« North Korea Tests Seventh Missile with Possibly More Ready to Launch | Main | Ken Lay, Former Enron Executive, Dies of a Heart Attack »

Teaching 9/11 Denial at The University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ann Althouse has the scoop about the University of Wisconsin - Madison teaching 9/11 denial as an Introduction to Islam class.

Here are some comments about the class from Kevin Barrett, founder of the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 truth, who will be teaching it:

"The physics of those collapses clearly could not have resulted from plane crashes and jet fuel fires with office materials.'' Barrett says jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and says recent tests on melted steel from the building prove his theory that it was wired to collapse, by the Government.


Barrett says the Bush Administration is fooling the American public with the Adolf Hitler 'Big Lie Technique'... ''Tell them a little lie and they'll wonder about it - weapons of mass destruction in iraq was a relatively little lie - and people are getting called on it.'' Barrett says. ''Tell em a big lie like 9/11 and they have a huge resistance to questioning it.''

Ann links to Jessica McBride's blog (the radio show host who, I think, broke the story) with all the detail including the class syllabus.

There are a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the left, but to give their nutty views legitimacy by allowing Barrett to espouse them in a universtiy classroom setting beyond disgusting. The university is providing Barrett cover by claiming he has academic freedom, which is another sham since, as Ann points out, the university gave him that freedom by making him an academic in the first place.

(Jay Tea adds: the persistent commenter known as "." has repeatedly posted copyrighted materials in their entirety in the comments, despite a warning not to do so. For that reason, I have taken the extremely rare (for me) step of deleting the offending comments and banning his IP from posting any further. Disagreeing with us is not only allowed, but welcomed; opening us up for legal liability on copyright-infringement matters will not be tolerated.

In other words: BLOOD FOR ODIN!)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Teaching 9/11 Denial at The University of Wisconsin-Madison:

» Hengineer linked with I can't believe it

Comments (576)

My daughter dropped out of ... (Below threshold)
Candy:

My daughter dropped out of the University of Maine in Orono because she simply couldn't handle the insane leftist tactics used by the professors. Her dream was to become the next Fox News correspondent.

In online posts (which are required for many classes) she and another young man were constantly criticized by students and professors alike for any views that did not correspond with their own. In fact, once she and the other young man mentioned that they were Christian and Republican, they were both asked by the professor to stop stirring the pot or drop the class.

One such issue occurred because they were told to watch the PBS Buster Rabbit show which highlighted two lesbians from Vermont raising a family. When my daughter and the other young man cited biblical scripture against homosexuality, they were called VERY damaging names by the other students, which went unnoticed by the professor. However, as soon as either one of them attempted rebuttal, the professor sent them emails telling them to stop, and threatened them with failure in the class if they did not.

She stuck it out for a year and almost had a nervous breakdown. She is now taking classes online from another university, and is doing well.

I got so carried away with ... (Below threshold)
Candy:

I got so carried away with my little story that I never even addressed this nutjob and his insanity. I honestly don't know what to say. It reminds me of a story I heard recently - about a staunch liberal who was asked if she was concerned about all of the evangelicals and Catholics having huge families, possibly outnumbering the libs. Her response: "Let them have all the children they want. As soon as we get our hands on them in the public school system, they'll be liberals". I'm totally paraphrasing here from memory - but that about sums it up. Perhaps I even read it on wizbang? Long story short: I teach for the public school system at the adult level... but I HOMESCHOOL my own kids. Sad commentary, I know.

It is a good thing that he ... (Below threshold)

It is a good thing that he is not teaching something controversial - like the differences between men and women - he might have to fear for his job.

Bottom line, places like Un... (Below threshold)
ted:

Bottom line, places like University of Wisconsin (and University of Maine) are jokes.

It won't be too soon when these places are dismantled into housing or other uses and replaced by the likes of University of Phoenix On Line.

My son had a similar proble... (Below threshold)

My son had a similar problem of lack of academic freedom at the University of MI. The Fem-Nazis there suppressed his speech and screwed with his grades when he tried to debate them in class. And he is a left-wing liberal! He had to take an extra semester to make up for the class he failed - and it turned him off to his previously avowed career in health care management due to the plurality of said folks in the Graduate Department he would have worked in.

I have done hours and hours... (Below threshold)
Nick:

I have done hours and hours of research on 9/11. Unfortunatley, I have come to the same conclusions. Those towers came down too fast for it to have been a pancake collapse. They fell nearly at freefall speed so the official story of one floor collapsing and hitting the next and so on is not possible, because objects can't fall through steel and concrete as fast as they fall through the air. And that doesn't even get into WTC 7, the 47 story building that most people don't even know collapsed on 9/11. And then theres the hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw, heard, or felt explosions. And then theres the footage, where you can see explosions as much as 60 stories below where its collapsing! No doubt, there were bombs in the towers, and sadly that would imply an inside job, because 19 muslims with boxcutters arent sneaky enough to plant all those bombs and trick the entire mainstream media and 9/11 commision report into telling lies. If anyone disagrees, write me an email at nickspinner@gmail.com

Here's a post about another... (Below threshold)

Here's a post about another denial problem, with a criticism of LaShawn Barber.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/prussian_blue_naacp.php

It seems denial exists on the left and the right.

Nick,Cuckoo, Cucko... (Below threshold)
Bob Jones:

Nick,

Cuckoo, Cuckoo!


Spin another tale.

If you wish to understand P... (Below threshold)
Mark:

If you wish to understand Professor Kevin Barrett's views, then please visit this site below and watch all the lectures and videos.

This event was not as black-and-white as it appeared on the surface.

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

A survey conducted in Wisconsin concluded 66% of people support the Professor's right to teach his views in class and a full 76% support his right to those views.

View the information for yourselves and then decide. You can't judge anything if you do not both understand and know the available evidence.

I think you owe those who died on 9/11 just a little of your time, if nothing else.

Nick,You're an idi... (Below threshold)
merc:

Nick,

You're an idiot. And so is that nutjob professor. Good Lord. When did 'academics' decide to abandon reason for madness?

"When did 'academics' decid... (Below threshold)
Mark:

"When did 'academics' decide to abandon reason for madness?"

You are talking like there is some form of credible official account of the events.

There is not.

It turns out, once you read the report, that there is nos cientific substance and everything you "think" you know about 9/11, is nothing more than media spin.

NIST received 236 samples, over 1 year after the collapse of the WTC. They were forced to assume the building collapsed due to the impacts and fires.

There is no scientific evidence to support that conclusion, because the majority of the steel was shipped out of the country undr armed guard to be melted down in China...

This was BEFORE any investigation had begun.

Something stinks in DC...

Ya know, out of all the con... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Ya know, out of all the conspircies I've heard in my lifetime, I like this one the best. It beats JFK hands down. These whack jobs believe:
1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling.
2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)
3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)
4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don't ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)
5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can't plant some WMD's to cover our ass when we need to)

Their conspiracy goes so deep I can see why they need a course to study it

Here they come, the 9/11 co... (Below threshold)
Howcome:

Here they come, the 9/11 conspiracy network has been notified.

if anyone looks at the evid... (Below threshold)
Nick:

if anyone looks at the evidence then they will see. you can choose to deny it, but when you look at World Trade Center 7, that's the smoking gun. Well actually theres many. I just chose to stick with reality. It was a controlled demolition. nickspinner@gmail.com

Yo, I was there with my kid... (Below threshold)
JT:

Yo, I was there with my kids hearing, then watching state sponsored terror. We are alive today no thanks to sceptics. I hope you all enjoy the comming police state. Israel loves our stupid debate!

Now, now, now. Nick is NOT... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Now, now, now. Nick is NOT an idiot.

Nick is dumb. Dumb cannot be cured, it is something you are born with, like red hair. Stupid can be corrected by education, but dumb is forever.

Give it up. Useless to even try to debate old Nick.

Hey Luke, argue with me! I'... (Below threshold)
Nick:

Hey Luke, argue with me! I'm a 15 year old from the Bay Area. If i'm so dumb, just tell me what I got wrong. Tell me how World Trade Center 7 collapsed. Tell me how 110 stories are supposed to have pancaked into each other in less than ten seconds. Next time you see a ten story building, imagine it fall in ONE second. Apparently you were born with ignorance, something that can be cured. I didn't even mention the fact that Steven E. Jones, a physics professor, tested the steel and found thermate in it so there's nothing to debate, except how to take the country we love back from people who are using it to put their nazi tactics to set up a police state. Maybe you'll understand when the U.S. attacks itself again to go to Iran, which it could do any day now... although I think they are pretty sketched out with all the 9/11 Truth news recently. There are so many problems with the official story I could write a book about it. nickspinner@gmail.com

Where the heck have I been?... (Below threshold)
Candy:

Where the heck have I been? I honestly didn't think ANYONE could be idiotic enough to speculate that our own government did this to the WTC?!? And Flight 93? I guess all the cell phone calls to family and friends were also staged? And yet, you are the same people who say Bush is an idiot, yet he managed to plan this entire thing from NYC to the Pentagon to a field in Pennsylvania. Gee, if he's that good, maybe you should change the rules so he can be our Supreme Leader until the end of time.

Holy CRAP? Do you people also believe that the Holocaust was a hoax? I'm in shock.

1. Cell phones dont work in... (Below threshold)
Nick:

1. Cell phones dont work in airplanes at the height that plane was at (although the plane companies have put devices in that make 'em get a signal, kind of a silly thing to do if they worked so perfectly on 9/11)
2. bush is inbred, not involved, possibly aware. his dad is way deeper than he is.
3. no i dont believe the Holocaust was a hoax.

Candy, these folks have pos... (Below threshold)

Candy, these folks have posted here before with the same link and the same "arguments" better described as paranoid ideation. Nothing to be shocked by at this point, just dismayed that due to our faltering mental health system, they do not receive the care they so desperately need.

Hey Luke, argue with me!... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Hey Luke, argue with me! I'm a 15 year old from the Bay Area.

A 15 year old from the Bay Area, educated in public schools, no doubt.

Pity. If it were stupidity, education would've helped a bit. Not public education of course, but like I stated above, "Dumb is forever". Learn to live with it.

Bet you think Tricky Dick Nixon staged the moon landing too, right? See what I mean. I knew the answer already.

Nick - perhaps this will he... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Nick - perhaps this will help you. Read this entire article from Popular Mechanics, which does a fine job of debunking conspiracies surrounding myths of 9/11, including your "controlled demolition" myth.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

This week were back to chim... (Below threshold)
Howcome:

This week were back to chimpy being the super mastermind evil villan, who masterminded the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Except he had his minions place the explosives in a way which would have the buildings fall in a perfect controlled explosive manner, (image of Homer Simpson slapping his head "doh"), thus blowing the whole conspiracy out of the water.

(Long, vaguely germane, cop... (Below threshold)
Mark:

(Long, vaguely germane, copyrighted article deleted by editor; link left intact)

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/OPINION/207050320/1030/OPINION01

Nick, you are a fool. Stop ... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Nick, you are a fool. Stop listening to the voices in your head or I'll sic Karl Rove and the Evangelicals on you.

I'm an Evangelical! Sign me... (Below threshold)
Candy:

I'm an Evangelical! Sign me up!

"1: That Bush sent in a cra... (Below threshold)
Mark:

"1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling."

Reply:

Jeb Bush was the head of security at the WTC...

"2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)"

Reply:

Nope...only a small group believe this...

"3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)"


Reply:

Al-Qaeda is an intelligence asset...in other words, a branch of the CIA.

The CIA created Al-Qaeda...well documented.

"4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don't ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)"

Reply:

Seismic records show the plane to have crashed at 10:06am...the black-box recorder only covers up to 10:03...

There is 3 minutes of audio missing...


"5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can't plant some WMD's to cover our ass when we need to)"


Terrorist units across the world carry out hundreds, if not thousands of operations, in which not a whisper is heard before nor after.

You watch to much TV...

Go to this site:

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

Watch ex-government officials pull apart the lies of 9/11 and the Iraq war...

That article was fantastic,... (Below threshold)
Frank:

That article was fantastic, thanks Mark.

I almost gave up reading this thread, with all the screeching primates posting in here. If you don't have facts, try personal attacks.

I've never seen so many hor... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I've never seen so many horribly pathetic cries for attention on one thread. Wow.

As for the "Professor"'s comment - The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths.

Ummhmm, because revisionist and maybe even UofW-M history shows that the various religions have been so friendly towards on another up until then, I guess.

Seriously, Mark and Nick: y... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Seriously, Mark and Nick: you need to seek immediate psychiatric help for your delusions. Take Professor Barrett with you, too.

Tell you what Peter F...</p... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Tell you what Peter F...

See if you can find direct physical evidence that demonstrates that the WTC collapsed due to the impacts and fires...

Come back and post it here...

Good luck...because it doesn't exist...the NIST report is based upon an assumption...

Its a fairytale.

Nobody has emailed me, im w... (Below threshold)
nick:

Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying. Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked... numerous times. Peter F., what delusions? All i'm saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.
by the way mark, it was neil bush, not jeb. nickspinner@gmail.com

1) Jeb Bush was Governor of... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form "head of security at WTC."

2) Marvin Bush, the current president's youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000.

3) If it wasn't airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?

4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn't it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn't plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?

5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals.

6) This is beyond insane. I've never seen anyone take Occam's Razor and use it to slash their own throats before.

J.

BigMo,Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

BigMo,

Thanks for the link.

For controlled demolitions ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

For controlled demolitions to have been a factor, there would have had to have been four weeks of physical work, including almost a full week of round-the-clock work done removing wall facades, drilling, and cutting in all major support structures.

So, nick, mark, and the rest of you lunatics out there, when you can explain why NOT ONE SURVIVOR has mentioned anything like that happening on Septemeber 10th or previous, you will remain in the land of FlatEarth-Faked Moon Landings.

I would like to point out a... (Below threshold)
jim:

I would like to point out a fact to anyone still reading this thread. The pancaking WTC towers can be modeled as a piston that, lacking an intact cylinder wall, expel compressed air with great force from each pancaking floor segment that would entrain dust, dirt, smoke, and even macroscopic items like furniture and bodies. That effect is easily mistaken for explosions.

As for the rest of it, I wonder if anyone has asserted that the guy on the grassy knoll was involved.

Ahem. that should be "until... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Ahem. that should be "until you explain. . ."

Guess the moonbats (ever wo... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Guess the moonbats (ever wonder why we call 'em that) are asking us the age old question, "Who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes"?

These people are to be pitied. Dumb as rocks, dumb, dumb, dumb.

"1) Jeb Bush was Governor o... (Below threshold)
Mark:

"1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form "head of security at WTC."


Sorry about that, I was thinking about him declaring marshal law in Florida on September 7th 2001...

http://proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm


"2) Marvin Bush, the current president's youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000."

So, he had connections to the security company and thus access pre-2000.

"3) If it wasn't airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?"

That's too speculative...

"4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn't it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn't plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?"

That's not difficult to achieve with a little fore-thought, also if you check out the video of the collapse on my site, you will observe the collapse began with the core giving way BELOW the impact zone...its this that causes the building to pull the exterior columns towards the building which results in the implosion event.

"5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals."

I live in Northern Ireland...I've watched terrorist organisations keep secrets to the grave...

How many people were involved in developing the nuclear bomb?

Was that a secret conspiracy in which the US people had no knowledge?

It can be done.

"6) This is beyond insane. I've never seen anyone take Occam's Razor and use it to slash their own throats before. "


Its clear you have not reviewed any of the evidence, nor do you grasp that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claims.

Its entirely fabricated. You, obviously, only know what you have seen on TV...

Read the evidence:

http://www.gieis.uni.cc

5) We can't keep a godda... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

5) We can't keep a goddamned thing secret.

Exactly Jay Tea, I suppose that the NYT must be involved too.

Mark, out of curiousity, wh... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Mark, out of curiousity, what kinds of medication were you prescribed, and when did you stop taking it?

Remember, they also laughed at Bozo the clown, and he was more real than either your nutjob theory or the equally nutjob site promoting it.

This is beyond insane.</... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

This is beyond insane.

Indeed. And it answers the age-old question of: Do crazy people know they're crazy?

Clearly the answer is a resounding "no".

Show everyone the evidence ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Show everyone the evidence John Irving...

Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact...

If you can't, your obviously some form of nut who likes to repeat fairytales because they him feel good.

Nick:Nobody has... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Nick:

Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying.

My friend, the onus is on you to prove to us what you're saying, not vice versa. You're the one championing alternate realities, so I think it's high time we were offered IRREFUTABLE evidence, which we have not been.

Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked... numerous times.

So a debunking has been debunked? That's not how things work. No alternate theories were presented here, just measured scientific and logical research. I would like to see this "debunking", however, feel free to post it. Since it apparently happened numerous times, it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with.

Peter F., what delusions? All i'm saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.

1. So you're telling me there were clearly explosives in the towers because you saw them? Do they teach you science and physics in highschool? Crack open a book.

2. I'm an eyewitness. I was there. I did not see or hear secondary explosions.

3. A physics professor found thermite in the steel? I'm impressed that he got to examine a piece of the steel. Who else had that opportunity.?

4. This is an assinine statement. Build a card house and then yank out a supporting card near the center. See what happens.

All you've offered is conjecture at best.

<a href="http://www.thegrea... (Below threshold)

Looks like this guy has done his research on Democratic Underground when it comes to validating the WTC collapse.

A list of 115 omissions and... (Below threshold)
Mark:

A list of 115 omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds---testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks---Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

http://question911.livejournal.com/16174.html

Mark, my evidence is that w... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility. There is direct physical evidence for a jetliner crashing into each of the towers. To predict an impact point with a jetliner's maneuverability sufficient to prevent it from either disabling or instantly detonating premade charges that could only have been installed by ghosts is as impossible as a blind man performing open heart surgery successfully in five minutes during a hurricane.

