News & views …
Back to Main
March 10, 2015
Open Thread 2015-13
Comments
@96
I agree with you on all points you’ve made and more. The hard apart for me – and perhaps still, even after the unbroken string of war crimes abroad and the rise of totalitarianism at home, for others – is accepting that the US government is in the hands of such monsters.
I posted a link to the A&E for 9/11 Truth (Richard Gage’s) appearance at C-Span above, but their complete presentation is also available as an .iso that can be burned to dvd, as well as over-the-wire Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth – Experts speak Out, and in full (2 hours 19 minutes) at youtube.
It seems clear to me that the Big Lie covers an operation of vast extent; that the Saudi hijackers were in effect the least of it – the cover for the truly monstrous, over-the-top mechanism that grew up underneath it. The traditional American saying embraced by the neo-cons : if some is ‘good’, more is ‘better’ – and too much is ‘just right’. The last is the essential ingredient of the Big Lie, apparently.
When I was a youngster growing up the question was about the Germans … how could an entire nation have allowed a small group to take it over so completely and to drive it to its utter destruction?
That question still remains unanswered … in the publicly embraced narrative at least … about the United States. Since the judicial coup of 2000, people are still in denial.
@96
I agree with you on all points you’ve made and more. The hard apart for me – and perhaps still, even after the unbroken string of war crimes abroad and the rise of totalitarianism at home, for others – is accepting that the US government is in the hands of such monsters.
I posted a link to the A&E for 9/11 Truth (Richard Gage’s) appearance at C-Span above, but their complete presentation is also available as an .iso that can be burned to dvd, as well as over-the-wire Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth – Experts Speak Out, and in full (2 hours 19 minutes) at youtube.
It seems clear to me that the Big Lie covers an operation of vast extent; that the Saudi hijackers were in effect the least of it – the cover for the truly monstrous, over-the-top mechanism that grew up underneath it. The traditional American saying embraced by the neo-cons : if some is ‘good’, more is ‘better’ – and too much is ‘just right’. The last is the essential ingredient of the Big Lie, apparently.
When I was a youngster growing up the question was about the Germans … how could an entire nation have allowed a small group to take it over so completely and to drive it to its utter destruction?
That question still remains unanswered … in the publicly embraced narrative at least … about the United States. Since the judicial coup of 2000, people are still in denial.
Sorry for the double post … I hadn’t realized I’d spilled over onto a new page. I thought a link in the first was being censored and so removed it and reposted in the second. If you are like me and prefer downloading long videos to watching them in one go at youtube, click the link that’s in the first and not in the second. Or get youtube-dl and download the full video from youtube.
john@95
I’m more apt to prefer Occam’s razor. That author’s ideas seem needlessly convoluted to me.
But it did cause me to think that perhaps my theory is needlessly convoluted, too. Perhaps it was just fascist insiders in US govt/mil/natsec and Mossad only knew. There was the “terror drill” set for the next day. That’s something insider’s would have known about. And it might help explain the desperate and almost clumsy quality of the cover up actions afterward, if it was some Right Winger Than Thou fascist faction whodunnit. Everyone would want to cover that up as in “when it’s really important is when you really lie.”
I won’t re-argue lingering pools of melted steel and controlled demo and all that. Done it and done. I have spent beaucoup longtemps on that and I am satisfied. I will consider new information but I will not accept exhortations to re-evaluate known knowns.
Posted by: Benu | Mar 13 2015 2:14 utc | 104
jfl @ 78
It is shameful, what the world has become since the neo-con judicial coup in the USA, followed by the Reichstag fire on 9/11.
Yeah. Just so. circa 2000 installment of GWB followed by Reichstag fire.
Posted by: Benu | Mar 13 2015 2:49 utc | 105
OF@97
It seems that the battle for Tikrit has morphed into the siege of Tikrit as the Iraqi Army backpedals on their earlier projections of an easy victory. I even read an unconfirmed report that the IS counterattacked the Tikrit Hospital and sent the militias running. There are also reports of dozens of bodies a day being transported to Baghdad and Najaf.
It appears the Iraqi/Iranian forces are encountering the same resistance they did on the two previous failed assaults on Tikrit.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 13 2015 3:15 utc | 106
I saw a reference to STRATFOR’s Decade Forecast: 2015-2025, followed it and expended the effort to download and repost it. You need to jump through a marketing hoop to do so. Having done so I try to save you all the trouble here.
The referring site, Fort Russ, Stratfor report indicates America is working on a scenario of partitioning of Russia, was pointing to STRATFOR’s prognosis for a Balkanized Russia, but there’s lots more wishful thinking where that came from.
I’d not been familiar with STRAFOR’s ‘product … it seems to be ‘weaponized intelligence’ … an attempt to plant the seeds of neo-con dreams and wished for transitions in the minds of its corporate subscribers.
So it is interesting not so much as a forecast of an actual future, but as a snapshot to neo-con wet dreams and delusions.
en1c at 99 — I admire your perseverance in your uphill struggle. I’d hoped to stay out if it, but the often-sensible Scott chiming in at 100 got me into the lists.
