« LA Times Writes (Stupid) Smear Piece on Fred Thompson | Main | Wizbang Podcast is up »

22% of All Americans think President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened

Is this statistic real? Do we really have so many whack jobs in this country? From Rasmussen Reports (link fixed):

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.


Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.

Wow. It's hard to believe, but if this statistic is true, that means 22% of all Americans are as whacked out as Crazy Cynthia McKinney.


Comments (119)

The better question would b... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

The better question would be what makes people think this. Clearly it's a sign that Bush has credibility issues...

The better questio... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:
The better question would be what makes people think this. Clearly it's a sign that Bush has credibility issues...

LOL! I hope that's being sardonic. If not, it's pretty ironic the first post would be from a BDS-sufferer.

I'd say the constant barrage of propaganda (such as Fahrenheit 9/11) by people more concerned with filling their own pocket than care about their fellow citizens has much to do with it.

The better question woul... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

The better question would be what makes people think this. Clearly it's a sign that Bush has credibility issues...

Or a more potent variety of psychotropic drugs on the street...

I just naturally assume tha... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I just naturally assume that those that are crazy enough to think that are the ones walking around dressed like Rosie-O-Donut or dancing down the street in in a little red riding hood outfit. Most probably spend they're vacation in Kansas searching for the magic rabbit hole, or scanning the sky for UFO's. Actually that could be almost any democrat. Crazy as a bed bug, and/or smart as a box of rocks.

"The better question would ... (Below threshold)
FMK:

"The better question would be what makes people think this."

Answer...because they are dumber than a box of rocks.

And that is my charitable take on the subject.

BDS has gone to seed and sp... (Below threshold)
bill:

BDS has gone to seed and sprouted. There is something rotten in the Democrat party, and it's not the fish.

...wondering if Paul Hamilt... (Below threshold)

...wondering if Paul Hamilton is a sock puppet for....
do we have a commenter here who is a cheerleader for the "controlled demolition" theory (and I don't mean Jawn Kerry)???

In the spirit of Operation ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

In the spirit of Operation Northwoods (google it!)...

A clue to why the air shield was "confused" on 9/11:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

This one's really creepy! (RE:7/7 London exactimundo!)..

http://globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/070705londonterrorexercise.wmv

Speaking of moonbat nutjobs... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of moonbat nutjobs and their conspiracies, the movie Loose Change, which was to be shown on Virgin Airways has been pulled due to influence of the rightwing blogosophere!

Whoooo hooooo!

So roughly <a href="http://... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

So roughly 66,388,536 Americans believe Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened?

Man, that's just plain scary.

I find it very funny that t... (Below threshold)
buckhunter:

I find it very funny that the same nutjobs that think 9/11 was an inside job also think that we are losing our rights. Don't you think that if our government was nasty enough to kill 3000 citizens they would be whacking some of these idiots to keep them quiet? Talk about freedom of speech. I would like see the Russians to call Putin "chimpy" every day, and see how long before they take a big dirt nap.

Ah the article does say "vo... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

Ah the article does say "voters" so the number would be something less than what I wrote. Still, it is freaky that millions believe it.

BTW, Kim your link is messed up -- has one too many "http://" after it.

Is this a propaganda war ag... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Is this a propaganda war against Bush by the terrorist-loving section in the US?

Gee, a dozen more responses... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Gee, a dozen more responses and no one has seriously answered my question. I don't think there are tens of millions of Americans who hate George Bush so much that they'd believe *anything* people say about him, but in this one particular case, they do believe it. Sarcasm and partisanship aside, what explanation do you have for this.

To address one of the points raised, no, I am not a 9-11 conspiracy buff. I think the facts are pretty well established and I see no glaring flaws in the official account of events.

A friend of my wife worked in an office building just the other side of the highway from the Pentagon and actually saw the plane smash into the side of the building. I know one person who believes to the core of his being that it was a missile which hit the Pentagon and I've asked him why this person -- who had no connection whatsoever with the government -- would lie about what she saw with her own eyes. He can't answer that, but he doesn't believe her either. That's why it's so hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who are conspiracy buffs.

22% also believe that fire ... (Below threshold)
Roy:

22% also believe that fire won't melt steel. They still sell Weekly World News and someone listened to Air America, so I can buy that percentage.

P.T. Barnum lived for those guys.

"I see no glaring flaws in ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"I see no glaring flaws in the official account of events...paul"

1)OY! watch Loose Change (it's free; Google/youtube video). A passenger jet will not FIT in the Pentagon Hole. Check it out! (Standard windows visible capture the scale of the thing, pre-collapse). Be sure to check out minute 53, too. Thermite? Also, the cell phone rehearsals of "highjacked" flight over PA.

2)3 skyscrapers collapsed. within hours of each other. If you can find another example of such a phenomenon (EVEN 1), let me know. I've requested links here before. No takers (and a poured concrete shopping mall doesn't count. marc!:o) ) Plenty of knocked-over 'scrapers; not pulverized (save for Atta's passport!!!!conveeeenient.) And, no: a plane 1/100(?) the size of a building will not induce spontaneous destruction.


Don't miss the possibility ... (Below threshold)

Don't miss the possibility (indeed probability) that a fair number of Democrats in the poll may have been insisting that Bush should have known. Remember, the media, who have not beaten the drum much for 9-11 crackpottery pushed that August 6, 2001 PDB as if it said "Osama planning to crash airliners into buildings next month!" Probably where that 1 in 8 Republican response comes from as well.

I pay a lot of attention to these kooks at Screw Loose Change. I'm going to guess that the real percentage of 9-11 Deniers is like 12%. Most of them are fringy kooks, but a surprising number are fringy kook libertarians, upset about the Patriot Act.

Yes, there are more Left than Right in the Denier Movement, but I would also not that almost no major liberal blog (except Bradblog) and no major liberal columnist has embraced this tinfoil hat stuff. Paul Craig Roberts, arguably a man of the Right and a regular contributor to VDare is a 9-11 kook.

So all the people, includin... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

So all the people, including my grandmother, who saw the plane hit the Pentagon are lying?

"So all the people, includi... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"So all the people, including my grandmother, who saw the plane hit the Pentagon are lying?
Posted by: The Listkeeper"

That's a rhetorical question. And to use dear ol' Granny in such a fashion is most unbecoming.
Is there Information included? Big plane? Little plane? Direct hit? Skid?

> Is this statistic real... (Below threshold)
Arthur:

> Is this statistic real? Do we really have so many whack jobs in this country?

Yeah, it seems plausible to me. People love conspiracy theories. JFK, fake moon landing, Bermuda Triangle coverups and on and on and on. When I was a teenager I belived lots of crazy stuff. I learned better and outgrew it.

Now that I think about it, the really incredible thing is that so many people can be believers in such wacky nonsense and still be functional citizens!

BTW, does anybody know how I can get my paragraphs indented when posting on systems like this? I like about 3 spaces on the first line of each para for readability but they don't show up.

Pat Curley, Update... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Pat Curley,

Update your "blog". Your worse than Steve of Norway. Laaaazy...

Arthur, I can read you, but... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Arthur, I can read you, but I know:

I had a nice, neat table made out using [...]s to keep it aligned on the "Debate Wrap up" post here. Ended up looking like I was sh!t-faced. (I swear I wasn't!)(OK, I was, but I can still count [...]s!)

BD, you really are what I t... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

BD, you really are what I think you are. Structual engineers have stated how and why the twin towers failed. The Science Channel, the History channel and others have shown in detail how and why those building failed. Eye witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, yet you, in your brilliant wisdom choose to believe that an American man whos family has served this nation well became President of the United States so he could attack his own country for the sole purpose of enabling him to attack Iraq. Seek help soon.

ZRIII,Send money, ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

ZRIII,

Send money, will seek help. (wink wink)

signed, an "American man"(sic!!!)

*dancing with the stars*

Brian, obviously you did no... (Below threshold)

Brian, obviously you did not read below the top post. We have about 5 posts daily and we are the top 9-11 debunking blog by a large margin.

bryabD[elusional]<... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryabD[elusional]

2)3 skyscrapers collapsed. within hours of each other. If you can find another example of such a phenomenon (EVEN 1), let me know. I've requested links here before. No takers (and a poured concrete shopping mall doesn't count. marc!:o)

And why not? Why doesn't it count? Don't strain your brain lunkhead, it's already in a very stressful state.