Mark:Please sho... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mark:

Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact...

Please show us physical evidence that you graduated from highschool.

If you cannot, then I'll just have have to say you didn't. If you post a scan of your diploma, I'll call it a forgery. If you cite sources, I'll cite sources that say otherwise. See how easy this game is?

"Mark, my evidence is that ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

"Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility."

Only in America... :)

This is a lot easier than you think...a lot easier.

Also, a plane impact will not detonate the explosives. C4 and semtex will simply burn in any fire like any other plastic explosive.

Watch the videos on this page and watch the molten steel/copper pour from the side of the building...

Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html

This is not possible according to NIST's physical evidence.

Screw that, Heralder.... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Screw that, Heralder.

Mark, post proof that you even EXIST, and are not some loser's piss-poor attempt at a paranoid AI program.

Our trained staff of debunkers await your evidence...

J.

What's that???You ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

What's that???

You can't show me any physical evidence???

Bet you feel stupid now... :)

One of these nutjob hippies... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

One of these nutjob hippies was pulling a 9/11 conpiracy sign in the Webster Groves, Mo., 4th of July parade, and one of his comrades was handing out "dollars" with Chimpy McBushalliburtonGitmoKatrinAbuGrab's photo on it.

I told him, "No thanks, we're all tapped out on crazy here."

He looked at me like "huh?"

Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker.

My daughter dropped out of ... (Below threshold)
.:

My daughter dropped out of the University of Maine in Orono because she simply couldn't handle the insane leftist tactics used by the professors. Her dream was to become the next Fox News correspondent.

Candy, im actually a republican, and i understand your point about many universities having too many left-wing professors, but you jsut said her dream was to become a Fox News correspondent? its ok for even republicans to admit that Fox News is shameless rightwing proaganda that slants even its suppossed "news" to the right.why would she want to work for such a shamelss outfit?

Sorry, Nick, but that Popul... (Below threshold)
D:

Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 01:15 PM

did you know that Ben Chertoff, cousin of homeland security chief Micheal Chertoff became editor of P.M. right before the "debunker" issue came out? funny how that works out and you fall for it.

"Sorry, Nick, but that Popu... (Below threshold)
Mark:

"Sorry, Nick, but that Popular Mechanics article has NOT been dubunked, because it IS the debunker."


How gullible are you?

The popular mechanics article is based upon ASSUMPTION...it contains no hard evidence, just guys waffling...

Where's the evidence??????????????????

as opposed to a shamelessly... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

as opposed to a shamelessly left outfit like CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, CNN, etc.

Mark - "gullible?" OK, nutb... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Mark - "gullible?" OK, nutball - so everyone listed on this page is, I guess, in your book lying:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

Have fun in the fever swamp, dude.

Also, a plane impact wil... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Also, a plane impact will not detonate the explosives. C4 and semtex will simply burn in any fire like any other plastic explosive.

Very true, because a plane impact would not possibly jar and tear wires loose.

Mark, hate to break this to you, but you and your wbesite are delusional. The only one ignoring evidence is you, while constructing your fantasyland decorated with tinfoil.

Since you are immune to logic, reason, and constructive criticism, I merely point out once more that you're insane.

Bye now.

Mark:The popula... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mark:

The popular mechanics article is based upon ASSUMPTION...it contains no hard evidence, just guys waffling...

Assumption?

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

If that's assumption, than your "proof" is less than an uneducated guess.

Still waiting on that physi... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Still waiting on that physical evidence that proves the WTC was brought down by fire after the impact...

What's that, you can't find any physical evidence?

Perhaps that's because the criminals shipped it out of the country BEFORE the investigation...

...and had it melted down in China...

All under armed guard too...

Those who believe whole clo... (Below threshold)
Alan Strangis:

Those who believe whole cloth the official story are being duped.

A terrorist plot was certainly in the works well before 9/11 took place. Of that there is little doubt. 12 different international intel agencies, from Egypt, Israel, the UK, Russia etc., ALL warned beforehand of either the type or time of the attack.

Not to mention the warnings coming from both FBI and CIA ops (just Google "Randy Glass WTC" or "Sibel Edmunds" to start the ball rolling). Read about the Phoenix memo and other domestic investigations which were quashed by FBIHQ's Radical Fundamentalist Unit (and Dave Frasca in particular) in the months prior to 9/11.

Even the scheduling of conflicting war games on the morning of 9/11 points to collusion.

Simulating multiple instances of the very same type of hijack/attack scenario (up to 22+ planes), using both live fly and electronic inserts, while also having the majority of fighters from NEADS off on the other side of the continent (Alaska and Northern Canada) to practice a simulated attack by Russia, well that just smells as well.

And the presidential directive warning intel agents to stop following the money trail of Islamic radicals - I wonder why. Look into the intersect of the CIA - drug & arms dealers - international terrorism. To deny this link is to deny history.

Mohamed Atta was funded by the former head of Pakistan's ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed. The FBI had confirmed this by Oct 2001. Yet he's not even wanted for questioning. The same Ahmed was breaking fast with Porter Goss and Bob Graham in Washington on the morning of 9/11.

Dick Cheney was placed in charge of ALL domestic counterterrorism initiatives as of early May 2001. He would have been notified of all warnings coming in for 4 months leading up to 9/11. He would have known about (and probably overseen) the multiple, conflicting war games.

I wonder what he meant when the aide counted down the distance of the plane approaching the Pentagon.

The plane is 50 miles out
The plane is 40 miles out
The plane is 30 miles out
The plane is 20 miles out
The plane is 10 miles out. Does the order still stand?

Cheney yells. Of course it still stands, have you heard any different?

Luckily, Cheney never had to testify under oath, instead having a friendly 'chat' with the (c)Ommission.

Anyone who thinks this is a left-right or Dem-Repub issue is just plain wrong. Replace Cheney with Clinton, and tell me what your view would be.

I'd say peace, but the powers that be obviously are doing all they can to prevent that.

as opposed to a shamelessly... (Below threshold)
.:

as opposed to a shamelessly left outfit like CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, CNN, etc.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 01:22 PM
so you go by the old Rush Limbaugh myth that the MSM is "liberal"? maybe some of the journalists, in their home lives are, but corporate=republican. the MSM is as corporate as corporate gets. G.E. makes money off of war and they own NBC. give me a break you gullible bastard.are all righties this simplisitc? you jsut go with the "liberal media" myth because Rush tells ya to?

Nick, you are an idiot, shu... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV. The planes hitting the buildings. Then I watched the explaination on the History Channel. The steel does not have to melt, just lose its strength. If you do not think jet fuel burns that hot, go stand behind a jet engine on full afterburn. Looks like a torch to me. Like I said, Nick, you are an idiot.

Nick, you are an idiot, shu... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV. The planes hitting the buildings. Then I watched the explaination on the History Channel. The steel does not have to melt, just lose its strength. If you do not think jet fuel burns that hot, go stand behind a jet engine on full afterburn. Looks like a torch to me. Like I said, Nick, you are an idiot.

The WTC was a fairly unique... (Below threshold)

The WTC was a fairly uniquely designed building to address the problems in building structures that high.

The indecent Mark keeps chanting "fire" as if any one claims that a few lit cigarettes in wastepaper baskets brought down the WTC.

The steel didn't melt in a fire fueled by hundreds of gallons of jet fuel, but it did soften. Indeed, I recall a program going back to the original architect plans (PBS? Discovery?) and that the fire retardent on the steel beams was sprayed on and that the unprecendented force of commericial liners of a size and speed unknown when the WTC was built, blew the insulation off leaving the steel even more at risk of losing strength.

As pointed out here

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
[...]
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence. I don't/won't argue with indecent moral cretins like Mark anymore than I argue with Holocaust deniers. I offer up actual analysis based on fact and forensics hoping juveniles with heads of mush, like Nick, might stop embarrassing themselves.

It has been brought to our ... (Below threshold)
SPOTDAS:

It has been brought to our attention that certain statements have been made on this thread regarding the dumb and stupid.

After a thorough review, we have concluded that two individuals "Mark and Nick" have indeed been termed "dumb" and "stupid" by some with credentials insufficient to support such a determination.

In point of fact, asylums will not accept patients merely on the affliction of being dumb or stupid. As the statements by the two above named individuals make clear, the widespread fear that computers have reached the most restricted areas in the most restricted asylums has now been realized.

We therefore protest the association of these two individuals with the terms "dumb" and "stupid". Heretofore we strongly recommend use of the terms "lunatic" or "deranged" to describe such circumstances. We thank you in advance.

Yours truly,

The Society for the Protection of the Dumb and Stupid

but corporate=repu... (Below threshold)
but corporate=republican
JAYSUS on a pony, the sheer idiocy of the numbneurons continues.

Corporations are amoral and their first order of business is to make money.

but WTF, why should even a peer-reviewed research by UCLA put a dent in the Order of Lunar Chiroptera dogma?

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

"." - I WAS a journalist an... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

"." - I WAS a journalist and have the sheepskin and career to prove it. YES, the mainstream media is liberal, and it has nothing to do with anything Rush Limbaugh says about it.

It cracks me up that dopes like you claim that Fox is "right wing" but when someone points out that the networks and etc. are left wing, you get all bent out of shape, start claiming brainwashing by Rush Limbaugh, and other such stupidity.

Oh question for indecent Ma... (Below threshold)

Oh question for indecent Mark

I know a UA pilot that regularly flew Flight 93 on rotation, thus lost close friends and co-workers that day.

Is he part of the Vast Conspiracy? (seeing how all those people were never on the remote plane anyway?)

Darleen:If someone... (Below threshold)

Darleen:

If someone doesn't want to believe something then they'll clutch at ANY little shred that backs up what they really want to believe. And it doesn't matter whether that shred is accurate or not, it is sufficient to simply have it exist so they can point to it and go "See? SEE!? YOU'RE ALL DELUSIONAL AND ONLY I AND A SELECT FEW REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!"

It's like the folks who still persist in believing the earth is flat, or hollow with a flying saucer base inside. You wouldn't BELIEVE the convoluted reasoning explaining how satellite orbits work...

J.

I'll take the first ten. T... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'll take the first ten. The rest just get increasingly Looney Tunes.

1) I saw an obituary for a John Smith in the paper yesterday, but I saw a John Smith today. Thus, the paper must be a lie.

2) The John Smith I know goes to church each Sunday and promises to honor the Ten Commandments, but I know he breaks them sometimes.

3) The Pentagon is the world's largest office building. The building itself is on 29 acres, it's over 77 feet tall, and each wall is 921 feet long. If one aims at it, it is so wide that it'd be really tough to miss. As it was, the terrorist pilot bounced into it.

4) The last time John Smith took his mistress to a hotel, he signed in as Jone Jones.

5) To the best of my knowledge, before and after 9/11, no planes carrying something in excess of 10,000 gallons of fuel have crashed at high speed into skyscrapers using structural steel instead of reinforced concrete for most of their vertical structural strength. (The words "steel frame" are distractors. One needs skyscrapers with a great many floors above the strike to be a similar model.)

6) Same as #5.

7) The earlier collapse of the later struck tower is an obvious result of the height of the strike. That is, the second WTC tower to be struck was hit considerably lower than the first one. In fact, it essentially confirms the cause of collapse. Once the remaining intact structural steel columns providing vertical support lose some percentage of stiffness, they can no longer bear load. Thus, they shift load onto the remaining intact columns. The heavier the vertical load, to quicker the collapse. Buildings rigged for demolition would not care time-wise the height of the strike, However, if the collapse mechanism was vertical load exceeding load bearing capacity, the lower the strike the quicker the collapse, just as happened on 9/11.

8) This is just a distractor. WTC was in the strike zone for debris from the WTC. Enough debris damage, and the building collapses as remaining steel works beyond yield, cracks in concrete propagate, and the limits get exceeded.

9) I looked in the phone book of another city and found ten John Smiths there! Imagine, given enough people, there always seem to be 10 or more John Smiths!

10) I wonder what those steel columns were doing in that building design? You think they just might possibly have had floors jointed into them by things like connecting steel attachments? This assertion is just silly, as it seems to claim that there were free-standing metal poles lurking hidden inside the building!

My mom buys into this whole... (Below threshold)
jc:

My mom buys into this whole bit. It's pointless to argue with her. If you make a counterpoint, like tell her about the Popular Mechanics article, she dodges and says that the author was somebody's cousin. Arguing with these people is like punching water. Another common tactic is that when some major point of the conspiracy theorists is debunked they all disclaim it and say, "Oh, Alex Jones said that but I never said that. You can't discredit us all by lumping us all into one theory!"

I know for a "fact" the WTC... (Below threshold)
Luke:

I know for a "fact" the WTC towers were designed to collapse just as they did when impacted by jets loaded with fuel. This terrorist attack has been planned since the late 50's and the designer of WTC was heavily involved.

I read it at DU and if you can't believe those folks, it was backed up on KOS. Jeez! Why don't you folks believe me?

sarcasm off/

Let's start with the basic ... (Below threshold)

Let's start with the basic assumption that 'fire cannot melt steel"

Wrong.

How do you think steel is made? It is an amalgam of metals melted together.

Galvanized steel contains sulfur - by definition.

Explosives would be indicated by the presence of nitrogen - not sulfur.

The temperature of smelting fires are achieved with different fuels. Ever notice welders use acetylene torches?

Jet fuel burns at very high temperatures, and would turn steel beams into rubber bands.

The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors. Using Newton's third law of physics Force=Mass X Acceleration, the momentum of the higher floors forced the collapse of the building.

They tried to reduce the building to rubble in 1994 with trucks slamming into the bottom floors. The physics wasn't right and they failed. The perpetrators of this attack are still in jail.

(Explain the first attempt, conspiracists??? under the Clinton Adm)

The chemistry and physics of this attack were clearly planned by the engineer who attended NC State. Just because some looney tunes Madison prof has a political agenda does not mean he can redefine science.

That's the same problem Gore is having with global warming.


Candy -I'm sorry to hear what your daughter went through. My oldest got through Penn State by not discussing her views. But think about it - telling teenagers something is a surefire way to get them to question it - oppressive authority forces youth to go the other way.

"And then theres the hundre... (Below threshold)

"And then theres the hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw, heard, or felt explosions."

Dude, and please pardon the language, there were two fucking jumbo jets that crashed into the buildings. You think that might explain some of the sounds of explosions?

I feel like I'm watching a ... (Below threshold)
Sean:

I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of the Hannity & Colmes "news" show. Infantile ambush attacks. Spend the time and do your own research on 9/11 and then come back and see if you are still willing to call Nick & Mark wackos. Just spend 1 or 2 hours of your life (go ahead, turn off Fox News for just a couple hours...you can do it, I know you can)

Either that, or go stick your head back in the sand.

Oh and BTW - any tall build... (Below threshold)

Oh and BTW - any tall building is vulnerable to the laws of physics.

Professor Barrett is an insult to the memory of those we lost as a nation.

He and Ward Churchill should start their own school.

Fools University - you know - F.U.

Sean - I am a chemist - I h... (Below threshold)

Sean - I am a chemist - I have formulated my own views.

And considering the depth of your own depravity following blindly in spite of the physical evidence - I suggest you take your own suggestion

only in your case, open a science book.

Sean - come on - you seriou... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Sean - come on - you serious?

Spend the time and do your own research on 9/11 and then come back and see if you are still willing to call Nick & Mark wackos.

These are people so stupid they need to be spoon fed pre-digested pre-spun news from the ridiculous right. Asking them to think and do research is out of the question.

(irrelevant material delete... (Below threshold)
.:

(irrelevant material deleted by Section Editor)

Well Lee,Which part ... (Below threshold)

Well Lee,
Which part of the science in my post do you dispute?

(Copyrighted material delet... (Below threshold)
.:

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

Zeldorf said: "Nick, you... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Zeldorf said: "Nick, you are an idiot, shut up. I watched the whole thing on TV."

LOL - No fair - I was drinking milk, now it is all over my keyboard.

3) The Pentagon is the worl... (Below threshold)
.:

3) The Pentagon is the world's largest office building. The building itself is on 29 acres, it's over 77 feet tall, and each wall is 921 feet long. If one aims at it, it is so wide that it'd be really tough to miss. As it was, the terrorist pilot bounced into it.

is that why the lawn is completely unscathed? wow. nice logic.

Whatever, "." I do... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Whatever, "."

I don't watch Fox news. Don't watch any TV news, in fact.

Wanna try again?

(Copyrighted material delet... (Below threshold)
.:

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

(Copyrighted material delet... (Below threshold)
.:

(Copyrighted material deleted by Section Editor)

I see, the science, which i... (Below threshold)

I see, the science, which is your fundamental disclaimer (fire can't melt steel??? stupidity) has been disputed, so you ignore it.

Oh - my - that does give you superior intelligence doesn't it?

No fair - I was drinking milk, now it is all over my keyboard.
Posted by: Lee

I would have thought the teet would have gotten in the way...

Sean -I'm a regist... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sean -

I'm a registered professional engineer and have done my own review of the 9/11 events, as well as the available analyses and evidence, and am quite willing to call Nick and Mark "wackos".


Kathy -

The cause of the WTC collapse did not have to be from melt of the steel and did not even have to be from much softening. The WTC design depended on the steel for vertical structural stiffness as well as load-bearing, which is quite different from steel-reinforced concrete designs. BTW, I have my own personal doubts that the Al Q terrorists had any real engineering design input into their tactics. I think they just aimed for the approximate middle of the buildings' height from where they loomed above the nearby buildings in the way. As it was, the tape suggests that one had to bank to avoid missing, and ended up going in off horizontal.

I am a lifelong, right wing... (Below threshold)
popol vuh:

I am a lifelong, right wing, combat vet who voted for Bush and I am quite convinced that our "government" (read; a small cabal of very twisted and evil people, not every single employee of the government) is responsible for the premeditated attacks of 911.