The Young Mister Bush’s reaction struck me a genuine — he looked like a deer in the headlights. The longer he kept reading to the kiddies the later he had to think about it. Gave his handlers some time to dauphinize it. If you’d planned this, would you leave the Boss hung out to dry?
Jet fuel is highly concentrated source of energy, the planes were both fairly full. Per Wikipedia, the energy density is 5 MJ/kg for nitroglycerin vs 43.02 MJ/kg for the Jet 1-A fuel used in the US. Navies & ship owners liked oil over coal, more concentrated energy, greater range or space for cargo/passengers. I’m thinking the punctured curtain wall will let in plenty of oxygen, maybe thru the HVAC.
Not a physicist, but to apply Carnot — I would think the temp. differential between the fireball and bldg. would have been high. Heat transfer would be comparatively slow, leading to build up of energy. At the higher temperature, greater plasticity.
It wasn’t the shock of the strike, it was the fire that weakened the steel supports. They don’t have to go totally liquid, they just need to start to soften. If memory serves, the floors started giving way; as they reinforced the walls, the bldgs. began to collapse. To gain floor space in the tall bldg., they used a load-bearing steel exterior wall, secured to the core by the floor. It lacked the web of internal columns that support most skyscrapers.
If you doubt the energy available, just recall the results in Oklahoma City from the diesel/fertilizer bomb against a fairly conventional building.
One has to ask — should there be a conspiracy, by who and for exactly what object? “War” with the Islamic world? Hasn’t that been on really since the Iranian Revolution? At least the Shia portion. Why complicate it with provoking the Sunnis?
The trouble we caused in Afghanistan with the mujahadeen in the 80’s has come back to haunt us. We and the Saudis financed them, Pakistan ran them. Wash. then neglected them after victory, then humiliated the Saudi financiesrs (in their view) by liberating their Kuwaiti neighbors for them (in our self-interest, of course).
One hardly needed something on the scale of Sept. the 11th. to ginger up nationalism. Look at the current crusade by Washington against the Russian Federation. It is crafted largely from overblown hysteria to rational responses to DC’s violation of the Cold War settlement (no Nato expansion).
There is, as you suggest in response to H’whisper (at 94 to 85), every reason to suppose that info. overload prevented a more thorough look. Actual investigations take time and personnel, which are limited. Today’s NSA mass acquisition is designed less for real-time surveillance and more for later in-depth investigation of “persons of interest.”
Doesn’t anybody recall the 1993 attempt, the truck bomb in the basement? If at first you don’t succeed….
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 13 2015 4:04 utc | 108
03/12/2015-12:37
Russian Spring
The authorized representative of Lugansk Republic in the contact group to assist Minsk negotiations, Vladislav Deynego, spoke of military preparations near Lugansk Republic border.
“In parallel with protracting the fulfillment of Minsk agreements, Ukraine is amassing military potential in regions adjacent with the zone of conflict. The work proceeds to build fortifications, consolidate weapons and personnel. US instructors have arrived in Kharkov”, he said.
“Reconnaissance data point to clusters of heavy artillery, weapons and tanks”, Deynego continued. “In the security zone, from which all heavy weapons had to be withdrawn by now, self-propelled artillery systems are deployed”.
“As of beginning of March our withdrawal was finalized in accordance with schedule”, Deynego said. “However, there is no confirmation that Ukraine did the same. A range of contradictory statements come from their side making their process questionable.”
Comment: On Tuesday, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, accused Russia again of heavy weapons delivery to the combatants. True or not, it may indicate the combatants are busy, dissuading Ukraine to head on for new offensive.
Posted by: Fete | Mar 13 2015 4:19 utc | 109
I posted a link to the A&E for 9/11 Truth (Richard Gage’s) appearance at C-Span…
Posted by: jfl | Mar 12, 2015 8:51:08 PM | 101
What makes A&E for 9/11 Truth such an OBVIOUS crock (like all those other XYZ’s for 9/11 Truth) is the inexcusable padding of the membership list with people who are NOT Architects OR Engineers. This is a very deliberate and significant departure from Truth. Of course anyone too lazy and gullible to peruse the list for themselves wouldn’t have discovered this embarrassing fact – preferring to rush into print and put their credulity and laziness on public display.
But it’s worse than that. There must be more than 10,000 Architects & Engineers in the USA alone and 50,000+ in the world. So, until A&E for 9/11 “Truth” explains, to my satisfaction, why their membership includes so few REAL Architects & Engineers, A&E’s credibility will remain a long way South of zero.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 13 2015 4:22 utc | 110
rufus at 108 said They [referring to the structural steel in the towers] don’t have to go totally liquid, they just need to start to soften.
Actually they don’t even soften. What happens is the load bearing strength of structural steel is temperature sensitive. Steel melts well above 1200 degrees, the temperature of a hydrocarbon fueled fire in the presence of sufficient oxygen. However, its load bearing strength is reduced by about 80% above 500 degrees. This is text book structural engineering information that was well understood going back a century.
Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 13 2015 4:55 utc | 111
ToivoS at 111 — thanks for the technical assistance. I knew it weakened the steel, I’m surprised you can get such an effect at such a comparatively low temp.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 13 2015 5:30 utc | 112
The report of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is 100% padded with Architects and Engineers. Their report, which took years to compile, is comprehensive and convincing in my estimation. Some of the experts had multi-disciplinary degrees in science and engineering. There were some people with years of expertise in the construction trades. The plumes of jet fuel did not do much to heat up the steel structures at all, since the combustion was over with, relatively quickly, and all of that heat energy was dissipated as hot gases. The combustible materials in the offices caught fire,when the gases passed over their surfaces; and the black smoke we all saw was oxygen-starved fire, burning at a lower temperature.
All the materials and girders underneath, which were not being weakened by heat, would be cumulatively absorbing energy. In a true pancaking collapse, you would have a lot more debris, and more whole and recognizable parts of the buildings, left in the piles of rubble. The NIST advocates cannot repeal Newtons Laws.
In any case, you would not find partially melted girders, or melted composites of iron and concrete.And free fall collapse can only mean that structure underneath is being pulled away, as the overall mass is descending.
The pulverization of these buildings, and symetrical collapse, is most logically explained by the use of steel-cutting, thermite explosives. The telltale tiny spheres of metal associated with these high temperature devices were found, in a process of forensic analysis, by combing through debris around Ground Zero.
The NIST were only shopping for a forgone conclusion, and so they found nothing else.
Copeland at 113 —
Presuming these technical details to be correct (I seem to recall any no. of oil tanker, tank farm and refinery fires being fought), the question still remains, who exactly did it, how, and why? The operation itself mostly Saudi in financing and personnel. I find it disturbing that a absolutist, fundamentalist theocratic monarchy is amongst our anti-monarchical republic’s closest allies. All about the petro, of course.
Personally I find plenty of plain facts (declining civil liberties, increasing militarization of foreign and domestic policy, growth of oligarchy) to deeply discredit the status quo.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 13 2015 6:42 utc | 114
@113
You’re right, of course, Copeland, but you’re arguing with people who have already made up their minds and are retreating, marshaling the worn-out arguments of the NIST – who eliminated much of the incriminating evidence of the FEMA report that you mention – and others who just cannot believe that the USG could be involved with anything so perfidious. Sure all governments lie … but I cannot believe by that much! Not our exceptional USofA! NYTimes readers. I used to be one. I remember it well.
Or trolls, who know that their arguments are false. Whose own arguments start by calling those with the opposing view morons, or gullible … ad hominen arguments … arguments of the ‘anyone but a fool can see’ sort … are a dead giveaway. It’s a waste of breath ‘arguing’ with them, because nothing is open to argument. It’s a waste of time arguing on blogs, in general. I believe you could be convinced to change your point of view, by argument, Copeland, and that others, like the now long absent bevin could be convinced to change his, but most people ‘know’ what the truth is and are ready only to bash the first one who says otherwise.
The idea is to get ordinary people who know ‘there’s something very wrong’ with the sight of those controlled demolitions to have a look at the facts, and to consider the explanations of how they might have come about … and of how they could not have come about … made from an informed perspective.
Of course many people resist the truth about our ‘exceptional’ nation. They are unwilling to entertain the facts and to admit just how ‘exceptional’ those facts are, and of how ‘exceptional’ our nation actually is in consequence.
That’s the case in many nations besides the USA, of course, it’s just that the blindly held opinions of the peoples of other nations don’t cause misery of the magnitude Americans’ blindly held opinions cause, world wide.
@jfl
Thanks for your kind words. It’s always a pleasure to read your posts. I have a response to rufus I’m going to put up, and he is willing to hear me out, and I appreciate that. For years I felt inhibited to write about the conclusions I have reached, after researching and thinking about what happened on 9/11. There was a terrible and painful psychological barrier to break through; and as with struggles of that kind, it is fear-based and defensive in nature.
I especially appreciate your insight, and that you are holding on like many at MoA, our friends who are always encouraging us with their refusal to capitulate to injustice, with their indignation in the face of mindless brutality, and opposing the evil that is loose, wearing masks political civility to cover its authoritarian will.
rufus at 114
The Architects and Engineers Report only deals with the physical mechanism, by which the WTC was destroyed. That part was just a matter of scientific sleuthing and gathering forensic evidence, and eliminating errors in analysis. Finding out who did it, why it was done, and delving into the how of its organization, is a more complicated procedure, and is for other kinds of investigators, with different areas of specialized knowledge.
There are conclusions that could be drawn from what we know, and much of the rest is speculation.
First, I think, there is the question of the time frame in which so horrible a crime was mulled over. Hasn’t the Patriot Act had a pretty long shelf life?–Isn’t its provenance traced back to the Reagan Administration?–to the younger Dick Cheney and the corridors of the Deep State?–to the Continuation of Government, the COG plans?
The reason for posing these questions, is because we have seen the stolen 2000 election and 9/11 attacks and the submission of Congress to the Patriot Act, taken collectively, as a coup d’etat. And so the why of the 9/11 attack is answerable. The transformation of the country into an authoritarian state that would thereafter remain at war, and whose every administrative whim and aggression is transmissible, according to some state of emergency being declared,–having crossed the cusp into a police and surveillance state.