And BTW - Update your "blog". Your worse than Steve of Norway. Laaaazy... - that makes you a liar of the first order. Not to mention so "Laaaazy" you didn't take the effort to verify what you assertd was true or not.

I seem to recall another st... (Below threshold)

I seem to recall another statistic, that a large percentage of people believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, that the liberals like to toss around, especially when bashing Fox News...

And BryanD is proving not only dumber than a box of rocks, but denser. The last time he brought up his "Loose Brains" bull, people pointed out to him that 1) thermite doesn't explode, it burns; and 2) airliners are essentially big, hollow aluminum tubes, with the only real dense parts being the engines.

Someone should explain that to BryanD, and demonstrate it by crushing a beer can on his forehead. If he's still not convinced, repeat the demonstration with a full one.

J.

Pathetic people who believe... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Pathetic people who believe this tripe of GW causing 9/11 have to deny quite a few things. First and foremost would be the first attempt in 1993. This denial takes me back to John Kennedy. People do not want to believe a lone nut job could ruin a whole country emotionally. The black community doesn't want to think that a lone nut job would kill Martin King. I think there was serious discussion in the far past that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so we could get in the war. I think the people who think like that are too emotionally attached and are unable to view things objectively. BDS would be one cause. Hate is a powerful emotion. ww

Isn't this roughly the same... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Isn't this roughly the same percentage of Americans that approve of the job Bush is doing?

What a world!! What a world!

The plane didn't directly h... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

The plane didn't directly hit the Pentagon. The high velocity, burning debris hit the building.

Having worked as an engineer in industrial/chemical plants it comes as great surprise to me that we wasted all that expense fireproofing our steel structures. According to Rosie, P.E., we should have known better.

You want a conspiracy theory? Why did the New York or Trade Center officials let all those firemen stay in the building that long? It was well known to architects/engineers/firemarshalls BEFORE the planes hit that the building could only take an intense fire for an hour or so before major structural failures would occur. Don't you find it odd that nobody has interviewed a structural engineer for the WTC project and put that on the air? A few of them should still be around.

1) thermite doesn't explode... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

1) thermite doesn't explode, it burns_jay tea"

I never said thermite explodes. It does expell tell tale plumes of gas (no, not gasoline; "smoke" (minute 53, Loose Change)


"2) airliners are essentially big, hollow aluminum tubes, with the only real dense parts being the engines._jay tea"

Correct. Note that the pentagon hole was alleged to have been made by that "hollow tube". And there are no holes at all fot the 9 ton engines to have disappeared into at all.

"and demonstrate it by crushing a beer can on his forehead. If he's still not convinced, repeat the demonstration with a full one.-jay tea"

You must work with a lot of skirts.

"And why not? Why doesn't it count?_marc"

Then why not cite the collapsing K-Mart in a town near you? Because they're different structurally. One's earthquake-proof, the other can't withstand a good snowfall.

Pat Curley, I see. You are updated, in fact you're PRE-dated! (7/31/07 post)

This corresponds exactly to... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

This corresponds exactly to the percentage of hard core liberals, I bet.

Hey folks: Never try to wre... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Hey folks: Never try to wrestle with a pig. You end up covered in mud, and the pig enjoys it.

Now we know where the alien... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Now we know where the alien from Area 51 went. He has been posing as "bryanDumbnutjob" for all these years. LMAO (even ROTFLMAO)

It does expell tell tale... (Below threshold)

It does expell tell tale plumes of gas (no, not gasoline; "smoke" (minute 53, Loose Change)

The operative question, BrianD (does the D stand for Dimwit?), is, are there any other substances that produce "smoke" when burning? And might some of those substances reasonably be found in an office that is currently in use?

Let's see... paper, wood, plastics of various types... hmmm...

If you're trying to look like an absolute idiot, Brian, you're succeeding brilliantly. How long does it take you to figure out which shoe goes on which foot every morning? 10 minutes? 20?

The 22% figure is roughly a... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The 22% figure is roughly about the same percentage, of those Americans who don't know have any idea where Nebraska is, but a little less than the 31 % of Americans who don't know who their vice-president might be....Where have they been the last 6 years?
As for the 'Loose Change' film, I find that if the utterly reckless Operation Northwoods plan could be approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be extremely scary, but the film from then on, suffers by being loose with the facts. For a point by point, but sympathetic critique , this site is worth checking out.

I never said thermite ex... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

I never said thermite explodes. It does expell tell tale plumes of gas (no, not gasoline; "smoke" (minute 53, Loose Change)

One problem, the only plausible use of thermite for demolition would be a cutting charge. A cutting charge would produce smoke for all of 15 seconds in quantities you'd be unlikely to see more than a dozen yards away.


Popular mechanics basically shredded all this nonsense a couple years ago.

Popular Mechanics

"One problem, the only plau... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"One problem, the only plausible use of thermite for demolition would be a cutting charge. A cutting charge would produce smoke for all of 15 seconds in quantities you'd be unlikely to see more than a dozen yards away_taltos"

Check out the 53rd minute of LC. What you describe is what is shown. I saw the PM article when it came out in '05. The overhead design diagram didn't jibe with various other renderings (the center supports layout was omitted, as it was in the 9/11 Report). And in the rewrite/review you linked to, there's no schematics at all. Plus no mention of the roof supports-weakened-by-fire theory posited in the original. That was PM's cause and effect theory which was not sustainable and was quietly dropped, hence the rewrite instead of a reprinting. The lack of DETAIL in the new story is odd, too, for a magazine with "Mechanics" in the title.

Appreciate your points. Of course, the flapdoodlers are funnier.

Steve Crickmore, thx for th... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Steve Crickmore, thx for the link. Looks interesting. Will read.

yeah, as one of the earlier... (Below threshold)
gozorak:

yeah, as one of the earlier comments stated, wouldnt a government bad enough to pull a 9/11 also be bad enough to "deal" with the "Loose Change" crowd in one way or another?

If Bush was behind 9/11 then we have no choice but to take sides..Tyrannical government under Bush or those brave, seekers of truth, justice, and the delusional way embodied by Rosie, Cindy Sheehan,the loose change crowd, 95% of protestors and demonstrators, 25% of the Democratic party, half of all tenured University professors , and 35% of the entertainment industry.

If I had to choose between those two sides Im choosing tyrannical government with Bush as absolute leader. And if that is the case then the government has my wholehearted support and permission to begin dealing with the likes of those trouble makers any way the government sees fit..Im all for a liberal holocaust.

BryanDimwit:What p... (Below threshold)

BryanDimwit:

What part of ...unlikely to see more than a dozen yards away" did you not comprehend?

How many yards away is the 93rd floor of a skyscraper? That's approximately where the first plane hit. Or the 73rd floor? That's where the second one hit.

And you still haven't answered my question (probably because you CAN'T) about other flammable materials in offices that can cause "smoke" (quotes yours, remember).

How much hatred must you have in your soul to believe this crap?

There really are that many ... (Below threshold)

There really are that many people.

And people who believe in ghosts, and who think psychics are real, and aliens, and...

And somehow they function. It's frustrating, of course, but it's also reassuring in a round about way. They function. People I know who believe that they or a family member has some degree of prescience function.

Keeping this in mind helps me to be optimistic since we manage to move forward as a species anyhow as our collective understanding seems able to tolerate a large amount of fruitcakes. The corrective mechanism should they gain sway is a little harsh, as most of nature is, but if people get too weird it's going to destroy their ability to function individually in their own lives, first.

So all in all, the system is robust. And that is reason for optimism, not despair.

CCG: Optical zoom/ digital ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

CCG: Optical zoom/ digital zoom; whatever method is employed in the 53rd minute of Loose Change.

Are you really a "geek" or only a Nerd? Implying it's not possible to see farther than the naked eye allows?

Question: Kirk or Picard? ("Fred" is not admissable)

BryanDimwit:And... (Below threshold)

BryanDimwit:

And you still haven't answered my question (probably because you CAN'T) about other flammable materials in offices that can cause "smoke" (quotes yours, remember).

I ain't letting it go. So answer or find somewhere else to troll.

Oh, one more thing... digit... (Below threshold)

Oh, one more thing... digital zoom makes a picture fuzzier (check Wikipedia... it makes you look less like someone who needs 10 minutes to figure out which shoe goes on which foot each morning).

And are you saying that the Loose Change folks knew about the attacks so they'd have their telephoto lens with them and get in on in time to catch the "puff of smoke"?

