a bunch of average people and you make a claim like that? What do you think their reaction would be?
“What is not plausible is that on all four planes, particularly on Flight 77 the passengers and crew were overpowered by hijackers armed only with boxcutter knives,”
FFS, you think large passenger aircraft being secretly flown by remote control is more plausible? This is hilarious. You must be pulling our chains now.
“Having remote control”
You are a tiresome twerp Dagget. I suppose if I ask for some actual evidence for the planes being under remote control you’ll get all defensive and accuse me of repeating myself. So be it, where is your evidence for remote control? If you say you have none and you didn’t really mean it then, will you please admit your failure to refute the fact that the planes were hijacked by terrorist who were operating under their volition and who were not duped by any third party? I think you owe us that much. The controlled demolition appears to have been abandoned so we’ll assume we won on a forfeit.
Because, daggett, I believe primarily there is nothing that justifies enacting the bloody slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, and the displacement of millions more.
You can regard that as a naive viewpoint if you wish, but you certainly cannot regard it as racist, and please don’t construct wholesale straw dogs for what you think I may or may not believe. What you know me to believe is limited to what I’ve expressed within this thread. I’ve offered you the same courtesy, which is why I was more than happy to defend you against unwarranted accusations of anti-semitism.
It that satisfactory enough?
Is it possible we might even share some common ground for a change?
Enjoy your weekend.
Here is a paper which covers the exact same terrain as this thread, but with a NASA Jet Propulsion Lab research scientist in the Fyodor role…… and daggett by the words of David Ray Griffin and James Hoffman and other main Troofers…
….or rather, they are playing themselves finally, because junior truthers don’t stray from the official Troofer handbook:
http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
And who isn’t surprised that daggett has stated here and on other threads (!) that a few links to random YouTube songs equals ‘masses of spam causing this thread to load very slowly’, when it’s bleeding obvious that over 1300 posts are…
The Youtube Musak conspiracy….. stopping daggett and his Troof from seeping out since 09/09
…..well, that in that case:
I ♥ NYC
“I ? NYC ”
So do I. I spent 2 weeks there during September just gone, my brother lives there in Brooklyn, NYC is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. All the Youtube footage on this thread has a much deeper impact having been there such a short time ago. I can’t imagine what it must have been like, well I can a bit now that I’ve walked the streets.
You people are going about daggett all wrong. Now here is what you do. Find out what Daggett believes in that is fairly pedestrian and believed by the vast majority of humans. Daggett might believe that round wheels are round, or that horses race in the Melbourne Cup. Or some such thing.
What you then do is construct a conspiracy theory that its not true. Make it a shitty one that is easily disproved. Wait until Daggett disproves your point, ignore his comments but immediately come up with another shitty and easily disproveable theory. Keep doing this until Daggett accuses you of coming up with absolute easily disproven crapola. You then say: “Oh yeah, what about…” and then repeat the very first peice of crap you came up with. When Daggett says he has already disproven that, deny it and repeat another older theory that he has been disproven and also claim that as a new one. Rinse and repeat. Constantly.
Daggett likes this. Why can’t you.
And the 911 film that left me the most shocked. I saw it before I visited but now … well it is the closest thing to being there, if that’s something that you would ever want.
The Falling Man.
didn’t say “100s made phone calls”..said 100s would have had to be recorded..at least 4 plane loads full..nice try daggy..but complete and utter bollocks from you..as usual…
found any evidence yet?
daggett,
No – we cannot discount stories of the use of cell phones for the simple reason that they were, in fact, used for at least two calls, both very short. As this piece shows it was entirely possible, particularly as the flights got close to the ground.
The simple facts are, daggett, that your whole argument does not hold water at all. For every single little inconsistency you have brought up there is either a more plausible explanation that is consistent with the official story or you have been in error.
Sorry, but unless you have something else you have had your argument pulled apart here.
Squib.
If you think they were faked, prove it. If you can’t prove they were faked, STFU.
Who’s confusing the debate, Daggy? Andrew and you are the ones doubting the veracity of the phone calls. Dog knows why, but clearly you think you’re achieving something by it, aside from looking like callous jerks.
You showed nothing of the sort, Daggy, as I debunked your argument.
Heh. You can’t stop progress.
Delusional fantasies with no proof. Produce the evidence for your dopey theories, Daggy.
As pointed out by others, the ethnicity of the terrorists was not relevant to the argument and inserting it was racist. Pretty mildly so, IMO, but racist nonetheless.
There’s no lie, and your argument [sic] is a non-sequitur.
Oh, rubbish. My responses are proportional to your bloated text, Daggy, and the only person going around in circles is you, returning to the same discredited and debunked arguments time and again despite their comprehensive demolition.
You have shown nothing of the sort, and my comment was a comprehensive response to your arguments.
What you think is irrelevant, Daggy. If you have a problem with the NIST report, state it, with references to what the report says.
If you haven’t read it, Daggy, you are in no position to declare it a “worthless” document or contradictory. You’re simply and literally ignorant on the subject. I’m amazed to find myself telling you this – admittedly way too late in the peace to do you any real good, as you’re already a laughing-stock – but arguing from ignorance is a really dumb approach to debate.
I’ve linked to it several times, Daggy. So far you’re the only person who’s argued it’s unclear, despite having no basis for the assertion as you admit that you haven’t read it.
As I wrote, the results of the simulation work are in the NIST report. Tell us how they’re flawed.
As I wrote, several times now, the results of the simulation work are in the NIST report. Those who are interested can read it. Why won’t you?
Redundant, repetitive onanities, comme d’habitude.
…and he does not even know what “spam” is.
Here’s a hint.
I note Bob has declined to provide a link to a simulation of the collapse of WTC 7 that is more complete than the one linked to by andrew.
The reason that his in unable to do so is probably to be found in a letter (pdf 81k) from NIST it Dr. Stephen Jones on 27 Nov 09. It states:
—
Nick wrote:
… please don’t construct wholesale straw dogs for what you think I may or may not believe.
If you don’t believe:
… then tell us what you do believe.
daggett,
Do you even read your own links? The letter clearly (and solely) refers to WTC1 and WTC2, not WTC7 as you appear to think. In any case, you have so selectively quoted as to make it meaningless. The letter clearly refers to them modelling to the point where the structures (of WTC1 and WTC2) are undergoing global collapse. No computer model could continue from that point, at least not with any real certainty, as there are so many things falling apart that there are so many different possibilities.
In any case that would be meaningless – the models show that the impact of a 767 would bring down the WTC buildings. The exact order once it is collapsing is totally irrelevant to the outcome – it will fall down.
Wrong again.
.
Worked out what “spam” means yet?
I should have written:
above.
My apologies.
—
Andrew,
As you say, the letter does refers to the Twin Tower collapses and not to the WTC 7 collapses.
That was a mistake on my part.
Nevertheless, I don’t know how you can possibly be satisfied with computer models which fail to account in any way for the ‘collapses’ after collapse initiation as you acknowledge, whether they relate to WTC 7 or the Twin Towers.
If it is impossible for a computer model to wholely explain the collapse of the Twin Towers due to fires, then surely other means to explaind the collapse need to be explored, such as the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Whether or not NIST explicitly admit that it could not fully explain the collapse of WTC 7, the fact is that its computer similuation does not.
It was NIST’s own choice to explain the WTC 7 purely through computer simulation, which is totally contrary to normal scientific practice. Of course, it should hardly be a great surprise that its simulation could not explain the collapse even with absurd assumptions.
One of those assumptions was that that no heat would be conducted away from the steel said to have been caused to structurally fail due to fire. (So, presumably, the precise opposite of thermal superconductivity was assumed, that is, presumably thermal superinsularity.)
However, once that became apparent, they should have reviewed their decision to not even examine the few remaining steel samples and their decision not to consider the demolition hypothesis.
—
However, NIST did explicitly admit that its explanation of the WTC 7 did not account for all observations. Gail Porter of NIST, in an e-mail reply of 29 Aug 09, to Shane Geiger wrote:
The iron rich spheres, present in the dust of WTC 7, were referred to in reports by RJ Lee Group on behalf of the Deutsche Bank and by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) which was known to NIST, but which was ignored (Griffin, pp 40-43).
Iron rich spheres can only be created by temperatures far higher than what can by produced by any any fire. The only explanation offered that can explain them would be the intense heat caused be demolition explosives.
Other physical evidence that the NIST report on WTC 7 ignored is described by James Glanz and Eric Lipton in a New York Times article “A search for clues in Towers’ collapse” of 2 February 2002:
Other evidence ignored is testimonies of rivers of molten steel underneath where WTC 7, as well as the Twin Towers stood.
Other testimony and phyical evidence and ignored by all the NIST reports can be found here.
Stop arguing and just look at how the twin towers explode into dust mid-air, it’s pretty obvious FFS. Funny thing is that if they admitted that it was a controlled demolition everyone, and I mean everyone, would not only suddenly agree, but everyone would also agree that they actually went overboard with the explosives (typical yanks, they overkill everything).
It’s not even a close call.
If the twin towers don’t convince you then look at that other one that “collapsed”.
Then have a look at the lack of evidence for what happened at the pentagon.
Then look at the crash site in Pensilvannia.
Then look at the hijackers they nominate, they were drinking alcohol and visiting strip clubs before 911 so they weren’t even islamic fundies.
Then have a look at the plan, some cut it close with connecting flights, they didn’t hijack the planes from the nearest airports so they weren’t even worried about norad, no guns, not islamic fundies, shit pilots…..
It’s a simple story for gullible people to lap up.
On reflection, it might all be the fault of the banks, and Torchwood isn’t that interested in money, only aliens who come through the rift.
But, briefly being sensible on this idiotic thread. 9/11=CD at 1367 (the number of comments is mine-boggling) spot on, mate!
Yeah totally agree with 911=CD, all I needed was a dose of cool, calculating logic. See that’s where Dagget fails, sure he’s got all his wonky interpretations and fuzzy videos but when it comes down to it nothing beats a brain dead out-and-out stupid statement. We have a winner!
“911=CD”
My copy’s on a cassingle, but in many cases you’re no doubt correct.
911=CD..ahhhhh yes, of course…the buildings resonant frequencies played in carefully co-ordinated unison on multiple 8 track cartridges….that would explain the missing piles of melted magnetic tape under the buildings footprints …but hey…someone I met knew someone who had a brother who met a bloke in a pub who went out with a woman who met a bloke who had a cousin who’d collected 78s recorded on September 11 1911 that detailed the entire cartridge conspiracy thing in detail before it had even happened, missing no details!! Yeah.
Nope. As noted several times now, I’ve linked many times to the NIST report, which contains the simulation results.
Nope, that’s not it. Moreover, as Burt points out, you’ve cherrypicked your quote.
Just another of many.
As Burt noted, modeling the progression of its collapse after initiation is inherently complex. Let’s quote the NIST statement in its entirety, without your customarily cack-handed cherrypicking:
NIST used multiple sources of evidence in justifying their theory and concluded, rightly, that aircraft impacts and subsequent fires brought down the buildings. Where’s your model, Daggy? Where’s YOUR evidence?
See above. Further, on the subject of “controlled demolition”, the same letter states:
NO. CORROBORATING. EVIDENCE.
Really? How do you know?
NIST didn’t “explain the WTC 7 purely through computer simulation”.
Where’s that assumption stated, Daggy?
Why? Steel is known NOT to be a thermal superconductor.
Who says? The “iron-rich spheres” canard has been thoroughly debunked [Ref: pg 160].
We’ve been through this before – there’s no evidence of “molten steel” on 9/11. If you have some, produce it.
Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated garbage.
“At some level of government, at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11. We owe the truth to the families of the victims of 9/11. We owe it to the American public as well, because only by understanding what has gone wrong in the past can we assure our nation’s safety in the future.”
John Farmer.
I will probably read his book soon (no thanks to this thread), it could be interesting. Although I have heard it falls for the same old thought stopper (never attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity/incompetence) – and basically doesn’t examine the failure’s that occurred before the hijackings.
Given who he is, and what he said above I am surprised anyone takes anything that came out of the 9/11 Commission on face value.
The book is called The Ground Truth, its by John Farmer.
I’ll bet money everyone here could read it and coming away thinking exactly the same thing about 9/11 that they thought before they started reading (Mitchell porter some hundred posts back – good point btw.)
FDB at 1265, you are missing out on the good gear. Put some of this in your pipe and smoke it….
Oh, I thought 9/11=CD was describing a fuck-up that worked despite itself. For the record, I believe that the Twin Towers collapsed because a bunch of Al-Queda terrorists flew two planes into them. I also believe these terrorists flew a plane into the Penatagon and intended to probably fly a plane into the White House but some heroic passengers stopped them over Pennsylvania. Nothing on this thread has convinced me otherwise, and I have read a fair bit of it.
But then again, somebody like me who believes Torchwood weren’t on the job with 9/11 (probably because at the time they were based in Cardiff, Wales,) when they should’ve been, would believe that, wouldn’t they?
What are you saying Paul, there were no arabs, only weevils in disguise?
(Actually that might explain Atta.)
… but if Torchwood were involved then all that stuff about BCCI was just a cover. Torchwood were on the job. Thats why the invasion stopped at the towers. (Torchwood stopped an alien invasion they knew was coming on 9/11, but didn’t do a perfect job. Al Quada is just a cover story, cos something has to explain the missing buildings. Independence Day was a Torchwood project, it was trying to prepare us in advance just in case they didn’t stop the invasion, at least we would be semi prepared and have positive propaganda stories to inspire us.)
BTW Don’t you just love weddings. Especially ones with real live mother in laws as they really are. (Cept mine of course, she’s quite nice actually.)
“Independence Day was a Torchwood project, it was trying to prepare us in advance just in case they didn’t stop the invasion, at least we would be semi prepared and have positive propaganda stories to inspire us.)”
So what of Mars Attacks?
FDB @ 1376,
The chihuahuas were entirely behind Mars Attacks. Why do you think I like ‘em so much?
Bob wrote,
Really?
All I can see in the ‘debnking’ article does is a list a lot of other things, it claims could have been the source of the iron rich spheres: torch cutting of beams in the removal of building debris, magnetic printer toner, etc.
The debunking fails to refer to the content of the RJ Lee and USGS reports, except in the most general terms, and assumes the authors of the to have been complete idiots not to have though of these alternative explanations for the iron rich spheres.
The debunking makes no mention that the 2003 version of the RJ Lee report states that iron particles constitute a whopping 5.87 persent of normal building dust in comparison to only 0.04% (Griffin p 41, “WTC Dust Signature”(2003), RJ Lee Grroup, p24, 17)
Anyway, Bob, where have we “been through” the molten steel evidence?
Do you want me to start posting the evidence from the linked page about molten steel which you insist is “Unsubstantiated and uncorroborated garbage”?
Also, it seem to me that you have not explained where the NIST report has explained “the steel apparently melted away” as described in the article I referred to by Glanz and Lipton.
“Other evidence ignored is testimonies of rivers of molten steel underneath where WTC 7, as well as the Twin Towers stood.”
I do love this one, so say we temporarily accept it as true, which it is not. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for it.
Now, daggett, please produce for us evidence of ANY known controlled demolitions that also had molten steel underneath them.
What was your point again?
Mars Attacks… that was written by some poor bastard, angry that the Fang stole his girl.
Rly.
Yes, all sorts of alternative explanations, OTHER than “controlled demolition”, meaning that the “iron-rich spheres” are irrelevant to the discussion.
Where does it assume the authors are “complete idiots”? The facts are that there’s no necessary connection between “iron-rich spheres” and “controlled demolition”. None.
So what?
#988, Daggy: “Salt ‘n’ Pepa Squib”. You squibbed on it then, and you’re squibbing on it now.
Sure – it looks like they’re the last straws left in your increasingly desperate clutches.
What steel “melted away”, Daggy? What’s your proof?
Dagget … Dagget … where’s my conspiracy evidence … Dagget … where’s andrew got to …
I’m quite gobstruck at Daggett’s persistance here. Again I ask why?
Is it the relentless focus of a monomanic without a meat life or are the real conspirators paying him/her/it by the comment to muddy the waters?
I think we should be told, Lord Gnome.
***redacted***redacted***redacted***redacted***redacted***redacted***redacted***redacted***
..for reasons of National Sanity.
I can say no more.
Nabakov,
Is there any reason why you are ‘gobsmacked’ that one side of the debate has persisted for so long, but not ‘gobsmacked’ that the other side also has?
Why should my motives be any more an issue in the discussion than the motives of the government/corporate shills?
Because it’s YOUR issue, daggett.
What are your motives?
You don’t have the appeal to the very simple minded, instantly transparent, progressive Mormon tupperware infomercial salesmanship that comes so naturally to Dr. Jones?
Nor the slide-presenting, eye for a name-and-a-buck, shiftiness of Mr. Gage.
What compels you prattle the half-baked lies and non-truths of such obvious z-grade 21C scientific-schuckster frauds?
They make a handsome living off of it.
What’s in it for you?
(FWIW, Dr. Jones worked FOR the government for many years, so he’s always been tainted goods [and sounds ultra-suspiciously so] in case you hadn’t figured that out already. And Mr. Gage personally rejected his own ridiculous ‘squib’ theory out of hand at least a year ago – so you, messr daggett, come across as a seriously silly individual, endeavouring to persist with it by your misguided self. It should you take you just thirty seconds on google to confirm both these facts.)
“Is there any reason why you are ‘gobsmacked’ that one side of the debate has persisted for so long, but not ‘gobsmacked’ that the other side also has?”
What Nick said.
And also, there’s the fact that you’ve been beaten to a bloody pulp time and time again. For the rest of us, there’s a genuine wonder, verging on awe, every time you pick your carcase up from the canvas and act like nobody’s laid a glove on you.
Mayhap you’ve really taken this message to heart.
[warning, clip may contain synth lines of the utmost awesomeness]
[bonus warning - check out when and how the artist died. Coincidence? pfft!]
If you think I’m a government corporate shill, daggett, you haven’t been reading my comments on LP over the past few years.
Just a chook.
Just moultin’ .
Did someone say molten? Rivers of molten steel? Same guy who said the steel beams would conduct huge amounts of heat away from the burning floors without themselves heating up very much?
Is this guy arguing against himself? Why?
Isn’t he getting good enough arguments from the other posters? Has to argue against HIMSELF to be really pleased with the quality of his opponent?? !!!!!
Back to moultin’ .
Perrrrk perrrrrk perrrrrk
I’d just like to say that these YouTube films have appalling production values and lack a clear narrative. Oh and can I mention that my new book “1001 YouTube Truther Videos to Bore You Shitless” will be in the shops for Christmas? I can, great … ahem:
“My new book ’1001 YouTube Truther YouTube Videos to Bore You Shitless’ will be in the shops for Christmas”. Thanks.
Experience.
Don’t be discouraged, Daggy – you’re still learning the game. It’s tricky.
Awsum pick, Efdeebee. Damn, that girl was fine.
A hard one not to hit the house-party dancefloor to, innit Herr Von Bobbentropp? Definitely her best work, and maybe Timbaland’s too.
Although…
Unhand my comment, you beastly beast!
Er, you kindly moderator I mean.
Thank goodness, this thread is back. For a minute there I thought I might have to do some actual work.
Please, please, keep him going! And the “=” chap, too.
Y’know, I’ve been thinking. What makes you tick as a person, Daggett?
1) We know a fair bit about your views of the Sept 11th attacks.
2) We know you have political aspirations, that clearly stem from a genuine desire to put the world to rights.
3) We know that your state and local political/economic environment is the locus for much of your political outlook, which is to be applauded.
4) We also know that the exercise of global influence by unrepresentative, self-interested powers forms much of the rest of your ontology, and an enquiring and skeptical attitude to such things is likewise laudable. Perhaps you take it too far, but whatevs.
5) We know that you think fractional reserve banking amounts to fraud.
But what do you do for a larf? Surely by now you owe us all a youtube link. Something to give insight into the man behind the obsessive conspiracist?
For your viewing pleasure, here is the most genuinely, non-ironically entertaining thing I’ve ever seen on youtube. For the performance, the extended adlib, the gear porn, and especially the kid up on the iron railing at 0:40 and 4:10.
And here is the most disturbing. I don’t suppose I need explain why.
Mu-uuum!
It happened again!
Dunno ’bout The Equaliser; I suspect he was a one-hit blunder, gone the way of Edward Woodward [wale].
Now, back to the important stuff: trebling the bass.
E-Dub a one hit wonder? What about Callan? And those ads for MDF they’d put on during World Series Cricket? There’s just no pleasing some people.
Well, if you’re gonna treble the bass, then I’s gon’ flip that shit up th’other way [...one time/on yo ass/biatch!].
No-no-so-sorry: check yo self.
Woodward wasn’t the one-hit wonder, Warren*; the “=” dude was, since gawn, much (though hopefully not quite) like the very recently deceased Woodward.
* Say that ten times, quickly.
FDB – Heh. Bud Abbott’s got nothin’ on ole Nate Dogg…
NATE: The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble.
WARREN: Well, then, what’s the treble?
NATE: The treble is the rhythm.
WARREN: No, wait, the rhythm is… what’s the rhythm again?
NATE: The rhythm is the bass.
WARREN: But, b-but… I thought the bass was the bass.
NATE: No, the bass is the treble.
WARREN: So then, the treble is the bass?
NATE: No, the treble is the rhythm.
WARREN: Look, all I want to know is – what’s the treble?
NATE: The treble is the rhythm and the rhythm is the bass. So, logically, the bass has got be…?
WARREN: I don’t know —
NATE/WARREN: Third bass.
It’s a little like the arguments on this thread, even…
And now for something completely different.
Yep, stakin’ tomaters, cookin’ curry, frontin’ & maxin’, and watching the onset of summertime.
I didn’t even have to use my A.K.
I didn’t see any ‘debunker’ obviously from this forum come along to the meeting in Sydney which featured Richard Gage and Steven Jones.
Those in Melbourne should try to get to the meeting tonight at the Trades Hall at 7.00PM.
And those in Brisbane, please try to get along to the Clayfield Bowls Club on Thursday night at 7.00PM?
Richard Gage has particularly asked that ‘debunkers’ attend. (Perhaps, he has no idea thgow comprehensively his case has been debunked and FDB, Bob, Nabakov et al.)
So, here’s your chance to show him up.
@1402
Is he doing any gigs in Perth?
PatrickB,
If he was I would go along. It would be really fun.
I doubt I’ll be there.
Pity tho, especially if Steve jones was there.
I heard a storyabout Jesus visiting aboriginal people thousands of years ago, from an indigenous elder(not a christian btw), and I’d like to talk to him about that.
Richard Gage ….
Well I could say hi from and to a few people I spose. I think a few friends might be going.
but its gonna be 40 degrees on Thursday, I’m not driving for 2 and a half hours in that heat at this stage even if I wasn’t busy. If it is cooler maybe tho.
Why isn’t he speaking in Nimbin?
I’d like to ask him if he thinks there is any chance that the alleged 100 gs that the ISI send Atta came from the ongoing CIA funding of the ISI, but I doubt he has any idea.
Andrew Reynolds,
Perhaps we could start a bogus Perth truther movement and bring him over.
The second last paragraph http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/above, should have read:
—
Interesting that none of the ‘debunkers’, except for two who swear that they can’t possibly be there, seem to have been able to find the courage to attend the meetings and put their arguments to Richard Gage.
Surely, someone amongst the debunkers could have made it to Melbourne earlier tonight or Sydney last weekend, or the Clayfield Bowls Club in Brisbane on Thrusday?
It rather reminds me of how none of those yellow right-wing US journalists, who so savagely attacked Charlie Sheen for calling for a new inquiry, could find the courage to take up his challenge to debate them live on air.
Can anyone here think of a possible reason why nobody was prepared to debate him, given the way the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement has been debunked on this forum — or so people keep on telling us?
—
FDB, being shouted down by group of seeming ignoramuses is not the same as losing the argument or, as you put it, “being beaten to a bloody pulp”. Also, I am not interested in becoming the focus of the discussion, thank you very much, FDB, Nick.
—
Moultin’, you’re an idiot, or pretending to be. Does anyone here need me to explain why?
—
Nick asks:
No, I don’t believe there have been, Nick, except for those that occurred on 9/11.
Now, what is that supposed to prove, other than you are an idiot (of pretending to be) for even trying to use this as an argument?
The rivers of molten steel prove to me that something in the buildings must have made the steel very, very hot and muc hotter than what could have been caused by fires.
—
Bob ranted:
This, of course is a staple debating ploy of Bob’s. Simply dismiss the testimony which does not conform to Bob’s view of 9/11 and/or personally attack those who give that testimony. (Of course, once again, none of the other ‘debunkers’ have shown any curiosity about the link, once Bob has told them what to think, so it looks like once again it is up to me to copy some of the ‘unsubstantiated and uncorroborated garbage’ into this forum:)
Daggett whatever else people say about you, you have some heart.
Sorry, daggett, but it was your argument, not mine. Rivers of molten steel were supposed by you and Gage’s slides to be suggestive of controlled demolition, when, in fact, had they even existed to begin with, they would 100% distinguish from controlled demolition.
What it proves is that you don’t think your arguments through to their logical extent. It’s therefore unsurprising you have no sense of irony.
Since you’ve clearly conceded that Gage did, in fact, personally reject his ‘squib’ theory over a year ago, in the name of honesty, fairness and balance, and to ‘assist future readers’, I expect you’ll see fit to construct a ‘roadmap’ to every single post in this thread in which you presented, or even mentioned, that spammish nonsense as plausible.
“FDB, being shouted down by group of seeming ignoramuses is not the same as losing the argument or, as you put it, “being beaten to a bloody pulp”. ”
No, but being shown time and time again to be relying on an incredibly flimsy and ever-shifting “argument” is. Ignoring difficult and perfectly reasonable questions is. I’m not surprised you can’t see it – that’s my whole point. Most of the wounds are self-inflicted FFS [see rivers of molten steel for e.g.] so of course you’re not aware of it.
But enough about that. What’s your favourite commercial rap/r&b song on youtube?
“Also, I am not interested in becoming the focus of the discussion, thank you very much, FDB, Nick.”
Well it didn’t bother you on the Andrew Bartlett thread – why here then, where the post has been re-named especially for you and your loopy mania?
Nick,
Firstly, I am getting a bit tired of having to demolish arguments which are self-evidently ridiculous, the latest being Moultin’s and yours.
If this forum was an honest attempt by all participants to arrive at the truth, then others, besides myself, would point out what is wrong with such arguments.
But, of course, it is not. The ‘debunkers’ here have shown themselves far more interested in appearing to have won the argument at all costs.
Nick, all your argument ‘proves’ is that in one aspect all three ‘collapses’ differed from standard demoltions.
They differ in that:
1. excessive quantities of explosives were used; and
2. a different form of explosive, not available outside the US military was used.
In the case of the twin towers, the motives for using excessive quantities of explosives is obvious, as I know I explained at least once before above: They must have decided to err on the side of caution to ensure that the job was done properly so that as little as possible of the towers would have been left standing for prying investigators to find evidence of the crime committed.
In the case of WTC 7, whilst there may have been considerably less risk that parts would have beem left standing due to any miscalculation, they may have, nevertheless, chosen to err on the side of caution to ensure that sensitive documentation known to be within the building at the time was thoroughly destroyed.
Whatever the motives may have been is beside the main point, the main point being that the body charged with explaining how that unprecedented engineering disaster failed to account for a significant amount of evidence.
—
Also, whilst we’re on the subject of molten steel.
Bob, whould you mind explaining to us where in comment 988 (in ‘response’ to my earlier post), where you had been “been through” the argument about the rivers of molten steel found underneath where three of the collapsed towers had stood at ground zero, as you claimed in post 1381 in ‘response’ to my post 1366?
Can anyone else? (As if unaware that no-one else, other than andrew and myself, even bother to wade through Bob’s rants.)
All I saw was your attempt to dismiss the video evidence of the stream of molten steel flowing from the South Tower above where Flight 175 struck. (And no, Bob, video evidence of red hot steel is not ‘vibe’ evidence, so, how about ceasing to insult the intelligence of others by pretending that it is?)
But, of course, that is beside the main point. I was discussing the rivers of molten steel found beneath where the three ‘collapsed’ towers stood, and Bob is surely not so stupid as to be incapable of understanding the difference.
To the fact that almost 150 times the amount of iron particles (5.87%) was found in the WTC 7 dust compared to what is normally found (0.04%) in building dust, Bob’s ‘response’ is:
This, is, of course another debating ploy, with which I have become familiar: pretend to be stupid and demand a thorough explanation of each and every aspect of my case (whilst, of course, providing almost no explanation of his own claims).
Bob, if you can’t understand the significance of this massive discrepency, that’s your problem and not mine. However my point was that the fabulous NIST report failed to even mention this fact.
I note that your ostensible response, in which you quoted me quoting NIST admitting that it could not account for the iron rich spheres, did not actually actaully acknowledge that quote.
Instead you provide a link to an article which you claimed had “thoroughly debunked” the “‘iron-rich spheres’ canard”, which is totally contrary to what NIST itself said.
Bob, what is the point of filling up this forum with quotes of mine that you don’t appear to have understood yourself?
The point remains that that supposedly fabulous NIST report, the contents of which Bob has repeatedly failed to articulate on this forum, has systematically ignored a huge body of evidence which stands in complete contradiction to its supposed explanation of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’. The rivers of molten steel and the massive quantities of iron rich spheres which can only be created by intense heat much higher than what could have been created by normal fires are but two of many examples.
—
Nick, I have no idea what you are referring to when you claim that Richard Gage “personally reject[ed] his ’squib’ theory in the name of honesty”.
Please show me where he did. If neither you nor any of the other ‘debunkers’, so willing to smear Richard Gage and Steven Jones on this forum, are prepared to front up to the meetings yourselves to put such arguments to Richard Gage in person, then please tell me what to put to him, in his own words and I will do it on your behalf and let this forum know of his response.
—
Paul Burns,
As far as I am concerned, any intelligent person, who is able to see, who peddles the Big Lie of 9/11 is either a spineless coward or a government/corporate shill. Whatever the reason, such a person is no less culpable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and Central Asia as would be person who peddled the lie of “North Vietnam” “invading” “South Vietnam” culpable for the deaths of millions of Indochinese in the 1960′s and 1970′s.
Barrie Zwicker has written of ostensible left wing types who peddle lies which serve the interests of the US rulers they purport to oppose. These include the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and that there was nothing suspicious about the murder of America’s four most principled, effective and charismatic polical leaders in the 1960′s — JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK. It is Chapter 5 of “Towers of Deception”. I have written of this myself in my article “Noam Chomsky, phony American dissident” of 26 May 09 (referred to also above and which has been visited a lot in recent days because of recently added links to it on a number of other sites).
—
Finally, just to again help others navigate through the spam most recently added this ‘debate’, my most recent posts are at 1408, 1378, , 1367 (by “911=CD”), 1366, 1364, 1351, 1343, 1331. (Of course, others, including Bob, are welcome to do the same, but I think Bob has amply demonstrated that he doesn’t want others to be able to too closely examine his own ‘contributions’ for reasons, I have explained before.)
“The rivers of molten steel prove to me that something in the buildings must have made the steel very, very hot and muc hotter than what could have been caused by fires.”
But what if the fires had caused the steel to become liquid? What would be the effect on the structural integrity of the building? Could this be the cause of the collapse? Could the fires have caused the steel to become less that rigid and brought about the collapse? Could several aggrieved individuals have conspired to bring these fires about? Could they have determined that flying planes into the towers would not only cause the required fires but that the impact would add to the destruction? Is it indeed possible that a commission of enquiry could be set up and that it could conclude that the towers were destroyed as a result of the impact and the fires and that those responsible were a group of aggrieved individuals?
All good questions in my opinion, but where the answers? Are these in fact questions. What type of haircut is the most popular amongst truthers. What kind of cars do they drive? Why do the truther leaders all have qualification in strange disciplines or no qualifications at all? When is a bee not a bee? You see?
Hey Dagget,
You got any photos of the rivers of molten steel. Or any material evidence at all of their existence? All I can find are a bunch of unsubstantiated quotes.
Dags …your ability to delude yourself that you make any sense at all is remarkable. You have consistently put up no evidence, and made no rational arguments to support your cult’s core beliefs. Bob’s rants as you call them have time and time again systematically and entertainingly shown your arguments to be based on, at best, hearsay and wild speculation.
I am also over your cultish views that anyone who dares to disagree with you, who actually has a sane view of the events, is somehow complicit in wars and deaths occurring through US foreign policy. I have expressed sympathy for you before now, I have been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt as an obsessive who needs help…but get over it Dags…you are not fooling anyone. Once again…numerous people that I have invited to view your postings regard them as a ridiculously obvious scam or mentally unhinged and cultish, claiming that you have the high ground in normality is simply…..insane.
“Can anyone else? (As if unaware that no-one else, other than andrew and myself, even bother to wade through Bob’s rants.)”
As Eric says Dags, almost everyone visiting here is doing so to read Bob (amongst others) wittily and effortlessly pointing out your utter wrongness, your indifference to standards of any kind w/r/t your own “evidence”, and the weird churnings of your mind as you circle the drain of credibility.
Actually, that’s a little too kind. But you get the drift.
FDB,
Just to answer your question on Rap / Hip Hop from my point of view – if you are interested. It is very hard to beat the original innovators, so:
The sad thing is I remember this from when it came out.
.
daggett,
Just to make a point here – according to you the “rivers of molten steel” constitute evidence of a CD even though they have happened at no CD ever before, whereas the collapse of a steel framed building also constitutes evidence of a CD because it has happened at a CD before.
Are you the only one here who cannot see the contradiction?
.
In any case, if it was thermite that was used in the “CD” there would have been no “rivers of molten steel” as thermite burns very, very quickly. If it were used to bring down a building (again – never used in a CD before – but let’s not that constitute evidence it would not be) the burn would have been localised and of very short duration. They would not heat up large quantities of steel and melt it.
In fact, then, if there were “rivers” it would further constitute evidence that thermite was not used to cause a CD.
dags,
i don’t think there’s a lot of people wouild query the fact that there was something peculiar about the Kennedy assassinations. The problem is working out exactly what.
As for the remainder of your comment, I will pray for you My Son.
“Finally, just to again help others navigate through the spam most recently added this ‘debate’, my most recent posts are at 1408, 1378, , 1367 (by “911=CD”), 1366, 1364, 1351, 1343, 1331.”
Aw, how sweet and helpful – you want to make it as easy as possible for “others” to read only your own contributions, and avoid the mountains of “spam” (read, patient and detailed rebuttals of your points)
“Of course, others, including Bob, are welcome to do the same, but I think Bob has amply demonstrated that he doesn’t want others to be able to too closely examine his own ‘contributions’ for reasons, I have explained before.)”
No, he just doesn’t fill his posts up with frankly ridiculous links to his own comments. Nobody else does except you Daggy. Do you wonder why?
Most “others” probably think it’s because you’re a dishonest, narcissistic crank.
You got any photos of the rivers of molten steel. Or any material evidence at all of their existence? All I can find are a bunch of unsubstantiated quotes.
There is also nasa thermal imaging that supports the unusually high temperatures under the rubble of WTCs 1, 2, and 7, which was taken days after 9/11.
Here is an officially acknowledged piece of molten metal – it’s no wonder they got rid of the steel evidence as quick as they could:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
Anyone reading this thread who hasn’t seen the collapse of the third highrise on 9/11 should have a look at this short video. Have a look and make up your own mind – controlled demolition or not?
You know, there are some questions in life for which there is only one correct answer:
“Have a look and make up your own mind – controlled demolition or not?”
I dunno – just from the video, impossible for me to tell, because I’m not an expert on controlled demolitions or the construction of WTC7.
Are “rivers of molten steel” evidence of a CD? They would appear more consistent with fires causing gradual collapse by heating up the structural steel.
andrew,
If they are conducting a cover up it would be highly unusual to post evidence (if that is what it is) on a public website.
As for the video – it is clearly further evidence that the interior collapse has already happened – again, look at the north-east corner and sunlight is clearly visible through the gap where the roof and east penthouse should have been. The east penthouse and roof have, therefore, already collapsed.
Thanks for the help. daggett might not like you evidence, though.
I remember that when it came out too Andrew R. I’m not much of a fan of commercial hip hop, especially sinceVanilla Ice played at a club I used to work at back in ’91.
There’s too many evil peddlers here. I think I have a new theory.
Critical mass was responsible for 9/11 wasn’t it. Its all part of their evil plan to make us die laughing.
Seriously tho Dags, I’m tempted to go tomorrow night cos it looks like the weather will be cool enough to make a drive to Brissie bearable. (But I’ll probably stop at rathdowney creek for a swim and get no further.)
Its a free gig tho yeah?
Cos there is no way i’m paying to hear him.
As for the video – it is clearly further evidence that the interior collapse has already happened – again, look at the north-east corner and sunlight is clearly visible through the gap where the roof and east penthouse should have been. The east penthouse and roof have, therefore, already collapsed.
.
But if the whole approx one third of the interior collapsed in a cascade of floors as NIST suggests then why can’t we see visiable signs of that?
Why isn’t the sunlight shining through the whole of the supposedly hollowed out section?
Why does NIST say there is no visiable video evidence of this internal cascade yet you claim to be able to clearly see it?
Anyone reading this thread who hasn’t seen the collapse of the third highrise on 9/11 should have a look at this short video. Have a look and make up your own mind – controlled demolition or not?
No problem, daggett:
http://911blogger.com/node/13263#comment-173535
We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis – particularly the impossible “stationary explosions”. ((Damn – I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what’s happening is that the windows break – and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and “poofs out” – making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary “poofs” would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse – although I can’t understand why the smoke wouldn’t be “billowing” up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.
Yes, please, since you clearly didn’t demolish anything; you just called someone an idiot.
That’s circular reasoning, based on no evidence whatsoever, and replete with material fallacy:
You have no evidence that:
a) there were “rivers of molten steel”.
b) “excessive quantities of explosives”, and “different form of explosives” were installed and used.
Yet you argue that a) necessarily proves b), and b) necessarily proves a).
It’s also based on faulty science. As AR pointed out above, the nature of any explosive/incendiary/thermite/whatever you can name, is to entirely expend its energy within a very short period of time. No matter how extreme a degree of heat it may have generated initially ie. enough to melt/cut steel, it simply does not, and can not, still have the residual energy left to maintain that heat for an extended period, let alone weeks on end, as you’d like to believe. “Rivers of molten steel” weeks later, would not be any kind of evidence that explosives were used.
andrew @ 1420,
“Here is an officially acknowledged piece of molten metal – it’s no wonder they got rid of the steel evidence as quick as they could:”
You’re kidding right? Where is the “molten metal” you speak of? All you have shown us is a piece of eroded metal.
“Have a look, read the reports explaining the collapse from those who studied more than just youtube videos which don’t look like a controlled demolition anyway, and make up your own mind – controlled demolition or not?”
Not.
So if they don’t show any evidence of molten metal then you say there is no evidence, yet if they do show proof of molten metal then you say “If they are conducting a cover up it would be highly unusual to post evidence (if that is what it is) on a public website.
It’s like admitting freefall occured but then not explaining how it occured, especially after they acknowledged that freefall cannot occur in a progressive collapse, but is a sign of an instantanious collapse.
I’ve said it before, some people in NIST know full well that 9/11 was an act of treason and they want no part of the cover-up.
That is why they bring out a preposterous new collapse mechanism for WTC 7.
That is why they admit freefall which proves controlled demolition.
That is why they shat on every “debunker” by removing all the arguments they have commonly used to muddy the waters like the damage from the towers, or the diesel tanks, or horrific fires, or an unusual building design.
Apart from openly declaring it was a controlled demolition, which they would not be allowed to do, they gave us everthing needed to clearly prove it was a controlled demolition.
Anyone reading this thread who hasn’t seen the collapse of the third highrise on 9/11 should have a look at this short video. Have a look and make up your own mind – controlled demolition or not?
I hate to burst your bubble, Andrew, but you’ve once more talked about proof without providing any, and professed a lot of knowledge you simply cannot possibly have.
It’s not a good look.
Have you read the NIST report by the way? It’s pretty thoroughgoing, based on piles of expert opinion, and quite open about the questions left unanswered. There aren’t many of them though.
nick,
That is one set of squibs in the upper corner of WTC 7 that Gage has dropped from his latest DVD, as you can see on his website he still sites as evidence for explosives in the towers “Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front”
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Nearly 1000 architects and engineers now signed up to question 9/11, that’s very impressive.
Work time.
I can’t copy from the document that andrew links to as it’s locked however its conclusion is that while there are some unexplained traces of sulphur on the beams it speculates that they may be due to heating while the steel was on the ground or that the deposits were made prior to the collapse.
As ususal the truther offers minor and tangential observations to back a claim that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition.
“Here is an officially acknowledged piece of molten metal – it’s no wonder they got rid of the steel evidence as quick as they could”
But andrew they didn’t get rid of the steel, it’s the subject of the report you link to and there’s electron microscopy too. Seems like a fairly inept way of concealing evidence.
Of course this is a very lame attempt to provide evidence for “rivers of molten steel”. Another fail, fish in a barrel.
Any chance of some evidence for a conspiracy? Witnesses, material left by the bombers? No I thought not.
“Nearly 1000 architects and engineers now signed up to question 9/11, that’s very impressive.”
That depends on two things:
1) The global population of architects and engineers. I don’t know for sure, but I’d be surprised if it were smaller than a million.
2) What the non-signatory members of that population think about the official explanation for the 9/11 collapses. I don’t know for sure, but I’d be surprised if a very solid majority didn’t accept the official explanation.
Actually, it’s 3 things:
3) What the signatories themselves actually believe. Do they think it’s a controlled demolition by shadowy US govt forces, or are they professionally interested in understanding some aspect of the collapses that they don’t think was adequately explained by the official account? Probably some of each, right?
Wait, there’s a fourth:
4) What the signatories actually know about the evidence.
And a fifth:
5) What the signatories actually know about the architecture and engineering of the WTC.
Oh, okay 6:
6) What the signatories actually know about anything relevant to determining whether any collapse is a CD or not.
So you’ll forgive me if I’m not automatically impressed by you (nearly) producing a number with four figures.
Speaking of hip hop, has anyone considered we may all be looking the looking in the wrong direction when it comes to who was really behind 911?
And “The Coup”!!?! They’re just plain gloating there at all you suckas.
andrew,
What’s this about no modelling of the collapse?….Zden?k Bažant first modelled it two days after the event – and here is a 2007 paper in which he expands on this model, see below.
But firstly, let’s compare the author of this paper….. with man of the moment….. Richard Gage:
from wiki:
“ Zden?k Bažant is the McCormick School Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University’s Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Bažant, who is generally regarded as the world leader in research on scaling in the mechanics of solids,[2] has published over 450 refereed journal articles[3] and is the author of six books. He is an ISI highly cited researcher in Engineering, which places him among the 250 most cited authors in all engineering fields worldwide. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, and is a Registered Structural Engineer in the state of Illinois. He has supervised 60 Ph.D.s in addition to receiving six honorary doctorates of his own (?VUT 1991, TU Karlsruhe 1997, CU Boulder 2000, Politecnico di Milano 2001, INSA Lyon 2004, and TU Vienna 2005).”
Richard Gage….
Well…hhm, I had to Google extensively to find just any information on Richard’s qualifications and architectural experience. I still can’t find where exactly he got his ‘BA’ from – it’s just not listed anywhere on places like wiki etc. Strange that someone who presents as an expert ‘Architect’ speaking on this subject, not just a concerned citizen – would be so shy about disclosing more about his qualifications…. or rather his one qualification, full stop.
Secondly, he was last employed in a small Bay area architectural firm…..and his experience seems to be as Project Architect – which involves a lot of coordination.
Sorry to be a snob, but employed…in a small firm in the burbs of San Fran!! Wow, not exactly setting the Architectural world on fire after 20 years experience there, ol Dicky boy.
And the sort of projects he’s been working on with his last employer – “boxes” – as they say in the industry – a school gym and school class room upgrades and so on. A shopping centre ..how big – no idea….no details.
And then we have a list of projects presumably undertaken with previous employers?…Neither the current firm nor previous firms are even mentioned – why?
All projects listed are vertically challenged and no details are provided, nor of Richard’s role in the projects, for eg: 11 new Classroom buildings at 11 different schools, including remodeling of existing class rooms, Shell Oil Gas Station Remodel, A Lecture Hall building and so on….
It could all be Pritzker Prize winning stuff …….if there was a photo of any project… or any detail of his role…..designer…coordinator…office joke?
And of course whatever his role, everything would need to be certified or engineering plans developed for etc. by a structural engineer because Architects can’t certify projects as we all know – they aren’t qualified….
andrew,
Here is Bažant’s: Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, 2007 paper
Why don’t you read it yourself first… before you rush to some Troofer site to see what other Troofers say about it…and while you are reading it….consider that the person writing this, is a world leader in this field, cited by hundreds of other leading engineers, that this paper has been peer reviewed by the people who lecture, teach and hand out the gongs…..possibly to one of the people on your 9/11 Arch/Eng list, if there are any structural engineers on the list – mostly computing isn’t it??
And peer reviewed and cited by people who engineer 110+ story buildings…Professionals who are paid real money to design really big buildings in real cities!!
You know, if you really believe this stuff, you and daggett should be way too scared to ever enter the CBD or other areas with tall buildings, your lack of faith and respect for the structural engineering community and all the Tall Building Professionals who’ve lined up to support the NIST findings……if you & daggett have any integrity at all, you’d never venture beyond small suburban low rise shopping centres…places where a one storey building possibly co-ordinated in the design phase by Richard Gage, may not fall over or implode, in the case of a terrorist attack…. by a govt. remote controlled shopping trolley.
Read:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
At 1435 comments, it’s probably time for intermission on this thread
And because you can never have too much tortoise sex.*
* Any resemblance to commenters here, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
We now return you to your scheduled stoush.
andrew,
We can see visible signs of the collapse. Have a look at a few of the high-res ones I linked to earlier – you can see it reasonably clearly. You can also see where the collapse has got to, as a few windows are damaged as the collapsing floors hit them. Remember, you are also only able to see the top 18 or so floors of a 47 story building on the videos you are posting – the other 29 or so are also going.
.
Surely someone has posted this before, but it is relevant, combining both the elements on this thread.
911.
Following up 1157, 1159, 1168 – theories in Pakistan about who is behind the recent bombings there. Even the head of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is joining in, though presumably he actually knows better!
Nabakov Boots Riley runs everything.
Didn’t you know that?
(It took nearly 1500 posts for someone to bring that up. People try harder…)
Turtle sex. Thats how the world ends in 2012 isn’t it…
Mitchell, the head of Al Quada in Afghanistan would probably know given his organisations relationship with Xe, well the mob everyone that runs xe used to work for.
The same mob that fund the ISI now and did when they allegedly wired all that cash to those hijackers in Florida.
Fuck I’d even believe the head of Al Quada before I’d believe someone like Stacy Deluke too (Xe spokeswhore who denied the claims recently.) But I first heard that attack denied by Azam Tariq, who is apparantly a rep/spokeperson for the Pakistan Taliban. I would think they would be happy to claim credit for their successes. I’d wonder why they’d bite the hand that feeds them.
I’d also wonder – if 75% of Pakistanis don’t believe the Taliban is responsible for the bombings …
Is the 75% smart or stoopid?
What’s courage got to do with it? I don’t attend LaDoucheite meetings either, and there’s no way I’m going to subsidise Gage’s charlatanry.
Maybe they had other plans?
Conscientious objection to Two and a Half Morons?
Heh. What FDB said.
Yes, please.
Is that right? So where’s the molten steel from 9/11?
What Burt said.
There’s no ploy; it’s an accurate description: the testimony is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and, as disposable and worthless, it is garbage.
How could you be tired? You’ve done no such thing.
But, Daggy, the person with the wrong arguments is you. By your logic, if you were honestly attempting to arrive at the truth you’d be pointing out what’s wrong with your theory. Why aren’t you pointing out your mistakes, Daggy? Why are you obstructing the search for truth?
Huh? What “cost”? We’ve lost a little time, but you’ve lost your dignity. You should ask yourself why.
Honestly, how the fuck can you possibly know this? You have NO evidence for ANY of it. It’s ridiculous.
Yairs, there’s always some ridiculous, convoluted theory to rationalise ex-post. What is absent is EVIDENCE, for any of it.
What evidence?
Gladly, though there were no “rivers of molten steel”. From #988:
No response from Daggy.
A little unkind, there, Daggy, and not a substantiated assertion, neither.
Yes, molten steel. It’s the same issue: you claim steel was melted by nanothermite. It wasn’t. And, yes, dodgy video that does not show molten steel, is “vibe” crap. Also, I resent your assertion that I’ve been insulting something that doesn’t exist.
What difference? It’s the same issue.
It’s not a ploy; I’m genuinely interested in why you think it’s important. Do tell.
I’m supposed to read your mind, am I? Why is it important, Daggy?
No, I merely quoted you. I have no idea whether the statement attributed to Gail Porter is genuine or not. It makes no difference either way, as the issue’s irrelevant.
How is it contrary?
Who says I don’t understand them? You, Mr. Comprehension FAIL?
There’s no “huge body of evidence”. In fact, there’s no evidence. There’s no evidence of “rivers of molten steel”, or “massive quantities of iron rich spheres”, and nor is there any evidence supporting your assertion that they could “only be created by intense heat much higher than what could have been created by normal fires”.
Looking forward to that one, Sveta.
Holy Mass-Murder, Batman!
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, Daggy, or at least have a lie down, you twit.
So your authority is another conspiracy nutter?
And you reckon Noam Chomsky [NOAM CHOMSKY, FFFFFFFS!] is in on the conspiracy?
*takes deep breath*
Daggy, have you read Chomsky? If yes, please look up the meaning of the word “irony”.
You know that’s batshit crazy, right?
No, you haven’t, because I have no problem with anyone examining anything I’ve written.
Clearly you don’t either, as you’ve found nothing wrong with it.
ISTTB @ 1441,
Delighted to add Batman to the mix, so long as he’s on the side of Dr. Who and Torchwood.
OTOH, if he’s teamed up with The Master, I have to say I’d be disillusioned.
The Master is dead Paul.
Sorry to break the news like that, but like the Spliffs, he just couldn’t live with himself.
More fun with plausibility and probability…
According to the Wiki page for Controlled Demolition Inc. (the world’s largest practitioner of CD) the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in March of 2000 required “4,450 pounds of dynamite placed in 5,905 carefully-sited holes and 21.6 miles (34.8 km) of detonation cord inserted over a period of four months…”
Over *21 miles* of detonation cord. Four months’ preparation time. Nearly 6,000 individual holes to be scouted and prepped for the dynamite. That’s almost a third again as many holes, as the four thousand holes discovered by John Lennon in Blackburn, Lancashire.
So on 9/11, Bush’s black-ops Cylons detonated 16 acres and 267 stories’ worth (110 x 2 + 47) of skyscraper — yet on 9/10, the day before, not even 12 miles of detonation cord were noticed or tripped over by anyone; in fact, not a single mile of detonation cord was anywhere to be seen by the 60,000-plus people who worked in the WTC, or the hundreds of thousands of people in lower Manhattan; nor were the thousands of holes packed with explosives noticed by anyone.
CDI does state of the art, best-practice demolitions requiring long prep times, and massive amounts of materials which have to be painstakingly installed on site. Clearly the WTC demolitions were done in an evidently different fashion, one that is not the industry standard, a fashion that in fact has never been seen before, or since; and yet it all came off perfectly, without a hitch, despite the distractions of two nearby jet plane crashes, and the fires and chaos that ensued from them.
Prior to the WTC collapse, the largest building ever demolished by CD was only 25 stories tall (Detroit). The WTC demolition (unprecedented for size and scope, remember) felled literally ten times as many stories , and yet it was done entirely on the sly, and with perfectly invisible materials.
Here is the collapse of the second-tallest building (Fort Worth, TX) ever felled by CD:
Here is the demolition of the tallest (Detroit)…
Note the unmistakeable loudness of the explosions, their successive nature, the sheer number of explosions heard, and the fact that they begin before the buildings can be seen to collapse and continue as they collapse. Now multiply all this by 10. Now increase even that, as daggett insists that still even *more* explosives than strictly necessary were used, in order to destroy the evidence (—but yet also producing even more damning evidence, such as iron-rich spheres and rivers of molten steel. Don’t the 100% error-free first-time users of unprecedented amounts of invisible silent super-secret military nano-thermite know anything at all about science?!?).
Was anything remotely like all this seen or heard by the numerous witnesses and camera crews on 9/11?
There’s an endowed chair in Ptolemaic Epicycles and Silent Invisible Explosives that’s becoming available at Miskatonic University. Applicants should forward their CV and references to Wilbur Whately, c/o Cheney Enterprises.
Bob wrote @ 964:
Then I wrote @ 982
Then Bob wrote @ 988:
Then Bob wrote @ 1372 in response to my comment @ 1366:
Then I wrote @ 1378:
Then Bob wrote @ 1381
Then I wrote @ 1412:
Then Bob wrote @ 1441
So, in Bob’s post 964 the You Tube video “Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing” is good enough to ‘rebut’ what I had written about Oreo Palmer, but by post 1441, that same video had become ‘dodgy video’!
Bob also wrote @ 1441:
I cited the book title, the year, the author and page reference and Bob protests that he has “no idea” if the statement is genuine or not?
What would he have me do in order to have him accept that the quote I have posted is genuine? Perhaps he would have me photo-copy the pages and post them to him? Or perhaps he would insist that I send him a copy.
Up until this point, a book citation has generally been accepted unquestioningly in any debate. However, in this ‘debate’, Bob has apparently assumed the right to disregard at his whim any evidence that is contrary to his case.
The fact that he claims that was was written by a NIST employee about why they chose to ignore the evidence of iron rich spheres in the WTC 7 dust makes no difference and is irrelevant confirms that Bob has not understood my argument or is pretending not to have.
However, the point remains: If he deems my quote irrelevant, then why did he choose to copy it into his post?
… as if this forum has not become bloated enough already? My guess is, as I said all along, is that his intention is not to debate the issue fairly, but rather to overwhelm the useful content of this forum with material that adds almost to this discussion.
My apologies to all for having indulged this troll in our midst for as long as I have. My intention is from now on to ignore him, that is, at least until such time as he apologises to me and to everyone else here for having wasted so much of our time and undertakes to debate the issue fairly in future.
The last sentence in the second last paragraph of my previous post should have been:
My apologies.
Firstly, another correction to my recent post:
The fourth last paragraph should have read:
Again, my apologies.
—
Final appeal to ‘debunkers’ to come to tonight’s meeting at Clayfield
Can I please put in one last pitch for the meeting with Richard Gage at the Clayfield Bowls Club in Brisbane at 7.00PM Tonight, particularly amongst the ‘debunking’ camp?
Richard Gage has particularly appealed to ‘debunkers’ to come to the meeting and put their hard questions to him, and I will personally see to it that any ‘debunker’ who shows up is given that opportunity.
So, why not take this Golden Opprtunity to show up Richard Gage? The whole meeting will be videotaped and made available to anyone.
I will certainly make available to any ‘debunker’ who shows up those part featuring himself/herself and other debunkers and Ricahed Gage’s responses.
Given the way we have all been told that Richard Gage’s case has been thoroughly debunked time and time again on this forum, you will have a ready made YouTube broadcast of Richard Gage’s humiliation.
Surely at least one amongst the ‘debunking’ camp who lives in Brisbane can make it along or if not, surely they know another ‘debunker’ who can make it?
No-one need even pay the $10 voluntary admission (which, itself, would be massively less than the cost, for each attendee, of getting Richard Gage to Brisbane).
@988 Bob asked:
“How do you know it was molten steel, Daggy?”
Why won’t you answer him? As all the evidence suggests (e.g. temperature of fires) it’s not molten steel what evidence do you have that it is?
“My apologies to all for having indulged this troll in our midst for as long as I have.”
Heh.
I’ll pay the 10 bucks entry fee if someone gives me the 30 bucks for fuel I’ll use to get there.