Who did it? It was not done by amateurs. The planning extended over years I think, a few at least, for the attack itself. One other piece of evidence, collected in the aforementioned A&E Report, was the discovery of bits of nano-engineered thermite that had failed to ignite. For ordinary thermite, crude grinding processes are used to make the powdered form of the two metals, that chemically react with oxygen, once ignited. But this micro designed thermite they found is of a very sophisticated order.
So what can be said about the who–just who is behind this work? It must be a state, where the most refined sort of weapon laboratories exist. This is probably not the sort of weapon that the sponsors of this atrocity would entrust, as handlers, to mere flunkies. We would be looking at a state itself, not as a sponsor, but as an actor. Consequently, 9/11 would be an act of unalloyed, pure state terrorism.
Looks like Nuland is up to her one trick pony government overthrow tactics yet again. Why has not interpol put an arrest warrant on her and her handlers. If I were her I would not travel in sparsely populated areas if you get my drift… 😉
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/16/nuland-attempts-kiev-version-2-skopje.html
The report of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is 100% padded with Architects and Engineers. Their report, which took years to compile, is comprehensive and convincing in my estimation. Some of the experts had multi-disciplinary degrees in science and engineering. There were some people with years of expertise in the construction trades.
…
Posted by: Copeland | Mar 13, 2015 2:15:04 AM | 113
Well, according to you. When I perused A&E “Truth’s” membership list, several years ago, they were claiming ‘almost 1000’ members. Now (today) that list is nowhere to be found on their website and they’re claiming, based on no evidence whatsoever, to have 2,300+ members (drawn, I hasten to add from ‘many countries outside America’). Even if every member (from all over the world) happened to be a qualified, practising Arch or Eng (which hardly any of them were when the membership was languishing at ~1000), it would be slim pickings indeed, and hardly surprising that less than 1% of the world’s Architects and Engineers respect the opinion of the edu-phobic 9/11 “Truth” movement more than they respect the widely read, informed, EDUCATED, opinions of NIST.
If you’re such an enthusiastic devotee of Truth, ask AET to publish the list of 2,300+ members, and their credentials and qualifications, on their website.
Or shut up. Please.
All the repetitive and dishonest rhetoric and claptrap is still as boring as it ever was. The adoption of strategic membership secrecy does nothing to enhance “Truth’s” reputation or credibility.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 13 2015 10:28 utc | 119
The Times of Israel reports that an Israeli op-ed writer has advocated the nuclear annihilation of both Iran and Germany.
In an article written in Hebrew for Israel National News, Chen Ben-Eliyahu advocates the use of 20 or 30 nuclear bombs against Germany in revenge for the holocaust and also against Iran which the author suggests is an existential threat to Israel.
“Twenty, thirty atomic bombs on Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dresden, Dortmund and so on to assure the job gets done. And the land will be quiet for a thousand years,” he wrote.
“To an existential threat we must respond with an existential threat,” he wrote, “not with speeches in Congress. We must make it clear to the Iranians that Israel will wipe out their nuclear program and Tehran and Isfahan as well.”
Posted by: papa | Mar 13 2015 10:47 utc | 120
78
Speaking of the Hanging Chad Coup of 2000, “>http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/&prev=search”>
Uncertainty Drifting
President Elected Horse
Large Predicament.\
Just let it sink in for a bit, before linking.
Your Daily Zen Haiku.
Posted by: NoReply | Mar 13 2015 10:51 utc | 121
99
You post those numbers with such obdurate arrogance that you must be the Blue Team.
Not a single floor in the WTC was watertight. Even 1/4″ of fuel would pour down the elevator shafts and mechanical/electrical penetrations through every floor. The shear inertial impact of those fuel payloads sprayed right out the back of the impact area, along with the engines which, hmmm, were never found!! Now how how is it possible for four gigantic engines made out of unmeltable metal and traveling 500 mph, far beyond the airframe ground level speed capability of those Boeing planes (in the case of the Pentagon cruise missile attack, repainted as a commercial airliner, flying 500 mph at 50 feet above the deck with a full plane load of fuel. by pilots who couldn’t even master the controls of a Cessna). Jesus you have to be either willfully ignorant, or on the payroll of the Blue Team to postulate your 1120C nonsense, then to have attitude is disgusting.
Posted by: NoReply | Mar 13 2015 11:00 utc | 122
121
A cautionary reminder to use Preview when linking.
Speaking of the Hanging Chad Coup of 2000,
Uncertainty Drifting
President Elected Horse
Large Predicament.
Just let it sink in for a bit, before linking.
Your Daily Zen Haiku.
Posted by: NoReply | Mar 13 2015 11:09 utc | 123
117
Now that Silverstein’s biography has established that he ‘wanted to buy the WTC ever since he was a child’, and poisoned the actual chicanery behind the scenes at the NY Port Authority, my understanding is that Silverstein wanted to own the symbol of global financial hegemony, then found that the WTC structure was fire-proofed with asbestos, as all buildings of that era were, and that would prevent him forever from turning the property into the Crown Jewel of The Chosen.
So it became a ‘problem’ for everyone from Silverstein on up the food chain how he would make his lease payments, I’m sure the word ‘demolition’ almost immediately came up in conversation, except, how can you possibly demolish the tallest two buildings in NYC at the most valuable real estate property? Then if you do asbestos removal and total remodel, now you have to rebuild what was a real ‘one-off’ design of that era, into a structure that meets current building codes.