Ya know, if this government is willing to kill 3,000 of its own citizens to start a war, why are people like you still alive to make claims like this? Why haven't they killed you yet?

Unless you're part of the conspiracy, Bryan...

"And are you saying that th... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"And are you saying that the Loose Change folks knew about the attacks so they'd have their telephoto lens with them and get in on in time to catch the "puff of smoke"?_ccg"

Will some real geek tell this nerd apprentice that videos can be scaned, panned, zoomed, etc, to bring the "focus" "closer"? And yes, pixelation is an issue. Luckily, plenty of professional-quality cameras were employed by news organizations, with lots of pixels/inch(?).
You really GOTTA see it (53rd '' LC)

As for the US Gov't killing its own citizens; there's Waco, of course; the Bonus Marchers' "riot" (read massacre of 1932; MacArthur in charge), etc. And PLANNED in Operation Northwoods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Since your "Geek"-dom has been found wanting, how fake is your second "C"?, IE:

Trees of Life, and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: what are they?

Who was Jesus to Joseph of Arimethea, that he could claim his body?

Basic stuff. Not trick questions.

BrianDimwit:And... (Below threshold)

BrianDimwit:

And you still haven't answered my question (probably because you CAN'T) about other flammable materials in offices that can cause "smoke" (quotes yours, remember).

And why, if the government is killing people, why are you still alive to tell us about The Conspiracy? Why haven't they offed you yet?

And you still haven't answe... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

And you still haven't answered my question (probably because you CAN'T) about other flammable materials in offices that can cause "smoke" (quotes yours, remember)._CCG

The puffs of "smoke" are apparently coming out of the walls (as in controled demolitions; not from windows. Capiche?)

Now: Answer my elementary Bible quiz, Sadducee. After all, you advertise your "Christianity" in your nome de blog.

"And why, if the government is killing people, why are you still alive to tell us about The Conspiracy? Why haven't they offed you yet?_ccg"

For everything there is a season and a purpose under Heaven. (Or just ask "Fred". HE'LL know what to do!))

Uh, BryanDimwit, you just p... (Below threshold)

Uh, BryanDimwit, you just proved yourself a complete and total idiot. Congratulations.

The World Trade Center did not have exterior masonry walls. The exterior was mostly glass, with steel holding it together. All the masonry (that's concrete) was internal, in the floors. Even the elevator cores were mostly steel. See the Wiki article on the design and construction of the World Trade Center for more details. Here's a hint of what you'll find:

[T]he towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building.

In other words, there was no masonry wall to create the "smoke"... and when steel is cut by thermite, there's no "smoke"... that "smoke" (really masonry dust) only appears when a masonry column is severed... of which there were NONE in the World Trade Center!

Sheesh, but you are really stoopid. Do you have to write notes to remind yourself to breathe?

C(sic)C(sic)G: Are you AVOI... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

C(sic)C(sic)G: Are you AVOIDING my Bible quiz?

Is metprof still in makeup?... (Below threshold)
kim:

Is metprof still in makeup?
=================

I don't play by your... (Below threshold)

I don't play by your rules, BryanD(imwit).

Sorry to break it to ya.

Is your self-esteem permanently damaged now?

This is the trailer. (Poor ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

This is the trailer. (Poor quality) but the plumes are STILL clearly visible. What's your opinion? Only a couple of minutes long.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lB1P2Jt0xpM

I've already given my opini... (Below threshold)

I've already given my opinion. Numerous times. Guess you're just a slow learner.

"I don't play by your rules... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"I don't play by your rules, BryanD"

PUNKED!!! LOL! (I usually abjure LOL, etc, but in this case I'll make an exception!) ROTFLMAO!!

Is metprof still in makeup?... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Is metprof still in makeup?
=================
Posted by: kim

Now THAT'S funny! (I admit)

You people don't get it. Yo... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

You people don't get it. You really don't know the facts about 911. You only think you do. For starters I will say I don't like Rosie O'Donnel, never saw Farenheit 911. And I am not a Democrat. Nor do I use drugs of any kind.
Before you call me a wackjob, answer these questions.

1. How do you explain the dozens and dozens of NYPD Firefighter accounts that there were bombs going off in the buildings?

2. If you stood on top of one of the WTC towers and dropped a penny, it would take 10 seconds to hit the ground. The South Tower took 10 seconds to collapse. Do you know what that means? It means the tower collapsed at freefall speed. NO resistance. Pancaking causes resistance and would slow the fall. If the official story is true, then it defies the laws of physics. Please explain this.

3. How do you explain the video footage of the blown up cars and destruction in the basement of one of the towers taken by a maintence worker shortly before excaping the towers collapse, when the plane hit dozens of floors up?

4. How do you explain the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm later that day? WTC 7 only had 2 very small fires and less damage than remaining surrounding buildings.

5. How do you explain that the only 3 steel frame buildings in the history of steel frame building construction to EVER collapse from fire were the twin towers and WTC 7? Tests conducted by researchers trying to determine how the buildings failed subjected the same grade of certified steel to fires of the same temp as burning jet fuel were unable to make the steel fail. Hey, jet engines don't melt, why did the steel frame of the towers? The Twin Towers were designed to withstand passenger plane impact, because of their height. Please explain.

6. Explain the molten metal. Steel melts at 2700 degrees F, jet fuel burns at 1200 degrees F. Concrete, glass and steel don't burn. Paper, rugs, and office furniture burn at even lesser temperatures. So what caused the molten metal video taped pouring out of the side of one of the towers? What caused the pools of molten metal found under the rubble?

7. Explain the small explosions video taped blasting through the side of the towers several floors BELOW the collapsing top of the towers.

I could go on all night. But these things are indeed facts. The question isn't whether the President knew about 911 before it happened. Someone posted that if the government could really do this and kill 3000+ people, then why wouldn't they kill those who spoke out about it? Why? Because then you would see it. And they'd be exposed. As long as fools fall for the wild conspiracy theory that arabs with box cutters brought down the towers in a manner clearly defying the laws of physics, then they know you dopes will fall for anything. I realize that this reality is hard to fathom and I for one am much more comfortable with the thought that it was Bin Laden, but our government has a history of false flag operations. Scrapiron, you keep mentioning UFOs, please try to focus. Your getting confused again. I mean you can lead a horse to water...Dig up this stuff for yourselves, these questions concern FACTS. Much of it caught on film. Wake up.
People jumping from the towers were videotaped, and so was molten metal. Molten metal alone blows the governments official story apart. These are facts folks. You can continue to hide you heads in the sand and pretend everything is ok. But its time to wake up before it happens again. If you can honestly answer those questions, then go write a book, because those questions need answers. But if you choose to be dishonest and gloss over those facts, you are hurting not only yourselves but your country as well. So call me a moonbat, {whatever the hell that is} and stick your head back in the sand. Just do a little research. You can start HERE: http://journalof911studies.com/

Oh this ones good. Thank y... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Oh this ones good. Thank you ROY!
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The government story is only believable if you are IGNORANT. There are 3 kinds of basic burns. When burning jet fuel you can have:
1. an Open Air Burn. Hot, about 1200 F
2. Controlled burn hotter, but not enough to melt steel.
3. Blast Furnace burn. Only a blast furnace can reach temp hot enough to melt steel.

Roy, an open air fire such as the ones that occured in the twin towers will NOT melt steel. Your gas stove does not melt, nor does the pot you use on top of it. A jet engine burning the very same jet fuel that is supposed to have melted the steel beams of the towers will not melt during this kind of controlled burn.
Only a burn in blast furnace conditions will melt steel. Look at it this way, a gas torch burning acetalene needs to have a second oxygen tank to blast oxygen in order to raise the temp of the flame to even get it hot enough to cut steel. The air has to be blasted, and lots of it. Oxygen present in the open air is insufficient to accomplish this. Wake up and think. Don't take any wooden nickels circus boy....


22% also believe that fire won't melt steel. They still sell Weekly World News and someone listened to Air America, so I can buy that percentage.

P.T. Barnum lived for those guys.
Posted by: Roy at May 5, 2007 01:24 AM

Jp Rogers, did you know tha... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jp Rogers, did you know that no joos took the Bay Bridge the day the tanker truck crashed and burned?
=================================

Jp Rogers,Thank Go... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jp Rogers,

Thank God somebody who agrees with me can type! This skirmish was nothing, though. About a month ago here it was a full-on Bushbot banzai attack. All day. I couldn't really keep up with all the diversions, but I made DAMN SURE my word was the last one on the thread (It's the principle of the thing!)