Believe me, I did not want to come to that conclusion, but after almost four years of studying this topic on an almost daily basis I don't hold out even the slightest possibility of any other conclusion.

I still don't agree with leftist nutjobs and their social engineering and I think one of the last places on Earth anyone will find a truly open and honest discussion about empirical facts is a US college campus, but if they have come to this conclusion as I have, then I hold out some degree of hope for our nation's young people.

"The engineer... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors."

Which engineers are those, Kathy? This is the first I've heard that there were engineers involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack.

Hey "." try just posting th... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Hey "." try just posting the links.

popol vuh - and how did you arrive at your conclusions?

It cracks me up that dopes ... (Below threshold)
.:

It cracks me up that dopes like you claim that Fox is "right wing" but when someone points out that the networks and etc. are left wing, you get all bent out of shape, start claiming brainwashing by Rush Limbaugh, and other such stupidity.

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 02:22 PM
they all DONT report on the same things. just because you fall for the phony left/right paradigm isnt my fault. gullible bastard.

Wierd thing is, for some re... (Below threshold)

Wierd thing is, for some reason I believe that Popular Mechanics wouldn't bugger their own credibility on anything science-related, no matter who owned it or supposedly ran it.

I also have a real hard time believing in a conspiracy that would require literally hundreds of people to implement without leaving any trace. If you've seen any video on the Discovery channel regarding building implosions, you'll come away realizing that a hell of a lot of work has to be done in preparation, and there's no way it could have been done in secret. I find it much easier to use Occam's razor on this, and find that the simplest explanation (IE Al Quaeda hijacking the jet liners) and slamming them into the buildings, which (when the structural steel softened from the fires) then collapsed.

As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet? And why would we have fighters on alert to intercept hijacked planes INSIDE the US?

Finally, one last thing that doesn't pass the sniff test re conspiracies... if you're depending on the Presidential brief that said Al Q may try something - you'll note it's remarkable sparse on details. Try what? When? How? From where? All you're getting is a nebulous warning that Al Quaeda might be looking to try something in the US. Boy - that really narrows it down, doesn't it?

"." wrote:"The ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

"." wrote:

"The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003."

Are you too dense to understand the difference between paid advertisements and editorial content?

" A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine."

Was that written by you or another one of your nutball friends?

Good grief.

JimThank you for you... (Below threshold)

Jim
Thank you for your comment, but I was addressing the fact that these cranial infarctions say steel couldn't melt. Do they think we just unearth the stuff - you know - naturally formed steel beams.... LOL?

In my career I've used various fuels in atomic absporption spectroscopy. Some metals do require high temperatures, so we burn nitrous oxide instead of the acetylene and hydrogen mix. But all metals burn.

Temperature would have an effect on the strength of the steel - as a PE you know this.

I do think there was engineering involved. They new they needed large, fully fueled jets. And they had to hit low enough to creat momentum. Had they struck the top floors, the entire structure may not have collapsed.

After seeing the limited intelligence of the conspiracists, I am left with one haunting question. Do they wear that tin foil for intercepting signals from the home planet, or does it help keep the voices quiet.

Ideas?

And the idea the a rightwinger could be crazy enough to believe this scam too - all I can say is that there's one in every family, but rarely do they make us proud.

Hey, "." - it really </i... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Hey, "." - it really improves your credibility to call someone who disagrees with you or calls you out on something a "gullible bastard."

But since I know who my parents are and can prove beyond a doubt that they are my parents, I can only conclude that 1) you not only don't know how to use insults and 2) you're just a jerk hopelessly lost in the twisted world of tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories and 3) I've activated my secret Karl Rove communicator ring and he's sending the black helicopters over to your place right now.

Don't struggle. It only makes them angry.

Yes Lee, there's lots of th... (Below threshold)

Yes Lee, there's lots of things you haven't heard, that Al Qaeda has western educated members... including engineers... such as OBL himself.

The magazine ran a full pag... (Below threshold)
.:

The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003."

Are you too dense to understand the difference between paid advertisements and editorial content?

" A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine."

Was that written by you or another one of your nutball friends?

Good grief.


Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 03:38 PM
nice to see you ignored most of the article.

Cheney gave the order to s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Cheney gave the order to shoot down the planes, but mysteriously -- the orders weren't carried out.

When Flight 96 crashed Cheney thought it had been shot down under his orders, and he was devastated.

Big Mo, that was almost cle... (Below threshold)
.:

Big Mo, that was almost clever and funny.(but as usual very typical) wanna try again?

To the anonymous dot -... (Below threshold)
jim:

To the anonymous dot -

The path of the Pentagon plane, including near-ground behavior is well understood, as it left physical evidence of its passing.

Look here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The severed light poles, the parts, the black boxes, the missing passengers ... you conspiracy lovers must really be desperate! These were observed events caught on video!

It also explains why the UFO types have been so quiet. The more digital cameras, the more camera phones, the more portable video movie cameras, the harder it is to fake or misinterpret stuff and call it a UFO. Or, here, a silly conspiracy or three!

The first thing I did was a... (Below threshold)
popol vuh:

The first thing I did was ask the simple question-

How on Earth are people who are responsible for such gross negligence and malfeasance of duty not summarily dismissed from their positions of public trust?

If the sole defense for the events of 911 were "hey, we're incompetent" the only option left to anyone with a shred of honor would have been to resign in abject shame.

But that didn't happen.

In fact, just the opposite occured. Every single screw up, every failure, every excuse maker involved in leaving America completely vulnerable to not 1, not 2, not 3, but FOUR separate attacks over a period of more than two hours was either promoted or awarded with even greater powers.

Then there was the matter of the destruction of the crime scene, the shipping of the wreckage of the WTC complex to India and China, the border left unchecked to an openly admitted 10 million illegal entrants in the following five years despite the fact that we were fighting "a war on terror", the Iraq war linked to the 911 attack based on falsehoods, the fact that OBL went from public enemy # 1 to George Bush saying 6 months later that we didn't know where he was, that he didn't care and that he wasn't a priority.

That was pretty much the start of my skepticism, more followed after that. Need I go on or do you catch my drift?

As far as the jets not bein... (Below threshold)
.:

As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet?
?


Posted by: JLawson at July 5, 2006 03:36 PM
oh, i dont know, maybe because Flight 77 hit the Pentagon after is was PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that hijacked jets were flying into buildings? time frame moron. check it.

JLawson going for the most ... (Below threshold)
.:

JLawson going for the most simplistic explanation possible. i know its easier that way when the corporate media(which you clearly trust way too much,and dont understand) beats it into your head.

Whatever, "." I do... (Below threshold)
.:

Whatever, "."

I don't watch Fox news. Don't watch any TV news, in fact.

Wanna try again?

Posted by: Big Mo at July 5, 2006 03:27 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yet your so sure that all TV news is liberal?(there you go falling for the phony left/right paradigm again.your too easy) who told you that? National Review? is that where you get your news sheep-boy?

popol vuh - well, obviously... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

popol vuh - well, obviously, over 61 million people disagreed with you in November 2004.

Wow Big Mo - what a bunch! ... (Below threshold)

Wow Big Mo - what a bunch! I'm getting dumber reading their comments.

They don't know steel can be weakened by fire.
They didn't know AQ has US educated people in its ranks.
I'm still waiting for the 1994 attack explanation - what does the first attempt by the same organization have to do with the second during a different administration.

And nobody has answered my tinfoil question. It must be disrupting the signal.

"As far as the jets not ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"As far as the jets not being shot down - first, consider the protocol for dealing with hijackers on 9/10. Give them what they want, and they'll leave the passengers alone - right? Why would we shoot down a hijacked jet?"

A. We have a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

B. It was believed that possible targets for the hijacked jets included the White House and Capitol Hill.

C. See "A" above.

Kathy - Still waiting to he... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Kathy - Still waiting to hear how you know engineers were involved in planning the 9/11 attacks -- ?

See, still ignoring the que... (Below threshold)

See, still ignoring the question, Lee?

Tinfoil to block the signal - or enhance?

And does tinfoil melt when struck be several tons of ignited hydrazine?

"." OK, punk, one more comm... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

"." OK, punk, one more comment to you then I'm done. I don't watch TV news ANYMORE. I learned how liberal the media is through E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E in the field as a journalist, working with other journalists, and going through the J-school with people so liberal that they'd make Dan Rather look positively conservative.

That clear it up for you?

If not, then I can't help you and don't care to try anymore.

Lee You need to work on rea... (Below threshold)

Lee You need to work on reading comprehension,
I explained the newtonian physics in my first post and in fact explained defining the point of impact as well.

lets see how many times i c... (Below threshold)
Kathy2:

lets see how many times i can use the term "tinfoil". you know, since im not that smart and dont have much of an argument. this kind of talk makes me nervous, so i just spew "tinfoil" as much as i can.im very typical you know.

Kathy - yeah, it is incredi... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Kathy - yeah, it is incredible. You can argue, fight, debate, reason, use facts (ones that come from this planet, not Mars), experts and witnesses, and you can never, ever pry a loony toons from a cherished fantasy.

Also, the failed attack in ... (Below threshold)

Also, the failed attack in 1994, they sought the aid of engineer - or it was a well-calculated guess.

But with all the other planning involved, why dont you believe AQ has engineers? Do you think engineers are only in this country, like steel beams sort of 'come that way' because Lord knows, you can't shape them with heat. Sigh.

Dot and Lee -Yeah,... (Below threshold)

Dot and Lee -

Yeah, like they're gonna make a snap decision and tell all NORAD pilots (of whom there were very few remaining in the first place, since we were at peace and all with the USSR - probably all part of the conspiracy, you know?) to shoot down hijacked planes. Somehow, I don't think such a policy decision could be debated and implemented in less than a couple of hours. Sure, we had war plans in case of nuclear attack that could be implemented in moments - but hijackers slamming into buildings wasn't something that was expected pre 9/11.

BTW, Dot, you're losing it fast with the profanity. Perhaps it serves to convince your peers of how right you are, but it usually has the opposite effect with adults.

I am a lifelong, right w... (Below threshold)
Luke:

I am a lifelong, right wing, combat vet who voted for Bush

When one starts a post with his bonafides you can rest assured this would mean, "I am a lifelong moonbat, who served in the rear with the gear in the Army, and voted for Kerry dammit".

I cannot believe the Flat Earth Society still exists.

Kathy2 - since you have no ... (Below threshold)

Kathy2 - since you have no comprehension of classical physics, just let the adults talk, ok? Since not one person has bothered to discuss the fact that the initial premise "steel won't melt" has been debunked, I'd say that intelligence isn't a safe subject for you. But thanks for the ad hominem. It's an inadequate dodge, however.

And I am genuinely curious about why you folks wear the tinfoil.... reception inhibitor or enhancer?

Big Mo,Who knew they... (Below threshold)

Big Mo,
Who knew they could be so sensitive about their hats?

Kathy:Your debunki... (Below threshold)

Kathy:

Your debunking of the steel softening issue can be easily illustrated by anyone who's been to a blacksmith's shop - either real or a recreation somewhere, or at a RenFair or the like. They heat the steel in order to soften it for bending and forging. It doesn't have to melt in order to lose a lot of it's tensile strength, it simply needs to be heated to a point slightly above cherry red. When it's cold, it's strong. When it's hot, depending on how hot it is it can have the strength of taffy.

J.


when heated

Still waiting Kathy - peopl... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Still waiting Kathy - people are starting to notice that you're avoiding the question.

The engineers who designed the attack on 9/11 for Al Qaeda knew what mass above was required to buckle the steel, that is why they hit where they did instead of higher floors. Using Newton's third law of physics Force=Mass X Acceleration, the momentum of the higher floors forced the collapse of the building.

How do you know engineers were involved in the attack, Kathy? or did you make that part up?

If so, what else did you make up?

ya know, if you look real h... (Below threshold)
Tim:

ya know, if you look real hard at the footage of the first plane hitting, you can see Lee Harvey Oswald waving out the window.

Jim & Kathy,Okay l... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Jim & Kathy,

Okay let's say for the sake of argument that the Official Conspiracy Theory about how the towers collapsed is correct (laughable, but let's just keep your tinfoil on your heads for a second): hydrocarbon fires weakened the steel, which led to a pancaking effect (one floor collapsing into the next into the next, and so on). There were no fires below about the 70th floor, so would it be safe to say that no steel was weakened below that point before the collapse? Surely you'd agree that no steel was weakened on the first 30 or floors. If one floor fell into another and so on, how long would it take for the roof to hit the ground. Answer: The towers fell in about 10 seconds, which is near freefall speed. How could the towers fall that fast? A bowling ball dropped off the roof through air would take 9.6 seconds to hit the ground, yet concrete and steel traveling through concrete and steel took a fraction of a second longer to hit the ground? With your backgrounds, you should easily be able to explain how this occurred.

Thanks for your help.

Face it, if you need to con... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Face it, if you need to concoct an elaborate series of improbable events to explain why your "theory" is correct, against what the majority believes for sound scientific reasons, then you are in denial.

In the rose-colored world of conspiracy theorists, minority thinking means you are a chosen elite instead of a misguided fool.

Convenient.

Yeah, like th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yeah, like they're gonna make a snap decision and tell all NORAD pilots (of whom there were very few remaining in the first place, since we were at peace and all with the USSR - probably all part of the conspiracy, you know?) to shoot down hijacked planes.

Cheney gave the order authorizing shooting down the planes. You'd have to ask him what his thought process was - if any.

Lee, You continue y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
You continue your dishonest propaganda. Kathy explained to you the basic of Newtonian physics and you tried to divert attention by accusing her of lying. Standard tactic of yours.
I am still waiting for the answer from you: you have been caught in a lie and smear. What else you have been making up in your propaganda effort? Why are you willing to go to such an extent to deny the 9/11 attacks? Why such a propaganda effort on behalf of the terrorists?

Sean:How could ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Sean:

How could the towers fall that fast

If you consider the weight involved, the floors pancaked almost instantly. It makes perfect sense.

Kathy still hasn't explaine... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Kathy still hasn't explained how she knows engineers were involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks.

tick...tick...tick...tick

And once you realize that she made that part up - it's apparent that she's willing to lie to support her thesis.

Thunk!

That sound? Kathy's BS arguments hitting the bottom of the wastebasket....

Just for Lee, from the AP<b... (Below threshold)

Just for Lee, from the AP

(AP) ^

Posted on 06/07/2002 4:22:54 AM PDT by Dallas

WASHINGTON --

The man suspected of masterminding the Sept. 11 terror attacks was well-traveled: Born in Kuwait, he went to college in North Carolina, fought Soviets in Afghanistan, plotted attacks against Americans from the Philippines.

He also repeatedly visited the German city where chief hijacker Mohammed Atta lived, U.S. officials said Thursday.

Officials suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a top lieutenant of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, met with Atta or members of his cell in Hamburg, Germany, but they have not received direct evidence of any contacts between them, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Since Sept. 11, evidence has mounted that Mohammed was chief among the bin Laden lieutenants organizing the attacks, counterterrorism officials said. Abu Zubaydah -- another of the alleged organizers and now in U.S. custody -- has identified Mohammed as the organizer, and investigators have learned he transferred money used in the attacks.

Investigators also have uncovered more of his history. They believe Mohammed attended Chowan College in northeastern North Carolina before transferring to another American university, where he obtained an engineering degree, a second U.S. official said Thursday, declining to provide further details.

Who's lying, Lee?

I'm beginning to get my tinfoil question answered empirically- the tinfoil cuts out the signal, quiets the little voices.... do you sleep in it?

LAI - nice to see you old friend - hope you are well.

KAthy, Good to see ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

KAthy,
Good to see your posts here. Looks like you have a good team also at Hangright.

Ok, ignoring the "is there ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok, ignoring the "is there a 911 conspiracy" argument, I'll just ask this about Prof. Barnett. Is anyone required to take his Religious Studies COURSE 370 - ISLAM: RELIGION AND CULTURE? And are the people who take his course required to believe everything he says? Have any of the people who think he should be fired gone to college? If you did, were you able to think for yourself? Could you choose your courses?

Kim says:

The university is providing Barrett cover by claiming he has academic freedom, which is another sham since, as Ann points out, the university gave him that freedom by making him an academic in the first place.

So academic freedom is a sham because universities grant degrees and employ professors? Umm, ok.

Funny I never see anyone around here upset that William Dembski and Michael Behe are "allowed" to espouse their nutty creationist views in the classroom.

Heralder,If you... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Heralder,

If you consider the weight involved, the floors pancaked almost instantly. It makes perfect sense.

Thanks, that explains it.

Anyone want to try answer the question as to how the towers collapsed at freefall speed? Kathy? Jim?

Was the AP lying, Lee?... (Below threshold)

Was the AP lying, Lee?

When you roll over, does the tinfoil poke you in the ear?

Do you shower in it, too? Nevermind, I know you don't shower.

Kathy, the first WTC attack... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Kathy, the first WTC attack happened in 1993, not 94. This is another topic that I dare not bring up now.

Sean,They collapsed ... (Below threshold)

Sean,
They collapsed at a rate consistent with the force of gravity. 9.8 feet/second/second.

Don't they teach science in schools anymore?

Sean -I've not see... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sean -

I've not seen any official estimate of fall time or any engineer-backed reasoning of it being at any unexpected rate. I know that glass slows a bullet, but the effect is rarely enough to measure unless one has the glass instrumented in a lab setting.

You're at a bowling alley. There is a long line of balls up in the return queue. You reach in between two balls when another slams into the front of the queue a few feet away. Why do you feel the impact immediately, instead of the time the stopped ball would have required to traverse the rack? How far did the bottom floors have to travel to reach the bottom?