This ‘sets up’ the staged demolition argument, but Silverstein was in real estate, he had engineers, he had to know asbestos remodeling costs, so you’re back to square one, UNLESS, it was all planned from even before the lease, to gain that property and prestige at any cost.
That may seem insane, but Don Rumsfeld was forced to admit the Pentagon had been looted of $2,300 BILLION dollars, BILLION dollars by the war profiteers and financers, and the SEC and IRS were closing in on those investigations, all the paperwork stored in the one annex of the Pentagon that would be destroyed the next day, along with the SEC and IRS offices in the WTC7.
Now look at the elongated pyramid The Chosen built there, with Americans’ last life savings, no less, a monumental triumph to a three-millenium overthrow of their hated Pharoah, for a new NYWS-WADC-NOVA Pharoahocracy of 1000 Years, with an -$18T interest-only deficit-debt royalty payment fundibulum … forever.
The Pharoah’s pyramid is now the Symbol of PNAC – PharoahicNewAmericanCryptocracy
Posted by: NoReply | Mar 13 2015 11:37 utc | 124
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 13, 2015 6:28:42 AM | 119
Richard Gage, AIA, is an international speaker, a San Francisco Bay Area architect a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. He has been an architect for over 25 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space—altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation.
We are a non-partisan association of 1,800 verified architects, engineers and 16,000 more affiliates who have signed the petition demanding a real investigation, and who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and revealing the truths about the destruction of all 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. We have presented in 44 American cities and 32 foreign countries. We are devoted to ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large.
Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific
evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth focuses solely on the forensic evidence available which demonstrates overwhelmingly that the three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed with pre-planted explosives.…
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-gage-aia/19/399/666
http://www.ae911truth.org/
111
And since the WTC was designed to take the impact of a 747 or a hurricane wind, and there was no wind on that morning, and no 500-degree CENTIGRADE fire without a fuel source, the JP fuel having long since DRAINED DOWN THE SHAFTS, then the structure was still massively strong enough to stand there and burn, like every other steel skyscraper that has burned and not collapsed in world history.
In fact, the lateral impact of the plane on the exterior columns, if those were part of the lateral and vertical force resisting system, together with your imaginary 500C fire, would have TOPPLED the WTC over in the direction the plane hit. Instead, the core members which were the structure of the building, held after the impact, slicing the airplane into a shreded beer can full of JP, which blew cleanly out the back windows moments later.
Then the building stood there, smoldering, for long enough that the fires were starting to extinguish, and that’s when Silverstein said, “Pull the building”.
It is a structural impossibility for the building to have remained perfectly motionless, as it would from such a minor impact, and continue to remain perfectly motionless as the fires died out, then freefall perfectly vertically, unless the lower columns all the way to grade were BLOWN OUT OF THE WAY.
Boom-boom-boom-boom is NOT the sound of a ‘pancaking’ building, they tried and tried to make the forensic structural model ‘pancake’ BUT IT WOULD NOT. Boom-boom-boom-boom is the sound of the det cord cutting the column connections.
Posted by: NoReply | Mar 13 2015 11:53 utc | 126
@119
The list
‘ Of course anyone too lazy and gullible to peruse the list for themselves wouldn’t have discovered this embarrassing fact – preferring to rush into print and put their credulity and laziness on public display. ‘
I used to take you for a regular mensch, hoarse, but you’ve shown quite a nasty streak on this issue. How come?
US complains about UK not asking permission to do things.
UK support for China-backed Asia bank prompts US concern
The Financial Times (FT) newspaper reported on Thursday that US officials had complained about the British move.
The report cited an unnamed senior US administration official as saying the British decision was taken after “virtually no consultation with the US”.
“We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China,” the newspaper quoted the US official as saying
The US has already succeeded in having Japan, South Korea and the increasingly pliant Australia dance to their tune on this one.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Mar 13 2015 12:55 utc | 128
T@111
H@119
If you are interested the site 911-engineers.blogspot.com has information from structural and civil engineers who actually know what they are talking about. According to their studies the weight of the fuel in the planes caused the initial structural damage and insulation removal which allowed even a non fuel fire to weaken and eventually collapse the buildings.
This is an emotional issue and many people are too invested to be persuaded by facts and logic so the denial will continue.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 13 2015 15:27 utc | 129
129
The theory of the disturbed insulation is embedded in the NIST report, and its argument is extended with unique (unique to all other steel skyscrapers that have burned) to include Building 7 (which was not hit by a fuel laden passenger jet). And remember, at the time of the hurried evacuation of firefighters, a voice on the video outside Building 7 is distinctly heard to say that the building is being pulled (demolished).
Obviously there had to be a placement of charges already set up in that building, too.
Logic, deduction, evidence, and the testimony of eyewitnesses is in play. A dependence on emotion is not required to make the point.
The very idea that two airplanes could ‘bring down’ WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 and completely demolish WTC 6, as well as create much more damage round about to other buildings is completely delusional.