Perrrrk
Perrrrk
Here in Moultin’ Land, we know that something that’s VERY hot can melt. Have to be VERY hot to melt steel.
Yet the man was saying how steel beams would have conducted lots of heat away from the fires (and not got very hot in the process of conduction).
Can’t have it both ways.
Either
1) the fires generated enormous quantities of heat which probably started to make metal components warp, bend or sag or break….. or ….
2) the fires never got hot enough to do so (“magically, boys and girls, the steel beams carried away that nasty, destructive heat and spread it around like love”).
Rivers of molten steel sounds like 2).
The assertion that Towers 1 and 2 could not have collapsed because they were too strong, sounds like 1)
So, mr daggett. Which is it to be? Or do you ultimately hold to (at least) two physically contradictory scenarios? That’s fine, if you’re a mystic or theologian. But you’re not, are you?
Thanks for calling me an idiot. You’re most welcome to your opinion.
perrk, perrrrk
Moultin,
Where I come from chooks make a kind of “b’gerk, b’gerk” noise. Perhaps this is a regional dialect?
Jules @ 1443,
SPOILER.
I gather he’s going to come back to life either at the end of the current Dr. Who’s life, or when we get the new Dr. Who. Think I read it on one of the British websites.
Or did he perish finally under that molten steel cave in the Twin Towers?
Us chooks is indervigibles.
We’se all diff’rent.
But we know illogic when we spots it.
Other day, peckin’ around the pen, was a tiny speck of illogic, nestled under a grass seed. Not nano-illogic, just tiny.
But that’s how it can start yer see: one little bit, leads on to another. Next thing, a struttin’ rooster gets reduced to a feather duster.
Peerrrrk
Moultin’
(never molten)
What’s this about no modelling of the collapse?….Zden?k Bažant first modelled it two days after the event – and here is a 2007 paper in which he expands on this model, see below.
There is no official model, Bazant’s crush-down-crush-up hypothesis is pure fantasy.
Do you realise that his theory requires the smaller and weaker upper block to completely crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower portion, and the upper block must maintain it’s integrety as a single unit until it hits the ground when it gets crushed itself.
So in a collision of the two sections of the buildings the smaller and weaker section completely destroys the bigger and stronger section without suffering any damage until it hits the ground. Quite bizaar and completely incompatible with the video evidence.
To his credit he acknowledges the early tilting of tower 2 (actually he acknowledges only approx half of the 20-25 degrees of tilting in his diagrams) but still suggests that after tilting the upper block remains perfectly centered for the rest of the journey down as it crushes the lower portion.
Also to his credit he acknowledges explosions during the collapse and last I read was trying to model tham as sonic booms.
One thing he does say that is very interesting is that he believes that no experienced structural engineer watching the attacks on 9/11 would have expected the towers to fall, he says they were the most surprising engineering failure since the Tacoma bridge collapse. (I would suggest that WTC 7 is even more surprising, a day of very surprising engineering failures).
“Do you realise that his theory requires the smaller and weaker upper block to completely crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower portion”
Undamaged eh?
Prove it.
Sure. It’s your standard of evidence; it’s not my fault your standard is dodgy.
Found any evidence of molten steel yet?
Hang on. Do you believe everything you read in books, Daggy? The fact that Gage wrote it down in a book doesn’t make it any more reliable than any of his other garbage. You seem to have a fundamental problem with assessing the relative worth of “evidence”. My working assumption is that you’re suffering one of the worst cases of confirmation bias that I’ve ever seen.
The quotation is, you claim, from a book written by Gage, who has been proven to be careless with the facts, and relies upon an email he alleges was received by a third party, one “Shane Geiger”, who, it appears, is a “freelance journalist” for infowars.com, the paranauseum of a bloke called Alex Jones. Alex Jones is described by The New Republic as “the new Glenn Beck”:
So, you know what? Yeah, Daggy, I have my doubts.
Nope – it does neither, and you’ve failed to prove why it’s relevant. Squib.
Nope. I quoted it because it was in a block of text that you wrote, to which I responded. Quoting you doesn’t mean I endorse its veracity.
Heh. Good luck with that, Squibby.
“paranauseum”
No sooner is life breathed into a new word, than it starts getting jiggy and procreating.
I know someone who lives near Uki who wants to go, Jules, but you will need to move quickly. I can be reached through my home page.
paranauseum = one bilious ghost?
I’ve had a few beers Daggett. I dunno if gage would appreciate some of the questions I’d want to ask him, (like how long has he been part of operation mockingbird, or whatever its called now.) Plus my friend who I wanted to catch up with isn’t gonna be there. So thanks for the thought, but …
Anyway, its not like I haven’t been there before. I’ve never been a “believer” in CD, but I thought it was highly likely till about 2004/5. When I came to the conclusion that this its bullshit. Mostly for the reasons that have been pointed out here time and again. I might be wrong about that tho, but nothing has changed my mind yet.
I don’t “believe” the official story.
I don’t “believe” that there is more to the official story either, alot more involving a fair chunk of criminal and also treasonous complicity.
But I think its highly likely. I think its about the same probability the IPCC ascribes to AGW.
Ok discounting my own confirmation bias its probably still well over 50%.
I know people without the same confirmation bias who think that tho (over 50% liklihood). They don’t really give a fuck tho cos they have more relevent things to deal with. Like me.
But they don’t have the same confirmation bias. Of course none of this means anything to you or anyone else, cos its some anonymouse typing shit on the internet. (not that anon, but I’m not putting my full name up here am I, or any access to it. Unlike you I must say.)
I’ve invested more energy into thinking about 9/11 since this thread started than I have in years, and it isn’t that much, cos in the meantime nothing really new has come out, some things have certainly evolved tho.
Its dangerous to take any particular world view you have too seriously. If you do your braiin starts to calcify. You start to warp reality to fit your views, and you adjust your beliefs to fit your behaviour, which becomes increasing dogmatic and defensive. You start to identify your belief system with a metaphorical territory that has to be defended, and all sorts of emotions come into play.
It becomes really hard to think rationally.
Now i’m not saying thinking rationally is any better than thinking emotionally as such.
But when it comes to evaluating symbols for coherence and logic, rationality is really important, and emotion gets in the way.
So be careful with your brain, cos your entire experience of 9/11 as an inside job is based on the way your are interpreting symbols that someone else has constructed, primarily with the goal of getting you to think a certain way. And you are being emotional about it not rational.
You should always be sus when you come across a symbolic construct someone has created with the aim of getting you to think a certain way. Especially if you are a conspiracy theorist.
I hope you read this before you see Gage and reflect on it while he’s doing his presentation.
What is he trying to make you think, and why?
jules 1439: Actually I have no real evidence that the CIA had much of a relationship with al Qaeda – or rather its 1980s precursor. The CIA provided American money, bin Laden provided Arab mujahideen, and both were funneled into Afghanistan by the ISI. One has to suppose some degree of Saudi-American strategic coordination, too. But it’s unclear to me how collegial or controlled this was. Most of the fighting was done by Afghans, not by the foreign Muslim volunteers, and by 1989 the Russians were leaving and the Cold War was ending. The future leaders of al Qaeda (like Yazid, currently in charge of AQ in Afghanistan) came from groups like Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad, who were never friends of America.
As for why the Pakistani Taliban would deny involvement in some attacks… an attack on an army base, and an attack on a Shia mosque, have very different PR associated with them. Also, they may actually be carried out by different factions. If you need to dissociate yourself from what the extremist idiots are doing, but also still have a use for them on the battlefield, it’s simpler to say that the worst excesses are actually psy-ops by Crusaders and Jews. But I’m just speculating, I have not seriously tried to figure out exactly who is doing what in Pakistan’s war on terror.
“I have not seriously tried to figure out exactly who is doing what in Pakistan’s war on terror.”
Yeah. Fair enough too. It really is a complicated mess. Aside from the West/East divide there’s all sorts of bullshit. Inter Islamic politics. Some Muslims consider Zawahiri’s IJ/MB cadre to be Jewish puppets, doing their schtick for the Jews. But as I understand it the MB were fanatically anti semetic, to the point of forming alliances with Nazis in their early days. I find it hard to understand how people could even draw that conclusion. Mind you they are there we are here and there’s where the action is.
It would be a lot easier to dismiss those sort of claims tho if stuff like that incident with the two british SAS dudes in Iraq several years ago hadn’t happened. (I dunno if you guys remember the two SAS (British) troopers who were caught and arrested by Iraqi cops, allegedly driving a wired car full of explosives, dressed as arabs. They were broken out of an Iraqi jail by the british military, probably back in 04/05.)
And if they weren’t talking about Blackwater/Xe, who really are dodgy. (And co incidently don’t hold the PPPS contracts for the area where that attack happened.) You know, maybe it was something to do with commercial competition and had absolutely nothing to do with the Taliban vs ISI.
And the rumours are that the ISI is a divided organisation anyway. There may be elements of the ISI that oppose the Taliban and are loyal to the army, and there may be those not loyal, with alliances or deeper connections to the Taliban. (I think thats actually the case, almost or exactly like 2 seperate ISIs.)
And as you said that doesn’t take into account what different factions of the Taliban do either. And in that case it could be disassociating yourself from competing factions, or genuinely not knowing what they were up to.
At the moment Blackwater/Xe have had some rather serious nasty accusations made against them … been drinking beer and rum since this arvo so I can’t remember the details right now. Thats one of the many many reasons I’m sus on them.
But its unlikely the Taliban and Al Quaeda are ignorant or all that. They could be taking advantage of someone elses dodginess… obviously there are people who are prepared to think the worst of Xe. I am one.
I doubt I’m the only one either, and if I were running the Taliban (instead of sitting here distrusting corporate mercenaries) I’d certainly take advantage of that where I could.
the smaller and weaker upper block… huh? the larger, stronger, undamaged block huh? and the weaker block destroys the bigger & stronger block …huh?
andrew, it’s not a WWF matchup. Jeebus.
As you know two troofers were given space in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct 2008, to respond in detail to Bazant’s paper.
And here is the link to the pages with the 2 x Troofers objections/claims, followed by Bazant’s considered and polite, while slightly strained response to both:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC20Discussions20Replies.pdf
One suspects the Journal undertook this exercise to put on record that “Troofer objections” were not only acknowledged… but published, and then addressed calmly and fulsomely. That is… no conspiracy to suppress the Troof…
However, it’s a wee bit embarrassing to see in a Journal of standing, just how out of depth they both are. Both misinterpret, or rather fail to understand the model of progressive collapse described by Bazant, and… in the case of Troofer James Gourley his understanding of structural engineering is so poor, that 1st term, 1st Year Textbook material mechanics needs to be addressed…
Bazants begins his response to Gourley thus:
I suggest that you read Bazant’s response…but if you are finding it too difficult to understand…. here is the model in lay terms….
…The building failed, yeah, and wow, not coincidentally, exactly where the planes had smashed in!! and just as the NIST report modelled up…..then once these local floors/trusses/core columns etc couldn’t cope no more and gave way, the “intact” upper section of the building fell thru onto the next floor which then failed, cause it weren’t designed to have the upper section of the building falling onto it, yeah?… and then the next floor and so on (crush down, man!!) until the bottom section of the building and this thing called earth, goes boom..crush up, man!!..and smashy, pulverizing, nasty mess. The end.
The model doesn’t need to be proved by a world expert in structural engineering to be believable, these models are purely for other building professionals….one only needs to have seen or watched any video of the collapse.
andrew, why don’t you try not rushing straight off to Troofer Central to get your response…. and for something completely different…why don’t you try to locate some third party confirmation or peer criticism of Bazant from a reputable engineering site/organisation/faculty etc, nothing related to Troofers?
Hey Jo,
That link didn’t work for me. And I was looking forward to a bit of debunking pron.
Here ya go, JM:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf
jo,
Which takes us back to a point waaaaaaay up the thread – WTC towers 1 and 2 were not designed to survive the impact of fully laden and fueled modern airliners going at high speed. The fact they did for as long as they did, allowing many of the people in the building to escape shows how strong they were – not how much they had been weakened.
WTCs 3 through 7 were also not designed to survive the collapse of WTCs 1 and 2 on top of them and, in particular, WTC 7 was not designed to survive having WTCs 1 and 2 collapse, a great gash in its side and fires buring in it for hours.
I think that sums it up nicely.
Since reality is bad enough, I hope by commenting on this thread I haven’t encouraged anybody to lose touch with it.
How in touch other people are with reality is their responsibility Paul, not yours.
BTW I think the LHC goes online today (again, or up to full power or whatever it is.) maybe Torchwood will be live from Switzerland tonight…
Jo,
With all your profound technical knowledge of the collapse of the Twin Towers, what’s your excuse for not showing up to the meeting with Richard Gage last night, or to the meetings in Sydney and Melbourne?
In spite of the ample notice given by me on this forum and elsewhere, not one ‘debunker’ bothered to show up to any of the meetings to confront Richard Gage or Steven Jones. I would have thought that to do so would have required far less courage than it would have taken than for those employees of Ace Elevator Company to assist the rescue efforts on 9/11 (even assuming they were not privy to knowledge about what was in store for those inside the Twin Towers — see below), but still not one debunker uttered a peep against Richard Gage. The only one who came close was myself, who put one of Bob’s point about Abolhassan Astaneh to Richard Gage.
At the start of the meeting in Brisbane, 5 attendees indicated they accepted the official explanation of 9/11 whilst 29 were unsure. By the end of the night no-one believed the official account and only one of the attendees indicated that he/she remained unsure.
It’s also striking that Jo and all the other of this forum’s ‘debunkers’ seem to have found the courage to show their faces on the then concurrently running forum “When literature PhDs attack!” (referred to in my post @ 712). On that forum ‘sceptic’ and ‘debunker’ Richard Hughes appears to have been, meataphorically speaking, hung, drawn and quartered by (Tony Szamboti, who has, incidentally, been subject to ad hominmm attacks on this forum).
Apparently to save Richard Hughes from further humiliation, the forum discussion was closed by the site’s administrator on 2 November. So, it looks as if my praise of the site administrator was mistaken, BTW. The label Young “Australian Skeptics” is every bit as much a misnomer as the label ‘Skeptic’ that Michael Shermer gives to his site in the US.
In spite of a specific invitation given to that sites ‘debunkers’ by John Bursill of 9/11 Oz, neither Richard Hughes, nor any of that forums ‘debunkers’ could find the courage to attend the meetings either.
Another 9/11 ‘debanker’, who similarly appears to lacks the courage of his convictions, is Australian fake left journalist Phillip Adams.
Brisbane Lawyer James O’Neill has repeatedly offered to Phillip Adams to pay for his return air fare to anywhere in Australia so that he can debate with him about 9/11.
Adams has ignored that offer, but, of course that does not prevent Adams from launching intellectually cowardly attacks on the 9/11 Truth Movement, seemingly at every opportune moment.
About a month ago, I heard him tell his audience on Late Night Live:
Of course, I consider that statement literally true, but Adams’ intention was clearly to make his audience see the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement as ridiculous without having to confront its arguments directly.
So there appears to be a common streak of cowardice that runs throgh the whole of the ‘debunking’ camp, from this forum, through a large number of phony progressive intellctuals, right across to the likes of Bill O’Reilly in the US who failed to accept Charlie Sheen’s challenge to debate 9/11 live.
Jo wrote @ 700:
Then adrian wrote @ 701
Then FDB wrote @ 704
Then Ambigulous wrote @ 706
Then Nick wrote @ 707
From statement by Marc R. Putman, member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
From The Twin Towers Gallery of Evidence on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site:
From Profile: ACE Elevator on the History Commons web site.
So, up to 200 people died on 11 September 2001, because the employees of the Ace Elevator company fled the scene.
In spite of their bizarre and seemingly cowardly behaviour none were never investigated by NIST or the 9/11 Commission.
The single exception to the almost complete media blackout of the tour by Richard Gage and Steven Jones was an interview conducted by Amanda Kelleher and Brendan Jones Yesterday on Sydney’s Classic Hits WSFM 101.7 Radio Station. They condducted a poll:
When I checked a poll, yesterday afternoon, (roughly) 93.5% agreed with the first statment and only 6.5% agreed with the second.
—
I see the discussion is again being led around in circles, this time about Bazant’s hypothesis. In order to stop that here are some of those posts:
661 by daggett, 670 by Jo, 674 by daggett, 675 by Nick, 676 by daggett, 682 by Nick, 683 by Bob, 693 by daggett, by Bob, 700 by Jo, 703 by daggett, 709 by Bob, 712 by daggett (contains reference to discussion by ‘debunker’ Richard Hughes of article by Tony Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen), 713 by Bob, 714 by daggett, etc.
What???…nobody from this thread went to your cult gathering???? How odd Dagsterman, that intelligent people would miss the opportunity to hear an internationally recognized troof guru recite his ritual incantations? Perhaps they aren’t convinced enough by the cults’ marketing campaign? Try a different colour on the brochures maybe??
“So, up to 200 people died on 11 September 2001, because the employees of the Ace Elevator company fled the scene.”
In spite of their bizarre and seemingly cowardly behaviour none were never investigated by NIST or the 9/11 Commission.”
But, of course, accusing elevator company employees (who’re apparently now supposed to double as rescue workers) of mass-murder without *a shred of evidence*, isn’t bizarre or cowardly behaviour at all in your twisted world view, daggett.
I think that’s arguably the lowest you’ve stooped so far on this thread.
“With all your profound technical knowledge of the collapse of the Twin Towers, what’s your excuse for not showing up to the meeting with Richard Gage last night, or to the meetings in Sydney and Melbourne?”
How does this snark help you case Dagget? Looks to me like you’ve lost the plot this time. BTW that piece from the engineering journal was a corker. Those truthers got a right “slap upside the head” as out American cousins so colourfully put it.
“So, up to 200 people died on 11 September 2001, because the employees of the Ace Elevator company fled the scene.”
What a worm you are Dagget. You accuse people of being cowards who were in extreme peril and who left the scene. Do you know if they were ordered to do so? Do you know if there was any debate about the risks of trying to rescue people versus the possibility of success? What a cowardly grub you are, speculating from within of your cloud if ignorance about the motivations of others who have been placed in a situation that you cannot even being to imagination. Grow a brain dickhead.
I note Bob has failed to acknowledge my argument about the stupidity of quoting, in entirety, the post to which he is responding. I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
No, Bob, I never claimed that you were endorsing its vericity, I asked why you included blocks of text you, yourself had deemed irrelevant.
What Bob pretends not to understand is if everyone adopted his practice, then the size of this forum would grow at an exponential rate. For Bob, to argue that he is doing so in order that my quotes not be taken out of context is clearly disingenuous. Overloading the reader, not to mention, this web-site, the Internet and the users’ computers, with information ends up, in practice, for most users having the same effect as never referring directly to the words of your opponent.
For these reasons, amongst others, those who are debating this subject with honest intentions, do not do this.
In spite of my complaints going back to at least post 714, Bob continues to needlessly bloat this forum. I see no explanation for this other than that it is his intention to deliberately disrupt this discussion, and, moreover because none of the other ‘debunkers’ have complained, and I can also assume that that suits them also.
—
Bob’s essential ‘debating’ technique, in common with Patrick, appears to be to errect what he deems to be acceptable standards of evidence and disregard anything he deems not to meet those standards. Then at his whim, he will raise those standards even higher.
Note his failure to acknowledge or respond to my question:
Bob’s ‘response’ was:
Note how Bob didn’t even get the name of the author right, in spite of him having copied the complete citation into his previous post.
The author was David Ray Griffin, Bob and not Richard Gage. What further confirmation does anyone here need that he is bone lazy, if not something even worse?
In any case, Bob, try to understand that you asserting that Richard Gage “has been proven to be careless with the facts” no more makes it true than if I were to assert that Bazant was careless with the facts. It is your opinion and remains your opinion until such time as you can substantiate your opinion with evidence.
Clearly if every on-line forum participant were required abide by Bob’s new even higher acceptable standards of evidence, then pacitcally every forum discussion in the world would grind to a halt in minutes.
Luckily for Bob, as he produces so little evidence, himself, in support of his own case, his newly mandated stratospherically high benchmarks are unlikely to pose any difficulty to him continuing to participate in this forum in the way he has up until now.
Oh FFS daggett just STFU
Thank you for raising my post @ 682 again, daggett.
From everything I’d read then, I believed Szamboti stuck to his arguments by physics (for right or wrong), and avoided accusing all and sundry of conspirational mass-murder, based on nothing but the highly offensive and irresponsible conjecturing of your troofer network.
After just now reading this here, I hastily withdraw any and all credit that I (very) wrongly attributed to him.
I note howls of apparent indignation by forum participants, apparently more offended by my description of the behaviour of employees of the Ace Elevator company as “bizarre and seemingly cowardly” than they are at the knowledge that probably at least 200 died because they fled the scenes.
Let’s just think of what must have happened on that day.
One group of people, who were in a position to help save lives on that day, instead, apparently because they feared for their own safety, left the scene, without making any apparent attempt to dissuade the other emergency workers from putting themselves at risk.
So, the firefighters where largely unable to help people who were trapped in the lifts of towere and to generally guide the firefighters through the towers.
As USA Today pointed out, until 11 September 2001, it was normal practice for elevator mechanics to participate in rescue efforts.
And it just happens that that same group had the necessary access over the previous 9 months to plant the necessary demolition explosives.
How is it that that strikes almost no-one else here as suspicious?
“How is it that that strikes almost no-one else here as suspicious?”
I’ll take that one: because we aren’t morons.
“Bob’s essential ‘debating’ technique, in common with Patrick, appears to be to errect what he deems to be acceptable standards of evidence and disregard anything he deems not to meet those standards. Then at his whim, he will raise those standards even higher.”
Perhaps we shoud, rewrite that as:
[Dagget'ss] essential ‘debating’ technique, in common with [andrew], appears to be to [present no evidence that is by any standard acceptable] and [disregard anything that total and completely renders his position null and void]. Then [when he is bereft of civilised discourse he resorts to frenzied and cowardly insults, raising his crazed and infantile rhetoric] even higher.
Is that acceptable to all? BTW, did you get that thing I sent ya?
daggett,
So you are specifically alleging that the “Ace Elevator Company” people were the ones that planted the (alleged) explosives in the towers, knowing that the towers were going to be hit by aircraft and then, when it happened, fled the scene. Let’s be clear here – you are alleging that they are mass-murders and participants in one of the biggest conspiracies known – a false flag operation designed to get the US into a couple of wars. That they intentionally participated in the murder of the people they would see every day.
Is that what you are saying?
“at least 200 died because they fled the scenes.”
There you again, daggett.
You have no fucking clue that “200 died *because* they fled the scenes”, yet you categorically made the accusation.
“the other emergency workers”
Elevator mechanics are not “emergency workers”, regardless of what role they may have played in previous, and much less severe, building disasters. They are building workers, who can, in specific situations, potentially play a useful and valuable role. However, they’ve accepted no moral obligation whatsoever to lay their own lives on the line to save other people whose lives are also threatened in a disaster.
“So, the firefighters where largely unable to help people who were trapped in the lifts of towere and to generally guide the firefighters through the towers.”
That is absolute bulldust. You’ve 100% induced and inferred it from this paragraph of your USA Today article:
To take that quote, and spuriously transform it into *your account* of what *must* have happened on the day of 9/11, is rabid nonsense.
To try to use it to accuse and frame elevator company employees, many of whom according to your article, “the same men involved in the rescues in 1993″, of cowardice and/or conspirational mass-murder, is simply disgusting.
You’re accusing the elevator mechanics of either a) cowardice or b) murder. Can’t have it both ways, daggett, and you can’t have either without evidence of some kind.
You should be ashamed of yoursef, or sued for defamation.
“sued for defamation.”
I’ll take the case!
Hey Liam, I think you mentioned it a few month ago. What’s the term used for the beat from Rock’n Roll Part 2? I’m having a massive mental blank.
I’ll repeat my earlier question, Daggy, which you declined to answer: what does courage have to do with it?
What others said. Despicable, Daggy.
So, you accuse others of leading the discussion in circles and your response is to link back to your comments that were debunked hundreds of comments ago?
Did you ever work out what “hypocrisy” really means, Daggy?
I didn’t say you had claimed so. I was merely clarifying my position, as, indeed, at #1412, you questioned why I would quote the text without, as you put it, “acknowledging” it. As my later response that you quote above shows, I did explain why I quoted the whole text.
The fact that I consider the alleged statement from NIST to be irrelevant doesn’t mean I think the body of text which happens to contain that quote to be irrelevant, else I wouldn’t have responded to it. Hope that helps.
There’s that hypocrisy again, and, no, it is not disingenuous of me. I assure you that I am not quoting you just to bloat this thread.
As I’ve noted before, your professed concern for the length and bloated nature of this thread is severely undercut by your determination to dump copious links into it. Further, I’ve referred directly to what you’ve said, and debunked it. There’s no evasion on MY part, Daggy.
Rubbish. Your premise is flawed.
Or that you’re a hypocritical cry-baby.
Nope. Wrong again. Forget standards, Daggy, your problem is that you haven’t produced ANY EVIDENCE.
Whoops. Sorry about that, Daggy – mixed my nuts. Doesn’t change the point, though, which is that the provenance of the alleged NIST statement is dubious, regardless of whether it’s in a book or published on the web. Furthermore, as your quotation of my response clearly shows, I obviously DID respond to your whinge.
It’s been copiously substantiated, Daggy. The bulk – if not the entirety – of your “case” presented on this thread is recycled from their talking points, and those points have been thoroughly debunked on this thread, as they have been elsewhere. Gage, and Griffin, have got numerous facts wrong, facts that they could have checked very easily if they’d been critical with the evidence. They weren’t, because they were careless. Much as you have been in swallowing their tripe.
Only if you were involved, Daggy. You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that it is your unwillingness to accept the facts, and consequent dumping into this thread of conspiracy bunk, that is bloating this thread, not I.
Ha! I’ve presented numerous pieces of evidence. Moreover, unlike yours, mine stand up to scrutiny.
May I suggest, since this thread has come to promise potentially limitless entertainment value, that it be split into three or four separate segments so that at least it will load faster?
btw, I’m gratified to see (@ #1482) that the Hippo Hurricane Howler is not unknown in the Antipodes.
# 1480: “How is it that that strikes almost no-one else here as suspicious?”
Dude, I’m an agoraphobic. Practically *EVERYTHING* strikes me as suspicious. You have no idea. OTOH, I’m aware that it’s really my own problem, not the world’s. How is it that this doesn’t strike you as familiar?
So: now our conspiracy also includes several dozen rank-and-file, mid-level-salary mechanic employees of a well-known elevator company: guys who live in Queens, basically, or maybe Jersey, and who on average were probably working for the elevator company for quite a while before Bush got elected; guys who don’t know what “PNAC” refers to, or what a neocon is; the kind of guys who would unsurprisingly be friends with, oh, ya know, cops and firemen; guys who, in other words, are 100% good reliable material for a conspiracy to kill cops and firemen for the dark purposes of PNAC.
…That is, *on top of* the legions of airline workers, photo and security-video falsifiers, remote-control airline fliers, voice-morphing fake phone-call tech specialists, flight-manifest-and-family-background researchers, and black-ops Cylons who secretly installed the miles and miles and miles of det cord inside the Towers over a period of months, while pretending to be doing elevator upgrades (note that “elevator repairman” and “installer of silent invisible super-secret military nano-thermite” are two different skill sets – you can’t get the boys from Ace to just switch over in a month or two).
This conspiracy gets larger by the day. Consider the size of Bush/Cheney’s hush-money payroll – no wonder Group Dubya’s deficits were exploding (or at least, what we *used* to think of as exploding).
Man, I gotta go take my pills.
Perhaps that is the real cause of the US federal deficit – the payoffs. It has been ballooning since then. Hmmmm.
Andrew Reynolds @ 1483,
As you well know, a good deal has been made of questions put to me about who was in a position to plant demolition explosions. The assertion that no-one was has been held up as confirmation that explosives could not have been planted in the building and from that it has followed that my whole case has been debunked.
Well, I have shown that there was indeed a group of people who had easy access to most of the core columns for 9 months, which is only three months less than the 12 month figure that one expert cited as the time necessary to plant and wire the explosives. On the day of 11 September 2001 that whole group to a man behaved exactly as you would expect a group with prior knowledge that the buildings were about to be blown up to behave.
On top of that they act to a man contrary to the selfless heroism displayed around them both by people who were employed to put their lives at risk to help others and people who were not. Had just a few of them behaved, instead, like those around them and gone back into the towers, or, indeed, had never left the towers in the first place, many who lost their lives would have stood a chance. Of course, some of those men may well have died as a result, but unless they had inside knowledge they had no more reason to expect that they would than did Oreo Palmer, Ronald Bucca and hundreds of other rescue workers.
In William Rodriguez’s recounting of the events of the day he told of his anguish at hearing the cries for help of those trapped in the lifts that he was unable to help. Whether the figure would be 200 or more or less, Nick and I am not able to say, so to a point you are correct.
Andrew Reynolds demands to know if I am accusing the employees of the Ace Elevator Company of being complicit in the crime of 9/11. Andrew, I am not going to make any allegations which I am unable to prove. Why would you ask me to do that?
What I have said is that their behaviour struck me as extremely suspicious. How can it not also strike you as extremely suspicious?
Given the large number of eyewitness accounts of explosions as well of the video and physical evidence of explosions (nothwithstanding the head-in-the-sand refusal of the ‘debunkers’ on this forum to acknowledge it as such), then the employees should have been investigated in any proper investigation of 9/11, but they were not.
—
Nick wrote:
Nick is pretending here to not grasp the critical difference between the rescues of 1993 and 2001. If the elevator workers had inside knowledge that the towers were going to be blown up in 2001, then it is conceivable that they would have had inside knowledge in 1993, that they would not.
However, whether or not they would that they would be putting themselves at grave risk in 1993, the fact that they did is a good indication of what was expected of them in emergencies, whatever their terms of employment stated.
Anyhow, I am glad to see that you have effectively called me disgusting.
At least, now, I need no longer feel constrained from expressing my own feelings towards you.
I hope one day, Nick, you are forced to account for your despicable behaviour on this forum before people like William Rodriguez, and Ellen Mariani who have had the backbone and courage to speak the truth against the criminal Government of George W Bush, and who have been smeared on this forum by other equally despicable creeps.
One day I hope you are made to account for your behaviour before the millions of people in the Middle East and Central Asia who have lost family members and friends or who have been maimed or lost their homes because of the Big Lie of 9/11 that you are knowingly helping to peddle.
I know you are far too smart to be capable of believing the rubbish that you have written here.
Bob wrote 1488,
Firstly, it is under dispute whether or not my arguments were debunked. For my part, I would rather argue about the issue of 9/11 than get sidetracked into an argument about who won the argument, or who won the argument about who won the argument, etc.
Secondly, how can it be unhelpful to others to point out where an issue currently under discussion has been discussed earlier, especially given that I have linked to the posts of others as well as my own? Surely it can only help avoid repetition in this discussion of which there has surely been too much already.
Bob continued:
Who do you think you are fooling, Bob?
Imagine if I turned around and fully quoted your post in response to mine, including my quoting you. The size o fthis forum would grow at an exponential rate.
What you do is entirely unnecessary. Anyone needing to check the complete context need only look at the original post. Learning how to include internal links as I do would make that far easier.
But, of course, making it easier for others to follow this argument would not suit your purposes, would it Bob?
Bob wrote:
What tripe! My links are there to help others go directly to other posts directly relevant to my current post. That is vastly less than the space that would be required to include much or all of the content of those posts in my current. If you had done the same, then your professed concern that I not be taken out of context could easily be addressed.
Bob continued:
Once, again, Bob states as if it were an established fact that I have been ‘debunked’. It is instructive that Bob and others choose to spill so much electronic ink proclaiming that they have won the argument. For my part I choose to argue my case and leave it to others to judge.
Bob wrote:
I consider eyewitness testimony, photographs, videos and physical samples to be evidence, and I have produced vastly more of that than you have (see below).
Bob wrote:
It has not, Bob. Show us where. Tell me the post numbers.
Bob wrote:
Again, this is hotly disputed and, as I have written before, I would rather discuss 9/11 than get sidetracked into the stupid sort of discussion that would ensue if I responded to this.
Bob wrote:
What I ‘dump’ into this forum are my own carefully thought out and researched ideas with supporting evidence and those of others. If the posts seem large, it is because it takes far more effort to demolish specious arguments than it does to come up with them in the first place, particularly when they come from so many quarters.
—
I might now turn my attention to an example of Bob’s ‘debunking’ of my evidence, that FDB insists is brilliant and which he insists he reads assiduously. In post 1440 Bob ostensibly debunked the evidence of rivers of molten steel that I had posted in 1408.
The first thing that should be pointed out is that the quotes were only some of those that were listed on that page linked to from post 1366.
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
How was it taken out of context? Had he ever retracted what he said? As Richard Gage pointed out at the meeting on Thursday night, a good many engineers are under pressure not to publicly disagree with the official explanation of the WTC collapses. Asteneh’s statment of acceptance of the official explanation does not negate his testimony of having seen molten steel.
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Are you saying Chaplain Herb Trimpe made this up?
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Look at the photos on the same page. What about the thermal sattelite images? Why can’t similar testimony from others, above and below be considered ‘corroborating evidence’?
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
He looks real enough to me on the video link. Do you think he made it up?
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
His name is William Langewiesche. There is a link to an article about him in Atlantic Monthly.
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
The linked article doesn’t say. I can only assume that if he did not observe it personally he would have been told of it by others whom he trusted. Why would he make it up?
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Well, I would have thought he would have known molten steel when he saw it. Do you think he would have made it up?
So, Bob’s ‘debunking’ technique largely consists of him being too lazy to follow links on top of a complete lack of curiosity. If I don’t put hand every piece of corroborating evidence to him on a plate, he makes no effort to look for it himself and assumes that it cannot exist.
Even if Bob has good reason to doubt what all these witnesses have said, the fact that so many have given testimony completely contrary to the official explanation would surely be a sign that something is strange and would warrant further investigation.
Surely there can be no justification for this evidence not even being included in the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports.
Occasaionally I can be a little fey. Consequentrly I usually try and make allowances for people who are totally out of touch with reality, knowing its one of those things that creeps up on you. But this thread, really, fellows, is finally descending into utter and comnplete madness.
Which prompts me to ask the following question, to which the answer is undoubtedly yes.
Were the lift drivers flying the planes that crashed into the WTC, or did the planes in fact not exist?
In other words was 9/11 a mass world hallucination planed by GWB, who had the CIA drop some really powerful hallucinogen into ALL the world’s water supply in sufficient quantity to make us all hallucinate?
That is the only credible explanation as to why the WTC collapsed. One day we wake up and realise the Towers are still there and we’ve all been conned.
Well, the above can’t be any madder than any of the other out-there explanations proposed, can it?
Paul, the Troof is perfectly simple and doesn’t require such florid confabulations. Please allow me to clarify…
What few people realise is that the Wall Street bankers who developed the credit default swaps that crashed the global credit markets are actually the most committed to finding the Troof. Because 9/11 happenned on their doorstep, you know, and they’re waaaay to smart to accept the piffling evidence of the Commissions.
Here’s how it works:
1) Uncovering the Troof requires masses and masses of investigative time.
2) This requires an army of unemployed investigators with nothing else to do.
3) Develop toxic “assets” and crash the economy, freeing up about 9.8% of the US workforce to investigate the Troof.
4) Receive your $800 billion bailout.
5) PROFIT!!!
Those Wall Street guys sure were playing the long game, huh!? But thanks to their foresight in freeing up so much of America’s time, we now have masses of people who can commit 100% of their energies to finding the Troof, which is, may I remind you, “out there”.
Indeed. And that powerful hallucinogen will be revealed in due course by daggett as being nothing less than secret military nanofluoride introduced into our water supplies in a vast conspiracy masterminded by the Dental Industrial Complex of which Anna Bligh is a dupe and shill.
He’s nailed the lift company so why not the dental profession?
So you admit you can’t prove the employees of Ace Elevator Company were complicit in 9/11.
Why then are you smearing them with snide insinuations?
Since when is evacuating a burning building “extremely suspicious”?
Except you just have, of course.
You do know what a circle is, Daggy, don’t you? How is repetitively referring back to previous comments NOT repetitive?
I don’t think I’m fooling anyone, Daggy – that’s the point. You accused me of being “disingenuous”; I suggest you look up the meaning of the word before you use it again.
The size of this “forum”, Daggy, is a function of the blather you put here. If you’re concerned about its size, I suggest you write less.
I know how to link, Daggy, as should be clear by now. I don’t usually link to previous comments because providing the comment number is sufficient reference and because: a) I suspect that links slow download far more than simple text; and b) multiple links trip the spam monitor, which imposes on the admin and slows down the comment.
I suggest – and I’m being totally genuine here – that you consider simply numbering the comments you want to refer to, and don’t link them.
I fail to see how quoting the text to which I’m responding makes it harder for others to follow the argument. If anything, it’s the opposite.
I can tell you, however, that the sheer volume of links you’ve dumped into this thread have, IMO, been to the detriment of download speed, contributing to the very problem that you accuse me of willfully creating. Again, that you fail to see the hypocrisy in your cant simply highlights the perverse irony of your approach to the issue.
See above.
Except you don’t leave it for others to judge, as your hostile responses to third party observers show very clearly. That your claims have been debunked is simply stating a fact – not a single point of yours has stood up to scrutiny.
Of course you consider it to be evidence, but none of the crap you have produced has been proved to be evidence.
Sure. Gage, at his website (www.ae911truth.org), has a bunch of lists [he likes lists – Gage is clearly from the “more is more” school of neverdence] of claims, many of which you’ve repeated here, most notably at #846, which I categorically debunked at #871. But let’s be fair, Daggy – many other contributors participated in the debunking.
For example:
- [In respect of WTC 7] “Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse” None consistent with explosive demolition, as confirmed at #495, with Liam’s link to the NIST report, and again by The Japezter at #1444
- “Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.“ Debunked by Shaun at #851
- “Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front” Debunked by Shaun at #750, FDB at #768 and Katz at #875
Except you have responded to it, Daggy. Again.
You haven’t shown any evidence of originating, researching or thinking through ANY ideas, Daggy. I can’t think of a single idea that you came up with on your own, as opposed to Troofer garbage you’ve recycled from others. But maybe you have shown some originality – if so, please enlighten me, as I admit I can’t see it.
The source for the quotation is an interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS in 2007, discussing the collapse of an overpass in San Francisco.
The full quotation is:
So the comment on “melting of girders” is off the cuff, some years after the event, and not a formal opinion on WTC steel. As I noted earlier, this guy also refutes the controlled demolition hypothesis, and the same source shows that he believes the collapse of the WTC towers was caused by fire, i.e. not explosions, and not nano-thermite:
As with Jowenko, you can’t have it both ways with this guy, Daggy.
No, I’m saying that his account is “hearsay”. Look up the word, as you obviously don’t know its meaning. He didn’t witness any melted steel, so his account isn’t meaningful.
The photos are inconclusive, as are the satellite images. Are they pictures of molten steel? I don’t know, and neither do you. As for “similar testimony”, there is actually very little reliable testimony from people who we can assess as authoritative on the subject. Astaneh’s the best of the bunch and, as I’ve shown, he’s an unreliable witness for your case.
Don’t know – how do we find out, given he’s not identified? How do we know he saw steel and not some other material?
You should read the article. The quotation isn’t from Langewiesche, it’s from the journalist writing the article on Langewiesche, and we have no certainty that the writing journalist saw the allegedly molten steel, or that Langewiesche did. It’s characteristically sloppy handling of sources by Gage, and you fell for it yet again.
I don’t know, but the bottom line is that there’s no named witness.
Why would you think he’d know molten steel when he saw it? He doesn’t have to make it up to be honestly mistaken in his opinion.
No, Daggy. Another perverse irony of our arguing over evidence is that it seems you never check your sources. You claim to be critical and interested in the truth, but you just accept these dopey claims at face value, without checking the facts. Classic confirmation bias.
Not at all. All that we’ve seen so far is a lot of hearsay and non-authoritative opinion. Astaneh’s off-the-cuff opinion is the only decent witness testimony there, and he backs the NIST view of events.
So there’s really nothing there that challenges the NIST findings and certainly nothing to warrant another investigation.
Apart from it being irrelevant?
“In other words was 9/11 a mass world hallucination planed by GWB, who had the CIA drop some really powerful hallucinogen into ALL the world’s water supply in sufficient quantity to make us all hallucinate?” PB
Paul the irony of this comment is that its far closer to the truth.
For all us reading here (cept for one exception, as far as i know – Andrew reynolds) the biggest effect 9/11 had was actually in our heads. It was the “day everything changed”, cept it didn’t. Nothing really changed, on the world scale. It hasn’t made much difference to the tens of thousands of children who die every day unnecessarily.
daggett @ 1498,
Though I don’t know why I bother : – 499, 497,505,513,518,673,716,1374, 1418, 1100.
And Daggett,
I treat the 9/11 Conspiracy theories about as seriously as I treat Von Daniken’s Chariot of the Gods? and Gavin Menzies’ rubbishy books about early Chinese exploration. Not at all seriously. I do make a distinction between fantasy and history. I’m not sure if you realise it, but there is a difference.
“How can it not also strike you as extremely suspicious?”
Because he’s not a paranoid moron like you.
“I consider eyewitness testimony, photographs, videos and physical samples to be evidence, and I have produced vastly more of that than you have (see below).”
Total rubbish, you haven’t produced anything that stand up to the mildest scrutiny. You haven’t been able to produce any evidence the building was wired for demolition and you will never be able to as it’s impossible. You entire argument as based on subject opinion and innuendo (see the comments about the lift mechanics). You have no case Dagget.
hey paul, i certainly have my doubts about alot of what happened on sept 11th, not the central facts about the planes being hijacked and crashing into towers that then collapsed because of the crashes and the damage that resulted.
But there’s alot arounbd it that realy incompetence doesn’t cover it. I know that malice v incompetence comment has a lot of traction, and in many cases it is appropriate. But it has never been properly investigated, or if it has, the results were not made public. I theorise that without criminal conspiracies that haven’t been addressed yet it wouldn’t have happened. Perhaps those conspiracies are better described as aspects of the official conspiracy theory, the one that involves Atta and co conspiring to do what they did. And seems to have happened, at least to most of us.
That doesn’t put on the same level as Von Daniken. (Other things might but thats not the issue here.)
Anyone who is really inbterested in following this up can go start at the complete 9/11 timeline I posted earlier, and go through it and a host of other documents and figure it out for yourself and come to your own conclusions. You might still deisagree with my theory above. have fun.
It might be a fun job for a historian in 50 years actually. Trying to sift through all this. Maybe a Chinese historian writing the next “definite” human history, which will probably happen in the next 30 years as power moves from the west to the east, and even the languages that power use change. (Into asian ones.)
There are actually more important things to focus on imo, especially for austalians in 2010. (Those pesky aliens for one.)
Oh Daggy, Daggy, Daggy, don’t you get it?
We’re all employees of the Ace Elevator Company now. Everyone…except you.
Let’s face it folks, this thread has turned into StoushGym TM with Daggy as a multfunctional piece of workout equipment.
So far Fyodor’s been hogging it but at least he’s not leaving any sweat behind on the seat.
“On the day of 11 September 2001 that whole group to a man behaved exactly as you would expect a group with prior knowledge that the buildings were about to be blown up to behave.”
Yeah, I’d definitely plan to be in one of the buildings while it was happening, and stay in there right until huge chunks of debris were falling about my head before I “fled”.
Actually, daggett, they behaved exactly how you’d expect a team of elevator mechanics to behave in a ‘code red’ building disaster scenario.
1) They convened at a previously designated meeting point.
2) They made a decision it was too dangerous for the team to remain in the building.
3) They evacuated the building along with everybody else.
“Had just a few of them behaved, instead, like those around them and gone back into the towers, or, indeed, had never left the towers in the first place, many who lost their lives would have stood a chance.”
Gross error of predication. You do not know this, yet you affirm it to be gospel.
“physical evidence of explosions”
The whatnow? You haven’t presented even one scrap.
“If the elevator workers had inside knowledge that the towers were going to be blown up in 2001, then it is conceivable that they would have had inside knowledge in 1993, that they would not.”
This sentence makes no sense.
“However, whether or not they would that they would be putting themselves at grave risk in 1993, the fact that they did is a good indication of what was expected of them in emergencies, whatever their terms of employment stated.”
They didn’t put themselves at grave risk in 1993. AFAIK, they were airlifted onto the roof of the building, and wore oxygen masks to protect from smoke inhalation. The floors they working on were not on fire, large chunks of debris were not falling about their heads, the entire building was not about to collapse within the hour.
Their behaviour was commendably brave, but they were allowed into the building precisely because they were perceived not to be in grave danger.
I wrote:
Then Nick wrote:
Well, I guess you had better hope that not too many people, who read your statement, go back to look at my posts for themselves or they would see you for the bare-faced liar that you are.
And you had better hope that they don’t view the video “WTC 2 Explodes” linked to above or visit ae911truth.org, 911truth.org or 911truth.com.
I note there is no response to my previous post addressed to you @ 1491, Nick.
Last weekend I also met a 9/11 Truth activist who lost his uncle aboard Flight 93. Could you imagine what he would say to a person like you, who pretends to oppose US wars, yet covers up for the murder of his own uncle by the US Government — murdered to provide the US Government with a pretext to fight the wars you claim to oppose?
So, what’s your excuse for not showing up to any of the meetings with Richard Gage, Nick?
And yours, Nabakov?
And yours, Paul Burns? Bob? FDB? Liam? adrian? Mercurius? GregmM? j_p_z? Eric Sykes? mitchell porter? Shaun?
Had anyone noticed a striking statistical anomaly on this forum? All over the world no ‘debunker’ anywhere is willing to debate any 9/11 Truth spokesman. Not Phillip Adams, not Bill O’Reilly, not Noam Chomsky, not Alexander Cockburn, not President Obama — nobody.
The only exceptions, it would seem, are two who tell us they are itching to be there except they live in Western Australia.
—
Funny how more than 93% who listened to Richard Gage on Sydney’s Classic Hits WSFM 101.7 on Wednesday agreed with him. I wonder whether they would agree with my assessment that those on this forum, who claim that they are unable to see with their own eyes, what hundreds of witnesses saw on the day, including at least three newsmen at the time of the WTC ‘collapses’, are bare-faced liars.
—
Nabakov,
Just to let you know, I haven’t bothered following the links to your stupid YouTube broadcasts for some time now.
Nabakov wrote:
I thought everyone was supposed to be disgusted with me, for what I said about the Ace Elevator Company lift mechanics (1471, 1480, 1491, 1498). Now it turns out that I have apparently become an object of fun and riducule once again.
You’re not tring to suggest that the howls of seeming moral indignation against me were contrived, are you Nabakov?
I have been summonsed! The reason why I didn’t show up for the meetings with Richard Gage is the same reason why I don’t show up for meetings where creationists are having their chinwag.
I may be cheap but I do have standards.
“Rather it is to hysterically shout me down with cries to the effect of “How dare you besmirch the name of these people!” (I am still waiting for your response, Jo, BTW.)”
You are an ass Dagget. Of course we don’t believe that the Ace Elevator people had anything to do with it. Why? well theres absolutely no evidence to even suspect that they might have been involved in your impossible scenario. The cries of outrage are more about armchair dickheads such as yourself calling into question the actions of people put into what most would agreed is an extraordinary situation. You are a serial troll. Keep it up though, we need to show that we can beat superstition and ignorance to a bloody pulp.
“I have apparently become an object of fun and riducule once again”
You’re pretty much the gift that keeps on giving …
Well I can see the whole point at the end of my last post has gone right over Patrick‘s head.
I had been wondering if Patrick was truly as stupid as he appeared to be, or if it was all a pretence.
Now I can see that it was no pretence.
“Well, I guess you had better hope that not too many people, who read your statement, go back to look at my posts for themselves or they would see you for the bare-faced liar that you are.”
Kitchenful of pot/kettles as always, daggett.
You’ve presented no physical evidence.
# 1498: “Now that I have identified a group of people who were in a position to plant and wire demolition explosives for 9 months prior to 9/11, the response is not to calmly argue why I could be wrong.”
Actually, I could have sworn I did just that, back at #1489.
But let that be. So: now you’ve identified a group of people who ‘were in a position to plant and wire’ the WTC for explosives over a long, premeditated period of time – an act of heinous murder, if it could be proven that they did so. But, as I’m sure you’re well aware, this “group” consists of individuals: people with actual names, and addresses, and employment histories, and even resumes – all pretty easy to dig up, I should think.
So now, of course, there’s only one thing left to do — name them. Accuse each elevator repair/explosives ninja by name, and show definitively how their elevator-repair skills were fully convertible into invisible silent thermite-planting (hi, Katz!) skills. Truth demands no less, I should think.
Here’s the hill where you can make your final stand. Let’s have the names and resumes of the Evil Ace Elevator Death Squadrons. (I won’t trouble you for the names of the double-secret remote-control airline pilots, or the voice-morphing fake telephone call research and acting teams.) Finally! You’re at the heart of darkness, at last. Doesn’t it feel great? This info can’t be all that hard to find. Ace Elevator. Names and addresses on a specific day. Punch cards and payroll records. You’ve “identified” the culprits at the core of the evil plan! Now cough it up.
# 1498: “Now that I have identified a group of people who were in a position to plant and wire demolition explosives for 9 months prior to 9/11, the response is not to calmly argue why I could be wrong.”
Actually, I could have sworn I did just that, back at #1489.
But let that be. So: now you’ve identified a group of people who ‘were in a position to plant and wire’ the WTC for explosives over a long, premeditated period of time – an act of heinous murder, if it could be proven that they did so. But, as I’m sure you’re well aware, this “group” consists of individuals: people with actual names, and addresses, and employment histories, and even resumes – all pretty easy to dig up, I should think.
So now, of course, there’s only one thing left to do — name them. Accuse each elevator repair/explosives ninja by name, and show definitively how their elevator-repair skills were fully convertible into invisible silent thermite-planting (hi, Katz!) skills. Truth demands no less, I should think.
Here’s the hill where you can make your final stand. Let’s have the names and resumes of the Evil Ace Elevator Death Squadrons. (I won’t trouble you for the names of the double-secret remote-control airline pilots, or the voice-morphing fake telephone call research and acting teams.) Finally! You’re at the heart of darkness, at last. Doesn’t it feel great? This info can’t be all that hard to find. Ace Elevator. Names and addresses on a specific day. Punch cards and payroll records. You’ve “identified” the culprits at the core of the evil plan! Now cough it up.
Summonsed, indeed, Shaun.
I outlined my objections to your “movement” at #177, Daggett. I’m quite prepared to disrespect you on the internet and watch in morbid glee as you get spiked on your talking points like so many punji sticks, but I wouldn’t physically attend a meeting. I’d sooner attend one of Alex Hawke’s Young Liberal meetings in Baulkham Hills. I’m not being sarcastic, the idea of sharing a room with people so evangelically deluded makes me feel slightly ill.
And (back to banal sarcasam) there’s the matter of compromising myself. After all, if the conspiracy’s so wide and the truth so dangerous, wouldn’t the intelligence services be watching and listening, filling the room with provocateurs and infiltrators? I wouldn’t want to end up on a list.
Daggett,
It sounded from the above –
like you are convinced that there is a conspiracy amongst debunkers to annoy you on the forums and then not turn up to your parties.
You really like to see conspiracies everywhere, don’t you?
daggett,
The first reason I don’t turn up at this bloke Gage’s meetings is – I never heard of him.
The second reason is, after reading this thread, I know he’d probably be talking garbage.
And the third and final reason is I have much, much, much, much, much better things to do with my time.
So Dagget are you finally putting a case for the conspiracy? Are you saying that lift mechanics did it? I suppose at a stretch you could say they had the opportunity, although given the amount of explosive required you’d think someone would notice. Anyway, do you have any material evidence to connect any of the mechanics to the plot
Not without evidence, they can’t. And they won’t investigate without sufficient evidence to suggest culpability. There is no such evidence.
Wow, Daggy, you really are shameless. Jo asked, at #700 for you to:
As you admit, you have provided no “sworn testimony” or “evidence” that the Ace Elevator folk were in any way connected to the crime. All that you have provided are, yes, snide and utterly baseless insinuations. Yet another FAIL, Daggy.
It takes you “hours” to scroll? I think you’re getting more than usually histrionic, Daggy. It takes me very little time to process the information in this thread and to debunk your claims. I know from experience with your sloppy handling of sources that you have no background in research, but it is intriguing to see someone so persistent in his wrongness and yet simultaneously so remarkably lazy.
But you see, that’s my point: I don’t think it’s the number of characters that slows things down, but the logical commands embedded in the coded text. The reason I think this is that the thread was noticeably slower than others of similar thread-count back when it was in the 400s and 500s, and the only thing that distinguished it for me then was the volume of links in it. I’ll admit I’m not savvy enough to know this, so I may be totally off-base – I’d be interested in the explanation if anyone techy is reading.
Interesting.
Why’s it “indefensible”? Also, it’s not me making mountain out of molehills – you’re the one who keeps whining about it.
Yes, I have particular difficulty seeing stuff that doesn’t exist – like figments of your imagination, f’rinstance.
Quoting other people’s text? It’s done all the time. Other people don’t quote you extensively as I do because, well, there aren’t really that many people engaging with you to begin with. Also, I think I’m at the more rigorously comprehensive end of the stoushing spectrum – it’s a perfectionist streak of mine that I prefer not to leaves stones unturned, or idiocy unskewered.
Accuracy. You wouldn’t understand. Trust me, I do think if anyone should be repeated less, it’d be you, but I am fair with your arguments.
I imagine it would be bigger, Daggy, but you’re asking the wrong question.
The question you should be asking, of yourself, is, “How much smaller would this thread be if I wrote less crap?”
I should hope not. I established in my last comment that I wasn’t attempting to fool anyone.
I do like the irony of you calling me a troll, however. You’ll notice that we aren’t having this discussion on your blog, but on a blog you barged into with your monomania.
Nope. I didn’t “refuse to accept” the “citation”; I doubted the veracity of the original source of the quotation. The author of the book was irrelevant to that issue.
Yes, you asked me to prove that Gage (and not Griffin) had been careless with the facts, and I did so with numerous examples of his debunking.
Name it. Also, show me which instances of debunking were unsuccessful.
I think you may have over-generous expectations of yourself if you think you’re adding to people’s understanding here, Daggy.
Nope. You can’t back up an assertion with another assertion, Daggy. You have produced no evidence and that fact won’t change no matter how many people you entreat.
I hope they don’t, too: a waste of time with no evidence.
Probably something sadly misguided.
This thread has all manner of anomaly – what do you think is the “striking statistical anomaly”, Daggy? The fact that people of standing (we’ll be generous to O’Reilly for a mo’) don’t waste their time with delusional nitwits is not striking, statistical or anomalous.
I gather the entertainment options are somewhat limited in Perth.
Nah, Daggy, the funny thing is that you think a poll of people who volunteer to vote [look up “self-selection bias”] on a dodgy poll represents a poll of the actual audience, an audience that, of course, only heard one (utterly biased and, as we have seen, unsubstantiated) side of the story. Your promotion of the “result” is just another example of your confirmation bias in action.
Big mistake – they’re far more entertaining than yours. Low hurdle, I admit, but you’re only hurting yourself.
It doesn’t have to be either/or, Daggy. You can be disgusting AND an object of fun and ridicule.
And you weren’t an object of fun and ridicule “again” – you never ceased to be one.
The only thing contrived here, Daggy, is your pretence that you have a shred of dignity remaining.
Richard Gage is getting good media coverage in NZ, one paper has written a very positive article, and a radio interviewer tried to attack him by discussing anything other than the physical evidence for controlled demolition.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21913
You “debunkers” should listen to the radio interview, she is a reflection of your mentality.
Apparently twice as many people turned up as the venue could accomodate, this movement is getting harder and harder for the media and public to ignore.
“this movement is getting harder and harder for the media and public to ignore.”
Great another total waste of time and bandwidth. Why is it that “people” will expend vast amounts of energy trying to prove something that is disproved so simply?