I have not studied the specific data point you seem to find perplexing, even if it is accurate. Speaking only as an engineer with those disclaimers, i would not expect the fall to be much retarded. In fact, I would expect the brake effect to be minimal in terms of duration. Why would you expect it to be a significantly different time, in analysis terms, not opinion?

OK - Steve, thanks, here's ... (Below threshold)

OK - Steve, thanks, here's what wikipedia had to say:
The World Trade Center bombing was the February 26, 1993 attack in the garage of the New York City World Trade Center. A car bomb was detonated by Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One. It killed six, injured over 1,000, and presaged the September 11, 2001 attacks on the same buildings.

The goal of the attack was to devastate the foundation of the north tower in such a way in that it would collapse onto its twin.

----\
The year doesn't invalidate the point. They tried once before, and how does that relate to their second attempt, or was that staged too.

Of course it also explains why they consulted an engineer, instead of say, GUESSING as to what strengths of mat'ls would be vulnerable.

Any of you Conspiracists out there can tell me where they mine those readymade steel beams, especially since they can't be melted.....

This thread is an excellent... (Below threshold)

This thread is an excellent example of how a nice fat BLOOD FOR ODIN button might be useful. Appreciate the effort you've had to put into editing out some of this tripe, Kim.

However, since we are diverging into wacko conspiracy theories (or facts, depending upon your orientation), let me propose that Lee is not one, but a series of posters using the same name (and perhaps computer). Or one person suffering from multiple personality disorder. Careful unpublished analysis of grammar, spelling, attitude, posting times, tone, coherence and use of logical and illogical argument styles supports this contention, but no need to post a link. It is possible that at least one of these Lees was in on the detonation of the WTC and due to overwhelming guilt, has seen fit to crusade pseudonymously to uncover this great lie.

I salute your bravery.

You know the black helicopters will be coming soon for us both.

Its been fun while it lasted. Bye all.

You conveniently left sever... (Below threshold)
Lee:

You conveniently left several important points out Kathy - no wonder you didn't provide a link.

Investigators also have uncovered more of his history. They believe Mohammed attended Chowan College in northeastern North Carolina before transferring to another American university, where he obtained an engineering degree, a second U.S. official said Thursday, declining to provide further details.

(Kathy snipped the article here - but let's read on to see what she didn't want you to see)

A spokeswoman at Chowan said a Khaled Al-Shaikh Mohammad attended the school in the spring of 1984, when it was a two-year institution.

Mohammed, who is 37, according to Interpol, would have been of college age in the mid-1980s.

Chowan spokeswoman Melanie Edwards declined to provide further information about the student, including whether he transferred to another school in the state.

Chowan College, which became a four-year college in 1992, is in Murfreesboro, N.C., near the Virginia border and about 100 miles northeast of Raleigh.

Officials at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro and UNC-Charlotte said they had no records of a student by that name -- or any of the aliases listed for Mohammed on the FBI's Web site -- attending in the 1980s.

Hmmm, no record of him ever attending the NC college - isn't that convenient.

So where did Khaled Al-Shaikh Mohammad obtain his engineering degree Kathy? Or did his two years at junior college give him all the engineering he needed? LOL!

It's amazingly interesting ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

It's amazingly interesting how Lee demands answers to his questions, but does not feel the need to meet the same standard.

Lee, when you start responding to requests to support your POV with facts, maybe others will respond in kind. Until then, everyone should recognize you for the troll you are and ignore you.

Kathy,Now you're g... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Kathy,

Now you're getting somewhere. Freefall speed occurs in the absense of any resistance (i.e., there is nothing in the way to prevent it from accelerating due to gravity and it's own weight), yet I think there might have been a little bit of stuff in the way. Like maybe 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 103 elevators, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and just a little bit of office equipment.

It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible.

Nice try, PNAC, Cheney, Bush, et al.

Lee, you miss the point - a... (Below threshold)

Lee, you miss the point - and you found the link so I will assume ANYONE could. It's a silly accusation that I'm hiding something from you in PLAIN SIGHT - but your 9.11 lying eyes have deceived you before...
Have you seen a counselor for your paranoid delusions?


Did you miss this part?
Chowan spokeswoman Melanie Edwards declined to provide further information about the student, including whether he transferred to another school in the state.

-----
Yes you did.
He had two years of engineering there buddy. What do you want a 4 yr degree? Is that what OBL asked YOU for? Didn't make it, eh?

However, sinc... (Below threshold)
Lee:

However, since we are diverging into wacko conspiracy theories (or facts, depending upon your orientation), let me propose that Lee is not one, but a series of posters using the same name (and perhaps computer).

LOL - Talk about conspiracy theory wackos - that takes the cake.

Sorry to disappoint you Eppy - but America is up in arms over the republicans who will lie, cheat, and steal to further the "Hate Thy Brother" agenda of the ridiculous right. The other left-leaning posters you see here who are as outraged as I are not me - I only post under the name of Lee, and have never posted a single comment under another name on this site. Can you say the same Eppy?

Lee -It takes litt... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lee -

It takes little enough engineering to understand how and why the WTC buildings failed, which is why your and your fellows' continued conspiracy theory claims make you seem really like tinfoil hatted looneys.

Wrong, Sean.... (Below threshold)

Wrong, Sean.

Again, Lee is caught red-ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again, Lee is caught red-handed in his dishonest propaganda on behalf of the terrorists. Of course, Lee and his comrades on the radical left are projecting their lies, cheat, steal, and hate on Bush and the Republicans.

I don't see Lee that upset over the evil terrorists. He is quite willing to be "strong and assertive" against Reps and Bush. Yet he will go to the floor to propagandize for the terrorists, even to deny the 9/11 attacks. These are the same people who resolutely refuse to believe Saddam and AlQ link.

Two years of engineering? A... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Two years of engineering? Are you an idiot? He had two years of prep work preparing for a transfer to a four-year college - and consequently had little or NO engineering.

AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE EVER WENT TO A 4 YEAR SCHOOL AND EVER WAS TRAINED IN ENGINEERING. (CAPITALIZED for the thinking-impaired right)

You know that Kathy - you're college educated, and you know that he would have had NO engineering at a junior college - You are indeed someeone who would lie to further the agenda of hate. What scum.

your and your fellows' c... (Below threshold)
Lee:

your and your fellows' continued conspiracy theory claims make you seem really like tinfoil hatted looney

Show where I posted my theory Jim. Or are you a liar too?

I merely asked Kathy a simple question, caught her lying, and am having a great time showing that she is willing to lie for what she believes in. What's the harm in that?

i had a hard time believing... (Below threshold)
bozo:

i had a hard time believing the administrations version of 9/11 but then I had half my brain scooped out with an ice cream scoop and it all started to make sense.

Its simple. There are good people and there are bad people. The bad people want to kill the good people because they are jealous of all that the real god has given to his worshippers. The good people love freedom but they give it up to fight the bad people. Some people give up all their freedom, learn to rape and kill, and join Kilo company. Although they do terrible things, they are not bad because Jesus was a marine.

Its so much easier to wave the flag than to have to learn about the constitution.

Lee, Why are you ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
Why are you so hateful towards Kathy? Simply because you are caught red-handed again? So you love the terrorists and try to propagandize for them. Why are you denying the 9/11 attack? Why are lying on behalf of such scums as the 9/11 terrorists?

It is physically impossi... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible.

And what measure of physics are you going to use to disprove the "impossible" that actually happened?

Try to remember that they didn't fall straight down; there were many building damaged or collapsed next to and around the WTC.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Wrong, Sean.<p... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Wrong, Sean.

Gee Kathy, that was very insightful. Thank you for convincing me that I am wrong.

Maybe I should just stick my tongue out too. Nah nah nuh-nah nah!!! Is that how it's done, Kath?

*sigh*

Sad.

don't use the physics that ... (Below threshold)
bozo:

don't use the physics that apply to the planet earth.

just remember, there is no such thing as gravity, the earth just sucks.

i hate the earth. gotta go cruise around in my hummer for a little bit.

i also hate all the animals. glad i'm not an animal.

Sean, Just show us ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sean,
Just show us the experiment to demonstrate the impossibility of your conjecture or theory.

So bozo, you love t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So bozo,
you love the terrorists and don't believe that they will be willing to cut off your head?

Lee - I didn't lie - repeat... (Below threshold)

Lee - I didn't lie - repeating that lie won't make your point. As Jim said little engineering was required. They weren't building a bridge there buddy, they were flying a plane into buildings. I had the physics to do that calculation in high school. BTW - I finished my chemistry degree in three years, and only required another semester for a BS in math.

There is no lie except the original one - what Love America Immigrant calls 'your lie for the terrorists'. The 'steel won't melt' lie.

It is your supposition Sean, that mass is the only factor?

Remember momentum? Mass x Velocity.

It's not all about MASS. The speed of the building collapse from the top ACCELERATED.

9.8feet/sec/SEC

That's why you are wrong.

Peter F,And wha... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Peter F,

And what measure of physics are you going to use to disprove the "impossible" that actually happened?

Of course the towers actually fell at freefall speed, but only due to controlled demolition explosives. I don't claim to be a physicist, but BYU Professor Stephen Jones is, and he has stated that it is not possible for 110 stories to "pancake" in 10 or 11 seconds.

Try to remember that they didn't fall straight down; there were many building damaged or collapsed next to and around the WTC.

Sure, there was collateral damage, but the buildings did collapse straight down. They did not tip over.

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

I'd be happy to talk to any of them. They should be outraged even more than I am, and I would be happy to share with them the wealth of knowledge and research that has been done to show that the Official Conspiracy Theory doesn't hold water.


(BTW, Kathy, this is how a conversation goes. Instead of sticking your tongue out and telling people they wear tinfoil hats, you have a rational discussion.)


Sean - that ad hominem does... (Below threshold)

Sean - that ad hominem does not qualify for rational discussion - per your own rules. LOL

That hat must get prickly considering how quickly you loons toss out insults.

And Sean - it's obvious that you don't understand physics...

Ever wonder why all physics professors don't sign on to your theory?

If you think about it really hard, you could come up with a reason.

Here's a hint: YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG

Sean, Kathy gave a ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sean,
Kathy gave a pretty good explantion from physics. In the end, we need experiment to demonstrate your conjecture or theory. You have no evidence whatsoever about controlled demolition explosives. We had evidence of planes flying into the building. So it is your responsibility to demonstrate your hypothesis with real experiments.


Here's Wikipedia on Stephen... (Below threshold)

Here's Wikipedia on Stephen Jones:

Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones in the 1980s, his experimental work was significantly different from the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.

Currently, Jones is also investigating the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges.

Jones has also given credit to the Mormon assertion that Jesus Christ spent some time in Latin America while he was alive.

ROTFLMAO

Is anyone here familiar wit... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Is anyone here familiar with the Plan for a New American Century (PNAC)?

Is anyone aware that the founding members of this "think tank" included neocons Rummy, Cheney and Wolfowitz, among others?

Are you aware that the project's deliverable was a document (released September, 2000) titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This document talked about a strategy for transformation of the military, the need to engage in multiple simultaneous theater wars in South Eastern Asia and the need to increase military spending substantially to achieve these goals?

Are you aware that the top of page #51 of this document specifically called for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to make the public and congress accept these new wars and budgets required to fund them?

Is anyone aware that in July of 2001, a certain individual took out a huge insurance policy on the World Trade Center complex specifically covering acts of terrorism?

Did you know that this same leaseholder is on the public record referring to building #7 that "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, then they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"?

Is anyone aware that on the morning of 9/11 military drills practicing the exact scenarios of the actual events were happening?

Is anyone aware that many of the alleged hijackers are reported to be still alive by the mainstream media?

Or does everyone know that ISI officer who sent the $100,000 to ringleader Atta was meeting with government officials in Washington on the morning of 9/11/01?

You all do know that Osama is an asset of the CIA right? Maybe this explains why any effort was ever made in capturing him and that the program responsible for his capture has just been scrapped.

Are you aware that none of the hijackers names appeared on any of the flight records?

Did you know that the identities of all 19 alleged hijackers were known within hours of the attacks? How is this possible?

Are you aware that the only reason there was any investigation into 9/11 is because family members tirelessly pushed for an investigation? This took about 440 days before the Administration agreed to put together the partisan Keane Commission.

Did you know that hundreds of hours of government whistleblower testimony was conveniently left out of the official report, including over 5 hours of testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmunds?

Are you all aware that the FBI has just recently acknowledged that they "have no hard evidence connecting Osama to 9/11"?

And of course you all must have noticed that just about every piece of significant foreign and domestic policy dictated by the government has used 9/11 for its justification or pretext?

Anyway, I can go on and on and on. There is mountains of information out there that conclusively suggests government complicity. I am 110% convinced that the "official story" is a lie. And believe me I made sure I was 110% convinced before I started shooting my mouth off to family and friends. Do you think anyone can be "nutty" enough to spread a conspiracy of this grand scale if they believed it was just a theory?

Sadly, it is all too obvious that the entire official story is in question. I wish it was true, but unfortunately it isn't.

I would bet if I asked Jone... (Below threshold)

I would bet if I asked Jones the tinfoil hat question, he could answer me.

Cold fusion. LOL.

Jesus in South America. LOL

and explosives in the WTC - well that's a moron trifecta if I've ever seen it!

Steve, It was well ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Steve,
It was well known that we had all the intelligence about these hijackers but were prevented from acting because of the Gorellic wall erected by the Clinton administration.
I am surprised that anyone who lives in freedom in the US can believe the worst things about their gov. At the same time they resolutely refuse to believe the evil intention and action of the terrorist in front of their own eyes.
Is it because of ideology and a hunger for political power that blined these folks to reality?

"It is physically impossibl... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

"It is physically impossible for 110 floors of steel and concrete to collapse straight down in 10 seconds. Impossible."

Good grief. Anyone else see what's so stupid about that statement?

Steve,You're first i... (Below threshold)

Steve,
You're first instincts that this is a nutty conspiracy theory were right.

Never change your first answer on a test, it's very often correct. In this case, you've wasted your time.

Really.

Big Mo, please feel free to... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Big Mo, please feel free to enlighten us.

I suppose it also doesn't h... (Below threshold)
Steve:

I suppose it also doesn't hurt to mention that a similar "false flag" operation was proposed during the Kennedy era as a pretext for invading Cuba. The program is referred to as Operation Northwoods and its details have recently been declassified.

I'd love to sit here trying... (Below threshold)
Sean:

I'd love to sit here trying to get through to you NeoCons all day, but sadly, it appears to be a waste of time. I tried posting some links to some relevant info, but it got held up for review. Anyhow, good luck to all of you with your beliefs. I respect your right to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, but I'll stick with what I believe to be true, thank you.

I've been trying to figure ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

I've been trying to figure it out myself. Looks like Jim, Kathy, and Sean could have an interesting discussion about the collapses.

I don't understand how the buildings fell. The NIST report gives me a vague sense that the collapse could conceivably have been "initiated" by the fires (given the obvious structural damage).

But even if the top of the building started pressing down on buckled collumns around the 70th and 90th floors ... like Sean, I don't see how the collapse would turn out the way it did. You've got a lot of very intact structural steel to break up down there.

Now, the NIST report specifically does not describe what happens in the 10-16 seconds after the collapse begins. It just says the weight coming down is "enormous" ... well, the structure was "imposing" until then, I'd say.

If Jim can give rough sense of what happened to the ca. 300 box collumns and all the spandrels and cross girders, and the much more reinforced service floors, etc., in those 16 seconds, that would begin to enlighten me.

I've looked at lots of the theorizing and debunking on both sides (including PM and Nova, etc.) It doesn't settle it for me.

Anyone who thinks that this comment can be used to make a reasonable judgment about its author's state of mind or intelligence is of course loopy.

Let's talk about Cold fusio... (Below threshold)

Let's talk about Cold fusion, or Jesus in SA.

I wonder how y'all feel about the Easter Bunny. Do you think the chocolate ones can hop?

Why change the subject Kath... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Why change the subject Kathy? Run out of lies?

Steve, You just for... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Steve,
You just forgot to mention that the communists were willing to kill hundreds of millions of people and enslaving billions of people just to further the rule of their evil ideology. The communists meant war against America and the free world. They were more bloody than even that fascists. That was a fact. You should be thankful that America was willing to fight against the communists so that you can have the freedom today.

Lee, Why change the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lee,
Why change the subject, Lee? Run out of lies? We are still waiting for the answer to the question: why are you willing to believe the lie about 9/11 on behalf of the terrorists?

LoveAmerica,Kind o... (Below threshold)
Steve:

LoveAmerica,

Kind of similar to America's waged "war on terror" that "will not end in our lifetimes" isn't it?

Love America Immigrant, <br... (Below threshold)

Love America Immigrant,
I did try to see if anyone wanted to talk about other conspiracy theories of the esteem Prf. Jones of BYU. Wonder if he thinks Jesus invented Cold Fusion and ran off to South America with the solution?

It's just impossible not to laugh at them.

I know why Lee and his ilk want so badly to believe that America is evil. They are failures, and must have someone to blame. Individual responsibility is an anathema, much easier to blame Big Brother.

I can hear the black helocopters now....

The sad fact is that conspiracies are easier to believe when you don't take responsibility for yourself. You don't have to fix anything if you are helpless.

It's classic delusional denial.

Sad, and I really shouldn't poke fun.

Gotta run LAI - don't be a stranger, stop by HRP and comment, I know my partners would all love to see you. Take care.

Steve, Don't unders... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Steve,
Don't understand you point. Communism was a real evil ideology: gulags, famine, genocide, red revolution. Its secular statist creed is the direct opposite of the American creed of inalienable rights given by the creator. Communism meant war against America, the free world, and the poor/oppressed. The jihadist terrorist ideology is a real evil today. It is waging war against America and the West and try to impose their radical Islamic rule on the world. So you don't believe in the evils of communism and the jihadist terrorists?

