America’s Whipping Boy For 9/11
As a high school freshman, attending a small private prep school, I was one of a number of pranksters. We made the flag disappear from the flagpole. We put goofy hats on the bust of the school patron in the foyer. We organized silent boycotts of the greasy French fries in the lunch room. We dropped books on cue in Latin class.
One day, we went some act of mischief too far, and the headmaster went ballistic at morning assembly. A buzz of anxiety coursed through the school. I forget how, but the damning finger soon pointed to me, and I took the fall. I was summoned to the headmaster’s office, where, wielding a stick with grave ceremony (”This hurts me more than it hurts you”), he inflicted multiple blows on my backside.
The memory of the pain I felt has faded, but not the humiliation. In those days, such corporal punishment was not unusual in schools, and “spanking” was ubiquitous in families. It is notable today how such public violence as a method of disciplining children has become taboo, even if children are still shockingly at risk for abuse in private.
But that memory is revealing to me now as an instance of scapegoating, and the lesson it offers in the social use to which designated victims are put. I was not consciously attuned to the sadomasochistic undercurrent of the event, but inwardly I burned with shame to have been so treated, especially by a figure whose authority was absolute.
Yet the most striking aspect of the experience was the sharp contrast between the private mortification I felt at being beaten in such a way and the public respect it earned me. My degradation stood in marked contrast to the new status I found myself occupying in the aftermath of my “strokes,” as the blows were called. My schoolmates quietly treated me with an unprecedented deference which, at the time, was mystifying. How could such an experience of shaming lead to what was, in effect, a social promotion?
It was not only that I took the punishment that could have been meted out to a handful of others who went undisciplined. It was also that the headmaster’s rage had been mollified, and the communal anguish that had upset the school had been dispelled. The punishment inflicted on me sparked a broad sense of relief, and the gaze with which my mates greeted me was infused with gratitude.
The aftermath of my beating was a period of good feeling in the school. The headmaster’s authority had been reinforced, and with it the structure of order. The affectionate bond among us boys was strengthened as well, and even I felt somehow ennobled. Crucial to this outcome was the fact that I had been physically hurt. A mere bawling out would have resulted in no such mystical cohesion.
Now I understand that violence can have this effect across a range of social situations. Indeed, hurt-induced mystical cohesion accounts in large part for why we humans are addicted to turning on each other with weapons. We find an infinite variety of victims, and their suffering serves a social purpose. African-American men subjected with wild disproportionality to the caged violence of prisons. Muslim “terrorists” in torture camps. Enslaved women. Death row. In case after case, threatened authority locates a victim on whom to unload.
Whether the designated object of punishment is guilty (Saddam Hussein, say) or innocent (the American soldiers whose faces we see on the news each night) does not matter. This impulse to salve communal anxiety by inflicting hurt was the defining core of American public life after Sept. 11. It engendered the present war.
Up until the point of his “Mission Accomplished” celebration on that aircraft carrier, President Bush was the self-satisfied headmaster, and Baghdad was the chastened, if mulish, pupil. An ennobled US population was mainly pleased. No more. The war in Iraq is demonstrably mistaken by now, and American authority has self-destructed. Shame abounds.
In deciding what to do next, we should not compound the mistake by pretending any longer that the adventure was ever rational, just, or any more purposeful than taking a stick to a child in a fit of rage.
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© 2008 The Boston Globe
So what?
“Stick it \/\/“
Actually, bush attacked us. It is not ” we ” ; we are above all this. the bush family ( and their cowardly coven of cohorts )produced last century’s wars, killed the Kennedys and Beatles so they could continue into this century, and rigged up 911 for that purpose.
” WE ” are above all that termite monkey shit.
Bush does not feel shame, and as far as has been demonstrated, is incapable of that emotion.
What he fears, according to psychologists and psychiatrists writing on the subject, is HUMILIATION. To be made to feel humble and worthless in public.
Which is why he is surrounded at all times by compliant sycophants who act upon his every blood soaked whim.
What he needs is a good ‘pie in the face’ with the pie in question filled with theatrical blood. In public. On live TV, while giving one of his ‘rah-rah-isn’t-America-so-blessed’ speeches.
Of course we all know that about two seconds later the prankster of this wonderful moment of karma will be gunned down by the Blackwater goons who now guard Bush…
I agree with hamster. Yes we are shamed, but what will the Congress or Supreme Court do about it? Nothing.
“….President Bush was the self-satisfied headmaster…”
But the important issue understanding Bush’s behaviour was outlined by Frank Cajon, March 19 at 5:09 pm #
“….That smug, uninvolved look on his [Bush]face and tone in his voice is ‘inappropriate affect’. The unseen enemies are ‘paranoia’. The jumbling of words are ‘neo-logisms’ and sometimes, ‘word salad’. Bush’s repetition of the same expression regardless of its’ appropriateness to the real world situation is a form ‘perseveration’. The voice of God he hears is an ‘auditory hallucination’. The disorder is often seen in people with a history of abuse of drugs and alcohol, even in the remote past, especially cocaine and amphetamines. The lack of the ability to determine right from wrong, the tendency to proceed regardless of the consequences are symptoms of ‘anti-social personality traits’ as is his compulsive telling of lies regardless of the fact that the listener knows that he is misrepresenting the facts. His conducting himself as if everything is fine and he is well is a combination of ‘illogical association of ideas’ and ‘poor insight into the nature of his condition’. The suspiciousness, the fear of enemies that require secret wire taps and spying is consistent with some symptoms of what in lay terms is called a ‘Schizo-Affective Personality Disorder.’ He is not going to improve the way someone with a simple thought disorder (like Schizophrenia) might, because his patterns of behaviour are deeply seated in his personality. This disorder is like an eating disorder one of the most difficult to treat, even with medication and therapy, often because they are subtle and difficult to diagnose. The problem with him is that he will continue to fall further into the spiral of this illness even after his term ends. He will withdraw from the public eye, and even his closest friends will become enemies. He will become in many ways like Richard M Nixon, whose similar disorder was not as severe but was complicated by chronic alcoholism.
________________________________________
Take the profit out of war and most wars will never begin.
excellent essay, Mr. Carroll
… but when will we ever learn? or better … when will we put into practice what we do learn?
sigh …
RE: Galen April 14th, 2008 11:21 am
“Which is why he is surrounded at all times by compliant sycophants who act upon his every blood soaked whim.”
Where is our Brutus when we are in desperate need of him?
James Carroll is one more example of how the scapegoat mechanism can restore peace and unity to a community. All human institutions are dependent on violence toward a scapegoat for their founding and continued existence. Civilization is an illusion. Civic clubs are dangerous enclaves.
Read Renee Girard, VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED.
Is that all we can do is elect people with Alzheimer’s, sex addicts, sociopaths, and now there’s Hillary who even while campaigning has been caught out in numerous lies and made clear she will do anything to get elected, no matter how low, and she’s still considered a viable candidate. Don’t we have any self respect? Don’t we want honesty, decency and clear thinking in our President?
simonhhh, your quote from Frank Cajon was disturbing and mainly because it accurately describes Bush. The book Bush on the Couch analyzed his childhood and similarly describes anti-social personality disorder. Scary. He may well be the most dangerous President we’ve had. He was well coached by Rove to present himself as a moderate governor but once President the gloves came off “Now I’m President, see, I don’t need to listen to anyone. People need to listen to me”. “The Constitution is just a G-damned piece of paper”. So what was that oath of office he took? Just a G-damned lie.
The scariest part is that the American public is so easily fooled. And those of us who are not can only helplessly watch this Titanic sink, our voices ignored.