“twice as many people turned up as the venue could accomodate”
Yes but it was held in a phone booth. So that means there were 4 attendees. Anyway even if there were several attendees it just goes to show that ignorance is highly motivating impulse. I presume this meeting didn’t reveal any actual evidence? I’m willing to bet that the most of its content was the same drivel that we’ve seen on this thread. I’ll also wager there were books on sale. Anyway who paid for these charlatans to venture into the Southern Hemisphere?
Nick wrote in ‘response’ to my earlier post:
Well, perhaps people might care to go back and see for themselves all the posts in which I have presented “no physical evidence”:
1471: How the Ace Elevatoor lift mechanics had easy access to nearly all the support columns for 9 months prior to 9/11 and how they all fled on 11 September 2001.
1408: Testimonial evidence of molten steel beneath ground zero.
1378: Testimonial evidence of molten steel, reports of unexpectedly high quanitities of iron rich spheres in dust. NIST admits it’s theory takes no account of iron rich spheres.
1331, 1313: Evidence that Ted Olson did not recieve the phone call he claimed he had from his wife Barbara. That alleged conversation is what much of the 9/11 Commission report is based upon.
And I could go on and on.
Of course, at a very long stretch you could say that in your opinion my physical evidence did not stand up to scrutiny.
But that is not what you wrote.
So, you are a liar and you are lying to cover up crimes committed by the Bush Administration which have been blamed upon innocent people in Central Asia and the Middle East. As I pointed out above the lies you peddle have been used as a pretext to launch wars in which well over a million have died — wars that you claim to be against.
The lie you peddle has been taken as a blank cheque by the US administration to kdinap and torture innocent people in order to extract confessions of involvement in 9/11.
Read for yourself what was said of this by Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan:
Let’s recall what you wrote to me a little while back shall we?:
So, it’s ‘disgusting’ for me to suggest that a group of men who were in a position to plant the explosives that caused massive explosions witnessed by newsreaders and hundreds of eyewitnesses on the day and which were clearly captured on the day by video cameras and which caused rivers of molten steel to flow beneath where the towers stood and who all, most conveniently for themselves, fled almost certainly leaving dozens to die trapped in lifts, should not have been investigated so that their guilt or innocence could be established, while it is apparently OK for the CIA to torture others on the other side of the world into confessing to crimes they did not commit?
daggett,
Evidence of CD is only evidence of CD if it points to a CD. None of the “evidence” you have presented is that of a CD as it has been shown to be capable of being produced in other ways, consistent with the official version.
.
In reasonable order, then:
Your 1471 is not evidence – it is attempting to cast aspersions, ones that you resiled from at the very first opportunity. Evidence here would be information that shows that the employees of the Ace Elevator Company were secret agents, mass murderers or otherwise involved in a conspiracy. You have presented none of that.
1408 – Fyodor took that one apart nicely. The result was simple – there is no evidence of molten steel (much less rivers of it) under the towers. Remember, hearsay is not evidence.
1378 – Again – Fyodor pointed you to a report that covers how those were likely to have got there, a report specifically debunking many of your claims. Again – please read page 160 and comment on why you believe that to be bunkum.
1331 – Again, shown to be false. The evidence is that Olsen did make the calls, or at least that she could well have.
.
You have gone on and on, Daggett. For a very long time – and none of it is sticking.
.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant garbage if the official story is true – and, so far, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that it is not.
Heh. What Burt said…but I won’t leave it at that.
Please do, as you have nothing so far.
It’s not a matter of opinion. You literally have nothing.
Nope. Nick was telling the truth. You are the liar.
Not evidence of CD. FAIL
Yes, Daggy it IS disgusting of you, as you have already admitted that you have no evidence that the people in question had anything to do with the crimes of 9/11.
Why not blame the office workers, cleaners, catering staff, executives etc.? Many of them worked in the Towrs for years. Ample opportunity. And like murdering cowards, they RAN AWAY after the planes hit. You’re making no sense, Lord Daggsworthy.
“my physical evidence”
None of what you claim in 1521 is that kind of evidence. Lift mechanics, speculation; phone call, speculation and cherry picking, we’ve already shown you that there were many more phone calls; “testimony” of molten steel, hearsay, no material exists that supports this claim. You evidence can’t be analysed as evidence it is so weak. In that respect it has much in common with Gage, Griffen et al. Next please.
Firstly, just to pick up some loose threads from further back:
Note how Bob has failed to substantiate his claim that Richard Gage “has been proven to be careless with the facts”. I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
No, Bob, an assertion that Richard Gage has been ‘debunked’, with or without ‘examples’, is not proof that Richard Gage “has been proven to be careless with the facts”. Show us one fact that Richard Gage has been careless with.
—
You have still to justify your refusal to accept the evidence cited in the book by David Ray Griffin (whom you confused with Richard Gage) that NIST, itself acknowledged that
… which stands completely contrary to your claim that the ‘iron-rich spheres’ canard has been thoroughly debunked.”
—
Bob wrote @ 738:
We’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.
As shown the links between Marvin Bush and Securacom were covered up and not revealed by the White House, even if he was not a principle at the time of the attack and ‘only’ a principle up until 2000. Surely it would be reasonable to conclude that there would have been very strong ties between George Bush’s brother and the Managers of Securacom, even if he seemed not to be formally tied to the company at the time. A lot of questions have not been answered as shown in the article ‘Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother’s role in 9/11 security’ by Margie Burns referred to by me. Of course I gave a mistaken impression that Marvin Bush had a direct role in the security of the WTC at the time of the attack, but the fact that he did not by no means answers the concerns about Marvin Bush and Securacom and Bob is dishonest to imply that it does and dishonest to repeatedly label me a liar as a result of this.
Much of the so-called ‘debunking’ consists of the ‘debunkers’ insisting that the striking images of the collapses of the twin towers look nothing like explosions. For example, here’s Eric Sykes telling us that the image referred to by me of the top of the South Tower tipping over with violent billowing clouds of debris being ejected outwards as well as visible molten steel.
Eric Sykes @ 823:
In response to the video “WTC 2 explodes” referred to above, these comments were posted:
Katz @ 875:
PatrickB @ 881:
Ambigulous @ 983:
1047:
So, I would be interested to know why the above comments are not also applicable to two other images that are unquestionably an explosions, those being on a slide Power Point presentation of ae911truth.
In contrast, as I have shown, hundreds people on the day, beginning with the newsreaders who witnessed the ‘collapses’ thought that these ‘turtles’ did, indeed, look like ‘tortoises’. These witnesses included William Rodriguez as well as Captain Dennis Tardio and Patrick Zoda mentioned above and a good many listed in the “9/11 Survivors and Family Members Question the 9/11 Commission Report” section of Patriots Question 9/11 There is also the testimony (pdf, 131K) of over 100 rescue workers who volunteered (and were not asked for) evidence of sounds and flashes of explosions.
The ‘debunking’ simply consists of dismissing out of hand all the testimony as ‘uncorroborated’, ‘hearsay’, etc. or personally attacking those who have made the testimony.
One would have thought if the ‘debunkers’ were interested in learning the truth, they would at least have demonstrated some curiosity as to why so many people were either deluded into seeing and/or hearing explosions, “rivers of molten steel”, etc. or made it all up. If they were the least concerned about learning the truth, they would surely express some curiosity why none of the testimony has even been acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission or NIST, even if only to to attempt to explain what would surely have to have been a bizarre conspiracy in its own right or an example of mass delusional hysteria, if the ‘debunkers’ are to be believed.
But of course they are not interested in learning the truth.
—
Here’s some more testimony, from the abovementioned Patriots Question 9/11 site, of the massive explosion I referred to above which disfigured Felipe David occurred at 8:46AM, seconds before the impact of Flight 11 above and could therefore not possibly have been caused by aviation fuel (kerosene) spilling all the way down into the basement as Bob so disingenuously claims:
The Maintenance supervisor, who was in the basement of the North Tower when Flight 11 struck, “[does not] believe a word they say,” but all the ‘debunkers’ on this forum accept every word coming out of the US Government about 9/11 unquestioningly.
Yes, indeed it is a cover-up and years later on the other side of the world people, including people who claim to oppose the Bush administration and the wars for which 9/11 was used as a pretext, continue to work overtime to cover up the crime of 9/11 using every dirty debating trick imaginable.
—
I note most of those who clamoured for me to explain how the demolition explosives could have been planted have fallen silent, most notably the seemingly erudite Jo. Two more not included in my list above are:
Brendon @ 849:
Ambigulous @ 850:
Now it ‘seems’ that the ‘debunkers’, themselves, have turned that into a “side issue” and have shifted the goal posts from demanding to know how it could have been done to demanding that I provide outright proof that the Ace Elevator Company lift mechanics, rather than some hapless mug, kidnapped and tortured by the CIA on the other side of the world, or in Guantanamo Bay, did it.
Anyway, ‘debunkers’, continue with your farcical pretence that you believe even a word of the garbage you write, if you will.
Go ahead and add another 100, 200, 500 or 1,000 posts of asserting “Black is White”, so that you can all congratulate each other, not for the first time, at having ‘won’ the argument, safe in the knowledge that, on this forum, at least, the truth will be hidden from all but a few of the most determined site visitors.
The ‘debate’ is a farce.
I expect the little boy who cried out “The Emperor has no clothes!” would also have ‘lost’ the argument if he had been amidst a similar pack of screaming, sycophantic liars.
Go ahead and add another 100, 200, 500 or 1,000 posts ….
You got to be kidding. It takeas ages to open this thread already.
“Mechanical Room”
So there was an explosion in room that may have housed … things that may explode when exposed to great heat. I can easily suppose that and many people may think that it’s plausible (all though I have no proof at all). How many of those people would consider you “Ace elevator where in on it theory” do you think? You are a fool. Where is the evidence for explosions in the elevator shafts? Why are you relying a single person’s recounting of an explosion in a room that up until now you haven’t mentioned as being responsible for the collapse? Or are you going to say “Well if there was an explosion there why can’t there have been explosions in the elevators shafts?” Come on, you know you want to.
BTW I notice little “a” andrew has gone very quiet since your rhetoric became more unhinged. You must be an outlier among truthers.
“How many of those people would consider you “Ace elevator where in on it theory” do you think?”
Should be:
“How many of those people would consider your “Ace elevator where in on it” theory plausible do you think?”
I have sacked my personal assistant.
Wow, Daggy, that’s pathetic, even for you.
At #1496 I gave three examples of Gage’s debunking, all three of which show his careless handling of the facts:
1) Gage asserts that, “Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse” were heard at WTC 7, suggestive – to him, at least – of controlled demolition. However, he CARELESSLY ignores the fact that all available audio evidence has no explosion sounds characteristic of controlled demolition, as confirmed at #495, with Liam’s link to the NIST report, and again by The Japezter at #1444.
2) Gage asserts that, “Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) [was] found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.“ However, no thermite was found and, as debunked by Shaun at #851, “The chemical traces found are as expected given the building materials used, not ridiculous fantasies involving thermite.” Was Gage CARELESS with these facts? Youbetcha.
3) Gage believes he sees, “Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front” as the Twin Towers fall. However, as debunked by Shaun at #750, FDB at #768 and Katz at #875, these “isolated explosive ejections” are no more than “simply debris being blown out as the floors collapse.” Was Gage CARELESS in not mentioning this explanation? Of course he was.
The question you should be asking, Daggy, is “When was Gage NOT careless with the facts?”
Not only have I already justified my doubt on the quotation, but even if it were verified, there’s no reason why “iron-rich spheres” are necessarily connected to controlled demolition, as has been pointed out to you. I asked you before to show why, and you squibbed.
Yes, we have, as you acknowledged at #751. And yet here you are, repeating the same discredited garbage. Bit repetitive aren’t you, Daggy?
As I stated, and you acknowledged, there is no evidence of a connection between 9/11 and Securacom. If you have such EVIDENCE – and not more snide insinuations – present it. If not, STFU.
Actually. No, it doesn’t. The debunking consists of pointing out time and again that there is no evidence of controlled demolition. When challenged to present this evidence you have FAILED time and again.
Here we go again. Are you going to call people liars when they disagree with you this time,
Daggy?
As explained to you before, Daggy, lots of people have lots of different opinions on what they see. That you think you see explosions does not mean that they were explosions. Your opinion proves nothing.
Let’s get this straight, Daggy: if the “evidence” doesn’t withstand scrutiny, it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Hearsay is doubtful, uncorroborated testimony is doubtful, non-authoritative opinion is doubtful. You can CHOOSE to BELIEVE it, but it PROVES NOTHING.
Crikey, Daggy, you’ve set a low hurdle so far but sometimes your naivete is truly gobsmacking. As noted above, your “evidence” is thoroughly flawed and non-authoritative opinions aren’t evidence.
The 9/11 Commission and NIST considered masses of evidence and testimony, Daggy. That they didn’t consider the garbage you’ve swallowed so uncritically proves nothing other than that they had higher standards than you.
How do you know that?
There’s no evidence there that the said “massive explosion” occurred “seconds” before the impact of AA 11 and, wasn’t in fact the impact of the aircraft itself.
Unquestioningly? Who says? The virtue of the government explanation, Daggy, is that it’s substantiated by evidence, unlike your delusional theory.
Yes, shameless tricks like facts and logic, of which you’re clearly ignorant. There’s no evidence of a cover-up Daggy. If you have it, present it.
There’s been no shifting of goal posts and YOU are the one to make evidence a “side issue”. As I noted to you at #1517, Jo was very clear at #700:
So where is it, Daggy? Where’s the evidence the Ace Elevator people were involved? I dare you to squib on it yet again.
The truth is out in the open, Daggy – it’s in the reports you refuse to read. The person ignoring the facts and calling black white is you, Daggy.
Heh. You think you’re the boy in the fairy tale, don’t you? The boy had evidence on his side, Daggy. You don’t. You know what that makes you, don’t you?
“An object of fun and ridicule”.
Hahahahahaha.
Well, Bazant’s controlled demolition of the Troofers junk scientific conjecturing had the desired effect…. daggett jumped the shark!
So instead of junior high dunces and arse-clowns embarrassing themselves with their non-knowledge of structural engineering…. we’ve resorted to accusing elevator technicians of being mass murderers, ah?
As jpz alludes… people who probably needed to be prodded ten times into attending a union meeting to protest their health insurance cover or lack of, were actually highly committed internal jihadists at the beck and call of the Oval Office
It must be a bit like Scientology …….if you de-bunk to the right level, you get to Xenu and hydrogen bombs except in Troofer World, this means pointing the finger finally at Ace Elevator technicians, and it goes without saying with absolutely no evidence to back this totally desperate, though typically disgraceful accusation.
USAToday, in this case, is the go-to source on the story of WTC elevators – very much a tragedy within the tragedy:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
As to the Elevator Technicians who assembled as planned, then left the South Tower when the second plane hit & were reassembling to return much later, as per the 1993 bombing, before the South Tower collapsed. It seems however that there were two different disaster plans – the Port Authority one and the company one. …..just what you need when two jets…….
But interestingly, some of these Ace technicians had been the heroes of 1993, ie. they’d been previously employed by Otis, the then contractor…it’s a deep and broad this conspiracy…undercover since before ’93!
daggett, moi…. gone quiet? You wish.
I’m just here now to goad this thread into a record breaking five figures.
Given Daggy’s performance so far, it is hard is to think of him/her/it as someone not focused on a similar KPI for some three letter “national security” organisation.
I see Bob, Jo, Nabakov et al continue to spill vast quantities of elctroninc ink asserting that I have been ‘debunked’ or turned into “an object of fun and ridicule”, etc., rather that arguing their case, but I guess if the case I was defending was so weak, I would consider doing the same.
However, could I suggest that those who would like to verify for themselves that that is what happened should read my previous posts starting with my most recent post?
—
Jo, you do realise that nothing in your latest post proves that the Ace Elevator Company lift mechanics could not have planted and wired the demolition explosions in the Twin Towers in the 9 months prior to 9/11?
You demanded that I show how that could have been done and that is what I have done.
The fact that some of those mechanics may have acted heroically back in 1993 is somewhat beside the point I would have thought. In 2001 not one of them offered any assistance, and it seems that if they had many people who were trapped in the lifts could have been rescued. (Of course it is also possible that any effort to help on the part of the lift mechanics could conceivably have resulted in their own deaths, in the overall death toll being even higher, but I don’t see how they could have anticipated that unless they had inside knowledge.)
I am not sure what you expect to prove by that accoount of John Menville, going bach towards the towers. It seems likely that John Menville being radioed by Joseph Amatuccio would have been the result of firefighters being irate at not having receive any help from lift mechanics up until that point in time as their own people and others were evidently trapped inside broken lifts at the time.
If John Menville had failed to respond to that radio call his behaviour may have looked very suspicious. Whatever, he still lived along with all the other 82 lift mechanics.
You sure about that, Daggy?
Nah, Daggy. You’ve been debunked and made an object of fun and ridicule BECAUSE we have argued the case, with facts and logic, and proved that your crackpot theory is simply untenable.
Note that YOUR response is not to argue the case, but to squib, again.
No, Daggy. The question was not whether they COULD, but whether they DID. You have quite simply failed to produce any evidence that they were responsible. You have smeared innocent people with snide accusations on the basis of no proof whatsoever.
You:
If they die, they’re innocent, if they live, they were in on it? Why not accuse them of witchcraft or Trotsky-fascist saboteurism while you’re there?
You really are beyond parody, daggett. There’s a Spanish noun “sinvergüenza” that’s a special word they have for people whose main identifying attribute is shamelesness. It applies equally to small acts of bad behaviour (feet on the bus seat, smoking at a kindergarten) and enormous, abiding, conscious disgracefulness (a corporate Board asset stripping to the Bahamas against their liabilities and taking massive payouts).
I’d cite you on this thread flinging accusations of mass murder about as a definitional case.
This is why it’s a mistake even to engage, BTW. People like Fyodor like to demonstrate wrongness from first principles but the rest of us find the inevitable accusations abhorrent.
Your truly juvenile accusations of Ace Elevator Company employees of cowardice, negligence resulting in death, and conspiracy to commit mass-murder, have also relegated you right to the outer fringe of your own Truth movement.
Congratulations!
“Jo, you do realise that nothing in your latest post proves that the Ace Elevator Company lift mechanics could not have planted and wired the demolition explosions in the Twin Towers in the 9 months prior to 9/11?”
Ludicrous. You have the burden of proof. I remember some time ago you said that I’d make a very poor detective. I would say that you’d make an even worse lawyer. It behoves me to point out that it is the accuser who carries the burden of proof, you have accused the Ace company of being involved in a conspiracy and yet you want them to prove that they weren’t involved? If I was them, just for a laugh, I’d say OK, I wasn’t involved, now prove that I was. Honestly you’ve ascended into cloud cuckoo land.
Actually Dagget’s stupidity on this point is a great example of why the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, I imagine in days gone by or under totalitarian regimes it would have been a popular tactic for the monarch/dictator to require the defendant to prove that they weren’t party to some conspiracy. The assumption being that the conspiracy actually existed, proof of its existence is not required. Seems as though Dagget is playing the same game. That would seem to call into question his earlier rant regarding his abhorrence of oppression.
Got there ahead of me PatrickB….but seeings as I have already utilised minutes of my own employers valuable time this mid morn:
Evidence, daggett…sworn testimony and evidence, is what I asked for…… what you have thrown up instead is that your pathetic, desperate case rests entirely on one known fact, that building technicians and maintenance staff had access to the building that they were working in and on, for many years in some cases.
So this is the standard of proof by which you assume your burden has been passed, by pointing out that employees were working at their place of employment.
What the USAToday article actually reports, is that the elevator technicians after assembling, hurriedly left the South Tower in all directions when debris was falling into the lobby and they were planning to re-enter the building later as per 1993, as the article points out, obviously assuming like everyone else that the buildings wouldn’t collapse and they’d be called on by the Fire Dept to provide assistance like in 1993.
But if they’d planted the explosives and knew the buildings were going to collapse…why were the team leaders trying to re-enter the buildings when called upon?
But I’ll let Fyodor put in the nails, evenly spaced, tucking in all edges and corners, upholsterer like. We have a Franco Cozzo showroom worth on display here folks!
And what Liam said and Nick etc said.
Daggett, a word of advice. If you’d gone with Jesus and the chocolate like I suggested, I’m pretty sure you’d be in a lot better shape than you are today. At the very least the evidence for that seems to be far more compelling that anything you’ve provided here.
And Daggett, another thing: Just cause he makes you look like a frakkin fruiy fruitcake about every six hours on average, that’s no reason not to call him Fyodor instead of Bob. Given your rather exceptionally gifted interlocutor has referred to you pretty much roughly as you would wish throughout, you could at the very least offer the him the same courtesy. He is after all a Romanov you know. Or was that a Romany in a pirate outfit? Either way, my point is: Insanity does not preclude civility you know Daggett.
What a pack of smug, self-satisfied, sanctimonious hypocrites!
I see not the slightest concern, not even from Nick who claims to be against the wars for which 9/11 was used as a pretext for the fact that large numbers of people were blamed without evidence of the crime of 9/11, and consequently kidnapped and sadistically tortured in order to obtain confession but to breathe a hint that another group, who had the necessary access to most of the structural supports for 9 months prior to 9/11 necessary to plant the explosives and wiring is morally beyond the pale.
Traces of those explosives which were found in the dust from the collapsed WTC buildings by Dr Steven Jones, whistleblower Kevin Ryan, and Dr. Niels Harrit. The results were published in a peer reviewed paper which has not been challenged by anyone, except to spuriously claim that Jones, Ryan, Harrit et all must have planted it. As Paul Craig Roberts, pointed out:
Suspiciously, the scientists have been refused aacces to any of the dust of which there are vast quantites in numerous dumps, so that their findings can either be futher confirmed or disproven.
So, if the military grade nano-thermite was not put in the twin towers by the Ace Elevator lift mechanics, then who was it put there by? Certainly none of those kidnapped and tortured by the CIA at Guantanamo and the other side of the world.
Why shouldn’t there have been a proper investigation to either clear their name or provide evidence for prosecution?
So – daggett, access to thermite is “strictly controlled”, is it? Then the Mythbusters would not have been able to get a half a ton of it then. Odd.
…and daggett – they would also need to police access to rusty nails.
“who studied for 18 months”
Seeing as you’re such an authority on highly restricted explosives, why does it take 18 months to do some chemical analysis?
Let me posit an answer, there was no trace of the said explosive so these guys took 18 months to cook up some results.
Or perhaps given the said explosive is highly restricted they didn’t know what to look for so it took them 18 months to cook up some bogus analysis techniques. And that’s without even worrying about the provenance of the samples.
Oh and I note you’ve no answer to the criticisms of your lack of regard for basic legal rights and hence your implied endorsement of extra legal practices such as torture and illegal detention. I’m sure your electors will be interested.
Andrew Reynolds and Patrick once again confuse their own ignorance and refusal to understand the arguments I have put with rebutting me.
Andrew Reynolds, try to understand the difference between ordinary thermite and military grade nano-thermite.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that no-one from the US military gave Harrit, Jones, Ryan et al the nanothermite to plant in their dust samples.
So how do you think it got there?
What do you think, Jo? Liam? Bob? Nick? ‘Fyodor’ (whoever you are)? Nabakov?
And why don’t you think they are unwilling to allow the access to more WTC dust?
daggett,
no, I was working from the blockquote that you used to try to support your case. To expand:
Clearly, that was completely and utterly wrong.
In any case, “nano-thermite” can be made by anyone with the requisite grinding equipment. The equipment needed to grind it up is widely available at many industrial locations that produce nano-scale powders. Another fail.
You have failed to establish either that the material could not be made or bought or that it could not be manufactured to the required size – if, indeed, it was found there.
“And why don’t you think they are unwilling to allow the access to more WTC dust?”
So many questions Dagget, but no answers. I guess they wouldn’t allow me access to the WTC dust either. Or you probably. Do you know what the criteria are for getting access to debri from the WTC collapse, why don’t you go and find out and tell us?
Here’s a quote from Dagget’s authorative paper:
“These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere”
Which is extract here:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html
Which looks like it gives a thorough debunking of Dagget’s reference. Another fail.
BTW, does anyone know what the standing of the “The Open Chemical Physics Journal” is?
PatrickB, you can read up a bit on Bentham Open Access Journals (publishing since 2007) here:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html
Oh – and on the thermite thing (and the reason why I find it at best implausible) is that thermite can easily be set off by a book of matches being lit. An aircraft hitting the building would certainly have done it. This would have started the “demolition” process straight away – not about 1 hour later.
Unless you decide that the aircraft did not hit the building, then thermite could not have been involved.
*blushes, kicks pebble*
Aw, shucks, Case – you’re too kind.
However, let’s be fair with Il Daggettone. I said it was OK for him to call me Bob, and it’s understandable why he uses it – as you’ve mentioned before, it’s not as if I use Fyodor that often. Besides, aside from the Herr Terwilliger reference, “Bob” is deeply amusing to me.
There’s that irony again.
Here’s the thing, Daggy: there’s no evidence that the Ace Elevator folk had anything to do with 9/11. Now, who is it exactly that you are claiming was blamed for 9/11 “without evidence”?
FFFS, not the fecking dust again. The “thermite” dust malarkey has been debunked several times on this thread, notably by Shaun at #851. The paper has been challenged successfully many times. It’s crap.
Also, we have no confirmation that this paper was peer-reviewed by anyone. It was published in an “open-access” journal, which authors pay to accept their papers and, as the former “Editor-in-Chief” of the journal, Marie-Paule Pileni, described it,
Pileni resigned from her role at the journal after she was told it had published the paper without her knowledge.
The journal looks about a reliable as Steve Jones’ vanity press, the “Journal of 9/11 Studies” [“J.O.N.E.S.”! Geddit?! Oh, these troofers are such cards!], which also claims to be a “peer-reviewed” and “open access” journal.
And – wouldn’t you know it? – Jonesy and Ryan [Oh! And Szamboti!] got another of their screeds published in another “peer-reviewed” and “open access” journal, owned by, of course, Bentham, the same United Arab Emirates-based publisher described so vividly by Nick above.
As we’ve discussed before, no “nano-thermite” was found, only materials that would have been expected at WTC. That’s assuming the samples are even genuine, which is in considerable doubt.
What makes you think it was “military grade nano-thermite”, Daggy?
There’s no thermite.
How do you know that access to said dust has been verboten?
So as I understand it “military grade thermite” means “thermite with special, magical powers that mere mortal can’t begin to understand. Except me because I know the elevator techs were in on the plot.”
Shaun,
That Protec piece you linked to was great. Pulls apart daggett’s assertions about controlled demolitions really nicely.
Please read it, daggett. It would repay careful study.
Bob wrote in response to my earlier post:
Thanks, Bob I was meaning to come back to that. You had also made the claim that Shaun had ‘debunked’ the report about nano-thermite earlier @ 1496. Here’s Shaun’s supposed ‘debunking’:
So is that it, Bob? Shaun?
Clearly neither have read the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” or they would know of the tests that were conducted to establish whether the blue/grey chips that turned out to be nanothermite cooud have been any other material that could normally be found in a building.
Presumably, anything found in dust samples can be explained away by buildings being “full of all sorts of things that contained all sorts of chemicals”, so one would have to wonder what would be the point of conducting any tests on any building dust, if Shaun’s argument were to be accpeted.
Anyhow, if they were to bother to read the paper they would have learnt that the blue-grey chips were shown to be remnant fragmenst of military grade nano-thermite which can only e created in military laboratories.
For all Bob’s attempts to discredit the journal and the paper and its authors, he had not addressed its arguments and has not shown where the arguments put by it have been countered elsewhere.
A close examination of other claimed ‘debunkings’ of me, for example in the abovementioned 1496, will similarly show them to be nothing of the sort.
However, when a forum becomes quickly overwhelmed with posts making assertions and implied assertions such as:
Then it is likely that casual observers will gain the impression that that is what has happened even if it has not.
daggett, you just completely ignored PatrickB @ 1547, and the link he provided for you.
That’s so rude.
“Anyhow, if they were to bother to read the paper they would have learnt that the blue-grey chips were shown to be remnant fragmenst of military grade nano-thermite which can only e created in military laboratories.”
You’re either colour-blind, or haven’t bothered to read the paper yourself. In any case…
No, they were absolutely not shown to be that.
To re-quote PatrickB @ 1547:
“These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere”
The authors’ personal opinion was as much as they could conclude, and nothing more. That “these observations reminded us…”
They continued:
“We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study.”
Do you understand that, daggett? They were very clear about it. They hadn’t even compared the red-chips to nano-thermite. How could they possibly have concluded they WERE nano-thermite? They couldn’t, so they didn’t.
You, however, as usual, miraculously conjured up some extra-special conclusions all by yourself that didn’t actually exist anywhere in the paper:
You divined to us that:
“the blue-grey chips were shown to be remnant fragmenst of military grade nano-thermite which can only e created in military laboratories.”
You have a cognitive problem, daggett, and it won’t go away until you acknowledge it.
“Then it is likely that casual observers will gain the impression that that is what has happened even if it has not.”
It’s very likely they will, and so they bloody should, because that’s precisely what has happened.
You’ve presented no evidence.
Oops, how could I clean forget about this gem from the Daggett School of Making Stuff Up:
“the tests that were conducted to establish whether the blue/grey chips that turned out to be nanothermite cooud have been any other material that could normally be found in a building.”
What tests, daggett?
You haven’t even read the paper, have you?
I dare you to you name the *one* material they did test against, thereby conceding that your statement above is an out-and-out porky pie.
Ah, but Daggy, I HAVE read the paper. Unlike you, I check the facts, remember?
The paper shows nothing of the sort. State exactly where you think this paper of dubious quality proves this assertion of yours.
I note that you haven’t addressed my question earlier: “What makes you think it was ‘military grade nano-thermite’, Daggy?”
I have addressed the arguments. The samples allegedly tested by the authors found materials (e.g. metals such as iron, aluminium, zinc) that were expected to be present at WTC. As noted earlier by Shaun, there is nothing unusual about their presence there and the authors simply fail to make the case that the identification of such materials proves the presence of “thermite”, “thermate”, “nano-thermite”, “super-thermite” or “wtf-thermite”.
You know, Nick, it wouldn’t surprise me if Daggy hadn’t. That’s how little this guy cares about the truth. He’s less convincing than Vera de Milo.
Amazing.
Daggett – honestly mate. You’re pathetic.
Now you’ll claim that of course you’d read the paper, you just got one little detail wrong. Repeatedly. One which is referred to constantly in the paper, right from the abstract.
Have you ever read anything at all about 9/11 beyond blog posts and comment threads?
Nick it is rude for people, such as Patrick to put in links without bothering to demonstrate any of their own comprehension of those documents in this forum using either parapharasing or quoting from those documents and, instead, expect others to trot off to other sites and read the material themselves.
It is especially rude not to even tell people what the link is. That is one reason I don’t bother going off to look at all the stupid YouTube links that people keep posting.
The paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” shows that the red-grey chips ignite explosively when heat is applied and eject spheres which are rich elemental iron. Those spheres match the other iron rich spheres found in the sample, which indicates that the spheres must have been created by other such material whihc has been ignited. The energy released per gram is almost twice that of another known commercial energetic nano-composite. (fig 29, p25). Examination of the chips revealed that they contain very fine grains of both elemental aluminium and Iron Oxide held (Fe2O3) together in close proximity by a gel. The fine granularity causes them to react together very rapidly. As they have been carefully engineered it is unlikley that that they are flakes od paint. Other reasons why they are unlikely to be paint include:
1. They don’t dissolve as know paint does.
2. Nothing like this has been found in samples from dust samples from other demolished buildings
3. If it was paint, it would be a very dangerous form of paint.
daggett,
Let’s for a moment assume you are right – that both of the WTC buildings (in fact, all 7) were packed with “military-grade nano-thermite”, placed there by the conspirators of the Ace Elevator Company in furtherance of the dastardly plans of the US government to invade the peace-loving countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and, as part of this, to take away the liberties that we (or, at least the US) citizens know and love.
.
There is a simple, very basic problem with this. Thermite (in any of its forms) starts to burn in response to either heat or fire. Both of these were present on the floors impacted by the aircraft (and down the elevator shafts, as you, helpfully, pointed out) and the buildings did commence failure on those floors – yet it took nearly an hour to go off? Thermite responds in less than a second to ignition and when it goes, it all goes.
So, somehow, the dastardly Ace guys came up with a way of not only planting the “military-grade nano-thermite”, they were able to shield it against the impact of a 767 aircraft, and in such a way that they could also then wait for a considerable time before setting it off.
This an (and there are many n=more, but this will do for now) the elephant in the room that you have consistently ignored. Unless you claim that no aircraft hit the WTC1 or WTC2 buildings then the whole “military-grade nano-thermite” thing simply falls apart.
There is virtually no chance that “military-grade nano-thermite” would not start burning (or, more correctly exploding) when hit with a 767 aircraft travelling at nearly full speed. It would not wait one minute – never mind more than an hour.
Breaking news. the Gage/Utzon encounter is front page on the SMH’s website. It looks a bit weak though from Gage’s POV, to wit:
“Mr Utzon said he had become interested in exploring theories about the attacks after staying at a Manly hotel whose owner introduced him to some websites. The hotel owner encouraged him to sign Mr Gage’s online petition, which he did. However, he had not read any of the official reports and therefore did not regard himself as well informed.”
http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html
Some Truthers reckon the red/grey chips [OMFG, it looks like we've shamed Daggett into reading at least (and at last!) one of his own sources. Who said he can't learn?] are just paint, and that Niels Harrit is a fruitcake or a traitor to the cause.
They think the dust should have been tested for the presence of actual demolition explosives, and that none of the Truther folks with the expertise to test for it have done so, because a negative result would fatally undermine their cause.
Because paranoid and deluded as they are, they can see the impracticality of bringing down a building with thermite,particularly one which is hit with fuel-laden planes that somehow don’t ignite the thermite, and that therefore the thermite thoery is childish nonsense.
Seems like, contrary to my previously held beliefs, there actually are some Truthers who want actual evidence of a plausible demolition, and might be prepared to accept that their theory is wrong if it can’t be found.
See here.
Did we say “secret military nano-thermite”? Ahh, there’s the problem! We meant to say “secret military nano *termites*”!
These would be genetically designed tiny military robo-termites with the ability to chew through solid steel beams without causing explosions. The termites do not combust when exposed to jet fuel explosions, and their droppings closely resemble iron-rich spheres — a tell-tale sign of their presence at the site. For more information, see “Jane’s Military Insects” August 1998, vol. XI, issue 3. Hope this clears matters up.
The Times regrets the error.
Andrew Reynolds, FDB,
why wouldn’t it be technologically feasible to encase the nano-thermite near where the planes were to impact inside fire-proof shock resistant containers?
Thanks for breaking the news that the son of the late Joern Utzon who designed the Sydney Opera House is a member or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Patrick.
If people were to look at the names of other supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movmeent on patriotsquestion911.com, they can’t all be dismissed as paranoid deluded fruit loops. Note the words of former CIA analyst William Christison:
—
Unless anyone here insists that normal paint found on buildings releases almost twice as much energy as commercial commercial energetic nano-composites used in demolitions and similarly ejects spheres of molten iron, then it is clear that Shaun had not debunked the evindence of nano-thermite @ 851 as Bob has so dishonestly claimed @ 1551 and 1496.
As I have pointed out, repeated claims by ‘debunkers’ that I have been debunked have been used in place of actual argument. As I have shown here and above, when I can get around to placing the claims of my having been debunked under the microscope, they don’t stand up.
If others were to more closely scrutinise other claims by Bob that I had been ‘dd’
“why wouldn’t it be technologically feasible to encase the nano-thermite near where the planes were to impact inside fire-proof shock resistant containers?”
Because of the laws of physics.
Next, perhaps instead of asking “why wouldn’t ‘x’ have been technologically feasible?”, you should ask the question “is there any real evidence whatsofuckingever for ‘x’ having occurred?”.
Sure, as it happens, none of the scenarios you’ve presented are remotely feasible, but a feasibility analysis isn’t really necessary until the basic condition – “is there any real evidence whatsofuckingever” – has been answered in the affirmative.
Try it… it’s called scepticism. You might find it agreeable as an outlook on life. It has helped me avoid religion, ideology and paranoid delusions, and I’m very grateful for that.
“why wouldn’t it be technologically feasible to encase the nano-thermite near where the planes were to impact inside fire-proof shock resistant containers?”
Ready, set – okay, everybody now…
WHY DIDN’T THEY JUST MAKE THE ENTIRE BUILDINGS OUT OF FIRE-PROOF SHOCK RESISTANT CONTAINERS?!?
If you also answered, “Then how would they detonate the encased nano-thermite? Why, by coating the fire-proof containers with MORE THERMITE!” the judges will accept that one, too.
The judges will also allow “Because if the fire-proof containers could resist an airplane crash, then they could also resist… NANO-THERMITE!!” but if you answered this, you get docked half a point for going home early.
Daggett,
The Ancient Greeks used to believe the earth stood on the back of a tortoise or some such thing. Now, as much as I respect them for their achievements in philosophy, politics, poetry, drama etc, just because Aeschylus, Plato or Aristotle et al believed the world stood on the back of a tortoise or some such thing, it doesn’t mean I should. You should perhaps apply the same standard to 9/11 Truthers?
Daggett,
It may be technologically possible to build containers that would survive an aircraft impact – they build them every day for aircraft black boxes. Oh – wait – no, those did not survive the impact of the towers.
If they did have them, daggett, they would have had to be huge, thick walled and generally pretty obvious. They would also have had to have been placed in full view as they could not have been hidden in ceiling cavities and such like. I do not think this is something that employees of an elevator service company could really do.
The containers would have had to be shock proof, almost completely unable to transmit heat of at least 700 degrees for over an hour and still be able to reliably detonate afterwards. Of course, once they are detonated (presumably by remote control) a lot of the explosive force would be taken just getting through such a shock- and heat-proof outer skin, so you would need to make them even bigger.
In any case, they would then have had to have arranged for the aircraft to hit certain defined levels of the buildings and hope that the (unencased) nano-thermite charges on the other levels were (presumably by luck) not damaged by the likely fires – so, really, all of the charges throughout the building would have to be protected from both heat and fire.
Am I the only one here that finds all this just a little unlikely?
“Am I the only one here that finds all this just a little unlikely?”
Don’t forget the elevators would have had to still successfully operate – but *around* these huge 767 impact and jet-fuel fire proof containers (each containing more than a tonne of thermite) that were hypothetically installed within the elevator shafts – during the 9 months previous to detonation.
It is a fun line of thought to explore, though; if only because it has almost unlimited possible refutations.
Riddle me this, daggett: how do you propose that, in the first place, you even affix several containers of thermite, weighing more than a tonne each, to the walls of an elevator shaft?
Off-topic… jules 1463 perhaps you’ve seen this article on Blackwater in Pakistan. Also, simply searching the Pakistani Internet for references to Blackwater turns up lots.
The chips contain carbon, which ignites at a lower temperature and gives off more energy than thermite. Likewise, the presence of iron is unremarkable.
Why “must” they?
Explained by the presence of carbon, which has greater energy density than thermite – see above.
Nope. They only derived elemental aluminium after bathing the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours. MEK is known to be highly reactive to aluminium, suggesting the Al separation was forced by the MEK bath, not elemental.
As noted the reaction can be explained by the carbon. Your assertion that the samples were “carefully engineered” is just that – an assertion.
“Know paint”? The authors used “ordinary paints” for comparison, not the actual paints used in the WTC towers. The structural steel used in the Twin Towers was painted with corrosion-resistant red paint, as noted in NCSTAR1-1A.
How do you know that?
Why?
First, there’s no proof that the samples were of anything unusual or untoward. As Shaun pointed out earlier, the samples were comprised of materials expected at the WTC.
Second, carbon has higher energy density than thermite, so that the samples – which contained carbon – gave off more energy than thermite proves nothing other than that the samples contained carbon.
Third, the samples didn’t “eject spheres of molten iron”. As iron is common in all sorts of material, its presence is unremarkable.
Fourth, you’ve been debunked each and every time you’ve introduced garbage “evidence”. This is another of those times.
Nope. FAIL.
So, who fed you all that bunk, Bob?
Can you show me what document they come from and let us all know where an opportunity has been provided for those arguments of yours to be peer reviewed?
I don’t pretend to have a great technical understanding of the material contained in that paper, but even I can spot at least one glaring hole in your latest post.
Bob wrote:
Yes, they did!
I thought you told us you had read the paper:
And what has the fact that “iron is common in all sorts of material” got to do with any of that?
Bob wrote:
I have not, and I intend to show that that is not the case and that you know that not to be the case.
You’re a vile, despicable, bullying, lying troll who will say anything to stop others from learning the truth.
Bob wrote:
And who do you think you are to pronounce judgement on others in this discussion?
—
I see Nick and Andrew Reynolds (once again) are confusing their own ignorance and failure to read my posts with rebutting my arguments. Please go back and read my post @ 1471:
So, just because they were lift mechanics (or supposed to be) it doesn’t mean that they were necessarily confined to working in the lift shafts.
—
Paul Burns,
Of course it doesn’t follow that we should accept the bizarre beliefs of the Ancient Greeks about the world on the back of a tortoise, just because we have a high regard for their other philosophical and scientific achievements. (In any case, how is that belief consistent with the Ptolemaic model of the solar system?)
So, what has that got to do with the topic at hand, here?
When are you going to make a single contribution that addresses the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement? (And, I have checked all of them BTW, and not one does.)
“Bunk”, Daggy? I take it you doubt the facts? If so, rebut them.
There’s not much you do understand, Daggy. You came to this stoush somewhat lacking in any expertise whatsoever.
You’ll notice that the “ejection” was of an unidentified particle. FAIL.
What I wrote – because iron is relatively common in buildings, and was in the WTC, the presence of it in the samples tells us nothing about whether it was part of this mysterious “nano-thermite” or not.
Show, don’t tell, Daggy. So far you have nothing.
Boo-hoo. I think someone needs a hug.
Someone in possession of the facts and objectivity. You have neither.
Daggett,
In answer to your question, probably not ever. I don’t waste my time with bullshit.
Bob wrote @ 1571:
But Niels Harrit tells me:
So, what is the source of your claim that “MEK is known to be highly reactive to aluminium”?
Bob wrote,
Take a hike, creep.
If the flaws in the paper were so obvious and so simple they would have been pointed out long ago by ‘debunkers’ in published documents that could have been checked by others.
Do you expect anyone here to believe that this would not have happened within days of publication of “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” if it was that easy to rebut?
So, where are the papers, Bob?
Where is one document in which the arguments you put are to be found?
Also, tell us why you think it is is it that no ‘debunkers’ are prepared to argue with Niels Harriet, Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan live before TV audiences?
No one stepped forward to debate Harrit in a planned recent televised debate on Francd @ TV.
Bob wrote:
I have limitations. I am not a physicist. I am not an engineer and I am not a chemist. However, I believe that I have shown that I am capable of comprehending the essential arguments put in that paper.
What you are doing is abusing your own obviously deeper grasp of these fields of human knowledge not to inform others, but to confuse them.
You have put superficially plausible arguments against the paper, knowing that it would take me hours, if not days to obtain the knowledge necessary to rebut all your arguments.
But why should I have to, when you have not even cited the document upon which your arguments are based?
Bob wrote:
I have already copiously ‘shown[n]‘, but watch this space for when I tear to shreds your other lies in 851 (commencing with the text “None consistent with explosive demolition”).
Bob continued:
‘Nothing’ has been easily shown to be a lie before and can easily shown to be a lie again.
daggett,
Interesting – so the core columns are easily accessible upto the 66th floor – according to “leaked” documents. Firstly, I doubt the documents were “leaked” as they have been, and remain, in many of the reports into the events of that day.
.
Secondly – the collapse of the towers (as IIRC everyone concedes) started at the levels where the aircraft hit – i.e. above the 66th floor. If you had control of both the planting and the aircraft, would it not make a lot more sense to have the aircraft hit a bit lower say, around the 66th floor? It would have been easy for a putative conspirator to hide them then.
.
In any case, you left the entire substance of my comment out – I can only guess it was deliberate as you cannot see how huge, really heavy shock-proof housings could have been planted on the floors where the aircraft were to hit. These would have to have been placed out in full view as the sort of strength (and fire-resistance) needed whould have to have been huge – not the sort of thing you can easily hide. The risk of any of them coming out of the building on impact would also have been really big.
Sorry – not even remotely plausible.
“So, just because they were lift mechanics (or supposed to be) it doesn’t mean that they were necessarily confined to working in the lift shafts.”
So you are actually maintaining that the lift mechanics did it? But you have no evidence that they did. Saying that the columns were of x dimensions is irrelevant.
You might as well just say that you reckon the towers were destroyed by some sort of as yet unknown technology because you would have about as much evidence to support that as you have for the (deep breath)
“lift mechanics covertly planting explosives inside bomb proof containers inside columns of fully occupied and security patrolled large buildings in lower Manhattan at the same time arrange to have militant Arab patsies go to Afghanistan to be recruited by Osama so they can train in the US so they can fly hijacked planes into buildings as cover for real plot so that US can declare war on Iraq and pass laws that will bring citizens under govt. control”
theory. That broadly speaking is you theory isn’t it?
Now does that sound very likely? I expect you’ll say, “Well just because it sounds unlikely doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”. And you’d sound very foolish saying it.
Daggett, in the hope that it gets through your filters, I’m just gonna repeat what I said earlier:
“Next, perhaps instead of asking “why wouldn’t ‘x’ have been technologically feasible?”, you should ask the question “is there any real evidence whatsofuckingever for ‘x’ having occurred?”.
Sure, as it happens, none of the scenarios you’ve presented are remotely feasible, but a feasibility analysis isn’t really necessary until the basic condition – “is there any real evidence whatsofuckingever” – has been answered in the affirmative.
Try it… it’s called scepticism. You might find it agreeable as an outlook on life. It has helped me avoid religion, ideology and paranoid delusions, and I’m very grateful for that.”
It’s trivial to check this, Daggy. Google “methyl ethyl ketone”+aluminium and you’ll find plenty of references to the reactivity of MEK to aluminium. Here is one, from a manufacturer of the stuff.
Ouch, Daggy – I think you just hurt my feelings.
So you won’t even attempt to rebut them? Squib.
I never I said I quoted from any document. As I said, my arguments are based on known facts, and have been repeated several times on this thread, as I noted. If you’d like some debunking to read at bedtime, I suggest you google it up yourself.
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them?
So what?
No, you have shown you are capable of agreeing with, and parroting, its arguments. You’ve yet to demonstrate any comprehension.
Who’s confused?
No, Daggy, I presented factual arguments, knowing that they represent the truth. They’re plausible because they’re based on facts and logic. Your theories are implausible because they are based on neither.
Whether you waste your time or not is up to you, Daggy – don’t blame me for your inadequacies.
Huh? My arguments are based on facts and logic. To attack my arguments successfully all that you have to do is rebut either the facts or logic. Go for it.
Ooh! I’m all a-quiver in dewy anticipation, Daggy.
I won’t hold my breath, however: I’ve been watching this space for more than two months now and all you’ve produced is spurious twaddle.
Yes, much of your “nothing” has been shown to be lies, time and again.
Is that what you meant, Daggy? Or are you confused?
Paul Burns,
I had already worked out that you maintain that the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is ‘bullshit’.
So why waste your time and everyone else’s time with posts which add nothing substantive to the argument?
—
Note how Bob has ‘squibbed’ on my challenge to produce any documents which have rebutted the claims of the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”.
I will just repeat my earlier point:
Bob replied:
I know you didn’t, Bob, but that doesn’t answer my point.
Bob continued:
Your “challenge” is pointless and irrelevant. Your claims have been rebutted here, and you have failed to defend them.
As noted, your point is irrelevant.
[I’ve taken the liberty of correcting your formatting, Daggy. Hope you don’t mind.]
Oh dear. Is this it, Daggy? Are you really going to hide behind the “peer review” process?
Arguing from authority when the “authority” in question is doubtful is a weak rhetorical strategy. You need to understand that there is no certainty that Harrit et al was peer-reviewed. In fact, it seems highly likely, given the apparent issues at Bentham, that the paper was NOT peer-reviewed, voiding your argument.
Furthermore, the fact that my arguments don’t appear in a peer-reviewed journal doesn’t disprove them. My arguments don’t rely upon any claim to authority, but on the facts. YOUR CHALLENGE is to rebut them, and you have singularly failed to do so.
Finally, you should reread this line of yours and really savour the irony:
Step back and consider the alleged “proof” about 9/11 that you have accepted from Gage, Griffin, Jones etc. Have a good think about who are the “charlatans”, and who are their dupes. I’ll give you a hint: I’m neither.
I don’t know that YOU can, Daggy, given your limitations, but your ignorance doesn’t set the standard of proof. Either do the work and educate yourself or STFU.
I note that Bob still avoids answering my simple point (@ 1580, 1575):
—
Between you and me, Bob, I’ll tell you what is one sure-fire clue (amongst many) as to who between you or me is likely to be the charlatan. It’s this statement @ 1441:
…the “dodgy video” being, of course, that extraordinary video of a stream of matter falling from the North East Corner of South Tower immediately prior to its collapse. The orange colour of that stream just happens to match the colour of molten steel.
To my knowledge, no-one has yet attempted to deny the evidence by implying that the video itself was of no value, but you have. Rather they have attempted to explain away that image by saying it had to be the molten aliminium from the aircraft engine (which, of course, is ridiculous, because aluminium remains grey and does not turn orange when it melts.).
Now, please don’t you, or all your sycophantic acolytes, attempt, once again, to ‘win’ that point by shouting me down. Let’s just let that one stand allow others, who are prepared to acknowledge the evidence of their own eyes, to judge.
Daggett, here’s a question for you.
What colour does air burn? Say, air that’s burning around molten aluminium pouring out the side of a building?
I don’t expect you to answer, because we all know what the answer is, and the fact you didn’t consider it shows you for a fool.
And why the appeals to authority? You never read papers people link for you anyway, and often accuse the authors of being shills or actual conspirators.
Is there anything about people’s various problems with your precious paper* that you actually want to argue against, or would you prefer the entire discussion consisted of unthinking halfwits parroting the nonsense of others? I’d prefer to keep that to under 50%.
*seriously though, congratulations for allowing us to shame you into reading it. Did you read the bits where the authors said they basically had no idea what the fuck they were talking about?
I haven’t avoided your “point”, Daggy. The arguments are here, on this thread, ready for your rebuttal.
Where is your rebuttal, Daggy? Why have you squibbed on the truth?
So, instead of actually addressing the flaws of the Harrit et al paper, you now want to go back to previously debunked crap again? Utterly pathetic.
Ooh, IN LIVING COLOUR!
Lots of materials are orange, Daggy. The orange colour of that stream also matches the colour of oranges. By your logic that means the stream is orange juice. FAIL.
Also, you totally misunderstood my point on the charlatanry. It should have been obvious that you’re the dupe, not the charlatan. As I implied – and you’ve just proved – you’re not clever enough to be a charlatan, but you are stupid enough to be a dupe.
Where did I say the video was of no value?
If you’d read the NIST reports, Daggy, you’d know that’s bullshit:
Yet another FAILURE, Daggy, and yet another embarrassment that you could have avoided by reading the fecking reports.
Heh. Why? So you can call them liars when they disagree with you?
daggett,
The “molten steel” issue from the buildings was dealt with hundreds of comments ago and you have since said nothing about it. If you cannot be bothered to actually read any of the rebuttal points then there is little point debating with you.
Just in case you will (and, really, more for everyone else’s edification) try this one.
You may also want to read (ha ha) the FAQ on this from the NIST – it also answers many, many of the other points you have made above.
Again – I do not expect you to do so as you have avoided doing so many times before – not even appearing to read many of the links you, yourself have put up here.
Fyodor,
On the molten metal point – as the piece I linked to points out you can see the material as it cools and solidifies at the bottom of the photo (if it is not inconveniently cropped, as some sites (oddly) do. The resulting solidified material is silvery, not dark grey. Solid aluminium is silvery, not dark grey as iron and (construction grade) steel are. So, even from the photos you can see it is not molten steel.
On Nov. 14, 2009, I gave a talk regarding my 9/11 research to a good group in Sydney. In particular, I addressed questions about nanothermite.
I showed data for XEDS analysis of actual primer paint from WTC steel (from a monument at Clarkson College in NY state). The primer paint shows a chemical signature that is clearly different from that of the red material in the red/gray chips.
I also showed that the red material contains grains of iron oxide in Fe2O3 form, this determined by Transmission Electron Microscopy coupled with diffraction patterns. The uniformity of these grains, and the absence of “steel”, along with the uniformity of the tiny plate-like structures containing aluminum, as well as the organic matrix in which these structures are embedded — argue compellingly against the notion that falling buildings can produce such a material.
As a control, we examined dust produced in the conventional demolitions of high-rise buildings in Nevada and Utah. In these dust samples, we found NO red/gray chips whatsoever — again differentiating from the WTC-dust.
MEK does not react with ALUMINUM OXIDE to produce aluminum. That is the crucial point, if one understands the chemistry here. Further, there were NO iron-rich spheres in the red material BEFORE ignition, but iron-rich spheres WERE present copiously after ignition of the red material in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. (DSC) This implies very high temperatures, reachable in nanothermite reactions, but not in ordinary carbon/organic fires. The presence of iron oxide before the reaction, and reduced iron-spheres after demonstrates that a very high-temperature reaction has taken place.
Also, if you read our paper, you will see that that the DSC traces for four red-material samples (from WTC dust) are very narrow. When we ignited paint in the same DSC, the thermal trace was very broad, easily distinguished from the narrow peak of the red material from WTC dust. As Dr. Farrer told me, the DSC data show that the red material “blows up.” I don’t see how we can be any clearer on this point.
My talk in Sydney was videotaped and hopefully will be available before too long. Please watch it for further information.
And note that my time is indeed limited, but I am glad to post here once in response to questions posed.
Professor,
Let’s say (for a moment) that I accept that nano-thermite was present in the buildings and did, indeed, initate the collapse.
As the collapse was clearly initiated at (or very near) the place of impact of the aircraft, do you have a satisfactory mechanism that would allow it to be present and in, and remain at, the crucial positions it would need to be on a floor that is experiencing the impact of a jet aircraft travelling at a very high speed and through the subsequent fires for over an hour? How would a putative “cutter charge” of nano-thermite then be set off remotely and under sufficient control to initate a collapse in a way that does not look too much like a CD to be plausible?
Would the charges not be likely to be set off prematurely and in a disordered fashion by the simple impact and during the subsequent burning?
I am sure there are many other questions that could be raised from your comment here, but I just cannot see how it is even plausible that there were large nano-thermite (or any explosives) that would be able to be reliably placed and controlled on a series of floors such that they could be adequately relied upon to do a job more than an hour after being hit by a high-speed jet airliner.
I just cannot see how this could be done.
Dear Professor Jones, can you explain why the Government of your country would need to blow up its own citizens and destroy a part of one it’s greatest cities and blow a hole in its own previously understood impregnable defense structures including it’s own headquarters, merely to prosecute a foreign war?
Obviously you are older enough to clearly remember Gulf War 1 amongst a large number of US foreign military excursions. Show me the building the US Govt and military blew up in Miami before they invaded Panama for instance and so on.
Besides the fact that every single 9/11 Truth movement talking point has been debunked over and over by reputable scientists and the official version is accepted by mainstream scientific consensus, and just as this new fantasy of hundreds of tonnes-of-super-nano-thermite-inside-jet-impact-proof-containers-hidden-in-elevator-shafts-with-no-one-noticing will likewise be de-bunked by those with no personal and financial gain in this debate..your 9//11 conspiracy theory just doesn’t stand up when viewed in light of the long history of your country’s foreign policy excursions and meddling over the past 60 years.
The US Govt has never needed to commit internal terrorism of this scale merely to prosecute a foreign war, especially when lying and manipulating domestic support has been more than adequate time and time again.
