The 9/11 Faith Movement

Hmm. I still see no reason why this should be so symmetrical, why such a massive cloud of pulverised particles was created almost instantaneously, why all the massive central-core columns collapsed together, and how large sections of steel were projected hundreds of meters.

At the same time there were"fireballs” at ground level.

Everyone here seems determined to ignore the elephant in the living room, as if we’re all waiting for someone else to “notice” it.  One guy comments on the strange smell in the air while the other guy just can’t understand who dropped that huge load of crap on the carpet.  A third guy believes he’s figured it all out but hopes to communicate his conjectures didactively and inductively.  Or intuitively.  But everyone implicitly agrees that the first guy to recognize the obvious will be accused of stupidity, treachery, treason or paranoia.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 16, 2006 at 8:19 PM

Lurking with amusement mostly but I must give the dittohead IzzyStoned a wack.

You genius.  You have found the rabbit out.

You have proven that he didn’t invent the term beastmen, but lifted it from Mr LaRouche.  What does that prove Sherlock Holmes? 

I also call them The Junta, for which I claim copyright and also the Neo-Conmen.  Perhaps one of you can show us how clever you are and figure out where the rabbit borrowed that term.  I didn’t invent Shrub but got it from an Aussie Veterans site.

So if 9/11 was really a government inside job, then why did they go to the trouble of forging Saudi passports for the hijackers?  Why not simply plant Iraqi passports?  Wouldn’t that have made INFINITELY more sense?  Bush & Cheney wouldn’t have had to make up bogus WMD claims in order to justify their invasion of Iraq.  Are you suggesting that the US government can orchestrate something as elaborate as 9/11, but lacks the ability to forge a simple passport?  

The problem as is often exposed is that the denialists and apologists, the faith brigade are lacking in anything but very simplistic paradigms to explain anything.  It isn’t as if the facts about the Muslim Brotherhood, British inelligence then OSS now CIA and Mossad infiltration of certain fundamentalist groups isn’t well known on the international scene.

Nobody is seriously denying there were some Saudis involved, they are the most likely candidates for the majority of Saudis hate your American blood.  They want to kill you and burn your houses down.  No doubt about it.  Unlike Afghanis, Iraqis or Iranians, at least back before 2002 who did not wish you any real harm.  That they didn’t like you is hardly an indigtment.  Most Australians, and people of every nationality now mostly share their dislike of you. We others have not even had you bringing democracy to us yet.

There were Saudis involved, they were probably involved in some sort of a half assed attempt to hijack some planes.  Some of them have shown to be CIA and others Mossad involved.  Some of the supposed Hijackers undoubtedly existed and certain corroborations of them at some points of the narrative exist.  Unfortunately what is known does not re-inforce the official fairy story, it further debunks it instead. 

The contradictions of the Hijackers including at least seven of them being alive and well are consistent with the involvment of outside forces, which were obviously overshadowing their every move and enabling their actions at every turn.  In the end though, they did not actually fly the planes.  I am sure enough of this after considering all the evidence and opinions of pilots and aeronautical engineers.  They were neither capable nor needed to perform the maneuvers needed for at least two of the flights..

Some of the Hijackers were getting drunk in a Strip joint the night before, which seems rather shortsighted given the likelihood they expected to be talking with Allah in a few short hours. The flight school training occurred, but the testimony of the instructors gives the complete conviction none of these hijackers were capable of piloting for a moment those airliners, let alone performing intricate maneuvers at the edge of the aircrafts physical limitations, which experienced military and civilian pilots has stated they may not have ben able to pull off even themselves.

I am not convinced that the flight 93 was crashed, but believe there is more than enough testimony from whistleblowers, and witnesses to make it likely that flight 93 was shot down by the Air National Guard.  The spreading of the debris field is proof the plane broke up in midair.  This FACT alone totally debunks the official account of flight 93. 

I have a point to consider for any who are actually thinking and not just actively shielding themselves from the truth.  Given the reasonable assumption that explosives were used in the demolitions of the buildings, we can easily answer the most obvious question which springs to mind.  At least it’s the first question which springs to the mind of aformer professional Pyrotechnician.  Who did it?  The answer is in the incredible finesse.  These were the most extraordinarily competent implosions.  Beyond good, these were three perfect implosions done with an arrogant signature of total mastery.  I think that a bit of research will soon show that only one or two companies in the world were capable of pulling off such a display.

The results will surprise, or not, depending on one’s level of cynicism.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 16, 2006 at 9:53 PM

“now, please explain how fire from jet fuel, which is pure kerosene and cannot reach the temperature needed to melt the steel (as already pointed out by rabbit), still managed to melt the steel.  and, since you seem to have forgotten that i mentioned this above, how come no one has come forward and made the simple proof of your theory and claimed the million dollars.”

Chad, nobody has claimed that the steel melted, or needed to melt.  Other than a few people in the initial days/weeks after the incident, and only for the reason that they didn’t have complete information.

However, consider for a moment that the reason folks might have thought that the steel must have melted is because of reports and observations of extremely hot fires.  (for example, police helicopters warned of red hot fires and warned of imminent collapse, I believe some eight minutes before collapse)  No, not hot enough to “melt” steel, but hot enough to cause it to lose much of its strength, thereby causing the trusses to sag and contract, thereby breaking their connection with the columns,  and hot enough to melt aluminum and thereby subsequently perhaps initiating an explosive thermite reaction.

What NIST and Bazant have presented, after months and months of exhaustive investigation, SHOULD qualify as proof and SHOULD entitle them collectively to the million dollars.  But I have a feeling that this is simply not good enough for whoever is offering the money.  The only, and I repeat the only way the AQDL will concede they are wrong is if we build exact duplicates of the towers, fly exact duplicates of the planes into them at the exact same points and angles, and see that the new buildings indeed do collapse just like the originals.

Even then, I doubt it will be sufficient.

Would that be sufficient for you, Chad?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 16, 2006 at 10:17 PM

I was wondering…..

At least 47 whole bodies were recovered from the WTC.  Would an autopsy on these bodies reveal whether they had inhaled Thermite/Thermate before they died?

Posted by CornChip on Jul 16, 2006 at 10:47 PM

If the families of those who perished are seeking truth, perhaps it can be found in the victims.  Were any autopsies done on any of the bodies.  I have a hard time believing that they would have occured.  The cause of death being obvious.  If even one body showed signs of elevated sulphur or whatever chemicals compose Thermite in the lungs perhaps we’d have our smoking gun.

Of course the true believers would claim the victims had been playing with sparklers.

Posted by CornChip on Jul 16, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Natty says,
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, “Think of the jet fuel.”

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.” </blockquote>

Oddly enough Rabbit has a friend by the name of Peter Tully.

Anyway the presence of the components and byproducts of Thermate have been found.  .  I’d say that is an unbroken chain of scientific evidence yet.

Of course Corn Chip you are right, the faith brigade will seize upon the idea the victims of 911 were playing with sparklers.  Forcing us to point out sparklers are Thermite, which doesn’t include sulphur.  Of course the sulphur could have been other fireworks.  Whassup faith brigade, do you think the 911 victims were playing with fireworks?  Maybe that would explain the flashes too?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 16, 2006 at 11:17 PM

Natalie babbles on:

What NIST and Bazant have presented, after months and months of exhaustive investigation, SHOULD qualify as proof and SHOULD entitle them collectively to the million dollars

Natalie…..... I’m sure you would believe <u>that</u> which is an indigtment of your dishonesty as good as anything Rabbit could have wished for.

NIST and Bazant are both thoroughly discredited, the refutations are all presented above.  Months and months of wanking is not an orgy.  A lifetime of theorising does not a single bit of proof make.

Talk some more idiocy Natalie, dance some more of your smoke and mirrors dance.  Make a fool of yourself, and the whole government charade, be my guest as always.  WTH or Major Major do more, little as it is to support the official theory. 

See how your sucking up to the old Major got you a fine rebuke.  You impress nobody, except the Corpse, and let’s face it he doesn’t even impress you over much.

A theory isn’t proved by virtue of having been suggested.  It is amusing that a rabbit needs to remind you of this.  Your need for any sort of evidence is bigger than the available stock. You have no evidence at all.

Proof is as easy as building a scale model.  If the theory is possible it can be proven.  As for the explosives theory we already have a case which is built from an unbroken and interlocking chain of scientific evidence.  Not theory mind you, but past experience and measurable effects.

The ELEPHANT in the living room is not the small Hippos and mere mice described as such by some, it is this; 

No amount of theoretical support for the Fairy Tale amounts to the most miniscule detraction from the reasonable hypothesis that the collapses were a result of explosives fueled demolitions.

  For all the strawmen parades, the smoke and mirror carnivals and the the dissembling dances the only thing which supports the official fairy tale is FAITH.  Nothing but faith.

I am saying that this is not an opinion even, it deserves to be recognised for the FACT that it is.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 12:19 AM

Baltimore blasters
24 July 2004
From “New Scientist” Print Edition.  (interview with Mark Loizeaux)

excerpt:

NS: When you watched 9/11, did you imagine that the towers would come down like that?

LOIZEAUX:  I’ll defer to the reports coming out, but I will say - is society willing to pay for it? It’s far cheaper to take the battle to terrorists than let them bring it to us.

Molten metal in basement.  Fact, or * hearsay?

*To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. Not least the idea that explosives are responsible. How much thermite would you need to burn for weeks, for instance? As the conspirators would presumably only want enough to burn for, let’s be generous, 30 minutes, wouldn’t extending this to a week mean using 168 times as much? If you want to believe that then fair enough, but it makes no sense to us.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 17, 2006 at 12:21 AM

Now by using your well known shill site, in trying to deride a very well proven fact, you have shown exactly how accurate that site is not. Thanks again Natty, your help in making my case is always appreciated.  I didn’t even have to waste all that time showing that the 911 Myths site is not worth the electrons wasted in its presentation.

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.   You dirty lying Bat!  You were just given the reference and now you would prove by your own hand that the Shill’s favorite bullshit site, is full of it.

Results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations show the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the area in and around the World Trade Center on September 16 and 23, 2001. Data collected on the 16th were processed, interpreted and released to emergency response teams on the 18th of September, 2001. The September 23 data were processed, interpreted and the results released on October 12, 2001. The images of the World Trade Center site show significant thermal hot spots on Sept. 16, 2001. By Sept. 23, 2001, most of the hot spots had cooled or the fires had been put out.

The AVIRIS instrument is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) remote sensing instrument that measures upwelling spectral radiance in the visible through short-wavelength infrared. The instrument has 224 spectral channels (bands) with wavelengths from 0.37 to 2.5 microns (micrometers).

In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet. The spectral data for the maps shown here were measured at 6,500 feet and have a spatial resolution (pixel spacing) of approximately 6 feet (2 meters).

AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16

You are a shameless hussy!  A sleazy lying shill, to be sure aren’t you Natalie?  AND that is being polite about it.

I think NASA despite their obvious limitations can be relied upon in this instance.  Perhaps there were boxes of Sparklers stored in the basement?

Sooner or later you wil have to give up and accept that there is at least one fact on the ground which is not answerable by the official fairy tale. 

For your own soul you need to confess.  Poor poor sad and deluded Bat, the slippery slimy vampire doesn’t realise the Sun will always rise but it will.  The light dissipates darkness, and not the other way around.  It is natural, as all truth is natural.  Naturally Light displaces darkness.  It is why you dark ones, the undead, can never win. Why you can never win any converts, only slow down the rate you lose them.

By the way Natalie, LOIZEAUX is useful for making the point of witnesses to the molten Steel.  What is not of any use is his opinions.  He actually suggested carpet, paper and curtains, organic sources for the heat which melted the steel.  This is of course absolutely ridiculous, impossible by at least 1000 degrees celcius.  His opinions are but those of someone grasping for answers to an enigma, and thus his assumption of who was responsible for the attacks is worse than useless.

Especially since we’ve established OBL was not evidenced to be involved.

I do thank you for debasing yourself by posting those thoroughly spurious words though.  I predicted such grubby conduct from your camp before you ever showed your pointy little face.  It is gratifying to be proven completely right about the moral and intellectual poverty of the supporters of the official shill swill.

Natalie, queen of the Faith Brigade.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 1:28 AM

By the way, I have not heard anyone ever wonder why steel stayed molten and or hot for so long as it appears to have done. I cannot be sure that this is because everyone naturally knows something any farmer or fireman should be able to tell you.

Having seen a few bushfires and having made a fair bit of quality charcoal it is obvious to the rabbit that by removing oxygen and insulating the molten mass as has happened, the retention of it’s thermal entropy has been GREATLY enhanced.  Imagine the excellent thermal insulation properties of all that pulverised concrete.

Once when living in the bush, I knew of a buried root from an ancient Jarrah tree which smouldered quietly away underground for six years, starting ocassional fires on the ground when it reached some point or another in its slow advance. 

The molten steel is entirely consistent with, in fact it is only really feasible if , THERMATE has been used.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 2:27 AM

G’day rabbit,

No time to read right back, but I seem to remember there are about 20? demolition companies in the US. Coincidence that this particular LOIZEAUX oiseau who cleared up after Okla City turns up again ? Maybe.

The “Inevitable Symmetrical Pancake Hypothesis ” is just that. A Hypothesis.

Demolition men could save a lot of time and explosives IF they just weakened one side of a structure, and then it came straight down.

Sounds unlikely to this old tree-cutter.

Following the NATTY- link onwards from 911myths as you did, we get to
Ken Holden, Commissioner of the NYC DDC (Dept Of Design and Construction), evidence to Kean Commission, April 1 2003

Quick, but safe decisions regarding where to put the cranes had to be made, inspection of the slurry wall and water in the basement were conducted, while numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. Cars - both burned and pristine - were suspended in the air balanced on cracked parking garage slabs.

quote from frog—-

Many people have forgotten the intensity of the Anthrax Scare in the USA, while the “Patriot Act” was going through.

Think back, Americans, that scare just disappeared did it not ?

It served its purpose, as did the Ricin Terrorist Cell in London.

The ricin was not real, even, but the anthrax was

Anthrax of that strain was traced to….. Fort Detrick,.?.. and then the FBI investigation dried up.

Research on biological warfare is concentrated in government laboratories, and private ones closely associated with them.

Research on exciting new explosives will be found where ?

Jones et al hypothesise the use of thermate—- they know it exists. The next hypothesis is obvious ..........

(Clue——apply Rumsfeldian logic . )

Posted by frog on Jul 17, 2006 at 2:42 AM

Frog

How does one get up again after such a series of grotesque defeats as those now suffered by our dear Shill Bat, the mad and wacky Natalie? 

How can one raise one’s head again in public?  Facing such abject humiliation on an ongoing basis is worse than Massochism, it can only come down to one thing.  The oldest profession is actually selling one’s self, in whatever form.

Of course the Anthrax scare was a warning to those few senators still thinking of showing a spine on the patriot act which was at that time only a quaint name.  Such relatively subtle points will be lost on a craven denialist like Natalie and will serve instead as a means of smoking some mirrors, assuming she is short of suitable subjects in this regard.  The 2 Trillion Dollar Robbery announced in a whisper by Cheney and subsequently effectively covered up by 911 is certainly a MAJOR smoking gun if one seeks an admin based Motive, and assuming the yet to be announced WOT was not enough in itself. 

In fact the question of who did this and why is NO LONGER A SECRET!

A short while since a story came to the attention of the rabbit.  This rabbit then spent a week reading this story and verifying details of it.  It seems to me to be the real deal.

If you are ready for the answers, and assuming you are at least informed enough that you understand already the following FACTS.  Who owned the buildings and the insurance history.  The actual residencies of especially WTC-7.  The fact of the Put Options on American Airlines and United Airlines then Chad and others who are seeking understanding the following is I think the latest word.

9/11 Whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove Come Forward

“This man, Richard Andrew Grove, a whistleblower who worked for the big boys and money people behind 9/11 has come out with information to set the 9/11 movement on fire. Although many have rejected his work ... including the IRS, Treasury Dept and SEC, what he exposes on Marsh & McLellan, AIG, Dyncorp, Spitzer, Stewart Air Force Base, Fitzgerald, Bremer, missing gold and bucks of 9/11, software that predicts the future and more will ASTOUND YOU as it did me. 

Endorsed by Rabbit too.. 

If this guy is a part of a conspiracy my dear, queer and odd little denialist cringers, then at least his is better backed than yours shen it comes to puttinmg together a credible story.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 3:07 AM

9/11 Whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove Come Forward

Be brave my babies and read it.  Long and weird, like life, yet thoroughly likely.  This is the answer for those who have gone a step beyond and ask now for some who’s and why’s.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 3:37 AM

rabbit
I checked, there are a number of qualified companies US,  -wide…..“implosion world”.

Following leads, as I usually do, came to   this ,  which looks like an effort to build up LOIZEAUX and CDI as the unquestioned world experts.

Coincidence piles upon coincidence.

The Grove story. I will re-read it, but there is sure something there.
I watched the S&L and other scandals, BCCI etc,  growing from close-to, so the idea of very large-scale robbery, money-laundering,  is not new to me.

i recommend ALL to follow the links on the same page to “indira singh”. 
Just see how the news blackout has been imposed on the post-911 victims.
As with Gulf War Syndrome, these people have probably been accused of mass hysteria, but is there anyone out there denying the reality of the former ?

canuck my posting from “germany” is odd, I agree ................... because I ain’t.

Posted by frog on Jul 17, 2006 at 4:19 AM

Rabbit,

How does the NASA page about thermal imaging support your contention about molten steel?  For steel to be truly molten, the temperature would have had to be some 2800 degrees F.  The greatest temperature estimation gleened by thermal imaging is 1375F.

Why is it such an absolute that thermate had to be what initiated the conditions that resulted in whatever was the true state of the materials under the pile, whether truly molten (liquid), or more likely in my estimation, various shades of orange/red, but still being solid.

The only clear description of liquid metal….“rivers flowing”..... appears to be more of a literary device base on hearsay, than an accurate description of the true state of the metal.  Other instances of some type of metal or perhaps even other material in various states of “glow” certainly could be arrived at by other means.

Why is it that you’re willing to consider the vast array of disparate divinings by Richard Andrew Grove, a software salesman, creative writer and soul searcher as all worthy of consideration, yet you seem unwilling to consider ANYTHING other than thermate as the heat source that resulted in whatever state of whatever metal or whatever material?

I think (I hope) we can all agree that it was basically a top-down collapse.  Even if there was (a mighty big if) thermate used deliberately as a steel cutting device, how would we end up with any substantial amount of it in the depths of the pile?  Surely it would have been expended in order to “do its job”, or, if there were any remaining, wouldn’t it have ended up fairly high on the pile?

Which of course raises the question:  If thermate was used, just how does one explain the fact that either it was not rendered useless by the crash of the planes, or that these planes were driven with such precision as to land EXACTLY just above the thermate charges?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 17, 2006 at 3:17 PM

natalie, jeff gannon called and he wants you back at the white house pronto.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 17, 2006 at 3:53 PM

Don’t tell me, Diggins.  You’re fourteen too.

Am I close?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 17, 2006 at 4:51 PM

bottoms up, Natalie

Posted by Diggins on Jul 17, 2006 at 4:57 PM

Yep, I think I’m close.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 17, 2006 at 6:41 PM

Natalie your last post was babbling and isn’t worthy of an answer. Still the rabbit shall give a contemptuous wave of his paw and flatten the ground where you attempt to build support for an unlikely theory out of the sand.

The fact of molten steel is not in doubt.  It is herewith and elsewhere confirmed.  Your nitpicking of these and many other points are moot since the details which you randomly attempt, to cast aspersions are more often than not actually confirmed in even the official accounts.  There isn’t actually any question of the molten pools, it is witnessed and the impossibly high temperatures even a week later is even covered by the NASA imaging. 

The imaging is several days after the collapses and even on the day of 911such temperatures would have been impossible by the official theory.  Gabbling on about a few hundred degrees of which the actual temperature loss would be on an inverted curve is dumb. This means the temperature drop would be most at the start.  This can be seen in any cup of coffee and I observe it several times a day cooking and cooling the mould for Kayaks in my little Rotomoulding factory.

So why drizzle on about the fact that a week after 911 the temperature was less than molten?  1375F is still too hot by several orders of magnitude.  Idiot!

Get yourself something better than this lost cause lover for you are being bounced like a rubber ball.

Still ducking the real issue which is that everything is at least consistent with the scenario of Controlled Explosive Demolitions.

Frog

You have found them of course.  Let me confirm the impression of them being the best.  That sure is the word.

There is someone, a company in particular who would be the natural and possibly only choice for such agrand job.  Three simultaneous, maximum elevation, skyscraper demos, (in the middle of a crowded city), who else?  The same company best placed to clean up the mess afterwards. 

A task which is normally considered a part of the demolitions contract by the way. 

................................^^...................................

The only thing unusual about the contract with Controlled Demolition for the cleanup of the WTCs is that we haven’t been privy to the full contract I suspect.

................................^^...................................

Read the Groves Story all answers will become apparent.

Diggins

Natalie works for a shilling outfit like the Rendon group for example, which supplies the Pentagon etal.

