Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Crazy Legacy of 9/11
Tomorrow marks the day that has come to mean many things to many people. And because the plane-bombings of Sept. 11, 2001 had such a far-reaching ripple effect on our society, there is a ring of truth to the notion that 9/11 was, in a nationalistically-narcissistic way, "the day that changed everything."
The nation's soul was stirred. But 9/11 also blew our minds -- the reverberations of which continue to rattle the brain of the body politic to this day. And, I'm convinced, it made is go collectively crazy.
Having just sent my first-born off to a college known for its psychology (and geography) department(s), I'd consider it a good return on investment if my eldest off-spring cane one day answer this question for me: Is it possible for an entire society (or at least a sizeable chunk of it) to go insane?
For example: I don't know what the American Psychological Association thought about it, but the Republican National Convention was nutty, capped off by McCain's insanely-boring speech that, as David Corn of Mother Jones magazine observed, was long on prison cells and short on policy.
By Corn's count, the number of sentences in McCain's acceptance speech about his Vietnam POW experience: 43. The number of sentences about his 25 years in the House and Senate: 8. "The convention ended as it began: a commemoration of McCain's hellish years in a Hanoi prison cell four decades ago," Corn correctly concludes.
I'm no political strategist but is it really a good campaign tactic to repeatedly remind the country that your candidate -- the guy who, if elected, will have his "finger on the button" -- was brutally tortured for years? Does the McCain campaign really want voters wondering about the GOP nominees' PTSD status?
Before McCain took the podium, conventioneers and viewers were treated to a speech by retired Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter denouncing Obama's get-out-of-Iraq campaign promise. To drive the point home, Mutter told the delegates that our "enemies don't talk about timelines for retreat," as if the government we installed in Iraq hasn't officially called for a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops.
The anti-climatic finale came when McCain was greeted on the convention stage with a welcome fit for a warrior-hero, which was followed by one of the most unmemorable speeches in the annals of American oratory. Honestly, other than McCain's POW past and his desire to fight and "drill now!" can you remember anything he said?
Managing not to nod-off several times during the "big" speech, it wasn't hard to see the attempt to re-frame Obama's change message. McCain said he wants to change the way Washington does business, as if he hasn't been an integral part of that business for just about my whole life.
He said he wants to change "almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children."
Crazily, McCain didn't say a word about how, after a decade of Republican policies, the same old GOP ideas are going to change anything. Then again, none of McCain's change talk made the convention-goers cheer. It was two other things that really triggered the full-throated chants. In response to McCain's call for more oil and gas drilling, the delegates chanted: "Drill, baby, drill!"
The other chant of the night was "U-S-A," which is what they were hootin' and hollerin' when Adam Kokesh brought a dose of reality to the convention floor, holding up a sign that read: "You Can't Win an Occupation." The other side of the sign read: "McCain Votes Against Vets."
You could see the collective disgust oozing from the pores of McCain supporters in the audience, as if to say: who is that anti-American loser peacenik?
Little did convention-goers (and viewers) know, but Kokesh is an Iraq War veteran and board member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"McCain's rhetoric about winning or losing in Iraq makes no sense -- he's simply failing to admit that it's an occupation," Kokesh said after the convention.
How's that for straight-talk?
"I found it amusing that most of the delegates -- acting like 'dittoheads' -- tried to drown me out with chants of 'U-S-A!' Just two days before, I'd spoken at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and had the crowd there chanting 'U-S-A!'...I've found -- after being sent to fight in Fallujah -- that the biggest enemies of the Constitution are right here at home."
Kokesh calls it "amusing." I call it crazy.
243 Comments so far
Show AllIs it possible for a large portion of society to go insane? The answer is clearly "yes" if you equate sanity with rationality, or even healthy emotion.
I was reminded of this when watching the chants of "U S A! U S A!" whenever someone not full-blooded Repuglican was sighted in St. Paul. I've seen film of such events before. The most obvious example is called (in English translation) "Triumph of the Will".
If you're not scared to death, you're not paying attention.
Clearly, the majority of Americans have lost the ability to THINK.
The truth means nothing here in America today. The propaganda of the NeoCon right wingnuts differs little from that of the Nazis. Only in America could so many believe the deceit of 911. Oh, yes, there will be a lot of "remembering" the victims of 911 tomorrow, and they SHOULD be mourned. But, the blind acceptance of the government's unproven account of 911 is quite scary. What does this mean for the future?