The US Govt was provided with a water-tight Casus belli to launch with many other countries an attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They then lied and manipulated the 9/11 tragedy to prosecute a war in Iraq, that the then US Administration’s main advisors were ideologically committed to for years before 9/11 and which is intrinsically linked with geo-political events reaching back, way back to beginnings of the cold war and further.
The 9/11 so-called Truth movement appeals to citizens who possess the most rudimentary knowledge and understanding of history and global events, let alone understanding the more mundane business of domestic politics. (Sarah Palin death panels anyone?)
The really interesting aspect of this whole weird debate is that the 9/11 Truth movement is itself a bizarre replication of exact methods by which the Bush Administration gathered support to prosecute the war in Iraq:
Use of false or misleading evidence, rewriting facts and history to fit the events, ascribing the wrong motives to the wrong protagonists, using 9/11 to further their own warped agenda, pushing it onto a gullible and vulnerable public
The oppressed become the oppressors…. or in the 9/11 Truth movement – the manipulated become the manipulators.
“I see Nick and Andrew Reynolds (once again) are confusing their own ignorance and failure to read my posts with rebutting my arguments. Please go back and read my post @ 1471:”
daggett @ 1572, not at all. I read your post @ 1471 in full the first time. Who can forget it was the launching point for your wildly unsubstantiated accusations of Ace Elevator Company employees of cowardice, negligence resulting in death, and conspiracy to commit mass-murder?
The briefest of quotes you supplied from ae911truth @ 1471, and again @ 1572, addressed neither of the two questions/complications I raised. Let’s temporarily allow through ae911truth’s assertion that “most of the core columns would be easily accessed from the elevator shafts”, even if it radically confuses close proximity with “easy access”.
1) Where were these necessarily huge containers of thermite, weighing more than a tonne each, hypothetically installed, if not within the elevator shafts themselves? You have studied the architectural drawings you linked to, haven’t you? Please direct us to specific drawings and co-ordinates.
2) How do you propose several containers of thermite, weighing more than a tonne each, were affixed to the walls of the elevator shafts? Or, if you have satisfactorily addressed 1), to other hypothetical locations within close proximity/easy access to the elevator shafts?
Hello, Dr. Jones*, thanks for joining us and offering to answer questions.
Is this data available in an accessible format? For example, why didn’t you include it in your paper?
Who argued that it was produced by a falling building?
Different buildings produced different dust. Why would a different building altogether provide an adequate control? What is this supposed to prove?
No, the crucial point is that MEK is highly reactive with aluminium. The paper argues that elemental aluminium was found, yet if this were so why did it not react to the MEK after a 55 hour bath? And if it wasn’t metallic aluminium – a key ingredient of thermite, as you note –but aluminium oxide, instead, what makes you think the material was thermite of any description?
Iron oxide reduces to iron in the presence of carbon at a much lower temperature than that required to melt pure iron or steel. Given the chips you sampled were known to contain carbon, the iron spheres could have been produced by the ignition test itself and aren’t proof of a “very high temperature reaction” on 9/11.
Which paint, and where is the DSC analysis for it?
In that case, could you also answer the following:
1. What proof can you provide that your samples were: a) collected from the WTC just after 9/11; and b) were not contaminated by other materials subsequently?
2. Have the results of your tests on the samples been confirmed by an independent laboratory?
I’d also be interested in your answers to Andrew Reynolds’ and Jo’s questions.
Finally – and this is cheeky of me, I know – but do you really believe that Jesus Christ visited Meso-America? If yes, based on what evidence?
*Assuming you are Dr. Steven Jones, that is.
Whoops. Could someone close the bracket at the end of the following text:
MEK does not react with ALUMINUM OXIDE to produce aluminum. That is the crucial point, if one understands the chemistry here. [/blockquote
We temporarily interrupt The Show That Never Ends to look at a few other assumptions for a moment…
jo: “Show me the building the US Govt and military blew up in Miami before they invaded Panama for instance and so on.”
Well from a plausibility/probability POV, and also from straight history, that’s a very good point to make.
“long history… [US govt’s] meddling over the past 60 years.”
This, on the other hand, may as well have been written in crayon, with the R’s backwards and the whole nine yards.
“the most rudimentary knowledge and understanding of history and global events”
I’ll just let that one “tumble through the air,” as a man once said.
“let alone understanding the more mundane business of domestic politics. (Sarah Palin death panels anyone?)”
You’re joking here, right? Because if you aren’t, your understanding of US domestic politics is quite entertainingly naïve. Or perhaps, deliberately naïve. (HINT: a lot of things in America are different from the way they are in Australia. But wait – how could that be possible?!?) Here is your brain. Now here is your brain on ideology. Discuss.
“exact methods by which the Bush Administration gathered support to prosecute the war in Iraq”
In fairness, that’s a big topic where reasonable people can agree that opposing points of view have substance. But then, your previous remarks don’t fill me with confidence. On the other hand, many of your earlier comments upthread were (I thought) impressive, to which I bow. So let’s just say, everyone can’t know everything, and it’s a mistake to try. Hell, we’ve *all* been in this situation:
CHEF AT TOP OF STAIRS: Seven… banana cream… pies!
(tumbles down stairs, dropping pies.)
CHORUS: And that’s… the song… of seven!
On Nov. 14, 2009, I gave a talk regarding my 9/11 research to a good group in Sydney. In particular, I addressed questions about nanothermite.
I showed data for XEDS analysis of actual primer paint from WTC steel (from a monument at Clarkson College in NY state). The primer paint shows a chemical signature that is clearly different from that of the red material in the red/gray chips.
I also showed that the red material contains grains of iron oxide in Fe2O3 form, this determined by Transmission Electron Microscopy coupled with diffraction patterns. The uniformity of these grains, and the absence of “steel”, along with the uniformity of the tiny plate-like structures containing aluminum, as well as the organic matrix in which these structures are embedded — argue compellingly against the notion that falling buildings can produce such a material.
As a control, we examined dust produced in the conventional demolitions of high-rise buildings in Nevada and Utah. In these dust samples, we found NO red/gray chips whatsoever — again differentiating from the WTC-dust.
MEK does not react with ALUMINUM OXIDE to produce aluminum. That is the crucial point, if one understands the chemistry here. Further, there were NO iron-rich spheres in the red material BEFORE ignition, but iron-rich spheres WERE present copiously after ignition of the red material in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. (DSC) This implies very high temperatures, reachable in nanothermite reactions, but not in ordinary carbon/organic fires. The presence of iron oxide before the reaction, and reduced iron-spheres after demonstrates that a very high-temperature reaction has taken place.
Also, if you read our paper, you will see that that the DSC traces for four red-material samples (from WTC dust) are very narrow. When we ignited paint in the same DSC, the thermal trace was very broad, easily distinguished from the narrow peak of the red material from WTC dust. As Dr. Farrer told me, the DSC data show that the red material “blows up.” I don’t see how we can be any clearer on this point.
My talk in Sydney was videotaped and hopefully will be available before too long. Please watch it for further information.
And note that my time is indeed limited, but I am glad to post here once in response to questions posed.
Alternatively.
I see a lot of posts addressed to Professor Steven Jones are not even relevant to his paper or his post. Could I suggest people take heed of his statement:
Andrew Reynolds and Nick seem to be very well versed in Rule 14 of “25 rules of Disinformation”:
Jo wrote:
In fact, Jo, that’s what happened at Pearl Harbour (although, I would hasten to add that Pearl Harbour was a “Let It Happen On Purpose” (LIHOP) attack, whilst 9/11 was a straight out “Made It Happen Purpose” (MIHOP) false flag attack).
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) cabal which seized power in 2000 thanks to the elections that Bush and Fox News stole wrote:
Jo wrote:
This is like saying “there can never be a first time”. Anyway, as shown above, PNAC seemed to believe that the usual “lying and manipulating domestic support” would not be sufficient.
Had you read my post about Operation Northwoods, Jo?
Daggett,
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED AT PEARL HARBOR.
The Americans had cracked the Japanese diplomatic codes, but their key to the codes was imperfect. Unsurprisingly, the code-breakers had a huge number of transmissions. They knew there was likely to be a Japanese attack in the Pacific. As I understand it, there was some confusion about the meanings of the codes for the locations. They knew Pearl Harbor was a likely target. They knew American bases in the Phillipines might be a likely target. They did not know which base was likely to be attacked first.
It was not until a Japanese transmission was decoded about two days after the Pearl Harbor attack they realised that they had the information about the PH attack prior to the attack. (They got much better by the battle of Midway.) It was not left undecoded intentionally. It was undecoded because of the huge amount of decoding that had to be done.
No reliable historian believes Roosevelt had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor and did not tell the American people. Churchill may have and he may have neglected to tell the Americans, but so far as I know that is still a matter of historical debate.
I haven’t looked at any books before I wrote the above, but so far as I know, the broad outlines are correct.
facts, Paul Burns? FACTS???
daggett’s not going to be too happy…..
Professor, professor! I am very glad you came. I have been languishing on this thread wondering if anyone would address my major area of interest re 9/11 conspiracy theories: Chocolate.
I have a deal sweetner, so to speak: I will gladly tell you what I think of the mormon sub plot in Twilight if you tell me what you think of the mormon sub plot in the Bible – you know, where Jesus does Mexico. I have been asking Daggetty but he does not seem to want to go near it.. I think he does not believe it or something. Indeed, I suspect he thinks that by concentrating on your expertise in this area, it will hurt his argument regarding 9/11. He might well think you are a crackpot, Professor. I don’t see why that would be, but I think that’s the weak spot in his position – he does not believe that Jesus did Rio. You will be pleased to know that in my estimation, chocolate is holy. Therefore, with no evidence at all and with the geography and origins of chocolate a complete mystery to me, I confidently assert that there must have been a Jesus Miracle of the Chocolate on the Mount in Meso America. What do you think about that? Do you think Jesus gave us chocolate and when you die, it’s just eternal chocolate waterfalls like I do?
What Paul Burns said.
There’s another very significant argument against the Pearl Harbour = LIHOP nonsense.
It is this: no one could have known or predicted that Adolf Hitler would declare war on the US in the aftermath of Pearl Harbour. It was arguably the most irrational thing Hitler did in the entire course of WW2 (and that’s saying something).
If he had decided otherwise, how would Roosevelt have persuaded an isolationist US Congress to join the war in Europe? American public opinion was hopping mad and out for vengeance against the Japanese, but why would they have wanted to join the fight against Germany?
Pearl Harbour, in that case, would have harmed FDR’s goal of entering the European war, so it’s ridiculous to believe he ‘let it happen on purpose’.
(And let’s not overlook that it was a strike against a Navy that FDR had spent years of his life building up, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and for which he developed a life-long affection.)
Out of curiosity, Daggett, is there any conspiracy theory you don’t believe in? What about the Roswell Incident of 1947? I’d really like to know what you think about that one.
dear daggett,
In Australia we don’t generally worship the title “Professor”. Academics (especially) don’t.
I hope this helps.
daggett,
I trusted that Fyodor, in his inimitable style, would ask the right questions on the chemistry – an area he is clearly better able to discuss than I am. And, as I point out, he did – providing clear (and, to me at least) compelling responses on those points.
Up to you if you wish to ignore them as you have (yet again) done.
To me the chemistry is interesting, but ultimately pointless if there is no way that thermite, thermate or any other incendiary or explosive could have been there in the conditions given.
To use Sherlock Holmes – once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case I cannot see how anyone would have got any form of explosive (or incendiary) into the buildings (at least 3 and maybe 7 separate buildings) and then have them survive to initiate a controlled demolition more than an hour later. Frankly, I regard that as impossible unless it can be demonstrate to have been possible, something I am still waiting to hear from you or anyone else in your “movement”.
Now – go ahead and ignore the questions once again and then accuse Fyodor (and perhaps me) of missing the point and trying to “spam” the forum.
That said, you have stopped using the term “spam” so perhaps there is hope yet that you can learn.
btw,
The book about Pearl Harbour that is exhaustive and accurate in its research is Gordon W. Prange, At Dawn We Slept. The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor.
There is a more recent book that gives the conspiracy theory blaming Roosevelt. Its name escapes me, but historians dismiss it as misleading. It was, incidentally written by a mate of G. W. Bush, and is a RWDB attempt to discredit Roosevelt.
Paul,
You probably mean Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.
The latest 9/11 news is that some computer geeks have decoded the flight deck recorder and found that the cockpit door was not opened at all during AA77′s flight (the pentagon).
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405
Once confirmed this will be proof that a hijacking never took place, not that anyone could really believe that skinny little men armed with next-to-nothing could possibly take over 4 cockpits anyhow.
Also in NZ Richard Gage is proving to be quite a hit on national TV..
andrew,
Is this the FDR from the plane that did not hit the Pentagon? So – “Pilots for 911 Truth” is now claiming two mutually incompatible things – the FDR that was found in the Pentagon came from a plane that was not hijacked and was not flown into the Pentagon.
So – it was a planted piece of evidence that is giving honest data? What – did the plane that was not there simply drop it’s FDR on the way past?
What a strange assertion.
AR @ 1604,
That’s the one.
Hmm…dunno about that, andrew.
According to the FAA’s 1997 FDR rule changes:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_125-226.html
I don’t see any requirement for the status of the flight deck door to be recorded.
In which case, I’m not sure why you assume Boeing would have gone to the extra expense and trouble of wiring up its sensors to the FDR during the upgrades to all of their carriers.
“skinny little men”
Is it healthy to be so obsessed with their body type? Or perhaps it has been shown that all previous hijackings were undertaken by stout, portly, stocky or maybe even corpulent men? Is this the case lowercase andrew? Do you think that lack of chunkiness is the smoking gun?
I just watched the clip for NZ TV. OMG, Gage actually states that he thinks it was the Ace Elevator Company who planted the explosives. I just though that was Dagget grasping at straws. Ace will be talking to their lawyers if he keeps this up. Throughout the clip he keeps saying that he has evidence but all they talk about is a few news video clips from the day. So there is nothing new. I suspect the Ace Elevator angle is one he picked up from a loony at a meeting and thought he’s added to his slightly stale repertoire. I expect to here more about Pearl Harbour from him in the future.
andrew,
Is this the FDR from the plane that did not hit the Pentagon? So – “Pilots for 911 Truth” is now claiming two mutually incompatible things – the FDR that was found in the Pentagon came from a plane that was not hijacked and was not flown into the Pentagon.
So – it was a planted piece of evidence that is giving honest data? What – did the plane that was not there simply drop it’s FDR on the way past?
What a strange assertion.
It is the flight deck recorder information that was released as evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon, if you think planting a piece of evidence like that would be difficult then there is no point talking to you.
The black boxes have officially never been found for the towers, although there are witnesses who say they were directly involved in their recovery stating that they were recovered.
The Pentagon FDR also shows that the plane was too high to hit the pentagon when it was supposed to have, so although it was released (unlike clear video footage) it doesn’t support the official story once the details are scrutinised.
They either didn’t think people would scrutinise the info once it was released, or the people releasing it didn’t realise what information it contained (it’s a highly specialised area).
#1601 Ambigulous
Damn right, we don’t particularly care about Professors in Australia, and it turns out that Professors Jones are in particular parlous circumstances. Professor Phil Jones is in trouble for indiscreet emails, I am proof perfect the whole professor thing has been totally debased and now Professor Stephen Jones wants us to think his journal (thanks Fyodor @1551 for the acronym) has rigour.
It doesn’t take a great academic reputation to create utter bilge. Anyone can do it, and frankly, when Professors weigh in well, where’s the fun gone? Such weighty matters as those being debated on this thread have no relevance for academia. They are far too important for scholarship and logic.
The Chocolate Jesus is correct. Analysis of the dust particles shows minute traces of fondue. The iron blebs came from fondue tongs obviously, because no-one presented after 9/11 with burns to their fingertips only. Clearly, the ignition point for the nano-thermite was a fondue pot because as anyone knows, once heated you can come back a week later and the bugger is still hot.
Chocolate originated in the Middle East. Jesus took it with him to Meso America. How else did it get there? And you’re damn lucky the Japanese did not win through in Pearl Harbour, otherwise it would have ended up being called Miso America.
“They either didn’t think people would scrutinise the info once it was released, or the people releasing it didn’t realise what information it contained (it’s a highly specialised area).”
So… who realeased it? Mel and Kochie?
andrew,
Yet again you fail to answer any substantive question. Nick’s comment shows that there was no need for the FDR to record any data at all from the cockpit door. If you are going to try to prove that this is “smoking gun” evidence, then you will need to be able to show that, despite it not being needed under the regulations, it was hooked up on that particular aircraft.
Or, perhaps, it really did not hit the Pentagon, it just flew overhead and disappeared into some form of vortex? The witnesses (and there were many) presumably not seeing the vortex appear above the Pentagon.
Professor
I might have trouble keeping up with all these Joneses. Some Aussies seem unaware that “Prof” in the US just indicates tenure, rather than a substantial record of scholarship. Easy mistake to make. Especially if you’re the error-prone type. Your hypotheses are intriguing. Are you a 911 expert? Never mind.
Prof’s gone quiet. Are we sure it was him and not Dagget wearing a wig?
It’s a shame the good Prof doesn’t seem to be hanging around. I was looking forward to …
Mr. Jones strikes up a conversation with this red-haired clown.
One would think Counting Crows had written the song deliberately to serve as an anthem for this thread:
“Believe in me
Help me believe in anything
I want to be someone who believes.”
And to describe interactions between Daggett and the Prof:
“Mr. Jones and me tell each other fairy-tales.”
In regard to Pearl Harbour, it is not critcal to my case here whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Japanese attack to succeed. What is critical is the psychological impact on American public. The day before the attack, US public opinion (rightly or wrongly) was seemingly immovably opposed to entering the conflict between Britain and the USSR on the one hand and Nazi Germany on the other. The day after there was almost total unanimity in support of entering the war, at least against Japan.
The PNAC cabal, including its ringleaders Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz, understood that as they demonstrated in their document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century” mentioned above.
The false flag terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 fulfilled the need identifed by PNAC in order to advance its agenda.
I note that no-one has responeded to that point.
If Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP attack, then it would not have been the first nor the last. Others include:
* the stunt staged on the US-Mexican border in 1846, when the US foruces paraded up and down until Mexican fired upon them, thereby providing the US an excuse to invade
* the very suspicious blowing up of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898 which provided a convenient pretext fot the US to decalre war against Spain and seize Puerto Rico, the Phillipines and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
* the LIHOP sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.
* Operation Northwoods (mentioned above at 286, 735, 1596 with not one response so far) intended to provide a pretext to invade Cuba. It was not carried out because President Kennedy, who was subsequenlty murdered, closed it down.
* The ficititious, staged Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 used to provide an excuse for the US to bomb North Vietnam.
My understanding was that Robert B. Stinnert’s “Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor” (1999) was the final word on that controversy. If something has been written more recently, that refutes Stinnert’s thesis, then I would be interested to know.
I don’t particularly wish to accuse President Roosevelt of a crime he did not commit. Whether he did or did not, he seems to me to be one of the more admirable of the leaders of the 20th century. Certainly, if the Invisible Government had conspired to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup, he must have had something going for him. In any case, whilst my mind is not fixed on this issue, it seems to me that the entry of the US into the Second World War was vastly preferable to the US remaining neutral in the world historical context, however ordinary Americans may have regarded it. So, if they were deceived into supporting the war, then it would be one of the very rare occasions in which such deceit may have been defensible.
—
Make what you will of my temporary absence from this forum. As with Professor Steven Jones my time is also limited.
As I said, it takes time for someone with my own limited knowledge of Physics, Chemistry and Engineering to answer a charlatan with a greater knowledge in those fields of knowledge, and who is resolved to use that knowledge to mislead, rather than inform others
That said, I consider it important to draw to a satisfactory conclusion all the arguments here, particularly the argument about nano-thermite, and my intention is to do so.
WTF is LIHOP?
Wrong on the Lusitania.
Correct about the 1848 Mexican American War.
Bommbing of the USS Maine off Havana is unresolved.
Don’t know the Northwood episode so can’t comment.
Wrong about Gulf of Tonkin.
Historians dismiss Stinnett’s book as confused rubbish, from what I can gather,its not the last word on anything. If you knew anything about the philosophy as history you would realise there’s no such thing as the last word on anything. You’re just revealing your ignorance.
Daggett, there is a very big difference between history and conspiracy theories. If you’re too intellectually lazy to realise it, that’s your problem.
Well that’s lucky. Wait, what? Why the fuck did you bring it up then?
Ah, so what’s critical to your “case” is the vibe of the thing. Cool!
And fighting Japan in the Pacific makes it more or less likely that the US would join the conflict against Germany in Europe? The answer is less, isn’t it Daggett?
They understood what? That a country under attack is more likely to mobilise for war? These guys are fucking geniuses!!!
What sort of response do you want? Something alnog the lines of
“well, Daggett, you’ve sure pulled the scales from mine eyes… now I’ll stop demanding that you present any evidence at all for your crazy theories. After all, you’ve got the oh-so-firm ground of conjecture and insinuation. You win!!!11!”
I’ll bet.
Sorry mate, you’re shit out of luck. We’ll still be needing that evidence.
FDB asks,
Firstly, it was the PNAC cabal, amongst the principle beneficiaries of 9/11, who first ‘brought up’ Pearl Harbour as I showed above.
Secondly, my best understanding was that Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor to succeed. As I said, if Paul Burns knows of where Stinnert’s thesis has been disproven, then I would be interested to know. To, instead, assert that “[unnamed] historians dismiss Stinnett’s book as confused rubbish” is “intellectually lazy” in my view.
Paul Burns, LIHOP stands for Let It Happen on Purpose. If you had searched with the string LIHOP, you would have found where I had defined it.
Why wasn’t the sinking of the Lusitania a LIHOP attack?
And how was I wrong about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
With the sinking of the USS Maine, it may be unresolved, but the least likely of all explanations, contrary to what the US newsmedia stridently asserted at the time, is that the Spanish did it. As I pointed out it was most convenient for the Unite States’s geopolitical ambitions.
I am not surprised Paul Burns, that you are too lazy to have made the effort to find out about Operation Northwoods. Yo have made no effort whatsoever to make yourslelf familiar with any aspect of the 9/11 controversy, so why should it be any different about Operation Norhtwoods?
As I wrote above, Operation Northwoods is not a conspiracy theory, it is a proven historical fact. The US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff planned in 1962 to stage terrorist attacks on US citizens including assassinations and plane hijackngs and blame them on Cuba in order to give themselves a pretext to invade Cuba.
It was only prevented because President John F Kennedy had the decency and backbone to stop it.
Why not answer all my questions Daggett?
When someone asks you a question, it’s polite to address it in some way.
For the benefit of those wondering what Daggett is talking about in regard to Operation Northwoods …
A JCS memorandum from 1962 was declassified in the 1990s. It can be found here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
It set out options under which the US could obtain a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. Some of the options are quite amusing, and I do recommend people have a look at the document!
For example, there’s a complicated scheme to set up an airliner full of people with fake identities, and a matching drone aircraft with no one on board. The drone would be destroyed close to Cuban airspace after emitting a mayday signal, and, Bob’s your uncle, the US would have a casus belli!
Daggett, of course, finds this simply outrageous — and proof of a US predilection for ‘false flag’ operations which culminated on 9/11. But it is nothing of the sort.
Armed forces all over the world have planning staffs which generate hypothetical plans for conflict. There are plans right now sitting in filing cabinets on Russell Hill for war with our regional neighbours. A variety of plans were generated by the US, during the Cold War, for fighting the Soviets — some of which involved a US first strike. No doubt the Soviets had their equivalent plans.
The existence of a plan does not imply an intention to activate it. It simply exists because planning staff have to do something at work to justify their existence, and because the military want to have something to pull out of the filing cabinet and give to the President if a crisis occurs.
Kennedy was not interested in Northwoods. And neither was LBJ — even though he was presumably the puppet of the ‘Invisible Government’ who had JFK murdered (according to Daggett’s fantasies). Northwoods is simply an entertaining footnote in Cold War history.
Now, Daggett, I notice you haven’t responded to my question about the Roswell Incident of 1947. Please tell me what happened on that day. I need to know the Truth.
Andrew Reynolds,
Have you read NIST’s ‘explanation’ of what looks like molten metal?
Well they’re sure right about molten aluminium itself not appearing orange, but where has there ever been such a flow of organic, presumably burning matter, mingled so finely with molten aluminium as there to be no trace of molten aluminium’s normal silvery appearance?
I would sure like to see images of where this has ever occurred other than, allegedly, on 11 Septmeber 2001. If they can’t produce such images, then I would suggest that their explanation is highly suspect and that what we see there is, indeed, molten steel.
Molten steel from what?
“Make what you will of my temporary absence from this forum.”
AHA, notice how we never see Dagget and the Prof together? It’s a conspiracy I tells you.
“Why wasn’t the sinking of the Lusitania a LIHOP attack?”
Because there is no evidence for it?
“And how was I wrong about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?”
Because you confused opportunistic exploitation with cunning well laid plans?
Much of the content Bob’s latest post appears to be designed to waste time rather than to shed more light on the topic at hand. Of course, this is nothing new.
Note Bob’s ‘defence’ of his practice of duplicating in its entirety each of its posts:
Of course ‘hours’ may be an exaggeration, but the order of at least 10 minutes is not, and that is far more time than a typical vistor is likely to spend, which I am sure suits Bob and the other 9/11 disinformation merchants on this forum perfectly.
Bob continued:
It’s long been obvious that it takes Bob little time to write his ‘contributions’.
If all you need to do is create a superficial impression to those who want to be fooled, that my argumuments have been ‘debunked’ and add clutter that makes it harder for others, who wish to learn the truth from finding it, then why would anyone need to spend any great deal of time?
More assertions.
Bob excuses his conduct because he ‘think[s]‘ that the complete duplication of a block of text, 926 in one case is harder to process than a small fraction of that text than a small fraction of that text combined with a link containing 30 characters. Of course this runs counter to common sense and what I understood to be much of the whole point of computer science.
Note how he has not responded to my point that if everyone had adopted his practice, the size of this forum would have increased at an exponential rate.
As it is, the size of this forum is now 3.2Mbytes, which means that anyone who wishes to continue to follow this discussion, who has a limited download quota, may risk exceeding that quota. Of course, as I have pointed out before, it is my belief that is Bob’s precise intention.
As the forum now is, it will stand much more of a monument to what can be achieved by trolls determined to disrupt a discussion than it will be as a useful resource for those wishing to understand 9/11. I think it will stand as a monument to the failure of the moderators of Larvatus Prodeo to recognise behaviour which is harmful to informed discussion and to act against it.
Fortuantely, there is still a lot worth salvaging amongst the spam, so this may yet be turned into a useful resource somwhere else on the web.
—
Professor Steven Jones wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
They have offered to make the dust samples available to anyone else who wants to conduct tests to confirm or deny their results. I would imagine that this would apply to any data they have obtained. Given that the US government could easily disprove the findings with all the dust they have acess to, what would Harrit, Jones, Ryan et al have to gain form making up their results?
Professor Steven Jones wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
I presume that Bob is trying to imply that the red/grey chips were planted. As I showed above, the paper’s case could easily be disproven by the Govenment with all the available WTC dust, but they won’t and they won’t give access to others do do so.
Also the red-grey chips are clearly finely engineered and could not conceivably have been created outside the US military as Paul Craig Roberts pointed out.
Profeseor Steven Jones wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Niels Harrit is also adament that this is not true.
As he has refused to participate in this circus (which is understandable, but unfortunate), there is nothing more that can be done, for the time being to resolve this on this forum, except to repeat the above points in this post and my earlier point (@ 1575, 1580, 1582):which Bob has refused to answer:
—
The revelation of PatrickB’s, Nabakov’s and supposed historian Paul Burns’ ignorance about key 20th century historical events should be most instructive to others.
PatrickB, it is unfortunate that you are unaware of the evidence that the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 was a LIHOP attack engineeerd to facilitate the entry of the US into the First World War, but I am not going to rectify that deficiency in that knowledge for you at this point in time.
Evidently Nabakov as well as ‘historian’ Paul Burns believe that US warships were indeed attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin and the US merely ‘opportunistic[ally]‘ ‘exploit[ed]‘ the affair to begin bomb North Vietnam.
Most revealing.
Thanks all three of you.
—
I think if a prize for stupidity is to be awarded it would almost certainly be awarded for Paulus’s contribution on Operation Northwoods. At least the other ‘debunkers’ seem to be smart enough to have realised that they don’t have a leg to stand on in regards to Operation Northwoods, so have wisely, from the point of view of deceiving others, avoided this topic, but Paulus appears not to have undrstood this.
Paulus wrote:
Except, Paulus, the US had already ‘activated’ one plan to invade Cuba, namely at the Bay of Pigs. That attempt failed because (a) the Cubans did not welcome the US sponsored mercenaries as liberators and (b) President Kennedy did not follow the script he was expected to follow and authorise further US military support to the invaders, which was undoubtedly a major factor which led to his subsequently murder.
At the time the US was escalating its illegal war in Vietnam and was notorious for having intrefered repeatedly in the affairs of most Latin American nations. In 1956, they orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Arbenz Government in Guatemala and in 1965, they were to invade Santo Dominica. As well they were to engage in an almost incessant program of sponsoring terrorist attacks against Cuba, military provocations and an economic blockade.
If Paulus had grasped the meanining of the Operation Northwoods document, he would have understood that its purpose was not to respond to a crisis, rather it was to create a crisis where none existed in order to justify a war that was unnecessary except for the interests of the US oligarchs.
That is precisely what did happen on 11 September 2001.
Daggy,
i reckon the other commenters have answered your questions. So there’s no need to waste my time.
To the moderator: I strongly suggest you make Daggett remove all aspersions he has made as to my standing as an historian. Or isn’t anybody moderating this junk?
This do, Daggett?
Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. By Robert B. Stinnett. New York: The Free Press, 2000, 386 pages. $26.00.
Americans have always been fascinated by conspiracy theories. At the top of our pantheon of paranoia are the myriad hypotheses surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Close behind are the continuing arguments that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt deliberately provoked and allowed the destruction of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, in order to galvanize a reluctant American public into supporting national participation in World War II. This lingering suspicion is partly responsible for the recent drive to exonerate the commanders at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, for their responsibility in the disaster on 7 December 1941.
Most RecentGovernment Articles
»
The latest book expounding this well-worn theory is Robert B. Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. The author is a World War II Navy veteran who became a photographer and journalist for the Oakland Tribune. He has done some admirable and dogged primary research, filing innumerable requests under the Freedom of Information Act and spending many long hours searching in archives, and he demonstrates a journalist’s knack for presenting a sensational story. The end result is an apparently damning indictment of FDR and his Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, many naval officers above and below Admiral Kimmel, and the military intelligence community. Unfortunately the author failed to do much basic secondary historical research and has a tendency to leap to conclusions based on questionable or erroneous interpretations of evidence. This is a dangerous book that will dupe unsuspecting readers who misinterpret the author’s earnestness and technical explanations as signs of balance and accuracy, and it will perpetuate myths that should have long been forgotten.
At the core of Stinnett’s case is a memorandum written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, in October 1940. Stinnett interprets it as outlining eight actions designed to provoke Japan into war, and while he cannot prove FDR ever saw the document, Stinnett accepts it as the blueprint for the American actions in the Pacific leading to Pearl Harbor. Once he allegedly decided to sacrifice the Pacific Fleet, FDR carefully placed fellow conspirators in key positions, such as when he sent the Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear Admiral Walter Anderson, to command the fleet battleships. Stinnett continues to weave his web of conspiracy by arguing that for decades naval and intelligence organizations have covered up the fact that key information from radio intercepts and code-breaking revealing exact Japanese intentions was withheld from Kimmel and Short to ensure their unpreparedness.
btw, just in case you think I’m fudging it, the deleted texts are advertisements.
Size of all the text from all the contributions on this thread, with headers, copied into a simple text file and saved without HTML: 1.8 megs
Size of the same chunk of selected text saved with HTML: 3.7 megs
Oh, we’re back on irony again are we? Tops!
That what’s not true?
1) that MEK is reactive with aluminium (cos it is, you know)
2) that this is contradictory with finding elemental aluminium in a bath of MEK after 55 hours (cos it is, you know)
3) that the chips actually contain aluminium oxide, as Dr Jones implied above, but Harrit et al wrote their report up wrong for some reason? (maybe for the reason that finding Al oxide would contra-indicate the presence of thermite, who knows?)
Please answer the question. What is it that Harritt is “adament” about?
You had no point. You asked a question about whether “Bob” had any references for his debunking of the science in the Harritt paper. His answer was clear – there is no reference, just logic and facts. Do you have any problem with the logic and facts presented? If not, no reference should be necessary.
“PatrickB, it is unfortunate that you are unaware of the evidence that the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 was a LIHOP attack engineeerd to facilitate the entry of the US into the First World War, but I am not going to rectify that deficiency in that knowledge for you at this point in time.”
Oh go on Dagget/Jones you know you want to! Anyway a quick survey reveals that it was sunk by the overzealous Germans as per the historical facts. I couldn’t even see a reference to a conspiracy on the first page of Google results.
hey check this out kevin=gilligan the weather global asshole crisis
kevin=skippy
kevin=the millionaire and his wife who by the way made her money from a private contract [and started a job placement agency] with the queen when the ces was dismantled
kevin= the movie star wolverine front page of the sun
the professor of bullshit
and julia guilotine opps mary annetoinette
no luxuries= depopulation and feudelism
is this cynisism or astute obsevation hmm
go viral LOL lets go mainstream LOL
but jokes aside bob pork paul cheating malcom framed ya john coward krud malcom spinshit tunbull abbott and costello and not to mention peter hitch your star to my wagging the dogs tale on nein nazi no news kerry obrien with the egyptian hook and whip secretly hidden in the seven thirty logo tony jonesing[hanging out for a fix] peter witchell eyewitness news opps i mean sewn in minds not north south east west
eye on news ya zion news with mal walden and helen the hatting your mind waldens a three and walden wrote a poem in the woods which is lucifers tree of life [kabbalistic] and kapalos is a 3 make 666 [there all on in melb]live at five or hyf at fyfe lewis caroll phantasmagoria. new movie byjames cameron bout it out soon in3D. or if you prefer HIVE at five . dont forget the weather girl livinia electra theres much more political satanic ponerology in plain sight these hidden things i speak of are just the tip of the ice berg like in the titanic unsinkable or unthinkable any way look up the gugenheims. frater[nising with children] brown the jesuit gave the order from his superiors to tell the captain of the titanic to speed up the ship and make it to new york in record time full well knowing they would hit icebergs, oh yeah the zcar of russia was on board too they were going there to save america finacial status but were the sworn enemies of the frothchilds
as you know the crown coporation owns our money supply too crown corp owns my quarrie and the land its the city of london private county pays no tax but you might already know this any ways
the stuff about the melb news raders is all political ponerology and the idea behind it is children through the media and primary schools these days are being intoduce into luciferarian satanic occult witchcraft and when their old enough and been possed enough by the demons the do hitch their star[in luciferian doctrine in the book of the dead it is stated behold thy soul is a living star same as your jesus and mary chains]they blend their spirit with yours and visible white light comes out of your heart you might even be a satan i mean saint lol jehovah is beelzebub and mary is lilith jesus is the grim reaper, mars god of war ]
dont mention it i like to awaken your eyes for some ignorance for others
after you hitch your star to their the newsreaders sewing seeds in your mind the pyramid satanic victimisation persecution and then rescue process begins the rescue is usually in the form of death and destruction as enemies are presented by the establishment in freemasonry and they all are most ignorant having being lied to about the agenda its first the muslims then the christians followed by the jews
all these people are to be destroyed for lucifers secular society even at the cost of all humanity.. ooops its been hapopening for a long timecrusades with burning withches i mean women who lived on thier own the hoholocaust notice the war on error
any ways i digress
they media ruse was obsevered by careful analysis by me
this is the world you live in tell everyone and we can expose them
spread this message
FDB,
I am just not going to get into an argument about the physics and chemistry behind the paper by Harrit, Jones, Ryan et al, that is, unless someone can cite the papers in which those arguments challenging their arguments are put as I have asked (@ 1575, 1580, 1582, 1628). I have already explained why.
—
I see that FDB has learnt to deflect my arguments by labelling them ‘irony’. FDB, do you not understand my point that if everyone adopted Bob’s practice of automatically repeating the whole of the post to which he responds, that this forum would have grown exponentially and would be several orders of magnitude larger than what it is now?
Why can’t you understand from that that what he does is extremely disruptive for debate?
If you want to accuse me of having done the same, then why don’t you cite any examples of posts in which I have added needless ballast?
—
Bob wrote:
So, what does Bob think it is then? Orange juice? Or maybe large quantities od whole oranges, being tipped over the side of the building in large volumes? Or some mysterious combination of finely mixed molten aluminium and organic material flowing so neatly of the edge of the building, the like of which we have never seen before or since?
Bob asks:
So, a ‘dodgy video’ has value, after all does it, Bob?
This is proving to be quite an exercise in pinning down the precise meaning of weasel words.
—
Paul Burns,
Thank you for that reference.
So, it seems that there may be a serious challenge to Stinnert’s thesis, and my view that FDR having deliberately allowed the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour to succeed, may end up being proven to be wrong.
Nevertheless, it is not disputed that FDR deliberately manoevred the Japanese into firing the first shot in the war, even if it cannot be proven that it was his intention to have the Pacific Fleet caught so off guard.
If so, I still believe my case about 9/11 still stands for many other reasons I have given including that you have yet to address.
Now it would also be helpful if you contributed substantively to this discussion from now on instead of just trying to trivialise it.
—
Of course I have no time for theories about a supposed crash by an alien spacecraft at Roswell, Paulus. Hadn’t I made that clear early on in this discussion?
Stop wasting everyone’s time.
a) You didn’t have an argument. You made an assertion.
b) The assertion you made was ironic in the extreme. I’m quite sure the only thing that LP admin types are concerned about here is that their blog is providing a forum for you to wallow publicly in the symptoms of your disease. So if you’re really concerned for the reputation of this place, and the feelings of those who run it, then give up.
I understand perfectly, but I disagree utterly. What he does is catalogue your various meandering inaccuracies, unsupported assertions, cop-outs and other argumentative iniquities. Do you understand that by responding to each and every one of your points, he is being a much more rigorous correspondent than you, as you will simply ignore anything that causes trouble for your flimsy web of delusion?
Frankly you’re sailing an all-ballast ship. Bricks and mud and sand, held together with cable ties and gaffer tape. The impression I get is that down inside your all-ballast hull there are thousands of crappy plastic bath-toy tugboats chugging frantically from side to side trying to stabilise the whole thing.
But to answer your question in good, or at least better faith, every time you give a whole list of links to the completely inaccurate and already debunked nonsense you’ve already said, that is clutter of the highest order.
For what reasons do you believe your case about 9/11 still stands? Can you list them? Finally, can you let us know at which point (HYPOTHETICALLY!!! Remember from before? This is a HYPOTHETICAL) as each of your reasons are removed neatly with facts and logic, you would abondon your “argument”?
Or is it as I suspect: absolutely any of your “reasons” to still think you’re right (about whatever the fuck it is you currently believe happened) could be removed – all of them even – and your only reaction would be to cast desperately about for more?
By the way, I’d appreciate an answer to each and every one of my questions. Even ones you think might have been rhetorical.
Daggett,
Just to make it shorter – if you can list, one by one, all of the reasons why you think that the official story on 9/11 is not correct, I bet that Fyodor or FDB or someone else here has already shown each and every reason to be false, or at the very least completely and utterly unsupported by any actual evidence whatsoever.
If not, I would be willing to hazard a bet that it can be debunked almost straight away.
“Nevertheless, it is not disputed that FDR deliberately manoevred the Japanese into firing the first shot in the war, even if it cannot be proven that it was his intention to have the Pacific Fleet caught so off guard.”
Daggett, the above quote from your 16385 is ahistorical rubbish.
The United States was placing diplomatic pressure on Japan because of their incursions in China, which, prior to the Communist Revolution of 1949 they considered their sphere of economic influence. In the 19C early 20C this was known as the Open Door policy if my recollection of several unsergraduate courses in Chinese/Japanese history serves me right. Roosevelt’s intention was not to go to war with Japan, but to get Japan to leave China.He failed.
If Roosevelt wanted to take the US into war with anyone it was Nazi Germany. And even that’s debatable. The US was doing very well out of Lend-Lease, thank you.And out of providing arms and armament to Allied countries. They didn’t need to go to war.
War with Japan, as I think another commenter has pointed out to you did NOT guarantee war with Germany. Only Hitler could do that, and he duly obliged.
here is a song about the 9/11 mega ritual i wrote in 2001 http://www.youtube.com/user/Jellocopeus
nein = no el = saturnel = satan leaven =coruption i.e no corruption in satan
read the parable of the leaven to see the corruption connection remember they hide things in plain sight the ritual was meant to reveal isis i.e lucifer i.e satan
ps it took 40 minutes to post this is this thread being choked
Oh, spare me the sanctimoniousness about American policy during the Cold War, Daggett.
If you don’t understand the difference between (a) the real actions of a nation, and (b) a hypothetical options paper produced by a military bureaucrat, there’s no hope for you. As I tried to point out, there would have been vast numbers of options papers produced during the Cold War, proposing all sorts of things. However, only the ones that were implemented count for anything. Northwoods wasn’t.
But there is one interesting thing about it — something that undoubtedly escapes you, because I’m sure you haven’t actually read it (just as you haven’t read the NIST reports).
It is this: whoever drafted Northwoods went to great lengths, in all the options canvassed, to avoid even one US death. This led some of the options to become much more complex and convoluted than they’d otherwise have been.
Isn’t that interesting, Daggett? Even at the very height of the Cold War, a US military planner would not propose a covert operation that would involve even one American death. And yet, 40 years later, they could allegedly kill thousands of US citizens without batting an eyelid.
Explain that, buddy.
Give it a little time. It really starts to get going at around the 1:37 mark.
Hey, j_p_z, I hope you’re grateful for all the efforts that various Australians have put in to defend the American government and people from the false and idiotic slanders about 9/11 that Daggett has been propagating.
We’re coming up to Christmas, so you should send us chocolates, or something. (But not those vile Hershey bars, OK?)
Paulus: “But not those vile Hershey bars, OK?”
Heh heh. Yeah, yeah, I know. Sorry. Hell, even *we* don’t eat the damn Hershey bars anymore – I think nowadays maybe they use them as building materials — oh man, wait a minute, THAT’S why the thermite… But seriously, *you* try making enough chocolate bars for 300 million people at a clip, and we’ll see how you do with the quality control…
(btw, is there some good high-end Oz-made chocolate that I can lay my hands on?)
Hell, rough-around-the-edges quality is really just American democracy in action: viz., do stuff just barely good enough, but so damn *much* of it that everybody can have a bite; rather than doing something rare and exquisite that only a few can get. We like Coney Island better than Lake Como, what can ya do. Yeah, we don’t do Henry Purcell so great, but OTOH, we do a mean Chuck Berry and a fine Doc Watson. Most folks can at least afford to have their lousy Hershey bar and their Burger King Whopper while staying at a Hilton hotel and drinking bad Starbucks coffee while reading Maya Angelou. It may not be supoib, but on average it beats the hell out of sleeping in a ditch in rural Ecuador.
If on the other hand, you’d rather have the Golden State burger and maybe inhale some Clear Creek pear brandy at the Hotel Saint Cecilia while sitting in a Robert Wilson chair*, meditating on Wallace Stevens and listening to Tony Williams scaring the daylights out of Miles Davis, we can do a bit of that, too… it just costs more. And requires ten days’ advance notice. And maybe some of the backgrounds won’t be real, just painted flats. With holes and dents in them. And a homeless guy sleeping behind them. Just, y’know… try not to look in that direction, OK?
(* — of course, nobody actually _sits_ in a Robert Wilson chair, it’s humanly impossible: you sit in a totally different chair, and simply _contemplate_ Bob’s chair. And if that starts to get boring… hey, let’s go back to the Chuck E. Cheese!)
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled hopping-mad conspiracy.
I think Daggett is a bit like Julie Bishop aka La Cocarocha. Just keeps on coming back.
j-p-z,
Cadburys. Plain milk, Caramello, Snack, and heaps of others. (Think they’re still made in Tasmania, but then again they could be in Merrie Old England.) You’re too late for Polly-Waffle bars, which after being made since about 1936, are going to be taken off the shelves completely by next March. Better hurry though. I heard a rumour they’re being taken over by the people who make Hershey Bars. Seriously. (Never tasted a Hershey Bar. Don’t think you can buy them here.)
And, of course, there’s Darryl Lea, the quintessential Aussie chocolate, to be found in almost every major shopping complex. Marvellous chocolate made by, shall we say, one of our more eccentric business families?
Loved the video, btw.
“it is not disputed that FDR deliberately manoevred the Japanese into firing the first shot in the war”
I dispute that!
Thanks A STRAY ALIEN for the link. Good on you for having worked out what had happened in 2001 (instead of 2007-2008 in my case). The song sounds great. Hope someone takes up your offer.
I am not surprised that you experienced so much difficulty in loading the page. Note, Bob, it took A STRAY ALIEN 40 minutes to post to this page. That may not be ‘hours’, but I would suggest any reasonable person would understand that that is far too long. Should it be any wonder that Niels Harrit refuses to participate in this circus, or that Professor Jones has apparently dropped out?
No doubt all this was the precise intention of Bob and other government and corporate shills who now inhabit this page. If you can’t censor discussion outright, then overwhelm it with trivia (for example, j_p_z’s latest post), personal abuse, repetition, discussions about other issues that could easily have been held on other pages, claims to have won the argument, feigned amazement that your detractors refuse to admit that they are wrong and various other time-wasting debating ploys.
To understand some of the controversy over who bears principle responsibility for having bloated this forum to its current size, please read my post (@ 1498 and 1628) and posts linked to from there. Bob’s lame defence of his disruptive conduct can be found at 1517.
—
I will now show up one apparently deliberate lie amongst many. Bob wrote @ 1496:
In fact, an examination of these responses show that none of these posts amount to a rebuttal of my argument. Shaun’s effort is particularly feeble and Katz’s post doesn’t even address the argument that Bob claims was ‘debunked’. I invite others to check for themselves by following the links. FDB’s alleged ‘debunking’ of my argument is:
I responded to that post @ 803:
FDB’s subsequent and (to me, at least) confusing post @ 853 he pretends to address my argument, but does not:
Am I the only one who fails to see any relationsonship between this and FDB’s earlier claim of the collapsing building acting as some kind of piston?
I responded @ 873:
FDB’s ‘response’ @ 884 failed to acknowledge any of that. Again, I invite anyone to show me where he did.
So, much for Bob’s claim that I was ‘debunked’.
I would suggest that the other repeatedly made claims of my having been ‘debunked’ that have so bloated this forum will similarly fail to withstand close scrutiny.
Paul Burns @ 1638 has done exactly what he rebuked me for, that is treating the controversy over Pearl Harbour as settled. Some documents which show that the controversy continues are: “Where Historians Disagree”, December 7, 1941: The Infamy of FDR and “How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War”.
I don’t know how Paul Burns can be so certain of his interpretation of Roosevelt’s motives for taking the action’s against Japan that casued them to launch the war against the US, Australia, New Zealand the Netherlands, the UK, etc In fact, that is what I would like to believe that Paul Burns is correct about the motives he attributes to FDR, for reasons I have stated above, but that is beside the point. There is a great deal of evidence, including in those documents I linked to, to suggest that FDR’s motives were also to cause Japan to fire the first shot, whether or not he intended the Pacific Fleet to be caught off guard.
—
I also note Paul Burns has declined to defend his claim about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, his ignorance about Operation Northwoods or his failure to make one substantive contribution to this discussion about 9/11.
—
Paul Burns wrote:
When I fail to post for more than 24 hours, all the 9/11 ‘debunkers’ crow amongst themselves about their claimed triumph. If I stay to defend my views, my behaviour is pronounced bizarre.
I can’t win, can I?
—
Paulus, what I wrote about the Uniied States’s treatment of Cuba is not ‘sanctimoniousness’. They are facts.
You seem to be implying that the US was the innocent party in the Cold War and that the Cold War excuses all crimes committed by the US during the course of the Cold War, just as in the 21st century, the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack is used to excuse any conceivable crime by the US and its allies in its supposed fight against terrorism.
Paulus wrote:
I demonstrated that they were far from hypothetical. The Invisible Government wanted to invade Cuba and were prevented from doing so and from staging pretexts for that invasion by President Kennedy’s actions.
My guess is that the subsequent growth of the anti-war movement dissuaded the Invisible Government from reviving Operation Northwoods.
Paulus wrote:
As if the line between that and actually killing US citizens would not be an easy line to cross.
Paulus seems to lack the imagination to conceive of why they would not commit to paper plans to murder US citizens. Presumably, if paperwork from the Third Reich failed to specifically mention plans to gas and cremate, Jews and Gypsies
Paulus would also pronounce innocent of the crime of genocide.
Daggett @ 1647,
The first article you linked to. So? it outlines the historiographical debate about Pearl Harbor. All I’m saying is it ain’t a conspiracy by Roosevelt and the Democrats.
Second article you linked to. Jesus, Daggett, surely you can do better than that? A site established by American RWDBs has credibility, does it.
Third article by William Henry Chamberlin, that stirling cold war warrior, reformed communist/socialist, etc, who had the passion of the converted; suggest you check his biases. You know mine, I’m pro Roosevelt and pro Democrat and ALWAYS inordinately suspicious of right wing historians until such times as they prove themselves unworthy of my suspicion.
La Cocarocha – a joke at Julie Bishop’s expense. You were coincidental.
Of course, the last sentence in my previous post should have read:
The second sentence in the second pargraph should have read:
.
My apologies.
—
If I bother to follow this discussion at all from now on, it may not be more than once per day as following this one forum could cause me to exceed my download quota, which is something that has only occurred once before in exceptional circumstances. (Thanks, Bob the Spammer and thanks to all the other time-and-space-wasting ‘debunkers’.) So any responses to posts made during or after the writng of my last post may have to wait a day or longer.
BTW, I note FDB failed to back up his claim of my own alleged bloating of this forum with even one direct reference or one direct quoted example and he failed to say whether it would have been preferable to him if I had adopted Bob’s practice of copying in their entirety, the posts of each and every person I had responded to.
Daggett, I was just running through some possibilities, off the top of my head, as to what might cause apparently random ejections of smoke and debris from the floors below the collapse front. One suggestion was intense fires (note that I said they <i?may have been involved), but the thrust of it was that as floors above collapse, there isn’t always somewhere for the compressed air and debris to go other than out the windows.
Lo and behold, from the NIST FAQ Burt linked to above, we have this:
Whereas what was observed did not in any way resemble a controlled demolition – no pattern to the puffs, nothing like sensible timing w/r/t the collapse, nothing like sensible placement w/r/t the collapse.
Another grand fail, champ.
Now howsabout you answer some of my questions? Or anyone’s, really.
“Cocarocha”
Cucaracha, PB. I know you like accuracy.
WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!
Maybe if you bother to follow this discussion from now on, you should answer people’s questions.
I assumed that you would remember having repeatedly done the exact thing I very clearly referred to. And you do of course, you’re just being a big baby and demanding specific references again, even though everyone following knows precisely what I meant. Why are you like this?
It would be preferable in the extreme. It would force you to answer the questions and/or address the arguments of your interlocutors, rather than twist, evade, change the subject and cop out every time things get a bit tricky for your tiny mind.
Honestly, let’s see you do it. Take any substantial post above that you’ve completely failed to address as yet, and have a crack at a point-by-point response with in-context, honest quotation of your opponent. It’s called argument.
A bit ironic, Dags, since at the start of the same comment you link to an article published by the Institute for Historical Review, established in the late 1970s for the purpose of providing Holocaust deniers with a figleaf of legitimacy.
But don’t mind me, I’m just another “historian”!
FDB @ 1651,
Much appreciated. Henceforth announce that when La Cucaracha appears in any of my posts on LP it can be taken as referring to Julie Bishop.
(jeez, Daggy, I’ve been finding your comments so enthralling I nearly burnt my lunch.)
“If I bother to follow this discussion at all from now on, it may not be more than once per day as following this one forum could cause me to exceed my download quota, which is something that has only occurred once before in exceptional circumstances. (Thanks, Bob the Spammer and thanks to all the other time-and-space-wasting ‘debunkers’.) So any responses to posts made during or after the writng of my last post may have to wait a day or longer.”
Daggett’s monomania (or his broadband capacity) has finally exhausted itself. We can all relax now.
Or has it?
Brett @ 1633,
That is extremely disturbing information.
Daggett,
Your credibility has been shredded absolutely and completely. You are beyond contempt and not worth having a discussion of any kins with. I will not be responding to any of your future comments anywhere.
I don’t think Dags is a Holocaust denier, Paul; it’s just that he’s careless with sources. But we knew that!
Paul Burns wrote @ 1655,
In reality, except for your responses to my point about Pearl Harbour, you haven’t responded to my arguments, anyway, so this will make little difference as far as I can see.
Actually, it seems to me that by writing that, you just further “shredded” your own credibility as a historian. To say “absolutely and completely” may be an exaggeration, but it is clear that you are not a historian that is willing to consider ideas that challenge your own existing world view.
For you to have completely failed to demonstrate any comprehension whatsoever of the views ot the 9/11 Truth Movement, which includes a large number of credible and authoritative figures, including Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the truth about the Vietnam War in “The Pentagon Papers”, is confirmation of that.
I never claimed that the articles I linked to were the definitive answer. I gave them as examples of articles containing facts which are contrary to your own claims about Pearl Harbour. So what if it turns out that one of those articles happens to be published on the web site of alleged holocaust deniers, or pedophiles, or even PNAC?
What is surely of ultimate importance is not who said what was said, but what was said.
FDB (@ 1636, 1652), Andrew Reynolds (@ 1637),
I am not obligated to spend further time answering questions I consider silly. If you want to draw the attention of others to the fact that I have not, then by all means, do so.
FDB wrote:
Of course I would abandon my argument if “each of (my) reasons” were to be “removed neatly with facts and logic”, but it hasn’t happened here. (In fact, what did happen starting from some time in 2007 was I abandoned my belief that 9/11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by Islamist extremists operating from bases in Afghanistan when I was confronted with evidence to the contrary. The fact that, as I pointed out right at the start of this argument, I (most unfortunately) accepted the essential view that the 9/11 ‘debunkers’ are putting on this forum for roughly 6 years after 9/11 has not been acknowledged by FDB or any other ‘debunker’.)
I may not be able to give a complete list of reasons why I reject the Official US Government 9/11 Conspiracy Theory of a World Wide Conspiracy, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan having been responsible for 9/11, the anthrax attacks, the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Train bombings, the Bali bombings, etc. and having terrorist cells all over the world itching to inflict more of the same on the West. However, I could suggest that people, who are interested in learning of some of the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement, read “The top 40
reasons to doubt the Official story of September 11th, 2001″ on 911truth.org.
—
FDB 1650 quoted the NIST report on the supposed “puffs of smoke” as if it were some final authority on the question of the 3 WTC ‘collapses’, in general, and the clouds of debris observed being violently ejected from the towers below the collapse, in particular. None of the quote addresses my arguments (@ 803, which have also been publicly put many times before the publication of the NIST reports by people such as Richard Gage) in response to FDB’s supposed ‘debunking’ of me (@ 768) any more than did his earlier response (@ 853) to my response.
So, repeated claims that my arguments have been ‘debunked’ are not the same as having debunked them. I have exposed as a lie just one of Bob’s almost innumerable claims that I have been debunked, so I think it’s well past time that the ‘debunkers’ ceased this dishonest tactic, leave the arguments stand, allow other people, who are prepared to consider the evidence, to form their own judgements and, from this point forward, only add material which sheds further light on the topic.
“repeated claims that my arguments have been ‘debunked’ are not the same as having debunked them.”
Of course not. Similarly, repeated bleating that you haven’t been debunked doesn’t mean that you haven’t been debunked. If you’d like to explain how you believe the various attempts at debunking miss their mark, then you’d give some force to your insistence that your “argument” withstands scrutiny.
As it is, all I’m hearing is an irritating noise.