Sean:I'd love t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Sean:

I'd love to sit here trying to get through to you NeoCons all day, but sadly, it appears to be a waste of time.

You asked a question, it was answered according to the laws of science, and now you're having a hard time getting through? Think harder Sean, read those posts again, and entertain for perhaps one moment that it wasn't all a big conspiracy theory, that a marked minority believe your brand of outlandish events occured. Being the minority here doesn't mean you're the only one's in the know, it means you're the minority because you're favoring fantasy over reality.

I can hear the black hel... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I can hear the black helocopters now....

Something tells me you hear little voices too.

Sean,Sure, ther... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Sean,

Sure, there was collateral damage, but the buildings did collapse straight down. They did not tip over.

Yes, Sean, they did come straight down, and that may be the only miracle that occured that day. But that doesn't do squat to support your (cough, cough) professor's theory. Let's get into the real details of how braindead your theory is.

First, any controlled or planned explosion of such an immense structure you would have seen the demolition explosions on the lower and middle levels of the towers, and heard a series of detonations just to start to collapsing the buildings. This type of demolition would have required a crew of hundreds of men and women to conduct --who most certaintly would have been noticed moving in and out the buildings drilling hole after hole after hole into the buildings' structures and beams, ripping apart walls to place explosives and blasting caps, run wire all over the place to outside and secure area where the proverbial button would have been pushed. This is basic demolition practice. And none is said to have occured on orin the weeks before 9/11.


The structural failure (as someone pointed out very early in this thread) was due to the fairlure of the fire retardant on the steel beams which was blown off by the initial impacts of the planes and then exposed to the incredible heat of the jet fuel. With the retardant blown-off and exposed to the intense heat, the steel beams were compromised, buckled and could no longer hold the weight above the crash site. Once those key beams failed, it was all over; yes, the weight came straight down at first, but then the floors and everything else began to peel off when the rest of the structutre could not hold the weight. You can view it here here. And some more wacky professional building engineer expertise here

And yes, it can happen in 10 seconds (actually it was 16 seconds to total collapse).

I'd be happy to talk to any of them. They should be outraged even more than I am, and I would be happy to share with them the wealth of knowledge and research that has been done to show that the Official Conspiracy Theory doesn't hold water.

You'd better have good health insurance then because you won't be doing much talking afterward.

By all means, present your theories to the world. You keep making our point--that is, people who are sane--that people like you are to be ignored and pitied.

Something tells me you h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Something tells me you hear little voices too.

Why change the subject, Lee? Run out of lies? We are still waiting for the answer to the question: why are you willing to believe the lie about 9/11 on behalf of the terrorists?

Peter, Thanks for the resea... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Peter, Thanks for the research and the links.

In general, I wonder how th... (Below threshold)
.:

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Posted by: Peter F. at July 5, 2006 04:59 PM

heres 1 9/11 family member(more to come):

Donna Marsh O'Connor at the U.N

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=7&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=31&epi=0&typ=0

Sean, sweetcheeks... see th... (Below threshold)

Sean, sweetcheeks... see this 20 lb bag of sugar?

Please stand here and hold it over your head. Pretty easy, right? Your arms are easily handing a 20 lb load even over your head...

Now, edge just a little closer to the roof line where I'm standing above you... I'm going to drop a 200 lb anvil on top of your 20 lb sugar ...

How fast do you hit the ground?

"And yes," Peter says, "it ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

"And yes," Peter says, "it can happen in 10 seconds (actually it was 16 seconds to total collapse)."

The 9/11 report does say about 10 seconds. I also think 16 seconds is closer. I think 10 seconds is very implausible (for the reasons people have been suggesting.)

I still don't know what is supposed to have happened in those 16 seconds (note that this can grant the official take on the fire-proofing and the intense heat.)

The top 20 floors come down on the bottom 90. (For surely you don't mean that the collumns buckled all the way down the side of the buildings.)

Then what happens? The frame shatters like porcelain?

You all got to understand t... (Below threshold)

You all got to understand the Lee troll ... it is contrarian on purpose, because that is the raison d'etre of its existence. No fact, no argument will make one bit of difference to it.

Just another indecent KossKiddieKultist.

Darleen,I'm not an... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Darleen,

I'm not an expert on this, but it seems to me that the analogy would fit if Sean were holding 100 of those bags one on top of the other (i.e., he was already that strong -- carrying 2000 lbs.) and then you dropped that 200 lb. anvil (or a stack of twenty bags) from the height of say 5 bags of sugar onto that tower of bags.

It's because I imagine it (more) like that that I can't get the official story to make any sense.

Tom, We may not kno... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Tom,
We may not know exactly about all the details of how the towers collapse. We know that the "controlled demolition explosives" theory has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. This is a kooky conspiracy theory. Yet some people were willing to believe it. At the same time, they would resolutely refuse to believe that Saddam and Alq have any relationship. That is just amazing.

I see there are alot of peo... (Below threshold)
yohnzeye:

I see there are alot of people,who are quite sure about the official 911 story. People who believe the 911 commission report? or maybe think that people in the massive military/industrial complex/govt just couldnt bring something like 911 to its own country. Even a few so called experts and engineers.

and we are looking for answers
just a few Questions
So.answer us o'scientific ones ones.

how did the towers freefall as fast as gravity?

why was every computer, chair,and telephone along with the concrete floor, "including the carpet on top and the steel pan on the bottom" vaporised! into a pyroclastic dust cloud that covered the whole of lower manhattan in a layer of dust 3 inches thick?

why was there literally tons of molten iron and red hot steel beams in the basements of WTC 1,2,and7?

How come the secret service did not immediately throw a jacket over George Bush"s head and drag his butt away from my pet goat to the limo and drive to where Airforce One was parked,when they found out we were under attack?

yohnzeye, Kathy and... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

yohnzeye,
Kathy and Peter had given you pretty good explanation already (peter even include the links).

At least we can all agree that the "controlled demolition explosives" is a farce that has no evidence to support it. Imagine what we would require to accomplish such a feat. If you can believe in such a fantasy, you shouldn't have any problem believing that the planes flying into the towers causing them to crash.

LoveAmerica,Since ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

LoveAmerica,

Since you say that

"We may not know exactly about ALL the details of how the towers collapse."

you can't also say that

"We know that the "controlled demolition explosives" theory has NO evidence whatsoever to back it up."

There are some details of the WTC collapses that suggest controlled demolition. And there is no evidence to suggest that explosives were not used. (It was removed from the scene.)

(Though there are many sophisticated theories about how impossible it would have been to plant them, etc., etc., and how unlikely it is that Bush - or whoever - would have thought to do so such thing ... but they are pitched more or less at the level of pop conspiracy theories. I.e., people just thinking out loud based on a few factoids and their intuition.)

As to the "kooks" ... I'm not sure I want to get into that aspect of it.

Best,
T.

TomYou first have ... (Below threshold)

Tom

You first have to understand that the WTC was a radically new design to be able to be built that high and be functional. It was designed to withstand a hundred year storm (I remember being on the top floor during a bad winter and feeling the building sway. Didn't startle me, 'cause I'm a Californian and all our tall buildings are designed to do that to so they don't fail during earthquakes) and to take a hit from the commercial jet liners of the day.

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers' design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. [...]
The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."
Understand that the OUTSIDE of the building bore the LOAD. It is/was a brilliant design that went up quickly and worked well. But it was not designed to sustain the extraordinary circumstance of commerical jet liner bigger than the jets that existed at the time of the design, flying at extraordinary speed AND tanks FULL of jet fuel. Once the floor where the impact took place failed, the TOTAL WEIGHT of all the floors crashed down on the next, which was no more prepared to take that load then Sean prepared to received a 200 lb anvil. Remember, these floors were, in essense, free of internal support because the trusses transferred the load to the OUTSIDE walls and those walls had been breached. The above quotes are from here and scroll down to the picture captioned
Perimeter columns, several storeys high, and still linked together, lie amongst all the debris on the ground.
On 9/10 there hadn't been a hijacking in the US for over 30 years. We didn't even lock the cockpits of jets!

That point of logic may hav... (Below threshold)
Tom:

That point of logic may have been a bit cryptic. I meant something like you can't reasonably say, "I haven't been outside today but I know that there is no evidence to suggest that it rained last night."

-sigh-This grew to... (Below threshold)

-sigh-

This grew too big for my comments to be even read probably...BUT

I graduated from the California Maritime Academy with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. A required course is called Engineering Ethics, and we had many discussions, often prompted from video shorts from case studies. This happened to be a case study. For the website check out this:

NOVA Online:Why the Towers Fell

why was every computer, ... (Below threshold)

why was every computer, chair,and telephone along with the concrete floor, "including the carpet on top and the steel pan on the bottom" vaporised!

Oh GEEZ another Lunar Chiroptera asswipe heard from.

LISTEN you fuckwit, I know people who worked at Ground Zero on the rescue/recovery details. They are going to have nightmares for years ... stuff got CHEWED and SHREDDED, as might happen when something so mundane as a desk or HUMAN BODY is ground up between concrete slabs weighing tons...but they weren't "vaporized". Telephone here, hand there, desk drawer here, piece of thigh there.

You all belong in a state facility for the criminally insane. And I'm being nice for saying so, because the alternative is that you all are sane but evil.

Tom:Go to the site... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Tom:

Go to the sites I linked. And yes, the steel beams would buckle, snap and shatter like procelain due to the immense weight and the internia of mass coming down on top of them.

LAI:
No matter how much we explain how a controlled demolition actually works and the number of people involved to bring down a structure like the WTC, we are more or less wasting our breathe.

yohnzeye:
why was there literally tons of molten iron and red hot steel beams in the basements of WTC 1,2,and7?

1.) The fires from the jet fuel which ignited objects (and people) in the buildings and down the elevator shafts to the floors below. When the structures failed, the fires spread. And...
2.) The collapses themselves crushed automobiles (also filled with fuel) located in the basements of each building, which exploded and started fires that smoldered for months, many feet below the top of the rumble. With little oxygen, they smoldered for months.
3.) People and things (desks, computers, etc.) would have been vaporized due (again) to the sheer force and weight coming down on top of them...
4.) You've been given scientific answers for them; you're just too damn stubborn to accept the truth. That's the sad part.

Engineers in al-Qaeda? ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Engineers in al-Qaeda?

Hmm, you mean like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

What's that, he never got an engineering degree? Hmm, that's not what wikipedia, the Washington Post, or the LA Times discovered, when they were doing research on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed#Professional_career
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16232-2004Jul26.html
http://www.engology.com/eng5mohammed.htm

And that's after an exhaustive, two-minute Google search of "Khalid Mohammed engineering."

Kathy, a minor nit:<p... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Kathy, a minor nit:

Acceleration by Earth's gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, not feet.

Though I suspect dealing with these... fervent individuals led to some frustration that led to you missing that. Stay calm, get your facts in order and eviscerate their arguments. It won't do any good for them, but this isn't a private conversation.

...wow, this thread made me dig up some basic physics formulae to see if those spewing conspiracy theories had bothered to use any of them. Answer: unlikely.

In general, I wonder how th... (Below threshold)
.:

In general, I wonder how these conspiracy theorists would like to address a 9/11 family member or two to see what they think of their little theories.

Posted by: Peter F. at July 5, 2006 04:59 PM
Lorie van Auken(9/11 widow) said that Richard Clarke "gave top shelf credibility to what many of us in the victims' rights commmunity had suspected for months - that the Bush administration seemed to allow 9/11 to happen."

Patty Casazza(9/11 widow) said of the commission, "I was looking for an investigation into September 11, 2001. That is not what we got." And, later, that "[t]he word 'cover-up' doesn't even seem to do it justice."

Darleen,I'm famili... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Darleen,

I'm familiar with the information you cite about the WTC design.

The crucial part of your comment, as I see it, is this (which I'll go through one detail at a time):

"Once the floor where the impact took place failed,"

But the NIST report (the most recent explanation) does not suggest floor failure. It says collumn failure was the problem. The whole top part of the building came down on the whole bottom part in one piece. So, yes, according to the official story

"the TOTAL WEIGHT of all the floors crashed down"

but not

"on the next [floor],"

rather, on the next floor AND the very intact collumns and spandrels there, which brings us back to your analogy:

"which was no more prepared to take that load then Sean prepared to received a 200 lb anvil."

Or almost you original analogy ... because where's that 20 pound bag of sugar? What role was it playing in your analogy when you first suggested it? Like I say, the WTC below the 90th floor was like Sean already holding a 2000 lb. anvil and you threatening to drop a 200 lb. one on top of it. Sure, he may notice it. But he is a bit more "prepared" than you make out.

Lastly, you say:

"Remember, these floors were, in essense, free of internal support because the trusses transferred the load to the OUTSIDE walls and those walls had been breached."

Well I don't know: I think something like 30 of something like 200 collumns were breached in the perimeter. (And you should remember that each collumn was overdesigned for safety.) The trusses were connected to both the core and the perimeter. And, again, most of the structure was not breached.

So it's still a description of what actually happened (or might have happened) to the steel frame in the 16 seconds that the collapse took that I'm looking for.

That sort of thing can be modelled on a computer (one that is bigger than mine, by people who are smarter than me). It is possible to produce a frame-by-frame simulation of gravity-driven structural failures. That simulation would give me something to work with.

NIST did not provide one: they did not show us what physics and engineering predicts the collapse would look like under the initial conditions they set up.

In short, I'm still wondering.

Best,
T.

HenryTHANK YOU! I'... (Below threshold)

Henry

THANK YOU! I've been trying to remember where I saw that show (PBS!)...

.:That's your proo... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

.:

That's your proof? Pathetic. 3 people out of 3,000. That's .001%. Which, ironically enough, is also representative of the amount of active grey matter in your brain.

Oh dear, someone's been rat... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Oh dear, someone's been rattled enough to mass-post long screeds of claims without any backups.

TomMy snarky rejoi... (Below threshold)

Tom

My snarky rejoinder to Sean wasn't a strict analogy..I was making reference to something designed to easily carry load X then suddenly having load 10.X dumped on it.

Go the Nova link Henry posted. It really is a straight forward explanation of why the floor at the point of impact failed:

We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for--a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side..
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

Tom, I think Peter ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Tom,
I think Peter has done a great job showing you how controlled demolition explosives would require. And we have no evidence supporting that conjecture. We had evidence that 2 planes flying into the WTC. The details of the physics were given by the links provided by Peter already.

The bottom line is that if you can believe in the controlled demolition explosives, you shouldn't have any problem in believing the fact that the crashing of the planes caused the towers to collapse. The official story is much easier to believe with real external evidences to back it up. The conspiracy has no external evidence to back it up whatsoever.

We engineers know better about computer simulation. Ask NASA about the explosion of their shuttles. When you expounded a kooky theory, it is emcumbened upon you to show real experiments. So far, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up the controlled demolition explosives.

Lee -No liar moi. ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lee -

No liar moi. I simply linked your assertions within this thread to the same theories espoused by those who claim so fancifully that the WTC towers had to have been destroyed by demolitions instead of airplane-caused damage. Since there are thousands of eyewitnesses and video evidence that the planes did strike, it sure seems to me that the burden of proof is on those theorists. Hand-waving stuff like the WTV buildings simply could not have fallen as fast as they did because, you know, they have concrete in them and, you know, steel beams and stuff --- not quite a direct quote, I admit --- just is not convincing to this engineer.

If you have still a different conspiracy theory, I'd be delighted to look at it. Post a url, why doncha'! The other engineers I work with also really enjoy the humor such theories provide.

Hi Peter,The NOVA ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Hi Peter,

The NOVA and Eagar stuff is also behind me. The NIST report actually says that these early theories were wrong. I.e., the official account does not endorse them.

Given the state of the discussion (and my curiosity) I'm not satisfied with "yes, like porcelain". I'll grant "immense weight", but I still say: onto an "imposing structure".

Like I said to Darleen, if the top of the building is an anvil then so is the bottom of it. Until, I get a closer description of what was going on in the building, say, 10 seconds into the collapse, I'm not going to believe that initial impact (i.e., the first moment of the collpase) totally destroyed all load-bearing structures in the building, leaving the top to fall unimpeded to the bottom.

It simply doesn't jibe with the many other things I find it useful to believe.

Best,
T.

LoveAmerica,I gues... (Below threshold)
Tom:

LoveAmerica,

I guess I sort of walked into that one. I was really just talking about the relationship between words like "some", "all", "none", "any", and "no". I don't want to suggest I have any evidence, my point was that *some* of the details are consistent with controlled demolition and that I can't get gravity-driven collapse to make sense.

No one (who is serious about this) denies that two planes hit and severely damaged the WTC. It's just that after thinking about it for a while (and getting over the shock and awe of it) the collapses -- the THAT of them but especially the HOW of them -- seem odd.

It's a puzzle. I'm not an engineer, but like engineers I enjoy a good puzzle. So I'm puzzling it out. Still puzzled though.

What's going on in the building, say, 4 seconds into the collapse on, say, the 20th floor. Is the floor already falling (because it has no structual support under it because all supports were shattered like pieces of fine china)? What would you see if you looked at the steel frame?

That sort of thing.

Best,
T.

You're welcome darleen, I h... (Below threshold)

You're welcome darleen, I have no idea if that website is the website of the case study video that was shown to us in class, but it looked similar.

For those who have a background in engineering, wacko theories don't hold water.

Oh dear, someone's been rat... (Below threshold)
.:

Oh dear, someone's been rattled enough to mass-post long screeds of claims without any backups.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at July 5, 2006 07:02 PM

click the link. most of whats said in there has links to original sources. and the ones that dont are easy to find with Google. wake up moron.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

TomDo you cook?</p... (Below threshold)

Tom

Do you cook?