Oh dear, this is too funny not to post off topic. 
The Comic Book War

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 7:38 PM

She HAS NOT read Groves’ account or followed his references for sources.  Rabbit righteously assumes this for she has not even read the sources she herself posted above as was shown.

Instead Natalie asks another of those profound questions which take up the thinking time of such faith based 911 believers.

Why is it that you’re willing to consider the vast array of disparate divinings by Richard Andrew Grove, a software salesman, creative writer and soul searcher as all worthy of consideration, yet you seem unwilling to consider ANYTHING other than thermate as the heat source that resulted in whatever state of whatever metal or whatever material?

Since we have no evidence of anything other than Thermate and a vast array of evidence including chemical analysis for Thermate…..............................^^.......................................the rabbit cannot explain to you Natalie why we might be inclined to believe in Thermate.

As for the rest of the question the rabbit shall have to leave you to ponder that strange phenomenen in the dark and twisted corridors of your own mind.

Perhaps we are simply without enough Faith Natalie? 

I think that’s it, we are faithless.  We lack faith, something you appear to possess in walmart size quantities.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 17, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Lagomorph should adopt the duck as his totem animal, since he is such a quack.

Pyrotechnic - adj. Of or relating to fireworks.  American Heritage Dictionary.

<blockquote> Rabbit happens to be a competent and experienced metal worker and welder.  More importantly I am an <b>explosives

Posted by scorp on Jul 17, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Thankyou for your prime endorsement, Professor Scorp.  A Hopping Quacker.  Yes Mr Scorp that is indubetably an interesting creature.  With all the things Scorpy has been indulging in via his rectum lately (re smoke and tubes and things) I would want to see collateral before entering into any bets with it.

Now Natalie be a good shill Bat dear and please say right on cue

“Excellent points Scorp”

To which the rabbit replies;  Yes, it is good though pointless really, of you to list the occasions in which I have been consistent in this regard.  Your point about it all?  Maybe you didn’t have one.  Thanks dear Scorp but the funny old Lagomorph has it covered.  You get back to your general buffoonery now and leave me to repeat any of my words which I feel need it.

Upon second reading I see you did think you were labouring to establish something.  Scorp my little muffin, if you look up the thread to an earlier posting I gave you the point that the column could have been cut with Oxy, the photo was not conclusive in and of itself.  I am happy to drop the whole photo for it is not of any value on its own and is less and less conclusive the more you make such a desperate effort to establish I was mistaken in my analysis. 

If the thing means so much to you dear soul,  I’ll agree the column might have been cut with OXY, even probably was.

Hooray for Scorpy!  Hip Hip hooray.  You are right.  The cut column photo doesn’t prove anything.

I’m happy to yield the point for free Scorp and was the last time I addressed you, you have but a single note but you keep on playing it as if your life depended on it. This of itself doesn’t support the official story.  Sorry old Scorp that isn’t how it works.  More importantly, it does not disprove the Explosive Demolition contention or cast any aspersions on the idea.

Has the term running on the spot got any meaning for you Corpse?

Rabbit makes a gift of his long cherished Private Troll, Scorpy.  He is herewith bequeathed to the wider ITT community to enable the Scorpling to concentrate more fully on his duties as court jester.

You know his needs are simple.  A good skull wacking from time to time, a regular meal of his own feet, which he usually is so kind as to catch and skin for the kitchen so to speak, and a place to call his own.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 12:20 AM

The debunking site is another typical load of half truths, strawmen and red herrings.  I only begin to list the faults with its reasoning but anybody who has followed the earlier references will not be moved by it., They actually don’t manage to make the case against thermite at all.  Among the many small innacuracies is the suggestion of the cuts on the columns being done on an angle to control the direction of the falling column during cleanup.  This is not a forrest where they are felling trees, such a job involves a crane on a site like this so this is a red herring.

The other common red herring this camp tosses about is that Thermite can’t cut sideways.  They are basing this analysis it seems upon the science experiment type videos circulating on the net showing thermite being burned loosely over steel, which is not how it is used in demolitions.  Of course it cuts sideways, are you trying to suggest that explosives are not used to cut steel columns in such circumstances now SCorpse?

That is a novel approach.  Get right to the source and claim that explosive demolitions of Skyscrapers is an unproven theory, an impossibility. That really is turning the tables on their ends isn’t it Scorpling?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 1:04 AM

So what did you think about Major’s “natural” thermite reaction theory, Rabbit?  (I know it’s not his theory, but the one he brought to our attention.)

I don’t think you ever really commented on that, or did I miss it?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 2:23 AM

If you know it’s not my theory, then why call it my theory?  It’s F.R.Greening’s theory, which you knew when you provided the following link:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Greening, a retired nuclear engineer from Ontario, Canada, subsequently challenged Jones to conduct a more realistic experiment to verify his claims, which Jones did.  The results are described in a paper which can be obtained at this link.

Another unrelated study appears to conclude that the kinetic energy required to create the pyroclastic clouds of debris could not be obtained from the gravitational potential energy which brought down the buildings:

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

It’s necessary to note that the commission’s analysis did not extend beyond the initial structural collapse.

Posted by Major Major on Jul 18, 2006 at 6:48 AM

i really am baffled by people like corpse and the stoner.  are you guys really trying to suggest that we should disregard everything that the rabbit has said simply because he misused one word, or used the same word as someone else?  that’s pretty lame.  perhaps you could try something more creative.

why doesn’t someone other than miss Natalie and the Major try to argue some facts with him?  i realize that there are at least two ‘analyses’ of almost every ‘fact’, one that supports the faith based theory and one that doesn’t, which makes it very hard to get to the bottom of this.  i think, though, that further investigation is needed, if we really want the truth.

so, corpse, if you want to play your silly word games please do so at home with your dictionary.  if you would like to try actually aguing, or even making a good point, you may want to make sure you understand what you want to say before you attempt to say it.

Posted by chad on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:04 AM

we don’t want the truth chad. we want endless rhetoric because we have no where to turn in the real world and at least a few major gnat stoner corpses reply here, and the state terrorists go on about the business of killing, but heck, that’s out there in the crazy world and in here everything is always the same, 180 comments later, and it’s comforting because none of us are dead. (except corpse.)

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:49 AM

CHAD

Methinks you have perhaps misread the Rabbit’s eloquent Disquisitions ,
Wherein he points out with Precision

That the NattyScorp Batcave Bushcheney
Conspiracy Theory

is but

Pure Factoidal Repetition. ?

THE FAITHFUL FOOLS BELIEVE THE CONSPIRACY ORDAINED BY THEIR DECIDER

The rest of us   rack our brains, for we do not have the Certainty, the TRUE FAITH of those who believe in their Dear Leader.

Posted by frog on Jul 18, 2006 at 10:25 AM

nats, groping that german lady is not going to score you points with jeffy.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 18, 2006 at 11:01 AM

In the same PBS documentary where Silverstein makes his famous “pull” remark, a cleanup worker says, “...we’re getting ready to pull building six.” listen below:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Why would David Ray Griffin talk to engineers about planes causing the towers to collapse? No one said planes caused the towers to collapse! As a matter of fact, the towers were made to cope with multiple plane strikes. FEMA and NIST say “fires” were the reason the towers collapsed. However, NIST says that most of the affected steel samples from the perimeter steel of the towers show heat damage of around 250 C (482 F). This is too low a temperature to cause structural steel to weaken and bring about global collapse (650 C is the point at which structural steel loses half of its structural integrity for God’s sake!).

By the way, the hottest aviation fuel will burn at is 1000 C under laboratory conditions. Cut that figure by two thirds in the diffuse, non-laboratory, fires at the towers, and you come up with a figure around 333 C (This temperature would tend to confirm the low NIST 250 C number). The WTC steel was certified by UL of up to 2,000 F (1093 C) for three hours (however, structural steel won’t actually start to melt until reahing 3,000 F). Both towers collapsed within approximately 1.5 hours (56 minutes for the south tower) at temperatures around 250 C (482 F)! Something is very wrong here.

The 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 did not go up in flames. The fires at WTC 7 were regional, and confined to floors 7, 11 and 12 as shown below:

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html

How does fuel oil that burns at 333 C, tops, destroy structural steel that loses half its strength at 650 C? How do regional fires bring about a symmetrical collapse of a steel framed building (and collapse 47 floors in 6.6 seconds, to boot! That’s free fall speed. Free fall speed too for the Towers at 10 seconds!).

I believe if anyone has been taking matters concerning 9/11 on faith, it is you, Sir. The 9/11 Truth Movement is only interested in the facts and the laws of physics.

Regards,

Dean M. Jackson
Washington, D.C.

Posted by brian78046 on Jul 18, 2006 at 1:24 PM

Major,

I think (hope) you understand that my calling it your theory was only used in such a way as to illustrate that you embraced it, or at least you sure seemed to: 

“Finally, Jones’ demonstration of pouring molten aluminum over a rusted steel beam is misleading.  Aluminum reacts explosively with crushed ferrous oxide and concrete because the surface area of the crushed materials is dramatically increased and provides a much greater chance of explosive reaction.  In fact, it’s very likely that the chain of collapse was initiated by explosive contact of the molten aluminum airframe with the crushed concrete, gypsum and rusted steel created by the collision of the jetliner with the WTC and the subsequent firestorm which melted the airframe and exposed the contents of the impacted area.”

In fact, you didn’t cite any other source for the theory, leading one to believe that perhaps it was indeed yours.  You even sounded somewhat authorative.  I then acknlowedged “your” theory, somewhat agreed with its plausibility, and linked to where I had “heard” or “read” if you prefer, the theory presented previously.

I then went on to describe, albeit jokingly, how Jones had rebutted Greening’s theory.

Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with all this, I just don’t understand all the nit-picking.  Read vs. heard?  No, not MY theory, why did you say it was MY theory?

Now, you prodeed to link to a dubious theory analyzing the dust clouds.  Could this be a reliable indicator of the exact forces that brought down the buildings?  Jim Hoffman seems like a pretty smart guy, but I don’t think he has the necessary expertise to properly analyze dust/debris clouds.  He obviously didn’t make any same day observations or measurments within the clouds, which would have been crucial, don’t you think?

Lest we forget, those buildings contained massive quantities of gypsum, ceiling tile, carpet, and lightweight, not the conventional concrete floors we’re all familiar with in our garages.  It’s only natural that there would be HUGE quantities of dust and small debris, and to try to measure it from pictures, not knowing its true density or make-up, reminds me of one of the experiments I saw at my son’s second grade science fair.

Even if there were thermate or any kind of charges used to weaken the structure at exactly the right moment, wouldn’t their amount have had to be MASSIVE, in order to achieve some discernable difference in the dust cloud?  We know from simple observation that there was nothing like that.  A few poofs of dust out a few windows, is all we have.  The only remaining avenue is to make the ridiculous claim that somehow charges were precisely set off sequentially as the building collapsed from the top down.  Not only is there no visual evidence of this, but it’s been proven to not have been necessary, by people (Bazant and others) that are qualified to do so.

Let me ask you.  What do you think of Rabbit’s theory about molten pools of metal in the basement only being possible because of thermate/mite?  (I know, it’s not really his theory, but you know what I mean.) 

I’m not saying you necessarily believe or disbelieve any ot this, and I’m not trying to put thoughts in your head about anything, but I’m confused as to your position.  At times it seems clear, but other times it seems, I don’t know, masked somehow.  Is it simply because you can’t stand the thought of joining with a “right winger”, even though you know “your side” is really blowing it here? 

I hope that’s not the case, because the best way to help your side, at least electorally, is to join with anyone you can in order to combat this growing cancer within let’s face it, largely left-leaning circles.  I really don’t think you’d approve of a thermite platform being inserted at your party’s next convention.  I know Terry Allen wouldn’t.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Dean, or Brian,

There was a slow sinking of the penthouses in WTC7, which were behind the visible north wall.  This collapse alone took 8.2 seconds.  Seismograph traces of the entire collapse show that it encompassed 18 seconds.  Only the penthouses and the north wall were visible in videos, 8 sec. for the penthouses and 7 sec. for the north wall.

This 6.6 second number is extremely misleading and erroneous.

The whole thing is WAY more complicated (4.5mb pdf) than is constantly described by the truthies.

Are we to believe that all the engineers and materials experts employed by NIST really said that no steel ever got above 482F?  Even if they did, consider this.  The inside of your oven might reach this temperature.  But, it’s insulated.  If you were to turn your oven on high for an hour or so, with no insulation, and it had a massive load across the top, I think there’d be trouble.  One of the key elements of the collapse was the removal of the fireproofing, if there still was any, from the lightweight steel trusses, thereby enabling the (if you insist) low temperature fires to transfer enough heat to them to cause them to sag.  Ask yourself…why is it that I so rarely hear a “truthie” talk about insulation or fireproofing?

“9/11 truth” ......  778,000 results
“9/11 truth”  insulation .......  561
“9/11 truth”  fireproofing ......  604
“9/11 truth”  fireproofing trusses ......  320
“9/11 truth”  fireproofing trusses sag ......  104

I’ll have to check the NIST report again, but I really doubt that you’re representing the temperatures and their effects fairly, and I KNOW that things aren’t anywhere near as simplistic as you make them out to be.

I believe if anyone has been taking matters concerning 9/11 on faith, it is you, Sir. The 9/11 Truth Movement is only interested in the facts and the laws of physics.

Pardon me while I laugh hysterically on the floor.  Do you really want me to wear out my hard drive collecting all the political rantings made by members of the 9/11 “truth” movement? 

Let me guess….you’re against the Iraq war too.  I’ve got pretty good faith that this is the case!

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Thermite is a chemical mixture of aluminum and ferric oxide powders which is ignited by a fuse burning at an extremely high temperature.  Greening’s rebuttal to Jones’ demonstration (pouring molten aluminum over rusted steel) implied that the demonstration did not sufficiently replicate the conditions encountered at the WTC impact zone, asserting that molten aluminum is more likely to produce an explosive reaction with a pre-heated mixture of crushed concrete, gypsum and rusted steel, because crushing those materials increased their surface area and therefore the likelihood of an explosive reaction.  (Thermite, after all, is a mixture of fine powders, reduced to dimensions of micron-sized magnitudes which, in the aggregate, present a radically larger surface area and will, with the proper ignition temperature, radically increase the probability of an explosive reaction.)  Jones then reproduced those conditions (crushed, preheated materials, not the thermite) in subsequent experiments and described the results (negligible, non-explosive reactions) in the paper to which I had linked (“link”).  The difference, as far as I can tell, between Jones’ experiments and Greening’s expectations was that no ignition temperature was achieved and, therefore no explosive reaction.  Whether the absence of an ignition temperature was misleading on Jones’ part or unlikely despite Greening’s expectations is debatable.  It certainly is an appropriate basis, among others, for further analysis.

Hoffman did, in fact, estimate the volume of the pyroclastic cloud from photographs taken within fifteen or thirty seconds of the complete collapse.  Read the report.  According to his analysis conservation of energy requires that the kinetic energy derived from the cloud formation (heat sinks) should be comparable to the potential energy which drove the gravitational collapse (heat source).  Ideally they should be equal.  His estimates appear to conclude that the kinetic energy was much greater than the available potential energy.

Hoffman’s report, incidentally, was obtained from your source (911 Myths).

Posted by Major Major on Jul 18, 2006 at 4:04 PM

OK Major,

That’s fine. You are certainly under no obligation to answer any of my questions.  I’ll just keep…...wondering.

Yes, I’m very aware of the debate between Jones and Greening, and all about the particulates, etc. etc. 

I know that Hoffman’s basis of conclusion is his volume measurements.  Like I said….measurements from photographs.

My point was that he obviously wasn’t flying through the debris clouds with dust-o-meters that day, and has no accurate way of knowing the properties of that cloud, at least certainly not (in my opinion) accurately enough to proclaim that explosives must have been used to account for the observed cloud.  I’m no expert on anything scientific, really, but this just seems goofy to me.

Let’s link to the 9/11Myths page where you say you came across Hoffman’s report.  That way, we are not left with a one-sided point of view.  Here we can digest some lay but pretty common sense observations by Mike, and also read this alternative analysis of the debris cloud question, and others, again by Greening.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 5:33 PM

MAJOR

You have opposite you a 100% guaranteed SHILL.

She can be sweet, even human, but her job by foul or fair means is to discredit any oppposition to Bushworld.

Seemingly innocent and rather mealy-mouthed, she insinuates her way into “discussions”.

I can’t right now remember the first time—- but it was something like—-

“Well this is the first time I’ve ever posted, but it seems to me that….............etc…. and then….......  the SPIEL .”

Visible at 1000m, with experience.

She has been caught out on numerous occasions, on facts .

NOW, we see her again parading the same stuff as before, pretending the same ignorance of evidence shown to her previously.

Looks like a delaying-action to me..

Posted by frog on Jul 18, 2006 at 6:40 PM

She has been caught out on numerous occasions, on facts .

The problem with trying to rebut that statement, Frog, is that your definition of fact is not simply that, but more closely related to your opinion, or your conspiratorial imagination.

No, my job is not to defend “Bushworld”.  But I do consider it a worthy cause, to counter this incidious form of destructive, hate-based propaganda, which serves nobody really, except perhaps terrorists and Alex Jones’ bank account.

This nonsense can only HELP insure that more Republicans are elected, and if I only cared about that I would be joining right in, pretending that it all makes perfect sense. 

Two words.  Operation Northwoods.  There ya go!

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 7:11 PM

Natters
Slightyly more subtle stuff than before; I see.

ANYONE OUT THERE who believes that old frog is involved in insidious , destructive,hate-based propaganda ,

which serves Terrists, and Alex Jones’ bank account, not to forget my Democrat - sabotaging of their electoral chances.MAY be lead to believe that this was apure figment of his imagination?

Posted by frog on Jul 18, 2006 at 8:17 PM

The natural thermite theory is ludicrous on its face. It isn’t Major’s theory, you are a dishonest lassy at the best of times are you not?

Indeed theoretically if one could atomise, via explosives for example the correct ratios of Iron Oxide and Aluminium it would create a potential thermite reaction.  It is not a viable theory in practice.

To create thermite requires very finely ground components and considerable mixing for homogeneity.  It isn’t like you just chuck in a piece of rusty iron and a bit of aluminium and voila it goes whoosh.

Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite as well.  There is no point in running after such ridiculous red herrings as an accidental thermite reaction. By the way, I don’t know if others realise that Thermite doesn’t only come in an Iron Aluminium form.  It is made from using the oxide of any metal mixed in close proximity to the pure form of a more reactive metal.  Therefore one could for example use Copper oxide and Zinc etc.

Reading further I see major has covered some of this.  Good.  By the way Major one thing you said earlier needs to be mentioned.  You pointed out that the billiard ball demonstartion was inadequate for it involved the acceleration rate being completely zero at each subsequent fall.  I agree this isn’t realistic as the actual fall would have involved less and less effect on the acceleration rate as each floor gave way.  The experiment does illustrate the basic concept of changing acceleration rates though which is all I think was the intention.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 8:22 PM

thank you for your insipid stupidity, terry allen.

you are total crap

only defended by automatrons like natalie

but natalie is really a good _______

she probably suported nuking hiroshima, believing tonkin, grenada, haiti, hitting chile on 911, iran/contra…

this is the bed you will sleep in

enjoy your glorious fire

ps   kudos on murdering all those lebs this week

you dipshit from hades

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inIWj6CU0GI&NR;

Posted by Diggins on Jul 18, 2006 at 8:33 PM

Natalie I think we can look up this page and quickly find at least six facts you have been caught out, misrepresenting.  How can you seriously claim otherwise.

You claimed that there was no real source for the fall times of about 10 seconds.  Yet your own source mentioned it!

You claimed nobody was saying their were molten pools of steel.  A blatant falsehood as was immediately shown.

You claimed that a hodgepodge of waffling theorising by Bazant, was proof that gravity and fire brought down the WTCs.  This is a deliberate attempt to mislabel a theory as a fact.

You have claimed that a long since discredited video of Osama Bin Laden is proof of his involvment when even the FBI don’t agree with you.

Natty it isn’t even hard to find matters about which you have not only misrepresented the truth but invariably refused to acknowledge the fact when it is shown to be so.

You are so utterly bereft of any credibility that it is as always becoming nauseating watching you twisting and dissembling, and shilling. 

Major has already made several comments which moderate at least the views of a few facts, and he has done so without lying or twisting and without ad-hominem or rhetoric. Major has gained certain concessions as a result.  Just shows what you might have achieved had you ever possessed an ounce of reason, Batgirl..  Certain weaknesses in some bits of evidence still doesn’t DISPROVE or even significantly weaken our argument.  These things don’t of themselves alter the balance of evidence which still points as irrevocably towards Explosive demolition as always, and they do not in any way support the official contention that fire and gravity did it.  The fires especially in WTC-7 were not hotter than and of no longer duration than barbecues anyway.

We have an unbroken chain of interlocking scientific evidence and known facts, which support our contention and tend to disprove yours at the same time.

Nat the Vampire Shill-Bat, Rabbit couldn’t make up a better comic book shill if he tried.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 8:53 PM

The natural thermite theory is ludicrous on its face. It isn’t Major’s theory, you are a dishonest lassy at the best of times are you not?