So daggett – asking that you tell us what evidence you have and what claims you may want to make so that we can go through them calmly and methodically and look at each one in turn is “silly”.
Do you have any idea how to put an argument together or do you just want to keep trotting out the same stuff over and over, claiming each time that it has not been debunked before?
I would just like to get a definitive list so that we can go through and argue it all, point by point. I would have thought that a logical, sensible way to go about it.
I wrote @ 1647,
Then FDB wrote @ 1658,
In fact, I haven’t been “repeated[ly] bleating” that I haven’t been debunked. I have deliberately avoided getting into a “‘Tis too, ’tis not, ’tis too” type of argument. As I wrote at 873:
Then FDB continued :
I have, FDB. See again 1646 and 1657. I showed that your two proferred successive and contradictory explanations did not explain the violenlty ejected plumes of debris observed and filmed below the collapse front.
However, my principle purpose was not to have that argument all over again. It was to show up, for what it was, Bob’s dishonest claim (@ 1496) that I had been debunked by you at 768. Here again is that claim:
In a normal forum it would have been quickly seen for the lie that it was, but in a one-sided forum, such as this, where you and so many others are so quick to add to the deafening crescendo of agreement with that lie, it is easy for casual vistors to gain the impression that the lie is, in fact, the truth.
Well, then, daggett – how about giving a list of arguments you claim have not been debunked and let us look through them all – and possibly point out where they have been debunked or, perhaps, concede that you were right all along and we were wrong.
Give us a list, please.
Andrew Reynolds,
That would take too long.
I don’t concede that any of my arguments have been ‘debunked’. A few arguments, upon reflection under weight of the very small amount of real arguments that have been put up by ‘debunkers’ have proven not have been as strong as I had initially thought.
One argument that no-one has seriously addressed, except for GregM, briefly, is that not one person with any proven link to 9/11 has been captured in eight years of occupation of Afghanistan.
Another is the wiring of $100,000 to alleged 9/11 Hijacker Mohammed Ata by the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI who was in Wasington during the week of 9/11. Condoleezza Rice initially attempted to conceal this knowledge.
—
Other than that, could I suggest that you simply begin by trying to do what, contrary to Bob’s dishonest assertion, FDB has failed to do, and that is offer an explanation as to how all those plumes of violently ejected debris could have been caused if the ‘collapses’ of the Twin Towers were caused only by gravity and fire and not by explosives?
—
Also, feel free to go back and find any of my arguments that you think don’t stand up and cite them.
Let’s see if we can’t kick this bugger of a thread into a solid post-lipsnigering 2K.
Y’know Daggy, t’would considerably advance your case if, instead of monotonically explaining away the absence of evidence, you’d actually instead advance some empirical evidence of your thesis.
Lights blue touch paper and retires.
Of course, another substitute for argument by thw ‘debunkers’ is to repeatedly assert that I have produced no evidence.
Nabakov, why isn’t the image of a horizontal plume of debris being ejected from the North Tower, which I first introduced in 739, evidence? (This, of course, what Bob dishonestly claimed @ 1496 to have been debunked by FDB as discussed above by me @ 1646.)
Why aren’t the videos of the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 by David Chandler, that I introduced in 172, evidence? (And please don’t just assert the Bob debunked that. You need to at least demonstrate your own comprehension of the ‘arguments’ Bob put.)
Please tell me why the videos of FDNY firefighters describing waves of explosions, together with the transcript of their dialogue, that I introduced @ 719, is not evidence.
Please tell me why the testimony of William Rodriguez, which I discussed @ 743 amongst other places, or the testimony of Anthony Saltalamacchia, Maintenance Supervisor at the World Trade Center and William Rodriguez’s supervisor, that I introduced in 1527, is not evidence.
Perhaps if you wanted to establish any credibility of your own, Nabakov, you might just point to one of your own posts in which you seriously discussed this issue.
I haven’t found one.
The closest I have found is 337. The rest is the kind of trivia, of which I have complained, which has helped bloat this forum to the size it now is. In fact, a number of your posts actually, including the one to which I am responding, urges others to do precisely that.
It would also help you if you were to explain why you apparently agree with the lie that US warships were attacked by North Vietnamese warships in 1964 in that fictitious incident in the Gulf of Tonkin which became the pretext for the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, as I raised in 1628.
—
I have intentionally avoided introducing too much evidence to this forum as I did not want to overwhelm the discussion. Nevertheless, I think the YouTube Videos 9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2 and 9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2 are well worth a look.
The first includes evidence of the measurement of heat in both of the twin towers that was also ignored by the 9/11 Commission. The instrument used to record the heat from the ground was not calibrated correctly for the South Tower, but it was for the North Tower. The measurement showed that the heat was nowhere near as high as NIST claimed that it was.
The WTC probably blew up when some-one dropped the Waters of Mars on them. (I may have to review that insightful analysis after I’ve watched tonight’s Dr. Who.
See, Nabakov, I’m doing my best to kick this bugger of a thread into a solid post-lipsnigering 2K.
“I have intentionally avoided introducing too much evidence to this forum as I did not want to overwhelm the discussion.”
Breathtaking.
“Of course, another substitute for argument by thw ‘debunkers’ is to repeatedly assert that I have produced no evidence.”
It’s the best substitute there is, so close to real debunking that you can’t tell the different. Unlike like your substitute for evidence. A collection of crappy videos, carefully selected so they offer some (weak) support for you outlandish assertions, doesn’t constitute evidence. You haven’t even got this thing off the drawing board let alone on the pad. And if you did it would go the same way as the Challenger. What’s happened to the Ace Elevator stuff? Another lame assertion with no evidence to back it.
daggett: “I have intentionally avoided introducing too much evidence to this forum as I did not want to overwhelm the discussion.”
FDB: Breathtaking.”
Well, FDB… if nothing else, now perhaps you’ll begin to sympathize, if even just a wee bit, with why I find leftists to be in general so very, very unconvincing… about lots of other more important things. But hey, there’s still time for you to grok it.
We’ll manage to break you out of the asylum eventually, I can sense it. Using only my totally irrational, poorly educated, lacking-in-experience, neither-right-nor-left-wing instincts.
Meantime, and this remains fun, daggett: were the “plumes of ejections” from the Towers the sort of self-same plumes we would expect to see and hear from conventional demolition explosives, or were they the result of silent invisible thermite? Because they can’t be both. Those two materials act and sound differently. Make your choice: super military secret nano-thermite, or conventional explosives?
If the “plumes” were the result of sequential controlled conventional (i.e., dynamite-based) explosives, then surely the unmistakeable loudness and timbre of conventional explosives would have been heard by all… again and again and again and again and again, UNMISTAKEABLY, for every single floor felled by such explosives, which is what your claim implies. If that’s not your claim, then it’s the thermite.
But thermite behaves quite differently. At least, as far as I know. If you have extensive in-the-field experience of the use of tons and tons and tons of super-secret silent invisible military nano-thermite, then I think now would be the right time to come forward.
Please understand that your model of what happened can’t merely consist of serial contradictions of anything that anyone else ever asserted: at some point, you have to state plausibly a coherent model of WHAT YOU THOUGHT REALLY HAPPENED; and it can’t just be a zany combination of invisible lower-story implausible thermite, plus invisible silent upper-story (why the difference?) dynamite, plus faked airplane-telephone calls concocted by a limitless conspiracy of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of individuals. UNLESS YOU PROVIDE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THERETO.
Wow. Leave this thread for a couple of days and it’s like coming back to Teh Bold & Teh Beautiful, except instead of Brooke shagging a different Forrester we have Daggy chasing his tail and dry-humping any scrap of argument on which he can lay his paws. Comme d’habitude, it’s like déjà vu all over again.
I must admit, though, that I’m genuinely surprised and undershelmed that [retired] “Prof. Steven Jones” has turned out to be an even bigger squibber than Daggy. I mean, I can understand Daggy squibbing on material he doesn’t understand, but I would have thought that Dr. Jones would have defended his own work, particularly after stating that he would answer questions. Very poor form from your fellow cranks, Daggy. Very poor form indeed.
Daggy’s got himself worked up over plumes of ejected debris, again, so let’s put this one to rest, again.
Nope. In fact, an examination shows that each one of the three responses (#750, #768 and #875) successfully debunks your argument, and not one of them have you rebutted. Your response at #803 is not a rebuttal.
I note my usual gravatar is missing from my last post, because I mis-typed my own e-mail address (for at least the second time). My apologies.
j_p_z writes:
If the Government’s explanation is riddled with glaring self-contradictions and does not take account of all the evidence, then it is not good enough and a new explanation has to be found.
j_p_z continued:
I have done that in a broad sense, but I am not in a position to completely solve the crime in every regard in every detail.
That can only be done by a proper investigation with the will to consider all the available evidence, here all relevant testimony and interview all suspects. The New York City Council refused to even give New York City residents the right to vote for or against the setting up of such an inquiry, in spite of the fact that 80,000 residents signed a pettion calling for such a referendum question to be put and in spite of the fact that opinion polls had shown that 60% of New Yorkers wanted such a poll to be set up.
j_p_z wrote:
A large number of eyewitnesses did testify to having heard the unmistakable sound of explosives, whether conventional or otherwise. My most recent post refers to some of that testimony. Also in 584, I mentioned the survey of members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) in which over 100 were not asked for, but volunteered testimony of the unmistakable sounds of explosions.
—
FDB sees as ‘breathtaking’ my statement that I have intentionally avoided introducing a large amount of other evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement and j_p_z concurs. I can only assume that this is a cryptic restatement of the demonstrably untrue claim that I have produced no evidence.
FDB, are you going to attempt to explain why those examples I gave in the same post you are purporting to respond to are not evidence?
And are you going to respond to my series of posts from 1646 to 1660 and offer a proper explanation for the violently expelled plumes of debris, which you have not provided, contrary to Bob’s dishonest claim at 1496?
—
PatrickB @ 1667, another ‘substitute’ to dishonestly claiming that I have produced no evidence is to simply concede that you were wrong.
PatrickB wrote:
How about going through the examples of the evidence I have given in post 1664, as I have asked of FDB and j_p_z, and explain to others how each of the examples, in turn, does not constitute acceptable evidence, in your view, and then tell us what would amount to acceptable evidence (or are you still refusing to accept anything other than testimony of people having seen planted explosives within the Twin Towers as acceptable evidence)?
The evidence I gave about the Ace Elevator Company @ 1471 has not gone away. It is still there and nothing written since has shown it to be wrong.
—
I note Bob @ 1669,
Bob still has not responded to my question @ (@ 1575, 1580, 1582, 1628):
—
I wrote @ 1646:
Then Bob wrote:
In fact, my post @ 1646 shows precisely that Bob’s claim was a dishonest attempt to avoid discussion (and only one amongst many). Instead of addressing my arguments, he simply assert over and over again that my arguments have been debunked. I showed in that post that my argument had not been debunked in that case.
He does not acknowledge or respond to the arguments I put in post 1646.
Instead, Bob expects others to accept his word that I am wrong.
“with why I find leftists to be in general so very, very unconvincing”
But you find Glen Beck to be a paragon of rationality no doubt? I feel the same way about you rightists. Get over it.
“with why I find leftists to be in general so very, very unconvincing”
But you find Glen Beck to be a paragon of rationality no doubt? I feel the same way about you rightists. Get over it.
“The evidence I gave about the Ace Elevator Company @ 1471 has not gone away. It is still there and nothing written since has shown it to be wrong.”
You haven’t given any evidence. You have accused the Ace Elevator mechanics of acting in a cowardly manner and then asserted that they were in fact acting suspiciously because they had in fact, over a period of many months, been secretly planting explosives in explosive-proof boxes in the lift shafts. You have no evidence at all, not a single scrap, for this elaborate and ridiculous plan. It can’t be shown to be wrong as you haven’t presented any facts to dispute. How can a fairy story be shown to be wrong?
Honestly Daggett, I am curious. Your writing conveys all the world weariness of someone who has lived far too long and should be visited by Dr Nitschke and his Quietus kit pronto. Your photo, apart from revealing a curious intensity about the eyes, suggests you are an standard model human being, and therefore capable of humour. Yet, you have successfully managed to drive this thread into Babel territory without cracking one single joke, not one witty aside, not one pun, not a shelming TM, not a prinding TM*, not a youtube link to an 80′s song for light relief, nada, niente, like, no I don’t believe it. Are you like this all the time?
We are getting near 2000 now. So, I would really like to know. Why so serious?
*I found him, and branded him first – before he went awol and wandered onto this thread. Therefore his output rightfully belongs to me. My herd, my output. Don’t be troll rustling any of my herd again.
“FDB, are you going to attempt to explain why those examples I gave in the same post you are purporting to respond to are not evidence?”
I and others have already explained why they are not evidence Daggett. They are cherry-picked, full of unsubstantiated opinion, counteracted by large amounts of actual evidence and expert testimony, and do not paint anything like a coherent picture that would point to any particular sequence of events.
It is not okay for you to present “evidence” that is completely contradictory, and then claim that it’s all admissable.
As for what would constitute evidence, that has also been explained to you many many times:
>eyewitness testimony of the planting of explosives, faking of phone calls, conspiratorial meetings of conspirators
>physical evidence (including video, audio or other data collected at the time of the events) whose only, or even most likely, explanation is whatever you claim it to be
It would also be a big help if you’d make up your mind what you think actually happened, so the evidence you present (including the “evidence” of weak-arse anonymous hearsay and cherry-picked videos) can be evaluated as a positive theory of some kind.
Tried that, Casey.
Needless to say, the response was a po-faced entreaty to stop “bloating” the “forum”.
Bloating!?!?? Forum?!!?!?
I’ll give you bloating the forum.
I responded to your pointless question at #1584, right at the very start, so quit blubbing.
No, I didn’t. That’s what you wrote, Daggy. I wrote:
I think you’re getting confused again, Daggy.
Nope. I was not avoiding discussion – how could I if I was discussing the matter at hand? Pointing out that your arguments are bunk is neither evasion nor a lie, as they most certainly are bunk, for reasons that, as I pointed out, we have already been through.
The facts are that you asserted, in repetition of the cranks you follow so uncritically, that “isolated explosive ejections” were evidence of a controlled demolition. However, all that is required to debunk this line of argument is to provide a plausible alternative explanation. This was done by Shaun, FDB and Katz, in noting the compression of air within the buildings by their collapse was the likely cause of the “ejections”. You failed to demonstrate that such “isolated explosive ejections” could ONLY have been created by a controlled demolition and so your assertion has been debunked.
Oh, diddums. Let me do that for you now: they’re crap.
Naturally – that’s been the right call so far. Prove me wrong.
Well, at least you get answers FDB. He just ignores me all together. I don’t know why. Say, will you stop referring people to that Charlotte Gainsbourg thingy?
Many thanks.
Why hasn’t anybody attempted to address the very first question posed at #1? It’s been OT ever since.
OT wbb? I say this discussion does give an answer to the question in #1.
PatrickB: “But you find Glen Beck to be a paragon of rationality no doubt?”
Objection. Calls for speculation.
JUSTICE TWINFEET: Sustained.
PatrickB: “I feel the same way about you rightists.”
Objection. Calls for speculation. An anti-leftist is not necessarily a “rightist,” whatever that may mean… except insofar as an anti-leftist is of course, by definition, right.
JUSTICE TWINFEET: Sustained. I’m beginning to like your style, Counselor.
PatrickB: “Get over it.”
Objection. Heinous, thoughtless, tuneless cliché. I move that PatrickB hereby be remanded to the Ninny Room for a period of not less than one hour.
JUSTICE TWINFEET: Motion is granted. Thank the Lord, that was really beginning to grate on my ears. Now let’s the rest of us have a drop, shall we. Can ye sing “The Rose of Tralee,” lads?
Yes Casey @1674, I too are growing concerned for the young shaver’s inner states.
Say, Daggett, it’s your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet. How do you react?
And FDB @ 1676 might have struck some as being silly but he has raised another dark mystery here.
Speaking of which, where’s A STRAY ALIEN? I thought he/she/it would have enjoyed tis thread and vice vera.
Does A Stray Alien belong to anyone? Can I have him?
j_p_z, while mildly humorous, that is an absolutely epic fail.
“Well, FDB… if nothing else, now perhaps you’ll begin to sympathize, if even just a wee bit, with why I find leftists to be in general so very, very unconvincing…”
Er… no. Truthers aren’t married to either end of the political spectrum, to the extent that such exists. Many are out-and-out anti-government blackhelicoptersOMG!!!1! loopies, and El Dagitano seems to be an oddball mix of environmentalist and Larouchite crank. I have a healthy disregard for those at both ends; one which I have done a much better job of living up to than you have to your own claims of non-partisanship, IMNSHO.
In the quote above from M. Zenger, the word ‘begin’ should have been bolded.
And I suppose that ‘[his] emphasis’ should have attended that quote-tampering.
As a nod to the girls and guns threads of yesteryear, and because it sounds goood with an afterwork whiskey.
You might enjoy singing along to the words too Dagster you player, you.
And speaking of getting it on.
I must say, it’s about time that banging techno choons, wacky conspiracies, pyramids and flying cock-and-balls from space were brought together.
Certainly ties up a few loose ends for me.
*dusts off hands*
*throws to Daggett for dénouement*
Pass the soda, thanks.
“an afterwork whiskey”
Good Lord, I hope not. Please tell me it’s Irish or Canadian, at least.
But yes, even with my cask wine, that clip is working nicely.
See, Ms Davis and her band are what the Rolling Stones wanted to sound like circa 74-76. They came close with “Melody”.
Oh fuck, now it’s Betty D.
I’ll be lost in youtube for a bit – send a search party if I don’t return in a couple of days.
But much of the credit for the vibe of “Melody”‘s sonicscape must go to Billy Preston’s sexy sexy organ.
Well I’m just back from reading A STRAY ALIEN upthread. That’s some scary shit up there. He should stay right here so I won’t be taking him. You can have him, Daggett.
And speaking of tortoise sex can we give it up in memory of one of the world’s greatest lovers .
I’m sure he would have regretted not seeing this thread brought to closure but perhaps some of his progeny might.
No FDB, the “e” in my whisky was regrettably only a typo.
Time for a little Ohio Players maybe?
I’m guessing that with reference to an errant ‘e’, you’re invoking to Ecstasy rather than Pain, Pleasure or Climax.
It’s all a rich tapestry though.
Lowenstien… Lowenstien…
Zweig.
Damn that you tube can be quite addictive, especially while wandering funky as a cloud.
Bernie’s bass break @1.37 is a small but perfectly formed example of why New York will survive anything flown at it – including your hermeneutic little crop duster of paranoia Daggy.
Nice origin story too.
While you’re fossicking around the youtubes FDB, let know if you come across Rose Royce’s “Over and Over” – a thundering charging funkrock track.
Shame we can’t get Birdy over anymore. He’s a big Parliament/Funkadelic fan.
Ah, shit.
It’s Bernie’s bass break now eh? I may have told you this before (out back at the NSC maybe?), but the end of that break, at exactly 2:40, comes my favourite piece of bass guitar playing of all time. “Wheeerr… budobado bu bu buh!”
It’s the restraint (evident in the part needlessly elided by the elipsis above, e.g.) that really makes that solo. All through the thing, he’s not quite letting loose.
Classical, jazz, blues, pop musos might not geddit, but if you’re interested in making folks dance without pumping them full of drugs and deafening them, that there is THE SHIT.
Spinning this one for my homies, Daggy and Birdy.
My man, I know you want your meta-Conspiracy funk uncut.
Speaking of cool sexy control of the funk, I’ve always thought this group was a very underrated one hit wonder.
Again, another sweet origin story.
Oh fuckee, should link like this
“Again, another sweetorigin story.”
Just go here first before finishing @1701
Well alright Fyodor, alright. But I don’t much think it suits you, takes all the Romany far far way. Or Romanov. Either way, don’t be hassling no pebbles, they are the only innocents in this boulevarde of broken dreams.
In keeping with FDB’s links of disturbance, Daggett, do you have any theories as to why someone would sing this to their grandmother?
I somehow know you won’t answer me. But that’s alright Daggett.
Oh I do love Kate. Isn’t she gorgeous? I did the Heathcliffe dance on the weekend, Daggett. I especially like the zombie bit at around 0.36. I have to report that it does not go down very well with people. You wouldn’t happen to know why would you?
Well that’s ok, I do understand.
Ya know, sometimes you’re better off just asking the locals for directions…
And for all my morning rush hour buds riding outside in between the cars on the B train over the bridge on those cold February mornings…
“JUSTICE TWINFEET: Sustained. I’m beginning to like your style, Counselor.”
M’lud I would draw to your attention the fact that my learned colleague is putting words into your mouth, literally. I expect this to carry some weight in the appeals court. Failing that I would ask that you charge him with contempt and clear the court forthwith.
JUSTICE TWINFEET: By jove you’re right, I’ve been got at. Guilty as charged, any idea on the punishment?
(voice off) How about a live snake up the ass?
Arrrghhh! Kate Bush. I discovered her, Deborah Harry and puberty all at the same time. And still get wobbly kneed at the thought of it all now.
Even more than Wuthering Voices, this is a great example of how Lindsey Kemp, as he did with D. Bowie and P. Gabriel too, helped spice up English theatrical rock in the 70s.
However I’m fairly certainly none here are expecting Hindi love god jazz age flapper mashups as the next charmingly illogical twist in this thread.
But before you brindle at how we’ve refunkified this dialogue Daggy, ask yourself this:
- You look down and see a tortoise. It’s crawling toward you… The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t. Not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that? -
Do try to avoid being “retired” for any empathy-free related remarks about Kiki, the former Maginot Line flagship of the Fifth Republic’s libido.
Always thought this was a very underrated piece of Bushiana – not least because it’s both consciously and unconsciously tapping into the Brits’ strange relationship with the Caribbean – as also limned through works like “Wide Sagrasso Sea”, “Burn”, “A High Wind In Jamaica” “White Zombie” and “Dr No.”
I do think though this thread so far can be best re-memed like this.
Now here’s some mighty ‘New York says “fuck you Daggy”‘ bass playing. Sly’s not at all shabby on this on this either.
And you Madame, yes you Lady Gaga, are no Grace Jones.
What? Why?
Touche, Haiku: bring the beat back.
I wrote @ 1670
Then Bob wrote @ 1677:
So how did Bob ‘respond’ to my “pointless question” “right at the very start”? Lets’s have a look:
So, if Bob responded to my question, he certainly didn’t respond “at #1584″. He ‘responded’ somewhere else, but refuses to tell us where!
That’s five attempts so far, not including this post, to get a straight answer to my question.
—
Bob wrote:
I believe my response (@ 803) to FDB’s argument @ 768 showed precisely that compressed air within the tower could not have been the cause of those violent ejections of debris. Here it is again:
Now, please do what both you and FDB have failed to do so far and explain to everyone here, what is wrong with my argument. And, regardless of whether or not you now can, please explain why it was not a lie on your part to have claimed (@ 1568) that my argument was “debunked by Shaun at #750, FDB at #768 and Katz at #875″.
—
In response to repeated claims by FDB, Nabakov and others that I had produced no evidence, I listed just some of the evidence I had provided in the course of this discussion @ 1664 and asked others to explain why this was not evidence. FDB response 1675 failed to do that. Instead, he makes a general claim that:
Nowhere does he explain where the evidence I have provided is “counteracted by large amounts of actual evidence and expert testimony”.
—
PatrickB, @ 1673 I was not meaning to restate my arguments about the Ace Elevator Company. I was only responding to your earlier post which implied that, because I had not restated the argument over and over again, that I had withdrawn my argument. My arguments about the Ace Elevator Company still stand.
The fact that not one of them provided to the rescue workers, to William Rodriguez and people trapped inside elevators the help they demonstrably needed (whilst another elevator mechanic who didn’t even work at the WTC died attempting to provide that help) constitutes suspicious behaviour in my view. That and the fact that this group of 83 had, for 9 previous months, the access to most of the strutural columns necessary to plant explosives answers the demands that were stridently and repeatedly put to me by Jo, FDB, adrian, Ambigulous and possibly others that I explain how it could have been as I showed @ 1471. Of course, none of that is evidence that that is what happened, but I believe it is cause for those workers to have been investigated so that their innocence could be established, or if not, charges laid.
—
In summary, the closest anyone comes to addressing my arguments is Bob’s supposed rebuttal of my rebuttal of FDB’s silly ‘compresed air’ argument. However Bob’s ‘rebuttal’ fails to acknowledge or respond to any of the arguments I put.
Other than that FDB’s and Bob’s post make claims that my arguments have been rebutted elsewhere in this forum, but fail to say where.
Of course, the 33 other posts added since my last post, that have further bloated this forum, don’t even pretend to address the topic.
That is total confirmation to me that the ‘debunkers’ purpose in participating in this forum is to conceal, rather than uncover the truth about the murder of almost 3,000 US citizens on 11 September 2001.
I wonder what Bob Dylan would think of all this?
daggett,
You still have not even attempted to show how any explosives could have been in the building, never mind on the fire floors. The collapse clearly started there, so the explosives would have needed to have been there to start the process.
As for the explosive ejections of air from lower floors – if there were explosives on them then more than one window at a time per floor would have blown out, particularly if the explosives had to be powerful enough to make sure of the job, as you contend.
Really powerful explosives simply would have had much more of an effect. Nano-thermite (the explosive you have been talking about) also explodes with sheets of flame, not the expelling of dust. The fact it clearly is dust that is being expelled shows that thermite was not used.
The progressive collapse of the building, proceeding immediately above it, with the debris field being only a couple of floors above provides a plausible mechanism.
Your idea that somehow some explosives survived the impact of a loaded 767 to initiate a collapse an hour or more later and that there were multiple charges below that, all exquisitely time with thermite (an agent whose actual detonation is difficult to perfectly time,and would be even harder in the context of a collapsing huge building) but only blowing out isolated windows and showing only dust where flames really should be if thermite were used, is simply not plausible.
Oh – and if you attempt to imply again that I am part of a conspiracy to murder a friend of mine and nearly 3000 others, even after the fact, with words such as this:
That really is beneath contempt. I would advise you to be very glad that I, on principle, do not sue for defamation as this is about as dematory as it can get.
Andrew,
The fuckwit makes a habit of defamation. Haven’t you noticed? If he had made the comments about my qualifications as an historian anywhere else other than LP I would sue him, but the only reason I haven’t already visited my solicitor is because I have no intention or wish of suing Larvatus Prodeo. Otherwise this idiot would already be in deep shit.
Wait, this one’s better.
More Bushy, less Bacony.
“constitutes suspicious behaviour in my view.”
What may or may not be suspicious in your view is irrelevant, I’m asking for evidence. Because there isn’t even valid grounds for suspicion you can’t get to the evidence gathering stage. Those who do these things for a living don’t waste their time acting on paranoid suspicions such as your.
“Of course, none of that is evidence that that is what happened, but I believe it is cause for those workers to have been investigated so that their innocence could be established, or if not, charges laid.”
What you may or may nor consider cause for investigation is irrelevant. Those who do this for a living blah … blah … blah
The problem is Dagget that when pressed for evidence you fall back on these kinds of speculative statements as a grounds, in your opinion only, for further investigation, an investigation you believe will uncover the evidence you don’t have. You have no evidence, you have some paranoid suspicions about the govt./state/elevator repair companies.
I, too, resent your inference. Are you telling me I am responsible for the water retention now? First, I am pure sugar, nothing soft about me. I burn fast and leave quick. Second, when did I ever assert I was addressing the topic? My main area of interest here has been chocolate, Jesus and your creepy lack of humour. And to that end, I say again, it’s unnatural how you can’t even admit that once in your life you must have wondered what that stretchy feeling in your lips was was.
Finally, if you think my posts are less important than yours, you’d be dead wrong. It stands to reason, Daggett, that if you are Mulholland Drive, then obviously I am the ad break everybody needs.
I will be back Daggett.
This whole 9/11 topic is OT. The Truth Is Out There! We should be posting about little green men.
It just gets better and better.
Geez I’m glad I opted for the extended download limit a couple of month back though.
FDB,
Subscribe to the thread on RSS. It cuts it down nicely if you don’t want to thrash your connection.
Paul,
I had noticed the habit he has of defamation. He was doing the same thing years ago on Quiggin under his real name.
Personally, I believe that this indicates desperation – he has nothing else and so has to try to believe that we are doing this for the money or something else – perhaps to cover up our own involvement. On Quiggin (IIRC) he kept accusing me of supporting freedom / capitalism for some nefarious reason as well.
It really does not help his argument, IMHO – it just makes him look like he has nothing.
Rubbish. Your attenuated comprehension fails you yet again, Daggy. You’ve just quoted me addressing your question directly. You asked me to point out a document where my arguments were to be found, and I told you, in the post where I said I did.
Nope, those are your attempts to understand a straight answer which was, unfortunately for you, written in simple English. Your comprehension failure is not my problem.
Nope. As I pointed out to you, it showed nothing of the sort.
The fact that you think your strawman interpretation is absurd tells us nothing, as your judgement has long been known to be thoroughly suspect. The question is whether you can prove FDB’s explanation was neither possible nor probable, on which point you FAILED.
The only “obvious problem” here, Daggy, is that you are a twit. Aside from your presentation of another couple of unsubstantiated assertions from a clueless nitwit, we know the floors fell sequentially on top of each other. You ASSUME that air could have escaped vertically, though collapsing steel and concrete. You have not PROVED it did so. As we can see from the video footage, airborne debris is ejected laterally, not vertically, from the building at it collapsed through each floor. Why? It was the path of least resistance.
Who says they were “sharply focused”? Air and debris blew out from multiple locations, most notably immediately under the front of the collapse as each floor was crushed. Air was simply squeezed out of the building by the collapse, and was ejected through the path of least resistance. There’s no indication that controlled demolition, of any kind, had anything to do with it.
As I noted, your arguments are bunk, and were comprehensively debunked.
“Whether or not you now can”? WTF? Was it in doubt that I would shred you yet again?
As I noted previously, you were unable to rebut the effective arguments of Shaun, FDB and Katz and so you were comprehensively debunked.
PatrickB @ 1707 – Heh heh heh. Well why not. After all, returning fire is only fair.
On the other hand, though, wassuppitdis?… “(voice off) How about a live snake up the ass?”
Well, well, well. Your mind certainly does wander to interesting places.
You realize of course, that having yourself also put words in the good Judge’s mouth, that you too would stand to come in for the very same peculiar retribution…and since you’re the one who came up with it…
Oh heck, maybe it’s a wish-fulfillment thing. Of a very, very, very weird wish.
Only kidding, bud. Nice backhand!
JUSTICE TWINFEET: Will the both of you please now get the fook out of here, and stop wasting the Court’s time!
Yes, yer honor. Cheers then…
– j_p_z
Which is not to say that I do not like Mulholland Drive, Daggett – which is not to say that I like you.
Tell you what. If you want to make friends on this thread, try crying (and looking) like this. A thousand sins would be forgiven then, I am pretty sure.
Casey,
Thanks for the links to the Kate Bush videos. “Wuthering Heights” including Kate Bush’s dancing is phenomenal. Not yet sure what to make of Ilorando from Mulholand Drive. Of course, I would prefer such videos not be added to this particular forum, but thanks all the same.
I prefer to get along with people and usually make some effort, but I care less and less what some people think of me these days. If some people take offence at my views, they usually turn out to be the sort of people I would not have much time for anyway and I find that there is at least a commensurate level of appreciation from many others I have a lot of admiration for.
Had you looked at the video of Ellen Mariani that I mentioned above? She lost her husband on flight 175 (not Flight 11 as I mistakenly wrote above) which was the second aircraft which hit the South Tower. A second video is 9/11 Ellen Mariani talks about her husband’s death – planet hit Tower 2. She’s a women prepared to stick her neck out in order to find out the truth about what happened to her husband and she paid a very heavy price for that.
—
I will skip over the ad hominem attacks in Bob’s most recent ‘contribution’ about the plumes of violently ejected debris. Bob wrote:
How do we ‘know’ that, Bob? What in that image I referred to above suggests to you floors falling so neatly on top of each other as to leave no gaps through which air might escape? What I see is a massive and violent cloud of debris at least two floors above where the horizontal plume of debris is observed. Please cite the document that provides this explanation.
As we’ve seen, what YOU think YOU see is irrelevant and, given your delusional bias, usually false. However, seeing you asked so nicely,
NIST NCSTAR 1, page 146:
Now, Daggy, if you’d done your homework like I told you, and read the fecking report rather than wallowing in your own ignorance, you would have been spared this further embarrassment, but you‘re a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?
@1727
“How about a live snake up the ass?””
“History of the World Part One” quote. Although I maybe paraphrasing:
Roman Officer: Do you know the penalty for a slave who strikes a Roman citizen?
[people in the crowd raise hands enthusiastically]
Roman Officer: Ok, you… you had your hand up first.
Man in crowd: Death by torture!
Roman Officer: No… You?
Man in crowd: Crucifixion!
Roman Officer: Wrong! You?
Man in crowd: They shove a living snake up your ass!
Roman Officer: Ah, no… but that’s very creative!
Herr Zenger missed a Mel Brooks quote?!?!?
Forty lashes!
Bob wrote, citing NIST NCSTAR 1, page 146:
Then Bob wrote:
I am very pleased you liked Kate, Daggett. Now see, that means you, me and Nabs have something in common. How about that?
Now you say you would prefer if I stopped doing what I do. I understand why, but Daggett, I think that it is beneficial for me to continue. As far as I can see, this is the first time you have admitted to having an interest outside the events of 9/11. You even like Zombie dancing. That’s a good thing. Not like tortoise sex, but it has its place.
Have I told you I like books? Everything is a narrative to me. And in the narrative of this thread, these small things – well they humanise you. Make you more rounded as a character; provide a certain vulnerability; soften your ascetic edges. You need more layers Daggett, more complexity.
You aren’t thinking ahead. This could be very important in the years to come. Say it all turns out to be true. Everything you have been arguing. Then you and this thread will be very very famous. You will be needing fireplace shots like this. Further, like Ned the Christian who keeps Kosher just in case, I want to make sure I am here too, famous as well – the only one who managed to provide the rare glimpses into the private man, the lonely man, the wounded man who never let anybody see the cost.
However, given you have borne my provocations with not much complaint, unlike other pork chops around here, I will stop if you insist. You can let me know, or not, as is your wont.
“So, why should I be told by someone, too lazy even to make the minimal effort required to paste to this forum what he claims to be the ‘explanations’ of the ‘collapses’, let alone articulate in his own words those explanations, what I am obliged to read?
I have plenty else I need to read, thank you very much, and I am not going to be told to read through end to end what are obviously long-winded, convoluted and essentially useless documents which are clearly designed to conceal, rather than reveal the truth.”
Risible. Because you know it’s all lies, you don’t need to read it. Why on Earth do you keep demanding people address your “arguments”, accept your “evidence”, etc etc ad nausaem, when you self-avowedly will refuse to read fairly (or at all!) anything that doesn’t fit your view.
Meanwhile, you demand that ‘Bob’ cuts and pastes large swathes of text into the ‘forum’ rather than simply link to something you can read – while simultaneously mewling about the slow loading page.
Truly, you are a pathetic wobbly crybaby with not the slightest understanding of decency or good faith in argument.
Grow up mate. Take a step back, and read your own comments back to yourself as if they were the words of someone you disagree with. [It's a difficult mental exercise, but a few times it's worked for me, and I've realised I was being an arse]. In this new light, do your comments seem slimy, evasive, lame, petulant, defamatory, sick, twisted, obsessive or any of the above?
I believe we need to bring in some expert opinion on the effects of Casey riding her broomstick into the side of the World Trade Centre at high speed. Also, insufficient attention has been given to the fact that Stevie Nicks was in Manhattan on the day of 9/11. It was the witches what dunnit!
LOL.
See Daggett???
OH who has the magics??? You changed what I was LOLLIng about. Put that back!
I believe. OK?
I was not there that day. I was at SBS, going like, FMD etc, etc and making astute observations like “I think George has started snorting again”.
Stevie Nicks has reported however there was some woman taken by the wind. I suspect she knows things.
Thanks.
Now:
See Daggett????
My quest to humanise you has turned the tide.
Think carefully before you bid me farewell.
One of my cats is Stevie Nicks.
Here’s her favourite number.
Heh. What FDB said at #1735.
Blimey, Daggy, that is one sorry excuse for argument.
First, you claim your dopey theory wasn’t debunked. Then when I show you exactly how it was debunked and how your attempt at rebuttal failed, you demand that I cite the document explaining why your theory is wrong. Then, when I do – to the most authoritative source on the Twin Towers’ collapse, no less – you refuse to read the document, claiming that it is “clearly designed to conceal, rather than reveal the truth”, a claim you assert, BTW, without any substantiation as you admit you’ve never read the document. Then, you simply repeat the same discredited arguments. What a petty loser you are.
Also, I answered your question at #1584, Daggy, and it’s clear for all to see – no amount of spin from you will change that.
Magics, Case? You can’t handle magics! Now with extra-pnuchy precussion, just for you, Efdeebee.
You’re a cocky, saucy monkey Fyodor.
Dammit.
Anyway, seeing as each man desires to find it (his very own Utopia), having seen it in the striving, in the seeking soul… I might as well link it.
Warning – SOLID GOLD-SWATHED LEAD-HARP-PLAYING HOTTIE ALERT!!!*
*Wait, is that Tripitaca him/herself?
Okay, in what may be the most laborious attempt ever to link to something irrelevant on youtube, I have come to my flaky charge’s rescue:
THE LINK TO THE THING FDB HAS BEEN FAILING TO LINK TO PROPERLY.
There. Now I hope everyone enjoys it.
FDB – yes, but once they’ve got the fog-machines going, can they sing “The Revealing Science of God” in limerick form? (btw chum, as an aside, you’re quite mistaken in your ‘epic fail’ analysis upthread, but then, why bother arguing the toss when instead you can link to this…)
Meanwhile… Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour:
Also, “History of the World” is not canonical. I count a total of one good joke in the entire mess (“You’re nuts – N.V.T.S., nuts!!”). Wish I had my two hours back. You want to talk about hockey sticks and “bending the curve downward”, just look at Mel Brooks’s work after Young Frankenstein. Still, who can blame him? Get Smart, The Producers, about half of Blazing Saddles, and every solid-gold minute of Young Frankenstein… that’s quite a run. And there are two good jokes in High Anxiety, a few here and there in When Things Were Rotten, and three, I think, in Spaceballs. (“She’s a bass” was inspired.) Beyond that, I’m out.
FDB – yes, but once they’ve got the fog-machines going, can they sing “The Revealing Science of God” in limerick form? (btw chum, as an aside, you’re quite mistaken in your ‘epic fail’ analysis upthread, but then, why bother arguing the toss when instead you can link to this…)
Meanwhile… Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour:
Also, “History of the World” is not canonical. I count a total of one good joke in the entire mess (“You’re nuts – N.V.T.S., nuts!!”). Wish I had my two hours back. You want to talk about hockey sticks and “bending the curve downward”, just look at Mel Brooks’s work after Young Frankenstein. Still, who can blame him? Get Smart, The Producers, about half of Blazing Saddles, and every solid-gold minute of Young Frankenstein… that’s quite a run. And there are two good jokes in High Anxiety, a few here and there in When Things Were Rotten, and three, I think, in Spaceballs. (“She’s a bass” was inspired.) Beyond that, I’m out.
@1747
Not canonical! Me thinks a rather subjective assessment. All Brooks’ films are front-end loaded so it’s not a fair criteria. I thought Spaceballs was pretty evenly paced for one of his later works. The one about the rich guy was a total failure though.
Please pardon my obviously botched formatting @ 1733. Once again I have used a <blockquote> when I should have used a </blockquote>.
FDB wrote:
If you or Bob want to prove me wrong about the worth of NIST NCSTAR 1, then you can do so, by quoting appropriate parts.
I am not sure where I have demanded that others address my arguments. However where people have not, as you and Bob have not, and then dishonestly claim to have ‘debunked’ me then I believe I am entitled to point that out. Where people say over and over again that I have produced no evidence, as you and Bob have, then I believe that I am entitled to point out that I have.
Where have I refused to read anything that doesn’t fit my view?
I have read all the garbage that you and Bob have poured onto this forum, haven’t I? Every day of the week, I read large amounts of material in the mainstream media tha doesn’t fit my view.
If you or Bob think there is anything worth reading in that NIST NCSTAR 1 report, then put it here, or at least enough of it to convince me that it is worth my time to read all of it or any of it for myself.
What little Bob has already put here has confirmed my view of that document’s worth.
FDB wrote:
I don’t expect of Bob any more than what I have done myself, that is, present the argument he is defending, either as direct quotes or in his own words. In regard to the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7, neither Bob nor you have done either.
—that if you won’t acknowledge my arguments then dishonestly claim that I have been rebutted, then I am entitled to repeat them.
Bob wrote:
No, Bob. You did not.
What is “clear for all to see” is that you claimed to have answered my question (@ 1575) somehere else, but failed to say where. Again, I suggest people follow the link and see for themselves.
Bob can go on claiming, until the cows come home, that I have lost the argument, that he has ‘debunked’ me, etc., instead of actually addressing my arguments, but he can’t stop others from reading the posts in order to decide for themselves.
(I am just reposting the second part of the above post addressed to Bob (aka ‘Fyodor’), that is the last six paragraphes , in its entirety. I somehow missed some of it earlier.)
Once again, Bob has made a post, which fails to address any of my arguments, rather it claims to have rebutted my arguments elsewhere.
Bob wrote:
You did not. Nowhere have you either acknoweldged or responded to my detailed arguments put at 1793, 1714, 1646 and possibly other places.
It’s ‘authoritative’ because it comes from the Government, Bob?
No, Bob. If it can be shown to be garbage as I have shown then it’s not authoritative as far as I am concerned.
No, Bob. You refuse to demonstrate that it is worth reading. If you quote anything from that document here, then I will read it.
I substantiated my claim by showing that its argument claiming that the ‘collapsing’ towers must have behaved like some tightly sealed piston, capablw of forcing sufficient amounts of air down ahead of the visible collapse front fast enough as to be able to cause those violently ejected plumes of debris, is anti-scientific nonsense which defies common sense.
I believe that if you won’t acknowledge my arguments then dishonestly claim that I have been rebutted, then I am entitled to repeat them.
Bob wrote:
No, Bob. You did not.
What is “clear for all to see” is that you claimed to have answered my question (@ 1575) somehere else, but failed to say where. Again, I suggest people follow the link and see for themselves.
Bob can go on claiming, until the cows come home, that I have lost the argument, that he has ‘debunked’ me, etc., instead of actually addressing my arguments, but he can’t stop others from reading the posts in order to decide for themselves.
Awsum.
*Applauds*
First things first.
You know it, Beeby. Don’t get me started on Tripitaka…
…nah, feckit – start me up. That’s not Natsume Masako on the harp. Tragically, the beautiful Masako died too young, aged 27, from leukaemia. RIP.
I already have, remember? Your response was to say the report lied. Besides which, it’s YOUR assertion that the report isn’t worth reading, so the onus is on YOU to prove it.
Every time I state that you have been debunked, Daggy, it is because you have been debunked. Every time I state that you have produced no evidence it is because you have produced no evidence. Now, in your delusional state you can claim all sorts of nonsense, but you have no “entitlement” to peddle lies and every time you do, it is pointed out to you.
Hahaha. Do you realise you’re on record on this thread, stating that you refuse to read the NIST reports?
And yet you refuse to read the NIST reports. Why, Daggy?
You mean that it confirmed your pre-existing, uninformed bias. You don’t have an informed opinion on the document, Daggy, and you can’t without reading it.
As I said, I have quoted from the report. You called it lies, with no substantiation whatsoever. As to convincing you to read it, given you’ve declared your bias against the document, on the basis of no evidence, I’m not sure you can be convinced to end your ignorance. The fact that you choose to remain ignorant is entirely your fault.
Oh, pull the other one. I have most certainly explained the collapse of WTC 7 in my own words and provided direct quotes from NIST on the collapse of WTC 7, and you know it.
The point is that you insist, bizarrely, that slabs of text from the NIST report be presented here because you are, for some reason, unwilling to read the actual document. This is despite the fact that you constantly link TO YOUR OWN COMMENTS and expect us to click through to read them. What is your problem with reading linked documents, Daggy? Why the hypocrisy?
Your arguments WERE debunked in a previous comment.
“1793”? “Possibly other places”, Daggy?
As noted, your allegedly “detailed arguments” were thoroughly debunked, notably at #1726.
No, it’s authoritative because it was produced by an unrivalled group of experts with unrivalled resources and unrivalled access to the evidence. That’s what makes it authoritative, Daggy.
As far as YOU are concerned? Who cares about your OPINION, Daggy? Furthemore, you have not shown it to be garbage – you haven’t even read it!
I really think you should take FDB’s advice, Daggy, and look at what you’re writing with at least an attempt at objectivity. Personally, I’m horrified by the extent of your self-delusion.
You’re saying that you don’t refuse to read a document…but you do. Furthermore, you claim that it’s because – IN YOUR OPINION – the bits I quote to you don’t pass muster that you refuse to read the whole document.
Since when is it my responsibility to convince you to educate yourself?
The document is the most authoritative document on the collapses, for the reasons I cite above, and yet you refuse to read it. If you had any intellectually integrity on this issue you would be open to challenging your own views with contrary explanations, but you refuse even to read the most important document on the WTC collapses.
Honestly, what the fuck do you think you are doing even pretending to be objective on this issue when you insist on being so wilfully ignorant?
No, you stated your opinion. You provided no substantiation. Furthermore, your OPINION runs counter to the findings of the EXPERTS who investigated the collapse. You have failed to prove that they are wrong and that you are right, because you have no EVIDENCE, only unsubstantiated ASSERTIONS.
Oh, FFFFS. Your BELIEFS don’t entitle you to anything. Evidence is what counts, Daggy, and you have none.
Yes, Daggy, I did.
Ridiculous. I did not claim to have answered the question “somewhere else”. I answered the question at #1584. As I said, repeated mantras of “black = white” will do you no good, Daggy.
What an extraordinary suggestion. I have in no way attempted to stop others from reading the posts. Why would I? It’s precisely in the thread above that I – and others – have debunked your arguments and it is because those arguments have been debunked that I can declare, and will continue to declare, that you have lost the argument, Daggy.
In fact, I hope sincerely that this thread achieves a sizeable audience in years to come so that people can come here to discover for themselves just how big a laughing-stock you’ve made of yourself. The best part is that you were warned that this would happen more than a thousand comments ago and yet you pushed on regardless, blindly and wilfully ignorant of your impending humiliation.
What an unexpected and pleasant surprise!
Another original, informative and highly stimulating ‘contribution’ from Bob.
Again, I see lots of claims of my arguments having been thoroughly debunked somewhere else within this forum, but, of course, not within that post. In particular, there is no acknowledgement of my detailed rebuttals (@ 1793, 1714, 1646) of the nonsense argument, put by FDB about each of the collapsing Twin Towers, acting as some kind of air-tight piston, as it tumbles violently into dust.
Anyone here, considering going back through this forum in order to seek out Bob’s fabled ‘rebuttals’ of my arguments should be warned: A fate, similar to the grisly fates met by most of the Knights of the Round Table in their Quest for the Holy Grail, may await you.
Those, who are less adventurous, may consider following the link back to my most recent post and through that to other posts by myself, Bob, FDB and other. However, if you hope to find the fabled ‘rebuttals’ that way, you may be sorely disappointed.
So, I see you liked aka Fyodor’s literary allusions too? He sticks to that libidinous Lancelot, innit. Leaves the grail to you obsessive types.
Well?
One goes away…one comes back :
the dagsterman still lying thru his teeth, desperately trying to hold on to some kind of credibility by simply repeating the same total crap over and over and over again…all of which has been shown to be a hotchpotch of lies, deceit, cultish fads and downright rubbish…
Dag has presented not one shred..not one single shred of evidence…..pathetic looping back again and again to his own points that have no substance whatsoever just reinforces to all his completely pathetic self delusion…
All credit to bob and others for their patience and the clear, concise and irrefutable logic of their statements.
Look, Case, I’ve been through this knocking-up-underaged-virgins snafu: “WE WERE ON A BREAK!”
I must admit that it was pleasing, however, to see our prize flounderer swallow that particular Jungian pearl.
The latter sentence is all true, of course, but why a surprise, Daggy, if it’s “another”? Shirley you must be accustomed to my origination, information and stimulation by now?
Naturally – as you had been debunked in previous comments, why repeat myself unnecessarily?
Not true. There were no “detailed rebuttals” to acknowledge. What I acknowledged in my previous comment is that the existence of your alleged comment #1793 is – shall we say – doubtful [Hint: your latest comment is numbered #1754. If you still don’t get it, ask someone who can count without using their fingers.] and that your attempted rebuttals at #1714 and #1646 were refuted in my comment at #1726. Also, your assertion about FDB’s allegedly “nonsense argument” is, itself, nonsense as the experts at NIST disagree with you, as I made clear to you. I note that you’ve failed to explain, yet again, why you know better than they do.
A bit histrionic of you, dontchathink? Not only are my rebuttals easy to find [Top Tip, kids: look for the smirking ginger clown!], but the act of reading doesn’t typically cause “grisly fates”, as you put it. That is, except perhaps in attempting to read a NIST report, which evidently you consider a fate worse than death, so insistently do you refuse it.
“Less adventurous”, Daggy? You really are too modest – your comments are so fact- and logic-free they are truly works of high fantasy. All you need to do is work some gypsies and pirates into your stuff and you’ve got a sure-fire bestseller on your hands. As for disappointment…well, that is undoubtedly a subject in which you are vastly more experienced than me, but I contend that, yet again, you under-estimate the audience, who may suffer from a dearth of the intellectual inadequacies that you exhibit so prominently.
But, please, tell us more about the treacherous difficulties of navigating a blog thread. You make it sound so exciting and adventurous, and it saves you from having to defend your crackpot theories, which have been – wouldn’t you know it? – thoroughly debunked.
Glad to see you appreciate my literary allusion, Casey.
However, for my part, I have to admit, I didn’t get most of Bob’s. Those I did get, I didn’t find particularly funny.
Perhaps, if he had not made those aspersions against 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani for attempting to fight against the Bush administration in the courts, instead of swallowing its lies, as he would have the rest of us do, I might be able to apprecite a little more whatever humour there is to be found in his constantly changed identities.
I think that if Bob had, instead, simply adopted one identity — ‘Fyodor’, ‘Bob’, or whatever — and stuck to it, this forum would be considerably better.
Also, it would have made any prospective Quest in search of Bob’s fabled ‘rebuttals’ somewhat less perilous for any intending Knights of the Round Table.
—
I see that Eric Sykes, like Bob, takes exception to my linking back to my previous posts, as well as Bob’s and others.
Yes, the hyperlink is, indeed, a curse.
We would all be better off it had never been invented and we all had to navigate all the way back using scroll bars.
—
BTw, the promised link to help people get past Bob’s latest ‘contribution’ to my own post, in under half an hour, was left out of my previous post by mistake. Here it is.
And there I have sympathy for you, daggett. Fyodor’s a dab hand at alluding. Or is it eluding? Or using illusions (I & II)?
If you ask me it’s time for ding a ding danging our dang a long ling longs.
Hahaahahahahahaha!!! Sideshow!!
The no. 1 man fantasy in lurking in man brains!!!
There is only one way out and you have to put on my skirt to do it!!
We have obviously reached another impasse. Bob claims (@ 1757) that either he has rebutted my arguments somewhere else or that there is nothing to rebut.
Of course, I disagree.
So I guess others are just going to have to look for themselves, aren’t they?
Once again, my posts relating to FDB’s claim that each of the Twin Towers effectively became precision engineered postions and cylinders which, floor by floor trapped all the air contained within each floor, as it was violently collapsing to dust, are 803, 1646, 1714, 1733.
Bob’s purported rebuttals of 1714 and 1646 are, as he says, at 1726. Curiously he has neglected to mention his post @ 1730, which contains that quote from the NIST report that Bob would have us all accept as the final word on the issue.
Of course, as we know, Bob has (@ 1757) deemed my response, at 1733, to 1730 as not being worth acknowledging.
However, I suggest people take the effort to see for themselves.
I think that covers just about everything there is in Bob’s latest ‘contribution’ that is worth responding to. If anyone notices something I might have missed, please let me know.
My most recent post is at1758 and my most recent post, to which Bob’s purports to be a response, is 1754.
Really? That’s numero uno? I would have gone with Emmanuelle Beart, or maybe Tina Fey – shows how little I know.
Nice skirt, Case – do you wear the tights with it?
That said, I think the skirt – and fantasy – in this ‘un would suit me better.
Unsurprising, Daggy – you don’t have the requisite erudition to either recognise or appreciate the allusions and, furthermore, to realise that you weren’t the intended audience. But don’t worry your muddled Daggy head about it: as the butt of the joke, you’re not expected to find it funny.
Huh? What “aspersions”? I described the widow Mariani as a vexatious litigant. This is a statement of fact, as evidenced by her total failure in pursuing a racketeering case against members of the Bush administration.
As to why Ellen Mariani should influence your sense of humour, you’ll have to enlighten us. Clearly your bias infects multiple aspects of your deluded psyche.
My identity has remained unchanged – it’s obvious from my gravatar that I’m the same commenter, and it’s obvious that you, for instance, have never had difficulty in responding to me.
Moreover, it’s not apparent why this forum would be “considerably better” if my pseudonym was fixed. Personally, I think it’d be less interesting. Granted, that’s just one opinion, albeit the only one that counts.
There you go again with the histrionics. “Perilous”? Hardly.
Yet another comprehension FAIL, Daggy.
Sykes wasn’t criticising your use of links, Daggy – he didn’t even use the word, FFS – but your propensity to chase your tail, recycling the same discredited arguments over and over again, despite the fact that, as he points out, they have already been thoroughly debunked. In this he is absolutely correct.
No, “we” haven’t. You have been caught circling back to previously debunked arguments. This is an impasse for you, not for us.
No, I stated that I had debunked your arguments- because I have – and I stated where, not “somewhere else”.
Of course you do – you’re a delusional twit.
Comme d’habitude.
You forgot #1793, Daggy. Don’t you remember the “detailed rebuttals” of yours from that comment?
Also, FDB said no such thing; it’s a strawman of your own invention. It’s late in the day to expect you to argue in good faith, given your disgusting display so far, but do FDB the courtesy of addressing his argument, not your strawman.
I didn’t “neglect” to mention it; it wasn’t the point in contention. You were whining – as you now admit – falsely about me not acknowledging your arguments at #1714 and #1646. I countered that I had rebutted those arguments at #1726. There’s nothing “curious” about me not referring to #1730 at that juncture, as it wasn’t the point in contention. Do keep up.
No, “we” don’t “know” this, because I acknowledged your response at #1733 to be wilfully ignorant hypocrisy in my comments at #1743 and #1753.
Yes, folks, don’t take my word for it! See for yourself how Daggy hits rock bottom, then pulls out his shovel and starts digging!
You missed that bit where I noted that the existence of your alleged post at #1793 was doubtful. I think you should explain yourself.
“became precision engineered postions and cylinders”
I don’t understand why you find this so difficult to believe. Go out into the street and find a concrete paving slab (make sure no-one sees you as the council might get annoyed). OK, got one? Stand in an area with loose sand or dust on the ground. Now hold the slab horizontally at about stomach height and far enough away from your body so that it clears you toes. Now let the slab go. Was there a puff of dust or sand? If there was then you’ve just recreated the action of the floors in the TT falling on one another. If not then keep trying with an area that has more dust, or perhaps empty the contents of your vacuum cleaner on the lawn and drop the paving slab on that. Perhaps you could put up a YouTube video of you carrying out this experiment.
“Once again, my posts relating to FDB’s claims that each of the Twin Towers effectively became precision engineered postions and cylinders which, floor by floor trapped all the air contained within each floor”
Where did I “effectively” claim those things, mister burny-pants?