Last night we grilled some awesome ribeye steaks and as a side, I did a quick stir-fry of Napa cabbage. The whole thing raw and chopped filled a two quart bowl. Stirfried it suddenly shrunk to about 1 1/2 C.

Conspiracy? No, because the cabbage was mostly air and water which was released by the heat.

As big and heavy as the WTC was, it was still mostly air. 1 acre large concrete floors supported by lightweight trusses anchored ONLY at the core and at the perimeter with (relatively small)anchor clips.

Tom:No, the NIST r... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Tom:

No, the NIST report does NOT say the fire theories are wrong. It says (and you Wiki this one easily):

In 2005, NIST issued a series of reports[2] documenting emergency response efforts and events leading up to the collapse. NIST concluded "the buildings would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." NIST also found the towers' stairwell design lacked adequate reinforcement.

What Eager points out is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. True enough. However, again, what the NIST states is that the fireproofing/retardant was blown off after impact. The NIST takes into account Eager's focus on the joints failing between the floors. In the NIST report, "The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns". These perimeter columns buckled and failed, which shifted tremendous weight-bearing load onto the core columns. This was too much for the core columns to handle, so they also buckled and failed. (source: Wikipedia).

Still, an overwhelming majority of engineers agree that the heat of the fires greatly compromised the structural integrity of the steel columns, and was a contributing factor in the collapses.

"."Why don't you t... (Below threshold)

"."

Why don't you take your link and go find the Holocaust deniers and visit the Arizona Memorial in Hawaii and jabber about how THAT was a conspiracy by FDR.

Then take a flying leap into the ocean.

Fuckwit.

HenryI'm not an en... (Below threshold)

Henry

I'm not an engineer, but my father-in-law is and when you read the sheer hysterical ooga-booga from the Conspiracy trolls here you realize why criminal defense attorneys do NOT want logical thinking engineers on juries!

poor guy. i know reading hu... (Below threshold)
.:

poor guy. i know reading hurts feeble minds, your kind is only used to having opinions thrown at you, but seriously, take a read. many of the links go directly to mainstream sources. unless of course, you are a proud coincidence theorist.in that case, you already believe all of that stuff was just one big friggin coincidence.

om im sorry, i meant poor g... (Below threshold)
.:

om im sorry, i meant poor girl. Darleen is such an ugly name. im betting the owner fits the name. most rightwing girls are angry fatties anyway.

Yes ".", leave it to the us... (Below threshold)

Yes ".", leave it to the usual Left cultists to be crashing hypocrits ... now with the misogynist ad homenims.

I'm surprised you didn't work a little homophobic smear in there, too.

Your cultist brethren will have to "correct" you later.

most rightwing girls are... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

most rightwing girls are angry fatties anyway

Yeah, Janet Reno, Ruth bader Ginsberg, Hilary "Cankles" Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Cindy Sheehan are real lookers, eh, period boy? LOL

WTF? I second Darleen's "fuckwit" comment.

Darleen,You're rig... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Darleen,

You're right about the cabbage.

Just keep in mind that whatever you say about the lower 90 floors (like: mostly full of air) you have to say about the 20 floors that are falling as well. So the image of the anvil is no longer going to work. (Anvils aren't full of air.)

Like I say, I'm familiar with the basic design of the building, i.e., mostly air. Suppose you stacked about 10 empty cardboard boxes on top of each other and dropped another on top of that from a height of 12 feet....

I know, I know, it's nothing like that with structural steel...

But cabbage?

Best,
T.


PS. I'm not arguing that there was a conspiracy. In the months after 9/11 a number of theories were suggested by engineers to explain the collapses. The links to NOVA and Eagar that Peter and others have provided explain some of those ideas. But the latest and most detailed study, i.e., the NIST report, determined them to be wrong. That is, if you believed the pancake theory you were wrong about the "collapse mechanism". That means that, for us ordinary mortals who didn't have the new NIST findings beamed directly into our brains when they came out, there are all kinds of interesting questions and disagreements within the mainstream engineering discussion of this issue long before we get to any conspiracies. It's all in the spirit of trying to understand the event. It doesn't always have to be done in the spirit of defending or attacking the powers that be.

Peter,I've granted... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Peter,

I've granted the fire theory for the sake of argument. We are talking about (or I at least am only interested in) the mechanics of the collapse. Truss failure theory (pancake) vs. column failure theory (pile driver). NIST says Eagar and NOVA were wrong about the trusses.

In fact, Eagar's idea is diametrically opposed to the NIST proposal. If the joints were failing between the floors then they could hardly provide the "inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns".

I have also granted, for the sake of argument, that the columns "buckled and failed" around the 90th floor (in the one case).

What I don't understand is how that "induced" the whole building to come down in under 20 seconds.

Best,
T.

to which the rightwing, gul... (Below threshold)
.:

to which the rightwing, gullible, feeble minded coincidence theorists say-"but my trusted corporate media didnt tell me about these people, so they MUST all be crazy!"

And the most pertinent ques... (Below threshold)
Marc:

And the most pertinent question of all?

Why are you people "feeding" these idiots? Leave them alone and they will migrate back over to Loose Change where they belong.

Darleen, you said:... (Below threshold)
Steve:

Darleen, you said:

"But it was not designed to sustain the extraordinary circumstance of commerical jet liner bigger than the jets that existed at the time..."

Actually, as I understand it, the trade centers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 - which was a quad-engine jumbo jet capable of flying from New York to paris non-stop.

Go to Wiki and look up the specs, they were big planes!

Engineers intimate with the WTC designs have talked about their belief of the buildings being capable of withstanding "multiple" impacts of 707's.

I see many are still believ... (Below threshold)
DHS:

I see many are still believing the Fairy Tale!

http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf

Read that PDF and then tell me that we should accept the "Official Theory" of events.


In November, Brigh... (Below threshold)
In November, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones challenged the assumption that the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed from fire damage alone, stating "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes -- which were actually a diversion tactic."

"Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," said Jones.
Posted by: . at July 5, 2006 07:56 PM

The same Prf who thinks Jesus went to South America and is working on Cold Fusion. LOL!

And Patrick Chester! quite so - 9.8m/s/s is the acceleration of gravity. Thank you for the correction. If only these loons were having trouble with the units! They don't understand physics, but they are more than happy to disagree with all but one physics professor and he thinks Jesus went to South America.

Another error I made was in saying F=ma is Newton's third law of motion, it's the second.

And also to the person supplying substantiation for AQ's engineers, kudos. and thx.

And as to the appearance of conservative women, you mean like Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, Lorie Dhu, Condi Rice, the late Nancy Olson, Laura Bush....

Remember it's the liberal women who murder their babies - that's a form of self loathing that starts in the mirror.

who cares what prominent co... (Below threshold)
.:

who cares what prominent conservatives and liberals look like? my comment was about the average conservative woman, not Condi Rice and Ann Coulter(who looks like a man, very disgusting) Laura Bush looks horrible.Laura Ingaraham looks like an ugly dyke. etc. etc.

Kathy wrote:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Kathy wrote:


And Patrick Chester! quite so - 9.8m/s/s is the acceleration of gravity. Thank you for the correction. If only these loons were having trouble with the units! They don't understand physics, but they are more than happy to disagree with all but one physics professor and he thinks Jesus went to South America.

Well, don't base your objections solely on that sort of belief, though I suppose it's useful for making the loons in question get angry. Focus on whatever proof this professor uses and see if there are holes in it.

Of course dotboy is trying the "spew several books worth of claims and demand every one of them be proven wrong or they're all right" tactic. It's a time-honored troll strategy in trying to drown out the opposition.


Hey, Wizbang site owners! W... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Hey, Wizbang site owners! We have a troll drooling all ovr this thread! Cleanup on isle 5!

Laura Ingaraham lo... (Below threshold)
Laura Ingaraham looks like an ugly dyke. etc. etc.
Well, looks like "." got the latest Kos missive and DID toss the homophobia in ...

It has some severe issues.

I'd say it was well past time someone called out a 5150 on it.

Patrick Chester - fine - yo... (Below threshold)

Patrick Chester - fine - you want to assume that someone who is researching Cold Fusion and that Jesus went to South America is playing with a full deck, go ahead. I leave it open for you.

I'm just pointing out that there are a great many physicists out there who don't espouse such foolishness, and correlation of correlations - they don't go off a cliff over conspiracy theories...

I think you have to start at the source, you disagree. You want to start at the end of the argument, and my point is why? His credentials of 'Physics Professor' go right down the drain under any reasonable inspection, yet he's trading on it.

And as to the 'abundance' of information - people see those long posts and skip them.

If DOT could make a point she wouldn't need cut and paste.

Darleen, your wish is my co... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Darleen, your wish is my command... see my update at the end of Kim's posting.

J.

The MSM shares some of the ... (Below threshold)

The MSM shares some of the blame for these stupid "inside job" theories because they confuse people by playing along with the lie that we were attacked "because of our freedoms."

Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Tom, The fundamenta... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Tom,
The fundamental point is that you can come up with about a few points that seem to be consistent with the controlled demolition explosives (CDE) theory. Just like a broken clock can be right twice a day you know. My theory seems to fit 0.1% of the facts. The other version has plenty of external evidences to back it up and explain about 99% of all the facts we know.
So if your standard is so low that you can believe in sth like CDE, you should have no problem with the fact that two planes smashed into the towers.
Simple logic and respect for the facts would require at least that much intellectual honesty.
Best to you and hope the objectivity may have a plcce here.

Newton's third law is F=ma?... (Below threshold)
WTF:

Newton's third law is F=ma? Just how high is very high? Is alchemy used to turn steel into rubber bands? What does amalgam mean?

Nothing about the collapses... (Below threshold)

Nothing about the collapses "violate scientific laws" Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse. Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

By the way, and Jones simply ignores this evidence, this is the way people keep pushing thier lies, they ignore the evidence that exposes their lies.

Educate yourself people!</p... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Educate yourself people!

www.st911.com
www.911truth.org
www.911blogger.com

Actually, the Towers DID wi... (Below threshold)

Actually, the Towers DID withstand the impact of the planes. Quite well in fact. I remember reading quotes from people in the towers and they all felt the buildings sway a bit then settle. The problem was the jet fuel. I know people claim jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

Does lighter fluid burn hot enough to cook meat? Oh wait, the lighter fluid doesn't cook the meat, the charcoal does? HOLY SHIT! THE OFFICE FIRE STARTED BY THE JET FUEL "cooked" the steel. Think about this. The pieces from the planes DID blow off the fireproofing material sprayed on the support beams (of which only about half the material that should have been installed WAS installed...hence one of the reasons we used it as an ethics case study), then the jet fuel was blow EVERYWHERE ACROSS THE FLOORS instantly!, a spark ignited the jet fuel and the heat from that lit off all the office furniture, etc...

THAT Fire was hot enough for the steel to at least lose structural strength, enough that the horizontal support members "fell" off their support bolts and no longer supported the floors horizontally, allowing the upper floors to literally "collapse", the outside columns (those vertical ones on the outside of the building) were just "bowed" out. The differing crash points resulted in differing collapses for each building. The one collapsed inward first, then the outside fell, while the other one fell in a different way (remember one of the planes hit the outside, the other hit straight through the center).

Once again, engineers have no tolerance for wacko theories.

LoveAmerica,The co... (Below threshold)
Tom:

LoveAmerica,

The controlled demolition theory does not set any sort of standard for me. Let me repeat that I'm not trying to argue for the controlled demolition theory; I'm trying to understand the column collapse theory as presented in the NIST report.

It would be easier to understand if the behaviour of the columns and the rest of the structure during the collapse had actually been described or modelled by NIST.

I think there is a difference in approach here. You assume that in order to be interested in 9/11 you have to believe one thing or another about it. So you assume that I believe a conspiracy theory (or at least the demolitions aspect of it).

But I just have my doubts about the official story. That's a perfectly honourable (and even honest) position. (We are not obliged to believe everything a government agency says.) The more you look at that story, the more holes appear. I've been focusing on a 16 second hole in the NIST report, and one that it is completely open about: it explains the events up to the onset of the collapse and no further.

It is possible to recognize a hole without immediately knowing how to fill it in.

Best,
T.

Henry,Do engineers... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Henry,

Do engineers have any tolerance for curious questions from non-experts?

Granting the structural effects of the fire for the sake of argument, your collapse sequence goes:

1. "the horizontal support members "fell" off their support bolts and no longer supported the floors horizontally,"

2. "allowing the upper floors to literally "collapse", the outside columns (those vertical ones on the outside of the building) were just "bowed" out."

But NIST says that 1. didn't happen. On the contrary, the support bolts held on so well that when the floors bowed downwards (due to intense heating), they excerted a horizontal force on the perimeter walls, causing them to

2. bow in.

It suprises me that defenders of the official story don't distinguish between these two theories. They can't be equally plausible. Just as it must make a difference whether the collapse took 10 or 16 or 40 seconds. That last bit is something that engineers should immediately have called attention to -- in the 9/11 commission report, for example. 10 seconds is not nearly enough time.

They then need to tell us what difference those 6 seconds make.

They should do this not to disabuse me or anyone else of a conspiracy theory, but to satisfy our curiosity (and I would hope their own) about how buildings like that can and do collapse.

To teach and perhaps to please.

Best,
T.

Wow, the bats are out in fo... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Wow, the bats are out in force on this one.

Truthfully, you can cry "conspiracy" for just about anything you wish.

A word of advice to our reality-challenged friends:

--Linking to thoroughly debunked theories does not improve your case.

--Adding "go do your own research" when by "research" you mean to read the aforementioned debunked theories weakens your credibility (if it's at all possible to weaken it further).

--The conspiracy lunatics do have a very strong argument in that Charlie Sheen is on their side. He has been known, of course, to be a bastion of common sense, so we kinda lose there.


In re "reality-challenged",... (Below threshold)
Tom:

In re "reality-challenged", here's a bit from the BBC that came out shortly after the attacks.

Bob Halvorson, of architects Halvorson and Kaye, thinks it may prove too expensive to modify existing buildings.

He said: "There is going to be a debate about whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have collapsed in the way that they did."

The post-mortem on the twin towers will not be swift and will rely on the plans of the buildings, records of its construction, the testimonies of survivors, video of the collapse and forensic examination of the wreckage.

"We are operating well beyond realistic experience," said Halvorson.

When I first read that it reminded me immediately of that famous remark from deep inside the Bush administration about the poor deluded members of the "reality based community": "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

It's not so much that some people are reality-challenged (we all have our limits), it's that imperial reality is itself very challenging. That America is an empire now is not a fringe theory but an (increasingly) well-entrenched, if sometimes controversial, position in political science. How an empire (and especially this empire) works and how it deals with "reality", is something we're learning these days.

We are operating well beyond realistic experience.

Sorry about the formatting ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Sorry about the formatting on that comment. It didn't work out like I planned (the blockquote should go all the way down to quote in bold).

Also: here are the links to the BBC and "reality based community".

Fascism: An American realit... (Below threshold)
deleting harsh truth i see.:

Fascism: An American reality

Larry Pinkney | July 6 2006

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word fascism as "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." Moreover, and most importantly, it also defines fascism clearly and succinctly as "oppressive or dictatorial control." There are those who will sarcastically say that the political/social situation in and with America is not "that bad," when in fact things are far, far worse.

Whether or not one chooses to define this increasingly all-encompassing suppression of people in America as authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist is a ridiculously moot point for the overwhelming majority of people who have lost or are losing their already limited freedoms, their livelihoods and their very lives to the organized repression of this hypocritical, cynically racist and genocidal American state apparatus. The organized and sustained political, economic, social and cultural repression being waged by the American state against its own citizens and persons globally is nothing short of fascism.

At this precarious period in history, with repression intensifying on all levels, quibbling about whether or not America is technically fascist amounts to intellectual masturbation. The fact is that the internal and external repressive policies of the United States of America have already destroyed -- and continue to decimate -- millions of people inside America and throughout the world. Especially is this true with respect to the vast majority of people of color in the ghettos, reservations and barrios of the U.S., as well as in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, the Caribbean and elsewhere.

Contrary to the well perpetuated myth, fascism is not limited to storm troopers blatantly goose-stepping down streets and alleyways, engaging in bloody search and destroy missions. Germany's fascism under Adolf Hitler differed from Italy's fascism under Benito Mussolini, but they were both fascist nation states. Fascism has different forms, all of which are equally deadly, all of which must be identified, seriously resisted and stopped.

Complacently insisting that the organized state repressive apparatus of, in and by the United States must not be defined as fascism is incredibly dangerous, especially at this point in history. It's a bit like quibbling with a person who is in the death throes of drowning that he is not actually drowning but merely suffocating! No matter how it is defined, the person is dying, and immediate action is needed to save his or her life!

Whether it is defined as blatant fascism, benign fascism or so-called creeping fascism, it is still fascism; and if left unchecked, the end result is precisely the same: total and utter disenfranchisement under an authoritarian, repressive state apparatus. The urgency of this reality in America cannot be overstated.

The enormous internal and external destruction of peoples and cultures around the world caused by the fascistic policies of the United States -- cloaked in a mythical democracy -- have wreaked more havoc, misery and destruction upon peoples nationally and around the world than the blatantly fascist regimes of World War II Germany and Italy combined. Notwithstanding the over 100 million Black people who had previously been murdered as victims of Europe and America's African "legalized" slave trafficking, it should be remembered that many years subsequent, Adolf Hitler, in his published book "Mein Kampf," made it quite clear that the idea for waging the horrible genocide against Jews and other so-called "undesirables" had been borrowed from none other than the earlier genocide waged by the United States against the indigenous -- so called "Indian" -- peoples of America.