You don’t read very thoroughly, do you Rabbit?

“So what did you think about Major’s “natural” thermite reaction theory, Rabbit?  (I know it’s not his theory, but the one he brought to our attention.)”

Thermite is notoriously difficult to ignite as well.  There is no point in running after such ridiculous red herrings as an accidental thermite reaction.

I actually tend to agree, Rabbit.  But somehow it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me than imagining that some shadowy entity suceeded in placing dozens or hundreds of thermate “cutter charges” all over the WTC’s, and convincing those bumbling terrorists to fly into the precise locations necessary so as not to disturb the intricate set-up.

However, this is what a materials engineer had to say:

Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings’ collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones’s paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.

Others have brought up this notion as well, so Mr. Jones has carried out experiments in his lab trying to get small quantities of molten aluminum to react with rust. He has not witnessed the reaction and so rules it out. But Mr. Eagar says this is just a red herring: Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon, he says. It just takes a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start.—-  “Professors of Paranoia”, Chronical of Higher Education, June 23, 2006

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:01 PM

No, my job is not to defend “Bushworld”.  But I do consider it a worthy cause, to counter this incidious form of destructive, hate-based propaganda, which serves nobody really ...

So this is your job then, defending the faith, but it is a worthy one?

Posted by David in Canada on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM

Diggins, don’t let the Bat get to you.  It’s true that she is a shockingly gross defender of pretty much anything which could be construed as evil.  Natalie does indeed support all those atrocities you mention, if she is instructed to do so by her programmers. 
She loves Depleted Uranium more than most issues, because surprise,  surprise it is the NUMBER ONE priority for censorship by the pentagon. We know who gets all the money and thus who has the money to pay for Shills, so it is logical that she puts it first.  Of course then 911, is her secondary area of responsibility.  Rabbit has had the unbridled pleasure of watching Nat’s views change from one day to the next because the official version has as well.  Predictable as a cheap watch is Natalie.

Try to see her for the helpful creature she is, she is a great enabler for truth, forcing others to bring forth and to hone the precision and accuracy of their message.  It takes some practice not to be caught up in her dissembling dance and have the issues be blown to the wind.  She is untiring, but she can be so totally humiliated and overwhelmed with something she will dissapear for a week or two.  She will sit on the sidelines when the thread is full and she is getting walloped, yet someone new need only post after a silent thread of a week or more and she will be instantly online starting from square one.  As if most of her points haven’t already been thoroughly destroyed or completely disproven.

How can you allow yourself to be angry with such a moral whore?  She is just fine like she is, enjoy the antics as she slips and slides around in her own slime. She is without any real emotion when it comes to normal human reactions to things like death and suffering, but she has studied human emotions and thinks she knows what emotive arguments need to be made to maybe capture someone’s attention.

The biggest problem she has is that she is always given such shit material to work with.  She hasn’t got any real facts which can be made to logically draw a strong case for her story.  She hasn’t got any growing organisations of experts or concerned citizens to support her causes.  The contentions she must make are ludicrous, absurd on their face, and yet she is expected to try and support such lunacy without any moderation and she must also never once admit error even in the face of quite remarkable defeats of some some of her message.

You really should feel sorry for her, we all should…........................can rabbit feel sorry for her?..................................................trying…...........trying…..............nope.  Can’t do it. 
She should get an honest job that’s all.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:17 PM

Rabbit only uses quotations which have significance and relevance.  Unlike some who do so for no other reason than to fill up space. Nat quotes nothing of prominence, but often she tries to slip gratuitous litle bits of rubbish under the radar.

Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon, he says. It just takes a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start

The key is this bit a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start  we are talking about micron sized exposure.  Such accidents are indeed known to happen in fireworks factories where thermite is being prepared. They occur in some cases in metal workshops where grinding of suitable metals has gone on without enough cleaning up and occassionally the right combination of materials have been brought into sufficiently close contact. This in itself is a very tall order if you have ever tried to make thermite.  We are talking of something which still needs a significant ignition source which is of course available in a workshop from welding slag.  The bottom line is that anybody who wants to yap about an accidental thermite reaction having occurred in the WTCs is either profoundly ignorant of even the most basic chemistry or is clearly trying to decieve.

Well since I already know Natalie is profoundly ignorant of any science I shall have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I like the bit above where she says she cannot understanding the nitpicking.  Why then is she doing it?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 9:42 PM

You claimed that there was no real source for the fall times of about 10 seconds.  Yet your own source mentioned it!

No, I said that NOBODY knows EXACTLY how long it took for the towers to fall.  I said that I could find no mention in the final NIST report of fall times, but they might have mentioned 10 seconds in the past, but it was only meant as an approximation.  I pointed out a video that shows first hand, the collapse from beginning to the point where it is still not done collapsing, and the counter is at about 11 seconds.  What more can I do?  What more does one need?

You claimed nobody was saying their were molten pools of steel.  A blatant falsehood as was immediately shown.

No, I claimed (via 9/11myths)  that the accounts talking about molten metal were not as widespread as claimed.  That many of them were second hand, and that even the original source may not have actually been literally talking about “liquid” metal.  There is no photographic proof of flowing pools of steel, as far as I’ve seen anyway, and I would think that this would be a prized picture for a photographer or anybody.  But then again, suppose there were pools of metal.  Why is it that the ony reason for it you can imagine is thermate?

Would you be willing to consider the likelihood that there were quite a few vehicles and gosh only knows what other fuel sources present down there?  There is supposedly parking for 2000 cars/trucks below the towers.  I don’t know the exact lay-out of the parking, or how many vehicles were actually there, but it seems a significant source of heating, especially after reading about car engine fires and the melting of aluminum engine parts and steel hoods, even.  There is also no telling exactly what kind of furnace effects might have been generated by underground subway tunnels and elevator shafts or whatever.

You claimed that a hodgepodge of waffling theorising by Bazant, was proof that gravity and fire brought down the WTCs.  This is a deliberate attempt to mislabel a theory as a fact.

Hodgepodge of waffling theorizing?  ROFL.  I guess the next time an aeronautical engineer explains to me the reason a plane can fly, and uses all kinds of lift and drag coefficient formulas, I’ll tell him he’s crazy and call his “theory” a hodgepodge.  Yeah, I’ll build my own plane!  You’ll see.

I don’t think I called it proof, but I certainly maintain that it’s pretty much the best we got, and that it represents the view of probaby 99.9% of the world’s structural, civil, and fire engineers.  You, on the other hand are CONSTANTLY proclaiming that this or that is PROOF of something, and cased closed.

You have claimed that a long since discredited video of Osama Bin Laden is proof of his involvment when even the FBI don’t agree with you.

Yes, I think that this and several other transmissions are pretty convincing proof that he has admitted guilt, and in fact seems quite proud of it.  I think that in addition to this, there has been much corroborating evidence coming from detainees and other sources.  The fact that the FBI does not see fit to technically charge him for this particular crime at this time does not mean that practically everbody with half a brain in this world isn’t convinced of his guilt.  After all, he does seem to have somewhat of a record of blowing stuff up, and threatening us with horrible consequences.  But, he may have changed.

You didn’t answer my question from earlier, though.  Has any legitimate intelligence agency on earth come out and declared any of these communications/videos to be falsified?

Maybe they have, but I sure don’t remember hearing about it.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 10:04 PM

mmmmm….....depleted uranium.

——————————-vv—————————-  (content below this line added 8/5/06)

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie, the Fruit Bat.  mmmmm…....fruit

9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review)  ;-)

16% of people believe in UFOs.  6% believe in bombs and missiles.

(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks)  (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Which begs the question— Why do you?  Oh yeah…...faith.

——————————-  content below this line added 8/10/06 —————————————

We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent and talented people who are capable of designing and building huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire and gravity caused their collapse.

However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those that are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 18, 2006 at 10:13 PM

Natsky ..............All of your last post was dissembling and even for you pathetic. 

I guess the next time an aeronautical engineer explains to me the reason a plane can fly, and uses all kinds of lift and drag coefficient formulas, I’ll tell him he’s crazy and call his theory a hodgepodge.  

Natalie try to keep up here.  The difference with the theory of flight is that it is proven, ie; planes fly.  and that is the only reason flight is a proven fact.  The theory that airplanes fly is not needful of an aeronautical engineer to explain, it is quite simple.  There are not “all kinds of lift and drag coefficient formulas”  Batgirl….....^^......... There are a couple of simple formulas and a reasoned application of these to a simple observable concept.  The theory of Bazant, is apart from being deliberately vague and requiring several leaps of faith, not proven.  His theory is also not even peer reviewed from the look of it. hmm, now wasn’t that important to you batgirl?  You know why I think that is?  It is complete rubbish and nobody is going to even bother sullying themselves. 

I don’t think I called it proof, <u>but I certainly maintain that it’s pretty much the best we got</u>, and that it represents the view of probaby 99.9% of the worlds structural, civil, and fire engineers. You did indeed call it proof, you said that Bazant should win the million dollars which has as its sole condition the PROOF that fire alone could have brought down those buildings. Lie number..100?
  You at least admit its the best you’ve got, ha ha, but it is certainly not good enough to impress anyone yet, let alone sceptics.  Your desperate and spurious claim that it is supported by 99% of engineers is complete rubbish.    Do you actually take the silence of 99% of the world’s engineers in these fields as being support for the official version?  You are breathtakingly deluded my girl! 

The media blackout on most who speak out is the first fact to be assimilated.  The official condemnation and outright destruction of anyone who dares to speak out, is another. Then we need to realise that already hundreds of perfectly reasonable and qualified people in all relevant fields have spoken out and added their names to the list of dissenters.  We might pause a moment to consider that only a very few engineers have actually come forward with any support for the official story and ALL OF IT IS QULIFIED.  They give qualified support do you hear me you bloody fool?  None of these people is even ready to stake his repuatation and say this is certainly what happened. That is asmoking gun on its own, because believe me, a few engineers have tried to come as close to supporting it as they can, yet they are not prepared to give it unqualified support. The same is not true of the increasing number of engineers and other professionals who are joining our ranks. They say clearly and without dissembling that the buildings were brought down with explosives. 

Lastly you dim dusty minded shill how about the 42% of Americans who recognise the truth?  Do you think maybe some of them might be structural engineers etc? 

The fact that the FBI does not see fit to technically charge him for this particular crime at this time does not mean that practically everbody with half a brain in this world isn’t convinced of his guilt. 

No Natalie, only those people who have been taken in by the original propaganda feast about OBL are convinced that he was involved, but more and more are realising as we now know it was always a lie.. You see dearest, there isn’t any evidence of his involvment.  That is the FBI position, not that they have simply not charged him.  Anyone with half a brain would see you haven’t even got that much dear. OBL might have blown things up before, and he might even have liked to have done 911, but that doesn’t amount to his involvment. Oxymoron = Neo Con intellectual.

Yes a number of intelligence agencies and international observers have stated categorically the OBL videos are false.  I’ve found it before for you too Natalie, ages ago and am disinclined to go searching again, but will probably do so anyway.  More to the point Natalie, do you have a reference from even the CIA that IT IS a genuine OBL video?  Since the FBI don’t consider it a genuine video of OBL, why would you?  Especially when his first appearance said he didn’t. 

I have a problem with the idea that OBL didn’t want to be noticed pulling this off.  You first try to paint him as an attention seeking megalomaniac yet would also assume he would want to “keep a low profile” after pulling off a historical attack like this.  Yet suspension of one’s reasoning once in a single paragraph is not enough for Natalie, she would have us now do so again and accept that a couple of months later OBL changed his mind and wanted to tell us about it after all. 
Is anybody else feeling this scenario is getting a bit surreal?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 18, 2006 at 10:19 PM

stop talking to natalie, please, and start talking to terry allen who shall follow bush historically.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 19, 2006 at 12:40 AM

Diggins

Terry Allen may be a sly enabler of the truth?

Perhaps by spouting her original gibberish she was trying to bring the truth to the forefront?  Maybe this is why she coins a few excellent turns of phrase for our use?  Clearly she cannot seriously have spent months researching, only to come out and describe the demolition and LIHOP/MIHOP theories were faith based while the official story was a fact. 

Maybe the author was being Ironic all along ?  If it were not for the lockstep behaviour of the Natalie one could almost be convinced that nobody could be that dumb really.

Maybe Nat is Terry Allen, have we ever considered that?  Nat could have written this piece; it is eminently believable.

Check out this sexy flash thing Natalie.  Enjoy it sweet “Flagermus”.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 19, 2006 at 1:03 AM

mmmmm…......ZINN on the Federal Bureau of Intimidation

James Madison made the point way back. One of the founding fathers. They were not dumb. They may have been rich and white and reactionary and slave holders but they weren’t dumb. Madison said the best way to infringe on liberty is to create an external menace.

Well, not all of them are black bag breakers and enterers, many have quietly left, and others have blown the whistle. Colleen Rowley anyone ? Sibel Edmonds ?

Strange goings on indeed.

Diggins
Ole frog recommended weeks ago that you look at terry’s other 12 articles at ITT . LOOK !

Posted by frog on Jul 19, 2006 at 9:24 AM

Natalie says:

“I

Posted by chad on Jul 19, 2006 at 9:29 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W21MutyXOew&mode=related&search;
Don Henley - Inside Job

Perhaps Terry Allen contends that the truth shall set you free is actually a leap of faith.

I am not reading any of her other pieces until she prints a retraction, and ITT an apology.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 19, 2006 at 11:07 AM

Thanks for the response Natalie.

Here’s the rebuttle:

1) The final NIST report says as to heat damage to the towers’ steel:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250

Posted by brian78046 on Jul 19, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Dean/brian

Good rebuttal of our much-loved USEFUL SHILL

I’ve been hugging those “lightweight trusses”  to myself since joining the previous 911 thread late last year. . But they had to come out here sometime .

The expression itself implies such fragility that OF COURSE it all “fell” down.

Diggins
Did you read rabbit’s post of early this morning ?
And my two ?

Ooh la la—I’m back with the cheese-eating surrender-monkey frogflag ....

Posted by frog on Jul 19, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Thought I would just add my 2 cents worth to all the speculation about 9/11. I happened to be watching and taping MSN/CNBC that morning when the host of Squawk Box, Mark Haines, interrupted their guest and announced the report that a plane had struck one of the WTC towers. 

Yesterday I looked at the tape for the first time since then.

The announcement and first view came shortly after (about 5 minutes?). The time on the screen was 8:50 Eastern U.S..

I fast forwarded to when the first tower fell.

On the air a woman reporter on the scene was relating to the studio what she saw

Posted by whattheheck on Jul 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM

Hi Brian/Dean

Your points are once again on the ball and useful.  It is of course probable that the fires themselves reached around 800 degrees C, since organic fuelled fires can do so.  That the steel itself never went over 250 degrees is consistent with this of course, because in the time available there is no way enough heat could have been absorbed by the steel with it’s massive heat sink properties, to rise up to the full temperature of the fire. I’d hazard a guess and suggest that the 250 C spots were isolated even then, with such heat effects tapering sharply off from the point of flame contact.  The steel I beams used for trusses, and the box columns are huge.  Frankly even Thermite/Thermate would only have heated/melted the immediately contacted portion of steel, the heat dropping sharply away from the point of contact again. 

250 C is barely hot enough to roast a chook in the oven.

My impression is that a serious sized bomb was in the basements of the WTC’s which took out the core, like the experts suggested it should be done.  Then Thermate charges, possibly with cutting charges as well detonated in a timed sequence as usual for such jobs.  The Controlled Demolition experts describe this as being the right way to do it.  The observable evidence is consistent with this scenario.

What The Heck

Well done! I mean it man, that is very well done.  You have a piece of the puzzle right there in your hands and the rabbit is very proud of you.  Thanks for the info.  There has been reports from many people about the explosions, but I haven’t heard that exact one before.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 19, 2006 at 6:24 PM

why did bush say he saw the first plane hit the tower on tv when, from what I understand, there was no aired footage of that until after the second plane had hit?

because he lied when he said he saw it on tv before he went into the classroom

http://www.archive.org/details/Whats_The_Truth-How_Indeed_Did_The_Twin_Towers_Collapse

this video has a few good demonstrations with thermite at about 50 minutes into the video and at 54 minutes clear footage of some thermite pouring out of the south tower

Posted by Diggins on Jul 19, 2006 at 6:41 PM

Thanks Diggins

Just quietly I feel that some new sort of Thermate based demoliton “device” was used and that an exact replica of the method itself will not be forthcoming for some some yet.  The explosions are unmistakable when one is looking for them, but, they are “unfamiliar” in some way, that I can only describe as like he difference between one explosive like PETN compared to another like ANFO.  The almost smokeless nature for a start, although I’ve often wondered if the sheer scale of these buildings is what makes this seem minimal.  The distance of all the footage I’ve seen is invariably greater than any other footage of skyscraper demolitions I can find or remember ever seeing before, and this would tend to affect such comparisons. 

Bush said he saw the first plane hit via a TV, I have always considered that to be fairly irrelevant.  The man is a complete idiot and often says whatever pops into his head on a random basis.  Like a zonked junky or a drunk on his last legs, nothing which comes out of his mouth which isn’t scripted can be taken as more than drivel.  Likewise trying to read anything on his face is probably equally pointless.  How do you read emotion or thoughts on a chimpanzee’s face?  He looks guilty, like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar to me, but that might be projection.

What I found interesting out of the footage of when he is sitting reading about the Goat, is the way in which his chief of staff leans in to inform him, and then withdraws immediately, without waiting for a reply.

THAT to me implied that contrary to all logical expectations, Bush was not expected to respond to this news: essentially that the United States was under attack.  The exchange had the appearance of a confirmation of an expected event, rather than news of an unexpected one.

Can we all see the implications?  Incredibly one does not have to go searching in deep and hidden places for the truth about 911, one has merely to start examining what is known with a critical eye.

I don’t for a moment believe George W Bush was behind 911.  I reject that suggestion as being quite ludicrous.  The silly wanker couldn’t organise blowing up an ants nest with firecrackers without someone to find the crackers, set them in place and hand him the box of matches.  The Bushling isn’t in control, his keepers are keeping him in control, as much as possible.  Even their best efforts cannot hide the disturbing truth from anyone who takes notice, that the man is a dangerously stupid, massively incompetant brainfucked lunatic.  Not capable of thinking up 911.  Let alone masterminding the Neo-con PNAC agenda.  The perfect president for a group who was planning to pull off 911 and drag the USA into an Earth ravaging war of conquest.  A mad adventure of proportions as epic as they are irrevocably doomed to failure.  Only a weak, crazy puppet president would allow such a massive crime to be perpetrated upon his supposedly sacred trust.

The problem for us all, was that rather than having the disaster play out in a natural fashion, it was all presented, on television, with the plot and all the answers about what happened, the cast of characters all identified supposedly, all this we got in one sitting. With not a day for people to ask what? who? why? we got the whole fairy tale in one episode. 

Much like a synopsis of a season of 24. for example.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 19, 2006 at 7:56 PM

have you read slavov zizec’s book called “looking awry” before?

I wonder what “slicing the pig” really was supposed to infer

————————————————————————-

actually, i disagree to some extent, rabbit.  from what i have seen, i am very suspicious of a wily man playing dumb, a bit dumber than he is in actuallity. 

and knowlegeable, he must be privy to a long slew of misdeeds.

Posted by Diggins on Jul 19, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Diggins, I’ve just added something above, about it.  But I think Shrub really is dumb as shit, and they need him to be.  He is Cheney’s sock puppet.  He might be privy to much of what’s going on, but mostly I think he is selectively fed what little information his brain can process by people of limited enough real intelligence of their own, but who at least now how to get George to do what they want.

You say he acts dumber than he really is?  What has he ever done which could have been done worse?  All his actions have been as ill concieved, inadequately executed and done so with as breathtaking ignorance of the likely or even the eventual consequences as humanly possible I think.  I find it hard to imagine a POTUS who could be dumber in actuality than this one.

I don’t think it is even possible to stray into Hyperbole when discussing the mental range of this clown, really Diggins.  I’ve heard all the arguments for him hiding an intellect somewhere, secret, never shown except in the close confines of his toilet cubicle perhaps.  I don’t buy them.  There is no credible evidence his IQ is much higher than room temperature.

Look at the latest episode, that G8 moment was totally candid.  Someone switched the mike, or Dubya forgot it himself, but either way it shows a person eminently unqualified to mix it on the world stage with men of Putin’s, Hu’s or Assad’s or Armadinejad’s calibre.  Imagine such buffoonery from such crafty strategists as these men?  I can’t.  The man is a moron, shocking and sad as it is to admit, the self annointed president of the World is a complete blithering idiot.  Forrest Gump without any of the trials which made HIM greater in sum than the parts of his life. 

George Bush is Forrest Gump born into wealth and unimaginable (by us) privelage.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 19, 2006 at 9:13 PM

I can recall seeing him in texas on the tv, with a visiting fascist, and he dropped his accent and used a northeastern accent trying to find words.