An even close-to perfect piston/cylinder arrangement would have resulted in many many more ejections of dust, smoke and debris than were observed. There was massively increased pressure in certain parts of certain floors as the building imperfectly and fairly chaotically collapsed. In those parts, certain windows would be at the focal point of the pressure, and among any human-made bank of windows, there will be some kind of weak point where it fails first – invisibly flawed plate glass, slightly weaker seals round the edge, etc. When the pressure is released, that’s it – the air’s got somewhere to go, and no more mindows blow out anywhere near that exit point.
If it were an explosion as part of a demolition then (apart from the many other problems with that hypothesis) there would be lots more of them, and no special reason for them to be so ramdomly timed and located. And to be happening well after the collapse was initiated.
In short, your suggested explanation for the puffs of smoke, dust and debris has been thoroughly debunked. Done, dusted and back home for dinner. Deal with it.
The outbreak of good humour in Dagg’s #1758 is a little worrying.
As is Fyodor’s reference to #1793: time-traveller now? Typo?
I second the nomination of Emanuelle BeartMademoiselle Beart ‘as ze ‘eart of gold and l’art superbe.
Also wish to herald nearby milestones: 1776 (American independence war), 1788 (Aust), 1789 (la belle France)
I put this entire thread into wordle [wordle.net] and I got this word cloud:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/1438485/lp_-_the_truth_is_out_there
thanks to all who contributed!
dags, in response to your stubbornly uninformed, utterly unreliable opining that (according to Year 9 science class, was it?) the collapsing floors couldn’t have generated enough air pressure to burst a few windows ten to twenty floors below the collapse front, please read the testimony of fire fighters who were another fifty odd floors below the collapse front (via debunking911.com):
Oh, and do feel free to speculate to us this hurricane-like wind was actually due to explosives being detonated. I’d be more than happy to lead by you the hand through each and every contradiction and confusion that would instantly expose within your arguments above.
It’s interesting that the ‘debunkers’ now seem to feel it it necessary to put forward all these new arguments in support of their claim that the violent lateral ejections of debris, were simply caused by air being squeezed between the floors as each (allegedly) fell down onto the next, so long after my case to the contrary had been pronounced thoroughly debunked.
It’s also interesting that one ‘debunker’, namely, Nick now quotes testimonial evidence in support of his case, when similar testimonial evidence I have cited is invariably dismissed as ‘uncorroborated’, ‘hearsay’, etc.
Nick, All you have ‘proven’ is that, indeed, large volumes of air were forced downwards at very fast speeds as the ‘collapse’ progressed.
I would suggest that whatever was pushing upwards and outwards those massive billowing violent clouds of debris was also pushing downwards.
How does that prove that enough pressure could have been created on each successive floor, simply by the force of the floor falling to have caused such violent ejections? And indeed, as I asked earlier, how could the air have managed to push ahead of it all that debris?
I think the ‘debunkers’ need to also explain whether or not they are supporting the long discredited ‘pancake’ collapse theory. Of course the reason that the ‘pancake theory’ was abandoned was that it did not explain why central columns of supporting structural steel were not left standing after the ‘collapses’.
The only way I can possibly conceive of any sizable quantity of air to have been trapped fast enough as to build up the necessary pressure, is if the central structural steel columns had remained standing as the pancake theory implied, in order that something approximating a seal could had been preserved as the floors collapsed neatly around then.
If not, then are we to be expected to believe that all that steel could have been crushed and dismembered fast enough to allow the pressure in the surrounding corresponding surrounding air to build up sufficiently quickly?
Yes, Nick. I think you have a lot of explaining to do.
—
I see, that for Bob the only fact worth knowing, in 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani’s case, is that she lost her court cases against the Bush administration, were dismissed. That automatically proves her wrong, in Bob’s view. The fact that her requests to see the video of her husband boarding the doomed Flight 175 and the passenger manifest of that flight has been denied does not arouse the slightest curiosity in Bob.
Bob has thereby shown himself to be a model citizen of the New World Order. No, doubt, if he had been around in the 1930′s, he would have also been a model citizen of the Third Reich.
“It’s interesting that the ‘debunkers’ now seem to feel it it necessary to put forward all these new arguments in support of their claim that the violent lateral ejections of debris, were simply caused by air being squeezed between the floors as each (allegedly) fell down onto the next, so long after my case to the contrary had been pronounced thoroughly debunked.”
What new arguments?
“It’s also interesting that one ‘debunker’, namely, Nick now quotes testimonial evidence in support of his case, when similar testimonial evidence I have cited is invariably dismissed as ‘uncorroborated’, ‘hearsay’, etc.”
Nick’s testimonials are additional corroboration for a well-formed theory that fits the physical evidence, is plausible and is what the actual investigators believe occurred. They would not be enough on their own to demonstrate much at all.
Your testimonials are literally all you’ve got. They’re often anonymous, and often contradicted by other testimony. You’re happy to cling to them in the complete absence of a coherent positive theory of what happened, despite the fact that they suffer from the above problems.
I’m sure that you can appreciate the difference.
Daggett, what do you think you are doing?
In the face of all my efforts to huminate you, and the minute my back is turned, you go and throw your swines before pearls. I leave you alone for only a second while I revegetate after drinking rum with my Jack Sparrow friend and you decide to godwin here, godwin there, herd nazi piglets everywhere.
Watch it Daggett, or no more carefree laughter* **.
*I WANT those gold boots.
**I am on Team Anni-Frid.
FDB wrote:
It is not.
This is the supposedly “well-formed theory” from the NIST again:
Again, where has it explained how a ‘piston’ could have been formed by all those floors breaking free of both the inner core and the outer walls?
A piston, by definition, cannot be formed by something that is in the process of being pulverised to dust as all the floors and walls and support columns of the twin towers were.
You’re latest ‘enhancement’ to that theory seems to be no more than conjecture largely cooked up at the last minute inside your own head:
The only place that pressure could conceivably be “massively increased” — that is, unless each of the Towers were being blown to pieces by massive quantities of high explosives as I have argued all along — would be between a stationary floor and a floor falling on top of it, assuming that all the air could be trapped, and logically that could happen on only one floor at a time. If a whole lot of floors are falling inside, out of view, all at once as your half-baked theory seems to suggest at times, then the scope for massive increases in pressure in any one of the given floors would have to be considerably reduced, rather than increased.
Oh, sure!
And there is no way that the air could simply flow around the floor falling down from above, particularly as it is in the process of being torn (or I would say blown) to dust, is there, FDB?
I don’t think so.
It seems to me if there was such a sudden massive increase in pressure as you claim occurred, and the strengths of seals are roughly equivalent then everything breaks.
What you claim happens seems only plausible if pressure somehow increased suddenly to the breaking point of only the weakest of the seals, but just below the breaking points of the rest — very unlikely I would have thought, even on one floor, let alone on all the floors the violent ejections were observed.
Also, you forgot all the debris, FDB. What forced all that debris out the window with the air? How do you conceive of a floor falling onto another floor causing solid material to be lifted up mixed up with all the air being suddenly compressed and blown out through a hole in the one of the windows?
FDB continued:
It only ‘fits’ by any plausible stretch of the imagination the physical evidence that the theory is trying to explain away. There is no other corroborating evidence.
FDB continued:
It is only plausible to dimwits or it is only claimed by Government and corporate shills to be plausible. Which are you FDB? Nick?
Well, my whole point is that Shyam Sunder and John Gross were not investigators. They were political servants of the Bush administration acting to conceal a crime.
FDB continued:
Actually, they seem to me to confirm the case of the 9/11 Truth movement. I suggest people who have not read my last post, do so.
—
Casey, if you are offended at my latest post directed at Bob, then I suggest that you take a more careful look at what Bob has written to me.
I take considerable offence at the way he has not demonstrated once the least compassion for a woman who has been grief-stricken by the loss of her husband on 11 September 2001. I suggest that you view the videos of Ellen Mariani and then look again at Bob’s words. Do you detect even a hint of sympathy for Ellen Mariani here:
Or here:
Or here:
?
Ask yourself: What kind of spiteful creep is capable of smearing in this way a woman, grieving for the loss of her husband, who has had the courage to stand up to the Bush administration in order to learn the truth about her husband and been viciously persecuted as a result?
If Bob had taken the trouble to view those videos, he would know that the Bush administration’s persecution of Ellen Mariani began well before she took any action whatsoever against the Bush administration. It began as she was still in grief at the loss of her husband, as she was attempting to organise her daughter’s wedding. It all began because she insisted on asking the truth about her husband’s death. All she wanted to do on that was verify that her husband was indeed aboard Flight 175 by checking the manifest for herself, but they refused to let her see that.
As far as I am concerned and millions others arround who have suffered a result of Bush’s financial mismanagement of the economy and the needless wars he is a criminal and one who only got into power by stealing the 200 elections, so I don’t share Bob’s indignation at her having attempted to sue Bush under the RICO legislation.
When Bob has to choose between unquestioningly defending the record of the the Bush administration and its version of 9/11 on the one hand, and acknowledging the injustces inflicted upon people like Ellen Mariani on the other Bob has shown that he will always unhesitatingly choose the former.
—
I think Casey, you have also failed to notice repetive personal nastiness that I have had to endure in Bob’s posts. Here’s a few examples:
My comment: Yes I don’t “appreciate the allusions” and there are plently of people in the world who would, such as the appalling former Premier of NSW, Bob Carr. So what?
At least some people here try to use what knowledge and intelligence they do have to inform others.
I don’t see how any normal descent compassionate person would have much time for such a person, who choose to flood forums such as this with these kinds of comments.
Fellow Lp-ers,
let’s see if we can keep this thread going non-stop for a whole year.
Paul Burns wrote:
I somehow suspect that Paul’s appeals to others to further bloat this forum with more spam will end not long after I stop contributing, should that happen, and after he has judged that my own posts become sufficiently buried as to spare him the embarrassment that some of my posts have caused him.
Two more to the glorious 1776.
Since he is an historian of US independence, I vote that post be reserved for Paul Burns.
Should we Admire Dr Burns or Revere Paul?
May our posts be posts that are Heard Around the World! Onward to Lexington.
My goodness Dags, you do like to keep lists.
But for my purposes, doesn’t matter what he said. Keep your eye on the ball. You godwin, then sooner or later it all comes crashing down. And where does that leave me and my work?????
Look, not that I want to get involved in the politics of the thread – as I said I am here for the human interest angle ONLY so don’t get excited – but I think, if you read the NIST report, I think it may help. I think that may give you some gravitas, I think it might knock out at least 14% of the list up there.
Now you said:
Don’t bite the hand that pats you Daggett. I AM compassionate – look at my work with you – and my descents are legendary in these here parts. Normal – well it would do you no good whatsoever if I decided to try that would it?
Some common sense on 9/11 and various other things.
http://hnn.us/roundup/14.html#121212
No, a perfect piston can’t. That’s why NIST used the phrase “much like the action of a piston”. It’s a metaphor to assist people in understanding the principle, not a literal description of what occurred. I’ve grown accustomed to your mind’s lethargy Dags, but this is a doozy. As I said, a perfect piston would have seen a lot more blowouts, rather than just a few.
Yes, that’s a very plausible scenario. And it is indeed what happened in most parts of most collapsing floors. Hence the relatively few ejections.
Well, that’s because you don’t understand how things break. Go on – ask an engineer.
That’s because you lack understanding, imagination, and experience of how things break. Pressure increases, even sudden ones, will travel along the path of least resistance. Perhaps you’ve heard of the term – it’s one of the most basic tenets of physics, and nobody in history has ever disputed it it except for you just now. Feel special?
When the weakest point blows, it instantly reduces the pressure which caused the blowout, and the other, stronger windows are safe.
By using my knowledge of physics. You may have seen footage of houses, cows, redneck pickup trucks etc being picked up and moved around by wind. What do you think was happening? Something you can’t “conceive of”? Or just fucking wind?
“Well, my whole point is that Shyam Sunder and John Gross were not investigators. They were political servants of the Bush administration acting to conceal a crime.”
You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of this “point” (which doubles as a gross slander). You’re right though, it is your “whole point”. Nice of you to finally admit it.
FDB wrote @ 1778:
How could any kind of piston be formed by material that is breaking apart and will become pulverised to dust within seconds?
It’s you that has repeatedly demonstrated here that you have a lethargic mind.
If a more perfect piston would have caused a lot more blowouts, then why didn’t that wind that was described as “almost like a hurricane-type force and [which] actually pushed one of the firemen right by [Salvatore D’Agostino],” as cited by Nick, cause more blowouts lower down?
What you are doing here is seizing on any scrap of evidence that appears to support your theory and ignoring what does not.
Let’s not forget that we are discussing the transition of a steel framed skyscraper into dust. My powers of observation tell me that in that image I have referred to earlier, that transition is occurring three or four stories above where that plume of debris is being ejected.
Above that point the building is turning to dust (whether by collapsing floors as you maintain or by explosives as I am arguing). Below that point the building is still intact.
What you are effectively claiming is that the transition to dust is actually also occurring inside the building ahead of the observed collapse front, presumably by floors collapsing and trapping that air that you insist is the cause of the violent plume of debris.
Do you also maintain that floors were also collapsing and trapping air and causing violent ejecctions of debris 20-40 stories below the collapse front?
Other than the plume of debris, that your theory is trying to explain away, there is nothing else in that image or any other that supports that theory.
Surely the principle of Occam’s Razor would therefore dictate that we consider simpler alternative explanations.
I wrote:
Then FDB responded:
Of course I understand how things break at the weakest point, but that would surely be only applicable if we could be confident that the pressure only increased to be greater than the strength of the weakest point, but less than the breaking point of the other seale.
Anyway, why didn’t that hurricane force wind cause more windows to blow out further below, FDB?
FDB wrote:
What’s with you and Bob?
Why do you have to constantly use the words ‘fuck’, ‘fucking’, ‘fecking’, etc and resort to personal abuse and name calling? If anyone here should feel exasperated enough to use expletives here it should be me.
Anyway, FDB, the ‘fucking wind’, as you refer to it, is not wind caused in the wide open spaces by a hurricane or tornado (as some of us my have witnessed in the movie “Twister”), it is only the ‘wind’ that would be created in the far more confined space between two floors.
Now please try to explain how, by the action of one floor falling into the (presumably) stationary floor beneath it, enough wind would have been created to lift up enough debris to form that plume that was photgraphed, together with all the other plumes.
If it had simply been one floor falling onto the next, then, even if we accept your argument, then all we would have surely witnessed is one or more windows flying out and not all that debris instead or also.
FDB wrote:
I have provided abundant evidence.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge that it’s there, doesn’t mean that it is not.
Again, I refer others to examples of evidence that I have provided to disprove the repeated lying statements that I have not produced any and challenged others to explain why it was not.
Note FDB’s refusal to do so.
In any case, it is you, Bob and other ‘debunkers’ who have chosen to hide behind the supposed authority of Sunder, Gross and NIST to avoid confronting evidence contrary to your case.
I believe that I am entitled to point that I and a good many other respected building professionals and scientists do not share your stated high regard for those people.
Casey,
If you take exception to what I have said to Bob, then I think you should also critically pay regard to what he says to me.
His stated purpose in participating in this forum is not to cause me to change my views. If it was, he would have answered my simple questions and been able to show me where I, and other participants where I was wrong.
The fact that no-one else here has demonstrated any comprehension of his own explanation of the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 seems to me to be confirmation of that.
Rather, his purpose, as he has stated many times, is to humiliate me on this forum for daring to argue my case and not meekly run away.
He is clearly someone with a lot of spare time on his hands who has little else of interest going on in his life or someone being paid to do what he is doing.
I have no doubt there would be thousands of professional liars around the world paid full-time to do what Bob is essentially doing here.
Casey wrote:
Yes, it may ‘help’, but I restate my reasons why I choose not to read it at this point in time, that is, except indirectly in the course of reading David Ray Griffin’s “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven – Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” which I have read more than half way through (but annoyingly, seem to have mislaid).
At some later point I may choose to (again) look at parts of the NIST document directly. In fact, if Bob were to simply tell me on what pages of the report, his argument is based, I would go there and read it, now. However, in the meantime there are many other documents that are far more worthwhile that I need to read.
What I have already read about the NIST report, as well as Bob’s own failure to post any examples of worthwhile content of that document onto this forum, or even articulate its explanation of what supposedly caused the sudden loss of all the structural strength in at least 8 floors in WTC 7, is all the confirmation I need that it is a crock of hourse manure.
I am confident that the reason that Bob does not do that, in contrast to my own demonstrated willingness to articulate my case and quote directly from supporting documents, is that Bob realises that the arguments contained in that document are ridiculous and would be seen as such the moment he revealed them here.
For my part, I don’t demand of Bob that he read David Ray Griffin’s book, because I don’t consider it necessary for him to do so for me to argue my case, and, for his part, he has not explained why it is necessary for me to read, from cover to cover, all the NIST reports and presumably, the 9/11 Commission Report for him to be able to argue his case.
It’s obvious that Bob’s repeated carping demand that I “[read] the fecking reports” is only a ploy, and one of many, designed to waste my time and allow him to avoid confronting my arguments.
—
Casey, I suggest that understanding the question of 9/11 and arriving at an informed view one way or the other is of vital importance, even if you understandably choose not to plunge headlong into the debate here.
Just ask yourself:
If daggett is right and the rulers of the US willingly murdered almost 3,000 people, mostly their own citizens, on 11 September 2001 in order to create pretext to start wars that have caused the deaths of well over one million people, can we afford to remain ignorant of that fact?
What will stop them doing that again? And what will stop them using the next 9/11 (aka 9/12) to turn the US, Australia, the UK into repressive totalitarian dictatorships?
As I made clear, even I thought what I now know about 9/11 to be almost unthinkable, as little as I liked the Bush administration, even when I attended protest marches against the Iraq War in 2003.
If you want to learn the truth, then maybe start with the “9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary” all based on Paul Thompson’s 9/11 Timeline, consisting of information only gleaned only from the mainstream media. Then. maybe look at some online debates, including this one, or, maybe this one and then try to see who is addressing the evidence and who is trying to avoid discussing the evidence.
There are also 10 page, 25 page and 60 page summaries on the site http://www.wanttoknow.info
BTW, Paul Thompson did not start out as a conspiracy theorist. He simply had questions about 9/11 which were not answered and began doing his own research.
Another group who did their own research were the group of four 9/11 widows known as “The Jersey Girls.” Their story is told in the movie 9/11: Press For Truth.
In the movie, one of them explained how they didn’t start out as conspiracy theorists. They just simply couldn’t understand how their countries military defences failed so badly causing them to lose their husbands on that day.
One of them stated that she felt threatened by “terrorism and govenment incompetence.” They pushed and pushed and eventually forced the Bush administration to hold the 9/11 Commission.
As much as a white wash as it turned out to be, if Bush, Cheney, Rice et al, would not have even held that inquiry if they had had their way. If you want to see what lying politicians with a lot to hide look like then watch their faces very closely in this film.
There will also be a free screening of 9/11: Press For Truth in Brisbane.
Where: Brisbane City Council central library theatrette.
When: 1PM Saturday 16 January 2010.
Why do you take offence at that, Daggy? I don’t know her, and I assume you don’t either. I called her a vexatious litigant because it’s the truth. Why do you have a problem with the truth, Troofer?
I didn’t smear her, and she hasn’t been “viciously persecuted” either.
I don’t believe she’s been malicious in anything she’s done. On the contrary I think she’s been exploited by others into pursuing frivolous litigation. Notably, the lawyer who persuaded her into filing the RICO case, Philip Berg, has form: he filed another RICO lawsuit with your good friend and mine, one William Rodriguez, AND another lawsuit challenging the legality of Barrack Obama’s birth certificate. Yes, that’s right: Berg is both a Troofer AND a Birther. Or is that a Twofer?
Now, naturally, given your boundless compassion and generousity, you think a grieving widow should be encouraged into wasting her time and resources with “courageous” but ultimately unfounded and pointless litigation that does nothing to help her. I don’t – lacking your sanctimony I’ll just have to bear that cross.
I’m not indignant; I simply noted that Mariani is a vexatious litigant, i.e. waster of court time. That’s the truth. You’re the one getting indignant, and the rest of that gumph about Bush is irrelevant hyperbole.
More lies. I’m not an “unquestioning defender” of the Bush administration and you’re getting histrionic again.
So nothing. Just remarking on your ignorance, which you admit. Why do you have a problem with the truth, Daggy? Also, what does Bob Carr have to do with the price of fish?
Except you, obviously. All that you’ve contributed has been shown to be bunk.
Boo hoo, Daggy. It seems the truth does hurt.
Also, I think you missed a few there in the “flood”, you shameless, whining hypocrite.
Really? Where did I state that?
As I have answered your questions AND shown where you are wrong, you’ve just proved the argument contra, at least to the satisfaction of your own illogic.
Not true. As I recall, only you and “andrew” disagree with the NIST explanation of WTC 7’s collapse that I provided, and the only person experiencing difficulty in comprehending me was you.
Where did I state this “many times”?
Why? Are you assuming that debunking you takes up much of my time? It doesn’t, you know.
You also believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, so your judgement’s doubtful, to say the least.
Yeah, why bother with original sources when you can use biased and selective quotations instead?
I’m gratified you’re so keen to follow my recommendations! Page 1 onwards, Daggy. Get cracking.
Yeah, Troofer crap is far “more worthwhile” than accurate analysis by the experts.
Oh, pish-tosh. I’ve posted lots of worthwhile content from the NIST reports AND articulated its explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. The fact that you disagree with its worth is merely a statement of your bias and prejudice, as you have been unable to fault its findings. You literally have no basis for rejecting the NIST reports and, as I have told you many times, the only person who loses from this wilful ignorance on your part is you.
Given that I have both articulated the explanation and quoted directly from supporting documents THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT, your confidence is profoundly misplaced, though not for the first time given your record of utter failure to-date.
Again, you are profoundly confused on this issue. I don’t need you to read the reports so that I can argue my case. As has been shown on this thread, your theory has been demolished without you even reading the reports. In fact, your ignorance has made it harder for you to argue your case because, as Casey implied, it demonstrates your lack of gravitas.
I have told you to read the report so that you know what you’re arguing against. Many of the arguments that you’ve presented have been refuted within the reports and if you’d only had the good sense to read them you would have spared yourself the embarrassment of repeating discredited garbage. If you choose to remain ignorant, it’s your choice – I just like to remind you of it because it shows you (and others) what a clueless twit you are.
Yeah, Daggy, it’s a good thing you didn’t waste your time saving yourself from embarrassment. Well played!
And I haven’t avoided confronting any of your arguments. On the contrary, I – and others – debunked them all.
As there’s no evidence for any of it, it’s not a “fact”, but a theory, and an unsubstantiated one at that.
Have you asked yourself what evidence you have to support this dopey theory of yours, Daggy? Because you’ve presented none so far.
“Now please try to explain how, by the action of one floor falling into the (presumably) stationary floor beneath it, enough wind would have been created to lift up enough debris to form that plume that was photgraphed, together with all the other plumes.”
You have just explained it perfectly: “by the action of one floor falling into the (presumably) stationary floor beneath it”.
That’s how.
As to the rest of your guff, the fact that you can’t understand something, or you don’t believe it, is of no import whatsoever. Your lack of imagination, your failure to grasp very basic physics, and your utterly inept way with logic are there for all to see. Your continual appeal to “what Daggett reckons” is thus of less than zero value.
It is also clear that you still have no understanding of the nature of evidence.
Bob wrote:
What I wrote was in response to Casey’s objections to what I wrote about you (see my previous post.
I don’t see it as a question of the Truth hurting. Am I the only one here to find repetitive personal insults unpleasant, whether or not they happen to be true?
At least on on online forum such as this, people are usually able to learn more about the person making the insults than the intended target.
All I did, by quoting those insults, was to hold up a mirror to Bob so that he and others could see for themselves.
What I saw did not look pretty.
Note in Bob’s latest ‘contribution’ yet more claims of my having been debunked somewhere else but, once again, links or references to where that might have been are nowhere to be found.
Also note, how Bob makes no reference to the substance of Ellen Mariani’s case including what’s in those videos.
The fact, that US judges, who are always in the right in Bob’s view, have ruled against Ellen Mariani, is all that he needs to know, evidently.
As I (roughly) said before, this, to me is indicative of the mindset of someone who would feel perfectly at home in the Third Reich.
Those wishing to find my previous post in under 45 minutes should click on the link included above.
—
No FDB. you have not explained how a floor merely falling onto the floor below it can cause so much solid material to be lifted up off that floor and violently ejected laterally out of the building as shown in that image.
Anyone wishing to find out what FDB is ‘responding’ to, please look at 1779.
daggget @ 1779,
“How could any kind of piston be formed by material that is breaking apart and will become pulverised to dust within seconds?”
100,000 tonnes of mass were not “pulverized into dust within seconds” as you claim. Even if they were, they would certainly still have been more than able to create ‘a piston-like effect’.
“If a more perfect piston would have caused a lot more blowouts, then why didn’t that wind that was described as “almost like a hurricane-type force and [which] actually pushed one of the firemen right by [Salvatore D’Agostino],” as cited by Nick, cause more blowouts lower down?”
As I made very clear to you daggett, the “hurricane-type force” was experienced another 50 floors lower than where those windows were blown out. By the time the collapse front approached anywhere near the lower floors of the building, (AFAIK) vision of what may have occurred to windows on these floors was completely obscured.
“What you are doing here is seizing on any scrap of evidence that appears to support your theory and ignoring what does not.”
We’ll return to this in a few moments.
“Let’s not forget that we are discussing the transition of a steel framed skyscraper into dust. My powers of observation tell me. […]”
You mean the very same steel-framed skyscraper in this photo, dags? Which clearly shows the building did not, by any means, simply just transition or pulverise into dust as you spuriously claimed:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/wtc/01121623m.jpg
You’re “powers of observation” are severely impaired by a confirmation-biased cognitive blockage. Reread your pot/kettle remark just above, and try to imagine how laughably hypocritical it comes across, given your ability, consistently demonstrated on this thread, to utterly ignore and discount any evidence (anything contained in the NIST reports being the obvious standout) which doesn’t fit *your* previously drawn conclusions.
“Surely the principle of Occam’s Razor would therefore dictate that we consider simpler alternative explanations.”
Only if, dags, those “simpler alternative explanation” are, in fact:
1) Simpler
2) Plausible
3) Evidenced
Those you’ve presented are none of these things. They are:
1) Convoluted
2) Implausible
3) Unevidenced
Therefore the principle of Occam’s Razor would dictate they be swiftly relegated to the garbage bin of ignorant speculative nonsense.
“Anyway, why didn’t that hurricane force wind cause more windows to blow out further below, FDB?”
Dealt with above, and by FDB in his previous post. The only windows blown out were those that were unable to withstand the force exerted upon them.
“Anyway, FDB, the ‘fucking wind’, as you refer to it, is not wind caused in the wide open spaces by a hurricane or tornado (as some of us my have witnessed in the movie “Twister”), it is only the ‘wind’ that would be created in the far more confined space between two floors.”
Umm, dags, for starters, air pressure is air pressure, no matter where it occurs.
Secondly, that it occurred in confined spaces is precisely what caused “an effect, much like that of a piston” which generated enough downward air pressure to reach the fire fighters 70 floors below. Thank you for so neatly conceding just one of your many contradictions and confusions.
Thirdly, your “between two floors” simplification is complete nonsense, as evidenced by the fact that it did reach the fire fighters 70 floors below. There were numerous openings between all floors of the building – elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts – for air and debris to travel through, and be forced out of, into lower floors. There was never any “perfect seal” between each floor and the floor above it. What there was, was a huge amount of downward pressure exerted upon *all the air* in the building by the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of matter above compacting and collapsing onto it.
“If it had simply been one floor falling onto the next, then, even if we accept your argument, then all we would have surely witnessed is one or more windows flying out and not all that debris instead or also.”
It was never simply “one floor falling onto the next”. From the very initiation of collapse, it was 20 or more floors falling onto one floor, and increasing in mass with every subsequent floor crushed. Your statement above is worthless, your observations and conclusions are dead wrong, and in any case, have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not debris would have been able to have been swept up into “hurricane-type force” winds, and out of the burst windows, which it most certainly was, and, as evidenced, did.
“I have provided abundant evidence.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge that it’s there, doesn’t mean that it is not.”
You have provided zero evidence. Nothing you have presented can only be explained, or more simply explained, by controlled demolition. Occam’s Razor should be screaming at you that you’ve been led a very long way up the garden path.
“In any case, it is you, Bob and other ‘debunkers’ who have chosen to hide behind the supposed authority of Sunder, Gross and NIST to avoid confronting evidence contrary to your case.”
You’ve presented no “confronting evidence” contrary to the official explanation. Nobody on this thread has attempted to “hide behind” anything.
“I believe that I am entitled to point that I and a good many other respected building professionals and scientists do not share your stated high regard for those people.”
You’re entitled to believe whatever you like about whoever you like. That doesn’t alter the fact that your alternative explanations were convoluted, unevidenced and utterly implausible, and didn’t stand up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny.
OTOH, since you’ve elected to run for public office, I strongly suggest (as others have previously) you should start to consider to the potential legal implications of *how you’re choosing to express* some of the things you *believe*. It would be stupidly naive of you not to do so.
“No FDB. you have not explained how a floor merely falling onto the floor below it can cause so much solid material to be lifted up off that floor and violently ejected laterally out of the building as shown in that image.”
Yes, I have.
If you would like to argue that one object falling onto another cannot cause solid objects to be propelled away from the collision along with gases, then I invite you to do so.
Please bear in mind that solids aren’t magically different from gases. They’re just more dense. I’m sure you can relate.
Please answer the following questions (all of them):
1) Are you arguing that solids cannot be propelled by air moving from an area of relatively high pressure to one of relatively low pressure?
2) Are you arguing that although solids can be propelled by movements of air as above described, that’s not what happened in this case?
3) If your answer to 2 is yes, then what is your argument?
[I know you've got some major problems with logic, so here it goes in a nutshell]
FDB’s Breakdown of the Main Questions Regarding the Nature of an Argument:
What are your premises?
What is the structure of your reasoning on the basis of those premises?
Hoe much strength does this all lend to your conclusion?
Which you clearly misunderstood. At #1769 you implied that I was a Nazi. When Casey called you out – accurately – on the blatant Godwinism [Hint: she said Godwin] at #1771, you threw a hissy fit and listed some of the eerily accurate descriptions I wrote of you – strangely enough, none of which you’ve challenged, BTW.
You totally misunderstood that her point was about the generally undesirable (if not verboten) nature of Nazi analogies in online stoushes. Look up Godwin’s Law and educate yourself.
It seems so. Why don’t you call me a Nazi for a third time to see if I change my mind?
Nope. That’s another unsubstantiated assertion, Daggy.
De bustedarse non est disputandum.
But…hang on…what you say you saw when you saw other people holding up your mirror to their faces was not pretty? How do you know? Were you looking in the mirror too?
Nope, I didn’t say “somewhere else” – they’re on this thread above us.
Also untrue, I noted in my last comment that her case was unfounded and pointless.
Mariani withdrew the case, Daggy. The similar case that Phil Berg attempted to mount with Rodriguez was thrown out, however. Both cases were crap.
Why’s that, Daggy? Since when does adhering to the rule of law, the rules of evidence, due process and the truth make one a Nazi?
Daggett, let’s talk. Let’s talk while I jam as many you tubes in as I can. This will take a while, so relax while I polish of my wine and spin my discs.
Now you seem to have concerns regarding the general level of civility on this thread. I hear you. But I fear you are living under a grave misapprehension. Where do you think you are exactly? Do you think you are here? Well you and me both Sistah. But we are not. Here Dags, we are here.
It’s a matter of stand and deliver in these parts, and no secret who the dandy highway man is. Perhaps you did not know? These are the badlands Dags, the rule of law is no more and the moderators split long ago. (Except for that rogue gene, Paul Norton, who inexplicably, is insisting I caused all this – to which I say: I am a mediocre witch with an aversion to pendants, Paul, not the Chernobyl nuclear reactor back in action, so, like, dream on). Why on earth would you expect the normal rules would apply here Daggett? Did you even read A STRAY ALIEN???
Now I told you not to godwin and what did you do? You godwined. Not once but twice. It kills me you know. You gave them everything you had, but at the end of it all, shit man, you’re such a delicate boy. And you godwined. And then he slammed you bad. I trust you have looked it up by now. I trust you will listen to me next time.
Speaking of him, you seem to have take issue with my absolute refusal to say a single bad thing about Aka. And now we come to the difficult part. First, have you, like, read me when I’m on a roll???? Well, just let me say it would be a bit kettle and black and shit if I did what you wanted and slammed him wouldn’t it? Second, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT??? He’s funny see? Like, what have you done for ME lately??? Anyway. We got history – trippin the Morte D’Arthur fantastic, right?
That was a bit defensive I know, but let me strategically essentialise myself to get out of a tight spot and say – well, you try being a woman for a second. You think you got it bad? Behold the rituals of manhood we have to put up with on this blog. Good men, bad men, ranga men, little men, man men. Note the invisibility of the woman in that clip and consider the opening lines. “You gotta be lucky , you gotta be fortunate”. And aint that the truth Sistah. Lucky for us Neneh has a hot brother who wants to save tonight. Like yeah. I’d be saving anything he fracking liked.
Where was I?
Yes, Fyodor. Look on the bright side. He only went to town on you really bad after comment 1500. I would be happy with that if were me. And after all, why are you so upset with him? No one knows much about him, you know. He’s all veils and misty text Dags. Don’t worry about it. Consider only that the insults add to your undergod status. Australians like undergods you know. He’s doing you a flavour.
Now Daggett: You’re not shy but regarding your allergy to the NIST report, you have to understand that until you read it, no one will really be taking you seriously.
Walk with me a while.
Every now and then I work on my PhD – like LOL, baby, LOL – and part of that involves developing an ever expanding literature review. That means I have to read everything there is to read about my topic, both the things that I agree with and the things that make me clutch my pearls in indignation . I do that in order to be knighted and admitted into the Holy Order of the Special Sash. I have an aim. To be taken seriously. To that end, I have to demonstrate that I have read the stuff I don’t like and I have to demonstrate that the stuff I don’t like can be fractured by other stuff which has more authority and is more, like, compelling. Further I have to say stuff in an original way and I have to not repeat stuff. Under no circumstances can I quote myself as an authority for stuff. I have to come up with new stuff. But I can’t do that if I haven’t read the stuff I don’t trust or like, can I? So much stuff you know? But I have to do it. My markers would think I was, like, a stupid girl if I didn’t. Well, that’s if it got past my supervisor, and have you met him? LOL baby LOL.
As I said, I’m here for my 15 minutes. But you should really read the report Daggett.
Nick @ 1785,
What relevance is it to the discussion at hand the fact that I have “elected to run for public office” and why should it be of the slightest concern to you or my other detractors, here?
It’s not as if anyone here is expecting me to gain a significant vote, let alone win, is it?
If you have any concerns about anything in particular that I have said to anyone then please spell it out, otherwise I can only assume that you are attempting to intimidate me out of expressing my views forthrightly.
—
It seems to me that Nick’s ‘Simpler’, ‘Plausible’ and ‘Evidenced’ theory about the collapses of the Twin Towers is:
The collapsing of floors up to 50 stories above where some of the lateral ejections of debris were filmed caused air to be forced all the way down those 50 stories through “numerous openings between all floors of the building – elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts”, and not just forced, at “almost like a hurricane-type force”.
Evidently, according to Nick, whilst all that air was able to rush so quickly all the way down almost 50 floors, weaving its way in and out of elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts etc, some kind of sealing action from the collapsing floors above prevented virtually all of the air from the collapsed floors from moving upwards instead of downwards.
Also, whatever it was that had formed such an effective seal above was also either in the process of being pulverised to dust or at most seconds away from being pulverised to dust. (Yes, I looked at that photo, Nick. Where are all the concrete floors which supposedly formed that piston-like seal and drove all that air down? Of course the structural steel, while being completely dismembered was not pulverised to dust, and I never claimed that it was, but the concrete floors clearly were.)
My own ‘Convoluted’, ‘Implausible’, and ‘Unevidenced’ explanation is:
Whatever it was that pushed so much debris so quickly and violently upwards and outwards (and I and almost countless eyewitness argue that it was explosions) also pushed down through the towers, causing the violent “hurricane-type force”.
I would suggest that if we properly applied Occam’s Razor, then it is obvious that neither the wind at “almost like a hurricane-type force”, nor the violent lateral ejections of debris could be accounted for by Nick’s theory.
“I can only assume that you are attempting to intimidate me out of expressing my views forthrightly.”
As usual, you assumed wrongly, dags. I was offering you a relatively friendly piece of advice to read up on defamation, since you’re seemingly oblivious to it.
“It seems to me that Nick’s ‘Simpler’, ‘Plausible’ and ‘Evidenced’ theory about the collapses of the Twin Towers is:”
Simplest, most plausible and evidenced.
“The collapsing of floors up to 50 stories above where some of the lateral ejections of debris were filmed caused air to be forced all the way down those 50 stories through “numerous openings between all floors of the building – elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts”, and not just forced, at “almost like a hurricane-type force”.”
WTF? I know it’s late but try to make sense, daggett. That was pathetic.
And how did your 10-20 floors below the collapse front suddenly become 50??
“Evidently, according to Nick, whilst all that air was able to rush so quickly all the way down almost 50 floors, weaving its way in and out of elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts etc, some kind of sealing action from the collapsing floors above prevented virtually all of the air from the collapsed floors from moving upwards instead of downwards.”
Yes, as explained, that would be the 100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass directly on top of it.
“Also, whatever it was that had formed such an effective seal above was also either in the process of being pulverised to dust or at most seconds away from being pulverised to dust. (Yes, I looked at that photo, Nick. Where are all the concrete floors which supposedly formed that piston-like seal and drove all that air down? Of course the structural steel, while being completely dismembered was not pulverised to dust, and I never claimed that it was, but the concrete floors clearly were.)”
Irrelevant and ignorant, dags. Concrete that became ‘pulverised’ didn’t just float off into the ether as you imply. Most of it became a component part of the 100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass, which was 100% able to form a ‘piston-like seal’.
“Whatever it was that pushed so much debris so quickly and violently upwards and outwards (and I and almost countless eyewitness argue that it was explosions) also pushed down through the towers, causing the violent “hurricane-type force”.”
AFAIK, debris was not pushed quickly and violently upwards. You sound suspiciously like you’re still in Judy Wood’s la la land with that one.
In any case, your theory “that it was explosions” was convoluted, implausible and unevidenced – not to mention thoroughly debunked during the course of this thread.
“I would suggest that if we properly applied Occam’s Razor, then it is obvious that neither the wind at “almost like a hurricane-type force”, nor the violent lateral ejections of debris could be accounted for by Nick’s theory.”
You can suggest whatever you like, but the “hurricane-type force” and the violent lateral ejections of debris were both properly accounted for. You completely failed to even attempt to refute my explanation on any sort of scientific grounds, and clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
FDB: “Please bear in mind that solids aren’t magically different from gases. They’re just more dense. I’m sure you can relate.”
Solid gold. Worth reading thru this whole insane thread, just for that one apercu. Ees a grand old school. Somewhere, in a better dimension than theeees one, his royal majesty Lester Bangs is grinning. Go, go, gopher!
Fyodor @ #1781: “Oh pish-tosh.”:
Yep, there’s a jaws-of-life in the trunk. Trust me on that one, bud.
~j_p_z
Yes, dags, you were 100% false in your assertion that debris moved quickly and violently upwards.
Please review the first few minutes of the following video (you did view it the first time I linked to it, yes?):
Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
It really does leave your most recent dimwitted and unscientific attempts at an argument without a leg at all to stand on.
Casey – I see your Dave Barbarossa, and raise you a Louis Quatorze, ranchera mia.
Yes, and so you see, Gaggett, look at His Japenezz in action. As if he could cede a moment when he didn’t know better. Forget that he would allow himself to appear vulnerable, except when Helen makes him all asplodey that is. And though you never did ask me, that’s why I don’t believe the American government could do what you say it did. It’s cause of the light on the hill, the new Jerusalem, the green breast of the earth, Walden Pond, that letter A. No way no way would they do it.
Is there any music you particularly prefer Daggett?
Any special reason you didn’t answer my lovely questiony questions Dags?
There’s no way at all that’d be considered polite.
Nick, I am well aware of how defamation laws have been used to suppress free speech and ruin the lives of those who exercise free speech.
Fortunately, today, truth and the public interest is much more a defence than it used to be, so many libel actions that could have succeeded in the past would not succeed today, and for that, we can largely thank the much maligned former Howard Government Minister Philip Ruddock.
I haven’t written anything here which I don’t believe to be true, although, of course, everyone is capable of making rash statements they may regret having made.
—
Nick wrote, “And how did your 10-20 floors below the collapse front suddenly become 50??”
That’s the figure you used:
If you had not, I would have stuck with 20-40.
That’s still an awful lot of “openings between all floors of the building – elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts” for all that air to have been forced so quickly at such force, I would have thought.
Nick wrote:
There is absolutely no physical evidence for this. Why wasn’t any of that “100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass” that formed that tight seal found on the ground?
This is also completely contrary to all the video evidence which shows the upper parts of the buildings being blown apart.
What, apart from speculative assumption, is the evidence of the formation of the “100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass” during the course of the collapse.
Nick wrote:
That’s precisely what the theory you are defending implies, given that you rule out it being blown apart by explosives.
Nick continued:
So, again, why wasn’t that massive ‘piston-like seal’ found on the ground?
I wrote “debris so quickly and violently upwards and outwards“, so how about quoting the proper context?
All the videos show, for example “WTC 2 explodes”, show a massive and violent expansion of debris, some of it upwards and most of it outwards. A pedant might argue that there was minimal upwards expansion in relation to where the tower was standing, but there was certainly a massive expansion upwards in relation to the falling tower.
(If you intend to dispute that, then it would obviously be pointless pursuing this discussion further with you.)
If there was such a massive expansion of debris outwards, then common sense would tell us that it would have also pushed downwards, which is my far less conuculted explanation for the hurricane force winds below.
And, in any case, I have already repudiated such theories as Judy Wood’s particle beams from outer space theory, mini thermonuclear bombs and holographic images of planes, so how about not wasting any more of our time by dragging any of that into this discussion?
Nick wrote:
They were not!
If they were “both properly accounted for” then show me where.
—
I suggest that people read the article about the second of two meetings held for Richard Gage in New Zealand:
Interesting there are never reports of ‘debunkers’ attempting at those meetings to claim that those images were not images of explosions, which is one of the principle debating ploys useed here.
Only on such one-sided forums as this, will people attempt to make such obviously stupid “black is white” statements. In the real world they would be treated with the derision and scorn they deserve.
That is the reason why not a single debunker showed his face at any of the meetings in Australia and why the likes of Bill O’Reilly refuse to debate Charlie Sheen and why Phillip Adams refuses to debate Brisbane Lawyer James O’Neill.
Thank you for the links to the videos, Casey,
I have to say that while “Pride and Prejudice” is either the first or second (after “Lord of the Rings”) most popular book in the English language, but it never did much for me. I know that Mark Twain was not partial to Jane Austen, so I am not entirely on my own there.
I will have to respectfully decline your suggestion that I do read the NIST reports.
As I don’t have easy adcess to a laser printer, reading through that document would require me to stare at a computer screen for hours. Even if I could print out the report, I don’t believe the expnse would be justified.
As I wrote, I am prepared to read the parts of the report upon which Bob bases his arguments, but as you may have noticed, when I asked what parts to go to, Bob ever so helpfully wrote:
In any case it is Bob who is defending the arguments contained in that report, but refuses to put them here, that is except for one summary page, which I had already quoted from and the other piece of complete nonsense including that passage about the collapsing building acting like a piston.
Nowhere else has he provided any other reference to that report, particularly to the part which explains how all that structural strength was lost in at least 8 floors of WTC 7. As it happens, I was reading NIST’s account indirectly in David Ray Griffin’s Book. I intend to look through the report when I can locate the book and find the references.
As for wishing to be taken seriously by my detractors on this forum, I am not particularly bothered that I am not.
I don’t consider any of my detractors to be credible, so what they think of me is not important.
I am only interested in being seen to be credible in the eyes of people with open minds who are prepared to listen to my arguments and consider the evidence.
—
BTW, I never called Bob a Nazi.
I said he was a model citizen of the New World Order and would have been model citizen of the Third Reich. He would also be a model citizen of many others of the world’s totalitarian societies.
He has not even once on this thread acknowledged the substance of Ellen Mariani’s case. Nowhere has he said whether or not he thinks Ellen Mariani has a right to demand to see the surveillance tapes of her husband boarding the doomed flight 175 or the passenger manifest or the communications between the air traffic controllers and Flight 175.
That, to me, shows an astonishingly callous lack of respect for someone so tragically affected by 9/11.
Instead of acknowledging the substance of Ellen Mariani’s case against the US Government, he hides behind the fact that US judges ruled against her.
It’s like arguing that Bob Brown was wrong to argue against Gunns in court because the courts awarded coats of $250,000 against him, or that Clarence Darrow was wrong to fight for the right of teachers to teach the theory (I would say fact) of evolution, because he lost his case.
Bob’s constant appeal to authority instead of the evidence is exactly the mindset of the kind of people that allowed those sorts of societies to work.
It’s most interesting that you have told us that no-one knows much about Bob (aka Fyodor) — a good reason for those of us here out of honest intentions to be even more wary of him in the light of the disruption he has caused to this discussion.
—
I think I liked nearly all the tracks you pointed me to. I will try to remember to go back to them. It is actually a lot of effort to expand the list of one’s musical tastes that is unless the song has such instant appeal as Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop. (Saw them once live in the 1980′s. Not sure why so many seem disaparaging about Christine McVie. She seemed to me and my friends to be a better singer than Stevie Nicks).
My musical tastes have advanced little since the early 1990′s. alhough I don’t doub that a lot of great music has been produced since then.
The most advanced form in history, which I think is almost impossible to improve upon, is the kind of rock and roll music procuced in the 196′s 1970′s and 1980′s. (As somemone riglty pointed out, only a fraction of 1950′s rock and roll was any good). I like quite a few other forms of pop music, but never took to either jazz or disco.
Some of the music I listen to includes Dire Straits, Emmy Lou Harris, Linda Ronstadt, Bruce Springsteen, the Models, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who (who personally behaved like obnoxious creeps in their heyday), Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Abba, The Sex Pistols (and the drummer from the Sex Pistols liked Abba, BTW), AC/DC.
Some of my favourite songs are “Moonlight Shadow”, “Gimme Shelter”, “Cocaine” (not that I use these substances — I need my mind working properly for every possible spare minute of the day), “Tunnel of Love” (by both Bruce Springsteen and Dire Staits — two completely different songs) “Telegraph Road”, “Independence Day”, “Thunder Road”, “Candy’s Room”, “Badlands”. “Anarchy in the UK”, “God Save the Queen”, “Quarter Moon in a Ten Cent Town”. “River Deep, Mountain High”, “Nutbush City Limits”. “The Look” (or “She’s got the Look”?), “It’s a long way to the top”, “Thunderstuck”, “You shook me all night long”, “Out of Mind, Out of Sight”, “What you need”.
“That, to me, shows an astonishingly callous lack of respect for someone so tragically affected by 9/11.”
Dagget, given your lack of regard for the reputations and characters of the employees of the Ace Elevator Company who you and that architect bloke have accused, without evidence, of participating in the murder of many people, I find your concern somewhat disingenuous.
Given that Bob has merely pointed out that the person in question had such a poor case that it couldn’t even be presented to an independent arbiter your reaction would appear to be well beyond the bounds of what the original statement would be capable of provoking. You are rather pathetically and transparently using this to ignore the fact that you have acted in a dishonourable and cowardly manner towards the employees of the Ace Elevator Company. I would respectfully ask that you now withdraw your wholly unsubstantiated and baseless claims.
BTW, based on a rough calculation we are running at just under 20 post per day although this is an average and I believe it’s probably declining. Anyway based on that we would expect under 200 posts in the next 10 days so it’s unlikely we’ll make 2000 by Christmas at this rate. Just so we all know.
Caaasey’s got a booooy-frieeend.
For all his faults, at least he has okay taste in 60s-80s music.
I’d watch it though Dags – Fyodor might be the jealous type, and there’s history here.
I guess it’s tough being a hottie, eh?
Yes, well – FDB and I have a history too. But another time, perhaps.
In the meanwhile, don’t listen to his juvenilia Daggett.
I am very pleased with the way your bildungsroman is progressing.
I have now huminated you – a little – and watched you give birth to your sense of humour.
I like this midwifery gig I think.
Next we must move onto dark nights of the soul, and apologies, rather than apologias. You will not be happy with this – but have I let you down yet???
You are correct of course re Christine. Well actually I like the witch, but Christine McVie was always heartbreaking.
I will be back to talk about how I will be printing you the NIST report later.
“Yes, well – FDB and I have a history too”
Gosh, really? But I don’t hardly know ya!
Very very cool Tonto. You know me better than you think. That’s one of my favourite songs. Do you like Prince’s mashup?
OH.
That’s alright then.
(??????)
I am printing out the NIST report as we speak. I will need an address and be back shortly to discuss the psychological defence mechanism of “the denial” and it’s powerful side effect of “SO NOT making it any better for yourself”.
You do this self harm shit all the time. Really, I have to turn my eyes when he does that thing with the nails.
Aye, ‘salright innit?
In the end, ’twere a tossup twixt that there, the Joan Jett version, the original, and this.
DISCLAIMER: FDB takes no responsibility for any flushings or moistenings consequent upon the viewing of the above clip.
True story – Jarves once cracked onto a lass I was with. She turned him down and brought me over for an introduction – I have never felt so validated as a man (the room being chockers with ladies gagging for some insert-obvious-play-on-words-here, and staring daggers at my date). I wouldn’t really have faulted her – his hotel room was just upstairs, and we weren’t serious or nothing. In fact, when later she cheated on me with some meathead jock, I kinda wished she’d ditched me for His Pulpiness that strange and addled evening.
Nope. As can be clearly read in the sentence you quoted, I wrote *another* 50 floors lower. ie. 70 floors lower than the collapse front.
“That’s still an awful lot [...] I would have thought”
Pure unsubstantiated opinion, completely false, and another contradiction to your earlier arguments. Regardless of whether explosives were detonated or not 50+ floors above, the extremely high air pressure generated was evidenced to have reached the lowest floors of the building. It certainly did make it down through all those “elevator shafts, stairwells, a/c ducts”. To attempt to argue otherwise is ludicrous.
“There is absolutely no physical evidence for this. Why wasn’t any of that “100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass” that formed that tight seal found on the ground?”
See the photo I linked to previously. 100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsed mass absolutely was found on the ground. You’re labouring under a delusion that a “piston-like seal” would require an intact mass ie. the concrete floors are they were before the collapse, to generate such air pressure. It doesn’t, and it didn’t.
“This is also completely contrary to all the video evidence which shows the upper parts of the buildings being blown apart.”
No video footage shows the upper parts of the buildings being blown apart.
All video footage (of initiation) shows the upper parts of the buildings collapsing into the lower parts.
“What, apart from speculative assumption, is the evidence of the formation of the “100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsing mass” during the course of the collapse.”
The 100,000+ tonnes of compressed and collapsed mass found on the ground afterwards.
Nonsense.
“So, again, why wasn’t that massive ‘piston-like seal’ found on the ground?”
It was. Again, you’re labouring under a delusion.
“I wrote “debris so quickly and violently upwards and outwards“, so how about quoting the proper context?”
I didn’t quote you for starters, dags, and the context was self-explanatory.
I had no problem with your observation that debris was pushed quickly and violently *outwards*.
It was your assertion that it was pushed quickly and violently *upwards* that was 100% false.
Your argument rests upon a premise that if debris was pushed violently upwards, explosives must have been used. That wasn’t what was observed to have occurred. Debris was not pushed violently upwards, it was pushed violently downwards and outwards. The fact that it was not pushed violently upwards comprehensively *disproves* your argument in every logical and scientific sense.
“(If you intend to dispute that, then it would obviously be pointless pursuing this discussion further with you.)”
Heh
dags realises he’s on shaky ground with this one. Let’s push ahead:
“And, in any case, I have already repudiated such theories as Judy Wood’s particle beams from outer space theory, mini thermonuclear bombs and holographic images of planes, so how about not wasting any more of our time by dragging any of that into this discussion?”
Judy Wood’s theories were based on the same faulty and flawed premise as yours. It was debunked in the first few minutes of the video I linked to (using the exact same footage you linked to in your previous post, I think), hence my reason for linking to it again.
Did you watch it this time?
How about this footage from your mob: North Tower Exploding.
Do you see any debris being pushed violently *upwards*? Nobody else can either. ae911truth.org themselves don’t mention anything of the sort, in this video or anywhere else.
AFAIK, you and Judy are the only two Troofers still seriously arguing that ‘debris was pushed violently upwards’.
You’re dwelling way out there on the discredited fringe with one, dags.
Yes they were.
As usual, you chose to ignore the greater part of what was written, and focused solely on what you imagined might be easier points to argue. Simple as that.
As usual, you revealed you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“(As somemone riglty pointed out, only a fraction of 1950’s rock and roll was any good).”
Like I said, no idea.
BTW Casey… Tonto!??!? So whose sidekick am I?
The Lone Ranga makes sense, but that’s Haiku Hogan’s gig, and I’m loth* to start a demarcation dispute with someone of the NSW ALP Left. Those folks got ishews.
*just for you Pavlov’s Cat.
I dunno.
I just like the name.
Last time I read Liam was reporting something like sorrow for Tripodi.
?????
And then the world turned.
I don’t get the beret at all sometimes.
He’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma wearing a beret of subterfuge alright.
In this case I’m fairly sure it was the same kind of sorrow you feel for a crow that’s spent six hours trying to peck open the skull of a roadkill koala for that juicy brain payoff, then gets hit by a passing Torana.
But I’ll let him speak for himself.
PatrickB,
That’s what I call “changing the subject.”
How about you demonstrating that you are not also as callous and uncaring as Bob has shown himself to be by acknowledging the injustices committed by the US Government against 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani and by stating that you support her right to know the truth about what happened to her husband, specifically, by being able to view the video recordings of her husband boarding Flight 175 and by listening to the communications with air traffic controllers?
In regard to the Ace Elevator employees, see again 1741, 1480 and 1480.
In regard to Jo’s subsequent point that the fact, that some of them were heading back to the towers just before the first collapse occurred, somehow removes any cloud of suspicion, one explanation could be that they were going through the motions of appearing to help.
Let’s not forget at the time, one group of firefighters were trapped in one of the South Tower elevators and attempting to break their way out. At the time, there were also people trapped in North Tower elevator according to William Rodriguez.
I expect that a good many firefighters would have been somewhat irate to not have any assistance from a group of people who would have been able to provide it and that would have been said to the lift mechanics’ supervisor.
Let’s not forget, that not one of the Ace Elevator employees died on that day.
How many do any know of have said anything publicly about what happened on that day or before, as opposed to firemen police, paramedics, government workers, other survivors, etc.? I don’t know of any.
And I don’t know of any who worked as first responders and who are now dying or suffering health problems.
So, to me, and a good many others, it looks suspicious and warrants further investigation.
It may well turn out that there is an innocent explanation for what happened, but if people think it’s OK for the CIA to sadistically torture clearly innocent people on the other side of the world in order to extract confessions for participation in 9/11 on the other side of the world, then it is surely OK to expect the police, or some other investigative body to question the Ace Elevator lift mechanics.
—
Casey, thank you for printing out the NIST report. I can’t promise I will read it all from cover to cover, but I will read the parts that promise to provide the answers I am seeking and be able to refer to other parts more easily.
If you like I can post you some DVD’s in return.
I promise they are not dull and will be worth your while to watch.
I should mention that my views on 9/11 were derided on a number of occasions by one fellow employee. He had seen the Four Corners/BBC documentary that supposedly proved that London Tube bombing Truthers and 9/11 Truthers were nuts and thought that I was one too, but one day I gave him Richard Gage’s “Blueprint for Truth” and he watched it and agreed that there was a lot in it.
I am not sure if he is totally convinced, yet, but his mind is open and he is interested.