And everythings a learning experience. I just realized tonight that those plumes of smoke are featured in the LC trailer. That's Exhibit A from now on! Much more convenient than citing the 53rd minute of a 90 minute film.

Like chess and wrestling, every experience is a learning experience and helps improve one's technique.

_EPITATH_____________________________

C C G
R.I.P.
5/5/07 - 5/5/07

"I ain't letting it go. So answer or find somewhere else to troll."

_______________________________

file under: Famous last words

Can you, bD, explain that b... (Below threshold)
kim:

Can you, bD, explain that bridge collapsing in an open air fire. Did they make it out of lead?
=================================

Jay, the "Iraq was involved... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Jay, the "Iraq was involved in 911" theory was the conclusion the government wanted us to reach. I mean isn't that what was on everybodys mind as most of us agreed to support the invasion? The Bush Administration spoke of a link between Hussein and Al Queda. A little Anthrax also made the point clear. WMDs, that was the reason wasn't it? So what happened? Where did all the Chemical and biological weapons go? My point is, the Government is lying to us.

I seem to recall another statistic, that a large percentage of people believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, that the liberals like to toss around, especially when bashing Fox News...

Jp thinks he knows where th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jp thinks he knows where the anthrax came from, too.
=================================

Hey bD, that's your puff of... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey bD, that's your puff of smoke, it's anthrax spores.
==================================

Jay, Not all of us who beli... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Jay, Not all of us who believe that 911 was a false flag operation believes that no plane struck the pentagon. Having lived in DC myself, I found it totally unbelievable that if a passenger plane struck the Pentagon, no one saw it. Something happened to flight 73. No, planes did in fact hit the towers, and I see no reason not to believe that a plane also struck the pentagon. If it were a missile, somebody would have seen it. But that in no way derails the "Inside Job" argument. There are way too many other descrepencies to get sidetracked on that. Thermate more than likely was used, not thermite, along with demolition charges, to cut through the core support collums and to blast the rest. There are dozens of demolitions experts, physicists, and structural engineers who disagree with the official story. In the face of overwhelming evidence that the official story was impossible what makes you cling to the idea that this was not a false flag operation? http://journalof911studies.com/
The last time he brought up his "Loose Brains" bull, people pointed out to him that 1) thermite doesn't explode, it burns; and 2) airliners are essentially big, hollow aluminum tubes, with the only real dense parts being the engines.

Someone should explain that to BryanD, and demonstrate it by crushing a beer can on his forehead. If he's still not convinced, repeat the demonstration with a full one.

J.

Kim, is that the best you c... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Kim, is that the best you can do? You cannot answer the 7 questions can you?
I don't give a rats ass about some tanker accident. Its a classic diversion tactic.
The fact that you even challange me on the molten steel argument even further drives my origional point home that the Official Government story is only believable IF you are IGNORANT of the facts. You obviously don't know a thing about what you are saying. Do you. Go look this stuff up. Go look up the melting temp of steel and the temp of burning jet fuel. MOLTEN METAL. We're not talking about weakened steel as was discussed by MIT. MOLTEN METAL was video taped, and also found under the rubble weeks later.

As for the Anthrax, you don't find it strange that outside a couple hapless postal workers, that happened to come into contact with it while processing the mail, the anthrax letters were mailed to prominent Democrats and left wing media newscasters? You'd think the Republican leadership would have been the target wouldn't you?

You can make attempts to poke fun all you want, but you have no answers.

Hey, I never said there wer... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Hey, I never said there weren't planes that hit where everyone says they hit (except for that ditch in PA. maybe). I'm just saying that skyscrapers don't fall straight down in groups of three. And that the fire at WTC weren't hot enough, for long enough to induce a total collapse. Looks like a controlled demo to any sane person. The fact that there are no primetime specials debunking this "conspiracy theory", tells me that any extra attention paid to the matter, is more likely to cause doubts in the official version of events.

kim: call cupid.com. stat!<... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

kim: call cupid.com. stat!

No, I DON'T know that. ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

No, I DON'T know that. Did they take a poll or something? I know my spelling is bad, but I think you are delibertly spelling Jews wrong. Its disrespectful.
Jp Rogers, did you know that no joos took the Bay Bridge the day the tanker truck crashed and burned?
=================================

And how about the report th... (Below threshold)

And how about the report that someone in the building heard a freight train.

That's the one I want to know about.

Fact is, lately a whole lot of people have been hearing freight trains, destroyed a Kansas town and killed 9 people just the other day. And every person who survived (if they aren't deaf) will report hearing the freight train.

And you know, there's going to be some one who will say that all of those people who were *there* were lying and that there was no freight train.

bryanD, some people are say... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

bryanD, some people are saying that no plane struck the Pentagon. I was just clarifying the point that I am not among those.

Actually, bryanD, the collapse of the towers looks like a controlled demolition to Demolitions Experts.
Straight down, freefall speed. Reduced to powder. Steel core beams found cut at 45 degree angles from shaped thermate charges just as the demolitions experts do. A 45 degree angle cut causes the core support collums to slide off and walk to the left or right completely reducing its support capibality. Madeline was my neighbor growing up.

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/VictimInfo.asp?ID=11

Gee, Synova, perhaps you he... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Gee, Synova, perhaps you heard it wrong. Perhaps they said it sounded LIKE a freight train. I couldn't tell ya. Whats your point??

MOLTEN METAL folks.....No explaination.

The best way to describe so... (Below threshold)

The best way to describe something is to describe it using examples that other people will understand.

The world trade center buildings falling "looked like" a controlled demolition. Most people have seen those on television so as a description that brings to mind a whole building falling down at once with the air and rubble poofing out works. We don't have other descriptions of whole big buildings falling down at once, at least that we've seen on television.

And if the planes hitting them didn't knock them *over* the only way that the buildings *could* fall is into their own footprints, roughly, which they did. It's not possible for them to fall *over* without a force pushing them *over*.

Someone describes the field in Pennsylvania as not having plane wreckage, that there was no plane, because that's what it "looked like" and when you are describing what something "looks like" that's what you do, so people can understand how it "looks". There have been other plane crashes that came down nearly vertically... it doesn't leave big plane pieces like most plane crashes where the craft sort of belly flops. It leaves something that looks just like the crash site in Pennsylvania.

The Pentagon had reinforced cement walls on that side and we know what happens to a plane that crashes full speed into reinforced concrete... there is almost no wreckage at all. There's a great video that shows an F-4 run into similar wall on purpose and *nothing is left*.

The mysteries are not mysterious. The logistics of all the conspiracies are utterly impossible.

No one is running conspiracy de-bunkings 24-7 because it is not *useful* to argue with insane persons.

The towers falling "looks l... (Below threshold)

The towers falling "looks like" a controlled demolition to demolition experts but they don't claim that it *was* because they know what it would take to do it. It could not possibly be done secretly. It could not possibly be done without being obvious to anyone in the building.

You know what the *outside* of a controlled demolition looks like.

Get some pictures of the *inside*.

"It's not possible for them... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"It's not possible for them to fall *over* without a force pushing them *over*."

Resistance of the structure of the pristine lower floors would magnify any imbalance in the downward force. If the lower floors were somehow damaged, too, even more imbalance would result plus torque. Unless the collapse was unnatarally precise. Remember, there are no other examples of these type of bldgs collapsing thus, but there are examples of skyscrapers tipped over.

No Synova, Demolitions expe... (Below threshold)
jp Rogers:

No Synova, Demolitions experts stated that it looked like a controlled demolition to THEM.

As I stated earlier, the building were specifically designed to withstand passenger plane impacts.

If the building "Pancaked" as is claimed, then what happened to the steel core? It would have been left standing.

I have not mentioned the "crash" in Pennsylvania. The proof is there that the towers were demolished in a controlled demolition, so whatever happened in Pennsylvania is certainly not what is claimed in the official story. I don't have all the answers, not do I fully understand how it was pulled off, no one does. I have some theorys, but here, I am just sticking to facts.
WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 pm 9/11/01 in exactly the same manner as a building that had been demolitioned. It creased in the middle, then the penthouse on the roof collapsed straight down, and the building came down at free fall speed, but this one being destroyed from the ground up. Buildings just don't fall down like that. It was a steel frame structure, and I don't think you really appreciate what that means.
But your right, its only a mystery if you are still buying into the official story. These "mysterys" can be explained, but it simply does not jive with the governments story.
Heres an easy one. Look up Leo Strauss. Once you know who he is and who his "students" are, ask yourself if the President is still a person who you can believe. Are we really to believe that dispite having the most sophicticated military in the world, we couldn't even manage air cover for the nation's capitol on 911 during the attack? Or even an intercept in NY or PA?