Anyone who believes this fairy tale is brain-washed (ppl who watch TV, are shocked, grieving, and ‘believe’ their Gvmt, many, who really can’t be blamed) or who let’s say have an agenda or just can’t contemplate that ‘their Gvmt. would lie to them’ and hide behind various faux-quarrels, ex. about the temp. when steel melts, the vid shows a plane doing xyz, that is true, or it can’t be, architects for truth are good guys or fakers, etc. etc.
Some ppl seem to claim some sort of not exactly expertise but reasoned judgment about military matters, arms, and so on, but have no street smarts, common sense, or basic reasoning when it comes to 9/11.
Note I am not pointing a finger at culprits – neo-cons, Cheney, Bush, Mossad, KSA, AlQ, Banks, Islamist terrorists, occult forces, Ben Laden, etc. – that is not the point.
– this pic, accurate according to me, charts the damage – this can be checked with many other sources, endless pix, do it!
http://www.chizeng.com/nhd/damage.php
For some listing of the damage, see here,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/index.html
and in the left sidebar click on the various WTC buildings. Again, the pictures and so on can be verified, from multiple sources and news articles, even Fox Tv, and in fact, the damage is not contested. NIST simply avoided listing it or investigating it or lied, etc.
How to make ppl understand that a plane is a minsucule, tiny, fragile object, a gnat, and two of them can do little damage ..at most a plane of that size can destroy, even only in part, a 10-room Mc Mansion, a large farm building /field which sadly had a lot of cows in it, or maybe a small concert hall?
How can ppl not see this? Imagine the size of a plane, even a large one, crashing down where you live…it impacts a small area, building, others on the side, breaks up, a tragedy .. Look at other airplane crashes…Even if it has fuel in it that burns..not for long btw…
A large part of lower Manhattan was completely destroyed -compare with the pictures of Dresden, do it, calculate the tonnage, the area, and so on..the size of a Boeing, the size of WTC 1…Forget the Hollywood spectacles…
I give up, I’m done. I can’t believe that on MoA this kind of BS is still argued about.
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 13 2015 17:25 utc | 131
@Noirette The very idea that two airplanes could ‘bring down’ WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 and completely demolish WTC 6, as well as create much more damage round about to other buildings is completely delusional.
Well, then I am delusional.
Planes may seem fragile (they are not) but the bigger ones still weight some 100+ tons. That mass plus the speed is lots of force and will create very significant extensive damage.
The tradecenter towers were steel construction with a central core out of steel beams and relatively light outer floor construction attached to them. The planes penetrated the light outer rooms and hit the core columns creating heavy structural damage. Now add the fuel, the fuel explosion and the fire that burned several hours further weakening the central steel column. It is only a question of time for that to longer be able to hold the weight of the upper floors. Down she goes and pancakes.
That all makes sense to me and I have studied engineering, programmed mechanical simulations and done other related stuff.
To it makes sense and is entirely plausible that the towers came down after being hit by big passenger planes at full speed. There is nothing mysterious about that.
The questions that should be asked is:
Who planned it?
Whodunnit?
Who knew about it and let it happen?
The last q is the most important to me. It is implausible to me that all the secret agencies of this world did not detect the plot underway. It is plausible to me that some of these agencies had an interest in letting it happen. Who were these?
Thanks to jfl and Copeland for reasoned responses to unreasoning posts — several of which seem to me to be the equivalent of clapping your hands over your ears and shouting lalala. Like jfl, I was surprised by Hoarse’s vehemence on the 9/11 topic; not what I’d have expected.
I’m with Noirette, I just won’t re-argue this after all this time. All one has to do is look at the links given in this thread…A&E…911research, etc. It’s clear as day.
Copeland, thanks for the nano-thermite info, that was new to me.
Posted by: Benu | Mar 13 2015 18:13 utc | 133
Sorry, but you cannot compare the conductivity of a metal frying pan over a cookstove vs. a jet fueled fire.
A simple example: when you smelt iron to make steel – you have melted iron contained in steel buckets. If in fact the conductivity is so great, then the steel buckets themselves would melt. The bucket doesn’t melt because thermal conductivity varies at different temperatures – another simple fact of physics.
As for Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is: a science fiction plot (Tom Clancy published a book about using a jet plane as a weapon) was not recognized/believed to be a credible threat until it was too late. Once it happened, the scale of the damage, the ‘surprise’ defined as mental shock as well as the sheer numbers of airliner flights paralyzed the system response.
Once it occurred, a President threatened by a massive recession (remember the DotBomb crash?) used it to paper over his presiding over a failing economy and to build a mandate to “do something” – in this case, attacking Iraq – with rapscallions, bureaucrats and scoundrels using this pretext to enrich/empower themselves accordingly.
Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the 9/11 truthers are not interested in fact – only in brandishing what one or more morons proclaim loudly and wrongly.
Every so called “proof” offered, I have thoroughly demolished as being in no way inconsistent with the physics and energies involved. Perhaps this is a case of hammers only seeing nails, or perhaps it is the more common everyday man simply not understanding how firsthand experience utterly fails when huge numbers become involved.
In any case, as there are no more factual arguments presented – only emotional and consensus/peer pressure type ones – I’ll leave the feather doesn’t fall at the same rate as bowling ball crowd to its own devices*.
* you do know why feathers don’t fall the same speed as bowling balls? Its because bowling balls are immensely heavier and denser – much like hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, and people.
Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 13 2015 18:24 utc | 135
Posted by: jfl | Mar 13, 2015 8:21:47 AM | 127
Thank you for posting that link. I could see a link to the list on AET’s petition page but a static pop-up inviting registration, which I couldn’t close, was rendering the live links inoperable. I happily accept the link you’ve provided as the one I couldn’t open. There are several things wrong with the (petition) list you provided.
1. The content of the petition is quite brief and makes no mention at all of the detailed claptrap and conjecture which appears elsewhere on AET’s website. Meaning that people could sign a petition calling for a new 9/11 investigation, on any one of the grounds mentioned in the statement. It is thus a prima facie misrepresentation of the desires of the signatories to the petition to claim that each signature is an endorsement of AET’s uninformed whimsy.
2. The first 4 pages contain the names and details of 46 Architects and 119 Structural Engineers. I have no quibbles worth mentioning with any of those individuals.
3. However, every name after page 4 falls under an AET classification of “Other.”
And the farther one reads down the list the greater the trend of departure from the initial stipulation of Practising, Certified, Structural Engineers and Architects becomes. Halfway down the list it is not uncommon to find a name and a city with no other identifying info.
4. It is also too common to find people with questionable relevance to structural failure… Electrical Engineers and Information Systems Engineers being but two obvious examples. The list includes entries which don’t comply with AET’s own stipulated minimal requirements for inclusion. I’d like to hear Mr Gage’s excuse for allowing the list to become such a triumph of enthusiasm (for an impressive Grand Total) over scrupulous compliance with his own rules.
5. Speaking as someone who has been in the building industry for 40+ years, I can assure you that during many online “debates” with “Truthers” I have NEVER encountered a Trufer who had even a rudimentary acquaintance with ANY aspect of building and construction. They are all rhetoric and spin merchants.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 13 2015 18:33 utc | 136
@Noirette #131
The more you speak, the more foolish you make yourself look.
I’ve posted the numbers involved – they’re not in any way tiny. A fully loaded, fully fueled 757 has NEVER crashed into a dense urban area to date – thus your attempts at examples are ludicrously poor.
A fully loaded 757 weighs over 70 tons, the jet fuel alone weighs another 38 tons.
38 tons of jet fuel burning on one or even 3 or 4 floors constitutes a huge release of energy in a small space. That energy is more than sufficient to weaken the steel structure of the WTC towers – and I’ve even posted video examples of sudden collapses which occurred in far smaller/shorter buildings which were the result of simple office fires.
It is quite clear that you aren’t an engineer or even associated with a technical profession in any way.
Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 13 2015 18:34 utc | 137
at b at 132, it is possible to disagree and leave the argument, agree to disagree. But…sigh.
Posted by: Noirette | Mar 13 2015 18:46 utc | 138
@ 135, we read:
A simple example: when you smelt iron to make steel – you have melted iron contained in steel buckets. If in fact the conductivity is so great, then the steel buckets themselves would melt. The bucket doesn’t melt because thermal conductivity varies at different temperatures – another simple fact of physics.
Maybe the buckets don’t melt because they’re coated on the inside with a refractory material, that minimizes conductivity to the outer shell.
Also at the end of the post *amid asterisks* (which must indicate a joke) there is this:
I’ll leave the feather doesn’t fall at the same rate as bowling ball crowd to its own devices*.
* you do know why feathers don’t fall the same speed as bowling balls? Its because bowling balls are immensely heavier and denser – much like hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, and people.
I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to make of this writer’s intent. The difference in mass between the feather and the bowling ball is negligible, compared to the mass of the earth; and gravity is a mutual attraction between masses. The density or heaviness of the bowling ball can be discounted.
And I would like to add an addendum for people who habitually or confidently evoke Occam’s Razor, as if it were Gospel, or an indicator of certainty, or because it seems the best way to close an argument.
The simplest answer is not always the right one; and this razor is fundamentally only a bet or a wager, which can be a real embarrassment, when the dice come up snake-eyes.
Albert Camus, one of the most principled of thinkers, said that he always had to take into consideration that he might be wrong. It is hard to understand the vehemence and tone of some of those who are supporting the NIST findings, in this thread.
About WTC collapse: there was a very convincing analysis in Technology Review. Energy is energy, and wings of jumbo jets after start contain huge amount of fuel. We ordinarily think that one ton bomb is huge, and there were tens tons of fuel spilled into the towers.
The towers were designed to withstand being rammed by a jetliner, and so they did. Long time ago, though, when places were smaller. Plus, the towers withstood the physical impact reasonably well. Mind you, there was no explosion in the towers, just fire and then, the collapse.
I know two pieces of subjective anecdotal evidence. One is a family story about a relative, a Jewish lady who managed to walk down barely in time in one of the towers. It addresses some tall stories. The second is that I witnessed a fire of a department store. One thing that impressed me were window frames made of metal that were snapping from time to time from heat. You do not expect solid pieces of metal to behave like that. The conditions inside flaming towers could approach those inside steel furnace, the department store was fueled with apparel rather than jet fuel (plus, it was a five story building cooled with a lot of water from water cannons, so the empty burned out shell survived, still, water emphatically did not stop the fire that was climbing level after level).