You can phone me or e-mail me by going here or here.
“I am not sure if he is totally convinced, yet, but his mind is open and he is interested.”
If he were totally convinced, his mind would not be open.
Just like yours.
“In regard to Jo’s subsequent point that the fact, that some of them were heading back to the towers just before the first collapse occurred, somehow removes any cloud of suspicion, one explanation could be that they were going through the motions of appearing to help.”
These words more than any other in this entire thread sum up the conspiratorial mindset. Doesn’t matter what those guys do, stay, go, come back, stand on their heads playing dixie, read Das Capital through a loudspeaker – it’s all the bloody same: highly suspicious behaviour leading directly to proof of wrongdoing and therefore ‘evidence’.
Ever thought your verbage is actually counter-productive, daggett?
Heh. 1815 coming up: Waterloo.
Wow. Quelle fecking surprise, as Lizzie Bennet would say.
*waits for pin to drop*
LOL!
Yes, what’s your point? You should read the whole report – what part of that isn’t clear?
I haven’t based my arguments on the report, BTW; I based them on the evidence. I’ve referred you to the NIST reports as providing the official explanation, as they do.
As I’ve noted so many times, if you have a problem with the official explanation you need to address – gosh, darn it – the OFFICIAL EXPLANATION. As Case points out, until you do it will be clear to anyone who looks at this thread that you don’t take the issue at all seriously and that you are ignorant and clueless.
More lies. I’ve quoted many times from the report, and the only nonsense presented here regarding “pistons” was produced by you, as shown so deftly by Nick and FDB.
Again: more lies. I’ve provided numerous references to NIST’s report on WTC 7, which DOES show how the building lost its structural strength. This is yet another issue on which you were thoroughly debunked some time ago.
I have an open mind AND I’ve read your arguments extensively AND considered the evidence AND I think you haven’t a shred of credibility.
A “model citizen of the Third Reich” would be a Nazi, Daggy, and that’s the third time you’ve accused me of such.
I’ve acknowledged the substance of Ellen Mariani’s case several times – I said it was unfounded and pointless crap. As to Ms. Mariani’s “rights”, they’re no more or less than anyone else’s.
Why? What lack of respect?
Jaysus.
First, Mariani had no case – it was crap.
Secondly, the “judges” didn’t rule against her; she withdrew her case.
Third, I’m not hiding behind anything. Mariani’s case was crap and she should never have mounted it in the first place, because it was an unfounded and pointless waste of her time and the courts’.
Mariani withdrew her case. There is no comparison between either Brown vs. Forestry Tasmania (NOT Gunns) or Scopes vs. State of Tennessee, both of which went to trial. Your sloppy attention to detail is showing again.
What “constant appeal to authority”? At all times I have relied first and foremost upon the facts and logic, neither of which are acquaintances of yours. It’s the height of hypocrisy for a twit such as yourself to pontificate on evidence when you have singularly failed to produce a single scrap of evidence supporting your delusional theories.
Heh. What disruption? I’ve merely debunked your delusional theories with the facts and logic. Furthermore, given you’ve been caught out in so many lies it’s rich of you to associate yourself with “honest intentions” – the history of this thread argues contra.
First sensible thing you’ve said. I’m not sure that Christine McVie was better, but I agree she is too often underrated relative to the warbling pixie.
I’ll pay that.
No Daggett. I was joking.
I’m not gonna phone. I’m not gonna email. You will not send me DVD’s.
There are plenty of compelling reasons for that but let me go with the following:
I have a truther in my family, and so, No.
No.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
He talks like you.
He has that strange play of light and shade about the eyes like you.
He says the same things you do.
He is probably your best friend.
You’ve probably had a bromance with him.
He’s been at me for years with that infernal Loose Change DVD.
Family dinners have been an unholy hell for years, Daggett, years.
So, like, AS FRAKKING IF.
No frakking way on God’s frakking earth.
For Fracks Sake, that is the most astounding thing you ever wrote here.
I’m completely lost for you tubery.
I need a break now.
I think you just did me in.
Casey wrote:
So, why didn’t you tell me earlier that your mind was so closed?
I accepted that nearly everyone else’s was.
I mistook your posts for genuine concern that I was not going about stating my case the right way.
Now I learn that you are just as firmly in the other camp as anyone else.
So, you’ve tied me up for days getting me to defend my decision not to read that report from cover to cover.
If I had known where you were coming from I wouldn’t have bothered.
Sorry, I didn’t realise you were only joking when you told me that you were printing off a copy of the NIST report.
I truly thought that you had gone to a lot of trouble to help me out.
Of course, I was mistaken.
So, as I said before, I won’t be reading that rubbish report from cover to cover, particularly on my computer screen as Bob would have me do. A hard copy would be a useful document to have, but I am not going to bust myself to get one.
If he wants to continue to use that fact as a smokescreen to help conceal his own dishonesty and his failure to acknowledge the evidence I have presented, then I can’t stop him, can I?
“How about you demonstrating that you are not also as callous and uncaring as Bob has shown himself to be by acknowledging the injustices committed by the US Government against 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani”
How about you tell us what these injustices are? Do you understand the term injustice? As I said, Bob asserted that she didn’t even get to trial a claim that you haven’t disputed so it’d safe to say that you can’t prove him wrong yet again. So you don’t have a case there either.
How about you provide some proof to support your efforts to besmirch the good names of the Ace Elevator employees and thus ruin their lives? Those posts you link to aren’t proof they’re just your own crappy musings.
Look, I don’t even know if I care any more, but there’s something in moderation. Probably twice.
“one explanation could be that they were going through the motions of appearing to help.”
You are a knob. This is grade 3 stuff. OK, what about another explanation, that they really were going back to help. God you must have some sort of stunted development condition.
“I accepted that nearly everyone else’s was.”
Oh c’mon Daggy, don’t pout.
Admit it, you’re enjoying this. In taking the lead in this record breaking thread, you’ve been exposed to data you can use to test your theories, chewed happily on the kinda long and highly technical debates that many blokes revel in, enjoyed healthy outbursts of self righteousness, added much spark to University of the Internets plc seminars on metallurgy, thermodynamics, construction techniques and such like while being treated to a whole stocking full of japes and treats from tortoise sex, seventies funk and UFOs to Flann O’Brien duels, Johnny Cash nailing it and Joanne Jett in clover and even the personal but rather ambiguous attentions of an old school witch.
I bet this is much more fun than the kinda conspiracy threads you’d usually hang around.
“one explanation could be that they were going through the motions of appearing to help.”
Or maybe they realised they’d left their car keys inside and were going back to get ‘em.
We iz here.
Alright brothers and sistas, time to get on the good foot with your weekly dose of the groove that makes you moove, coming at ya with 50,000 watts of the power of the funk. Tonight we gonna take a little trip on the soul train, stopping at memory lane station and all points groovy inbetweenie.
So sit back with your sweet thang, some Chivas, some weed, some blow or whatever gets you through the night while Sir Lollipop Man here spins the platters that matter – right after these messages.
We gonna kick off the evening’s proceedings with a fine slice of the Phillie sound. That’s my main men, Gamble and Huff there, working up the hi hat sound/snare/kickdrum combo that became the the disco sizzle over the next few years. O’Yeah it’s the O’Jays getting it on with the Benjamins.
Listen very carefully, this is not the set of Melrose Place in its last season. There is no ghost in the pool, you are not fucken Jack Wagner.
Now I am not sure if you are suffering from a long term iodine deficiency or if you are a maniacal lunatic who willfully and obstinately misinterprets everything he reads in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But one thing is certain after your last comment to me. You made a deliberate decision to NOT to read what I was saying, what I was inferring, where I was taking the piss, where I told you to read the report cause it makes you look stupid, etc, fucken etc, and is case in point as to how you have managed to avoid the facts about 9/11 since the day it happened. I can understand why you would avoid the NIST report at all costs. And in the face of your Ridge soliloquy, let me be clear. You are making a choice about this. This is not about any inability to get the fine detail of my comments. You are not stupid. You are wilful.
Now look at my fucken list: It’s all about me and what I actually said with an INTERPRETATION ADDED:
314: I think a South Park song is in order about now, don’t you?
(sarcasm – mild)
551: Cause god knows Dagget has been given way too much space and so, this has become the most boring thread of doom I have ever encountered. It promised to get interesting when it turned the corner towards Jesus and the Mayans and chocolate, but that failed.
(You are boring the crap out of me, if you are going to be insane, then let’s talk about Chariots of the Gods or something)
656: We are almost at 666. No don’t look at me, I’m rather inept at thread collapsing. I’m sticking to man flaying
(A reference to another thread that has nothing to do with 9/11)
825: But look at all the hours of fun we have had! But trust you, Paul Norton, to find out the secret meaning of the word Shelm. Now if you will excuse me, I just have to go check who I originally said it to. I’m hoping it’s not who I think it is. But for the record, I was talking about the peanut butter.
(A reference to another thread that has nothing to do with 9/11)
1000: Look, why won’t you talk about Jesus and the chocolate?
(Oh. Do you truthers all go the June Dally Watkins School of Truther Deportment? Cause you are all the fucken same FFS)
1540: Daggett, a word of advice. If you’d gone with Jesus and the chocolate like I suggested, I’m pretty sure you’d be in a lot better shape than you are today. At the very least the evidence for that seems to be far more compelling that anything you’ve provided here
(You are nuts. But if you are nuts, how nuts can you go?; an observation regarding your failure to prove your case)
1674:Honestly Daggett, I am curious. Your writing conveys all the world weariness of someone who has lived far too long and should be visited by Dr Nitschke and his Quietus kit pronto
(Do I have to explain this???? You know what a Quietus Kit is right?)
1683:Does A Stray Alien belong to anyone? Can I have him?
(Funny insanity. Not like yours.)
1694: Well I’m just back from reading A STRAY ALIEN upthread…. He should stay right here so I won’t be taking him. You can have him, Daggett.
(See above)
1704: In keeping with FDB’s links of disturbance, Daggett, do you have any theories as to why someone would sing this to their grandmother?
(Humour, plus a link to Kate Bush, who can convince me she is singing to her grandmother in ways you could only dream of)
1721: ..when did I ever assert I was addressing the topic? My main area of interest here has been chocolate, Jesus and your creepy lack of humour. And to that end, I say again, it’s unnatural how you can’t even admit that once in your life you must have wondered what that stretchy feeling in your lips was was…Finally, if you think my posts are less important than yours, you’d be dead wrong. It stands to reason, Daggett, that if you are Mulholland Drive, then obviously I am the ad break everybody needs.
(THIS IS RIDICULOUS Daggett. How could you misinterpret anything here?)
1721: Which is not to say that I do not like Mulholland Drive, Daggett – which is not to say that I like you.
(??? – which part of “not to say that I like you” did you misunderstand??? And why would I say this? See my swines before pearls comment below)
1734: Further, like Ned the Christian who keeps Kosher just in case, I want to make sure I am here too, famous as well…
(ARE YOU GETTING at least part of IT YET???)
1771: In the face of all my efforts to huminate you, and the minute my back is turned, you go and throw your swines before pearls.
(Swines – your filthy filthy habit of defaming people. Starting with FDB’s sister – and that really sucked)
1776: Look, not that I want to get involved in the politics of the thread BLAH FUCKEN BLAH…Don’t bite the hand that pats you Daggett. I AM compassionate – look at my work with you – and my descents are legendary in these here parts. Normal – well it would do you no good whatsoever if I decided to try that would it?
(Humour, sarcasm, reference to the dog gravatar, more fucken humour, a reference to an Arthurian aside that has nuthin to do with you)
and 180 and fucken 4: I am printing out the NIST report as we speak. I will need an address and be back shortly to discuss the psychological defence mechanism of “the denial” and it’s powerful side effect of “SO NOT making it any better for yourself”.
(A joke for FFS, and a reference to your precarious mental state and how you lie to yourself about what you say, and how you block out what you don’t like to hear, read or see)
NOW: After reading it with the fucken study guide attached – How – tell me how – did you get the fucken idea I was fucken open to anything about your INSANE ideas about 9/11???
Of course you will complain about the swearing and you will never once wonder why so many expletives end up coming your way will you? Do not try twisting intent again. I will just redraw your attention to the SPARKS notes.
Now. Do you want me to really help you? What follows is really me, unsoftened by the humour, ok?
James Sinnamon: You appear to exhibit all the attributes of someone who has lost faith in authority – in the profoundest of ways. While it is always healthy to show some scepticism, it is possible that you have lost yourself in the symbolics of betrayal and authority. From my own readings, and in the potentiality of what I am offering here, this is an aspect of the traumatic and it could be being expressed through your repetitive assertions about a conspiracy theory involving the wilful murder of thousands of people, perpetrated by the American Government, upon its own people. When anyone attempts to engage with you and when you are forced to come close to the truth of what many people here consider to be your wilful refusals to look at the facts, you respond by accusing your interlocutors of being part and parcel of that same conspiracy. Or you call them nazis. And then deny it. You defame in such a way that one wonders what is really going on for you. Further, you then adopt a position of matyrdom as a defensive pose in order to deflect more critique. I was wondering James. Could you imagine if what you believed was not true? What if the real thing you need to get to the bottom of is why you feel the need to use the very real grief of those people who suffered or died or endured the events of 9/11, in order to symbolise other traumas, other losses? What if that was what was really going on for you? Consider that. Now I would be interested to know what you would think of that.
Get therapy.
Alright brothers and sistas, you’re calling in and I’m listening. Seems some of you are losing faith in the Man’s ability to be the Man. Is that a good thing baby?
Sir Lollipop Man cannot say. Not what I’m here for. I say if it feels good, do it honeychile. But let’s hear what the good Rev. Disco Tex and the Sexolettes hafta to preach about the power of Power.
When are you lot going to reach 2k posts ?
(watch out for the Millenium bug
)
Yes, well, when I said “You are not fucken Jack Wagner” I wasn’t actually talking to you Nabs. By all means, continue.
OK babe, Sir Lollipop Man is hearing ya. And with 50,000 watts of mighty mighty funk broadcasting at ya on WTFU you gonna be hearing from us too. Next up, we gonna dig into where that disco sound came from a little more – and who says a casper can’t catch the Soul Train?
But first we gonna slip into some dacron polyester messages from our sponsors.
And Daggett, just cause I like to you tube, (and this is a Saturday Salon and not a thread dedicated to you) and just because you reciprocated, and just because there was some levity to be found in that, and because music can be fun, and because people are people and commonality may be found in the music, this does not mean I was open to your ideas. Just means that music makes the world go round.
And James, I do not like to lose my general bon vivant good humour. So don’t accuse people of things they didn’t do.
Oh man, just you don’t hate it when they say they groovy to play to the ads and they aren’t?
Get it together my man.
WTFU is back and touching you with the Kenny and Leon story. They some righteous brothers there,
So righteous baby that a skinny white boy from London Rown in late 1974 changed the name of his US tour to the Philly Dogs show and got to get down on the ‘Train..
While ya’ll grooving to this, Sir Lollipop Man has gotta open some doors and pull some strings.
WTFU is back with 50,000 watts – doing it to you where it feels so good.
Yes, there was some dead air for a while. But when you’re out in the alley behind the station in your two tone Coup De Ville, chastising the tape operator while doing a little of what does you good then time does become relative, you dig?
Alright, back in the groove.
Now my boys, Kenny and Leon, had basically put it all together -like the slinky high hat/kick/snare combo, running basslines, brass stabs, lush strings and orgasmic choruses – by ’74 to kickstart disco – one of the the most popular and enduring dance vibes since 40s big band swing.
Ya’ll gonna hear more of what wouldn’t ail you, right after these messages.
Well shit officer, the “Robert Hooke” @ 1833 has nothing to do with drive by comments on other threads. You wanna see the station logs?
Well OK, brothers and sistas, the Man is closing us down again. But don’t touch that dial ladybird. We’ll be back next week, bending an ear to how the Euros found a whole new transmission for the funk mission.
Until then, Sir Lollipop Man says do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Just groove the one you’re with.
Perhaps Daggett was traumatised by a scientist when a younger beaver
Casey wrote @ 1825:
From what follows, I would suggest that it is you who has been obstinately misinterpreting what I have written, if not ignoring it altogether.
Casey continued:
What you wrote was often cryptic and not obviously related to the topic I wanted to discuss. So more often than not I wasn’t able to work out what you were inferring, and even where I may have, am I expected to have to retain all that indefinitely in my memory, with so much else being written here?
If further down the track, you appeared to me to be open to considering my arguments, was it completely unreasonable for me to think that you may have changed your mind?
I would suggest I would only look stupid to stupid people. It seems as if my past arguments about this have gone right over your head, so I won’t even attempt to repeat them here.
Casey continued:
This confirms to me that you have not bothered to read quite a few of my posts.
As I have pointed out, I accepted what you claim are the ‘facts’ on 11 September 2001 and remained of that view for up to six years afterwards, that is until late 2007, when I started a slow and intermittent process of questioning and researching 9/11. If this forum had been held before then, I would have almost certainly joined in on the same side as FDB, Liam, Bob et al, at least at the start.
Casey continued:
I don’t avoid avoid the NIST report at all costs.
The only person here who is “avoid[ing] the NIST report at all costs” is Bob. He’s the person who obstinately refuses to post to this forum the content of the NIST reports that supports the case he is defending and refuses to even tell me on which pages it is to be found.
Casey wrote:
Yes, I looked at your “fucken list”. See my comment above in the 7th and 8th paragraphs.
Casey wrote:
No I don’t, thank you very much.
You have not bothered to properly read what I have written before, so I see no reason to hope that anything I have written above or anything I could further add in response to the rest of your posts will be read.
—
Anyway, I didn’t get your joke.
From time to time complete strangers, or people I barely know, do offer to help me in ways similar to the way you appeared to have had.
At first I changed my web page to include a postal address, but then decided I would rather not have it there, so I suggested you phone me or e-mail me.
Why you couldn’t have simply have cleared up that misunderstanding, instead of making the scene that you did is beyond me.
Daggett, now you have seen me on a roll, so don’t be asking me to do the Pride and Prejudice dance again. (humour). I am back to my general all round libertine joys de vivre and, as I openly asserted over and over, I am only here for the music and the good times (more humour, a sign that I will be refusing to enter into 9/11 chats, I just like putting words and music together, I like having fun)
Now you said:
Given the quotes “that follow” were of me making jokes about jesus, chocolate, your lack of a sense of humour, you tube frippery, and general all round smart arsery etc etc, I repeat to you that I never misinterpreted what you had written because I never even approached one discussion abut the specifics of your theories. Not once did I talk to you about it. My whole presence here has been to provide a meta narrative on the goings on on this thread and the general all round descent into very funny nuttery.
Yes, yes. I ignored what you said all together. That was my point. So you DO cede that you understood I was here for the LULZ then and had no intention of ‘being open’ to your fruity ideas?
So Jesus and the Chocolate is cryptic to you? But you did work out it was NOT related to the topic? Sometimes, you say, you could get it, and even when you did you could not much remember it.
I am sorry, are you a cat? Cause that’s what cats do. Shiny paper, short term memory, only understand their names, more shiny paper, flies on the wall, must get them. (humour, a humorous analogy which shows how you are describing your own cognitive capacities as belonging to the cattus felix family rather than the human one)
Okay where did I appear to be open to considering it. When I told you you were a poorly developed character in a bildungsroman narrative that needed my help? That was more humour, you know. Where I said I was pleased with how you were coming along in the character development department? Where I youtubed along to my meta narrating? Where did I directly alert you to the fact that I was open about your theories? No where, that’s where. No. Where.
I won’t deal with the rest. Too bored.
LOL baby LOL. I did. I just did it my way. But this ‘scene’ you speak of? Interesting useage of this noun ‘scene’. Wouldn’t happen to be cause you are addressing a woman would it? Interpreted the humour as female hysteria is it? Let me know your thoughts. (Nota bene: dangerous, dangerous ground – setting you up for a fall. consider carefully these here bora bora caves and proceed with caution)
Daggett, one point you did not address, was the one that mattered most. My final paragraph where I suggested that for some sufferers of trauma, the symbolics of betrayal and authority can be so painful that they sometime transfer it onto a site like 9/11 where they can be lost in the general traumatics of what went on. That the sense of horror some folks feel about 9/11 has more to do with the collapse of belief and trust in authority in general. That authority itself symbolising something else altogether unknown even to the person. That this particular psychological adaptive response is made evident through the ways in which the person may refuse to consider facts, avoid documented evidence, misread statements, just avoid anything that makes any sense at all, etc, etc.
Of course the morality of that is murky isn’t it? Where I have seen this happen, it becomes a case of how the real grief of the PRIMARY victims is subsumed and is used by these other people who latch onto it, to support their own maladaptive responses to something else very real, no doubt, but very different from the sufferings of the folks of 9/11.
That is a real area of interest of mine btw. What do you say about that?
“the content of the NIST reports that supports the case he is defending ”
I think it’s … y’know … like the whole thing, the whole report, the entire document, the consolidation of many, many hours of investigation at the site and in the lab. The testimony of many people who actually witnessed the event on the ground. Whereas you have … some bozo telling a a frame by frame fairy story to and a collection of sad losers. The fact is you cannot refute the report using any of the normal standards of evidence. And don’t ask what they are as you’ve been asked to adhere to them before and have flatly refused to do so.
You still haven’t substantiated your defamatory claims against the Ace Elevator employees. I’m in the process of alerting them to your remarks. The Americans are a very litigious society and being the unsuccessful respondent in a defamation action will damage you chances of being elected to whatever body it is you’re running for.
…and I thank the Lord that you are Man.
Never knew that’s how the song was finished, Casey
Casey wrote “Not once did I talk to you about [9/11].”
Yes, you did. You joined in the clamour of demands that I read, from cover to cover on my computer screen, the NIST report.
Like the rest, you never acknowledged my reasonable objections to this demand being made upon me.
If you had not done so, I would have engaged you, if at all, only at the level of humour, discussing music, etc.
As it was, I mistook, understandably I still argue, your question as from being from someone whose mind was not completely closed on the issue, and responded accordingly.
BTW, I would have appreciated it if you had told me the story about your troubled relationship with your 9/11 Truther brother when I did begin to engage you, instead of allowing me to waste my time in what was obviously a pointless exercise on my part.
My personal advice to your brother would be to stop wasting his time. If you have not, after all these years, taken the minimal effort required to watch “Loose Change” and comprehend the clear evidence in that film, in spite of your brother’s obviously earnest wish that you do so, and, on top of that, demonstrate no comprehension whatsoever of any of the arguments I have put, either to you directly, or to others, but still weigh in to the argument to pronounce me wrong, then you are truly a lost cause.
Casey wrote:
Actually, it is. From my memory of the context, it may just have something to do with Professor Steven Jones’ Mormon beliefs. However, I chose not to give it any more thought than that.
Touché.
Casey wrote:
Well, I dispute your assessment of what is happening here.
My own assessment is that a group of people for reasons, including vanity pride and, no doubt, worse, are doing their utmost to conceal the truth of 9/11. If there is “[un]funny nuttery” here, it would be on their part and not mine.
Casey wrote:
Or, perhaps, these words reveal a trait, far more common in children than amongst adults, that is the belief that one is the centre of attention. Every word one utters is immediately heard, understood, recognised as profound wisdom and remembered by all indefinitely.
I have learnt that life is not like that, particularly in crowded rooms or their online electronic equivalents.
Casey wrote, “What do you say about …”:
?
That’s one theory amongst many that might account for political activism in general and 9/11 political activism in general. In my experience, people who have suffered injustice, tend to be the most outspoken against injustices to others as well as, obviously, to themselves.
Casey wrote, “What do you say about …”:
?
There are very few authorities around the world I trust these days.
Can you name any that you trust?
Do you trust Anna Bligh’s state Labor Government which is resolved to flog off $14 billion worth of publicely owned assets against the wishes of at least 79% of the Queensland Govenment? Do you trust the reviled NSW and Victorian (allegedly) Labor Governments? Do you trust the Rudd Labor Government that has abjectly refused to do anything that could possibly make a significantly slow down global warming. Instead it pretends to be solving the problem by extending the stupidity of speculative trading into carbon emissions?
I do hold out some hope that the governments of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba may eventually create sustainable, just and decent societies, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any others anywhere that deserve the trust of the people.
Can you name any?
Casey wrote, “What do you say about …”:
?
Well, I reject that premise. If you want to make that assertion, then show me where I have done any of this.
The fact that you and so many others have made that assertion over and over again does not make it true, unless you can substantiate that assertion.
So, could I ask that either you show where I have “refuse[d] to consider facts, avoid[ed] documented evidence, misread statements, …” or desist from making that assertion?
In regard to the NIST report, I have simply judged that reading it from cover to cover, particularly on my computer screen, would be a huge waste of my time, but where have I ever refused to read anything from that document that Bob wants to use to defend his case?
If we are to delve into psychology, perhaps we should also discuss the psychology of people who refuse to acknowledge evidence that threatens their own belief systems.
I expect that any psychologist, who knows what an explosion looks like, would find interesting subject matter amongst those here who pronounce that images, such as that YouTube broadcast North Tower Exploding that Nick linked to, are not images of violent explosions, which could only have been caused by the detonation of high explosives.
(Of course that assumes that those pronouncements are not outright lies by people prepared to say anything to win an argument. The fact that, in spite of the fact that even where large numbers of skeptics and supporters of the official 9/11 Conspiracy attend meetings to hear Richard Gage, such as at those which occurred in New Zealand recently, no-one dares get up and deny that they are images of explosives, in this very one-sided argument, suggests to me the latter may be the more likely explanation, so, perhaps it may not be of such interest to psychologists after all.)
—
Anyway, I still consider your treatment of me rude and unjustified, however you may rationalise it.
My decision to cease ignoring you was clearly a mistake, but obviously, one that was a necessary learning experience for me.
So, unless you have a change of heart and decide that you are willing to consider and discuss the evidence about 9/11, I would appreciaite it if you did not waste any further time addressing posts to me.
Your objections weren’t reasonable.
Yes, Case, you really shouldn’t have allowed Daggy here to waste his valuable time in pointless exercises.
I don’t think you should be giving out personal advice, Daggy. Also, “Loose Change” is thorough-going bunk.
There’s no truth being concealed here, Daggy. All the evidence supports the official explanation. You have no evidence supporting your delusional theory.
As noted many times, you have no basis for this judgement or, rather, prejudice of yours. You are simply wilfully ignorant.
You “expect” that, do you, Daggy? And if they disagree with you they’re liars, right? You’re just as clueless as ever.
Now, about my troubles with my brother. Was that you being sarcastic, is it? Well you are clever for a cat. But my brother rarely troubles me, you see. For various reasons. Like, you know, death, etc. Way before 9/11, you know, and so you see, stupid of you really. I think you may have gone all asplodey again and confused yourself about what I said. Go back and read what I said by all means. It could be my second cousin twice removed for all you know. Either way the only trouble is the keeping little Truther occupied with shiny paper, just like you.
Imagine, for various reasons.
Yes of course. Shall we be getting John Edwards for that, or will you be doing the seance personally?
Please let me know what he says.
But just remember, he’s the one who taught me how to swear so don’t be surprised if he’s slightly PISSED OFF.
My God.
My brother’s earnest wish was to watch LOOSE CHANGE???? Even though he died before it was made? Even though he died before the towers collapsed??? Even though he’d rather swallow cut glass that think about fucken troother bullshit??? You telling me he has been hanging around here all this time and not crossing over because he wants me to watch LOOSE Change????
Are you telling me there are ghost Truthers too????
Well for fucks sake.
You are the GHOST WHISPERER??
Well Melinda Gordon, do me a favour. First, tell me where you get those hair extensions. they rock girl. Your husband’s alright too. Even though he died and came back in someone else’s body.
About my brother, you sure you got the right one?
Cause like my brother would be more interested in hanging out with mmm about five women and drinking wine and singing songs. And shit. I’m pretty sure it’s not him.
But whoever it is, tell him to cross the fuck over and get over it.
Bob wrote in response to my post (@ 1840):
Why weren’t they reasonable, Bob?
Bob wrote:
Had you even bothered to check out that site, Bob? One link promises:
Here’s what we get when we follow that link:
Anyway, a transcript of “Loose Change Final Cut” is to be found here as a 244K PDF file.
So, why not use it to show the rest of us how “‘Loose Change’ is thorough-going bunk,” Bob?
Bob wrote:
Sure it does, Bob. Sure, I have none.
Now, how about telling us why none of this (@ 1664) is evidence, Bob?
Bob wrote:
My basis is that everything substantial that you have quoted from that document including what you quoted @ 1730 is demonstrably nonsense.
I wrote @ 1840 (with one correction here):
Then Bob, wrote:
That is one of two explanations I offered as to why a number of people on this forum, including you, have chosen to deny the evidence of their own eyes.
So, why do you think, Bob, if your own eyes tells you that those images are not images of explosions, that not one Official 9/11 Theory Supporter was prepared to assert that at those meetings in New Zealand, or, indeed, at any meeting for Richard Gage of which I am aware?
You don’t suppose that if anyone had dared do so, would have almost certainly treated by all reasonable people present with the scorn and derision that they would have deserved, now do you, Bob?
So, if those are not images of explosions, would you care to tell us what you think an explosion looks like?
—
Yes, Bob must have spent a lot of time adding such a profoundly illuminating post to this forum.
—
To all of my lenghty and detailed contribution @ 1840,Casey has chosen to focus on one and only one fact and ignore all else.
Of course, the fact is that I wrongly assumed that the Truther male family member was her brother and not her fist cousin, uncle, nephew, second cousin, etc.
OK, I stand corrected, Casey, but was it really necessary to take up three posts to tell me that?
—
Did you say that you were working on PhD, somewhere Casey?
What kind of PhD student will, on the one hand, so stridently and aggressively pronounce a view to be wrong, but, on the other, adamently refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence in support of that view?
You haven’t even looked at “Loose Change” once, have you, Casey?
Anyway, as I wrote, I have found your conduct on this forum thus far to be appalling and I have no wish to engage with you further, that is, unless things improve dramatically from now on.
Melinda Gordon, you said:
ABSOFRAKKINLUTELY!!
I had plenty more posts coming on my dead troofer brother waiting for me to read Loose Brains before crossing over, but lucky for you our neighbour banged on our door to alert us to the fact that the walls were in danger of collapsing from all the hysterical laughter your ghost whispering produced.
You outdid yourself this time Dags, really.
Melinda, after channelling my dead brother and letting me know his surprising and shocking Troofer leanings, you said:
Then after I complimented you on your hair extensions, you said:
So, okay, I coveted the ghost of your husband who had taken up residence in someone else’s body and then you said:
Melinda, you are conflicted and conflicting. Probably too many dead people talkin talkin never a minute to yourself. But let me know, What’s goin on? You want me to address your questions or not????
Because you’ve claimed, falsely, that the NIST reports contain lies and nonsense, yet you admit you‘ve never read them and nor have you ever shown them to contain lies or nonsense. Your prejudice is not reasonable.
Further, you claim that you don’t have the time to read the document on-screen, but evidently you do, as you have sufficient time to read this thread. You’ve been commenting, at length, on this thread for months now, so clearly time is not an issue for you. That objection is thus also unreasonable.
That’s it? One dud link? Did you read ANY other stuff? How about, just as one example, the top lies and deceptions in “Loose Change”? There’s YEARS of debunking on that blog.
All of your garbage from 1664 has already been debunked, Daggy. However, if you insist…
It’s not evidence of controlled demolition because it’s consistent with the ejection of air and airborne debris that would be expected in the building collapse, as explained by NIST. That is, air was squeezed out of the building by its collapse, not by any explosion.
And, no, I didn’t “dishonestly” claim you were debunked, as you WERE debunked. Furthermore, Nick and FDB have recently written several comments explaining exactly why your theory is bunk. I note that you’ve failed to respond.
As noted, Chandler’s work was debunked. He mismeasured – i.e. cherrypicked – the time of WTC 7’s collapse.
Again, this has already been debunked: that firefighters believe they heard explosions does not mean they heard explosions, let alone a controlled demolition. All the audio evidence shows that there were no sounds characteristic of controlled demolition.
Neither of them witnessed a controlled demolition. Their experiences are entirely consistent with aircraft strikes and associated damage to the buildings, and so not evidence of controlled demolition.
No, it didn’t. The thermogrammes, taken at two separate times, show heat levels on parts of the EXTERIOR of the buildings. They tell us nothing about the heat levels on the inside of the building, or, more specifically, the heat levels applied to the structural steel that failed. No evidence of controlled demolition.
As you have failed to demonstrate this, your basis is false.
What evidence? Since when is your BIASED OPINION evidence?
My eyes don’t tell me that those images are of explosions – why would they?
I honestly don’t know why people you haven’t identified didn’t assert a contrary opinion. Why don’t you ask them?
No, I don’t suppose that at all, given that asserting there to be explosions when there aren’t any is unreasonable.
Also, you’re assuming – without substantiation – that there were reasonable people present.
Here’s some explosions, and I have to say they look nothing like the WTC towers collapsing. Tell me what I’m missing.
An incompetent or indifferent one, I’d say.
What kind of idiot will, on the one hand, so stridently and aggressively pronounce NIST to be wrong, but, on the other, adamantly refuse to READ, let alone acknowledge, any of the evidence in support of NIST in its reports?
Daggett, you said:
You have a habit on lecturing me, Melinda. First, by channeling my brother, and good luck with that when he finds you, and now by critiquing my PhD research without having read a word of it. Wouldn’t be cause Im a woman perchance? (Nota Bene: Danger in these here TORA BORA (happy now you pendant?) caves, proceed with caution.)
In actual fact if you’d read my Ode to Stuff, like I wanted you to, you would have understood what I was trying to tell you regarding the NIST report. I was still meta narrating in the Ode, you know. I was telling you how to conduct the debate, rather than engaging with the specifics of your fruitery selections. Which I have a decided aversion to. I mean, we are well into summer and you don’t even have mangoes for starters. Nor have you provided me with any evidence you have a sense of humour in order for me to start talking to you about your theories. But again, and only as a public service, I tell you: You must read the NIST precisely because you don’t like it. Some sorely needed integrity could be arrived at by the very act of reading and retaining the information therein. Then, by all means, argue back at it with youtube.
Speaking of seeing things, Jan, the most exciting aspect of your aversion to the NIST is your excuse about not being able to read it on the screen. I hate to spoil the partay, but there is this “View” function on your computer where you can enlarge the font. Now relax. If you don’t want to do that you can download the NIST on a memory stick and print it out at Office Works for minimal cost.
You walked a lonely road didn’t ya Dags? Felt out of place sometimes? Then this thread came along. And, like, all the attention blew your mind didn’t it? Well, at the very least Dags, I hope you’ve had the time of your life.
There’s some really interesting things going on in outer space where the truth really is: UFOs exploding over Norway, new planets being discovered, and, in the spirit of this thread, ice melting on Mars.
Oh Daggy, Daggy, Daggy,
First you write this:
“In regard to the NIST report, I have simply judged that reading it from cover to cover, particularly on my computer screen, would be a huge waste of my time..”
Then you write this:
“If we are to delve into psychology, perhaps we should also discuss the psychology of people who refuse to acknowledge evidence that threatens their own belief systems.”
Marmalade!*
*”Marmalade!” was used as a battle cry by some WW1 British infantry formations – basically to point out that they were entering with very sardonic cheer into an essentially surreal, absurd and pointless exercise.
I now propose “Marmalade” as an another Internet meme – a very sardonic synonym for vigorous yet self-defeating blog crusades. EG: “Birdy’s gone total marmalade here.”. “Classic marmalade there Jack.”, “Some nice marmalade spreading there Daggy.”
Let’s face it. Marmalade is an intrinsically funny word. Bit like any good joke can always be improved by naming the fall guy with any name that starts with K. Kenneth, Kevin, Keith, Kilroy. It’s just funny.
As are you Kaggy.
This thread is the awesomest. I no longer care for whether Missy Higgins is a lipsniger. I just care what she thinks about WTC 7 and the properties of super amazingg nano-Supercalifragilisticespialidocious-thermite that can melt steel or not, depending on its amazing properties that defy physics and chemistry.
And I don’t care if you say something nasty. Coz I don’t care ’bout nothin’ anymore.
“This thread is the awesomest.”
And babe, we still ain’t muthafunkin’ hit the Aqua Boogie (A Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloop) of it all yet.
Totally buggered that last lonk. I mean link.
Should read like this…
And babe, we still ain’t muthafunkin’ hit the Aqua Boogie (A Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloop) of it all yet.
I’ve been meaning to ask: WTF’s this thread about? I’d like a brief explanation, preferably through the medium of contemporary dance.
“I’d like a brief explanation, preferably through the medium of contemporary dance.”
Did someone say interpretive dance?
Czeck Interpretative dance?
Oh crap, blew the lonk again. Marmalade!
Try this.
Did someone say interpretive dance?
Czeck Interpretative dance?
Bob wrote:
Then I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
Wrong!
He measured 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration as acknowledged, even in the NIST report. During that time WTC 7 fell 8 stories. The fact that some small part of the North Eastern end dropped a little before the whole lot fell a further 8 stories is irrelevant.
That’s evidence, Bob, which makes your abovequoted statement a lie.
It’s evidence that at some time during that 2.25 second interval all the structural strength in 8 stories of WTC 7 was lost.
And no, Bob. It had to be lost during that 2.25 second interval and not before as you stupidly asserted a number of times above. To assert otherwise contrary to Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
If you want to make yourself look even more of an idiot than your already have (or else, more of a liar), that is, to reasonable people, such as those sceptics as well as 9/11 truth advocates who attended Richard Gage’s meetings and not this crowd of fawning sycophants that now surround you, then please, by all means, dispute my above statement again.
That leaves essentially two possibilities:
1. All the strength in those 8 floors was lost instantaneously at the commencement of that 2.25 second interval; or
2. All the strength had to have been lost progressively during the 2.25 second interval.
The second possibility is, of course, accounted for by the controlled demolition theory which I have fully articulated on this thread.
The first possibility is what I gather the theory, that you claim to be somewhere in the NIST document, is supposed to account for.
Even though you insist you have read the whole NIST report and understand that theory and claim to believe that it does adequately explain how for the first and last time in history, fire alone could have caused the total structural failure of a steel framed building, in a manner that just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition that is, you have chosen not to articulate that theory on this forum so that others can judge for themselves the merit of your theory.
I would suggest that should make others highly suspicious of your claim. I would suggest that the real reason you have not articulated it yet is that you realise that it is bunk and others would recognise it as such if you attempted to present it here (and simply naming it ‘progressive collapse’ is not articulating it, by the way).
As I am just getting to the part in David Ray Griffin’s book which explains that theory I may soon be in a position to do what Bob has thus far refused to do.
—
Bob wrote of the testimony of FDNY firefighters Dennis Tardio and Patrick Zoda (@ and on patriotsquestion911.com:
No, Bob. Producing other evidence seemingly in conflict with that evidence does not automatically mean that the first lot of evidence can be disregarded.
What needs to be done is for an explanation to be provided that accounts for the seemingly contradictory evidence.
One that I offered was that the videos may have been tampered with to remove the sound. It should also be remembered that the sound of nano-thermite exploding is not as loud as more conventional explosives.
Anyone who views the YouTube broadcast would be left in no doubt that they were pretty definite in what they saw. Furthermore, it is consistent with the testimonies (pdf 113K) (also referred to above) of around 500 FDNY personnel immediately after 9/11 of which 113 volunteered, without being asked, accounts of explosions.
What they describe is also wholly consistent with what we see in that video North Tower Exploding that was linked to by Nick and a number of other videos of the collapses and what a number of news commentators describe.
If Bob had the slightest streak of honesty in him, he would have at least acknowledged that this was evidence, even if seemingly in conflict with other evidence.
But, instead, Bob made that demonstrably dishonest sweeping statement I quoted above:
Bob wrote:
Not sure where Anthony Saltalamacchia was when the Towers actually collapsed and perhaps as William Rodriguez was trying to get under a fire truck as the North Tower ‘collapsed’, so it is just possible that neither ‘witnessed’ the controlled demolition.
All the same, I would put to you that this argument, whilst it may conceivable be true is, nevertheless, sophistry.
That’s a lie, and Bob knows it.
Both testified that they heard and felt an explosion underneath their feet before the impact of the aircraft above. See William Rodriguez’s testimony on patriotsquestion911.com , Anthony Saltalamacchia’s testimony @ 1527 762 for corroboration of their testimony by Jose Sanchez and Mike Pecoraro.
—
So. let’s put to rest once and for all the lie that I have produced “no evidence” and let’s move forward to a more honest discussion about the evidence I have produced.
That’s not the point, Daggy, and we’ve been through this several times already.
Chandler claims that the building fell at free-fall acceleration over the total observed period of collapse. This observed period of collapse, as NIST notes, comprised three sections; it is only in the second section that the building fell at gravitational acceleration. Over the entire period it fell at less than gravitational acceleration due to structural resistance at the beginning and end (“Stage 1” and “Stage 3”). Chandler can only arrive at grativational acceleration over the whole period by starting his clock late, after the building had already begun to collapse. He cherrypicked the video footage, and his work is consequently garbage. It was thoroughly debunked in this video, to which you’ve been referred several times now.
It’s not irrelevant that the building began its collapse before Chandler started his clock. It’s highly relevant, given the time at which you start your clock determines the speed of collapse. Chandler chose the wrong time.
No, it’s not evidence; it’s bunk. Furthermore, I’ve just proved, yet again, that you are the one lying.
Again, we’ve been through this before, Daggy. The building was ALREADY FALLING before “Stage 2”, the 2.25 second interval you mention. The structural strength had clearly been lost BEFORE that interval.
As noted, Daggy, given the building was ALREADY FALLING before the interval you mention, structural strength had already been lost. Thus it had not been lost DURING the interval, and to note this FACT is in no way “contrary to Newton’s Second Law of Motion”.
What’s to dispute? You haven’t a leg to stand on, Daggy. The evidence clearly shows you are wrong, just as it did all of the other times we debated this issue above, only for you to abandon the argument and try some other garbage. As for looking like an idiot and a liar, I defer to your overshelming experience in that department.
Nope, neither. The strength was lost BEFORE the commencement of that interval.
As we know the building was already falling before the interval in question, controlled demolition allegedly DURING “Stage 2” most definitely does NOT account for the collapse. As to the NIST explanation, Daggy, it is indeed in their report– why won’t you read it?
First, other steel-framed building have collapsed due to fire, as I have shown you, and without the assistance of airliner strikes.
Second, the collapse of WTC 7 does not look exactly like a controlled demolition. It lacks the explosions and – importantly – sounds of explosions characteristic of most such demolitions.
Third, I have referred you to the detailed explanation of WTC 7’s collapse. It’s not my fault you refuse to read it.
As I have articulated the explanation and substantiated it, Daggy, I suggest your suggestions are delusional.
What have I refused to do?
Yes, it does. The firefighters didn’t hear what they thought they heard, and the incontrovertible audio evidence proves that fact, so we can disregard the firefighters’ testimony.
The firefighters didn’t hear a controlled demolition.
First, you have no proof that there was ANY tampering with the videos.
Second, you provide no substantiation of the sound signature of exploding “nano-thermite”, nor any proof that nano-thermite was even used.
Again, people believe they saw and heard lots of different things – that doesn’t mean they saw or heard a controlled demolition.
What they describe is also consistent with the buildings collapsing due to fires caused by aircraft strikes. There’s no evidence of controlled demolition there.
It’s because I’m being honest, Daggy, that I can state categorically that it is not evidence. You want to believe this dopey conspiracy theory for whatever reason motivates you, and this leads you into the trap of confirmation bias, uncritically accepting whatever gumph is presented to you by Troofers as “evidence”, but I’m simply more objective than you. Unlike you, I’ve carefully considered BOTH sides of the argument and concluded that your preferred theory is unsubstantiated bunk. Honestly.
Not just “possible”, but certain, given we know there was no controlled demolition and they were not in a position (i.e. they were in the basement) to witness anything of the sort.
I note that you’ve failed to prove my statement was “demonstrably dishonest” indicating that, yet again, it is YOU who has been proved to be the liar, Daggy.
Why? It’s a factually and logically sound argument – they simply didn’t witness a controlled demolition, so their testimony is not evidence of controlled demolition. There’s no sophistry in it.
Nope, no lie. As we’ve discussed before, the experiences of both men are consistent with the airliner striking the tower, followed by fireballs down the lift shafts, one of which hurt their colleague Felipe David. That they say they heard and felt “explosions” under their feet tells us nothing other than they heard something loud and felt something under their feet, which can be explained by the aircraft impact and following fireball down the lift well. There’s no evidence that they had these experiences before the aircraft strike. Their testimony is thus entirely consistent with the official explanation and not evidence of controlled demolition.
As I’ve just shown, again, that you have no evidence, Daggy, it seems that, no, you can’t move forward. Rather, you appear to be stuck in reverse, perpetually regurgitating discredited and debunked arguments.
You got something new to write about?
Bob wrote:
He did not!
Show us where David Chandler made the claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration outside of that 2.25 second interval.
Well call me a crowd of pawning sycopants, and not that you’re jealous about that at all Daggett, but I reckon that clip Aka linked to in his last post just about encapsulates the whole troubling question of this narrative thing I’ve been going on about, while at the same time narrating the rise and fall of your yeast on this thread in under 2 minutes. And, by all means, let me pawn some more and say that’s been the wittiest linky jab on this thread in weeks and weeks.
Anyway, the reason I flew by today is to tell you that I think, now that we’ve broken up Daggett, I think I need to analyse what went wrong.
I will be back to tell you my thoughts in youtube over the weekend.
“And no, Bob. It had to be lost during that 2.25 second interval and not before as you stupidly asserted a number of times above. To assert otherwise contrary to Newton’s Second Law of Motion.”
Umm no, dags. To assert it was lost during, flatly contradicts Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
Otherwise, how the hell was it falling at free-fall velocity for the entire 2.25 second interval??
It certainly wasn’t lost after.
Therefore, it had to have been lost before.
How elementarily stupid are you, dags?
Wow. First you asserted “it had to be during“, then you presented us with two conflicting possibilities, only one of which was during.
Neither of which are consistent with what was evidenced to have occurred:
1. All structural strength was not lost instantaneously.
2. All structural strength was certainly not lost progressively during.
All structural strength was lost before the commencement of that 2.25 second interval.
You’ve got rocks in your head if you think even Chandler would agree with the demented, dumbass assertions you’re making.
They’re stunningly illogical, scientifically and mathematically illiterate, and 100% false.
“The second possibility is, of course, accounted for by the controlled demolition theory which I have fully articulated on this thread.”
As it flatly contradicts Newton’s Second Law of Motion, it’s not accounted for by *any* theory which seeks to have an iota of plausibility in this universe.
“The first possibility is what I gather the theory, that you claim to be somewhere in the NIST document, is supposed to account for.”
Nonsense.
“[...] in a manner that just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition that is, [...]”
Nonsense.
“As I am just getting to the part in David Ray Griffin’s book which explains that theory I may soon be in a position to do what Bob has thus far refused to do.”
Oh, goody. You need authority, dags. Plain and simple. You’re lost in the dark without it. That much is clear.
“No, Bob. Producing other evidence seemingly in conflict with that evidence does not automatically mean that the first lot of evidence can be disregarded.”
Say there was some deluded dickhead on town hall steps publicly defaming the employees of the Ace Elevator Company. The court reads the testimony of 100 witnesses, 50 of whom swear blind that deluded dickhead was James Sinnamon, 50 who swear it wasn’t. Next, they watch video evidence of James Sinnamon eating lunch at a pub in another state, before signing and paying with his credit card. Then they examine the credit card receipt, his bank statements, and the airline tickets interstate.
The first lot of evidence is swiftly disregarded.
“What needs to be done is for an explanation to be provided that accounts for the seemingly contradictory evidence”
That’s easy. If only you’d pause to remove the blinkers for a second.
“One that I offered was that the videos may have been tampered with to remove the sound.”
Utterly implausible nonsense. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
“It should also be remembered that the sound of nano-thermite exploding is not as loud as more conventional explosives.”
Utterly unsubstantiated nonsense. You’re making this up as you go along.
“Anyone who views the YouTube broadcast would be left in no doubt that they were pretty definite in what they saw.”
Heard, dags, heard.
“Furthermore, it is consistent with the testimonies (pdf 113K) (also referred to above) of around 500 FDNY personnel immediately after 9/11 of which 113 volunteered, without being asked, accounts of explosions.”
Was it consistent with 500, or 113?
“If Bob had the slightest streak of honesty in him, he would have at least acknowledged that this was evidence, even if seemingly in conflict with other evidence.”
It’s evidence, dags. Just not evidence of controlled demolition. It it had been controlled demolition, 100% of those witnesses, and every newsreader around the world, would have heard and described exactly the same thing. The sounds of controlled demolition detonations that were not recorded on *any* of the hundreds of video soundtracks, would have been recorded on *all* of the hundreds of video soundtracks.
“Not sure where Anthony Saltalamacchia was when the Towers actually collapsed and perhaps as William Rodriguez was trying to get under a fire truck as the North Tower ‘collapsed’, so it is just possible that neither ‘witnessed’ the controlled demolition.”
Nobody witnessed a controlled demolition.
“All the same, I would put to you that this argument, whilst it may conceivable be true is, nevertheless, sophistry.”
It’s true. Nobody witnessed a controlled demolition.
“Both testified that they heard and felt an explosion underneath their feet before the impact of the aircraft above. See William Rodriguez’s testimony on patriotsquestion911.com , Anthony Saltalamacchia’s testimony @ 1527 762 for corroboration of their testimony by Jose Sanchez and Mike Pecoraro.”
Rodriguez and Saltalamacchia were both in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower.
What they felt under their feet was the impact of the jet airliner slamming in to the building 1100 feet above them.
The explosion they heard seconds later was due to the jet-fuel that had streamed all the way down through the elevator shafts, and then ignited.
Rodriguez’s co-worker, Felipe David, “stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!”
Felipe David was burned by a jet-fuel explosion in the elevator shafts. He’d been standing right in front of “a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1″.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations:
There’s so much more where that came from if you insist on pursuing this, dags. I highly recommend NIST NCSTAR 1-8 as a starting point for your reading.
It’s not scientific analysis. It’s not heavy going. It will only take you a few hours to read through.
It paints a detailed and transcriptively vivid, often times horrific, picture of the chronology of events on the day.
It would have been absolute hell down there in that sub-basement, dags What’s clear is that none of those people had any idea what was going on above them. How could they have? How can any of their testimony be regarded as reliable or conclusive evidence? It wasn’t.
velocityaccelerationI note Bob has yet to respond to my request that he substantiate his lie:
Bob won’t be able to substantiate that statement because David Chandler never attempted to claim that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed over the total observed period of collapse.
Bob continued:
NIST attempted to hide the 2.25 second period of free fall which began near the outset of the ‘collapse’ by averaging the acceleration over the total observed period. Only after David Chandler pointed out to them the existence of that 2.25 second period of free fall, did NIST change the report in the way that Bob has described. If Bob had watched the video “‘WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall’ …The Movie” that I linked to early on, he would know that.
Bob continued:
Chandler never “arrive[d] at gravitational acceleration over the whole period.” He only arrived at gravitational acceleration over that 2.25 second interval as I have repeatedly stated.
Bob wrote:
I think you left out “Nyehh, nyeh, nyeh, nyehh, nyehhh!”, Bob. This tiresome style of argument is one I thought belonged in primary school playgrounds.
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
If all the structural strength in those 8 floors had been lost before the observed free fall period began, then free-fall would have commenced at that point. Until a strcture begins to fall at free fall acceleration, then logically something, namely structural strength is preventing that structure from falling at free fall acceleration.
To claim otherwise, as you have done, is in contradiction with Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
As I wrote earlier, it’s irrelevant if some small part of the North Eastern end dropped a little before the whole lot fell a further 8 stories at free fall speed. The fact that it fell at free fall speed for 8 stories is evidence that all the stuctural strength in 8 stories of WTC 7 (most probably the first 8 stories) had to have been lost during that interval, whether instantaneously at the very start of that interval or progressively throughout that interval (the latter being in accordance with the controlled demolition hypothesis).
—
Nick,
I can see that you, as well as Bob, may need to go back to High School to study year 10 physics — and not just because you initially confused velocity with accelaration.
Do you need me to explain why?
—
If it’s all the same with you, Bob and with you, Nick, until I have properly nailed down your lies, distortions and illogicalities about the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, I think I will put off dealing with all of your other lies, distortions and illogicalities.
Perhaps, in the meantime, one or two of the hitherto seemingly mindless members of Bob’s cheer squad could consider attempting to redeem themselves by pointing those out to others on my behalf.
By the way, Mr daggett, many posts ago you presented a picture of air trickling through floors and lift shafts like a slow, babbling brook. That’s not how it happens. Sudden changes in air pressure travel at the speed of sound. Not instantaneously, but very quickly. Several hundred meters per second at sea level.
Physics of pistons. Not perfect pistons. They don’t need to be “perfect”.
By the way, ‘piston’ and ‘pancake’ are merely analogies Mr daggett. They are not exact models. They can’t be. But the physics still stands.
Air head,
As I wrote above, I was intending to firstly dispense, once and for all, with the lies, written in defence of NIST’s ‘explanation’ of the WTC 7 ‘collapse’, before moving on to dispensing with the other lies.
This is because my experience, thus far on this forum, has shown that it is very difficult for one person, arguing against a large number of determined and resourceful liars, to handle more than one argument at a time.
—
In regard to Nick‘s and FDB’s claim that each of the twin tower’s had to have behaved like a very damned good piston, I would have thought, to have caused hurricane force winds and breakages of windows and the violent expulsion of solid debris as well, 20 to 40 stories below the collapse front:
Neither Nick nor FDB have responded to my point @ 1769:
The probable reason that the pancake theory was abandoned was because it would have required the central supporting structural steel columns to have been left standing.
So as the NIST theory to explain the Twin Tower ‘collapses’ requires that the central supporting structural steel columns had to have been totally crushed and dismembered during all of the 14-16 seconds, at most, that it took for each of the towers to have collapsed, then the ‘piston’ formed by each of the twin towers would have had to have been at least as far from perfect as a ‘piston’ with an upright steel bar, with a length equal to that of the enclosing cylinder, welded to the middle of the base of the cylinder.
—
I will deal with the rest of the garbage in support of the ‘piston’ argument at some later point in time.
I was referring ONLY to the air pressure/piston discussion on ejecta from some (but not all) windows as the collapse proceeded. Physics is versatile. As is engineering. It can describe heat, light, air pressure in an event, simultaneously. Sound waves are pressure waves.
I am neither a Cretan nor a liar, thank you very much.
Air head,
I would agree that people have made very versatile use of some facts to draw all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.
If you are neither a liar nor a Cretan, then could I suggest to you that you:
1. tell this forum whether or not you defend the ‘pancake’ theory of collapse, long ago abandoned by NIST;
2. If you do not support the ‘pancake’ collapse theory, then acknowledge that the consequent necessity for that the ‘piston’ to have crushed all that core structural steel, at the same time as having created hurricane force winds 20 to 40 stories below the collapse front, makes that argument ridiculous.
Two of my previous posts on the nonsense ‘piston’ ‘explanation’ are at 1772 and 1779. (You will find links within those posts to the other posts I am arguing against.)
If you wanted to help this discussion move forward, you could perhaps also consider saving me from the trouble of having to demolish the latest piece of sophistry on that topic from Nick @ 1785.
I am here to advocate the importance of sound knowledge of physics (and engineering, combustion, etc.). I am not here primarily to persecute your antagonists, sir. On several salient topics: heat conduction, dynamics, structures and air pressure, your understanding appears deficient. Which is a pity, because these areas are relevant to the events being discussed.
And none of these is too difficult to learn about.
Air head, were you intending to answer the two simple questions I put to you in my previous post (@ 1868)?
Air head wrote:
So, why not demonstrate, with reference to my arguments in regard to the claimed ‘piston’ behaviour of the two ‘collapsing’ Twin Towers, where that understanding seems deficient to you?