Ironically, many pundits of that 1930s era confidently and incorrectly argued that due to Germany's achievements in culture, politics, the arts and technology of that period, the unthinkable could never happen there. Obviously, they were wrong. Nevertheless, the enormous horrors inflicted by fascist Germany and Italy upon the world pale by comparison to those carried out by the much larger, deadlier and far more sophisticated United States of America, whose internal and external "news" and information propaganda machine would make the former fascist German and Italian propaganda machines green with envy.

Thus, to compare the contemporary United States, or any of its leaders, to the former fascist leaders Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini is utterly missing the point, as the U.S. is much, much worse, and its global power is far more encompassing and devastating.

It is important not to be fooled by the feigned surprise on the part of some at the limited, tip-of-the-iceberg revelations about U.S. torture, internal spying by the U.S. government and corporations, the militarization of the judicial process, massive national voter disenfranchisement and the demonstrated de facto contempt by the U.S. government and corporations for the Black victims of Hurricane Katrina, etc. Substantively, virtually none of these systemic practices are new but now are integrally part and parcel of an increasingly blatant form of American fascism.

No matter what individual may be the nominal "leader" of the United States, or what political party -- Republican or Democratic -- is in power, fascism has undeniably become an American reality. No matter what name or under what guise America cloaks its fascist policies, the undeniable fact is: America's own style of fascism is a reality here and now.

It is no wonder that Austrian born Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated no compunction or inhibition whatsoever in repeatedly and openly expressing his "admiration" for German fascist leader Adolf Hitler before going on later to become the Republican Party's governor of the state of California (see "Events Related to Schwarzenegger.")

Moreover, there is no sustained and overwhelming outrage and incensed repudiation of Schwarzenegger from the leadership of either the Democratic or Republican parties regarding his arrogant and chilling admiration for a fascist leader who was directly responsible for the dehumanization and murder of millions of people. A distinctly American version of fascism has taken root in this nation, and has created a political climate wherein politicians can openly embrace with admiration past fascist leaders without seriously jeopardizing their own political careers.

Furthermore, other than as an increasingly obvious propaganda tool to further its global hegemonic objectives, America's cynical racism and hypocrisy has made a meaningless mockery of words and phrases such as democracy, legality, freedom, fair judicial process and justice. This is a reality which most of the peoples of the world outside of the United States have already acknowledged.

Attempting to minimize the precariousness of the political situation in this nation by denying the reality of fascism in America does not change or stop it. Maintaining, like ostriches, the denial of fascism's active, significant existence and role in the American body politic, actually strengthens its stranglehold on the people of this nation and world. Only by removing our heads from the sand, facing up to, organizing against, resisting and struggling for systemic change here and now is there the real hope, for ourselves and for people around the world, of stopping and dismantling this fascist onslaught. Indeed, we can ill afford to do otherwise.

TomIt's not so much ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Tom
It's not so much that some people are reality-challenged (we all have our limits), it's that imperial reality is itself very challenging. That America is an empire now is not a fringe theory but an (increasingly) well-entrenched, if sometimes controversial, position in political science. How an empire (and especially this empire) works and how it deals with "reality", is something we're learning these days.
---------------------------------------------------
Thank you for voicing your real belief here. The free world just finished dealing with a real evil empire, the Soviet Union and communist China. And we witness how this evil empire treated the poor/oppressed. THis evil communist empire slaughterd hundreds of millions of people and subjected billions of people to oppression. The remnant of this evil empire and ideology is still around the globe today in NOrth Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. They are in league with the current jihadist ideology. Just look at the alliance between communist Chavez and Iran mullahs for example.

To say that the US is an empire is the territory of kooks like Cindy Sheehan. She announced that she would rather live under Chavez. I hope she would move there asap. Truly, the left is operating in a fantasy land these days, beyond realistic experience.


the left, the right, its al... (Below threshold)
.:

the left, the right, its all the same you fools. are you really that gullible? do you really think that dems and republicans are that different in the end? how much power do you think your respective congresspeople and senators have? wake up you fucking fools. they got you playing off of each other with this phony left/right bullshit. the partisan hacks on both sides are whats wrong with this country. you fall for the left/right parlor game way too easily.

Thus, to compare the contem... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Thus, to compare the contemporary United States, or any of its leaders, to the former fascist leaders Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini is utterly missing the point, as the U.S. is much, much worse, and its global power is far more encompassing and devastating.
---------------------------------------------------
This is beyond contempt and it is despicable. It tries to minimize the evils of communism and fascism. It tried to excuse the evil of jihadist terrorism. It slanderd the only country that has brought the greatest good to the most number of people on earth.

Whoever wrote this piece is truly despicable. This writer is nothing more than a propagandist for evils.

but please, by all means, k... (Below threshold)
.:

but please, by all means, keep being afraid like they want you to be. gullible sheep.

im still waiting for one of... (Below threshold)
.:

im still waiting for one of you typical sheeple to use the term "islamofascism", HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that term is perfect for ramping up scared little gullible fools like yourselves. do i have to remind you that your boy Reagan and also Carter are laregly responsible for funding the islamic forces in Afghanistan, including Bin Laden? you people are dense as hell, everything is seen through the left/right paradigm. stop falling for it you friggin sheep.

I was completley skeptical ... (Below threshold)
Nick:

I was completley skeptical of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" but now, after hours upon hours of research, I must say that there is no way that jet fuel was responsible for the collapses of the Twin Towers. The physics don't work, and you don't have to be a physicist to know that. All you have to know is that if you had dropped a rock from where they started to collapse it would have hit the ground at (about) the same time. But that is only one small piece of the puzzle. There are at least a THOUSAND facts that on their own are enough to have a "conspiracy theory". If everyone knew, we could take our country back from these globalist scumbags. Anyone of you who choose republican over democrat, or democrat over republican, are just playing into another one of their schemes. Both parties are controlled by these guys. I mean, George Bush and John Kerry are cousins! And they are both members of an elite secret society that only has 800 living members, and 11 were in Bush's first term! And dont say "dont talk about that, imagine what the families of victims would say" because the families are the ones who started 9/11 truth, and couldnt get any real evidence put in the commision report. I'm glad lots of people are looking at this information now, I hope you all realize that George Bush's grandfather helped bring Nazis to power, that Karl Rove's family was Nazis, Arnold's dad was a Nazi, and now they've built over 700 concentration camps in America, and 9/11 was obviously our reichstag. Hitler used the same tactics that the Bush administration is using. Next time you see a ten story building, imagine it fall in one second. nickspinner@gmail.com please email me if you disagree

Nick, You gave your... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
You gave yourself away when you expoused this slander against George Bush using his grandfather and 700 concentration camps in AMerica.
You are not honest enough to admit that you a kooky conspiracy theorists.

WHoever is willing to compare George Bush is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. It is worse if this is an attempt to use moral equivalency to minimize the evils of jihadist terrorism against America. This is beyond contempt.

WHoever is willing to compa... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

WHoever is willing to compare George Bush to Hitler is intellectually ignorant or dishonest. It is worse if this is an attempt to use moral equivalency to minimize the evils of jihadist terrorism against America. This is beyond contempt.

you know what thick skulled... (Below threshold)
.:

you know what thick skulled, gullible morons do when they cant handle certain information because it challenges their simplistic world views? they throw around terms like "tin foil hat" and "conspiracy kook". when you hear that stuff, you know you've won.thats all they got.

some people are deathly afr... (Below threshold)
.:

some people are deathly afraid of "islamic terrorists" because the government and media beats it into their heads that they need to be.they depend on people like the fool above to be gullible,scared little feeble minds, so that they can continue to make big money off of 'the war on terror". they love you gullible fools.

be afraid lai, be very afra... (Below threshold)
.:

be afraid lai, be very afraid like i know you will be.

Yup and you are so brave th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yup and you are so brave that you are not willing to post under even a posting name. If you are not afraid, move to Iran or North Korea to experience your utopia.

see. it didnt even penetrat... (Below threshold)
.:

see. it didnt even penetrate your thick skull. you missed the point as usual. "move to North Korea" blah blah blah. how typical can you get?

LoveAmerica Immigrant is ri... (Below threshold)
Nick:

LoveAmerica Immigrant is right. We shouldnt worry about America becoming a dictatorship, we should worry about angry arabs thousands of miles away that pose no threat to us.
This is ridiculous. Maybe you will all see when the U.S. attacks itself again to go to Iran... which could be any day now.
It is completey reasonable to compare Bush to Hitler for a number of reasons. 1. Prescott Bush had stocks in IG Farben illegally while it was running Aushcwitz 2. reichstag-homeland security act = 9/11 - patriot act. never mind, i dont feel like typing anymore. if you are interested in Bush/Nazi connections, just check out John Buchanan's work. He did all the research... a lot of which has been in the mainstream media. nickspinner@gmail.com

see. it didnt even penetrat... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

see. it didnt even penetrate your thick skull. you missed the point as usual.
------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about yourself here? THis point is so simple that I have to repeat it over and over again and you still don't get it?

Why can't you use a posting name? What are you afraid of?

Nick, YOur post its... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
YOur post itself repudiates your very own point and you don't even know it. You can still post slanders against Bush and America and you haven't been sent to a concentration camp yet. Would Hitler allow you to do that?

19 Arabs flew planes into the WTC just in 2001. So you say we shouldn't worry about that. Or are you busing denying reality to continue with your fantasy.

It is a joke and you believe it. Yet at the same time you denied 9/11!

Love America Immigrant, <br... (Below threshold)

Love America Immigrant,
Dot isn't worth the trouble - he thinks he's
'won' when he convinces people he's a moonbat.

OK - Dot - you win - you are a moonbat. Here's your prize - we skip over your posts in future.

Now to WTF - If you read the entire thread - you'd see I corrected the statement about Newton's laws. As to it being the second rather than the third, how does that in any way dispute the argument about the force equaling mass times acceleration? It doesn't, but go on and nitpick on the insignificant. (Just for you here 's a link)

Jeez - it's only been thirty years since I had physics.

And when I said the heat turned the steel beams into rubber bands - I was referring to the strength of the material not the chemistry - now I know you are being deliberately dense.

The principle was illustrated in the Nova links.

Several engineers have posted that the structure of the steel was weakened by the intense heat.

But hey - you conspiracists have your 'cold fusion' professor. LOL.

And Dot - Love America Immigrant knows first hand of that he speaks - and he has repeatedly shown you to be a fool. But by all means, keep it up - watching him hand you your head is entertaining in a car wreck sort of way.

Nick, you have to understan... (Below threshold)
.:

Nick, you have to understand, LoveAmerciaImmigrant is very gullible, he falls for everything the media and government tells him. hes naturally afraid of "islamofascists" because he is constantly told to be. if it wasnt for gullible fools like him, big business and big oil would not be making the killing they are right now in the "war on terror".he fell for the big lie of 9/11 hook line and sinker, do you really expect him to question anything this government and media tells him about the "war on terror"? its safer and easier for him to just take everything at face value,and do no independent research,. those that fall for the phony left/right paradigm have no interest in looking at all the facts, they only want to hear their opinions reinforced.

hand me my head? by asking ... (Below threshold)
.:

hand me my head? by asking me what my name is and spouting off typical, tired rightwing talking points? your more delusional than he is.

19 Arabs flew planes into t... (Below threshold)
.:

19 Arabs flew planes into the WTC just in 2001. So you say we shouldn't worry about that. Or are you busing denying reality to continue with your fantasy.

It is a joke and you believe it. Yet at the same time you denied 9/11!

Posted by: LoveAmerica Immigrant at July 6, 2006 11:20 AM
dont you ever wonder how a plane was able to hit the Pentagon,in the most heavily defended airspace on the planet, well after it was clear that planes were being used as weapons? oh wait, i forgot, you gullible Foxites dont ask questions, you take everything at face value. be afraid!!!! they depend on it!!!!!

Dot is afraid that he canno... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Dot is afraid that he cannot even use a posting name. Dot takes the conspirary at face value even when it has zero evidence to back it up.

Kathy,
That 's why these kooky conspiracy theories are still around.

Thank you Dot, but that's n... (Below threshold)
Nick:

Thank you Dot, but that's not enough of an excuse for me. I love my country too much to not at least try and show these people that it is being run by the worst kind of people on earth. PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION is how they do it. 19 arabs have nothing to do with the actual events of 9/11, they have to do with the problem reaction solution of 9/11. And by the way, LoveAmerica, the reason I have not been taken to the concentration camps yet is the same reason im trying to tell everyone about the 9/11 being an inside job, because we can still save this country. It's not over yet, the globalists won't win. Evil always gets defeated in the end right? So much stuff is going to come out in the public in the next few years they are going to have to hit the gas on their takeover.

got no argument? do disturb... (Below threshold)
.:

got no argument? do disturbing facts hurt your feeble mind? use "kooky conspiracy" typical type slurs. so predictable.face value? now your even using my terms? try and be original buddy.

I've researched what Nick i... (Below threshold)
Steven:

I've researched what Nick is talking about, he's right. Wake up America!

Nick, Please join t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
Please join the fight against the leftist media like NYT, LAT, and USA Today who are willing to disclose classified information and even distort/lie to slander American troops and provide propaganda service for the terrorists.

How about this conspiracy theory
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702

Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

Steve, I researched... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Steve,
I researched what David Horowitz said and he is right. Wake up America.


http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702

Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

NickYou're only 17... (Below threshold)

Nick

You're only 17. Seek help now. The so-called facts about Prescott Bush are both wrong and EVEN if they were "right" have not a friggin' thing to do with his grandson.

Are YOU responsible for anything YOUR grandfather ever did? It's like the slams against Gov. Arnold because his dad was a Nazi.... even though Arnold as a teen repudiated his father and was part of a group that publically challenged neo-nazis.

You sound like the antisemites that claim America is being secretly run by The Jews.

Hey HarshIf you ar... (Below threshold)

Hey Harsh

If you are an American, tell me ONE RIGHT you had five years ago you don't have today.

meshugga schmuck

The leftist media??? I see ... (Below threshold)
Nick:

The leftist media??? I see it as a very conservative media, but that's beside the point because both parties are controlled by the same people.
Oh, by the way, Steven E. Jones proved there was thermate in the Twin Towers.

Nick, Kathy has sho... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
Kathy has shown you about Steven Jones already. Since you are interested in protecting America. If you think NYT, LAT, and USA Today are conservative papers and want to fight them, go ahead. I don't mind as long as these propaganda organs get checked.

Also Please check this out


http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702

Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

the media is corporate. rep... (Below threshold)
.:

the media is corporate. republicans are more friendly with big business,big oil etc. than the democrats are. by default, the media is indeed more conservative than ever. these people have no understanding of the media. they hear their heros like Rush, Coulter and Malkin spew about how "liberal" the media is, so of course they buy whtever those goons sell. if they say the media is liberal, it is, facts be damned.

First off I'm not 17, I'm 1... (Below threshold)
Nick:

First off I'm not 17, I'm 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag.

First off I'm not 17, I'm 1... (Below threshold)
Nick:

First off I'm not 17, I'm 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag.

Jay TeaLook... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea

Looks like "." has slipped out its straitjacket and is piddling on the floor again.

First off I'm not 17, I'm 1... (Below threshold)
Nick:

First off I'm not 17, I'm 15. And you would be right about the grandfather thing, IF his grandson wasnt the member of an evil german death cult, and under Bush we have 9/11, which is obviously his reichstag. thats a few reasons, but there are hundreds. but dont discredit yourself, because there is no longer any debate about prescott funding nazis. and he stole the skull of geronimo by the way

Dot and Nick, Pleas... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Dot and Nick,
Please check out this alliance. This is where your fight can be useful to the security of America. WE all know the left has stood on the wrong side of history. They sided with the communists and now with the terrorists simply to defeat Bush. IF you think the left is corrupt, please feel free to join the right side of history.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702


Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

sorry didnt mean to post th... (Below threshold)
nick:

sorry didnt mean to post that more than once...

the left and the right are ... (Below threshold)
nick:

the left and the right are two sides of the same coin you ignorant sheep

NickGerman death c... (Below threshold)

Nick

German death cult, reischtag?

You sound like a NLR or AB gangbanger with his grasp on reality.

Your parents need to yank out your internet access, boy.

Nick, WHy do you ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
WHy do you have to resort to name calling? You mentioned that you want to study and find out facts. Here is an opportunity to you, why are you so upset and have to resort to name calling?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702


Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

This discussion has nothing... (Below threshold)
T.Jefferson:

This discussion has nothing to do with left versus right, but everything to do with truth versus fiction.

Come on, wake up guys! You're being lied to over and over. The whole "war on terror" is a farce! You have to step up and start questioning what is being spoonfed to you. If you don't I'm sorry to say that they'll take every goddamed thing away from you.

T. Jefferson, Good ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

T. Jefferson,
Good point. We need truth and not fiction. Since you don't want to be spoon-fed, it is time to check this out. I think this one has far more evidence to support compared to this 9/11 denial.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702


Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

The whole "war on terror... (Below threshold)

The whole "war on terror" is a farce

Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.

This is probably Cindy Shee... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This is probably Cindy Sheehan 's motto:
the left and the right are two sides of the same coin. America is corrupt. I would rather live under Chavez (a communist dictator)

Fascism: An American realit... (Below threshold)
Les A. Country:

Fascism: An American reality

By Larry Pinkney
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jul 6, 2006, 01:07

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word fascism as "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." Moreover, and most importantly, it also defines fascism clearly and succinctly as "oppressive or dictatorial control." There are those who will sarcastically say that the political/social situation in and with America is not "that bad," when in fact things are far, far worse.

Whether or not one chooses to define this increasingly all-encompassing suppression of people in America as authoritarian, totalitarian or fascist is a ridiculously moot point for the overwhelming majority of people who have lost or are losing their already limited freedoms, their livelihoods and their very lives to the organized repression of this hypocritical, cynically racist and genocidal American state apparatus. The organized and sustained political, economic, social and cultural repression being waged by the American state against its own citizens and persons globally is nothing short of fascism.