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 13 2015 21:05 utc | 140
@Copeland #139
You present yet another theory – the reality is that the buckets are steel. They don’t melt because at extremely high temperatures, the thermal conductivity of steel is in fact very low.
You then go on to show just how ignorant you are. The mass of the earth is irrelevant in comparison to either the feather or the bowling ball: both experience EXACTLY the same gravitational pull.
The reason bowling balls fall faster is because they are dense thus are relatively not affected by the drag of falling through air – whereas feathers in comparison are very light and are heavily affected by drag. If you choose to educate yourself, you can look at the videos of feathers and bowling balls falling in vacuum where they fall at exactly the same rate: https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A86.J3W1bQNVWAIAtwIlnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw–?p=feather+and+bowling+ball+falling+in+vacuum&tnr=21&vid=244291581A691E107B81244291581A691E107B81&l=20&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608055494296994570%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11runsdlv&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_XJcZ-KoL9o&sigr=11baa7jvi&tt=b&tit=Feather+and+Ball+Bearing+Dropped+in+Vacuum&sigt=11avkbmu7&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dfeather%2Band%2Bbowling%2Bball%2Bfalling%2Bin%2Bvacuum%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-003%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13mi566v8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
I chose this example to illustrate just why ignorance of fundamental physics is a barrier to understanding actual events, and you have nicely demonstrated why this example applies precisely to you.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 13 2015 23:08 utc | 141
@132
‘ Who knew about it and let it happen? ‘
Absolutely, b. Regardless how extensive one views ‘it’ to have been.
It seems clear that the Israelis knew about, at least … the art students and those who showed up to celebrate the actual event in New Jersey, and that the FBI/CIA let it happen … Coleen Rowley’s inability to search Moussaoui’s computer, ordered not to by an FBI superior (CIA loaner?) in Washington. Just for a couple of examples of knowledge and complicity.
Have another look at the third building though, b. Unobscured by dust and smoke, it is clearly a controlled demolition. The evidence of my ‘lyin eyes’ of the similar collapse of the first tower remains burned into my brain and will remain until I am no more.
But you’re right. The Reichstag fire of 9/11 was instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. That was the reason it was brought about. Who planned it? Who carried it out? Who knew about it and let it go forward? Cui bono?
But which comes first, the chicken or the egg? A real investigation that reveals the actual operatives and those complicit with them? Or the regime change that removes those same people, now in position to keep denying such a real investigation in order to protect their ‘hard won’ result?
It certainly seems we Americans are incapable of – unsuccessful in bring about, at any rate – the latter, so pursuing the former seems a valid approach to me.
And an investigation of the arguments concerning the physical evidence – what really happened – seems the hardest to deny.
And why not in parallel? Eggs for breakfast then chickens for dinner, metaphorically speaking.
I have invoked the good friar myself. For ready reference, Occam’s principle defined. “a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.” If one purports to be conducting a rational discussion of known evidence, it is the Gospel.
Here’s some actual materials scientists discussing matters. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Very thorough, highlights below. I would consider it a “must read.”
“fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke” Temps on the order of 650, more than enough to affect the steel.
“Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.”
It also notes a component, the keel, comparable to the bldg’s steel. I would think the engines and their mounts would have a little heft, too.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 13 2015 23:37 utc | 143
Wayoutwest @129
Asbestos in the WTC Towers’ Destruction ‘Solved’ Asbestos Problem
” The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would hav necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the Towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings’ construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves Evidence of Asbestos Two independent lines of evidence may help to establish the magnitude of the asbestos problem in the Twin Towers: analysis of samples of the dust from the Towers’ collapses, and reports about the application and removal of asbestos in the buildings prior to their destruction A region of several square miles was blanketed by fine powder resulting from the explosive collapses of the Twin Towers. This powder, consisting of the pulverized remains of non-metallic components and contents of the Towers contained significant percentages of asbestos. 1 An analysis of dust within contained significant percentages of asbestos three days of the attack found that some of the dust was four percent asbestos. 2 This asbestos release may be a public health time bomb, because asbestos thousands of people breathed dust from the collapses. It remains to be seen how many if them will become victims of the EPA’s false assurances that the air was safe to breathe…”
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
Well it appears however grim as it was, that Mr. Silverstone and company got out of a gargantuan financial hit.
@NoReply #122
Your comment noted above is so inane as to defy comprehension. Apparently to you, each floor of the WTC is a perfectly flat plane with no walls, no doors, no doorframes (for security) etc etc.
You also fail to comprehend that the fuel wasn’t distributed randomly all over the planes – they’re in spillproof tanks mostly in the wings which obviously would serve to keep the fuel far more confined than water being splashed out of a bucket.
As for the engines, again, your inability to comprehend large numbers shows. I’ve already indicated that the energy released by 100 million tons falling 1000 feet is the equivalent of 65000 tons of TNT – which part of this do you not understand is more than sufficient to grind the most refractory materials into dust?
All you’ve illustrated thus far is ignorance and an unwillingness to acknowledge fundamental problems with the 9/11 truther “There is no alternative” explanation – which are false because there are many alternatives.
Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 14 2015 21:19 utc | 145