Well still no answers to the 7 questions. I understand that the concept that things are not as you thought they were is a disturbing thought indeed. There is that tendency to try to force the facts to conform to your personal belief system in order to keep your world intact. But Facts are Facts. Maintence workers in the basement were hurt by explosions. Explosions! In the Basement, where the core support collums are. Seconds before the plane hit the tower. I have seen the video taped interviews. You will only find the answers if you broaden your scope. Synova says I am insane because? I have real questions? Questions that the governments story not only fails to answer, but even fails to address. I am insane because I no not understand how a 1200 degree F fire in 2 small pockets can melt certified steel with a melting point of 2700 degrees F. Scientists around the world are asking the same questions, are they insane also? LOL! Synova give it up....
Over and out.

I think thats going to be it.

1. How do you explain th... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

1. How do you explain the dozens and dozens of NYPD Firefighter accounts that there were bombs going off in the buildings?

An explosion != a bomb. Many things will explode when heated to a sufficient degree.

2. If you stood on top of one of the WTC towers and dropped a penny, it would take 10 seconds to hit the ground. The South Tower took 10 seconds to collapse. Do you know what that means? It means the tower collapsed at freefall speed. NO resistance. Pancaking causes resistance and would slow the fall. If the official story is true, then it defies the laws of physics. Please explain this.

They didn't fall at freefall speed, they fell close to it. The construction was such that once the chain reaction began on the upper floors the floors below offered almost no resistance to the oncoming collapse. Once you hit a critical mass that vastly exceeds the load limit it's akin to dropping a brick on tissue paper.

4. How do you explain the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm later that day? WTC 7 only had 2 very small fires and less damage than remaining surrounding buildings.

The lower 18 floors on one side of the building were essentially gutted. Tower 7 was built in an odd manner because it stood over an electrical substation. If you took out a single of it's key support beams a collapse was essentially guaranteed not to mention the 6000g of fuel in the basement. Wtc7 also tossed debris all over the place, heavily damaging nearby buildings, this would not be the case in a controlled demolition.


5...Hey, jet engines don't melt, why did the steel frame of the towers?

I think this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

6. Explain the molten metal. Steel melts at 2700 degrees F, jet fuel burns at 1200 degrees F. Concrete, glass and steel don't burn. Paper, rugs, and office furniture burn at even lesser temperatures. So what caused the molten metal video taped pouring out of the side of one of the towers? What caused the pools of molten metal found under the rubble?

It burns at 1200 in an open environment, a building is not one. A fire in an enclosed area can and will increase in temperature and the fire spreads. There was a fire in 1999 in massachusets that reached 3000 degrees in a warehouse, none of the insulation and lumber could burn that hot by itself but the combined fuel just kept ramping up the heat.

7. Explain the small explosions video taped blasting through the side of the towers several floors BELOW the collapsing top of the towers.

Highrise buildings are presurized. Fire causes air to expand and air pressure to increase. Exploding windows are to be expected.

Honestly, what is wrong with you people that you'll buy into this nonsense?

Hey, jet engines don't m... (Below threshold)

Hey, jet engines don't melt, why did the steel frame of the towers?

Aluminum (the major metal used in airframes) doesn't melt? Steel doesn't melt?

How the heck do they form it, then?

I think jp Rogers is a bryanD sock puppet. Can one of the folks that can see IP addresses check on that, please?

Good Grief, y'all. We got o... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Good Grief, y'all. We got ourselves some "weapons-grade" insanity going on here. jp rogers and bryanD are proven to be every bit as smart as rosie o'donut...and that's not something to be proud of....

Someone go check makeup.<br... (Below threshold)
kim:

Someone go check makeup.
==================

Naw, C-C-G, bD is rightfull... (Below threshold)
kim:

Naw, C-C-G, bD is rightfully proud of his output and doesn't need to stoop to sockpuppetry to make legitimate points. I'm not sure if he pulls the strings in fun, though, or not. I do.
==============================

I've been known to play Dev... (Below threshold)

I've been known to play Devils' Advocate in order to make a point myself. It can be quite hilarious.

dam joos.======... (Below threshold)
kim:

dam joos.
======

Kim, ya just served as a ca... (Below threshold)

Kim, ya just served as a catalyst for a thought.

Let's say we do as the anti-Semitic lobby wants us to do, and cut diplomatic ties with Israel.

America is pretty much the only restraint on Israel in the "Arab-Israeli conflict."

Do they really want to remove that restraint? Do they want Israel to feel not only that they can, but perhaps that they have no choice but to attack the Arab nations, starting with Iran's nuke facilities?

Lefties just aren't good at long-term thinking, methinks.

Right now the Sunni have Kh... (Below threshold)
kim:

Right now the Sunni have Khan's bomb, and the Shia approach it. We can probably thank Joe Wilson and Val Plame for some of that.

I was amused to hear a lefty bemoan the right wing's belief that the classically effective device, Mutually Assured Destruction, won't work with Muslim fanatics.

I guess we can chalk one up to Marx for not promising sex objects in an afterlife.
================================

OK,1. You stated that many ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

OK,1. You stated that many things will explode when heated to a sufficient degree. Like what? Concrete? Steel? Office furniture? As I stated eariler, there were explosions in the basement. The basement. What would burn so hot in the basement seconds before the plane hit 70+ floors above?

2. The collapsing tower could have reached the "Load Limit" for the floors, causing pancaking that we did not see, but the steel frame core was designed to carry the weight of the tower. What happened to the core? In pancaking, we would have witnessed the floors stripping down the core like the skin on a banana. True pancaking would have taken 90 seconds. 70+ floors of welded and bolted steel supports. A 10 second collapse indicates no practical resistance at all.

4. Nope, WTC7 folded fairly neatly into it's own footprint. Of course there was debris strewn, you're collapsing a 40+ story building. And it came straight down. You would have needed even damage on all sides, or else it would have toppled to one side or the other. Straight down, freefall speed.

5. A controlled hydrocarbon burn, such as you would find in jet engine fuel combustion, is a hotter burn than you find in an open air burn. And its true, the steel, in the jet engine does not melt. How do they melt steel then? I have already told you people in a prior post above. They melt steel in a BLAST FURNACE. An enclosed building will not replicate the conditions of a blast furnace. Hot fires burn more completely than cooler fires, and result in a lot less smoke. The level of smoke from the burning fires is a clear indication of an oxygen deprived fire. Again, an open air hydrocarbon fire cannot duplicate blast furnace conditions, as the open air does not contain enough flamable oxygen to raise the temp of the fire to cutting torch tempertures. In fact, in an enclosed space, the fire would be oxygen deprived, resulting in lots of smoke. Smoking fires, are cooler burning fires.

7. I wasn't talking about windows blowing out. I was talking about Squibs. Squibs, or quick jets of smoke were seen, again, several floors BELOW the collapsing debris. You see this very same effect from demolition charges in controlled demolitions. These squibs could be seen racing ahead of the collapse, all the way down.

Kim, I think there is only ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Kim, I think there is only one string you're pulling...

What would burn so hot i... (Below threshold)

What would burn so hot in the basement seconds before the plane hit 70+ floors above?

How do you know it was seconds before?

And, if such an explosion can be proven (which I doubt), remember the first WTC attack? What was that? A truck bomb in the basement parking lot!

What can explode in a parking lot? Hmmm... gasoline, perhaps?

As for burning, jet fuel was not the only flammable material in an office building. Assuming you're employed, ask your workplace's janitor to show you his storage closet, and look at all the flammable chemicals stored therein. Now multiply that by 210 floors (105 in each WTC tower, if memory serves... I could be wrong).

And as for your squibs, wouldn't you see the same thing if rivets in the steel beams were coming loose due to excess pressure from above... just as the engineers say happened?

And, I ask you, JP, the same question I asked Bryan. If the "gubment" is willing to kill 3,000 people, why not kill one more to keep the secret... YOU! Why are you still alive?

C-C-G, I never said to cut ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

C-C-G, I never said to cut ties with Israel. They are a loyal ally.
Israel has nothing to do with this. This was a false flag operation designed to produce public support for war in the middle east. Its a fact that our government has conducted false flag operations overseas, what makes you so sure that they would never do it here on US soil? Current world situations such as the rise of radical islam, is something thats being exploited.