What is insanity. It is accepting a reality that is a lie. Sanity is accepting the reality of truths. Of course, today, distinguishing the truth from the lie is tough.
But Americans are being subjected to mind control techniques using drugs, education and psyops news propaganda as tools. Those in power have created several consensus realities from which your reality may be chosen. Those realities lying outside the consensus reality, but which may be true, are labelled as insane, despite the fact the consensus realities are in fact the realities that are insane.
"Speaking to a 1961 conference sponsored by the Voice of America, Aldous Huxley, the British New Age guru boasted, "There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
" In Children of Change, Emery, a senior staff member at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, showed how television effects children. Children tend to absorb rather than analyze information, "conscious functioning is impaired" and they become indifferent -- "more like 'sheep' than 'people'....In other words, television can be seen partly as a technological analogue of the hypnotist." Writing in Human Relations, he said, "The psychological after-effects of television are of considerable interest to the would-be social engineer"
People who do not think are like children. They just soak up whatever ideology they choose from the consensus menu, and are socially engineered. Fox and CNN and other stations are simply psyop operations. If you are on the left, you watch CNN might find Global warming appealing, if on the right, you might you watch Fox and support the GWOT and defend attacks on the 9/11 official version.
If you just want to know the Truth and happen to find it, good luck, you might be diagnosed as being insane and committed. In fact Bush signed an Executive Order setting the stage for them to do so.
http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/mind-control.htm
Mc Cain & Abel
Mc Cain are you truly able
to save that black gold
in the oily fertile valley for the few?
Are we truly able to pay for a century of strife
Are we truly able?
Say.....Mc Cain
Who slew Abel?
Skull and bones sounds like a fraternity
Did your jungle Nam jet get lost in fratricide?
The Qur’an and the Bible don’t have much to hide
they both concur on Abel
but are you Cain?
like a farmer of old for told on a scroll
by the holy depleted U dead sea
Mr. Mc Cain are you blamed for starting eternal strife?
Would you prefer a bomb or a knife?
How about a name like Sue?
Aren’t you glad your framed as blue?
Does a villain know what he must do?
Well done!
-“ Crazily, McCain didn't say a word about how, after a decade of Republican policies, the same old GOP ideas are going to change anything.”
Hey, it works for Obama, don’t knock it.
Until the average American looks at the public video record of 9/11 and recognizes the obvious fact that the buildings were demolished using explosives, and that what hit the Pentagon was not a passenger aircraft, yes, the country is clinically insane.
Tomorrow for me is more than a day of mourning. It is a day of shame.
I completely agree. But, if one says that 911 was an inside job, the comeback is likely to be Popular Mechanics' attempts to destroy all of the 911 conspiracy theories, which were written by a man named Chertoff, WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE A COUSIN OF CHERTOFF, Secretary of Homeland Defense. Gee, "ain't" that wonderful??
I didn’t know who wrote that famous Popular Mechanics article. That's amazing. How could I have missed it? The same way everyone misses it I guess. I wasn’t paying close enough attention.
"which were written by a man named Chertoff, WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE A COUSIN OF CHERTOFF, Secretary of Homeland Defense."
http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/debunking-911-myths.html
Jake why are you defending McCain, Popular Mechanics, and Chertoff? I hope you're not doing it for free!
"Jake why are you defending McCain, Popular Mechanics, and Chertoff?"
I'm not. This is very simple: Do you think the Chertoffs in question are related? If so, why? The claim was made, but it was unsupported.
Did you notice that John McCain wrote the FORWARD to the Popular Mechanics book? Wonder why? McCain's father was involved in the cover up of the USS Liberty by Israeli fighter jets. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm or see this: http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html
Jake, have you ever heard of the term "false flag operation"?
"Did you notice that John McCain wrote the FORWARD to the Popular Mechanics book?"
So what?
"Jake, have you ever heard of the term "false flag operation"?"
Yes, many times. Do you think the Chertoffs in question are related? If so, why? The claim was made, but it was unsupported.
I have read contradictory statements about whether or not the Chertoffs are cousins. But even if they ARE related, it doesn't matter--right Jake. All that matters is what they are saying. And that has been shown to be an attack on straw arguments: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
Here's one that says Ben's mother claimed they were cousins:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2872
...Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly.
Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone.
Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin.”
"But even if they ARE related, it doesn't matter--right Jake."
Why would it?
""Yes, of course, he is a cousin.”
Benjamin denies knowing the other Chertoff, doesn't know if they are related, and says his moter's comments were taken out of context and that she doesn't really know.
Was she like the blond in that joke that didn't know who her own baby's mother was ?
Namaste
The Pentagon was undoubtedly hit by a passenger aircraft - don't let that red herring make you look bad when discussing the fallacy of the official 9/11 story. I wouldn't be surprised if the "missile" story was a CIA disinformation plant to cast doubt on the whole 9/11 truth movement. The only real substantive items on a modern 'plane are the engines; the rest is a bunch of essentially lightweight metal containers. That's why there was so little visible debris. How a person who had never flown an airliner before could hit such a small (vertically) target is another, much more valid, question.
Ask why NORAD didn't respond; why no other steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire, but three did that day; why WTC 7 collapsed without an aircraft hit; why the evidence (like metal construction beams) from the biggest crime scene in US history was sold to China before any investigation was done; why Condi had not heard of al-Qaeda; why Bush ignored the PDB about an imminent attack; why Cheney was in a bunker while Bush was allowed to sit in a first-grade classroom in Florida when the official story that day had Air Force One as a target...I could go on and on. Drop the Pentagon "missile" story - that's the first one 9/11 deniers will jump on and it will make all your other challenges seem less likely.
"Ask why NORAD didn't respond;"
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf
"why no other steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire"
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
"why WTC 7 collapsed without an aircraft hit; "
Paper in peer reviewed journal:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
NIST is headed by Bush appointees. Are they impartial? I think not. We need a new investigation headed by civilians. Is anyone opposed to a new investigation?
Not Nader.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/September2008/100908Nader.htm
Not Cynthia McKinney.
http://votetruth08.com/
There are plenty of architects and engineers who now question the official theory.
http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php
9/11 is the alpha & omega of contemporary politics. Get it wrong and you are easily manipulated to fear the next evil "hitler" stick figure.
Why have first responders been totally screwed?
This video is powerful support for the first responders' benefit & protest:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xC0HauJ5-eQ
This is the overview of events this week in NYC:
http://2008nowornever.com/
"NIST is headed by Bush appointees. "
Right. This is called Ad Hominem, and is a classic fallacy of logic. Look it up. Now what are your *specific* objections to any of the points made by NIST, or from the other links I posted? Thank you for your time.
It's NOT an Ad Hominem and would NOT be considered such in a court of law. IF the US government or any of its agents or agencies were involved in the attack that day, then NONE of its agencies would be allowed to testify in its defense, or would do so AS DEFENDANTS, just as OJ Simpson was allowed to take the stand.
The point is, there is a difference between an engineer or architect WHO IS PAID BY THE US GOVERNMENT and one who is NOT. Do you understand this???
"It's NOT an Ad Hominem"
That's exactly what it is. You need to read up on the basics:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"and would NOT be considered such in a court of law."
We are not in a court of law.
"IF the US government or any of its agents or agencies were involved in the attack that day, then NONE of its agencies would be allowed to testify in its defense, "
You just made this up.
"The point is, there is a difference between an engineer or architect WHO IS PAID BY THE US GOVERNMENT and one who is NOT."
Regarding the *veracity* of statements made as experts in their field? No difference.
Hilarious. You have your primary sources and you keep referring to them. They are anonymous and no one knows who is behind the web site 911myths. I raised this because it is genuinely suspicious. I have spent the time investigating this site and have brought to your attention that you don't even know who is behind it and have further made an ass out of yourself by saying, effectively, it doesn't matter if the CIA is behind the web site--all that matters is what they are saying.
No, I'm no beginner Jake. And you? You don't seem to understand that the authority of a source is critical to its evaluation. It doesn't matter if your primary sources are linking to real sources that can be identified. What matters is that your key sources, 911myths & debunking911 are BOTH anonymous sources. I know because I've looked into them and tried to identify the individuals or organizations putting out contradictory and bogus information to confuse people like you and misinform the public in defense of the 'official conspiracy theory.'
Jake, something tells me you are not a researcher. So please don't pretend to be an authority on methodology and rhetorical theory.
See new post.
"The Pentagon was undoubtedly hit by a passenger aircraft "
At least you admit that much. The "No Plane Hit the Pentagon" is one of the easier ones to debunk.
Where are the pictures and the titanium engines? The most secure building in the world, and not a single picture of the plane in the air, nor parts on the ground or recovered that showed us a large passenger aircraft hit the Pentagon. Requests under the FOIA act requesting the part numbers that were recovered and said to be in storage have been refused. Titanium Engines do not melt!
But the most important issue was the air space over DC not defended so long after the 2nd plane hit and we were assumed to be under attack by an unknown enemy and an unknown number of planes. Dc gets priority for defense over any other area in the US. Sure I know there were multiple suspected planes hijacked, that military exercises reduced the number of available aircraft, and that some were sent out searching for planes over the Atlantic. But you do not leave DC undefended, and if your only available planes were those sent out over the Atlantic then they should have been in DC protecting the capitol. I do not see that anyone was reprimanded or fired for this absurd decision.
As for the WTC links you posted, the "peer reviewed' paper was from one of those involved in the NIST reports and the NIST is controlled by Bush. NIST's final report on WTC 7 can only be believed by those unable to think, uneducated, or both.
In fact, many sites such as this did not even report on the final report, it was that unbelievable. Of course, some will defend the governments position, even if they do not believe it.
"Where are the pictures and the titanium engines?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon
Links to various issues about the Pentagon crash:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html
"But the most important issue was the air space over DC not defended so long after the 2nd plane hit and we were assumed to be under attack"
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD
"As for the WTC links you posted, the "peer reviewed' paper was from one of those involved in the NIST reports and the NIST is controlled by Bush. NIST's final report on WTC 7 can only be believed by those unable to think, uneducated, or both."
I'll wait for your *specific* criticisms of the reports in question, and I may then perhaps decide whether you are able to think, uneducated, ot both. How long will that take?
The engine "parts" are too small compared to what a 757 has, and only parts of one engine was found. Also, there is little visual evidence shown and aircraft the size of 757 hit the Pentagon (I am not saying there was no plane however)
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
Your links do not explain why the air space was undefended. Not at all, since this is impossible to explain.
As for WTC 7 reports, the reports do not explain why the building fell symetrically at close to free fall speed. And the fact a building could be designed so that failure at a single point could cause this to happen as a result of fires which were localized and not very severe compared other high rise buildings which have never collapsed, and still be up to code, is simply not worth the effort to debunk.
But here is what some architects/engineers say from Gages site
"NIST's solution appears to have been crafted to please its client, said Kamal Obeid, and independent structural engineers will find problems with every step of NIST's complicated theoretical collapse mechanism. Obeid believes that connections would fail before collapsing sections could pull down heavy core columns. While NIST's computer models show dramatic collapse distortions of the smaller perimeter columns, videos of the actual building show no pulling of the exterior by the floors NIST claims are collapsing invisibly inside, Obeid and Szamboti noted.
In contrast to natural, organic effects of fires cited by Gage (gradual deformations, and asymmetrical collapses following the path of least
resistance) the visible WTC collapse, Donly noted, proceeded at near freefall speed with no apparent resistance from the steel framework. Many columns must be cut simultaneously to drop a building straight down, he pointed out. FEMA report 403, Appendix C, recommended further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse, Donly comented, but NIST ignores this information."
"The engine "parts" are too small compared to what a 757 has,"
Why do you think so?
"Also, there is little visual evidence shown and aircraft the size of 757 hit the Pentagon"
How much do you think there should be left of a jet flying hundreds of mph into a massive reinforced concrete building?
"(I am not saying there was no plane however)"
That's good, there was a 757 that went missing that day, with all of the passengers and crew.
"Your links do not explain why the air space was undefended."
I don't think the defense was non existent, it was perhaps inadequate, certainly overwhelmed:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
I'm not sure where you get your expectations from concerning NORADs capabilities.
"the reports do not explain why the building fell symetrically at close to free fall speed."
I think the evidence available actually disproves the symmetry and free fall speed claims. Why do you beleive it?
"And the fact a building could be designed so that failure at a single point"
Are you denying the existence of this "design flaw"?
Your first question, since my link showed why. open it, it ain't hard, use your mouse and click.
Matter does not disappear, some of it may have burned.
The missing 757 with passengers was likely shot down, as was flight 93, which also did not resemble a typical crash sight.
No fighters in Washington DC airspace to prevent a "757" making a slow wide turn over restricted airspace that took several minutes before it was aligned to accelerate to hit the Pentagon by an amateur pilot who had never flown a 757 only to make what experienced pilots called a diffucult maneuver to hit the only part of the Pentagon undergoing renovation and was reinforced, is what I call undefended. More like, come on in boys and take a shot at me.
The evidence of WTC 7 falling symetrically and at close to free fall speeds exists. It's the video. It was on TV. The WTC 7 report ignores the video, and presents a model which would require the building to collapse in a way in which it obviously did not.
All designs have flaws. Thats why engineers build in safety factors and redundancy. A single point failure is unable to cause global and catostrophic collapse at free fall speeds, or anywhere close to it. And to boot, the NIST claimed that the building met all building codes with such a "flaw". To protect Larry from any claims of course.
Of course, if we had followed SOP and investigated the cause of the collapse 7 years ago, we would have found out why it collapsed. And that could not be allowed.
"Your first question, since my link showed why. open it, it ain't hard, use your mouse and click."
Your link seems to show the wrong engine type:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
"The missing 757 with passengers was likely shot down,"
Yet there is no evidence of a crash site.
"No fighters in Washington DC airspace to prevent a "757" making a slow wide turn "
Why do you think they had the capability to intercept before the collision?
"The evidence of WTC 7 falling symetrically and at close to free fall speeds exists. It's the video."
Whose analysis of WTC video are you going by? The entire event was not recorded in any one video without debris and other buildings obscuring the view. Photos of the debris pile after the collapse clearly show that the building slumped significantly to one side.
"The WTC 7 report ignores the video, "
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
From the link: “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said."
"All designs have flaws. Thats why engineers build in safety factors and redundancy. A single point failure "
Are you denying the existence of the flaw in question?
I must be blind, but in the pictures in the links you provided, I cannot see any "fusalage c" and the debris looks like automobile parts and pieces. Would someone else take a look at these and see if I am missing something please? Oh, and the last pic. of "fusalage c" looks like a firehose to me. Sorry, again...I must be nmissing something.
September 11, 2001
Never forget.
Never investigate.
[the official policy of GWB and both major parties.}
[ Is it possible for an entire society (or at least a sizeable chunk of it) to go insane?]
Yes, I'll cite a few examples. Not refering to the biggie either...
Japan (1930-45) a wannabe empire that had no major resource colonies attempted to take by force the colonies of empires that were still strong enough to be able to retake them.
Germany (1914-18) Followed a nutty king into an attempt to take over the world because another king had his useless son shot in Sarajevo. War to end all wars follows, leads to the death of 5 empires.
Rome (300s-450) The world's superpower, had no enemy which could defeat it on the battlefield. Converts to christianity, thinks the army is undefeatable due to its past glories, is wiped out by savages on horses.
america is crazy
without redemption
the biggest terrorist nation in the world
killers of life
dumbed down
being raped by the economic elites of the little remaining value that is left
replaced by undocumented latinos
gestapo troops arresting, preemptively, demonstrators
black suited killers who will shoot you in your own home for no reason
nuns being manhandled
the dollar has a "do not resuscitate" sign hanging off its toe
bush and cheney
2 lip sticked pigs: rice and palin
cancer boy - face cut up like a map of eastern arkansas
the cleansing tide approaches
squirm all you want - the bill is due
for all he 9/11 truthers out there: keep the faith brothers and sisters
they have tried to shut us up for 7 long years and we prevail
they try to hide but we shine the light
we shall prevail
cheers, b
Poet Ezra Pound was confined as a mental patient for 12 years in St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington D.C after WWII for giving radio talks in Italy in support of Mussolini during the war.
When he was finally released, in 1958, his final words delivered from a ship about to take him back to Italy always stayed with me:
"America is a madhouse!"
9-11 was hyped by the corporate media to become a nation-changing event. I was watching TV that day, and saw a talking head announce- at 10am- that "this happened because America is too free and that will change."
I turned the TV for the rest of the day. I wish I knew who that talking head was, because he clearly had inside information as to the effect that 9-11 would have.
"We were all afraid". This is like "We all loved Reagan", a bald-faced lie. I wasn't afraid, and no one I knew was afraid that day. The fear came after the 24/7 hype of the corporate media.
How is it that Bush became a national hero for being president on 9-11? Couldn't he just as easily be excoriated for ignoring warnings for months and then hiding in a cave all day? We're continually told that "Americans" believe that Bush will protect us. Why would anyone believe that? Incessant propaganda.
9-11 did what it was designed to do, but it wouldn't have worked without the shaping of the American mind by the corporate media. 9-11 truthers continually make the connection between the demolished towers and the demolished Constitution.
Let's all welcome back Jake Newton, ladies and gentlemen - the blast from the past, the ill wind that keeps on blowing, and blowing, and blowing...He'll telll us all how Bush did everything he could to prevent 9/11 and NORAD was right on time, and those angle-cut support beams were a natural result of a building collapse which had never occurred before or since. Hail Jake!
"Let's all welcome back Jake Newton, ladies and gentlemen "
Thanks. And maybe someone will respond to the various links he posted debunking the same stuff that keeps getting repeated. When your argument is debunked, you aren't supposed to pretend that the debunking argument doesn't exist while simply repeating the original point again.
Will wcdevins be the one? Since you brought this one up:
" and those angle-cut support beams"
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
I looked at that one - it makes some reasonable points. Stll doesn't say why Bush and Guiliani sold the crime scene evidence to China as soon as they could.
"it makes some reasonable points. "
I am glad you say so.
" Stll doesn't say why Bush and Guiliani sold the crime scene evidence to China as soon as they could."
It's my understanding NIST did some testing on some of it first. I think proceeds on the scrap would have gone to the Port Authority but I am not sure. It would not seem reasonable to me to impound the whole pile as some seem to think.
NIST is headed by Bush appointees. Are they impartial? I think not. We need a new investigation headed by civilians. Is anyone opposed to a new investigation?
Not Nader.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/September2008/100908Nader.htm
Not Cynthia McKinney.
http://votetruth08.com/
There are plenty of architects and engineers who now question the official theory.
http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php
9/11 is the alpha & omega of contemporary politics. Get it wrong and you are easily manipulated to fear the next evil "hitler" stick figure.
Why have first responders been totally screwed?
This video is powerful support for the first responders' benefit & protest:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xC0HauJ5-eQ
This is the overview of events this week in NYC:
http://2008nowornever.com/
FEMA did some testing, and found evidence of temperatures higher than fire can produce based on excessive oxidation of steel columns, and recommended future investigations to explore this, then proceeded to allow the forsenic evidence to be disposed of.
NIST dismissed FEMA's recommendation in it's final report, and ignored this testing.
The structural failure of all 3 buildings was never subjected to an complete investigation by those trained in fires and building collapses. NIST's investigations consist of developing models and making assumptions that provide an output of a predetermined outcome. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, the model stopped at the point where structural failure occurred, but did not predict what would happen to the structure below the failure (since it could not predict the close to free fall speeds)
Models can be dangerous weapons of deception, as in AGW. Too many free parameters and they can predict elephants can fly, but even NIST models can not predict free fall speed (must have ran out of free paramters).
"FEMA did some testing, and found evidence of temperatures higher than fire can produce"
Why do you think this? I wasn't aware that this sort of testing was a function of FEMA.
"Models can be dangerous weapons of deception, as in AGW"
I agree, as with certain examples around predicting the consequences of global warming. The real life events on 9/11 were unique, so there will be a need to model what happened.
Dude, for someone who posts repeatedly on this subject, don't embarass youself, at least research it, unless your one of those who are "paid to post" like on the AGW issue.
FEMAS own report says so, thats why I think it.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
You had said:
"FEMA did some testing, and found evidence of temperatures higher than fire can produce"
Which I found puzzling, because "fire can produce" a wide range of temperatures, including that high enough to melt steel, such as can be found in a blast furnace. That is why I asked the question.
The link you provided suggests temperatures around 1000 Celsius. This seems to mesh with what NIST said about it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
From the link: "Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers "
So I don't see what you are getting at here.
Incredulous or not, those holes in the inch thick steel are not being explained away by jet fuel.
I can see right through those holes, at what appears to be reason on your part -- sorry I was mistaken.
Namaste
"those holes in the inch thick steel are not being explained away by jet fuel."
I'll wait for *your* explanation then.
You're likely EITHER too dense to understand, OR purposely acting dumb to avoid your loss of the argument.
___ Either WAY
___ I've added a kindergarten level step by step for remedial learners
Namaste