I can’t recall if it was berluconi.

not that a speaking style, or even vocabulary is a complete measure of intelligence, but…  it was though he had accidentally dropped the stupid ol’ me act.

i believe many of his public acts of stupidity are intentional, allowing him to get in good with the stupid crowd, which is all he really needs, a small manipulateable group.

the lies are not designed to fool smart people, just some who are a bit dumber, or the powerless locked in the dumb paradigm defering to the powerfully dumb…

just put him on trial, he committed treason, and i believe he knows that

i actually believe there is a contingency of our Reps and Senators who are also aware

whether they fail to act on what they know due to cowardice or whether their complicity is driven by profit is something to decide, but if I were in government, I would hope to fulfill the responsibility of defending against the domestic enemies.

here is a link to a guy in OK who intends to do just that http://www.sendmeabuck.com/

Posted by Diggins on Jul 19, 2006 at 10:09 PM

There is I think a tendency to seek something beyond the public persona which seems impossibly daft.  His slip from what I always figured was a put on accent, it goes with him wanting to be a cowboy, pretending he’s from Texas, doesn’t suggest a hidden intelligence, it says he is a dumbass poser that’s all..

I still think he is naturally as dumb as dirt, maybe with some sort of dark ability perhaps, like a savant, he is yet outside that limited function, a complete idiot.  In Shrub’s case it may be no more than his uncanny ability to hypnotise a certain section of the community known for their susceptibility to simple cartoon like messages.  He is to morons what shit is to flies.  This makes him a useful puppet POTUS where the policies could only be sold to the most weak minded in society.. 

The alternative that he is a good actor?  Well if he is only acting like a moron, he is a better actor than Ronald Reagan who at least acted like a President.

Check this out:

Daniel Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11

Daniel Ellsberg is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national firestorm in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military’s account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to a systematic program of organized deception carried out by the Pentagon against the population to continue the Vietnam War.

Daniel Ellsberg, speaking on air to GCN radio host Jack Blood, stated his concerns that criminal elements of the US government were psychologically capable to have carried out 9/11. He warned that within days after a US military strike on Iran that Bush’s handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war.

“If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country.”

- Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Pentagon Papers


Ellsberg went on to state that another major Reichstag-like state-sponsored attack would be followed by a martial law scenario which might include detention camps for American dissenters.

Ellsberg said that he worked with individuals at the highest levels of government who staged war provocations several times to whip up pro-war sentiment in the US. Daniel Ellsberg now joins the ranks of hundreds of prominent engineers, physicists, economists, military officers, pilots, high-level intelligence analysts, and cabinet ministers who are exposing the 9/11 hoax.

Each day more and more respected professionals are going public with their questions about the official 9/11 fable. The 9/11 cover-up dam is breaking under the weight of these truthseekers’ efforts and the perpetrators of 9/11 are watching them in horror while wondering who will be the next to speak up.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 19, 2006 at 11:25 PM

Rabbit’s ” zonked junky” article above, check it out ...

A small True Confession from frog, but I’d appreciate your reactions.
I’d known for years that ‘that family’ were a bunch of criminals. Nazi past/Contra/Drugs/S&Ls;...etc
I think it was pre-911 I saw the bushling on TV, and was astonished to discover myself liking the beast .
It was momentary, but makes me understand how so many saw him as a “regular guy” . Something hypnotic ? I don’t know.

I caught myself the same way with Bliar .
I’ve talked to some not-stupid brits who still believe he’s a “nice man” , too.
Weird.

On a re-read, I see rabbit has already covered the hypnosis of morons angle— so maybe I am a bit of one—- or there is some power there , exploiting a human weakness even in the otherwise nonmoronic ..... Well, it worked for Adolf.

Down the page from Ellsberg at Infowars we have this——

Former Reagan Deputy and Colonel Says 9/11 “Dog That Doesn’t Hunt”
Col. Ronald D. Ray asks why half a trillion defense budget couldn’t protect Pentagon, astounded at “conspiracy theory” put out by government

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | July 1 2006

The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it “the dog that doesn’t hunt.”

Well he has more than ‘doubts ‘——

The Colonel detailed historical examples of the use of false flag operations carried out by the US government, in particular Israel’s attempted sinking of the USS Liberty, which LBJ allowed to happen in an effort to blame Egypt and kickstart a war.

Ray (pictured below) espoused his complete distrust of the legitimacy of the official story behind 9/11. link

WTH
I’ve told ya many times——you are far more likely to be detained as a dangerous subversive than blasted by some virgin-hungry Mad Mullah .

“If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country.”

- Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Pentagon Papers

The real Axis of Evil

Posted by frog on Jul 20, 2006 at 12:12 AM

I’m told that the reason Christians get so worked up about the seventy virgins is that all they are promised for their piousness is 2000 year old St Peter and at best their own wife again. 

Really it is obvious why this is the perfect drawcard for lots of young men too young to know the pointlessness of having more than one virgin.  Only young virgin men would think this desirable.

A better offer would have the other sixty nine all manner of whores, girl scouts and even women in suits who carry briefcases.  Eternity is a lot of time to fill in and who knows what else either side is offering but the choices don’t look like much from this side.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 20, 2006 at 12:49 AM

The real Axis of Evil

Posted by frog on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:05 AM

Thanks for your response to my response, Dean.  I’ll attempt to address what you’ve presented.

1) The final NIST report says as to heat damage to the towers’ steel:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.  (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177) .

Dean, I think you’re taking all this terribly out of context.  I believe, if I’m reading the report right, that these pieces represent only a tiny fraction of the steel examined or considered, and that these samples were all taken from areas that were not necessarily exposed to excessive heat, according to NIST computer modeling.  This does not reflect NIST’s overall assessment of the temperatures that were likely encountered in the areas that were exposed to intense fires for extended periods.

From pg. 90, NIST final report, full context:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors.

<i>2) The reason why 9/11 Truth members pay practically zero attention to fire proofing is because structural steel is tested without fire proofing, as it was with the towers by UL. Fire proofing or no fire proofing in the towers is a diversion from what brought down the towers.

On the contrary, fireproofing is crucial to steel being able to withstand almost any intense fire for any extended period.  I’m not absolutely sure on this, but I suspect that what UL might have certified if anything, is that a certain type/gauge of steel with a certain type/thickness of fireproofing would endure fire for a certain length of time without failing.  I really don’t think that UL did anything simply with bare steel, but I am certainly willing to accept otherwise if you can show me some kind of credible documentation to that effect.  I know that UL explicitly stated:  “UL does not certify structural steel.”  It’s hard to believe that such a confident statement would be made if it were false; it would so easily be exposed as such.

UL did some tests for NIST for their report.  They tested some mock-up truss assemblies, but all apparently with fireproofing, which proved to endure quite well.  I suspect that the reason they did no tests with no fireproofing is that they knew with certainty that these would fail rather readily. (pg. 142 NIST)

cont…...

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:09 AM

pt. 2…..

3) If my oven were a) made of certified structual steel and its sides could b) hold twenty times there weight and it had a central core that had c) five times excess load capacity (as did the towers), I think my stove would not have collapsed/saged/etc as did the south tower after 56 minutes of temperaturs and loads way, way below what was needed to collapse it (the north tower collapsed in 97 minutes).

Maybe a bad analogy, but I was thinking mainly of the trusses, which certainly weren’t structural steel.  If your oven had the WTC trusses running across the top, (to scale, of course), weighted down with the scaled weights representing the concrete and the furnishings, uninsulated of course, with the area above the trusses covered to represent the ceiling areas of the affected WTC floors, and turned on high, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some sagging of those trusses, to a scale that might come close to the 50 some inch deflection observed on the exterior column face of at least one tower. 

<i> 4) The towers were built with I-Beams for the floor supports, not lightweight trusses. See link below of WTC towers

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:10 AM

I assume you have, Dean, but everybody needs to read the final NIST report (17.3 mb pdf)  carefully and in its entirety.  They performed a long exhaustive investigation, gathered tons of information, interviewed hundreds of people, reviewed thousands of pictures and videos, and sought input from dozens of professionals in the relevant fields.  They collectively and unambiguously state:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

And of course the latest on WTC7 should also be thoroughly read.  Not sure when or if there is anything more to come on 7.  (4.5 mb pdf)

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:12 AM

Diggins and Rabbit,

Posted by whattheheck on Jul 20, 2006 at 6:14 AM

Accusations of deliberately placed explosives being set off in lower portions of the building before collapse or even just before plane impact need to be tempered with numerous accounts that would point to jet fuel/vapors and their associated ignitions being transmitted down elevator shafts / central core being the more likely culprit.  I gather that a fuel-air explosive burst travels even faster than would a shock wave down the tower, accounting for some reports of an explosion slightly before the perceived jet impact. 

———————-

2.4 THE JET FUEL (tower 1)

To the wings of the 767-200ER, the perimeter columns acted like knife blades, slashing the aluminum fuel tanks and atomizing much of the 10,000 gal of jet fuel liquid into a spray of fuel droplets. Atomized jet fuel is highly flammable (similar to kerosene), so both the hot debris and the numerous pieces of electrical and electronic gear in the offices were more than sufficient as ignition sources. A surge of combusting fuel rapidly filled the floors, mixing with dust from the pulverized walls and floor slabs. The pressure created by the heated gases forced the ignited mist out the entrance gash and blown-out windows on the east and south sides of the tower. The resulting fireballs could be seen for miles, precipitating many 9-1-1 calls.

Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.  pg. 24, NIST

————————

<i>Within 5 min to 8 min of the strike, most of the 7,545 people below the floors of impact began to evacuate. Their progress is tracked in Table 2

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Flames and fireballs are not generally associated with demolition or cutter charges, so I’m told.  I know thermite/mate is pretty sparky and hot, but I don’t think it puts out big huge balls of flame that chase people around and sets off sprinker systems and causes a lot of soot:

DHINGRA: Well, actually, I probably might have been safer, I don’t know. But I had just gotten out of elevator and just made a right turn into a hallway going towards my office, and that is when the first plane hit, and I believe, not exactly sure, but the flames went through elevator shaft, engulfed me.

————————-

“When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible,” he recalled. “The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls”. The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”  (also from article linked above in previous post:  “We will not forget”—Chief Engineer)

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:23 PM

“American intelligence officials, who indicated that they had obtained access to the entire videotape, said it appeared to have been made recently, possibly as recently as last Sunday, the date that appeared in Arabic in script superimposed on part of the tape. American intelligence and law enforcement officials said an analysis by the C.I.A. had established with “a high degree of confidence” that the tape was authentic.  They offered no other immediate assessment of the videotape.”

http://tinyurl.com/ez8n6

Posted by Natalie on Jul 20, 2006 at 3:44 PM

1999 voice-morphing

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

“Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things,” says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military’s school for information warfare.

————————————————————————————————————————
PSYOPS seeks to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations.

————————————————————————————————————————

Digital morphing “” voice, video, and photo “”” has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or COUP. (FROG EMPHASIS HERE.)

Allah on the Holodeck

————————————————————————————————————————
Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.

To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating “I am being treated well by my captors.”

Anyone seen the Matrix ? Lord of the Rings ?

Posted by frog on Jul 20, 2006 at 4:56 PM

This is my first post so please excuse any mistakes.
    Nat
I recall reading that the elevator shafts did not go straight down the towers?
Im not sure how NIST could make such a mistake but they where built so as to keep from feeding air to a fire. The elevators shafts went straight down about 20 floors and then a new shaft would start off to the side of the first one. Something simular to a set of stairs. Have you read about this and if so has this been proven to not be true? Thanks for any info you have to offer.
By the way have you watched the william Rodriguez speech on Google Video? He talks about his experiance helping the fire fighters in there rescue efforts in the towers. He is the one who had the key on site to let them on to each floor.

Posted by honestjoe on Jul 20, 2006 at 5:03 PM

Uninterrupted elevator shaft from top to bottom , ? To be checked.

Posted by frog on Jul 20, 2006 at 5:08 PM

Joe,
Seems to me I saw the same thing, but keeping files on all this is difficult as hell. Think its on my old machine.

Sounds reasonable, maybe even standard practice in high-rises.

Even cable-lengths and weights should dictate it .

PS mail arrived notifying your post same time, coincidence.

Posted by frog on Jul 20, 2006 at 5:12 PM

Alert!!!
Wiliam Rodriguez, The hero of 9/11 who led the fire fighters on to each floor with the only key on site says there was an explosion in the basement before any plane hits the towers. Please listen to his speech it is backed up by fire fighters and many people he rescued from the towers!!!
ON GOOGLE VIDEO!!

Posted by honestjoe on Jul 20, 2006 at 6:20 PM

This is so sad.

It took RFK Jr. before the left gatekeeper sites permitted any discussion of election fraud, except to call it a conspiracy theory touted by nutcases.

In the case of 9/11 Truth, it will take more than that because the crime is much greater than stealing elections. People from the Bush administration, military generals, respected engineers, all have been dismissed as looneys.

My guess is that the only thing that will break the dam is when one of the perps gets busted for something else almost as big and turns state’s evidence to buy clemency.  If they don’t get “suicided” first.

The funny thing is that we, the public, have learned not to depend on the media, whether it be left gatekeeper sites or FOX News. When the polls show that 80 to 90% of us don’t believe the government’s story about 9/11, it doesn’t much matter what the media says.

On June 10th I was given a 3” diameter bright red button that says in big white letters that can be easily read from more than 15’ away: “9/11: Inside job.” I’ve worn it constantly since then, including to a patriotic 4th of July fireworks display at an Indian casino where it was seen by thousands of people, and I have not gotten a single negative reaction. Many people have responded by launching into accounts of their own 9/11 research and how they reached the same conclusion.

I just finished reading another article on this site about a Media Consortium, of which ITT is a part. Are the left gatekeepers trying to form a media monopoly/Iron Curtain like the MSM? If they had any possibility of success they wouldn’t be needing a consortium.

With election integrity, it was the people who led and the media who, kicking and screaming all the way, eventually had no choice but to follow. It will be the same with 9/11 truth.

Our Constitution didn’t say, “We the elected representatives of the United States of America…,” or “We the corporations of the United States of America…,” or “We the media mavens of the United States of America….,” it said, “We the People of the United States of America.” We are the only media we trust. We are the only leaders we trust. Those who still think that because they have money and power, they don’t have to listen to us, are mistaken. We fight the wars, pay the taxes, do the work, and buy the products. Without us, you are just another crumbling Ozymandias.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 20, 2006 at 10:27 PM

Honest Joe. 

William Rodriguez’ story is already linked to above.  Of course not only does he say there was an explosion in the basement before the plane even hit, he rescued a man who was injured in the blast, and elevator technician, and their are fourteen more witnesses who were present and testify to the same thing.

It is just one of the hundreds of corroborating witness testimy which is consistent with the only realistic explanation of why those buildings came down.  WTH stop wasting time trying to bring a bit of doubt on individual testimonies.  If you can’t disprove the person’s testimony then at this stage all which can be or need be done is consider it along with the balance of other testimonies.  There is lots of testimony from all walks and it is already included in the first half dozen posts on this thread.  Everything else especially by Natalie is just a huge waste of time, since the fact is long since established beyond doubt that there is sufficient reason to suspect explosives as to make any claim it is faith based, spurious, and false. That doesn’t mean that what you post to is all lies, but that it is all a liar has to make for a case which it has morally lost.

At the same time, all Natalie has managed to prove is that nothing except theory, and selective treatment of facts to arrive at those theories even, exists to give more than a FAITH based intperpretation that things happened as the government tries to maintain.

The faith based brigade has not established a single irrefutable fact which proves their theories are even possible.  That is the damning truth.  By the way Nat the Shill Bat, you have probably wasted all that work posting because people who are used to you will skip most of it just seeing your name at the bottom of it.  That is the consequences of being caught lying so often.  Its what I mean when I keep referring to your loss of credibility.  Its is the analogy of pigeons coming home to roost.

We already start with the caveat that our scenario is proven to be possible. Like flight Natalie, explosives demolition of skyscrapers is a proven fact, not a theory, so we began at least with an even chance.  Without any proven theories or historical evidence to back up your theory Natalie, all the rest is just like the squealing of so many frightened pigs.  Paid pigs for sure, a small band of dedicated dissemblers, with no popular support base even.

Meanwhile the inevitable expansion of the ranks of dissenters continues.  Hardly a day goes by without some new high profile or qualified person speaking out.  Nobody ever joins the Faith of those still deluded. 

It is not politics, you are not a political party or religion, with people going back and forth and joining both all the time.  No the frightening, for you, truth is that it is about the realisation of a lie. The truth only goes in one way.  Nobody who sheds the veil of ignorance ever chooses to take it up again.

Rather than a clash between two opposing ideologies as you would have us believe, it is a clash between faith and realisation of realities.  Hence, one way traffic in converts…......................^^................

The proof is in the growing number who agree.

Enough evidence exists to make the case for a proper, independent and public enquiry.  That is our case.  We don’t have to prove exactly what happened for this to be justified, that is universally true.  Since the purpose of such an enquiry is to establish these things.

The fact that we can basically prove our case via an interlocking and unbroken chain of scientific, witness and physical evidence, is beside the point though it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of such an enquiry.  This explains the unbelievable resistance of the administration crime figures to allow any scrutiny of any of the evidence or even discuss it.  It is testimony to the immensity of the denial of anyone who would not only deny the obvious conlusions but go so far as to deny it even constitutes fair grounds for “doubt” of the official fairy tale.  To deny even this final logical imperative leaves anyone looking mentally deranged, stripped bare of all pretense of being a rational and useful member of society.  An empty vessel capable of absorbing form without reason, basing opinions on hearsay judged by the technological quality of the media, rather than consistency of the information.  In short a perfect consumer. 

Such abject denial of the most primitive concept of cause and effect can in all fairness only be termed one thing and that is FAITH. 

Else it is but madness, take your pick.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 20, 2006 at 10:45 PM

MyMarkx

Viva….........! 

Look south and see the spirit rising.  Being closer to their souls they are more inclined to recognise the danger and act, but the spirit is not impeded by borders.  It will flow out across all borders and is doing so. 

Natalie Batgirl you are like a wandering drone which is not a sharer of information and seeker of truth but an automatic regurgitator of a select course of driveling bullshit which could be summed up by admitting the following which is a fair conclusion based on everything you have posted.  Then using that time honoured tactic of waffling, your experts could flesh out a couple of pages between those lines to get a half page, with the conclusion. 

Conventional science and engineering experience can at their outer limits be made to support the contention that the buildings collapsed as we have been instructed to show they did. Provided one ignores a number of glaring anomalies and a host of witness testimony to the contrary.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 20, 2006 at 10:54 PM

More about the sneaky stuff!

“A report released June 9, 2005 by the FBI’s Office of the Inspector General raises new questions about the role of the US government in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The internal FBI study provides several important revelations about how US intelligence agencies ignored and even suppressed warnings in the period leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people.” 3
June 13, 2005: “A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is ‘bogus’ and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

On August 9, 2005, a front page article in the New York Times revealed that a military intelligence unit had identified four September 11 hijackers as Al Qaeda operatives working in the US a year before the 9/11 attacks.A former intelligence officer in the Pentagon unit named Able Danger indicated that the intelligence unit was prevented by the military’s Special Operations Command from passing on the information to the FBI.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a longtime Army intelligence officer, publicly claimed on August 15, 2005 that the 9/11 committee investigation was a cover-up. “Shaffer said that his unit had contacted the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work.”

 

Intelligent, critical thinking involves

*reviewing and facing all the facts

*considering carefully all the relevant hypotheses

*selecting that hypothesis which has the preponderance of evidence to support it

    Having outlined the viable, relevant hypotheses, you must now look at all the facts and see which hypothesis is supported with the preponderance of evidence. In trying to figure out the 9/11 phenomenon, you’re not going to find many “smoking guns” (though perhaps you will find more than you might suppose at first glance).

    Having decided which hypothesis best fits the facts as you know them, you’ll then have a firm foundation for forming your beliefs and selecting how you will respond to events in the future.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 1:37 AM

well said, mymarkx.

rabbit

the evidence that you, frog & others have presented here is enough to convince me. 

you’re lucky you don’t have to live here, under this regime.  i love the land and i love some of the people but i do not, and cannot, love a government that acts in this manner.

the good news is, resistance to this way of life is growing.  it’s only a matter of time before the tide turns, so to speak.  and when it does, people like natalie will be swept away or forced to think critically.  events like 911 will only bring this closer.  we, the people, can’t stay ignorant and blind forever.

Viva La Revoluci

Posted by chad on Jul 21, 2006 at 8:43 AM

Today I’m going to a rally against electronic voting machines.

Yesterday I was at a peace rally to protest U.S.-supported Israeli violence in Lebanon.

Herman@s, escucha—
Estamos en la lucha!

So the Pentagon “loses” a few trillion here, Enron swindles a few billion there, Halliburton is shown to have defrauded the government and is given more contracts anyway, some Congressperps get convicted or resign,  the deficit is the greatest in history, and these are all supposed to be isolated incidents of a few rogue players? Enough is enough! What we have is a government of crooks. Anyone who hasn’t resigned or blown the whistle, is in on it.

Que se vayan todos! Or as we used to say in Brooklyn, kick the bums out!

If there’s anything the Bush regime is competent at doing, it’s blowing up buildings with innocent people in them. They’re like kindergarten bullies who going around knocking over everyone else’s blocks. They did it here so they could do it in Iraq. It’s what they do.

9/11 = INSIDE JOB!

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 21, 2006 at 9:38 AM

DUMP DIEBOLD, marxy !

Posted by frog on Jul 21, 2006 at 9:55 AM

Hey, Mymarx

There is some good news about the debt. Have you read about former Ambassador Leo Wanta who is getting 1.5 trillion of stolen U.S. funds back to the treasury?

Posted by honestjoe on Jul 21, 2006 at 10:29 AM

An agreement was reached june 12 between U.S. authorities and ambassador Leo Wanta, The legal trustor of trillions in lost or stolen U.S. assets, to return 4.5 trillion of looted money by the Bush and Clinton crime families, less money for taxes and other related expenses. But now the Federal Reserve Board, wich has acknowledged the wanta settlement, is blocking the return of the money. GO FIGURE

Posted by honestjoe on Jul 21, 2006 at 11:13 AM

“Provided one ignores a number of glaring anomalies and a host of witness testimony to the contrary.”

Rabbit, what precisely do you mean by anomalies?  Please give the three most glaring anomalies in your view.

What do you mean by a “host” of witness testimony?  Please present the three most powerful and credible accounts you can. 

Please be precise.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 21, 2006 at 11:41 AM

why does an ignoramus need precision?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 21, 2006 at 1:43 PM

Does anyone out there want to address this theory: yes, the Bush admin and the neo-cons wanted a “new Pearl Harbor” but they didn’t go as far as planning this massive 9/11 false flag.They really didn’t have to. Instead someone—maybe Chaney, maybe Bush, who knows—simply said out loud to the right person “If we’re ever going to get into Iraq there would have to be an attack on American soil.” Next thing you know there’s an attack. No documentation, no planning from inside, just a couple words spoken from one insider to another, both whom stood to gain by such an attack.

Then it was merely a matter of not being there when the attack came,which is what happened.  Remember the Movie “Serpico” when one crooked cop said to Serpico “We’re not going to put a hit out on you or kill you ourselves, we’re just not going to be there to help you when you need help.” Sure enough Serpico eventually DID need help and his partners stood by and watched him get shot. So everyone who didn’t know was trying to get Bush’s attention, warning him at his ranch—for god sake-about an impending attack. And Bush was saying things like “Okay, you covered your ass now beat it,” (I paraphrase, but read “The One Percent Solution” for the exact quote.) this theory doesn’t account for structural issues of the buildings or anything—but isn’t there a chance that they did just fall in their own foot print as you say—a freak happening and nothing more.

Beyond that, as much as I don’t trust this government, and i don’t trust the official story, (especially the Pentigon strike) the unofficial story just seems like an imposibility—so many people would have to be involved and yet no-one has blabbed—no one!

I’d be curious to get feed back on this but if you could avoid attacking me I’d appreciate it. i just want the truth. i’m not married to this theory or anything and i respect your right to have your theory.

Posted by howler on Jul 21, 2006 at 4:37 PM

Howler
No interest here in attacking somebody who is trying to puzzle it out for themselves. But I suspect you underestimate the amount of time it takes to look at even a reasonable proportion of the evidence and hypotheses.

Some of them are false trails, perhaps deliberately constructed to muddy the waters . Waal, certainly so !

Your hypothesis is LIHOP - Let it happen on purpose.

That implies “getting out of the way” of the “19 hijackers”, and making sure they could do their evil deed.

Well, some of the measures taken would support that, like removing fighter air- cover, but they would also have been necessary to MIHOP—- make it happen on purpose.

You’ve got much work to do, I recommend starting with 911scholars, watching the videos that are all around, and not forgetting that THREE towers went down.

It took me years of doubt to be sure, other people realised straight away.  A crime on that scale is difficult to accept for most of us.

Posted by frog on Jul 21, 2006 at 5:44 PM

That’s real substantive again, Doug.  But then again, you’re only fourteen, and I understand.

I remember when I was fourteen, but I certainly don’t remember even attempting to understand anything political or much of anything related to world events.  I didn’t even know what politics was.

You are to be commmended in the sense that you have an interest in something like this.  However, you apparently lack the ability at your young age to discern between unbiased, professional science/engineering analysis and politically and/or profit motivated propaganda.

Consider that distinction as you further investigate questions related to 9/11, and many other things.  People’s motivations for claiming something need to be taken into account when evaluating their credibility.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 21, 2006 at 5:46 PM

Nat the Batgirl

Rabbit, what precisely do you mean by anomalies?  Please give the three most glaring anomalies in your view.

I should just write SEE ABOVE. 

The three most glaring anomalies? 

There are literally dozens depending on how one breaks it up.  The case for Neocon Junta involvment is practically proven.  SEE ABOVE.

The case for controlled demolition is proven.  SEE ABOVE.

There are three glaring anomalies Natalie, three things which are so anomalous that no previous history ever gave reason believe such things were possible, nothing like them have ever been seen before and it seems that they are not reproducable either.  All three anomalies are different, for they each have their own unique set of events preceding their occurence, and yet they are all the same, in that they all ended in precisely the same fashion, in itself the biggest single anomaly of all if they should be unified.

The first is The WTC North Tower.  The second is the WTC South Tower. The third anomaly I would nominate, is the WTC-7.

Those are the three most glaring anomalies, and the history of this thread stands witness to the fact that I have made my points on each of these matters in utmost detail..

The three most credible witness accounts?  Why should we limit the number of witnesses Nat?  The more witnesses who testify to the same thing, the stronger the case for it, duh. We have hundreds to choose from so it is hard to just select three.

Rabbit’s first nomination, William Rodriguez, the Janitor., (including 14 co-witnesses)  There is another Janitor, can I have him as part of this one too?  Jose Sanchez

PerhapsEmergency Medical Technician Patricia Ondrovic minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. or maybe any of the following:

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”—Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”—Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”—Paramedic Daniel Rivera

Stephen Evans, BBC’s North America business correspondent, was on the ground floor of the centre when the first plane crashed.
“There was a huge bang and the building physically shook,” he said. “Seconds later there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook again. “
</i>

For my third nomination, I give you these firefighters

I will not waste bandwidth repeating information which is already given in a rational acessible order in the first half dozen posts on the thread.  Chad and others before him have expressed agreement that the information therein is adequate in these regards so the rabbit is not making one of those presumptions which are the breath of the Batgirl herself.

From this month, Government scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have just declined to take part in a public debate about their findings under any circumstances.  Well what a surprise!

Some interesting info about the sort of explosive technology I had in mind when speculating a few posts since.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 10:04 PM

Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.     <u>WTH noticed exactly this a day or two ago looking at a recording he took on the day. </u>

Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.”

The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was “too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,” Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack.

Implosions are violent collapses inwards, which are used to demolish buildings in areas of high density, to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. Precision-timed explosives are placed on strategic load-bearing columns and beams to cause the controlled collapse.

Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers “smokestacked” neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations.

Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7.

Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed.

“It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,” Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, “It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” he said.

“One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device,” Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion.

Ten days after the attack, following criticism of his initial remarks, Romero did an about-face in his analysis of the collapse, “Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,” he told the Journal on Sept. 21.

The twin towers were struck by Boeing 767’s carrying approximately 23,000 gallons of fuel.

However, there is other information that lends credence to Romero’s controversial scenario. One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by “a crackling sound” before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn’t know what was going on,” she told People. “We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.”

The accepted theory is that as the fires raged in the towers, the steel cores in each building were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the support beams to buckle.

A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

“I designed it for a 707 to hit it,” Lee Robertson, the project’s structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767’s 23,980-gallon fuel capacity.

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: “It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack,” he said.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center’s construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” he said.

Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand “a 150-year storm” and the im pact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown ex plained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area.

Brown told AFP that he “did not buy” the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated.

The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux.

CDI is the same contractor that demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, actions that prevented independent investigators from pursuing evidence on leads suggesting that there were bombs set off inside the building.

In February 2000, a federal grand jury indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition, Inc. on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking family members and CDI employees to donate to the campaign of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998. The Loizeaux brothers and CDI were acquitted in Sept ember 2000. Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble will reportedly cost $7 billion and take up to a year.

Removing the debris has also been controversial. The police said that some scrap metal has been diverted to mob-controlled businesses rather than the dump where investigators are examining rubble for clues and human remains.

The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 10:08 PM

Here’s an excellent example of what I’m talking about, Doug.  There’s a story floating around the Internet regarding “remote control” capabilities of the Boeing 757/767.  In fact, Rabbit proudly put forth this story back on page 2 on July 14 @ 11:28 pm.  (to his credit, he rather promptly conceeded that the story was bogus)

Someone poses as an authority and spins a convincing yarn about how these planes could have supposedly been flown by remote control into their targets.

Actual airline pilots, expert witnesses if you will, disagree.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 21, 2006 at 10:13 PM

Natabat your sad little link to an even sadder little discussion forum, did once again eventually establish that the 757 and 767 have remote control which even allows them to be landed and take off with their remotes. ..............Thanks…......... It debunked the idea that they had systems which could’t be overriden by the pilots, but so what?  The “mere discussion” you linked to also includes mention by pilots of the cell-phone calls allegedly made from the planes, and confirms the widely held belief they would have been impossible…....Thanks again.    The discussion ends on the question of the five G’ turns two of the planes made…..................Thankyou, useful Batgirl…..................

The bat shat on its hat.  ...............................^^.............................

Howler,

The LIHOP theory is no doubt partly true, but the heads of the few assembled fake jihadists has been CIA or Mossad which doesn’t preclude al-Qaeda, in fact it is a CIA entity, a historical fact.  OBL has a code name in the CIA, Tim Ossman.  You do realise the significance of the OSS? This the controlling interests behind 911 were not your government per se, but a ruthless and avaricious group of corporate criminals known as Neocons.  They are following a script in all of this, and one only has to read their PNAC and JINSA agendas to know what is next as well as see the contexts for what has gone on before. 

Although the explosive demolitions of the three WTCs can be reasonably called a proven fact at this stage, the actual overral context is able to be speculated about.  No amount of theorising in this regard alters in any way the now well grounded case for explosive demolition.

Some 911 was an inside job camps like to lay out 4 scenarios. Briefly they go as follows.

1 Is the official story.
We got caught with our pants down and terrorists did 911. And the wars in the Middle East are part of the greater war on terrorism.

2 The incompetence excuse
There was information available about the coming attacks but because of our incompetence we failed to see it. Terrorists attacked the US. And the wars in the Middle East were based on mistakes (more incompetence) but now we got to stay.

3 They let it happen
They knew full well about the coming 911 attacks but allowed it to happen in order to use it as a pretext to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan as it was in military and corporate interests (particularly oil) to do so.  known as LIHOP

4 They made it happen. (They meaning just vaguely the Bush Admin)  known as MIHOP
The Bush government either helped protect the terrorists or simply used them as patsies, and assisted the plane crashes effects with bombs placed inside the towers prior to 911. The wars in the Middle East were about oil.

The 911 was an inside job camps then say the evidence must land you somewhere between 3 and 4 with more research dropping you firmly on 4.

Let me now throw in a 5th scenario

5 The Neocons Made it happen with the assistance of a foreign government, the same government where PNAC was first written, and who we have caught spies from who have been stealing secrets from us about Iran, and who made up the shadow government of the OSP which is who cherry picked and fabricated the lies told about Iraq in order to start the war. The Wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, Afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quanities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the Russian and US invasions) and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA funds it’s off the books black operation such as the now known massive secret prison systems, (torture camps) and coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle China and Russia with US bases.  this one I shall call MIHZOP.  (Make it happen Zionist Operation)

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Natalie grovelling like the mucky little troll she is says:

In fact, Rabbit proudly put forth this story back on page 2 on July 14 @ 11:28 pm.  (to his credit, he rather promptly conceeded that the story was bogus)

The adjective “proudly” is not deserved, but your use of it says a lot about your recalcitrance at least.  You are a complete liar in saying I conceded the story was bogus.

Again you are an ouright liar.  It was to my credit that upon being shown a reference to the software limits being able to be ovverridden by Pilots, that I accepted this, but it is to your shame your would twist my honesty to extend it’s context. 

The story about the planes being fitted with remote control and the fact that they could be controlled from the ground, in fact could really only have been remote controlled in order to have completed the maneuvers, IS NOT BOGUS.

Does this sound like a concession Batgirl?

Rabbit July 15th 2.14am.

The fact that the 757 and 767 had software based limitations on their maneuverability characteristics, which could be overidden by the pilots does not explain how the incompetant and inexperienced magic arabs managed to turn off that system, and negotiate maneuvers which experienced Military and airliner pilots have stated outright are extremely difficult or impossible even for them, let alone novices.  Making the point which I grant you that the pilots might have been able to override the software, doesn’t preclude the more likely scenario which had the planes flown by remote, which was undoubtedly possible.  Your article at least does me the favour of eliminating the need to prove they could have been flown by remote, thankyou.

Your own little attempt to poke it merely showed that what was assumed, that the software limits were not able to be overriden by pilots, was wrong.  YET YOUR OWN SOURCE HANDILY PROVED THE MAIN CONTENTION THAT THE PLANES WERE FITTED WITH REMOTE CONTROL ABILITY.

To say what you just said is once again the proof that you are a lying shill.

OBSERVE PEOPLE, THE CHAMPION OF THE LIE.  Natalie, has proven her inability to stick to even the most basic truth.

What is the use of taking any notice of such a prevaricator?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 21, 2006 at 11:27 PM

Lufthansa was the only commercial airline to decide that the remote control system might be used for nefarious purposes, and remove it from their planes. Their fares tend to be a bit higher, but if you’re concerned about security, flying Lufthansa is probably worth it.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 21, 2006 at 11:37 PM

Hi, Rabbit! Dropped by to see how you were doing. Still slogging it out with The Bat I see. 

Has it been asked what evidence there is that the planes that slammed into the towers were indeed Boeing passenger planes?  If so, they were the most synchronistic and dramatic duds in the history of aviation engineering.

If planes were really that volatile, then whoo doggy—-they would not be safer than driving, even if cars really did explode on impact in real life as often as the ones in movies do.

Next move, will probably be to discredit the bland, common sensical nature of my retort. It isn’t “scientific”. Too much verite (just picture the accent over the last ‘e” there, Nat). No monotonous rhythm. No “official” blessings. No “Look Ma! No hands!” links to “prove” a concrete act on the basis of a wordpile written by a shill.

Everyone see the missile that “fell off a truck” (literally, they say) in the Bronx area? Hope that wasn’t a clue. Last thing we need is for the world’s most idiotic evil geniuses to be back in action.

THIS TIME there won’t be any warnings in the presidential briefings. (I think he’s totally out of the loop now.) He’s been sent on a mission to piss off every possible ally at the G8 conference. He probably has no idea what he’s doing.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 12:13 AM

Hi Wiley

Exciting to see you.  Dave keeps saying I should be dropping by your lovely garden.  Good to see you’re here.

I agree with you, the Bushling is now completely out of the loop, and he is probably due to be sacrificed soon.  The NEXT false flag horror show is going to make 9/11 look like a small town circus maybe.

If these maniacs are anything I’d say they are at least showmen.

The number games with dates and symbology is indicative of smug psychopathy, and some of the Newspeak words and labels show a sense of art.

Howler

but isn’t there a chance that they did just fall in their own foot print as you say—a freak happening and nothing more.  

Not really, It has never happened before that a building has fallen into it’s own footprint like this before.  The combined effects of the accidents were actually allowed for and more within the design parameters of the buildings.  The chance of it happening once is already astronomical, but the chance of it happening <u>Three times in one day</u> allows me to say with a high degree of certainty that such a freak happening is much more unlikely than any other thing about the entire story, even the Magic Arab part. 

Beyond that, as much as I don’t trust this government, and i don’t trust the official story, (especially the Pentigon strike) the unofficial story just seems like an imposibility—so many people would have to be involved and yet no-one has blabbed—no one!

I take it from this comment you have not read all the above.  Exactly what sort of a whistle blower do you expect?  Does it have to have a certain position?  A certain role?  A particular skin colour?  I/m just wondering what you want excatly.  As far as whistleblowers go, there have been more than a few.  Sybil Edmonds from the FBI springs to mind and at least another half a dozen FBI whistle blowers have come forward, usually at great personal cost, to bring various matters to our attention including the fact of government foreknowledge of the attacks.

Ricard Andrew Groves story I have made special mention of above, twice, for it is the central nexus of all the whistleblower testimony.  It details who, why and by whom, if you really want to know. In addition to this some of the witnesses who can attest to actual events surrounding the buildings collapse are in the position of also being whistleblowers since they have given testimony which was deliberately censored by the much touted Commission and subsequent pathetic cover up attempts by NIST.

Howler,

I sincerely offer that all such questions can be answered in the Rabbit’s first five or six postings, excluding a few gratuitous wacks of the Terry Allen scribbler.  If after that you have any significant questions I’d be glad to help in answering them.  I don’t believe the truth is complicated, or that it requires any degree of faith, it is completely fact based.  I don’t have any need to misrepresent, or to complicate the whole thing which is all Batgirl seeks in her endless nitpicking.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 22, 2006 at 12:46 AM

Natalie is an uncommonly feeble debater as we should all be now aware of.  Despite actually being caught red handed every few posts, attempting to alter the foregoing, or twisting others’ words, or making provably false claims about sources, not once has she taken a step down, not once admitted to anything.  She is already half way into her next lie before the smoke has cleared from the proof of her last.

Rabbit has admitted immediately when at fault as she just established for me, thankyou dear.  By making a mistake and admitting it, the rabbit loses no credibility at all.  Some might say he gains it even.  Meanwhile Batgirl will once again here as in all the foregoing occasions NOT ADMIT to any error, unless as here I taunt her to it and make it virtually impossible.  She’ll admit this one just to show I’m wrong.  Problem is this will be the second time we’ve covered the Remote control of the planes, using the same information, but the first time she will have admitted to error. 

You are trapped crazy bat, caught in your hat.  You either ignore the fact the rabbit just caught you with your fingers in the Cookie Jar of Lies again, thus proving my point; or you admit to having been caught out, now for the second time on the same details, thus proving my point.

The latest lie is typical of your other efforts but it shall be examined in detail for the exercise.

Sleazing up to Doug as if they are in a shady corner of some nightclub, she puts out the following line:

Someone poses as an authority and spins a convincing yarn about how these planes could have supposedly been flown by remote control into their targets.

Nobody posed as an expert Batgirl, they linked to a press release from the company describing the remote control system fitted in the 757 and 767.  This confirmed that software limitations were placed upon the planes to ensure pilots couldn’t stall or rip the airframe apart with too hasty maneuvers.  Another person then found an article where American Airlines stated it had the software limitations made to be overridden by pilots if they needed.

Actual airline pilots, expert witnesses if you will, disagree. 

Batgirl links to a discussion on a very commercialised, quite yucky site, apparently populated by some pilots and some wannabe pilots.  (Check out the titles under the names on the left for crassness)  They are clearly comprised of some Faith Brigaders, and one detects a few sceptics about the official version too, but the overall tone is one of scepticism.  By the end of their discussion, although it doesn’t occur to any of the geniuses they have not actually debunked the article only a single detail about it. 
They are discussing a story relating to the remote control but inevitably they collectively establish the following:

That the 767 and 757 have remote control and software limitations on the sort of speeds and maneuvers which can be achieved by the pilots.

That the system can be overridden by the pilots to allow them to perform outside the planes programmed limitations. 

That the system can indeed pilot the plane, including take off and landing, and certainly to the degree of accuracy achieved on 911.

That the maneuvers involving high speed turns at high G forces are an issue in question.

That the possibility of the cell phones working at those altitudes is also in question.

The incredible simplicity of the foot shot she has administered her own case is astounding.  So much damage to your own case in a single posting, must be a record for you Batgirl.  The site you posted doesn’t refute the remote control of the planes you dunce, it confirms it.  They refute the contention that the planes could have been hijacked via their remote controls, but nobody was saying that was or need have been the case anyway.  Can we say Strawman yet? 

FACT.  **********  The planes had remote control, and were capable of being flown via this, in the ways observed without further modification.

FACT.  **********  The manner in which at least two of the planes were flown indicates an astonishingly high pilot expertise.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:24 AM

natty dread, i, at my young age, recognize propaganda for political purposes. you are that. i think many of my age group have a lot more brain cells, working synapses, and imagination than you at your exalted age. it is not the young who are stupid nor the old who are wise, fool.
rabbit and a host of others are running circles around you. your only purpose as i perceive it is to provoke. it’s working. we are learning a lot. but we won’t learn from you.
rabbit, i’ll take door #5. kudos on a cogent breakdown. when people come off autopilot, they will see that you are correct in your assessments. i am wondering if the scenario ellsberg writes of is happening now in israel as we send in the bombs (don’t they have enough bombs?) .  i think these forces are acting to destroy indigenous intelligence globally.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 22, 2006 at 6:40 AM

howler, i think that coincidence would be harder to imagine than the plan that was planned and did occur. of course this truth will be difficult to imagine, as we usually allow our imagining to be done for us, but let’s try: afterall, it is five years down this road, and the bodies are still falling.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 22, 2006 at 7:05 AM

rabbit, what do you think of these spychips?

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 22, 2006 at 7:10 AM

Doug

The rabbit is wondering that you are only a teen, but if this is so, then you are a credit to your generation and the USA.  Articulacy and reason, in an American teen, no older than my own son….very impressive.

Art thou a prodigy?

Spychips, I presume you mean RFID chips? 

I have no problem with their use in tracking animals (stock or pets) or for use in material goods, tools and machinery, for these things it is a good technology.  Entirely useful.  I don’t trust the poeple in control of the corporations or the government though so now is no time to allow any such technology to be installed in people.

Rabbit is heartily sick of cell phones.  The bloody things are like a millstone around our necks in the way they steal every moment of individual privacy.  The ability they give the bastards to track and monitor our conversations etc, coupled with the rest of the information revolution are combining to make our worst nightmares come true.

The RFID chip, or spychips if you will, will be the end run on our freedom and privacy.  Whatever they seem to be, they will be much more and worse.

I will resist them to the death.  I advise all to do the same. 

Lord of the LIES

Doug you should be proud to have incurred the wrath of the vampire shill.  So young and yet privelaged to experience the angry taunts of a desperate Pentagon Shill.  Usually she prefers to see youth poisoned with Depleted Uranium, or in uniform preparing to be.  She will have to be content with only being able to screech at you through the bars of the cyber world.

Bushism = Fascism

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 22, 2006 at 9:31 AM

Never had a cell phone. My land line is useful, but I keep the ringer turned off and only use it to call out. I’ve got Skype for making free voice calls on my computer, but I have it set so that only people I’ve listed as contacts can Skype me. And they can only do that when I have it turned on.

Technology like my computer and camcorder can be useful, but, like government, it must serve us rather than dominate us. ITT, for example, is useful only to the extent that public comment and discussion are allowed to refute propaganda like Nat’s.

TV is not useful. Newspapers are mostly not useful. Magazines are rarely useful, although occasionally I’ll subscribe to The Atlantic or Harpers for the cryptic crossword puzzle. Pirate radio stations are useful—we have two of them here in San Diego but you can listen to pirate stations all over the world streaming online. Podcasts are often useful. Movies are not useful, documentaries being the exception.

Avoiding propaganda and information overload is similar to avoiding indigestion: don’t swallow everything you see.

As for entertainment, the best way is to have funny friends. Have you ever heard of the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army? Google CIRCA.  ;-)

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 22, 2006 at 10:28 AM

<i>There are three glaring anomalies Natalie, three things which are so anomalous that no previous history ever gave reason believe such things were possible, nothing like them have ever been seen before and it seems that they are not reproducable either.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 22, 2006 at 11:15 AM

Witness for the prosecution:  William Rodriguez:

Here’s what the janitor said before an agenda driven lawyer and an agenda driven nut-job billionaire (@ 04:06) got a hold of him:

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

Rodriguez escaped and said he later saw people who had jumped or fallen from the building embedded in the sidewalk. “There was a woman that looked like she had melted into the cement,” he said.

Now, this would be perfectly consistent with the impact of the jet, and the resulting shockwaves, jet fuel fireballs, and elevators crashing downward as a result of severed cables.  But then comes the lawyer and the billionaire. 

The 9/11 “Truth” movement is rife with theories of what motivated Cheney and the gang to bomb the buildings.  Have any of them stopped for even a millisecond to consider what possible motivations William Rodriguez might have for joining up with people who offered him fame, adulation, and free world tours?  Was he possibly out of a job after 9/11?  Did he possibly have health and mental problems?  Did he feel ignored and forgotten because he didn’t get to go to the White House enough times?

Berg’s client, William Rodriguez, is also on the tour. Rodriguez is a 911 hero who rescued many victims from the WTC, where he was a janitor in the North Tower; he accompanied firemen up the fire tower and let them onto the floors with a master key. For his acts of heroism, President Bush honored Rodriguez at the White House. Later, however, he realized that the “official” story is a lie.  Rodriguez heard “explosions” in the North Tower before the building fell, confirming the 2+ Richter scale seismic recordings prior to the fall of each tower. Rodriguez was the last person out of the North Tower and is alive today because he dove under a fire truck. Like thousands of others, he still suffers from health problems brought on by the unhealthy conditions at the WTC…..

So, Rodriguez “heard some explosions”, and later decided they must have been bombs, upon getting chummy with a lawyer and a billionaire who both have rabid anti-administration feelings, and put him on stage (his original passion was performing illusions until he settled for being a janitor) all over the world. 

That’s some witness.

And what of this?  Here, we are told of a plan to make a documentary about Rodriguez, his youth, his heroism, and his subsequent hard times and therapy for post-traumatic stress.  They want to include his testimony before the 9/11 commission that is supposedly non-existent.  No mention of bombs, though.  Could it be that the documentary was turned down?  Could that be why he found the offers from Berg and Walter so attractive—so attractive that he changed his story enough to suit them?  What’s really going on with this Rodriguez guy?  Anyone even think to investigate some of these “anomalies”?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 22, 2006 at 11:16 AM

I guess we’re going to have to go over that remote control thing again.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 22, 2006 at 11:24 AM

Nat spat:

>You repeat again the illogic of pointing out the uniqueness of the tower’s collapse in history.  The hook that you simply cannot wriggle from is the fact that the towers themselves were unique, and so were the catastrophic events that caused their demise. What is it about this simple concept that escapes you?  “Gee, Jim never has a second cup of coffee at home!  Come to think of it, I never served Jim Folgers.”

Part of the uniqueness of the towers is that they were built to withstand plane crashes and fires of this type.

>    In fact, in the real world, the collapse of tower 1 is indeed an example of a second time in history that this particular type of steel building collapsed, an obvious, but often missed confirmation of the “official story”.  In the real world, the second collapse could be thought of as the theoretical re-enactment of the incident, where a duplicate WTC tower is built and a plane load of people and fuel is driven into it.  Guess what?  Basically the same thing happened.  Now I bet you never even thought of it that way, did you? No, because you’re too blinded by your fantasy about bombs.

Jimmy Walter, the billionaire you are so scornful of, is offering a million dollar reward to any one who can duplicate those events by getting the towers to fall the way they did, using only the airplanes, fires, whatever is known to have been in the buildings, and no preplanted explosive devices, even on a computer simulation. Wouldn’t you rather be a millionaire, Nat? The fantasy is the thing that is so imaginary that it cannot be scientifically duplicated, not even virtually.

>    The twin tower collapses were similar, because the towers were basically identical, and they were struck in near identical fashion, with nearly identical objects. There was a slight difference in the points of impact, and guess what?  The resulting collapse was also slightly different.  What is the big mystery?

One of the big mysteries is how Edna Cintron could have been waving from the hole left by the plane for such a long time, while the “raging inferno” was burning and even after the fires on the floor above had burned out. If the fire was that hot, nobody could have been standing there for that long waving for help. Watch the videos, Nat.

>    WTC7’s collapse was initiated at the bottom.  The twin tower collapses were top-down.  They did not end in “precisely the same fashion”, far from it.  They all fell exactly as expected, exactly according to the different types of damage and fire that each sustained.  Nobody who is actually qualified to tender judgment on the event disagrees with this in any significant way.

But all three building fell at similar speeds. We know that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, but we are supposed to believe that the towers came down at similar speeds due to fires? And that fires pulverized the concrete to dust?

>    And no, a solar physicist with anti-Bush bias who is an embarrassment to his university is not qualified.

When you get your PhD in physics, Nat, your personal attack on a physicist might seem more credible.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 22, 2006 at 12:58 PM

Nat then spat:

>    Witness for the prosecution:  William Rodriguez:

>    Here’s what the janitor said before an agenda driven lawyer and an agenda driven nut-job billionaire (@ 04:06) got a hold of him:

Since you are an agenda driven writer, I guess you’d know about such things.

>    William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

True.

>    “We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,” Rodriguez said. “And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.”

That doesn’t sound consistent with just a plane crash and fires to me. It sounds like the results of explosives.

>    Rodriguez, who had keys to the elevators, began climbing the upper levels of the tower with a police officer to help trapped people. He saw firefighters weighted with rescue equipment catching their breath on the 39th floor.

True.

>    Rodriguez escaped and said he later saw people who had jumped or fallen from the building embedded in the sidewalk. “There was a woman that looked like she had melted into the cement,” he said.

True.

>    Now, this would be perfectly consistent with the impact of the jet, and the resulting shockwaves, jet fuel fireballs, and elevators crashing downward as a result of severed cables.  But then comes the lawyer and the billionaire.

The elevators were specifically designed so that it would be impossible for a fireball to go from the level of the plane crashes to the basement. Nat, are you implying that you have as much contempt for lawyers and billionaires as I have for left gatekeepers?

>    The 9/11 “Truth” movement is rife with theories of what motivated Cheney and the gang to bomb the buildings.  Have any of them stopped for even a millisecond to consider what possible motivations William Rodriguez might have for joining up with people who offered him fame, adulation, and free world tours? Was he possibly out of a job after 9/11?  Did he possibly have health and mental problems?  Did he feel ignored and forgotten because he didn’t get to go to the White House enough times?

If such small rewards, in your opinion, might motivate an average person, certainly the much greater rewards could have motivated Cheney and the gang.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:05 PM

And Nat then spat:

>    Berg’s client, William Rodriguez, is also on the tour. Rodriguez is a 911 hero who rescued many victims from the WTC, where he was a janitor in the North Tower; he accompanied firemen up the fire tower and let them onto the floors with a master key. For his acts of heroism, President Bush honored Rodriguez at the White House. Later, however, he realized that the “official” story is a lie.  Rodriguez heard “explosions” in the North Tower before the building fell, confirming the 2+ Richter scale seismic recordings prior to the fall of each tower. Rodriguez was the last person out of the North Tower and is alive today because he dove under a fire truck. Like thousands of others, he still suffers from health problems brought on by the unhealthy conditions at the WTC…..

True.

>    So, Rodriguez “heard some explosions”, and later decided they must have been bombs, upon getting chummy with a lawyer and a billionaire who both have rabid anti-administration feelings, and put him on stage (his original passion was performing illusions until he settled for being a janitor) all over the world.

Or maybe he realized that the loud rumblings he’d heard couldn’t have been anything other than explosions. Does the fact that you’re a left gatekeeper mean that you have rabid pro-administration feelings? Do you think that everything the Bush regime has done is good for the country and the world? Do you think lying about WMDs was a good idea, that invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas, that Bush and his appointees handled the Katrina disaster well, and that tax cuts for the rich during wartime when we have the biggest deficit in history is a wonderful thing? Are you absolutely certain that people who would lie in order to justify killing innocent people elsewhere, wouldn’t lie about having killed innocent people here also?

>    That’s some witness.

Were you a witness, Nat? I’ll take a witness over a left gatekeeper any day.

>    And what of this? Here, we are told of a plan to make a documentary about Rodriguez, his youth, his heroism, and his subsequent hard times and therapy for post-traumatic stress.  They want to include his testimony before the 9/11 commission that is supposedly non-existent.  No mention of bombs, though.  Could it be that the documentary was turned down?  Could that be why he found the offers from Berg and Walter so attractive that he changed his story enough to suit them?  What’s really going on with this Rodriguez guy?  Anyone even think to investigate some of these “anomalies”?
   
Hmmmm.  That does make me wonder. It makes me wonder what your own career trajectory has been to force you to debase yourself and your profession in this way. What’s with this Nat person? Anyone ever think to investigate Nat?

>    I guess we’re going to have to go over that remote control thing again.
   
I don’t see why. Your own sources proved that the remote control capability exists. Nobody has proven that such inexperienced pilots could have performed such complex maneuvers themselves. Operation Northwoods, laid out a strategy for substituting planes and killing our own citizens to justify war. Nor has anyone explained how our air defenses could have failed for the first time since Pearl Harbor, other than that Dick Cheney was personally in charge. The fact that exercises were taking place to simulate precisely such attacks, belies Condi’s excuse that nobody could have predicted such a thing. In fact, such exercises, based on the same targets at the same places, took place in London also during their “terrorist” events, and are the hallmark of false flag operations.

The planes/fires conspiracy theory has no basis in science and cannot be replicated. The explosives theories are firmly based in science and can be replicated. All the scoffing and personal attacks in the world can’t change that, Nat. If they could, you, or someone like you, would already have collected the million dollar reward from Jimmy Walter. Go for it!

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:10 PM

thanks wily rabbit, actually i am spiritually grooved at 14 while my body continues with chronos, alas. when i was 14 i knew who the enemies of life were. i would have known gnat at a glance.since clearly you are smarter than the average rabbit, you were certainly smarter at 14 than the gnat at 34(a generous age for a gnat). re. the nasty chip, have you seen the film “america: from freedom to fascism”?
another question, what do you imagine the endgame of all of these bloody current events, not just for the axes of devolution, but for those who love life?
postscript: nattily the dreaded, you are a very stranger danger.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:28 PM

Clearly the janitor did it.

Hi, Mymarkx. Hi, Doug.

You’re doing a great job of slogging it out with a sleep aid Rabbit—-this has got to be a record of some sort.

Now——Bush administration. Laws of physics. Bush administrations. Laws of physics. Bush Administration——

LAWS OF PHYSICS. I know the official story isn’t true the way I know that I can’t jump off a ninety story building, burst into flames,  then drop directly down to the ground in a neat little pile of ashes. It’s hard to express verbally to the LOP deniers, because we started to experiment with it in the high chair when we dropped things off the tray, then peered over it to see what happened. We saw the laws at work when we went into tantrum and kicked the blocks we had so carefully stacked because they wouldn’t disobey the laws of physics like we wanted them to. We experienced a lot of the laws before we developed language skills , before we had a theory of mind, before we learned academic skills like constructing paragraphs, foot notes, haikus, and legal arguments.

And that is why we seldom bother ourselves with verbal arguments about whether to take the stairs, the elevator, or jump thirty five stories. We might call it an instinct. We might say that we learned it from the boo-boo we got when we fell off the kitchen tower. What we would not do is go out of our way to demonstrate with an argument and expert witness testimony why we chose the elevator or the stairs, or how we got hurt when we unwittingly stepped into the elevator shaft and fell four stories.

We just KNOW some things.

Granted, some things ARE counterintuitive, but they are seldom as fundamental as how matter responds to projectiles, the temperature at which steel melts, and how kerosene burns.

Alas, we live in a land of legalities, so it is necessary to make a case in order to investigate and prosecute the “evil-doers” responsible for 9/11.  The court won’t enforce the laws of physics, but any judge or jury who is an LOP denier is getting somekind of pay off—-if not monetarily, or being allowed to live, then some kind of emotional satisfaction that their denial is safe. The LOP deniers and GOP enablers have been able to remain safe in their cocoon of denial because of the towers of words on television and the radio that obfuscate reality and suppress or substitute for thought in a repetetive, redundant, and echo-like manner that is essentially hypnotic suggestion. This is the part where you want to jump in and guffaw, right Nat? Well I won’t take that from a sleeping aid, so don’t bother.

It’s almost funny, how many anti-intellectuals are allowing their thoughts to be controlled by intellectuals who produce television and radio programs.  Ignorance is a little sad, sometimes.  You pretty much have to be a well trained monkey to fall for the official version. Don’t believe your lying eyes.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:44 PM

that’s kitchen COUNTER

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 1:48 PM

i like kitchen tower. poetry. hi wiley, and thanks for regressing us further: i mean, i like what you are saying regarding intuition. the freaks that murder want to deny us that which is both innate and learned: instinct, intuition, common sense, fellow feeling, imagination, love, all that which we know, as you say, before we know how to say it. as we know what is going on now, what is happening to us. nat and kind would have this world a prison, a death in life, where thought is a crime. where brute force and state terror reign. it has happened before, it doesn’t take a prophet to identify it now, it takes only what we all have if we can wake up: intuition. we are at a point in evolution where we cannot afford to be fooled again.

Posted by dougshaeffer on Jul 22, 2006 at 2:02 PM

A bit off topic, doug, but about those RFID tags that some people have proudly had implanted in their pod—-er bod—-and that are EVERYWHERE—-they are a nuisance. Have you noticed how often sales people in stores wave it off when the alarm goes off at the exit door?

I bought a coat last winter, and as I was going through the door, the alarms went off. This bugs me, because I would go door to door with a broom offering to do odd jobs for a dollar before I would shoplift (I learned from that time I got busted in high school (peer pressure)).  I went back to the counter, but the sales clerk said not to worry about it, it happens all the time. I had seen her remove the big white security tag that they remove with the special machine at the counter.

Well, everywhere I went for a while the alarms were going off. I was perplexed. My friend and I would take our bags and receipts to a checkout person, but they too waved it off.

Then there was a warm spell, and I realized that the alarms weren’t going off , then SNAP! I decided to check my coat. I got my trusty assistant to help me. Sure enough, there was an RFID tag tucked away between the lining and the leather.

Not to be too square about it, but I think it’s a bad thing to train people to ignore alarms.

BTW, did anyone hear a claxom go off in their town on 9/11/01? Anyone told where to tune in to get the information that our nation was under attack? That there was a national emergency?

Thought not.

The evil-doers might want to consider doing that in the next terrorist attack. It’s a terrifying noise, and it will make everyone feel like their town is being attacked.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 4:02 PM

O.K. My trusty assistant FOUND the RFID tag and said, “Look! I found it.”

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 4:04 PM

As Rabbit has pointed out for us all,  the REAL conspiracy freaks are those who have FAITH in the WhiteHouse version of 911.

The inquiry into the Titanic disaster began 6days later. Bushco fought and struggled and delayed for 411 days, before an Inquiry peopled by bushco insiders was established .

That fact alone should make anyone be VERY deeply suspicious of THEIR conclusions.

Howler
rabbit’s first 5 or 6 posts contain most of what is needed to suss this. Right.
Assuming you are a normal difficult- to- convince human, that should STILL be not enough for you.  So,, do YOUR OWN RESEARCH

This whole subject is a veritable minefield of disinformation.

One thing I know for SURE is that Rabbit would never knowingly misinform you.

Another thing I know for sure is that Natalie will do so.

We have followed her for many months now, and either she is a deranged amateur Bushlover, or a paid disinformation Shill.

After prostitution, the mercenary may be the second oldest profession.

Posted by frog on Jul 22, 2006 at 4:26 PM

Nat

First of all, thank you for putting forth your best arguments. 

You didn’t ask for any such thing, I gave you precisely, what you asked for and no more.  Disgusting prevaricator!

My best argument for 9/11 truth was given in the first half dozen posts, on this thread, you’re too late this time Batgirl.

But thanks for playing.

In the real world, the second collapse could be thought of as the theoretical re-enactment of the incident, where a duplicate WTC tower is built and a plane load of people and fuel is driven into it.  Guess what?  Basically the same thing happened.

That was very funny Natalie, do you have any more such special logic to share with us?

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 22, 2006 at 8:10 PM

MyMarkx

Go to Source from the View menu in the top left of your page.  Scroll down and see the map of the action on the factory floor so to speak.

Thanks for wacking the Bat for rabbit his paws are tired.  One can wack her about the place like a squashball, but like a squash ball she gets warmed up with use.  Then she starts bouncing further and increasingly wildly about the court but it likewise becomes correspondingly tiresome to chase after it.  Help is always aprreciated.  Sometimes the poor rabbit is still left flailing away at the undead carcass of the Cyber Vampire long after most have moved on.  It is a lonely vigil, and not terribly rewarding most of the time. 

Of course the increased awareness of others to the truth and to the sort of base tactics which are employed to hide the truth even to the extent of paid shills, is some reward, but like pissing oneself in a dark suit, though it gives one a warm feeling, nobody tends to notice.

All setbacks for the Bat are a gain for humanity, let it be said.  Yes some efforts to look closer at Nat have been employed over the past year or two, and some things are known, and others are speculated about.  There is an amazing co-incidence of name, between a very well known Pentagon Shill, a retired Lt Colonel, and someone who happens to be called Natalie, who appears to work for just the sort of outfit which is refferred to as being sources for the paid shills employed by the government.  Computer Information Technology or some such NEWSPEAK term.

She denies it of course but some post accusation enquiries have led only to the strengthened conviction.  Also the fact that when Rabbit named her, it was following a long debate about War Crimes and the likelihood of criminal charges for shilling for them.  The Natalie did a dissapearing act and never gave a very convincing denial, after ignoring the issue for ages when she did return.  The trouble is that even then it had become obvious that she was an inveterate liar and even when she is telling the truth the first reaction is to distrust anything she says.

She behaves like a text book shill, she clearly has an agenda and the range of her interests as well as the passion for their defence is as you can see here, even more one eyed and skewed toward insanity than most morons or struggling dittoheads who are fighting to avoid knowing the truth they most fear.  Natalie comes across as being so unmoved by anything.  Contrary information is something to be covered, twisted or confused as much as nitpicking and red herring antics allow. 

She lies constantly, trying toi deny words which stand yet as witness to her prevaricvations.  the remote control issue is an excellent example. She actually tried to go between the two options of denying or ignoring, how cool is that? Did she prove what I was saying?  Yes!

Her own story is presented as if it is the only logical explanation which means it doesn’t need to be discussed in anything except rhetoric and slogans. 

The truth doesn’t mater to her, her agenda is to cover atruth, more than push a lie, for as we have seen with some issues her actual story does change with the official party line.  Reality has no effect on her story though, like a program a robot.

For example. She was shilling for DU when her main argument, something she admitted would be proof of the claims for DU was that there were no epidemiological studies or Scientific studies of the actual effects of DU on DNA etc.

Then one day such studies became available, right in the middle of her denials.  These were duly presented and were discarded out of hand by her as being irrelevant, or she atacked the authors, sight unseen as being agenda driven.

She is a shill, I am sure of this and most who know her would agree.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 22, 2006 at 8:52 PM

Thanks, Rabbit.

I had an enlightening experience with a shill some time back on another board.

I’d post something about election integrity and the dangers of Diebold machines, and he’d respond that the most important thing was to elect Democrats.

I’d ask how you can elect Democrats if you don’t have free, fair, open, honest, verifiable elections, and he’d say that I was being disruptive and wasting people’s time and energy when the most important thing was to elect Democrats. And so on…..

Since the JFK story in Rolling Stone came out, his paymasters have been telling him that the most important thing is election integrity, some friends who still post there have told me.

I’m sorely tempted to go over there with a different login and say that the most important thing is to elect Democrats, just to see how he responds.  ;-)

Right after 9/11, Bush said that catching bin Laden was his highest priority. Six months later, long before there was any real evidence one way or the other, he said it wasn’t his priority. So for those who voted for Bush because Kerry was a flip-flopper and not strong enough on defense, Osama bin Forgotten.

So it is actually possible that our Natalie has a seat waiting in the dock at Der Hague, huh? I don’t know if Goebbels ever killed anyone, he was just the Minister of Propaganda—nothing more than a shill.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 22, 2006 at 9:55 PM

Nat, your method of argument is like guerilla warfare with several dozens obese soldiers deployed…it just doesn’t work

You attack here and there, but you only point out minor details, which can, by all means, be considered insignificant compared to the overwhelming evidence given by Rabbit

I doubt anyone even consider you as a serious threat at all (it’s only time before you start pointing out spelling errors)...by now they probably think you’re persistenly annoying; like taking a dump on the edge of the enemy’s camp, instead of burning their granary…(metaphorically that means you’re full of sh!t)

I bet your best plan is to annoy Rabbit to the point that he couldn’t be bothered anymore

I’ve been reading this discussion for a while, and i’m quite proud that my compatriot, Rabbit (I used to live in Sydney and Perth for 6 year in total), is fighting for my other compatriot, the American people (now I’m in LA), even though he’s an ocean away

Nat with all due respect, go join Major Major who is probably shaving some Republican’s balls this very moment
You might get paid less that way but at least you’re not making a fool of yourself as much as now

P.S. I did not intend to offend any obese person, unless it’s Nat or Major Major…it’s just for the sake of the metaphor…(i’ve been reading bout guerilla warfare, hence it’s the only thing i had for now)

Posted by Oeyrsenal on Jul 22, 2006 at 11:38 PM

Hey, that reminds me of a pair of twins I knew once. One broke into a duplex to steal electronics, then the house lifted itself off its foundation and floated in the air. Ten minutes later, his brother ran into an identical duplex to steal electronics and——naturally (duh)—-that house also lifted itself off its foundation and floated in the air.

So the sheriff declared a war on twins.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 22, 2006 at 11:59 PM

It would be extremely rude of me to barge into this heated discussion and just threw insults at a veteran of this debate, although the foolishness of her (assuming it is a she) argument is more than enough justification for me to do so…

But more is always better…
I came across this website while I was searching for facts…
http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm

Those of you who are still unaware of the degree of this hazard to our liberty, should have their eyes opened by this revelation of The Patriot Act, which was rushed by the executive branch (Bush, Cheney & Co.) through the Congress…

Those who disagreed, or made any attempt to analyze this contract with the devil were accused of being unloyal by the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney himself

Noticed how vague the wordings are…noticed how the government can interpret it to their own likings…

“The American people will not stand for this”
But the American people are becoming more ignorant everyday…
They couldn’t care less as long as they get their Ipods, thier Superbowl, their car engines, their nails or hairs, their XboX, and many other things

Those who stand are minority, and we have people like Natalie, Tucker Carlson, and Bill O’Reilly to make matters worse than it already is…especially with the media against us

Let’s just hope there is enough time for the people to abandon their ignorance and be fully informed before the govenrment decided that they’re losing their grip, and execute another “terrorist attack”

I apologize if this has already been mentioned before…

BTW how do i make a hyperlink of the web

Posted by Oeyrsenal on Jul 23, 2006 at 12:31 AM

Batgirl has recently opted for election integrity, which came as a surprise to some of us, but it is obviously the new mantra.

Maybe Mexico has made Election fraud too hot to not at least speak about it with a forked tongue.

With this much attention on the thread, the Batgirl who is rather shy, may hide out for a few days, hoping people will lose interest and go away.  She isn’t about winning debates of course, merely disrupting the dissemination of truth, so where it is being dealt with in the open by a group then Nat realises she can’t do anything, better then to wait till the humans go, to come out and slime mud all over the place and hide any evidence of reason or truth.

She doesn’t annoy the rabbit Wiley, but she does disgust him.  Agreed her best plan is usually to outlast people and then to try and fill up the end of a thread with garbage.

Unfortunately for her, she knows the rabbit will never let her do this.

Sadly, since she is not a mere troll, the rabbit can never get her head to explode, only a troll has the investment in emotion, real beliefs to make it possible to trap them into a logical paradox which is too big to ignore.

For the Batgirl, nothing is too big to ignore.

Doug

what do you imagine the endgame of all of these bloody current events, not just for the axes of devolution, but for those who love life?

I am finding it hard to imagine the end game, the result of the current unrest and devolution of stability.  Some days I can see a chance it might settle down into a deja vu type scenario resembling the last Israeli offensive against Lebanon, but mostly I think this brush fire is going to spread to the forest, and become a real serious conflagration.

If we end up with a wider Mid East war, the consequnces are going to become acute.  The world economy is far more fragile and overloaded than in the evnties, and I suspect the Arabs may just be prepared to give a lot better than they did last time.

Once the USA get’s directly involved in a war with Syria and Iran, which is clearly the Zionist number one want, I think such a war will only escalate.  In short ordr I expect several other puppets in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and maybe Egypt for example to suddenly find themselves choosing between uprising or support of the growing Islamic front.

It doesn’t have to be this way, there is no Islamic Front as such to consider even at this late date, with decades of antagonism from the Zionists and the Zionist controlled west.  But I would expect that it is only an act away from becoming a popular front for resistance to what can only be percieved by Muslims and Arabs as an assault on them, an effort at genocide even.

Unlike the hysterical pundits, with their imaginary Islamic Extremist superpower, I think Islamicists have been quite patient up till now.

If the present lacklustre and rare terrorist events which are attributed to Islamic Extremists is all there is, then there is either not many of them, or they are not really mad yet.

I’m sure the American and Israeli leadership is going the right way about bringing that situation to a speedy end, and expect to see the results of their efforts before long. 

One wonders what 40,000 trained suicide bombers do exactly once unleashed..  The end result of it all has probably been depicted fairly accurately in various apocalyptic films.  I think you can imagine roughly the result of an out of control spiralling war of attrition between one and a half billion people and the largest military might in the world.

I fear the deciders on both sides are reading from the same apocalyptic script.

At what point will civil order break down in our “privelaged countries”? 

Past experience suggests within a week of transport and power outages causing shortages of essentials on the supermarket shelves.

Of course while we are stuck on a speeding go-kart headed for hell, we may yet get cut off at the pass so to speak, by natural catastrophe.  Something is rumbling away under the surface, inside the heart of our precious Gaia.  Look to the Weather disruption, the increasingly prevalent Volcanic eruptions and Tsunamis, seismic activity. 

I think it is all feeding off each other.  Uncertainty of the climactic and climate changes is partly driving many to a hysterical sort of rabid dog mentality.  The anti-abortionists who burned a Koran as part of their protest, mentioned by Sally on another thread are like that.  Just snarling, terrified dogs.  Looking for something to bite and fight with for it cannot face the fear rationally.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 23, 2006 at 1:04 AM

Frog

The Israeli celebration you mentioned.

That Youtube Video is good, at least the first two and a half minutes of it.  It seems to be broken, but it does get to the point of it taking 411 days for an investigation of 911, compared to the usual week or so of previous disasters like Pearl Harbour, Titanic sinking, Space shuttle crash etc.

411 days, interesting number.  The other time in history which is mentioned when such a disaster didn’t warrant an investigation with all haste, Reichstag Fire........Indeed!

Oeyrsenal

Hyperlinks are done thusly.

You put the url between the ” and the other ” and the link between the > and the <

If you have a really long link use TinyUrls or something similar.

Sometimes the site gets temperamental with Hyperlinks at the start of a line, but the editing function allows tidying up (spelling) or repairing things.

Wiley

his brother ran into an identical duplex to steal electronics and——naturally (duh)—-that house also lifted itself off its foundation and floated in the air.

So the sheriff declared a war on twins.

Well I couldn’t believe that a house would levitate from it’s foundations and float in the air!  Never has such a thing been seen and besides, the very idea is contrary to known science and builders alike.  But you tell the rabbit that it happened a second time, well that proves it I guess, the rabbit is astounded.

Obviously twins were involved, you told me so, and I suppose you have a video of some twins admitting to levitating the houses, which is Proof Positive that twins are involved with the levitating and the floating of houses.  Even if the FBI doesn’t see fit to think so. 

The best thing would probably be to round up all twins and lock them in secret gulags, where they can be kept in stress positions, sexually abused and generally tortured and beaten. Some good old fashioned ball zapping, nipple crippling torture will soon have those deviant, house levitating Twins confessing to their sins.

Maybe we should find out which countries are harbouring the most twins while we are at it;  we might be well advised to launch pre-emptive shock and awe military strikes against them just in case, of something.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Interesting.  Rabbit seems to think, for some unknown reason, that the posts on the airline forum somehow support his contention/theory…I guess that the planes were flown by remote control to their targets on 9/11. (never mind the fact that DNA was identified at the towers, the pentagon, and Pennsylvania belonging to both the airline passengers AND some of the hijackers.)

13 - 14 posts, presumably by actual airline pilots, (I’m not about to go through the routine to register, lie about my flying experience, and get access to these guy’s personal information) including likely many 757/767 pilots, are laughing hysterically at the notion that 757/767’s could be flown by remote control.  There is autopilot, obviously, and maybe some “suggested” software limits, but they can be overridden by pilots at any time.  (One would presume the hijackers knew about this and how to override if necessary, because they were certified airline pilots and thus, Wa-La, knew about such things.)

Then, the board gets infiltrated by I’m presuming a fourteen year old, whom I hope is not actually a future pilot on any flight I ever take:

Whatever the merits of that post, I must admit to sharing a considerable amount of scepticism about those phone calls.

Didn’t Lufthansa remove their US-made autopilots because they could be controlled from the ground? I heard the then German foreign minister talk about it on British radio some years ago.  Phil

Of course the first part is straight from the wild, warped world of Chris Bollyn and American Free Press, a holocaust denial/revisionist publication.  So we know how reliable anything coming from them is.  No, AFP, the plane was actually another flight from a different airline, but of course that’s only if anyone believes this nonsense about “human confusion”.  What a laughable, unheard of concept.  Fact checking….that’s so last century.  Don’t ever let that get in the way of a good story, AFP.

An actual airline pilot (I presume) thinks the part about the Lufthansa airlines is about as nutty as squirrel droppings:

Yes, that is confirmed. LH got rid of their US-made autopilots and invented little black worms in black boxes. These little buggers control the entire fleet and are eatable.

And one person has some doubts about cell phone calls.  Well, we’ve covered the fact that many of these reported to be cell phone calls were misreported, and were actually Airphone calls. ( I don’t think anybody has claimed that they are impossible)  Still, somebody on the forum counters this one dissenter with his own experience, which leads credence to the theory that some of the calls may indeed have been made by cell phones:

How come MY mobile works below about 3000 feet at 90-100 kts? I can phone home and get the kettle switched on before doing the approach checklist. Motorola 601 (8 years old)

cont…..

Posted by Natalie on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:09 AM

pt. 2/2

So tell me again exactly how these posts in this particular forum supposedly devastate my POV.  Namely, that 757’s and 767’s were NOT capable of being flown remotely into their targets on 9/11, and indeed weren’t.  Show me some evidence to the contrary.  Reliable, fact-checkable authoritative evidence.  (sorry, that leaves out Rense, AFP, and “global conspiracies”)

I’ve already provided a link to a statement by an authority from Boeing who is willing to put his integrity and good name on the line, and deny that these planes had the capability to do what is claimed by the AQDL.

If I was a suspicious person, I would suspect that this is an attempt to deny the existence of the hijackers, which is of course right up there with denying the existence of the sun.

Please do keep going down this path.  I’m still hoping for that “thermite” platform!  Write your congresspersons. Demand that investigation.

Posted by Natalie on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:11 AM

So let’s see.  All this ranting and raving, all this name calling and all these transparent efforts at marginalizing, and not one of you has provided a shred of actual physical evidence that the WTC Towers were brought down by explosives. (oh yeah, there was that whiff of “thermite” that Jones supposedly found on some steel that some lady gave him, some booms that sounded like bombs, and those puffs of dust!)  Not one of you has provided a shred of physical evidence to prove that the pentagon wasn’t hit by fight 77.  Not one of you has provided a shred of physical evidence for the notion that the planes were flown by remote control into their targets, only that it might be possible, given the correct alignment of the planets, presumably.

Just a lot of paranoid rambling, speculating and wishful thinking.  Every certified professional in structural, civil, and fire engineering on the planet basically agrees with the “offical story”.  No serious professional journalist has touched your story, except to ridicule it.

A tiny collection of computer programmers, software salesmen, theologians, “researchers”, fourteen year-olds and anti-semites disagree, ALL to the man or woman with a bone to pick with the Iraq war, GWB and “Neocons”.  How predictable.  How very scientific.

A thousand disparate suspicions and debunked rumors does not equal proof of anything.  Prepare your case.  You’ve simply got to pare it down to something resembling an intelligent, believeable argument. 

You’ve got to make your move.  Much longer, and you’ll be about as relevant as a Pet Rock.

BTW, what exactly is the status of Esquire Berg’s lawsuit?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:13 AM

YO OEY
Nice to see you come into the light, and the fight

for the syntax check out advisory ITT email
blockquote—

No. 4: Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals “suspected” of terrorist activities and to hold them INDEFINITELY, WITHOUTCHARGE, and WITHOUT an ATTORNEY. (That could be you or me for sending or receiving this Email, by the way) bill moyers

hyperlink—-
The Hitlerite Patriot Act

Now we have edit , you can correct missing spaces, “s, wrongway round < or > , until it works.

Compatriot—a real OZ too—- or a traveller… no matter…

The worldwide Axis Of OZ !

frog is half Kiwi , motherside, and his da was oz for last 25yrs of life… and they met on a battleship in Sydney harbour 1945 ....

Posted by frog on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:22 AM

Yes, Rabbit—-I am an authority. I’ve scribbled it on vellum and signed my name. Anytime you need a ludicrous thought experiment, I’m your man.

I leave all the work of Nat to you and your cohorts, and work from your posts and theirs. As vigilant and hardworking as she is (as YOU are, Nat my darling industrious Bat), reading her prose is like swimming through asphalt for me. I’d rather sip Drano.

Oh, Frog, Clouds and I looked the Patriot Act up when it first came out. Hideous. It is a phone book of legalese addendums that a team of lawyers had clearly been working on for a long time. Most of it was completely illegible without a grounding in legalese AND all the original texts of the laws being amended, that were referred to in the act, but not spelled out.

Of course, those girly-men in Congress signed it without reading it, as is their habit. Their seats are just little ATM machines.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 23, 2006 at 2:53 AM

Natalie

Vampire Bat Shill of darkness and spite.

Just pointing to the possibility of remote control doesn’t say that is my contention it was so.

Unlike you mad flappity moon Bat the rabbit is not required to explain every little detail of anything since it is enough the official fairy story is demolished. 

Some of the planes have flown in a way which suggests either a level of skill for the pilots which was simply not possible for any of the alleged pilots or they could have been remote controlled.  Remote control removes the problem of the unskilled pilots, and the possibility that they could have been remote controlled to the extraordinary performance level required and beyond the normally safe inbuilt software limitations which can be overridden by a pilot.  Certainly not a pilot of the standards of the Cheech and Chong’s from Arabia we know about.

It doesn’t need the Hijackers not to be there, they could have been all set up to take over the plane with their little boxcutters, and done so and then this Dumb and Dumber combination settle into the big comfy pilots seat:,

“Abdul, this is much bigger than the little plane we flew at the american school near the army base in Florida, are you sure you know how to fly it?”

“Don’t worry Haji, I only have to fly it into a target smaller than a runway,  and oh by the way I’d better remember to disengage the software limitations which won’t allow me to pull five Gs and perform fighter plane type maneuvers otherwise”

The remote control also makes it possible for the hijackers <u>not to be there.</u>

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 23, 2006 at 3:15 AM

ok, i’m back for a moment to address a few issues i feel are critical:

(1) Natalie, you have a number of times referred to NIST, specifically to the anticipation of their ‘final report’ on WTC7’s collapse.  you even went as far as to suggest that this ‘final report’ will probably address my initial question, namely “what happened to the only known sample of A36 steel recovered from WTC7, and why doesn’t NIST have it?” -

don’t hold your breath waiting for answers from NIST on this point, as NIST NCSTAR 1-3 states clearly: “properties for steel used in [WTC7’s] construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents” - how on earth can they perform a credible investigation of the collapse, if they don’t even have any evidence to examine???

(2) various posters here have reported various times between the impacts & collapses of WTC 1 and 2.  in an effort to focus on the established facts in the public record, the following times are all taken from the 9/11 commission’s report:

North Tower Impact: 08:46:40
South Tower Impact: 09:03:11

North Tower Collapse: 10:28:25
South Tower Collapse: 09:58:59

North Tower TOTAL BURN TIME: 1:42:45 (102.75 minutes)
South Tower TOTAL BURN TIME: 0:55:48 (55.8 minutes)

(3)  i’m still interested in getting feedback (esp. from disparate voices like natalie, rabbit, frog, diggins, mymarkx, and 14yo doug) re: the song/video ‘conspiracy theory’ - it’s my best attempt at a summary of my issues w/ the official story of 9/11, and what it all might mean.

skeptosis.blogspot.com

Posted by skeptosis on Jul 23, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Skeptosis, that’s my new favorite song!

(Just shared it with a bunch of friends—keep on rockin’!)

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 23, 2006 at 11:23 AM

Lagomorph Eidolon Anatidae -

I apologize for the delayed response.  I have been busy making too much money to indulge in my favorite pastime - proving the ignorance and folly of you leftist idiots. 

I’ll agree the column might have been cut with OXY, even probably was. ... You are right.  The cut column photo doesn’t prove anything.

So good of you to admit the obvious.  You have even restored a measure of integrity to your stained reputation, the result of your foolish leftist biases and ignorant conspiracy theories.  But how is it that an “expert” welder and firecracker such as yourself could be fooled for so long by a fake description (from Rense!)?  Are you always this sloppy in your analyses?  And what other evidence have you failed to analyze correctly?

For example, the reason the photo of the column cut by a welding torch (long after the fact, inaccurately identified as cut by thermite) is important is that it is the ONLY hard evidence that explosives or thermite were installed and activated at WTC, and it is in error, as you admit.  All the other arguments of the conspiracy theorists are circumstantial at best, and fanciful (witness the Rense photo) at worst.  And there is astonishing lack of evidence in support of explosives or thermite.

You have spoken of both explosive and thermite demolition.  Which was it ?  Or was it both?  If both explosives and thermite were installed in the WTC building columns, what was the purpose of the redundancy?  Explosives can be timed exactly, but thermite burns for some period before creating failure.  The timing of individual column failures if rigged with thermite would be chancy, and irregular.  So, what are you really saying, explosives, thermite, or both?

Rigging and wiring a major building (or three!) for demolition (explosive or thermite) is a very big undertaking, involving hundreds of men and thousands of manhours.  Every charge on every column must be prepared, by removing the wall covering and removing the column fireproofing.  At WTC 1 and 2, the internal and external columns were hollow steel structural elements of square or rectanular cross-section (referred to as tubes during construction). 

For thermite, a containment, or series of containments, of ceramic or firebrick must be installed around each column demolition point, the thermite must be emplaced, and ignition systems (wire or radio-controlled) must be installed.  For the external columns, the outside glass on either side of the column must be removed to construct the containment. 

For explosives, it is a little more complicated.  To cut a columnar beam with explosives, two opposing charges are placed on opposite sides of the beam web, and offset exactly so that one charge kicks a section of the beam to the left, and the other kicks the adjacent section of the beam to the right, creating shear, exactly simultaneously.  The off-setting charges require the least amount of explosive, but the timing must be exact.  If the charges do not go off exactly at the same time, you find that one charge tends to kick the beam in one direction, while the second charge, maybe one-tenth of a second later, tends to straighten the beam back up.  But since all the WTC columns are hollow, you cannot place opposing charges on every surface without cutting into the columns.  Lacking access to the interior of the column, you are talking about a massive charge to cut the massive structural columns, but you can reduce the size of the required charge somewhat by sand-bagging the charges against the columns.

Continue ...

Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2006 at 11:39 AM

So, the obvious questions that require factual, or at least rational, answers to consider the validity of thermite or explosive demolition:  With hundreds of skilled laborers installing hundreds or thousands of demolition devices in occupied and functioning buildings over a period of (minimum) weeks, how come no one has talked?  If you are alleging that each one of hundreds of explosive demolitions were installed by cutting into the interior of each column, when was this done and by whom?  Why did no one notice this being done?  Why were there no reports of massive firebrick or sandbag containments on hundreds of internal and external columns?  Why do the external columns not show the thermite/ explosive charges installed in the millions of frames of still and video pictures taken the day of 09/11?  Why has no building occupant reported explosive or thermite containments on the internal or external columns?

You obviously have to satisfy these objections before even considering controlled demolition, but you avoid such discussions in favor of your flights of ignorance and fancy. 

Now, two of your principle arguments are that there were tons of molten metal in the basement of WTC, and that the buildings could not collapse straight down unless there was controlled explosive or thermite demolition. 

So, in the thermite scenario, if tons of molten metal were falling throughout the WTC buildings, why is it that NONE of the photos and videos of the collapse show the interior of the towers lit up like the Fourth of July?  Similar, say, to a steel pour?  You simply cannot have tons of molten steel falling that leaves no visible signature.  There are floor to ceiling windows between every exterior column in WTC 1 and 2, so any great shower of moten metal should have been easily visible. 

As for the explosive scenario, careful observation of the videos show that the damaged levels of both towers were experiencing flexing and distortion before they finally gave way.  Explosives create great clouds of dust, but so does tons of breaking concrete.  There is absolutely no great cloud of dust until the upper sections of the buildings start to move, which is just the opposite of controlled demolitions, where the frame-by-frame analysis shows blast, then great clouds of dust, then the building starts to move.  And, as the upper levels of the towers started moving downward, creating great clouds of dust, there are no blast effects or thermite effects observed in the lower portions of the buildings. 

As for collapsing on their own footprint, first consider the direction of the force of gravity: down.  Not sideways, not up, not to the moonbat left, but DOWN.  The towers each weighed about one-half million tons, and extended nearly one-quarter of a mile into the air.  So, what lateral force is available to move the towers sideways?  None, of course; there was no hurricane blowing that particular day. 

Continue ...

Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2006 at 11:43 AM

Now, here is what really happened, in words of one syllable, for your benefit.  The two towers were essentially identical, with massive internal columns and smaller peripheral external columns.  The internal and external columns were tied together with closely spaced trusses that held the structure rigid and supported the concrete flooring at each level.  The two aircraft that struck WTC 1 and 2 caused extensive structural damage to the towers, including damage to the fireproofing on the columns and trusses.  Figure 2-13 of the World Trade Center Building Performance Study shows that thirty-three exterior columns were severed by the crash, and floors on four levels were wiped out on the north face of WTC 2.  The weight of the aircraft at each tower was added to the floor loading where the aircraft fragments came to rest.  The ensuing fires were sufficiently hot to weaken the structural members, but more importantly, the heated structures expanded, while adjacent unheated structural members did not expand, putting considerable vertical and lateral stress on the structure. 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

The co-efficient of thermal expansion for steel is 7.3 millionths of an inch per inch per degree F.  With a damage zone extending four floors, or 48 feet, internal columns would be subject to heating to a minimum of 750 Deg F.  This would result in upward lengthening of such columns (not all columns evenly) of about 3.15 inches in the heat zone.  Similarly, the trusses, standard length sixty foot, would have expanded laterally by over 3.9 inches, placing irregular stress on the perimeter columns, or buckling.  Trusses that expanded by several inches would place extreme stress on adjacent cooler trusses.  In either case, damage to trusses would cause the concrete floor to collapse adding to the load on the floor below, already burdened by the weight of the aircraft.  As an expert welder, what is your experience with metal expansion due to heat?  Will heat expansion cause a weld to pop, or metal to bend?  Of course it will. 

The Bazant-Verdure Report, Figure 1, represents the collapse, and is entirely consistent with the videos, which, of course, show absolutely no evidence of blast or thermite. 

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

So, Lagomorph Anatidae, never mind the irrelevant, interminable, and nonsensical arguments that you have been making, just answer my questions.  Otherwise you are revealed as an irresponsible feather merchant and conspiracy theorist.

QUACK, quack, quack, quack.  QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, quack, quack, quack.  Quack, quack, quack.  QUACK.

Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2006 at 11:49 AM

Oh, I had no idea you were such an expert scientist, Scorp. So how did that passport survive the crash and explosion?

And why did the hijackers pack suitcases and make a big scene in a titty bar the night before the evil-doer deeds? There must be a scientific explanation for all this and the fact that “ground zero” wasn’t cordoned off as a crime scene while a long, detailed, and professional examination of the crime was investigated by top experts and more than one team.

There must be a scientific explanation for the failure of all our civilian and military organizations to fail to protect our airspace.

There is no question that they failed to protect our airspace—-the most protected air space in the country was violated. That’s FAILURE. Why has this FAILURE not been inspected as FAILURE rather than an “issue” of how they might have responded differently? That’s not how it’s supposed to work in the world of adults with peoples’ lives in their hands.

I like your “quack” btw. It suits you perfectly.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 23, 2006 at 6:03 PM

thanks rabbit and all,

I’ve now read the entire thread and I went and re- watched “9-11 Revisited. I’ve already seen loose change, etc. so I’m no pro but I’ve done a little homework.

Question concerning building 7 and the oft repeated footage of silverstein talking about Pulling #7: If he flat out states that they pulled the building, why hasn’t there been a huge stink been made about how that could be possible, considering it must take more than a few hours to set up explosives in even a non burning building and the building came down at five that evening? It implies that explosives were pre-set—right? and why would that be? Someone in this thread touches on this saying that all the buildings might have been rigged with explosives—just in case—so that tey wouldn’t topple in a catastrophy and do untold harm to people and other structures. But then why hasn’t some official just come out and said this to address the pre-set explosives charge your all making and put our minds at ease?

Also when i said wouldn’t someone have blabbed by now if this had been an inside job, i meant perhaps some small pawn like say one of the persons who set the explosives. Or someone mentione the A.N.G. shootng down flight 77over PA. Yet no one—not even one of this pilot’s ground crew members—has blabbed to his wife who blabbed to her friend who contacted the media?

I don’t doubt foul play here at all. i just doubt human nature—or i believe human beings can’t keep big secrets that long. so why hasn’t anyone said anything concerning the plot and the carrying out of the plot?

Thanks again!

Posted by howler on Jul 23, 2006 at 7:40 PM

Why would anyone open their mouth and say they had a hand in this? 

All questions of who did it aside, there was not a proper investigation and people with great responsiblity were not held accountable. If the commander of Norad had been Japanese he might have committed hari kiri after leaving his neatly typed resignation in the appropriate box.

Mechanics in the Air Force go to Mannheim or Leavenworth for screwing up. And these guys get promoted after the worst security failure in the history of the U.S.? What the hell do we pay these people for?

Are the concepts of RESPONISIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY just too tough for most people to grasp? It doesn’t matter how they could have done better or why they screwed up——they screwed up. They failed. Whether it be manslaughter, negligence, or other circumstances doesn’t matter.

The focus, from the start should have been investigating the crime, and investigating the failure of our high dollar civilian and military defense systems to act as soon as they lost contact with the planes and they veered off course.  Blaming them is not the issue. Holding them responsible is.

That the response to the attacks was instead a packaged deal—-the WOT—-should set off a thousand alarms.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 23, 2006 at 8:36 PM

Howler, the answer to suggesting that human beings can’t keep secrets that long, may have been posted already, but I’ll repeat it. The Manhattan Project was kept secret for years, even with thousands of people working on it, and even President Truman didn’t know. Large numbers of human beings not only can, but have kept secrets for long periods of time, particularly when they are impressed with the importance of what they are doing. Anyone who would take part in something that killed 3,000 innocent citizens, must have thought that there was some important purpose involved or they wouldn’t have done it. In the case of 9/11 the important purpose might have been initiating wars, eliminating civil rights, obtaining oil, or some other motive I can’t even imagine.

But of course there are other well known occasions when people are unlikely to blabber. Hitmen and mercenaries who are paid to kill people rarely confess spontaneously. Intelligence operatives who pull off covert ops rarely tell anyone about it.

But even if people did come forward, I doubt if it would make a difference. James Files wrote a book and confessed to having shot JFK, but many people don’t believe it. If somebody came forward now and said that they’d helped plant explosives in the WTC towers, they’d probably be dismissed as a publicity-seeking liar. Besides, how could they actually PROVE that they’d done it?

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 23, 2006 at 8:53 PM

Howler

There are actually many more threads of interest in what is known and what is spceulated about with credible reasons.  Indeed much of the speculation and some of the information is bogus, but it isn’t hard to verify a story or find credible reason to discount it via the WWW.

The first and simplest answer to your question

But then why hasn’t some official just come out and said this to address the pre-set explosives charge your all making and put our minds at ease?

For the same reason a virtual blackout exists on any and all information about 9/11 and for the same reason that despite a country which is consistently in the polls demanding certain actions of their government, the said government is still almost as one voice, from both sides of the political aisle, doing the exact opposite.

In truth, Howler, the scenario we are presenting on 9/11 is completely consistent with:

** The Patriot Acts, which were rammed through to become what they are in an amazingly short time, considering the size and scale of the actual document, which must have taken many months at least by usual standards.  So it was ready to roll.  The anthrax attacks against those senators who baulked at the Patriot attack, which were traced to the government’s own laboratory.

** The attacks on Afghanistan had no real basis in the so called War on Terror as is now obvious, and even less so has the attack on Iraq. 

**The domestic spying and the rendition programs, the renunciation of human rights and international law in its many forms, including NPTs has all been done, with the vitual media blackout intact from start to now.

**The domestic concentration camp buildup.

One thing all these things has in common, is that they benefit certain companies.  A few, a vry small number of companies. If we look at who owns or has stock these companies Lo and Behold we will find the same failry select group of individuals we have come to know and love so well over the last few decades.

You tell me how they keep the “public” lid on it all so well Howler.  As far as the internet is concerned, the informnation superhighway, the great mind melding Cyborg entity known as the Internet, has the answers for many of your questions or at least food for thought.

Here is a hint about what might have befallen many of those who might be in a position to “Blab” about what they may have been involved in.

Besides which, the idea of even many thousands of devoted utterly brainwashed obedient servants is hardly revolutionary.  .

Look at the actual passenger lists of the planes concerned.  There is a remarkable tendency for them to have a couple of specific areas of employment in comon. 

The co-incidence is one of many which tend to give a shadowy form to a pattern of operations.  The consistency of the emerging story isn’t lost, but it gets deeper and darker, especially if one considers as many think probable, that two or possibly more of the planes were substituted.

There is expert testimony including direct witnesses which contradict the identifications of the planes involved.  The video evidence on record lends credence to this idea.

A report puts one of the planes elsewhere.

There is something weird with two of the registrations.

The almost instantaneous arrival of the FBI at the premises of several businesses and confiscated recordings from their private video surveillance which would have shown the plane as well, is hard for a thinking person to ignore.  The incredible reluctance of the FBI to release or even allow ANYONE to see any of the videos which would clearly show the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon is disturbing enough. 

The Pentagon Exit Hole , is consistent with anything but a soft aluminium nosed plane which either was so soft it crumpled like alfoil on impact, explaining the impossibly small entry hole, or it was so hard and solid it managed to smash through the 24 inch thick steel reinforced, Kevlar mesh “E ring facade, blast resistant windows, all of the interior walls, pillars and office contents of 3 rings of the Pentagon, then why didn’t it show itself in the A-E drive? And how did it break such a clean hole and then decelerate in the space of 30 feet so as not to even chip the opposing “B” ring wall?

Of course as the article suggests it could have been a shaped charge, which leads to more deep and dark scenarios.  Which doesn’t make them unlikely, on the contrary I’d say. 

Let me make something clear to any who still baulk at the mere suggestion that the answer to something might be contrived by people with dark means and motives.  A conspiracy by its nature.

We do not end up in our present state of global insecurity, wars and threats of Global Armageddon more real than anything we have ever faced as a civilisation before, without a bloody good helping from some pretty dark and organised forces behind it…............... ie:  CONSPIRACIES.

Conspiracies are not a dirty word, they are the operating word these days. Just look around you people, do you really thgink that human beings from the poorest and least privelaged, and weakest nations on the planet have suddeenly descided to take over the world or destroy the rest of us?  Hell no, the state of impending war is not being driven by the people in the west, or by the people in the East, it is being driven by conspiracies.  The one conspiracy which seeks conflict, the war itself , is overriding, it is calling all the shots and has been ever since their first shot, on 9/11.  The connections between the players can be seen in the staggering profits being made in each of the apparently to us, disasters by the same small band of interconnected corporate interests.

The consistency of the current state of affairs and all those which have led us to this time, is contiguous with a vast conspiracy and consistent with a well recorded and reported one to boot.  There is a group who are actually benefiting from what is going down.  Not a single Dr Strangelove character, but an old, experienced and historically ruthless cabal of families. 

What is wrong with calling a conspiracy a conspiracy?  It’s a word, but what support is there for a theory is the matter to be considered.

What is wrong with calling a theory a fact, if all the evidence, scientific, witness testimony and peripheral details tend to point firmly and consistently towards that interpretation?

Rather than a Conspiracy Theory, it has become a conspiracy uncovered.

Posted by Rabbit on Jul 23, 2006 at 9:00 PM

Can I get you to imagine just briefly, Rabbit, that there actually were no deliberately placed implosion/explosion devices in the WTC towers.  There was only the airplane crashes, the resulting jet fuel and content fires, and gravity.

If this was the case, does not the simple fact that a second tower (of identical design and size, when hit by a nearly identical force in a very nearly identical location) collapsed in much the same way as the first provide dramatic confirmation of the theory that indeed the buildings collapsed due to a combination of damage, fire and gravity?

Is not the second collapse really no different than had an identical tower been built and furnished, and had a similar jet flown into it?

The confusing part for the mind is that the towers were close together, and were hit at close to the same time.  It all blurs together as one event.  But the buildings were completely separate entities, and the jets hitting them were completely separate entities as well.  If we assume no bombs, it would be no different than had we actually endeavored to duplicate the events of 9/11 in say Perth, in the land of Oz, just to accommodate folks like you.

I’m not sure you can even get your head around this strange foreign concept, that there really were no bombs that day.  But if you can, even for a moment, is my thinking not correct?

Of course it is.  It’s just plain, simple obvious logic.  Now for the really scary part.  There more than likely weren’t bombs in the buildings.  *gasp*  There’s no physical proof of it.  Nobody of any relevance says there were.  Dozens and dozens of the best and brightest in the fields of building design, building structure, metallurgy, fire safety and many other related sub-specialties participated in the production of an exhaustive extensive report that flatly stated:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Now get your mind around the overwhelming likelihood that you are wrong about bombs in the buildings.  What does that mean?  It means that you have been shilling for, covering for, and basically playing defense attorney for a bunch of sick, brainwashed, hate-filled Islamic extremist racist Nazi-like mass-murderers.  The likelihood is extemely high that this is the case. 

Does that give your paws even the slightest pause?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 23, 2006 at 9:50 PM

Here we go again:

Nat spat:

>Can I get you to imagine just briefly, Rabbit, that there actually were no deliberately placed implosion/explosion devices in the WTC towers.  There was only the airplane crashes, the resulting jet fuel and content fires, and gravity.

Sure. And then, out of sheer jealousy, building 7 which had not been hit by a plane and did not have any jet fuel and only very small fires, was brought down by gravity in a similar manner and at a similar speed. Three buildings collapse in a similar manner, crumbling totally to the ground at a similar rate of collapse, but only two of them were hit by planes.

<snip>

>Now get your mind around the overwhelming likelihood that you are wrong about bombs in the buildings.  What does that mean?  It means that you have been shilling for, covering for, and basically playing defense attorney for a bunch of sick, brainwashed, hate-filled Islamic extremist racist Nazi-like mass-murderers.  The likelihood is extemely high that this is the case.

No, Nat. What is more likely is that the three buildings did not collapse as a result of planes and fires, which means that the likelihood is extremely high that you, Nat, have been shilling for, covering for, and basically playing defense attorney for a bunch of sick, brainwashed, hate-filled Christian fundamentalist extremist racist Nazi-like mass murderers and war criminals. People who think our Constitution is just a piece of paper. People who initiate wars of aggression based on lies. People who had a plan to take away our civil liberties prepared well before 9/11 and gave it to the legislators who had to vote on it the night before the vote so that they wouldn’t have time to actually read the Patriot Act and find out what it was about. People who are so patriotic and supportive of our troops that they sent them to war in inadequate numbers to accomplish the job properly and fired the generals who complained. People who sent our young military personnel to war without proper body armor and cut their benefits so that they could give tax cuts to the rich. People who gather every year at the Bohemian Club for a ceremony called the “Cremation of Care,” and when they give you the finger or tell you to go fuck yourself, are just proving that they really don’t care about anybody but themselves. People who, if there is any justice, belong in and will end up in the dock at Der Hague just like their predecessors.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 23, 2006 at 10:23 PM

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm

The building angle has gone around in batty circles so long, wouldn’t it be food for thought to look at other plane crashes?

This site has some interesting photos. The one that crashed into an apartment complex in Amsterdam is particularly interesting. Note the fifties accident in which two airliners collided over the Grand Canyon. It’s tragic I know, but I keep trying to imagine something that might have made this disaster just a tad bit more disastrous. If I have this fact straight, this wreck over the grand canyon inspired the founding of the FAA.

The crash in Queens just two months after 9/11 is notable too. Does anyone remember hearing about that? Hearing speculation? Was this a terrorist attack too, etc.? Not that Queens is a symbolic target or hotbed of powermongers.

Posted by wileywitch on Jul 23, 2006 at 10:32 PM

Great picture, Wileywitch. Obviously, buildings which are more sturdily constructed with the specific intention that they would be able to withstand plane crashes, like the WTC towers, are less apt to remain standing than buildings, like that Amsterdam apartment complex, that are not. But only in Nat’s fantasy land.

As for blaming 9/11 on Islamic extremists, the FBI has disbanded the unit investigating Osama bin Laden because they found no evidence connecting him to 9/11. So it wasn’t Al Queda. As for the supposed 19 hijackers, several of them are still alive, the supposed pilots simply didn’t have the piloting skills to pull it off, and on one of the planes where autopsies were done, the coroner said that no Arabs had been aboard the plane. So it wasn’t them. And Bush himself admitted that there was no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. So what imaginary Islamic terrorists are to blame? The BBC did a great series called “The Power of Nightmares.” Wake up, Nat. You’re having a government-concocted psy-ops nightmare. The reality is that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without any provocation or imminent threat to us whatsoever, and are destroying their countries because they’ve tried to defend themselves. There’s a long list on another forum of all the suspected Islamic terrorists who were arrested, tried, and found not guilty because there was no evidence against them at all. Of course many are still being held in secret prisons or places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib where people have been tortured even AFTER we knew for a fact that they were innocent cases of mistaken identity.

Although the means, motive, and opportunity existed, and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, I cannot prove that our government did 9/11 the way they’ve done many other false-flag operations. But our government has never proven the involvement of Islamic extremists either. In fact the close connections between government intelligence agencies and some of the alleged 19 hijackers, the fact that they were permitted to enter the U.S., take flying lessons, and that investigations of them were blocked, is extremely suspicious. However if somebody walks into a fast food restaurant with a machine gun and kills a lot of innocent people, would you advise that the families of the victims go out and buy machine guns and walk into other fast food restaurants and kill other innocent people in revenge? If you can’t stop the insanity, at least stop defending it.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 23, 2006 at 11:10 PM

mymarkx says:

“As for the supposed 19 hijackers, several of them are still alive”

And your proof of that is what exactly?

Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 12:20 AM

Oh one of those totally unreliable conspiracy theory news sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Check it out, Nat.

Posted by mymarkx on Jul 24, 2006 at 12:33 AM

THE ZOMBIE TERRORISTS

The manner in which banal circumstances mutate into shadowy mysteries under such conditions is evident in an odd story that caused Mzoudi’s attorney Rosenthal to engage in some speculation in court: the news that at least six of the alleged hijackers were supposedly alive and their voices were being broadcast live through various media outlets several days after the attacks.

Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called “survivors,” but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.

cont…..

Posted by Natalie on Jul 24, 2006 at 12:56 AM