So why are you still alive ... (Below threshold)

So why are you still alive to tell us about it, JP? If the "gubment" will kill 3,000 innocents, why not add one whistle-blower?

I know it was seconds befor... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

I know it was seconds before, because I saw the interviews of a maintence worker, and a construction worker who both verified it. I also saw the footage of the extensive damage to the basement. Sure gas in parked cars can explode, but again, the plane struck 70+ floors above, what would cause explosions in the basement? What would cause fires that would trigger the explosions if we follow your theory? As for janitorial supplys exploding like bombs, most cleaners are waterbased.

Rivets and welded joints don't explode like bombs. They certainly don't produce the same size explosions as demolition charges, as witnessed in a side to side comparison of the tower collapse and a demolition collapse.

Why don't they kill me? LOL. I am not a main voice of the truth movement. Just some guy who's done some digging. I don't belong to any group, LOL! The main voices are high profile, and it would look a little strange don't you think? Besides they don't need to. They can always rely on bushbots such as yourself to try and discredit through ignorance. And according to Wizbang's own numbers, 22% of all Americans, or was it voters, understand something is very wrong with the official story. Thats a lot of people. You start killing them and the suspicion only grows. Do your own digging. Its important.

28% of All Americans approv... (Below threshold)
oscar:

28% of All Americans approve of President Bush's job performance.

Is this statistic real? Do we really have so many whack jobs in this country?

Anybody follow the links I ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Anybody follow the links I provided above to the Journal of 911 studies? Don't argue with me, why don't you contact one of the physics professors and go debate them. Explain to the experts, why they are wrong, and you are right. Dazzle them with your brilliance. Like I said before, you can lead a horse to water....

28% of All Americans approv... (Below threshold)
oscar:

28% of All Americans approve of Commander Codpiece's job performance?

Wow. It's hard to believe, but if this statistic is true, that means 28% of all Americans are as whacked out as WizBang Kooks.

Boy, are you confused. The ... (Below threshold)

Boy, are you confused. The bit about janitorial supplies was as extra fuel for the fires ignited by the jet fuel.

Check out this page for a listing of common cleaners. (No endorsement of the online business chosen is intended or implied. It was just the first one on the search results.) Be sure to pay special attention to the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for them.

And you have two eyewitness report from how many thousands that were around the WTC on a typical September morning? I can find two people who'll say that Bigfoot ate dinner with me last nite, too. Does that make it true? Where's the scientific evidence of these explosions?

In fact, where's the scientific evidence of thermite or other explosives or accelerants being used? An explosion doesn't eliminate all evidence, as many bombers have learned to their chagrin. There's always a chemical residue that can be identified. Where's the evidence of that in the WTC remains?

Keep on making a fool of yourself, tho. You're funnier than anything that's on TV right now!

So roughly 80,388,536 Ameri... (Below threshold)
oscar:

So roughly 80,388,536 Americans approve of Smirky McRichkid's job performance?

Man, that's just plain scary.

28% also approve of Chimpy ... (Below threshold)
oscar:

28% also approve of Chimpy McAwol's job performance. They still sell Weekly World News and someone listened to Air America, so I can buy that percentage.

P.T. Barnum lived for those guys

Thermate/ thermite produces... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Thermate/ thermite produces WHITE smoke, not black. So any plumes of white smoke could not have been office furniture, paper or rugs burning. Plumes of white smoke were video taped coming from the ground level, way below the damage area dozens of floors up. Journal of 911 Studies, do some research.


It does expell tell tale plumes of gas (no, not gasoline; "smoke" (minute 53, Loose Change)

The operative question, BrianD (does the D stand for Dimwit?), is, are there any other substances that produce "smoke" when burning? And might some of those substances reasonably be found in an office that is currently in use?

Let's see... paper, wood, plastics of various types... hmmm...

If you're trying to look like an absolute idiot, Brian, you're succeeding brilliantly. How long does it take you to figure out which shoe goes on which foot every morning? 10 minutes? 20?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 5, 2007 02:08 PM

You are right C-C-G thermat... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

You are right C-C-G thermate does in fact leave chemical indicators. As I have said, you can read about it at the journal of 911 studies, by following the link I have provided severals posts above. Your responses indicate to me that you still are not on board with the facts.
I am not confused at all. You expect me to believe that closet after closet of janitorial supplies exploded from fire that was several floors above? And perhaps a basement full cleaners somehow exploded from fires 70+ floors above? Its just getting absurd. I only mentioned 2 witnesses. There were dozens injured in the basements.
Residue from thermate was found on steel samples taken from the site, and analyzed in a lab. You are laughing at me, but the joke is on you. Shut the tube off and go do some reading about this.

Uh... I never said anything... (Below threshold)

Uh... I never said anything about janitorial supplies exploding. You're using a classic tactic of conspiracy wackos, trying to say I said something I didn't.

Therefore, I must say that I never said what you hallucinated me as saying.

Let me try some logic (probably a waste of bandwidth, but I have a few minutes while waiting for the NASCAR race to start):

There would have been janitorial supplies on the floors that were hit by the aircraft.

Therefore, the jet fuel that was spilled would have mixed with these chemicals.

Therefore, it is possible that the fire burned hotter than a normal jet fuel fire due to the additional chemicals.

Do ya get it now, or are you still gonna hallucinate that I said something about explosions?

The towers had elevators, r... (Below threshold)
bnorm:

The towers had elevators, right? Could burning jet fuel not have gushed down elevator shafts, causing fire floors below the impact of the plane, and heating and weakening the structure the whole way down? Just a thought...

The towers had elevators... (Below threshold)

The towers had elevators, right? Could burning jet fuel not have gushed down elevator shafts, causing fire floors below the impact of the plane, and heating and weakening the structure the whole way down? Just a thought...

Entirely plausible.

I'm pretty sure that's the ... (Below threshold)

I'm pretty sure that's the official explanation of what happened.

The Truther crap would be interesting except for the fact that it all requires legions of perfectly evil and perfectly loyal minions willing to murder thousands, an evil mastermind who approaches the brilliance of Dr. Evil, complicating the whole affair to riddiculous ends, and even more people who never notice the evil minions in their midst or the thermite in their offices.

As conspiracy goes these idiots should hire me. I'd get them their war with Islam using a single operative with a suitcase.

I could probably guarentee more than 3,000 deaths, too.

But noooooo. They pay someone for the "brilliant" plan that requires missiles and bombs and utterly careful planned implosions and thousands of minions and hijacking four planes for no reason whatsoever... since even the two that weren't secretly disappeared with all passengers never to be seen again, didn't actually *do* anything that wasn't going to be done with the carefully planned destruction. And they had to get the experts, too, in a field where probably everyone has at least heard of anyone else with the ability...

It's a stupid plan. Complicated beyond all reason. It wouldn't even make it as a James Bond plot it's so stupid.

C-C-G, well your theory is ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

C-C-G, well your theory is so convoluted, that I was just trying to make sense out of it. Are you then saying that perhaps hundreds {it would take an awefull lot} of bottles of say, 409 cleaner acted as an accellerent and made the fire burn so hot that it reached temps more than double of what an open air hydrocarbon fire normally burns at?
Furthermore, Terry Morrone Professor of Physics Adelphi University, states in his report that according tests conducted by N.I.S.T, no WTC steel EVER saw temps reach higher than 600 degrees C, thats about 1200 F, in case you are puzzled. N.I.S.T, has said this. Yet the government based part of its story on the N.I.S.T report! The governments own story doesn't make any sense! LOL!
You cleaner theory is out the window. Look at the N.I.S.T. report, I'm sure you can find it, its all there. Of course if you bothered to follow the links I provided to the Journal of 911 studies and bothered to read anything, you wouldn't even have to waste your time making silly claims. The Journal of 911 studies is not a conspiracy website. Its a researchers site. Experts around the world post their findings and occasionally debate each other.

C-C-G, no again. Burning jet fuel could NOT have rushed down the elevator shafts, because they were sealed. They were designed to prevent such a thing from happening. It was an extremely well designed building.

Also, you never addressed what I said about THERMATE residue being FOUND on WTC steel samples.
The only thing thermate is used for that I know of is to cut steel. Not something the Fire Code would allow to be stock piled in a office building. This was an office building, not some industrial plant. There are extensive regulations concerning the storage of flammable material in the workplace.
I bet most of you never knew thermate residue was found on WTC steel samples.