I wonder if Bush is a mirror of what our society is becoming?
kathyodat
Ask yourself this:
If 9/11 was a completely unpredicted sneak attack…
How was ALL but one truckload of the gold repository held in the Twin Towers evacuated DURING the emergency? Where did they get the trucks? How did they know which day it would happen? Were the trucks just there on standby 24/7 as a precaution, SOP?
And why were the various US intelligence agencies who had office space in the Twin Towers all but empty that day?
How did BBC news know to announce the collapse of Building 7 when it was clearly visible over the shoulder of the reporter? Did the BBC have a tip-off that the implosion was imminent, but human error led to a premature announcement?
Even one of the chairs of the 9/11 commission now says they were blocked from legitimate lines of inquiry. Why? What would have been revealed if a PROPER investigation had happened?
PaulMagillSmith- I have an intuitive nagging that Bush will not see the elections in November. Part of me is thinking Cheney will have him liquidated in the ‘October Surprise’ that will usher in the coming war with Iran and the declaration of martial law in the US thanks to Presidential Directive 51.
While Mr. Carroll’s piece may explain the mood and sentiment of much of ordinary America while the Bushies were praparing to jump off, it is completely wrong (imho) equating Bush with his headmaster.
(Again, imho) the neocons have correctly surmised that we are entering the age of the end of petroluem, and while we are the militarily superior force on this planet, the time to act was now. Again, they were correct, but the manner in which the chose to act was completely, cynically, and self-destructively wrong. Only a little more time will pass, and all the masks will come off, and we’ll recognize that we are full tilt in a global war for resources.
How about it Kucinich, Obama or Hillary? Will you introduce a bill to require congressional approval for any presidential pardons (to the neocon scum)?
An ennobled US population was mainly pleased
I can tell you I was never pleased. Anyone with a brain knew the whole thing [9/11, WMD’s, hating our freedom] was just an excuse used by the neo-cons to further their hedgemonic desires. I also knew it was a stupid plan that would never work. I told my Congressman after the attack, that the main cause of friction in Iraq was the presence of our occupation force. He said we have to stay till the situation is stabilized. Well, I think most of us know that they [our elite ruler’s] never plan on leaving. This is the use of our tax dollars to enrich the already rich. It has been a miserable failure from my aspect. It ruined our country financially, while managing to destroy two already destitute countries, and kill a million or two people.
And let’s not forget the fact that they did 9/11. Justice for the perpatrators!
“So”
“So What”
I forget which is the tretise of Chomsky and which one belongs to Cheyney?
This letter is a real waste of time, who cares about this guy’s love of authority, I hate authority and always will, authority should always be mistrusted, always held in check and held accountable…that’s what justice, freedom and democracy is all about..9/11 was an inside job with Israeli zionists, like Rothchilde leading the charge…Google video “Ring of Power Illuminati” it explains everything and boy do we have our work cut out for us…they, the illuminati, are so afraid of Obama they will do to him what they did to Lincoln, JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy and others…Obama is laying low for the moment but when he gets the power, kaboom, the Rothchilds and Rockefellers will start calling their mafia buddies.
What I find most intriguing about John Carroll’s latest offering is that while he vividly remembers the process of being humiliated with degrading punishment, and remembers the cathartic effect that scapegoating had within the social system of his school after all these years, he cannot apparently recall what the precipitating “act of mishief too far” even was, nor how the “damning finger” soon came to single Mr. Carrol out from the other usual suspects among his classmates.
I strongly doubt that many of the Gitmo or Bagram detainees will experience similar lapses of memory, if they survive their ordeals and return to the communities from which they were seized. I thought this was the direction Carroll’s article might be leading us, up until its end. The analogy switched from America as 9/11 victim into Iraq as the 9/11 victim (of Uncle Sam the headmaster).
I agree that a major factor in Bush’s ability to muster Congressional assent and public support for the invasion of Iraq was “to salve communal anxiety by inflicting hurt” upon a regime and people that really did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Although John Carroll (and no doubt the former headmaster who administered the flogging) have both long forgotten what the prank was, and what proof supposedly existed to justify naming this particular student as the designated representative culprit for authoritarian wrath, I do not expect very many people in the Middle East to develop comparable historical amnesia. End of parrallel.
Bill from Saginaw
BeForKids April 14th, 2008 12:17 pm
Thanks for your response…I think I am as equally ‘disturbed’ as you and totally agree with your comment-
“…Scary. He may well be the most dangerous President we’ve had!!!!….”
William Street had it right. Our collective need to deny our responsibility for attacking the wrong country continues to baffle me. I thought good people seek to know when they are doing wrong and try to make it right, at once. John Thomas Ellis
Galen: I’ve had similar suspicions. Bush is clearly expendable, since he is not a source of good ideas or real leadership even within the neocon movement.
A murder was committed.
The suspect was the butler. The SWAT team moved in and assaulted the butler’s house, shooting out the walls and lighting it on fire. The butler wasn’t there.
Oh well. The SWAT team attacked the maid’s house and she was executed for …. being bad.
The SWAT team is engaged in brutal, unending war with the maid’s family.
The butler got away.
The murder was never solved.
The maid was killed for no reason and the police force is becoming a gang of renogades.
This story stinks. I think Ed Wood is responsible.
More pretty words for a choir sick of pretty words desperately seeking still elusive solutions.
The “founding fathers” made one grave mistake: they did not prepare a plan for the possibility of ALL branches of government and the two most powerful pol parties and Big Consolidated Corporate Media and most Transnational Corporations teaming up against We The People.
Screw the pretty words already - it’s time for ugly actions!
The analogy is all wrong, the headmaster carried out the mischief and then punished the innocent, it wasn’t mistaken identity at all and there will be no increase in anybody’s esteem.
Whether Oboma ever lives long enough to sit in the oval office is open to question given the record of this administration.
This little parable still doesn’t explain why H.W. and April Glaspie got off scot-free for their participation in this ridiculous debacle… not to mention Tom Lantos and his bogus story about stolen incubators and Kuwaiti baby brains splattered all over the place!
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
Oh that’s right. Saddam did become a nationally respected hero inspite of his totalitarian and cruel, paranoid behavior after his failed attempt to chasten Kuwait back into shape…,
Kuwait being the original offender in all of this to begin with…
WTF……………………………….oh, nevermind…
this story is a mess. pitiful, petty as allegory. full of pronouncements many people do not share or believe- Saddam guilty? maybe for some other things but certainly not this. our soldiers innocent? have you even thought once about how many innocent Iraqis they have bombed and shot and hellfired? who was “ennobled”? nobody.
TO:JAMES CARROLL: This small catholic column aside, the nation owes you a debt of gratitude for your searing, seminal book, HOUSE OF WAR, about the founding and history of the PENTAGON, and the moving relationship between a little boy (you) who played in its halls and the powerful shadow your father, Air Force General Carroll played in shaping who you became. Your book accurately traced the growth of a now wholly dominant Industrial-Military-Congressional-Corporatist culture from its World War 2 inception. Why isn’t better known? Go one C-Span and talk about it!!!! NOW
hey Nietzsche, man…u so heavy. i heard squeaky fromm is ready to give up her allegiance to charles and go over to you
So 9/11 was a prank and Bush was the headmaster, who is punishing those responsible for the prank, a bit too harshly. A bit understated IMHO.
How about this?. The headmaster blows up a classroom in room 911 with 30 kids and a teacher in it. He blames it on one the teachers of one of the other classes, a Muslim, in room 311. His alibi is he was reading My Pet Goat to one of the classes in room 666 when room 911 blew up and his school security system was underfunded.
After an outcry in the community, he gets a bigger budget and more authority. So he blows up room 311, with another 30 kids in it, but the teacher, who got his job due to his connections with the headmasters supervisor of discipline, jokingly called the CIA, got away and is still is free somewhere in the school, maybe hiding in a closet of the headmasters buddy, teacher Mush, in room 333.
He then gets a bigger budget and more authority. So he blows up another class in room 611, because he kind of looks like the teacher in room 311 and maybe was his friend, although most say they were enemies, and his boss Sharon didn’t like him, maybe because he isn’t the right religion, and there goes another 30 kids, and he got the teacher this time.
In the meantime, he begins a crackdown on security in the school with his bigger budget, and listens in on all the kids and teachers conversations, makes them go through security checks, and if anyone complains, gives them a spanking, or sends them to the GITMO school of education where they are waterboarded, all with his new authority.
There is another teacher he tells us might be a bad guy, and he is in room 111. He wants to blow him up too, but the school is kind of banged up with all the bombs going off, and it’s getting expensive, and people are kind of looking at him funny and thinking maybe he had something to do with room 911, and his boss Sharon had a stroke, so he holds off.
Now he says, the guy who started it all and did room 911, his AQ organization is getting bigger and stronger, and might do something worse, and he might have something to do with the teacher in room 111, who might nuke the school, even though his security teams says he doesnt have them. From his closet in room 333, must be some big closet, the teacher said to have arranged room 911 is able to get word out that he is not happy with the Pope, who happens to be coming to visit the headmaster on Wednesday.
The Pope is a brave man visiting that school of the headmaster, where bad things happen.
Thats a bit closer to the truth. Wonder what the pranksters next prank will be.
“gold repository held in the Twin Towers ”
How much gold was held there?
“And why were the various US intelligence agencies who had office space in the Twin Towers all but empty that day?”
What agencies are that and how many workers wre involved?
“How did BBC news know to announce the collapse of Building 7 when it was clearly visible over the shoulder of the reporter? Did the BBC have a tip-off that the implosion was imminent, but human error led to a premature announcement?
Can you think of any advantage of leaking the collapse ahead of time over them juste reporting it as it happened?
Thanks in advance!
JakeNewton- 950 MILLION dollars in gold was in the repository. only a fraction was recovered from one crushed truck found in the basement weeks later.
The agencies were the NEw York field offices of the CIA, FBI and NSA.
THe BBC reported the COMPLETE COLLAPSE of Building 7 about fifteen minutes or so before it actually happened. Not the IMPENDING collapse. The reporter was speaking in PAST TENSE, and spoke of it happening about half an hour earlier. All the while, Building 7 was visible over her left shoulder. Try looking for ‘BBC Building 7′ on youtube.
The military Commander In Chief is presently George W. Bush, he has been for the past seven long and truly tragic years.
That’s the first big problem. The second is, the guy who is his brain is Dick Cheney. The third is, even if he stole Ohio and Florida, he still garnered enough votes in the rest of the United States to be our president.
On the Arabian “nights” attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on the infamous 9-11 day? ___ That’s the fuse that lit the bomb which has destroyed the U.S. treasury and caused our economic disaster and also broke the once powerful U.S. Army.
Brilliant Bush didn’t really need that day to start his oil war, but it sure did help. No one wired the buldings with explosives in order to collapse them, but the fact they did collapse and also near 3,000 innocent people were murdered that day, was the “Remember 9-11″ battle cry Bush used, blaming Saddam for assisting Osama bin Laden.
The vast majority of Americans believed that lie and because of the 9-11 attacks they were really pissed. We went to war so a very few could control the Iraqi oil and the rest is very bad history.
And awayyyyyy we go._________ you started it Jake.
Popcorn Kem?
We are ALL Iraqis.
In that sense we are all Vietnamese, Mongolians and Jews too.
Now we need some social justice salve in a new 9-11 investigation, along with charges of war crimes for Bush and the cronies. Taking these elitist bastards down and revealing their crimes would be the best thing for the country and the restoration of a stolen Democracy. Let’s get on with it. Indict, convict and imprison.
We do need another “open forum” 9-11 investigation and not one chaired by Henry Kissinger. It should be a Congressional investigation and take however long it requires, to answer “every single question” posed by both those who believe the buildings at the trade center were imploded and those who believe otherwise.
I believe otherwise and have very good reasons for that opinion. I have read the reports written amd watched many videos of the 9-11 disaster. Many very important issues were NEVER raised or answers to questions put into those reports and had they been, there would be little reason for any logical or sensible controversy.
If any wish to honestly and civily debate that, I will be happy to do so.
Probably won’t need the popcorn Jake, doubt this one will have 876 blogs.
Hey ~GALEN~, did you accidently mis-type with a post on the gold issue?
In one you stated ALL but one truck load of gold was evacuated during the emergency.___ In your next post, you say none was recovered except for one crushed truck which was finally found with only a fraction of the gold.
I heard that immediately after the gold had been recovered, the search for any possible victems still alive at the site was ended, by order of Mayor Juliani. Bush wasn’t there to give any orders, he was still in hiding, reading the Goat story and trying to grasp its meaning.
Hi Kem,
That is why I was a bit surprised that the 9/11 Commission came up with its opinion so quickly. The investigation was too fast to be “thorough.” Also consider the people who were assigned by the Bush Administration to that investigation. I agree with you that it is time to have an independent panel of investigators take their time and not be swayed by any political influence. But who would be those people?
Yes, Bush did attack the United States in response. His attack was more deep and broad than anything that Osama could fantasize. Idiot George (and company) has given the United States of America a whipping from which it may not recover. And to think that the he played into the real “Mission Accomplished” words of Osama — when Osama vowed from day one to break the economy and bankroll of the United States bringing America to its knees. Yes, Bush is the dumb puppet of Cheney and other domestic black hearts –but he is also the blinded servant of Osama.
I didn’t know bin Laden said that ~JEFFERY~, but I can certainly believe he did and if he did, he sure called it.
Hi ~Claudius~. How ya doin good buddy? Who on the new 9-11 commission? I dunno. I personally know a lot of people I’d recommend but no politicians, or elected judges. We’d need some well known personalities.
I’d like to see Keith Olbermann, Imus, Oprah Winfrey, Paul Newman, Walter Cronkite, Lee Iacooca, John Madden, Kem Bassinger, two strutrical engineers and professors of such, two aeronautical engineers and proessors of such, two metalurgists, two chemists, two firemen and two policmen, all with twenty years of experience. That ought to do it.
Oh need some guys andgals to make coffee and take notes. Monica and Me. And COCO to chair the committe, really. She’s obviously sensible and very smart.
Conspiracies to investigate:
Brutus did not stab Ceaesar. Who really killed Ceasar?
Who killed Cock Robin? Not the sparrow.
And what of the innocent bystander in all of this? The Iraqi children!
How do the designers of this tragedy sleep at night?
Do they believe somehow that God will forgive them their terrible transgressions?
That somehow in all of this, that in the end, God is going to pat them on the back and say, ‘it’s all ok little boy,now go and play’.
No, I think they are going straight to the evil headmaster to be whipped for eternity.
911 The Biggest Heist in History!
A Billion in Gold.
The Country
Your Mind.
They made Three Buildings Disappear!
And with them,
Your Humanity and
FREEDOM.
TO:JAMES CARROLL: This small catholic column aside, the nation owes you a debt of gratitude for your searing, seminal book, HOUSE OF WAR, about the founding and history of the PENTAGON, and the moving relationship between a little boy (you) who played in its halls and the powerful shadow your father, Air Force General Carroll played in shaping who you became. Your book accurately traced the growth of a now wholly dominant Industrial-Military-Congressional-Corporatist culture from its World War 2 inception. Why isn’t better known? Go one C-Span and talk
———————–
i AGREE IT IS A CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE THAT EVERYONE READ HOUSE OF WAR RIGHT NOW. STOP SCANTRONING AND SCANTRONING AND MUSTARDING YOUR NEAR FUTURE LUNCH AND READ THIS BOOK NOW.
NOW. I WOULD USE CAPS EVEN IF I WEREN’T TIRED FROM HYBERBOLE SINCE NOVEMBER OF 1963.
AND GET EVERYONE ELSE TO READ IT NOW. IT IS 9/3RDS OF OUR ONLY SALVATION! (sorry, i was taught by an escaped German that if you typed a categorical imperative it had to be in caps)
Kem- the recovered gold was the one crushed truck.
Hi Kem,
It is good hearing from you. I am doing well, and hope you are too. I like your list of suggested panelists. It is too bad we can’t replace Bush’s minions in the White House with these people.
Bush let 9/11 happen. He did nothing about the U.S.S. Kole and did not want to even hear the name Al Qaida. It took 9 months for Richard Clarke to even get a meeting with the President and the cabinet on terrorism. That was only a few days before 9/11.
I think Bush and Cheney new Al Qaida would do something, but I do not think that they had something this big in mind. It is a power principle that in disaster comes opportunity. Now we are more than 6 years downstream in time, tens of thousands dead, 4 trillion more in debt and not safer. War is profitable for Republican contractors.
We didn’t need bin Laden’s assurance of breaking the economy…we had the neocon’s to do that for us…
War is money and profit. They would have found a war somewhere, with or without bin Laden.
“U.S.S. Kole”
The USS *Cole* was attacked Oct. 12 2000, well before Bush took office. It was Clinton who was in charge, also when WTC got hit the first time.
So gratuitous physical violence is “ennobling” for both perpetrator and victims, and brings an “affectionate bond” and “mystical cohesion” to the victims?
First of all, what kind of sick crap are they teaching in Catholic schools?
Secondly, this is supposed to justify Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq?
This is perverted! I shudder to think how altar boys may have benefited by being sexually assaulted by Catholic priests!
This is sick beyond words. I’m beginning to think the Catholic schools are as bad as the Islamic madrasas. Not to mention the evangelical Christian brainwashing centers. They’re all teaching insanity.
Investigating the Kole would have led them to bin Laden. It took months to get cooperation in the investigation that Clinton started and Bush should have continued. He did not.
Good posts! Not much left to add here.
But here’s the link to building WTC7 video showing it still standing. Google banned this video. Here it is on YouTube, called the “Jane Standley Enhanced version”. It shows Jane Standley with the BBC announcing 20 minutes prior to its collapse that the “Saloman Bros. building beside the tower had collapsed as well”. On the screen behind Jane is a picture of the scene, clearly showing this building as whole and standing. How did the BBC know it was going to collapse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Sjc_1- The CIA did talk to Ossama binLadin about the USS Cole bombing. He was in a US army base hospital receiving kidney dialysis. THE SECTION CHEIF was the one who performed the interview.
And released binLadin.
Ossama binLadin and Al Queada are CIA fronts, bought and paid for.
OBL is a patriot, he (MUST BE)
HE does just as geo_shrubery_in_slime ask$
Osama bin Laden would be in Crawford, but he’s alergic to sage brush and bull-shit.
9/11 was clearly and inside job. Metal frame building simply do not fall at free fall speed, period. Unless of course they had been rigged for demolition.
“How did the BBC know it was going to collapse?”
Ostensibly they were leaked this information by the cabal involved with wiring it for demolition. Why do you think thet would do that? Why not just let the news outlets report events as they happened?
This is the third time I’ve asked this in this thread, with no answer.
“Metal frame building simply do not fall at free fall speed, period.”
There is no conclusive evidence they fell at “free fall speed”. None, no video clearly shows the start and stop times of the collapse events. In fact, the videos clearly show debris that had already broken loose outpacing the progress of the rest of the building. This fact disproves free fall speeds.
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a “Tube in a tube” design as with WTC1&2
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8″ bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down.
Jake,
Rather than your “duplicative” test above, wouldn’t it be better to first establish what mathematicians call the “existence” of the class of phenomenon under question?
In this case, it would seem to be to show a prior instance of the total collapse of a (damaged) high-rise steel building (with subsequent fire).
A more limited subset would be to show an example of the “symmetric” (however measured) total collapse of such a building.
While I am not aware of any such examples, that of course is not sufficient to answer this question.
Paul Craig Roberts, Ronald Reagan’s Assist. Sec. of the Treasury, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, father of Reaganonmics said, “The official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.”
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. He said:
“David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. … I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!”
Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
He said: “Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems. All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
He said: ” “In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.”
Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
He said: “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”
Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko’s explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
Jowenko had this conversation:
Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
Danny Jowenko: Yes, that’s right.
Jeff Hill: And I’ve come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn’t have came down by fire.
Danny Jowenko: No, it — absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you’ve looked at the building, you’ve looked at the video and you’ve determined with your expertise that –
Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn’t be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: OK, ’cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder — I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, “There’s no way that’s true.”
Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: ‘Cause if anybody was — Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , “Oh, it’s possible it came down from fire” and this and that and stuff like that –.
Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, “No, it was a controlled demolition”, you’re gone. You know?
Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you’ll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That’s the end of your — the end of the story.
Jeff Hill: Yeah, ’cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, “Pull it” in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn’t — didn’t want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously ’cause they knew what happened and they didn’t want to say it.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly
Robert David Steele (Vivas) – U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years. Second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Also former clandestine services case officer with the CIA. 25-year U.S. military and intelligence career. Currently Founder and CEO of OSS.net and a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
He said: “The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over,” said Steele adding, “I’m absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I’m concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There’s no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.”
Gainsayers, naysayers, debunkers, and amateur sleuths have their theories, some more plausible than others, some not worth even responding to. The above is a very short list of statements (there are many, many more just like these) of the opinions of experts and imminently credible people about the likelihood of controlled demolition bringing down the WTC towers. Folks are certainly entitled to their opinions, but it seems rather presumptuous to dismiss this collection of expertise and opinions without a thorough investigation ever having been completed.
Is this the beginning of week two of 9/11 truth on Common Dreams?
Damn, JAKE, I’m so convinced …
that building should have fallen over weeks earlier, it was a disaster just waiting for … the neoCONnut jobs agenda.
… just two 5/8 bolts, Wow I really find that extraordinarily STUPID design, as I used that size bolt on by house’s foundation retrofit (actually dozens of ‘em), which is not even 2 stories and under 1000 sqft.
“Rather than your “duplicative” test above, wouldn’t it be better to first establish what mathematicians call the “existence” of the class of phenomenon under question?”
If I understand what you propose, I am not sure how it helps. Just because you would not be able to show something similar happening before would not mean that it didn’t/couldn’t happen on 9/11. There is a first time for everything.
” just two 5/8 bolts, Wow I really find that extraordinarily STUPID design, ”
I had said this:
“…had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8″ bolts.”
You will now explain exactly why that is incorrect.
“If I understand what you propose, I am not sure how it helps. Just because you would not be able to show something similar happening before would not mean that it didn’t/couldn’t happen on 9/11. There is a first time for everything.”
But controlled demolition is not an unprecedented phenomenon, it has been done many times before. So it seems to me that those denying controlled demolition are the ones doing the “special pleading” and the ones with the burden to show that total collapse could occur without controlled demolition.
IMHO, neither NIST nor Bazant come anywhere close to showing how local fire-induced failure produces total symmetrical collapse. Also, I believe such symmetric total collapse (due to fire) is unlikely at the level of the “hurricane in a junk yard” producing an airliner so beloved of the ID crowd, not at the coin-flip level.
“total symmetrical collapse. ”
WHat do you think of the one tower clearly slumping toward one corner before the rest of the collapse?
I think that was when “they” had to throw the switches connected to the “disintegration” charges that pulverized the entire block of the building above the impact zone.
Without such controlled demolition “backup” or “redundancy”, I believe that block of the top stories would have continued rotating outside the footprint of the building and crashed (as a block) on hapless buildings hundreds of feet away from that (south?) tower.
I also believe that such a scenario is precisely what the NIST simulations kept predicting would happen, and why these simulation results had to be suppressed and the “analysis” terminated at the onset of (local) failure.
There was a most important issue with the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which was never addressed or mentioned in the 9-11 Commissin or the NIST reports. Very important. Had it been addressed, there would not be so many who believe the buildings were imploded with thermite explosives.
Bear with me please, for I do know from years of experience what I’m talking about on this issue, which was not ever brought up and I can sort of understand why it was not.
First let’s briefly discuss the design of all three buidings. The design was unusual and when compared to all other high rises, was light in weight. The “central core” of the building was bolted and welded steel beams. Attached to the 110 story high steel frame core, were projecting steel beams on which the 110 floors were attached.
The four inch thick concrete floors were reinforced with a heavy steel mesh, they were also considered to be light in weight, which when compared to all other high rise buildings, they indeed were.
Now both towers were definently hit in the center of their upper portions, by huge almost fully fueled, 757 aircraft, which were flying at speeds approaching 500 mph. Ka-Boom! When the aircraft struck and then ENTERED the buildings, the thousands of pounds of fuel they carried ignited. Most of the aircraft parts stayed within the buildings and stayed on the floors where they entered at an angle and several floors were effected and immediately engulfed in flames. ___That is very important.
Now it is often claimed, and with justification, that burning jet fuel will NOT burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel. Good point. It can burn hot enough to cause steel to lose its tensile strength and bend, or warp, but I don’t belieleve that is the big problem, which was never addressed, was the cause of the buildings to collapse.
Very, very briefly. When a Boeing jetliner is manufactured, it begins with the aircraft’s main farme, then the wings and tail assembly, main landng gear, then wiring, flooring, windows, the cockpit, etc, and finally the outer aluminum skin, Then the engines are attached and it’s rolled out of the hanger. ___Very briefly that’s about how it goes.
This is very important. By weight, most of the millions of aircraft parts are of a metal called “magnesium alloy”. Probably magnesium alloy accounts for 60% to 70% of the total un-refueld aircraft weight. I cannot say for certain exactly how many tons of magnesium are in a 757 aircraft. ___ Several hundred tons of “magnesium alloy metal” however.
Magnesium is light-weight, very strong and long lasting. Many of the 757 aircraft parts are very thick magnesium alloy, the main frame, landing gear, wing frames etc. Even the huge landilng gear wheels are magnesium. It is difficult to set magnesium alloy afire, but in a huge fuel fire, it will always ignite after a few minuttes of intense flames.
When magnesium begins to burn, it is very difficult to put out, you have to smother it with foam or sand. If you spray it with water it will explode and it will burn while submerged in water. ____ Most importantly, ___magnesium burns at 4,000 degrees F temps. ___ hot enough to easily to turn heavy steel beams into molten metal.
Magnesium fires will also leave residue on steel which may be near any magnesium fire, which very much resembles ‘thermite’ explosive fire, as do “thermte welds”.
So now picture this: A heavy, almost fully fueled 757 aircraft, slams into the building and the main fuselage then slams into the steel framed inner core of the bulding. There we have elevators, mechanical access areas, building’s piping, wiring, ducting and emergency stairways. This massive and now ball of fire is burning in the central core area and some fuel goes down elevator shafts and sets fuel fires below those floors.
It’s a fireman’s worst nightmare. The fuel from the aircraft’s center wing tank is on fire and there are hundreds of TONS of magnesium stacked up against the central core and inside the central core and it finaly lights up and is burning at temps of near 4,000 degrees and it will burn for several hours unless smothered. It continued to burn in the basements after the buildings fell. None of that was EVER mentioned in any official reports. __ Why not?
I don’t know why not, it certainly should have been. I wasn’t on those panels so I can only surmise.___ One theory I have is, the investigators were aware of such an event, but only said the fires were very hot and it would have caused the steel beams to warp, bend or melt. They just didn’t elaborate on the type of fires. They should have known magnesium burns at very high temps, if any were on the panels who know aircraft at all. Maybe none familiar with aircraft were on the panels but I rather doubt that.
So back to the magnesium burning. The South tower fell after an hour of fire and the north about one and a half hours of fire. During those hours the steel beams which supported the floors where the magnesium was burnig and IT had to be burning, the steel beams would have finally melted and the floor would have had to fall onto the floor beneath it. Four inches of concrete floor, reinforced with heavy steel mesh and that mesh would have actted like cheeze cutters, turning the concrete into tiny chunks and powdery dust.
There the aircraft magnesium continued to burn and the same thing happened again. Explosions were heard. Of course, drop a multi-ton concrete floor ten feet onto another concrete floor, which is full of steel desks and filing cabinets and you’ll hear lots of explosions.
Meanwhile, the heat from those 4,000 degree fires drafted right up the central core like a great big chimney with a tornado inside of it and that heated more of th ecore’s steel beams and finally the building could not take any more and it fell ’straight down’, according to a Newton law of phyics. Once a few floors collapsed, the building’s structural integrity would have been compromised and they fell straight down in just a few seconds. I saw them fall on live televised programs, ___ no argument there.
Beneath the buildingw were huge parking garages, full of vehicles, thousands of behicles. There were fires down there, very likely caused by the magnesium fires which still had to be burning when the buildings fell. Those fires burned for weeks. Imagine how many rubber tires and gallons of gasoline were down there?
How mny MAG whels on vehicles? MAG wheels were very popular those years. There are several pounds of magnesium in every vehicle car bus, subway train car and trucks. Add up several thousand vehicles and you have tons more magnesium burning and the result is a volcano and pools of molten metal found in the basemnets when it finally ended.
Thermite explosives? ___ NO!___ Magnesium fueled fires.
That’s a heck of a trick Professor.
Fire is a MacGuffin, in the Alfred Hitchcock sense, a diversion, a distraction (like Janet Leigh stealing the bank deposit money at the start of Psycho). Fire,whether at 1000 or 4000 degrees, is chaotic and heterogenous. I do not see how fire can weaken all the critical points of a redundant high-rise steel building *simultaneously*.
And if ALL the critical points are not weakened simultaneously, then failure should be asymmetric (falling over to the side of the upper stories) towards the most severely weakened section.
Also, a concrete slab falling 10 feet onto another concrete floor slab will NOT pulverize the concrete in either slab. Your assumptions about “cheeze cutter” action of reinforcing steel are way off the mark. (Also, wasnt the WTC floor system a corrigated steel pan underlayment system, not reinforced concrete?)
The floors were four inch thick, of what was termed “LIGHT WEIGHT” concrete. In it’s center was very heavy steel mesh rods, and who is it that says I’m incorrect to state, that when suddenly dropped ten feet, after being heated by intense and very hot fire, that the metal reinforcing rods would not pulverize the concrete? Prove me wrong?
Who denies the buildings fell straight down, bomm, boom, boomm, like a stack of heavy cards? Once a few floors fell, the entire building collapsed and fell straight down, the extremely high heat in the central core would have warped steel beams all the way up.
Once a floor has several other concrete floors laying on it, it will fall also and as they fell, each floor increased in both volumn and weight. Those floors were never designed to hold the weight of two or three other floors.
The steel beams where the floors attached to the central core and only at the central core, would have melted where any magnesium fires burned. There were massive magnesium fires burning. Jake is also correct, the support trusses were attached with only two 5/8 bolts. ___ Check it out.
“And if ALL the critical points are not weakened simultaneously, then failure should be asymmetric (falling over to the side of the upper stories) towards the most severely weakened section.”
And we saw that (I think) with the initial slumping of the corner of one of thwe towers.
This link containd links to various papers explaining the collapse, including one coming out of MIT. Let me know what you think:
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
Had the towers been constructed with “outer” support steel beams, it probably would have had to have all support beams cut or imploded in sequence to fall straight down. The towers and buliding seven were not designed nor built that way. Big difference, as it so turned out. They did fall straight down and they were not imploded with thermite.
One may call the fires a “McGaffen”, or a “McGuffin”, or a Mc-baloney” if they want to do so. But there is absolutley no sensible argument, that the aircraft entered the buildings and they had to burn and it would have been magnesium burning and it would have melted steel floor support beams until they were molten metal. Molten metal was seen flowing fron the side of the building. ___ ‘Magnesium!
A thermite explosion would have been a flash fire and not caused pools of molten metal, unless thermite grenades were used and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There was no evidence of explosive residue found and dog teams trained to detect explosives were brought in from other states. No explosives were detected in any amount necessary to even bring down a concrete outhouse.
The slumping was not followed by the continued rotation of that (mostly) detached entity,
as is required by the law of conservation of momentum.
Instead is was disintegrated into dusts, prior to it’s even collapsing into a heap on top of the rest of the structure.
Your acceptance of non-symmetrical START of collapse, is an empty affront to the obvious logic OF near IMPOSSIBILITY of symmetrical collapse, as proven by the fact that there is NO CONTINUATION of that slump and rotation.
Your logic and powers of observation do not begin to explain what occurred.
Namaste
Jake,
The Bazant and Zhou paper (”Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis”) was published by MIT, but the authors are from Northwestern.
In their Appendix 2, “Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?” they discuss the south tower rotating initially at the top. However, the assumptions they make about the conditions of this rotation (i.e., that it occurs as a pure rotation, without the mass simultaneously dropping or moving laterally in a center of mass sense) are designed to maximum the calculated resistive response of the intact part of the structure. I do not consider these assumptions realistic at all.
Bazant calculates that the pivot would begin to self-correct at only 2.8 degrees of rotation, while the image on the web shows something much greater (I would guess 20 degrees at least). This discrepancy is not explained in this paper.
The assumptions of progressive collapse that Bazant uses to calculate that progressive collapse was “inevitable” once it began I also do not consider to be realistic (top block dropping one story with NO resistance).
Just my opinion, but I am not in any sense impressed by this paper.
KEM — while you obviously like the image of molten metal burning through and into the central core, you fail to even obliquely align with eye-witness testimony and the use of the stairs, and firefighters own statements as to the lack of severity of the fires (needed only 2 hoses to extinguish).
The burden of proof of massive and sustained fires at the core is NOT met, and hasn’t even been introduced as a causal bystander to logical events, as we know people were in the airplane crash area, the video show them waving for attention.
As to the connection between jet fueled to magnesium fueled fires, none of the video evidence shows the brilliant white color of magnesium, and most experts feel that most of the jet fuel was ignited at initial impact with perimeter wall.
So JAKE, why no challenge for the proof of this Humongous fire?
Is it because your pay master’s theories are being supported, so you cave-in your usually abrasive disdain and arrogance of unproven statements? Your non-objective adherence to an agenda, against all pursuit of truth is thereby demonstrated.
Namaste
“The slumping was not followed by the continued rotation of that (mostly) detached entity,”
How do you know what was attached or not? Components and subassemblies that is.
“Instead is was disintegrated into dusts”
Not really, there were pretty large pieces in the pile. The whole dust thing is overblown, there were pieces larger than dust.
“However, the assumptions they make about the conditions of this rotation (i.e., that it occurs as a pure rotation, without the mass simultaneously dropping or moving laterally in a center of mass sense) are designed to maximum the calculated resistive response of the intact part of the structure. I do not consider these assumptions realistic at all.”
TO clarify, what are the additional or alternate assumptions you feel must be made?
“as we know people were in the airplane crash area, the video show them waving for attention.”
Are you still ignorant of the counter to this “point”?
Make “points”, ignore the counter points, repeat original point.
“Also, a concrete slab falling 10 feet onto another concrete floor slab will NOT pulverize the concrete in either slab. Your assumptions about “cheeze cutter” action of reinforcing steel are way off the mark. ”
I voiced no cheese cutter assumptions, don’t know what you are getting at. Also, why do you think *all* the concrete was pulverized to dust?
Jake,
Bazant should have used the SAME assumptions he used in the “progressive collapse” main section of the paper: the vertical columns at the failure zone imparted NO resistance to the vertical motion. So why assume “intact” level of resistance to horizontal motion?
And if the center of mass is dropping AND moving laterally, as it appears to me in the photo of the rotated South Tower, just what force is there that could possibly stop the lateral component of this motion??
None that I can see, which is why that block had to be “vaporized”.
“The burden of proof of massive and sustained fires at the core is NOT met”
That they occured? Or how they occured? Same burden not met vis a vis molten steel.
Hi ~Namaste~, the fire fighters only needed two hoses to put out hundreds of tons of burning magnesium?
They never got onto the floors where the aircraft struck and entered the buildings. They were talking about much smaller fuel fires below that area.
What burden of proof does one require, to realize massive magnesium fed fires would have had to be burning at the building’s central cores? That’s the only place the aircraft’s fuselages could have stopped.
If there were no central, steel beamed cores, the aircraft would have gone all the way through the buildings and out the other side at their massive weight and the speed they were flying. Some smaller portions did go all the way through, but not the main fuselage. So it is only logical to realize, the tons of burning magnesium was at and very likey some was inside the central core’s of the towers.
So JAKE responds “Not really, there were pretty large pieces in the pile. The whole dust thing is overblown, there were pieces larger than dust.”
Well isn’t that clever and evasive? A body set in motion, continues IN THAT DIRECTION, until/or unless acted upon by a force — so what and where from did a force originate to reverse that rotation?
The fact that there were shards of pillars and portions of the lower perimeter wall, in no manner proves the assumption that any of those pieces were from the upper 20 stories, not does it even to begin to explain the lack of visual evidence for those still welded and bolted together 20 floors.
Where exactly do you suppose they went, and what energy was used to do that. It was just so convenient that there was a big cloud of dust, but anyone watching controlled demolitions, wont even see that — which is the “smoking gun” question of someone needing to PROVE where all of that DUST came from
Granted, there is some energy to falling 10 or 15 feet between floors, but please do show how that causes concrete to disintegrate (pyroclastic flow), and how human bones get to be fragmented to less than 1 cm in size? EVEN IF we could somehow prove that there was total (near) simultaneous collapse of ALL 234 columns?
And arguing from your conclusions to justify your assumptions really is atrocious logic — so go ahead make my day and for a change present some plausible proof.
KEM, would magnesium have left a detectable residue that would show up as magnesium oxide or something of that nature? Show me a trace that reveals significant amounts of magnesium associated with the molten steel of column samples, in dust samples collected and examined, by any of the official studies that were done.
Brian, not only was it symmetrical collapse, it was symmetrical collapse times three. As Scott Grainger said, “natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”
“Well isn’t that clever and evasive? A body set in motion, continues IN THAT DIRECTION, until/or unless acted upon by a force ”
Hello? I was talking about the idea that everything was turned to dust, nothing about anything rotating.
“The fact that there were shards of pillars and portions of the lower perimeter wall, in no manner proves the assumption that any of those pieces were from the upper 20 stories, not does it even to begin to explain the lack of visual evidence for those still welded and bolted together 20 floors.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. I have no doubt that the upper floor assemblies were likely to get bretty bashed up into pretty small pieces. They fell a *long* way.
“And arguing from your conclusions to justify your assumptions really is atrocious logic ”
Where did I do that?
BTW ~Nam~, I don’t LIKE the image of the aircraft burning, or of people leaping to their death that day. It made me sick to see it and it still does whenever it comes on the TV news. I do know fo rcerrtain the aircraft burned and it would have been 4,000 degree fires. I twold have melted steel and witnesses did report molten metal flowing from the side of the building. Just burning aircraft fuel would not have caused that.
Now if any remember what they did see when those aircraft struck those several floors, the entire areas they stuck were IMMEDIATELY engulfed in huge balls of fire. There were no witnesses on those floors and no one was waving from the building there. Above it, yes they were for a short time.
As to two fire hoses, with water? ___ Nope, impossible. Once that magnesium started to burn it would have required three or more full foam equipped fire trucks to have a prayer of putting it out and no way to get the fire trucks up there. It would have been impossible for anyone to enter those floors with that amount of heat and no one did.
A B-52G caught fire at Loring one time and five fire trucks arrived within three minutes and they could not save it, It burned to the ground and melted. They just kept it from spreading.
So the SLUMP that you did recognize, was that not a rotation of the entire upper 20 stories at once (~ 20 degrees or so) ?
Please do provide your sources for what FORCE STOPPED the rotation of that “slumping”, as the laws of motion do not “believe your logic” is sufficient.
And what is you counter to the live people within 100 m of the supposedly devastatingly intense magnesium fires?
(how big do you think this WTC tower really is?)
Especially, considering that KEM has already provided his recollections of fire-trucks burning down to their axles when parked near an aircraft’s magnesium fire.
Your LACK of SUPPORTING evidence is JUST OVERWHELMING NOT !
ANd of course the CREATION of blindingly hiding DUST everywhere, is there anyway for you to actually respond to ALL of the points being discussed?
Why do we not see so much dust in the actual collapses of controlled demolishing buildings, where they even actually admit to use of explosives?
The explanation doesn’t EXIST, isn’t THAT why it is so hard for you to consider responding, perhaps?
jakenewton April 15th, 2008 6:30 pm:
“Make “points”, ignore the counter points, repeat original point.”
That is a pretty good description of your own style of debate here, son.
“That is a pretty good description of your own style of debate here, son.”
You will, of course, provide your very best example, Pops.
Hi ~Sdemtri~. I am not qualified to answer that question, but when magnesium burns, I understand it leaves visual traces on metal that are similar to thermte explosive residue and thermte welds.
This I am qualified to state with authority. When an aircraft burns in a large, uncontrolled fuel fire, the magnesium will ignite, unless it’s a wooden aircraft. The magnesium will burn for hours, even days, unless the fire is smothered and the fire will melt steel. It cannot be extinguished with water.
Those two 757s both burned inside the buildings and I cannot imagine how they could not have been burning at the central core location. At their speed and weight, they would have penetrated the building’s central cores. Any who say they didn’t burn, are delusional and denying the obvious.
The woman waving:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm
“Why do we not see so much dust in the actual collapses of controlled demolishing buildings, where they even actually admit to use of explosives?”
That remains for you to prove. That is, that controlled demolition of buildings, much shorter than the ones in question, don’t produce dust commensurate wuth their composition.
And has been pointed out, the WTC buildings contained tons of gypsum, which we must assume would easily be reduced to dust.
I cannot believe the sheer arrogance that goes for reason, even Sisyphus had to apply a force (and integrated that’s called work) to go back up the hill (with his pet rock).
But these anti-TRUTHers would attempt to have a reasonable person accept that the entire rotational moment of inertia of 20 stories ROTATING to SOMEHOW stop (without ANY known FORCE to apply in the opposite angular “spin” direction –well that what we CALL IMPOSSIBLE).
Rotational momentum is the vector product of rotational momentum and angular velocity — and the ONLY way to stop this movement is the total elimination of that solid 20-story building’s structural integrity. It doesn’t (and CANNOT) just squish up and die within the dust cloud, unless given much high explosive “convincing”. Again, where is the needed energy coming from (to do all of this DUST making)?
Your really out to lunch to consistently avoid the OBVIOUS ISSUE, of where does the dust come from?????????????????????????????????????????????????
We see stadiums with larger masses, of several floors of WTC taken together, being demolished with little dust at all, until the pieces hit the ground, the burden is outright VACANT in your proof — shorter in no way changes the laws of physics,
Let’s see, Newton is OK at ground level, but the new JAKE NEWTON LAW OF MOTION, progressively change as he gets closer to exactly 843 feet?
My computer won’t allow me to see videos. Was the woman on the same floor where the aircraft fuselage entered the building? The magnesium would not ignite immediately, it normally requires several minutes of fuel fire to cause it to start burning.
This is a fact, there were no aircraft parts of any size ever recovered at the scene, except some engine parts, not even a pickup truck load. Some luggage, jewelery and wallets were found, they probalbly blew out of the building when the aircraft struck, there were giant explosions then and many unusual things could occur. Just like a tornado, strange unexplainable things happen. The aircraft burned. Again, ___they burned at 4,000 degrees F. The fires melted steel beams. Any wish to civilly debate that fact?
sdemetri, your post doesn’t disprove the existance of hot fires nearby.
“of where does the dust come from?????????????????????????????????????????????????”
Simmer down there Namaste, no need to make all the question marks. Gypsum makes dust. Concrete too.
“We see stadiums with larger masses, of several floors of WTC taken together, being demolished with little dust at all, until the pieces hit the ground, ”
Best example?
“they would have penetrated the building’s central cores. Any who say they didn’t burn, are delusional and denying the obvious.”
Actually KEM, the weight of the airplane along with its momentum is much smaller than the nominal wind loading that the building was design to withstand (class 3 hurricane, I believe).
You assert the flames were big & hot, but we have no proof.
You assert the firefighter must have been delusional (mistaken?), or referring to some smaller fires (on a lower floor) because it is inconsistent with your theory.
You assert that the plane HAD to have gotten to the central area, with no proof.
Perhaps you consider that statement from one of the original structural engineers, “an airplane impacting WTC is like a pencil going through a screen door”, as describing the strength of the perimeter wall? He was describing the overall system of connected trusses beams and redundant pillars acting that way, not that the steel wall would have no deflection resistance to SLOWING DOWN an airplane.