The relevant posts are 803, 1646, 1714, 1733, 1769, 1772, 1779, 1789, 1796, 1866, and 1868.
Or, why not demonstrate where my recent posts in regard to the ‘collapse’ of WTC 7 demonstrate a deficiency in my understanding of physics?
The relevant posts are 1858, 1860 and 1864.
Apologies that the link to 1858 referred in my previous post was was malformed. As the post between that and post 1860 is quite long, it would take some time to scroll to (11 secs + another 9 seconds to get to the top of 1858).
(So, are you there, Air head? Are you planning to respond to my previous posts (1870, 1868 and 1866)?)
Yes, he did – ironically enough, in a video you yourself posted. At 1:48 Chandler states, in his question to NIST:
That’s called an “own goal”, Daggy.
No, they did no such thing. Read the report. They assumed average acceleration only in the calculation of the amount of time taken for a wholly free-fall collapse, against which they compared the ACTUAL time of collapse, which was, of course, far longer than a free-fall collapse.
I’ve seen the video and Chandler said no such thing to NIST. He claims, as I’ve quoted him above, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration. There’s no mention of 2.25 seconds, Daggy.
Don’t argue with me, Daggy – tell that to Chandler. He’s very clear in his statement above.
Given that you have no expertise or experience in rhetoric, your mischaracterisation of a statement of fact is irrelevant.
The facts are that: a) you have no evidence; and b) I caught you lying, again.
Yes, free-fall commenced in Stage 2 after the structural strength had been lost in Stage 1. We’ve been through this.
Yes. As noted oh-so-many times now structural strength was lost during Stage 1. AFTER Stage 1, during which structural strength was lost, Stage 2, a period of gravitational acceleration, was observed.
Nope, not in the slightest.
No, it’s highly relevant, as it shows the building was already collapsing, and not at free-fall speed.
Nope. It’s evidence that the structural strength had been lost BEFORE the period of free fall. Not “during”, not “instantaneously at the very start”, but BEFORE.
There’s no evidence of controlled demolition.
Oh, yes, please. This should be good.
Knock yourself out. You’ve tried and failed several times now, Daggy. By all means keep chasing your tail.
Heh. Cheertastic! Rise, my zombie cheer squad!
It seems as if Bob, in his last post, is attempting to imply that, because, in the following sentence:
… David Chandler omitted the qualifying phrase “in that 2.25 second period”, he was therefore must have meant over the whole observed collapse period.
This is what any clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person will recognise as pedantry used in a desperate ploy to avoid having to admit what a pathetic, miserable liar he has been through the long course of this discussion.
Anyone who watched and understood those videos would have to know from the overall context, in which he was measuring the acceleration in that 2.25 second period of free-fall, that the qualifying phrase was implied.
The fact was, whether Bob chooses to acknowledges it or not, that in the earlier draft reports, NIST attempted to conceal the 2.25 period of free fall by averaging the acceleration over the whole observed period.
The rest of his post consists of similar games with the meaning of words designed to keep this discussion going around in circles indefinitely or until I give up.
Again, I can only suggest that others read my previous post and decide, for themselves, whether it makes more sense than Bob’s.
Daggett,
I am back from holidays – good to see you still here.
.
The essentials are agreed upon, daggett – the building started collapsing (stage 1), the building underwent a period of near free fall (stage 2) and then the building completed the collapse process (stage 3). It is perfectly clear from the videos that the building was collapsing prior to the near free-fall stage.
What is difficult about that?
Andrew Reynolds asks:
Again, please read my previous post.
—
Apologies for the grammatical error in 1873.
The first sentence, straddling the first three paragraphs, should have ended:
‘must’ had been left in by mistake.
FDB: thank you for the loth. It warmed my heart.
JPZ: I can see the birthplace of the best chocolate in Australia from my house.
Casey and Fyodor, we are not worthy. But neither is Daggett.
Is there a psychologist in the house? What is the name of this condition? What causes it?
So – accusations of lying aside, we all agree that WTC7 started to collapse, then went through a short period (2 and a quarter seconds) of near free-fall and then continued to collapse until it had finished collapsing.
The discussion, therefore, is over whether that 2 and a quarter seconds can, or cannot, be explained by an hypothesis that it collapsed as a result of damage sustained by having two 110 storey buildings collapse right next to it, along with damage that may have come from fires burning uncontrolled inside the building for around 7 hours or whether the collapse could only have been caused by having some nefarious people planting large quantities of explosives around the building as part of a huge conspiracy to empower the US government.
That is it, is it not?
…pass me another piton…almost at summit…of 2K…strength flagging…must go on…for Queen and country…so cold…hammering another fun link into place…Mallory has taken off all his clothes again…so very cold…
“1hr and 10 minutes after taking the drug, with one man climbing a tree to feed the birds, the troop commander gave up. Admitting he could no longer control himself and his men. He himself then relapsed into laughter.”
Gold.
Well funny you should say that Pav. About Daggett not being worthy. I’ve been thinking, see, thinking thinking, looking counter clockwise, thinking some more, deciding no, I should stop doing that with my eyes, and wondering what went wrong.
Sifting through the ashes of this mess Daggett and I made of each other I think I can begin to see what went wrong. When we first met, you see, I was so unimpressed but so in awe. I guess he was a St John Rivers Pav, a missionary man. God knows Pav, how they can drive women mad. I mean, look at Jane.
Like Yeah.
Anyway, the point is, he had a kind of zeal.
Well no one is pure. I had my own mission. I thought I was a clever girl. I was here for the laughs. I thought I told him that. I didn’t want no commitments. Ive always been at the dark end of the street where that shit’s concerned. I just wanted a good time. Certainly I didn’t want my brother having an afterworld chat to me.
But no.
He wanted a ring on it. Wanted me to read his stuff, watch his videos, clean up his godwins, Print his reports. Call his phone, email his email.
Fingers, bone, Pav.
And what did I want? Was it too much to ask? I just wanted him to laugh. Do you think for a second he could meet me half way?.
Well no.
And then things go wrong don’t they?.
First I realised it was late September. All of a sudden I really knew I should be back at school.
And you know when you think you want to go back to school, things are, like, really wrong.
Then the arguments started. Well it seemed it was about the NIST reports didn’t it? But really it wasn’t. There was a fundamental flaw. Perhaps a small thing to some. Maybe it was just the deal breaker for me. There is no delicate way of putting it. He was frakkin nuts. Didn’t understand my Ode to Stuff AT ALL. But still, I was like, it aint over till it’s over. (and I am not arguing with you on that Lenny)
Until one day I had enough. Frakked out, as it were. Got out. Ran baby Ran.
What did he do?
Blamed the woman. I ask you. What does Cliff Richard know about women anyway?
But I suppose you be correct Pav. It be time to be getting off this thread. And so Girl, as always you make me see things in a new way.A dedication for you, Girl.
Alright! Time for this thread’s weekly music break.
But since Casey has so throughly kicked off the grooves and I’m now pretty squiffy on curry, whisky and maryjane, now long winded intros.
Theme: Techno detours.
http://vimeo.com/6906603 – Classic beats. Wait for it, wait for it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGNJplnzcjY – Indian chefs lyrically influenced by Italian futurism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJ19Zco0tw – Ignore visuals. Play in background. Remove intake duct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03D852nr7PY – Eccentric US kids TV presenter invents Kraftwerk without prior knowledge.
And let us not forget the original techno anthem – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF2x5IKxmAQ – realised in large part by electronica’s Athena – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyUkmxy5VMI
It all culminated in this zen masterpiece – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_AqSbgKKS8 – the 12 inch remix by Patrick Cowley, natch! Mallory has taken off his clothes again.
And bonus electropunk – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPZQi2m7i9Y – Now that’s thereminating.
If there’s any moderater not suffering PTSD from this thread, could they release my earlier comment. Sure it’s a got a fuckpot of links but they’re all safe for play.
Also, change “Now long winded intros” to “no long winded intros.”
Thankee
Only seventeen comments to 2k. We could unfurl the flag on the summit tonight.
Correction, I meant sixteen comments.
Or was that fifteen?
Okay, who’s going to tell him?
Casey, that was fab. Just fab. And thank you, I think, for the tribute at the end, though I do urge you to listen, as a kind of corrective, to the Beatles’ 1965 ‘Girl’ from Rubber Soul with Lennon making his vicious horny sucking-in-air-through-his-teeth noise in the chorus.
Can we please talk about V8 Supercars?
I don’t see why not, it’s an open thread after all. But unless they were made from invisible silent nano-thermite by employees of the Ace Elevator Co., I’m just not interested.
Bob,
Can you explain the following?
On Page 18 of “Chapter 1 INTERIM FINDINGS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS” at http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf we find this:
Yet in “Figure 3-6 : Progression of Simulated Fire on Floor 12 of WTC 7″ on page 30 of the “Final Report of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment” (aka NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation) we find a raging out-of-control fire at 5.00PM barely 15 minutes later. There is also a raging fire at 4:00PM.
How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been “burned out” by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?
—
BTW, a very illuminating post on WTC 7, sadly buried amidst the spam and trivia, but well worth going back to, is Andrew’s at 1042 . My most recent somewhat substantive post is 1873.
“How could a fire raging at 4:00PM have been “burned out” by 4:45PM and be raging out of control again at 5:00PM?”
1) You compared a statement from an interim report released in June 2004, up against the final report released four and a half years later in November 2008. If you’d cared to download and read Chapter 5 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9, and examined all the additional photographic evidence collected and analysed since that June 2004 interim report, you would have come across Figure 5-152, which showed that fires were still burning on Floor 12 at 5pm +- 10mins. They were not found to have been “burned out” by 4:45PM.
2) NIST stated very clearly above Figure 3.6:
Let me take a wild guess: you didn’t read any of it, did you, dags.
You ripped this straight from a troofer site and threw it up here without any questioning or attempting to verify the information for yourself.
You’re the best.
Torchwood is watching. (what’s left of them.)
No, Daggy, I’m not “seeming” to “attempt to imply” that David Chandler omitted the phrase. I’m stating it, because he did not qualify his statement.
How would you know what a “clear-headed, critical-minded thinking person” would or would not recognise? You’ve shown yourself totally incapable of clear thinking or critical analysis. You’re the muddle-headed dupe of some dopey conspiracy theorists.
There’s no pedantry, no avoidance and no lying from me, Daggy.
YOU are the one who has been caught lying.
YOU are the one avoiding questions.
YOU are the one caught up in pedantry and trivia.
The fact of the matter is that you claimed I was lying about Chandler and challenged me to quote the guy, and I have.
I’m right. You’re wrong. Get over it.
Bullshit. There’s no implication or inference required or indicated – THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. As I told you, if you have a problem with WHAT HE SAID, tell him.
Rubbish. As I told you, they hid no such thing. They found, correctly, that WTC 7 took longer to collapse than a free-fall. That’s an incontrovertible FACT, Daggy.
Squib. The only nitwit going round in circles here is you, Daggy, returning over and over again to debunked and discredited arguments.
As your comment contains no evidence, why should they even bother?
You’ll get to 2,000 by Christmas, no probs.
I wonder if Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer ever crashed … no, eeven for this thread thats in terribly bad taste.
Bob demands to know:
Once, again, because of the context, Bob.
The whole point of his measurement of acceleration is explained towards the end of “WTC7 in Freefall” that I linked to above:
The article in which the video is embedded states:
How velocity and acceleration are measured of that about 2.5 second interval are clearly shown by David Chandler.
Given all this, I would have thought the question that should be asked is why anyonewould insist that David Chandler’s quoted statement could have been mistaken for meaning:
… as Bob wrote and as I responded to earlier.
Footnotes
1. I have taken the free fall period time to be 2.25 seconds, David Chandler has taken it, here to be “around 2.5 seconds”. Given that it is not easy to establish, with great precision, using the video evidence, where this interval began or ended, this is not important. It was certainly at least 2.25 seconds.
—
Nick,
Figure 5-155 on page 239 taken at 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-151 on page 236 taken at 4.40PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-150 on page 235 taken at 4.39PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figures 5-148 and 5-149 on page 234 taken seconds at aroound 4.38PM show no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-147 on page 233 taken at 4.37PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
Figure 5-146 on page 232 taken at 4.20PM shows no evidence of fire on Floor 12.
The only evidence of any fire at all is Figure 5-152 on page 237 shows only one small fire in the North Western corner burning, and nowhere else, supposedly at around 5.00PM.
That is no doubt why in 2004 the NIST interim report stated as I cited above:
Now again, I ask Bob, or you, if you like, to explain this massive discrepency between the evidence and the computer simulation that supposedly explains the first and only ‘collapse’ in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition, of a steel-framed building, caused entirely by fire.
Nope. Context doesn’t affect your assessment of the recognition ability of people with clearer heads and more critical minds than yours. As I implied, you simply don’t know what such people would or would not recognise. The context of the situation has no bearing on your incompetence in assessment.
There’s no mistaken meaning – that’s WHAT HE SAID. Let’s look at it again, shall we? Chandler’s assertion to the NIST hearing was:
There’s no qualification there. There’s no mention of 2.25 seconds – or 2.5 seconds, for that matter – of freefall. The meaning is clear: Chandler asserted to NIST that the building fell with an acceleration equivalent to gravity. He even refers to NIST’s (accurate) calculation of total observed collapse taking 40% longer than estimated freefall time. He is thus CLEARLY referring to freefall over the whole period of collapse. There’s no other meaning in that statement.
Now, Daggy, you may have found instances – unsurprisingly – where Chandler contradicts himself and, as I suggested to you, you should take up those inconsistencies with him.
However, you cannot refute the fact, and the fact is that he asserted to NIST that the building fell at gravitational acceleration. It didn’t, obviously, but that’s WHAT HE SAID.
As I said, get over it.
.
First, there is no “massive discrepancy”. As Nick pointed out to you, photographic evidence from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 shows that fires were still burning on Floor 12 around 5pm. Let me quote from the report (page 245):
Second, the building did not collapse in exactly the same manner as a controlled demolition. Collapse was progressive, not instantaneous, and there was no evidence of any explosives or controlled demolition of any kind – no material evidence and certainly no audio evidence.
Third, as I pointed out to you before, the WTC buildings were not the first or only steel-framed buildings to collapse due to fire, and nor did WTC 7 collapse solely due to fire – it also withstood damage from the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.
Fourth, Nick was right: you ripped this crap straight from a troofer site without bothering to verify the information yourself. [HINT: reading the NIST report would have saved you the embarrassment, AGAIN]
Hmmm, out by only a hundred comments or so last night. In my defence I blame whisky! and the demon weed!
But courage mes enfants, we’ll reach 2K before Santa flies into a chimney.
In the meantime “No way one X-wing could have taken this thing out”.
Sideshow, you’re banging your head against a brick wall here. Face it, some people are impervious to facts and rational argument.
Still, 2,000 comments by Christmas is looking pretty acheivable, and you’ve certainly done your share.
“Face it, some people are impervious to facts and rational argument.”
So is a punching bag. I really don’t think M. Fyodor is looking to change Daggy’s mind here so much as to work out the kinks in his left jab. Gotta work on not dropping the shoulder so slightly to telegraph the punch.
WE really all should club together and buy Daggy a yearly StoushGym TM pass.
100 comments to go!
We’re getting there!
In other news (telegraphed on a more recent Saturday Salon), the 2006 Befte Barley Whine (10+% alcohol) is at last drinkable! Christmas, here we come!!!
Jennifer Marohasy is trying to get an argument on AGW going over on the Weird stuff comments.
Wonder what would happen if she started posting here along with Daggett. Sure, we’d get to 2000 but would anyone’s sanity survive?
“Wonder what would happen if she started posting here along with Daggett.”
Go on LP Moderators, let Birdy back in for the final climb to the summit of 2K.
And if anyone was wondering about my Mallory gone starkers references, well then obviously you’ve never encountered one of the great muscular wild child English eccentrics of the last century or two – up there with TE Lawrence, John Nicholson, “Tufty” Thesiger, “Paddy” Leigh-Fermor, and Bruce Chatwin – another well born Englishman wrestling with his sexuality in wild places while interfacing with the locals and landscape in occasionally transcendental ways.
Aside from sometimes climbing mountains naked, Mallory also came up with that immortal line about why he wanted to climb big peaks. “Because it is there.” Anyway, after having fucked Rupert Brooke at Cambridge, he vanished forever on the North-East ridge of Everest.
Jeffrey Archer has been apparently making some serious efforts to bring Mallory’s story to the screen, And I’m not sure he wouldn’t fuck it up that much. He has the same English raskol meme genes.
Nah! It’s really a project for Herzog or Winterbottom. Or Leigh in “Topsy-Turvey” groove.
“one of the great muscular wild child English eccentrics of the last century or two”
And yes, of course, Sir Richard Burton – the Keith Richards of 19th century men of adventure. But he couldn’t done it without Isabel.
Bob Rafelson’s “Mpuntains Of The Moon” is I think a bloody underrated adventure epic movie. And also includes one of the hottest love scenes I’ve ever seen – in which Isabel and Richard discuss how their relationship will work out for eternity while dripping hot wax on eachother.
Also Speke blows his head off at the end. Bonus!
Bob is attempting to put a different meaning to David Chandler’s words to the meaning that is abundantly clear from the context that I described, by isolating them from the context.
If Bob is so adamant that David Chandler could only have meant from these words that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for the whole observed period, then why was that ridiculous meaning not also abundantly clear to Shyam Sunder at that briefing about the NIST preliminary report?
Why, instead of refuting Chandler’s argument, which would surely have been so easy to do, did he, instead, make a complete fool of himself?
The only conceivable reason can be that Sunder, as had everyone else who was there or who had watched his videos, took the meaning of those words to be exactly as I said they were, that is, that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for around 2.5 seconds and not for the whole observed period.
This, of course, makes Bob not only a liar, when he claimed,
… but also a time-wasting pedant.
And he remains a liar for having claimed that I have produced no evidence and that I have been debunked in places where I clearly have not.
The part of Bob’s post dealing with the discrepencies between the photographic evidence and the simulated fires contains nothing new and has all already been answered in the posts he is purporting to respond to. They are 1889 1895.
His (implied) claim that other steel-framed buildings have been totally destroyed by fire has been shown to be lie early on.
His implication that the collpase of the North Tower somehow contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7 has already been acknowledged by NIST itself to be false.
And as regards the whole Burton-Speke Nile contretemps, I’m firmly in the Burton camp – regardless of what actually happened.
95 comments to go. I can almost now taste the source of denial.
Y’know, if you gave Pink Floyd a shave and a haircut, it would not be hard at all to see ‘em as Sudan Political Service Officers circa 1930. Same socio-economic upbringing, same river, just o tempora o mores.
Speking of time wasting pedantry Daggy, what’s your take on which Westerner finally discovered the sources of the Blue and White Nile?
Please answer on only one side of one page at a time.
NB: Points will be deducted for off topic speculations about 9/11.
103 to go.
Yeah well no one, least of all me, ever claimed numbers were my strong point.
47 to go!
The recent biography on Richard Burton (it came out about ten years or so ago I think, was also very good.
And you’re right about Mountains of the Moon being a very underated movie.
Nope, I’m just quoting exactly WHAT HE SAID. You are the one trying to imply he meant something different to WHAT HE SAID.
I agree that Chandler’s meaning was ridiculous, but it was also clear, to me and to Sunder. Let’s look at Sunder’s response [from 1:41 onwards] in this video:
Now, Daggy, Sunder isn’t a particularly eloquent or confident speaker, but we do know he heard the question correctly, as he asked for it to be repeated.
We also know that Sunder clearly addresses the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE – the 5.4 seconds, or freefall plus 40% – questioned by Chandler. There is no mention of 2.25 seconds or 2.5 seconds of freefall by either Chandler or Sunder – the whole discussion, both question and answer, addresses TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, not some discrete period within the overall collapse. Clearly, Sunder took the obvious meaning of Chandler’s assertion and question.
Not only that, but Sunder explicitly reaffirms that the collapse of WTC 7 took 40% longer than estimated freefall time, REFUTING Chandler’s assertion that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration.
As noted, he refuted Chandler’s assertion. As for making a fool of himself, I suggest that you’re not competent to judge the foolishness of others, for the obvious reason.
I’ve just demonstrated that Sunder took the same meaning I did, because THAT’S WHAT CHANDLER SAID.
I’ve just proved, again, that I did not lie and the only pedant wasting time here is you, with your ineffectual blather.
Nope. You have produced no evidence and you have been debunked, each and every time I say so. Every single time, you have been defeated by the facts and logic and anyone reading this thread can see for themselves.
I didn’t claim I was presenting anything new on the photographic evidence. Indeed, I noted that Nick had introduced it in his refutation of your assertion. And, no, Daggy, you did not “answer” Nick’s evidence, which showed clearly that fires were observed on Floor 12 at or around 5pm on the day in question. He proved you wrong, and I simply reminded you of that.
No, it hasn’t. Produce the comment where you claim this occurred.
Nope. From NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page xxxvi:
Now, NIST states later on that it was the fires that brought down the building, not the structural damage done by the nearby collapse of WTC 1. However, the fires were ignited by the collapse of WTC 1, and it was the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 that impaired the water supply to WTC 7, preventing the sprinkler system from working properly in containing the fires that eventually brought down the building. The collapses of WTC 1 & 2 most definitely “contributed to the structural failure of WTC 7”.
If you had the read the report, you would know this, and would not have embarrassed yourself. Again.
Paul,
Were you talking about “The Devil Drives” by Fawn Brodie? I found it a very good read.
Pity his wife burnt virtually all his papers after his death. I guess they would have been an even better read.
‘Mountains of the Moon’ is a ripper of a film. Directed by Bob Rafelson, one of the best of the ’70s New Hollywood directors. And yes, the hot wax scene.
AR @ 1911,
I think so. It was published a few years ago. Quite a thick book. Anyway, it was most enjoyable. Mind you, the English are always throwing up memorable eccentrics.
Two I read about recently were Lord and Lady Worsely, in Lady worseleys Whim. James Matra, who was vaguely responsible for dreaming up the idea of sending Americans and convicts to Botany Bay was another.
Mind you, they’ve got nothing on the La Rouchians and Truthers of today. Those guys take the cake.
Bob wrote:
I would have thought that “what Chandler said” isolated from the context I described was ambiguous.
If Bob insists that David Chandler must be held to the literal meaning of that sentence:
… in isolation from the context, how can he know what period that Chandler was referring to, if he did not qualify it in that sentence did not refer to the whole period of collapse and not just the observed period of collapse?
He cannot, nor can he claim that the meaning of the words did not apply to the 2.25 second period.
Of course, if we put the meaning back in context the meaning is obvious.
So, as I wrote, Bob is a time-wasting pedant.
And there is nothing in that last post that adds anything to this discussion.
I would concede that I have not yet directly answered Nick’s latest piece of sophistry regarding the supposed behaviour of the Towers as brilliantly efficient ‘pistons’ during the ‘collapses’, which had not been put at the time Bob falsely claimed I had been thoroughly debunked on that question, but I don’t see why I should be obligated to respond to each and every piece of sophistry by people who have shown themselves to be disingenuous at best and liars at worst.
Besides, Nick has not responded to my latest post in regard to the claimed ‘piston’ effect either.
The rest of the post is yet another pretence aimed at the willingly gullible on this forum and casual vistors who don’t have the time to wade through it all that the previous post has in some way answered, when they have not been.
If any of the individuals here can show me anything new in Bob’s latest post, then I will respond to it.
If not, I don’t see why I should risk having by broadband choked by furhther responding to this forum, now that I have used up 8Gig of my allowed 10Gig, largely thanks to the spam and trivia posted here by Bob and others.
My previous posts that Bob has claimed to have responded to include 1905, 1895, 1889, 1873, 1870, 1868. (My apologies for the bad link to 1895 in post 1905.)
As loathe as I am to bloat this forum further (obviously, unlike a good many others here), the following sentence above:
Should have been:
As I wrote, I don’t consider myself obligated to participate any further in this circus, except on my own terms.
So don’t be too surprised if I only post every other day, or even less frequently, from now on.
At least this forum stands as a record, from which people can learn a lot about various online contributors, including at least one historian — and I very much doubt if it will be to their credit in the eyes of critical thinking and open-minded people — as well as, in between, 9/11 itself.
Dagget, babe, its me.
I know you’re not talking to me anymore. One day you will see that I what I did was for your own good. Maybe you hate me now, but later it will get better. I know you think that woman’s liberation army ruined everything for you, but really it set us both free.
Anyway, how the frakk you going?
Reason I’m here is, I think I want to start a new career as an astrologer. I don’t need any qualifications as the computer does everything these days.
So, I was wondering if you want me to do your chart? Find out how this thread ends maybe? After I diagnosed Paul Norton and found out he was Pegasus, I feel fairly confident I can do this gig.
Let me know, Dags. I will do it for free even. Just give me your date of birth, the time and when you were born ok?
No, I am not JOKING. I will do this for you. Just say the word.
Where you were born, even.
It might explain things you know?
Go on Dags, let me do this for you.
PAX offering as it were.
Yes, you’ve already said that you thought that, and you’re wrong. His meaning was unambiguous, as evident from Sunder’s reply, as I showed in my last comment.
How can I – and thus we – know this? Because of Chandler’s sentence after the one you quoted, which you left out for a reason not impossible to fathom.
Here’s the full quotation of Chandler’s statement/question to Dr. Sunder of NIST:
As highlighted in bold, Chandler was referring to NIST’s timing of the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE, to which sunder replied, as I noted in my last comment.
I can, to both. Chandler CLEARLY referred to the TOTAL OBSERVED PERIOD OF COLLAPSE. There is no mention of the 2.25 second period.
The meaning is obvious regardless of your spin. It was the meaning that Sunder replied to.
Says the twit who’s just received another lesson in English comprehension on the same bit of text.
Honestly, Daggy, have you considered taking lessons in literacy? It’s one thing debunking your garbage, it’s another having to teach you the fucking language while I’m at it. And you have the gall to accuse me of wasting time?
Apart from debunking your dopey assertions yet again, squibber.
Squib. Nick demolished your arguments and the fact that you have failed to rebut his arguments says all we need to know about who is the disingenuous liar on this thread.
The fact is that you’re not under any obligation to substantiate your assertions, Daggy. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head. Of course, if you fail in this, as you have repeatedly, we’ll form the natural assumption, correct to date, that you have no case and your arguments are bunk, as they are.
Yeah, that’s right, Daggy: keep squibbing on the same stuff over and over again.
*plays world’s tiniest violin for poor widdle Daggy*
Boo-feckin’-hoo, Daggy. This thread is so long because you insisted on recycling discredited and debunked troofer garbage over and over again. Your case was destroyed more than a thousand comments ago and yet here you are, moaning about the length of the thread. Grow up. The ONLY person responsible for using up your 8Gig is YOU.
The only surprise coming from you, Daggy, would be a solid argument.
Heh. Oh, it’ll be a record, alright. I warned you it would be more than a thousand comments ago, but you wouldn’t listen.
You should ask yourself, Daggy, what you think people will think of you when they read it. Better yet: why don’t you ask some of those critical thinking and open-minded people you keep mentioning?
“As loathe as I am to bloat this forum further”
Clearly you don’t care about bloating it with superfluous vowels.
[We'll fix this whole language PC - one word at a time. Got to... stay... pure... UH!]
Perhaps when we reach 2000, all the misused apostrophes, verbified nouns and dangling participles in all the world will turn into rivers of gin and tonic, puppy dogs and unicorns. A pendant can dream.
“A pendant can dream.”
Hmm, FDB. That participle is dangling around your neck is it?
My neck actually.
Along with the amazing properties of nano-superduper thermite is amazing revelation that the content of this thread is chewing up Daggett’s bandwidth.
Daggett’s ISP must be using Nabakov mathematics.
Daggett, loath as I am to reply to your stupidities, any historian would place you in the same class as Von Daniken and Gavin Menzies, ie people historians have to explain to their students are talking crap. Lest they be led astray by fantasy in Von Daniken’s case, and wilful misinterpretation of evidence in Menzies’ case. Mind you they both made a lot of money gulling a gullible public, but that doesn’t make them historians, just shysters.
Paul,
I read Menzies’ 1421 and it was an interesting idea. The gaps in basic research, though, were fairly obvious. His contention that the Chinese fleet may have visited the south west of WA to get the apples and other foods grown there for re-supply was an “interesting” one at best, considering that the apples and other conventional / Western crops were introduced a wee bit later than 1421.
I think you comparison of daggett to Menzies and von Daniken, though, is a little unfair as they were at least original. Daggett just seems to be repeating the claims of others without applying any sort of dose of scepticism.
Okay, so from here till we meet up in the comment 2000, I’d like everyone to make reference to something pertaining to the year that corresponds to the number of said comment, ideally with youtube links.
Surprisingly, 1925 (Il Duce takes the reigns*) led me to interesting places.
Some of which I may have already visited.
*before you jump in Fine, this is another rhetorical error. Go feed the whippets or something.
1926 is appropriate to mark the Herculean efforts of Daggett and Fyodor so far. 1926 being the year Steve Reeves was born.
Watch the whole thing if you like. Probably chew up less bandwidth that viewing all 1926 comments so far.
9 May 1927 was the year the Parliament was opened in Canberra by the Duke of York.
“1926 is appropriate to mark the Herculean efforts of Daggett and Fyodor so far. 1926 being the year Steve Reeves was born.”
Perhaps one day, in the not-too-distant future, an innocent young couple — Daggett and Casey — newly-married, deeply in love, will turn up in the middle of the night at my mansion on the hill.
Well, let me show you around, maybe play you a sound. You look like you’re both pretty groovy! Or if you want something visual, that’s not too abysmal, we could take in an old Steve Reeves movie.
Merry Christmas to all!
Bob wrote:
No, Bob. We both know that out of you and me I am not the person who need feel embarassed. We both know that there is nothing in that the claptrap in your post that answers my previous posts (@ 1895 and 1889), however much you and all your sycophants here choose to shout and scream otherwise.
And we also both know that my reading all the NIST reports from one end to the other as well as the 9/11 Commission Report and any other piece of lying US Government propaganda would not alter one iota your refusal to argue logically and with due acknowledgement of the evidence I have presented.
Bob wrote:
Sure, Bob. I left out the second and third sentences, hoping that no-one else, least of all, you, would see that when you quoted it in your previous post (@ 1910), there was another sentence following that I didn’t want others to know about.
Bob then goes on to insist that those two sentences:
… must somehow qualify the literal meaning to the previous sentence.
No, Bob. It does not. The literal meaning, in isolation remains ambiguous.
If you want to add implied meaning to words, you just can’t just broaden the context to an arbitrary degree that suits you, but refuse to allow the context to be broadened any further.
Bob wrote:
Sure, Bob. David Chandler can only have meant that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for all of the 5.4 second period of ‘collapse’, even though that contradicts his statements and all the measurements demonstrated in those YouTube Broadcasts and repeated many times before and since that free fall occurred only for (around) 2.5 seconds.
Anyhow, even if David Chandler inexplicably tried to make the claim on that one occasion, that Bob insists that he was, the fact remains that free-fall did occur for 2.25 seconds during which WTC 7 fell through 8 floors.
This brings me back to that other glaring piece of idiocy that Bob and Nick try to pass off as a rebuttal of the controlled demolition hypothesis. Here it is again (and, no doubt, Bob will moan and groan that we have “been over this” before, but, of course, ‘neglecting’ to show anyone where we have “been over this’ before):
I wrote:
Then Bob wrote:
I had also written:
To which Bob responded:
This, we are told, “thoroughly debunks” my argument, but it doesn’t even acknowledge that argument.
“[S]tructural strength was lost during Stage 1″ he tells us.
But how much? And for which floors?
Clearly it could not have been all the structural strength and it could not have been for all 8 floors.
So, what does that statement mean?
1930 The Great Depression really gets going. (Which, if you think about it, is what one feels sometimes reading Daggett’s rubbish on this thread.) Not that I bother much, despite being a great fan of Samuel Beckett.
Daggett,
Look at the videos again – and not the ones that cherry pick the period after the interior floors have collapsed, I mean the ones that show the entire collapse. They clearly show the east penthouse fall into the building long before the wall starts to go.
No explosions either.
Oops – forgot events. 1931 – Isaac Isaacs sworn in as first Australian born governor general. 1932 the Poles break the enigma cypher code, being the first to do so.
Andrew Reynolds,
Even if your point is correct, which it is not (see below), it doesn’t explain the free fall collapse through 8 floors at the outset of the collapse. The only complete explanation, so far provided to this forum, for that period of free fall, remains the controlled demoliton hypothesis. Having gained more of an understanding of NIST’s alternative ‘explanation’ for the ‘collapse’, I can well understand why Bob has adamantly refused to put that explanation to this forum, where its total stupidity would be too obvious for anyone to deny.
Anyway, in response to Andrew Reynold’s point, Canadian Physical Chemist Frank Greening wrote of the observed collapse:
—
I would have thought that any credible historian or academic would know not to attack the views of others, whithout being prepared to substantiate that attack, yet once again Paul Burns has, when he pronounced my views as “rubbish.” Paul, no-one is forcing you to read any of this, so why not just buzz off if my posts bother you that much?
I don’t know why a ghost whisperer would get so precious about substantiating things all of a sudden.
Who have you convinced on this thread Daggett?
No one, nowhere as far as I can see.
Beggars can’t be choosers. Have you considered my offer?
1934: H*tler became Führ*r (does this count for Godwin?), Persia became Iran, Brigitte Bardot and Sophia Loren were born, and the Three Stooges released their first short. Which was called Woman Haters.
Casey,
Why don’t you explain to evryone why I haven’t been able to convince you?
Is it because you have understood my arguments and found them deficient or is it because you had already made up your mind about this at the start?
—
I thoroughly recommend the first of four video of “Dr. Graeme MacQueen on “9/11 Truth: the Challenge to the Peace Movement”.
He was in Pakistan conducting a peace workshop in early 2001 amongst opponents of the then ruling Taliban regime. No-one wanted an invasion to sort out the problems. At that seminar, six months before 9/11, people already claimed to have knowledge that the US planned to invade Afghanistan.
Graeme MacQueen did not fully wake up to the truth of 9/11 until about 4 years ago. In the video he explains why it took him so long to decide to make the decision to study the issue properly.
He concludes the video by telling all those peace activists that have not yet taken that step, and still accept the official narrative og 9/11 that “this is important!” and they should not delay any further.
With a bit of luck I’ve got my birth year..Makes about as much sense as the rest of this blog.
Premature..now then.
1939 WW2 starts.
Battle of Britain. (Or maybe Churchill dynamited every building in London and blamed the Luftwaffe.
)
Daggett, your views don’t bother me. I know the WTC collapsed on 9/11 because Al-Queda operatives flew two planes into them. I saw it on TV when it happened and as it happened. Sat up all night watching it. Is that substantiated enough?
I just scroll down your comments to see how long they are. I gave up reading them long ago. I’m just very curious about how long you can keep up your incredible monomania.
!941, Pearl Harbor. (I couldsn’t help myself there,Daggett. It did happen, you know. I seem newsreels of it.)
1942 – the year Frank Forde, Deputy PM and Minister for the Army took the name signs off Sydney railway stations to confuse the Japanese when they invaded. Trouble was, after two weeks of Sydneysiders getting off at the wrong station on their way to and from work, he had to put the signs back up again. Honestly.
Could someone fish that last post out please and explain why I just can’t put that link in????
Bob ‘rebuts’ posts 1895 and 1889:
No, Bob. There is a massive discrepency and you are a shameless, barefaced liar to have claimed otherwise.
On the one hand, NIST’s ‘explanation’ of the ‘collapse’ requires raging fires for 3 to 4 hours as illustrated in figure 9-11 on page 384 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2. On the other hand, the photographic evidence from 8 photos from 4.20PM until 5.13PM shows no evidence of fire. I could add to that list 4-145 on page 231 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 at 4.10PM and 5-144 on page 229 at 3.55PM. The latter two flatly contradict the simulated 4.00PM image in figure 9-11.
Only in one image (‘crudely estimated as being around 5.00PM’) do we see any fire at all on Floor 12 and that is one very small isolated fire. (Where you meaning to construe this single fire as two so that you could use the word ‘fires’ instead of ‘fire’, Bob?)
So, that makes at least 10 photographic images of Floor 12 from 3.55PM until 5.13PM containing no evidence of fire and only one with a single small isolated fire — all this during a periond when a fire hot enough to cause the total structural failure of steel on that floor was supposedly raging throughout Floor 12.
As I pointed out before, even NIST had acknowledged that the fires on Floor 12 had burnt out by 4.45PM.
The reason for this massive discrepency, is that NIST could not possibly have hoped to come up with an even remotely plausible explanation for the first ever global collapse of a steel-framed building caused by fire alone without grossly exaggerating the severity of those fires, and that is what it did. And in doing so, NIST is guilty of scientific fraud and both Bob and Nick by peddling their lies on this forum are accomplices in that fraud.
This is all abundantly demonstated in chapters 9 and 10 of “The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false” (2009) by David Ray Griffin. (BTW, the page number of the above reference is 227).
—
Apologies for the bad link to
Dr. Graeme MacQueen on “9/11 Truth: the Challenge to the Peace Movement”, above.
—
Paul Burns wrote:
And how do you happen to know that they were “Al-Queda operatives,” Paul? Oh, I see, looking further ahead. You had worked all that out on the day, just by watching TV.
Paul Burns continued:
Of course it is. All the answers that anyone ever needed to know about 9/11 were to be seen on the day on TV, weren’t they? They shouldn’t have even bothered setting up the 9/11 Commission or the NIST investigations, should they have? Makes one wonder why the Jersey Girls put the Bush administration through all that bother.
Paul Burns wrote:
Besides, there’s no need to read anything else about 9/11 when all the answers that you ever needed appeared on TV on the day of 9/11 itself, is there, Paul?
Paul Burns wrote:
So, why am I, and not the other side of this debate, being singled out for critcism for my determination to defend my views?
Besides, ‘monomania’ is, according to my Collins Australian Dictionary of the Australian Language (1989 edition), “an obsession with one thing or idea.”
So, where did you learn that I was “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea,” Paul?
Also, do you suppose that those who protested to end the Vietnam War could have been accused of being “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea?”
Do you suppose that those who protested to save Fraser Island from sand mining could have been accused of being “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea?”
Do you suppose that those who protested to save the Franklin River could have been accused of being “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea?”
Do you suppose that those who protested to stop the invasion of Iraq could have been accused of being “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea?”
Do you suppose that those who protested to save the Mary River could have been accused of being “obsess[ed] with one thing or idea?”
Yes. Where did you learn this Paul?
(?????)
Say, if I promise to make a new years resolution where I only post serious posts and stop with the enfant terrible gig for all of 2010 will someone please fish out my rocky horror link????
So what if she’s wearing only here underwear. So what I say! Come on. Set Susan free! God knows she needs it after this weekend!
A new video “Cutter Charges at Work in the North Tower of the World Trade Center” by David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen, Carolyn Chandler and Tony Szamboti, points out the evidence captured on two different videos of cutter charges destroying a corner 14? box column of the North Tower. That 14? column through which focused jets of debris emerged could hardly be construed as a point of “least resistance” as FDB and others have attempted to claim of another focused jet of debris. So, they cannot possibly be explained away even as being caused by air pressure caused by some kind of brilliantly efficient piston action of the collapsing tower.
Casey,
Were you intending to answer my earlier question?:
—
Apologies that my earlier post omitted a closing </strong> tag and apologies for the bad link to FDB’s previous post about his collapsing-tower-as-super-efficient-air-piston hypothesis.
Casey,
From reading Daggett’s posts on it.
Dags,
Perhaps you might like to know how historians, inter alia, deal with conspiracy theories that have no foundation in fact? I put it in a footnote in this:
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL488583M/Brisbane_Line_controversy
If you buy it you might also discover that historians try to read and analyse all the evidence on a subject, especially major primary source evidence, like, in the case of 9/11, the NIST report, before making any conclusions.
As for your long list of questions,
One could, in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, ask:
Do you suppose people who believed the Duke of Endinburgh plotted to kill Princess Diana knew what they were talking about?
Do you suppose people who believed FDR knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand knew what they were talking about?
Do you suppose people who believed the US moon landing never happened and was in fact a movie by Stanley Kubrick knew what they were talking about?
Do you suppose people who believed in the international Jewish financial conspiracy knew what they were talking about?
So you suppose people who believed the Illuminati plotted to establish a One World Government knew what they were taliking about?
Need I go on?
You will note that I have ommitted the JFK Assassination, for which there appears to be some credible proof, such as is lacking in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, that there was in fact a conspiracy of some kind (though I doubt we’ll ever get to the bottom of it.)
I did answer your question Dags.
It got put in jail.
Let’s see if it will get out ok?
NIST admits free fall happened in reality, and their computer model showed 40% slower collapse than free fall, so it does not explain the WTC 7 collapse at all, but they released their report anyways and tried to hide their admittion.
NIST’s Shyam Sunder said in the draft report in august 2008 why free fall would be impossible. There are things in the way! The steel resists the fall! If free fall happen, it would mean everything below the falling part has been removed!
Here Dr. Shyam Sunder talks about the speed of the collapses, he use “free fall” about all the high rises
According to FBI and the 911 comission report the black boxes from flight 11 and flight 175 were not found, however a source at NTSB says the black boxes were found and analysed:
http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff12202005.html
Also, two men who work extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, three of the four black boxes from Flight 11 and Flight 175 are actually found during this month, but the public is not told. New York City Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi will mention the finding in a book published in 2003. He claims to drive federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle during their search and to see the found boxes himself. The Philadelphia Daily News will report on the story in 2004 when another rescue worker, volunteer Mike Bellone, backs up DeMasi’s account and claims to have seen one of the boxes as well. Spokesmen for the FBI and the New York City Fire Department will deny the claims of these two workers.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1001wtcblackboxes#a1001wtcblackboxes
Casey, no sign of your reply in the spaminator or anywhere else. It has vanished. I sense a conspiracy.
Now, can you provide any credible evidence that your comment disappearing was not the result of the FBI and the CIA and the neo-con Jooooos getting together to perpetuate this thread in an effort to finally cause Daggett, the only individual heroic enough to even come close to the troof* about 911, to let go of the last lingering shreds of sanity and thus bring this sad, sad spectacle to an end?
And why haven’t you answered my questions? Is it because you have a life or something? Well that’s not good enough when it comes to unearthing the single most important truth that’s ever been covered-up in the history of everything, ever, since the beginning of time, infinity times a million, plus one!!!!1!!
Play on, dear lady…
*Here it is: Daggett is an AI that has passed the Turing Test, so far…
Mercurius, do you mean all this time I’ve been talking to a robot? Well, that does it for me. I’m going to stick with Home Care.
“Say, if I promise to make a new years resolution where I only post serious posts and stop with the enfant terrible gig for all of 2010 will someone please fish out my rocky horror link????”
You’d sell out like that for one link?
Dude.
It used to be about the lulz.
I consider Mercurious’s comment implying that I don’t have a life, coming from a forum moderator to be nasty and unwarranted.
If Mercurious had looked at the thread, he would have noticed that it has been Casey who has been largely asking questions of me and demanding responses and not vice versa.
The questions I did ask were straightforward and warranted, given that Casey has strongly taken one side of this discussion against me.
Of course, she doesn’t have to answer, but I believe I am entitled to draw the attention of others to the fact that she has not (yet) answered, that is until we can see whatever it was in the post that she says vanished.
Also, it’s a fact of 21st century life that many people don’t have much of a life and need forums such as this for social interaction. For all Mercurious knows, I may even be one such person. Indeed anyone else participating in this forum may also be such a person. So, I consider it spiteful for a moderator such as Mercurious to cast judgement in the way he has against such people.
However, I think many will be able to see that the principle reason I have spent so much time here is becasue I think it is important that it be demonstrated that the official story of 9/11 is a lie.
—
Paul Burns, had you considered the possibility that it may be Bob and not me, who is the robot?
Why not conduct an analysis of our respective contributions and see in which of them you find the more noticed pattern of repetition and predictability?
Come to think of it. I think a similar analysis of your own contributions would also be in order.
—
So, Paul Burns, are you now conceding that you were wrong to imply that all of importance that anyone needed to know about 9/11 was already known on the day, simply by watching television?
The NIST report is not “primary source evidence”. Your claim that it is should be of concern to anyone who might have considered you a serious historian.
It’s a document that is supposed to be based upon primary sources, but, if you had bothered to read my posts, you would know that it is not.
As one example, I have shown (@ 1895, 1889 an 1944) that much of simulation of fires that were supposed to have caused the failure of the structural steel inside WTC 7 was simply made up and not based on available evidence. This is confirmed by NIST itself:
And anyone, who reads David Ray Griffin’s book and numerous other documents available on the Internet, will know that a good deal other known data about WTC 7 were also not used as “model input[s].” And a good deal of testimony from many people, there on the day, was ignored by NIST.
The NIST report continues:
I would call that an understatement if ever there was.
I note that Paul Burns has fired back a number of questions at me, whilst not having bothered to answer any of mine.
Paul Burns, I have no idea about the conspiracy theories centred around the death of Princess Diana, and am not that concerned at this point in time, as I thought I had already made clear.
There seems to be very strong circumstantial evidence to support those who who claim that FDR did have foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but as this is still disputed, I am going to have to look into this further some time, so that is why I have order a copy of Stinnert’s book and a copy of “At Dawn We Slept. The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor” by Gordon W. Prange.
It’s obvious that there is an international finacial conspiracy. How many of those involved in this conspiracy are Jews and how many are not, I can’t say at the moment. I am also in the process of making up my mind about claims that there is a partticular conspiracy to establish One World Government. Perhaps yo ucould explain to everyone how it is you happen to know there is not such a conspiracy.
I have already expressed my views about the ridiculous claims that the Moon Landings were faked, so why bother me again?
BTW, do you realise that by not questioning the Official account of the JFK assassination, you have also, to that extent, placed yourself in the camp of conspiracy nuts. Left Gatekeeper Phillip Adams is adamant that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone murdered JFK.
This was his response on 20 Aug 09 when I challenged him:
So, if you don’t want to be similarly the subject of ridicule by the likes of Phillip Adams, I wouldn’t be asking to many difficult questions about the assassination of JFK, if I were were you.
—
Your book is out of print and only second hand edtions, costing $122.98 (excl shipping) from Alibris and $321.97 (including shipping) from BibliOz are available.
So, in spite of my own interest in that topic, I won’t be ordering a copy at anywhere near that price.
Of course, your own contributions to this forum lead me to suspect that the book may not be as good it could have been.
Some demonstration of of my own interest in this era of history can be found in my short Online Opinion article “The myth of the Howard Government’s Defence Competence” of 21 November 2007, in which I cite Andrew Ross’s “Armed and Ready – The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945,” published in 1995. This was in turn cited in “National Insecurity – The Howard Government’s betrayal of Australia” of 2007 by Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews.
My article, somewhat based on what had been written in the latter, contrasted the Howard Government’s gross mismanagement of Australia’s defence with the very capable handling of Australia’s defence by Australia’s leaders, of the 1920′s and 1930′s and 1940′s on both sided of the political fence. That doesn’t sit comfortably with left wing views of that period, which I accepted until I read those works.
Whilst reference to “Armed and Ready”, published three years earlier than your own, may not have been essential to your own, I think that it would have added very usefully to the context.
Anyone who carefully reads that article will notice that I did not question the myth of 9/11 then, a fact yet to be acknowledged by any of the ‘debunkers’ who aim to depict me as an uncritical consumer and promoter of each and every conspiracy theory I come across.
So, I would suggest that all that would further confirm that I am not the person here who is unwilling to alter my views when confronted with evidence in conflict with those views.
Oh, FFS, Daggett, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what an obviously deluded nutter like yourself thinks about anything.
Sure you don’t “give a flying fuck” about what I think of anything, Paul Burns.
So, why don’t you sod off and leave me alone?
Anyway, you’ve more than amply demonstrated here, why I shouldn’t care what you think of anything, either.
There is a suspiracy I say.
I’m trying to put up Susan Sarandon in underwear singing Toucha toucha toucha touch me.
and nothing
Just what unholy goings on have been happening here over the holy days?
What’s the matter with you people?
I mean, she’s in her underwear for God’s sake.
Be reasonable.
Now Daggett, let me try to answer your question, again.
When I read your refusals to read the NIST report, I could not take that seriously. Please explain to me Dags, why you won’t read it, and do it in a sensible manner.
Don’t tell me about the screen and printing. They are not sensible answers. They just make you look nuts. Don’t say that people should point you to where you should read the bits of it they are talking about. That is not a sensible answer. It makes you look odd. You need to be an expert on that report if you want anyone to take you seriously. In order to debunk it you need to know it inside out. Otherwise you look weird.
If you continue to deny that you need to read it and digest it, then people will just think you are scared of it. People are already suspecting that you know it will demolish your assertions.
How can you do that to your own mammoth efforts here?
Was my mind made up? No, you know very well I was interested in Chariots of the Gods. My God, how you knew it. But you didn’t approach that either did you? Dammit Janet, no you didn’t. And then you get upset with ME????
Now you answer me. Will you let me do your astrological chart or not?
Casey – if you paste the url to the image in another comment I’ll embed it for you. I think Wordpress must be stripping it out.
1961, Kennedy was sworn in.
That’s right Mercurious. I have been demanding, Apparently.
Behold Mercurious, my demands:
Jesus
Chocolate
Chariots of the Gods
Are there ghost truthers really?
Read the frakkin NIST report you frakkin fruit cake.
No? OK, what’s your star sign then?
The sum total of my demands.
Do they look onerous to you Mercurious???? Do they????
It’s not like I asked for a million dollar property with a harbour view is it?
Daggett, I mean really. Where’s my propers
Anna I don’t know what you mean by pasting it to another image
but is the first one in this search and well,
I was feelin done in, just getting it on this thread you know?
[AW: How's this?]
Link.
This thread needs more chicks with guns.
Absofrakkinlutely.
As I said to Kate, there’s something in the water in Perth, where chicks with guns are concerned.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to pin it on the Jooooooooz, Dag.
And that’s why you deserve every ounce of spite you’re gonna get, here and elsewhere.
See the total clusterf**k otherwise known as COP15. Oh, wait, you’re gonna tell us that was designed to look like a failure, specifically to debunk the New World Order fruit loops.
I think it’s time to pull the plug. Go and add us to your conspiracy list. Freak show circuses were banned in civilised countries many decades ago, for reasons we all understand and agree with. It’s time we applied these principles to ourselves.
What you seem to be telling me, Casey, is that you know almost nothing about 9/11 and have formed your view based on incidental factors: your antipathy towards your Truther family member, what people in your peer group have told you to think and the fact that one person here claims to have read the NIST reports and I have not.
Please let me know if there is anything more to it than that.
It’s my business how I choose to inform myself on the question and nobody else’s. I don’t need to read through the whole of the Warren Commission report to know that it was a cover-up. I don’t need to read the whole of Mein Kampf to know that Nazism is a crock and I don’t need to read the whole of the 9/11 Commission Report and all the NIST reports to know that they are lies.
If others here want to prove that the NIST reports are worth more than the paper they are written on, then it is up to them to do so.
In fact, I have read the parts of the NIST reports and can see that critical parts are garbage. If you had read my posts 1895, 1889 an 1944, and a good many before that, you would know that.
Yeah! More hicks with guns.
More ladies in their underwears please!
Casey, what you seem to be telling me is that you know very little about 9/11 and have formed your view based on incidental factors: your antipathy towards your Truther family member, what people in your peer group have told you to think and the fact that one person here claims to have read the NIST reports and I have not.
If there is anything more to it than that, please let me know
How I choose to inform myself on the question is my business and nobody else’s. I don’t need to read through the whole of the Warren Commission report to know that it was a cover-up. I don’t need to read the whole of Mein Kampf to know that Nazism is a crock and I don’t need to read the whole of the 9/11 Commission Report and all the NIST reports to know that they are lies.
If others here want to prove that the NIST reports are worth more than the paper they are written on, then it is up to them to do so.
In fact, I have read the parts of the NIST reports and can see that critical parts are garbage. If you had read my posts 1895, 1889 an 1944, and a good many before that, you would know that.
This is my second attempt to post the following:
For the record, I am not an anti-Semite as Mercurius’s statements:
… seemed to imply.
I had not once, as far as I can recall, used the term ‘Jew’ in that thread, until Paul Burns asked:
I responded:
… which, in turn, drew the above response from Mercurius. In any case, my understanding is that Jews, as a group, are over-represented amongst bankers, but as I said, I didn’t even raise that issue in the first place, nor the question of an international Financial conspiracy.
Absolutely not. It is completely my business. Why are you here? To convince all of us here that you speak the truth. I assert that at nearly 2000 comments you have convinced no one.
And what is your response to that?
You a) tell me you don’t need to read it and provide an analogy to Mein Kampf and Nazism and b) then say you have read parts of it, all the while accusing me of not reading you closely enough.
Schizophrenic. You know.
Why should I read you as closely as you would like, if you continue to offend every scholarly bone in my body by not reading the one body of work you need to refute, as a basic start? And how else do you offend my intelligence?
You continue to raise the spectre of Nazism whenever you are up against the wall. Desperation, that way lies.
Further, you cannot admit to reading parts of it as a partial defence. You either read the whole thing or you don’t. You cannot both claim authority from reading parts of it and claim authority from not reading it because it is beneath you.
And anyway, when absolutely pressed what is your excuse? You will not read it on screen? You will not print it out?
Evasions, defence mechanisms not informed by a reasoning intellect but by other psychological spectres all together, no doubt.
Only this remains: You have provided no good reason for not acquainting yourself intimately with its contents. A very basic if you wish to put forward alternate theories as to what really happened.
So what you are telling me then is you do not care if you do not convince anyone, and that you have no wish to be taken seriously at all?
Well who has misled who?
In which case, you will have no problem if I return to my youtube frakkery pronto?
Good.
I’ve done some sea voyages Daggett but your one takes the cake.
Daggett, I gather from Mercurius’s comment that you are actually so completely mad as to believe in The Protocol of the Elders of Zion, or the International Financial Conspiracy run by the Jooooz. Well, I’d sorta guessed this. Anybody who is sick enough to link to a Holocaust-Denier journal as you did way up thread (you know, just before I said you were so disgusting you weren’t worth talking to)is undeniably likely to sooner or later start pouring out the rest of the anti-Semitic shit.
And you have. True to form. You want to be careful you know, Dags, these anti-Jewish theories have been known to drive people stark raving carpet-chewing mad. Or are you at that stage already?
Damn! I missed comment 1954 (the year Alan Turing died).
I think you’re right about Dagget, Mercurius. Yet another failed attempt at the Turing Test.
Again with the truther relo. I’m telling you it’s not him. He would ghost thump you for a start. But what about this peer group? Dead too? How many voices this time? Probably a lot no doubt. We hail from Berlusconia you know.
But listen. You gotsta get over Fyodor and the jealousy. It’s unseemly. So what if he has a printer and you don’t? And what do you mean I know almost nothing? You calling me stupid? Well according to you you porkchop.
I’m in jail again. Let me out?
Don’t the normal rules of defamation apply here? How come someone can call a person an anti-semite on the non-basis offered here? I don’t think that baiting someone passes instead of debate. It seems clear that some people here think that it is uncool to be interested in 9/11, but I think it is uncool to punish someone for questioning the official conspiracy as told to us by Mr Murdoch, for instance or Mr Rudd’s mob. As for international financial conspiracies, well there sure is an international corporate system called a banking system run by elites for their own benefit, according to rules most of us don’t have a hope of influencing. Heck, we cannot even withhold our taxes in Australia, which the government just pays to the banks these days, and to finance property development. What control do most people have over anything financial? It lessens every day. I have no idea and do not care what or which ethnic groups may hold sway over international finances. I know that once in Christian countries Jews were used to collect taxes and, although barred from many professions, could be bankers and collect interest, which was then levied from them in taxes by kings etc. It isn’t surprising that some people still think that Jews may be over-represented in banks. Although it probably isn’t true, it isn’t a reason to hysterically and defamatorily denounce them as anti-semite.
This is, as the Black Eyed Peas might say, the E.N.D.