Tell ya what, JP. Find me l... (Below threshold)

Tell ya what, JP. Find me links to that info that do not involve a website with an axe to grind, and I will look into it.

I anticipate an echoing silence from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

OK Synova, lets speculate. ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

OK Synova, lets speculate. Lets say that a new political philosophy has been quietly born, out of the writings of Leo Strauss. A handful of these men gain access to high office. They are looking for a way to justify a war in the Middle East. They write a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses for the 21st Century. In that document they state that their goal is American global dominance. They reason, that to acheive that aim, it will take maybe 100 years of slow incremental changes. Unless there is some catalyist for change, such as a new Pearl Harbor. That document is in fact real. This handful of men who now hold the reins of power hatch a plan. They install the Presidents own brother Marvin Bush in place as the person in charge of SECURITY at the WTC Complex. That is another fact. Over a long period, a hand selected group of "maintence" workers picked from one of the world's top demolitions companies wires up all three buildings little by little. A couple weeks before the attacks of 911 {fact} both buildings were powered down completely for, I believe it was for the installation of a new phone cable system. This was unprecedented. There was no working security system during that time at all. Lets say through some back channels some Saudi jehadist fruitcakes were recruited by someone in one of the branches of our intelligence agencys, to fly the planes. The buildings which were in financial trouble anyway, were taken down, and in the ensuing public outrage, links were made between Saddam Hussain and Al Quida. With the appearance of Anthrax shortly after, it made a believer out of even me. I, like most Americans then supported the invasion of Iraq.
There are many facts here in the things I've said, but I am not going to say I know how the attack was carried out. That I really don't know. But by connecting the dots represented by facts, I think thats a plausible scenario. Perhaps it happened differently.

So Synova, it would'nt take legions of minions to pull this off, just a handful of well connected string pullers. People who would all benefit from this financially.
And of course office workers would not notice the thermate in their offices, because it would have had to be placed on the support beams, along with demolition charges. The support beams could be accessed by gaining entry to the core. Office workers did in fact notice unusual amounts of dust appearing on everything in the offices in the weeks leading up to the attacks. They also heard the sounds of construction work, but stated that they did not know where it was coming from.

<a href="http://journalof91... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

http://journalof911studies.com/
These people are not Bush bashers. Many of them started out in their research trying to understand why the towers collapsed, so we could make changes, so that this sort of thing would never happen again.
The link is also in the above postings much further up. The last couple of times it tried to post it Wizbang blocked it. So I just refered to it by name and provided no link. Hopefully since somehas requested this link, I won't be blocked.

I have much more informatio... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

I have much more information on disc that supports the findings of the journal of 911 studies. President Bush is rarely mentioned. If you have noticed, unless pressed, I have done my best to avoid any Bush bashing myself. The facts are the facts. Draw your own conclusions. the Journal of 911 studies is a good place to start because they are not Bush bashers. Read over what they have to say, and search out the rest on your own.

Just because someone doesn'... (Below threshold)

Just because someone doesn't mention Bush by name does not mean they don't have an axe to grind.

Those don't even get a "nice try."

Tell me, have you read anything that might possibly support the government's official position, or are you totally one-sided?

Are you going to read what ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

Are you going to read what the site has to say or not?
You cannot conduct a criminal investigation and not look for the criminal.

I used to believe the governments official story for about 3 years. Then I learned more about it and it broadened my perspective.

Hey if you don't want to look into the information I have provided, thats your own decision. You cannot claim to know better if you refuse to look at more facts.

I think I have accomplished what I set out to do here. Its never really been about convincing you C-C-G, its been about getting a sparing partner, that was going to "put me to the test" {LOL!} and make all this info available for the many blog readers who read this blog, even if they don't contribute. Thanks dude.

All I had to do, Jp, was re... (Below threshold)
kim:

All I had to do, Jp, was read what the Popular Mechanics editor had to say about the letters he got after they published their report.

In fact, deductions can be made about the quality of the debate, completely separate from facts in evidence. The rhetoric of the Loose Changers is sophistic and that of the opposition, exasperated. I don't need to know any civil engineering to make a judgement.
============================

Okay, JP, let's look at you... (Below threshold)

Okay, JP, let's look at your "theory" in detail.

First off, in two towers over 100 floors each, you're not going to wire it for demolition overnight. In point of fact, it generally takes several weeks, at the very least, to prepare a building.

Second, insulation and drywall are removed from the structures that will have explosives placed on them, to get maximum effect. Most of the load-bearing members of the WTC towers were part of the exterior walls (the core helped, but there's not enough area in the core for it to carry the load itself). Also, the explosive is placed near the center of a floor, to split the floor in two during implosion.

Therefore, your theory has workers tearing insulation and drywall away from the walls and placing explosives there for several weeks and no one said anything?

Third, thermite is not used in demolition. It doesn't burn fast enough. Detonating cord (detcord), TNT, and good old nitroglycerin are the explosives of choice.

By the way, thermite is formed when aluminum is oxidized in the presence of another metal, most commonly iron oxide. Aircraft fuselages are aluminum; there was a lot of iron in the Twin Towers; and a common method of oxidation is called fire. Get the picture yet?

I work in a technical industry, I have spoken with structural engineers, materials engineers, explosives engineers, and a friend who's a retired NYPD officer who was present at Ground Zero on that day (it was his day off, but when he saw what was happening, he went in anyway). Each and every of these men and women (and there have been over three dozen engineers I've spoken to in total) have told me that theories like yours don't hold water.

There are far more objections, but I have to head to work soon (yes, I work for a living, instead of sponging off the government), so I will save them for later.

""1)OY! watch Loose Change ... (Below threshold)
Ben:

""1)OY! watch Loose Change (it's free; Google/youtube video). A passenger jet will not FIT in the Pentagon Hole.""

Umm... actually, yes, yes it will, if you cram it in fast enough. Stop thinking of the plane as a solid non-compressable object, because when it hits a solid limestone wall at that speed, it ain't.

In 100% of the cases of planes hitting reinforced Indiana limestone, the resulting hole is smaller than the wingspan.

And an interesting fact about the 22% of people who "doubt" the official story of the WTC collapse: 0% of those people have ever actually prepped a building for demo.

Ben

C-C-G, I said the wireing o... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

C-C-G, I said the wireing of the buildings had to be done over an extended period of time. Highly unlikely that Al Quidas could have gained total access to all 3 buildings like that.
Second, Not only did access to the core structure have to be gained, but cutting charges and explosives had to be put into position under the floor, or betrwwn the floors to destroy the support beans. It was all blown one floor at a time in rapid secuence top down to give the appearance of a top down collapse.

Third, I never said thermite was used, I said THERMATE. Thermate has other compounds in it, somehow lower the melting point of steel, enabling the thermate to sclice right through. I am not an explosives expert, so please don't ask me to explain exactly how thermate works. If you want to know, look it up. I couldn't tell you what explosives were used, but I did say that thermate residue was found on the WTC steel.
I wonder if anyone of your objections addresses the steel core beams that were found cut at 45 degree angles with what had been molten metal attached to it. Demolitions experts have stated that they cut the basement support colums at 45 degree angles so that the structure walks to the left or the right down off the supports that are anchored to the floor or below. I saw the vidoe footage of these beams at the ground zero site. By the way, my wife has a Masters in Chemistry, and has taken loads of physics and engineering classes and she was telling me that the Official Story didn't add up long before I got on board.
I am so glad you have a job, I feel better knowing that you are one more person my tax dollars won't have to support.
I leave you with this......

Backwards Thinking

When sentiment precedes reasoning, about 911, rather than the other way around, this leads to the boxing of the mind. This is backwards thinking and it is an inferior and primitive form of thought.

An example of a backwards thought process:
First, you start with the preconceived notion that the U.S. Government is good. Then, when you look at 911 counter-evidence such as a demolition charge going off, you rationalize it in order for it to be in accord with your preconceived notion that the Government is good. Thus, you find a way to rationalize the demolition charge as actually being a normal aspect of the Tower's collapse (i.e. "That so-called 'demolition charge' is really air pressure that came from the hot core-columns of the Tower via the excessive kinetic energy of the collapse, and it is bursting out of a window."). As you can see, when you engage in backwards thinking, your preconceived sentiment precedes and thus dictates your reasoning. Your reasoning is not pure because it is infected with your preconceived sentiment.