An example, you say, son? Any number of your posts, jake… …(you) no molten steel, (as witnessed by numerous experts) molten steel, (you) no molten steel… (you) how do they know it was molten steel, and not some other metal, (Worcester Polytech) the swiss cheese holes the size of silver dollars in the steel columns greatly surprised the fire scientists, (you)…” “…. (you) no molten metal, (Abolhassan Astaneh,) I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center, (you) he only said that in an article, not to congress… Me, huh? …ad nauseum. The only support you claim is to discredit the experts, or to conjure up a debunking site that is easily and repeatedly debunked. You have many entries but really say very little of substance. And you won’t be dissuaded from the flaws in your logic, or in your debating style, and I won’t bother trying.
KEM, without any visual, or any sort of forensic evidence, you are skating on rather thin ice. Traces on metal? Why then don’t the spectrographs which do show evidence of thermate, show any spikes for magnesium?
KEM, there are stills below the video window.
“(as witnessed by numerous experts) molten steel,”
Best example?
“(Abolhassan Astaneh,) I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center”
Yes, he suppossedly stated this in *one* interview, and it was completely inconsistent with any other statement he made about it, including congressional testimony. The possibility that he misspoke or was misquoted is obvious. Response?
“conjure up a debunking site that is easily and repeatedly debunked.”
Very best example that a site I have cited has been Globaly Debunked!?!?
www . youtube . com/watch?v=A2zyhblL0_M
The dust is substantially delayed, EXACTLY as I explained (perhaps 20 stories tall, or more).
There is proof of NO substantial DUST cloud EVER being produced, even when explosives are used in the nominal controlled demolition — this JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN
Perhaps the WTC concrete was just “too tired” to put up much resistance, and it “reallY REALLY wanted to fall down”?
This stands as equally plausible to your explanations ( e.g. w/o any merit )
“There is proof of NO substantial DUST cloud EVER being produced, even when explosives are used in the nominal controlled demolition — this JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN”
Source?
The source is the video that you asked for - duh
I’m beginning to get the impression here, that some here don’t believe the aircraft burned. Perhaps they also refuse to acknowledge, that the aricraft were made of tons of magnesium alloy and carried tons of fuel which exploded into raging fires.
If I’m wrong about that impression, would you please enlighten me. If you do agree the aircraft burned and primarily burned on the floors where they entered the buildings, do you then disagree that the magnesium fires could melt steel beams?
Does anyone think that every piece of steel which was finally recovered at the site, was thoroughly examined by investigators after the fact? __ I don’t think so, but that’s just MY opinion on that point.
I do believe those are fair questons, but I’m not the smartest guy on the block. I do wonder why Namaste would ever question my RECOLLECTIONS of an aircraft crash and fire, when I was a crew member on the aircraft and remeber it often. Especially remember when the young man and friend next to me died when he was decapitated. The fire trucks burned until only the axels remained. I went out two days later and looked around the scene, hoping to find something of Dale’s that I could send to his wife. ____Nothing there except the memory.
“The source is the video that you asked for - duh”
A *single* video will somehow prove that dust clouds are *never* produced in an implosion? Wise up.
One piece of evidence speaks volumes, compared to your little reasoning voice’s arguments against.
wise yourself up,
and do attempt to at least provide ONE piece of evidence to prove your point
“One piece of evidence speaks volumes, compared to your little reasoning voice’s arguments against.”
Is that even a sentence? What are you talking about?
“and do attempt to at least provide ONE piece of evidence to prove your point”
*What* point?
The characteristics of the fires post-impact are of secondary importance compared to the primary difficulty of the “official” theory (or any non-control-demolition explanation):
How does a chaotic and heterogenous influence (fire, assuming we agree that “cutting torch” is not what we are talking about here) produce an instantaneous and simultaneous total loss of support to the mass above the impact zone?
This is the chasm that NIST edges up to from one side, and Bazant takes off from on the other side. No one has yet offered ANY explanation for how this would occur.
And to me this is an astronomically improbable event, like a tornado in a junk yard assembling a complex machine. And it happened 3 times, but only on 9-11-01.
KEM — ALthough your are convinced, I am not.
If the burning airplane temperature was not hot enough, nor occurring long enough, to ignite the magnesium, your entire logical house is demolished. The smoldering flames were likely diffuse and according to annealing analysis were less than 250 degree C, and all of that ammo you mentioned perhaps had a little to do with the ignition (for you personally saw)?
The visual evidence of low heat output is non-trivial, and you have hardly undercut those live people so close to the “fires of hell” that you describes. How close were you to that blazing airplane?
How can that be possible, they MUST use those mirrored bunny-suits for aircraft fires, to even get close.
And you mention that the sprinkler system wouldn’t have stopped the magnesium IF it had started, but ignore that that same water load into the early stages of the aircraft crash site floors, may very well have PREVENTED Mg IGNITION.
How much gypsum was at The Vet?
” produce an instantaneous and simultaneous total loss of support to the mass above the impact zone?”
WHy does it have to be this way?
Oh JAKE — perhaps if you might considering reading the last 4 or 5 postings …
I guess the entire argument of how we could have seen what we all agree we did see, MUST fall permanently onto its face in shame.
Are you feigning ignorance, as a ploy to have me FLING more “question marks” at you?
Oh, and yes JAKE, that was a sentence.
“You might notice your assertion that gypsum and concrete
made all of the dust clouds,
BUT you offer no proof AT ALL.”
Why should I have to prove that gypsum board would make dust? Don’t you think gypsum board would easily turn to dust in a building collapse?
I’ve been to the Vet 25 or more times. Never seen much gypsum there.
I’ve also been rock climbing at Red Rocks Preserve just west of Las Vegas. There is an open pit gypsum mine right there. After they blast the gypsum, the dust cloud remains suspended in the air for quite a while.
” produce an instantaneous and simultaneous total loss of support to the mass above the impact zone?”
Jake asked, “WHy does it have to be this way?”
To start the free-fall of the upper stories, which develop the kinetic energy in a 1-story drop to pulverize the top story of the lower structure, which combined mass then continued to pulverize the next story, …etc.
Without the simultaneous AND instantaneous loss of all vertical supports at the impact zone, this theory collapses as completely as the towers allegedly did. If 50% of vertical support (force) remains, then acceleration is reduced by 50%, impact energy likewise, and so forth.
This is my main problem: the “official” theory requires impossible initial conditions to set the progressive collapse going! (Impossible to produce with fire, imho).
A response, jake? address Worcester Polytech’s swiss cheese-like holes in inch thick steel flanges. Huh, you always seem to skim right over that. Take the “easy” ones, jake, leave the hard ones. Is that it? (Easy in that they are easy to say something ridiculous about while not addressing the issue.)
You’re a fake. Real enough, but way out of your league.
“address Worcester Polytech’s swiss cheese-like holes in inch thick steel flanges. ”
Why does this prove molten steel?
” Real enough,”
*Blush*
JAKE should be ashamed to act so,
but perhaps he’s caught the common psychopathic patterns of the disaster creators?
That would actually be quite plausible,
more so than “dry walling” (like a dry well) actual evidence of the lack of dust being produced when controlled demolition is known to have occurred, but nonetheless continuing asserting that the DUSTS are understandable to him, likely only him
“To start the free-fall of the upper stories, which develop the kinetic energy in a 1-story drop to pulverize the top story of the lower structure, which combined mass then continued to pulverize the next story, …etc.”
WHy must there be pulverization? Rather than just cracking at key places? The “freefall” theory is bogus anyway, no evidence it went that fast.
“more so than “dry walling” (like a dry well) actual evidence of the lack of dust being produced when controlled demolition is known to have occurred, but nonetheless continuing asserting that the DUSTS are understandable to him, likely only him”
What the hell are you talking about Namaste?
DUST to DU