At this precarious period in history, with repression intensifying on all levels, quibbling about whether or not America is technically fascist amounts to intellectual masturbation. The fact is that the internal and external repressive policies of the United States of America have already destroyed -- and continue to decimate -- millions of people inside America and throughout the world. Especially is this true with respect to the vast majority of people of color in the ghettos, reservations and barrios of the U.S., as well as in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, the Caribbean and elsewhere.

Contrary to the well perpetuated myth, fascism is not limited to storm troopers blatantly goose-stepping down streets and alleyways, engaging in bloody search and destroy missions. Germany's fascism under Adolf Hitler differed from Italy's fascism under Benito Mussolini, but they were both fascist nation states. Fascism has different forms, all of which are equally deadly, all of which must be identified, seriously resisted and stopped.

Complacently insisting that the organized state repressive apparatus of, in and by the United States must not be defined as fascism is incredibly dangerous, especially at this point in history. It's a bit like quibbling with a person who is in the death throes of drowning that he is not actually drowning but merely suffocating! No matter how it is defined, the person is dying, and immediate action is needed to save his or her life!

Whether it is defined as blatant fascism, benign fascism or so-called creeping fascism, it is still fascism; and if left unchecked, the end result is precisely the same: total and utter disenfranchisement under an authoritarian, repressive state apparatus. The urgency of this reality in America cannot be overstated.

The enormous internal and external destruction of peoples and cultures around the world caused by the fascistic policies of the United States -- cloaked in a mythical democracy -- have wreaked more havoc, misery and destruction upon peoples nationally and around the world than the blatantly fascist regimes of World War II Germany and Italy combined. Notwithstanding the over 100 million Black people who had previously been murdered as victims of Europe and America's African "legalized" slave trafficking, it should be remembered that many years subsequent, Adolf Hitler, in his published book "Mein Kampf," made it quite clear that the idea for waging the horrible genocide against Jews and other so-called "undesirables" had been borrowed from none other than the earlier genocide waged by the United States against the indigenous -- so called "Indian" -- peoples of America.

Ironically, many pundits of that 1930s era confidently and incorrectly argued that due to Germany's achievements in culture, politics, the arts and technology of that period, the unthinkable could never happen there. Obviously, they were wrong. Nevertheless, the enormous horrors inflicted by fascist Germany and Italy upon the world pale by comparison to those carried out by the much larger, deadlier and far more sophisticated United States of America, whose internal and external "news" and information propaganda machine would make the former fascist German and Italian propaganda machines green with envy.

Thus, to compare the contemporary United States, or any of its leaders, to the former fascist leaders Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini is utterly missing the point, as the U.S. is much, much worse, and its global power is far more encompassing and devastating.

It is important not to be fooled by the feigned surprise on the part of some at the limited, tip-of-the-iceberg revelations about U.S. torture, internal spying by the U.S. government and corporations, the militarization of the judicial process, massive national voter disenfranchisement and the demonstrated de facto contempt by the U.S. government and corporations for the Black victims of Hurricane Katrina, etc. Substantively, virtually none of these systemic practices are new but now are integrally part and parcel of an increasingly blatant form of American fascism.

No matter what individual may be the nominal "leader" of the United States, or what political party -- Republican or Democratic -- is in power, fascism has undeniably become an American reality. No matter what name or under what guise America cloaks its fascist policies, the undeniable fact is: America's own style of fascism is a reality here and now.

It is no wonder that Austrian born Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated no compunction or inhibition whatsoever in repeatedly and openly expressing his "admiration" for German fascist leader Adolf Hitler before going on later to become the Republican Party's governor of the state of California (see "Events Related to Schwarzenegger.")

Moreover, there is no sustained and overwhelming outrage and incensed repudiation of Schwarzenegger from the leadership of either the Democratic or Republican parties regarding his arrogant and chilling admiration for a fascist leader who was directly responsible for the dehumanization and murder of millions of people. A distinctly American version of fascism has taken root in this nation, and has created a political climate wherein politicians can openly embrace with admiration past fascist leaders without seriously jeopardizing their own political careers.

Furthermore, other than as an increasingly obvious propaganda tool to further its global hegemonic objectives, America's cynical racism and hypocrisy has made a meaningless mockery of words and phrases such as democracy, legality, freedom, fair judicial process and justice. This is a reality which most of the peoples of the world outside of the United States have already acknowledged.

Attempting to minimize the precariousness of the political situation in this nation by denying the reality of fascism in America does not change or stop it. Maintaining, like ostriches, the denial of fascism's active, significant existence and role in the American body politic, actually strengthens its stranglehold on the people of this nation and world. Only by removing our heads from the sand, facing up to, organizing against, resisting and struggling for systemic change here and now is there the real hope, for ourselves and for people around the world, of stopping and dismantling this fascist onslaught. Indeed, we can ill afford to do otherwise.
Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Email him at Lecconsult@aol.com.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Larry Pinkney is a veteran ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party,
-----------------------------------------------
Les, thanks for posting this blatant propaganda a black panter party veteran. This post seems to support the thesis here

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702


Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

The present article focuses on the so-called "peace left" - so called because most of the individuals participating in it are not pacifists and are not really interested in peace as such, but in radical agendas that are served by opposing America's war on terror. (Thus there were no "peace" demonstrations at the Iraqi embassy calling on the government of Saddam Hussein to comply with seventeen U.N. resolutions which the war was undertaken to enforce.)

The peace left's core consists of the ideological descendents of the communist/progressive left that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. This no mere motley crew of inconsequential fringe extremists, but is in fact the well-organized, militant, and immensely influential driving force behind the contemporary peace movement and the enormous anti-war rallies it has recently staged. Upon the foundation of its hatred for the United States, the peace left has forged its alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep.

In word and deed, both of these allies make it plain that they consider everything about the United States to be evil and unworthy of preservation; that they wish to see American society and its way of life crushed by any means necessary, including violent revolution. Their position was well summarized by the now-infamous professor Ward Churchill, who asserted that terrorist violence directed against the United States is a morally justifiable response to what he characterizes as the U.S. government's "rape" and "murder" of other peoples. "If we want an end to violence," says Churchill, "especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world." Churchill does not, however, harbor any hopes that America might mend its alleged flaws; rather, he advocates the country's destruction: "I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." Toward this end, Churchill candidly endorses further acts of anti-American terror. "One of the things I've suggested," he says, "is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary." Lamenting that the terrorism of 9/11 had proved "insufficient to accomplish its purpose" of eviscerating the United States, Churchill wrote, "What the hell? It was worth a try."

ahhhhh, the racism of the r... (Below threshold)
conservative means close minded:

ahhhhh, the racism of the right finally rears its ugly head.you assbackwards hicks.

From the second article... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

From the second article

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15321

Horowitz: The consequences will parallel those in Indo-china but for us will be much worse. In Indo-china when Kennedy, Kerry, Dean and the other antiwar activists (myself included) were able to prevail in the political argument, and America cut and ran, the result was a bloodbath in Southeast Asia in which the Communists slaughtered two and a half million people. If we were to lose in Iraq and be forced to withdraw, there would be a bloodbath of all those who fought with us, and who resisted the terrorists, and then all those in the terrorists' path. It would not probably reach the proportions of the Vietnam and Cambodian catastrophes immediately, but it would spread to other Muslim states whose governments the radicals are seeking to overthrow and eventually come home to the United States, something that did not happen in the Cold War with Communism.

It may or may not happen immediately. But if the tide of radical Islam is not stopped in Iraq it will spread to other states, which are much larger and even nuclear -- Pakistan comes immediately to mind -- and then we will reap the whirlwind. Iraq as someone has said is not Vietnam, it is Guadalcanal. We are in a war with radical Islam which is seeking first of all to control the lives and resources of one and a half billion Muslims, and then to take on the "Crusader" west. The threat to us can decrease only if we stay on the offensive and keep winning and thus keep them losing and off balance and on the defensive. This is why the efforts of Kennedy and Al Gore and Jimmy Carter to repeat the disaster of Vietnam are infinitely more dangerous than what John Kerry and Ted Kennedy did in Vietnam. Communism, as we didn't fully realize at the time of Vietnam, was already a dying system and an unraveling creed. Radical Islam is not. Radical Islam is a far more fanatical religion than Communism (I never thought I would be saying this!) and - in the short run -- does not depend on the success of an actually existing utopian Mecca to sustain it as Communism did.

The whole "war on terror" i... (Below threshold)
the one who ask questions,or the one who blindly accepts the company line? you be the judge.:

The whole "war on terror" is a farce

Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.

Posted by: Darleen at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM

the 9/11 widow that doesnt ask any questions and blindly buys the company line?
you got your 9/11 family members, i got mine:

Donna Marsh O'Connor at the U.N

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=90&vid=31&epi=0&typ=0

Bob McIlvaine Interview on 9/11 Coverup

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=100&vid=29&epi=0&typ=0

be afraid sheep-like neocon... (Below threshold)
the war on terror is a lie:

be afraid sheep-like neocons!!! they depend on it!!!!!!!!!

Good question here... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Good question here

FP: You ask why people who think of themselves as "progressives" and champions of human rights would risk their lives to defend despotism - the "human shields" for Saddam, the Taliban etc. Mr. Horowitz, haven't we seen this all before - i.e. the Western progressives who went to help build socialism in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution, only to be slaughtered by the Stalinist terror etc?

LesBy posting that... (Below threshold)

Les

By posting that whole article you are more than likely in violation of copywrite... you are not engaging in fairuse.

and closed-minded?

when it pointing out someone was a member of a violent domestic gang "racist?"

This war on terrorism is bo... (Below threshold)
you are being played like fiddles.....:

This war on terrorism is bogus

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian


Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003

isnt is strange how nobody ... (Below threshold)
the right has no sense of humor,just rigid drones:

isnt is strange how nobody even mildy funny comes from the right? who do you guys got? that "get er done" jackass? man thats weak.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706perspective.htm

Yeah. Tell that to Debra... (Below threshold)

Yeah. Tell that to Debra Burlingame.

Posted by: Darleen at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM

the 9/11 widow that doesnt ask any questions and blindly buys the company line?

Geez, ".", how many sock puppets you got going here? Are you "nick" and "mark" too?

Burlingame is not a 9/11 widow. Nice to see how much you really know.

If TJ is NOT you, then I shouldn't have to point out, yet again, that the Islamists themselves have spoken and written their threats to defeat us for years. Why you and other cultists can't even take them at their own words would be laughable if you weren't, in fact, acting in the terrorists interests.

Stay out of the way of your moral betters.

Another example to support ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Another example to support the thesis again

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18633
Within about two weeks of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the most heinous attack on this country in its history, unprecedented, unprovoked, there were 250-odd demonstrations on American campuses against the United States responding militarily to these attacks. This movement, which some call a "peace" movement, grew much larger in anticipation of a war with Iraq - which was a war to overthrow one of the monsters of the 20th century, who had filled mass graves with 300,000 bodies and used poison gas on Iraq's Kurdish minority. And this movement not only grew to a huge size before we went in, even though the president had gotten authorization from both parties, majorities in both the Democrat and the Republican parties, gone to the UN, gotten a unanimous Security Council resolution that Saddam had to disarm and provide a report showing that he had disarmed, and do it within 30 days or else, which he didn't do. Yet, there were - in this country, there were probably a million people out in the streets to oppose America's effort to make good on the ultimatum. These demonstrations and opposition continued and the attacks on the commander-in-chief grew greater and greater as the United States attempted to consolidate its victory and establish a democracy in Iraq.

This is very counterintuitive to what most people think about the Left. They think of the Left as standing up for human rights, and being against the fascist dictators.

Michael Medved: So very quickly, David, what does it reveal?

David Horowitz: Well, it reveals that just as in the Cold War we had a very large Left that supported the Communist enemy, we now have an even larger Left - since that old Communist, "progressive" Left has combined with Muslim radicals to create a much larger fifth column in this country - which wants us to lose this war and the War on Terror generally.

Darleen(and other gullible ... (Below threshold)
please try and go outside of rightwing spin for once.enlighten yourself.:

Darleen(and other gullible people like her) is being played. the fear you must live with from "islamofascists" must be horrible.if only you knew how to read, do basic research and not buy everything big corporate entities say at face value, you might have a chance.

Darlene, These talk... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Darlene,
These talking points are a farce. These are NJ widows taking advantage of their husbands' death to become a celebrity and a political tools for the anti-American left.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18035

So why are the members of this same group - who were so outraged by the mere mention of the deaths of their relatives in a heart-wrenching TV commercial - nearly silent about University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's reference to their kin as "Little Eichmanns"? By any reasonable standard, comparing the victims of 9/11 to Hitler's right-hand man is a far more egregious assault on decency than the respectful treatment paid the event in the Bush ads. Surely claiming that those who willingly worked as part of America's capitalist enterprise were legitimate targets for enemy combatants constitutes "offensive exploitation" of the deaths of innocent men and women.

Darleen, "acting in the ter... (Below threshold)
the righwing noise machin even has these people thinking the media is liberal. i shit you not.:

Darleen, "acting in the terrorists interests"? i swear i heard Ann Coulter(plaigerist) say the exact same thing. Malkin and the rest probably dont even believe that bullshit they spew to make you gullible sheep terrified of "terrorists".they know it pays better to be a rightwing shill, and you fall for all of it.poor girl.

Darleen, These anti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Darleen,
These anti-America leftists do not have the courage to admit who they are. They pretend to be outraged at America 's shortcomings. At the same time, they expoused the propaganda of the radical communists. David Horowitz 's thesis about the unholy alliance between these anti-American leftists and the Islamic jihadists seem to be confirmed with the writings posted in this thread.

Just read what David said b... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just read what David said below. IT describes exactly what has been posted from the radical leftists.


http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15306
The left, Horowitz recounts, quickly turned its attention entirely away from the murder and mayhem of 9/11 to half-baked "analyses" of the "real causes" of the atrocities of that day. This search for root causes, he says, "was a code for the utopian agendas of the left. It was a declaration of war against the War on Terror"--a war that is being waged with particular ferocity in the 2004 presidential campaign.

This anti-anti-terrorism is motivated by an anti-Americanism that was born, as Horowitz details, in Communism and the Vietnam-era antiwar movement. Although the revolutionary fact (the Soviet bloc) has been consigned to the dustbin of history, the revolutionary illusion persists, and continues to identify America as the chief obstacle to its utopia. Horowitz quotes another Columbia professor, Nicholas De Genova: "Peace is not patriotic [but] subversive. . . . Peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live -- a world where the U.S. would have no place." De Genova, of course, won nationwide notoriety when he declared just before the beginning of the Iraq war: "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. . . . I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

Horowitz explains that "as long as America continues to maintain the will and ability to protect what radicals regard as the global order of 'social injustice,' all reforms and social advances within the existing structure of American democracy will be illusory." In other words, it won't be enough for the left to elect John Kerry: America itself must be brought down.

What's more, this creates a peculiar harmonic convergence between the left and radical Islam. "The goals of radical jihad," says Horowitz, "are purification and social justice, both of which are to be achieved through the institution of Islamic law in the states conquered by Islamic arms."

You fellas still at it, huh... (Below threshold)
popol vuh:

You fellas still at it, huh?

Love to hear yourselves talk, come up with inventive uses of the term "tinfoil hat" and foodstuffs/collapse analogies?

(and whoever it was that compared the sauteed chopped cabbage to the WTC implosion- my tinfoil hat's off to you)

Terribly sad.

popol, Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

popol,
Thanks for providing another example of what 's wrong with these kooky conspiracy theorists.

<a href="http://fron... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:


http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15306
The left, Horowitz recounts, quickly turned its attention entirely away from the murder and mayhem of 9/11 to half-baked "analyses" of the "real causes" of the atrocities of that day. This search for root causes, he says, "was a code for the utopian agendas of the left. It was a declaration of war against the War on Terror"--a war that is being waged with particular ferocity in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Doesn't it bother you guys ... (Below threshold)
Nick:

Doesn't it bother you guys that in the 2004 election we had two cousins running against each other and who were members of the same elite german death cult??? By the way, I semi-infiltrated Bohemian Grove yesterday. For those of you who aren't hip to the Bohemian Grove, it's where our "conservative christian" politicians go to do Molech worship rituals such as the Cremation of Care (which the security guy who kicked us out admitted). For those of you who don't know about Molech, he's the owl-god that people sacrifice children to.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Schopenhouer

Nick, YOur post is ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
YOur post is totally void of facts and reality. It is simply a regurtitation of the anti-American propaganda posted above.
YOu have a good point about Molech. The radical leftist with its secular religion of secular statism has been willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of people to build its heaven on earth, ie. the communist utopia.
I am not sure you are in the first or second stage wrt the truth about this anti-American propanganda. Looks like you tried ridicule and violent opposition both. Hope you accept the truth eventually.

Nick, By the way, t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nick,
By the way, this anti-American secular religion seems to be willing to sacrifice women and children of the poor/oppressed to the evils of terrorism with the sole purpose to fight against Bush even at the expense of AMerica.

Conspiracy theorists like t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Conspiracy theorists like these (9/11, "planes? what planes?") are so much fun. Fantasy is a wonderful thing, though Frank Morgan could fit behind those curtains far easier than Boeing 757/767's.

Thank you, Lee, Nick, you Kos linkers, and, of course, Wizbang's own Mr. Punctuation.

The leftist secular religio... (Below threshold)
Nick:

The leftist secular religion and molech worship??? what are you talking about? im trying to say that democratic politians and republican politicians alike are working together for globalism. We live in a one-party state, this is a dictatorship. LoveAmerica, you need to take a look at Alex Jones' work. He is conservative like, you. No wait... he is nothing like you, he's a real conservative that see's through our government's lies. He completely predicted 9/11 and even said they might blame Osama.