An example of a correct thought process (your reasoning precedes your sentiment):
First, you free your mind. Now, you do not have a preconceived notion of whether or not the U.S. Government is good, and you are ready to act as an impartial judge to any evidence that you may come across. Then, when you look at 911 counter-evidence such as a demolition charge going off, you see it for what it obviously is--a demolition charge going off. Thus, you now know that the Twin Towers were demolished, and therefore the U.S. Government is bad.


The U.S. Government Is Not The
Official Determiner Of The Truth
The definition of a theory is: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Well, after 911, the U.S. Government took it upon themselves to be the official determiners of the truth. But, it is evidence, and not the Government, that determines what the truth is. The Government's official story about 911 is not the divine truth; do not fall into the trap of thinking that any counter-evidence against their story is just a mere theory.


Accepting The 911 Truth

Do not get defensive when presented with 911 counter-evidence. Who are you trying to defend? You are not being accused of doing 911; the Government is.

No longer let society, the media, Democrats, Republicans, or the Government do your thinking for you. You will not be charged with a "thought crime" for believing that the Government did 911. You are free to believe whatever you want to.


The American Media

According to the logic of the American public, a story is not real unless it is reported by the mass media. Following this logic, the Government couldn't possibly have done 911 unless some major newspaper or TV news station said so.

Fact: The media has had this evidence for five years. Fact: The media has had five years to say that the Government did 911. Thus, the media will not suddenly come out tomorrow and say that the Government did 911.

It is not important to know why the American media will not report the 911 truth. All you need to know is that after five years they have not done so and therefore will not do so. As for us, we are just people who are here to show you the truth.

So, either all of the evidence out there means nothing and does not warrant any kind of investigation, OR, the American media knows the truth about 911 and is withholding it from the public.
-- This is the 911 fulcrum. You must pick one of the two; you have no other choice.


Come On, Rebut The Counter-Evidence!

If the 911 counter-evidence is indeed so kooky and crazy, then how come the American media can't just rebut it? What, are they so dignified and classy that they are "not even going to justify it with a response"? There should be no problem with the 911 counter-evidence being plastered all over the TV news.

Skeptics love to attack the messenger (i.e. calling people names like "tinfoil hat wearer, or associate you with UFO's! LOL!! or worse...call you a Liberal") and love to attack the plausibility of the conspiracy (i.e. "The Government doing 911 is totally implausible and beyond absurd."), but never talk about the actual evidence. They feel it is not necessary to acknowledge the evidence, when in fact the evidence is the only thing they should be concerned about.


Your Opinion About The
U.S. Government Means Nothing

Attempting to debunk the 911 counter-evidence is one thing, but simply saying, "I don't think that the Government is capable of doing such a thing," means absolutely nothing and is not evidence. Stick to evaluating the evidence, rather than pushing blind allegiance.


Think for yourself, rather than falling to peer pressure and engaging in groupthink. But remember, "thinking for yourself" involves the fact that you do not need your beliefs to be validated by other people's beliefs.

If the majority is uninformed, then their opinion means absolutely nothing. Just because something is widely thought to be the truth does not automatically make it the truth. You should be able to go up to your family and friends, and proudly tell them that you know the truth about 911. And don't worry if they call you "crazy," because it is not that you are crazy, it is that they are uninformed.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
--Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher (1788-1860).


The Real Kooks

The person who goes about an investigation in a logical, objective manner and pays attention to evidence is not a kook. The real kook is one who thinks that governmental treason is impossible and ignores evidence that is right in front of their face.

Skeptics will use delusional rationalizations to explain away all of the 911 evidence. For them, it does not matter what evidence is presented, because their ultimate goal is to hold onto their existing worldview at any cost (rather than to be open-minded and seek the truth). It is a worldview that is practical, sensible, popular, sane, and rational....but not true.


The 911 Truth Is Not Some Kind Of "Mysterious Secret"

The 911 counter-evidence is obvious. The fact that the truth is finally coming out is refreshing.

September 11 is not up for debate. It has already been proven, far beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Government did 911--that was the easy part. The hard part is getting the truth out to the American public, because to them the thought of the Government doing 911 is taboo.

It is not as though the 911 counter-evidence is weak, it is blind allegiance, herd mentality and ignorance, that is stalling these truths. The evidence is here, but because the people have been tricked into believing the 911 Commission and don't want to feel they have been duped for the last 5 years, they stop asking questions. For the skeptics, being correct is more important than being corrected. Skeptics are not "defending the truth," they are just defending their fragile egos. A real defender of the truth would take all pieces of evidence into account; and then, they would evaluate that evidence OBJECTIVELY.

The Real KooksThe ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

The Real Kooks

The person who goes about an investigation in a logical, objective manner and pays attention to evidence is not a kook. The real kook is one who thinks that governmental treason is impossible and ignores evidence that is right in front of their face.

Skeptics will use delusional rationalizations to explain away all of the 911 evidence. For them, it does not matter what evidence is presented, because their ultimate goal is to hold onto their existing worldview at any cost (rather than to be open-minded and seek the truth). It is a worldview that is practical, sensible, popular, sane, and rational....but not true.

It is not as though the 911 counter-evidence is weak, it is blind allegiance, herd mentality and ignorance, that is stalling these truths. The evidence is here, but because the people have been tricked into believing the 911 Commission and don't want to feel they have been duped for the last 5 years, they stop asking questions. For the skeptics, being correct is more important than being corrected. Skeptics are not "defending the truth," they are just defending their fragile egos. A real defender of the truth would take all pieces of evidence into account; and then, they would evaluate that evidence OBJECTIVELY.

Jp, you understand that the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jp, you understand that the psychology you describe also works perfectly well in reverse, that if you assume the government is bad, then all your thinking flows from that.

You've re-assured me that it is indeed BDS behind the Loose Change movement.
================================

I don't even know what BDS ... (Below threshold)
Jp Rogers:

I don't even know what BDS is. I say black, you say white.
Let me clarify, because its just not sinking in. I don't think the government is bad. I think the leadership is bad. I didn't start out this way. As I said, contrary to being called a liberal, LOL! I VOTED for President Bush in 2000. It was the actions of the Bush administration that turned my support around. The lying, the sneaky passing of laws, that would turn up in the Federal Register, passed as "rules" so as to bypass Congress. Thats not a man that believes in Democracy, dispite what he says. I had some nagging questions about 911, but was not yet on board with the idea that it was an inside job. That came about 3 years later, once I learned more about it.
I have repeatedly gave the link to the Journal of 911 studies, but you don't appear to have even taken the opportunity to reveiw the evidence. You simply identified something you don't like and slapped a label on it an made it the object of your hatred. Thats not very scientific. How can you possibly claim to know better if you haven't even seen the evidence for yourself? Thats like being a book critic and never having read the book. Its the stuff of fools. There are pages and pages of oral statements of NYPD Firefighters stating that bombs were exploding in the towers. Exploding in rapid seguence like a belt around the perimiter. Exploding several floors below the impact area. These statements were given to NY City Officials, and were made public via court order. There is research published by physics professors, and structural engineers from around the world. This is not an entertainment site, is a research publishing site. I simply cannot fathom what kind of blind arrogance is in play, when someone says, "Look, heres the evidence!" And you just won't look. Instead you cling to your safe, warm and fuzzy world veiw. My only guess is that its fear. Fear that you won't be able to handle the truth. To tell you the truth, thats normal. It hit me on my way home from work one night, and that realization changed everything.
You call it the Loose Change Movement. Loose change was just one of dozens and dozens of dvds presenting the evidence. I don't even remember what exactly is on Loose change. And these DVDs are available for free download, or about $5.00 for most if you buy, so there is no money being made from this.
I say black, you say white. You are just a contrarian. Put aside your fear, and reveiw the evidence presented by the scientists, at the Journal of 911 studies. Much more is known today than before, you need to get with the program.
Nobody in the real world, outside this blog, will ever take you seriously, if you continue to mascarade your way through life pretending to know about things, you actually know nothing about. I'm sorry to say, but you strike me as a faker.
Overcome the fear. Just came back to get a link... No hard feelings.

Yeah, your fear is that the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yeah, your fear is that there are people out there who want to destroy you whom you can do nothing about. It is reassuring to you to know that instead, there is something just a little whack with our political system that can be corrected.

You are right we see things quite differently. Has it occurred to you that the brilliant insight you had on the road one day was more blinding than revealing?
==========================

And google BDS. You have i... (Below threshold)
kim:

And google BDS. You have it bad. There is a cure.
==================================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy